A question about anarcho-communism...

[JFB.anon]

I was looking at this great foreign documentary called "Living Utopia: the spanish anarchists" and, after hearing the 500th testimonial of some guy talking about how it was the greatest time in his short life, I realized libertarian communism can work. However, I have a few issues with it...

Number 1:
WHERE'S THE POPTARTS, WHERE'S THE PLAYSTATION 3'S AND XBOX 360'S?

Seriously, where the hell would the fun be?

[Tim Cornelis]

What is it you want to hear? How anarchist communism doesn't work because they didn't invent the playstation back in 1936?

[Искра]

Go out and play football.

MIPF4e3x_3U

[JFB.anon]

What is it you want to hear? How anarchist communism doesn't work because they didn't invent the playstation back in 1936?

In a theoretical anarcho-communist society, where would anything fun be? The only technological advances would be in production and things to increase the yield for necessities. Anarcho-communism can work, I'm asking whether they'd have computers and internet and shit like that.

[¿Que?]

I guess they were gonna write more objections, but that would have encroached on his poptart eating and video gaming.

[Искра]

In a theoretical anarcho-communist society, where would anything fun be? The only technological advances would be in production and things to increase the yield for necessities. Anarcho-communism can work, I'm asking whether they'd have computers and internet and shit like that.
Cut the crap.

There will be even Lady Gaga in anarcho-communist society. Do you really believe that some body wants to create society from Full Metal Jacket's barracks?

[Smyg]

Obvious trolling is obvious.

[JFB.anon]

Cut the crap.

There will be even Lady Gaga in anarcho-communist society. Do you really believe that some body wants to create society from Full Metal Jacket's barracks?
But why would they? What's their incentive?

Yes, markets are cruel, disgusting, environmentally infriendly beasts, but they still allow an incentive for everything. A movie featuring a guy punching himself in the nuts would have at least one person throwing their money at it.

[Искра]

Anarchist society allows an iniciative for everything which is not based on wage slavery. What's the point of freedom if not freedom of will?

So, once again in anarchist/communist society you will still have Lady Gaga, playstation, and iPod. Still, my advice to you: go out and play football.

[Luc]

Wait guys I think he is serious...

Are you trying to critique an economic system on the basis that it may not have an incentive to create entertainment medias?

Well free-market capitalism destroys the environment, continues wars, exploits people, and ruins live but it has PS3s!:rolleyes:

If it's a serious question:

I imagine the incentive to create PS3s and other entertainment will be that the entertainer (or creator) will want to do so because they enjoy it.

[Nox]

In a theoretical anarcho-communist society, where would anything fun be? The only technological advances would be in production and things to increase the yield for necessities. Anarcho-communism can work, I'm asking whether they'd have computers and internet and shit like that.

Of course they fucking would.

There would be much leisure time, and many people would work to improve things to do in that leisure time.

[DinodudeEpic]

If the workers want X-boxes.

Then they will probably vote for X-boxes to be made.

In fact, anarcho-communist society would give everything to everyone. Workers vote for X-boxes to made, the factory then produces x-boxes, and it is distributed to all of society.

The real problem is that anarcho-communism can't exist as long as there is scarcity. It also hasn't been practiced. There were anarchy-collectivist and anarchy-syndicalist societies, but they were definitely not communist.

[pax et aequalitas]

If the workers want X-boxes.

Then they will probably vote for X-boxes to be made.

In fact, anarcho-communist society would give everything to everyone. Workers vote for X-boxes to made, the factory then produces x-boxes, and it is distributed to all of society.

The real problem is that anarcho-communism can't exist as long as there is scarcity. It also hasn't been practiced. There were anarchy-collectivist and anarchy-syndicalist societies, but they were definitely not communist.

anarcho-syndicalist and anarcho-communist is not really mutually exclusive.

