Spain's Communist Village Is Making The Rest Of The World Look Bad - Polidicks

[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/the-village-against-the-world-by-dan-hancox-uncovers-spains-communist-utopia-2013-11#ixzz2n0Go2FDj[/url] [quote] ‘The myth of capitalism has crumbled,’ he announced, ‘that the market is an omnipotent God that fixes everything with his invisible hand. We’ve seen this is a great lie, a stupid fundamentalism: we’ve seen that in times of crisis, markets have had to [URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-village-against-the-world-by-dan-hancox-uncovers-spains-communist-utopia-2013-11#"][COLOR=#007705]resort[/COLOR][/URL] to the state, and that states are putting money into the banks.’ And so they were – hundreds of billions of euros’ worth. In Spain, 75 per cent of debt is private. There was no extravagant public spending that created the crisis there; in 2008 Spain’s finances were well within the Eurozone’s fiscal rules, and its government debt as a share of GDP was much lower than Germany’s, a situation they maintained, to begin with. In Spain, essentially, it is the crash which created the debt, not the other way around.[/quote]

Most of what he does is gimmicky publicity stunts. 5% unemployment rate? That's only because they have loads of people out in the fields picking weeds and trying to grow vegetables as "jobs". It's an eccentric experiment in a small village with little chance of large scale application.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43125880]Most of what he does is gimmicky publicity stunts. 5% unemployment rate? That's only because they have loads of people out in the fields picking weeds and trying to grow vegetables as "jobs". It's an eccentric experiment in a small village with little chance of large scale application.[/QUOTE] why is growing food not a job?

It works on a scale of less than a million people so that obviously means that capitalism is fatally flawed and that communism can be effectively practiced on a global scale.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;43125923]It works on a scale of less than a million people so that obviously means that capitalism is fatally flawed and that communism can be effectively practiced on a global scale.[/QUOTE] Two and a half thousand people actually.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43125907]why is growing food not a job?[/QUOTE] My father, having been to pre-collapse USSR, said they had jobs for [I]everything[/I] there. From taking coats from people to holding doors to counting the exact equal amount of chicken squares that every identical bowl of soup got after being handed it by someone else who's job was to pour said soup into the bowls, after being handed said bowl from someone who's job was to grab bowls from the stack of freshly cleaned bowls, stacked by someone who only stacks, etc. At some point, the job is so trivial that it barely qualifies at all as doing something.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43125907]why is growing food not a job?[/QUOTE] subsistence living is what prevents innovation and the development of the luxuries i highly doubt even you could live without

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43125907]why is growing food not a job?[/QUOTE] Subsistence agriculture is a pretty poor substitute for wage-paying employment.

the other thing is you literally make everythig a job so you have all of these employed people doing menial tasks just to keep money exchange going [editline]9th December 2013[/editline] wow automerge and ninjad

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43125930]Two and a half thousand people actually.[/QUOTE] Thats still an absolutely minuscule amount of people. On that scale I'm sure you could even get Fascism to work wonderfully.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;43125941]My father, having been to pre-collapse USSR, said they had jobs for [I]everything[/I] there. From taking coats from people to holding doors to counting the exact equal amount of chicken squares that every identical bowl of soup got after being handed it by someone else who's job was to pour said soup into the bowls, after being handed said bowl from someone who's job was to grab bowls from the stack of freshly cleaned bowls, stacked by someone who only stacks, etc. At some point, the job is so trivial that it barely qualifies at all as doing something.[/QUOTE] growing food is not a trivial task. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;43125946]Subsistence agriculture is a pretty poor substitute for wage-paying employment.[/QUOTE] why? [editline]9th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Loriborn;43125955]the other thing is you literally make everythig a job so you have all of these employed people doing menial tasks just to keep money exchange going [editline]9th December 2013[/editline] wow automerge and ninjad[/QUOTE] that's sorta like how sobotnik envisions his utilitarian economy going so idk what the problem is.

It's not like all the jobs being 'created' in the US aren't just as trivial and useless.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;43125960]Thats still an absolutely minuscule amount of people. On that scale I'm sure you could even get Fascism to work wonderfully.[/QUOTE] if it's over 150 people then it doesn't matter if it's 2500 or 2,500,000,000 people participating.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43125962]growing food is not a trivial task. why?[/QUOTE] It is when you grow food simply so you can survive long enough to grow food again.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43125962]that's sorta like how sobotnik envisions his utilitarian economy going so idk what the problem is.[/QUOTE] how is that relevant its still a piss poor excuse for economics and any economicist worth their salt will tell you that

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;43125985]It is when you grow food simply so you can survive long enough to grow food again.[/QUOTE] we do that already in capitalism. we work all day to provide a wage so we can survive long enough to work all day the next day.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43125983]if it's over 150 people then it doesn't matter if it's 2500 or 2,500,000,000 people participating.[/QUOTE] uh if you dont understand the difference between 150 people and 2500 then you dont understand the amount organization required in economics [editline]9th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;43125995]we do that already in capitalism. we work all day to provide a wage so we can survive long enough to work all day the next day.[/QUOTE] but in most capitalistic countries, we can afford luxuries, luxuries created through capitalism wouldn't have any "fun" when you're spending your entire days farming just to survive you're working longer hours for less reward

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43125962]why?[/quote] People only grow enough to eat. There is no specialization of labour or investment into certain economic activities best suited to that area. [quote]that's sorta like how sobotnik envisions his utilitarian economy going so idk what the problem is.[/QUOTE] What?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43125983]if it's over 150 people then it doesn't matter if it's 2500 or 2,500,000,000 people participating.[/QUOTE] Yea, the amount of people participating does matter if its over 150. What the hell do you even mean?

Slowly expand and take over Spain. Would probably do a better jobs an the current government. I remember apreading an article about this town and all of its flaws under the surface though. It's definitely not perfect.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;43126017]Yea, the amount of people participating does matter if its over 150. What the hell do you even mean?[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number[/url] once you break dunbar's number, the society is "large scale". [editline]9th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=person11;43126026]Slowly expand and take over Spain. Would probably do a better jobs an the current government. I remember apreading an article about this town and all of its flaws under the surface though. It's definitely not perfect.[/QUOTE] no human society will be perfect. we can only concentrate on creating an economy and society where human beings have value as something else than a commodity to be bought and sold on the labor market.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43126031][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number[/url] once you break dunbar's number, the society is "large scale".[/QUOTE] Most communes never get bigger than Dunbars number for some reason.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43125983]if it's over 150 people then it doesn't matter if it's 2500 or 2,500,000,000 people participating.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure this town is actually scalable that way. A system could be created that could do. That in theory, but I'm not sure it exists right now. Rome tried to expand its empire using the same scalable system but it could not expand past a certain point.

[QUOTE=Loriborn;43125998]uh if you dont understand the difference between 150 people and 2500 then you dont understand the amount organization required in economics [editline]9th December 2013[/editline] but in most capitalistic countries, we can afford luxuries, luxuries created through capitalism wouldn't have any "fun" when you're spending your entire days farming just to survive you're working longer hours for less reward[/QUOTE] All unnecessary, if a person wants to live in agriculture subsistance then they should be allowed to. I dont see the problem here unless wealthy landowners are feeling threatened.

[QUOTE=person11;43126056]I'm not sure this town is actually scalable that way. A system could be created that could do. That in theory, but I'm not sure it exists right now. Rome tried to expand its empire using the same scalable system but it could not expand past a certain point.[/QUOTE] The biggest problem is with actual resource allocation itself. Without a pricing mechanism it's practically impossible to determine how much to produce and where it's needed by who.

[QUOTE=Beerminator;43126064]All unnecessary, if a person wants to live in agriculture subsistance then they should be allowed to. I dont see the problem here unless wealthy landowners are feeling threatened.[/QUOTE] they are free to, but you're not going to find a massive push towards that in any major society turns out people actually like luxuries and being happy

[QUOTE=Beerminator;43126064]unless wealthy landowners are feeling threatened.[/QUOTE] (they are) [editline]9th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Loriborn;43126077]they are free to, but you're not going to find a massive push towards that in any major society turns out people actually like luxuries and being happy[/QUOTE] you have had tons of massive pushes towards that. turns out the state likes to employ violence to keep people part of the capitalist system.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43125880]Most of what he does is gimmicky publicity stunts. [B] 5% unemployment rate? That's only because they have loads of people out in the fields picking weeds and trying to grow vegetables as "jobs". It's an eccentric experiment in a small village with little chance of large scale application.[/B][/QUOTE] This is exactly what is done everywhere else sooooo

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43126079]turns out the state likes to employ violence to keep people part of the capitalist system.[/QUOTE] the state? you realize there are no first world countries that are not primarily capitalistic?

[QUOTE=Loriborn;43126101]the state? you realize there are no first world countries that are not primarily capitalistic?[/QUOTE] yea because those first world countries figured out how to repress socialist movements in their countries.