Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, the Future of Online Leftism

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I was discussing how in theory you could scale up such a social experiment, and how if you wanted to see what would happen you could implement policies at the state level to see if they work without putting the nation itself at risk. 

A US state can't adopt a communist system on its own.  If that's what you meant you're misunderstanding what they're capable of doing as laboratories of democracy.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

A US state can't adopt a communist system on its own.  If that's what you meant you're misunderstanding what they're capable of doing as laboratories of democracy.

Not fully, no, but they can implement policies in line with one.

Idk how how I even got sucked down this rabbit hole, given that I wouldn't want to live in a communist country. I was just pointing out to @OldGimletEye that communism can work on a small scale and that his main beef was with authoritarian states.  

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I was just pointing out to @OldGimletEye that communism can work on a small scale

This is what was said about democracy for thousands of years as well - it can only work on a small scale.

In terms of what OGE was discussing with a "communist" regime, no, a US state cannot unilaterally implement policies "in line" with a communist system.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is what was said about democracy for thousands of years as well - it can only work on a small scale.

Hasn't been working all that great hear over the last 20 years, and we get a real test of it in a few days considering next to no one thinks Trump will win the popular vote.
 

Quote

In terms of what OGE was discussing with a "communist" regime, no, a US state cannot unilaterally implement policies "in line" with a communist system.

Sure it can, if the courts don't stop it. Like I used as a counter-example, Kansas basically went full libertarianism. 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Sure it can, if the courts don't stop it.

No, it really can't.  The communist regimes being discussed did indeed have what OGE refers to as a command economy.  A US state cannot possibly adopt a command economy, or virtually any facet of one.  Also, Kansas didn't go "full libertarian" by cutting income taxes (as well as their budget).  Seven states don't even have any income taxes.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, it really can't.  The communist regimes being discussed did indeed have what OGE refers to as a command economy.  A US state cannot possibly adopt a command economy, or virtually any facet of one.  Also, Kansas didn't go "full libertarian" by cutting income taxes (as well as their budget).  Seven states don't even have any income taxes.

And what was pointed out is that there were other examples not being looked at. I don't think anyone said that the modern communist regimes we know worked out well in the end. But what was then said was communism itself doesn't work. This isn't accurate, as demonstrated by previous posts. What was also identified as problematic was scale. My reference was to how you best try to scale that up to see how it works.

Now, yes, a state could absolutely try to do it. Would it work? Doubtful, even if everything largely went well, but it would still suffer the same problem Chicago has when it's a short drive to Gary, Indiana, among a great deal of other issues. 
 

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

What was also identified as problematic was scale. My reference was to how you best try to scale that up to see how it works.

Now, yes, a state could absolutely try to do it. Would it work? Doubtful, even if everything largely went well, but it would still suffer the same problem Chicago has when it's a short drive to Gary, Indiana, among a great deal of other issues.

First, I disagree that the problem is "scale."  Second, if you think a US state could try to adopt a command economy, you simply have a grave misunderstanding of state power.  They do not have the ability to set economic policy in such a fashion, only the federal government does.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

36 minutes ago, DMC said:

First, I disagree that the problem is "scale."  Second, if you think a US state could try to adopt a command economy, you simply have a grave misunderstanding of state power.  They do not have the ability to set economic policy in such a fashion, only the federal government does.

I said it would likely fail for all the obvious reasons. But that doesn't mean a state couldn't at some point try it.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

But that doesn't mean a state couldn't at some point try it.

Yes, it does.  For the basic reason that state governments do not have the authority to centralize economic policy in such a way.  The federal government would immediately block any attempts to do so.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes, it does.  For the basic reason that state governments do not have the authority to centralize economic policy in such a way.  The federal government would immediately block any attempts to do so.

And if they ignore it and claim state's rights? You seem to be unwilling to engage in hypotheticals that are increasingly likely as our country burns to ash in front of our eyes. 

[Martell Spy]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

No, it really can't.  The communist regimes being discussed did indeed have what OGE refers to as a command economy.  A US state cannot possibly adopt a command economy, or virtually any facet of one.  Also, Kansas didn't go "full libertarian" by cutting income taxes (as well as their budget).  Seven states don't even have any income taxes.

Washington state doesn't have an income tax. It also has over 6 times the funding of Kansas. It's just that different funding mechanisms are used, such as sales taxes. I don't think Kansas went "full libertarian", but it was one of the more on the fringe experiments that have been done at the state level.

