quote:As to your example, in a socialist society, my fields get pollinated and my crops get divided amongst society. In a capitalist society, I bid higher, get my fields pollinated and hire MPH to help me tend them. I come out ahead, MPH gets fed, you come out ahead and next year you get more bees.
Unless m_p_h has some scrap iron tucked away and is able to bid higher, in which case his fields get pollinated, yours don't bear fruit, his family eats next year and yours and a large chunk of the community starve. I don't know why you would assume you'd be able to bid higher, just because it's a capitalist society does not necessarily mean that that things are going to work out the best for the most people.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
in the ideal scenario, neither MPH or Pixest work for each other rather together on their respective plots they work to aid the community. and in return whats made by the community they have an equal right to have, housing, protection, medicin, tools, etc. All of them they can freely use for whats freely given. Mr PH here is assigned to work on a plot of land, being good at farming or volunteered/enthusiastic to farm he goes to his assigned task. What he takes from his crop what he needs for personal use and gives whats left to the ommunity to allocate amongst everyone to ensure everyone at the very least have no one go hungry. Whats left is either given to those who needs it more, for example tree cutters, masons, etc. Stoed away for winter or is evenly distributed to give people bigger portions.
IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay: I ask MPH for a job. If he says "we're full" then I go hunting and do the atkin's diet all winter.
Scott: Is it better for MPH to have to ask me for a job or for me to work my fields alone and feed him anyway?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I see being glossed over on the socialist side of things is who does the "assigning" and the determining of who "needs it more." I'm not convinced at all that the a post-civilization society is capable of creating an allocation principle better than what can be worked out in a series of voluntary bilateral/multilateral agreements.
The government is just as capable of deciding to bar distribution of food to those not "pulling their own weight" as it is in forcing such distribution.
In either case, of course, we have to decide what happens to those who don't abide by the rules - in the capitalist society, what happens to the person who takes Pix's seed, and in the socialist society, what happens to the person who refuses to work at his assigned task or turn over his seed when asked.
I know the obvious answers to each, but I think it's useful to determine the level of force that will be applied to non-compliers.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott: I would think it's pretty clear. Our fictional MPH could sit on his butt and still get fed in the socialist example. (unless they FORCED him to work against his will. *cracks whip*) In the barter society example, He can choose to work for fictional-me, starve, or find some other way to grow/hunt food.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, that presupposes that A) you'll pay me enough for my family to live off of and B) there are other options for me to grow/hunt food, or C) between working for you and in other options, I'll be able to feed my family.
If those don't pan out, I still starve no matter how hard I work.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MPH: that's a possiblity in the socialist system too. What if there simply ISN'T enough for everyone?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Of course, that presupposes that A) you'll pay me enough for my family to live off of and B) there are other options for me to grow/hunt food, or C) between working for you and in other options, I'll be able to feed my family.
If those don't pan out, I still starve no matter how hard I work.
posted
Then that isnt a fault of the system just there being a lack of food but i think in the socialist example we can at least try our best to feed everyone the bare minimum needed to survive with what little food we would have in tha example.
IP: Logged |
posted
Both systems rely on the goodwill of people with power. Capitalism relies on the goodwill of people with property. Socialism relies on the goodwill of the people who do the assigning.
To me, that makes the most important aspect of the situation how either the property or the power to assign is allocated.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not sure how to keep the arms secure without worrying about who is guarding the guards.
As scary as the idea is, I think in such a situation the arms should be split between all of the residents. A stockpile of weapons sounds scarier. And the idea of having to guard it sounds inefficient.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Theoretically, a command economy could result in as much benefit for people as a market economy. If nothing else, the central planner could make exactly the same redistributions that would occur in a market economy, in exactly the same pattern.
However, you've already started to hit on some of the issues with that, Scott. Ignoring nebulous notions of fairness, there's the problem of doing all the calculations correctly. And doing the calculations at all requires you to have all the data.
