NationStates Jolt Archive

From something said in another thread...

Let's say that there's some planet around some other star of primitive (by 21st century technology standards) people who all worship (that's right - they have a religion) the incarnation of their God as King (or Queen - the high priests choose the next man or woman to be God incarnate).

And let's say that the people believe that EVERYTHING that might be considered property belongs to the God-King or God-Queen. And, through divine right, the ruler, in accordance with the Most Holy Writings, orders everyone to share and help each other, on penalty of explusion from the community into the wild. Sort of "The God-King (or Queen) Now Orders To Each According To Their Need, From Each According To Their Ability".

And let's say that when we land there, we find an old tattered copy of Marx that is their Holy Writ.

Would that be Communism?

Except that the God-King/God-Queen owns everything, so that makes him/her the ultimate capitalist.

In communism, everyone owns everything collectively. It cannot be owned by another person/entity.

Except that the God-King/God-Queen owns everything, so that makes him/her the ultimate capitalist.

In communism, everyone owns everything collectively. It cannot be owned by another person/entity.

What if the end result is the same?

I'm not sure if it's Capitalism, strictly speaking, but it's certainly not Communism. Like Galloism said, Communism requires that everything is collectively owned.

What if the end result is the same?

That still isn't communism. It's very communistic of the God-King/Queen, but that does not make it a communist economy.

From something said in another thread...

Let's say that there's some planet around some other star of primitive (by 21st century technology standards) people who all worship (that's right - they have a religion) the incarnation of their God as King (or Queen - the high priests choose the next man or woman to be God incarnate).

And let's say that the people believe that EVERYTHING that might be considered property belongs to the God-King or God-Queen. And, through divine right, the ruler, in accordance with the Most Holy Writings, orders everyone to share and help each other, on penalty of explusion from the community into the wild. Sort of "The God-King (or Queen) Now Orders To Each According To Their Need, From Each According To Their Ability".

And let's say that when we land there, we find an old tattered copy of Marx that is their Holy Writ.

Would that be Communism?

If society-at-large benefits from the public policy and the king exists as a respected equal (probably not as a "God King"), then I would say yes. I think that political rights under a communism are secondary to egalitarian goals.

Would that be Communism?
It would be a form of communism.

See, it is a misconception that communism necessitates state ownership of all assets, which are managed by the state on behalf of the people. That was really Stalin's extremely centralised approach to project management during the post-Civil War chaos and reorganisation of manpower and industry. And unfortunately, it stuck. Lenin claimed he intended that sort of thing to be temporary.

Another form of communism is direct communal ownership of property by the people who use it, a sort of shareholder society in which one cannot accumulate shares or speculate, but acquires a share in everything they use to make their living. For example, agricultural machinery, all workers of a collective farm part-owning it. This thinking reflects the fact that at the time of the 1917 Revolutions, 90% of the Russian people worked the land, most of it belonging to landowners. The concept was rapidly superseded the moment people were directed to build infrastructure such as bridges and hydroelectric plants. It could only be applied to an agricultural society, and within a generation, Russia ceased to be that.

One can envisage other forms, I suppose, but at some point it becomes socialism, fascism, or some form of authoritarian technocracy. There are more ways of doing things than we have terms.

If society-at-large benefits from the public policy and the king exists as a respected equal (probably not as a "God King"), then I would say yes. I think that political rights under a communism are secondary to egalitarian goals.

Since in this religion, God comes down and takes the Form Of Man, he is making himself equal to everyone else.

Except that the God-King/God-Queen owns everything, so that makes him/her the ultimate capitalist.

In communism, everyone owns everything collectively. It cannot be owned by another person/entity.

1. If the God-King represents the government, if the king is the state, then his ownership would qualify as state ownership.

2. Even if you don't buy that, communism is more about use and benefit from capital than ownership.

Since in this religion, God comes down and takes the Form Of Man, he is making himself equal to everyone else.

I guess, its your invention.