NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a matter of curiosity, since people tend to give vague answers:

What freedoms, under a communistic, world-wide system, would remain?

I'm just going to throw some examples down, but I'd really like as big a list as possible.

---

Would people be able to make large-scale, expensive art productions, such as movies or bronze statues?

Would people get to choose what foods they eat, whether it be Alaskan King Crab, Caviar, or Pineapple?

Would people be allowed to gather resources from nature for fun, such as by hunting or fishing on a camping trip?

If so, what must happen with the catch?

Will people be allowed to own guns? If so, will they get a choice in type?

Will people be allowed to vote for a non-communistic system?

Will people be allowed to -attempt- to act in a capitalistic manner, by, say, trying to trade sea shells for cookies, which they use to bribe helpers with to gather more seashells for more cookies? Perhaps loaning a cookie today, in exchange for extra seashells the next day, ala interest?

What control will parents have over their kids, since everyone is guaranteed certain resources? Will parents be allowed to say "For hitting your brother, you get no dinner tonight."?

Will people be allowed to travel world-wide for pleasure?

Will things like theme parks exist?

Will pure-entertainment objects like toys and bad romance novels be allowed?

Will people be able to have personal book collections, or will all books be in libraries?

Will people be allowed to have personal items, like the giraffe grandpa wittled from a stick?

Will people get to keep any of the stuff their family had prior to the revolution? Will I be allowed to keep the Grandfather clock my parents want to pass on to me? If not, what will be done with such things?

Will indigenous people be allowed to keep their hunting/gathering culture?

Just a short list. Endless other stuff to ask.

In answer to your questions: No, comrade.

I'm sure there's -some- freedoms under communism...

I'm not. Theoretically, of course, communists will tell you there is total freedom in "true" Communism. But then that's kind of like saying, there is total freedom once the Fourth Reich has reached it's goals. Sure there is... for all the ones who agree.

To get from today's world to a Communist utopia, there has to be changes. Since a majority currently do not endorse communism in the US at least, either a majority would have to be reached (and the minority would have to be oppressed), or a minority would have to take power by force, or some combination thereof.

The way I think most Communist idealogists on this forum see it is just that their mindset prevails, everyone just sort of agrees to communism and begins the slow or fast switch over like that. Unfortunately things aren't as simple as "whole world adopts my view; utopia results."

While there may be "some" freedoms in a communist utopia, either the impractical or practical variety, there are also "some" freedoms everywhere today. The question is are those some freedoms, worth so much more than today's some freedoms, that we should have global communist revolution to attain them? I think not.

Who cares? Communisms dead

Agreed, but I'm really trying to figure out exactly what they think is so great about it.

The one, and only, thing I see communism being based around is food and shelter, and your neighbor not having something you don't.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what you can do other than work, eat, sleep, think, and play sans objects.

Would people be able to make large-scale, expensive art productions, such as movies or bronze statues?

Yes, but what do you mean as "expensive"? There will be no money comrade.

Would people get to choose what foods they eat, whether it be Alaskan King Crab, Caviar, or Pineapple?

Yes, as long as the supply of them are there; note, that most people cannot each these types of food today.

Would people be allowed to gather resources from nature for fun, such as by hunting or fishing on a camping trip?

If so, what must happen with the catch?

Will people be allowed to own guns? If so, will they get a choice in type?

Yes, I'm a Libertarian Socialist. Guns will be as free as everything else

Will people be allowed to vote for a non-communistic system?

People won't want an other system, Communism is the final stage of human social evolution, no elections either, there will be no leaders, everyone will have equal voice.

Will people be allowed to -attempt- to act in a capitalistic manner, by, say, trying to trade sea shells for cookies, which they use to bribe helpers with to gather more seashells for more cookies? Perhaps loaning a cookie today, in exchange for extra seashells the next day, ala interest?

That is not capitalist behavior, capitalism is when you generate capital from pre-existing assets by the means of production useing bought labor power.

What control will parents have over their kids, since everyone is guaranteed certain resources? Will parents be allowed to say "For hitting your brother, you get no dinner tonight."?

Uh, That I haven't thought about; but Communism is not "rationing", rationing is just stupid, not like you get food tickets for a certain number of this or not.

Will people be allowed to travel world-wide for pleasure?

They can travel for any reason they want, people will be allowed to do anything they want as long as it doesn't harm society.

Will things like theme parks exist?

Yes, but they will be under workers' control and operated in the interest of everyone.

Will pure-entertainment objects like toys and bad romance novels be allowed?

Yes, I'm sure people would love to write those, anything is allowed

Will people be able to have personal book collections, or will all books be in libraries?

Communism will outlaw private property, but not personal property, there is a difference

Will people be allowed to have personal items, like the giraffe grandpa wittled from a stick?

Yes, the amount of work a person has to do will be greatly reduced, work will be whatever you desire, farming one day, fishing an other. Whatever you like!

Will people get to keep any of the stuff their family had prior to the revolution? Will I be allowed to keep the Grandfather clock my parents want to pass on to me? If not, what will be done with such things?

Yes, you may keep things like a grandfather clock (we will not take personal property), but land and property that generates vaule (capital) will be confisticated by the people.

Will indigenous people be allowed to keep their hunting/gathering culture?

Thats something Marx called "Primitive Communism", so yes, but we will introduce the wonders of modern technology to them.

Will people be able to exhibit ridiculous naivety?

Yes, but they will be under workers' control and operated in the interest of everyone.

.

Not really "freedom" then is it? If your neighbors can tell you what to do.

Who cares? Communisms dead


Leninism is dead, but Anarchism, and Liberatarian Socialist movements are not, we are growing in strength. The global anti-capitalist movement is growing day by day. The ant-G8 rallies will be an example of this new movement.

Communism has never been born, therefore not dead.

Not really "freedom" then is it? If your neighbors can tell you what to do.


In Communism, everyone is a worker. Under that logic, no-one is free even today (which is true!)


dinner time, be back to answer more questions!

What in the world do people think communism is? It wouldn't be progress if it were, uh, regression.

"Under" communism's a funny way of putting it, too.

A basic answer to most questions would be along the lines of, "It depends whether anybody cares/wants to"

If it were a commune of my design: Yes if the artist could drum-up enough popular support or save up his or her own means; yes, so long as the people at its source were in a position to give it up; of course, unless it became somehow problem enough for the masses to carry through restrictions on it; similar to the previous, whatever you want unless it is reasonably indicated that you're doing more harm than is deemed allowable; everyone will have access to armaments via a communal or national guard that will enrole all able citizens for personal and revolutionary defence, and I just can't make myself care much about the type but I assume that while brands will be largely out, classes of weapons will be operated according to who's best at each; people will debate and vote on whatever the hell they like, but to vote for a none-communist system until a more advanced form is understood will mean voting for a reduction in one's rights and powers, so I'd bet you a hyper-space wombat that it wouldn't happen; people will draw a wage between a minimum and maximum decided by the commune at large or whatsoever authorities it chooses to elect; children will be to a large degree raised communally, but ultimately it is only to be expected that parents shall feel and be closest to them, there will no doubt be cultural differences, this is getting perhaps a little too specific and small-picture to address from without while looking at the big picture, but would be quite quickly apparent in practice; so long as there are resources enough to enable popular foreign travel, there is no reason why it should not happen, to deny it would be totally uncommunistic; I don't know, maybe, but I'd hope that community life would lead to people getting better ideas so that such distractions would at least be less popular, and I have not thought at length about the administration of such specific and relatively trivial things as theme parks and other currency-intensive local distractions; why in the world wouldn't they?; probably a lot of both, libraries will be closer to and more involved with the community and no doubt better stocked, but there's no reason why personal books shouldn't be held unless perhaps unique and important texts are being unfairly denied to the masses; of course they will, these things do not appear to be associated with the means of production, distribution, or exchange of essentials; well if they join the commune they'll advance beyond that, and if not then they won't, that's quite simple, eh?

Ok, so i'm going to go through your list and tell you why communism dosn't work. And i hope you give my words some credit, i'v got a degree in political science.

Ok.....

"Would people be able to make large-scale, expensive art productions, such as movies or bronze statues?"

Yes they could, but not if it upsets the government or in anyway shape or form tells the people that the government is wrong. Also, you couldn't be choice become a director, it really depends on whether someone in politics liked you or not. Lets just keep going....

"Would people get to choose what foods they eat, whether it be Alaskan King Crab, Caviar, or Pineapple?"

They could choose whatever is available in the commune kitchen at the time, or at the stores at the time. However, communism depends on a social commune where everything is done for the good of each other and everyone else around you. Ex: You grow food, are given to consume what you need and give the rest away...ideally. This makes trade difficult because every nation should just send whatever excess materials it has to other nations, giving people less of an incentive to work. The largest problem in productivity in the former USSR was the lack of incentives. If you worked 40 hours a week, or 30 hours a week, you got paid the same amount.... whether you produced 30 apples a day or 40 apples a day, you got paid the same amount. This made people not want to work, which means that half the time people didn’t show up to work. So everyone had a job, but nothing got done.

"Would people be allowed to gather resources from nature for fun, such as by hunting or fishing on a camping trip?"

Probably not, because if everyone did that (i.e. no need for licenses to restrict the amount of fish fished etc), we would run out of fish.

"If so, what must happen with the catch?"

I would assume you could consume the fish, however, ideally you would probably give it to your town food center. In communism China, for example, people had town kitchens where you would eat food given to you by your neighbors etc.

"Will people be allowed to own guns? If so, will they get a choice in type?"

People will not be allowed to own guns for fear of overthrowing the government. Lenin had a theory, that the working class would rise-up and overthrow the government and establish his communist ideals (Marxism-developed by Karl Marx). Also, communism depended on a vanguard society that threw arbitrary terror on its people. Stalin, for example, would have a quota of the amount of people he would kill a year. Lets say he killed 1% a year, the other 99% would stay quiet and do as he says. The government believed it was vanguard, that is, that it knew what the people wanted more than they knew themselves. Also, the media was controlled....control the media, control the mind. This made sure that only communist propaganda was sent out through the air waves so that no one in society got any revolutionary thoughts. Ex: China has 9 major firewalls that filter the Internet. So people would probably not be allowed to have guns for fear of revolution.

"Will people be allowed to vote for a non-communistic system?"

Shit no, the people in power sure as hell don't want to lose their jobs.

"Will people be allowed to -attempt- to act in a capitalistic manner, by, say, trying to trade sea shells for cookies, which they use to bribe helpers with to gather more seashells for more cookies? Perhaps loaning a cookie today, in exchange for extra seashells the next day, ala interest?"

No, you are to give it to the government. They keep it and eat all the cookies, and give you what they feel you "need." Which is shit. Also, acting capitalist is frowned upon as it is seen as acting in your own self-interest and not the interest of the community. You'd probably be killed in one of those "midnight kidnappings" if someone found out you were loaning cookies for profit.

"What control will parents have over their kids, since everyone is guaranteed certain resources? Will parents be allowed to say "For hitting your brother, you get no dinner tonight?"

I'm sure parents can still control their children, but they can't teach anything anti-commune. They can restrict resources.

"Will people be allowed to travel world-wide for pleasure?"

Ok, if communism is worldwide, yes. If they want to leave their current communist country, and go to one without a communist system, then you’re staying home. People weren’t allowed to leave their country for fear of them coming back to their homeland with new "ideas." You are isolated from the rest of the world in a communist system.

"Will things like theme parks exist?"

Probably not, no luxury goods because the economy can't afford them. People need food, not theme parks. As I mentioned before, productivity would be way down, lots of shortages would occur.

"Will pure-entertainment objects like toys and bad romance novels be allowed?"

Romance novels will be biased with the communist perspective, because no other sort of book will be allowed to be published. Toys will continue to exist.

"Will people be able to have personal book collections, or will all books be in libraries?"

Books will probably be shared in libraries. Also all the books will be limited to ideas of pro-communism.

"Will people be allowed to have personal items, like the giraffe grandpa wittled from a stick?"

No, all your personal items become property of the government. If you have puppets made from steel lets say, and steel is in low supply, then they take that shit away and melt it down. If you try to stop them, you'll probably be convicted of being greedy, and you end up as part of that 5% i was talking about earlier.

"Will people get to keep any of the stuff their family had prior to the revolution? Will I be allowed to keep the Grandfather clock my parents want to pass on to me? If not, what will be done with such things?"

No, they go to the common good.

"Will indigenous people be allowed to keep their hunting/gathering culture?"

No, no more indigenous. If they aren’t killed they will be consumed by commune ideology.

In short.....communism doesn’t work in so many damn ways, I don't have the time to sit here and type it all. Just be thankful you’re allowed to visit this site, under communism….you wouldn’t be here right now able to ask these questions.

Not really "freedom" then is it? If your neighbors can tell you what to do.

Where'd that conclusion come from?

Since you did a really odd reply style...

Okay. So, theme parks are allowed. Disney forever. If, of course, I wager, anyone wants to bother.

We can have toys and novels and such.

Query: How do you get a specific novel? We still get to buy things? Doesn't that risk capitalism?

Okay. So we can have a book collection. How? Do we buy things?

...I thought that communism meant that our work goes to the community? So I can hunt and fish for myself and leave everyone else to take care of themselves...?

Okay... so... we can have personal property... meaning that someone with a big giant mansion and piles of gold... gets to keep it all...

Unless by 'no private property' you mean that you can only own what you can take with you...
So if I have a big expensive capitalist-era car -now-... I can keep it later. Right? So the former rich will still have mass luxuries? Just no land?

What about taxis? They create capital, but they aren't land. Will capitalist structures still be allowed so long as they're on wheels?

Introduce in what manner? Will they be allowed to refuse?

(Damn you, SB, the Transylvanian Communards are so leafleting Sletz... when I can be arsed)

It appears that some people think money is everything...

And, no, in a true Communism, you could make any type of product (be it film, games, books, television, or anything else) you want. Only in Totalitarian regimes would you be restricted.

Will people be allowed to own guns? If so, will they get a choice in type?

Yes, I'm a Libertarian Socialist. Guns will be as free as everything else

Will people be allowed to vote for a non-communistic system?

I believe we are discussing COMMUNISM not your happy anarchistic socialist ideal... in a communist state the average joe, indeed anyone who is not a soldier or a policeman or something of that sort, DOES NOT HAVE A #&%@ING GUN! Some people...

Where'd that conclusion come from?

It was in reply to something he said that opened the door for it, but then he edited it...

It appears that some people think money is everything...

And, no, in a true Communism, you could make any type of product (be it film, games, books, television, or anything else) you want. Only in Totalitarian regimes would you be restricted.

There never was a true communist state. Why? Because it is a perfect ideal and to err is to be human, ergo, we cannot achieve perfection in anything. And communism just so happens to be one of those things that is only good when it is perfect, otherwise it sucks so bad that you want to die.

I wish to make it clear that I'm asking about -communism-. Not socialism.

Huge difference.

"Each according to their need."

There never was a true communist state. Why? Because it is a perfect ideal and to err is to be human, ergo, we cannot achieve perfection in anything. And communism just so happens to be one of those things that is only good when it is perfect, otherwise it sucks so bad that you want to die.

Are there no shades of grey with you people? Not everything has to be black and white.

Query: How do you get a specific novel? We still get to buy things? Doesn't that risk capitalism?

Library, perhaps a friend or contact has it, internet, perhaps some guy runs a bookshop or something radical like that.

I should probably point out that I'm not a Marxist, eh?

...I thought that communism meant that our work goes to the community? So I can hunt and fish for myself and leave everyone else to take care of themselves...?

Well, if you want to leave society, I suppose so. Don't just assume that your comrades will welcome you back if you keep walking off to fend for yourself because they're all so naive and stupid. Maybe they'll welcome you back and put you up and treat your disentry, but maybe you'll have pissed them off. It's your life, eh, do what suits you.
Of course, if you just want to go hunting or fishing in your free time like normal, then I don't see that anything changes much from the present condition.

Okay... so... we can have personal property... meaning that someone with a big giant mansion and piles of gold... gets to keep it all...

No. That capital -s/he may say that s/he worked hard for it and earned it all- was collected off the backs of the rest of society in an unbalanced system. Do you think that the baron would have inherited an estate worth shit if society didn't allow it, or that the software millionaire would be rich if society's other members hadn't worked to earn the money to buy his product, hadn't been there to lift him up? That capital will be siezed by the state and Mr.Millionaire will get a fair wage based on what he contributes... perhaps he'll earn the maximum wage and buy a few extra trinkets or take an extra holiday, but if he starts hording up society's resources again he knows what's coming... a life of stealing and being slapped on the wrist without ever unbottoning his collar and having some fun.

Unless by 'no private property' you mean that you can only own what you can take with you...
So if I have a big expensive capitalist-era car -now-... I can keep it later. Right? So the former rich will still have mass luxuries? Just no land?

Well, I would desperately hope that the commune would recognise the massive inefficiency of the vehicle and order it off the road, maybe give the guy a public transport pass or let him share a more efficient vehicle. Perhaps the car would be siezed (probably no use for it being so, though), or perhaps you'd just find that you couldn't get parts or inefficient fuel to keep it on the road.

What about taxis? They create capital, but they aren't land. Will capitalist structures still be allowed so long as they're on wheels?

To the second question, not as such, no. Generally, I'm not yet too sure, I'd have to stop and think about it. Possibly taxi services would need to be more seriously integrated with the communal transport system. Perhaps there'd just be no need for them. It's small-fry, again, though, and will be more apparent once the communes start running.

I believe we are discussing COMMUNISM not your happy anarchistic socialist ideal... in a communist state the average joe, indeed anyone who is not a soldier or a policeman or something of that sort, DOES NOT HAVE A #&%@ING GUN! Some people...

Go back to political science class, there is no state or government in Communism

Communism is Anarchism; anarchism only sees that a Socialist State is not nessecary before transitioning to Communism.

Some people.....

I believe we are discussing COMMUNISM not your happy anarchistic socialist ideal... in a communist state the average joe, indeed anyone who is not a soldier or a policeman or something of that sort, DOES NOT HAVE A #&%@ING GUN! Some people...


Yes, he does. And so does she. I don't know why in the world you bothered to post that load of nonsense and to fill it with assertive upper-case characters and implied profanity. It seems like you'd only do that if you were right.

Some people!

That depends on what kind of communism you mean.

Under Stalinism, that bastardized, name-tarnishing version of Communism, with more akin to National Socialism than Marx's ideas, then the answer to most of your questions would be whatever the most wrong/evil sounding option is.

however, there are many other "communist" styles, here's mine -
Would people be able to make large-scale, expensive art productions, such as movies or bronze statues?

Yes, I see no reason why not, except the profits and enjoyment of that production would be for the betterment of all.

Would people get to choose what foods they eat, whether it be Alaskan King Crab, Caviar, or Pineapple?

Why not? Under pure communism, all resources would be divided equally, and since money is the smoothest way to do that, all money would be divided equally. If that is what you want to spend part of your share of society on, why not? And crab is delicious.

Would people be allowed to gather resources from nature for fun, such as by hunting or fishing on a camping trip?

that's minutia that is in the long run unimportant to society. If you gather some wood or go fishing and catch dinner, it is impractical to divide that equally. Things change if you start a company and log or fish. Then you are on a level that can affect society, and thus the business should either work to serve all of society and be extremely conscious of worker's rights, or at least be taxed and regulated to get that result.

If so, what must happen with the catch? see above

Will people be allowed to own guns? If so, will they get a choice in type?

That's not really an issue of communism, but guns would be considered personal property, and personal property is A-okay. Once again, the difference is if you own a gun store or manufactury, then communism steps in. As to type, if I were in charge I'd see it like I see the food thing.

Will people be allowed to vote for a non-communistic system?

Ideally communism would make everyone happy, as there would be no scramble for resources and all needs would be satisfied. However I believe that as Communist thought is an extention of the "everyone's equal" ideas that spawned Democracy, communism would NEVER work without democracy. How can the people control resources, if the government distributing those resources is not democratically run? Thus, if there is democracy then people should be allowed to vote for other systems, even to change.

Will people be allowed to -attempt- to act in a capitalistic manner, by, say, trying to trade sea shells for cookies, which they use to bribe helpers with to gather more seashells for more cookies? Perhaps loaning a cookie today, in exchange for extra seashells the next day, ala interest?

I would say no, just because interest implies gaining profit from someone else, usually when they have a deficiancy of resources to begin with. That seems abusive of what "resource gap" exists. Though on extremely small scales, bartering for small profits/losses is not big enough to warrant society's interferance.

What control will parents have over their kids, since everyone is guaranteed certain resources? Will parents be allowed to say "For hitting your brother, you get no dinner tonight."?

I believe children are still members of society, but parents should have control, to lead and teach. Obviously, however, society steps in when that "no dinner tonight" becomes malnourishment and child abuse.

Will people be allowed to travel world-wide for pleasure?

Why not? People should have the right to travel where they want, and if they want to use some of their resources they were allocated to travel, more power to them, as travelling is awesome.

Will things like theme parks exist?

Yes, but operated for all, and under the control of the people, not the Disney corporation.

Will pure-entertainment objects like toys and bad romance novels be allowed?

Not reallly a communist issue there... My theory would be the same as I've said above, if you want to spend some of your resources on these, enjoy! What is consumed is not nearly as important as how the cash to perform the consumption is divided in society.

Will people be able to have personal book collections, or will all books be in libraries?

As a communist, I don't see personal property like this as a problem. Money and resources should be distributed equally, but because of people's differing personalities, what they use those for will differ, and if books are to that individuals liking, cool. However it is important to note that all people should have access to libraries, to get that knowledge if they so desire. A knowledge gap is one of the great pillars of oppression, capitalist or otherwise. Hell, it happened under that bastard-child Stalinism...

Will people be allowed to have personal items, like the giraffe grandpa wittled from a stick?

Yes. personal property cannot and shouldnot be abolished. Private property, say a mine or a factory, would be under communism.

Will people get to keep any of the stuff their family had prior to the revolution? Will I be allowed to keep the Grandfather clock my parents want to pass on to me? If not, what will be done with such things?

tough one. I'd say people can keep personal property - homes, toys, books, heirlooms, but the idea would be to public-ize(don't like the word "Nationalise") privately owned factories, mines, railroads, businesses, etc. The grey area is when people like the Rockefellers have MASSIVE estates and millions of dollars of personal property, some of that I think should be redistributed.

Will indigenous people be allowed to keep their hunting/gathering culture?

oh yes. Indigenous tribal societies are often examples of some of the purest, most good natured and brotherly communisms ever. That purity should not be desecrated. Let them function as a seperate "society," there is no point in trashing that goodness just to bring the meager earnings of a tribal society into the big society.

Note, these are my personal opinions, which I call communism. I have elements of socialism, communism, social libertarianism(civil rights wise), etc, but I identify with Communism, and have been called communist more times than I care to count. It's an insult in the US, you know. Oh if i had a nickel...

Go back to political science class, there is no state or government in Communism

Communism is Anarchism; anarchism only sees that a Socialist State is not nessecary before transitioning to Communism.

Some people.....


Mh, fairly well put. This is why I said that I'm not a Marxist. Except that I'd say that socialism is just a part of communism or anarchism. Socialism to me is broadly the democratisation of economy, while communism is the democratisation of, well, community life. I don't think that communism can exist without being socialist, but as you imply through anarchism, there's no need to go socialist without also going fully communist.

