Why Socialism Fails

reply to post by SugarCube



I guess it is time to explain how my economy works a bit more.
The computer is the force behind the barter trade.
I takes into account the amount of items there are,
and distributes them equally. So no matter what job you do,
if you go to the supermarket, you can get at least one item of
everything for yourself, now considering that you have now
complete automation, even food becomes abundant.
I present to you the idea of farm-scrapers, not a new idea,
but a good one. This saves space in the rural lands and feeds
most of the city. Vertical farming is the future.

When it comes to bartering between cities and rural lands,
any excess production can be easily bartered away, considering that
the excess is considered waste and will be recycled anyways.

Basically, what I am saying is, government would not so much oversee
transactions, as rather note them down, everything would be done
on the personal level, the only part government would have in this is
making sure certain much needed items are distributed accordingly, as long as everyone keeps to the limits, they can barter and trade as they please.
Basically, all public services would be run on bureaucracy, with the addition of allowing private enterprises of doing the same. This enables one to cover the others mistakes. So, in short, all necessities are government operated via bureaucracy, with the element of competition stemming from private enterprises. Makes sense?

We make good with the system we have right now when it comes to holidays and hoarding of vital products. I don't know what world you think I'm presenting you with, but yes, there will be granaries and warehouses... Everything runs as is, just more humanely.

If you choose to be an independent farmer you will barter your goods with other people and trader caravans from the city, if you wish to work on a government farm, you get your share of the food, the rest goes to the city, and for your hard work you can consume any item you wish, as long as it exists and there is enough for everyone. Of course, each individual has their own needs, at the worst case scenario, requisition orders can be made through the stores, the manager contacts his suppliers and they produce more, so next week you can have your flat screen TV, makes sense?
All you need to get things is proof that you work, not hard eh? There would be many employment centers scattered around the city, so I doubt you'd have the modern problem of starving for two weeks before you get your first paycheck, the moment you start working you can buy food and goods.
What prevents people from using the system? If you work for a day and hoard everything in one shot and then leave the next, don't bother coming back because you're exiled.

People won't need to use metals for barter, unless they work in mines.
If you understand my system, you will understand that you're showing problems with a purely barter system where in everyone barters everyone, I say rather, your services are given to society, and society gives you back other services. You can change your profession anytime you'd like.
Like I said, my system is the current one modified to suit the concept of moneylessness, is it that hard to imagine?

Individuals wouldn't be able to hoard, unless they hoard their own produce, independent farmers have that option, good luck bartering with nothing though... As for private enterprises, they can do as they want, there's still a government that does the same, hoarding won't be an issue I'm afraid, due to the fact that I'm proposing a state run economy mixed with a private economy.

There wouldn't be credits, each individual can consume as much as one needs, as long as there's the industry to support this behavior. There would be a supply/demand ratio number, but it would be there to give everyone a general idea of how much they can consume of each item.

"Those administrations have to operate at the right structural levels, it is no good the macro levels trying to dynamically control the micro levels or we end up in the situation we have now. "

This is precisely why I have decided to mix private enterprise in with government operations.

You don't need a feudal system to give people the sense of belonging,
nationalism is easy to establish within each city state, you already see similar with sports, the other day I was in traffic cause everyone was yelling and celebrating the victory of their city's hockey team. What we need is to curb
the antisocial aspect of society. There are many fronts in this war, and changing government and economy is only one of them. Government cannot solve every problem, you must look at the world through the eyes of a politician, businessman, philosopher, painter, mathematician, musician, etc. Mass media is what you are focusing on now, the general attitude of the people must change, this can only be done in 20 years, for it takes 20 years to raise a new generation. Movies, books, newspapers, internet, all these tools shape an individual's mind, not to mention interpersonal contact.
Again, as I mentioned, the moment you have someone in charge you have a problem. If I was in charge, I would put a plan forth and let society run it's course without having any heirs. You cannot have more than one king, because then you have more than one goal and view on the world. The only way to keep a goal going is through the use of a computer program.

reply to post by Radekus


Thanks for that, I understand where you're coming from a bit more!

If I am reading you correctly, it is kind of like a "plentiful rationing" system where instead of a minimal amount you might expect from the example of, say, war-time rationing, it is concerned with the fair expectations commensurate with a defined quality of life.

This has some merits since in many respects it abstracts from the effects of what we might otherwise have in over/under production to extremes.

I am not sure how you would deal with non-necessities though. I assume that these would be via a straight bartering system (e.g. buying a work of art from a painter). Have you considered this aspect?

As an example, not everybody requires canvas for painting on, therefore, would you require a registration process for obtaining these commodities or would that be through a kind of 'licensed outlet' for non-essential goods?

I think I can see where you are coming from though. I presume that you would have to implement a 'use it or lose it' process for the individual quotas though since otherwise you would create a black market situation which would try to normalise supply and demand.

You know, I wish that there was a system online where these models of society could be generated so that we could experiment and determine their validity - rather than the morass of "1-dimensional" games that you see advertised everywhere that are built on the same old engine again and again.

it would be interesting to see whether people would submit to the concept since, clearly, it does compromise a few perceived freedoms. I wonder if, in providing the "exceptions" to allow those freedoms it would entirely upset the balance and the exceptions would then become the norm?

Interesting though, thanks for that!

reply to post by mnemeth1


Try reading the communist manifesto (or reading period), it might help inform your opinion with more clarity regarding Socialism. Incidentally, I 'got this stuff' from an academic professional (Phd/ head of department) in a 500 level history course at a well respected University.

reply to post by SugarCube


I like you, instead of giving me lip or worse yet, showering me with illogical detritus, you not only challenge me intellectually with social issues I haven't really thought of much, but you also try to understand my reasoning, this is something most people never actually DO.

