NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, for the sake of this thread, I am going to make two practical assumptions:

1. Labor is necessary to survive.

2. Labor requires access to one's own or another's body and resources.

And two moral assumptions:

1. Slavery is immoral. People have the moral right to complete dominion over their own body and labor.

2. No one can have a moral ownership claim on unutilized resources.


So, if these assumptions are true (or point out why they are not), how is the distribution of the resources, that are necessary for survival, distributed?

lol, the government does it, because the government is good at being effecient in everythign it does

So, if these assumptions are true (or point out why they are not), how is the distribution of the resources, that are necessary for survival, distributed?

A fair enough question, I suppose... The answer, to me, is that a person's need to survive supersedes those other concerns, and that society is nothing if it does not implement measures to ensure survival and decent living conditions for everyone.

A fair enough question, I suppose... The answer, to me, is that a person's need to survive supersedes those other concerns, and that society is nothing if it does not implement measures to ensure survival and decent living conditions for everyone.

That doesn't answer the question. The question is:

How does society relegate resource usage amongst a population that has an absolute need for but cannot claim ownership for, without controlling the usage of labor?

There are a few ways. All the workers formulate an agreeable distribution (which is often completely unfeasable beyond small towns), the government (i.e. the people) distribute all the goods equally and those who consume more are given excess from others who use less, or cyclic democratic worker's representatives are used to compromise on distributed goods.

How does society relegate resource usage amongst a population that has an absolute need for but cannot claim ownership for, without controlling the usage of labor?

It can't, obviously. Ideally, workers would decide themselves, and there would be a system that all agree on (as is the case even today in Tokelau, for example), but that doesn't work (for now) on a large scale. So you need a government assessing people's needs, and taking enough out of the common produce or value of work to attend to people's essential needs.

What's your solution?

1. Labor is necessary to survive.

It is but labour in communism is minimal because people work for each others needs not for profit. If you've not recognised due to capitalism's work labour forces and the bourgeois' extending working hours, we have a MASSIVE surplus of material goods..

2. Labor requires access to one's own or another's body and resources.

1. Slavery is immoral. People have the moral right to complete dominion over their own body and labor.


In capitalism it does. But in communist society (not China or Russia these countries are NOT communist for many reasons) the labour do it for their own good and do not get exploited through poor working conditions, strict rules and long working hours.

Slavery and labour forces in workhouses would be very diffferent in communist society, however in capitalism they are similar. Workhouses are democratic in communism and policies are not made through the clerk or owner, they are made democrically through workers.

No one can have a moral claim on unutilized resources

Indeed people/government can but they must be efficient for example in capitalism there is no limit to how much you can cut trees down and so things run out before they are able to regrow. Oil for example is being used up much viguourously to maximise profits.

You CAN claim resources if they are being shared out fairly to the people that need them and you are being efficient. Remember communism is STATELESS and therefore they will not be any border conflicts on certain resources.

lol, the government does it, because the government is good at being effecient in everythign it does

Please try to not post stupid, pointless, sarcastic comments...IF YOU'VE GOT NOTHING DECENT TO SAY AND ARE SPAMMING DON'T SAY IT! The questions are very relevant so add some logic to what you say.

no, i had a valid point, regardless of presentation.

government is notoriously ineffecient at controlling supply and predicting demand.

no, i had a valid point, regardless of presentation.

government is notoriously ineffecient at controlling supply and predicting demand.

You don't seem to know the theory behind communism...the PEOPLE are the government, they know what they need and don't need, there isn't a vanguard or government like there is today.

You don't seem to know the theory behind communism...the PEOPLE are the government, they know what they need and don't need, there isn't a vanguard or government like there is today.

and you don't seem to know the history of communism. it has always had to have a coercive force guiding things along, the individualistic nature of man does not go sit well with forced equality.

in theory, true communism doens't work because of this fact, so there must be a central planner to command or coerce.

and central planners are bad at supply and demand.

OK, for the sake of this thread, I am going to make two practical assumptions:

1. Labor is necessary to survive.

2. Labor requires access to one's own or another's body and resources.

And two moral assumptions:

1. Slavery is immoral. People have the moral right to complete dominion over their own body and labor.

2. No one can have a moral claim on unutilized resources.


So, if these assumptions are true (or point out why they are not), how is the distribution of the resources, that are necessary for survival, distributed?

As a side note, you've not accurately defined slavery. Slavery is not defined by the appropriation of another person's labor (in capitalism, it's usually called "profit"), but rather the inability of one side to extricate themselves from the agreement. If a prole doesn't like the deal he has struck with his boss over the amount of capital he accumulates through the selling of his labor, he is at least nominally capable of taking his labor elsewhere. A slave cannot.

and you don't seem to know the history of communism. it has always had to have a coercive force guiding things along, the individualistic nature of man does not go sit well with forced equality.

in theory, true communism doens't work because of this fact, so there must be a central planner to command or coerce.

and central planners are bad at supply and demand

This is not a historical debate it is a theoretical one. COMMUNISM has never existed hence it is still considered HYPOTHETICAL, so actually don't give none of this 'communisms history or example' since it has never existed.