...This is all Trotsky's fault.

I'll answer this.

In communism the proletariats (the working class) violently overthrows the government. The proletariats then rule for X years in either a direct democratic type state (between the proletariats only) or a full blown dictatorship.

After X years, there is no government. In between the two forms of government (or lack of) try to gradually change. The changes include force jobs (you go to the job you are best able), everyone gets exactly as much pay as they need (not equal wages) and any other neccisities (such as cars for going into cities, possibly a bike if its close enough or nothing). The state at this time should be self supporting.

Communism is a world wide movement. Its aim is peace and equality for the workers. In another post I explained the differences and similarities between communism and fascism.

Now for the freedoms. Well you do your job, get home do whatever (eat, sleep, play, etc) as long as you dont do anything that is illegal under most other governments. There are no luxeries such as movies, televisions, etc.

Ok, so i'm going to go through your list and tell you why communism dosn't work. And i hope you give my words some credit, i'v got a degree in political science.


Yes they could, but not if it upsets the government or in anyway shape or form tells the people that the government is wrong. Also, you couldn't be choice become a director, it really depends on whether someone in politics liked you or not. Lets just keep going....

There is no government in Communism


They could choose whatever is available in the commune kitchen at the time, or at the stores at the time. However, communism depends on a social commune where everything is done for the good of each other and everyone else around you. Ex: You grow food, are given to consume what you need and give the rest away...ideally. This makes trade difficult because every nation should just send whatever excess materials it has to other nations, giving people less of an incentive to work. The largest problem in productivity in the former USSR was the lack of incentives. If you worked 40 hours a week, or 30 hours a week, you got paid the same amount.... whether you produced 30 apples a day or 40 apples a day, you got paid the same amount. This made people not want to work, which means that half the time people didn’t show up to work. So everyone had a job, but nothing got done.

You are paid money in Communism, you get whatever input you put into working. 'Each according to his abilities, each according to his need".

Probably not, because if everyone did that (i.e. no need for licenses to restrict the amount of fish fished etc), we would run out of fish.

In Capitalism, giant fishing companies are focused on fishing; Communism will have no such things. We would only fish as many as we needed, not just for a profit incentive.


I would assume you could consume the fish, however, ideally you would probably give it to your town food center. In communism China, for example, people had town kitchens where you would eat food given to you by your neighbors etc.

You would probably give to the commune; but it wouldn't be required to hand over everything.


People will not be allowed to own guns for fear of overthrowing the government. Lenin had a theory, that the working class would rise-up and overthrow the government and establish his communist ideals (Marxism-developed by Karl Marx). Also, communism depended on a vanguard society that threw arbitrary terror on its people. Stalin, for example, would have a quota of the amount of people he would kill a year. Lets say he killed 1% a year, the other 99% would stay quiet and do as he says. The government believed it was vanguard, that is, that it knew what the people wanted more than they knew themselves. Also, the media was controlled....control the media, control the mind. This made sure that only communist propaganda was sent out through the air waves so that no one in society got any revolutionary thoughts. Ex: China has 9 major firewalls that filter the Internet. So people would probably not be allowed to have guns for fear of revolution.

THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNISM! The "vanguard" is needed in the beginning of the revolution to direct the revolution, the vanguard dissolves before Communism during the Socialist stage; any Leninist will tell you that.
I don't believe in vanguards.

Karl Marx never advocated vanguards, all he wanted was THE WORKERS to be in control OF THE STATE.

Shit no, the people in power sure as hell don't want to lose their jobs.

No-one would hold any power over anyone else in Communism, and the concept of a "job" is radically different than in capitalism.




There is no govenrment in Communism.


[quote]I'm sure parents can still control their children, but they can't teach anything anti-commune. They can restrict resources.

See above.


Ok, if communism is worldwide, yes. If they want to leave their current communist country, and go to one without a communist system, then you’re staying home. People weren’t allowed to leave their country for fear of them coming back to their homeland with new "ideas." You are isolated from the rest of the world in a communist system.

There are no countries in Communism, borders do not exist.


Probably not, no luxury goods because the economy can't afford them. People need food, not theme parks. As I mentioned before, productivity would be way down, lots of shortages would occur.

The economic system would be effiecent, reducing the waste the capitalist system creates effectivly, the time needed for laboring will be must less than in Capitalism.



Romance novels will be biased with the communist perspective, because no other sort of book will be allowed to be published. Toys will continue to exist.

There will no government to censor books, dammnit!

Books will probably be shared in libraries. Also all the books will be limited to ideas of pro-communism.

See above dammnit!



No, all your personal items become property of the government. If you have puppets made from steel lets say, and steel is in low supply, then they take that shit away and melt it down. If you try to stop them, you'll probably be convicted of being greedy, and you end up as part of that 5% i was talking about earlier.

DAMMIT, THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNISM!

Query: How do you get a specific novel? We still get to buy things? Doesn't that risk capitalism?

Library, perhaps a friend or contact has it, internet, perhaps some guy runs a bookshop or something radical like that.


But how do you go about OWNING it as personal property?


I should probably point out that I'm not a Marxist, eh?


Useful.


...I thought that communism meant that our work goes to the community? So I can hunt and fish for myself and leave everyone else to take care of themselves...?

Well, if you want to leave society, I suppose so. Don't just assume that your comrades will welcome you back if you keep walking off to fend for yourself because they're all so naive and stupid. Maybe they'll welcome you back and put you up and treat your disentry, but maybe you'll have pissed them off. It's your life, eh, do what suits you.


You completely altered the argument. I was asking if someone was allowed to hunt and gather, not do it in exclusion to anything else.

If I go to the woods and take down a deer, and make a few dinners out of it, I've gained over other people. I now have 3000 calories, instead of 2000, and its tastier meat, to boot. Is this allowed?

And... since when do you get to elect yourself out of world-wide communism?


Of course, if you just want to go hunting or fishing in your free time like normal, then I don't see that anything changes much from the present condition.


But.. you're gaining beyond your need...


Okay... so... we can have personal property... meaning that someone with a big giant mansion and piles of gold... gets to keep it all...

No. That capital -s/he may say that s/he worked hard for it and earned it all- was collected off the backs of the rest of society in an unbalanced system.


What if I gained it by being a novel writer?


Do you think that the baron would have inherited an estate worth shit if society didn't allow it, or that the software millionaire would be rich if society's other members hadn't worked to earn the money to buy his product, hadn't been there to lift him up?


You do know that there are prolitariate with mansions, right?


That capital will be siezed by the state and Mr.Millionaire will get a fair wage based on what he contributes... perhaps he'll earn the maximum wage and buy a few extra trinkets or take an extra holiday, but if he starts hording up society's resources again he knows what's coming... a life of stealing and being slapped on the wrist without ever unbottoning his collar and having some fun.


Ah. So you only get SO MUCH personal property. So there IS government seizure of your hard work, even if you earn it from the sweat of your own brow.

How very interesting.


Unless by 'no private property' you mean that you can only own what you can take with you...
So if I have a big expensive capitalist-era car -now-... I can keep it later. Right? So the former rich will still have mass luxuries? Just no land?

Well, I would desperately hope that the commune would recognise the massive inefficiency of the vehicle and order it off the road, maybe give the guy a public transport pass or let him share a more efficient vehicle. Perhaps the car would be siezed (probably no use for it being so, though), or perhaps you'd just find that you couldn't get parts or inefficient fuel to keep it on the road.


Not all expensive cars are gas guzzlers. What if the vehicle was as good on the road as any other vehicle, but had sexy leather seats, GPS, and all those other lovely luxuries? You'd confiscate it out of... why again?


What about taxis? They create capital, but they aren't land. Will capitalist structures still be allowed so long as they're on wheels?

To the second question, not as such, no. Generally, I'm not yet too sure, I'd have to stop and think about it. Possibly taxi services would need to be more seriously integrated with the communal transport system. Perhaps there'd just be no need for them. It's small-fry, again, though, and will be more apparent once the communes start running.

The devil is in the details.

Mh, fairly well put. This is why I said that I'm not a Marxist. Except that I'd say that socialism is just a part of communism or anarchism. Socialism to me is broadly the democratisation of economy, while communism is the democratisation of, well, community life. I don't think that communism can exist without being socialist, but as you imply through anarchism, there's no need to go socialist without also going fully communist.

...This is all Trotsky's fault.

I have strong anarchist tendancies, being a Council Communist, I've been drifting further and further from authoritarianism for a long time. Actually, the only real difference between Council Communism and Anarchism is our interpretation of the state.

We see that democractic councils of workers, each in each region consists of the state cordinating a decentralized economy; heck, to me, even a mob of armed workers seizing control of the factories is the state!

So I'm a quasi-anarchist :)

There is no government in Communism
You are paid money in Communism, you get whatever input you put into working. 'Each according to his abilities, each according to his need".
In Capitalism, giant fishing companies are focused on fishing; Communism will have no such things. We would only fish as many as we needed, not just for a profit incentive.
You would probably give to the commune; but it wouldn't be required to hand over everything.
THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNISM! The "vanguard" is needed in the beginning of the revolution to direct the revolution, the vanguard dissolves before Communism during the Socialist stage; any Leninist will tell you that.
I don't believe in vanguards.
Karl Marx never advocated vanguards, all he wanted was THE WORKERS to be in control OF THE STATE.
No-one would hold any power over anyone else in Communism, and the concept of a "job" is radically different than in capitalism.
There is no govenrment in Communism.
See above.
There are no countries in Communism, borders do not exist.
The economic system would be effiecent, reducing the waste the capitalist system creates effectivly, the time needed for laboring will be must less than in Capitalism.
There will no government to censor books, dammnit!
See above dammnit!
DAMMIT, THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNISM!

So you know alot about communism too I see. People normally say communism is a bad system just because of Stalin or the overthrow.

I'll answer this.

In communism the proletariats (the working class) violently overthrows the government. The proletariats then rule for X years in either a direct democratic type state (between the proletariats only) or a full blown dictatorship.

After X years, there is no government. In between the two forms of government (or lack of) try to gradually change. The changes include force jobs (you go to the job you are best able), everyone gets exactly as much pay as they need (not equal wages) and any other neccisities (such as cars for going into cities, possibly a bike if its close enough or nothing). The state at this time should be self supporting.

Communism is a world wide movement. Its aim is peace and equality for the workers. In another post I explained the differences and similarities between communism and fascism.

Now for the freedoms. Well you do your job, get home do whatever (eat, sleep, play, etc) as long as you dont do anything that is illegal under most other governments. There are no luxeries such as movies, televisions, etc.


Where you start, "In communism..." it would be better if you substitute, "in Marxism..."

The world-wide movement idea, so far as I can tell, comes about after too much pessimism following the crushing of the 1871 Paris Commune and is over-fed by the unfairly critical Trotsky, whose unusually military mind sees the mistakes of the Commune's failure -without strong leadership- to follow the Blanquist line and crush Versailles when it has the chance.

Originally, Marxists appear to see that the isolated Parisians had no chance against the guns of the Republic and the Prussians, and as such say that they needed the whole world on their side. Of course, if the Commune had risen in Manchester, it could have turned out guns enough to crush any reactionary opposition, but Paris was not an industrial city.

Today, of course, it is unlikely that the French army would slaughter tens of thousands of Parisians in cold blood... the idea of world revolution is obsolte, and the Commune remains the best example of how, duh, communism works fine and there's no need to kill everybody to achieve it.

Oh, I feel that I should add that, in my opinion, it is because of social progress forced by the likes of the Parisian communards that today the French army would not murder workers for taking government into their own hands. Communism has not died, rather it has made itself invincible in the west. No 'democracy' could today justify an artillery barrage against one of its own cities simply because that city established its own none-aggressive administration.

Next time anybody gets up and tries it, it might just stick.

And you capitalists who still deride communism... the reason you can do as you will is owing to the blood sacrifices of radical leftist revolutionaries, not to the conservatism you may credit.

Where you start, "In communism..." it would be better if you substitute, "in Marxism..."

The world-wide movement idea, so far as I can tell, comes about after too much pessimism following the crushing of the 1871 Paris Commune and is over-fed by the unfairly critical Trotsky, whose unusually military mind sees the mistakes of the Commune's failure -without strong leadership- to follow the Blanquist line and crush Versailles when it has the chance.

Originally, Marxists appear to see that the isolated Parisians had no chance against the guns of the Republic and the Prussians, and as such say that they needed the whole world on their side. Of course, if the Commune had risen in Manchester, it could have turned out guns enough to crush any reactionary opposition, but Paris was not an industrial city.

Today, of course, it is unlikely that the French army would slaughter tens of thousands of Parisians in cold blood... the idea of world revolution is obsolte, and the Commune remains the best example of how, duh, communism works fine and there's no need to kill everybody to achieve it.

A world wide revolution isnt neccasary but it certainly won't hurt. Besides you wouldn't have to worry about democracies annoying you.

So you know alot about communism too I see. People normally say communism is a bad system just because of Stalin or the overthrow.

Stalin is an example of when the State becomes alienated from the working class and the Communist party constitues as the new capitalist class ruling over the proletariat. Earning their living from the labor of the proletariat.

Therefore, countries like the USSR became nothing more than state capitalist nations. (Lenin used this term in his letter of woe when the German Revolution of 1918 was crushed)

Solution? Keep the state in the hands of the workers, dammit! How? No vanguards, none of that elitist trash of leading the proletariat to victory.

Class counsciness can only be true when the proletariat can revolt theirselves and lead theirselves, not having some leader push them along and agitating for revolution!

No beaucracy! The workers must keep the state in their own power, through workers' soviets (councils) they can hold direct democracy. The Paris Commune is a fine example of what I mean.

Of course the rich kids on these forums won't be convinced! They are from bourgeoisie families! Communism is their enemy! So quit trying to convince them and start convincing the workers!

Freedom is for fools.


And another question, why the fascination with money? Money is a useful tool that represents labor that you have not yet converted to goods. I don't know what good it will do to outlaw it, as all you are doing is devaluing labor by removing any flexibility and liquidity in how it is converted.

Getting paid in dollars is much more valuable to a worker than being paid in bread.

Ok, this type of thread gets me going every time, so I have to tell you all what I tell every naive "communism" vs. capitalism debater:

COMMUNISM IS NOT A FORM OF GOVERNMENT!

Some of you have touched on this. The naive comment does not apply to you.

Communism is a system of society where people in SMALL COMMUNities work together to provide mutual support and sustenance. It cannot work in large communities, or countries, because of an exponential correlation between the population and conflicts between individuals, which takes away from the mutualism. In true communist societies, population is kept low through fissioning. Look at the tribes in South America. They live together in their family units, and once the population expands beyond a hundred or so, straining resources and relationships, a group leaves and forms a new tribe. The people in each tribe provide for each other and live as an extended family. This is true communism. Everything you "communists" believe in is Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, or the like. In these "communist" governments, a dictatorial power, be it the ex-worker class or a single revolutionary holding community principles before the people to justify his authority, controls everything. It is human nature and cannot be avoided outside of small communities. Those communist experiments which succeeded were of small groups of people living in harmony.

Do not try to argue communism is a form of government or even a viable option for a large population. It is a losing argument, every time.

Stalin is an example of when the State becomes alienated from the working class and the Communist party constitues as the new capitalist class ruling over the proletariat. Earning their living from the labor of the proletariat.

Therefore, countries like the USSR became nothing more than state capitalist nations. (Lenin used this term in his letter of woe when the German Revolution of 1918 was crushed)

Solution? Keep the state in the hands of the workers, dammit! How? No vanguards, none of that elitist trash of leading the proletariat to victory.

Class counsciness can only be true when the proletariat can revolt theirselves and lead theirselves, not having some leader push them along and agitating for revolution!

No beaucracy! The workers must keep the state in their own power, through workers' soviets (councils) they can hold direct democracy.

The only reason why they liked Stalin was because Stalin pretended to care about the well being of the state. Lenin told them to not let Stalin in control.
Trotsky was more like Lenin and unless my memory is wrong, he would have continued with the NEP so that it can reach the final step.

Freedom is for fools.


And another question, why the fascination with money? Money is a useful tool that represents labor that you have not yet converted to goods. I don't know what good it will do to outlaw it, as all you are doing is devaluing labor by removing any flexibility and liquidity in how it is converted.

Getting paid in dollars is much more valuable to a worker than being paid in bread.

Thats why I prefer the barter system.

Freedom is for fools.


And another question, why the fascination with money? Money is a useful tool that represents labor that you have not yet converted to goods. I don't know what good it will do to outlaw it, as all you are doing is devaluing labor by removing any flexibility and liquidity in how it is converted.

Getting paid in dollars is much more valuable to a worker than being paid in bread.

Wtf?

Labor power is needed to make products! You're twisting it! The value of money , capital, IS CREATED BY LABOR POWER. It goes like this

labor power -> goods -> capital -> currency value

Not like:

money -> labor -> goods ->capital (uh, what comes next?)

Dollars are only worth how much labor power is put into them and the current amount of capital (which is "dead labor" as Marx put it).

You aren't paid anything in Communism; that concept would be dead, you only give and receive. You can't eat dollars anyhow...bread all the way. :rolleyes:

My usual bit. I don't think that the transition to a society without a state can occur. Espescially if the state is a powerful state. There will be bureaucrats, and they will cling on to power, and if they're successful, which I suspect they would be, through the use of propaganda and the like, they could transform their state into something frighteningly Orwellian.

I also gripe about Marx's justification about why a revolution will inevitably occur. People do not revolt because of despotism, they do not revolt because of alienation, they do not revolt because of "exploitation (a concept I disagree with, I don't believe people can be exploited unless they are slaves or held at the threat of direct physical violence)" or anything like that. People only revolt because of hunger and the like. Communists never seized power in the industrialized world. No, they seized power in backwaters. Russia, China and the like. The mob doesn't revolt for philosophy.

Beyond that, I don't see how, in a world where people shift jobs radically and constantly, how specialized jobs can be effective. If I wanted to be a dentist in a communist society, I could theoretically go out and declare myself a dentist, not that I'd be all that good at being a dentist, but hey.

Beyond that, what's the difference between personal and private property? From what I can tell, if you have personal property, someone can literally come up and pick up whatever you happen to have. No, I own what I have made, no one else has any claim to it, unless I have agreed to exchange what I make for compensation from an employer.

By the way, what does Marx say about what will happen to the family in a Marxist state?

Ok, this type of thread gets me going every time, so I have to tell you all what I tell every naive "communism" vs. capitalism debater:

COMMUNISM IS NOT A FORM OF GOVERNMENT!

Some of you have touched on this. The naive comment does not apply to you.

Communism is a system of society where people in SMALL COMMUNities work together to provide mutual support and sustenance. It cannot work in large communities, or countries, because of an exponential correlation between the population and conflicts between individuals, which takes away from the mutualism. In true communist societies, population is kept low through fissioning. Look at the tribes in South America. They live together in their family units, and once the population expands beyond a hundred or so, straining resources and relationships, a group leaves and forms a new tribe. The people in each tribe provide for each other and live as an extended family. This is true communism. Everything you "communists" believe in is Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, or the like. In these "communist" governments, a dictatorial power, be it the ex-worker class or a single revolutionary holding community principles before the people to justify his authority, controls everything. It is human nature and cannot be avoided outside of small communities. Those communist experiments which succeeded were of small groups of people living in harmony.

Do not try to argue communism is a form of government or even a viable option for a large population. It is a losing argument, every time.

Hierarchy will immediately spring up between the communities. Eventually you will have wealthy communities and poor communities, and with no governance over the communities the wealthy will immediately begin to exploit the poor communities. If you want a formula for global inequalities with little chance of change, you just described it.

But how do you go about OWNING it as personal property?

Every case is different. Perhaps you inherited it (it's not vital to production et cetera), perhaps a friend gave it to you... perhaps s/he wrote it! Perhaps the commune decided to print a few hundred thousand copies and distribute them for free, or sell them to fund an artwork that people had made a point of supporting.


Useful

Re. me not being a Marxist. Yes, it is useful in the discussion, if you know what the discussion is actually about. Right'o.


You completely altered the argument. I was asking if someone was allowed to hunt and gather, not do it in exclusion to anything else.

If I go to the woods and take down a deer, and make a few dinners out of it, I've gained over other people. I now have 3000 calories, instead of 2000, and its tastier meat, to boot. Is this allowed?

I'd imagine so, unless deers are protected or something. You can do what you like with your free time... I'm sure I said that.


And... since when do you get to elect yourself out of world-wide communism?

What are you talking about now?

What if I gained it by being a novel writer?

Well, if you wrote a novel, you'd have to export it based on its merits, not on a flashy add campaign. Perhaps you could -from your earnings as a worker- afford to get it reproduced and you could hand it out or try to sell it. Or perhaps it would be good and people would like it and want it for public libraries, in which case the commune would probably pay you something for your trouble and have it reproduced.


You do know that there are prolitariate with mansions, right?

Well, call them what you like, if they have a mansion they're going to have to jolly well justify it...


Ah. So you only get SO MUCH personal property. So there IS government seizure of your hard work, even if you earn it from the sweat of your own brow.

How very interesting.

You get personal property so long as it isn't meddling with the fair exchange and distribution of society's output. Sweat off your own brow, eh? You'll get a fair wage and you'll be able to acquire with it nothing out of proportion. Your argument really doesn't exist.

Not all expensive cars are gas guzzlers. What if the vehicle was as good on the road as any other vehicle, but had sexy leather seats, GPS, and all those other lovely luxuries? You'd confiscate it out of... why again?

I am not lord dictator of the commune. The people will decide these petty details. It may not be confiscated. As I said, it may be deemed a complete waste of resources and not be supported. It may be decided that society can easily afford it and there'll be no problem. But people will not suffer or die for your GPS guided trip to the woods.

It is human nature and cannot be avoided outside of small communities. Those communist experiments which succeeded were of small groups of people living in harmony.

Do not try to argue communism is a form of government or even a viable option for a large population. It is a losing argument, every time.

Human nature is defined by the surrounding social and economic conditions of the individual, so it is a very ambigous term.


There is no problem in this scenario, in a post-Communist world. It would be communties of communes connected together, not some giant overbearing centralized economy. A global decentralized economy rather. The idea of Communism is completely within your argument; it is small communties, but all interconnected.

Thats why I prefer the barter system.

All money does is establish a set value so that bartering becomes easier. If you have 20 bucks, you go to the store and buy some bread.

However, if you must barter, you have to find someone who is needing whatever you have produced, and exchange your product for bread. Do you realize the difficulty this would cause for a carpenter?

By the way, what does Marx say about what will happen to the family in a Marxist state?

See in the Communist Manifesto; "The abolition of the family".

Marriage will become a outmoded concept, rather free unions will develop between to conscenting adults.

That depends on what kind of communism you mean.

Under Stalinism, that bastardized, name-tarnishing version of Communism, with more akin to National Socialism than Marx's ideas, then the answer to most of your questions would be whatever the most wrong/evil sounding option is.



Just so it's clear, I recognize that comminism has never existed on a large scale. So you can relax. I'm asking questions for a reason.




however, there are many other "communist" styles, here's mine -
Would people be able to make large-scale, expensive art productions, such as movies or bronze statues?


Yes, I see no reason why not, except the profits and enjoyment of that production would be for the betterment of all.



Mmnkay. So, basically, joint contributive work. But where does it go, especially if its made from materials from several locations?



Would people get to choose what foods they eat, whether it be Alaskan King Crab, Caviar, or Pineapple?

Why not? Under pure communism, all resources would be divided equally, and since money is the smoothest way to do that, all money would be divided equally. If that is what you want to spend part of your share of society on, why not? And crab is delicious.



So, people will happily port over exotic food for me to eat from half a planet away?



Would people be allowed to gather resources from nature for fun, such as by hunting or fishing on a camping trip?

that's minutia that is in the long run unimportant to society. If you gather some wood or go fishing and catch dinner, it is impractical to divide that equally. Things change if you start a company and log or fish. Then you are on a level that can affect society, and thus the business should either work to serve all of society and be extremely conscious of worker's rights, or at least be taxed and regulated to get that result.


It's a bigger deal than you think. My family used to live off of hunting. The species itself evolved in hunting societies.

And you can do industry all on your own. What if I start trading in my catches for some goods? What if I charge interest over a fish loan? It all starts somewhere. Where's the cut off point?



If so, what must happen with the catch? see above

Will people be allowed to own guns? If so, will they get a choice in type?

That's not really an issue of communism, but guns would be considered personal property, and personal property is A-okay. Once again, the difference is if you own a gun store or manufactury, then communism steps in. As to type, if I were in charge I'd see it like I see the food thing.


So, there will be facotories of workers who make guns?

I take it there will be a monetary system, yes? So I can get a bigger gun if I want?


Will people be allowed to vote for a non-communistic system?

Ideally communism would make everyone happy, as there would be no scramble for resources and all needs would be satisfied. However I believe that as Communist thought is an extention of the "everyone's equal" ideas that spawned Democracy, communism would NEVER work without democracy. How can the people control resources, if the government distributing those resources is not democratically run? Thus, if there is democracy then people should be allowed to vote for other systems, even to change.


Okay. So people will be -allowed- to vote for capitalism, and the return to the ways of yesteryear, prior to revolution?



Will people be allowed to -attempt- to act in a capitalistic manner, by, say, trying to trade sea shells for cookies, which they use to bribe helpers with to gather more seashells for more cookies? Perhaps loaning a cookie today, in exchange for extra seashells the next day, ala interest?

I would say no, just because interest implies gaining profit from someone else, usually when they have a deficiancy of resources to begin with. That seems abusive of what "resource gap" exists. Though on extremely small scales, bartering for small profits/losses is not big enough to warrant society's interferance.


So, profitable lemonaide stands and such are a no-no? What will be used to curtail this behavior?


What control will parents have over their kids, since everyone is guaranteed certain resources? Will parents be allowed to say "For hitting your brother, you get no dinner tonight."?

I believe children are still members of society, but parents should have control, to lead and teach. Obviously, however, society steps in when that "no dinner tonight" becomes malnourishment and child abuse.


Of course.


Will people be allowed to travel world-wide for pleasure?

Why not? People should have the right to travel where they want, and if they want to use some of their resources they were allocated to travel, more power to them, as travelling is awesome.


So, society will continue to run airports for pleasure cruises and so forth? How is that 'each according to their need'?


Will things like theme parks exist?

Yes, but operated for all, and under the control of the people, not the Disney corporation.


Uh huh. And you feel that everyone will want to put in enough work to keep a theme park running? They barely manage now, really.. some of Disney's things are a mess..



Will pure-entertainment objects like toys and bad romance novels be allowed?

Not reallly a communist issue there... My theory would be the same as I've said above, if you want to spend some of your resources on these, enjoy! What is consumed is not nearly as important as how the cash to perform the consumption is divided in society.


So money will still be there. Mnkay. There's like six different versions of communism on this thread.



Will people be able to have personal book collections, or will all books be in libraries?

As a communist, I don't see personal property like this as a problem. Money and resources should be distributed equally, but because of people's differing personalities, what they use those for will differ, and if books are to that individuals liking, cool. However it is important to note that all people should have access to libraries, to get that knowledge if they so desire. A knowledge gap is one of the great pillars of oppression, capitalist or otherwise. Hell, it happened under that bastard-child Stalinism...


How will the value of an item be judged, so that it can be purchased?



Will people be allowed to have personal items, like the giraffe grandpa wittled from a stick?

Yes. personal property cannot and shouldnot be abolished. Private property, say a mine or a factory, would be under communism.


What if that personal property accumulates to the point of visible differences in prosperity? My ability to produce nice things is greater than average. And if I can keep my grandpa's stuff... does that mean that inheritance will be allowed? Does this mean that, if a family line is extremely productive, they can end up with an accumulation of objects?



Will people get to keep any of the stuff their family had prior to the revolution? Will I be allowed to keep the Grandfather clock my parents want to pass on to me? If not, what will be done with such things?

tough one. I'd say people can keep personal property - homes, toys, books, heirlooms, but the idea would be to public-ize(don't like the word "Nationalise") privately owned factories, mines, railroads, businesses, etc. The grey area is when people like the Rockefellers have MASSIVE estates and millions of dollars of personal property, some of that I think should be redistributed.



Let's try this.

If one has has 100 objects made of wood, and the other house has 100 objects made of gold, both of them having the same sort of object, do they both get to keep everything? If not, how much?




Will indigenous people be allowed to keep their hunting/gathering culture?

oh yes. Indigenous tribal societies are often examples of some of the purest, most good natured and brotherly communisms ever. That purity should not be desecrated. Let them function as a seperate "society," there is no point in trashing that goodness just to bring the meager earnings of a tribal society into the big society.


What if they have capitalist societies?


Note, these are my personal opinions, which I call communism. I have elements of socialism, communism, social libertarianism(civil rights wise), etc, but I identify with Communism, and have been called communist more times than I care to count. It's an insult in the US, you know. Oh if i had a nickel...

I noticed. Your views vastly differ from many on here.

Who cares? Communisms dead

Except of course in communist countries like China. just cause it isn't a big a threat as it used to be doesn't mean its dead.

Human nature is defined by the surrounding social and economic conditions of the individual, so it is a very ambigous term.


There is no problem in this scenario, in a post-Communist world. It would be communties of communes connected together, not some giant overbearing centralized economy. A global decentralized economy rather. The idea of Communism is completely within your argument; it is small communties, but all interconnected.

[applause from the peanut gallery]

Human nature is defined by the surrounding social and economic conditions of the individual, so it is a very ambigous term.


Partially, yes, but psychology tells us there are far more factors to human behavior than just the environment. It's the classic nature vs. nurture arguement.

And what I've seen from all the credible scientific sources shows that genetics and upbringing play roughly equal roles, although there is some evidence that genetics plays a slightly greater role. One of the places where this is most obvious is in twin studies, where you take twins separated at birth, and track them, follow them throughout their lives and such. These things have shown remarkable evidence that genetics plays a major role in our behaviors.

Hierarchy will immediately spring up between the communities. Eventually you will have wealthy communities and poor communities, and with no governance over the communities the wealthy will immediately begin to exploit the poor communities. If you want a formula for global inequalities with little chance of change, you just described it.

Rather naive, the communes will held in cooperation since of economic dependancy of each other's imports and exports since of supply. And people, since the world would become globalzed would be frequently traveling from one commune an other.
Plus, with no social classes, how can hierarchy begin?

I will answer this from an anarcho-communistic perspective, since that is what I believe in:

Would people be able to make large-scale, expensive art productions, such as movies or bronze statues?

Yes, if they can get the resources to make them. It is unlikely that such things will be headed by a single person in anarcho-communism.

Would people get to choose what foods they eat, whether it be Alaskan King Crab, Caviar, or Pineapple?

Probably, though it should be noted that even if they end up with restrictions in this area, many people throughout the world could never hope to eat caviar as it is, anyway.

Would people be allowed to gather resources from nature for fun, such as by hunting or fishing on a camping trip?

Yes

If so, what must happen with the catch?

Small amounts of such things really aren't what communism opposes. It is the massive amounts of property, mansions, personal jets, businesses, etc. that communism is opposed to.

Will people be allowed to own guns? If so, will they get a choice in type?

Yes and the type would probably depend on what kinds were being made in the area.

Will people be allowed to vote for a non-communistic system?

probably

Will people be allowed to -attempt- to act in a capitalistic manner, by, say, trying to trade sea shells for cookies, which they use to bribe helpers with to gather more seashells for more cookies? Perhaps loaning a cookie today, in exchange for extra seashells the next day, ala interest?

Perhaps, though they would have to overcome massive social momentum to pull off large scale capitalism.


What control will parents have over their kids, since everyone is guaranteed certain resources? Will parents be allowed to say "For hitting your brother, you get no dinner tonight."?

Most anarchists in general are strongly against authoritarian parenting so they might argue that not letting a child eat dinner (which they may need for their growing bodies) is not good. It really depends on just how food is distributed (to each person individually or to each household).

Will people be allowed to travel world-wide for pleasure?

Probably, though even if they can't, it should be remembered that many people today can't do so, either.

Will things like theme parks exist?

Probably

Will pure-entertainment objects like toys and bad romance novels be allowed?

Yes

Will people be able to have personal book collections, or will all books be in libraries?

Yes, as long as they don't use them to exploit others

Will people be allowed to have personal items, like the giraffe grandpa wittled from a stick?

Yes

Will people get to keep any of the stuff their family had prior to the revolution? Will I be allowed to keep the Grandfather clock my parents want to pass on to me? If not, what will be done with such things?

Probably

Will indigenous people be allowed to keep their hunting/gathering culture?

Yes

-------

And you capitalists who still deride communism... the reason you can do as you will is owing to the blood sacrifices of radical leftist revolutionaries, not to the conservatism you may credit.

Quite true, it was socialist labor union members who fought and in some cases died for better working conditions (such as the 8 anarchists who were arrested after the Haymaker incident).

These are some good questions, though. It is nice to see people curious about socialist theories and willing to learn about them.

------

And what I've seen from all the credible scientific sources shows that genetics and upbringing play roughly equal roles, although there is some evidence that genetics plays a slightly greater role. One of the places where this is most obvious is in twin studies, where you take twins separated at birth, and track them, follow them throughout their lives and such. These things have shown remarkable evidence that genetics plays a major role in our behaviors.

In other words, black men really do have a genetic tendency to rape white women and pædophiles are born wanting to rape children, hmm? See the problem with genetic determinism?

Labor power is needed to make products! You're twisting it! The value of money , capital, IS CREATED BY LABOR POWER. It goes like this

labor power -> goods -> capital -> currency value

Not like:

money -> labor -> goods ->capital (uh, what comes next?)

It is impossible to seperate capital and labor.

And it goes like this:

Labor -> Wages -> Capital -> Goods (repeat)

Wages are spent labor, capital is unspent wages, goods are spent capital.

So by working, you exchange labor for capital.

Dollars are only worth how much labor power is put into them and the current amount of capital (which is "dead labor" as Marx put it).

You aren't paid anything in Communism; that concept would be dead, you only give and receive. You can't eat dollars anyhow...bread all the way. :rolleyes:

Currency is a highly liquid form of repayment for labor provided. Even in a communist system, currency would provide a great utility. Without currency your labor is devalued because of the lack of flexibility in utilizing your wages.

Freedom is for fools.


And another question, why the fascination with money? Money is a useful tool that represents labor that you have not yet converted to goods. I don't know what good it will do to outlaw it, as all you are doing is devaluing labor by removing any flexibility and liquidity in how it is converted.

Getting paid in dollars is much more valuable to a worker than being paid in bread.

as if labor isnt already devalued. i mean, seriously investing is not as much work as coal mining, but the investor always makes more money than the coal miner(unless it is a very stupid investor)

Currency is a highly liquid form of repayment for labor provided. Even in a communist system, currency would provide a great utility. Without currency your labor is devalued because of the lack of flexibility in utilizing your wages.

Communism lacks currency, though. That is one of its key characteristics.

Rather naive, the communes will held in cooperation since of economic dependancy of each other's imports and exports since of supply. And people, since the world would become globalzed would be frequently traveling from one commune an other.
Plus, with no social classes, how can hierarchy begin?

There will be no social classes amongst the communities, but within communities that are rich in resources and intellectual capital the standard of living will be far higher than those that are not. If a communist community was formed in Southern California, and another was formed in Alabama, the wealth inequalities between the communities will be apparent immediately.

See in the Communist Manifesto; "The abolition of the family".

Marriage will become a outmoded concept, rather free unions will develop between to conscenting adults.
And where do children go?

(I know the answers, I've read the manifesto, and Das Kapital, and I'm utterly unconvinced)

Communism lacks currency, though. That is one of its key characteristics.


I don't know about that. If I were to be a super-rich capitalist backer of a new commune (which is the best way I can practically apply the idea that, "if I were dictator of a directly democratic society in its formative stage..."), I'd table the idea of high minimum and reasonable maximum wage, and currency would persist.

I just don't see why such a complicated but workable system as capitalism would have evolved -or even been possible- were it not to be useful in the next stage, that of communism. All previous stages of society have provided the next with a new innovation, I think that currency has only fairly recently achieved its purest form and would still be applicable in a modern communist society. A lack of currency sounds primitive, regressive, or even as if the dastardly work of on Saloth Sar...

But how do you go about OWNING it as personal property?

Every case is different. Perhaps you inherited it (it's not vital to production et cetera), perhaps a friend gave it to you... perhaps s/he wrote it! Perhaps the commune decided to print a few hundred thousand copies and distribute them for free, or sell them to fund an artwork that people had made a point of supporting.



So money then.




And... since when do you get to elect yourself out of world-wide communism?

What are you talking about now?



You said something about people leaving society. This thread is about world-wide communism. This leads to the possibility of capitalist society returning.



What if I gained it by being a novel writer?

Well, if you wrote a novel, you'd have to export it based on its merits, not on a flashy add campaign.


So marketing is illegal in communism? Even accurate marketing?


Perhaps you could -from your earnings as a worker- afford to get it reproduced and you could hand it out or try to sell it. Or perhaps it would be good and people would like it and want it for public libraries, in which case the commune would probably pay you something for your trouble and have it reproduced.


Okay, I should remind that I'm talking about stuff people got BEFORE the revolution.

My family, for instance, is upper middle class. We have big houses. We got houses by earning good wages for hard work.

If the revolution hits, do we get to keep our big houses? Our big TVs? Our horses?


You do know that there are prolitariate with mansions, right?

Well, call them what you like, if they have a mansion they're going to have to jolly well justify it...


My dad builds stuff for a living.

Is that justification enough for our 120' long house?


Ah. So you only get SO MUCH personal property. So there IS government seizure of your hard work, even if you earn it from the sweat of your own brow.

How very interesting.

You get personal property so long as it isn't meddling with the fair exchange and distribution of society's output. Sweat off your own brow, eh? You'll get a fair wage and you'll be able to acquire with it nothing out of proportion. Your argument really doesn't exist.


Again, pre-revolution items. My family can accumulate things faster than most can. In a few generations, we would look to be upper middle class again, even IF we all had the same wages. In enough generations, we would probably appear to be upper class. Is this allowed?


Not all expensive cars are gas guzzlers. What if the vehicle was as good on the road as any other vehicle, but had sexy leather seats, GPS, and all those other lovely luxuries? You'd confiscate it out of... why again?

I am not lord dictator of the commune. The people will decide these petty details. It may not be confiscated. As I said, it may be deemed a complete waste of resources and not be supported. It may be decided that society can easily afford it and there'll be no problem. But people will not suffer or die for your GPS guided trip to the woods.

Again. Owned prior to revolution. Has no modern cost. Owned solely because of hard work, with wages. No effect on the world any different from any other car. But when it was made, in capitalist society, it cost hordes of money, and remains sexier than any other car on the road.

Is jealousy a valid reason to confiscate?

Mmnkay. So, basically, joint contributive work. But where does it go, especially if its made from materials from several locations?

Communes will trade with each other, the laws of supply will still in act, but demand will dissaper, since objectively, it really just grows out of supply in a capitalist economic stage.



And you can do industry all on your own. What if I start trading in my catches for some goods? What if I charge interest over a fish loan? It all starts somewhere. Where's the cut off point?

There is no money in Communism, since capital power will be non-existant, there will be only direct labor power.



So, there will be facotories of workers who make guns?

I take it there will be a monetary system, yes? So I can get a bigger gun if I want?

No monetary system, yeah...uh, if you want a gun...go ahead.....



Okay. So people will be -allowed- to vote for capitalism, and the return to the ways of yesteryear, prior to revolution?

People will not want to, they will have liberated theirselves from capitalism, returning to capitalism would mean giving up freedom.

Take example now, does any movement advocate a return to Feudalism? Where we all become serfs again?

NO!


So, profitable lemonaide stands and such are a no-no? What will be used to curtail this behavior?

Well, since there is no monetary system established and it would be impossible to exploit workers, it will be quite hard to gain capital off lemonade stands.



So, society will continue to run airports for pleasure cruises and so forth? How is that 'each according to their need'?

If one wants to work as a ship captain, or an airplane captain, that will be their ability, and if someone wants to sail/fly, that will be their need.



Uh huh. And you feel that everyone will want to put in enough work to keep a theme park running? They barely manage now, really.. some of Disney's things are a mess..


If workers can keep it running now, it can easily be kept up in Communism; if people want to ride on rollercoasters, they better damn keep it in order.


So money will still be there. Mnkay. There's like six different versions of communism on this thread.

No, no money in Communism, in Socialism, maybe, but it would be contradictory in Communism.



How will the value of an item be judged, so that it can be purchased?

Input of Labor power and supply



What if that personal property accumulates to the point of visible differences in prosperity? My ability to produce nice things is greater than average. And if I can keep my grandpa's stuff... does that mean that inheritance will be allowed? Does this mean that, if a family line is extremely productive, they can end up with an accumulation of objects?

There is an difference between income disparity and personal property, with no income disparity, I don't see how you will be signifigantly more productive.



Let's try this.

If one has has 100 objects made of wood, and the other house has 100 objects made of gold, both of them having the same sort of object, do they both get to keep everything? If not, how much?

Both items have different vaules in Communist society, gold will simply be seen as a ore used for certain appliances, while wood has its uses for other things, both equally useful.


What if they have capitalist societies?

They would be liberated in the Socialist stage of society.

as if labor isnt already devalued. i mean, seriously investing is not as much work as coal mining, but the investor always makes more money than the coal miner(unless it is a very stupid investor)
How are you the one who decides what is worth what? I far prefer that the individuals involved in an exchange do that themselves. If a worker agrees to work for a wage, he is agreeing that the wage is fair for the work he s doing. If he doesn't like the wages he can a) go work for another empoloyer or b) start his own business with what resources he has.

"What freedoms would remain?"

None. Communisim is, by nature, antithetical to human nature, which is why the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" never goes away. Under communism, people cannot be permitted freedoms because they will use them to alter the form of government and the form of the economy, something the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" cannot allow.

Worldwide communism would be worldwide slavery.

as if labor isnt already devalued. i mean, seriously investing is not as much work as coal mining, but the investor always makes more money than the coal miner(unless it is a very stupid investor)

You have absolutely no idea what the economic basis for labor is. Labor does not solely mean the amount of physical effort. Labor is the utility that is provided to the economy and society in general. The utility provided by a coal miner is minimal and easily replaced, so it is not of much value. The investor, who has years worth of expertise provides a great deal of utility because of the expertise, and it is very valuable because the expertise is not easily replaced.

Communism lacks currency, though. That is one of its key characteristics.

Then back to my original question of "Why?"

I made a point about the utility that money provides, and you countered by saying that there won't be money. So if money does provide utility, why does communism outlaw it?

It is impossible to seperate capital and labor.

And it goes like this:

Labor -> Wages -> Capital -> Goods (repeat)

Wages are spent labor, capital is unspent wages, goods are spent capital.

So by working, you exchange labor for capital.

The workers gets none of this capital, and he is the only one that works, his own wages he gives away to buy the products he made.

But where does the wages come from? From previous labor power! Goods create capital, to continue a chain of creating even more capital. Capital is dead labor, like a vampire sucking more and more labor to creat more capital.


You have absolutely no idea what the economic basis for labor is. Labor does not solely mean the amount of physical effort. Labor is the utility that is provided to the economy and society in general. The utility provided by a coal miner is minimal and easily replaced, so it is not of much value. The investor, who has years worth of expertise provides a great deal of utility because of the expertise, and it is very valuable because the expertise is not easily replaced.

In Marxist terms; labor power is what labor is spent to directly create commidities.


Go read Das Kapital. You have no idea what you are talking about

The workers gets none of this capital, and he is the only one that works, his own wages he gives away to buy the products he made.

But where does the wages come from? From previous labor power! Goods create capital, to continue a chain of creating even more capital. Capital is dead labor, like a vampire sucking more and more labor to creat more capital.



In Marxist terms; labor power is what labor is spent to directly create commidities.


Go read Das Kapital. You have no idea what you are talking about
I've read Das Kapital, and it was Marx who had no idea what he was talking about.

So money then.

[slow claps]

You said something about people leaving society. This thread is about world-wide communism. This leads to the possibility of capitalist society returning.

The thread title contains the word, "Commune-ism". That is what I'm talking about. I'm sorry if it's not closely enough related to the thread. World-wide communism is just a string of Marxism, and most actual and ...correct communists aren't Marxists. Because Marx hadn't hit upon the full truth. Tough.

So marketing is illegal in communism? Even accurate marketing?

Well you can tell people things. You can print up posters if you haven't squandered your resources on something else and if you've done enough work to deserve a share of that industry's output. There are some issues here that I have not myself worked-out, but I'm just one interested young person, and simply haven't had time to tackle every eventuality. Society is, thankfully, rather larger than I.
There's only ever going to be so much marketing you can do on even maximum earnings, as the ability to blanket a population with resource-gobbling crap is no use to anybody. If you put up a really massive campaign, you'd have no money left to live on. Of course then people could get together to help you put up more money, and you might spend millions pimping your new books, but that's really just a nonsense false economy and you'd still only get a fair return so far as I'm concerned, at maximum earnings decided by the community, and as a result of your book-pimping further copies would end up in world-wide libraries. Hurrah, you're famous and on a comfortable maximum wage, but you can't afford to exploit anyone, and you can't complain because you're doing as well as or better than everyone else, even if you can't afford your own private jet, diddums.


Okay, I should remind that I'm talking about stuff people got BEFORE the revolution.

My family, for instance, is upper middle class. We have big houses. We got houses by earning good wages for hard work.

If the revolution hits, do we get to keep our big houses? Our big TVs? Our horses?

Yeah, your family worked harder than my granddad who was passed over for promotion because he stood up for his comrades and became a union leader across two countries. Or than my other granddad in the mill. Yeah. That makes a bucket load of sense. Think about the wider world, not just your precious third car, fourth television, unnecessary heart attack.


My dad builds stuff for a living.

Is that justification enough for our 120' long house?

Imma have to stare blankly at you.

Again, pre-revolution items. My family can accumulate things faster than most can. In a few generations, we would look to be upper middle class again, even IF we all had the same wages. In enough generations, we would probably appear to be upper class. Is this allowed?

It doesn't really make sense. You can't inherit everything, personal property, but not the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and it's hard to exclude currency from this, isn' it? Spend it or its just theft.

Again. Owned prior to revolution. Has no modern cost. Owned solely because of hard work, with wages. No effect on the world any different from any other car. But when it was made, in capitalist society, it cost hordes of money, and remains sexier than any other car on the road.

Is jealousy a valid reason to confiscate?

What the hell are you even talking about, now? Don't you feel a little bit bad? Eesh.
I've said twice, and I won't say a fourth time (unless I get drunker), it may not be confiscated, the model you've put forward suggests that it would not be. It just might not be maintained, depending on circumstances.

I've read Das Kapital, and it was Marx who had no idea what he was talking about.

You have to remember that the capitalism of his time was quite different than today's capitalism. Perhaps his ideas don't fit today's capitalism.

Communes will trade with each other, the laws of supply will still in act, but demand will dissaper, since objectively, it really just grows out of supply in a capitalist economic stage.


Alrighty.


There is no money in Communism, since capital power will be non-existant, there will be only direct labor power.


Um. How do you exchange 'direct labor power' over a long distance?

How do I exchange my sweeping a butcher's steps for a candy bar from three states away?


No monetary system, yeah...uh, if you want a gun...go ahead.....


So... they'll ...hand out guns for.. what?


People will not want to, they will have liberated theirselves from capitalism, returning to capitalism would mean giving up freedom.


Let's try to avoid lack-of-individual-thinking arguments.

There is ALWAYS someone who has a weird opinion.


Take example now, does any movement advocate a return to Feudalism? Where we all become serfs again?


Have you ever heard of BDSM?


NO!


Yeah. And nobody likes being a slave.

That's why there's BDSM clubs. Because everyone hates being in chains and being used.


Well, since there is no monetary system established and it would be impossible to exploit workers, it will be quite hard to gain capital off lemonade stands.


Again, cookies and sea shells.

I trade the labor of making cookies for the labor of gathering sea shells. I use the sea shells to get more cookie dough so I can make more cookies to get more sea shells. I have kids gather sea shells for me in exchange for cookies. If they don't have any shells on them, I give them a cookie now, but expect 10% more sea shells for my trouble.

This is actually how capitalism -started- to begin with. In fact, shell money still exists to this day. Cowrie shells, if I recall.


If one wants to work as a ship captain, or an airplane captain, that will be their ability, and if someone wants to sail/fly, that will be their need.


Uh huh. New question. How will they regulate this stuff?


If workers can keep it running now, it can easily be kept up in Communism; if people want to ride on rollercoasters, they better damn keep it in order.


Yeah. Above question.


No, no money in Communism, in Socialism, maybe, but it would be contradictory in Communism.


Again. How do you exchange labor over long distances?



Input of Labor power and supply



So. The same system we have in capitalism, minus, I expect, the false 'low supply' tricks?



There is an difference between income disparity and personal property, with no income disparity, I don't see how you will be signifigantly more productive.



Cookies and seashells. Never, ever underestimate the ability of a human being to advance themselves.



Both items have different vaules in Communist society, gold will simply be seen as a ore used for certain appliances, while wood has its uses for other things, both equally useful.



Cool. So golden toilets from grandpa capitalist are all good?



They would be liberated in the Socialist stage of society.

So, you WOULD end their cultural practices, in that case?

I've read Das Kapital, and it was Marx who had no idea what he was talking about.

This made me laugh.

Do you realize capitalist economics are based on Das Kapital?

Ask any economist, they will admit, Das Kapital IS A CORRECT ANALYSIS of Capitalism!

The workers gets none of this capital, and he is the only one that works, his own wages he gives away to buy the products he made.

That is completely false, as he recieves capital in the form of wages. The wealthy capitalist's capital is the product of previous labor through wage accumulation.

And if you could point out one profession in which an individual provides all of the necessary labor and capital to produce a good, yet still has to purchase this good, I may concede the point to you.

But where does the wages come from? From previous labor power! Goods create capital, to continue a chain of creating even more capital. Capital is dead labor, like a vampire sucking more and more labor to creat more capital.

Capital is cannot be created out of air. New capital can only be brought into the market through added population, added technology, or a more educated population. The economy does not produce capital.

In Marxist terms; labor power is what labor is spent to directly create commidities.


Go read Das Kapital. You have no idea what you are talking about

The labor theory of value is bullshit. The idea that the labor input into a product completely ignores value added by the passage of time and risk incurred.

You have to remember that the capitalism of his time was quite different than today's capitalism. Perhaps his ideas don't fit today's capitalism.
Marx's ideas don't fit human nature, much less even a modified form of capitalism.

"What freedoms would remain?"

None. Communisim is, by nature, antithetical to human nature, which is why the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" never goes away. Under communism, people cannot be permitted freedoms because they will use them to alter the form of government and the form of the economy, something the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" cannot allow.

Worldwide communism would be worldwide slavery.


"The Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is not actually a dictatorship. You're confused and basing an argument on a shallow misconception. The dictatorship of the proles is a direct democracy.

This made me laugh.

Do you realize capitalist economics are based on Das Kapital?

Ask any economist, they will admit, Das Kapital IS A CORRECT ANALYSIS of Capitalism!
You obviously didn't take the same economics courses in college I did.

"The Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is not actually a dictatorship. You're confused and basing an argument on a shallow misconception. The dictatorship of the proles is a direct democracy.
Right. :rolleyes:

May you never have to live under one.

This made me laugh.

Do you realize capitalist economics are based on Das Kapital?

Ask any economist, they will admit, Das Kapital IS A CORRECT ANALYSIS of Capitalism!

You are absolutely wrong. Western economist began dismissing Marxist economics before Marx was even dead.

You obviously didn't take the same economics courses in college I did.

I am willing to wager he hasn't taken any. I have taken four and none of them were concerned with the LTV.

Marx's ideas don't fit human nature, much less even a modified form of capitalism.

Why do they always invoke human nature? Whenever the issue of capitalism vs. communism comes up, everyone suddenly becomes an exper on sociobiology.

Yeah. And nobody likes being a slave.

That's why there's BDSM clubs. Because everyone hates being in chains and being used.

There aren't in the American empire, though the fact that being on the dominating position in a BDSM session will get you 20 years in a federal prison if I remember correctly, there could be legal reasons.

Nonetheless, I believe that BDSM can ultimately be traced to the psychologically warping effects of authority. Observe the massive paraphilia rate of the authoritarian Japan in comparison to the much less authoritarian Europe and US (make no mistake, the US is quite authoritarian, but not to the level of Japan).

Right. :rolleyes:

May you never have to live under one.

Yeah, boy, I would HATE to have my vote actually count. Man, that would be awful.

Oh, God, I'm scared of the responsibility and having to stand up infront of my peers and justify my ideas for how their lives should be run! What if they actually listen to me and take my concerns into account?

The horror! I need my mummy/god/glorious leader!

(Okay, I have to go and maybe throw the heck up, a little bit, so if I fail to reply to any further questionings of my position, ah, sorry, I'm easily distracted when, youknow, drunk. I just felt that I should say something, even if nobody cares, so that it doesn't look like I'm running away if someone happens to ask a tough question after I start typing this :)
Remember the communards!)

Why do they always invoke human nature? Whenever the issue of capitalism vs. communism comes up, everyone suddenly becomes an exper on sociobiology.


I think it has to do with the majority of human history being capitalist in one way or another... as it is in pre-human history, if you look at chimps.

Consolidation of resources, whether they're females, power, or goods, is sort of a driving issue with most animal species.

I mean cripes, ants are capitalists. They'll happily destroy other colonies to ensure that their own power remains, and that their resource base grows.


There aren't in the American empire, though the fact that being on the dominating position in a BDSM session will get you 20 years in a federal prison if I remember correctly, there could be legal reasons.


...What? Since when is being a dom illegal?

Do you have any idea how many millions of couples do BDSM?

They have BDSM -clubs-, for crying out loud.

It's probably more common than non-heterosexuality.


Nonetheless, I believe that BDSM can ultimately be traced to the psychologically warping effects of authority. Observe the massive paraphilia rate of the authoritarian Japan in comparison to the much less authoritarian Europe and US (make no mistake, the US is quite authoritarian, but not to the level of Japan).

Not always. For some people it's a result of being in a situation with lots of authority (elected or otherwise), so they want to be free from responsibility for a bit. For others, it's just role-playing wierdness. Now, intense, self-elected slavery is most likely the result of weird background issues, but kinks have been around for a damned long time, so it's rather hard to say where it originates from.

Really, you'd think people who were capitalist would -all- want to be doms, ne?

...What? Since when is being a dom illegal?

Do you have any idea how many millions of couples do BDSM?

They have BDSM -clubs-, for crying out loud.

It's probably more common than non-heterosexuality.
Some BDSM activities are illegal in some states, but even there they are seldom even arrested unless someone is either killed or seriously maimed.

Why do they always invoke human nature? Whenever the issue of capitalism vs. communism comes up, everyone suddenly becomes an exper on sociobiology.

There aren't in the American empire, though the fact that being on the dominating position in a BDSM session will get you 20 years in a federal prison if I remember correctly, there could be legal reasons.

Nonetheless, I believe that BDSM can ultimately be traced to the psychologically warping effects of authority. Observe the massive paraphilia rate of the authoritarian Japan in comparison to the much less authoritarian Europe and US (make no mistake, the US is quite authoritarian, but not to the level of Japan).
Those of us who have a clear view of communism always "invoke" human nature because it's obvious that communism doesn't, which is why it fails.

BDSM has been present in every society in history, except perhaps for those societies which made it punishable by death, and perhaps even in those ... far underground.

The US? Authoritarian? ROFOLMAO!! Yeah, RIGHT! LOL!

Some BDSM activities are illegal in some states, but even there they are seldom even arrested unless someone is either killed or seriously maimed.

Well hell, it's illegal if you maim someone during the missionary position.

Those of us who have a clear view of communism always "invoke" human nature because it's obvious that communism doesn't, which is why it fails.

BDSM has been present in every society in history, except perhaps for those societies which made it punishable by death, and perhaps even in those ... far underground.

The US? Authoritarian? ROFOLMAO!! Yeah, RIGHT! LOL!

The irony is that, using their notion of the controllability of human nature would mean that there would be no communists in a capitalist society...

The irony is that, using their notion of the controllability of human nature would mean that there would be no communists in a capitalist society...
There aren't. Just a few commie-wannabes.

True.

Closest are the Amish. Heh.

think it has to do with the majority of human history being capitalist in one way or another... as it is in pre-human history, if you look at chimps.

Consolidation of resources, whether they're females, power, or goods, is sort of a driving issue with most animal species.

I mean cripes, ants are capitalists. They'll happily destroy other colonies to ensure that their own power remains, and that their resource base grows.



Oh, so you're opposed to any form of democracy, and once it exists in any form, you entire argument melts into nothing. That's a pretty worthwhile argument, then.

Uh.

Damn that first stage of evolution destroying your point! Damn!

True.

Closest are the Amish. Heh.
LOL! Yep, and they're about as quaint as the remaining Marxists. :D

Oh, so you're opposed to any form of democracy, and once it exists in any form, you entire argument melts into nothing. That's a pretty worthwhile argument, then.

Uh.

Damn that first stage of evolution destroying your point! Damn!

...What the hell are you smoking?

I simply noted that, on average, organisms, including humans, are capitalistic.

Democracy is useful in capitalism, as it keeps chaos down. Much easier to deal with a slowly-changing set of circumstances, which is why people hate when the tax code changes.

Oh, so you're opposed to any form of democracy, and once it exists in any form, you entire argument melts into nothing. That's a pretty worthwhile argument, then.

Uh.

Damn that first stage of evolution destroying your point! Damn!
I'd suspect that he's more opposed to unrestricted mob rule. Where a majority could oppress a minority quite easily. You see, minority rights are inherently undemocratic. In a pure democracy, every decision is made at the whim of the majority. But restrictions on the authority of the majority (the filibuster in the US Senate, the Bill of Rights, etc.) are very important in protecting the minority. Hell, a majority could theoretically vote to strip a minority of it's right to vote! We wouldn't want that happening, would we?

...What the hell are you smoking?

I simply noted that, on average, organisms, including humans, are capitalistic.

Democracy is useful in capitalism, as it keeps chaos down. Much easier to deal with a slowly-changing set of circumstances, which is why people hate when the tax code changes.


Right, that last paragraph is totally useless to your previous argument. You can't have it both ways. Ants aren't democratic. As my post was indicating, your previous post is a void. That's all.

Right, that last paragraph is totally useless to your previous argument. You can't have it both ways. Ants aren't democratic. As my post was indicating, your previous post is a void. That's all.

...I said ants were CAPITALISTS.

A democracy requires organisms to be able to actual make social-level decisions.

Dammit, I mention the Labor Theory of Value, and the whole argument dies down.

I am going to assume that no one wants to discuss Communism with somebody who has some knowledge of Marxist economics.

I'd suspect that he's more opposed to unrestricted mob rule. Where a majority could oppress a minority quite easily. You see, minority rights are inherently undemocratic. In a pure democracy, every decision is made at the whim of the majority. But restrictions on the authority of the majority (the filibuster in the US Senate, the Bill of Rights, etc.) are very important in protecting the minority. Hell, a majority could theoretically vote to strip a minority of it's right to vote! We wouldn't want that happening, would we?


Well, communism breaks democratic administration down to the smallist practicable levels which ought to go a long way to preventing this sort of thing. Today, the minority has almost no voice in the UK, USA, Lesotho...ah... some overt dictatorships, and so on, so there's nothing to lose in that regard, and anything gained is just a big happy bonus.

Dammit, I mention the Labor Theory of Value, and the whole argument dies down.

I am going to assume that no one wants to discuss Communism with somebody who has some knowledge of Marxist economics.

It's like when you show that one page from talk.origins with the list of proven evolution events to creationists.... :D

communism cant work because the world would have no reason to go to work everyday

do you think someone with a very stressful job would continue doing it if they earned what the janitor earned? and do you think the janitor would continue working? or anyone on earth?

THERE WOULD BE NO WORK ETHIC OR MORALE IN ANYONE

...I said ants were CAPITALISTS.

A democracy requires organisms to be able to actual make social-level decisions.


What part of me banging my head against a brick wall didn't you understand?

You argued, essentially, that communism is against human nature because lower animals are arguably capitalistic. That requires that humans be associated with lower animals and bound by their achievements. Lower animals are not democratic. Democracy is against human nature. We must all serve the queen. Jesus Christ, just face it, that particular argument of yours was absolutely absurd and carries no weight at all, and that's it. You can argue for a thousand billion years, but it's not going to change the fact that this basis is fundamentally flawed and not a valid platform.

communism cant work because the world would have no reason to go to work everyday

do you think someone with a very stressful job would continue doing it if they earned what the janitor earned? and do you think the janitor would continue working? or anyone on earth?

THERE WOULD BE NO WORK ETHIC OR MORALE IN ANYONE

Yes.

But this thread is about what freedoms communism WOULD allow.

For the sake of contrast.

It's like when you show that one page from talk.origins with the list of proven evolution events to creationists.... :D

It is very easy to relate Communism to Creationism. One is the rejection of two centuries of biological studies, one is the rejection of two centuries of economic studies.

Well, communism breaks democratic administration down to the smallist practicable levels which ought to go a long way to preventing this sort of thing. Today, the minority has almost no voice in the UK, USA, Lesotho...ah... some overt dictatorships, and so on, so there's nothing to lose in that regard, and anything gained is just a big happy bonus.
Yet oppression can happen on small levels. Even small groups can for some reason find their members offensive and have them killed or punished for no apparent reason. It solves nothing in regards to majority oppression of a minority group.

No, in the west people the minority do have a voice, at least from what I've seen. They force the majority to compromise. Unless you're referring to a tiny minority, like the various communist groups out there.

For example, if the majority had unrestricted authority, a law could theoretically be passed that would allow you to be arrested and executed for critisizing the system. But, instead, you are tolerated, protected by these undemocratic minority rights.

communism cant work because the world would have no reason to go to work everyday

do you think someone with a very stressful job would continue doing it if they earned what the janitor earned? and do you think the janitor would continue working? or anyone on earth?

THERE WOULD BE NO WORK ETHIC OR MORALE IN ANYONE

I hope to feck that you bother to read this.

What you have implied is outright false.

It is either a strange misunderstanding on your part, or it is false propaganda from a bygone age.

What you criticise is a system that does not exist, never has existed, and never will exist. NEVER HAS existed. You may as well be arguing that Snow White's magic mirror is a bad idea.

Yet oppression can happen on small levels. Even small groups can for some reason find their members offensive and have them killed or punished for no apparent reason. It solves nothing in regards to majority oppression of a minority group.

No, in the west people the minority do have a voice, at least from what I've seen. They force the majority to compromise. Unless you're referring to a tiny minority, like the various communist groups out there.

For example, if the majority had unrestricted authority, a law could theoretically be passed that would allow you to be arrested and executed for critisizing the system. But, instead, you are tolerated, protected by these undemocratic minority rights.

Like, a single ideology's majority over others (but minority in the population taken entirely) could lead a civilisation to war?

Yeah, that would be a pretty bad system that would lead to tens of billions of dollars of waste and to thousands of undesired and unuseful deaths.

That would be a pretty bad system, I agree with you.

What part of me banging my head against a brick wall didn't you understand?


Too many jokes.


You argued, essentially, that communism is against human nature because lower animals are arguably capitalistic.


I'm saying it's against the nature of organisms to be 100% altruistic. Altruism is an important aspect of society, but it underlies a capitalistic aim.

I scratch your back, you scratch mine. I save your life, you have babies with genes similar to mine.



That requires that humans be associated with lower animals and bound by their achievements.


Any decent biologist will note that there's no such thing as higher or lower organisms, only those better adapted for their environment.

We're not BOUND by anything. But it does relate to our natures. Life is, by nature, competative. Not always at the individual level, but, ultimately, it's capitalist. It's all about winning out and making sure our alelles are passed on.


Lower animals are not democratic.


Obviously. Ants don't have voting booths.


Democracy is against human nature.


Human nature, like all living things, is survival. At least aside from religion...


We must all serve the queen.


...The notion of a queen ant being 'served' by the other ants is somewhat... grade school... in notion.

She's a tool, like any other ant in the colony, for the passing on of the genes of the colony.


Jesus Christ, just face it, that particular argument of yours was absolutely absurd and carries no weight at all, and that's it.


Bast's pert bottom but you need to brush up on zoology.


You can argue for a thousand billion years, but it's not going to change the fact that this basis is fundamentally flawed and not a valid platform.

Democracy exists to allow the individual to pass on genes. It's easier to have kids who have kids who have kids if you're not fighting over bread every day.

Are you done spazzing?

Like, a single ideology's majority over others (but minority in the population taken entirely) could lead a civilisation to war?

Yeah, that would be a pretty bad system that would lead to tens of billions of dollars of waste and to thousands of undesired and unuseful deaths.

That would be a pretty bad system, I agree with you.
Minority rights are internal rights.

But besides that I can't quite figure out what you're saying. Probably the result of my being sick and tired.

It is very easy to relate Communism to Creationism. One is the rejection of two centuries of biological studies, one is the rejection of two centuries of economic studies.

True, very true.

I wonder what the best example of 'caused by the rejection of two centuries of political studies' would be...

It's like when you show that one page from talk.origins with the list of proven evolution events to creationists.... :D
After all, Nitze called communism the "fanatical faith"...

After all, Nitze called communism the "fanatical faith"...

Marx is dead.

No, see, none of that invalidates what I was saying about how stupid the animal post was. I don't have anything to answer. You can accuse me of spazzing all you like, but that doesn't change a thing.

If we were just about passing on genes and what not, there'd be no need for the complexity of our progress... and the commune's relative lack of competition wouldn't be threat anyway, would it? There's nothing to stop your genes being passed on, and there's relative embrace of natural human instincts to mutual defence. The baser human responses generally dictate none-lethal conflict, which I don't think you'll disagree on, and mutual defence so long as it suits everybody... and in commune it would.

Andaluciae, just read your post to which I was replying. Minority voices in the present western systems are over-ridden to the tune of so many thousand deaths and billions of dollars waste so far as the community is concerned.

No, see, none of that invalidates what I was saying about how stupid the animal post was. I don't have anything to answer. You can accuse me of spazzing all you like, but that doesn't change a thing.


You're figuratively slamming your head against the wall. How is that not spazzing?


If we were just about passing on genes and what not, there'd be no need for the complexity of our progress...


Oh dear. You've found religion.


and the commune's relative lack of competition wouldn't be threat anyway, would it?


I don't really consider a communist environment a healthy place for my genes, as I'm rather certain it would collapse, and thus possibly screw my genes over.

My genetic ancestry already had to fricking help found a country, my DNA is tired of having to fight control freaks and try to keep stupid people from killing it.


There's nothing to stop your genes being passed on, and there's relative embrace of natural human instincts to mutual defence.


Communists are more likely to cause me harm than good. I'm fricking upper middle class. I'm doing better than average. All communism can do is bring me down and LOWER my genetic survival rate.


The baser human responses generally dictate none-lethal conflict, which I don't think you'll disagree on, and mutual defence so long as it suits everybody... and in commune it would.


Which certainly explains war.


Andaluciae, just read your post to which I was replying. Minority voices in the present western systems are over-ridden to the tune of so many thousand deaths and billions of dollars waste so far as the community is concerned.

I'm doing just fine. I happen to be able to ignore most of the BS.

Andaluciae, just read your post to which I was replying. Minority voices in the present western systems are over-ridden to the tune of so many thousand deaths and billions of dollars waste so far as the community is concerned.
I see. I'm saying something totally different. Minority rights, as I said earlier, are a totally domestic issue. The minority still maintains the right to protest, oppose and speak out against actions of the majority, and they are not denied their role in the decision making process, those things cannot be violated. All majority decisions are undertaken knowing that something else must be given up.

I'm not talking about the consequences of decisions and how the responsibility is spread out.

So.

Anyone going to add any rights?

I can only say what I would do if I had a say in establishing a communist system...

Would people be able to make large-scale, expensive art productions, such as movies or bronze statues?

Sure - the arts is an enormous binding factor in a culture. Culture cannot be "forced upon" subjects, at least not when the government wants to be in accordance with communistic principle. Not everyone has to be the same, the only "demand" is that they put society first and work together, not against eachother. Large-scale productions are fine, as long as there are enough people who are willing to work on it - George Lucas could not, for instance, force workers to help him, they'd have to volunteer. And I don't think finding volunteers for an art production will be so difficult.

Would people get to choose what foods they eat, whether it be Alaskan King Crab, Caviar, or Pineapple?

As long as excesses are kept at bay, yes. In my view, there would be no luxury food flown in with a lear-jet from 5.000 miles distance - that's conspicuous consumption that not only hurts your fellow man, but the world as well in using up natural resources for the sake of absolutely nothing.
But: people would get to chose their food for the most part, it doesn't make sense to force people to eat exactly the same all the time. Each person's metabolism differs - there are lactose-intolerant people, people who are allergic to shellfish etc. - and on top of that tastes differ as well. It would make no sense to force veggies to eat meat.


