From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejido https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejido : "Ejidatarios do not actually own the land, but are allowed to use their allotted

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejido https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejido : "Ejidatarios do not actually own the land, but are allowed to use their allotted parcels indefinitely as long as they do not fail to use the land for more than two years. They can pass their rights on to their children." Taking land from landlords doesn't work because then no one will buy land in the future out of that risk, unless it is very clearly done as a one-time thing. See: one-time tax. I'm not saying collective ownership does not exist but you haven't shown it works empirically or theoretically. > A random salting of pure-theory, Econ-101 points is the sort of lazy, free-market fundamentalism that I have no time for. What is wrong with pure-theory and Econ-101 points? Mainstream economic theory is a refinement of Econ-101 with more complex modelling (imperfect competition, sticky wages). Econ-101 can be used to rebuke many bad economic policies like what Venezuela is doing (capital control, etc). > And, just as important, working in ways and yielding outcomes that matched their values. Do famines and poverty reflect their values? Does food rationing reflect their values? Does only the Politburo having access to the ZIL-111 reflect egalitarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIL-111 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIL-111)? Does Chaikas only being available for purchase by the Soviet government reflect egalitarianism? > Communists weren't stupid. Most communism (such as LTV) is bad economics (that's why the Marxist school of economics is very much outside the mainstream). Communism forgets the Laffer curve at 100%. Complete equality does not work. > communal approaches working pretty well for them at smaller scales It works at smaller scales of family, neighbors, etc because then the people are roughly homogeneous. Even then it is not optimal. Have you heard of horrible stories involving housing societies? > Laughing alternatives off like this is just a knee-jerk defense of the status quo. It's not a knee-jerk defense because I gave some thinking. > But it's somehow common and acceptable whenever economics comes up. I have been downvoted at times for my "fundamentalist capitalist" views. The earliest post in this thread that I wrote is at 0 points (maybe you downvoted it).