This is not a problem in a market economy, because prices transmit information. If lots of people want something but not much is available, the price is higher. This information-carrying aspect of prices is extremely important in preserving efficiency.
ElJay: there are many ways around that. One, since it is well known that Pixiest is able to produce food for other people, and people know they will want to purchase from her, she sells futures on the food she will produce, and uses the futures to outbid m_p_h.
Two, the only reason Scott would accept the scrap iron is if it is particularly useful to Scott. Since one of Scott's other values is the community, he would likely not accept the iron. To make Pixiest's price even, he could either require a redistribution of a certain amount of food in the future, or require a future on the food, which he then gives away or sells himself.
Three, the value of the scrap would only be carried by his ability to work it, which would almost certainly be dependent on the labor of others. Without food they are unlikely to get much work done. Scott would be aware of this.
Four, it is possible to pollinate by hand. Given that Pixiest could pay for pollination in food futures, and many of those available to work at pollination would be unable to obtain food any other way, Pixiest would have no problem finding employees to pollinate her crops.
And five, this situation is not likely to arise past unusual short-term circumstances in small communities. The number of bees in the community would probably stay at around the amount needed to fertilize crops needing their services, because when this was not the case there would be considerable incentive for people to raise more bees (the farmers would certainly pay).
In a small market, these sorts of situations tend to be worked out efficiently because the amount of information is small. In a large market, these things tend to happen efficiently because of the abundance of actors of all types. There's a period in market growth where they do not tend to happen efficiently, unfortunately, because of search costs (high total information and few matching actors). However, those issues can largely be overcome by a government that focuses on information availability related to key products -- for instance, making public squares available as places to set up stalls for selling food.
Inequal distributions can also cause problems with markets,but these distributions rarely maintain. Take the scrap iron example; m_p_h can only maintain a market advantage with it by spending it, at which point it enters circulation. The exception is with finite resources of production capital, which almost always means land. Inequal land distributions are rarely remediable once the existing land has been divided up.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne: Why does EVERYONE deserve equal treatment? I have no intention of working to preserve somebody else's life if their contributions to the society are insignificant. The community stud in earlier pages of this thread being a perfect example.
I agree that a farmer should share his produce if he expects a doctor to use her skills to treat his sickness. But honestly there is no place in a survivalist society for the indolent or idle. If somebody says "Please all I want is food/water." If they are spending *all* their time discussing philosophy then there is no reason they should be supported by those who are producing. Unless his philosophical work somehow provides crucial stability within the society then he/she is worthless.
If we are concerned with rebuilding civilization things like the arts, recreation, and even certain industries REALLY need to be secondary to enabling and training everyone in that society as a producers.
Initially I would expect EVERYONE being put to work seeding/cultivating and tending fields of produce so that we are sure we have enough food for the populace. Once that is established we can concern ourselves with other pursuits.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As scary as the idea is, I think in such a situation the arms should be split between all of the residents. A stockpile of weapons sounds scarier. And the idea of having to guard it sounds inefficient.
I have a better idea: we hold a riotous fourth of July party in which all the weapons that can be destroyed are destroyed.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: My LDS-style provisions consist of a couple jars of fruit, and 800 pounds of unground wheat.
I suggest you take up somone else's example.
I have a hand-powered grain mill. With a big flywheel to make it easy to turn. It'd be even easier if we hooked it up to a bicycle or something.
And I make excellent sourdough bread with whole wheat, water, and a pinch of salt. Tastes especially good spread with honey.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not sure how to keep the arms secure without worrying about who is guarding the guards.
As scary as the idea is, I think in such a situation the arms should be split between all of the residents. A stockpile of weapons sounds scarier. And the idea of having to guard it sounds inefficient.
But what if there are a limited number of say flame throwers, or say an antiaircraft cannon? Who gets those? Firearms and grenades I can see easily being divided as best as possible but generally speaking, the more powerful the weapon the fewer there are around.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee: market economies only rely on the goodwill of people with property in edge cases (and edge cases can be significantly reduced in a well-regulated economy), for most of their efficiency and benefit to participants they rely on the self-interest of people (not just those with property) -- on mutually-beneficial exchanges.
