How come Socialism/Communism always fails? (Page 4 of 5)
|
Originally Posted By TresOsos: Because of the nature of man. It all fails regardless of which compromised leader runs it for that very reason. |
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.
|
Originally Posted By ETCss_McCrackin: Everyone has nailed it really well thus far, but another avenue that I've always thought about is where Socialism as a concept generally does actually work. That's within a close (idealized) family. Children, parents, and elderly parents being a close unit. Some people work "harder" for the sake of the family, and some people reap outsized benefits from that labor. The very young children are quite literally taken care of, their every need tended to, the Mother usually works all day to keep the home and the Father goes out to earn. Quite often the Father doesn't have to kick in on the home work very much, and the Mother doesn't have to work outside very much. The elderly parents live functionally in an upper tier level of respect, ease, and authority. All of this probably a perfect representation of the classic Socialist phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." The parents will literally work themselves to the bone for the good of the group, giving food from their plates to ensure the others eat. The idealized older children will take up slack where they can, getting their own small jobs to kick into the pot of the group, or helping with the house or other localized work. The elder parents will often perform surrogate parent roles, to free up the parents for other tasks, or much like the children, kick in financially or through home labor as well. Why does this example (at least in ideal theory) work? Quite simply because of caring and love, and a true give a shit in not only the group but also of each person within the group. Which of course is precisely why it cannot work outside of that example (and often doesn't even really work WITH that example). I'm willing to literally eat less so that my child or my elderly Mother can have enough. I'm willing to work 2 jobs in order to take care of the people in MY group. Now expand that group to my neighbors. I'm NOT willing to do any of that for them. Sure, if they're decent people, I'll help to a lesser degree. Things like chasing down a trash can that blows away, or helping clear storm debris or lending my spare generator for example. But they don't get remotely the consideration my group gets, nor do I get that from them. In fact, I can honestly state that while my examples TO them are accurate, I haven't gotten back anything but a thank you FROM them. Now extrapolate that out further into people I don't know at all. People that are lazy, manipulative, or even just plain bad. Socialism doesn't work because nobody cares for each other to the degree that they HAVE to in order for it to work. And in Marx original thinking, women were to be communal property. The children were to be farmed out to the collective basically. Of course when the Communists won in Russia it didn’t take long to find out that didn’t work. |
Master Procrastinator Supreme Overload
Joined:
Dec 2004
Posts:
16751
EE: 100% (44)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By DevilsEggAdvocate: If China's economy one day surpasses the US then it will have demonstrated that there can be a successful system that is not based on democracy and free markets. The fact that they've made as much progress as they've had in areas we think only advanced economies can (e.g. cars, AI, solar energy, nuclear energy, weapons, etc.) already suggests it's a successful alternative system. Chinas economy is a massive bubble that is only propped up by large subsidies. Most of chinas population can’t afford what is produced there. |
Don't steal the government hates competition
A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!
The government is wise. The government knows what is best. …For us
A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!
The government is wise. The government knows what is best. …For us
|
Originally Posted By Fullautoguy: Chinas economy is a massive bubble that is only propped up by large subsidies. Most of chinas population can’t afford what is produced there. You are unfortunately wrong, a command and control economy is extremely efficient at getting large projects done and directing industry. The central bank only serves to execute the will of the leadership. The markets are contrived to work with the direction of the country. So far China has proven this to be remarkably effective and robust system, despite many large setbacks the system soldiers on strong as it ever was. China strives for economic power, the US strives for commercial profits and we are seeing the difference paly out day to day. Placing economic power as the primary goal of the centralized command and control government means individual rights and individual welfare are not important to the state. Don't get me wrong I am glad I live here, and not in China. However, it is only a matter of time before China takes over as the global superpower, because every decision they make is aimed at doing just that. Meanwhile here in the US we will just keep bastardizing our government to make corporations more and more wealthy and be content with that as a model of success. Stonks go up! |
How do you do?
Dispensing happiness one MIRV at a time.
