3 ms·

>Also, the wastage of resources is almost laughable. I say this not to be condescending, but because if there is one entity on the planet that is inefficient, i

by ue_ 9y ago

>Also, the wastage of resources is almost laughable. I say this not to be condescending, but because if there is one entity on the planet that is inefficient, it's government. I'm not arguing for government, at least not necessarily. Although there are cases of the government forcing commodity producers to destroy their excess commodities, businesses by themselves also engage in these practices to maintain a favourable price with regard to supply and demand of their commodity. >You can't just create "this benefit directly". How would you do that? Workers working for themselves, receiving the product of their own labour, without engaging in the tedious exchange of commodities for money. Democratic decision as to how excess product is allocated and whom it is given to. >government does not have the capacity to guide economic development as a whole compared to the free exchange of goods and services I don't think we should be saying this as fact; it's useful to remember that central planning does not only come in the form of fixed five-year plans, nor is central planning necessary to rid ourselves of wage labour. My "bias" may be that I am a Communist (which I find I am freuently downvoted for even mentioning) though I doubt any of us can say we are free of some bias. Having a position on a certain mode of organisation of society is by no means having a bias, in my opinion anyway. https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-dairy-farmers-dump-43-million-gallons-of-excess-milk-1476284353 https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-dairy-farmers-dump-43-...

muninn_ 9y ago
I'm an anarchist, which is usually a non-starter for many conversations, so I sympathize with being a Communist and having that distract from your message. The reason I mentioned this bias was because the statements you were making appeared to be standard talking points of somebody who has already drawn a conclusion. I celebrate differences in opinion for political philosophy and didn't mean to imply that your stance meant anything bad. > Workers working for themselves, receiving the product of their own labour, without engaging in the tedious exchange of commodities for money. Democratic decision as to how excess product is allocated and whom it is given to. There is nothing to stop this right now. In fact, co-ops are becoming more regular, and bartering has been enabled by online systems. The US government allows people to buy products using Bitcoin, create worker-owned shops, and freely barter goods. Central planning means you can only do one of those three, and historically it has been done poorly. >I don't think we should be saying this as fact; it's useful to remember that central planning does not only come in the form of fixed five-year plans, nor is central planning necessary to rid ourselves of wage labour. I hate to state this as a matter of fact, but I think it is. Government cannot foresee the needs of the people beyond perhaps making sure everybody has a ration of energy or food or something like that. Central planning is just far too complicated and harsh. I think your only hope for a more communistic society is through technological innovation that drives the prices of goods so low that profit simply cannot be made.

by ue_ 9y ago

muninn_ 9y ago

I'm an anarchist, which is usually a non-starter for many conversations, so I sympathize with being a Communist and having that distract from your message. The reason I mentioned this bias was because the statements you were making appeared to be standard talking points of somebody who has already drawn a conclusion. I celebrate differences in opinion for political philosophy and didn't mean to imply that your stance meant anything bad. > Workers working for themselves, receiving the product of their own labour, without engaging in the tedious exchange of commodities for money. Democratic decision as to how excess product is allocated and whom it is given to. There is nothing to stop this right now. In fact, co-ops are becoming more regular, and bartering has been enabled by online systems. The US government allows people to buy products using Bitcoin, create worker-owned shops, and freely barter goods. Central planning means you can only do one of those three, and historically it has been done poorly. >I don't think we should be saying this as fact; it's useful to remember that central planning does not only come in the form of fixed five-year plans, nor is central planning necessary to rid ourselves of wage labour. I hate to state this as a matter of fact, but I think it is. Government cannot foresee the needs of the people beyond perhaps making sure everybody has a ration of energy or food or something like that. Central planning is just far too complicated and harsh. I think your only hope for a more communistic society is through technological innovation that drives the prices of goods so low that profit simply cannot be made.