Define communism for dum 'ol Lancer

[Lawrence of Arabia]

can i retire at the age of 30?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You're going to need capital for capitalism, but you don't need it for communism. All you need to do is prepare for people retiring. Identify changes in demographics and plan accordingly.

How do these people buy their house, or buy their car?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor

How do these people buy their house, or buy their car?

They make payments.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kidicious


They make payments.

dude, that's like, far-out man

[Odin]

Originally posted by 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.

I sure hope you're a troll, otherwise you are a greedy, self-seving SOB like the rest of you libertarians.

[Odin]

I am fine with private property as long as it is not used to exploit others and as long as you can't pass on most of it to the next generation.

[Velociryx]

Mr. Fun:
You're taking Che's and others' proposals to an unreasonable extreme. I'm sure that what they mean by "productive property" that cannot be legally privately owned, only concerns types of productive property where massive amount of capital is required for investment and a certain level of workers.



I hardly think that envelopes, crayons, and such would fall under this, if I'm correct on what Che and others mean by "productive property."

Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, or clarify something that I muddied up.

Che's reply:
Mr. Fun is correct.

My response would be...why are my answers "an unreasonable extreme?" Per the definition given, the things I described are indeed "productive property." If you don't believe that, create a hot property, get yourself a supply of CD's and a burner and just see how your "personal economy" grows like gangbusters.

Furthermore, human beings being...well...human beings, tend to take things to all extremes, especially when they find themselves in a too-confining box and are desperately seeking a way out.

Communism would be that box, and those who sought to escape from its meddlesome, tiresome, threadbare rules would start LOOKING to those very extremes for escape.

This in turn would force the ruling elite's hand, REQUIRING them to take "the list" to those aforementioned levels.

If you can't see that, then you need to learn a bit more about human nature before day 1 of the glorious revolution, cos it's gonna happen. People bend the rules. They take them to the extreme EVERY SINGLE TIME. This can be seen in simplest form by watching people's speed on any given road. You can predict like clockwork that the average speed on a given road will be ~10mph over the posted speed, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE POSTED SPEED IS!

Same principle, and if you don't plan for it, then the glorious revolution ain't gonna last long.

Kid: some nonsense about me juat making a fiat satement that brain surgeons are more valuable than burger flippers

My response: I know this is tough, so I'll go slow. Brain surgery requires years of schooling and highly technical knowledge and training that most people a) don't have the apptitude for, and b) don't have the patience for, to say nothing of the special desire that one must have to even GET INTO that field.

The above will ensure that there are NEVER a glut of brain surgeons just lying around in gutters of Kidatopia.

On the other hand, about the only special skills needed to be a burger flipper are to show up on time and have a basic understanding that fire is hot.

Note any particular difference between the two?

How easy would it be to replace your average burger flipper?

Contrast that with how easy (read: difficult) it would be to replace your average brain surgeon.

Cast rests.

Other comments:

Ownership is an interesting concept, and under the various communisms proposed here, it gets even more twisted and interesting:

I can own the shirt on my back, but not the loom that created it, EVEN IF I build the loom with my own sweat and labor in my back yard?!

Now THAT is intriguing.

Why can't I?

Have I don't something horriffic and bad by building a loom? What PRECISELY is different about owning the loom vs. owning the shirt that can be created from it?

To date, no one has been able to offer me a good explanation of the supposed differences here.

If I can own my own home to live in, then why is it suddenly pure evil to own a second? A third? A fifth? It is the EXACT same mechanism (owning good X), but you class one as acceptable and one as objectionable.

Folly and nonsense.

-=Vel=-

EDIT: And one more
Che: 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.

Yes, I can imagine! That's because unlike many other folks who lock horns with the reds on these topics, I enjoy drawing attention down to what's NOT being said....the stuff that always tends to get glossed over and not talked about regarding the "glories of the revolution."

You know...those nasty little details that it'd be easier if nobody asked about? Yep...I'm all about 'em.
-v.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Odin
I sure hope you're a troll, otherwise you are a greedy, self-seving SOB like the rest of you libertarians.

"Slave of the ideology" is more like it IMO. It's fairly easy to become slave of the ideology: you merely have to simplify your idea of good to the extreme (here: good = being free to dispose of one's property without restriction), and then you simply have to create a whole belief system around this one idea.

The implications of the actual implementation are no matter. When you're a slave of your ideology, you don't care if your ideology will result in epidemics, will result in massive illiteracy, or will result in the emergence of a new feudalism (those are examples: a slave of a strictly egalitarian form of communism wouldn't care if it meant the collapse of production and growth, penuries, etc.)

[Velociryx]

Forgot about Spiffor, but given that what he is espousing is, by his own definition, NOT communism, it deserves separate treatment anyways.

Good answer re: seasonal workers, but I must say, I'd still be right upset if I devoted years of my life to bringing some project to life, and some guy shows up (to work full time), and after a year or so, he magically has an equal say in the stuff that took me years to put together.

