Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
i'd like to hear your take on "communism is idiocy".
OP didn't respond so I will take a shot. My understanding is that under communism, the economy has to be planned by the government. Under capitalism, the price of shoes (for example) is usually determined by the demand for shoes and the amount of shoes that can be manufactured. If demand falls, the price falls. If manufacturing capacity increases, the price falls more, etc. This mechanism has feedback loops that make it efficient. In theory, companies never make more shoes than they can sell, because if they do make too many, they can sell the excess by cutting prices. Under communism there is no free market, so the mechanics of supply and demand don't work. Some communist bureaucrat conducts a study and estimates that the country will need 100k pairs of shoes next quarter. The government then makes those shoes in a state-owned factory. Suppose, though, that it turns out that the country needed more. With no free market, there is no competitor to step in and meet the demand for shoes - now you have a shortage. Similarly, you can have considerable waste if you grow too many apples or whatever. In true communism, there is no price to adjust - you either have an apple voucher or you don't. Thus there is generally more problems meeting demand efficiently. This is, in fact, exactly what we saw under the Soviet Union - the stores were often stuffed with unwanted items while long lines developed for items that were in high demand. Without any consideration of authoritarianism etc., this is an often-cited reason for the failure of communism.
I am not a political theorist or an economist, so please correct me if I am wrong.
You've got the general critique from Mises right, but that's an extremely outdated critique that has long been debunked. The article Prices in a Planned Economy helps show how prices in a fully publicly owned economy could be planned, including what you are describing as "price signals." The fact is, the USSR's economy did work, and worked rather well, but issues like having to spend a huge portion of GDP on the defense industry just to keep up with the US starved the rest of the economy for growth, and the Soviets planned by hand rather than by computer. Neither of these issues need to be taken by any Socialist state going forward.
if all humans could plan for the future and wished inherently to make world into better place for others too instead of just themselves communism might work. But as it is, the idea needs some heavy reworking to adjust for human defiencies to be worth even considering. I dont understand how they even came up with something like this and thought its good idea as it is. And naively thought no one would abuse their power or even could manage it all efficiently. Maybe it wasnt idea born out of wanting to make better world but instead just counter reaction to capitalism.
its so annoying, i have this vague idea of something like world without exploitative private property. Like, money would be replaced with actual value of work you have done, you could reasonably use tools and resources without being gatekept by private ownership while still being allowed to have your own things as long as it doesnt cause harm to others. When someone wants more than they can have, its solved instead by working towards improving things for everyone instead of just yourself.
but its just that, a vague idea; mostly fit to taunt me like dangling bottle of water out of reach of someone dying of thirst. And its seeming more and more like wishing one could do magic. It doesnt seem like humans could ever be capable of having a world like that or even want to .
I don't really know what your problem with Communism is, nor why you think it requires humans to want to make the world a better place. I recommend reading Marx's actual words on the subject.
only thing that inherently has worth to me is making world better place. Communism is just a tool, if it doesnt work correctly then it ought to be fixed or abandoned for something else that works better. And evidently it doesnt work correctly considering how china or soviet union turned out to be for those not in power.
Marxism is just a tool, sure, though I think doubling life expectancy, over trippling literacy rates to 99.9%, lowering wealth disparity while increasing GDP dramatically, and democratization of society and the economy prove that Socialism does work. I think you have a very narrow view of the history of AES states and need to do more research, as it seems like you just have the default western viewpoint.
They're almost certainly conflating communism with the authoritarian flavor so enjoyed by the tankies of .ml/hex/grad
it's either that, or attributing anything related to social welfare to communism or at least a slippery slope to communism.