Define communism for dum 'ol Lancer

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You haven't explained why you need it. The govt can raise prices or just print more money.

I advocate a regulated market economy. The communes are free to charge the prices they want (unless a major inflation crisis demands a regulation in this particular area, which I hope not).

An artificial creation of money will lead to inflation, just like it does in today's market economies.

Generally speaking, I don't think the citizens of a Spifforist utopia are suckers for punishment. I think that they are entitled to get all their basic needs, that they must be empowered where hierarchy exist (both in the political and in the economic areas), and that they have a right to enjoy life. You seem to want a system where the citizens are here to satisfy the needs of the system (which is why you almost never use the carrot, only the stick). I don't.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I advocate a regulated market economy. The communes are free to charge the prices they want (unless a major inflation crisis demands a regulation in this particular area, which I hope not).

These communes seem to be able to exploit each other.

An artificial creation of money will lead to inflation, just like it does in today's market economies.

Not necessarily. More money is sometimes needed. If it isn't than you can raise prices to allocate some resources. Stability can be maintained if you take things slow.

Generally speaking, I don't think the citizens of a Spifforist utopia are suckers for punishment. I think that they are entitled to get all their basic needs, that they must be empowered where hierarchy exist (both in the political and in the economic areas), and that they have a right to enjoy life. You seem to want a system where the citizens are here to satisfy the needs of the system (which is why you almost never use the carrot, only the stick). I don't.

I won't use the carrot like it is in the capitalist system where you are given incentive to bust your ass so that someone else can get the fruits of your labor.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Which is one of the arguments AGAINST democracy .

Imran, I'm gonna give you the trump card to pull on me whenever I argue for communism.


Jerry Springer. I will always lose to the Jerry Springer argument.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Not necessarily. More money is sometimes needed.

Yes, when your GDP grows, when you want a short time boost, or when the supply of money was insufficient to begin with.

It is a BAD idea, however, to print gobs of money for your regular expenses (I sure hope a Spifforist utopia will have a healthy economy, and that many communes will be willing to invest in productive capacities - I sure hope investment will be commonplace).

If it isn't than you can raise prices to allocate some resources.

No I cannot, unless a major crisis forces me to. Considering that I oppose a planned economy, the only influence the State has on prices in normal times is on the prices of public utilities (from train fares to interest rates). It can affect inflation, but it's nothing like the allocation of resources that you can find in a planned economy.

I won't use the carrot like it is in the capitalist system where you are given incentive to bust your ass so that someone else can get the fruits of your labor.

And pray tell, in a commune, who is this "someone else"? Do you mean your evil coworkers?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Imran, I'm gonna give you the trump card to pull on me whenever I argue for communism.


Jerry Springer. I will always lose to the Jerry Springer argument.

I was arguing against democracy first of all . And Budweiser's popularity is just as bad .

[Odin]

My plan and Spiffor's plan are almost identical.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor
And pray tell, in a commune, who is this "someone else"? Do you mean your evil coworkers?

Actually that's what it sounds like. Either that or other communes. Who pays for the interest that you want?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Actually that's what it sounds like. Either that or other communes. Who pays for the interest that you want?

Communes or individuals as they pay back their loans, essentially.

Yes, I know, it will involve a bit of money going in the pockets of the holders of capital. As said, such a small concession to capital ownership is a price I'm more than willing to pay for a functional economy.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Odin
My plan and Spiffor's plan are almost identical.

This is nothing new

[Velociryx]

Well, since I'm heavily dosed up, courtesy of another pancreatitus attack, let's see what new material we have here:

Spiffor espouses a banking system, so you will note that I've not commented on any of his posts. Two reasons for this...I don't know what the Spiffatopia IS, precisely, but it's not communism...at least not any sort that I've ever seen. Especially with the presence of the banking system, it doesn't seem terribly different from what we have now.

Correction...in reading back, there IS one bit I have to comment on:

Finally, you can create your personal company with your savings, if you wish. However, once you have fellow workers in the company, you'll be equal to them in terms of power at the "board of directors".

This, I have to reject, and let me give you an example as to why:

Let us say that I spend several years of my life writing a book or making a computer game or something. I get it just PERFECT and then put it out for sale on the 'net.
LOTS of orders come in.