Joined:
Mar 2004
Posts:
28795
EE: 100% (2)
GA, USA
|
Originally Posted By Firearmsenthusiast: You are unfortunately wrong, a command and control economy is extremely efficient at getting large projects done and directing industry. The central bank only serves to execute the will of the leadership. The markets are contrived to work with the direction of the country. So far China has proven this to be remarkably effective and robust system, despite many large setbacks the system soldiers on strong as it ever was. China strives for economic power, the US strives for commercial profits and we are seeing the difference paly out day to day. Placing economic power as the primary goal of the centralized command and control government means individual rights and individual welfare are not important to the state. Don't get me wrong I am glad I live here, and not in China. However, it is only a matter of time before China takes over as the global superpower, because every decision they make is aimed at doing just that. Meanwhile here in the US we will just keep bastardizing our government to make corporations more and more wealthy and be content with that as a model of success. Stonks go up! Originally Posted By Firearmsenthusiast: Originally Posted By Fullautoguy: Chinas economy is a massive bubble that is only propped up by large subsidies. Most of chinas population can’t afford what is produced there. You are unfortunately wrong, a command and control economy is extremely efficient at getting large projects done and directing industry. The central bank only serves to execute the will of the leadership. The markets are contrived to work with the direction of the country. So far China has proven this to be remarkably effective and robust system, despite many large setbacks the system soldiers on strong as it ever was. China strives for economic power, the US strives for commercial profits and we are seeing the difference paly out day to day. Placing economic power as the primary goal of the centralized command and control government means individual rights and individual welfare are not important to the state. Don't get me wrong I am glad I live here, and not in China. However, it is only a matter of time before China takes over as the global superpower, because every decision they make is aimed at doing just that. Meanwhile here in the US we will just keep bastardizing our government to make corporations more and more wealthy and be content with that as a model of success. Stonks go up! To make the corporations more and more wealthy?? You know who is actually getting more and more wealthy? The politicians, and their friends and family. |
| Simplest explanation is none times out of ten a person will not work harder than others for the same reward and when equal rewards are guaranteed none out of ten people will work just hard enough to no get shot in the head . Productivity drops to zero fast. |
¯\_(?)_/¯
|
People are too selfish and lazy. Countries like Sweden tried it and came to the conclusion that what really works is capitalism with guardrails that reflect the culture, and a social safety net. At least it works if the culture is mostly on the same team. |
Most anything can be fixed with sticks and rocks and string.
|
Marx was selling an illusion. He told people in the 1800s that they could have everything they want... just needed to reorganize society. Marx pretended there was no such thing as economic scarcity. Fools believed him. Tyrants saw it as an incredible opportunity to centralize control for oppression and pretend they were doing good at the same time. Fools believed them. Gorbachev calls communism 'propaganda' Another key issue with communism was it's inability to discover market prices. The Soviets joked if they conquered the world they would have to leave New Zealand alone so they would know what everything costs. |
per aspera ad astra
|
Originally Posted By Firearmsenthusiast: You are unfortunately wrong, a command and control economy is extremely efficient at getting large projects done and directing industry. The central bank only serves to execute the will of the leadership. The markets are contrived to work with the direction of the country. So far China has proven this to be remarkably effective and robust system, despite many large setbacks the system soldiers on strong as it ever was. China strives for economic power, the US strives for commercial profits and we are seeing the difference paly out day to day. Placing economic power as the primary goal of the centralized command and control government means individual rights and individual welfare are not important to the state. Don't get me wrong I am glad I live here, and not in China. However, it is only a matter of time before China takes over as the global superpower, because every decision they make is aimed at doing just that. Meanwhile here in the US