Split Thread Is communism a viable alternative economic system these days?

[Bad Lieutenant]

You think that was the problem?

That and a shortfall in information (information technology and transparancy). You really think if deep socialism took hold in England people would starve?

 

[Kay]

Someone should probably inform the CIA about this.

Well, yes. The Communist Party of China is still in control, so legally, it's a Communist state. The reality is that they don't even pretend these days to be working towards the peasant or workers revolution ( their legitimacy these days derives from good old Chinese nationalism), and their economy is pretty much capitalism at this point, unless you're going to argue that ownership of private property and the fact that big businesses do a lot of work in China is somehow a Communism.

I mean, I thought everyone but only the most rabid China-haters knew this at this point.

 

[WildCat]

You really think if deep socialism took hold in England people would starve?

No, because US farmers (or farmers from some other non-communist/"deep socialist" country) would come to your rescue.

 

[Virus]

That and a shortfall in information (information technology and transparancy). You really think if deep socialism took hold in England people would starve?

Central planning doesn't work.

 

[Mycroft]

If you think about it, Capitalism is an organic process. Individual people motivated by their own self-interests constantly find new niches to fill, find new solutions to problems, and new services to provide. Plus solve production and distribution issues far better than any central planner could.

Communism is the artificial construct.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Here is an interesting read.

In this important interview, Worker-President of [Venezuelan] aliminium factory CVG Alcasa, Elio Sayago, details the history of workers' control at the plant, the attempts made by government bureaucrats and politicians to sabotage the workers' control project there, as well as the workers attempts to construct a post-capitalist order through changing the social relations of production.

 

[Virus]

Some people will fall for anything.

 

[DC]

Some people will fall for anything.

yeha like some people believe Muslim terrorists attack us do to envy

 

[Darat]

No, because US farmers (or farmers from some other non-communist/"deep socialist" country) would come to your rescue.

You mean from the socialist farmers of the USA? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_States

 

[bikerdruid]

You mean from the socialist farmers of the USA? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_States

american farmers are some of the most heavily subsidized in the world.
where does that fit into the capitalist dream?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

They want money and they have the votes to buy it. :<

 

[DC]

They want money and they have the votes to buy it. :<

lol

 

[WildCat]

You mean from the socialist farmers of the USA? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_States

You seem to be unclear as to what socialism is. Subsidies are not socialism. The farmers or ag corporations own the land, the tractors and other equipment, and determine what is planted. Other private entities transport the produce to market or processing factories. The government owns none of the means of production.

And frankly I'd be happy to see all farm subsidies ended, in all countries. Such practices have devastating consequences in developing nations.

 

[Darat]

You seem to be unclear as to what socialism is. Subsidies are not socialism. The farmers or ag corporations own the land, the tractors and other equipment, and determine what is planted. Other private entities transport the produce to market or processing factories. The government owns none of the means of production.

And frankly I'd be happy to see all farm subsidies ended, in all countries. Such practices have devastating consequences in developing nations.

Not if they want the subsidies then often they are constrained to grow certain crops, use certain techniques and so on.

And of course they are not socialist, or rather they are no more socialist than they are capitalist. Ideologies such as socialism, communism and capitalism can never model or describe anything like the reality of our complex modern societies.

I was hoping that by pointing out the irony of you saying that a "more socialist" agricultural industry would have to be rescued by your "capitalist" system of agricultural (when it is an industry that relies on the redistribution of money by the government)would get you to rethink your position.

 

[WildCat]

Not if they want the subsidies then often they are constrained to grow certain crops, use certain techniques and so on.

So they choose the crops.

And of course they are not socialist, or rather they are no more socialist than they are capitalist. Ideologies such as socialism, communism and capitalism can never model or describe anything like the reality of our complex modern societies.

This is far more capitalistic than socialist, for reasons already stated in my last post.

I was hoping that by pointing out the irony of you saying that a "more socialist" agricultural industry would have to be rescued by your "capitalist" system of agricultural (when it is an industry that relies on the redistribution of money by the government)would get you to rethink your position.

They would do just fine without the subsidies. I'm talking things like price supports, and it is still capitalist. The farmer spends gobs of money (capital) to buy (or lease) seeds and equipment and land and sell them in a free market for (hopefully) profit.

It's not even close to being socialism.

 

[Darat]

So they choose the crops.


This is far more capitalistic than socialist, for reasons already stated in my last post.


They would do just fine without the subsidies. I'm talking things like price supports, and it is still capitalist. The farmer spends gobs of money (capital) to buy (or lease) seeds and equipment and land and sell them in a free market for (hopefully) profit.

It's not even close to being socialism.

Oh well - it was just a hope.

 

[DC]

so the US Government redistributes wealth to the Farmers
Marx would like that

 

[theprestige]

The US Government tries to influence outcomes by paying money for the outcomes it prefers. That's what subsidies are. They're also a direct appeal to the financial interests of private industry.

It's hard to imagine a more blatantly capitalistic way for the government to participate in the market. Really, the only thing adulterating this capitalistic solution is that the subsidies are funded by taxation, rather than by revenues generated by previous capital investments.

As Wildcat previously pointed out, private citizens still own the means of production, and are still free to make their own judgement about their best financial interests and whether or not the government has made a suitable offer for their goods and services.

Indeed, in order for subsidies to work, the government has to pay market price for the outcomes it wants. In that happy region somewhere between libertarianism and fascism, subsidies tend towards the libertarian end of the spectrum--they are meant to influence, or encourage desired behavior. Prohibition and redistribution, on the other hand, are meant to control behavior--they tend towards the fascist end of the spectrum.

 

[DC]

The US Government tries to influence outcomes

like in central planning?

 

[The Dark Lord]

The US government should end its subsidies on farms. But that will probably never happen. There are a lot of people that would rabidly oppose it and most of the rest wouldn't care so if you look at it from a congressmans prospective there isn't much to be gained from ending the subsidies. At least food is cheap in the US though.

But really the whole thing is still pretty much capitalistic. Farmers grow crops in order to make a profit.