So many, that I'm forced to hire some kids after school to help me fill those orders.

Now...I've bled THREE YEARS of my life on this project, and some kids show up after school to help me stuff boxes. And yet, under the proposed system, they've got an equal stake in what I have produced? By what logic?

To the rest....

It can be very enlightening, looking past the words that ARE spoken to the ones that aren't.

From Che:
1) An economic system where all productive property, i.e., factories, farmland, mines, banks, are owned collectively. The specific mechanism of whether the ownership is held by those working the property or held in trust by the government.

Here, we discover our first contradiction. Namely, that there can be no such thing as "Stage Two Communism" (mentioned a bit later in this thread). Further, with this statement, Che clearly identifies himself as a Statist. Howzzat, you ask? Well, to put it simply, any time you have a list of something (in this case, "what constitutes productive property," then it follows that you will need people who are in charge of the following, at a bare minimum:

a) A person or group to decide what is on, and what is not on, said list.

b) A person or group to decide what happens to those who do bad things, like attempt to own any item on the list.

c) People to mete out the punishments for the abovementioned group of ruffians and scalawags.

d) Watchers, to go around checking up on everyone, taking inventory of all that they own to make sure that nothing "forbidden" is lurking anywhere.

In order for there to be some kind of system of checks and balances (or at least the appearance of same), these will all have to be separate groups, and they'll have to be pretty LARGE groups (cos as you can imagine, it will take a LOT of manpower to spy on your own people).

Unless of course, you can envision a way that this can be done without human intervention. No? Neither can Che, I'll wager. Thus...Statist, and the unreachable dream of "Stage Two Communism."

Further, it begs the question, "What IS productive property, exactly?" Oh yes, we know all about factories and mines and such, but most anything can be considered "productive property" when you think about it.

I'm a writer. My "production" can be generated with: paper, pens, pencils, crayons, magic markers, sharpies, computers, word processors, printers, ink cartridges, cd burners, cd's, paperclips, the back of envelopes, notebooks, paper grocery bags....the list is nearly endless! All of these things are to be considered the property of the state? That'll be quite an undertaking to keep track of, I must say!

My wife-to-be is an artist...her list is equally impressive.
Seems to me than, productive property can be...well, anything really. After all, the human mind is both cunning and creative. Ban me from using something, and I'll find a substitute. It's enough to make the Watcher Agency pull their hair out!

And what to do about singers, anyway? Their "means of production" are their vocal chords....it'll be dang interesting to see how the State Machine goes about acquiring THOSE little babies!

Further still, this does not address the question of "rents." In this case, "rents" being interest paid, or....plain old RENT....as in, if it's okay for me to own my own home....why not two? Three? Ten? And if I own them, I'm gonna charge a fee if someone else wants to use 'em....note though, that in this case, nothing is being produced (the earlier comment about the "productive assets" like factories, implying a place where stuff is made...not my words....that's the quote, and it appears more than once in this thread).
Of course, they'll be quick to say that rent is evil (without quite explaining how or why) and that rental property is its own special case (I think the People's Bureaucracy just got bigger)

2) Merit is rewarded through other means, such as public recognition, extra perks, longer vacation.
Nothing wrong with any of this, but public recognition, for many, if not most, is a relatively poor means of compensation. Nothing says "good job" like a big pay hike. It's like trying to substitute gas powered cars with solar....just not as much bang for the buck, if you'll pardon the (extremely capitalist, I know) expression.

3) The government is democratically elected, with each level responsible to the level below it, with instant recall for all officials. Campaigns are publicly financed.

Democratically elected?! So...you're gonna wait until you convince people to VOTE to give up all their "productive property" of their own free will. Methinks the communists have a LOOOOOOOONG wait ahead of them. Or, does the democratically elected part start AFTER the "revolution" (which, is it too big a presumption to assume will not be bloodless...I don't want to be accused of offending anyone's gentle sensibilities by making inappropriate assumptions here)

Comment by Flubber:
While I personally see much value in non-monetary incentives, why would they necessarily be better for everyone. If you give someone an extra week off then in theory that's a weeks work that someone else needs to be paid to do. If the person wants the additional pay instead of the extra vacation, where is the harm in giving it to them, if thats what the person wants??

And Kid's reply:
First, they would both be paid the same.

Second, there's something more corrupt about some people having more income than others. It violates that concept of equality. On the other hand if one person gets their work done faster, they should not have to continue working just because someone else isn't working as hard.

Here, we see the cornerstone of the Kidatopia, which has remained unchanged since he began hawking the idea on the forums about a year and a half ago. That being, EVERYBODY from the burger flipper to the brain surgeon, is equal. The jobs they do apparently require the SAME level of skill and talent, and NO special consideration should be given to either group. They should make THE SAME. Kid seems to be unique among the commie crowd, in that he's the only one I've ever heard spout this particular absurdity. And while it sure seems nice (especially if you're one of the many burger flippers looking for an easy way to get a raise), it makes no sense whatsoever and flies in the face of even the most basic logic.

As such, there's little more to be said about it.

From Che again:
What's wrong with that? Most people like being productive. I think this should be encouraged.

Well...one of the things that's wrong with it is that it will, over the course of time, it will create an ever-widening gap between those who have less, and those who have more. This will begin to look suspiciously like a separation or stratification of social CLASS, which is supposed to not exist in the utopia, and therefore, one would imagine, would be banned, right along with anything that could lead to same.

Personal items, family heirlooms, etc., I believe should be able to be passed on to children. I'm even of the position that should include a family home, though most Americans don't really have a conception of a multigeneration home anymore. I don't think that a family that's been living in one home for over a hundred years should have to move, because of the death of a particular generation.

see above.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Communes or individuals as they pay back their loans, essentially.

Yes, I know, it will involve a bit of money going in the pockets of the holders of capital. As said, such a small concession to capital ownership is a price I'm more than willing to pay for a functional economy.

If you think making capitalists richer is good for the economy why do you call yourself a communist?

[chequita guevara]

Sorry, Vel, you twist around too much to make a fun adversary. You're like a greased pig in an argument, and I don't mean that in a good way.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Comment by Flubber:
While I personally see much value in non-monetary incentives, why would they necessarily be better for everyone. If you give someone an extra week off then in theory that's a weeks work that someone else needs to be paid to do. If the person wants the additional pay instead of the extra vacation, where is the harm in giving it to them, if thats what the person wants??

And Kid's reply:
First, they would both be paid the same.

Second, there's something more corrupt about some people having more income than others. It violates that concept of equality. On the other hand if one person gets their work done faster, they should not have to continue working just because someone else isn't working as hard.

Here, we see the cornerstone of the Kidatopia, which has remained unchanged since he began hawking the idea on the forums about a year and a half ago. That being, EVERYBODY from the burger flipper to the brain surgeon, is equal. The jobs they do apparently require the SAME level of skill and talent, and NO special consideration should be given to either group. They should make THE SAME. Kid seems to be unique among the commie crowd, in that he's the only one I've ever heard spout this particular absurdity. And while it sure seems nice (especially if you're one of the many burger flippers looking for an easy way to get a raise), it makes no sense whatsoever and flies in the face of even the most basic logic.

What logic? You're just making a claim that one is more valuable than the other. Where's the logic?

[Ell_man]

As long as we're talking utopia, here's mine:

I'd have an Anarcho-capitalist society. Coercion by force will be unjust while coercion through other means will be allowed. So I wouldn't be able to steal your car, and you wouldn't be forced to give me necesities such as food, water, shelter. Thus, no governments would exist unless they recieved the explicit consent of everyone under their jurisdiction. Fuzzy social contracts and constitutions don't qualifiy. Anyone may secede their land or leave an area that a government is operating under.

You have the right to discriminate against whoever you want for whatever reason but prepare to face the consequences of your actions.

There would be no legal tender laws, anyone would be able to print their own money and circulate it. This would most likely result in a commodity money standard being created(ie gold/silver). I'm of the opinion that there is no optimum supply of money. Any will do as long as prices are able to adjust.

Basically, everything provided which was previously provided through taxation(involuntary exchange) will now be voluntary. People will be able to buy exactly how much of numerous services they actually want to buy, instead of being forced into purchasing them indirectly through taxation. Private institutions will do practically everything more efficiently than governments can do. In addition, it will be consumers, not political games which control what is produced and who gets what.

[chequita guevara]

In other words, you're just another liber-tyrant.