-->
@3RU7AL
i'm starting to think your account is an alt of rationalmadman
Haha, I thought the same exact thing.
Communism must win, so that the world can be saved
Posts
Total:
128
-->
@Best.Korea
So, you're saying that if we just steal everyone's wealth and then redistribute it that we will all be fine.
There's just one problem with that: It would require a massive totalitarian state that removes everyone's freedoms and makes them all slaves to accomplish it.
Let's take your extremely cherry-picked version of Juche Socialism:
Kim Jong Il explains that Socialism centered on masses cannot perish, because masses support it and it supports the masses.
So, in accordance with your supplied idea of "equal standards" for socialism, this would mean, since the only logical way possible for this to happen would be this way, that everyone on the planet must forfeit their jobs, belongings, and bodily autonomy all receive an equal amount of everything, do an equal amount of work, and have an equal number of children, a wife that looks just like all the other wives, and be just as good-looking as everyone else.
If we do not do this, then how do we know for certain if everyone has equal belongings, equal standards, or equal anything?
So to accomplish this massive feat, it would take some central planning body to snoop on everyone's houses, tell people exactly how much more they can and cannot do, exactly what they can and can't do in their free time, whom they can and cannot marry, etc.
Because one person might have better usage of their free time than someone else, we must make sure everyone is doing the same exact thing with their free time.
Because one person might be a more productive worker than someone else, we must limit his speed of work.
Because one person might be more attractive than someone else, they need disfiguring plastic surgery.
Because one person might marry someone more attractive, all women need to be disfigured the same way, have the same haircut, the same body frame, and more. The same with all the men.
Because some are more intelligent than others, we need to physically damage some peoples' brains to make them "equal."
Now, we aren't even through to the distribution of the common wealth yet.
We need cameras and microphones in every room of the home to make sure nobody is hiding anything or doing anything illegal.
We need a prison guard system to force people into the respective schedules.
We need a person or group at the top, somewhere, to keep a schedule of everything and determine who does what, how much a person gets, and more.
But, and here is where the system gets fucked, assuming the above isn't fucked up to you. There is absolutely no way of keeping the person or group at the top accountable. In fact, if we made him/them average, just like everybody else, he/they would be unable to do his/their job. This goes for whomever is in leadership.
Somebody has to be more competent, more intelligent, and significantly freer than everyone else to be able to make decisions and do whatever is needed. So that one person, the dictator or oligarchy (because, ultimately, that becomes his/their role, since he/they must dictate the lives of everyone else) becomes above the huddled masses. And, being intelligent, he/they simply take whatever he/they want, do whatever he/they want, and everyone else is too stupid or uneducated to oppose him/them, since he/they control the intelligence and the education system and peoples' free time.
So this is why your antiquated ideas of socialism and totalitarianism simply don't work. Because you basically create for yourselves a ruling class that has everything and a bunch of unintelligent slaves who have scraps. Kind of like what North Korea is.
If you immigrate from North Korea, then you can be honest with yourself
Communism is the reason "Comedy" should be a subforum topic
"What if she disagrees, could she still not act as I described? Can she not merely claim that her business is private?"
Buisness in Communism is owned by the workers. Private buisness is limited in a sense that in most cases you cant own means of production and at the same time not use them for work.
A lot of the territory, objects, and means of production are owned collectively and not privately. Hence those are then being distributed to the workers for use.
One could still have private buisness on his territory. However, not on the territory owned collectively.
This is designed to help reduce exploitation.
In your example, the woman could have a private buisness only on her own territory.
On the territory of a collective, she has to follow certain rules. These rules are what makes capitalist private buisness impossible on collective territory. Number one being that all workers have equal vote.
"Piece of land? Is there a limit other than their financial capacity to acquire land?"
Yes, there is a limit. You cant own too much land while others own none. In my opinion, everyone should own a piece of land, which represents their territory.
"No, they can't. Because Capitalists determine "desires" by using a free-flowing price system."
So do Communists.
"Communism eliminates this by at best incorporating the labor theory of value, at worst, the State implements an arbitrary price."
Or allow workers to set price for the product they create, and then engage in free trade with other workers.