Would people be allowed to gather resources from nature for fun, such as by hunting or fishing on a camping trip? If so, what must happen with the catch?
I'm not in favor of this, as I see such "hunting trips" as a paternalistic showing-off of the fact that nature is "the lesser" of man. But I can see that some people would like to continue their small-scale rape of nature - I'd just hope that in a communist state the social mentality would make the majority of people reluctant to this practice. The people who DO want to hunt or fish, should apply for a job as forest-guardsman, or should be restricted to hunting and fishing on a small scale (for instance, 1 fish per person per day) and in certain areas that are otherwise kept free of public. Preservation of nature and an inclination for hunt can work together on this, IMO.
The catch would be yours to keep, in case of a maximum quotum (i.e. you should be able to keep your 1 fish)

Will people be allowed to own guns? If so, will they get a choice in type?

Only on a professional basis - but even then on a relatively small scale. I believe that if the people's mentality is as such that they REALLY REALLY want to own guns, something is terribly wrong with your social system. Anyways, people can own guns, but they must go through proper channels to acquire one, and they would get a limited choice only. For instance, person A wants to own a gun (hand-pistol): he would have to apply for ownership, which would involve registration of said firearm (registration of the barrel schematics and bullet "finger-print"), obligatory lessons on how to shoot and handle the firearm (and also a confrontation with the negative aspect; lessons on "the consequences of malhandling"), and regular checks of the weapon. Discharging the gun would only be allowed on sporting-grounds (part of the training-facility) or in special circumstances (as part of self-defense, however unlikely). BUT people who live in urban situations would not be allowed to keep the gun at their home - people in rural areas who might need a gun to fend off agressive wildlife can keep it at home, but in a restricted access-spot (a vault, for instance). Guns SHOULD NOT be allowed to just "lie there" and be in plain sight of underaged family members or neighbours (for example) - seeing as how many accidents like this happen in the U.S., the public can't be trusted with weapons in their home.

Will people be allowed to vote for a non-communistic system?

Just like in a democracy: in essence, no. In a democracy, no vote can be cast that would (on a meta-level) render the system disabled. It's just the same for communism. Other than that, there can be significant alterations to the global and local politic on a regular basis through direct referenda and public appeal. However, appeals must be made according to a full knowledge of the subject at hand (on a scientific level) - for this to work, experts (scientists, but also local politicians) should keep "open office" for any questions the public might have. There can be no changes to power-levels unless a substantial majority (80% or more) votes in favor; for instance a mayor cannot be disbanded in favor of a more global governor unless 80% of the mayor's subjects deem this necessary - this is to keep powermongers from rising up and gaining the votes in a populistic manner.
If a certain part of the populace really wants to get out of the system, they should be allowed to move to a different nation. That goes the other way round, as well. The subjects of the state are not to be regared in any way as "property" of the state.

Will people be allowed to -attempt- to act in a capitalistic manner, by, say, trying to trade sea shells for cookies, which they use to bribe helpers with to gather more seashells for more cookies? Perhaps loaning a cookie today, in exchange for extra seashells the next day, ala interest?

People can trade all they want in their personal relations. However, it will not do to bribe officials in order to get a larger piece of the pie - that goes the other way round, as well: an official that allows himself to be bribed commits treason against all people under his care for not being open and transparent to all. Loaning and intrest will be out of the question, as it favors the strong.
The concept of gaining goods: each person has a right to, let's say, 100 x goods per month: a loaf of bread (white or grained) would be 1 x, a jar of conserved fruits would be 1 x, a nice piece of pork-ribs would be 2 x, etc. It will not do to spend your entire 100 x on bread, in order to accumulate bread and as such gain the upperhand in the "bread-department", and later on trading that bread for an equivalent of 200 x with your neighbours. That's just mean and selfish, and should rightfully be regared as treason of your fellow man. Furthermore, you can preserve your 100 x for a maximum of six months - that way, you can "save" for a birthday or something. For instance, each month, you spend 80 x and keep 20 x, after 60 months you have 120 x extra on top of the 100 x that month: you can dish out bigtime for a grand party. Just as long as there is no accumulation with intent to enrich yourself.

About the 100 x: not all "prices" would be the same everywhere. In order to stimulate the consumption of seasoned vegetables and local meat (because it puts less of a strain of the environment), vegetables and fruits in their appropriate season (for instance, strawberry in late spring and summer) and local meat will be a lot "cheaper" than things that are out of season and as such unavailable (if they can be grown then and there, for instance in a greenhouse at about 50 miles distance, then all is well). It would be insulting to demand strawberries in winter if that would mean flying them in from another continent. It would be equally insulting to demand roasted squirrel-heads from southern-Argentina when you live in Canada. But that's for the most part a mentality-issue, that can be solved on a cultural level. There should not be a "repressive" system, rather a discouragement or an equation on a non-capitalist basis that also includes the environmental cost.
And for your information: yes, refrigeration would still be used. The ability to preserve foodstuffs over a relatively long term is one of the major inventions of the past centuries. Vitamin-rich food should be made avialable to everyone everytime, but it should be encouraged to grow them in a nearby locality as to keep transport strain as low as possible.

What control will parents have over their kids, since everyone is guaranteed certain resources? Will parents be allowed to say "For hitting your brother, you get no dinner tonight."?

Of course: it's still parents who look after their household. They get the foodstuffs, they get to decide who eats what, just like they do now.


Will people be allowed to travel world-wide for pleasure?

Yes - that would fit in cultural education of the public. Everybody would have the chance to participate in culture - and seeing the world is one of the great leasurly and cultural probabilities of this era.

Will things like theme parks exist?

I don't see why not.

Will pure-entertainment objects like toys and bad romance novels be allowed?

Yes, since tastes differ. One man's bad novel is another's lifeline in dire times.


Will people be able to have personal book collections, or will all books be in libraries?

People will be able to have personal book collections. However, extremely rare items (for instance, unique artwork) belong in a museum or state library. It will not do to keep historically important items away from the public. And since the belongings of today are the historic items of tomorrow; if a person dies, and one of his belongings is on a particular list of rare items (for instance, he owns a piece of art from a friendly artist-turned-famous-and-important) it should be confiscated and made publicly available in a local museum (the heirs chose where; they can keep it at a local museum, or send it to a larger state-museum). No piece of significant cultural identity should be kept from the public - everyone should be able to learn about and do research on culture, and that means full access to as much of the cultural historical production as possible.


Will people be allowed to have personal items, like the giraffe grandpa wittled from a stick?

Personal belongings are treated in the same way as the above mentioned book collections. It should be understood that for some people, belongings make up their entire personality, or are at least very significant part of it. Most people have serious emotional ties with their belongings, and that should be respected. As I said before, not everyone receives the same belongings, there is enough room for personal choice - and if there's choice, there's possession of a certain belonging. Unless that belonging is extremely rare or unique at time of death or prior to it: then it should be allowed to be publicly "useable" (in life) or in public reach (in death).


Will people get to keep any of the stuff their family had prior to the revolution? Will I be allowed to keep the Grandfather clock my parents want to pass on to me? If not, what will be done with such things?

Same as above: unless that grandfather clock is of some significant uniqueness or historical importance, it's yours to keep. However, when you die, chances are it has become so rare, that your children will have to go and visit it in a museum.


Will indigenous people be allowed to keep their hunting/gathering culture?

You mean like the native americans are so "well off" today, since they get to stay all day in their magnificent reservations? Let me put it this way: indigenous people get to keep it all: land, culture, whatever - respect goes both ways on this. As long as they respect our views and lands and borders, we respect theirs.

I can only say what I would do if I had a say in establishing a communist system...


All anyone can really say, ne?


Sure - the arts is an enormous binding factor in a culture. Culture cannot be "forced upon" subjects, at least not when the government wants to be in accordance with communistic principle. Not everyone has to be the same, the only "demand" is that they put society first and work together, not against eachother. Large-scale productions are fine, as long as there are enough people who are willing to work on it - George Lucas could not, for instance, force workers to help him, they'd have to volunteer. And I don't think finding volunteers for an art production will be so difficult.


Based on your other lines, I assume that nobody gets to actually keep anything large scale, it instead goes in to a museum?


As long as excesses are kept at bay, yes. In my view, there would be no luxury food flown in with a lear-jet from 5.000 miles distance - that's conspicuous consumption that not only hurts your fellow man, but the world as well in using up natural resources for the sake of absolutely nothing.
But: people would get to chose their food for the most part, it doesn't make sense to force people to eat exactly the same all the time. Each person's metabolism differs - there are lactose-intolerant people, people who are allergic to shellfish etc. - and on top of that tastes differ as well. It would make no sense to force veggies to eat meat.


So, exactly how much effort does one get to have gone through for one's food?

1000 miles?


I'm not in favor of this, as I see such "hunting trips" as a paternalistic showing-off of the fact that nature is "the lesser" of man.


You... really don't know a wide variety of hunters.

Let's try to avoid absolute statements about billions of individuals you have never met.


But I can see that some people would like to continue their small-scale rape of nature - I'd just hope that in a communist state the social mentality would make the majority of people reluctant to this practice.


Dude, unless you plan on eliminating most of humanity, most of our population centers, and most of the ag... the raping of nature is NOT done by the guy who treks across the forest to shoot a deer with a bow and arrow, so he can have a tastier treat than some chicken jammed in a cage all its very short life.


The people who DO want to hunt or fish, should apply for a job as forest-guardsman, or should be restricted to hunting and fishing on a small scale (for instance, 1 fish per person per day) and in certain areas that are otherwise kept free of public. Preservation of nature and an inclination for hunt can work together on this, IMO.


Wait.. so...

...You have to be a forest ranger... to hunt.. ever...

I guess because of the elimination of forest preservation funds on the part of hunters?


The catch would be yours to keep, in case of a maximum quotum (i.e. you should be able to keep your 1 fish)


Right. So no little kids showing off the fifteen blue gill they caught on their fishing trip so dad can cook them up for dinner, ever again. Unless the kid is a forest ranger.


Only on a professional basis - but even then on a relatively small scale. I believe that if the people's mentality is as such that they REALLY REALLY want to own guns, something is terribly wrong with your social system.


Guns are fun.

Ever heard of laser tag?

Ever been to a gun range?

Ever played paint ball?

Ever shot clay pigeons?

Guns aren't JUST weapons.

They can also be toys for grown-ups, art pieces, and so forth.


Anyways, people can own guns, but they must go through proper channels to acquire one, and they would get a limited choice only. For instance, person A wants to own a gun (hand-pistol): he would have to apply for ownership, which would involve registration of said firearm (registration of the barrel schematics and bullet "finger-print"), obligatory lessons on how to shoot and handle the firearm (and also a confrontation with the negative aspect; lessons on "the consequences of malhandling"), and regular checks of the weapon. Discharging the gun would only be allowed on sporting-grounds (part of the training-facility) or in special circumstances (as part of self-defense, however unlikely).


So, more or less a doubling of current gun control.


BUT people who live in urban situations would not be allowed to keep the gun at their home - people in rural areas who might need a gun to fend off agressive wildlife can keep it at home, but in a restricted access-spot (a vault, for instance). Guns SHOULD NOT be allowed to just "lie there" and be in plain sight of underaged family members or neighbours (for example) - seeing as how many accidents like this happen in the U.S., the public can't be trusted with weapons in their home.


My family has never had a gun accident in several generations, and none that I'm aware of before. We have gads of guns.

But yes, LOADED guns just lying around are stupid. Guns should be placed in a safe location, away from stupid people.


Just like in a democracy: in essence, no.


I'm unaware of how a democracy automatically means it can't change.


In a democracy, no vote can be cast that would (on a meta-level) render the system disabled.


Where is this law written?


It's just the same for communism.


Is this written anywhere, or your preffered version?

Further, communism is partially economic, democracy is political.

We've already altered capitalism in to socio-capitalism in the US.


Other than that, there can be significant alterations to the global and local politic on a regular basis through direct referenda and public appeal. However, appeals must be made according to a full knowledge of the subject at hand (on a scientific level) - for this to work, experts (scientists, but also local politicians) should keep "open office" for any questions the public might have. There can be no changes to power-levels unless a substantial majority (80% or more) votes in favor; for instance a mayor cannot be disbanded in favor of a more global governor unless 80% of the mayor's subjects deem this necessary - this is to keep powermongers from rising up and gaining the votes in a populistic manner.


So, technically, they can do this until there's one leader in the world?


If a certain part of the populace really wants to get out of the system, they should be allowed to move to a different nation. That goes the other way round, as well. The subjects of the state are not to be regared in any way as "property" of the state.


This thread is based on the notion of a world-wide communist revolution having happened.

Will the communist world grant seperation rights, and let them take some land to live off of, since they own it all?


People can trade all they want in their personal relations. However, it will not do to bribe officials in order to get a larger piece of the pie - that goes the other way round, as well: an official that allows himself to be bribed commits treason against all people under his care for not being open and transparent to all.


This is more or less true already.


Loaning and intrest will be out of the question, as it favors the strong.


Since its very easy for children to do, how will they be punished for asking for interest on cookies?


The concept of gaining goods: each person has a right to, let's say, 100 x goods per month: a loaf of bread (white or grained) would be 1 x, a jar of conserved fruits would be 1 x, a nice piece of pork-ribs would be 2 x, etc. It will not do to spend your entire 100 x on bread, in order to accumulate bread and as such gain the upperhand in the "bread-department", and later on trading that bread for an equivalent of 200 x with your neighbours. That's just mean and selfish, and should rightfully be regared as treason of your fellow man.


Bread=Treason. Got it. What is your punishment for bread-related treason?


Furthermore, you can preserve your 100 x for a maximum of six months - that way, you can "save" for a birthday or something. For instance, each month, you spend 80 x and keep 20 x, after 60 months you have 120 x extra on top of the 100 x that month: you can dish out bigtime for a grand party. Just as long as there is no accumulation with intent to enrich yourself.


What if you accumulate preserves?

Will the government search pantries?


About the 100 x: not all "prices" would be the same everywhere. In order to stimulate the consumption of seasoned vegetables and local meat (because it puts less of a strain of the environment), vegetables and fruits in their appropriate season (for instance, strawberry in late spring and summer) and local meat will be a lot "cheaper" than things that are out of season and as such unavailable (if they can be grown then and there, for instance in a greenhouse at about 50 miles distance, then all is well). It would be insulting to demand strawberries in winter if that would mean flying them in from another continent. It would be equally insulting to demand roasted squirrel-heads from southern-Argentina when you live in Canada. But that's for the most part a mentality-issue, that can be solved on a cultural level. There should not be a "repressive" system, rather a discouragement or an equation on a non-capitalist basis that also includes the environmental cost.


So, basically, for exotic food, you have to travel?


And for your information: yes, refrigeration would still be used. The ability to preserve foodstuffs over a relatively long term is one of the major inventions of the past centuries. Vitamin-rich food should be made avialable to everyone everytime, but it should be encouraged to grow them in a nearby locality as to keep transport strain as low as possible.


So communities would have to diversify, rather than specialize, food production? What about areas where this is patently difficult, say, rice field areas?


Of course: it's still parents who look after their household. They get the foodstuffs, they get to decide who eats what, just like they do now.


Kay.


Yes - that would fit in cultural education of the public. Everybody would have the chance to participate in culture - and seeing the world is one of the great leasurly and cultural probabilities of this era.



I don't see why not.


Kay.


Yes, since tastes differ. One man's bad novel is another's lifeline in dire times.


And they would be able to purchase X amount of luxuries per month?

What about anti-communist literature?


People will be able to have personal book collections. However, extremely rare items (for instance, unique artwork) belong in a museum or state library.


Does this mean that, if you draw a picture, and it becomes famous, it is confiscated?


It will not do to keep historically important items away from the public. And since the belongings of today are the historic items of tomorrow; if a person dies, and one of his belongings is on a particular list of rare items (for instance, he owns a piece of art from a friendly artist-turned-famous-and-important) it should be confiscated and made publicly available in a local museum (the heirs chose where; they can keep it at a local museum, or send it to a larger state-museum). No piece of significant cultural identity should be kept from the public - everyone should be able to learn about and do research on culture, and that means full access to as much of the cultural historical production as possible.


Kay. So the only way to be sure you keep your stuff is to make sure nobody knows about it?

Do you get any form of compensation?


Personal belongings are treated in the same way as the above mentioned book collections. It should be understood that for some people, belongings make up their entire personality, or are at least very significant part of it. Most people have serious emotional ties with their belongings, and that should be respected. As I said before, not everyone receives the same belongings, there is enough room for personal choice - and if there's choice, there's possession of a certain belonging. Unless that belonging is extremely rare or unique at time of death or prior to it: then it should be allowed to be publicly "useable" (in life) or in public reach (in death).


So, no more passing unique heirlooms on to your kids?

If my uncle, the comic artist, becomes famous, I can't give my "happy birthday" sci-fi dinosaur he drew for me to my kids?


Same as above: unless that grandfather clock is of some significant uniqueness or historical importance, it's yours to keep. However, when you die, chances are it has become so rare, that your children will have to go and visit it in a museum.


Right. So when you die, the state confiscates anything of yours that is rare.

The government is going to take my rare comic books when I die?


You mean like the indians are so "well off" today, since they get to stay all day in their magnificent reservations?


I never said anything about the quality of their life, as a person with two Native American ancestries, I ask you not say I'm from fricking India, and I suggest you keep in mind that Native Americans are not the only indiginous people on the planet. Tribal life is all over the place still, often in much older forms than my relatives.


Let me put it this way: indigenous people get to keep it all: land, culture, whatever - respect goes both ways on this. As long as they respect our views and lands and borders, we respect theirs.

Do capitalists get the same benefit?

I, like everyone else, am going to answer these the best that I can. Ordinarily I wouldn't start from the beginning, but no one answered in exactly the same way that I would.
I will just say that a worldwide revolution goes against my idea of how communism would (should?) come about, so my answers might not be compatible with revolution/violence. But I think they could be.

Would people be able to make large-scale, expensive art productions, such as movies or bronze statues?Sure, if the community wanted them to, or if they did all of the material gathering themselves.


Would people get to choose what foods they eat, whether it be Alaskan King Crab, Caviar, or Pineapple?Sure, if they're available.


Would people be allowed to gather resources from nature for fun, such as by hunting or fishing on a camping trip?If so, what must happen with the catch?
Yes, provided they used them or gave them to someone.

Will people be allowed to own guns? If so, will they get a choice in type?Yes, I think it should be encouraged, especially if the commune doesn't have a standing police force or army. They could choose any type from whatever type is available.

Will people be allowed to vote for a non-communistic system?
Yes, I believe in democracy, and democracy allows the choice for a non-democratic system. (I'll explain this further if asked.)

Will people be allowed to -attempt- to act in a capitalistic manner, by, say, trying to trade sea shells for cookies, which they use to bribe helpers with to gather more seashells for more cookies? Perhaps loaning a cookie today, in exchange for extra seashells the next day, ala interest?Provided that the seashells and cookies were gathered on the person's own time, I could see something like that being allowed, on a non-precedence setting basis.

What control will parents have over their kids, since everyone is guaranteed certain resources? Will parents be allowed to say "For hitting your brother, you get no dinner tonight."?Yes, restriction of resources can be an effective form of punishment, provided the kid doesn't become malnourished or abused.


Will people be allowed to travel world-wide for pleasure?Yes, though I think it would be unlikely.

Will things like theme parks exist?Yes, if society wants them.

Will pure-entertainment objects like toys and bad romance novels be allowed?
Yes. I believe in the concept of "To each according to his need" and I believe that entertainment is something that humans need.

Will people be able to have personal book collections, or will all books be in libraries?If there are enough copies of the book that everyone who wants one has it, then yes. Otherwise they'll be in libraries.

Will people be allowed to have personal items, like the giraffe grandpa wittled from a stick?Yes, provided they use it. Or if they don't, it's unlikely that someone else would want it.

Will people get to keep any of the stuff their family had prior to the revolution? Will I be allowed to keep the Grandfather clock my parents want to pass on to me? If not, what will be done with such things?Most likely, as heirlooms tend to only have value to the people who inherit them.

Will indigenous people be allowed to keep their hunting/gathering culture?
Yep, provided they don't try to take the commune's resources.

Other notes:
I don't believe that money would be necessary, however if the commune wants it so be it. I think it unlikely, though, as money only has value if everyone agrees on it, whereas various goods have values that are personally decided by each individual.

"What we call human nature is in actuality human habit." - Jewel

All I can say to almost everything you replied: O... M... G...

Based on your other lines, I assume that nobody gets to actually keep anything large scale, it instead goes in to a museum?

Why would you want to make a film to keep it in your locket? Large scale projects are all cultural objects, and as such belong to the public. No matter who actually "owns" them, they should be publicly available.



So, exactly how much effort does one get to have gone through for one's food?

1000 miles?

That depens on the modes of transportation available, and differs a great deal according to the place of your locality. There would be great differences between "central places" and "periphery" or "remote" places. Read Chrystaller's theory of central places for more info on this.
I can say what would not go: catching shrimp in the North Sea of the coast of Germany, having them flown by jet to Thailand to have them processed, and then have them flown back to Germany for selling. That, IMO, is idiotic, no matter what "the economic profit". The equation does not include environmental cost, and it should.

And yes, 1000 miles would be a bit too far :p


You... really don't know a wide variety of hunters.

Let's try to avoid absolute statements about billions of individuals you have never met.

Hehe, and you don't know me, do you? I didn't make an "absolute statement", but an anthropological statement (as it is, in effect, my job: I didn't make a dissertation on the relationship between man and nature for nothing). Every single aspect of leisurly hunting is in essence a re-enactment of the struggle for superiority against nature, however you may think "you're the exception". True, application and strength may vary, but it comes from the same root.



Dude, unless you plan on eliminating most of humanity, most of our population centers, and most of the ag... the raping of nature is NOT done by the guy who treks across the forest to shoot a deer with a bow and arrow, so he can have a tastier treat than some chicken jammed in a cage all its very short life.

Jamming pigs or chicken in way to small casings for greater economic IS rape of nature. Your question wasn't geared to that, so I didn't answer on that. Simple as that. And what I said was "small-scale rape". Large-scale agricultural production, IMO, cannot be continued. Read Hyam Maccoby's 'The Sacred Executioner', then also go for James Serpell 'In the Company of Animals' on why - way too much text and theory to reiterate here.



Wait.. so...

...You have to be a forest ranger... to hunt.. ever...

I guess because of the elimination of forest preservation funds on the part of hunters?

Eh? Did you actually read what I posted? If you keep to your individual quotum, you can hunt all you want. And the 1 fish per person is just an example - would depend on the type of fish, and the locality (1 shark per person would be out of the question, since they are endangered / 1 herring per person would be idiotic, since they are plenty in some areas, but scarce in other areas: so there the quotum would be 0)


Right. So no little kids showing off the fifteen blue gill they caught on their fishing trip so dad can cook them up for dinner, ever again. Unless the kid is a forest ranger.

And again: eh? Read the previous point. As long as the fish is not endangered and you keep to your quotum (which will always be at least 1, duh) you can be proud that you passed your initiation into manhood all you want.



Guns are fun.

Ever heard of laser tag?

Ever been to a gun range?

Ever played paint ball?

Ever shot clay pigeons?

Guns aren't JUST weapons.

They can also be toys for grown-ups, art pieces, and so forth.

