Topic: Why don't we set up capitalist and socialist communes to test which is better? - page 3. (Read 611 times)

Those numbers are quite conservative as well.

Pinochet killing a 1000 communists is totally proving communism is a superior system.
Especially when these 3 regimes have such little death tolls
Mao Tse Tung - 40+ million
Stalin - 28 million
Pol Pot - 3 million

Just keep virtue signalling.

Oh then if you don't take into account anything else that $/capita then I guess the comparison is easy.

Of course it tells a lot about your ability to conceive the world, but at least the comparison is easy.

What have you been smoking?
What are you talking about?


Which oppression are you talking about?


Hong Kong - 46 193$ / capita (https://prnt.sc/o1czob)
Taiwan - 25 026$ / capita (https://prnt.sc/o1d0g0)
China - 8827$ / capita (https://prnt.sc/o1d04f)

Hong Kong literally has a higher GDP per capita than Germany
While China is at Serbia levels.

Chinese GDP per capita until 2000. was <1000$/capita, only after China embraced capitalism and free markets its GDP started doubling each 5 years or so, while it was still a communist state it was one of poorest in the world

And still, even today, countries inhabited by Chinese peoples that haven't embraced communism in the past are enjoying an enormously larger amount of prosperity

Hong Kong is 5 times richer to that extent that a large portion of people in Hong Kong don't consider themselves Chinese anymore as they wish not to associate themselves with China

The same thing happened in the 3x richer Taiwan where people started to identify to identify as Taiwanese instead of Chinese.

3 still exists today and there is no cold war.
5 did exist during the cold war but how is that justification of anything?
Both were in the cold war and both were inhabited by the same culture.
One climbed walls under threat of murder from armed guards in order to get to the other 'oppresive' side and the other just lived regular lives.


There is no leeching in capitalism.

If you are able to provide what the market needs, you are awarded.
If you are not able to, you are not awarded.
I would compare it to nature and Darwinism.

Who provides what the people need is awarded.
Who provides pointless things with no use in life is not.

you have no idea what capitalism means,

without communism a capitalist society becomes basically a big scam with ICOs and coiner capitalists throwing printed money on each other.

there is no social progress etc.

the problem with capitalism is that it has no honor, and tends to leech of others.

without the leeching capitalism would never work or be long term successful.

usa and uk are dependent on eastern european immigration to run stable, now after brexit, they have alienated the communist eastern europeans and are crushing.

besides its not a choice to be capitalists, thats something "god" decides.

according to judaism

Are you fucking kidding me?
1 and 2 both HK and Taiwan have been crushed by China. 3 and 5 was just a cold war zone and one of the two countries saw his camp disappear. 4 is a joke right? What do you want? To compare which dictatorship was worse? Wanna talk about how great Pinochet was?

Capitalism and colonialism always produce winners and losers.  The contrast in those places is proof that capitalism works but does nothing towards suggesting it is better.  The oppression produced by capitalism is the motivation for socialism, not the result of it.   The world would be a better place if these drastic contrasts did not exist at all.

because the capitalist communes will try to leech of the socialist ones, like it was the case during cold war.

It is not an issue of scalibility, it's an issue of voluntary interactions.
There's a reason why trust exists and you don't trust everyone, and you choose who to cooperate with
Small communities take care of each other because they choose to, not because they're forced to.
People voluntarily organising  shouldn't be a bad thing.
The problem with communism is you don't have a choice.

-------------------
@OP

There is.
Let me name a couple

1. Hong Kong vs China
2. Taiwan vs China
3. South Korea vs North Korea
4. Venezuela vs Chile
5. East Germany vs West Germany

Same people, same culture, diametrically opposed outcomes.

This is called research.  There is no such thing as a perfectly controlled study and varying degrees of variability always occur but research can still reach conclusions based on data.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.76.6.661

"Better" is subjective but socialism results in a higher physical quality of life 93% of the time.  I call that "better".

"Better" usually means the well-being of all involved  to socialists but means "i can accumulate capital to the point where i have everything i want without having to work" to capitalists.


The fundamental difference is "better for me" vs "better for the people at the bottom".

We don't do that because neither of them is the best one.
If we set capitalist and socialist communes in the same time we will discover all the disadvantages that both systems have and we will want to get rid of them once and for all!
Definitely, we will not focus on the pros but just on cons.

Seems to me that the market should control the economy.

Since they are tests, set them up with a certain amount of gold or silver coin, and let them live however they want. If they want more gold or silver, mine for it.

Better would be an altcoin, connected to all the pricing of the materials and equipment they would barter to live. They would decide on a personal trade basis how much they would pay for anything they bartered for, or if they would make the item at home.

The point being no central banking system to control money. Let it happen naturally.

As Techshare pointed out when we all lived in small villages we had a communal system and people were eager to help everyone.  When you know every person in your tribe you are emotionally connected to them.  Now people see their resources going to help outsiders and criminals and are against it.

Scalability is in fact a very valid argument. Small Socialist/Communist organizations can work because the members of the group all know each other, have high levels of trust, as well as accountability. At scale none of these factors are valid any longer. Simply look at the death of gifting based economies brought on by outside influence for further evidence of this. Communism does in fact require Capitalism to function, and your argument of what came first is incorrect if not asinine. Humanity for most of human history consisted of small collectives that were largely indistinguishable from Communism. Market economies of scale are largely a new invention, while the basic concepts of "free markets" or open trade are not at all new. The fact is even these communes relied upon market trade in order to function, as would modern Communism. The fact is Communism provides disincentive to create resources as personal responsibility is collectivized to the whole. Capitalism creates the required inductive force to motivate actors within it to create the capital goods required for either system to exist. Communism is neither effective nor efficient at managing and creating these requirements, hence Communism requires Capitalism, but Capitalism does not require Communism. This is something even Karl Marx himself admits.

"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges." - Critique of the Gotha Program, April-May 1875, Karl Marx, P. 5

Scale argument is dumb as there is no reason for a system to work on a scale and not work on another one.

Also you have the idea that communism requires capitalism which is false, it's just that capitalism was first so communism can only emerge from a capitalist country. It doesn't mean it needs it, it's just that it doesn't have any other choice.

I would refer you to the USSR in the 70s and 80s and the US during the same time.

It wouldn't be a scalable test. Socialism/Capitalism only really works at small scale. Also Socialism/Communism require Capitalism to function, but not vice versa.

Not sure if this belongs in this forum or in the economics forum but anyway...

Why don't we just set up capitalist and socialist communes to test which economic system is better once and for all?

Both supporters of capitalism and socialism have different ideas on what is best for the people. They both want to live in a happy, safe, and prosperous society but they disagree on which economic system is better for achieving these goals. There are good arguments coming from both sides of the political spectrum but to the best of my knowledge, there has never been a controlled study that compares capitalism and socialism directly.

Now you may be thinking, "The whole 20th century was that, no?"

Well, sort of. But there were still too many confounding variables. For example, many authoritarian and totalitarian governments used socialism to justify their existence. US foreign policy was also another confounding variable that tended to affect certain economies either more positively or negatively than others.

Thoughts? Opinions?