And regarding the 'individualistic nature of man' 1. there is no proof it is a lie (read 2). 2. What about the individualistic nature of man in Inuit societs, incan societies...so called 'primitive communist' societies. Where was the 'nature of man' there?? It the the materialistic envy that brought this along, humans are born as blank canvases, that is why one culture may find another barbaric. Because they have been 'painted' differently.

A fair enough question, I suppose... The answer, to me, is that a person's need to survive supersedes those other concerns, and that society is nothing if it does not implement measures to ensure survival and decent living conditions for everyone.
2 questions,
1: does basic needs include access to the internet?
2: do hardworking competent people not always attain 'decent living conditions'? (eg: is it not the lazy or incompetent people who starve, and yes i understand there are exceptions to this)

1. After other needs that are "more basic" are fulfilled, I don't see why internet access wouldn't be "basic".
2. You answered yourself.

Real communism will be about leveling the playing field.

First off, the assumptions are accepted as given and are not subject to debate unless they render the final question invalid.

But since I cannot keep myself from trying to correct someone:

It is but labour in communism is minimal because people work for each others needs not for profit. If you've not recognised due to capitalism's work labour forces and the bourgeois' extending working hours, we have a MASSIVE surplus of material goods..

1. In capitalism profit is gained from satisfying other's needs.

2. All work is for profit, whether it be your profit or your neighbor's profit.

3. An economy is driven by consumption, if workers are required to put in the hours they are, it is because they consumers demand it.

4. We do not have a massive surplus of material goods, otherwise there would be huge inventory pileups and massive worker lay offs.

In capitalism it does. But in communist society (not China or Russia these countries are NOT communist for many reasons) the labour do it for their own good and do not get exploited through poor working conditions, strict rules and long working hours.

Slavery and labour forces in workhouses would be very diffferent in communist society, however in capitalism they are similar. Workhouses are democratic in communism and policies are not made through the clerk or owner, they are made democrically through workers.

I am not sure what you are saying here, and I don't know if it really has anything to do with what I said.

Indeed people/government can but they must be efficient for example in capitalism there is no limit to how much you can cut trees down and so things run out before they are able to regrow. Oil for example is being used up much viguourously to maximise profits.

So the restriction of resource ownership in communism is just a matter of keeping people from using them to fast?

You CAN claim resources if they are being shared out fairly to the people that need them and you are being efficient.

How are they "shared out fairly"? That was the question all along.

Is there a government instilled quota which is distributed based on how efficiently a person uses resources? One of the intrinsic benefits of capitalism is that resources naturally flow to those who convert them most efficiently.

Remember communism is STATELESS and therefore they will not be any border conflicts on certain resources.

How can a stateless community impose regulations on resource use and distribution?

As a side note, you've not accurately defined slavery. Slavery is not defined by the appropriation of another person's labor (in capitalism, it's usually called "profit"), but rather the inability of one side to extricate themselves from the agreement. If a prole doesn't like the deal he has struck with his boss over the amount of capital he accumulates through the selling of his labor, he is at least nominally capable of taking his labor elsewhere. A slave cannot.

I didn't even define slavery, I just said that people should have complete control over their own labor. If they don't have final say over where their labor is used, it is slavery.

There are a few ways. All the workers formulate an agreeable distribution (which is often completely unfeasable beyond small towns), the government (i.e. the people) distribute all the goods equally and those who consume more are given excess from others who use less, or cyclic democratic worker's representatives are used to compromise on distributed goods.

I am not talking about goods here, it is easy to establish ownership of goods, and therefore are easily distributed.

Undeveloped resources, which combine with labor to create goods, is what my question pertains to. How does society issue usage rights to resources when there is no right to ownership?

In other words, workers receive the proceeds from the distribution of goods because they produced them, but how are they given legal right to use the resources that go into the goods?

The first person to correctly analyze and address the initial question gets the Vittos Ordination Seal of Approval.

This is not a historical debate it is a theoretical one. COMMUNISM has never existed hence it is still considered HYPOTHETICAL, so actually don't give none of this 'communisms history or example' since it has never existed.

and i'm saying the theory is impossible on the macro-political scale wihtout using coercive force, because not everyone will want participation.

And regarding the 'individualistic nature of man' 1. there is no proof it is a lie (read 2). 2. What about the individualistic nature of man in Inuit societs, incan societies...so called 'primitive communist' societies. Where was the 'nature of man' there?? It the the materialistic envy that brought this along, humans are born as blank canvases, that is why one culture may find another barbaric. Because they have been 'painted' differently.

there were coercive force in those tribes, as even the smallest tribe had a ruling hierarchy (especially the incas). now, you may be able to try and slowly overturn human nature, but it's impossible to do this by force--this only reverts into the opposite and makes people want individualism even more. one reason why it worked so well for inuits (and only the inuits) was because they were tight nit family units, and were willing to work for each other. trying applying this behavior to a macro-political setting will end in failure.