The entire point of workers owning a buisness is to let workers decide and trade between each other.
The labor theory of value:
This is a very old theory. It consists of "time value", by which a price of a product is determined by the usual time needed to make it.
The problem with this in practice is the difficulty of control. It cant be left to be managed by the workers, because then some workers might lie about the price. There would need to be mass control and inspection just to make sure prices are right.
Also, it gets complicated because some jobs have more intensive labor. Some others, like agriculture, would have to be calculated with a total sum of seconds or minutes of work in every day worked in a year.
Seems like a lot of work.
Arbitrary prices determined by the state:
This was a practice in USSR during Stalin. Similar problems as in previous case.
Also, the problem is that some workers might hide the products and sell them privately.
These two ways to calculate prices create many complications.
Its much simpler to just let workers decide the price of their products and engage in free trade.
Many people think that Communism abolishes free market.
No.
Communism lets workers own buisnesses. Free market can still remain in many forms.
"It's difficult for the State to "fail" in accordance to its own standards."
Workers owned buisness can fail if no one wants to buy their products. They earn no money, and have to change buisness.
"How are they earning "less" money, if she's paying them that which they agreed?"
If they lived in Communism, workers would earn more. Since they are in capitalism, they earn less.
The distribution of products in capitalism is according to the amount of money. Since rich have more money, more products are distributed to them. In case of absence of the rich, those products are instead distributed to the workers.
"She may not be putting the labor into making the burgers, or manning the stands, but her beauty is the primary factor in generating the commerce."
I agree that in capitalism, she would make a lot of money doing basically nothing. In Communism, she would earn less money. So this is more fair towards those who actually work.
"So let me ask you this: what is the basis of your belief that the amount you work is directly and necessarily related to the amount you (should) earn?"
Simple.
No workers = No products
I am pretty sure that the class who actually works to produce products should be the one to also consume them. The opposite case is exploitation.
While exploitation is hard to be eliminated entirely, it should at least be minimized.
"Yes, Capitalists provide capital, which was created by workers, who were provided capital by Capitalists, so forth and so on."
Workers can create products without capitalists.
Capitalists cannot create capital without workers.
"My argument was that in any given employment relationship, workers produce consumer goods and the capitalists/owners provide the capital."
Since workers produce all capital, capitalists are not necessary.
"Your suggestion is that they acquire the capital from workers, who are not necessarily under their employ."
This happens all the time. One capitalist exploits the workers and acquires capital from them. Then trades that capital to the capital of other capitalists.
Assume you are my worker, and you made a chair.
I sell your chair to some other capitalist. In this scenario, you made the chair of that capitalist even tho you are not his employee but mine.
"Are you proposing that purchasing raw material, machines, and the like, is also "exploitation"?"
Thats just trade of the exploited goods. Thats how one capitalist ends up with materials not produced by his own workers.
"Yes, but you are claiming that workers are "exploited" in Capitalism which connotes an unfair or inequitable arrangement, correct?"
Yes, unfair.
"If consent is not the issue, then I presume the "share" of the revenue is, despite the fact that, as we've already established, the worker consented to the wage."
The consent is given, yes. However, what options are present if consent is not given?
"If a worker believes that he or she deserves a larger share of the revenue, and is unsuccessful in renegotiating in his or her..."
He can go seek other jobs, yes. And in every job, he will find a new capitalist exploiting him.
"Right? How is the arrangement in Capitalism any more "exploitative" than the arrangement you described in communism?"
There would be no capitalists to exploit workers. Workers would have more wealth. Those who produce would be those who consume. The rich, who produce nothing while consuming the products of workers, wouldnt exist.
"And which demographic pays the most for art?"
In North Korea, its the citizens. Through taxes.
"Not just History, Art History."
Anyone thinking art history is important is welcome to give his money to support it.
"The State is willing to pay for it."
The state only pays for it if workers pay taxes for it.
"No they are not. The state is an institution which implements regulations that violate individual sovereignty"
Who exactly has the incentive to defend individual sovereignty? Do the rich defend individual sovereignty?