Also, what about Amazon? It controls a large chunk of retail in the U.S. What would be different if the federal government ran it? Does this lead instantly to authoritarianism? 

[DMC]

22 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And if they ignore it and claim state's rights? You seem to be unwilling to engage in hypotheticals that are increasingly likely as our country burns to ash in front of our eyes. 

I'm happy to engage in hypotheticals if they have even a remote chance of happening in reality.  A state can claim state's rights all it wants, such action would still plainly violate the supremacy clause, the commerce clause, many of Congress' other enumerated powers in Article I Section 8, and Article I Section 10.  As a hypothetical it's a nonstarter.

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Idk how how I even got sucked down this rabbit hole, given that I wouldn't want to live in a communist country. I was just pointing out to @OldGimletEye that communism can work on a small scale and that his main beef was with authoritarian states.  

Yeah, no one was actually arguing for 100% communism tomorrow. I'm probably more radical than most here and I definitely didn't argue for that. I'm not even really in favor of command economies (I favor local democratic decision-making).
But this is what happens when there is some conflation in terms. No offense @OldGimletEye but you have been conflating Marxism, communism, command economies, ... and authoritarianism.
Problem is, the differences between the terms do matter. In fact, the best way not to reproduce the mistakes of the past is to use the correct terms to distinguish between what every sane person will reject, like Soviet-style Marxism-Leninism, and what most people would actually be in favor of, like legal and economic protections for cooperativism for instance.
As I said in another thread, there's a huge difference between communism as a principle, and as a regime. It's not just about scale, it's also about whether you go through a -modern- state or not. Communism does not require the existence of a modern state, by that I mean the huge bureaucratic and administrative juggernaut you find in most countries.

[OldGimletEye]

19 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Communism does not require the existence of a modern state, by that I mean the huge bureaucratic and administrative juggernaut you find in most countries.

Perhaps. But, then how does the "true communism" propose to make production decisions?

[OldGimletEye]

6 hours ago, felice said:

There's no reason a communally owned economy needs to be centrally managed. By all means decentralize decision-making as much as possible wherever that makes sense. Keep using markets anywhere they're useful.

With regard to investment decisions, how should government owned entities evaluate future streams of benefits? Should it discount them? Using what rate? Does the riskiness of the the stream of benefits matter?

6 hours ago, felice said:

 If we can achieve a peaceful democratic transition to communism in the US, I'd expect a quite different outcome.

And are communist willing to relinquish power if the people decide they don't want them in charge?

[OldGimletEye]

40 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Also, what about Amazon? It controls a large chunk of retail in the U.S. What would be different if the federal government ran it? Does this lead instantly to authoritarianism? 

I guess one good be really glib and state the very existence of firms or corporations themselves prove that "central planning" works. Back in the 1930s, Ronald Coase posed the question why we need firms. If the price system worked perfectly couldn't just one guy make tires, another fenders, and then couldn't another guy buy tires, fenders, and car frames, and assemble them and then sell them to consumers? But, that doesn't happen in the real world.

But no firm, not even large conglomerates, control all most nearly every production decision. Not even Amazon.

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And are communist willing to relinquish power if the people decide they don't want them in charge?

This type of question still suggests you're conflating "communism" with authoritarianism.  If a communist system was instituted by elected representatives, then the only thing people have to do to change the system back would be to elect different representatives.  This question is like asking would capitalists be willing to relinquish power if Congress passed socialized medicine.

[Rippounet]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Perhaps. But, then how does the "true communism" propose to make production decisions.

How have humans made production decisions since the dawn of time?
We've only had modern states and modern markets for a few centuries, and then, not everywhere.

It seems to me you're the one who has trouble imagining something only slightly different from the currently dominating socio-economic system, even though there have been bazillions examples of successful alternatives. You keep using modern economic language (debt, investment, benefit... etc) as if that was the language everyone should use, when communism is precisely defined in opposition to many of those concepts.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

44 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm happy to engage in hypotheticals if they have even a remote chance of happening in reality.  A state can claim state's rights all it wants, such action would still plainly violate the supremacy clause, the commerce clause, many of Congress' other enumerated powers in Article I Section 8, and Article I Section 10.  As a hypothetical it's a nonstarter.

In normal times. We may be about to step into some unpredictable. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

27 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Perhaps. But, then how does the "true communism" propose to make production decisions?

And that's why in absolutist terms systems like communism will fail. And the larger the scale, the most absolutist it has to be.