So Holla Forums, I've been on this board for close to two years now and I've learned a lot. My outlook on socialism and communism has changed and I'm much more open for ideas. So thank you, first of all. The only reason I haven't rejected communism is because I don't see why the system wouldn't change in the future again.
1. I've discussed it in other threads before and seen it recently claimed a few times, but why do you think that capitalism is inefficient in the allocation of resources and the free market is inferior to your particular leftist tendency? I'll concede to Cockshott because even the Austrians were on damage control after his book, but what about the USSR and other countries that had centralized economies? They were grossly inefficient in terms of resource use and quality control. And don't post the dumped food image that makes fun of the efficiency of capitalism, because the same can be done by posting breadlines to poke fun at socialism.
And I'll give you an example, according to my own family's experience living in the USSR, there were always breadlines; 60s, 70s, 80s, in villages they would have a meat delivery once or a few times a week and people would wake up early to stand in line just so they could choose between two kinds of meat, or drive all the way to central cities like Moscow where there was more abundance. How could this possibly compete with an economy that is coordinated by price?
2. What do you think of the first pic? Both kind of make sense and I guess that really the crux of all economic dilemmas. What would be the Marxist take on those 4 points? Would a libertarian society really be worse than a more centralized state? Somalia is not an argument.
3. How was the Great Depression caused by the free market exactly? The subject is so muddied that I've never seen a clear answer as to why it happened even from Sowell out of all people, tho he did say the government made it worse by putting price and wage regulations. Speaking of, what's your take on these two things?
The 2nd and 3rd question confirmed you're not worth our time. You either don't understand basic communism or haven't attempted to.
Jace Cruz
This question was honestly so retarded I'm npt even going to bother addressing anything you actually said. You should have learned the answer in the 8th grade.
Thomas Allen
Can't be bothered making a long post. So there might be spelling errors. The great depression was caused when people realized that the confidence in a company isn't equal to the value produced by the company. The stock market inflates numbers based on how many people are willing to buy stocks. Which means that popularity becomes a metric for value. When the popularity falls, so does the value. The people who lent money from banks to invest lost their money once their stocks became worthless. Banks couldn't get their money back, screwing over the banks.
The crux is the following. Businesses go bankrupt causing unemployment and less spending power, weakening the economy. The banks lose confidence and stop financing businesses. Capitalism cannot grow without financing and the economy takes a stronger downturn. More businesses go bankrupt, making the economy even weaker. Doing nothing (which was the what libertarians thought was the best idea) didn't solve anything because confidence in the economy could never return on its own.
The solution which saved capitalism in the early 40's was the change in mindset. The original Keynesian proposition, which is clever regulated spending which increases the spending power of businesses and workers alike, while increasing liquidity, causing a return of financing, and letting capitalism grow once more. This is in stark contrast to the libertarian idea. 2008 was more difficult to overcome because the government spending was done in a retarded way. Banks used most of their state funds to cover their own asses, instead of pumping it into the economy.
Isaac Robinson
fuck you Spurdoposter, you are the smuggest faggot on this board and never contribute anything of value.
I do understand "basic communism," worker ownership of MoP is what is most commonly tossed around here although people here disagree on that too.
I'm not American. And even if I were why not still answer it? I don't think there would be so much disagreement on it if it were so obvious.
Noah Morgan
Thank you, that means a lot to me. Basically financial freedom along with a inflow of money allowed millions to become financially involved in an unstable– even more so than now–system which upon collapse drove essentially everyone into poverty. Capitalism as a system backfired and because of the freedom in the economy everyone from the snootiest bourgeoisie to the poorest proletariat got fucked.
2. Questions like these are why I say what I say, what do you think is the obvious answer? 1. It's not about efficiency.
Grayson Davis
Then how come countries with greater economic freedom are better off than more state controlled economies? But it's still a talking point many people bring up.
Joseph Price
Most people would call this market socialism. Communism would have to break the idea of a worker since it can only exist while capitalism exists.
The end goal of communism is a stateless, moneyless society, where everything is created based on the demand of people. There is no trading. If you need a certain good, it has to be brought up during a democratic meeting on how resources should be used. The government would consist of a direct democracy where the rules are decided by the people inhabiting the commune. Communes would have to communicate with each other regarding special resources and logistics. Whatever steps required to reach this point is irrelevant (Whether it is the dictatorship of the proletariat, market socialism, or a democratic anarchist process).
Isaiah Johnson
Oh shit fuck niggercrackers, Leafania is fully free? And it still isn't as successful as the US , because simply put it's not how free you are moron it's how many resources you have and how you manage them, Europe is better than Africa because it fucked Africa and took all it's resources, and now all Africa can do is suck up to Europe because they need some sort of pointless approval, they have the resources, they just don't know how to use them and that "white man pay big cash for lots of things. Who need thing when you have cash.,
