How do you mathematically prove that communism doesn't work?

By contradiction, assume it does, therefore it's mathematically (and therefore objectively) right to keep on trying implementing it

> gives examples
> mathematicallly proven!!!!
Thats inductive reasoning, not even close to whats needed for a mathematical proof

>How do you mathematically prove that communism doesn't work?
You don't. The problems are psychological. It is the same reason you can't mathematically prove that OP is a faggot. But that doesn't make OP any less of a faggot

Nice strawman.

I was talking about mathematical models used by economists, not examples.

> if resources are allocated properly but if they generate most profit, which are not equivalent.

Yes they are equivalent in most of the cases.

>Take hospitals, schools or theaters, they make hardly any profit and yet they're useful

Read basic economics from Thomas Sowell, if there is demand for hospitals, schools or theaters it is possible to make a profit, and no, they won't be exorbitantly high price.

>Price system doesn't tell you if resources are allocated properly

You are misinterpreting my post, it's about allocating resources correctly.

How you are going to efficiently manage a project and its materials if there is no price system? How you are going to know that something is being allocated in a bad way without a price system?

In a market economy it's easy: It's stupid to make a platinum bridge because the price is too high.

Even communist planners will associate costs with activities. (a price system)

Communists just wouldn't allow those prices to be determined by a free market, because they don't trust markets to set the price correctly.

For example, in a free market scarce platinum is diverted to wasteful uses like jewelry instead of useful things like electronics & catalysts.

Definitions needed:
>communism
>to work

>Even communist planners will associate costs with activities.

It's impossible to do that.

>For example, in a free market scarce platinum is diverted to wasteful uses like jewelry instead of useful things like electronics & catalysts.

If people are willing to work and generate wealth to buy platinum jewelry then there is not much of a waste there.

You can't really prove that it doesn't work. You could concievably have something like a planned economy managed by an artificial general intelligence that allocated resources more effectively without a free market and where private property, money, and the state were obsolete.

But, as far as we know, Communist planned economies have generally succeeded at industrializing a country or mobilizing for war, but fail to deliver a variety of consumer goods once this has been achieved. Every successful Communist country was state capitalist eventually, see: Deng Xiaoping.

It's also problematic to manage property claims without a State.

>It's also problematic to manage property claims without a State.

In theory it isn't problematic, but you will enter in anarcho-capitalism grounds from here.

>It's impossible to do that.
Don't be fucking retarded. It really isn't. You just use a linear program. It is an algorithm for resource allocation developed by the Soviets and widely used in top down command & control contexts around the world. (For example US army logistics)

>If people are willing to work and generate wealth to buy platinum jewelry then there is not much of a waste there.

Communists don't consider human psychology to be a valid argument. (And this is why the flaws of communism are not mathematically provable) They would just tell you to stop being such a selfish faggot.

>It is an algorithm for resource allocation developed by the Soviets and widely used in top down command & control contexts around the world. (For example US army logistics)

It's impossible for this algorithm to gather all he information about the resources and do better than the free market.

Also, that never worked in the real world :)

>It's impossible for this algorithm to gather all he information about the resources and do better than the free market.

How can you be on Veeky Forums and not know the difference between hard and impossible?

I think you should fuck back off to /pol/, brainlet.

In anarcho-capitalism the corporation replaces the State, in all instances of actually-existing Communism so far the State replaces or partially owns the corporation.

>How can you be on Veeky Forums and not know the difference between hard and impossible?

Yeah let's try communism again, maybe this time it will have 1% of the free market efficiency and not kill millions of people.

The top down approach has been scientifically proven inefficient.

Mad banter

anarcho-capitalism = property rights without a state, that's what i tried to say.

kek

>Yeah let's try communism again, maybe this time it will have 1% of the free market efficiency and not kill millions of people.

Literally no one in this thread is saying that, microbrain

>The top down approach has been scientifically proven inefficient.
>scientifically proven
>history, sociology
>being science

You're too dumb to breath or reproduce. I don't care if the government is communist or capitalist. All I want is a government that is authoritarian enough that you'll be sterilized.

