Communism

Because in industrialized capitalist societies, the ones that could give rise to true Marxian capitalism, the working class and the government have been able to find enough compromises to avoid full-on commie revolution. The only actual Communist revolutions that have happened are in third-world agrarian societies, which aren't a good match for centralized planning, and in many cases the same factors that made the pre-Revolutionary government corrupt have the same effect on the new Communist government.

Communism cannot be achieved. It's a perfect system that requires perfect people.

Read this, and you will see communism is an achievable goal right now.

So, this is true.

ITT: don't true capitalism

>yfw jesus was a proto-commie

why are lefty memes always bastardizard versions of /pol/ memes? not even a /pol/fag but come on, you have to try harder here. shit's just straight pathetic.

>I don´t like your memes.

And your argument is?

Tbh He wasn't, Jesus was anti-materialist.

more of an observation than an argument. if you are always aping the opposition and following their cues, you will never get ahead.

This should include national socialism aswell

it probably exists in various small communities

it has failed every time on a larger scale due to trying to implement it from the top down (leading to corrupted authoritarian structures), antagonism from outside forces, or a combination of both.

>the pope's interpretation means more than words from jesus's mouth

fucking catholicucks

But it is tried

It never exists it's transitory stage from socialism to communism because communism is dumb.

Nope

Poverty isn't a cause of a system. It's created because there will always be idiots in the world that are too lazy, bad with money etc. A very small percentage of people are actually plain up unlucky. Capitalism doesn't kill because people dislike capitalism. Communism does.
Either way you have to acknowledge that there is never a perfect system. With capitalism it's that small percentage that are unlucky enough to not get good jobs.

No, everything from Krakatoa to the extinction of the cave bear is the fault of capitalism.

Real communism is stateless

Poverty is made artificially because Capitalism need poverty to function

>unlucky enough to not get good jobs

Unlucky enough to not own the means of production. those how own them can force you to do anything if the other options is die by famine.

...

Stupid people don't deserve anything.

Now do something like this with capitalist states.

The bar is set pretty low since they include the Zapatistas.

t. selfenlighted "genius"

And you and the market will decide who deserve anything I presume.

"Work or starve" isn't a capitalist paradigm, though, it's an eternal condition of human existence.

The scarce resources with alternative uses don't suddenly become non-scarce because the people running things are socialists; they are simply allocated using non-market considerations. If you think that there are people enlightened enough to allocate these resources justly, then I think that's fairly naive, but you can't just claim that nobody starves, is oppressed, or suffers under socialism. Comparisons can be made, but I think that if we examine standards of living, availability of goods, and effectiveness of resource allocation, then socialism never wins.

See

"the market" is incapable of deciding anything, that's just a term used to describe whether someone produces value for other people.

>le froggo pic xD

what are its main theses?

>Work or starve" isn't a capitalist paradigm, though, it's an eternal condition of human existence.
it's historically wrong

food just falls into people's laps? Even hunter-gatherers had to work. When was it the case in human history that you could do no work and still get the resources necessary to survive and thrive?

Automatization, cyber planning economy and democratic control of the means of productions.

>cyber planning economy
so we're here assuming that those programming the computers will invent algorithms complex enough to transmit the same information on relative scarcity and requirements as prices do today. I'll believe it when I see it, honestly. Computer programmers are human as well, and assuming that they will come up with Pareto efficient resource allocation is kind of a long shot.
>Automatization
this is a hard one to argue with, as it's already happening.
>democratic control of the means of productions
So, we're talking about something like a joint-stock company, just spread out over the entire economy, or what?

>work for yourself=work for them (capital owners) for breadcrumbs.

except that labor without capital is highly unproductive labor - compare a hard-working person with a shovel to a lazy person with an earth-mover and you'll see what I mean. The labor theory of value isn't even espoused by orthodox Marxian economists anymore.

The Socialistic future there is more likely to look like Fallout than the picture you're talking about because there's just no way rich property owners and bureaucrats will give up their power and privilege, and they have armies and nuclear weapons.

>so we're here assuming that those programming the computers will invent algorithms complex enough to transmit the same information on relative scarcity and requirements as prices do today. I'll believe it when I see it, honestly. Computer programmers are human as well, and assuming that they will come up with Pareto efficient resource allocation is kind of a long shot.