Because sovereignty has to be defended if its going to exist.
Sovereignty is an ideal that cannot be realized unless most people support it and defend it.
"It's being democratic makes it worse since it conscripts dissenting individuals into submitting their resources to the majority."
If it shouldnt be democratic society, what should it be and who would control it?
"Unless the vote is always unanimous, there's going to some infraction of individual discretion."
What if the masses accept the idea of individual sovereignty and decide to defend it?
"And a unanimous vote would make a State unnecessary since people could just as easily act in service to the goals their unanimity suggests."
Yes, this is assuming there will be unanimous vote on all decisions.
"Now if government subjects itself to the free market, where it operates in accordance to consumers' preferences, as opposed to its self-imposed prerogative, then you have a Stateless society."
Same way, if all people defend individual sovereignty, we will have sovereignty.
Who appoints this "government"? The rich? The majority?
The reason why so many countries are either democracy either monarchy is because most other ways to ellect government get complicated.
"Government would cease to be government, given that individual consumers would be de-facto governors, and instead become service providers--namely mediators over private disputes."
Ideally, yes. However, you need military to defend yourself. Who controls the military and why he wont misuse that power? And who controls him?
"In this arrangement both capitalists and workers have the "power" that they are owed--and that is, to enter and leave arrangements as they please"
In Communism, you can have that same power. Its just that in Communism, its not the rich that own buisnesses. Buisnesses are owned by workers. And the wealth is enjoyed more by those who produce it.
The fact that America is faltering is a big blow to capitalism. Trump even went to Korea to meet Kim Jung Un and learn from him. The tides are changing. China might revert to Communism after it sees the fall of western Democracies. North Korea will be held as a shining example.
I agree. Juche is the future.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I agree. Juche is the future.
Kim Jong -un is only 38. He will outlive Biden, Trump and most of the world leaders. So yes he is the future.
When you buy a smartphone, you are buying Communism.
Half of all smartphones are made by Communist China and Communist Vietnam.
-->
@Best.Korea
When you buy a smartphone, you are buying Communism.Half of all smartphones are made by Communist China and Communist Vietnam.
That was the most unkindest cut of them all. To suggest we are all indirectly supporting communism.
-->
@Shila
That was the most unkindest cut of them all. To suggest we are all indirectly supporting communism.
almost everything sold by walmart and amazon is made in china
-->
@Athias
imagine a world where nobody has to worry about getting decent food and shelterDecent food and shelter have expenses; if you're not worrying about it, someone else will.
the money the united states has spent "helping ukraine" could have solved homelessness three times over
try to imagine what that world would feel like
-->
@Athias
Sure I might have my "own clothes" if and only if some arbitrary third party determines that I "need" them.I'm still not seeing the implication. Did the comment I submit indicate that I would go without clothes or that my ownership of them would be qualified by some third party's assessment of "need"?
why would you express concern about qualifying for clothes unless you were afraid of walking around naked ?
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @ShilaThat was the most unkindest cut of them all. To suggest we are all indirectly supporting communism.almost everything sold by walmart and amazon is made in china
Are you saying China is supporting Capitalism?
-->
@Shila
Are you saying China is supporting Capitalism?
china is exploiting capitalism
-->
@Athias
an agreement can only be truly voluntary if the workers are not desperateHow does a worker's being desperate make any arrangement he/she forms with an employer less than "truly voluntary"?
In your example, the woman could have a private buisness only on her own territory.On the territory of a collective, she has to follow certain rules. These rules are what makes capitalist private buisness impossible on collective territory. Number one being that all workers have equal vote.
What does an equal vote matter to a dissenter who either is compelled or alienated by the vote of a majority?
Yes, there is a limit. You cant own too much land while others own none. In my opinion, everyone should own a piece of land, which represents their territory.
And if others sell her their land?
"No, they can't. Because Capitalists determine "desires" by using a free-flowing price system."So do Communists.
Absolutely not. This is the hallmark distinction in Communism, especially in juxtaposition to Capitalism. There are no free-flowing prices. Prices are determined arbitrarily by the the State or "worker collectives" and not the commerce each laborer generates.