>They are equivalent in most cases
Prove it

Look at the schools, universities and hospitals in US and Europe, you have to pay for them, they're pretty expensive but European schools are better than American, most American unis (except for like four or five) are worse than free European ones, and American healthcare in spite of being the most expensive in the world (and therefore less accessible to the people) isn't the best in the world, even "Communist", as you would call it, Cuba has better healthcare than US. So in this private, profit motivated system you pay a fortune and get worse services than people in civilised countries get for free (not really for free, but they pay for them in taxes less than Americans do), so people just pay more to fill the pockets of greedy capitalists.

I know what it is in theory, my point was that anarcho-capitalism replaces the State with a corporation that performs its functions and says "If you don't call it a State..."

>Literally no one in this thread is saying that, microbrain

What is a centrally planned economy you dickhead?

>history, sociology

The theory has been tested and failed empirically, i hope you die from anal herpes you brainlet scum.

But costs are not just set once and for all so central planers can just read them of the chart, costs that weren't determined by market don't represent actual usefulness, they are meaningless numbers. If a good is scarce or in big demand its price rises on the market, or drips in other case, representing how hard it's to be produced and how much people want it, "prices" under Communism represent nothing but whims of bureaucrats

The only people who want communism are those who are too useless, dumb and inept to survive in the free market.

>Communism
System that doesn't fail to provide wealth and well living to the people, to work means to provide the best living for the citisens, therefore communism by definition cannot fail

>What is a centrally planned economy you dickhead?
Something that no one is advocating in this thread

>The theory has been tested and failed empirically

>No control group, no repeatability
>scientific

You're either really dumb or too underage b& to be on Veeky Forums

Basic assumptions:
1. The bigger the entropy in a system, the least efficient it is (2nd law of thermodynamics).
2. Any attempt to locally fight the increase in entropy results in an increase of the general entropy of the system, thus making it even less efficient.
3. from 1, 2, we can conclude that the most efficient (or least un-efficient) system is the one in which you let entropy increase naturally, without doing anything about it.

These 3 basic assumptions apply to any system (not just physical, as people mostly believe). This means that the most effective financial system is the one in which entropy is naturally increasing, without any outside intervention.
The wealth distribution with the highest natural entropy is the Pareto distribution, which requires wealth to be distributed very unevenly.
Thus, we can clearly see that communism is not as effective as capitalism.
Q.E.D

Anarchocapitalism is self contradictory, it basically based on executing certain laws and saying there should be no laws nor anybody to enforce them. If you say you have the right to your property I can say I have the right to your property and can take it away from you if I need it, there's no objective law to verify who's right, and your claims about your rights are as valid as mine, so ancap is basically the rule of brutes, whoever has the bigger guns wins

> you have to pay for them, they're pretty expensive

And highly regulated :)

> Cuba has better healthcare than US.

Do you really believe Cuba numbers? They are published by their socialist government and even if they are true, the entire population is paying an exorbitant high price for it, you don't see a lot of Cuba people here in Veeky Forums for a reason.

>profit motivated system you pay a fortune and get worse services than people in civilised countries get for free

Show me an example of a fully privatized, without an awful lot of regulamentations like the USA healthcare system that is worse than a socialized healthcare system.

>it basically based on executing certain laws and saying there should be no laws nor anybody to enforce them.

Nope, go read some David Friedman.

interesting hypothesis, but do you have a citation for relating entropy and income inequality?

>Something that no one is advocating in this thread

What the fuck is socialism/communism?

Film industry. Compare highly artistic films made by European producers, paid (partially or fully) by the government to American films. And no, fast cars, gunshots, explosions, naked boobies and trucks changing into robots don't increase film's artistic value.

>But costs are not just set once and for all

Even back in the 40s planners planners didn't just calculate the allocation once and give up. They iterated

>costs that weren't determined by market don't represent actual usefulness
Communists just define usefulness differently than capitalists. If you're a capitalist ideologue, you define utility(usefulness) as identical to price. But that is an assumption, not a derivation.

