PDA

View Full Version : Why doesn't Communism/Marxism/Socialism work ?




mikejohnson2006
09-13-2011, 07:43 AM
Why doesn't Communism/Marxism/Socialism work ? The idea that everyone is equal and gets paid the same income or wages did this not work in the Soviet Union was there still a Rich/Wealthy Elite ? Marxists believe in collective ownership of the means of production but was there still Business management and owners in the Soviet Union ? Did the Soviet Union really have Income Equality thank you ?

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

Manifesto
of the Communist Party
1848

II -- PROLETARIANS AND COMMUNISTS

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

Cutlerzzz
09-13-2011, 07:53 AM
Google "Economic Calculation Problem".

TheState
09-13-2011, 07:56 AM
Google "Economic Calculation Problem".

+1 you can't make sound economic calculations without a free market pricing structure.

Original_Intent
09-13-2011, 08:11 AM
There are lots of problems.
Control or planned economy vs. market economy.
No incentive to excel or to do more work than the bare minimum required.
If labor is forced, slaves do not work as hard as a free man, and will try to undermine their overlords (hmmm wonder why U.S. productivity is dropping?)
Planned economies do not want highly educated population as people who know how to think start to wonder why their leaders are leaders...intelligence tends to inspire independent thought, and independent thought is not conducive to central planning.

Matthew5
09-13-2011, 08:17 AM
Lots of questions on "communism", "the rich elite", and such...is this for a research paper?

This should kinda be obvious if you're on RPF. These systems deny the basic human desire for freedom.

Krugerrand
09-13-2011, 08:18 AM
Are you sure it didn't? I'd be curious to learn more about the economic systems of the various native american populations pre European exploration. Some of those could have possibly been classified as working communism or socialism.

A short while back I was chatting w/ my history buff uncle. The subject turned to manifest destiny. It got me to thinking if 'private property' wasn't the 'manifest destiny' that would do in their way of life.

If anybody has some good sources on the economics of the native tribes, please share.

Mahkato
09-13-2011, 08:37 AM
They are just another form of slavery.

See Philosophy of Liberty (http://www.jonathangullible.com/philosophy-of-liberty).

fisharmor
09-13-2011, 08:44 AM
Are you sure it didn't?
I'm pretty sure it did. That is to say, I'm pretty sure the point of communism/ socialism is collectivism, suppression of the individual, and misery.


If anybody has some good sources on the economics of the native tribes, please share.
If the tribes themselves are to be believed, a tribal tradition which they're using to gain exceptions to standing law in a lot of states is gambling.
How exactly does one gamble if one does not own property?
Also, why was there so much fighting and animosity in areas like the southwest and plains, where resources aren't as plentiful, and much more peace and goodwill in areas like the northwest, where there was plenty to eat?
Sure, one can explain a Potlach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlach) as an essentially communist affair - but given that the entire event revolves around people voluntarily giving things to other people, how can that be in line with the idea of public goods?

But to answer the topic:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
First, there are precious few places in the US that don't rent property to tenants in the form of property tax, so the question is, is it working here?
Second, you need to check the record and realize that in cases where people own property, they tend to take care of it, and in cases where they don't own it, they trash it.
There is simply no incentive for people to care for and improve land - ie, progress - if they don't own it. The only option is to point a gun to the head of the tenants - turn them into slaves.


2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
In other words, you do not own either your labor (see above) or the profit from it. In short, your'e a slave.


3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
You're already a slave, so it only makes sense that you can't give what you don't have to other people.


4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Since you were already a slave who can't own anything, what does this matter?


5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Not sure why this is important, since you're already a slave who can't own property and can't keep money anyway.


6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
Gotta keep the slaves content in their slavery.


7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
By, of course, threatening to execute the slaves who will actually be doing the work.


8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Make the slaves efficient. That always works.


9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
This part flies in the face of environmentalism. Well, we did that here, by using state power to chase people out of cities and subsidize pressboard estates. Makes me wonder why envirofreaks are so pro-communism.


10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
More slave reeducation.

Does it work? Does slavery work?
There is no functional difference between a Roman patrician and a member of the inner party.

matt0611
09-13-2011, 08:50 AM
If you want an in depth analysis on why Socialism does not work, I'd recommend the book Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis - Ludwig Von Mises:

http://mises.org/resources/2736

Or the condensed version, Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth:
http://mises.org/resources/2736

Matthew5
09-13-2011, 08:56 AM
If you want an in depth analysis on why Socialism does not work, I'd recommend the book Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis - Ludwig Von Mises:

http://mises.org/resources/2736

Or the condensed version, Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth:
http://mises.org/resources/2736

Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek is another good one

Diurdi
09-13-2011, 09:21 AM
The economic calculation problem is probably the most important, but the incentive problem is also ever present.

leonster
09-13-2011, 09:50 AM
Are you sure it didn't? I'd be curious to learn more about the economic systems of the various native american populations pre European exploration. Some of those could have possibly been classified as working communism or socialism.

And it may very well have worked for Native Americans... I would doubt the empires (Aztec, Inca) were run that way, but the small tribal groups, sure. New research seems to indicate humans are hard-wired to make "tribes" of 50 up to several hundred people, where everyone in the community knows each other, cooperates, and takes care of each other. I would think that could absolutely work, because when everyone knows everyone else, everyone wants to take care of each other, and everyone's role and duty is defined and known to the whole group, the incentives to work hard (rather than face public shame) are there. I'd have no problem with modern people setting themselves up in little communist communes and doing whatever they pleased, *within* that commune.

But civilizations and nations =/= tribes. When you expand the idea beyond the tribal level, everyone is a stranger. Why work hard to benefit strangers, who won't recognize your work?

osan
09-13-2011, 10:10 AM
Why doesn't Communism/Marxism/Socialism work

well lessee...



1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

This fails because, oddly, people are not fond of being robbed.


2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

See point 1, above.


3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

See point 1, above.


4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

See point 1, above.


5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

See point 1, above.

Also, people do not like being treated like imbecile children, even in the cases where they are.


6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

See point 5, above.


7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

See point 5, above.

Also, people are not clones. Therefore, "common plan[s]" fail.


8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

See point 7, above.

The use of "armies" - the militarization of the population, with all it implies in terms of authority and blind obedience.


9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

I cannot even figure out why this is significant.


10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

See point 7, above.

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html[/QUOTE]

Original_Intent
09-13-2011, 10:14 AM
Point 9 is significant because it promotes "factory farms" such as ConAgra and Monsanto and seeks to run family farms out of business. It is a lot easier to control a couple of corporate farms that own most of the land than it is to manage a bunch of independents.

Wesker1982
09-13-2011, 10:17 AM
Some of those could have possibly been classified as working communism or socialism.

That is like saying that your "family economy" is successful socialism. Most families (Mom, Dad, kids etc.) are socialist, and most can manage their household economy. But the more complex an economy, the more central planning fails.

For the OP:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6c11sREuEc&feature=channel_video_title


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alqUqdbfxhk&feature=channel_video_title

Sola_Fide
09-13-2011, 10:27 AM
Communism rests on a violation of the commandments Thou shalt not steal and Thou shalt not covet.

It rests on a rejection of God's eternal law of private property, and therefore is evil and will fail.

Brian4Liberty
09-13-2011, 10:29 AM
The moment that a "pot" of shared resources is created, the taking of those resources will become corrupted.

First, unscrupulous people will attempt to take more than their "fair" share. Next, the people who are delegated the responsibility of distributing the resources will become corrupted, and will favor themselves and their cronies. In the end, shared resources will be nothing more than a method of redistributing wealth from those who donate, to those who have the power of distribution, and those who fraudulently take what they should not.

The gross inefficiencies of central economic planning is a separate, but equal flaw in communism.

nbhadja
09-13-2011, 10:46 AM
Socialism can actually work provided you don't have Rothschild central bank. This would also require non materialistic people and most of the world has been brainwashed to be materialistic. There are some people who are not however.

It would be a more non materialistic society where the basic needs are taken care of while excess luxuries are hard to come by. This would be a society with a more simple life and a lot more free time. It would not be a hit on the economic charts, but for simple living people who want to avoid long work weeks and derive less happiness from material items it is a good fit.

Ideally it would have to be a direct democracy mixed with socialism, in order to prevent a corporatist government.

Krugerrand
09-13-2011, 11:51 AM
And it may very well have worked for Native Americans... I would doubt the empires (Aztec, Inca) were run that way, but the small tribal groups, sure. New research seems to indicate humans are hard-wired to make "tribes" of 50 up to several hundred people, where everyone in the community knows each other, cooperates, and takes care of each other. I would think that could absolutely work, because when everyone knows everyone else, everyone wants to take care of each other, and everyone's role and duty is defined and known to the whole group, the incentives to work hard (rather than face public shame) are there. I'd have no problem with modern people setting themselves up in little communist communes and doing whatever they pleased, *within* that commune.