And AGAIN: eh? You didn't read anything I posted, did you? And for the record, I didn't assume you were focusing on "guns we own for fun" - what are you, a teenager? Guns that are deadly weapons (not BB-guns, as such, or laser tag or whatever) should be handled with care. You can play paintball or shoot clay pigeons all you want, (in designated areas, if I may add, that are open to all).

But yes, LOADED guns just lying around are stupid. Guns should be placed in a safe location, away from stupid people.

Ah, some sensibility. That's what I meant, as well.


I'm unaware of how a democracy automatically means it can't change. Where is this law written? Is this written anywhere, or your preffered version?

Eh? That's just how it works - that is the integrity of a voting system. Google for 'democratic system' and you will find out somehow. If you vote to not being able to vote ever again, that would create a paradoxical situation, thus render itself null.

Further, communism is partially economic, democracy is political.

We've already altered capitalism in to socio-capitalism in the US.

Define "socio-capitalism", then. Let's see if you really know what it is. And nothing is EVER "purely political", especially not present-day democracy.


So, technically, they can do this until there's one leader in the world?

You're missing the point. Let's say city X lies in region Y. City X has a mayor that runs politics and social stuff etc. on a local level, above him is a governor for region Y that runs regional activities (roads, etc.). If the people of city X no longer want their mayor and instead want governor of region Y to govern them, they would have to have a 80% majority in order for this to change in the local constitution. That works the other way round as well. This is to prevent from 'a single leader' coming up.


This thread is based on the notion of a world-wide communist revolution having happened.

Will the communist world grant seperation rights, and let them take some land to live off of, since they own it all?

World-wide communist revolution would imply that a grand majority can empower a small minority. That will never happen. Even then, the majority should not be able to decide what the minority could and could not do - that leads to abuse. If a minority doesn't want to be communistic, then they should be able to. Preventing this would ultimately lead to the implosion of the system.
Anyhow, in all fairness, I didn't read the entire thread, just the first post - on which I responded.


Since its very easy for children to do, how will they be punished for asking for interest on cookies?

Just the same "punishment" as they would receive now. Kids do kids-stuff: that includes trying to rip off their friends sometimes. It should be handled, not punished.


Bread=Treason. Got it. What is your punishment for bread-related treason?

It is a matter of speech, an analogy so you would understand it better. Guess you didn't, did you? ;) I'll reiterate: accumulation of scarce materials in order to profit from it on a personal level is wrong.


What if you accumulate preserves?

Will the government search pantries?

Figure it out yourself, as it is in analogy with the previous post ;)


So, basically, for exotic food, you have to travel?

If you're a Canadian and you want Argentinian squirrel, I'd say yes. Unless you're OK with Canadian squirrel and they are not endangered.


So communities would have to diversify, rather than specialize, food production? What about areas where this is patently difficult, say, rice field areas?

The diversification you envisage is on a rather large regional scale, mind you. It makes no sense to grow oat on a rice field, it's not efficient. It's just that the oat should not be grown 1000 miles further and flown in or otherwise transported over way to big a distance. Regions should specialise, because it makes for more efficient production and distribution of goods. Again, read Chrystaller on city networks.
If you don't like the diet available in your locality (however unlikely, since it will not be limited, I'll tell you that), you can always move. It will be much more efficient to have your person move to the desired locality than have the desired locality move to you each and every day.



And they would be able to purchase X amount of luxuries per month?

Techically, the concept of 'luxury' would be a lot different from what it is now. But, in essence, yes. Nowadays, everybody buys a 'luxury' once in a while, and most people don't buy them all - that doesn't have to change. It will not do, however, to have person A get to be able to buy 10.000 x luxury and person B only 100 x.

What about anti-communist literature?

Allowed, since satiric and protestant literature (and art) play an important role in political culture. Everybody should have the right to disagree, otherwise there would be no dynamism.


Does this mean that, if you draw a picture, and it becomes famous, it is confiscated?

Only if it is of great cultural and historic importance, and only after you die.

Kay. So the only way to be sure you keep your stuff is to make sure nobody knows about it?

As I said, you will always be able to keep YOUR stuff.

Do you get any form of compensation?

The compensation of being aware that your unique item now serves to enlighten the public, to make research on history possible.


So, no more passing unique heirlooms on to your kids?

Not if that unique heirloom is Van Gogh's 'Irises' or Tutanchamon's sarcophagus or something of equal artistic or historic importance.


If my uncle, the comic artist, becomes famous, I can't give my "happy birthday" sci-fi dinosaur he drew for me to my kids?

Sure you can, but chances are that the first edition of his first comic goes to a museum, where you can visit it whenever you want. And another thing, making it public can in your case just as well mean having it photographed and electronically stored.


Right. So when you die, the state confiscates anything of yours that is rare.

The government is going to take my rare comic books when I die?

Not "the government", but "the public". It's not just rare, but also "of great cultural and historic importance". Would you like it if some rich bozo had the first Superman comic and would keep it in a vault all day, with the entire public not knowing what is inside? Things like that belong in a museum.


I never said anything about the quality of their life, as a person with two Native American ancestries, I ask you not say I'm from fricking India, and I suggest you keep in mind that Native Americans are not the only indiginous people on the planet. Tribal life is all over the place still, often in much older forms than my relatives.

But my point still stands. Respect should be enacted. It will not do to drive Maori tribesmen from their land just to be able to build there yourself.
PS Didn't mean to say you're Indian, but my mastery of the English language is not as such that I automatically use 'native American'. I'm sorry if I offended you.


Do capitalists get the same benefit?

Seeing as how they're not actually "indigenous", I'd say no. But there will always be a corner of the earth where they can live their life according to their ways. It's not that they should be hunted down and killed, far from it. They have a right to do as they want, just not in a communist state as it equals to damaging the other populace. If they find a capitalist nation/region, they're free to do what they want, however.

All I can say to almost everything you replied: O... M... G...


I should probably note that I come from an extremely competative breed of people. My family went from poverty to upper middle class in a single generation. My ancestry includes some of the earliest American presidents.

My father also used to spend his weekends hunting to bring food back to the family. My grandma considered meat to be wealth. Back then, it pretty much was.


Why would you want to make a film to keep it in your locket? Large scale projects are all cultural objects, and as such belong to the public. No matter who actually "owns" them, they should be publicly available.


But I can compensate the community for it somehow, and keep it to myself, at least until I die, no?

Say, if I make a three-headed David statue with some help from the quarry guy, and pay him back with some other statue?


That depens on the modes of transportation available, and differs a great deal according to the place of your locality. There would be great differences between "central places" and "periphery" or "remote" places. Read Chrystaller's theory of central places for more info on this.
I can say what would not go: catching shrimp in the North Sea of the coast of Germany, having them flown by jet to Thailand to have them processed, and then have them flown back to Germany for selling. That, IMO, is idiotic, no matter what "the economic profit". The equation does not include environmental cost, and it should.


Right. So everyone gets stuck with regional food unless they go abroad?

There's going to be a huge amount of traveling then, considering how much of history is based around spice trade.


And yes, 1000 miles would be a bit too far :p


Damn. No Maine rock lobster anymore unless I want to travel across the country to get to Maine.


Hehe, and you don't know me, do you? I didn't make an "absolute statement", but an anthropological statement (as it is, in effect, my job: I didn't make a dissertation on the relationship between man and nature for nothing).


You failed to say "usually" or "mostly".

And your making a dissertation on the topic doesn't actually mean you know what the hell you're talking about. Many an essay has been written that was very long, and very biased, and very wrong.


Every single aspect of leisurly hunting is in essence a re-enactment of the struggle for superiority against nature,


As we all know, Native Americans wanted to dominate nature instead of, you know, eat.

Cavemen especially.

Also chimps and tigers.


however you may think "you're the exception".


Nope. There are countless exceptions. Yes, many people do it for the feeling of power. Many people do it for the sake of cultural pride. Many people do it because wild game is TASTY. Many people do it to stay alive. Many people do it because it lets them bond with other people, of EITHER gender. Many people do it because they don't want to cause animals to live their lives in cages, but they still want to eat meat. Many people do it because they feel it lets them get in TOUCH with nature, rather than being away from it.

If you don't know this, your schooling failed you utterly.


True, application and strength may vary, but it comes from the same root.


Yes. As we all know. Wanting to taste deer means I want to dominate nature. So does wanting to actually have some idea what it means to be a meat eater, rather than letting myself have a sanitized view of butchering that most people have.

Personally, I feel that people who haven't at least seen the death of a prey animal up close and personal, seen it harvested, and eaten it, or, better yet, been involved in it, should not eat meat at the point where they're able to be involved in this practice.

Atheist though I am, I occassionally close my eyes and mentally thank my food for dying that I may consume it. The rare times I hunt, I hunt to be a PART of nature, rather than some alien cancer.

Not to mention the issue of keeping the herd animals from starving to death because fricking farmers keep killing off predators.


Jamming pigs or chicken in way to small casings for greater economic IS rape of nature. Your question wasn't geared to that, so I didn't answer on that.


Is it greater or lesser than hunting?

I can see why putting an animal in a cage from birth is abnormal. I fail to see what the difference is between a tiger ripping in to an impala, and me shoving an arrow or a bullet in to a deer's heart and killing it much more swiftly.


Simple as that. And what I said was "small-scale rape". Large-scale agricultural production, IMO, cannot be continued. Read Hyam Maccoby's 'The Sacred Executioner', then also go for James Serpell 'In the Company of Animals' on why - way too much text and theory to reiterate here.


Right. So. We kill most of the humans?


Eh? Did you actually read what I posted? If you keep to your individual quotum, you can hunt all you want. And the 1 fish per person is just an example - would depend on the type of fish, and the locality (1 shark per person would be out of the question, since they are endangered / 1 herring per person would be idiotic, since they are plenty in some areas, but scarce in other areas: so there the quotum would be 0)


So, basically, the same system we have -now-?


And again: eh? Read the previous point. As long as the fish is not endangered and you keep to your quotum (which will always be at least 1, duh) you can be proud that you passed your initiation into manhood all you want.


...

Did you just accuse my sister of being initiated in to manhood?

You do know that women fish? That women hunt?

What era are you living in man?


And AGAIN: eh? You didn't read anything I posted, did you? And for the record, I didn't assume you were focusing on "guns we own for fun" - what are you, a teenager?


I'm someone who's never had an accident with a gun in his life, but has been shooting guns since he was five or so. So is my sister. Target practice in the back yard has been a family practice in my household since before I was born. My mom's not that bad a shot either, when she can be talked in to joining in.


Guns that are deadly weapons (not BB-guns, as such, or laser tag or whatever) should be handled with care.


Yes. We're careful with all our two dozen or so rifles, and pistols too. We even have some beautiful flint lock muzzle loaders.

Again, not a single accident in our family.


You can play paintball or shoot clay pigeons all you want, (in designated areas, if I may add, that are open to all).


Yes. These already exist.


Ah, some sensibility. That's what I meant, as well.


Gun ownership is a responsibility. Just like knife ownership. Or fist ownership.


Eh? That's just how it works - that is the integrity of a voting system.


Depends on the constitution, ne? Democracy means, and only means, vote-oriented decisions. There are various kinds of democracy. Constitutional, Democratic Republics...


Google for 'democratic system' and you will find out somehow. If you vote to not being able to vote ever again, that would create a paradoxical situation, thus render itself null.


Last I checked, some members of society can't vote.


Define "socio-capitalism", then. Let's see if you really know what it is. And nothing is EVER "purely political", especially not present-day democracy.


A social base of survival (welfare), but without limiting capitalistic gain.

You know. Feed the poor, but not take away the right to being a rich bastard.

Hence the SOCIAL of social security.


Your missing the point. Let's say city X lies in region Y. City X has a mayor that runs politics and social stuff etc. on a local level, above him is a governor for region Y that runs regional activities (roads, etc.). If the people of city X no longer want their mayor and instead want governor of region Y to govern them, they would have to have a 80% majority in order for this to change in the local constitution. That works the other way round as well. This is to prevent from 'a single leader' coming up.


Yes. But they can all say they want Dude X to run their regions. Unlikely, but possible, no?

Or is there a built-in limit?


World-wide communist revolution would imply that a grand majority can empower a small minority. That will never happen. Even then, the majority should not be able to decide what the minority could and could not do - that leads to abuse. If a minority doesn't want to be communistic, then they should be able to. Preventing this would ultimately lead to the implosion of the system.


Ah, good, you're at least sane.



Just the same "punishment" as they would receive now. Kids do kids-stuff: that includes trying to rip off their friends sometimes. It should be handled, not punished.


You used strong words.


It is a matter of speach, an analogy so you would understand it better. Guess you didn't, did you? I'll reiterate: accumulation of scarce materials in order to profit from it on a personal level is wrong.


Dude, treason is a very powerful word. It usually involves capital punishment.

What do you feel should be the price of hording bread?



The diversification you envisage is on a rather large regional scale, mind you. It makes no sense to grow oat on a rice field, it's not efficient. It's just that the oat should not be grown 1000 miles further and flown in or otherwise transported over way to big a distance. Regions should specialise, because it makes for more efficient production and distribution of goods. Again, read Chrystaller on city networks.


So, basically, nobody can live in a large region that can't support a variety of foods? Or will you put everything in green houses or somesuch?

Will people be allowed to live in Alaska, since you'd have to port over so much non-fish there?


Techically, the concept of 'luxury' would be a lot different from what it is now.


A luxury is basically stuff you want that you don't need. Neither under communism nor capitalism do I need TV. It's a luxury.


But, in essence, yes. Nowadays, everybody buys a 'luxury' once in a while, and most people don't by them all - that doesn't have to change. It will not do, however, to have person A get to be able to buy 10.000 x luxury and person B only 100 x.


Kay


Allowed, since satiric and protestant literature (and art) play an important role in political culture. Everybody should have the right to disagree, otherwise there would be no dynamism.


Is there any limit to this? Revolutionary literature?


Only if it is of great cultural and historic importance, and only after you die.



As I said, you will always be able to keep YOUR stuff.



The compensation of being aware that your unique item now serves to enlighten the public, to make research on history possible.


Uh huh.


Not if that unique heirloom is Van Gogh's 'Irises' or Tutanchamon's sarcophagus or something of equal artistic or historic importance.


So, if you want your kids to keep it, make sure nobody else heard about it, because it might become famous in a hundred years. Gotcha.


Sure you can, but chances are that the first edition of his first comic goes to a museum, where you can visit it whenever you want. And another thing, making it public can in your case just as well mean having it photographed and electronically stored.


I'm all for electronic storage.

The rest. Ew.


Not "the government", but "the public".


If it's a democracy, it's a government.


It's not just rare, but also "of great cultural and historic importance". Would you like it if some rich bozo had the first Superman comic and would keep it in a vault all day, with the entire public not knowing what is inside? Things like that belong in a museum.


I fail to see how that is crucial to society. It's not like my not possessing art is going to save the world.


But my point still stands. Respect should be enacted. It will not do to drive Maori tribesmen from their land just to be able to build there yourself.
PS Didn't mean to say you're Indian, but my mastery of the English language is not as such that I automatically use 'native American'. I'm sorry if I offended you.


Generally keep in mind, the word "Indian" means "Noun from India".

Not a big deal, but I hate giving so much power to that idiotic Christopher Columbus.


Seeing as how they're not actually "indigenous", I'd say no. But there will always be a corner of the earth where they can live their life according to their ways. It's not that they should be hunted down and killed, far from it. They have a right to do as they want, just not in a communist state as it equals to damaging the other populace. If they find a capitalist nation/region, they're free to do what they want, however.

Will there ever be any ability to add to their land holdings, should, say, the population shift towards capitalist, or would they be confined?

Just a matter of curiosity, since people tend to give vague answers:

What freedoms, under a communistic, world-wide system, would remain?

I'm just going to throw some examples down, but I'd really like as big a list as possible.

---

Would people be able to make large-scale, expensive art productions, such as movies or bronze statues? YES, THOUGH YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE PRIMARY MOTIVE WOULD NOT BE FOR PROFIT FOR A FEW INDIVIDUALS

Would people get to choose what foods they eat, whether it be Alaskan King Crab, Caviar, or Pineapple? PEOPLE CAN EAT WHATEVER FOOD THEY LIKE, SO LONG AS IT'S AVAILABLE AND NON ELITIST (SAY GOODBYE TO YOUR ELITIST BELUGA CAVIAR HOWEVER)

Would people be allowed to gather resources from nature for fun, such as by hunting or fishing on a camping trip? WHAT PLEASURE CAN THERE BE IN HUNTING JUST FOR FUN. THIS IS AN ANTISOCIAL ACTIVITY AND PERHAPS THE STATE OF THE WOULD BE HUNTERS MENTAL HEALTH SHOULD BE BROUGHT INTO QUESTION.
AS TO THE OTHER LEISURE ACTIVITIES, YOU'D HAVE MORE TIME IN YOUR LIFE TO ENJOY THOSE

If so, what must happen with the catch? SEE ANSWER ABOVE

Will people be allowed to own guns? If so, will they get a choice in type? WHY WOULD YOU FIND IT NECESSARY TO WANT TO OWN A GUN?

Will people be allowed to vote for a non-communistic system? PEOPLE WITHIN A COMMUNE-ISTIC SOCIETY WOULD BE FREE TO VOTE OR CAMPAIGN FOR WHATEVER NON VIOLENT/ABUSIVE IDEAS THEY CHOSE

Will people be allowed to -attempt- to act in a capitalistic manner, by, say, trying to trade sea shells for cookies, which they use to bribe helpers with to gather more seashells for more cookies? Perhaps loaning a cookie today, in exchange for extra seashells the next day, ala interest? PEOPLE COULD BEHAVE IN ANY MANNER THEY SEE FIT, SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT CORRUPT OTHERS, BE ANTI-SOCIAL OR BE EXPLOITATIVE/HIDE RESOURCES FOR THEMSELVES. THE CORRELATION OF THIS IS THAT THE COMMUNITY ALSO HAS THE RIGHT TO SIMPLY IGNORE THEM WHEN THEY ARE ACTING IN AN ANTI-SOCIAL WAY. HOWEVER, IF ANY SORT OF ABUSE IS GOING TOO FAR, THEN THE PERSON HAS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS....THE COMMUNE WILL "ASSIST" IN THIS

What control will parents have over their kids, since everyone is guaranteed certain resources? Will parents be allowed to say "For hitting your brother, you get no dinner tonight."? THATS MORE ABOUT OPPRESSION, CHILDREN WILL HAVE IDEAL ROLE MODELS, IN THEIR PEERS, PARENTS, OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNE. THE THING ABOUT HAVING FREEDOM TO ACT AND QUESTION OR CHALLENGE IS TO ALSO HAVE THE FREEDOM FOR INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILTY FOR YOUR ACTIONS.

Will people be allowed to travel world-wide for pleasure? OF COURSE....IT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ENCOURAGED

Will things like theme parks exist? YES, OF COURSE, ENJOYING YOURSELF IS A VITAL ASPECT OF BEING HUMAN

Will pure-entertainment objects like toys and bad romance novels be allowed? YES, THOUGH GOOD ROMANCE NOVELS WILL ALSO BE ENCOURAGED :D

Will people be able to have personal book collections, or will all books be in libraries? WHY BOTHER WASTING RESOURCES, WHATEVER YOU REQUIRE WILL BE PROVIDED...WHY IS OWNERSHIP SO NECESSARY (ESPECIALLY IF THIS ACT DENIES OTHERS SIMILAR ENJOYMENT OR STIMULATION)

Will people be allowed to have personal items, like the giraffe grandpa wittled from a stick? YES, AS INDIVIDUALS WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT LIKES/DISLIKES...WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN YOU NO LONGER WANT THE ITEM, BIN IT, OR PASS IT ON TO SOMEONE ELSE WHO DOES WANT IT?

Will people get to keep any of the stuff their family had prior to the revolution? Will I be allowed to keep the Grandfather clock my parents want to pass on to me? If not, what will be done with such things? IF OBJECTS CONFER A SPECIAL STATUS ON THE PERSON THAT IN TURN DEMEANS OR DENIES OTHERS THEN WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO KEEP IT (I.E. WHY WOULD A SINGLE FAMILY OF FOUR WANT TO LIVE IN A 20 ROOM HOUSE WHEN A LARGER FAMILY OF 10 ARE LIVING IN FOUR ROOMS) HOWEVER, YOU CAN HOLD ON TO THE GRANDFATHER CLOCK FOR NOW.

Will indigenous people be allowed to keep their hunting/gathering culture?
ANY CULTURES THAT WOULD CALL THEMSELVES COMMUNISTIC WOULD BY IMPLICATION CEASE TO BE HUNTER GATHERERS. HOWEVER, IT WOULD NOT BE THE AIM OF A COMMUNISTIC SOCIETY TO IMPOSE IT'S POLITICAL / SOCIAL VALUES ON OTHERS BUT IF YOUR HUNTER GATHERER CULTURE WANTED TO EMBRACE COMMUNISM, THEN BY DEFINITION IT WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE.

Just a short list. Endless other stuff to ask.I HOPE THATS ANSWERED SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS.

people will be allowed to do anything they want as long as it doesn't harm society.


Oops. Trading goods for other goods between two voluntary parties with profit in mind does not harm society. Appropriation of land for specific private uses does not harm society. Working voluntarily for somebody in exchange for a wage does not harm society.

OK, again adding as everyone else has, that these are just my personal answers for my own ideal.


Would people be able to make large-scale, expensive art productions, such as movies or bronze statues?

Yes they would, although it would not be a purely individual decision. The arts would be encouraged, and if someone had a suggestion then they could submit it to a certain level of government, depending on how big their idea was. The only way that their idea would not be taken up would be either if there were not enough resources for it, or if it was something that many people would object to, but then that is the same in today's society. People need planning permision to put things up even on their own property, and films have to be taken up by a production company that would not take up for example a Nazi supporting film.

Would people get to choose what foods they eat, whether it be Alaskan King Crab, Caviar, or Pineapple?

People would be allowed to eat whatever was available.

Would people be allowed to gather resources from nature for fun, such as by hunting or fishing on a camping trip?

If so, what must happen with the catch?

I don't hold a very strong view either way on this issue, so I don't know what it would be. If there was strong feelings by the majoirty that they don't want hunting or fishing for fun then it would not be allowed.

Will people be allowed to own guns? If so, will they get a choice in type?

As I feel that this is more important than the last one, as it is an issue concerning the lives of people, I would want guns in the hands of the general public to be totally banned. Anyway, in a society that has evolved enough to want communism, there would almost certainly be very little crime, and so no need for guns.

Will people be allowed to vote for a non-communistic system?

Of course.

Will people be allowed to -attempt- to act in a capitalistic manner, by, say, trying to trade sea shells for cookies, which they use to bribe helpers with to gather more seashells for more cookies? Perhaps loaning a cookie today, in exchange for extra seashells the next day, ala interest?

There would be no-one prepared to be customers. Trade works because people cannot get hold of goods unless they get them from trade. If you were to go up to someone and offer that trade, they would certainly give you cookies and accept the seashells, but they would also offer you the cookies even without anything in return. And if they want seashells then they could get them anyway. If you mean, would people be allowed to keep private property for themselves, then if someone started to do that to an extent where they were becoming a dangerous drain on society, then they would be denied access to the public property that everyone else has access to.

