Communist/socialist/collectivist economies always fail because governments/bureaucracies/voters are incapable of...

Communist/socialist/collectivist economies always fail because governments/bureaucracies/voters are incapable of determining value for all goods, commodities and services needed to keep society going. This sounds like a small thing but it's key for intelligent or even functional resource distribution. This problem is magnified drastically as technology develops and population density increases. The market on the other hand does this for you if you allow it to.

This is the real red pill and the most fundamental argument against all forms of collectivism. Socialists have never been able to positively demonstrate a solution to this problem beyond rhetoric and philosophy.

To put it simply: A planned economy is almost a conflict in terms.
youtu.be/h3gwyHNo7MI

>Any leftist way of government is le big guberment doing everything

communists and fascists are fucking retarded m8, because they assume that everyone will bend to their will.

I don't recall saying that.

And obviously these things exist on a sliding scale. The more an economy is planned the less based on real value it will be and the less it's planned the more so.

Don't be a faggot. Let's hear some hear some real arguments, commie

>I don't recall saying that

You pretty summed ever leftist way of governance is about governments/bureaucracies taking many parts of a economy and running them. Even though that's not it works you little shit.
>commie
Oh yeah everyone who argues against you is LITERALLY gommunist :DDD Benis

I was very specific.

Communists. Socialists. Collectivists.

The definition of those forms/philosophies of government are just that. Official authorities, be they federal or otherwise assuming control over sectors of the economy.

>Communist
Depends on what type of communist, Marxist-Lenist/Authoritarian-Left want the entire state to run the economy while Anarcho-communist/anarchist want a common ownership over the means of production.
>Socialist
Socialism is about social ownership, no government there.
>Collectivist
Collectivism is about ownership over land and the means of production by the people or... the state. So eh on that one.

>Communist (...) governments
Stopped reading.

>governments/bureaucracies/voters are incapable of determining value for all goods

True

Thats one of the reasons the soviet union fell.

But It doesn't impy that every alternative to capitalism has centralized planning of economy.

You miss the point of my argument entirely.

Collective ownership of anything requires collective organization which requires collective authority to make decisions for said collective. It doesn't matter if it's a formal state/government or not. It doesn't matter how grass roots it is or how democratic you make it. It will be inadequate to the task of determining value, especially in a technically sophisticated society that relies on resources/expertise from all around the planet.

And anarchism is meme. Don't even bring that weak shit around here.

see

Why do you think that the "collective organization" has to determine the "value" (price is a better word IMO) of anything?

How else do you make decisions regarding resource distribution? How do you choose which resources go where when faced with dilemmas on the usage of scarce goods? You need to know the relative value of objects you're distributing in order to distribute them logically in accordance with the needs of your collective. In fact it works the other way too. Without the market you can't even accurately gauge the needs of one person relative to another. In a market it's how much they're willing to pay, how much of themselves they're willing to sacrifice. How do determine this in a collective with any level of objectivity?

Have you read a single book on the subject of economics?

>It will be inadequate to the task of determining value
>individuals are capable of "determining value" in a market economy
>somehow, the same individuals are incapable of "determining value" in an industrial democracy
Retarded argument.

On the other hand, the market is garbage at "determining value", in a social sense. Demand moves prices which moves capital across the economy. But demand is controlled by individuals in direct relation with their wealth. Which means that a market economy determines value in relation to rich peoples needs.

And while we're at it, since most industries in the real world have constant marginal costs, it's pretty simple to determine the value of goods even in a centralized economy. Which is not what socialists or communists want anyway, making this thread even more retarded.

The market , demand. You are right about that.

But who tell you the Market will be erased under any "collective organization"?

>>individuals are capable of "determining value" in a market economy
>>somehow, the same individuals are incapable of "determining value" in an industrial democracy

You don't consciously determine value in a market economy, retard. You sacrifice your time and energy for goods or capital intermediaries and then make small decisions every day on how to spend this capital. Millions of people doing this all at once creates a collective value for purchased goods that reflects the real world importance of said goods. Collectivist valuations are by their very nature arbitrations because the decision on how much something should be has nothing to do with how much it's actually desired/needed but based -at best- on how much people THINK it will be desired or needed.

Also,
>value is how much it costs to produce something
Lol

Because that's what a collectivist economy is?

It'd be a pretty lousy collective if it didn't distribute any resources. Remember, sliding scale. It could distribute some resources, say what it takes to survive as a minimum but it would do this with absurd inefficiencies.

>You don't consciously determine value in a market economy, retard.
An individual that decides if spending his money on X or Y is worth it is as capable of participating in a democratic decision of what to produce based on his preferences.
Also, you seem to think that centralized economies decided their production based on arbitrary valuation of goods, which is false. The soviet union produced based on stock movements, which is the equivalent of price signals (a decrease in stock is the equivalent of an increase in price and vice versa). The problem of the soviet union was mainly it's extremely low production efficiency, rather than it's resource allocation. The fastest developing countries in history, such as the asian tigers, developed with heavy state intervention in the allocation of resources (much more rapidly than developing nations adopting neoliberal policies). So you're pretty much wrong in everything.

>Collectivist valuations are by their very nature arbitrations because the decision on how much something should be has nothing to do with how much it's actually desired/needed but based -at best- on how much people THINK it will be desired or needed.
Market valuation has nothing to do with how much (average) people desire/need something, if that is what you are implying.

>Lol
Are you saying that in neoclassical economics the price of a good with constant marginal costs isn't determined by its production costs? Because you'd be very wrong.

Not him, but have you taken an economics class by chance? Wikipedia doesn't count. Under perfect competition, market value is the cost of production once opportunity cost has been factored in. If it were greater, more people would enter the market for that product and its scarcity would decrease, so demand would fall.

Many socialists and leftists in general want everything that's not a natural monopoly to be perfectly competitive, and for natural monopolies to be state enterprises so that the state can reinvest the profit in a socially beneficial way. In fact, one could make the case that Smith himself was a bit of a socialist.

>Because that's what a collectivist economy is?

No
That would be a "economy with no market".

Get your concepts clear first please,for instance you mix capital and money as they are the same thing,

>more an economy is planned the less based on real value it will be

Yes, clearly a barter economy without any of these statist """currencies""" and """banks""" will result in goods with the most real value.

...