[Revolution starts with U]

http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/troll_thread3.jpg

[Patagonia]

I was looking at this great foreign documentary called "Living Utopia: the spanish anarchists" and, after hearing the 500th testimonial of some guy talking about how it was the greatest time in his short life, I realized libertarian communism can work. However, I have a few issues with it...

Seriously, where the hell would the fun be?

A little example:

Do you know the game/sim "Space Engine"? It's just awesome. It lets you explore the entire cosmos. To visit our moon, to take a look around Andromeda, or to go to a little earth-like planet in the other side of the universe. It renders billions and billions of moons, asteroids, planets, stars, galaxies, etc, using a process known as "procedural generation". It's a real mind-blower, a wonder of technology, truly (en dot spaceengine dot org, check it out!)

Well, the thing is that the guy who created it (a russian dude) gives it away for free. As you can surely imagine, the amount of work put into it is incredible. This guy has to eat and pay bills, but he did and still does everything to make this game better and better. Though he accepts donations, he doesn't charge anything for all of his hard work and dedication.

He does it just for the sake of it, to give it away to everyone else. Maybe to earn some reputation as a developer, and/or to hone his skills while he does it. Now, imagine how much more would he be able to do if he didn't have to slave himself 8 or more hours a day to a capitalist?

[RGacky3]

Considering they were all about free love, I'm guessing they had a lot more fun than in the republican or fascist parts of spain.

[#FF0000]

In a theoretical anarcho-communist society, where would anything fun be? The only technological advances would be in production and things to increase the yield for necessities. Anarcho-communism can work, I'm asking whether they'd have computers and internet and shit like that.

Of course. Don't be silly.

It takes incredibly little to produce what people need. The American flu vaccine supply is produced, every year, on fewer than 10 production lines.

Since there's that much slack on industry, then of course people will go on and produce vidya. So many do it for free already.

[ComradeMan]

Of course they fucking would.

There would be much leisure time, and many people would work to improve things to do in that leisure time.

How do you know?

[RGacky3]

Because its common sense, why would people work more than they absolutely have too? And why would'nt they work to make things better for themselves ...

[ComradeMan]

Because its common sense, why would people work more than they absolutely have too? And why would'nt they work to make things better for themselves ...

What is common sense in empirical terms?

[RGacky3]

self-evident ...

[ComradeMan]

self-evident ...

So that means it's true without needing to present proof.

But is common-sense scientific?

[¿Que?]

So that means it's true without needing to present proof.

But is common-sense scientific?
In all fairness, there must be certain things that do not require proof, or else you have an infinite regress of justification.

[RGacky3]

So that means it's true without needing to present proof.

But is common-sense scientific?

If your going to go against such common sense, self-evident things, I think you require proof.

Your asking for proof that people will do what they enjoy if they have the opportunity too ... Its rediculous, if you dissagree with my statement, tell me why, and why you think it is wrong and I'll respond.

[Nox]

How do you know?

Because there would be much less time spent producing the necessities (food, water, energy, housing) so more time can be spent on other things.

[ComradeMan]

If your going to go against such common sense, self-evident things, I think you require proof.

Your asking for proof that people will do what they enjoy if they have the opportunity too ... Its rediculous, if you dissagree with my statement, tell me why, and why you think it is wrong and I'll respond.

Err... I was asking how it was "self-evident" based on the fact we're dealing with a future hypothetical. :rolleyes:

Seeing as you used the term "common sense"- I asked for what you meant by common sense, implicity how that relates to the future hypothetical of a post-revolutionary anarchist-communist society.


Because there would be much less time spent producing the necessities (food, water, energy, housing) so more time can be spent on other things.

So we'd have to argue that the necessities we already produce are enough for all 7 billion people on the plant and that the issue is one of redistribution (I'm not disagreeing with you here by the way) and therefore at current production levels we could supply all of these necessities or, we could actually reduce them in terms of eliminating surplus? In which case how do you argue that there would be more free-time than we already have?