Or allow workers to set price for the product they create, and then engage in free trade with other workers.The entire point of workers owning a buisness is to let workers decide and trade between each other.
Illustrate how this makes sense using an example.
The labor theory of value:This is a very old theory. It consists of "time value", by which a price of a product is determined by the usual time needed to make it.The problem with this in practice is the difficulty of control. It cant be left to be managed by the workers, because then some workers might lie about the price. There would need to be mass control and inspection just to make sure prices are right.Also, it gets complicated because some jobs have more intensive labor. Some others, like agriculture, would have to be calculated with a total sum of seconds or minutes of work in every day worked in a year.Seems like a lot of work.Arbitrary prices determined by the state:This was a practice in USSR during Stalin. Similar problems as in previous case.Also, the problem is that some workers might hide the products and sell them privately.These two ways to calculate prices create many complications.Its much simpler to just let workers decide the price of their products and engage in free trade.
What do you presume happens when one worker generates a substantially larger revenue, let's say for the sake of argument, because his or her product is better?
Many people think that Communism abolishes free market.No.
Yes it does.
Communism lets workers own buisnesses. Free market can still remain in many forms.
The fact that you have to qualify it by stating, "in many forms" suggests that it's not "free." It's just subject to the arbitration of either the State, or the "worker collective."
If they lived in Communism, workers would earn more. Since they are in capitalism, they earn less.The distribution of products in capitalism is according to the amount of money. Since rich have more money, more products are distributed to them. In case of absence of the rich, those products are instead distributed to the workers.
How would they earn more money. You just stated that workers would be able to determine their own price, right? If she meets that price by paying them to work for her, how are they earning "less"? As for the distribution of products, it depends on the product.
I agree that in capitalism, she would make a lot of money doing basically nothing.
But she's not doing basically nothing. She's using her appeal to create commerce.
So this is more fair towards those who actually work.
You still have yet to substantiate how her behavior would be unfair to them. All you've done is tacitly condemn that she makes more money, which wittingly or unwittingly incorporates the labor theory of value--and it doesn't just focus on time of labor put in.
No workers = No products'
That's not what I asked. I asked why does the amount of work directly and necessarily relate to the amount one should earn? Not whether workers are responsible for creating products.
Workers can create products without capitalists.Capitalists cannot create capital without workers.
There's more to a product that just the input. Example: difference between a Volvo and a Bugatti.
Since workers produce all capital, capitalists are not necessary.
And yet there are Capitalists...
This happens all the time. One capitalist exploits the workers and acquires capital from them. Then trades that capital to the capital of other capitalists.
How are they "exploited"?
Assume you are my worker, and you made a chair.I sell your chair to some other capitalist. In this scenario, you made the chair of that capitalist even tho you are not his employee but mine.
But if I sold you my chair at a price to which I agreed, then how have you exploited me? If that other capitalist sells my chair under his own name or brand, and it generates far more commerce than that for which I initially sold it, then who's at fault? Is there any fault at all?
"Yes, but you are claiming that workers are "exploited" in Capitalism which connotes an unfair or inequitable arrangement, correct?"Yes, unfair.
How is it unfair?
The consent is given, yes. However, what options are present if consent is not given?
How is a capitalist obligated to the lack of options a worker may or may not have? Did the capitalist create that lack of options? Let's say for example, I run a restaurant and you're desperately seeking work. I have no need of extra workers, but you're desperate and offer to work at a significantly lower wage, because at the end of the day, your skills don't make you that marketable and you need the money. You can argue all day that had you not been desperate, you would have worker for no less than "X" wage, but the fact was, you were desperate, for which the decisions in response were no one else's responsibility but yours. In essence, you're attempting stigmatize and penalize Capitalists for not being "Good Samaritans." And anything less than being a "good samaritan" must mean that they're being unfair.
He can go seek other jobs, yes. And in every job, he will find a new capitalist exploiting him.
Once again, how is he being "exploited"?
There would be no capitalists to exploit workers. Workers would have more wealth. Those who produce would be those who consume. The rich, who produce nothing while consuming the products of workers, wouldnt exist.
And yet, the rich exist...