Furthermore, socialist systems rely not just on the goodwill of people doing the assigning, but their access to all the information and ability to process that information correctly. In any beyond the smallest economies, the amount of information to achieve efficient allocation quickly grows beyond the ability of people to collect and process all of it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I have no intention of working to preserve somebody else's life if their contributions to the society are insignificant.
But honestly there is no place in a survivalist society for the indolent or idle. If somebody says "Please all I want is food/water."
Unless his philosophical work somehow provides crucial stability within the society then he/she is worthless.
So once someone is beyond productive working age we send them out to die in the woods?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
As I had stated earlier there are incentives for everything, the idler will probly at first face social pressure to work or at least contribute SOMETHING, Regis from RA Salvatore's books despite being a lazy halfling was noentheless skilled at shaping suptures from fish bones. Social Peer pressure would probly suffice in a small community to persuade idlers to work and contribute, the point of socialism is that we wont just let people starve even if they contribute little, theyre pressence as a person may be a contribution. However if its absolutely nessasary lack we badly need the many power he can be forced through other means to work, although I have little doubt that someone else besides the authority will probly resort to this first.
The point of everyne deserving equal treatment is to avoid the difficulties in giving people a value, if this person or persons like him are worthless then let them starve to me is unethical, everyone is indespinsible one way or another or will become indespensible later. Everyone is equal is a starting asumption onhow to form a new society, why should we allow the old and elderly to starve just because their physical contribution is nill? The point is that everyone can contribute someway somehow and thus is allocated the minimum food needed to live keeping in balance with how muh food is needed to store for winter.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
dkw i think anwsered in far few words better then I could.
IP: Logged |
posted
DKW: We want to get a hand-powered wheat grinder. Are you pleased with yours? What brand is it?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I have no intention of working to preserve somebody else's life if their contributions to the society are insignificant.
But honestly there is no place in a survivalist society for the indolent or idle. If somebody says "Please all I want is food/water."
Unless his philosophical work somehow provides crucial stability within the society then he/she is worthless.
So once someone is beyond productive working age we send them out to die in the woods?
Nope, their good example of supporting the community while they were able is productive to the society's work ethic as a whole. Allowing them to starve sends a bad message to the community, better to let them live as good examples of a good citizen.
But if food/water/basic necessities were limited they would be the first to go unfortunately.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's nothing preventing a market economy from having a social support system. In fact, many strong free-marketers have been for social support systems, provided they are minimally distorting, both for moral reasons and market reasons (a free market does not mean there are no rules; it means the rules are set up to support a system of mutually beneficial, non-coercive exchanges; people starving to death, for instance, is not conducive to mutually beneficial exchanges taking place). Randian principles are not the same as free market principles.
On the other hand, there's lots preventing a command economy from making enough food to support its population (we can observe this from history), much less making people significantly better off.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph -- I love it. I haven't used it in awhile, though.
It's a dia-somethingorother. I got it online from a store that caters to the Amish (figure that one out.)
I'll try to find the exact model for you. I also have a book that rates different brands/models. (The Laurel's Kitchen Bread Book -- If you don't have it you should, Bev would love it.)
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I have a better idea: we hold a riotous fourth of July party in which all the weapons that can be destroyed are destroyed.
I've made dandelion wine before. (Hi, y'all! Par-tay! Er, except for the Word of Wisdom part. Scratch that. Make it dandelion tisane. Whoo-hoo!)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back to the original question for a bit. I'm not sure anyone needs my hardcore journalism skills. I would do my best to be a representative of Islam. I'm an old, 67 year old codger, and I'd probably die of shock.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not to mention once we found a militia's headquarters or a government armory we would have plenty of guns and ammunition for hunting. The contents of the armory would have to be under the strictest guard however.
The part that would worry me would be knowing there is an armory out there and wondering what type of person is going to find it first.
Which brings up the question of ownership. What would the policy be? Would everything begin as being community property, which would make MPH's piece of scrap something that he wouldn't have the right to offer to Scott? What about property claims or luxury items that remain from the old civilization? And what could be done about thieves (which would probably be harder to prove) when they can simply go to some other community and start over with a brand new identity?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I would think that anything that was in your possession before would have to be yours. And anything that you worked for/found would be yours unless it was of such significant value to the community (weapons cache, medical supplies) that it should be held in common ownership and distribution should be communally decided on. There can be a degree of communal property/helping while still preserving individual ownership; see common lands for an example.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by camus: [QUOTE] And what could be done about thieves (which would probably be harder to prove) when they can simply go to some other community and start over with a brand new identity?
The set-up for this scenario is that only Hatrackers survive and we're all (magically) living in the same place. There is no other community to go to.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: *wraps arms protectively around DVD collection*
Who am I kidding. *claims the Library of Congress*
Now, that, we're going to have to confiscate. It could provide valuable resources for the community's survival. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree. With approximately 10,000 hatrackers surviving, I think it would split up into several smaller communities.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But what if there are a limited number of say flame throwers, or say an antiaircraft cannon? Who gets those? Firearms and grenades I can see easily being divided as best as possible but generally speaking, the more powerful the weapon the fewer there are around.
Hmmm, perhaps divy them out to the leaders? I just don't think there'd be the resources to have people guard an armory.
quote: My LDS-style provisions consist of a couple jars of fruit, and 800 pounds of unground wheat.
Hmmmm, I forgot about this angle. I suppose at first there would probably be only one community and that the leaders would be the Mormons with food storage. After that ran out, I suspect the splits would start happening. Unless of course we can still raid Walmarts. And if that's the case, we wouldn't really NEED to farm for a very long time. In order to properly hypothesize we need to decide how much stuff is still usable. Is this The Stand or Alas Babylon?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Unless of course we can still raid Walmarts. And if that's the case, we wouldn't really NEED to farm for a very long time. In order to properly hypothesize we need to decide how much stuff is still usable. Is this The Stand or Alas Babylon?
The amount of food stored in Walmarts and other grocery stores is truly negligible in comparison to the needs of the community they serve. When I lived in Seattle, the shelves of the groceries went bare every time they forcast a major snow storm. Unless we are talking about a neutron bomb scenario that kills people but leaves everything else in tact, the Walmart and Cosco shelves will be empty within the first day.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: My LDS-style provisions consist of a couple jars of fruit, and 800 pounds of unground wheat.
Hmmmm, I forgot about this angle. I suppose at first there would probably be only one community and that the leaders would be the Mormons with food storage. ?
The average farmer has a heck of a lot more grain (and likely canned fruits & veggies) than what Scott is describing. The Mormons are not the only ones with food storage. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am totally with Blayne Bradley. In fact my native instincts are so strongly for cooperation rather than competition that I am shocked when I discover people who disagree.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Scott: I would think it's pretty clear. Our fictional MPH could sit on his butt and still get fed in the socialist example. (unless they FORCED him to work against his will. *cracks whip*
And In a capitalist system, the fictional MPH who has found some scrap metal and was therefore able to get his fields pollunated, can insist that other people work his fields in exchange for food while he sits idle.
quote:[/qb] In the barter society example, He can choose to work for fictional-me, starve, or find some other way to grow/hunt food. [/QB]
You are making the big assumption that there will be enough basic resources (land, water, minerals, wild game etc.) that there will always be some available that no one has claimed. This is an assumption that has rarely been true anywhere in the world.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The amount of food stored in Walmarts and other grocery stores is truly negligible in comparison to the needs of the community they serve. When I lived in Seattle, the shelves of the groceries went bare every time they forcast a major snow storm. Unless we are talking about a neutron bomb scenario that kills people but leaves everything else in tact, the Walmart and Cosco shelves will be empty within the first day.