To answer your question about the painting paradigm, as I mentioned before, there would be employment centers scattered throughout the city states. What I failed to mention is that these not only procure work for citizens (business owners post ads there to gain workers or to register workers), they also serve as registration centers for personal businesses. So in a sense, if you are producing an item, such as a painting, you are considered a "factory", through this employment center you will be matched with shop owners who sell art items and commodities. Basically you will become the creator and supplier of these new stores (that becomes your job title, you will have a quota for production at that point), all transactions will be done between you and the shop owners at that point, with an obvious "budget" report that the shop owner gives in to the employment center at the end of each week. Basically how many items he received from who, and how many he "sold" and to who. Pretty standard stuff. Not too different from how it is now really.
If you fail to meet the quota you will have a hearing with an advisor from the employment center and there both of you will decide which career suits you better. Excess items can be recycled, I presume lots of waste from the cities, I'm not too worried though, every item can be transformed into something else. Take note that since there is no money, there is no budget for recycling centers, therefore they can hire more individuals to perform the more complicated tasks of separating materials from items. To facilitate this process most items will be built, as much as possible within functioning parameters and without affecting quality of items, with the same or similar materials. I know, I know, some items have way too many parts to separate, but eh, since time = money, and because we eliminated money, you have unlimited time. I bet there's tons of people who don't mind doing the repetitive task of separating computer parts all day long, it's stress free after all.
So to cap on the recycling of waste, each item is produced in factories in such a way as to facilitate recycling in the long run.
Non essential goods are exactly like essential goods, over flooding of the market isn't a bad thing, it forces people to be more creative so their items get consumed instead the next guy's. Besides, if your factory is producing items which no one consumes and that no one else wants to trade for, then a change in production is in order. Say you're a factory owner which produces chairs no one wants, you can instead switch to producing couches that are in high demand. If the demand becomes low again, you can switch to producing tables, it's all about having a factory set up in such a way in which you can produce multiple items to meet fluctuating demands. I personally think this system can work quite well. How does the demand work? Like I said, shop owner/factory owner relationship. Each customer makes a demand at the store, the store owner contacts the factory owner and lets him know he needs x amount of items, few days later they are shipped to the store, shop owner calls customer that his item is available, and it's a done deal.
the system works itself, you don't need money to make it work. Government oversight is just there to make sure nothing scamful happens, like say fake transactions that never occur, all I can say is, whoever is caught trying to exploit the system is exiled outside of the city, and his name is tarnished forever, not only in this city, but in all the others as well. He will have to live as an independent farmer for the rest of his life at that point, living off bartering his goods for others. Good luck making it as an independent farmer when your butt is thrown outside city walls with nothing but the clothes on your back though. A punishment must be hard so that people respect the laws.

Originally posted by Mumbotron
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Try reading the communist manifesto (or reading period), it might help inform your opinion with more clarity regarding Socialism. Incidentally, I 'got this stuff' from an academic professional (Phd/ head of department) in a 500 level history course at a well respected University.

Wait, you're telling me that college economics department head handed you Karl Marx and said this was a valid theory of economics?

A college professor actually handed you the communist manefiesto and said this is how society should be run?

Is that what you're saying?

What college was this?

Universidad de La Habana?

Please tell me so I know where not to attend.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Mumbotron
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Try reading the communist manifesto (or reading period), it might help inform your opinion with more clarity regarding Socialism. Incidentally, I 'got this stuff' from an academic professional (Phd/ head of department) in a 500 level history course at a well respected University.

Wait, you're telling me that college economics department head handed you Karl Marx and said this was a valid theory of economics?

A college professor actually handed you the communist manefiesto and said this is how society should be run?

Is that what you're saying?

What college was this?

Universidad de La Habana?

Please tell me so I know where not to attend.

[edit on 16-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Dear mnemeth1 - I don't believe that there's any danger of you attending a school that teaches free thinking. However, from your study of the Communist Manfesto and other Socialist/Communist theory, etc, you'll probably remember this quote:

"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations." (pg24, para 2)

and this one:

"You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society." (pg 23, para 12)

Source

Why don't you and your fear-bashing friends go back and refresh yourselves on this theory and then come back to the discussion table with real arguments about why socialism fails?

[edit to remove extra "the"]

[edit on 17-7-2010 by JohnJasper]

reply to post by mnemeth1


No, I am not saying that at all. A college History department head handed out the Communist Manifesto and we discussed it's contents with as much objectivity as possible. Have you even read it? It sounds like you have been exposed to too much McCarthyism or something.

reply to post by MysterE


But this is only one form of Socialism. In a working Socialist society, people are waged based on the work and effort they show.

John D owns absolutely nothing but the clothes on his back. John D works his butt off as a farmer working an 80 hour work week. Working on the government land, he earned 80 resource points for that week (resource points are going to be our wages here. Raw materials, food, ect). John C owns absolutely nothing but the clothes on his back. John C slacks off as a farmer and worked a 40 hour week. Working on the government land, the government provides him 40 resource points for that week.

There are people called the Hutterites who live in colonies. (300 some Colonies in Canada, 100 some in US) They own nothing, but sell and barter to locals in the region (food, vegetables and such) and all that money goes to the colony, NOT the people. Then the people get an allowance and share farm equipment ect ect.


All I'm saying is that there are many different forms of Socialism, just because one does not work doesn't mean the entire ideology is failed.