9

I would like to just add to +1 answer of @fizz. It is completely true that dictators often are self interested but the problem with communism is not only this but the fact that many ideas that are according to self proclaimed communists at the core of communism are are inherently inefficient. For example, many communists want to get rid of private property (...


7

(I am not certain of whether I use established English terminology here). The answer is no, because in a communist state (as described by Marx), there are no markets, especially, markets for production factors. And in none of the countries that implemented a socialistic socio-economic system, was labor "directly socialized" -it continued to be considered as ...


4

If that does happen, surely they would not keep doing it for long? Surely their plan isn't to starve their own people to death? Sometimes alas it is. This has only a little to do with economics in the usual sense and more to do with megalomaniac priorities. For example, if some dictator decides he needs nukes even if that costs millions of lives through ...


4

There is a very interesting paper by John Roemer, published in Econometrica in 1980, that presents a mathematical general equilibrium Marxian model. I am not sure someone have ever estimated it though. Find it here (subscription required). General equilibrium models (oftentimes idyosincratic) were also developed in the USSR. Check here for an account of them....


3

One (perhaps flippant) answer is that Marxists have a lot of ideas about how prices "should" work or how the value of labor "should" be rewarded, that aren't in line with what we observe, because central planning and/or mass subsidies that Marxist economies like end up being grossly inefficient. :P Another (perhaps more interesting) answer is that there is ...


3

No. Importantly, the conditions for the creation of a Marxist communist state has never occurred. Namely, the identification of workers along class lines over nationalist lines. Soviet totalitarian communism insisted upon socialist 'brotherhood', but this was mandated rather than organically occurring.


3

Under Mao the Chinese government was a planned economy, prices were set by the party, not by the free market. Procurement prices of agricultural produce, what the government payed to farmers, were lower than consumer prices of the same produce, what the government got from selling the produce to the consumers. The difference in prices becomes state revenue. ...


2

In my opinion there are two alternatives which are rather complementary. Participatory Economics or PARECON by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel : http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/topics/parecon, and the Reciprocity by Dominique Temple and Mireille Chabal (although these two are not economists) http://dominique.temple.free.fr/ and http://mireille.chabal....


2

Distributism Distributism is one such alternative, promoted in the early 20th century by Hilaire Belloc (Economics for Helen: A Brief Outline of Real Economy) and G. K. Chesterton (Utopia of Usurers). As John Médaille describes it: Its key tenet is that ownership of the means of production should be as widespread as possible rather than being concentrated ...


2

Arguably, Henry George described such an alternative in his 1874 work Progress and Poverty. His system eventually became known as Georgism. George saw his system as different than either Capitalism or Communism, as both of those systems equated Land with Capital and called for either the private ownership of both, or the communal ownership of both. ...


2

Would you rather work with a tractor or shovel? Would you rather use one hand to work or two?... Mathemathically the formula is: $$EL = \mathrm{GDP}_r$$ That is, efficiency ($/h) times hours worked per year equals the real GDP. Same is true for your personal life and personal income. Now, if efficiency decreases, you must either work more or live with ...


2

I think an excellent example of communist societies would be small tribal societies, before the industrial revolution. Means of production were generally shared and workers generally worked to benefit the societal unit which worked because individual societies generally small and tribal. In modern day industrialized society I think the answer is probably ...


1

Economics cannot answer your question. Economics as a discipline discarded normative assumptions ("what is good?") in order to deal with issues around price. This was a sound academic decision (Hey bro, how much for your kidney, no seriously, how much for both your kidneys). As a result economics don't answer for "better" but for "more." There is another ...


1

While change causes anxiety, and there's definitely some jobs that are going to go away, its easy to imagine, water carriers getting anxious with the invention of pipes, scribes with the invention of the print, farmers with the invention of the tractor, weavers with the invention of automatic weavers, etc. we're not at the cusp of one momentous revolution, ...


1

@Dole answer is correct. Also, be aware that we often fail to foresee future evolutions. The Luddites failed to see that machines would not harm the people and the workers. Today's problem are quite similar, and it is not suprising that we have trouble to imagine how the future will be. CGP Grey's video Human need not apply represents very well this ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible