Certainly some people use a sort of social balancing mechanism in decision making that modifies their behavior but not all. It is a far leap to make the claim that people, as in all people, are regulated by this in all their actions.
Arguments like this undermine the naturally cooperative nature of people by explaining it all away as pure selfishness, the rebranding of cooperation from being socially centered to being personally centered.
If these people succeed we will see nothing less than a complete breakdown of society within a few generations. Social cooperation will be replaced more and more with social coercion as the selfishness of personal desire overcomes the perrogative of cooperation.
While people obviously do the physical labor, some organization and coordination is necessary. Some form of decision making structure will still be needed. This could be called something other than government, but would not make it something different.
Nobody seems to have any respect for markets. Markets give…and… they take.
All these people who believe that the gov is irresponsible and the market will protect them will someday be in for a rude awakening. I’m not saying don’t tuck money away- but
A market can and will toss out your 30 years of 401k money in a single day. The problem of capital is it doesn’t work in a natural state for the most people. It simply goes to be ‘best’ and that is almost always a small number.
I’m personally of the view that one day you’ll be able to get a new home built for 50k on par for what a 250k house costs today. When that happens, the dollar amount needed for a retiree will be much, much lower.
Something fundamental is wrong with real estate(I don’t want to go OT) and when and if this is corrected, the debate on SS and retirement will change imho.
If in communism, capital is held by the collective, and controlled by a select group, how is this significantly different from capitalism? The only difference I see is the method of selecting those in control, and the dogma espoused by them
Well, like was posted above, the markets provided better signals for where to allocate production/reduce production. It allowed much more information on the state and conditions of economy.
But even more fundamental is the notion of property. As an individual capital owner I am much more responsible to the use of that money than where a common interest allocates its use.
Think of it like this-
I decide to manufacture and sell automobiles. I study cars very hard, hire in good people, and compete for several hundred million dollars of which to begin my enterprise. This company is my baby.
Or
The gov creates a co-op counsel to build cars. They designate who will work and in what role, and decide what type of car to build. Everyone is paid near equal, every month the same number of units is built. As a` citizen I am not be able to compete with this company, and when I applied to work there, they offered me the janitor job since in school I received a good grade in cleaning.
In one system a janitor, in the other an owner. If I had a dollar for every story such as this…
please read or re-read the opening post.
responsibility is an assumption…but either way this really does not address the basis of the op. and like I stated in the op
I would like to deal with communism as an economic system first.
some people prosper adhering to capitalism, while some people do not. Some people prosper adhering to communism, while some people do not.
which one is ‘better’ changes from vantage point.
This, and your examples, illuminate very real dysfunctions in the attempts to practice communism by previous and current socialist states.
I do not find them particularly damning to the concept of communism.
Your examples are those of poor decision making, which is largely effected by the method of determining which individuals make the decisions.
A person with the ambition and characteristics needed to create a large corporation in a capitalist system, is not likely to be made a janitor in a socialist system, unless they anger someone in power.
The ability to not anger those in power is one of the requisite skills in any system.
The Universal Enfranchisement of all individuals is compatible with any system.
In a completely capitalist system, Enfranchisement capital provides a durable and inelienable base for the capitalist to build on, like the few who are born with trust funds.
In a communist system, Enfranchisement capital provides a durable and inalienable base income, and the individual ownership, and sovereignty that is lacking in current socialist systems.
Thats exactly it- the individual should make the decision. “To Each according…” Is replaced by “By Each according…”
I haven’t launched into Hayek just yet. Skimmed it on the surface, but I can see what he’s talking about and saying that trying to centrally plan a self-organizing but chaotic process is in futile.
This is not to say there aren’t any problems, in the USA studies show about half of workers are unhappy in their jobs. Most people I know have feelings of meaninglessness and an alien nature to their occupations.
I volunteer to be a communist guinea pig, winverawin. I can quit my work and travel anywhere in Canada with little more than a statement of faith. Where would I go? What should I do? Test my conviction.