2 questions,
1: does basic needs include access to the internet?
2: do hardworking competent people not always attain 'decent living conditions'? (eg: is it not the lazy or incompetent people who starve, and yes i understand there are exceptions to this)

1: No, why?
2: No, they do not. I've never heard it claimed that hardworking people automatically attain decent living conditions; that statement is unsupported by reality.

There are more than just "exceptions" and, in any case, I would ask you: what would your policy be regarding the needs of these "exceptions"?


The first person to correctly analyze and address the initial question gets the Vittos Ordination Seal of Approval.

You haven't answered my post.

1: No, why?
2: No, they do not. I've never heard it claimed that hardworking people automatically attain decent living conditions; that statement is unsupported by reality.

There are more than just "exceptions" and, in any case, I would ask you: what would your policy be regarding the needs of these "exceptions"?

sorry im just a little bit...bitter, these questions are....well Minarchists got it....only solvable through coercion.
explain to me how a hardworking or intelligent person, whom no one is using coercion or force on, and who wants to attain material wealth, can be stopped

explain to me how a hardworking or intelligent person, whom no one is using coercion or force on, and who wants to attain material wealth, can be stopped

By being fired by a company eager to squeeze a little more needless profit out of its workers. By being denied jobs on the basis of ethnic discrimination. By being from a poor background which meant he/she had to work from a young age, never had the opportunity to study and get qualifications, and is now stuck in a cycle of badly paid, insecure jobs.

Your theory may apply to an ideal world, but not to the real one.

First off, I'm going to make a very large distinction (which should be obvious) between autocratic nations with collectivist economies and communist or socialist nations. Personally, I agree with Ted Grant's analysis of this past century's "communist" nations as being Proletarian Bonapartist in nature... The Bonapartist part means that they govern by balencing two classes against each other (those connected to the party and those not), and then sitting atop with a pointy sword to poke each side in line should they get out of line and stop fighting each other. The Proletarian part of that, of course, means that this is done over top of a society generally organised around the proletariat.

I can't stress enough that these historical examples have nothing whatsoever to do with communism, or socialism. Communism is something that can only be built with time, over a long transformation period. Nobody is claiming a magical solution, just a society adjusted to be governed by the majority instead of the minority.

So how does that all work? Well, you've asked a good question, which I'll try to answer the best I can.

1. Labor is necessary to survive.

2. Labor requires access to one's own or another's body and resources.

And two moral assumptions:

1. Slavery is immoral. People have the moral right to complete dominion over their own body and labor.

2. No one can have a moral claim on unutilized resources.

So, if these assumptions are true (or point out why they are not), how is the distribution of the resources, that are necessary for survival, distributed?

Each workplace organises into a council. Each of these workplace councils meets regularly, and any worker in the workplace can attend all these meetings with full voting privilages. This way, the workers run their own workplace. This has been successfully done many times, with one notable present day example being the Venezuelan oil industry. Generally, it is found that worker's control is far more efficient because each worker can voice his or her concerns and ideas for due consideration, sparking good solutions to problems and lots of innovation at the shop level. Also, as workers essencially work for each other within a workplace, if one slacks off, he can bet on alot of peer pressure because no friend want to do another friend's work for them. This works quite the opposite to the aurocratic regimes with the workers so removed from anyone concerned with the output of their work.

But that doesn't answer your question, the answer goes a step further, or rather, it goes a few steps further.

Each of these workplace councils can elect a delegate to represent them at a council representing all workplaces in that industry in their area. Each of these delegates would be under certain conditions. The most fleshed out conception of these principles are Lenin's four conditions, which are as follows:

1) Free and democratic elections with right of recall.
That means that any time a delegate isn't living up to the wishes of the workers, or lets power goto his head, they can meet and vote to have him or her imediately recalled. With records completely public, this does much to weed out corruption.
2) No official to receive a wage higher than that of a skilled worker.
A higher living standard not only brings another reason to the table for greedy men to horde power, but it also disconnects the offical from the people he is leading. People who want to serve as an official should do so for common good, not for personal gain. A welder's time and a leader's time are worth the same.
3) No standing army or police but the armed people.
This is a tough one for some to accept, but an army or a police force recieves a great deal of power in society, and countless progressive governments have been brought down amid mass slaughter by one or both of these powers making deals with those who have riches to offer, in other words the old exploiters. In a world where everyone makes an income somewhere in the middle range, poverty can be eliminated, and with it much of the cause of crime. The only way to defend the people without having a standing army is to arm the people. An example of how this functions in reality is the Bay of Pigs invasion. There is no way the US could have taken Cuba because they'd have to fight every Cuban along the way.
4) Gradually, all the tasks of administration should be done by everyone in turn: when everyone is a bureaucrat in turn, nobody is a bureaucrat.
Another quote of Lenin's is that "every cook should have his chance to be prime minister". What he's refering to by 'tasks of administration' is all the positions that contains a degree of power thanks to the fact that they actually run the society. This includes, to use one example, keeping finances. These tasks should all be rotated among capable workers from all other walks of life, so that none can hold any position long enough to collect power.