[RGacky3]

Err... I was asking how it was "self-evident" based on the fact we're dealing with a future hypothetical. http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-anarcho-communism-t162927/revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif


its not a FUTURE hypothetical, the more free time people have the more they use it for leasure .... NOW.


So we'd have to argue that the necessities we already produce are enough for all 7 billion people on the plant and that the issue is one of redistribution (I'm not disagreeing with you here by the way) and therefore at current production levels we could supply all of these necessities or, we could actually reduce them in terms of eliminating surplus? In which case how do you argue that there would be more free-time than we already have?

I would say we could actually reduce them, because capitaism generally over produces (for many economic reasons), also capitalism wastes tons of resources due to distribution, and uses tons of resources just to re-create the system, that waste could be done away with, also when we arn't producing for profit, that saves time, basically all these economic factors and others put together show that we can save a lot of labor time.

[#FF0000]

? In which case how do you argue that there would be more free-time than we already have?

Because with industry being what it is nowadays, it is incredible how much one can produce with so little. I mean, America, for example, loses manufacturing jobs all the time. There are so few factories nowadays, and outsourcing doesn't account for all of it. Meanwhile, the US is still the top producer in the world when it comes to manufacturing. Why is this? Because, factories are smaller and more efficient than ever before. In the pharma plant I worked at, we had three production lines with machines that were at least 40 years old in some cases. We produced tens of thousands of units a night, and every year produce enough vaccine for every person in the United States with much more left over.

And I mean, how many farms just don't produce anything? A ton of arable land is bought up by wealthy people to establish a "farm" that doesn't produce just so they can collect on government farm subsidies every month.

And how many jobs exist today that don't produce anything, that can be eliminated with the abolition of wage labor and the capitalistic economy?

I mean, damn son, someone with an inkling of the state of things today should be able to see this with no problem.

[ComradeMan]

Because with industry being what it is nowadays, it is incredible how much one can produce with so little. I mean, America, for example, loses manufacturing jobs all the time....
Interesting...


I mean, damn son, someone with an inkling of the state of things today should be able to see this with no problem.
I mean, damn son, I was trying to draw out the argument beyond pop tarts and play stations and "it's obvious" type answers.

A question does not automatically mean someone disagrees.... ;)

(I'm not disagreeing with you here by the way)
Next question though, with all the free-time and presumably little employment as we understand it what would be the effects in your opinion?

Do you think population size might be affected and actually reduce?

[RGacky3]

with all the free-time and presumably little employment as we understand it what would be the effects in your opinion?

Do you think population size might be affected and actually reduce?

The more economically advanced a country becomes, and the more egaleterian the society, generally population growth stabalizes.

[#FF0000]

I mean, damn son, I was trying to draw out the argument beyond pop tarts and play stations and "it's obvious" type answers.

A question does not automatically mean someone disagrees.... ;)

I figured that is what was going on but I get trolled easily so i angrypost when I know there is no reason to.


Do you think population size might be affected and actually reduce?

I am jumping in and saying yes. Generally people with a higher standard of living reproduce less. The two aren't directly linked, I'm sure, but yeah.

[Tim Cornelis]

But why would they? What's their incentive?

Yes, markets are cruel, disgusting, environmentally infriendly beasts, but they still allow an incentive for everything. A movie featuring a guy punching himself in the nuts would have at least one person throwing their money at it.

Okay I'll bite. Capitalists have always misunderstood human nature. The want of innovation is an integral part of human existence. When all people's basic needs are met they want to discover new things--people derive utility from doing innovative work.

Monetary reward for innovative work is in fact counter-productive:

u6XAPnuFjJc

[JFB.anon]

:confused:
Jesus, you guys are sensitive; I ask a question as to what would be fun in an Anarcho-communist society and you call me a troll. I mean, come on, that's (right)libertarian-style dogmatism - these are serious issues y'know.

[Ravachol]

But why would they? What's their incentive?

