Just a quick question

In a communist or socialist society and without a free market, how do you know a good is worth the cost to make it?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure
marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj2/1998/isj2-080/mcgarr.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

the government tells you

and before anyone asks, no I don't have any sauce, I post her every now and then in hopes that someone might know who she is

but how does the government know?

whats to stop them from making something until it runs out?

...

read thomas sowell and be le epic libertarian intellectual today!1!!11

well is there an answer?

lol whose thomas sowell?

Is he one of the niggers that Sup Forums likes?

Gummint draws up a (((plan))) where they simulate the entirety of economy and try to predict which prices would fit

*gubmint

and we all know how good those soviet planners were at their jobs

>how do you know a good is worth the cost to make it?

Why should this even be true? What if I buy $1000 of steel and hand forge very expensive yet brittle shitty useless stump knives.

Why would the knives be worth the cost to make em?

Whatthefuck are you even asking? Are you retarded?

BECAUSE YOU LOVE AND UNCONDITIONALLY TRUST THE PARTY COMRADE

Yeah, communism is dumb.

They spy on non-communist societies for ball park estimates of costs and values.

Its utility and the general public's desire for it. You know... free market/capitalist principles

Is that really how its done?

Alright lets do a thought exercise, lets say we live in a commies perfect fantasy world, how do we know a good is worth the cost to make it?

You don't.
The government guesses at what the price should be. There are millions of different prices, and government cannot possibly be an expert in every single one of these different sectors.
So, what happens? Government will, in all likelihood, pour too many resources into producing one good and not enough into another.
Hence, you'll have massive lines for pants, but no lines for the guy with a huge surplus of wooden furniture that he cannot possibly sell.

Don't question the government, comrade.

What the shit are you talking about? The people would get together (probably not in person) and agree on what needs to be created and afterwards a planning committee (or computer algorithm) would calculate how to allocate workers to manufacture said commodity. The price would be equal to the the amount of crystallized labour in the commodity, no more, no less.

What the fuck are you talking about, Marx?

A bureaucrat is designated as the official economic planner for a certain product, who then fills out 20 forms to the politburo, who after 3 months review the forms, who then designate several underlings to survey the land and calculate demand for the product, who after 10 months have to report back to the politburo and fill out more forms to the politburo, when one of the underlings is suspected of being a traitor and questioning the government, who is then sent to the gulag, which requires that the entire thing be done all over again, and after 8 months the forms are then filed and sent to the politburo, go through 20 layers of bureaucracy, when then errors are found and they have to go through 20 layers of bureaucracy again, and after 2.5 years you have the products you want and their designated prices implemented into the next 5-year plan.

She's fucking beautiful user. Good luck in your search.

Is there some historical context to this?

Im not doubting you m8 but I feel like I've heard of this sort of thing happening before

I'm trying to learn more about communism and its effect on reality

>Soviet failed
>Soviet was the second greatest country in the world after WWII, despite unimaginable losses

Pick one propagandacan.

And how do you explain this:
>China failed
>Made in China

>China failed
>Made in China

They embraced the market Swede, I don't think they're gonna try that maoist bullshit again

Emily R Thorne

What are you talking about?
I said that China was massively poor before privatization. Why are you inferring that I said it failed?
They were failing before CAPITALISM.

Strange guy.

I pick Soviet failed and I pick pic related for China. Remind me when Mao died and Deng began to privatize the economy?

>Emily R Thorne

Oh my God, thank you user, after all these years

>Embraced the market

Haha, thats cute. They basically out-commied capitalism you idiot.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform

That's not an argument.
And if it were one, it'd be false at face value.

No, they we're actually educating and building SOCIAL capital under Mao. Without it, no such growth in GDP/capita or what ever could ever have been possible. The only thing that has happened since is that the social resources have been traded for capital to the rich.

...

Usually you dont need to make that choice, you'll be poor as fuck and starving so you dont have much option.

Good luck running a communist economy in a world of global capitalism trying to fuck your shit up. Remember how you got bullied in school and ended up here? Same story basically.

You don't.