This regional industry council would make decisions as to distribution at the regional level in that industry. Here we begin to see the answer to your question, but as I just said there is another level to this puzzle. These regional industry councils would then send delegates of their own to a council with delegates representing all industries as well as a delegate for each neighbourhood districts in the region. Also, a delegate would be sent to a council with a delegate representing each district within an industry. Again, this level must hold to all the same rules as the previous levels, including full right of recall. Remember that each council is electing someone who they all know personally because they meet with them still all the time. These delegates will not be blindly elected and will be held accountable by lower councils.

The chain goes both ways when it comes to ideas. The delegate will still attend his lower council's meetings and will be able to pass along information for debate. These debates at each local council will provide more ideas which can then be brought by the delegate to the higher council.

The one last level in this system is that each of these regions and each of these industries could then nominate a delegate to one world council, which would make necessary distribution decisions on a macro-level. So each person, in the end, is represented both in their geographical interests and their workplace interests, by someone organically tied to each local meeting.


It is important to mention that this is just one conception of such a system of participatory government. The system which would be used must of course reflect the conditions under which it is implemented, and no person can say exactly what it would look like.

The other point which must be mentioned is that it is an absolute prerequisate for communism that participatory democracy be practiced with a bottom-up system for decision making, as I've just described. The USSR started off this way with the Soviets (soviet is the Russian word meaning 'council'), but because of material conditions which would require another post even longer then this one to adequately explain, it became corrupted and was turned into a Bonapartist state, which was NEVER truely communist in character. Each so-called "communist" nation after the USSR was built upon this corrupted model, and so none of them can truely be called communist or socialist by a Marxist definition. We still wait to see what communism will look like in practise.


Anyway, that was an extremely quick overview of something a book could be written on, and many details were, of course, left out. But I hope it gives you an idea about what a socialist society could look like.

2. No one can have a moral claim on unutilized resources.If this is true, then logically speaking no one can morally say that a person's claim on unutilized resources is invalid unless that person is suggesting that nobody has the right to use something. Do people have the moral right to use unutilized resources? (A slightly different question from your statement.)

Arriddia:

You believe a system will exist where people have a free system of claims based upon mutual agreement?

What's your solution?

Capitalism.

If this is true, then logically speaking no one can morally say that a person's claim on unutilized resources is invalid unless that person is suggesting that nobody has the right to use something. Do people have the moral right to use unutilized resources? (A slightly different question from your statement.)

It is considered public property, which by conventional standards is owned jointly and equally by everyone, used on a first come, first serve basis. I think it is rather easy to see the problem with that sort of system with natural resources, it would take mountains of government regulation to handle it.

And yes, people do have the moral right ot use unutilized resources as it is necessary for survival. The problem enters when someone holds unused resources for speculation.

The great thing about it is that under communism those who work can achive more, not those who are born rich and get a good education, people rise and fall based on their accomplishments, yet everyone is still equal under law.

I am going to point out questions or contentions that I have.

Each workplace organises into a council. Each of these workplace councils meets regularly, and any worker in the workplace can attend all these meetings with full voting privilages.

The business decision making process is often 24/7, how can a council that meets regularly adequately run a business?

This way, the workers run their own workplace. This has been successfully done many times, with one notable present day example being the Venezuelan oil industry. Generally, it is found that worker's control is far more efficient because each worker can voice his or her concerns and ideas for due consideration, sparking good solutions to problems and lots of innovation at the shop level.

I want to register my contention on this point, but not debate it. It really has nothing to do with the original topic.

1) Free and democratic elections with right of recall.
That means that any time a delegate isn't living up to the wishes of the workers, or lets power goto his head, they can meet and vote to have him or her imediately recalled. With records completely public, this does much to weed out corruption.

1. Democracy is problematic, it accentuates social hierarchy. It breeds corruption because it favors those who are better liars over those who are more qualified.

2. Making records completely public does nothing, accountability requires a desire on the part of the people to be involved, and that is certainly not a given.

2) No official to receive a wage higher than that of a skilled worker.
A higher living standard not only brings another reason to the table for greedy men to horde power, but it also disconnects the offical from the people he is leading. People who want to serve as an official should do so for common good, not for personal gain. A welder's time and a leader's time are worth the same.

I would say this would also cause corruption, as there would be no incentive to perform the job well. Also, while there would be no incentive to those who are more qualified, there would be incentive to those who would be corrupt.

