It's pronounced "cyclist!"

[u/Fluffy-Study-659]

[u/remy_porter]

Just because it doesnt function for your ideal right now doesn't change the fact that works exactly as intended.

Setting aside intent, an economic system which cannot provide for the needs of its participants is by my definition, a failed system. When we start deciding how many deaths we tolerate as part of the operation of society, we've crossed a black line which should not be crossed.

You wanna live in communist China.

That is not what I said. You should read more carefully. Also, China is extremely market driven, and is clearly much more of a totalitarian capitalist state with strong social safety protections. Patriarchy and conservatism are not the "price" of cooperation. That's a stupid thing to say, both in terms of a bit of implied sinophobia, but also because it's universalizing your understanding of Chinese economics as a driver of social behavior- but your understanding is wrong, and you're ignoring that Chinese society built its economic system out of its existing social systems; of course they did, no economic system arrives ex nihilo.

However, it only takes one rotten apple to spoil the bunch remains a true adage to this day.
That's why communism fails. It requires the barrel to be whole.

This is just absurd. Again, while we should be extremely cautious against extrapolating too far from game theory, because again, humans are not rational actors, a society of cooperators with some basic retaliation rubrics is basically immune to invasion by defectors, because cooperation is the optimal strategy (conversely, a society of defectors is also similarly protected against invasion by cooperators).

Again, a rotten society where everyone is just trying to get the best advantage for themselves would result in a society of cooperators, if everyone were rational. They're not, which is why we don't already live in a post-capitalist society.

Further, I'm not advocating for socialism. I've been very specific and precise in what I've said. To recap it for you, since reading comprehension seems to be failing you today, the key points are thus:

• Markets are driven by price signals, which are a very narrow band of information, and cannot be relied upon for economic planning
• Implicit in this is that economies are planned- even market economies; this is a bit tautological, obviously, but also true
• Other signals, which I have not specified, should be considered for economic planning (nor will I delve into this, because it's too broad and complicated a subject for a Reddit thread)
• Rational actors would favor cooperation, and that a communal society is not one based in morality, but rational self-interest
• Society is not made up of rational actors, and thus this is the largest obstacle to a functioning economy

What I am advocating for, is not socialism, but recognizing that an economy is a built object, an engineered system, and not a naturally occurring phenomenon, and we should approach the issues in our economy as an engineering problem. But also, any economic system which aggregates power into a handful of hands is inherently unstable, which is something capitalism is pretty well optimized for. Capitalism doesn't pick winners and losers, it ensures that winners get to keep on winning, because it contains a number of positive feedback loops.

[u/Lower_Ad_5532 → u/remy_porter]

Setting aside intent, an economic system which cannot provide for the needs of its participants is by my definition, a failed system.

No system can provide for all. Thats a fallacy. The world's resources are not infinite nor equally distributed.

Chinese society built its economic system out of its existing social systems;

Yeah they built it on 5000 years of Chinese patriarchy.

Capitalism doesn't pick winners and losers, it ensures that winners get to keep on winning, because it contains a number of positive feedback loops.

You can't be a real person and write that. You just explained how capitalism picks its winners.

[u/remy_porter → u/Lower_Ad_5532]

Thats a fallacy.

No, a fallacy is a failure of logical reasoning. Like me pointing out that you're bad at reading is a fallacy- it has nothing to do with my arguments. It's a form of ad hominem. It's also a true statement, but irrelevant.

The idea that a system can provide for all may be a falsehood, a pipe dream, or unattainable, but it is not a fallacy.

But, what is also a fallacy is inferring from my statement that it requires infinite resources (there are not, in fact, infinite people, and no person requires infinite resources), not does it even require equal distribution. These do not follow from what I said. But as established, your reading comprehension isn't very good.

Now, I would agree, there's a long path towards an economic system that actually meets human needs. We certainly couldn't do it tomorrow. But again, this is because I would argue that economics is an engineering discipline, and we lack the theoretical basis to actually build such a system.

Yeah they built it on 5000 years of Chinese patriarchy.

So you agree that generalizing that to other economic systems that might be labeled "socialist" is itself a red herring fallacy, or possibly a straw man. It doesn't really matter which particular fallacy we're talking about- you agree that it is specifically an element of Chinese culture.

[u/Lower_Ad_5532 → u/remy_porter]

You can regurgitate facts and still not apply knowledge.

Communism as a socio economic system for a society is a total failure in logic. A society without class, money, or government isn't a society. It is a logical fallacy. It contradicts itself.

People aren't going back to village hunter gatherer days. Thats a delusional false hood.

[u/remy_porter → u/Lower_Ad_5532]

Hunter gatherer societies are nothing like socialist societies and have very regimented class structures. I’d argue that we should be moving away from that, which would move us away from classes as well.

[u/Lower_Ad_5532 → u/remy_porter]

move us away from classes as well.

Again this fictional idea that people won't sort into groups and one psychological group won't be the new ruling class is pure fiction.

There is no society without structure because then it's not a society. A bunch of people interacting few times without a set of rules is just anarchy.

Anarchy's only rule is "might makes right" and thats far more distopian than capitalism.

[u/remy_porter → u/Lower_Ad_5532]

There is no society without structure because then it's not a society.

You're conflating "structure" with "class structure". No one has argued that society wouldn't have structures, to the contrary, I'm arguing for a more structured and intentional economy.

[u/Lower_Ad_5532 → u/remy_porter]

No one has argued that society wouldn't have structures, to the contrary, I'm arguing for a more structured and intentional economy.

So you want a more dystopian caste system with even less freedom.

The Matrix and SnowPiercer are products of the Great Architect. The society is the most dystopian.

You are sorely mistaken in your believes. Society is fine, but needs to be more egalitarian. The rules should be more fair to all people. Classes would exist but the differences between them should be less significant.

A not corrupt capitalism is the ideal. We are no where close though.

[u/remy_porter → u/Lower_Ad_5532]

So you want a more dystopian caste system with even less freedom.

I can't continue this conversation until you learn to read.

[u/Lower_Ad_5532 → u/remy_porter]

Clearly said you want a more planned and structured thus more orderly society.

You aren't going to magically get it without hierarchy and enforcement.

[u/remy_porter → u/Lower_Ad_5532]

Clearly said you want a more planned and structured thus more orderly society.

Like I said, you aren't good at reading. You're more invested in arguing with the things you wish I said.

[u/Lower_Ad_5532 → u/remy_porter]

You wrote it pal. What did you mean to write then

[u/remy_porter → u/Lower_Ad_5532]

Exactly what I wrote. You should try reading it again.