we will just keep bastardizing our government to make corporations more and more wealthy and be content with that as a model of success. Stonks go up! Originally Posted By Firearmsenthusiast: Originally Posted By Fullautoguy: Chinas economy is a massive bubble that is only propped up by large subsidies. Most of chinas population can’t afford what is produced there. You are unfortunately wrong, a command and control economy is extremely efficient at getting large projects done and directing industry. The central bank only serves to execute the will of the leadership. The markets are contrived to work with the direction of the country. So far China has proven this to be remarkably effective and robust system, despite many large setbacks the system soldiers on strong as it ever was. China strives for economic power, the US strives for commercial profits and we are seeing the difference paly out day to day. Placing economic power as the primary goal of the centralized command and control government means individual rights and individual welfare are not important to the state. Don't get me wrong I am glad I live here, and not in China. However, it is only a matter of time before China takes over as the global superpower, because every decision they make is aimed at doing just that. Meanwhile here in the US we will just keep bastardizing our government to make corporations more and more wealthy and be content with that as a model of success. Stonks go up! China is efficient at constructing large slipshod "cities" where no one is living, just to maintain the illusion that they have full employment. These are government-subsidized cities; if the cities or the construction sites are ever completed, they are not properly maintained because there is no pride of ownership. If everybody owns nothing, then where is the need or want of maintaining it? |
Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. F. Douglass
|
Originally Posted By Happy_Hour_Hero: Capitalism embraces human nature. Socialism naively ignores it. Any man who has power is led to abuse it. Well put. I look on socialism as a much larger version of an HOA. A committee deciding how others should live, what "items" they can keep on their property, what "approved" decorations and improvements they can make, all while paying a tithe or fee for the privilege of being told how to live. Socialism/Communism cannot keep its head above water without adding a bit of capitalism, but true capitalism can function pretty well without socialism. This country's founders saw the danger in giving power to a few and attempted to limit the few's ability to hold on to it. The socialists, not caring about rules or the actual needs of the citizenry, have worked nonstop to bastardize free will and capitalism. When their bastardized version of capitalism fails, then they blame the host (capitalism), not the social parasite (socialism/communism) they've offered up that infected the system. |
Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. F. Douglass
|
Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: It was theorized by a failure. Traced back to its origins, I tend to agree with that observation. |
Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. F. Douglass
|
Originally Posted By dorobuta: what I find interesting is that the people wanting socialism seem to think they'll be free to write poetry or hang out smoking weed because everything will be free and they won't have to work. Yeah, no, pretty much under their "everything is free" socialism, they'll be told to get their asses to work to support the collective. If not, history tells us that socialist/communist countries are very good at building workhouses (prisons for slave labor). Also, as the twentieth century has shown us, if the slaves refuse to work there's always the incentive of an 8mm bullet, or 7.62×39mm bullet to jump start the masses. Hell, if that costs too much for the government to rid itself of the problem children there's always insecticide and death marches. I want to offer up another question: What would be the fate of socialist/communist countries if there weren't countries to buy their cheaply (work houses/ prison/slave labor) made consumer goods? Would say a country like China be able to build her navy and supply her army? |
Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. F. Douglass
|
Originally Posted By DevilsEggAdvocate: If China's economy one day surpasses the US then it will have demonstrated that there can be a successful system that is not based on democracy and free markets. The fact that they've made as much progress as they've had in areas we think only advanced economies can (e.g. cars, AI, solar energy, nuclear energy, weapons, etc.) already suggests it's a successful alternative system. So slave labor can be profitable? |
If you can't take the high road, occupy the high ground.
