Profiting from Personal Property in Communism

[tooAlive]

Lets say that in a commune, everyone gets enough firewood to light their fireplaces and keep warm. Everyone gets just enough to light their fires, as there isn't a plentiful supply of firewood to be used for non-essential purposes like keeping your house warm.

One of the men in the commune realizes that if he splits his logs one by one, he's able to salvage some of the firewood for other purposes while still keeping the fireplace burning as long as they need it. The other men in the commune take note of what he's doing and tell him it's pointless -- that he's wasting his time and that he's an idiot.

This man doesn't pay attention to the other men and spends a few years setting aside the firewood until he had enough saved up to build something with them. So he decides to build a wooden horse for his kids, big enough for them to ride on while he strolled them around the village.

Soon after, the other kids in the village take note and want a wooden horse as well. They ask their parents for one, but nobody has enough firewood to build one, or even know how to do it. Disappointed, the village kids all want to go ride on the same horse. But given that there are so many kids and only one horse, the father realizes it will be far too time consuming for him to let every single kid ride on the horse one by one. It's also his personal horse the he built with his own labour from the same firewood that everyone else was given. So it's his personal property -- like a toothbrush.

Anyways, since the father doesn't want to disappoint the children but also cannot spend all day riding the kids around the village, he see's an opportunity to make use of the situation. He tells the children that in order to ride the horse, they must give him a small token of food. Some berries, nuts, fruits, or whatever they have access to. Some even bother to do favors for him, like help with the gardening, or other chores around his house.

Shortly after, the amount of food and other items he was able to receive from the kids in mutual exchanges for riding on the horse was so much that he and his wife no longer needed to labour anymore. They could ride the kids around the village all day and have plenty to eat without having to work like everyone else. (If you're wondering where the kids get the food/items from, it's their parents. They couldn't give the kids a horse so they give them extra food or things around the house for them to exchange for a horse ride)

Naturally, everyone in the village is now jealous of the man. They all want to build a wooden horse to do the same thing but they don't have enough firewood and don't even know how to build one. They would have to start saving firewood for a few more years before they'd be able to try, so nobody even bothers with it.

So, in communism, would this be allowed? If not, what would happen to the man that is now "profiting" from the labour he did once, and perhaps even (if you argue it) the labour of others, as he's receiving food the he nor his family labored for.

-----UPDATE-----

Let me simplify things quite a bit more since it seems everyone is trying to pick apart this commune and fly over the question by asserting that such a scenario would never be possible in communism.

I'm using hypothetical examples here. The gist of it is:

Someone made something out of purely scarce resources that can't be massed produced. That person now has something that the others want, but can't have immediately.

That something now grants said person additional benefits that the others don't have. Is that allowed in communism? If not, what will be done?

-----UPDATE #2------

Thanks to Argeiphontes for further simplifying the scenario.


1) Ok, so what would a communist village look like? Assume that's the village. You can have any village you want.

2) Add some guy making a toy and renting it out for profit.

Let's close some loopholes here:

a) This toy was invented by the guy himself.
b) It has not been mass produced yet, so it is not possible to order it from the local toy factory.
c) None knows how the toy works. He enjoys a monopoly on the toy.
d) Kids have other things they can do, but this toy is so cool that they all want to use it.
e) Some parents are willing to trade nuts and berries so their kids can use the toy.

What happens to the guy? :grin:

[Sabot Cat]

I think it's odd that you have an almost all-male commune. But disregarding that, why would they be using firewood when they could have electricity? Why is this community an island apart from the world, wherein they can't just lodge a request for wooden horses from a larger commune with more firewood? Why are these kids so psyched about wooden horse rides when they could be doing... literally anything else?

[tooAlive]

I think it's odd that you have an all-male commune. But disregarding that, why would they be using firewood when they could have electricity? Why is this community an island apart from the world, wherein they can't just lodge a request for wooden horses from a larger commune with more firewood? Why are these kids so psyched about wooden horse rides when they could be doing... literally anything else?

It's not an all-male commune. The men have wives, and the fact that there are kids implies that both men and women had to be around to make them.

And those are the circumstances regarding this commune. Firewood is scarce; not enough to build wooden horses or anything other than keeping your house warm.

The kids want to ride the wooden horse because they've never seen anything like it. It's what they want do, for whatever reason.

I want to know what happens in that case. And this is only one scenario.. There a billions of other ways a similar situation could arise in virtually any setting. I think your answer should be able to apply to every setting.

