Capitalism: the cause of and solution to all life's problems

[rotting bones]

I'm short on time, but like zompist mentioned, I don't know if you're taking managerial politics into account. I've known managers to fire employees to get at other managers. Imagine what could happen if managerial institutions are responsible for capital investment.

[Ares Land]

I agree in part, and that's why I think having different investors of different natures is important.
Besides from that, sovereign funds, state-owned banks, and state-owned companies do exist. They honestly don't seem terribly mismanaged.

German Sparkassen are as far as I can see a positive factor in the economy, for instance.

[rotting bones]

I agree in part, and that's why I think having different investors of different natures is important.

Could you explain how having multiple investors creates multiple points of failure? Either each enterprise is being invested in by single or multiple sources. It seems to me that managerial politics remain in effect either way. There are already multiple managerial factions in capitalist companies, right?

Besides from that, sovereign funds, state-owned banks, and state-owned companies do exist. They honestly don't seem terribly mismanaged.

Under this system, these institutions would have a collective monopoly on investment. It seems to me that would have an effect on their character as various interests try to get them to send investment into their pet projects by hook or by crook.

German Sparkassen are as far as I can see a positive factor in the economy, for instance.

Sorry, I know nothing about contemporary Germany. Do you know of books I can read to fix that?

[Ares Land]

Could you explain how having multiple investors creates multiple points of failure? Either each enterprise is being invested in by single or multiple sources. It seems to me that managerial politics remain in effect either way. There are already multiple managerial factions in capitalist companies, right?

If you can't get investment through one source, maybe you can get it through another. If Fund A is incompetently managed, this bring the entire economy down, as some of it can rely on Funds B and C.
Of course there'll be

Besides from that, sovereign funds, state-owned banks, and state-owned companies do exist. They honestly don't seem terribly mismanaged.

Under this system, these institutions would have a collective monopoly on investment. It seems to me that would have an effect on their character as various interests try to get them to send investment into their pet projects by hook or by crook.[/quote]

I don't think such a collective monopoly is feasible or even desirable. Besides that, yes, you'd get interest groups and lobbying, of course, though no more than we have right now. It's not supposed to be a perfect system.

German Sparkassen are as far as I can see a positive factor in the economy, for instance.

Sorry, I know nothing about contemporary Germany. Do you know of books I can read to fix that?
[/quote]

Sorry, I'm not an expert either! What I know I gathered through various random books and articles and is possibly wrong. Basically banks (of which Sparkassen are a sub-species) in German are often state-owned (by the various Länder, as I recall). Economists and pundits tend to think very highly of the system.

[Torco]

Government can exert a monopoly on managing capital investments. That way there is no private ownership of the means of production and no ever-growing exploitative capitalist class. But you also have public oversight over investment, and companies are private enterprises run however they see fit, perhaps even operating as Mondagon-style coops if they want. No command economy, no pig farmers sent to gulag.

that's not bad! basically, if you want to start or expand a business you go to the ministry of economy or whatever and tell them your business plan and they evaluate it and then go "yeah, have some money" or "sorry, no". I'd probably prefer the investor employees to be elected, or to answer to some elected authority simply in order to keep the investments aligned with the interest of people and not the interest of, well, the state, which is a big danger in such a system. I don't think it's bad that this gives the government power, if the government were to be run democratically: maybe people don't want investment going into producing heroin.

I understand the reservations of zompist about 18th century government, but we're not stuck with it: such a system could work with as much e-voting, blockchain polling, enhanced reality assemblies, revocatory referenda, issue-by-issue-voting or anything else one wants. A good way to avoid the issues with having a managerial class is, you know, doing away with it! you can have businesses in such a market socialist system be run democratically, while at the same time abiding by any mandates the ministry of investment issued alongside the investment: we have perfectly good social technologies for this, such as contracts.

Problem with this system is deeper, and more simple: how do you make sure only the ministry of investment invests if you still run your economy on money? if coop A has money and coop B needs money, it's hard to stop A from investing in B: investment takes many more forms than just giving people money explicitly. there's partnerships of a great many types. You also get to keep a lot of the problem with the profit motive, such as regulatory capture and outsourcing externalities.