>"prices" under Communism represent nothing but whims of bureaucrats
Communists just don't give a shit about the needs of their people. They're calculating based on the needs of their industry. Which is not actually that difficult. (e.g. A steel factory needs X units of coal and Y units of iron. If steel production drops, then we allocate steel to build a new factory)

The problem for communists is the psychology. If you neglect people's need for platinum grills and celebrity apprentice, they stop working.

>What the fuck is socialism/communism?
A thing that people aren't saying we should try again.

It doesn't matter because basic principles state clearly that tax is immoral, and that the only consistent moral theory is ancap.
Who cares about math anyway, it wasn't made to satisfy customers, it's an on-paper system that has never had to deal with the demands of a market.
It's useless bullshit for women-repelling, dweeby nerds.

LOL

I've read enough ancap writers to know I'm right. Private laws will be set not based on what's best and morally right but what appeals to most of customers (of to the owners of private court and police if they have a monopoly), and the private police A has no power over me if I hire private police B with bigger guns. If I steal from you and hire bigger thugs than you did for protection the law is on my side, is it right and just system?

Centrally planned economies have a hard time turning innovations into consumer goods. No one would argue about the talents of Soviet scientists, but their inventions weren't being turned in to new goods for the general population since there were no patent rights or equivalent of entering the market.

>These 3 basic assumptions apply to any system (not just physical, as people mostly believe).

If you had ever heard of complex systems, you wouldn't make such retarded claims.

does anyone have an actual source for this?, all i could find was an email chain describing a "local professor" at a "local college" but nothing definitive

No one wants to watch European trash, not even Europeans, then filmmakers have to lobby for leftist politicians to give them money.

>I've read enough ancap writers to know I'm right.

Hmm seems you know about ancap...

>Private laws will be set not based on what's best and morally right

Do you even NAP?

> and the private police A has no power over me if I hire private police B with bigger guns.

youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

You didn't read enough.

both ancaps and communists are total fucking retards

That is the definition of entropy. It's not about chaos, but the amount of information it takes to describe the distribution in a system. In economic entropy, it refers to the distribution of currency and wealth.

Really? Please explain yourself.

If you not an ancap you are a communist

If you have an artificial intelligence that knows all and controls price, then its not really communism, it is AI slavery.

Progress needs free thinking. Free thinking is forbidden in communism (or else people have their own ideas on how to live their lives, and you don't get them in your communism group) Inventors have to use the same brain with the same thinking patterns for both work and daily life. That applies to any totalitarian society.

Also all clerks are leftists (because leftists want all the control in the clerks' hands) and they are faggots because communism is taken from plato's republic (which is actually titled not republic but politota or smth like that) and plato promoted sodomy and all his filthy disciples distorted our way of thinking about spartans and greeks. they also destroyed other schools of thought and usurped their inventions distorting them ad absurdum.

Is it? Both the currently-existing free market and a hypothetical managerial AGI would just be mechanisms of resource allocation that Just Work in the background without you having to think too hard about it.

>Really? Please explain yourself.

For example, increase inequalities. People will be unhappy because human psychology. The system becomes less efficient.

The problem here is that the actors are sentient. The system is full of regulating loops going every possible way. Even worse, these regulating loops evolve over time. I don't see how you could make any assumptions that is not practically useless in such a system.

By these standards, no mathematical claim can ever be made regarding any real event.
In order to say that these regulating loops exist, you need to be able to prove that they do, AND that they result in worse results than in communism. I don't think that's an easy thing to do...

NAP works if and only if all the parties consent to it, if violating your rights benefits me and I'm stronger than you are what stops me? Will your waving Rothbard's book in from of me stop me?

My statement was a bit bold.

But :
1) Taking "These 3 basic assumptions apply to any system" would require proving they do, the burden of proof is on you for this.
What bothers me, is that claiming it's just an eternal truth is not science, but ideology disguised as science.

2) Of course mathematical modelling, that will require assumptions, can be usefull in some context, and yiel interesting results, but it is important to keep in mind that their scope is restricted.

Economy needs to accept it is a social science.

>That is the definition of entropy. It's not about chaos, but the amount of information it takes to describe the distribution in a system. In economic entropy, it refers to the distribution of currency and wealth.

