[UBJ3kvP1]

I think that an anarcho-communist society won't out perform the capitalist society, but that isn't the purpose. The purpose is for everyone to be happy and satisfied, and a lot of that is dependent on freedom, including economic freedom. In capitalism, most of us are on some level serfs, and not capitalists/etc. We aren't truly free, we are slaves to our economic situation.

The anarcho-communist system is much more free than the capitalist system, it just is much less efficient, and doesn't seem to work very well in large settings.

JM

[DrunkMans]

You ever read diamond age?

I think with the proper technology, we could head towards an anarcho-communist system.

I just think that currently it won't outperform. I might be willing to live in one now, though (if I fit in).

Most importantly, people don't exist to produce, or to increase performance. I agree that states look at them in such a fashion though.

JM

[juyrett]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
You ever read diamond age?

I think with the proper technology, we could head towards an anarcho-communist system.

I just think that currently it won't outperform. I might be willing to live in one now, though (if I fit in).

Most importantly, people don't exist to produce, or to increase performance. I agree that states look at them in such a fashion though.

JM Do you also agree that any system that doesn't outperform capitalism is less likely to replace it than one that does?

[nermise]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


Do you also agree that any system that doesn't outperform capitalism is less likely to replace it than one that does? I think that if people are wise, they will take freedom over slavery, once their basic needs are met.

I agree that capitalism is doing a good job of increasing what people perceive to be their basic needs, in order to keep them in economic serfdom.

Freedom and information might change peopple though.

The 'out-perform' part is only necessary in conflicts between states.

JM

[traiffhetl]

Originally posted by Darius871


Now there's a great question, but there's no real-world examples from which to draw experience. If only the commies could have waited one measly century before starting ****, it just might have worked. Instead they were stupid enough to think they could bureaucratically manage efficient allocation of so many resources entirely on paper. Good luck with that one. The're talking about anarcho-communism which is something that hasn't been tried.

[HRCPda7R]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The're talking about anarcho-communism which is something that hasn't been tried. At a large scale, it has been tried successfully at small community scales (

[yqpY4iw6]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


At a large scale, it has been tried successfully at small community scales (

[JessicaLin]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I think the difference is the level of population that we have now, compared to then. There's no way anarcho-communism can work with population like this.
Why? Create millions of micro communities and viola anarchocommunist Earth.



All you have to do is ensure none of the communities mutates into classical government and goes about conquering the others. All that is needed is a mechanism to isolate "cancerous" communities.

Unfortunately the only way to make such micro communities is to limit freedom of movement kind of defeating the purpose of anarcho communism.

[antilt]

The reason it hasn't been tried is because it would not work. Or perhaps it has, west of Pecos in the mid 1800's? The wild west, every man for himself. Because that's what it would turn into. Human nature is egoistic, you promote yourself and your family over collective good. There are many exceptions, but a majority of the population would turn an anarchist society into the wild west.

[reiruviartugs]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
That is why I have been asking for opinions on planned economy assisted by information technology. Why wouldn't it work with enough information-age automation? Instead of just going to the grocery and complaining that the command economy's managers didn't produce enough X consumer good to meet demand, you could just go to the computer and enter in your basic needs of X for the month, which are automatically submitted to a central database that uses relatively simple algorithms to determine how much of X needs to be manufactured and to where it needs to be shipped. The database then sends that exact information to the relevant factories and shippers.

All it really takes is the combination of basic production/shipping infrastructure, proactive planning, and ubiquitous internet connections to handle the logistics. The real problem is dealing with all the jerks who won't get with the program (e.g. not going to work because they don't have to, wanting types of jobs other than the ones they're assigned to, demanding more than basic needs, succumbing to basic human nature, etc.), but that can be easily solved with some equivalent of Soma, or barring that just some good old-fashioned gulags.

I don't think I'm missing anything, am I?

[exeftWabreava]

The best thing about communism is it's success on a theoretical basis. After that, it's all down hill. Especially the part when the Hoff shows up.

[etdgxcnc]

Basically, we need a new serving class... robots.

JM

[DoctorGordanBens]

Meh, when typing "propose" I was really thinking "suppose." How do you suppose that initially comes about, in a purely academic sense?

[MyLeva]

Originally posted by Darius871
Meh, when typing "propose" I was really thinking "suppose." How do you suppose that initially comes about, in a purely academic sense? At first you said "make it happen" and now you are saying "comes about." I don't propose making it happen. I suppose it could happen if populations were much small enough at some point in the future. I don't predict it though.

[DrKirkNoliss]

One problem is that non-market systems are slow to adapt to new ideas and new technology. I guess it's debatable as to whether this is the result of underperformance in planned and non-market economies in general or if it is specific to resistance or risk-aversion in those systems.

For example, there's a good (but long) article from Fortune magazine from 1985 about the failures of Soviet computing, not necessarily from a technical standpoint but the failure of bureaucratic administration in the country as a whole.

That said, I'm not inclined to believe that any form of collective economics is going to be at all useful simply because the technology improves.

[duexjepevef]

And just how many of those computers were manufactured in Cuba or another state with a similar ideology? Over 400 of those computers were donated by U.S. NGOs, not some success of Cuban central planning.

So maybe I should correct myself; non-market economies will adapt to new technology, they just don't have to be at all responsible for creating any of it.

[9uWzBx4l]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
And just how many of those computers were manufactured in Cuba or another state with a similar ideology? Over 400 of those computers were donated by U.S. NGOs, not some success of Cuban central planning.

So maybe I should correct myself; non-market economies will adapt to new technology, they just don't have to be at all responsible for creating any of it. Central planning probably isn't as good at what is called creative destruction. What it is good at is crisis management. The Cuban society had to deal with the collapse of the USSR and the US embargo, and it's been able to succeed at the goals that it's set for itself fairly well, especially in the healthcare sector.

As far as making computers I don't see any reason to believe that a Cuban style economy couldn't build computers if they set that as a goal. The Cubans haven't set that goal for themselves.

[wepoiyub]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Central planning probably isn't as good at what is called creative destruction. What it is good at is crisis management. The Cuban society had to deal with the collapse of the USSR and the US embargo, and it's been able to succeed at the goals that it's set for itself fairly well, especially in the healthcare sector. Well, they've been meeting the state goals; I doubt the general public is all too happy about the direction that Cuba is going in, considering they've gone from one of the most prosperous to being one of the least prosperous countries in the Western hemisphere.

Originally posted by Kidicious
As far as making computers I don't see any reason to believe that a Cuban style economy couldn't build computers if they set that as a goal. The Cubans haven't set that goal for themselves. I've bolded the operative word; I know that you can't see it because you don't acknowledge the failures of central planning.

[PyncGyncliacy]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
What are the major theoretical advantages of a planned economy and power structure that is not held accountable via classical elections? None, but that isn't communism, and I'm under no obligation to defend your mischaracterization.

[wgX44EEn]

Originally posted by Darius871
The real question is how long should capitalism be allowed to develop all these new goodies before we pull the plug?

No mode of production passes from the scene until all possibilities for it's continuation have been exhausted. In other words, capitalism will continue until it either collapses once and for all because of its own internal contradictions (such as environmental collapse) or it is overthrown by the worker class. The point at which it should be overthrown is when we can do it.