[rotting bones]

Government can exert a monopoly on managing capital investments. That way there is no private ownership of the means of production and no ever-growing exploitative capitalist class. But you also have public oversight over investment, and companies are private enterprises run however they see fit, perhaps even operating as Mondagon-style coops if they want. No command economy, no pig farmers sent to gulag.

that's not bad! basically, if you want to start or expand a business you go to the ministry of economy or whatever and tell them your business plan and they evaluate it and then go "yeah, have some money" or "sorry, no". I'd probably prefer the investor employees to be elected, or to answer to some elected authority simply in order to keep the investments aligned with the interest of people and not the interest of, well, the state, which is a big danger in such a system. I don't think it's bad that this gives the government power, if the government were to be run democratically: maybe people don't want investment going into producing heroin.

I understand the reservations of zompist about 18th century government, but we're not stuck with it: such a system could work with as much e-voting, blockchain polling, enhanced reality assemblies, revocatory referenda, issue-by-issue-voting or anything else one wants. A good way to avoid the issues with having a managerial class is, you know, doing away with it! you can have businesses in such a market socialist system be run democratically, while at the same time abiding by any mandates the ministry of investment issued alongside the investment: we have perfectly good social technologies for this, such as contracts.

Problem with this system is deeper, and more simple: how do you make sure only the ministry of investment invests if you still run your economy on money? if coop A has money and coop B needs money, it's hard to stop A from investing in B: investment takes many more forms than just giving people money explicitly. there's partnerships of a great many types. You also get to keep a lot of the problem with the profit motive, such as regulatory capture and outsourcing externalities.

If you look at my original proposal, I suggested that what the government invests are the material resources used by essential industries. (IIRC this post onward: http://verduria.org/viewtopic.php?p=38558#p38558) I also suggested that while people should be allowed to use these resources, they should technically be government property so that they can be redistributed without hassle if the people vote for it.

[Torco]

wait, so you don't have B2B transfers of material, or of specific services, like at all? you might as well just have an input product matrix at that point. like, I'm not against input product matrixes, but it's unclear what is the role of money. indeed, calling it investment seems superfluous: what it is is a system for allocating capital and products, no? as in who gets how much iron ore, who gets how much coal, and who do you have to send the steel to afterwards. this isn't bad, but I fail to see how it's different from a decentralized and directly-voted-upon gosplan.

then again, I think a direct-democracy gosplan would be kind of pretty damned cool

[rotting bones]

wait, so you don't have B2B transfers of material, or of specific services, like at all? you might as well just have an input product matrix at that point. like, I'm not against input product matrixes, but it's unclear what is the role of money. indeed, calling it investment seems superfluous: what it is is a system for allocating capital and products, no? as in who gets how much iron ore, who gets how much coal, and who do you have to send the steel to afterwards. this isn't bad, but I fail to see how it's different from a decentralized and directly-voted-upon gosplan.

then again, I think a direct-democracy gosplan would be kind of pretty damned cool

Well, my suggestion is that only some essential industries need to be socialist so that everyone who wants a job can find one and people can just vote more materials into core industries if they need more food, housing or medicine. Everything else can work with Bitcoin for all I care.

To be clear:

1. There must be some socialist essential industries. When the people need essential products, they vote materials into those essential industries.

2. There can be capitalist essential industries as long as they are comfortable with the idea that their raw materials could be confiscated by popular vote. This seems totally reasonable to me. Food should be grown primarily to feed people, not primarily to make money.

3. There can be socialist non-essential industries as long as they are comfortable with the fact that their raw materials cannot be confiscated by popular vote. This seems totally reasonable to me. Non-essential industries make products for fun, and the people don't have the right to demand that the market be distorted just to produce more fidget spinners or whatever.

4. There can be capitalist non-essential industries. Bartending is best left to Quark.

[Travis B.]

I do not see why one should keep capitalist companies around, as the biggest difference between them and socialist companies (i.e. worker cooperatives and federations) is that they are not democratic and there are capitalists/shareholders/etc. at the top skimming off profits rather than profits either being returned to the workers or getting reinvested. Also, as mentioned, worker-owners have more of a vested interest in keeping companies afloat in the long term, whereas capitalist owners/executives/etc. are often interested in turning companies into short term profits/bonuses/etc., long-term survival of the company be damned.