I live within ten minutes of 3 Walmarts, a CostCo, a Sams, 4 Tom Thumbs, 2 Krogers, 4 Albertsons, and probably more that I don't pay attention to. When we extend the radius to stores within a three day's journey, I think there's ample food to feed everyone for a few years.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit: There's a whole lot more to capitalism and the barter society than competition. If that's all you understand about what I've posted in specific and capitalism in general, no wonder you were shocked.
What Blayne is suggesting is not simply socialism, it's slavery and possibly suicide. If you don't work as much as society expects you to, they will find ways to MAKE you work. Failing that, you will be overwhelmed with deadbeats who don't do any work because they are alienated from the fruits of their labour as society takes it and redistributes it the way it sees fit. Everyone will become heavy on Need and light on Means. Who will volunteer they know how to do something when doing so will mean much more work for them at no additional reward? You may scream "me me!" and surely a few other people might, but the majority won't. And if even a small minority don't your society is in trouble. Then you're back to the Crack The Whip option.
In a barter society, you will make what you can and trade it for what you need. What is more cooperative than a fair trade that makes both people happy?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
How long would perishables last though?
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
The Pixiest ytour entire post is ridiculas and implies that the vast majority of society as we know it is retarded. I have no suggested slavry or suicide, but Scientific Socialism, pooling together the communities resources and labours to reach common goal. EVERY society would qualify as a slave state by our narrow definition, societies all find ways to make their members productive the difference is the amount of effort invested to get said result the assumption of being overwhelmed by dead beats is simple paranoia and as I said implies humanity is retarded.
A barter society becomes a capitalist society, where the wealth of nations is concentrated eventually and enevitably into the hands of the few and it is capitalism that leads to indentured slaves, and if you are not one of the oppressors or on of the oppressed you are dead for that is capitalism at its core competition, if you cannot compete you are dead, I offer something with more hope and humanity.
IP: Logged |
quote:You are making the big assumption that there will be enough basic resources (land, water, minerals, wild game etc.) that there will always be some available that no one has claimed. This is an assumption that has rarely been true anywhere in the world.
This is true; but if that assumption is not correct, and if the two farms in question cannot produce enough food for everybody, then somebody is going to die. There is no way to redistribute 2000 daily calories to adequately feed 2 people - neither capitalism nor communism can accomplish this feat. (Some varieties of theocracy claim to be able to do it, but that's not the discussion.) The only question is who is going to do the dying; this might possibly differ between the two systems if they were strictly enforced, but in fact you'd be much more likely to get anarchy, and the one who shoots first survives.
I think those of you who are drawing examples from history are ignoring the fact of scaling. Communal societies of a few thousand people have worked extremely well in the past. Conversely you can't actually have a full-scale capitalist society of a few thousand people, or rather you can't have the maximally oppressive Dickens-England-child-labour kind, because firstly labour is expensive and secondly there isn't the strong enforcement mechanism to make private property really sacrosanct.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, capitalism is least about competition, and most about mutually beneficial exchange. By producing as one is best at doing and exchanging with others, everyone becomes better off.
Competition is just a governor on the system to ensure that people have a harder time exploiting others for unfair compensation.
Strangely, Blayne, there have been large numbers of indentured slaves in every experiment with command economies, and very few in societies with open markets. And the worst ten percent of US workers live orders of magnitude better than the worst 80% (or more, not sure how much more) in, say, the USSR ever did.
Funny how that works out.
You mistake wealth for a zero sum game. Yes, market economies allow some people to become extremely wealthy. This does not make everyone else those people's slaves, and is far preferable to the common situation in command economies, where the deciders have extreme wealth . . . and everyone else has nearly nothing.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, before you hit "Add Reply", could you please check them for errors? It appears to be getting worse.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM: some communal living experiments on that scale worked out well. Most failed, and often due to things like free-rider problems.
There are enough hatrackers to support a viable town, and to have a reasonably competitive market for basic items. As a rule of thumb, it only takes a dozen producers for a market to be approximately efficient, and for staples like food and basic construction there would be more producers.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