4) Gradually, all the tasks of administration should be done by everyone in turn: when everyone is a bureaucrat in turn, nobody is a bureaucrat.
Another quote of Lenin's is that "every cook should have his chance to be prime minister". What he's refering to by 'tasks of administration' is all the positions that contains a degree of power thanks to the fact that they actually run the society. This includes, to use one example, keeping finances. These tasks should all be rotated among capable workers from all other walks of life, so that none can hold any position long enough to collect power.

Most financial officers and planners of major industries have 8+ years of education in finance and accounting, 10+ years of experience in the field. The idea that the duties could be spread out over a an untrained group of workers is not practical.

This regional industry council would make decisions as to distribution at the regional level in that industry. Here we begin to see the answer to your question, but as I just said there is another level to this puzzle. These regional industry councils would then send delegates of their own to a council with delegates representing all industries as well as a delegate for each neighbourhood districts in the region. Also, a delegate would be sent to a council with a delegate representing each district within an industry. Again, this level must hold to all the same rules as the previous levels, including full right of recall. Remember that each council is electing someone who they all know personally because they meet with them still all the time. These delegates will not be blindly elected and will be held accountable by lower councils.

How are decisions reached among the delegation?

If delegates are governed by their responsibility to their own workers and knowledgeable of only their own industry, how can the group come of with reasonable distributions?

How are those that harvest the resources represented and reimbursed?



This description, to me, would create a system where you took away all politicians and replaced them with bureaucrats.

Okay, as I said, that explaination was very quick and not at all complete... so here are some answers for those concerns.


The business decision making process is often 24/7, how can a council that meets regularly adequately run a business?
I was dealing more specifically with the idea of controlling supply in that example (as this topic deals with), and not running the buisness, so I wasn't completely specific. However, this falls more under the realm of tasks of administration, in which the day to day running is included. This is something that could also easily be handled by elected positions stemming out of the councils.

Also, of course, this should go without saying, but this is in no way a firm model I'm trying to describe. Any system in place would refelct the conditions of it's coming into existance far more then it would reflect anybody's predictions. This is merely an example of one possibility.



1. Democracy is problematic, it accentuates social hierarchy. It breeds corruption because it favors those who are better liars over those who are more qualified.
I think you've done a very good job of highlighting the problems with the type of democracy we have now, but this is a very different thing. Remember that in this system, it will never be more then a small group of people electing anyone. Not only that, but these people all work together and meet regularily, in any case. In order to gain any advantage at all by being a "better lier", you'd also have to be capable of lieing all the time to peers in day to day life, and also, more importantly, you'd have to be able to debate with these lies against people who are trying to debate with the truth. That can be a very difficult task, especially when each person who may or may not vote for you is present. These councils are not rubber stamps, but places of active debate and dialogue. This is not to say corruption cannot exist alltogether, but the key is to ensure nobody can get away with it for long enough to profit. Remember that these higher positions have no pay advantage, and are most likely more work for no personal benefit.


2. Making records completely public does nothing, accountability requires a desire on the part of the people to be involved, and that is certainly not a given.
Huh? Desire of the people being leeched off to stop that? Or desire of delegates to participate? I don't understand what isn't a given.
In a socity where each person is to a degree involved with the running of socity, each does have a very good reason to make sure they aren't screwed in the process.


I would say this would also cause corruption, as there would be no incentive to perform the job well. Also, while there would be no incentive to those who are more qualified, there would be incentive to those who would be corrupt.
Well now, here's a whole can of worms.

No incentive to those who are more qualified?
If someone is more qualified, he will get a much better choice of which types of jobs he may do. Certainly, the people who decide who to employ -- in this case, the workers AT THE SHOP, who definitely gain from having capable co-workers -- care about who is more qualified when they decide who they want there. There will always be jobs for less qualified people, things that must be done for society to function. The key is that those who work more unskilled labour should still be paid decently and have reasonable working hours.

Insentive to those who are corrupt?
I bet anybody who causes trouble in a workplace trying to fuck over his fellow workers will be out of there much faster then a corrupt person dealing with one boss. Worker's management means that decision makers have many more eyes, because everybody is a decision maker.


Most financial officers and planners of major industries have 8+ years of education in finance and accounting, 10+ years of experience in the field. The idea that the duties could be spread out over a an untrained group of workers is not practical.
Nobody EVER said untrained.
To quote my last post: "These tasks should all be rotated among capable workers..."
It is obvious that some jobs require education and experience to pull off, and those jobs must be roated among people with the necessary experience. It's also important to remember that these tasks will be more delegated then in a capitalist system. Each person would be responcible for less, and major decisions would be made by everyone together. And yes, anyone who is rotated into any of these positions must have had the needed training, this should go without saying.


How are decisions reached among the delegation?

If delegates are governed by their responsibility to their own workers and knowledgeable of only their own industry, how can the group come of with reasonable distributions?
Decisions are reached by debate followed by voting. They can come up with reasonable distributions through careful analysis of the society, and with that analysis, deciding what is needed. This is made much easier when people can each represent their own interests and participate in the dialogue.