[rotting bones]

I do not see why one should keep capitalist companies around, as they biggest difference between them and socialist companies (i.e. worker cooperatives and federations) is that they are not democratic and there are capitalists/shareholders/etc. at the top skimming off profits rather than profits being returned either to the workers or getting reinvested. Also, as mentioned, worker-owners have more of a vested interest in keeping companies afloat in the long term, whereas capitalist owners are often interested in turning companies into short term profits/bonuses/etc., long-term survival of the company be damned.

I used the word "socialist" to mean "government" and "capitalist" to mean "market". So either a capitalist or a socialist industry could decide internal matters by worker vote or not. For a government industry, the crucial factor is that its employees are paid a government salary, whoever makes internal decisions is not allowed to lower the number of jobs in defiance of the popular vote, and the raw materials and the tools to work them are government property. (Compare how worker co-ops create fewer jobs than private companies.) However, everything else could be decided by worker vote.

In the interests of workplace democracy, I would prefer that both "capitalist" and "socialist" industries be worker co-ops. However, if someone wants to be a chef who gets yelled at by Gordon Ramsay, maybe that possibility should exist too. Maybe Gordon Ramsay shouldn't have to ask all the chefs in his restaurant to vote for his policies every single time as long as those chefs are always free to get a job on a government farm.

[Moose-tache]

I do not see why one should keep capitalist companies around, as the biggest difference between them and socialist companies (i.e. worker cooperatives and federations) is that they are not democratic and there are capitalists/shareholders/etc. at the top skimming off profits rather than profits either being returned to the workers or getting reinvested. Also, as mentioned, worker-owners have more of a vested interest in keeping companies afloat in the long term, whereas capitalist owners/executives/etc. are often interested in turning companies into short term profits/bonuses/etc., long-term survival of the company be damned.

Hoo boy are we mixing definitions here.
The difference between Capitalism and Communism is the private vs public ownership of the means of production. Therefore, worker-owned "coops" are Capitalist companies, the same as any other. More generally, when people talk about worker coops and things, they're usually talking about democratic business management, which exists on a totally separate axis from Capitalist/Communist. So there are at least six possible combinations:

democratic management, worker-owned
democratic management, shareholder-owned or sole proprietorship
democratic management, publicly owned
executive officer management, worker-owned
executive officer management, shareholder-owned or sole propietorship
executive officer management, publicly owned

Number 5 is currently nearly universal, with an increasing amount of number 1, 2, and 4. However, only numbers 3 and 6 are actually Communist.

Mondragon is just Capitalism with Rage Against the Machine stickers on it.

[rotting bones]

I do not see why one should keep capitalist companies around, as the biggest difference between them and socialist companies (i.e. worker cooperatives and federations) is that they are not democratic and there are capitalists/shareholders/etc. at the top skimming off profits rather than profits either being returned to the workers or getting reinvested. Also, as mentioned, worker-owners have more of a vested interest in keeping companies afloat in the long term, whereas capitalist owners/executives/etc. are often interested in turning companies into short term profits/bonuses/etc., long-term survival of the company be damned.

Hoo boy are we mixing definitions here.
The difference between Capitalism and Communism is the private vs public ownership of the means of production. Therefore, worker-owned "coops" are Capitalist companies, the same as any other. More generally, when people talk about worker coops and things, they're usually talking about democratic business management, which exists on a totally separate axis from Capitalist/Communist. So there are at least six possible combinations:

democratic management, worker-owned
democratic management, shareholder-owned or sole proprietorship
democratic management, publicly owned
executive officer management, worker-owned
executive officer management, shareholder-owned or sole propietorship
executive officer management, publicly owned

Number 5 is currently nearly universal, with an increasing amount of number 1, 2, and 4. However, only numbers 3 and 6 are actually Communist.

Mondragon is just Capitalism with Rage Against the Machine stickers on it.

I don't know. Is it unreasonable to think share ownership is connected to the workers' right to vote on the direction that the enterprise should take?

[zompist]

Hoo boy are we mixing definitions here.
The difference between Capitalism and Communism is the private vs public ownership of the means of production. Therefore, worker-owned "coops" are Capitalist companies, the same as any other.

How do you say this with a straight face any time after 1930?

The army is "publicly owned", but they don't let me drive a tank when I want to.

(Also FWIW Travis was talking about socialism, not communism. Some socialists are secret communists, but it's pretty evident Travis isn't.)

[rotting bones]

Hoo boy are we mixing definitions here.
The difference between Capitalism and Communism is the private vs public ownership of the means of production. Therefore, worker-owned "coops" are Capitalist companies, the same as any other.

How do you say this with a straight face any time after 1930?

The army is "publicly owned", but they don't let me drive a tank when I want to.

(Also FWIW Travis was talking about socialism, not communism. Some socialists are secret communists, but it's pretty evident Travis isn't.)

The point is, there's no economic reason to think co-ops that are profit-driven will, for example, produce food because the people need it, or in the general case, support any government initiatives that hurt their bottom line. Co-ops do promote workplace democracy, which I support, but I don't see how they are socialist in other ways all by themselves.

(The socialist/communist thing sounds like rhetoric to me.)

[Ares Land]

Workers self management is a very old socialist idea. Besides, workers in coops literally own the means of production. If that's not socialism, then what is?

Ideas should be judged on their own merits anyway, rather than on how orthodox socialist they are.

I don't think coops will usher in socialist utopia, but no measure will do that on its own. Every bit helps, though, so we should try to have more.

I don't know much about Mondragon, but free software is run more or less on a self-mangement basis, and it turns out better products than traditional IT companies.

[rotting bones]

Workers self management is a very old socialist idea. Besides, workers in coops literally own the means of production. If that's not socialism, then what is?

Ideas should be judged on their own merits anyway, rather than on how orthodox socialist they are.

I don't think coops will usher in socialist utopia, but no measure will do that on its own. Every bit helps, though, so we should try to have more.

I don't know much about Mondragon, but free software is run more or less on a self-mangement basis, and it turns out better products than traditional IT companies.

What I want out of socialism is for goods to be less scarce. What worker co-ops achieve is workplace democracy. Workplace democracy is definitely a step in the right direction. It just doesn't accomplish what I want from socialism. Whether any of these policies represent true socialism, false socialism or communist plots is a non-starter.

[zompist]

How do you say this with a straight face any time after 1930?

The army is "publicly owned", but they don't let me drive a tank when I want to.

(Also FWIW Travis was talking about socialism, not communism. Some socialists are secret communists, but it's pretty evident Travis isn't.)

The point is, there's no economic reason to think co-ops that are profit-driven will, for example, produce food because the people need it, or in the general case, support any government initiatives that hurt their bottom line. Co-ops do promote workplace democracy, which I support, but I don't see how they are socialist in other ways all by themselves.

* First: if co-ops do not fit 1930s Stalinist dogma: who cares? Fuck Stalinism.
* Second: you do recall that co-ops are literally how the Russian Revolution was organized, before things went bad? Factories and military units organized themselves and sent delegates to the Petrograd Soviet, the body which was a rival to the Duma (and which in October 1917 took over from it).
* Third, there is more to co-ops than workplace ownership; it is ideologically compatible with socialism more than capitalism. See the Guidance notes of the International Cooperative Alliance. (Not anything I'm associated with, I hasten to add; it's the group Mondragon works with.)

All that said, there is definitely a tension between workplace democracy, and wider economic control. I don't expect to convince you (or Torco) in one post, but I don't think central planning works, or in any way represents "worker control". It's been called "state capitalism", and it's a matter of historical observation that in practice, it's just a new group of managers controlling and oppressing the workers. It's made worse and not better by the pretense that they're acting "for" the workers: the pretense excuses any amount of violence and corruption.

I know that your own scheme is supposed to be more democratic, but you've also been pretty clear that it's also coercive— if The People want more tomatoes, someone is forced to be a tomato farmer. And way up in the thread somewhere I expressed a number of concerns about how a voting system can be gamed, or used to stifle minority interests.

And that said, no one has said co-ops are the only element of a socialist system, or that the system should be organized around profit. A nation, and an economy, are the sum of a huge number of laws, institutions, and shared values. There should be a large public sector, co-ops are constrained by regulation and affected by incentives, you can require redistribution, salary caps, etc.

It's fair to say that a co-op operating in a socialist society will work differently than one operating in a capitalist society. But when you or Moose pooh-pooh the entire idea of workplace democracy because co-ops can operate in a capitalist society, it's not co-ops that you're discrediting, it's your shallow commitment to workers. Central control is not worker control, it's a betrayal of worker control.

(The socialist/communist thing sounds like rhetoric to me.)

When people appoint themselves exclusive custodians of the terms, yes.

[rotting bones]

* First: if co-ops do not fit 1930s Stalinist dogma: who cares? Fuck Stalinism.
* Second: you do recall that co-ops are literally how the Russian Revolution was organized, before things went bad? Factories and military units organized themselves and sent delegates to the Petrograd Soviet, the body which was a rival to the Duma (and which in October 1917 took over from it).
* Third, there is more to co-ops than workplace ownership; it is ideologically compatible with socialism more than capitalism. See the Guidance notes of the International Cooperative Alliance. (Not anything I'm associated with, I hasten to add; it's the group Mondragon works with.)

All that said, there is definitely a tension between workplace democracy, and wider economic control. I don't expect to convince you (or Torco) in one post, but I don't think central planning works, or in any way represents "worker control". It's been called "state capitalism", and it's a matter of historical observation that in practice, it's just a new group of managers controlling and oppressing the workers. It's made worse and not better by the pretense that they're acting "for" the workers: the pretense excuses any amount of violence and corruption.

I have no idea what you are arguing for or who you are arguing against. I do not support Stalinism. Let me recommend Bruce Bueno de Mesquita for the zillionth time. Context:

In the interests of workplace democracy, I would prefer that both "capitalist" and "socialist" industries be worker co-ops.

Co-ops do promote workplace democracy, which I support, ...

Workplace democracy is definitely a step in the right direction.

---

I know that your own scheme is supposed to be more democratic, but you've also been pretty clear that it's also coercive— if The People want more tomatoes, someone is forced to be a tomato farmer.

Well yes, if tomatoes are democratically voted for, then tomatoes ought to be grown. Otherwise, you have a society where tomatoes are deemed to be scarce by democratic vote. Have you tried Googling worldwide malnutrition deaths?

Also, and I've said this before, no one is forced to be a tomato farmer. The votes create tomato farmer government jobs that people are free to apply for.

And way up in the thread somewhere I expressed a number of concerns about how a voting system can be gamed, or used to stifle minority interests.

And I answered that human rights will be guaranteed by the constitution. You seem to think I'm promoting unlimited people's war. What I actually said is that if over 50% of the population think the raw materials and tools needed to grow food need to be confiscated from a For Profit corporation, than that's what should happen. Remember how hard it is to get over 50% of the people to agree on anything through secret ballot.

People are starving worldwide, and food production is capped because overproduction is unprofitable. A society that can't guarantee the right to sustenance can't guarantee any other rights. At that point, talk of "rights" is a weapon to bludgeon poor people into accepting the interests of lobbyists.

And that said, no one has said co-ops are the only element of a socialist system, or that the system should be organized around profit. A nation, and an economy, are the sum of a huge number of laws, institutions, and shared values. There should be a large public sector, co-ops are constrained by regulation and affected by incentives, you can require redistribution, salary caps, etc.

I asked you to clarify your idea of decentralized socialism where production is arranged by worker co-ops. You got mad at me and refused. I'm going by what has been made clear to me so far.

In the past, I've explained in great detail how there could be conflicts of interest between For Profit co-ops and a democratic government, and received no acknowledgement that the problem exists. Recent context:

I do not see why one should keep capitalist companies around, as the biggest difference between them and socialist companies (i.e. worker cooperatives and federations) is that they are not democratic and there are capitalists/shareholders/etc. at the top skimming off profits rather than profits either being returned to the workers or getting reinvested. Also, as mentioned, worker-owners have more of a vested interest in keeping companies afloat in the long term, whereas capitalist owners/executives/etc. are often interested in turning companies into short term profits/bonuses/etc., long-term survival of the company be damned.

---

It's fair to say that a co-op operating in a socialist society will work differently than one operating in a capitalist society. But when you or Moose pooh-pooh the entire idea of workplace democracy because co-ops can operate in a capitalist society, it's not co-ops that you're discrediting, it's your shallow commitment to workers. Central control is not worker control, it's a betrayal of worker control.

Do I need to explain why these arguments sound ideological to me, not scientific? I don't see how I could be any clearer than this:

What I want out of socialism is for goods to be less scarce. ... [Worker co-ops don't] accomplish what I want from socialism.

---

(The socialist/communist thing sounds like rhetoric to me.)

When people appoint themselves exclusive custodians of the terms, yes.

Right, because the person trying to move beyond true and false socialism is the one who's gatekeeping.