|
Originally Posted By dorobuta: what I find interesting is that the people wanting socialism seem to think they'll be free to write poetry or hang out smoking weed because everything will be free and they won't have to work. I’d rather be professional breakdancer . Poetry is dumb. Can you please return to your 16hr shift at the coal mine so us creative folks can concentrate on finding ourselves |
| accountability chains are too long, which attenuates feedback. once someone stops getting feedback and realizes that they don't have to produce in order to receive benefits, effort to produce drops off in favor of effort to secure social status. thus bureaucracy. |
|
Originally Posted By dorobuta: what I find interesting is that the people wanting socialism seem to think they'll be free to write poetry or hang out smoking weed because everything will be free and they won't have to work. It took a few months for the Russians to realize this and implement "no work, no food". |
|
Originally Posted By sirensong: accountability chains are too long, which attenuates feedback. once someone stops getting feedback and realizes that they don't have to produce in order to receive benefits, effort to produce drops off in favor of effort to secure social status. thus bureaucracy. In Russia it went the opposite way - you'd get a production quota that was pulled out of someone's ass that was impossible to achieve so your supervisor would lie and say you did it so that you could eat and he could eat. The guys in the warehouse, the guys that transport it, etc all lie and say the quota was met but the stuff never turns up for the people who need it. So the quota gets increased, since there's obviously a shortage. Everyone is incentivized to lie. There's accountability but they're incentivized to lie as well. |
|
Originally Posted By AlvinYork: How come they nearly always start with millions dying? If communism and socialism are so great how come they have to be lied about to come to fruition, how come they have to be enforced through violence and often with millions dying? Ultimately it's a race to the bottom. Next question. I'll flesh it for you. If the motivated were going gang busters before the revolution, they really don't like being seen as sheep to be shorne. The revolutionaries want sheep that desire a haircut, or someone else taking a haircut for your benefit, no strings attached. Eliminate the sass and wallow in willing ass. It's the old fable of two wolves, one sheep deciding what's for dinner, until you exhaust the supply of sheep. |
|
Originally Posted By bigfatOTMs: Everyone always talks about human nature or power and corruption, but all socialist countries will always fail even if run by perfect human beings. Why? 1. Centrally planned economies can't determine what things should cost. It's literally impossible. For example, without markets, negotiations, choice in consumer goods, competition, etc., how much do you pay a farmer? You can try to calculate a cost through studies and years of bureaucracy, but it will always be a guess that is too high or too low and shortages/overages will constantly occur. Meanwhile, in free market economies, determining how much things cost happens via supply/demand completely organically, quickly, and none of us even realize it's happening. Free markets are simply more accurate and way more efficient at this unique thing that is impossible for socialist economies. 2. The only way to ensure no one owns private property (the foundational idea of all socialist philosophies) is to have an all-powerful government that represses anyone who tries. It's the only way to make it "work". Purges, secret police, etc. are all inherent features of socialism, not unfortunate byproducts of power and human nature. Look at every Five-Year Plan of the USSR. Every one of them failed massively. The effects of these failures still rippled across the entire country decades later. |
The fickle man changes his mind. The wise man changes direction.
|
Originally Posted By Norsk: There is no incentive for success. I remember an incident that exposed the failure of Marxism. Cabbage is a basic food staple in Russia. In Moscow, people were standing in line to buy one food item. The city ran out of cabbage, and people were told none was available. Then word leaked that the huge cabbage fields were full of unpicked cabbage. The growers refused to pick them because they had met their quotas. People were so angry that they got in their vehicles, drove to the farms, and picked the cabbage for themselves. The central planning of Marxism will always screw it up. It is who they are: screw-ups. |
The fickle man changes his mind. The wise man changes direction.
|
Originally Posted By dorobuta: So slave labor can be profitable? Originally Posted By dorobuta: Originally Posted By DevilsEggAdvocate: If China's economy one day surpasses the US then it will have demonstrated that there can be a successful system that is not based on democracy and free markets. The fact that they've made as much progress as they've had in areas we think only advanced economies can (e.g. cars, AI, solar energy, nuclear energy, weapons, etc.) already suggests it's a successful alternative system. So slave labor can be profitable? Socialists count on others to buy their slave produced goods, and the ignorant think it's because socialism is a success. |
Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. F. Douglass
|
Originally Posted By Firearmsenthusiast: You are unfortunately wrong, a command and control economy is extremely efficient at getting large projects done and directing industry. The central bank only serves to execute the will of the leadership. The markets are contrived to work with the direction of the country. So far China has proven this to be remarkably effective and robust system, despite many large setbacks the system soldiers on strong as it ever was. China strives for economic power, the US strives for commercial profits and we are seeing the difference paly out day to day. Placing economic power as the primary goal of the centralized command and control government means individual rights and individual welfare are not important to the state. Don't get me wrong I am glad I live here, and not in China. However, it is only a matter of time before China takes over as the global superpower, because every decision they make is aimed at doing just that. Meanwhile here in the US we will just keep bastardizing our government to make corporations more and more wealthy and be content with that as a model of success. Stonks go up! Boy, have you drunk the Kool-Aid. Remember when China tried to set quotas for iron production? They even forced people to construct backyard smelters. The pollution even remains today in some areas of China. Fruit grown in those areas is so toxic they can't export it to many countries. They met their goals, but the iron was so poor quality it was virtually unusable. Yes, central planning at it's best. ROFL. |
The fickle man changes his mind. The wise man changes direction.
