A question for socialists...

How do you rationally allocate goods without price?

socialism is awesome!
jesus was a socialist.
fdr was a socialist.
thomas jefferson was a pre-socialist.
capitalism is responsible for the current crisis, which occured after bush let wall street do everything the wanted for the past eight years.
capitalists financed the nazis, just read about all those pro-nazi industrialists like fritz thyssen and henry ford.
and if you support capitalism you like hitler

I believe the general idea amongst Marxists is that such market mechanisms would eventually be gotten rid of. After that the basic idea is that all people provide free services for each other (i.e. free public transport, healthcare, rubbish collection etc) rather than working for profit. I couldn't really explain their economic theory more than that, since I haven't read any modern works on Marxist economic theory (of which there is an enormous ammount). Hope that helps...

I believe the general idea amongst Marxists is that such market mechanisms would eventually be gotten rid of. After that the basic idea is that all people provide free services for each other (i.e. free public transport, healthcare, rubbish collection etc) rather than working for profit.

This is what marxists actually believe.

I couldn't really explain their economic theory more than that, since I haven't read any modern works on Marxist economic theory (of which there is an enormous ammount). Hope that helps...

Don't worry, I couldn't explain hem ethier.

>>39
Where is the error? How is it "tangential"? Where are the semantics?

If all information leads to progress then what about my information? Because it disproves you it's not information?

>>44
I can only assume that you're attempting to goad me into a deconstruction of the posts.  Sorry.  You're either not being honest, or you really aren't able to keep up.  And your information is progress. Much like the aforementioned, nominally relevant, irrational dissatisfaction. 
You really need to step up your game.

>>45
Ok, you don't need to prove how my statement is wrong, I'll just assume you are more intelligent than me and agree with everything you say.

Happy?

>>46
And since the bullshit didn't work, you turn to sarcasm.  Typical.

>>47
Yes, I am being sarcastic. What the fuck is so difficult about answering these questions?

"Where is the error? How is it "tangential"? Where are the semantics?"

>How do you rationally allocate goods without price?
That's pretty easy and brings forth the worst aspects of human nature. Like the British Empire's gang around Lenin or later Hitler, you have to prove your value to the authorities otherwise they will left you behind with empty hands while being stuck in a scientifically crafted mind control and police state grid.