[Sabot Cat]

It's not an all-male commune. The men have wives, and the fact that there are kids implies that both men and women had to be around to make them.

None of the women are ever described as doing anything, unlike the men.


And those are the circumstances regarding this commune. Firewood is scarce, not enough to build wooden horses or anything other than keeping your house warm.


Yes... but... why?


The kids want to ride the wooden horse because they've never seen anything like it. It's what they want do, for whatever reason.

I want to know what happens in that case. And this is only one scenario.. There a billions of other ways a similar situation could arise in virtually any setting. I think your answer should be able to apply to every setting.

I think your scenario should be less fantastical and parable-like so it's more relatable to things as they could be.

[tooAlive]

Also, China does not exist to they can't receive a mass shipment of wooden horses.

There is only one wooden horse in this community. The only way to make another is to save up your firewood for a few years and learn woodworking.

[E-Shock Executioner]

Well mister eagle.

This scenario is extreamly unrealistic, so a answer to this would be punitive

If you made a more realistic scenario then yes, the answer would have some value.

[tooAlive]

None of the women are ever described as doing anything, unlike the men.

He and his wife both labored prior to having the wooden horse. In case you missed it:


Shortly after, the amount of food and other items he was able to receive from the kids in mutual exchanges for riding on the horse was so much that he and his wife no longer needed to labour anymore.

____


Yes... but... why?

Same reason all the kids want a Nintendo, an iPod, a scooter, or whatever. They see someone with something and being kids, they want one as well. This isn't a psychology class where we must identify the motives as to why the kids want the horse.


I think your scenario should be less fantastical and parable-like so it's more relatable to things as they could be.

More relatable? Ok. He named the horse, Black Beauty.

[tooAlive]

Well mister eagle.

This scenario is extreamly unrealistic, so a answer to this would be punitive

If you made a more realistic scenario then yes, the answer would have some value.

What's unrealistic about it? (Aside from the commune part)

Someone used a bit of creativity, bootstrapping, sacrifice and a lot of patience to accomplish something that everyone else could have, yet passed on the opportunity.

All while taking constant criticism from the others for doing something "out of the norm."

The story is a metaphor to convey that. It's happens every single day. The most unrealistic part of the story is the fact that everyone actually lives in a commune. But, you believe that's possible. So please answer my question.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Why does communism have to be based on this idea of a decentralized system of local, independent, and apparently isolated communes that for some reason haven't industrialized?

[argeiphontes]

I can't say what would happen in communism. But in market socialism, as long as he's not using wage labor, then there is nothing wrong with what he is doing. He just has a 'coop of one'.

edit: He's also paying the tax on the value of his capital.

[tooAlive]

Why does communism have to be based on this idea of a decentralized system of local independent communes?

Can you guys just answer the question?

This commune works this way because of its location and what was easiest for them. We also don't know what year it is.

It also doesn't matter what the other villages are doing because the kids in this village don't know about any of it. All they know is that their neighbor has a horse that nobody has and they want to ride it.

[tooAlive]

I can't say what would happen in communism. But in market socialism, as long as he's not using wage labor, then there is nothing wrong with what he is doing. He just has a 'coop of one'.

edit: He's also paying the tax on the value of his capital.

Well, I'm interested to know what would happen in communism as most of the board members here are communist.

Also, I'd argue he is profiting from wage labour. The fruits, nuts, items, ect.. that he and his wife receive come from the labour of the parents of the kids that pay to ride the horse.

And how is he paying a tax? There are no taxes or currency -- this is communism. Only voluntary exchanges and what not.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Can you guys just answer the question?

This commune works this way because of its location and what was easiest for them. We also don't know what year it is.

It also doesn't matter what the other villages are doing because the kids in this village don't know about any of it. All they know is that their neighbor has a horse that nobody has and they want to ride it.

Answer: No, it won't be allowed because I hope to God that communism isn't just a loosely connected system of preindustrial communes.

[Sabot Cat]

He and his wife both labored prior to having the wooden horse. In case you missed it:

Yes, but the men are the only one to put down the horse guy.



Same reason all the kids want a Nintendo, an iPod, a scooter, or whatever. They see someone with something and being kids, they want one as well. This isn't a psychology class where we must identify the motives as to why the kids want the horse.


It's kind of relevant to the story, because all of those things you mentioned could easily be mass produced and distributed to the commune.



Can you guys just answer the question?

This commune works this way because of its location and what was easiest for them. We also don't know what year it is.

It also doesn't matter what the other villages are doing because the kids in this village don't know about any of it. All they know is that their neighbor has a horse that nobody has and they want to ride it.