"And which demographic pays the most for art?"In North Korea, its the citizens. Through taxes.
Fair enough. I admit I know little to nothing about the curating and consumption of art in North Korea. So I'll take your word for it.
The state only pays for it if workers pay taxes for it.
And how does North Korea get workers to pay taxes?
Who exactly has the incentive to defend individual sovereignty? Do the rich defend individual sovereignty?Because sovereignty has to be defended if its going to exist.Sovereignty is an ideal that cannot be realized unless most people support it and defend it.
I agree. And that is the reason the State must be eliminated in service to individual sovereignty. This can only be sustained by a people who espouse a moral framework which condemns and rejects all institutions and social mechanisms which undermines their individual sovereignty. And the system which best reflects individual sovereignty is not Communism, but Anarchy.
If it shouldnt be democratic society, what should it be and who would control it?
Individual sovereigns are controlled by individual sovereigns. That's the whole point.
What if the masses accept the idea of individual sovereignty and decide to defend it?
All the more reason a State would be useless.
Yes, this is assuming there will be unanimous vote on all decisions.
No, this assumes that all who participate in group goals are doing so willfully, and dissenters can withdraws themselves and their resources. That is individual sovereignty.
Who appoints this "government"? The rich? The majority?The reason why so many countries are either democracy either monarchy is because most other ways to ellect government get complicated.
There's some truth to this in that monarchy and democracy is "simpler." But the luxury we enjoy in our discussions here is that we can go past the simple, and delve into the complicated.
Ideally, yes. However, you need military to defend yourself. Who controls the military and why he wont misuse that power? And who controls him?
If everyone is defending individual sovereignty, why would one need to defend him or herself? But in the case that you do require defending, you can either defend yourself or seek the assistance of others.
In Communism, you can have that same power.
No, you cant. Because the State is involved.
And the wealth is enjoyed more by those who produce it.
You have yet to substantiate how workers produce wealth. You've argued that they've provided the input for products, which I don't deny. But in my example, I clearly demonstrated how a capitalist can generate wealth albeit using an input she did not create herself. Would the male patrons have demanded those burgers to the extent that they did had the attractive woman not been involved? (That was the point of my example.) So again I ask: why do you think the amount of work one puts in is directly and necessarily related to the amount one should earn?
A good illustration of my counterargument would be a supermodel and the clothes they wear. One could argue that a Supermodel doesn't do any "actual work." Is the Supermodel exploiting the Capitalist, who in turn, is exploiting the underpaid seamstresses?
-->
@3RU7AL
the money the united states has spent "helping ukraine" could have solved homelessness three times over
With the money the United States rakes in from just tax revenue, it could have solved homelessnes thousands of times over. But it doesn't because it isn't beneficial to the United States' political system to solve homelessness.
try to imagine what that world would feel like
Does not compute... Does not compute...
why would you express concern about qualifying for clothes unless you were afraid of walking around naked ?
This assumes that I would be even remotely bothered by walking around naked (I'm French, remember?) My point is that one's owning one's clothes should not be subject to the considerations of anyone other than oneself.
I don't understand what this trailer was supposed to indicate.
-->
@Athias
I don't understand what this trailer was supposed to indicate.
worker exploitation
-->
@Athias
try to imagine what that world would feel likeDoes not compute... Does not compute...
imagine if you lived on some plot of land, where you and your family could grow and store your own food, build your own shelter, and sew your own clothes
basically self-sufficient
you could FREELY-CHOOSE to travel to a factory and FREELY agree to work for some period of time
-->
@3RU7AL
imagine if you lived on some plot of land, where you and your family could grow and store your own food, build your own shelter, and sew your own clothesbasically self-sufficient
Subsistence?
you could FREELY-CHOOSE to travel to a factory and FREELY agree to work for some period of time
I suppose.
-->
@Athias
"What does an equal vote matter to a dissenter who either is compelled or alienated by the vote of a majority?"
He is not compelled. If he doesnt want to work for the coop for the wage decided by its workers, he can go to another coop. He can work alone, if he wants. But if he does decide to work for any coop, he gets an equal vote on setting prices and wages.