But civilizations and nations =/= tribes. When you expand the idea beyond the tribal level, everyone is a stranger. Why work hard to benefit strangers, who won't recognize your work?

I also doubt the Aztec and Inca were run that way ... but I'd be curious to learn more about it. I don't think it would be fair to characterize the Seminole as a family like tribe instead of a nation. What was their 'economy' like? Certainly there had to have been trade between 'tribes.'

Krugerrand
09-13-2011, 11:53 AM
That is like saying that your "family economy" is successful socialism. Most families (Mom, Dad, kids etc.) are socialist, and most can manage their household economy. But the more complex an economy, the more central planning fails.

For the OP:
...

I wouldn't call my family socialistic. I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm curious how socialistic the Indian nations may have been.

nbhadja
09-13-2011, 12:22 PM
The Indian tribes were flat out socialist. That is how families are typically run.

I like to call Indians the pure people. Material items, the concept of "private ownership" etc did not plague them.

They had a whole different philosophy...a philosophy of nature.

Bolivia is an example of a socialist family economy country that has improved by leaps and bounds since they kicked out the imperialist corporatist US puppet leaders.

Xenophage
09-13-2011, 12:43 PM
Communism is incompatible with human nature. It works great for ants, but we are not ants.

Read Atlas Shrugged.

fisharmor
09-13-2011, 12:45 PM
I like to call Indians the pure people. Material items, the concept of "private ownership" etc did not plague them.

They had a whole different philosophy...a philosophy of nature.

Collectivist much?
I'm interested in what facet of purity invented the idea of removing the scalp of a live human being.

nbhadja
09-13-2011, 01:11 PM
Communism is incompatible with human nature. It works great for ants, but we are not ants.

Read Atlas Shrugged.

It has nothing to do with communism or government at all.

The Natives were anarchists and lived within the laws of nature. They had no government. Naturally their tribes were socialist just like families are socialist.

When they made a hunt, they made sure every member was fed and taken care of. They made sure every member had access to their shaman or medicinal healer. That is a system with elements of socialism in it. In fact, their distributed their resources in a purely socialist manner.

nbhadja
09-13-2011, 01:14 PM
Collectivist much?
I'm interested in what facet of purity invented the idea of removing the scalp of a live human being.

Take a look at Europe, which has a big history of that (beheading anyone?). The Natives were a lot more peaceful than the arriving Europeans.

But anyways that is off topic and another argument.

Families are naturally collectivists. Native people all over the world (not just Native Americans) were naturally collectivists among their tribes.

fisharmor
09-13-2011, 01:33 PM
But anyways that is off topic and another argument.

Well, then, let's stick to the topic.
How do you explain gambling in native societies, if they were collectivists and shared property?
How do you explain the Potlach? What part of ceremonial gift-giving makes sense if there is only shared property?

nbhadja
09-13-2011, 01:49 PM
Well, then, let's stick to the topic.
How do you explain gambling in native societies, if they were collectivists and shared property?
How do you explain the Potlach? What part of ceremonial gift-giving makes sense if there is only shared property?




Families and tribes are collectivist by nature. They make sure every member gets food, gets medical healing etc. They made sure all of the basic needs were taken care for each tribe member.

When they made a hunt, they made sure each member got food. There is no way around that. The basic needs were taken care of for everyone. Thus they are socialist in that manner of resource distribution . Byeond that, then yes they could do whatever including gamble etc. Though they did not really have many material items since they were not so materialistic.

bunklocoempire
09-13-2011, 01:50 PM
Why doesn't Communism/Marxism/Socialism work?

Some others have already said it.

Because man is man.




Bunkloco

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
09-13-2011, 02:09 PM
Why doesn't Communism/Marxism/Socialism work ? The idea that everyone is equal and gets paid the same income or wages did this not work in the Soviet Union was there still a Rich/Wealthy Elite ? Marxists believe in collective ownership of the means of production but was there still Business management and owners in the Soviet Union ? Did the Soviet Union really have Income Equality thank you ?