|
Originally Posted By Happy_Hour_Hero: The voters do. The leaders are taking advantage of their ignorance. I disagree; many of the voters are ignorant, but many, many more useful fools think they are big players. They are all disposable. |
The fickle man changes his mind. The wise man changes direction.
|
Originally Posted By AlvinYork: How come they nearly always start with millions dying? If communism and socialism are so great how come they have to be lied about to come to fruition, how come they have to be enforced through violence and often with millions dying? Like i tell my kid. Communism sounds good until you involve people. But on average those systems are not about rewarding people for their time and effort, and the moment you want to be compensated disproportionately to what the state says, you're a selfish person. Now raise that to a social level of people who think they should be rewarded more than the state offers. The state has to get work out of you somehow. Since that government system disincentivisies voluntary effort through positive compensation, its left with negative motivation as a way to get work out of you. Usually thats violence, taking away things, imprisonment, hard labor or if i need to make an example of you, death. |
|
Originally Posted By Chisum: I remember an incident that exposed the failure of Marxism. Cabbage is a basic food staple in Russia. In Moscow, people were standing in line to buy one food item. The city ran out of cabbage, and people were told none was available. Then word leaked that the huge cabbage fields were full of unpicked cabbage. The growers refused to pick them because they had met their quotas. People were so angry that they got in their vehicles, drove to the farms, and picked the cabbage for themselves. The central planning of Marxism will always screw it up. It is who they are: screw-ups. Originally Posted By Chisum: Originally Posted By Norsk: There is no incentive for success. I remember an incident that exposed the failure of Marxism. Cabbage is a basic food staple in Russia. In Moscow, people were standing in line to buy one food item. The city ran out of cabbage, and people were told none was available. Then word leaked that the huge cabbage fields were full of unpicked cabbage. The growers refused to pick them because they had met their quotas. People were so angry that they got in their vehicles, drove to the farms, and picked the cabbage for themselves. The central planning of Marxism will always screw it up. It is who they are: screw-ups. It was often much worse than that. They told farm workers to plant seeds on a specific day when there was still frost and snow in much of the country. Those that refused were punished. There was a massive famine which was especially bad in rural areas because all the food was taken to population centers so the feminine wouldn't look as bad. Meanwhile in the county people are killing their weaker children to feed them to the stronger ones. |
|
Originally Posted By Snozberry: Like i tell my kid. Communism sounds good until you involve people. But on average those systems are not about rewarding people for their time and effort, and the moment you want to be compensated disproportionately to what the state says, you're a selfish person. Now raise that to a social level of people who think they should be rewarded more than the state offers. The state has to get work out of you somehow. Since that government system disincentivisies voluntary effort through positive compensation, its left with negative motivation as a way to get work out of you. Usually thats violence, taking away things, imprisonment, hard labor or if i need to make an example of you, death. Originally Posted By Snozberry: Originally Posted By AlvinYork: How come they nearly always start with millions dying? If communism and socialism are so great how come they have to be lied about to come to fruition, how come they have to be enforced through violence and often with millions dying? Like i tell my kid. Communism sounds good until you involve people. But on average those systems are not about rewarding people for their time and effort, and the moment you want to be compensated disproportionately to what the state says, you're a selfish person. Now raise that to a social level of people who think they should be rewarded more than the state offers. The state has to get work out of you somehow. Since that government system disincentivisies voluntary effort through positive compensation, its left with negative motivation as a way to get work out of you. Usually thats violence, taking away things, imprisonment, hard labor or if i need to make an example of you, death. I keep posting this. There are three kinds of people who think socialism is a good idea: Useful idiots who think it sounds "nice" and "fair". Utter losers who believe the only way they can improve their circumstances is to have daddy government take from the more successful to give to them. Sociopaths drawn to the kind of power that only a totalitarian regime can provide. These aren't just the guys at the top, petty tyrants emerge at every level complete with every abuse of power you can think of - theft, grift, rape, etc. Once you figure out which one of these they are then you have a better idea who you're dealing with. |