The computers will not do all the job, the programmers will correct any error just like this day, just see the stock market, which is mostly computerized.

>So, we're talking about something like a joint-stock company, just spread out over the entire economy, or what?

It´i s similar approximation yes, the workers have a significant part in the decision taking on the company and more equality in the income. I think all this is more doable now with the current technology.

see the image

Marx wasnt a slavshit or a chingchong.

>The computers will not do all the job, the programmers will correct any error just like this day, just see the stock market, which is mostly computerized.
I see your point, but computers don't do their work in a vacuum - they require direction by human beings, at least in their initial configuration. The fact is, that even if it's done in a computer-efficient manner, we still need parameters by which scarce resources with alternative uses are allocated. The assumption that this will be more Pareto efficient than free bidding is what I'm having a problem with.
>It´i s similar approximation yes, the workers have a significant part in the decision taking on the company and more equality in the income. I think all this is more doable now with the current technology.
Joint-stock companies are woefully inefficient regarding democratic rule, though. The shareholders rarely have any direct say in, for example, who is hired to run the company and how much they are paid. What technological solutions for this are posited in the book?

If the class consciousness remains sleep and divided then this will happen. It the workers task to avoid this possibility.

Numbers don't matter if someone has nuclear weapons and it's a matter of survival.

>nuke the workers who maintain the system

>The fact is, that even if it's done in a computer-efficient manner, we still need parameters by which scarce resources with alternative uses are allocated.

It's not only about efficiency but impartiality and common management. Today there are many resources wasted because capitalist see not profit in them and many potencially good tecnologies are discarted for the same reasons.

>The shareholders rarely have any direct say in, for example, who is hired to run the company and how much they are paid. What technological solutions for this are posited in the book?

"For economic planning we envisage a system in which teams of professional economists draw up alternative plans to put before a planning jury which would then choose between them. Only the very major decisions (the level of taxes, the percentage of national income going towards investment, health, education, etc.) would have to be put to direct popular vote."

Chapter 13. On Democracy

ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf

It reflects his teaching when it came to condemning communism, it doesn't mean more than Christs words but takes from what he taught.

warsaw pact, soviet union, china, and SEAsian commies were more than capable of running a successful economy independent of the rest of the world.

communism is the end goal not the means, socialism (marx/lenin/mao/stalinisums) are how we would get there. you can be communist in that you are working (or claim to be) towards the goal of communism but it is not yet there.
Why has it never been achieved? its a pretty lofty goal and is often hated by those it wants to take power from (who low and behold have power over all of western civilization) and thus is often attacked when ever it appears.
the soviet union lost its revolutionary furver after Stalin and kinda just became a bureaucratic police state. China got derailed by (god) DENG (it) and all the smaller ones have had middling successes but never the radical enough changes needed.

>It's not only about efficiency but impartiality and common management. Today there are many resources wasted because capitalist see not profit in them and many potencially good tecnologies are discarted for the same reasons.
My contention is that socialist planners, however enlightened they may be, have not had a considerably better track record in the allocation of resources. If you think that they would do it better, then you have to establish this. The fact that the capitalist system is wasteful isn't in contention - at least, not by anybody with any experience of how businesses are run. The contention is that centralized planning would do it more efficiently, and with less waste, which has not been established. Simply saying "computers would do it" isn't satisfactory, because computers rely on human input.
>"For economic planning we envisage a system in which teams of professional economists draw up alternative plans to put before a planning jury which would then choose between them. Only the very major decisions (the level of taxes, the percentage of national income going towards investment, health, education, etc.) would have to be put to direct popular vote."
Who would make up this planning jury? How could we ensure that they would not abuse their power? How could we bridge the necessary knowledge gap among those who vote on their plans? These are the problems with central planning that I have yet to see treated adequately.
How would the teams of professional economists have sufficient knowledge of the resources that they allocate to make their decisions with a much knowledge of the situation as individual actors tend to?

I now you have your doubt about the system and have concern about the planners but what you need to understand is all this managing and planning is intendend to be open to any correction, vigilance and verification by poeple (not only the economists). In this system, planning, for example, is not under government control but under a supervisory committee of ordinary citizens, who, since they are drawn by lot, will be predominantly working people. The powers of demarchic councils would be either regulatory or economic or both.