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

Manifesto
of the Communist Party
1848

II -- PROLETARIANS AND COMMUNISTS

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

The implementation of Watkinsian Communism is the ideal way to solve this nation's problems both economically and socially. The banking system has persecuted the American people just as much if not more than socialism. So, implement socialism solely in the banking system and no where else. No matter if a person is the head CEO in a banking company or he or she is the very least employee, they get paid the same. No benefits, bonuses, or perks, but just straight pay.
Hallelujah!
Watkinsian Communism is certain to straighten out both the banking system and the social problems created by social communism in this nation.

Cutlerzzz
09-13-2011, 02:11 PM
Are you sure it didn't? I'd be curious to learn more about the economic systems of the various native american populations pre European exploration. Some of those could have possibly been classified as working communism or socialism.

A short while back I was chatting w/ my history buff uncle. The subject turned to manifest destiny. It got me to thinking if 'private property' wasn't the 'manifest destiny' that would do in their way of life.

If anybody has some good sources on the economics of the native tribes, please share.

Those could be classified as working?

KingRobbStark
09-13-2011, 02:30 PM
Families and tribes are collectivist by nature. They make sure every member gets food, gets medical healing etc. They made sure all of the basic needs were taken care for each tribe member.

When they made a hunt, they made sure each member got food. There is no way around that. The basic needs were taken care of for everyone. Thus they are socialist in that manner of resource distribution . Byeond that, then yes they could do whatever including gamble etc. Though they did not really have many material items since they were not so materialistic.

Thats probably one of the reasons why there was no technological advancement.

Even though some native american cultures shared their prey, they were not forced to. It was volantarty.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
09-13-2011, 02:37 PM
Thats probably one of the reasons why there was no technological advancement.

Even though some native american cultures shared their prey, they were not forced to. It was volantarty.

We need to end both the evils of the banking system and socialism as they are mutually inclusive of the other. One can do this with the implementation of the Watkinsian Communism mentioned in a prior post.

Brian4Liberty
09-13-2011, 02:42 PM
The implementation of Watkinsian Communism is the ideal way to solve this nation's problems both economically and socially. The banking system has persecuted the American people just as much if not more than socialism. So, implement socialism solely in the banking system and no where else. No matter if a person is the head CEO in a banking company or he or she is the very least employee, they get paid the same. No benefits, bonuses, or perks, but just straight pay.
Hallelujah!
Watkinsian Communism is certain to straighten out both the banking system and the social problems created by social communism in this nation.

That just sounds like a government mandated "maximum wage". Is that really communism? Is a minimum wage communism?

Voluntary Man
09-13-2011, 02:42 PM
depends on your definition of "works." if it means halting human progress, consuming human beings like meat through a grinder, and crushing the human spirit, then it "works." otherwise, not so much.

in the final analysis, it isn't about what WORKS. freedom is the only just choice. don't get trapped into materialist arguments about which form or degree of slavery produces better material conditions. it's the devil's trap.

ClayTrainor
09-13-2011, 03:05 PM
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." F.A. Hayek

Bordillo
09-13-2011, 03:05 PM
In short because it destroys incentives, and without incentives their is no point in life

nbhadja
09-13-2011, 03:08 PM
Thats probably one of the reasons why there was no technological advancement.

Even though some native american cultures shared their prey, they were not forced to. It was volantarty.

They were happy with no technology though. Their lives were all about fun. You didn't have this whole 9-5 5 days a week be a slave and waste your whole life working away deal like we sadly do. And for what in the end? Money and ipads? The average hunter gatherer tribe only spent about 3 hours a day hunting, gathering etc and the rest of the day was free.....how sweet is that.

All natives shared their food. It was part of their rules. Food is survival. There was no other way but to share. Remember they were anarchists, not capitalists- there is a huge difference between them. They had a group mentality when it came to basic needs. They didn't believe in the ownership of nature, therefore they didn't believe one man can hoard up all of the basic resources as you find in capitalism, which is a man made system not a system of nature.

Their entire philosophy on life was different than the so called modern world.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
09-13-2011, 03:13 PM
That just sounds like a government mandated "maximum wage". Is that really communism? Is a minimum wage communism?