Equal vote matters to workers, since it allows them to run a buisness and not get exploited. So it matters to a dissenter too.
"And if others sell her their land?"
Selling the land is banned in Communism. After the owner dies, the land is usually distributed to his children. I dont see why would he be allowed to sell it and deprive his children of it.
"Absolutely not. This is the hallmark distinction in Communism, especially in juxtaposition to Capitalism. There are no free-flowing prices. Prices are determined arbitrarily by the the State or "worker collectives" and not the commerce each laborer generates."
Actually, the only difference between Communism and Capitalism is that in Capitalism the rich own the means of production. In Communism, the workers own the means of production.
Workers coops set prices according to supply and demand. If the product isnt selling, they have to either lower the price either change buisness.
"Illustrate how this makes sense using an example."
If a single worker works on a farm, he sets price to his products. If the product doesnt sell, he lowers the price according to the market demand. This same thing happens when there are more workers.
"What do you presume happens when one worker generates a substantially larger revenue, let's say for the sake of argument, because his or her product is better?"
He earns more money. This means other coops have to compete to also produce a good product.
This is market Communism, or workers coops.
"The fact that you have to qualify it by stating, "in many forms" suggests that it's not "free.""
Its not free to Capitalists, since they cant exploit the workers anymore.
"How would they earn more money. You just stated that workers would be able to determine their own price, right? If she meets that price by paying them to work for her, how are they earning "less"?"
In Communism, the workers mostly trade with other workers because workers own all buisnesses.
Capitalism allows Capitalists to own buisnesses and earn money based on that.
When Capitalists have more, the workers have less.
This is simply because money is a way of distributing products. If Capitalists have more money, more products are being distributed to them and the production focuses on producing for the rich.
"But she's not doing basically nothing. She's using her appeal to create commerce."
Yes, she is "working". But the main distinction is that in Communism, she wont get as rich as she would in Capitalism. Hence more products for those who actually produce them.
"You still have yet to substantiate how her behavior would be unfair to them. All you've done is tacitly condemn that she makes more money"
Is it fair to have others work for you while you consume most of what they produce leaving them with only little bits of their work?
"That's not what I asked. I asked why does the amount of work directly and necessarily relate to the amount one should earn?"
Who should be the owner of the things I produce?
In Communism, workers have freedom to sell their products to anyone, but they mostly sell to other workers.
In Capitalism, in most cases, workers can only sell to the Capitalists.
This allows Capitalists to get richer.
Since in Communism, workers earn more, they have better life standards.
"There's more to a product that just the input. Example: difference between a Volvo and a Bugatti."
Yes, but both are produced by workers. And sure, not all workers produce products of equal quality. This is why in Communism, the worker will earn more if he produces product more desired by the market.
"And yet there are Capitalists..."
Yes, there are Capitalists. And how long will it take for society to decrease their influence is unknown.
"How are they "exploited"?"
Workers product, which is most valuable to the society, serves to sustain the Capitalists. The Capitalists dont work to sustain the worker.
"And how does North Korea get workers to pay taxes?"
Like most other countries. If you dont pay taxes, you cant work.
"I agree. And that is the reason the State must be eliminated in service to individual sovereignty. This can only be sustained by a people who espouse a moral framework which condemns and rejects all institutions and social mechanisms which undermines their individual sovereignty. And the system which best reflects individual sovereignty is not Communism, but Anarchy."
Individual sovereignty can be implemented in Communism too. It just takes majority of the people to support it.
"Individual sovereigns are controlled by individual sovereigns. That's the whole point."
Yes, but if that sovereignty is to exist, someone has to defend it.
Someone with power has to defend it.
If individuals are left alone to defend themselves, their sovereignty wont last long.
If they unite by majority of them making decisions, you have democracy.
Since in democracy, the majority has the power, it goes to say that majority has to defend individual sovereignty for it to actually exist.
So if it wont be by democratic choice, who will defend the individual sovereignty? Individuals?
"All the more reason a State would be useless."
Communism can exist without the state. But whether that would be good or not, I am not sure.
