https://open.substack.com/pub/roomfive/p/why-everyone-is-completely-wrong?r=28q7xt&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer
This is an interesting piece about economic systems. The short version is that scale seems to be the limiting factor. That something like socialism/communism can work on a small scale where people know and trust those in their community, but is doomed to failure on a national level. In a general sense, I can see his point and don't necessarily disagree.
Where I might have problems is that he seems to be cherry picking his examples to support his thesis. His use of monastic communities seems the most obvious. Monastic communities are not really economic units. Dividing the farm chores so everyone can eat doesn't seem like an economic system as much as a necessity to stay alive. Further, monastic communities are not "owned" by the monks, they are "owned" by the ecclesiastical body that they are affiliated with. It seems interesting that the Amish didn't make his list if I remember correctly.
Despite some issues with his examples, I think that he has a pretty valid point. However, we now live in a world where is is almost impossible to be a self contained economy with little or no economic connection with the rest of the world.
In short, the fact that he concludes that Socialism/Communism is virtually unworkable in anything more than a very small local scale is interesting. This should give pause to those who are convinced the communism is the answer if it's only done correctly.
8 comments:
You mean, not unlike what I just said in the last conversation. I agree with this writer and myself on that point, then.
That was me, Dan.
I mean that I agree that the only possible way it could work for a period of time is with a very small group of people, living a rural mostly agrarian lifestyle, without most if not all modern conveniences.
Given the early settlers experience I have my doubts, but it does seem theoretically possible.
Of course it goes without saying that this explains why it’s failed on a large scale every time it’s tried.
Whether or not one thinks communism "sounds nice" in theory, it's more fantasy given man's sin nature. This seems obvious to those who think, so any mention of the word as suggestive of a really, really bad idea indicates an understanding of both the concept and how contrary to man's nature it truly is.
As to the Amish, they're community, not communal. Each owns their own land and they don't so much provide for the community as help each other out when help is needed.
I do want to point out that I do this sort of thing pretty regularly. Post things that interest me, but that might not totally agree with. Not the kind of thing I see at the cesspool or Dan's FB page.
Art, I don’t disagree with you that any experiment would likely be short lived. However, I agree with the premise that the only possible way to have a chance to make it work is in a very small group of people. All of whom would probably have be specially chosen for their skills and willing to subordinate themselves to the community.
You’re correct about the Amish, in that they are fundamentally capitalist and value private property and the free exchange of goods and services through private enterprise.
Indeed. It can only work in theory because of that pesky sin nature inherent in all people. The larger the community, the more important it is that people have the character to be totally self-sacrificial in all things...to subordinate themselves totally to the community. Where does that ever happen? Even in a monastic setting, the population is extremely small and without any guarantee that within it there aren't people slacking at least now and then, thereby acting in conflict with the best interests of the community.
But I would add that Rubio is still correct given that we all know this about communism. The definition is the con and it represents a fictional utopia only. One must ignore the reality in order to pretend the definition is real.
I agree that it is impossible over the long term for exactly the reason you give. I'll grant that it might be possible to hand pick the perfect group of people and make it work for a while, under perfect conditions.
As we saw with the early settlers in the US and the folks at Zoar village, the failure rate is high.
In the first case, what killed the dream was people who realized that they could live off of the labor of others and still get their needs met. Obviously this pissed off the productive people, and they drove a change.
Zoar village couldn't survive the death of the founder, which seems like a big hurdle. It seems unlikely that generations following the True Believers are going to be less likely to buy in and more likely to want to see what;s out in the rest of the world.
The only agriculture that worked in the USSR were the small plots reluctantly given to families as the state run collectives destroyed some of the most productive land in Europe.
Likewise, the factory workers quickly realized the meeting their quotas only resulted in higher quotas, so they never met their quotas.
Of course, Levi's and rock and roll proved to be irresistible to the soviet youth.
The problem in practical terms is that you need True Believers, with the skills to make a small town operate independent of the rest of the country. Which means people who can grow food, make things, and fix things. Electricity is probably limited to what can be produced locally with wind, hydro, and solar, although having the means to buy the stuff seems questionable. Clean water might be a problem as well. The biggest hurdle would seem to be the presumed lack of an economy beyond barter. Which would limit economic interaction with anyone outside of the town.
I agree that every single piece of DATA that we have regarding communism in the real world indicates that it cannot successfully function on a large scale or for a long time with any actual economic success.
The definition makes some sense in theory, yet has proven unworkable in reality.
The True test of the whole thing is that Dan has chosen to stay in the capitalist economy that he's so critical of, rather than to commit to actions in line with his convictions. He could absolutely live the simple, communal life he touts, he chooses not to.
Post a Comment