Why has Communism failed everywhere ? A chance for commies to explain

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Firstly, a nominal balance of supply and demand will never occur for the above reasons (we would always strive for more, any equilibrium is broken by increasing demand) and secondly where value is a coefficient of supply and demand it doesn't simply cease to exist. As long as there is finite supply, there will always be value (since demand is relevant). If a star trek-like situation develops with replicators making anything and everything at whim, then capitalism will not be relevant to our nature. But I, and Werner Heisenberg, can't see that happening any time soon.

Yes, supply and demand will keep changing, and you can never have a balance, save for rare instances maybe. That doesn't dispute my point that value created by shortage is a value defined a different way from value created by labor. You can't create value by creating shortages. All you have done is reduced overall satisfaction and created a bid up for the good.

I'd be very amused to see you attempt to base an economy on that. Do you think a society will be healthy where there is equal numbers (and equal pay (motivation)) of builders and labourers to surgeons?

Of course it would. Do you believe in neoclassical economics. That school makes the assumption that an economy in balance is more productive.

Communistic elements are a contextual consequence of capitalism, in other words in certain situations it is prudent to the individual to work with others, either for survival or toward economic ends, for example, factory labour utilises communist principles but capitalism is the end and (through the self-interest of the workers and their salary) the means.

Not really sure why you put this in here.

So wages are proportional to demand, and inversely proportional to supply in the labour market? Thanks!

So wages are an unfair compensation for our work? Thanks!

If there is competition for resources, hence a current of supply to demand, then capitalism has existed. You people have a very institutionalised feudal view of capitalism. You know the definition need not be solely applicable to men labouring in a factory in the 19th century being inexorably put out of work by the application of steam . You (Che and Kid) are capable of thinking far more cogently than that, enough to work with definitions and not familials.

Capitalism isn't just competition for resources. From the beginning of time men must have fought over some women that they both wanted. Communism can't end that kind of competition, and no one would want it to, but it can end some unproductive competition.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm
You still didn't define what it is , or how it is some sort of right ( as you seem to imply ) . Irrespective of whether it is uneven or not ( assuming thay your definition is the same as mine ) , that still does not provide justification for anything . If you have money , and I do not , that does not entitle me to some of your money . The same way , negotiating power is meaningless . The deal will still not happen if either party thinks he is better off without it . Did you understand at least that ?

I understand that poor people need to work, sure, but according to you any price is fair, even price gouging. That's just unreasonable.

Maybe you are not defining society because it is indefinable ?

It seems you are unable/unwilling to define the terms you bandy about so much . And again , I'm not asking how "we all" value things , I'm asking how you undefined society values things .

I don't like to argue about semantics. Are there two definitiions in the dictionary that are similar? If so, I'll be glad to tell you which one I think is more appropriate.

As far as societal needs being valued I say that needs obviously are greater than wants. If you can meet everyones needs you've done a great job. Meeting wants isn't so easy, but if everyone has a fair income they can make choices for themselves.

[Dinner]

557 posts and I predict this thread shall be locked soon.

[chequita guevara]

I declare this thread dead!

[Sava]

DIE DIE DIE ALREADY!

[Kidlicious]

I'm too lazy, (er something else ) to start another one.

[Ned]

Kid, then how do you set the price of land before any improvements. Let's say there is prime harbor land available. One want to buy it for farming. Another for building a dock. Surely if the price were set reflecting its harbor value, the farmer could not buy it. Not so if all land had equal value. The farmer might buy it and raise crops on prime harbor land!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
557 posts and I predict this thread shall be locked soon.

You'd think so. But obviously not.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Kid, then how do you set the price of land before any improvements. Let's say there is prime harbor land available. One want to buy it for farming. Another for building a dock. Surely if the price were set reflecting its harbor value, the farmer could not buy it. Not so if all land had equal value. The farmer might buy it and raise crops on prime harbor land!

Land doesn't have equal value. The best way would be to set a price so that only people who really needed the land would pay for it, but so that somebody would live there.

[Whaleboy]

That doesn't dispute my point that value created by shortage is a value defined a different way from value created by labor. You can't create value by creating shortages. All you have done is reduced overall satisfaction and created a bid up for the good.

No, all that means is that value only becomes irrelevant when supply is infinite as I said (or demand is zero, which is absurd as far as we are concerned). And you certainly can create value by creating shortages. If I am in the diamond business, and have myself a stash of 1400 uncut stones, you can bet that I'd be a happy chap if South Africa implodes!

Of course it would. Do you believe in neoclassical economics. That school makes the assumption that an economy in balance is more productive.

Balance |= infinite supply

Not really sure why you put this in here.

You present capitalism and communism as somehow inseperable whereas I am saying that both are a consequence of people working together, but it's always to a capitalistic end since in order to make communism fundamental you need to rely on the altruism that imo I've previously dealt with here.

So wages are an unfair compensation for our work? Thanks!

In order to make that determination you need a principle by which to compare what is fair and what is not. A frame of reference if you will. Since "fairness" is subjective as hell, I can only assume your "flowers and semtex" ethical system is at play. So I would ask you to state your terms for "fair". As far as the labour market interacting with the supply market at the point of production, all are you effectively paying for is the workers time, but then how is the value of that to be measured? You have two options, an essentialist and objectivist "my time is worth..." which fails like the previous argument fails, as well as individuals time having variant worth according to skill, and time according to supply and demand of that time (i.e., more valuable if they have skills that are in demand etc), so again the only consistent version of "fair" that I can think of points to my argument.

Capitalism isn't just competition for resources. From the beginning of time men must have fought over some women that they both wanted. Communism can't end that kind of competition, and no one would want it to, but it can end some unproductive competition.

So your position has now retreated to some argument about protectionism?

I understand that poor people need to work, sure, but according to you any price is fair, even price gouging. That's just unreasonable.

Why is it unreasonable? Give someone the choice of working for you, or them dying through their circumstance, they will always choose you, so it's win-win. It's not your responsibility if they die after all since they have made their choice. And it's bad for the labour market to let them die, which as I recall has not happened even in the worst examples of sweatshop labour, but again this notion of "treat people well for no apparent reason" seems to rear its fallacious head.

The best way would be to set a price so that only people who really needed the land would pay for it, but so that somebody would live there.

Why would that be the best way? What makes it so? (other than stating rehersed tautologies)