"No, this assumes that all who participate in group goals are doing so willfully, and dissenters can withdraws themselves and their resources. That is individual sovereignty."
Yes, I agree that participation should not be forced.
"There's some truth to this in that monarchy and democracy is "simpler." But the luxury we enjoy in our discussions here is that we can go past the simple, and delve into the complicated."
"If everyone is defending individual sovereignty, why would one need to defend him or herself? But in the case that you do require defending, you can either defend yourself or seek the assistance of others."
The assistance of others means all such cases would be decided by individuals who are around, or should I say majority of the people who are around. It will still be the majority deciding what is and what isnt a violation of sovereignty
So how is that different from democracy or commune democracy? If it depends on majority to be upheld?
"You have yet to substantiate how workers produce wealth."
Products are wealth, since the wealth(money) is only good if it can buy products. No workers = No products = No wealth
"A good illustration of my counterargument would be a supermodel and the clothes they wear. One could argue that a Supermodel doesn't do any "actual work." Is the Supermodel exploiting the Capitalist, who in turn, is exploiting the underpaid seamstresses"
Having money without work is an exploitation, since you are making a living thanks to someone elses work.
If you are not doing any work but you are consuming food, someone has to work to produce that food.
Same with all other products.
-->
@Best.Korea
He is not compelled. If he doesnt want to work for the coop for the wage decided by its workers, he can go to another coop. He can work alone, if he wants. But if he does decide to work for any coop, he gets an equal vote on setting prices and wages.Equal vote matters to workers, since it allows them to run a buisness and not get exploited. So it matters to a dissenter too.
But he is alienated. If he goes into work for himself, does he automatically have the raw materials, tools, machines, accounting, statistics to compete with the co-op with which he dissents? Why do the "options" available to him qualify his consent in a Capitalistic framework, but not a Communist one?
Selling the land is banned in Communism. After the owner dies, the land is usually distributed to his children. I dont see why would he be allowed to sell it and deprive his children of it.
How does one support individual sovereignty and NOT support private property?
Actually, the only difference between Communism and Capitalism is that in Capitalism the rich own the means of production. In Communism, the workers own the means of production.Workers coops set prices according to supply and demand. If the product isnt selling, they have to either lower the price either change buisness.
I don't know what you're describing, but it's not "Communism." Communism's distinction from Capitalism is its central planning (by either a State or "worker coop") and lack of economic calculation (by arbitrarily setting prices.) Worker coops cannot set prices according to supply and demand because everything in the supply chain is arbitrarily dictated by at best themselves, or at worst, the State. And if workers have to change business, do they just consider their investments a sunk cost? Nothing you've described presents an equitable option; it just attempts to arbitrarily replace Capitalists with worker coops.
If a single worker works on a farm, he sets price to his products. If the product doesnt sell, he lowers the price according to the market demand. This same thing happens when there are more workers.
How does he calculate market demand? What if the cost of his supplies and the cost of his operations exceed the market price?
He earns more money. This means other coops have to compete to also produce a good product.This is market Communism, or workers coops.
And how does this not price out the less-skilled workers?
Its not free to Capitalists, since they cant exploit the workers anymore.
Since when did individual sovereignty exclude voluntary individual arrangements?
In Communism, the workers mostly trade with other workers because workers own all buisnesses.Capitalism allows Capitalists to own buisnesses and earn money based on that.
Yes, I know the regurgitation. And this conveys just how arbitrary the stance of Communism is: you're NOT espousing "EQUITY" or "FAIRNESS"; you're just arbitrarily shifting control over the means and dissemination of production from Capitalists to worker coops/unions. Equity is just a pretext.
Yes, she is "working". But the main distinction is that in Communism, she wont get as rich as she would in Capitalism.
She won't get rich at all under Communism. Rich and poor are relative. Even if you argue that a worker coop can generate X amount of dollars, members are trading the products of their labor amongst themselves.
Is it fair to have others work for you while you consume most of what they produce leaving them with only little bits of their work?
Yes, if we've made an arrangement to which both parties provided consent absent of duress.
Who should be the owner of the things I produce?