That is the proof. It's a proof by definition. Entropy is a state function that applies to any complex system. Just because it is mostly used in physics, doesn't mean people should forget that it applies to a lot more.

Except you measure entropy only using money. That is obviously not the only variable of the system.
All you are measuring is the entropy of wealth distribution, not the entropy of the system.

An economic system is simply distributions of wealth. Doesn't matter if that wealth is money, houses, factories... It could be anything, doesn't matter. The entropy is measured according to the sum of all of that wealth, not just the money.

> An economic system is simply distributions of wealth.

The actors are human. Wealth is not the sole root of their economic decisions.

>le money is not everything meme

>Reasonable judgements are memes meme.

Or you can keep with the "wealth", but the amount of things you have to take into account go far beyond anything that can be measured with money.

There is the problem that we live in a spatial world, and moving takes time and is difficult.
There is the problem that we have quite some inertia, and we will keep doing A just because we know A better than B, even though B is "theorically better".
There is the problem that we have moral and political views that impact on most of our decisions.
...

The very criminal "money is everything".

That's the whole point - it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it's about people, or money, or physics, or miniature golf. In every macroscopic system, entropy naturally increases in accordance with Pareto's distribution.
Even though people's motives cannot be quantified, as a macroscopic group, their behavior leads to Pareto's distribution.

Maybe, but then you can't accurately measure entropy. And any attempt to get a good approximation will necessarily be linked to sociology.

Entropy is not measured, it's calculated very precisely, no matter what system you use. Because you can quantify wealth (everything in an economic system has a value), you can calculate the distribution and the entropy.

>economics
>science

Or even better

>Austrian school of economics
>any form of valid serious academia

Kek fuck outta here /pol/

>prove mathematically
>no statistics
Then what the fuck are we supposed to use? You can't prove a priori that something doesn't work.

> Entropy is not measured, it's calculated very precisely
Yes, and calculating it requires input. How else would you get these inputs if not by measuring things ?
But ok my wording is poor, I'm neither physicist nor economist.

> Because you can quantify wealth
Yes it means we can measure it

> you can calculate the distribution and the entropy
of wealth inside the system, not of the system itself.

But that's the system!
The proof is that Communism doesn't work as an economic system because it is inefficient. It doesn't say anything about systems that were not defined.

> But that's the system!

It's not. Your definition
> An economic system is simply distributions of wealth.
is either flawed or unusable in a purely theorical manner.

If wealth is only money, then you are forgetting a big part of the system.
If wealth is everything, it gets very difficult to measure.

Go and enjoy your new Marvel film, kiddo

I think that the definition (as already presented before) is quite clear - wealth is anything with financial value. And naturally, yes, value can be measured and used to calculate distributions.

>whoever has the bigger guns wins
That's true for any system, it's just obvious in anarchy.

as the owner of a company you can run it whatever way you want, no laws disallowing anarcho-syndycalistic pinkie-communist corporations. now, if there aren't any around that means they would be ineffective.

I'm not that guy but communist theory is all about abusing economic models to create super efficient post scarcity societies. How to do this varies depending in the variant of communism but it all revolves around economics.

Really though the problems are more on the side of how to implement the transition (primarily), how to minimize the bureaucracy, and how to manage cultural/social issues.

It works very well as a solution to the problem of overpopulation.

>Literally not having read even an introductory textbook on anarcho-communism but thinking you have a valid opinion or profound insight.
top zoz

nvm, misread post I was responding to

The flaw is that you are not taking into account all the variables of the system. Which means that, for example, you could have two systems with the same wealth distribution but where the outputs are radically different, or that will evolve in different ways.

To come back at inequality, the mindset of the people is very important (and I don't see how it could be associated with wealth in any way).

Take two systems A and B with high inequality.
In system A, people think high inequality is not right. The system is not very efficient (people slack, demonstrate, do whatever they can to make the system inefficient. That a regulating loop I was talking about).
In system B, people are OK with high inequality, and all goes well.

Surely your definition of system and entropy does not take this into account.

