Talk:Command economy

	This communism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Woe betide those who form a labor union!

The British unions did fairly well for themselves with no State assistance, and much State hindrance; there was no minimum wage in the U.K. until 1998. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

And American unionizers were murdered by Pinkerton thugs. ħuman 07:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. is not the only country in the world. It is not even the only country to have practiced that level of market regulation. Were yellow-dog contracts even known outside the U.S.? ListenerX^TalkerX 07:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I know it's not (who made the "more than this" userbox? You? No, me.) But in the US union organizers and strikers were murdered by government and corp. supported thugs. Do you deny this for some reason? WTF do you mean by "market regulation"? PS, keep in mind I wrote a version of this article after I killed the redirect, but was ECd and let your version stand (you wouldn't know that). With some minor editing. ħuman 08:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not deny it, but I do not blame the free market for it; I blame government corruption. Unions were persecuted all over the place around that time, free market or no. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, unions were persecuted by the beneficiaries of the "free market" that never existed, ever, in the world. So be gentle as you fondle your economic idealisms into that dark night, as I will also. ħuman 06:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Fascist and communist countries, which were not known for having free markets, also persecuted their labor unions — and, might I add, did a much more thorough job of it. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of epigraph

What exactly is the objection to the epigraph, that it must be removed or pushed down the page? ListenerX^TalkerX 03:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

How is a war economy "totally not the same as" a command economy?

Can someone please explain that? Currently it is a statement of fact that is not backed up by anything but say-so. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You might be confusing a command economy with a so-called permanent war economy? Anyways, I hope these comparative links will help elucidate the difference for you;

• Investopedia: Command economy
• Investopedia: War economy

At sufficient distance, what's the difference between — say — Lutherans and Calvinists? But look closer, and there's a vitally relevant difference. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

While the point you wish to make is correct he's right to imply that 'totally not the same as' would be a hyperbole in terms of wording though I didn't find it written that way in the article. Contrary to the 1944 predictions, the economy needn't be planned to fight the Soviet menace because of A. the advantages of the Bretton Woods system of economic control and NATO B. high political and economic capital. Instead, in the west, socialist forms of government were introduced in the form of welfare state provisions. But were the Soviet Union more powerful than it was, or were it allowed to conquer all of Europe alone (there were very powerful partisan forces everywhere) in 1943-1945 in the absence of the 1944 American invasion, then structures of the war economy would probably have needed to continue and the prediction would have been true.

Scholars of theology distinguish between Calvinism, Methodism and Lutheranism and for good reason but it would not be very wise to imply that modern protestant churches are consciously strictly 'Lutheran' or strictly 'Calvinist' despite their titles and logos. While there were reformist thinkers before Luther, Protestantism really comes from Luther, so it can be said that Lutheranism doesn't exist in some chemically pure form just as Christianity as a whole cannot be thought of as ever having existed in some pristine form directly reconstructed from the teachings of Christ, (the cult leader from the province of Judea who I believe is really based on an real person). Differences within Christianity have to be interpreted historically (and that's why theology is necessary for the scientific study of religion (and why many theologians are atheists themselves) in spite of Dawkin's (polemic) argument that it shouldn't count as a 'science'). In my essay 'Black Bile and Polemic' I mention the polemic needs that forced aspects of Luther's thought. While it is true that all religious teachings are objective falsehoods and objectively meaningless it would be wrong to think that they're spun out of the blue or ex culoed into existence. They bear the stamp of a genetic lineage that developed along the course of polemic encounters. Early Christianity's emphasis on love etc. is aimed at the 'thirst of glory and fame' within the Greco-Roman code of virtue aka manliness (vir=man) which they were interested to portray as the root of contemporary ills. Ok, sorry, I digress a bit. Gewgtweg (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't tell if you agreed with me or not. Hah. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Worthy of bronze

And I'm not even half done with it yet. Any takers? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What were the issues with my edits?