What control will parents have over their kids, since everyone is guaranteed certain resources? Will parents be allowed to say "For hitting your brother, you get no dinner tonight."?

They could choose to do that occasionally without any problem, however they would not be permited to do it very much. At the same time though, the children could always get food from elsewhere so parents would be well advised to use other methods to get their children to behave.

Will people be allowed to travel world-wide for pleasure?

That would be possible as long as society could support it. If too many people were to choose to do it, then it could not be maintained and as such it would no longer be a luxury that could be offered. As such, with a bit of time, people would come to strike a balance of undertanding how long they can take without giving before it no longer becomes possible to take.

Will things like theme parks exist?

Will pure-entertainment objects like toys and bad romance novels be allowed?

The first says 'will' they exist the second says 'be allowed to'. Again, anything that is not very strongly objected to will be allowed to exist and everything will exist depending on how well the society is doing. If it goes through a bad patch, then not many resources could be devoted to entertainment. When it is doing well, then they can.

Will people be able to have personal book collections, or will all books be in libraries?

IMO, by the time we have communism, books as in physical things that you need to go out and get will probably have been replaced by downloading books from the internet. That isn't a consequence of communism, I think that at the current rate of move towards things in pure information form rather than in physical form, it is inevitable before too long.

Will people be allowed to have personal items, like the giraffe grandpa wittled from a stick?[QUOTE=Incenjucarania]

Seeing as everything would go first to the most needy, I think it is safe to assume that it will be seen that the grandchild of the man who wittled a giraffe has more need for it than someone else, who may be given a manufactured wooden giraffe instead.

[QUOTE=Incenjucarania]Will people get to keep any of the stuff their family had prior to the revolution? Will I be allowed to keep the Grandfather clock my parents want to pass on to me? If not, what will be done with such things?[QUOTE=Incenjucarania]

Same applies as above. Emotional attachments to an object give you a bigger cause to need it than someone else. You would be allowed to keep it, and that might mean that you would not be able to get lots of other clocks.

[QUOTE=Incenjucarania]Will indigenous people be allowed to keep their hunting/gathering culture?

No culture will be destroyed. The merging of various cultures would be encouraged but not enforced.

Oops. Trading goods for other goods between two voluntary parties with profit in mind does not harm society. Appropriation of land for specific private uses does not harm society. Working voluntarily for somebody in exchange for a wage does not harm society.The legal ownership of others for work determined by the owner, does not harm society. :headbang:

Well. actually, I'd say that all forms of exploitation do indeed harm society. You need to consider that within a non capitalistic/exploitative society, anti social acts such as profiteering from the labours of others are indeed harmful.

I'm not going to repeat myself everytime, so here: READ... MY... POST...

But I can compensate the community for it somehow, and keep it to myself, at least until I die, no?

Say, if I make a three-headed David statue with some help from the quarry guy, and pay him back with some other statue?

The statue belongs to whoever works on it. It doesn't "belong" to the state. After you die, it "belongs" to your heirs, unless it becomes widely acclaimed and of great historical importance, then it should "belong" to the public - hence, on display in some public place: that can be a museum, or a park, your frontyard (if you don't mind people treading on your lawn :p )


Right. So everyone gets stuck with regional food unless they go abroad?

Indeed, but "regional", given the current modes of environmentally friendly transportation, would encompass, for instance, the entire West-Coast.

There's going to be a huge amount of traveling then, considering how much of history is based around spice trade.

... In a time when spices were only grown in few designated areas. So that's irrelevant nowadays.


Damn. No Maine rock lobster anymore unless I want to travel across the country to get to Maine.

I'm sorry. But hey, it's a nice tale to add to your trip to Maine.



You failed to say "usually" or "mostly".

And your making a dissertation on the topic doesn't actually mean you know what the hell you're talking about. Many an essay has been written that was very long, and very biased, and very wrong.

Indeed. And I apologize for not saying "usually" or "mostly", which I did in almost every other post I made on the subject on this forum. But something tells me that even if I did use those words, you'd probably still have reacted the same way - because we obviously misunderstand eachother (see below).


As we all know, Native Americans wanted to dominate nature instead of, you know, eat.

Cavemen especially.

Also chimps and tigers.

Didn't I say "leisurely"? Yes I did. By which I meant "as a sport".


Nope. There are countless exceptions. Yes, many people do it for the feeling of power. Many people do it for the sake of cultural pride. Many people do it because wild game is TASTY. Many people do it to stay alive. Many people do it because it lets them bond with other people, of EITHER gender. Many people do it because they don't want to cause animals to live their lives in cages, but they still want to eat meat. Many people do it because they feel it lets them get in TOUCH with nature, rather than being away from it.

If you don't know this, your schooling failed you utterly.

Must I reiterate "leisurely"? By which I meant, again, as a sport. You are mixin g up "motive" with "motivation". Let me put it simple: any hunting for its symbolic value is, in my opinion, unnecessary. HOWEVER, as I said in my post, it should be allowed for people to continue hunting, just as long as they OBEY the quotum in the INTEREST of natural preservation. That's all. It's not because I don't agree with whatever symbolic value, that it should be banned altogether. However, I am against it, on a personal level.

Hunting for survival IS NOT the same as "hunting for a symbolic value". Get this into your head. Because it is not part of my post.


Yes. As we all know. Wanting to taste deer means I want to dominate nature. So does wanting to actually have some idea what it means to be a meat eater, rather than letting myself have a sanitized view of butchering that most people have.

*sigh* see above.

Personally, I feel that people who haven't at least seen the death of a prey animal up close and personal, seen it harvested, and eaten it, or, better yet, been involved in it, should not eat meat at the point where they're able to be involved in this practice.

I agree wholeheartedly. I think you will find James Serpell, 'In the company of animals...' a very interesting read. I'm serious. It involves, among others, all kinds of mechanisms that have been invented on a psychological and sociological level to make this "dominance over nature" that I keep blabbering about acceptable for "the general public". I'm not joking here, you SHOULD read it.

Atheist though I am, I occassionally close my eyes and mentally thank my food for dying that I may consume it. The rare times I hunt, I hunt to be a PART of nature, rather than some alien cancer.

Also in the Serpell-book. I REALLY suggest you read it, I'm very sure you're gonna find it interesting.
PS And again, my point was actually about hunting for sport, with no other result than "the joy of the kill".

Is it greater or lesser than hunting?

I can see why putting an animal in a cage from birth is abnormal. I fail to see what the difference is between a tiger ripping in to an impala, and me shoving an arrow or a bullet in to a deer's heart and killing it much more swiftly.

Indeed.

Right. So. We kill most of the humans?

Sadly, overpopulation has made us change from hunting/gathering to agriculture in the first place (about 12.000 BC), and it has had some dire effects on our physiology: shorter average life-span, shorter height, weaker bones, higher cellular degeneration, etc. It's only with the advent certain agricultural inventions in the Middle Ages, that this has been starting to change for the better. With growing population as a direct result.
Either we get in balance with nature by lessening our population in the future, or we keep on growing and mistreating nature in the process (which will eventually mean nature is going to balance us). I choose the first.

That doesn't mean I wanna kill the humans. Just there be a tighter population control.


So, basically, the same system we have -now-?

It's not all bad today, you know. But anyways, I still it's not all good either, especially with quotums on certain animals.


Did you just accuse my sister of being initiated in to manhood?

You do know that women fish? That women hunt?

What era are you living in man?

OMG :rolleyes: It's a matter of speech. When you said "little kids", I myself pictured my nephew who was proud enough to catch a bass in a river up West - before they all got extinct a year later. Are you accusing me of sexism then? lol! You really DON'T know me :D


I'm someone who's never had an accident with a gun in his life, but has been shooting guns since he was five or so. So is my sister. Target practice in the back yard has been a family practice in my household since before I was born. My mom's not that bad a shot either, when she can be talked in to joining in.

Okay then. But in my world, you'd all be target-practicing in a designated area that is not your back yard. I don't want to take away your fun activity, just make sure it's controlled (in this case, since it can have lethal consequences).


Yes. We're careful with all our two dozen or so rifles, and pistols too. We even have some beautiful flint lock muzzle loaders.

Again, not a single accident in our family.

Quite possibly. But there are other families (mostly in urban areas) who are less lucky.

Yes. These already exist.

Indeed. Again, "revolution" doesn't necessarily mean "away with all the things, good and bad".


Gun ownership is a responsibility. Just like knife ownership. Or fist ownership.

Yep. Only a bit more easily detached and lethal - did you know you can kill a man with a gun without ever seeing his eyes? That makes it a whole lot easier then stepping up and slashing him with a knife or hitting him with a fist. The danger is not in the weapon itself, but because it makes killing "easier" and "less personally attached". THAT, my friend, is the real danger of guns.


Depends on the constitution, ne? Democracy means, and only means, vote-oriented decisions. There are various kinds of democracy. Constitutional, Democratic Republics...

Constitution has nothing inherent to do with the democratic system in se, just with the application. A constitution can't be "democratic" unless it adheres to the "democratic system", whereas it can be republican purely through application of said system.


Last I checked, some members of society can't vote.

So? What does this have to do with my point? In the first ever democracy, only free men with possessions who lived in the city could vote. Whoever is allowed for voting should be handled through politics. Personally, I would feel anyone above age 16 should be able to cast one vote, obligatory voting on certain matters.


A social base of survival (welfare), but without limiting capitalistic gain.

You know. Feed the poor, but not take away the right to being a rich bastard.

Hence the SOCIAL of social security.

There's LOADS of problems with that system, I suggest you read the multitude of threads on this subject on the General forum.

In essence: every "rich bastard" that consumes conspicuously is spitting in the face of whomever can't afford said consumption. That's just plain wrong. That doesn't, FYI, mean that work shouldn't be rewarded - that's a whole other deck of cards, and would take a few other posts to clarify. Suffise to say, hoarding when other people starve is wrong and "a-social" on a basic level.
Oh, and the "social" in social security does NOT imply the right to become a rich bastard, it means that the whole of society pays, and the whole of society is eligible to support.


Yes. But they can all say they want Dude X to run their regions. Unlikely, but possible, no?

Or is there a built-in limit?

If mayor X runs for governor, yes. Until the following election. If, however, they want to disband the office of mayor in favor of the office of governor (aka a constitutional reform), they would have to make an appeal for a referendum (by, for instance, 10% of the city-population), and if that referendum gets a 80% majority, then the reform would be executed, effectively disbanding the office of mayor. If they want to have it re-installed, same procedure: 10% appeal, referendum, 80% majority. (FYI: not actual percentages, these are open to debate, of course. They just serve as an example.)


Ah, good, you're at least sane.

Never doubted that, though :D


You used strong words.
Dude, treason is a very powerful word. It usually involves capital punishment.
What do you feel should be the price of hording bread?

I, for one, NEVER used the word "punishment" - you did, and I responded. Actually, as my other points clearly say, I'm in favor of discouragement instead of repression. I used the term "treason" because it encompasses the very nature of the crime: in said system I propose, hoarding scarce material for your own personal profit is like... like... manipulating ballots on a presidential election. It spits in the face of the system you live in. That is the true meaning of treason, not some degenerate explanation from the 18th century that would leave you hanged on the spot if you blew your nose in the Queen's handkerchief.


So, basically, nobody can live in a large region that can't support a variety of foods? Or will you put everything in green houses or somesuch?

Will people be allowed to live in Alaska, since you'd have to port over so much non-fish there?

Inhospitable regions should be closed for humans to live in, or should be extremely regulated. I fail to see why anyone would want to live in regions with extreme cold or extreme heat. Seeing as how I'd like to keep tabs on human growth, the "overpopulated" areas of today would gradually become less populated, and more friendly to people with differing personalities with respect to dwelling-style and -environment. You can have your "pristine" woods in places that are nearer to areas with a greater foodstuff production.
Also, less population means less population-pressure, which decreases the need for agrarian production-bordering-on-overproduction. Which would make it easier for more environmentally-friendly agrarics, with respect to nature as well as to man.


A luxury is basically stuff you want that you don't need. Neither under communism nor capitalism do I need TV. It's a luxury.

That can be debated. As I said, tastes differ. Some people believe their TV is a must-have, whether you agree with that or not. It also depends on the social environment, and the personality-type.
In any case, seeing as how you wouldn't need a TV (and I agree), you'd have more options of other luxury goods. There's no need to have people "force" to accept certain goods.



Is there any limit to this? Revolutionary literature?

IMO, there's no such thing as "revolutionary literature". You can rant all you want, just be prepared that many people might not agree with you.


Uh huh.[/QUOTE[

Was that the same as saying 'how silly'? I'm pretty proud to have donated a rare book to the central historical library.
I would like to state again the concept "of great historical and cultural importance". You will find that this isn't as bad as it seems.


[QUOTE=Incenjucarania]So, if you want your kids to keep it, make sure nobody else heard about it, because it might become famous in a hundred years. Gotcha.

The concept of "great historical and cultural importance" is not something trivial. The chance you have such an item is very, very small. The chance that said item cannot by any means be made publicly available using the recent technologies is even smaller still.
Does your people have an important historic heirloom, an artifact with great importance? Would you like it if said item rests in the vault of, let's say, Jane Fonda? Never to go out in public, instead be used only to be paraded on some workout-video? I think not.


If it's a democracy, it's a government.

Democracy = concept, government = application of concept. There's a small yet tactile difference. And in this case, "the government" is not going to take away your stuff and put it away in a vault somewhere. "The government" is going to make sure that your stuff (the "artifact of great historical and cultural importance") is being made available for "the public". And here, also, is a small, yet tactile difference.


I fail to see how that is crucial to society. It's not like my not possessing art is going to save the world.

You'd be surprised, especially in the long run.
I'll give you a silly and trivial example. For my research, I'm looking for information on dog breeds in the Modern age (between 1500 and 1800 AD) in Europe. There's a painting by Abraham Hondius that depicts several dogs of that time (the 17th century), yet it rests in a private collection and has not been reproduced electronically, because the owner wants it to be concealed to drive up the price (it might be scheduled to be auctioned, no?). This is just a silly example, for limited research. But there are more important historical documents, like letters about state-affairs in tzarist Russia, or documents on prison-policy in WW II, that are as of yet unavailable because they are owned by private parties.
These items could give us a better picture of the past, and since the past is often (mis)used to rationalize present wrongdoings, that's a very important matter. History belongs to all, since it is ours to begin with.


Generally keep in mind, the word "Indian" means "Noun from India".

Not a big deal, but I hate giving so much power to that idiotic Christopher Columbus.

Again, sorry... I already edited my post.


Will there ever be any ability to add to their land holdings, should, say, the population shift towards capitalist, or would they be confined?

Hmm... I would have to ponder on that. But, seeing as it is a different nation - their only option would be to wage war on us, which would be a violation of international treatises.

Keep in mind many people have different interpretations of Communism, in my case I am a Marxist. Here is my view, and I always think it is in the way way way future for a world-wide Marxist state, but a United States one is more realistic. So I will reply with what I always do, if the USA was communist.

Just a matter of curiosity, since people tend to give vague answers:

What freedoms, under a communistic, world-wide system, would remain?

I'm just going to throw some examples down, but I'd really like as big a list as possible.

---

"Would people be able to make large-scale, expensive art productions, such as movies or bronze statues?"

Of course, it is a job and the people must support the arts. Naturally I assume this is after money has been abolished and we are in Marxism so it wouldn't be expensive and the people would do this as their work instead of a a factory.

"Would people get to choose what foods they eat, whether it be Alaskan King Crab, Caviar, or Pineapple?"

Yes, that is the glorious part. In the USA, the government pays farmers not produce foods as to stop a depression *One reason the Great Depression happened* so many people don't eat as much as they like. In Marxism all foods will be made and people can go into stores and get what they like. Anything left over is shipped to foreign countries or put into storage.

"Would people be allowed to gather resources from nature for fun, such as by hunting or fishing on a camping trip?"

Yeah, the idea of Marxism is the abolition of private property, but the worker gets the fruits of his labor. If someone catches a huge fish, what purpose does the rest of society get from it if he can't keep it? I'd say yeah, he can keep it.

"If so, what must happen with the catch?"

I don't understand? You mean the bureaucratic process? I'd say just go to a local government center and fill out a form or something. Hell, do it on-line even.

"Will people be allowed to own guns? If so, will they get a choice in type?"

They will be forced to own guns. The idea is that there will be no standing army, seeing as that is the force of imperialism. Everyone will serve in the National Guard until they can't serve anymore, and if the nation is in danger then the people must defend it. Choices will be given by the government at the time; I highly doubt the revolution will happen tomorrow so I can't say gun names for the future.

"Will people be allowed to vote for a non-communistic system?"

Honestly, no. Yet, once it is completed why would they want to? It is like voting to have your back broken. There will be freedom of speech, so if a large majority call for capitalist reforms then it will change back. Yet there won't be elections like "Shall we stay communist?"

"Will people be allowed to -attempt- to act in a capitalistic manner, by, say, trying to trade sea shells for cookies, which they use to bribe helpers with to gather more seashells for more cookies? Perhaps loaning a cookie today, in exchange for extra seashells the next day, ala interest?"

No, mind you communism will evolve the human mind. People won't even think of this unless they lived in a capitalist society. Let us say that they wanted to though, still wouldn't be allowed. It would go against the ideals of the society and might cause future problems. As well who would give up a cookie for sea shells? *Notes he lives near a beach so he might be bias against those damn sea shells*

"What control will parents have over their kids, since everyone is guaranteed certain resources? Will parents be allowed to say "For hitting your brother, you get no dinner tonight."?"

Now this is a good question that is debated about among all communist. I have two theories based on this, but first the latter part will be yes if one theory exist. OK, one theory is that the parents will keep the kids and a more personal relationship will develop seeing as how money is what keeps families connected in our capitalist society. The other theory is that the parents don't get to raise their kids, and the state(1) does. This way they are taught together the same ideals and actions.

"Will people be allowed to travel world-wide for pleasure?"

Can't say, personally I would say yes, just because I want to travel the world to see historical and cultural landmarks and it would be a shame to not let the people see these.

"Will things like theme parks exist?"

Yes, entertainment will be pushed by the State. hey, have to keep the people happy.

"Will pure-entertainment objects like toys and bad romance novels be allowed?"

Yes, but sadly poorly made Spanish soup operas won't exist. Same as above, they must entertain the people for the people to be happy.

"Will people be able to have personal book collections, or will all books be in libraries?"

This is a very good question that I have not asked myself yet. I will say yes, depending on the job of the person. It would suck for a professor at a university to teach his class but the book he needs to checked out. ;) As well many people like to read the same book and I guess would have they could if they could fill out a form as to why they want to own one. Though it wouldn't matter that much seeing how it would be all be on-line anyway and everyone would have access to the internet.

"Will people be allowed to have personal items, like the giraffe grandpa whittled from a stick?"

This is sort of the same as fishing question, sure because he made it. Now if him and 100 other people put together something, you can't have it unless the State gives it to you. Personal items is a weird word. My computer is a personal item, but in communism the State would own it. You would be allowed to have keep-safes and pictures, little stuff from your family, home-made cards from when you were 5, etc.

"Will people get to keep any of the stuff their family had prior to the revolution? Will I be allowed to keep the Grandfather clock my parents want to pass on to me? If not, what will be done with such things?"

Pretty much the same as above. What will be done with some of the stuff is distributed to society. If your family had a 17th century painting, it would be taken and put into a museum.

"Will indigenous people be allowed to keep their hunting/gathering culture?"

Again we are staying to the USA, so this is an out there question, but no just to say it. Anything that differs greatly from the rest of society will harm it.


1. The State - The State refers to the government, but not in a modern sense. The State will be democratic, thus everyone votes on major issues, and then anyone can vote on minor issues. So in a sense the people and society are the State instead of a few people in the White House.

Post trees so huge I don't even bother, well, I guess I'm done with this thread.

Would people get to choose what foods they eat, whether it be Alaskan King Crab, Caviar, or Pineapple? PEOPLE CAN EAT WHATEVER FOOD THEY LIKE, SO LONG AS IT'S AVAILABLE AND NON ELITIST (SAY GOODBYE TO YOUR ELITIST BELUGA CAVIAR HOWEVER)


...Um... how will 'elitist food' be defined, and why will a naturally available resource be thrown away rather than utilized?

Nobody can afford any more or any less than anyone else, why would "No fish eggs" be part of anything?



Would people be allowed to gather resources from nature for fun, such as by hunting or fishing on a camping trip? WHAT PLEASURE CAN THERE BE IN HUNTING JUST FOR FUN. THIS IS AN ANTISOCIAL ACTIVITY AND PERHAPS THE STATE OF THE WOULD BE HUNTERS MENTAL HEALTH SHOULD BE BROUGHT INTO QUESTION.


...Wow. You've just questioned the mental stability of millions of humans and, of all things, chimps and early human ancestors.

Huh.


AS TO THE OTHER LEISURE ACTIVITIES, YOU'D HAVE MORE TIME IN YOUR LIFE TO ENJOY THOSE


I have yet to see anything that actually implies a reduction in work hours.


If so, what must happen with the catch? SEE ANSWER ABOVE

Will people be allowed to own guns? If so, will they get a choice in type? WHY WOULD YOU FIND IT NECESSARY TO WANT TO OWN A GUN?


Entertainment purposes, and making sure opression never hits.


Will people be allowed to vote for a non-communistic system? PEOPLE WITHIN A COMMUNE-ISTIC SOCIETY WOULD BE FREE TO VOTE OR CAMPAIGN FOR WHATEVER NON VIOLENT/ABUSIVE IDEAS THEY CHOSE


Including a return to capitalism?



Will people be allowed to -attempt- to act in a capitalistic manner, by, say, trying to trade sea shells for cookies, which they use to bribe helpers with to gather more seashells for more cookies? Perhaps loaning a cookie today, in exchange for extra seashells the next day, ala interest? PEOPLE COULD BEHAVE IN ANY MANNER THEY SEE FIT, SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT CORRUPT OTHERS, BE ANTI-SOCIAL OR BE EXPLOITATIVE/HIDE RESOURCES FOR THEMSELVES. THE CORRELATION OF THIS IS THAT THE COMMUNITY ALSO HAS THE RIGHT TO SIMPLY IGNORE THEM WHEN THEY ARE ACTING IN AN ANTI-SOCIAL WAY. HOWEVER, IF ANY SORT OF ABUSE IS GOING TOO FAR, THEN THE PERSON HAS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS....THE COMMUNE WILL "ASSIST" IN THIS


Wait... anti-social.. are we not allowed to be loners now?


What control will parents have over their kids, since everyone is guaranteed certain resources? Will parents be allowed to say "For hitting your brother, you get no dinner tonight."? THATS MORE ABOUT OPPRESSION, CHILDREN WILL HAVE IDEAL ROLE MODELS, IN THEIR PEERS, PARENTS, OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNE. THE THING ABOUT HAVING FREEDOM TO ACT AND QUESTION OR CHALLENGE IS TO ALSO HAVE THE FREEDOM FOR INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILTY FOR YOUR ACTIONS.


You didn't really answer any question.



Will people be allowed to travel world-wide for pleasure? OF COURSE....IT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ENCOURAGED


How will this be made possible with so few work hours being put in?