And this is where the point of view you were taught is highly criminal.
It basically says
> If everything went according to our theorical predictions, economy would work great.
> So we need people to act the way we assume they do.
> Let's present our assumptions as law of nature, so that people agree with them and we can make our model come true !

Now if the trickle-down part wasn't a meme, and weath was the ultimate goal of everyone, this could maybe have some ground, but I think it was shown enough that things don't work exactly this way. And promoting this negates human nature as much as communist might have.

Consider this definition of economics: "The Study of Scarcity." The reasoning behind this being that the scarce nature of the resources humans need to survive and thrive forces humans to make choices based on their needs and the information at hand.

Then, consider the definition of Marxian communism:

"Communism as the positive abolition of private property as human self-alienation, means the real appropriation of human entity by and for man; thus the complete, conscious return – accomplished inside all the riches of the past development – of man for himself qua social, that is, as a human being. This Communism is, as perfect Naturalism, identical with Humanism, and as perfect Humanism identical with Naturalism; it is the real solution of the antagonism between man and nature, between man and man; the genuine solution of the conflict between existence and essence, between objectivisation and self-affirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. It is history’s solved riddle and is conscious of being the solution. (Ibid)"

Basically, Marxism advocates the abolishment of private property to "free" man from making coerced decisions based on economic circumstance by guaranteeing every person a livelihood.

It follows then that Marxism assumes the abolition of scarcity. The only way his society can occur is when there are enough resources to distribute to everyone in such a manner that no one is unsatisfied.

But again, the proof does not refer to how happy people are, or how successful a different system is. All it says is that Communism is an inefficient economic system., and therefore a flawed one. That is what OP wanted to prove, right? It is much simpler to prove what something isn't than what something is.

However, I am going to claim that scarcity cannot be abolished due to the population dynamics that occur with changes in productivity. Historically when a society is able to produce more and acquire more resources, fertility rates increase and mortality rates decrease, causing population growth to the point of scarcity. For example, before the agricultural revolution civilization was limited to hunter-gatherer clans for the most part.
These groups had low fertility rates and high mortality rates, resulting in little population growth. Therefore, the exponential jump in productivity during the Agricultural Revolution should have rid these societies of their scarcity problems. This is not the case, as the agricultural revolution is associated with rising fertility rates and lower mortality rates, thereby increasing population growth. A similar phenomenon occurred during the industrial revolution, however it was more driven by rapidly declining mortality rates.

Therefore, as civilizations increase their productivity, population increases tend to follow. Because of this dynamic relationship, it will be impossible to organically eliminate scarcity (not counting robots, genetic engineering, etc.). And because scarcity can not be eliminated, people will always have to make economic decisions based on scarcity. Therefore, Marx's Utopian communist society will always remain just that: Utopian and not real.

I'm a bit tired and still have work to do.

What I would say is :
- maybe lack of inequality was a source of inefficiency, or rather lack of regulating loops in how much people earned
- central planning cannot beat distributed planning

Why are fertility rates so low in the world's wealthiest countries, then? Shouldn't we expect higher fertility rates among native populations given the amount of resources they have available?

Thanks for the discussion anyway.

Look at the productivity numbers for the world's wealthiest countries. Worker productivity growth has stalled in the developed world recently, which coincides with the lower fertility rates. Also, the falling mortality rates in these countries means that more resources have to be allocated to taking care of the aging portions of the populations.

>but if they generate most profit
This only applies in the case of a monopolist. In a competitive market supply and demand equally determine the prices, thus leading to an equilibrium satsifying the most participants.

So the planner knows the people's needs better than they do themselves? Does he pretend to be omniscient deity? Or does he - even worse - want to impose his own preferences upon the people? This is why communism is always a totalitarian system treating people as slaves.

It takes only little knowledge of economics to see that the myth of "surplus value" is garbage.

A firm with access to financial markets obviously has an advantage over a firm without access to financial markets.

>it will be impossible to organically eliminate scarcity (not counting robots, genetic engineering, etc.).
lel, so basically your argument relies on ignoring advances in technology. Great, off to /x/ you go.