There seems to be something too arbitrary about that, IMO. Too heavy-handed, and while you may have the banking system in place to spur investment, the approach above would seem to choke off any desire to innovate at all.

-=Vel=-

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I hardly think that envelopes, crayons, and such would fall under this, if I'm correct on what Che and others mean by "productive property."

I don't know. As an author, you make money thanks to your pencils and to your personal computer today. Are they considered part of the "Vel Company" by the IRS? I suppose not. Now, imagine you owned a factory: it will definitely be labeled "Vel Company" by the IRS.

In commie threads, you consistently speak about very low-level capitalism (personal productive activity, and often one that is a secondary source of income). You seem to believe we are maximalists that'll pry your crayons from your hands.

But there's no reason to believe that we will behave in a completely rigid manner once in power, when it comes to the definition of what is productive capital and what isn't. Just like today's IRS is flexible when it comes to defining something as productive capital or not.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
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.

2) Merit is rewarded through other means, such as public recognition, extra perks, longer vacation.

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.

1. Who decides?

2. Public Recognition? Nebulous "perks"? Longer vacations?

Hell, if I can do little and get paid the same as the guy that works hard for the extra vacation, I'd do it.

3. No problem.

ACK!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Good answer re: seasonal workers, but I must say, I'd still be right upset if I devoted years of my life to bringing some project to life, and some guy shows up (to work full time), and after a year or so, he magically has an equal say in the stuff that took me years to put together.

When things are at such personal level, people will have to learn to think of their co-workers as associates. You need someone to send the letters and answers the phone? Then you need an associate who does that, while you do the other stuff.

There seems to be something too arbitrary about that, IMO. Too heavy-handed, and while you may have the banking system in place to spur investment, the approach above would seem to choke off any desire to innovate at all.

I don't see why. When you create your own company, it's generally because you want to make a living out of it. In my system, you can make a living off your company (by working there, i.e you create your workplace). I can see how it'll discourage one or two-person ventures to quickly hire people, but once they've begun hiring people, the corporate culture adapts to that of a commune, which isn't scary.

[Velociryx]

Spiffor:

Quite right! Because in making laws that harm the big corporations (well, make them extinct as they exist now), those same laws will have to apply equally to smaller operations that employ people, and THOSE are the people who truly drive capitalism. The big corps take it to the extreme (in the same way that my pencil and paperclip example takes YOUR views to the extreme), but the INDIVIDUAL CAPITALIST is still the lifeblood of the system.

And for the record, yes...I am have my own, registered corporation for all my media creations. Velocigames actually "owns" all the stuff I have produced to date.

As to rigid behavior....you are right. In that, I have only history to guide me, and while history cannot tell me with absolute certainty what YOU would do if you came to power, it can tell me a lot about what your predecessor revolutionaries HAVE done.

Forgive me for saying so, but their collective track record makes me less-than-enthusiastic, and that impacts YOUR chances of success directly, because human nature hasn't changed one whit.

Thus, the typical reactions of people when folks start talking about how great the revolution will be "this time."


-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Spiffor: I don't see why. When you create your own company, it's generally because you want to make a living out of it. In my system, you can make a living off your company (by working there, i.e you create your workplace). I can see how it'll discourage one or two-person ventures to quickly hire people, but once they've begun hiring people, the corporate culture adapts to that of a commune, which isn't scary.

The point is....we're talking about unequal compensation again, but this time, in the opposite direction. If it takes me five or ten YEARS to bring an idea to fruition, that's a LOT of time invested.

To create a company and then essentially GIVE control of it to those who run with it is to totally discount all the time I've put into it leading up to the creation OF the company.

If you're okay with paying interest so that capitalists will provide capital for investment, why balk at acknowledging that a lot of "pre work" goes into any enterprise, and that said work is just as "compensatable" as any other?

-=Vel=-

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And for the record, yes...I am have my own, registered corporation for all my media creations. Velocigames actually "owns" all the stuff I have produced to date.

In a commune system, Velocigames will own the same stuff, and you'll be in full control of Velocigames.

As to rigid behavior....you are right. In that, I have only history to guide me, and while history cannot tell me with absolute certainty what YOU would do if you came to power, it can tell me a lot about what your predecessor revolutionaries HAVE done.

Forgive me for saying so, but their collective track record makes me less-than-enthusiastic, and that impacts YOUR chances of success directly, because human nature hasn't changed one whit.

Thus, the typical reactions of people when folks start talking about how great the revolution will be "this time."

The very reason why my system is so different from theoretical communism (the name it actually deserves is "market socialism") is because I hope to have learned from the past mistakes: 1. I consider revolutionary rise to power to be extremely dangerous, and 2. I focus as much on wealth creation than on wealth distribution.

Your quote can apply to Che (He's a revolutionary who thinks that all revolutions but one have been infected by the same cancer (Stalinism), and that the cancer has now disappeared, and thus a revolution will bring a better society), but it doesn't apply to me.