[/QUOTE]


Will people be able to have personal book collections, or will all books be in libraries? WHY BOTHER WASTING RESOURCES, WHATEVER YOU REQUIRE WILL BE PROVIDED...WHY IS OWNERSHIP SO NECESSARY (ESPECIALLY IF THIS ACT DENIES OTHERS SIMILAR ENJOYMENT OR STIMULATION)

[/QUOTE]

Because hauling my ass over to the library is a serious pain, and because some people like to mark their books up. Have you ever seen a college text that's gone through a few people?



Will people be allowed to have personal items, like the giraffe grandpa wittled from a stick? YES, AS INDIVIDUALS WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT LIKES/DISLIKES...WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN YOU NO LONGER WANT THE ITEM, BIN IT, OR PASS IT ON TO SOMEONE ELSE WHO DOES WANT IT?


So we're allowed to make items that are not granted us by the commune?

I can have more stuff than my neighbor?



Will people get to keep any of the stuff their family had prior to the revolution? Will I be allowed to keep the Grandfather clock my parents want to pass on to me? If not, what will be done with such things? IF OBJECTS CONFER A SPECIAL STATUS ON THE PERSON THAT IN TURN DEMEANS OR DENIES OTHERS THEN WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO KEEP IT (I.E. WHY WOULD A SINGLE FAMILY OF FOUR WANT TO LIVE IN A 20 ROOM HOUSE WHEN A LARGER FAMILY OF 10 ARE LIVING IN FOUR ROOMS) HOWEVER, YOU CAN HOLD ON TO THE GRANDFATHER CLOCK FOR NOW.



So, wait. If it's elitist-looking, you confiscate it?

And hey, extra rooms means extra storage. Maybe throw in a room with a pool...



Will indigenous people be allowed to keep their hunting/gathering culture?
ANY CULTURES THAT WOULD CALL THEMSELVES COMMUNISTIC WOULD BY IMPLICATION CEASE TO BE HUNTER GATHERERS.


Actually the closest thing to communism has been hunter/gatherer tribes, and Amish groups.



HOWEVER, IT WOULD NOT BE THE AIM OF A COMMUNISTIC SOCIETY TO IMPOSE IT'S POLITICAL / SOCIAL VALUES ON OTHERS BUT IF YOUR HUNTER GATHERER CULTURE WANTED TO EMBRACE COMMUNISM, THEN BY DEFINITION IT WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE.




Huh.

Of course, it is a job and the people must support the arts. Naturally I assume this is after money has been abolished and we are in Marxism so it wouldn't be expensive and the people would do this as their work instead of a a factory.

How is it determined who will be artists and who will be factory workers. If wages are equal, it can be assumed that the labor supply for artists will be much greater than the labor demand for artists, while the labor supply for factory workers will be much smaller than the demand. How does the society go about creating a supply/demand equilibrium?

Yes, that is the glorious part. In the USA, the government pays farmers not produce foods as to stop a depression *One reason the Great Depression happened* so many people don't eat as much as they like. In Marxism all foods will be made and people can go into stores and get what they like. Anything left over is shipped to foreign countries or put into storage.

Without money, how can someone simply "go into a store and get what they like?" Barter systems do not work well in stores.

Yeah, the idea of Marxism is the abolition of private property, but the worker gets the fruits of his labor. If someone catches a huge fish, what purpose does the rest of society get from it if he can't keep it? I'd say yeah, he can keep it.

But the fish is a natural resource, so it should be shared, correct? Are you saying that, were someone to construct an oil derrick with his own labor, he would be able to keep the oil?

I don't understand? You mean the bureaucratic process? I'd say just go to a local government center and fill out a form or something. Hell, do it on-line even.

So all personal property must be claimed?

They will be forced to own guns. The idea is that there will be no standing army, seeing as that is the force of imperialism. Everyone will serve in the National Guard until they can't serve anymore, and if the nation is in danger then the people must defend it. Choices will be given by the government at the time; I highly doubt the revolution will happen tomorrow so I can't say gun names for the future.

So there is enforced military service? What happens when differing regions have differing opinions, and militias find themselves at odds?

No, mind you communism will evolve the human mind. People won't even think of this unless they lived in a capitalist society.

You are going to have a hard time supporting that statement.

Also, even in a communism there will be people who make a living through distribution. They will produce nothing, they will simply match people who pasteurize milke with those who produce bread.

"What control will parents have over their kids, since everyone is guaranteed certain resources? Will parents be allowed to say "For hitting your brother, you get no dinner tonight."?"

Now this is a good question that is debated about among all communist. I have two theories based on this, but first the latter part will be yes if one theory exist. OK, one theory is that the parents will keep the kids and a more personal relationship will develop seeing as how money is what keeps families connected in our capitalist society.

How is money what keeps families connected in a capitalistic society. If monetary ties are the bonding factor for families, how do they begin when there is no monetary bond?

The other theory is that the parents don't get to raise their kids, and the state(1) does. This way they are taught together the same ideals and actions.

:eek:
That is absolutely horrible.

Leaving out the incredible ethical concerns this plan raises, do you realize how that will influence population? There will be absolutely no incentive to have children.

Can't say, personally I would say yes, just because I want to travel the world to see historical and cultural landmarks and it would be a shame to not let the people see these.

Will your personal wants and desires be represented by a communist government? If you are able to travel abroad, how are these trips funded and how are they distributed?

Yes, entertainment will be pushed by the State. hey, have to keep the people happy.

How is entertainment provided equally to all people?

Yes, but sadly poorly made Spanish soup operas won't exist. Same as above, they must entertain the people for the people to be happy.

See above

This is sort of the same as fishing question, sure because he made it. Now if him and 100 other people put together something, you can't have it unless the State gives it to you. Personal items is a weird word. My computer is a personal item, but in communism the State would own it. You would be allowed to have keep-safes and pictures, little stuff from your family, home-made cards from when you were 5, etc.

Let us say that he chopped down a tree and made a table out of it, who would it belong to? It would be the result of publicly owned resources and private labor.

...Wow. You've just questioned the mental stability of millions of humans and, of all things, chimps and early human ancestors.


This is incredible. You, Incenjucarania, aren't actually WILLING to read, are you? Didn't he say "for fun", just like several others and I did? And it's not just this subject, you know... If you're unwilling to read posts you yourself requested by posting the first message, then don't post questions like that. It's common courtesy to at least READ what other people write. I really suggest you'd keep an open mind - the more I read your answers, the more I become convinced that you had your mind set up before you even posted the thread, and that all you were up to is trying to use fallacies to discredit other people's opinions.

...Um... how will 'elitist food' be defined, and why will a naturally available resource be thrown away rather than utilized?
ELITIST FOODS ARE (BY THE EXAMPLE I GAVE) ARE THOSE THAT HAVE A HIGH COST IN TERMS OF HARVESTING FOR THE MINIMAL BENEFIT OF OTHERS. EVEN WITHIN CAPITALISM, MOST PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF BELUGA CAVIAR.


Nobody can afford any more or any less than anyone else, why would "No fish eggs" be part of anything?
IF HOWEVER, HARVESTING ORDINARY (AND NUTRITIOUS) FISH EGGS, PROVIDES THIS, THEN GO FOR IT!



...Wow. You've just questioned the mental stability of millions of humans and, of all things, chimps and early human ancestors.
NO I QUESTIONED THE MENTAL HEALTH OF THOSE WHO WOULD HUNT AND KILL, JUST FOR FUN


I have yet to see anything that actually implies a reduction in work hours.
WITH A POSITIVE AND WILLING ATTITUDE I WOULD EVEN EXPECT YOU TO PUT IN THE MINMAL REQUIRED HOURS FOR ESSENTIAL WORK (WHAT DO YOU THINK IS AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF WORK COMMITMENT FOR YOUR COMMUNE'S AND YOUR OWN WELL BEING? i WOULD THINK A MXIMUM OF 4 HOURS PER DAY, WOULD ALLOW YOU TO CONCENTRATE ON OTHER WORTHWHILE (YOU DECIDE WHAT IS WORTHWHILE) ACTIVITIES.....JUST SO LONG AS YOU DON'T CHOOSE TO RAMPAGE WITH YOUR GUNS.


Entertainment purposes, and making sure opression never hits.
WHATS ENTERTAINING ABOUT DESTROYING THINGS?



Including a return to capitalism?
STRETCH YOUR MIND A LITTLE, AFTER ALL THIS IS YOUR QUESTION, BASED UPON A VIABLE COMMUNISTIC SOCIETY....WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT, UNLESS IT WAS FAILING YOU? IF IT WAS, YOU WOULD NEED TO SEEK OTHERS WHO FEEL AS YOU DO. HOWEVER, IF YOU (MOST LIKELY) FAIL, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? THE RERASON WHY YOU WOULD BE LIVING WITHIN A COMMUNISTIC ENVIRONMENT IS BECAUSE, CAPITALISM WILL HAVE WENT IN TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY. JUST LIKE, ABOLUTE MONARCHY (ALMOST THERE), FUEDALISM, BARBARISM AND OTHER ARCHAIC SOCITIES HAVE ALREADY GONE.


Wait... anti-social.. are we not allowed to be loners now?
ARE YOU A LONER WITHIN CAPITALISM, DO YOU JUST HAVE GUNS FOR COMPANY?


You didn't really answer any question.
IF YOU HAD CAREFULLY READ WHAT I WROTE, YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN THAT I SAID, PEER GROUP, FRIENDS, NEIGHBOURS, FAMILY WOULD ALL PLAY A ROLE IN YOUR LIFE. THE IDEA OF NUCLEAR FAMILIES EXISTING WITHIN COMMUNISM (AND LIVING IN POVERTY, ILL HEALTH AND LACK OF OPPORTUNITY WOULD NO LONGER EXIST)


How will this be made possible with so few work hours being put in?
SEE THE ANSWER ABOVE




Will people be able to have personal book collections, or will all books be in libraries? WHY BOTHER WASTING RESOURCES, WHATEVER YOU REQUIRE WILL BE PROVIDED...WHY IS OWNERSHIP SO NECESSARY (ESPECIALLY IF THIS ACT DENIES OTHERS SIMILAR ENJOYMENT OR STIMULATION)

[/QUOTE]

Because hauling my ass over to the library is a serious pain, and because some people like to mark their books up. Have you ever seen a college text that's gone through a few people? SO HAULING YOUR ASS OVER TO THE WOODS TO HUNT AND KILL ANIMALS IS NOT A SERIOUS PAIN?
HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD OF MAINTAINING NATURAL RESOURCES. ONCE YOU'VE READ YOUR BOOK, THE ONLY REAON WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO KEEP IT IS TO REFER TO PASSAGES YOU HAVE ALREADY READ......WHY DON'T YOU JUST USE THE INTERNET INSTEAD AND PRINT OFF THOSE PASSAGES.



So we're allowed to make items that are not granted us by the commune?
YOU CAN MAKE WHATEVER YOU WANT BUT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAKING OF IT, YOU WOULD BE EXPECTED TO SHARE YOUR SKILLS WITH OTHERS IN THE COMMUNE...AND GIVEN THERE IS NO MONEY OR PROFIT, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO EXPLOIT YOUR SKILL FOR PERSONAL GAIN AGAINST THE NEED OF ANOTHER.
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THIS, THEN DON'T COMPLAIN WHEN YOU ARE REFUSED A SIMILAR COURTESY BY OTHER PEOPLE WHEN YOU WANT SOMETHING FROM THEM. THE POINT BEING THAT YOU CAN ONLT BE SURE OF GETTING FROM THE COMMUNE WHAT YOU ARE PREPARED TO PUT INTO IT.

I can have more stuff than my neighbor?
YOU CAN HAVE MORE "STUFF" BUT WHAT WORTH WOULD THAT BE TO YOU?



So, wait. If it's elitist-looking, you confiscate it?
IF THE OWNING OF SOMETHING CAUSES DISCONTENT WITHIN THE COMMUNE WHAT IS THE POINT OF HAVING IT....I THINK YOU'LL FIND A CORRELATION TO THIS WITHIN CAPITALISM.

And hey, extra rooms means extra storage. Maybe throw in a room with a pool...
WHICH OF COURSE WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ALL WITHIN THE COMMUNE



Actually the closest thing to communism has been hunter/gatherer tribes, and Amish groups.
NOW YOU ARE TALKING NONSENSE. COMMUNISM IS A SOPHISTICATED AND MULTI STRUCTURED POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. HOW CAN YOU COMPARE THIS TO "TRIBAL GROUPS"




Huh.[/QUOTE]
My advice to you is to actually consider the responses people have given you. You asked pertinent questions, bearing in mind how limited the answers can be, in a few sentences. Here's a challenge, ask those same questions of capitalism and you'll find detraction of the answers are not really any different to the ones you have posted already about communism. Communist political philosphy is not written in stone, demands on any society cause that society to meet the challenges. It's when the society fails to address the challenges that it dies. This is true for any sort of societal structure. Inevitably, capitalism will go the way of other failed socio/political/economic systems and be guided by other improved (I hope) systems.

This also means that the mindset of people also need to change. No one would seriously choose to return to a medieval way of living, being tied to the role of serf or churl (as our ancestors were). We have changed, we are better educated, better fed, have more freedoms in our lives. Within communism or Anarchism you would have even more.

Inevitably, capitalism will go the way of other failed socio/political/economic systems and be guided by other improved (I hope) systems.

Capitalism will remain with continuing reduction of the role of government. As people have become more and more enlightened and educated, they have demanded and have earned more autonomy, more freedom. The trend has been ongoing for centuries, and at this point has resulted in the corporate capitalism we now have.

As generations grow more educated through the economic development that is spurred by the economic autonomy provided by capitalism, wealth will become more and more pervasive. We see this now, with over 50% of American households owning revenue generating capital in the form of stocks.

You and I will both freely admit that money does make economic power. However, as our economy expands, the populous becomes more educated, and technology continues to grow exponentially, the wealth divisions in this country, and eventually around the world, will begin to shrink, and the economic power controlled by the elite will approach zero.

There has been a great deal of talk about human nature, and I am like you, I feel that human nature is malleable to the conditions surrounding the individual. However, basic human nature has always strived towards more freedom, more autonomy, more individuality. That is why we have witnessed the explosion of Capitalism upon societies across the globe. Due to this constant drive for autonomy and freedom, both socially and economically, people will reject subjegating themselves to a government, even if society run and democratically regulated. Furthermore, this drive will only work to enhance their freedom within a system that allows them to work for their own autonomy and the only system that's entire purpose is to bring freedom to the people.

Capitalism will remain with continuing reduction of the role of government. As people have become more and more enlightened and educated, they have demanded and have earned more autonomy, more freedom. The trend has been ongoing for centuries, and at this point has resulted in the corporate capitalism we now have.

As generations grow more educated through the economic development that is spurred by the economic autonomy provided by capitalism, wealth will become more and more pervasive. We see this now, with over 50% of American households owning revenue generating capital in the form of stocks.

You and I will both freely admit that money does make economic power. However, as our economy expands, the populous becomes more educated, and technology continues to grow exponentially, the wealth divisions in this country, and eventually around the world, will begin to shrink, and the economic power controlled by the elite will approach zero.

There has been a great deal of talk about human nature, and I am like you, I feel that human nature is malleable to the conditions surrounding the individual. However, basic human nature has always strived towards more freedom, more autonomy, more individuality. That is why we have witnessed the explosion of Capitalism upon societies across the globe. Due to this constant drive for autonomy and freedom, both socially and economically, people will reject subjegating themselves to a government, even if society run and democratically regulated. Furthermore, this drive will only work to enhance their freedom within a system that allows them to work for their own autonomy and the only system that's entire purpose is to bring freedom to the people.
You have posted some worthwhile comments. However, I would take issue with you that Capitalism can continue on a global scale. The main reason is because even today, capitalism fails billions of people. There is no argument that all the benefits you mention have made life in (usually western) many countries, much better. However the cost of this is the impoverishment of other countries. Simply put, the essential aspects of economic, social and educational attainments are denied more people than those who gain them.

I cannot see a future where all of Africa, South America and Asia can be ever equal to the attainments of the west. It's an economic immposibility, the only way this could occur is through major socio/economic change. Capitalism will always fail in this regard, due to it's inherent nature of supply & demand. For rich and prosperous people to maintain their standing, it is necessary to have an impoverished or badly paid/exploited group/underclass/country.

Capitalism can seek to ameliorate this failure but can never eradicate it.

The other point is I have to disagree that capitalism is here to stay. Nothing stays the same. It is inevitible that capitalism will fail at some point. What arises to replace it is something I cannot predict. I would hope that it would be something along the lines of communism or Anarchism but that is only my fervent hope. Whatever it is, it will be because people choose it (or have it foisted upon them), either through revolution or vital and necessay change.

You have posted some worthwhile comments. However, I would take issue with you that Capitalism can continue on a global scale. The main reason is because even today, capitalism fails billions of people. There is no argument that all the benefits you mention have made life in (usually western) many countries, much better. However the cost of this is the impoverishment of other countries. Simply put, the essential aspects of economic, social and educational attainments are denied more people than those who gain them.

I cannot see a future where all of Africa, South America and Asia can be ever equal to the attainments of the west. It's an economic immposibility, the only way this could occur is through major socio/economic change. Capitalism will always fail in this regard, due to it's inherent nature of supply & demand. For rich and prosperous people to maintain their standing, it is necessary to have an impoverished or badly paid/exploited group/underclass/country.

Capitalism can seek to ameliorate this failure but can never eradicate it.

The other point is I have to disagree that capitalism is here to stay. Nothing stays the same. It is inevitible that capitalism will fail at some point. What arises to replace it is something I cannot predict. I would hope that it would be something along the lines of communism or Anarchism but that is only my fervent hope. Whatever it is, it will be because people choose it (or have it foisted upon them), either through revolution or vital and necessay change.

I don't believe that capitalism has failed third world countries, I believe that it has not had the opportunity to truly benefit them. Most African, Middle Eastern, and Southeast Asian countries are centuries behind in the development of an economically free system. Many of them do not even have a capitalist system as property rights are not respected.

You may be correct that capitalism is not the correct answer to the global inequities, but I feel that social and economic change is occurring. Like you said, many areas of the world will need major social/political/and economic change, and you know as well as I do that they are willing and ready to accept the change. That is where the developed capitalist nations come in.

As the citizens of western nations become more educated and more in touch with world issues through greater information and communication technologies, they will begin to realize the true nature and benefits of capitalism. They will learn that one person's economic growth is another person's potential for economic growth, and that one nation's economic growth opens up an entire market for established economies. When they realize this, they will understand that the economic development of the world is as important as the economic development of their own nation.

For example, our troubles in the Middle East are more economically based than most anyone wants to admit. We have long supported economically and socially oppressive regimes in order to benefit our own economy. This has created several subsequent generations of undereducated, poor, and hateful people that are leading and fueling the terrorist cells that are threatening our nation. Were we to end our monetary support for oppressive regimes and cast that money into a policy of economic development in the region, we could see the rise of an autonomous working class that is educated and free. It would benefit our own economy by opening an entire new market for our companies to offer their exports to. However, due to our short-sightedness, we are far too worried about our dependency on the natural resources and the immediate harm caused to our own economy to pursue a course of action that will have great long term benefits. That is not a flaw of the system, it is a flaw of application, much like many of the flaws you have noticed within capitalist systems.

The ultimate goal of the capitalist is not quite true anarchy, as hierarchy is necessary. It is, however, a complete elimination of economic power amongst individuals. A true free market capitalism maintains that, while economic inequities will exist (they must for there to be economic freedom), the size of the market will be so large that the inequities are irrelevant, and free the individual from economic coersion. This is the future of capitalism and the future of economic policy.

Are there no shades of grey with you people? Not everything has to be black and white.

When you're talking ideological utopias, you can't have "greys", if you have "grey" you don't have this utopia. That's the problem.

Bump for Capitalism

This is incredible. You, Incenjucarania, aren't actually WILLING to read, are you? Didn't he say "for fun", just like several others and I did? And it's not just this subject, you know... If you're unwilling to read posts you yourself requested by posting the first message, then don't post questions like that. It's common courtesy to at least READ what other people write. I really suggest you'd keep an open mind - the more I read your answers, the more I become convinced that you had your mind set up before you even posted the thread, and that all you were up to is trying to use fallacies to discredit other people's opinions.

1) Take a deeeep breath.

2) Yes, I am convinced of my own views. This is not about you trying to convert me. This is a discussion thread. Please stop sounding like a Jehovah's Witness out to save my soul.

3) I've read what's been written. You're making rather odd claims about hunting that scream 'arm chair anthropologist'. I'm an actual hunter. I've associated with hunters. I knew a man who skinned his cat after it was run over by a car, because that's how he expressed his love for it. If you had some bad experience with hick hunters, I'm sorry, idiots are the majority of the species. But, no matter how much communism is against their recognition, you need to understand: Not everyone is Joe Average Dumbass.

2) Yes, I am convinced of my own views. This is not about you trying to convert me. This is a discussion thread. Please stop sounding like a Jehovah's Witness out to save my soul.

LOL! Which one of us is using fallacies to defuse other people's opinions? Take a look in the mirror (normally I would assume the above statement already implied that, but I now know I have to be careful with you). And I'm not interesting in saving your soul, that's pretty clear in my posts as well. FYI, both left and right can never have "the correct answer", IMO. My point is: the only reason I can see you posted this thread, is to lure lefties into expressing their opinion, then using fallacies and twisting their words whenever needed to crush their arguments. That, IMO, is NOT how a discussion should be handled.

3) I've read what's been written. You're making rather odd claims about hunting that scream 'arm chair anthropologist'. I'm an actual hunter. I've associated with hunters. I knew a man who skinned his cat after it was run over by a car, because that's how he expressed his love for it. If you had some bad experience with hick hunters, I'm sorry, idiots are the majority of the species. But, no matter how much communism is against their recognition, you need to understand: Not everyone is Joe Average Dumbass.

So if I say "hunting for fun IMO will not do", you actually heard me say "hunting for survival by predatory animals or hunting/gatherers cannot continue"? Because, you know, that's what I was talking about - hunters who hunt for fun, for the joy of killing, and yes - oh woe me the arm chair anthropologist - because deep down they want to prove their power. Not hunters that need to hunt to survive. Oh, and by the way, calling me an "arm chair anthropologist" kinda like IS a fallacy. Any and all anthropological evidence about hunting for fun (FOR FUN, kinda feel like I need to emphasise this), among others, boils down to an effort to impose power over nature. Hunting for fun usually entails putting the killed animal on public display, hanged and/or dismembered, to make a public claim that the hunter is the supreme being. That's not "bullocks", mind you. What's your explanation for a wealthy German whose never seen a savannah in his life, but is hell-bent on going there on safari and shooting himself an elephant, preferably a rare one? Is he hunting "because he needs to to survive"? I don't think so. But then again, you don't seem to hunt for fun, so why should you care? Oh, and btw, where did I say that "communism is against their recognition"? I just offered MY view. And speaking of said view: What part of "people are allowed to hunt as long as they keep to the quotum" don't you understand?

And as I kinda expect you to twist my words yet again, I'll put one word upfront to answer any and all posts you're going to make on this subject in the future: "whatever..."

When you're ready to have a real discussion without fallacies, you can always PM me.