Seems to me the baby-blue conservative guys and the hot-pink liberal gals are doing great regardless of how miserable the people are doing. Making only the baby-blue conservative guys working in the banking industry wear dresses is certain to put a halt to the hot-pink liberal gals trying to make us all wear them.
Look, though it might sound insane, I do feel this is a solution. It's time to move on to other problems. If you want to be a banker, expect not to make anything. This way, the best bankers work for the people and not against them.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
09-13-2011, 03:20 PM
In short because it destroys incentives, and without incentives their is no point in life

One has to first shrink our government existentially to tending to the contentment of Americans. After that is accomplished, then people will understand tyranny to be the worst pollition against mankind. As it stands now, any incentive to profit will result in further pollution.
Gee, why doesn't anyone see this?

awake
09-13-2011, 03:38 PM
They [socialists in power] have no prices, no means to add up the costs of doing anything, they have no way of discerning what needs to be done. They ignore and deride the absolute importance of profits; it is critical for pointing to what needs are best being served and what needs are to be next served...Complete socialism is complete slavery, starvation and death due to the elimination and ignorance of this essential point.

Since socialism has been proven not to work exactly because of this point, this realization only leads to one conclusion: Free exchange, liberty and profit is the only way. The most exciting part of all of this is that we haven't even taken the plastic wrap off the engine of capitalism, its power has only been test driven in the last few hundred years. A complete free market is something that has not been realized in human history, and Ron Paul and all of us are simply helping to pave the way.

Marx was dyslexic in his pronouncements, government and the idea of slavery is simply a period of transition in human history to something much better than any of us can ever imagine. It is not capitalism that will "wither away", it is government that is dying right before our very eyes. This is why we fight for the truth, it takes us closer to that reality.

As well, since Socialism can never work, it also points out a definite preference in the arrangement of our affairs...:) "Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God."

osan
09-13-2011, 05:12 PM
Point 9 is significant because it promotes "factory farms" such as ConAgra and Monsanto and seeks to run family farms out of business. It is a lot easier to control a couple of corporate farms that own most of the land than it is to manage a bunch of independents.

Functionally irrelevant, save for maintaining a phnony baloney illusion of "equality".

Note how the progressive/marxist contradicts himself with all the blather of equality on the one hand and the incessant whining about "diversity" on the other.

osan
09-13-2011, 05:35 PM
Socialism can actually work provided you don't have Rothschild central bank.

No, it cannot. The precepts upon which socialism is based lie in diametric conflict with basic human nature. It is doomed to fail in the very structure of the concept. Socialism could be said to epitomize the very definition of FAIL.


This would also require non materialistic people and most of the world has been brainwashed to be materialistic.

We are as much material beings as anything else. Brainwashing has nothing to do with it. It is in our very fabric.


There are some people who are not however.

Irrelevant. There is no valid moral principle you could name that obliges me or anyone else to live according to such dictates as those you imply.

I
t would be a more non materialistic society where the basic needs are taken care of while excess luxuries are hard to come by.

Not your place to make such decisions for others. If I like flying around in a Citation X and can afford to do so, neither you nor anyone else has anything to say about it.



This would be a society with a more simple life and a lot more free time.

This presumes that simpler life is universally desireable, as is more free time. I know tons of people that do not like free time. At all.

This, or perhaps you feel that you are entitled to impress this value upon everyone else, including those who are not interested in it. Are you that that sort of person?


It would not be a hit on the economic charts, but for simple living people who want to avoid long work weeks and derive less happiness from material items it is a good fit.

Then build such a community of like-minded people and leave the rest of us alone. See how simple it is?


Ideally it would have to be a direct democracy mixed with socialism, in order to prevent a corporatist government.

I do not think you have the first idea of what it is you are advocating. This combination would be an unmitigated hell for a great many people. May I take it that that is OK... for the greater good and all that?

osan
09-13-2011, 06:14 PM
The Indian tribes were flat out socialist.

No, they were not. They were far closer to what we call "libertarian" than anything else. There were no rulers. Every man was free and the sharing that you so erroneously conflate with "socialism" was AGORIST - pure voluntarism. They held and respected the concept of private property. The ONLY place where this was not held related to real estate because they did not believe that the earth could be owned. All other private property existed and was sternly respected.

The chiefs were not kings or rulers of any other sort. They were leaders who were chosen for their wisdom. The moment they proved themselves unworthy to the position, they were no longer chief. The shaman was in a similar position. These people had ZERO authority to tell people what they could or could not do. Read that last sentence several hundreds of billions of times until it becomes clear to you and you never forget it.