Again, what I described is a very simplisitic diagram of one possibility. Any system responcible for the functioning of a complex society must have more to it then that extremely simple diagram, and certainly more then I can realistically post in a messageboard topic. But, the core principles remain consistant, with bottom-up democracy, and each member of any higher council accountable directly to the lower one. The system will be built as needs require.


How are those that harvest the resources represented and reimbursed?
Umm, well, how are those that harvest the resources reimbursed now? The value of the resource will be based on the cost of harvesting, as well as the cost to society as a whole of it being harvested. The cost of harvesting will (of course) include a good paycheque to the workers, as well as the costs of machinery. The costs to society (as in depeleted resources) could be used in any number of ways, from replanting forests, to providing public services. The value of these costs will be decided upon through dialogue between the people within the resource industries, the supplied industries, as well as the communities involved, and perhaps a group representing scientists studying environmental impact of resource harvesting. These groups would include the best in their fields because the experts running the industries would be directly involved.

Of course, in the long term, gradually money could be phased out and replaced with a system of industry which responds directly to the needs of the people and produces enough goods to fill those needs. As unthinkable as it is in today's world, after a couple generations free of consumerism, becoming increasingly free of inequality, and with ever increasing technological resources, I think it is possible. But that is another argument, and is rediculously speculative anyway. Nobody can reasonably predict the specifics of such a system in practise.


This description, to me, would create a system where you took away all politicians and replaced them with bureaucrats.
To again quote from the the same four conditions of Lenin: "...when everyone is a bureaucrat in turn, nobody is a bureaucrat."
The whole idea of a beurocracy is that a certain small clique of bureaucrats makes the decisions for everybody. In this system, all efforts would be made to involve everyone as much as possible in the running of the world around them, playing a major role in local matters and a smaller role in matters involving more people. This is the exact opposite of bureaucracy. Nobody is a bureaucrat.

It is considered public property, which by conventional standards is owned jointly and equally by everyone, used on a first come, first serve basis. I think it is rather easy to see the problem with that sort of system with natural resources, it would take mountains of government regulation to handle it.The only issue I can see here is if two people or groups of people stake a claim to something and there is a dispute over who got there first. Having a first come, first serve system is actually very little regulation, except for those disputes.

And yes, people do have the moral right ot use unutilized resources as it is necessary for survival. The problem enters when someone holds unused resources for speculation.Then perhaps ownership of resources should be based upon use, though that would require a lot of government regulation, also.

OK, for the sake of this thread, I am going to make two practical assumptions:

1. Labor is necessary to survive.

2. Labor requires access to one's own or another's body and resources.

And two moral assumptions:

1. Slavery is immoral. People have the moral right to complete dominion over their own body and labor.

2. No one can have a moral ownership claim on unutilized resources.


So, if these assumptions are true (or point out why they are not), how is the distribution of the resources, that are necessary for survival, distributed?

You silly, it is a trick question - for communism cannot work without slavery. If you remove financial incentive then nobody will want to do the 'crap' jobs. They meanwhile must be done - ergo forced labor!

By being fired by a company eager to squeeze a little more needless profit out of its workers. By being denied jobs on the basis of ethnic discrimination. By being from a poor background which meant he/she had to work from a young age, never had the opportunity to study and get qualifications, and is now stuck in a cycle of badly paid, insecure jobs.

Your theory may apply to an ideal world, but not to the real one.


None of this could slow down a hardworking and intelligent person. Not one item. There are plenty of sucesful people who have overcome worse. Lame answer.

BzzzT! Try again.

The great thing about it is that under communism those who work can achive more, not those who are born rich and get a good education, people rise and fall based on their accomplishments, yet everyone is still equal under law.
Where do you silly people get the idea that the only path to success is an education? How insulting to every tradesman in the world. An education is not a gurantee of success, nor does it hedge it. It is simply something people who have a propensity to success have a tendancy to pursue. Learn the difference between causality and commonality.

You silly, it is a trick question - for communism cannot work without slavery. If you remove financial incentive then nobody will want to do the 'crap' jobs. They meanwhile must be done - ergo forced labor!


Pray tell, what financial incentive is there under capitalism to spend my life cleaning toilets and removing used condoms and syringes from public places?

I think you've done a very good job of highlighting the problems with the type of democracy we have now, but this is a very different thing. Remember that in this system, it will never be more then a small group of people electing anyone. Not only that, but these people all work together and meet regularily, in any case. In order to gain any advantage at all by being a "better lier", you'd also have to be capable of lieing all the time to peers in day to day life, and also, more importantly, you'd have to be able to debate with these lies against people who are trying to debate with the truth. That can be a very difficult task, especially when each person who may or may not vote for you is present. These councils are not rubber stamps, but places of active debate and dialogue. This is not to say corruption cannot exist alltogether, but the key is to ensure nobody can get away with it for long enough to profit. Remember that these higher positions have no pay advantage, and are most likely more work for no personal benefit.

