The current productive apparatus already produces much more than is necessary to take care of everybody’s needs. Which means we could do degrowth, egalitarianism, and improve standard of living for everybody at a fraction of our current output. The free market is a kind of planning, its an inefficient one that delivers profits to owners and corporations and stockholders. While creating monumental amounts of waste.
The means of production are ripe, maybe beyond ripe, but the class of workers has to seize them for mutual benefit.
On the face, I think the idea “from each according to their needs, to each according to their ability” sounds reasonable. But if you have ever done any logistics work, then you know it is a childishly simplistic fantasy.
There is no way you could possibly keep track of the many resources and services that are needed in a modern, complex society and distribute them usefully before the people who need them die of old age (or starvation). As you try to centralize tracking of everything the administrative problems grow exponentially, and never mind building the actual distribution network. No government-managed system could ever keep up with the needs of a growing, changing society.
Yes, but you see, this is true freedom. You can only have real economic freedom, political choice and self-determination in a system where there’s only one party and they control aspects of your life you didn’t need controlling, such as how much food you’re allowed to buy.
To be fair, yes, there were times in the soviet union were rationing of specific foods was a good idea, because there just wasn’t enough for everyone otherwise. But still the thought that a single party can unilaterally decide how much you can eat is pretty damn scary.
Yeah, there’s no person or group of people on this planet I would trust to equitably distribute resources like food and water, or decide what medical services count as needs for me or my family.
It is widely believed that while the Soviet Union may have produced these benefits, in the end, Soviet public ownership and planning proved to be unworkable. Otherwise, how to account for the country’s demise? Yet, when the Soviet economy was publicly owned and planned, from 1928 to 1989, it reliably expanded from year to year, except during the war years. To be clear, while capitalist economies plunged into a major depression and reliably lapsed into recessions every few years, the Soviet economy just as unfailingly did not, expanding unremittingly and always providing jobs for all
Yet, when the Soviet economy was publicly owned and planned, from 1928 to 1989, it reliably expanded from year to year
This claim is laughable considering that the vast majority of Soviet citizens lived in abject poverty during that period, and the whole system collapsed due to lack of money. If the economy was “reliably expanding” then why were their bread lines?
The infamous bread lines, people queuing up before dawn to get milk, scarce produce, bare shelves at supermarkets and empty clothing stores became an everyday reality. We didn’t have connections to The Party, nor veteran benefits—as both sets of my grandparents were too young to fight in the war—so we lined up like everyone else. Often, the distribution of food was limited to a certain number of pieces per person. I was frequently dragged to stores by grownups in my family so we could get two packs of detergent instead of one. Or two loaves of white bread instead of one. Or two pea coats. Whatever appeared in stores nearby.
There was nothing economically successful about the USSR, it brought poverty to its entire population, aside from a handful of powerful political figures who enriched themselves at the expense of everyone else.
Nah you give what you are able and recieve what you need.
Yeah, but ðere are people who cannot give at all, and ð quote from ð Stalinists makes no allowance for ð mentally or physically incapable of labor.
A society is only as good as how it treats its least able to treat for ðemselves.
The current productive apparatus already produces much more than is necessary to take care of everybody’s needs. Which means we could do degrowth, egalitarianism, and improve standard of living for everybody at a fraction of our current output. The free market is a kind of planning, its an inefficient one that delivers profits to owners and corporations and stockholders. While creating monumental amounts of waste.
The means of production are ripe, maybe beyond ripe, but the class of workers has to seize them for mutual benefit.
I think your keyboard is broken
Nah, it’s just set to Old Norse
ωнคт đΘ уσน мєคи?
Who decides what a person needs?
On the face, I think the idea “from each according to their needs, to each according to their ability” sounds reasonable. But if you have ever done any logistics work, then you know it is a childishly simplistic fantasy.
There is no way you could possibly keep track of the many resources and services that are needed in a modern, complex society and distribute them usefully before the people who need them die of old age (or starvation). As you try to centralize tracking of everything the administrative problems grow exponentially, and never mind building the actual distribution network. No government-managed system could ever keep up with the needs of a growing, changing society.
Just the highly centralised power structure and the single party consisting entirely of nepotism.
Yes, but you see, this is true freedom. You can only have real economic freedom, political choice and self-determination in a system where there’s only one party and they control aspects of your life you didn’t need controlling, such as how much food you’re allowed to buy.
To be fair, yes, there were times in the soviet union were rationing of specific foods was a good idea, because there just wasn’t enough for everyone otherwise. But still the thought that a single party can unilaterally decide how much you can eat is pretty damn scary.
Yeah, there’s no person or group of people on this planet I would trust to equitably distribute resources like food and water, or decide what medical services count as needs for me or my family.
https://gowans.blog/2012/12/21/do-publicly-owned-planned-economies-work/
A random biased unknown blogger is your evidence that socialism works?
This claim is laughable considering that the vast majority of Soviet citizens lived in abject poverty during that period, and the whole system collapsed due to lack of money. If the economy was “reliably expanding” then why were their bread lines?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/katyasoldak/2017/12/20/this-is-how-propaganda-works-a-look-inside-a-soviet-childhood/
There was nothing economically successful about the USSR, it brought poverty to its entire population, aside from a handful of powerful political figures who enriched themselves at the expense of everyone else.