Indians were anarchic in nature. Everything was done by agreement and never through force. If a warrior disagreed with a chief's recommendation, he could simply ignore it, challenge the chief, or leave the tribe.


I like to call Indians the pure people.

Do you know any? I spent many years in the sweat lodges - Navajo, Lakota, Hopi. They are people. No more or less pure than any other. The opinion you offer has, in my experience, been a hallmark of those who speak with no first hand knowledge.

The Indians were often peaceful. Just as often they were warlike and when they fought they were generally brutal to make the Christians green-envious.


Material items, the concept of "private ownership" etc did not plague them.

Doesn't plague me, either - yet I hold such property. Your implication is disproved by contradiction.

QED.


They had a whole different philosophy...a philosophy of nature.

Oy. Their way of life was different in large part because they had not arrived at the conceptual basis for something else. I am not saying our way is better, but the truth was that when Indians encountered "western" technologies such as knives, guns and so forth, they typically went apey over them. They wanted them as much as we do. Not so different after all.


Bolivia is an example of a socialist family economy country that has improved by leaps and bounds since they kicked out the imperialist corporatist US puppet leaders.

Bolivia is a dictatorship at the bottom of it. How charming.

Hold all the unrealistic idealized notions of other cultures that you want. Go live as they do if you prefer. If it works for you, great. Just leave the rest of us out of it. That is what freedom is about. :)

osan
09-13-2011, 06:20 PM
In short because it destroys incentives, and without incentives their is no point in life

Wrong wrong wrong.

Not everyone looks for incentives in the way I take you to mean it.

It fails because socialism destroys FREEDOM.

low preference guy
09-13-2011, 06:23 PM
Stated differently, why doesn't legalizing theft make everyone rich?

QueenB4Liberty
09-13-2011, 06:28 PM
Because sooner or later you run out of other people's money. :D

Bordillo
09-13-2011, 07:31 PM
Wrong wrong wrong.

Not everyone looks for incentives in the way I take you to mean it.

It fails because socialism destroys FREEDOM.

First of all lets distinguish some ideas from each other as I understand them

Socialism- Creation and expansion of government welfare through taxation and the redistribution of wealth

Communism- All property is owned by the government

Socialism puts a disincentive on investment and capital creation by private investors which is proportionally related to rate at which it taxes compared to the risk involved in the investment.

Communism- While practical in very small communities, on a large scale it falls apart. When the government owns all property and all wealth, there is no incentive for anyone to do anything but the bear minimum. Why would I waste time studying to be a doctor, when I could just work at a gas station for the same money. Essentially communism is slavery, the government owns you and tells you what to do and where to work. I don't think i should have to say anymore as to why this is a terrible and impractical idea for government in any society greater than a small group of people

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
09-13-2011, 07:33 PM
Stated differently, why doesn't legalizing theft make everyone rich?

We need to forget about the economy to focus instead on reestablishing our nation as a Republic. As it stands now, any economic theory can be made possible as we tend to live more in a fascist society. For example, I'm sure an economist could be found to back the "chaos theory" of economics: a way of boosting the economy by converting bills for services over into available income. Instead of the customer paying bills as is normal, he or she takes the bill for goods to the bank, endorses the back of it, and then deposits it into their account as income. This theory boosts the economy because people are happy to consume more. Example: A person would normally be upset about receiving a huge light bill, of course, but not in the world of the new Obamanamics. No, this person would rejoice!
See, when people own the counterfeiting machines, anything is possible. Forget about all that globalist nonsense as those seemingly rich people are too busy wasting their times working and being productive to be considered supremely powerful. No, that designation goes to the Washingtonians, with these folks being those lawyers in power and in control of the counterfeiting of production.

mrsat_98
09-13-2011, 07:47 PM
Why doesn't Communism/Marxism/Socialism work ?

Maybe you are looking at the symptom and not the disease, Powerful central bank like the Federal Reserve.

Brian4Liberty
09-13-2011, 09:44 PM
You didn't have this whole 9-5 5 days a week be a slave and waste your whole life working away deal like we sadly do. And for what in the end?

Now you are talking. The forty hour work week is completely arbitrary. Especially in times like these, it makes sense to reduce the work week. We currently have a excess supply of labor. If you can't do the work in a four day work week, hire more people!

Instead, in many salaried positions, the work week has expanded to 5x11 with an extra 8 hours on the weekend for fun. No increase in pay.

