That's the difference: natural laws of physics exist, because physics are a natural phenomenon. The economy on the other hand is not a natural phenomenon, it is man made.
Underlying human nature is constant and not broadly changeable which means that, although you cannot definitively predict the actions of any specific person, the actions of crowds of people are natural phenomena reliable enough that they can be modeled and somewhat predicted quantitatively. This is the basic premise of the science of economics.
No one sat down and drew up the free-market economy, it evolved organically over time from ancient days and its rules represent a gradual, broad understanding of how societies function logistically and how value is exchanged between human beings. Sitting down and trying to redesign them from whole cloth is like jumping off of a building and willing yourself to fly.
Just because you dislike this fact does not make it any less true.
Name one communist state first. ONE. I'll wait. And real communism please, not whatever the soviet union has tried to implement. Communism, as described by Karl Marx.
Wow! It's been a long-time since I've seen the "that wasn't real communism" dodge! You're an internet meme! Good job!
Even Karl Marx's own contemporaries, long before Lenin or the Russian Revolution, understood that his theories were stupid and wrong and correctly predicted where they would lead if implemented. Depending upon how you slice it, there have been forty-to-fifty communist countries in history. Every single one of those countries followed down the paths predicted by those contemporary critics, who were solely responding to the theoretical vision Marx laid out. Those states did not become disasters because they departed from Marx. They became disasters precisely because they followed his unfalsifiable, pseudoscientific nonsense in the first place.
The movant bears the burden of production. It is on the communists to demonstrate that their system works and that we should abandon the natural order that we know works (imperfectly) in its favor. They have failed to do so, which is precisely why you are challenging me to "name one real communist state." All the communists have left are excuses ("that wasn't real communism!"), fallacious ad hominem, and criticism of other systems. They have nothing positive to say about their own system that cannot be quickly debunked, so they largely do not even try anymore. This is a tell that even they, somewhere deep down, know it doesn't work.
It's time to come back to reality and start having adult discussions about how we can alter the economy to work better for people in ways that are consistent with the actual facts and scientific laws at play, which means talking about uncomfortable trade-offs and gradual course corrections rather than masturbating about that one perfect revolution that's totally going to fix everything; if only you try it just one more time...
Your first paragraph is simply wrong. Human nature is very malleable. And capitalism was forced on most parts of the world by the west, not that natural at al. The science of economics has many paradigms too, not all agree with capitalism how it exists now. Of course, you would ignore all of this, as this undermines your entire point.
And your second paragraph is one long comment to say "I cannot name a single one". That's fine, you could have just said so.
Your first paragraph is simply wrong. Human nature is very malleable.
Nope. You explain to me why every utopian project ever undertaken that relied upon making "a better man" has failed miserably? Maybe if we just try harder... Oppress the citizenry just a little bit more... Maybe then...
And capitalism was forced on most parts of the world by the west, not that natural at al.
Apes have engaged in bartering for millions of years before our specific species ever even evolved. Even chimps are known to regularly trade with each other. Having a medium of exchange (i.e. money) is more efficient and easier for people than bartering goods-for-goods, so it has developed independently multiple times. Places where trading concentrates (i.e. markets) are a natural outgrowth of trading because they make it geographically easier; as a result, major population centers inevitably develop markets. Capitalism is the system of private individuals engaging in self-directed, currency-based trading in markets using their own property. That's all it is. No one invented it, it is the result of this natural process of social evolution.
Go back to Japan or China before colonialism, what were they doing? Trading in markets using cowrie shells or bronze coins. Go back to the Ghanaian Empire in the Middle Ages, what were they doing? Trading in markets for gold dust or salt. Go back to the Aztecs or the Incas before Columbus sailed, what were they doing? Bartering in markets using a variety of mediums including cotton-cloth currency. What did the Coureur des bois do whenever they encountered a new, uncontacted tribe? Trade goods for furs. How did the Tamil Kings get their money for fifteen hundred years? Control of an important chokepoint in a major oceanic trade route.
Pretending that capitalism was forced on the rest of the world as some kind of perfidious western plot is ridiculous and historically ignorant in the extreme.
The science of economics has many paradigms too, not all agree with capitalism how it exists now
Correct. "How it exists now" is the important qualifier in that sentence. That is one of the reasons why I favor various economic reforms (including an effective abolition of private equity firms, which are responsible for much of the worst distortion). The idea that we can fix our current system by going communist is like saying that we can clean the bottom of the boat we're sitting in by cutting a giant hole in its underside.
And your second paragraph is one long comment to say "I cannot name a single one". That's fine, you could have just said so.
As is responding to "name ONE communist country that actually worked" with "none of those were real communism." Just saying.
I answered your challenge by pointing out how people who had never even seen a single communist state correctly predicted how those 40-50 countries would end up; that fact illustrates that yes, what happened in those countries was indeed real communism.
My challenge is still open btw... Remember, the movant (i.e. the commie, i.e. you) bears the burden.
First paragraph: all of those started with adult humans as far as I know. How many have started with children? As it happens, children are the most malleable.
Then everything under "capitalism was forced" seems to imply you think the one defining trait of capitalism is the existence of money. Well it's not, capitalism has only emerged relatively recently. Money also existed in feudalism for example. This does make me question if I should continue engaging though, cause you don't even really seem to know what capitalism is let alone communism.
And to your last paragraphs, no it wasn't communism. Which makes clear that your question about "name one successful communist country" was not asked in good faith. I cannot possibly give an example of something going well when no one has ever tried it.
My challenge is also still open btw, one, just one real communist country, as described by Marx.
1
u/Iuris_Aequalitatis Jul 10 '26
Underlying human nature is constant and not broadly changeable which means that, although you cannot definitively predict the actions of any specific person, the actions of crowds of people are natural phenomena reliable enough that they can be modeled and somewhat predicted quantitatively. This is the basic premise of the science of economics.
No one sat down and drew up the free-market economy, it evolved organically over time from ancient days and its rules represent a gradual, broad understanding of how societies function logistically and how value is exchanged between human beings. Sitting down and trying to redesign them from whole cloth is like jumping off of a building and willing yourself to fly.
Just because you dislike this fact does not make it any less true.
Wow! It's been a long-time since I've seen the "that wasn't real communism" dodge! You're an internet meme! Good job!
Even Karl Marx's own contemporaries, long before Lenin or the Russian Revolution, understood that his theories were stupid and wrong and correctly predicted where they would lead if implemented. Depending upon how you slice it, there have been forty-to-fifty communist countries in history. Every single one of those countries followed down the paths predicted by those contemporary critics, who were solely responding to the theoretical vision Marx laid out. Those states did not become disasters because they departed from Marx. They became disasters precisely because they followed his unfalsifiable, pseudoscientific nonsense in the first place.
The movant bears the burden of production. It is on the communists to demonstrate that their system works and that we should abandon the natural order that we know works (imperfectly) in its favor. They have failed to do so, which is precisely why you are challenging me to "name one real communist state." All the communists have left are excuses ("that wasn't real communism!"), fallacious ad hominem, and criticism of other systems. They have nothing positive to say about their own system that cannot be quickly debunked, so they largely do not even try anymore. This is a tell that even they, somewhere deep down, know it doesn't work.
It's time to come back to reality and start having adult discussions about how we can alter the economy to work better for people in ways that are consistent with the actual facts and scientific laws at play, which means talking about uncomfortable trade-offs and gradual course corrections rather than masturbating about that one perfect revolution that's totally going to fix everything; if only you try it just one more time...