Jim Devine wrote:
On the other hand, military efficiency does not automatically imply efficiency in general. In 1940, for example, the Germans (arguably) were much more efficient than France in military matters. But wasn't France more efficient at serving its population's wants and needs at that time?
You're referring to concrete, shorter-run accidents. I'm referring to the general, longer-run rule. Obviously, for a given nation, the best (most sustainable in the long run) path to military supremacy for a given nation cannot be the degradation of their productive force, the decay of their economy. Actually, often that may happen as a result of its emphasis on military force, as history shows. But back to the topic: The argument about the commons is about the general, long-term, historical viability of a communist society. At least, that's the way I thought you had alluded to it, the first time you mentioned it.