>were more than capable of running a successful economy independent of the rest of the world.
Not without starving millions of their own people and sending anyone who disagreed with their narratives to gulags

Okay, sorry for the multiple responses to the one post, but I read the relevant sections of the book, and found them to be frankly economically illiterate.
First example, from chapter 4:
The analogy of the "dumb" and "intelligent" heating system is flawed for a single reason. The temperature in a room is one variable. Prices are a response to a multitude of variables, including demand for the good, scarcity of the resources needed to produce the good (which also includes demand for all the other goods made from the same raw materials, innovations in their production, profitability of those enterprises, etc...), and the price of labor. The notion that this can be planned and set without any type of feedback loop is a fallacy.
Take, for instance, the demand for typewriters. Before computer word processing, this would have been a variable between x and y, depending on how many people wanted typewriters, the cost of the steel, plastic, and equipment used to make them (which reflect the demand for other goods made out of steel - cars, refrigerators, airplanes, and any number of other things). When computer word processing became widespread, the demand for typewriters suddenly plummeted.
Allocating resources to the production of typewriters would then become ludicrous, because people didn't want them anymore. The labor, materials, and capital investment would have stayed the same as they were before (give or take slight variation), but the demand would have fallen. Thus, consumers of goods punish those who mis-allocate resources based on their own needs.
Now, in a static world, strict economic calculation would be possible, but it's important to note that the world is never static. There are always factors that effect the relative scarcity and abundance of resources, and these always ruin the fantasies of the economic planners.
I recommend Ludwig von Mises' article Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth for a more in-depth treatment of this idea.

while I do have my doubts about centralized control as a principle, my more pressing concern is with the notion that centralized planning is potentially more efficient in allocating resources than competitive pricing would. I draw you to the following quotation:

"Only through the undervaluation or overvaluation of products is it forcibly brought home to the individual commodity producers what society requires or does not require and in what amounts. But it is precisely this sole regulator that the utopia advocated by Rodbertus among others wishes to abolish. And if we then ask what guarantee we have that necessary quantity and not more of each product will be produced, that we shall not go hungry in regard to corn and meat while we are choked in beet sugar and drowned in potato spirit, that we shall not lack trousers to cover our nakedness while trouser buttons flood us by the million..."

That was Engels, by the way. In 1846.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/pre-1885.htm

Philippe's line should be changed to "where am I?"

I think you use a very complex example to begin, first at all, the prices are previously calculated according the conversion of labour-time theory, and feedback is not only done by the workers and the planners but by the people itself (in a sort of artificial market). The more bigger is the distribution and allocation of resources more feedback and control is required to satisfy the demands of the people. All this is possible with the interjection of democratic mechanism in the production chain. The system itself is progressive and require the participation of all to work, computers are a mere tool to achieve that in a proper scale.

>the prices are previously calculated according the conversion of labour-time theory, and feedback is not only done by the workers and the planners but by the people itself (in a sort of artificial market)
If the prices are set - i.e. not able to be bid up or down, then feedback cannot occur except in the production of surplus in one area and deficit in the other. See the Engels quote in >The more bigger is the distribution and allocation of resources more feedback and control is required to satisfy the demands of the people.
Exactly my point. The notion that this can be adequately planned for ahead of time is hubris.
>All this is possible with the interjection of democratic mechanism in the production chain.
Free bidding on prices is a democratic process as well, unless you are coerced directly into buying one product and not the other (i.e. monopoly).
>The system itself is progressive and require the participation of all to work
it requires not only participation, but perfect information concerning all the variables required to set prices, which no individual person can be assumed to possess, moreover, an individual not acquainted with the industry that they are regulating cannot be expected to understand a business as well as someone who operates in that industry. No number of computers can solve these problems.

Another thing you need to take in consideration its the system is not intended to be imposed immediately but progressively in phases especially in those crucial sectors (like public services, energy water production, etc). Sector (like entertainment by example) than can't be completely controlled but regulated according the requirements of the people and the directrix of the committees.

That answers none of my questions, though. A less efficient system gradually phased in probably isn't going to cause the same kinds of suffering that existed in Red China and the USSR in their early days, but it still doesn't make the system efficient.

It was tried. Just end this meme already.