Yes, markets are cruel, disgusting, environmentally infriendly beasts, but they still allow an incentive for everything. A movie featuring a guy punching himself in the nuts would have at least one person throwing their money at it.

I wonder how open-source software gets written, surely there must be a whole market of people paying for it.... OH WAIT :rolleyes:
I honestly don't see how libertarian communism wouldn't be able to provide for what you call fun, there's an incentive: namely the demand for it's construction. There were movie theaters run by the CNT/FAI back then, that's hardly a 'necessity' and qualifies as 'fun' back in 1936, so cut the crap already.

[Tim Cornelis]

:confused:
Jesus, you guys are sensitive; I ask a question as to what would be fun in an Anarcho-communist society and you call me a troll. I mean, come on, that's (right)libertarian-style dogmatism - these are serious issues y'know.

That's because you ask whether we will have internet. Be honest, what kind of silly and ridiculous question is that?

[#FF0000]

:confused:
Jesus, you guys are sensitive; I ask a question as to what would be fun in an Anarcho-communist society and you call me a troll. I mean, come on, that's (right)libertarian-style dogmatism - these are serious issues y'know.

No joke, it is. I remember Lee Harvey Oswald commented on how fucking boring the USSR was. Nothing but the trade union dances.

Not an anarcho-communist society, but yeah.

[pax et aequalitas]

Okay I'll bite. Capitalists have always misunderstood human nature. The want of innovation is an integral part of human existence. When all people's basic needs are met they want to discover new things--people derive utility from doing innovative work.

Monetary reward for innovative work is in fact counter-productive:

u6XAPnuFjJc

Just wanted to say thanks for showing that vid, that was interesting and also useful for future arguments.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yup. Im Currently reading the book The Medici Effectby some guy at Harvard Business school. He says flat out, and shows studied to prove it, that monetary reward, as a condition for innovation, stifles innovation. People want to be compensated fairly, but making that an explicit reward of innovation makes them less creative.
One of the studies he mentioned was with children. They gave them a screen, a box of thumbtacks, and a candle, and they had to make a stand for the candle on the screen.
1 group was promised $20 if they finished in a certain time, $50 if they were first. The other group was offered no reward at all. Group two was consistently much faster at figuring it out (use the box as the stand is the answer, if you have'nt figured it out yet).

[ComradeMan]

Yup. Im Currently reading the book The Medici Effectby some guy at Harvard Business school. He says flat out, and shows studied to prove it, that monetary reward, as a condition for innovation, stifles innovation. People want to be compensated fairly, but making that an explicit reward of innovation makes them less creative.
One of the studies he mentioned was with children. They gave them a screen, a box of thumbtacks, and a candle, and they had to make a stand for the candle on the screen.
1 group was promised $20 if they finished in a certain time, $50 if they were first. The other group was offered no reward at all. Group two was consistently much faster at figuring it out (use the box as the stand is the answer, if you have'nt figured it out yet).

No offence but perhaps the other group weren't just that bright, or perhaps to save on $50 he deliberately arranged the groups..... LOL!!! :lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

One of the studies he mentioned


Did you not catch that?



One of the studies he mentioned


Behavioral studies are nearly unanimous in saying explicit monetary reward stifles creativity. What you reward is action taken, succesful or unsuccesful. If you want to innovate, don't tell people they will be rewarded better for more innovation.

[ComradeMan]

Behavioral studies are nearly unanimous in saying explicit monetary reward stifles creativity. What you reward is action taken, succesful or unsuccesful. If you want to innovate, don't tell people they will be rewarded better for more innovation.

It wasn't serious...

Why didn't they do research like this when I was at elementary school.... :mad:

Would you work for a mystery salary?

[Revolution starts with U]

Watch the video. THe idea is that you offer enough of a salary so that people are not worried about money. And then you reward effort, rather than results.
People, after the fact, want to be rewarded fairly. Explicit offers of rewards for success stifles creativity.

You should really watch the video, its excellent :thumbup1: