How can socialism be efficient?

So recently I'm getting more and more into socialism through lurking on Holla Forums and reading some basic texts, but this is one of the counter-arguments to socialism that I still don't know how to debunk. It's frequently argued by capitalists that socialism is impractical and inefficient because it's impossible to accurately calculate everything that will happen (for example, there could be a sudden and unexpected demand for a certain product). Doesn't this necessarily hinder the efficiency of a socialist system? Any reading on this I should be doing?
My brainletism is especially strong when it's about economy so please explain carefully.

Attached: 7f51f52b1a32d01e36a5e1146c0707ea4a5e08d692ddbe6fbdd23b29d0e8072d.jpg (600x874, 132.27K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/channel/UCVBfIU1_zO-P_R9keEGdDHQ
jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/
marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/index.htm

Cybernetic communism is the future, probably. One of the guys who wrote this started a Youtube channel just last week as well: youtube.com/channel/UCVBfIU1_zO-P_R9keEGdDHQ

His newest video actually addresses the calculation problem directly, so there's that.

Ah, I downloaded towards a new socialism already, didn't know the book and his videos addressed this. I'll give them a shot

Socialism is much more efficient than capitalism, it's just not as flexible. While a socialist country will make the best use pound for pound it will find it much harder to keep up with sudden increase in demand. Then take capitalism which while much better at quickly dealing with the random elements of markets suffers from massive amounts of wasted goods/material/time/money. Today there could be 50,000 different laboratories working all towards the same goal, however because you can make money from such actions each of them work from a patchwork of facts, all trying the same things 1000s of times over. Would you call that efficiency or an exercise in madness?

Attached: Archive-Mosley-006.jpg (460x276, 21.84K)

You're asking the wrong question. Socialism mainly (or mostly) concerns ownership: who owns what. This doesn't necessarily entail central planning, though that has been one of the most common forms of socialist economic systems. And capitalist firms often come very close to central planning in their own right. Amazon.com is basically an example of central planning, of course in a capitalist context it is being used to drive wages of non-unionized workers down.

How does capitalism notice and deal with it?

"Efficient" at what, exactly? "Efficient" isn't some objective or objectively positive quality.

Attached: camille_pissarro_hyde_park_london_1890.jpeg (700x573, 166.29K)

also jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/

Cybernetic labour vouchers.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (807x807, 1.19M)

This type of phenomenon, for the most part, only happens under capitalism.
We could talk about medicine. If there is an outbreak of some virus, then medicine for that would be put as a top priority to produce and distribute. Same goes for any other necessity that requires urgent attention.
But under socialism we will not see a constant demand for new materialistic consumer goods, because that type of situation is artificially created by the market to keep the flow of capital consistent.

Attached: Zizek1.jpg (850x400, 60.11K)

marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/index.htm

Attached: marketsaretotallyefficientyouguys.jpg (960x794, 78.81K)

Attached: ZTL-11_8x8_105mm_amphibious_assault_gun_armored_vehicle_Chinese_China_army_defense_industry_military_equipment_640_001.jpg (640x425, 60.8K)

?

Attached: unknown.png (984x718, 242.11K)

But they're still soooooooo far behind. What's the point of GDP if your per capita is shit?

Attached: GDPPerCapita.png (1493x2529, 381.96K)

My bad, in any case I meant how a system with central planning or without a free market will work.

By being able to react to the demand immediately? But a lot of articles etc. got posted ITT so I guess I should read these to start with.

That's a great point, I didn't think about it that way.

Centralization of all management is a meme. The #1 problem with socialism has to do with control, the state constructed takes on too many powers and then fails as it attempts to micromanage every aspect of society from an isolated office.

In the most practical terms, the US is the best model. I don't mean in the economic sense but the administrative sense: the Federal government has control over basic interstate resources (air, water, telecom lines, railroads, highways) while individual states are allowed to determine which specific policies are best for them, within certain bounds. The Federal government acts as a sort of moderator, taking some spare surplus from some states and redistributing it to others via individual income and property taxes. The Federal government provides some basic services (healthcare, education, a post office, a postal bank, national transportation and national defense). To prevent growth of a bourgeoisie, citizens are required to serve in a volunteer corps two months every year and assignments are completely randomized. There is a 3-day work week, made plausible by high taxes on imports.

This is the most flexible system, and the one which is the most fault-tolerant as a depression in one area will simply cause migration to another, and resources adjusted based on local prosperity and wealth. Money and private property would still exist though, so it's not pure socialism. But it's enough socialism to prevent anyone from being too poor or too rich.

Attached: national post national bank.jpg (552x364 157.7 KB, 260.92K)

Since the 1980s China has been transitioning to a capitalist economy, a thing which is largely complete by now.

Hwat?

Attached: 13_60_71---Power-Lines--America_web.jpg (534x401 317.43 KB, 49.69K)

Looks like Detroit

t. a guy from that area

for what they are it's still pretty impressive, all the higher tiers either have alot of resources and low populations, alot of years of development due to colonialism or monopolies and the last being city states (which are memes and don't count)

a better comparison would be with a similar country like india.

Still behind tons of countries we make fun of for being 'poor'.

Efficiency within a socialist framework is different than the "efficiency" of a capitalist framework
Capitalists seek profits and bigger profits is more efficient in that regard
Socialism lacks the profit motive so efficiency within a socialist framework is based on things getting done and how many people get to benefit from it

I mean, you have to take into account they also produce much of the world's goods, so their currency is bound it be less stronger for export advantages

plus gdp per capita isn't a great metric either, many of the countries that have a higher GDP per capita than china may have a worser outlook than china for example.

I said administratively, not economically. America has all the components to construct socialism that doesn't blow itself up; it quite literally had to create them to get it through the 1930s depression and the 1970s stagflation. The two most obvious are the Postal Bank (a microbanking system based out of the US Post Office, discontinued 1967) and Consolidated Rail (a publicly owned national rail network created to make the freight rail system in the northeast competitive, privatized in 1987 due to it turning a profit). The USPS itself and Amtrak still exist as publicly owned and operated entities.

Attached: conrail.jpg (720x411 1.2 MB, 139.11K)

You're arguments stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of what socialism is.

Attached: PFoXimf.jpg (1024x1143 511.65 KB, 390.31K)

How prolepilled is Detroit? I bet it has at least some revolutionary potential.

Of course, Soviet-type economic planning is inefficient, nobody who is not economically illiterate will deny this. But if centrally planned economies are bad, why would centrally planned firms be any better? Hayek correctly claimed that a top-down management of all economic activities like the one in the USSR would impede the use of dispersed information and tacit knowledge, which is why command economies are generally inferior to market economies. But what Hayek failed to realize is that this is exactly why worker cooperatives are better than capitalist firms in which all of the key decisions are made by a small number of managers. In other words, Hayek’s argument against Soviet-type economic planning can be also used in favour of a model of market socialism where firms which are socially owned by their employees and structured on workers' self-management compete in open and free markets. Indeed, such a socialisy system will probably utilize market mechanisms even more than the current capitalist one because a low level of wealth inequality will make governments less susceptible to regulatory captures.

read Gotha you faggot

I did. How does it disprove any of my claims?

Sorry, meant for: