Farm Communism is better than Capitalism

Thanks misesgummies, for accepting.

Love that profile photo.

Farm Communism definition is:

An economical system where each adult person owns a piece of land where he farms animals or plants, except some people who do other work to maintain those farms and build houses.

Capitalism definition:

An economical system which exists in the world today in most countries, where there are many factories and means of production are owned by few people who employ many workers.

Better will be meassured by these:

1. Giving more free time to people

2. Improving environment

3. Producing more healthy food

4. Increasing amount of forests and grasslands

Now, farm Communism would mean no more factories, so that is much better for environment, obviously. And for forests and grasslands too.

Humans only have 4 basic needs:

1. Food

2. Water

3. Shelter

4. Heating and cooling

Farm Communism satisfies all these needs.

Animals or plants on a farm produce fresh food, which is much healthier than food from the store.

Due to the fact that producing food for self takes much less than 8 hours a day, people would have much more free time.

You might be correct in saying that "Farm Communism" could fulfill all 4 basic human needs. These needs as you defined are: food, water, shelter, heating and cooling. Although that last one is dubious to be called a need. But a capitalist economy is most efficient at providing for human needs and then some. If you are correct about it taking 8 hours of labor to provide for oneself, this number is still far more time expended for food production than in a capatalist economy

In a economy where people echange goods and services, there will be people that specilize their skills. Food production is the same. In current economic system (to call america capatalist is a bit of a strech but we will for the sake of the argument) there are people specilized for food production. This gives more time for people to specilize in things that are not strictly neccesary for survival. So point 1: it will give people more free time, is false

Point 2 about improving the enviroment is also false. Under true capatalism, monopolys would be far more rare than they currently are

Point 3 about more healthy food being produced is correct but only ironically so. There will be more healthy food being produced becuase people wouldnt have the ability to make processed food. They would be more focused on survival. Under capatalism, eating healthy food is a choice. Respecting peoples wishes of free trade thus protecting their natural rights is far more important

point 4: incressing forests and grasslands

people in capitalist economies can choose to care for the environment

This is another misunderstanding of economy. In farm Communism, person produces food for himself. Not for 20 others. It takes only 2 hours a day to care for 50 chickens, and these alone produce much more food than an individual can eat. Same goes for few cows, few sheep, few goats, ducks, goose, turkey... They eat grass and they forage food, produce food, very simple economy. No any hard work. In fact, the 2 hours of work there are easier than any work in Capitalism, so less rest time from work needed there, which leaves even more free time. It is common sense that more work and more difficult work requires more time to be rest from work, and this has effect on free time. It doesnt matter much which single animal person chooses to farm, as quick trade with farm next door is possible to create some variety in food. As for plant farming and forage, same applies. Trees are very easy to grow, give plenty of food and are very healthy for environment. And they can be used in combination with animal farming to reduce amount of food needed from animals. Technology didnt have any significant improvements on animal farming or tree farming. The basics are still same. Animals go outside and eat grass. However, in Capitalism, much more work is needed, because each person must produce 20 times more food than he needs just to sustain the rest of the system. So one person must have 400 chickens instead of 50, and much more work follows then.

We are not debating any fantasy true Capitalism, so this point is completely irrelevant to topic. Capitalism was already defined in description as is.

Thus, 2 is conceded.

3 conceded.

Sadly, the math doesnt even allow this. "Only farms" will always have much less effect on forests and grasslands than "farms plus factories". To put it simply, this Capitalism already resulted in deforestation and loss of grasslands.

The wagey could never understand such Communism. Wagey has more wealth, but ironically not much free time to enjoy that wealth. Wealth is defined by use value, use value requires time, wagey actually doesnt have much wealth. By sacrificing free time, wagey loses both wealth time and family time, and gains nothing until he is too old for anything.

Wagey (person who works a lot for wage) has trouble getting enough sleep. Its really simple math. 10 hours of job and 8 hours of sleep leave only 6 hours of free time, which is then further reduced by necessary daily activities and rest from all work.

Being a wage slave is the dumbest choice one can possibly make. Its literally better to be homeless. Take it by mere numbers there. Average wagey only has 15% to 20% of his adult life as free time, unless he deducts from sleep which many do. And thats assuming he has no family of his own.

As Karl Marx has said, Capitalism does indeed exploit the worker.

In fact, the framework of Capitalism is:

More work time = more wealth, less free time

People praise Capitalism for getting some people out of poverty while failing to understand that Capitalism caused an entirely different kind of poverty. A poverty where people sacrifice their spiritual growth and freedom for material wealth.

In this sense, Capitalism is the prediction of greatest of ancient philosophers which came true: time when material wealth consumes the souls and minds of people.

The choice of reduction in free time (ability to do as you choose) is in itself a self contradictive choice.

The choice to replace grasslands and forests with factories, buildings and roads, and the choice to replace healthy food with processed food, just shows what Capitalism leads to.

Point 1: On time

Time is ultimately saved under specialization of capatalism. So people can do other things. This goes into paying for electricity and other modern conveniences communists take for granted

Many reasons why the cost of living is so high and thus people are forced to work more hours are not the result of free market capatalism

Point 2: Enviromental

People can choose not to give money to businesses that harm the environment. Climate alarmism has unnecessarily polarized many people. In reality, the enviromental harm isnt as great as people pretend. Its political theater and not scientific

point 4 is redundant and so i will not respong

Point 3 is not conceded 

Robinson crueso, trapped on an island, only has access to healthy food. But most would not want to be trapped on an island. If you only care about your base necessities being provided for, you can live like the Amish. Or live on a commune. If you would like to argue that something is "better" than another thing, you would first need to take into account what someone would want. And most people would reject a life where their only their basic needs are met

it is a peak midwit idea that working a job is exploitative. People come together to use their time, labour, and resources to produce value for others. The value that is produced is shared between the employer and employee