You, until you sell, trade, or gift them. If however you work for a wage, then you have agreed to sell your labor to your employer. Unless you own the input, and/or the Capital used to produce the product, then IT IS NOT YOURS. Only your labor belongs to you.
In Capitalism, in most cases, workers can only sell to the Capitalists.This allows Capitalists to get richer.
Because in Capitalism, there isn't a State to coerce its way into regulating the means of production.
Since in Communism, workers earn more, they have better life standards.
This has historically been INCORRECT.
Yes, but both are produced by workers. And sure, not all workers produce products of equal quality. This is why in Communism, the worker will earn more if he produces product more desired by the market.
Which will subsequently price out less skilled workers. It will become more expensive to keep the less skilled workers, especially when competing with other coops. So what happens then?
Like most other countries. If you dont pay taxes, you cant work.
Like other countries, North Korea coerces the payment of taxes with the threat of deadly force. Let's not sugar-coat it.
Individual sovereignty can be implemented in Communism too. It just takes majority of the people to support it.
No, it cannot. And your statements above are a testament to that. Individual sovereignty is only possible when individuals govern themselves.
Yes, but if that sovereignty is to exist, someone has to defend it.Someone with power has to defend it.If individuals are left alone to defend themselves, their sovereignty wont last long.
What happens to individual sovereignty if its compromised in service to "Power"?
If they unite by majority of them making decisions, you have democracy.
Which naturally conscripts dissenters into servicing their agendas.
So if it wont be by democratic choice, who will defend the individual sovereignty? Individuals?
EXACTLY. INDIVIDUALS! Individuals can work together to enact shared interests, where each person's obligations are dictated only by their own intentions. Those who espouse individual sovereignty will defend it.
Communism can exist without the state. But whether that would be good or not, I am not sure.
No, it can't. Perhaps what you're thinking of is Anarcho-syndicalism, but unionism will be the de-facto State and functionally indistinguishable from the State.
Yes, I agree that participation should not be forced.
Would this apply to a legal communist framework?
The assistance of others means all such cases would be decided by individuals who are around, or should I say majority of the people who are around. It will still be the majority deciding what is and what isnt a violation of sovereigntySo how is that different from democracy or commune democracy? If it depends on majority to be upheld?
Because it doesn't require a vote, and it doesn't force dissenters into participation. Those whose sovereignty is being violated will act; those who aren't won't, or can be persuaded into assisting those whose sovereignty is. The difference is that it's voluntary.
Products are wealth, since the wealth(money) is only good if it can buy products. No workers = No products = No wealth
What about, for example, branding?
Having money without work is an exploitation, since you are making a living thanks to someone elses work.
Then how do you justify distributing land to an owner's children after he or she dies?
If you are not doing any work but you are consuming food, someone has to work to produce that food.Same with all other products.
And why is it necessary that one "works" if he or she can merely exchange the ends sought by the one who worked to produce that food?
21 days later
-->
@Mharman
Just as a small tip for the future, if someone says "X is good because Y completely unrelated thing is bad" there are better ways of arguing against X than by arguing in favor of Y
(In this context the X was dictatorship and the Y was circumcision, but the same is true no matter what X and Y are).
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I don’t need your tips, Disc. No offense.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Just as a small tip for the future, if someone says "X is good because Y completely unrelated thing is bad" there are better ways of arguing against X than by arguing in favor of Y(In this context the X was dictatorship and the Y was circumcision, but the same is true no matter what X and Y are).
phenomenal
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Just as a small tip for the future, if someone says "X is good because Y completely unrelated thing is bad" there are better ways of arguing against X than by arguing in favor of Y(In this context the X was dictatorship and the Y was circumcision, but the same is true no matter what X and Y are).
If X is a good dictator and the circumcision went bad. The two are related. The bad Circumcision made him a better dictator.
-->
@Shila
Everything is relative within a Universe.
For example, the perverse paedophilic act of circumcision and X the dicktator.
-->
@zedvictor4
--> @ShilaEverything is relative within a Universe.For example, the perverse paedophilic act of circumcision and X the dicktator.
Related and relative don’t mean the same thing.
-->
@Shila
I didn't say that they did.