I challenge you to make up a comparable situation for the modern day world if the fable-like setting doesn't matter.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Also, China does not exist to they can't receive a mass shipment of wooden horses.

There is only one wooden horse in this community. The only way to make another is to save up your firewood for a few years and learn woodworking.

What happened the rest of the world? Has humanity been reduced to a single village?

[tooAlive]

Yes, but the men are the only one to put down the horse guy.

Because they're the only ones jealous of him. Their wives are more intelligent and mature.


It's kind of relevant to the story, because all of those things you mentioned could easily be mass produced and distributed to the commune.

Yes, but they already have those things. The firewood was scarce because of the number of trees available, and so this is the only wooden horse. It's something new that they've never seen, and so they want one.


I challenge you to make up a comparable situation for the modern day world if the fable-like setting doesn't matter.


Any scenario I make involving communism will be in a fable-like setting.

Just answer the question.

[Fourth Internationalist]

What happened the rest of the world? Has humanity been reduced to a single village?

Apparently this is communism post-Armageddon where the rest of humanity has been destroyed, including any knowledge and advancement in production brought about by the Industrial Revolution.

[tooAlive]

What happened the rest of the world? Has humanity been reduced to a single village?

Wood in general is scarce around the world, seeing as this post-capitalist society is very serious about protecting the planet. So trees are only to be used for essential purposes like construction and as firewood in some areas where it's needed.

[Manic Impressive]

If you want to know how small isolated communities live and work here's a couple of articles that may interest you.

Nevertheless, the Palmerstonians seem to have a good life. The days are long and the working hours short. As Bob says: "You are free to do what you want to do."
In the evenings, the schoolchildren go swimming or play volleyball, while some of the men gather around the island's only TV to watch the rugby highlights. The women relax on hammocks, laughing and joking.
In all this, alcohol plays no real part. Until the next supply ship makes an appearance, the island is dry. Beer is sometimes brewed, but only for special occasions. Edward, the island's policeman, is probably the least busy police officer in the world.
I ask one of the islanders what would happen if someone was to steal a coconut.
"I'd fill a wheel barrow [with coconuts] and take it round," he tells me. "They're obviously desperate but too proud to ask for one."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25430383

and Ian Bone recounting Tristan De Cunha

http://ianbone.wordpress.com/tristan-da-cunha/

[Sabot Cat]

Because they're the only ones jealous of him. Their wives are more intelligent and mature.

That's kind of a sexist trope, but okay.
(http://http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WomenAreWiser)


Yes, but they already have those things. The firewood was scarce because of the number of trees available, and so this is the only wooden horse. It's something new that they've never seen, and so they want one.


So these people are from before the Trojan War?


Any scenario I make involving communism will be in a fable-like setting.

Then make it a modern fable.


Just answer the question.

The answer is mu.

[argeiphontes]

Also, I'd argue he is profiting from wage labour. The fruits, nuts, items, ect.. that he and his wife receive come from the labour of the parents of the kids that pay to ride the horse.

Wage labor means hiring people to work your capital for you, and paying them less than the value of the stuff they produce. He would only be using wage labor if he hired some people from the commune to build him horses or manage the line for the ride and kept most of the nuts to himself, paying the workers less.

When you go to work, your employer is profiting from your labor. When you go to the store, the store is just realizing the profit they've made from their workers thru the process of exchanging the goods for money.

https://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/

[tooAlive]

That's kind of a sexist trope, but okay.
(http://http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WomenAreWiser)

Fine, it's sexist. Next.


So these people are from before the Trojan War?

No, this wooden horse is named Black Beauty, inspired by an 1877 novel. Although the story takes place much after that.


Then make it a modern fable.

I don't get paid to write fables, so lets stick to the one we already have, shall we?

[tooAlive]

Wage labor means hiring people to work your capital for you, and paying them less than the value of the stuff they produce. He would only be using wage labor if he hired some people from the commune to build him horses or manage the line for the ride and kept most of the nuts to himself, paying the workers less.

When you go to work, your employer is profiting from your labor. When you go to the store, the store is just realizing the profit they've made from their workers thru the process of exchanging the goods for money.

https://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/

Okay, cool.

So you personally don't have a problem with this man and his wife not having to work like the rest of the community, yet still have more food that the average household while all they do is stroll the kids around the village?

Do the others feel the same way?

[Sabot Cat]

I don't get paid to write fables, so lets stick to the one we already have, shall we?

