3 ms·
Translated: "That same energy could have been spent on something I care about and not what the author cares about." Which kind of explains why communism always
by tjradcliffe 11y ago
Translated: "That same energy could have been spent on something I care about and not what the author cares about."
Which kind of explains why communism always leads to tyranny: it is based on the essentially tyrannical assumption that communists alone have the knowledge to decide how everyone else should be spending thier time, and the moral authority to impose that judgement on others by force.
The problem is that no one has ever found a way of granting such power of central decision making in such a way that either:
a) central planners have access to the information and computing power distributed in the market such that they can make well-judged decisions even by the theoretically pure criteria they claim to be using (that is, communism is inefficient)
b) central planners have no incentive not to make decisions that serve their own interests to the detriment of all others (that is, communism is corrupt).
Given that theses results are incredibly robust and widely known, it is weird that anyone would suggest communism is an interesting alternative to anything. Reform capitalism all you want, but why bring up the political equivalent of a perpetual motion machine as the solution?
- k__ 11y agoTranslated: "I want people to make me think that prices are as low as they need to be."
- copsarebastards 11y agoCommunism has worked numerous times and continues to work today, most often using democratic or consensus governance: look at communes and kibbutzes. > Which kind of explains why communism always leads to tyranny: it is based on the essentially tyrannical assumption that communists alone have the knowledge to decide how everyone else should be spending thier time, and the moral authority to impose that judgement on others by force. Calm down McCarthy. Not every communist is a Soviet. Communism is a form of economy, not of government, and is entirely compatible with democracy. > The problem is that no one has ever found a way of granting such power of central decision making in such a way that either: > a) central planners have access to the information and computing power distributed in the market such that they can make well-judged decisions even by the theoretically pure criteria they claim to be using (that is, communism is inefficient) > b) central planners have no incentive not to make decisions that serve their own interests to the detriment of all others (that is, communism is corrupt). No one you know of has solved these problems, which only goes to show your ignorance. Scale is an easy solution to both these problems--a small economy in which all parties can interact with all other parties removes the need for central planning entirely and allows all parties to balance their own interests with the interests of others. > Given that theses results are incredibly robust and widely known, it is weird that anyone would suggest communism is an interesting alternative to anything. Reform capitalism all you want, but why bring up the political equivalent of a perpetual motion machine as the solution? Given that you clearly are completely unaware of numerous working examples of democratic communism, what makes you feel qualified to have an opinion on the subject?
- bryondowd 11y agoJust curious, but does communism by necessity or definition require central planning? Is a distributed power model not possible, aside from the fact that it hasn't been done? I'm genuinely curious, as I've never studied political systems in any depth.
- copsarebastards 11y agoIt doesn't: in fact, I think central planning is generally what breaks communism. Kibbutzes and communes generally are communist but work without central planning