I apologize if I was rude or too brusque, but i'm not really to used to this format (wiki edits). I generally utilize the information and sources provided by RationalWiki in online debates with alt-righters, and upon finding this page, I figured i'd just tweak a few things that seemed to be inaccurate. ^{— Unsigned, by: 208.70.120.22 / talk / contribs}

Hi! That's great, welcome to help. The main problem was that you blanked out several other sources for the Myanmar entry. I've since made edits that I hope will implement both our viewpoints on the matter. Also: On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the help, i'm going to study up on the formatting so I get it right next time. I'll also make an account so I can sign things properly. (Please excuse any formatting errors I may have made in this comment)--208.70.120.22 (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)208.70.120.22

No problem, friend! I'm stoked to hear that you're signing up. As always, fell free to ask if you have any questions, et cetera. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

New section

I'm on my phone right now, but I'm planning on adding a section about computer run command economies, such as that of Paul Cockshot or Stafford Beer, and in the meantime I was wondering if any of you could help me with sources.'Legion^{what do you want from me} 08:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

"The command economy model has never been promoted by mainstream economists anywhere"

Yeah this is just flatly untrue as from about 1930-1970, the superiority of socialism in achieving raw economic growth was the mainstream opinion in the economics profession. Paul Samuelson was not exactly a marginal figure in economics and he was still defending this view right up to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Joan Robinson, an outright commie, undeniably made major contributions to "mainstream" economics. Etc, etc. Whoever wrote this has no idea what he's talking about. 135.0.27.43 (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

USSR "wasn't doing too hot"

Firstly, I don't think I need to inform anyone that 73 years of history cannot be summed up in two sentences. Really shows how many fucks the author of this disinformation gives. Secondly, it sources the 'Wikipedia article on the Era of Stagnation. That era started and ended with Brezhnev's administration. That does not account for the entirety of Soviet history, and it wasn't even a full command economy at that point. Brezhnev's predecessor, Khrushchev, liberalized the Soviet economy. Allowing enterprises to accumulate profit, allowing special economic zones, opening more trade with the West. Not to the extent of the more notorious figure Gorbachev. But the Soviet Union at the time of the Stagnation was more akin to a planned mixed economy.

A full command economy was more so the Stalinist period. The Great Turn, Collectivization, the Five Year Plans, etc. And with the exception of a famine (which was connected more to the grain shortage that occurred during the first Soviet attempt at privatization known as the New Economic Policy, and a Second World War, the Soviet Union experienced a boom in Economic growth. At the same time when capitalist powers were in a Depression. And that's not even disputable, you can't go from underdeveloped agrarian society to an industrial superpower if your economy is in the tank. You could criticize Stalin as a dictator over a network of Byzantine-style bureaucracy, but you can't say that the command economy under him was a failure.

Also, if you wish to draw a distinction between a command economy and a war economy, I'd counter that the USSR was either at war or recovering from the previous throughout much of it's history. WWI, the Civil War, the Polish War, the Winter War, the Chinese War, WWII, and all the wars connected to the Cold War. The Soviets from the very beginning to the end was under constant pressure by the attempts of the Axis and the West to destroy it. I'd say that for how long the regime managed to sustain and how powerful it became, considering its far less than ideal circumstances at every step it took, is more a teastament to their success. Who knows what they could've become if they didn't drain their economy on preparing for an Armageddon that never came. ^{— Unsigned, by: 174.238.32.136 / talk / contribs}

America?

What is the motive for putting it there. ^{— Unsigned, by: 68.117.198.47 / talk}

"Midas or madness" section seems to be bad

the section essentially states that everyone thinks command economies are bad and they tend to stagnate because they are bad, whilst never elaborating. in the end states that "more than a decade of continuous 'life support' proved inconsequential in compensating for the systemic flaws endemic to command economies", never specifying such flaws and citing the wikipedia page about the era of stagnation, which never states systemic problems being a factor, so i suggest more sources are added and "sistemic flaws endemic to command economies" be clarified upon. --Eletromoiu (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)