Define communism for dum 'ol Lancer

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MrFun
dude, that's like, far-out man

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
My response: I know this is tough, so I'll go slow.

Already getting rude eh?

[Velociryx]

I'm curious about your last post, Spiff. You said that in a communal system, VG would still own the same stuff and I'd be in full control....you mean, until I hire my first employee, yes? At which time, my control gets cut in half, be split evenly with the full time guy who just started?

And Kid...not being rude, especially, but yes...I'll be the first to admit that it gets tiresome having to explain that which everyone else seems to see as blindingly obvious....or maybe it's the meds...

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Thinking that crayons are a mean of production is assenine.

And wrong.

Think of the simple difference between non financial service sector and the agricultural and industrial sectors.

Power generation, all industry, and agriculture, these are the mean of production, as well as those that create capital.

The more valid question is that of land ownership, not crayon ownership.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Tuberski


1. Who decides?

Under a system of anarcho-syndicalists, the decision is democratic. Under the Marxist notion, the proleteriat (hence the decision is also democratic), under Leninism, the Party (which means its either a democratic choice, or a dictatorial choice, depending on the make up of the party.

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.

But you might never get a better apartment, since in theory those could be reserved for the people who actually work hard. Also, no one ever said anything about equal pay.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I'm curious about your last post, Spiff. You said that in a communal system, VG would still own the same stuff and I'd be in full control....you mean, until I hire my first employee, yes?

Yes. Think of it as "until you bring in a venture-partner". The very core of coops is that people are empowered in their workplace.

Edit: this means that you'll have to find someone with the qualities of a good venture-partner: someone who shares your general vision, someone who understands what it can bring and what you can bring to the company.

In larger companies, where the relationship between co-workers is less immediately personalized, there would be less need of such "venture-partner" virtues when looking for new coworkers.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by GePap
Also, no one ever said anything about equal pay.

Kid most certainly has.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Kid most certainly has.

And you people pay attention??

Next you'll be telling me you pay attention to Ned...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by GePap


The more valid question is that of land ownership, not crayon ownership.

touche

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GePap
Thinking that crayons are a mean of production is assenine.

Crayons can be means of production. A means of production is an item that you use to make money. A machine-tool is a means of production. A pool of computers in the office is a mean of production. The stockpiles of pen/papers etc. held by a large office building is a means of production.

You are making an old mistake of not taking the service secotr into amount. Nowadays, the service sector is what creates most wealth in the developed world, and it is a place of exploitation just as much as the factory ("exploitation" in the marxist meaning: the owner of the means of production makes a profit without having to work in the company he owns)

It is extremely unlikely that a modern socialist or communist State leaves the service sector untouched.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Crayons can be means of production. A means of production is an item that you use to make money. A machine-tool is a means of production. A pool of computers in the office is a mean of production. The stockpiles of pen/papers etc. held by a large office building is a means of production.

No they are not. A Machine tool most certainly is a means of production, a pen, or pencil, or crayon is NOT. Making a drawing and making a tool are too very different things.
As for saying a means of production is what you use to make money- that definition is so broad as to mean that anything is a means of production, since anything can, in some form, be used to make money, since somone, anywhere, might be willing to trade for it.

You are making an old mistake of not taking the service secotr into amount. Nowadays, the service sector is what creates most wealth in the developed world, and it is a place of exploitation just as much as the factory ("exploitation" in the marxist meaning: the owner of the means of production makes a profit without having to work in the company he owns)

My terminology was flawed, and no, I don't think the service sector would remain untouched, but not all services would be touched either. Certainly any large CORPORATE businesses would be collective. That can't be said for smaller, individual businesses, and being an artist or artican most certainly is that. There is a difference between McDonalds and the local family Dinner.

Also, not all communists are Marxists, so enthralled by the whole notion of "exploitation" as Marxs defined it.

[Velociryx]

What Spiff said.

Furthermore, there IS no discussion about property ownership. That has already been defined by our communist friends.

For any meaningful discussion to occur, we must assume that the revolution has occured. Thus, the big stuff (factories, etc) has already been decided upon...and the answer is that it's controlled by the state (or by communes, in Spiff's case), and all that remains is to discuss what happens "at the margins" where the smaller stuff gains big importance.

-=Vel=-

[MrFun]

I love this . . . . .








according to people like Vel, crayons can be used to exploit and manipulate workers.

[Velociryx]

Mr Fun: We have already established in this discussion thread that it is acceptable to own a wide variety of "personal items" ranging from the aforementioned crayons, and vehicles, and stuff like personal computers.

My point is that if you want to do away with capitalism, then these things I AM allowed to own (and have already been put on the "allow list" by the folks here) will have to be outlawed as well.

It does not matter that I no longer have a factory. I'll start over. I'll start small, with the things I AM ALLOWED TO OWN, and I'll make it work.

I'll create something that didn't exist before, and I'll use my spiffy, privately owned computer and scanner to mass produce it. I'll make posters and greeting cards and I'll sell them. Eventually, I'll get such demand that I'll need to hire people to assist. It'll have to be very quiet though...clandestine capitalist meetings held after work and stuff by people who WANT to be exploited so they can get ahead.

And we will.

The system is reborn.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GePap
No they are not. A Machine tool most certainly is a means of production, a pen, or pencil, or crayon is NOT. Making a drawing and making a tool are too very different things.
As for saying a means of production is what you use to make money- that definition is so broad as to mean that anything is a means of production, since anything can, in some form, be used to make money, since somone, anywhere, might be willing to trade for it.

Yes, my definition wasn't clear. A "means of production" is anything that you use in order to produce value. When you're a child who uses pencils to draw something for mother's day, your pencil isn't a mean of production.
When you're a corporation that hands pencils to the workers so that they can work, create value, and let you decide how the profits are used, your pencils are means of production.

Vel uses his PC isn a venture he hopes will bring money for himself (book, games). From what I understand, Vel's PC is actually owned by VelociGames. Vel's PC (and maybe other office stuff, like pencils) are means of production, and are treated accordingly by the US economic regulations.

My terminology was flawed, and no, I don't think the service sector would remain untouched, but not all services would be touched either. Certainly any large CORPORATE businesses would be collective. That can't be said for smaller, individual businesses, and being an artist or artican most certainly is that. There is a difference between McDonalds and the local family Dinner.

There's a difference in size, but not really in nature. If the family's dinner has employees that have worked there for the past 20 years without being part of the family (just like the family's dinner where I washed dishes a short time ago), The employee has no say in the way the company is run. The owners (the family) make a profit off the employee's work. They have the right to do so because they own the restaurant, the means of production.

A socialist/communist economy can adress the issue of small businesses (i.e. smallscale ownership of the means of production) in different fashions. The USSR allowed personal ventures to be run on a private basis (personal parcel of land, personal hairdresser's salons...). I don't know if it allowed small ventures that were beyond personal.