[zompist]

In the past, I've explained in great detail how there could be conflicts of interest between For Profit co-ops and a democratic government, and received no acknowledgement that the problem exists.

This is literally what I just said: "there is definitely a tension between workplace democracy, and wider economic control". And so far as I recall I've said so throughout the thread.

It's the advocates for central planning, in my view, who either pretend the conflict doesn't exist, or throw out worker control entirely.

Now, you say you support workplace democracy. Great! Only we also have this:

I know that your own scheme is supposed to be more democratic, but you've also been pretty clear that it's also coercive— if The People want more tomatoes, someone is forced to be a tomato farmer.

Well yes, if tomatoes are democratically voted for, then tomatoes ought to be grown.

May I remind you that some socialist theorists have recognized that "there could be conflicts of interest between For Profit co-ops and a democratic government"?

You can't both acknowledge the problem, and also just hand-wave it away. You think workers should control their workplaces... until a vote comes along which overrides and replaces worker control. Then the central organization forces people to do what it wants. That's what "tomatoes ought to be grown" means: the central government gets to force its way on people. If there is no forcing, then your statement about tomatoes means nothing.

Also, and I've said this before, no one if forced to be a tomato farmer. The votes create tomato farmer government jobs that people are free to apply for.

That amounts to a subsidy for tomato farming. And I don't object to that, but it's not the same as claiming that "tomatoes are democratically voted for" automatically creates a supply of tomatoes. You can't have coercion and also non-coercion.

Subsidies and government jobs can work! But if you're not forcing people at gunpoint into the fields, you are also not guaranteeing compliance. Maybe your subsidies aren't enough; maybe not enough people want those crappy jobs. I think we went over this at length before: that the voters demand something does not mean that their demands can be realistically met.

Look, the problem we've both identified is tough. I don't expect you to solve it in a few board posts. But I do think you're waving the problem away, supporting contradictory positions because they both sound good, and not working out the contradictions.

Have you tried Googling worldwide malnutrition deaths? [...] People are starving worldwide, and food production is capped because overproduction is unprofitable. A society that can't guarantee the right to sustenance can't guarantee any other rights.

Have you tried Googling the effectiveness of central planning on food production? The USSR was notorious for not producing enough food, and it sure wasn't because it was "unprofitable". China under Mao didn't do much better; Mao's solution was to hold forced meetings and make people melt down their pots and pans to make backyard iron foundries. And let 20 to 40 million people die, the biggest famine in the 20th century.

I agree with you that food production is basic, and highly skewed. It's also closer to being solved than at any time in history. First World nations have gotten themselves into all sorts of trouble, but if you look at the entire planet, the last century is the story of an amazing success in feeding people. China and India alone— more than 2 billion people, far more than live in the First World—were once miserable basket cases where famines routinely killed millions of people. They are not at First World levels (and that's a good thing, because preserving the ecosphere is also important), but they're not starving poor any more. Global famine deaths have been cut in half since the 1990s. In the last 40 years, famines have been restricted to Africa— with one exception, that notorious hotbed of market capitalism, North Korea.

But really, the global situation is yet another dimension. Socialism in one country, even if it's run by you personally with the greatest of wisdom, does not mean socialism in the world. The history of socialist countries is not too reassuring in this regard— most of them either preferred to concentrate on domestic matters, or like the capitalist countries fostered dictatorships that chose their side without doing anything for the people.

I asked you to clarify your idea of decentralized socialism where production is arranged by worker co-ops. You got mad at me and refused.

I don't recall that, but I'm not the one claiming to have solved all the problems of a socialist society.

Right, because the person trying to move beyond true and false socialism is the one who's gatekeeping.

Yep. The discussion about what's "true socialism" hasn't ever been interesting, and has usually been a cover-up for authoritarianism.

[Travis B.]

Somehow tomatoes are grown just fine in capitalist countries without having explicit central planning mandating the growing of tomatoes from on high. Furthermore, if there were a need to centrally plan the production of tomatoes, wouldn't the way more compatible with actual socialism, i.e. worker self-ownership and self-management of capital, be for the government to provide subsidies for tomato production rather than it to use its authority to directly mandate the growing of tomatoes? And somehow the latter has not panned out too well in actual big-C Communist countries, as pointed out earlier in this thread. For all their faults, I bet that people in Western capitalist countries had a much easier time getting tomatoes than in big-C Communist countries.