Society without property?

I watched this thread grow today and waffled on whether it was a good idea to dive in(2 new posts just went up while I was typing this). The question of whether everyone would be willing to settle for less in order to equitize the distibution of goods and services around the globe is impossible to answer.I'm a lot more interested in what mick was saying about destroying the unnecessary institutions of capitalism and letting the people organize their economic lives. This sounds like a solid load of socialist nonsense--lots of high-minded intentions with no grounding in reality. What in the world do you mean by "lets organize it ourselves?" How does that happen? Isn't it entirely possible that we already have? You really think there is a better way to devise technology and allocate resources?Like democracy, regulated capitalism is the worst system of allocating economic resources, except for all the others. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when someone seriously suggets "destroying capitalism". There are only two systems of organization: free market enterprise, and feudalism. True communism does not exist except in the pages of Marxist philosophy, and in practice it leads, without fail, to ruin. Self-declared communists are fooling themselves. You are communists because a shallow exploration of 'ugly' capitalism leads you to believe there are alternatives. There aren't. There are only variations around the amount of regulation business will endure in a given jurisdiction. And claiming that capitalism has only served a few elite is just plain stupid.Please don't misunderstand, elimiating poverty and hunger should be important to the developed world. The reasons need not be altrustic-it really is in the best interests of the West to raise global standards of living. The way to do it is by giving the rest of the world a chance to participate meaningfully, not by giving handouts to those deemed most needy.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

Nah. What I should have said is that you were correct in assuming it was a theological queston, and I don't know how to start answering those. I actually meant for that to be a general reply. Sorry jar.This message has been edited by Alexander, 04-12-2005 02:39 PM

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

That's strange-these perfectly communist societies, where are they today? The problem isn't that societies needed to industrialize, it's that communism doesn't work. It seems to be possible for communes to provide the most basic services to their members if the number of people is small; on a larger scale it is simply impossible. Technology and progress requires specialization, which seems to be difficult to achieve to any degree under communism. So, unless living like Indians is especially appealing, capitalism is eventually required.Jar, I'm with Troy on this one. What is that a picture of?This message has been edited by Alexander, 04-12-2005 03:07 PM

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

I was wondering how long it would take you to poison the well.May I point out that on average, a single member of a hunter-gatherer society needs something like ten or twenty times as large an area of land to support their livelihood than does a member of an agriculturally advanced, capitalistic society. How do you propose to extend this lifestyle to the 6.2 billion or so people currently residing on earth?I would also be interested to know: what exactly is keeping the "majority of the world's population that live in povert under global capitalism" from assuming a hunter-gatherer type existence? Evil capitalists, whomever or wherever they may be?Your post is a good example of the well-intentioned nonsense that characterizes modern socialism. Everyone deserves a decent living, but I don't see how communism is going to help.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

Yours is a very good post Troy! (Btw, were you Lam before?)I have argued with a few of my friends who are rabid fans of pure capitalism that socialist policies really are in the best interests of economic stability. The Gilded Age is a good example. But I think most people underestimate the wealth created by modern (regulated) capitalism. Sure the movies suck and McD's makes you fat, but it takes free enterprise to build and maintain a middle class.Would you consider, say Sweeden or France to be a post-industrialist society, organized in a semi-Marxist fashion?

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

Interesting. I wouldn't pin the problems of post-industrialist nations on aggressiveness (although in the case of the U.S. that might be true). I tend to see long-term economic stagnation as the biggest menace to quasi-socialist countries. What happens when universal social programs fail because there is simply not enough production to support them?

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

What modern countries would you single out as being closest to exhibiting a system of 'pure' communism?

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

Has our technology really advanced that far? We would need methods of production that were fully automated, self-repairing, and productive enough to maintain standards of living, correct?

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

Methodologically sound? The whole structure of communist theory is based on the Labor Theory of Value. Unfortuantely, this theorm is faulty and Marx's proof was incorrect. Everything you produce is worth exactly how much someone else is willing to pay for it. Of course prices can be distorted and markets can be inefficient for a number of reasons, but basic capitalist theory holds.Before you do anything else, prove your basic theorm, or admit that communism is devoid of any sensible economics. If this site is really about science and not endless debate, your very next post will be a positive proof of the Labor Theory.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

Marx's proof of the LTV in book 2 (I think?) by contradiction would have received half credit at best in one of my economics classes. But, I don't think that you are here to engage in a discussion of economics.I respect the thought that has gone into Marxism, but it just isn't economically viable. Recognizing human interaction and altruistic intent is laudable, but it won't feed and cloth the world.I really wish you hadn't added that last paragraph to your post. It sounds a lot like what a lot of hit-and-run creationist posters who like claim that evolution and the BB theories are but lies by the secular establishment in order to keep us ignorant. Beleive me, I am all for the enrichment of all mankind, but you don't need to resort to this to get your point across.I have studied with some of the 'theologians' of capitalism, and nobody lies about communism or goes out of their way to disparage socialism. It isn't a consideration in the same way biologists don't spend time pondering if the Almighty isn't responsible for genetic mutations.I have read capital (the first 2 books at least) in high school, and it was definitely interesting. I haven't heard of Meek before. I would suggest Milton Friedman's book, Capitalism and Freedom. It's relatively basic economics, but an elegant treatise nonetheless.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

No one has told me any lies, contracycle. If you want to make Marx more palatable to a trained economist, prove the LTV. That would be a good start to convincing anyone of the existence of a viable alternative to a mixed economy.You haven't offered anything but righteous indignation and claims of "but thats not communism" or "you dont understand communism" in response to the logical questions posed by the other skeptical posters on this thread. That's the same tiresome drivel I've gotten from every other socialist.Have you read Adam Smith? Keynes? Friedman? Markowitz? Schiller? Samuelson? Solow? Pareto optimatlity and strategic theory? Growth theory? Banking and credit systems? Micro econ and prospect theory? Hell, ever flip through a copy of Atlas Shrugged? 85 posts and so far you haven't shown us a goddamned thing. I'm done with this thread.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'