Google "Economic Calculation Problem"

I think the Swede is losing it guys, must've missed his daily ration of haji semen.

Also, the only reason commie countries were able to figure out the cost of anything was because there was capitalist countries figuring it out around them.

Typical commies, stealing other peoples work

Ahaha what the fuck dude, are you trying to argue for communism by saying it literally can't compete? BTW I was the bully.

Yes. The soviet union had millions of set prices. We all know how it worked out.

I'm not that guy, but you should read about the Soviet famine of 1932–33. The government moved people out of agriculture and into cities to ramp up industrialization. At the same time, they exported shit tons of grain to make some quick cash. Turns out, they ran out of grain and famine ensued. There were some natural factors involved, but not enough to justify the scale of the famine on their own. When the government controls what people produce instead of supply and demand, you'll always end up with wasteful surpluses in some areas and crippling shortages in others.

Without communism Sup Forums wouldn't have servers for you to spew this bilge on. Ever heard of Apache and Open Source software you fucking idiot? How do you think that works? Socialist principles of sharing and reaching for the greater good.

Please get off our code base if you do not agree that freedom is greater than slavery. Or wait, you probably love your degenerate low paid shit job at Wendys you brainwashed money slave.

why should it matter? you are aware the cost of an item is a social construct. it doesn't exist. see capitalism evvolved from feuderalism aftrer the french revolution. the french revolution ended feuderalism and the capitalism took contro. since then we have been enslaved by the capitalistic system of bullshit price system. in reality what is good for the people is all that matters and "price" is bullshit.

in other world
NO SUCH THING AS PRICE

its bullshit made up by capitalists to keep the poor down

This may sound very juvenile of me but holy shit, how the fuck can commies justify this or is this the part where they say it isnt real communism?

>In 2008 Russian state Duma issued a statement about the famine, stating that within territories of Povolzhe, Central Black Earth Region, Northern Caucasus, Ural, Crimea, Western Siberia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belaruss the estimated death toll is about 7 million people

What the fuck, I feel stupid how much this blows my mind, the loss of life of is difficult to comprehend and all in just a year.

Carefully.

How do you know it is worth the cost to make it under capitalism?


Plenty of junk products that represent neither a sound use of resources or value for money when sold, are created everyday by capitalism.

Our most recent financial crisis is an excellent example of financial good that was created without proper thought as to whether is was worth it's cost.

Things are often overvalued under capitalism.

Who is this semen demon

>cost doesn't exist goy!
>those people work for free to make an inefficient product that no one needs!

Good goy!

Are you literally that stupid? Competition is in nobody's favor, not the strong nor the weak. We should co-operate to achieve greatness. To go to space. To abolish slavery and needless suffering.

You are a psychopathic bully, so you wouldn't get it. Please just become an hero or something, you aggressive little kurwa.

Lol no, I don't live in a commie country that would jail me for having the wrong opinion on faceberg, I'll just shit on your pipe dream some more on this AMERICAN invention called the internet because I can and go to sleep soundly tonight.

People will try to say this isn't "real" communism since the Soviet leaders were all insane dickheads. The problem is that even if you had sincere, nice people running the government, they still wouldn't be able to correctly adjust the prices on millions of goods every single day.

>where they say it isn't real communism
Bingo.

I see but if that resource wasn't used properly because the venture didn't pan out, wouldn't whoever made that product just stop making it once he realizes the good isn't worth the cost to make it?

I guess what Im trying to say is, that shit will happen but at least it can recover under capitalism

Open Source is widely commercialized, and developed by pro-profit companies. Also people share software because they want not because they are forced to, you idiot, it has no relation whatsoever to communism.

> Socialist principles of sharing and reaching for the greater good.
Socialists invented sharing? That one is new. Socialism is anything but sharing, it is forced redistribution.

> Our most recent financial crisis is an excellent example of financial good that was created without proper thought as to whether is was worth it's cost.

This part is true, but that's legislator's fault for passing a law that forced non-discrimination on lenders so that they had to lend money to unemployed who couldn't pay back, and don't forget Central banks policy for brewing every financial shit that happens to the world.

"Life is a struggle. Even to stand up is a struggle against the law of gravity, and I think that the joy of life is in the struggle itself – not the victory – because if it were we’d all lose. We’re all gonna croak, we all lose the battle of life so if you can’t find fun in the fight to live, and to live to the fullest then you’re a failure already, before you even start." - George Lincoln Rockwell

Competition favors the victor, you revile it because you know if force to compete you would be the loser.

Workhours. Only real measure of values, not capitalist 'prices', based on capitalists' greed rather than demand.

So the workers decide the work hours?

What if they decide they don't want to work as long that day? What if they decide to make more than they need? How would they know? I mean they put the hours in but who said that the output would be the same everytime?

What if Johnny Fuckstick decides to slack off because whats the point and they can't meet the quota they somehow magically pulled out of thin air?

Well, cynically, OP, in a communist system, the prices don't vary as much as the availability of the goods.

If it's something good, it tends to be in shortage and the determining factor for who gets the good stuff is what connections you have and what you can do for your connections. There was a Russian word for it - "blat", I think?

If it's crap, then it tends to be in good supply and you can get it any old way you want.

You have to have some way to decide who gets the good stuff. Cynically, someone is going to get screwed, it's just a question of who and how much.

I think the Soviet system did suffer from a decided lack of motivation of its workers - especially when it came to growing food, people just didn't give enough of a shit in those collective farms to actually do the work.

They spent quite a lot of resources trying to get those collective farms to work and they never ever succeeded at it. In fact I think it was the need to import food with hard currency and the crash of oil prices in the 80s that led directly to the collapse of the Soviet Union. They just couldn't make ends meet anymore. Gorby tried to get the system moving again, but instead it just came apart.

> Feuderalism
> Everything I don't like is a social construct

The price system predates liberalism it has existed since the primordials of humanity and it was known to every civilization that ever existed. Where the fuck did you learn that it started with the French revolution.

So what, did it all just come down to people being people?

Is this what it will come too everytime someone wants to try communism?

"They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work" Old Soviet joke.

So how is this relevant to OP question?
>What if they decide they don't want to work as long that day?
They make less product. At same workhour per product ratio. And be paid only for workhours the actually worked. How is this even relevant to the COST of product item?
>What if they decide to make more than they need?
And what if they make more than they need during capitalism? Who will decide to produce less? Wait, I'll tell you - corporate bureacracies, based on "market analysis" and "business prognoses" and junk like that. So what's the difference? Socialist planned economy just removes the middle man.
>What if Johnny Fuckstick decides to slack off because whats the point and they can't meet the quota they somehow magically pulled out of thin air?
Again, really? Like nobody ever slacks at capitalism? And faces penalties for that, like fine, getting fired?

Mein schwanz

The price is ok, worshipping price as holy cow is not. Fuck, half of Europe lived of natural economy in medieval times.

> And what if they make more than they need during capitalism? Who will decide to produce less? Wait, I'll tell you - corporate bureacracies, based on "market analysis" and "business prognoses" and junk like that. So what's the difference? Socialist planned economy just removes the middle man.
What I am trying to tell - socialist economy is not opposite to free market, it's just another form of the market, with prices and such. And with SINGLE seller and SINGLE consumer - the people, price between them will always be fair. And if it's not, the consumer could always change seller through democratic elections. Well, that is if you ever try socialism without a sing;e-perty system.

That and government bureaucrats make poor farmers. And it takes some skill to grow food well. And they killed off a LOT of the people who knew how to farm well. In fact, the more you knew how to farm, the more likely it was you were going to be sent to a camp. Idiots. And then what was left, they tried giving them tractors and other types of modern farm equipment, but nobody left knew how to use them or was motivated to use them.

Something similar happened to Zimbabwe - Mugabe didn't send anyone to a camp but he more or less showed all his best farmers the door and when they were all gone, they were in the same boat as the Soviet Union, short on money, and dependent on importing food.

Somehow though his government never collapsed. Niggers are better at something, I guess.

>ever try socialism without a sing;e-perty system.
Fuck, I can't even spell this right!

Reminds me of this, found it in another thread, my main take away really is, why can't Communists, Marxists, Leninists, Socialists, Maoists or whatever the flavor of the day is just leave us alone?

They're almost as bad as anarchists, speaking of which, whats up with THOSE guys?

The kind of mentality and skill to make a successful politician, isn't necessarily the same mentality and skill it takes to manage an economy.

And it becomes very dangerous when you have a setup where a politician thinks it's advantageous to intentionally mismanage the economy.

Keep that in mind as we go forward in Murica.

You have to ask the government about this, but we usually don't do it because we don't like to disappear.

> he prices don't vary as much as the availability of the goods.
Well, yeah, that's the good point too. It works like this: first democracy fails, then mechanism to control the prices fails to represent demand of the people, then free market kicks in and forms its own black market, with prices based on demand and supply, and it starts stealing from government owned distribtion system, eventually collapsing it.

As ex-commie myself, I can tell that most of them are just romantic naive kids, inspired be Che Guevara whole revolutionary romantic. Much like NatSoc don't really understand what NatSoc means but just love cool Nazi uniforms.

Because communist make a revolution and then give a total control of the country to the leaders of the revolutions, people who kill opponents and know how to seize power. Every fucking time, the revolution is betrayed and what come next "is not real communist".

Then, somewhere else, other commies make another revolution and give the total control of the country to the leader of the revolution.

Yea, I always had a feeling we've been trying to combat communism all wrong here.

Why don't we traditionally minded people start becoming teachers? Why don't we start turning this tide of marxism and communism thats permeating in the lecture halls?

I have a feeling that they've gone too long unchallenged but at the same time there are so many different flavors of communism its hard to corner them, the other day I was having an argument with what I thought was a commie but it turns out he says hes an anarchist.

Just a moment ago he was talking about seizing the means of production and then he tells me he's an anarchists, something of which I have the foggiest idea of what they stand for. Don't they just believe in chaos or direct democracy or something?

And who choose the teachers?

America how are food stamps not baby steps to communism?

You are giving rations of food to people, just like in communist shitholes.
You are giving healthcare for "free", just like in communist shitholes
What's next? You are going to give free education, then free cars, then you work for free, then you are a slave of the government

Stop giving things for free like if you lived in a communist shithole. Stop it, I don't like it. It isn't capitalistic.

You have a point oldest ally, guess if an individual who wants to uphold traditional value wanted to become a teacher he'd have to find a way to stealthily make it past the board of cultural marxists, even how long would he last once he's in?

...

It was actually a pretty natural process, see same process in capitalist England in 18th century.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

The only reason it blew in bolshevik's faces is because they tried to have everything in an instance, and not take time for farmers to adapt to adjustments. Then they had to punish people for resisting, and famine broke out. But at the same time, similiar greed and rush caused Great Depression in USA.

Some copypasta I wrote:
Alright, personal property, let's tackle this.
I don't believe in either private or personal property, but most ancoms seem to disagree with this. Please let me know if anything I wrote is incorrect.
First case: property is theft, as they say. By owning something, you claim the right to tell other people what they can and can't do with it when you're not using it. This applies just as much to cell phones as to factories. Personal property is theft.
Second case: Allowing for personal property seems to legitimize exclusion. A Capitalist who ceases to hire workers ceases exploitation. But now, he runs his factory by himself, as his personal property. So does this 'communism' call for the wealthy to keep all of their wealth to themselves, without collectivization?
Finally, personal property violates the communal nature of communism. If you have a DS and I only have a gameboy color (bad childhood memories for me), that is still inequality. There are no rules about sharing personal property, sure, but the same goes for private property. True communism should be a system where everything is shared equally, and I would say that any system where that doesn't hold isn't really communism but some degenerate authoritarian system where property is selectively enforced, which would be even worse than capitalism.

I'd take a page out of your history book and toss them off helicopters but I can't just do that now can I?

It is baby steps to communism, welfare and the whole safety net really which is only aggravated by states in our union who allow foreigners and non citizens to take advantage of the gibs

Welfare is not communism, comunism is when people earn their living.

Did you know there was no welfare in USSR, but rather penalties for being unempled?

unemployed*
fix

Why do people still reply to these obvious slide threads

>generic pic of sexy woman
>Reddit tier generic political discussion question with no other input by the OP
>then the OP autistically replies to everyone to keep his thread bumped

I'm not gonna lie Ivan, I didn't know that

>having a discussion about political and economic ideologies on a Politics board is bad

What did Shia LeJew put up a new flag somewhere?

Meh, he's fun to practice rhetorics on, pretending to be commie and all this.

Goods becoming available in virtual abundance is a necessary perquisite for Socialism, just as scarcity is necessary for the perpetuation of Capitalism. The Capitalist means of allocation (the free market) and mode of production (private ownership) will become unviable in the face of virtual abundance of most goods, as people will increasingly have the ability to "opt-out" of participating in market activities. Once "virtual abundance" is achieved, goods will be allocated according to the use-values that people seek to procure. Goods will be produced either by advanced home manufacturing units (nanofabricators and the like) or by worker-owned automated cooperatives (in which case the goods will be delivered to users by means of cybernetic planning). When currency is absolutely needed, as will be the case for a handful of intrinsically scarce goods (goods that cannot be replicated in digital environments or produced in abundance by advanced manufacturing units), "oxidizing" labor credits backed by the productivity of automata will be used. I hope that answers your question.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Some people's abilities are less than their needs. To even give such a person a liveable wage is itself a form of welfare.

Also, stop confusing your Russian chauvinism with communism. I'd like to see some real Russian chauvinism without the taint of that toxic, lazy ideology. Russian communism might have been like you said, but it wasn't real communism.

the amount of swag it brings you determines its true value

>>having a discussion about political and economic ideologies on a Politics board is bad
when it's dead horse communism it is just spam that shits up the board. sage sage sage.

there is always a minimum of one good that is not abundant. Otherwise, population increases until there is.

People will retain the right to exclusive use over consumer and non-capital goods in a socialist community.

Good copypasta has ONE typo. This just makes yuo look like an idiot.

Right, that's why I acknowledged the existence of some intrinsically scarce goods such as luxury real estate or tourist attractions (although even these can be simulated in full immersion virtual reality environments, which will be sufficient for many people.) But in these instances the use of oxidizing labor credits will be necessary.

Holy Jesus T H I C C!!!!

Good to see I'm not the only one who enjoys some mental exercise

There's always something to be said about it, what is there a major HABBENING going on that requires the undivided attention of all of us going on?

> Some people's abilities are less than their needs.
That's the point of the communism, to allow every person to use their abilities to the fullest. There are many blind singers, writers, musicians, who still earn their wage.
>Russian communism might have been like you said, but it wasn't real communism.
Ok, so let's have that instead and bury all the Hilldawgs and Trotskystes.

Your intellectually superior leaders tell you what it's worth.

The answer is always "more than you deserve, comrade."

french revolution ended feudalism. its basic history. take a college history class then come back to talk wit the big boys
"For much of this century the idea that the French Revolution was a bourgeois revolution, driven by class conflict, which swept away the political structures of feudalism and cleared the way for the development of capitalism, was generally accepted."

marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj2/1998/isj2-080/mcgarr.htm

The question is about economic calculation. You decide if the shitty knives are worth the money you spent on them, it's arbitrary.
But if you're looking to make a profit, you need to ask yourself if these shitty knives are going to sell for at least $1000. If they will, it is worthwhile because they found a use for it. If you run out of knives, it's worth raising the prices, and if you still have too many, its worth lowering your prices to sell them off and cut your losses. This regulates the economy more effectively than any government plan, with a few exceptions.

The Soviet government literally read the Sears catalog to figure out prices. At least, that's the story.

The Black Death also contributed to the end of feudalism. After a huge portions of the peasant population were wiped out, the remaining peasants began demanding higher wages and more mobility rights.