To again quote from the the same four conditions of Lenin: "...when everyone is a bureaucrat in turn, nobody is a bureaucrat."
The whole idea of a beurocracy is that a certain small clique of bureaucrats makes the decisions for everybody. In this system, all efforts would be made to involve everyone as much as possible in the running of the world around them, playing a major role in local matters and a smaller role in matters involving more people. This is the exact opposite of bureaucracy. Nobody is a bureaucrat.

I meant to say lobbyists, not bureaucrats. I think reading your post made me think of the word bureaucrat and it stuck in my head.

It seems that the decision making process will be made up of individuals with no incentive to keep their job, in a decision making process that is somewhat separated from the workers, who deal with nothing but the financials of the nation and industries.

How do you avoid having careerism forming through lobbyists who control the financial flow in the nation.

Pray tell, what financial incentive is there under capitalism to spend my life cleaning toilets and removing used condoms and syringes from public places?

Of course - in communism EVERYONE would want that job. Beats the shit out of being a bartender. Right?

If that is actually your job you wouldn't need me to tell you. A pathetic straw man argument - watch it burn.

If I must - the job provides income and independance for people with no skills or willingness to risk self-employment. Depending on the employer and the duties it can pay considerably more than you may expect. It also can be a step on the ladder towards other building maintenance jobs for those with the motivation and ambition. I can tell you from second-hand experience - since my best bud in High school got his start doing just that. He now has a six-digit income providing supplies and training to building maintenance contractors all over the west coast. Not bad for a guy who used to gross me out telling me about the odd things he'd find in toilets. (and no - I REFUSE to share any of that here - use your imagination then set it to a factor of ten)

Try sticking to the realm of your own experience - I know it is difficult with so little to draw from, but it will keep you from 'stepping in it' again.

Something I missed before...

And yes, people do have the moral right ot use unutilized resources as it is necessary for survival. Then does this mean that unutilized resources should always be used in such a way to (help to) ensure survival for the greatest number of people?

You silly, it is a trick question - for communism cannot work without slavery. If you remove financial incentive then nobody will want to do the 'crap' jobs. They meanwhile must be done - ergo forced labor!
Guns are an effective means of making people do things they don't want to. Money, too, is an effective way of exerting power over people, especially those who cannot meet their needs without it.
- altruists.org

in that way, the wage in capitalism is slavery. ergo: forced labour!

i think the real question is whether there is in fact any system out there which does not involve - or require - some form of 'slavery'?


None of this could slow down a hardworking and intelligent person. Not one item. There are plenty of sucesful people who have overcome worse. Lame answer.
because it really is that simple.
i mean, those kids who come from poorer backgrounds and have to go to shitty schools, work their butts off there, and end up badly educated, like so many of the people in this country... all they need to do is work harder and they could, possibly, one day dig their way out of being poor.
whereas the son of a rich man can go to a great school, not work so hard, end up with 'better degrees' from cliquey and expensive universities, and never really has to work too hard to stay rich.
now i see that as slightly unfair. i mean, apart from the glaring disparity in opportunities, there's also the issue of disparity in the amount of work put in compared to what you get... if it were at all 'fair' the "hardworking and intelligent person" would get lots of material shit (cos thats what makes the world go round, right girls and boys?) and the rich kid who didn't earn what he has would be poor, right?

i'm sorry, but the world isn't the meritocracy you make it out to be. far from it.
and thats just a single example.

read Rawls' ideas on the veil of ignorance. helped me understand why there's a need for fairness and why fairness (equality of opportunity) is just.

OK, for the sake of this thread, I am going to make two practical assumptions:

1. Labor is necessary to survive.

Depends on what you consider "labor". Many gathering-hunting societies enjoy a relatively leisurely existence, and do not have a concept of "labor" as a distinct activity comparable to ours. It seems to me that you must either mean "activity", which would turn your assumption into a mere truism; or, you stack the rhetorical deck by assuming as "necessary" an activity that is not universal to human existence.

And two moral assumptions:

1. Slavery is immoral. People have the moral right to complete dominion over their own body and labor.

This presents a false dilemma--one, ironically, which a capitalist should recognize more quickly than any communist. (Remove the term "complete" and replace "dominion" with "sovereignty", and I think you will find me in agreement.)

2. No one can have a moral ownership claim on unutilized resources.

Without defining your terms, I have utterly no idea what you mean by this. What do you mean by "no one"--no individual? no group? no society? What do you mean by "ownership claim", and what does your assumption mean for a society that, say, does not recognize ANY "ownership" of land? Finally, what do you mean by "unutilized"--does that include, say, protected wilderness (which it would be hard to claim is being "used" by anyone)?

If you remove financial incentive then nobody will want to do the 'crap' jobs.

Nobody wants to do the crap jobs anyway.