Cutlerzzz
09-13-2011, 09:58 PM
Now you are talking. The forty hour work week is completely arbitrary. Especially in times like these, it makes sense to reduce the work week. We currently have a excess supply of labor. If you can't do the work in a four day work week, hire more people!

Instead, in many salaried positions, the work week has expanded to 5x11 with an extra 8 hours on the weekend for fun. No increase in pay.

http://econin1lesson.blogspot.com/2009/09/eiol-spread-work-schemes.html

Brian4Liberty
09-13-2011, 10:30 PM
http://econin1lesson.blogspot.com/2009/09/eiol-spread-work-schemes.html

I am certainly not talking about Union style division of labor.

Actually, this article can not make a case against the idea of working fewer hours per week, except for the fact that there will be some wage depression, offset by additional leisure time. And what do we have today? Being unemployed is 100% percent wage deflation, unless you want to count unemployment insurance and welfare payments for the unemployed, who are now non-productive, and it comes out of the remaining workers wages as taxes anyway! And many, many people are under-employed right now, taking any where from 10% to 80% pay cuts. Today's reality is far worse than the very minor downside speculated by this article.

My main point is that 40 hours per week is a completely arbitrary number, and most people do value more leisure time.

From your link:


At the time of writing this, there are many schemes for "averting unemployment" by enacting a thirty-hour week.

What is the actual effect of such plans, whether en- forced by individual unions or by legislation? The first is a reduction in the standard working week from forty hours to thirty without any change in the hourly rate of pay.
...
Let us take the first case. We assume that the working week is cut from forty hours to thirty, with no change in hourly pay. If there is substantial unemployment when this plan is put into effect, the plan will no doubt provide additional jobs.
...
For in order that the new workers will individually receive three-fourths as many dollars a week as the old workers used to receive, the old workers will themselves now individually receive only three-fourths as many dollars a week as previously. It is true that the old workers will now work fewer hours; but this purchase of more leisure at a high price is presumably not a decision they have made for its own sake: it is a sacrifice made to provide others with jobs. [B4L: this completely ignores the cost of government unemployment and welfare payments, coming out of the pockets of the remaining workers].

Brian4Liberty
09-13-2011, 10:30 PM
Dup post, forum is a bit buggy today.

acptulsa
09-13-2011, 10:35 PM
If it's from each according to his ability and from each, according to his needs, what's the percentage in being able to work? Much better deal to be needy.

Cutlerzzz
09-13-2011, 11:38 PM
I am certainly not talking about Union style division of labor.

Actually, this article can not make a case against the idea of working fewer hours per week, except for the fact that there will be some wage depression, offset by additional leisure time. And what do we have today? Being unemployed is 100% percent wage deflation, unless you want to count unemployment insurance and welfare payments for the unemployed, who are now non-productive, and it comes out of the remaining workers wages as taxes anyway! And many, many people are under-employed right now, taking any where from 10% to 80% pay cuts. Today's reality is far worse than the very minor downside speculated by this article.

My main point is that 40 hours per week is a completely arbitrary number, and most people do value more leisure time.

From your link:

Having everyone work fewer hours would depress everyones wages, causing even bigger economic distortions than having some people lose everything. Virtually nobody would be able to pay their bills anymore as opposed to 10%.

That article was written by Henry Hazlitt in 1947, after experiencing something far worse than anything today.

Brian4Liberty
09-14-2011, 11:14 AM
Having everyone work fewer hours would depress everyones wages, causing even bigger economic distortions than having some people lose everything. Virtually nobody would be able to pay their bills anymore as opposed to 10%.


Not sure what you mean there. "Nobody" could pay their bills if they made a little less?

Why don't we all work 7 days a week if more hours is so great for the economy? Would that fix everything?

40 hours per week is arbitrary. There is no disputing that.

Shredmonster
09-14-2011, 11:24 AM
It does not work because 1) it goes against the natural order of things (like the free market and man's nature) 2) it is a coercive system of government
3) it stifles ingenuity and progress

It was discovered for the very first time in the renaissance period that if you give man freedom and let him keep the rewards of his effort an unbelievable amount of progress and ingenuity is attainable. Our founders based the concept of the Constitution on this period of history.

Collectivism is a system where you get ahead by doing favors for those in charge instead of inventing things to improve your fellow neighbors life.

There is a whole book written from real life experience and history -

Read Fredrick Hyacks book.