Kachi wrote:Realistically, it can as long as the demand for workers is met, and the resources are available. Particularly in the scenario that I began with.
Yes, presuming that. But resources are not a given -- they are a product of an economic system. All socialization can guarantee is that everyone starves together (or the socialization fails, which in practice seems to be what happens).
It won't need to take it from anyone if it comes from a government crop.
That presumes the government can guarantee that it produces sufficient food. In practice, no organization can make that guarantee.
I take it from this that you either ignored or forgot the premises which I framed my argument on.
I'm arguing from a premise of attempting to implement it in the real world. I don't care if you can build a model that works elsewhere. So excluding real world problems with premises is evidence of a model failure in my eyes -- thus, bringing up real world problems is valid regardless of your stated premises.
Random Precision wrote:But they have never been so destructive as they are now.
Citation. As far as I know, the per-capita death rate due to murder/war/conflict is far lower today than ... in pretty much any decent historical period in the past, at a global level. And possibly (based on what slim evidence we have) including pre-historical periods.
If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
Wonderful. That's a fantastic way to start out a discussion.
That isn't how I started it. I first asked if there was any empirical evidence that would convince the other party that Marx's ideology was not practical. The answer seemed to be 'no'. Then I presumed the other party was not worth reasoning with on that subject.
Indon wrote:Isn't it feasible to socialize a good or service without getting rid of the market? Health care in Canada comes to mind.
*nod* -- single payer health care pulls off a huge efficiency via eliminating the lemon effect. Then you piggyback it on a market system (which you get innovation and expected efficiencies from), and use a market system for overflow.
It is that lemon effect that really makes it effective, however. Note that the socialization of health care doesn't guarantee the health care.
If a government gave everyone a food budget but let individuals buy what food they chose (out of a government-regulated list of stuff that qualifies as 'food', even), then it seems to me that there's still a market, though it changes significantly in response to that government measure.
Sure, but that doesn't guarantee food.
A food guarantee requires two things: <1> sufficient food is produced, and <2> sufficient is distributed to you.
The problem of producing sufficient food is a hard one. The problem of getting sufficient food to each person ... well, in a wealthy western semi-closed immigration system, people can get sufficient food by literally eating out of garbage bins. It isn't high
quality food in comparison to what the rest of that society eats: but it is more and better food than (say) the typical north korean peasant eats (and remember: north korea was a bread-basket food exporting state before it went pear-shaped).
With sufficient food production efficiency, the price of crappy cheap food falls very low -- next to zero price. Without sufficient food production efficiency, no 'food rationing' system can feed everyone. I'm in favor of high food production efficiencies, as they solve the problem, and once solved the only remaining problem is relative
food poverty as opposed to absolute
segmentation fault wrote:oh so i have to spend most of my savings to buy into a company far enough that my say means anything?
Yes. You have to put your money -- surplus, unconsumed wealth allocated to you -- where your mouth is.
Kachi wrote:We're talking about fairly ideal cases, but not unrealistic by future means. So I'm going to have to completely disagree with you, because it's actually really easy to imagine a system in which it could guarantee success.
It is very easy to imagine, but in practice ... it always seems to fuck up.
Hence the test against reality requirement, and the requirement that variations of an existing system that have already caused catastrophy should require higher and higher standards before we attempt to burn resources testing them.