But more to the point, the "best" communist response, in my opinion, has been to emphasize that everyone will do the crap jobs; they will be performed, that is to say, communally.

In other words, wherever I work or go to school, the answer to the perennial question "who cleans the toilets?" is... "we do." Rather than subject an outright lower class to the demeaning job of coming in to sweep the floors, clean the toilets, and wash the windows, every member of the organization participates in cleanup.

Before you object that such a system is unworkable, or so objectionable to "professional" people that it would inevitably result in rebellion, recall that this sort of thing already goes on (even in perfectly capitalist countries). A friend of mine, for instance, just returned from teaching English to Japanese students for eight years. He tells me that every day, at the end of classes, the students and faculty at his school were responsible for cleaning up--there was no such thing as a "janitorial" staff.

Indeed, he emphasizes that they take great pride in the state of their environment. This pride, combined with the promise of additional work involved in cleanup, has the added bonus of discouraging wanton waste, littering, and general disregard for the cleanliness of the facility.

Similar proposals, with a little ingenuity, can be translated to the apartment building, complex, city street or neighborhood. They might provide a great demand, as well, for recyclable and reusable products.

Nifty.

EDIT: When I say the "best" solution, I mean to imply that I do not consider it a very good one. Of course, I still find it superior to the capitalist "solution," which is to compel by economic necessity a class of people to perform primarily, even exclusively, the shitty jobs of civilization. (The rest of us, meanwhile, feel free to waste and shit as much and wherever we like, assured that there will always be some poor person to clean up our mess.)

There may not be a "good" solution to this problem... but, that does seem to be the nature of the problem, and it's not going to go away.

2. All work is for profit, whether it be your profit or your neighbor's profit.

You are equivocating on the definition of "profit." If, by profit, you mean something like "return" (or "revenue" or "income") then this definition has the same problem as your original definition of labor: it is a truism. Of course no one (willingly) does work for nothing. On the other hand, if by "profit" you mean, as an economist would, "gain" or "the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost," then your assertion is clearly false. Most labor merely "pays for itself." A farmer who subsists on his labor gets from it exactly its cost--namely the food and necessities that keep him alive and working. Indeed, most laborers in the world earn only enough from their labor to "keep themselves afloat" at precisely the same standard of living they have always known--which is to say that the price at which they sell their labor is the same as their cost of living.

As a matter of fact, "profit" almost exactly excludes labor, since most owners who actually work also pay themselves a wage. "Profit" refers exclusively to the wealth made by investment, excluding the wages earned by the investor.

4. We do not have a massive surplus of material goods, otherwise there would be huge inventory pileups and massive worker lay offs.

I suspect the poster to whom you are replying is using the term "surplus" in a different way than you are. It does you no good to pretend you don't understand that. Most likely, he is using it the way Lenin did. At the very least, if you want to disagree, you should discuss the actual point of disagreement--which, in this case, would appear to be the usage of a term.

One of the intrinsic benefits of capitalism is that resources naturally flow to those who convert them most efficiently.

Aww, just because the economists say so? Come on...

What you mean by "efficiency" is (in short and oversimplified) that production more or less keeps pace with fluctuations in demand. So far as it goes, this is a pretty good definition of what it means for a market to be efficient--which is, of course, why market economists use it almost exclusively.

The problem, however, is with the notion of "demand." In this equation, it necessarily reflects the instantaneous demands of an individualistic and unorganized group. As any political economist will be happy to point out, there are also long-term and group demands--and these don't fit well into the equation.

Case-in-point: For all the capitalist market's adored efficiency, it utterly failed the needs of a full-scale military mobilization a la World War II. Our freedom-loving government had to step in to fix prices, ration critical goods, and set production quotas. Why? Because as much as we all want to satisfy those instantaneous demands for consumer toys, we also want to win our wars (so as, rhetorically at least, to preserve our freedom). However, it is too much to ask for each individual, faced with buying the things he wants, to say (all by himself), "no, if I buy this it will contribute to the scarcity of steel, and our military effort may suffer"--especially when he reflects that he's only "one person" and what affect will he "really have".... etc.

This is the classic free-rider problem. It pops up in other kinds of economic problems as well, but here I just want to emphasize the fact that, unchecked, it hinders a group's (a society's; a government's) ability to procure collective (and long-term) goods.

A managed economy will always be better at supplying these sorts of goods than a free market--unless, of course, men become angels.

Don't get me wrong: I like markets, which is why I'm certainly not a communist per se... but it is important to understand that markets have weaknesses as well as strengths. The best economy necessarily involves a mixture of market freedom and central management.

How can a stateless community impose regulations on resource use and distribution?

We have had this discussion before, so I will keep this brief. "State" for communists and anarchists (as for most honest political theorists of all stripes) entails a class division in which one class monopolizes government power for the protection of vested property. A classless government, by definition, is a stateless government.

Do not confuse "stateless" with "ungoverned."