|
Originally Posted By DevilsEggAdvocate: If China's economy one day surpasses the US then it will have demonstrated that there can be a successful system that is not based on democracy and free markets. The fact that they've made as much progress as they've had in areas we think only advanced economies can (e.g. cars, AI, solar energy, nuclear energy, weapons, etc.) already suggests it's a successful alternative system. I wouldn’t call China successful because of socialism I would say they are successful in spite of socialism China’s economy only began growing after we began trading and offshoring our manufacturing capacity to them They are notorious for stealing IP. They got rich manufacturing things for capitalist countries not their own people. The government controls most of the wealth. Most if not all products china produces are designed in the west. 1960 Chinas gdp 60 billion 1960 us gdp 542 billion China’s growth only started as a result of market reforms in 1978 Private property Market completion and foreign trade |
|
Originally Posted By DevilsEggAdvocate: If China's economy one day surpasses the US then it will have demonstrated that there can be a successful system that is not based on democracy and free markets. The fact that they've made as much progress as they've had in areas we think only advanced economies can (e.g. cars, AI, solar energy, nuclear energy, weapons, etc.) already suggests it's a successful alternative system. I wouldn’t call China successful because of socialism I would say they are successful in spite of socialism China’s economy only began growing after we began trading and offshoring our manufacturing capacity to them They are notorious for stealing IP. They got rich manufacturing things for capitalist countries not their own people. The government controls most of the wealth. Most if not all products china produces are designed in the west. 1960 Chinas gdp 60 billion 1960 us gdp 542 billion China’s growth only started as a result of market reforms in 1978 Private property Market completion and foreign trade |
|
1. The deaths are both deliberate but also a consequence of the breakdown of the society and the economy. 2. If you truly take everything and spread it uniformly across everyone, each person has very, very little. It may not be enough to survive. 3. Removing the incentives to work hard and produce means everyone has even less. It gets to a situation where "why bother" is the operative phrase. Look at a lot of union employees. They do just enough to not get in trouble but can't be replaced for their piss-poor performance. |
|
The idea always fails because they expect people to "want to work for a greater humanity." It sounds so wonderful. The reality is people will just sit at home and still get paid. Why work to support those who won't when the standard of living isn't any better and your personal situation never improves? Bottom line, people are greedy and want to feel like life is improving. When stagnation is the best you can ever expect....why bother? When you own nothing, who is going to maintain things? When all you get is gov't subsistence, who is going to pay for anything? The other problem is that the gov't dictates policy and those policies are never up for debate and gov't is never wrong. Any resistance to these policies gets you a bullet to the back of the head for being subversive or a death sentence in a forced labor camp. |
|
Originally Posted By R_S: Marx was selling an illusion. He told people in the 1800s that they could have everything they want... just needed to reorganize society. Marx pretended there was no such thing as economic scarcity. Fools believed him. Tyrants saw it as an incredible opportunity to centralize control for oppression and pretend they were doing good at the same time. Fools believed them. Gorbachev calls communism 'propaganda' Another key issue with communism was it's inability to discover market prices. The Soviets joked if they conquered the world they would have to leave New Zealand alone so they would know what everything costs. this is an inaccurate representation of marx. marx was clear that capitalism is much better at generating wealth, and that life under socialism and then communism could not be as luxurious. |
|
Originally Posted By AlvinYork: Well put. I look on socialism as a much larger version of an HOA. A committee deciding how others should live, what "items" they can keep on their property, what "approved" decorations and improvements they can make, all while paying a tithe or fee for the privilege of being told how to live. Socialism/Communism cannot keep its head above water without adding a bit of capitalism, but true capitalism can function pretty well without socialism. This country's founders saw the danger in giving power to a few and attempted to limit the few's ability to hold on to it. The socialists, not caring about rules or the actual needs of the citizenry, have worked nonstop to bastardize free will and capitalism. When their bastardized version of capitalism fails, then they blame the host (capitalism), not the social parasite (socialism/communism) they've offered up that infected the system. an HOA is pure capitalism - the drive to maximize profits (home values) provides an incentive to establish a coercive regime that is entered into completely voluntarily by signing a contract that is enforced by the power of the state. that it can accurately be used as an example of both capitalism and socialism ought to be thought-provoking. |
https://youtu.be/Sq21srIGC6c?si=1lzr4SWv0KJZWGbV China's Insane Concrete Breakthrough Is Already Falling Apart — Engineers Are Calling It a Scam I have heard on here that the Chinese are great engineers. Questionable. Is it communism, socialism, corruption, or bad engineering that causes these failures? Maybe all three? |
Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. F. Douglass
Member
Joined:
Apr 2023
Posts:
3988
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By bigfatOTMs: Everyone always talks about human nature or power and corruption, but all socialist countries will always fail even if run by perfect human beings. Why? 1. Centrally planned economies can't determine what things should cost. It's literally impossible. For example, without markets, negotiations, choice in consumer goods, competition, etc., how much do you pay a farmer? You can try to calculate a cost through studies and years of bureaucracy, but it will always be a guess that is too high or too low and shortages/overages will constantly occur. Meanwhile, in free market economies, determining how much things cost happens via supply/demand completely organically, quickly, and none of us even realize it's happening. Free markets are simply more accurate and way more efficient at this unique thing that is impossible for socialist economies. 2. The only way to ensure no one owns private property (the foundational idea of all socialist philosophies) is to have an all-powerful government that represses anyone who tries. It's the only way to make it "work". Purges, secret police, etc. are all inherent features of socialism, not unfortunate byproducts of power and human nature. I agree on the first point. Even if the authorities are completely benevolent, they cannot manage an economy without price, and only markets can quickly and accurately determine price. I don’t entirely agree on the second. The fact is, it doesn’t work, but then the violence inevitably happens in a desperate attempt to try to force it to work. I don’t attribute it directly to ensuring no private property, at least not in those terms, but more just needing someone to blame. “If we could just get rid of these traitors to the cause it will work.” It can’t work because it’s constantly in varying degrees of economic inefficiency and collapse. |
|
Originally Posted By dorobuta: what I find interesting is that the people wanting socialism seem to think they'll be free to write poetry or hang out smoking weed because everything will be free and they won't have to work. Elon, Dario and Sam Altman have said the same thing about the best case scenario for AI. |
|
Originally Posted By sirensong: an HOA is pure capitalism - the drive to maximize profits (home values) provides an incentive to establish a coercive regime that is entered into completely voluntarily by signing a contract that is enforced by the power of the state. that it can accurately be used as an example of both capitalism and socialism ought to be thought-provoking. Originally Posted By sirensong: Originally Posted By AlvinYork: Well put. I look on socialism as a much larger version of an HOA. A committee deciding how others should live, what "items" they can keep on their property, what "approved" decorations and improvements they can make, all while paying a tithe or fee for the privilege of being told how to live. Socialism/Communism cannot keep its head above water without adding a bit of capitalism, but true capitalism can function pretty well without socialism. This country's founders saw the danger in giving power to a few and attempted to limit the few's ability to hold on to it. The socialists, not caring about rules or the actual needs of the citizenry, have worked nonstop to bastardize free will and capitalism. When their bastardized version of capitalism fails, then they blame the host (capitalism), not the social parasite (socialism/communism) they've offered up that infected the system. an HOA is pure capitalism - the drive to maximize profits (home values) provides an incentive to establish a coercive regime that is entered into completely voluntarily by signing a contract that is enforced by the power of the state. that it can accurately be used as an example of both capitalism and socialism ought to be thought-provoking. Are you telling me that theories don't always accurately depict reality?Damn you Weber! Damn you to you hell!!! |