I, Pencil

[Tps222]

Earlier today I came upon a certain essay named "I, Pencil".http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Essays/rdPncl1.html

It's a story about a pencil and how it is produced. It describes how the Capitalist system is the optimal choice for the most efficient economy possible. It described a mass of people with a single knowledge in one task of creating the pencil all contributing thus stated task resultin in the final product pencil, and that any one of those individual people could not create the pencil on their own. It also describes that since they are free, that they use their skill in making a part of the pencil to obtain something else that they desire, thus providing motavation for everyone to do their job, so they can do the same.

Now, apart from discussing your own opinions on the essay, I ask a question. Could this idea work if Communism was in place. I am not referring to the current world, as this would be impossible. The world market is already mainly Capitalist. Now, what I am proposing is this: Wipe the world clean of all Economic and Moral systems. This includes the ideas of freedom, democracy, and capitalism. Now, I realize Capitalism evolved from previous economic systems, a lot from mercantalism, but that doesn't affect my point in this conditional. After the world's population is wiped clear of those systems and the memory of them, we propose the system of Capitalism alongside with the system of Communism. I realize that naturally, no one wants to be restricted to what they can do, but I feel that perhaps Communism could work if it globalized(which would have been attempted if Trotsky was appointed leader of the USSR). Without the ideas of the such people as Voltaire and the rest of the enlightened thinkers, freedom wouldn't spread so easily. If a nation were to arise with an extremely attracive(politically) leader, then Communism would sure have a chance.

Getting back to my main point, if applied to the "I, Pencil" essay, Communism could fit in fine. The main problem would be getting their, which is what I want everyone to debate. Would it be possible for Communism, given a fair shot, to outgrow Capitalism? Would it rely on a random occurance, such as the beforementioned leader? Would it be instantly rejected due to the natural pursue of freedom? If Communism succeeded in being the primary global economy, could it fit the slate that "I,Pencil" described? This is what I want you all to address. This is a serious topic, I do not want people who don't know what they are talking about (Which may be ironic in my case, but I don't think I'm that clueless, perhaps ill-opinoned) to post worthless ideas. I eagerly await all of your responses to this, and I will post comments on your ideas if I didn't articulate mine correctly to being with.

-Fin

[The_Q]

iPencil is NOT an Apple product.

Communism fails once more. The main reason? Infrastructure. There is no way this could be pulled off with all the bureaucrats in the world shuffling the papers. This is mainly because there are a world of bureaucrats shuffling around papers. It just can't be done fast enough to relay the necessary information.

More later...very tired.

Q

[T0rajir0u]

Originally Posted by Tps222

I am not referring to the current world, as this would be impossible. The world market is already mainly Capitalist. Now, what I am proposing is this: Wipe the world clean of all Economic and Moral systems.

I don't understand how this discussion could possibly be relevant to the real world, then. It's meaningless. Any conclusions you reach couldn't possibly be applicable to the actual global situation, so why waste time thinking about it?

[Tps222]

It's hypothetical disccusion. Just becuase it isn't realistic doesn't mean it can't be discussed. That's what makes it all the more arguable. It doesn't have a set of pre-defined rules.

Anyways, just to let everyone know, I'm Pro-Capitalism. So I'm not trying to push communism to anyone.

[aperson]

The optimal form of government is based on the mindset of its constituents. Since incentive and material desire are central to the American ideology, communism would not thrive in it; however, it is entirely reasonable for a society to exist in which communism is the optimal form of government.

[T0rajir0u]

You're one of the only other people I've ever seen to understand that concept.

[Patashu]

Aperson never gets anything wrong.

Example.

Hey, aperson, what is the purpose of meaning?

[aperson]

Signs hazy ask again later

[Hr2]

Originally Posted by T0rajir0u

You're one of the only other people I've ever seen to understand that concept.

You should talk to adults more. Kids are far more ideological than adults and end up having weird and stupid political notions (I was guilty of this, not so much anymore).

It is entirely reasonable for a society to exist where communism is the optimal form of government, on another planet. Human nature, even from the beginning, has shown that we desire individual benefits. Once while debating for the side of communism, just for fun, with someone in my economics class, this exchange occurred.

Me: If everyone worked together we could all have free food, free healthcare, and free houses. You can't possibly say it would be bad to have all this!
Person: The only reason to have stuff is because others don't have it.

While not everything thinks like this, you can see where the problem is not in wanting more, but simply wanting more than others. Also, we all know that there are people who will try to abuse any system.

Honestly though, if I could take greed away from the world, I wouldn't. **** being able to live in a communist society, half the **** we have we wouldn't have if not for greed. It makes the world go round.