Okay. The answer to your question, again, is mu. Mu is the only correct response when the question itself is wrong.

[tooAlive]

If you want to know how small isolated communities live and work here's a couple of articles that may interest you.

Nevertheless, the Palmerstonians seem to have a good life. The days are long and the working hours short. As Bob says: "You are free to do what you want to do."
In the evenings, the schoolchildren go swimming or play volleyball, while some of the men gather around the island's only TV to watch the rugby highlights. The women relax on hammocks, laughing and joking.
In all this, alcohol plays no real part. Until the next supply ship makes an appearance, the island is dry. Beer is sometimes brewed, but only for special occasions. Edward, the island's policeman, is probably the least busy police officer in the world.
I ask one of the islanders what would happen if someone was to steal a coconut.
"I'd fill a wheel barrow [with coconuts] and take it round," he tells me. "They're obviously desperate but too proud to ask for one."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25430383

and Ian Bone recounting Tristan De Cunha

http://ianbone.wordpress.com/tristan-da-cunha/

Thanks, but nothing that resembles a scenario similar to the one I outlined or mentions of wooden horses.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wood in general is scarce around the world, seeing as this post-capitalist society is very serious about protecting the planet. So trees are only to be used for essential purposes like construction and as firewood in some areas where it's needed.

So why can't they recycle plastic for the purpose? There's landfills full of the stuff which is doing nothing but making a mess of the place.

[tooAlive]

Okay. The answer to your question, again, is mu. Mu is the only correct response when the question itself is wrong.

It's a hypothetical question about a hypothetical scenario in a hypothetical communist wonderland you advocate for, so you should technically be able to give me a hypothetical answer.

So far 26 posts have gone by and you guys are better at dodging the original question than Mitt Romney.

[Taters]

It's a hypothetical question about a hypothetical scenario in a hypothetical communist wonderland you advocate for, so you should technically be able to give me a hypothetical answer.

So far 26 posts have gone by and you guys are better at dodging the original question than Mitt Romney.

We'd kill him and burn his wooden horse.

[tooAlive]

So why can't they recycle plastic for the purpose? There's landfills full of the stuff which is doing nothing but making a mess of the place.

Because this story is about something that someone did with a scarce resource that nobody else had the initiative to do.

If you keep dodging the question I'll just conclude that such a scenario wouldn't be tolerated in your communism. Which is fine, I'm just curious to know as I want to get a better understanding of your system.

[tooAlive]

We'd kill him and burn his wooden horse.

Great, we finally get an honest answer.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

It's a hypothetical question about a hypothetical scenario in a hypothetical communist wonderland you advocate for, so you should technically be able to give me a hypothetical answer.

So far 26 posts have gone by and you guys are better at dodging the original question than Mitt Romney.

Because you are better than Mitt Romney to dodge making a story not so fairytale-like.

I reality, the other men would just order some wooden horses from another commune. We are notliving in a pre-industrialised world, so there is absolutely no need to answer a question about an unrealistic fable.

[tooAlive]

Because you are better than Mitt Romney to dodge making a story not so fairytale-like.

I reality, the other men would just order some wooden horses from another commune. We are notliving in a pre-industrialised world, so there is absolutely no need to answer a question about an unrealistic fable.

Again, we're talking about communism here. You must understand that any example I make will inevitably be fairytale-like and unrealistic.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because this story is about something that someone did with a scarce resource that nobody else had the initiative to do.

Now you're shifting the goalposts. You've moved from "making a profit" to "showing initiative with scarce resources". Those are not the same thing.

Why can't the wooden horse-maker show others how to do it with their own firewood? A bit of teaching is bound to take up less time than manufacturing wooden horses for everyone who wants one, especially when you consider that the original wooden horse-maker only has to teach one other person who can then transfer their skills to yet more people.


If you keep dodging the question I'll just conclude that such a scenario wouldn't be tolerated in your communism. Which is fine, I'm just curious to know as I want to get a better understanding of your system.

Making use of alternative materials to fulfil wants/needs is the precise opposite of a "dodge".

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Let's pretend for arguments sake these tiny villages exist and there's only one guy with the know how to build a horse made out of wood. First, why does he need the kids to give him food like small fruits? Does he not have any, have they run low? Secondly why does he now not work if there's just some kids helping him out doing chores and stuff around the house? The only work he does is around the house? Does he just have a bunch of kids following him doing whatever he asks for a ride on this grand wooden horse? So when the commune is planning production and realizes that he's not doing a single thing anymore and instead is just making their kids do work for him(child labor is what you wish to exploit, yay) to ride a wooden horse everybody would be fine with the ridiculousness of that situation?

Why am I giving my kids food because they can't ride on the wooden horse? I would sit my kids down right there and teach them a lesson about how it's bad to do what that mans doing, that when you have a toy that nobody else has you SHARE it with other people, you don't make people pay to play with it. I mean seriously who wants to be that douchebag, when you invite your friends over to play video games or something do you charge them at the door? This is stuff you teach children in preschool and kindergarten, how old are you? I wouldn't let my children near this guy.

[tooAlive]

Now you're shifting the goalposts. You've moved from "making a profit" to "showing initiative with scarce resources". Those are not the same thing.

He's making a profit because of his initiative using the scarce resources. The goal post never moved.


Why can't the wooden horse-maker show others how to do it with their own firewood? A bit of teaching is bound to take up less time than manufacturing wooden horses for everyone who wants one, especially when you consider that the original wooden horse-maker only has to teach one other person who can then transfer their skills to yet more people.

Because the others didn't care to learn! They called him an idiot in the beginning. They said it was a waste of time. He'd be more than happy to teach them, but nobody is willing to spend a few years bootstrapping, setting aside the firewood, and then take classes from the same person they called a fool.

Looks like a few other fellow comrades would much rather just kill the guy.

[Taters]

Great, we finally get an honest answer.

Well really your little 'hypothetical' parable thing is just super dumb. You seem to think communism is a bunch of peasants chopping firewood and trading berries.

[argeiphontes]

So you personally don't have a problem with this man and his wife not having to work like the rest of the community, yet still have more food that the average household while all they do is stroll the kids around the village?


I wouldn't say they're not working. They're providing a service to the community, right? They're running the horse ride. Not all jobs are as difficult as others, that's just a fact of life. Besides, capital is accumulated labor, so they have put in previous labor to build the horse. Now, it is "depreciating" and they will have to repair and maintain it. So there is definitely work involved.

Perfect equality isn't a feature of market socialism. It's a compromise in some sense, but also provides market forces (incentives) to allocate labor within or among enterprises. Market socialists don't think the market is essential to capitalism. The other features of capitalism are done away with, though.



Do the others feel the same way?Nope. According to some people on the board, I'm a corrupt liberal who's useless to the revolution. Full communism eliminates the market in favor of a planned economy or a gift economy or other non-market allocation system. Goods are freely available or can be exchanged for labor credits either before or after they are produced. Some systems, like ParEcon, have "indicative prices" that are determined by iterative negotiations between producers and consumers.

I didn't want to speak for anyone else, but I think most communists would not allow the horseplay you've suggested. All capital is collectively owned by the entire society in full communism, including the horse. You could still have a horse ride though, it just wouldn't be the personal property of the guy who ran the ride. The village would get together and democratically decide who does what. Maybe there would be a rotation so that the same person wouldn't always get the "easier" job at the expense of everyone else.

[tooAlive]

Let's pretend for arguments sake these tiny villages exist and there's only one guy with the know how to build a horse made out of wood. First, why does he need the kids to give him food like small fruits? Does he not have any, have they run low? Secondly why does he now not work if there's just some kids helping him out doing chores and stuff around the house? The only work he does is around the house? Does he just have a bunch of kids following him doing whatever he asks for a ride on this grand wooden horse? So when the commune is planning production and realizes that he's not doing a single thing anymore and instead is just making their kids do work for him(child labor is what you wish to exploit, yay) to ride a wooden horse everybody would be fine with the ridiculousness of that situation?

What's up with voluntary exchanges then? In order for this guy to be able to meet the demand of all the children, he can't go labour like everyone else. That's why he asks for food, items, favours, ect.. In order to stroll the kids around the community full-time. There is no child labour here or anything remotely close to it.

As to why he's the only one with the ability to make the horses, see my last post.


Why am I giving my kids food because they can't ride on the wooden horse? I would sit my kids down right there and teach them a lesson about how it's bad to do what that mans doing, that when you have a toy that nobody else has you SHARE it with other people, you don't make people pay to play with it. I mean seriously who wants to be that douchebag, when you invite your friends over to play video games or something do you charge them at the door? This is stuff you teach children in preschool and kindergarten, how old are you? I wouldn't let my children near this guy.

He doesn't mind sharing it. But either he works like everyone else, or rides the kids around in the horse all day. In order to make it worthwhile he asks for small tokens of food, berries, ect..

[Per Levy]

It's a hypothetical question about a hypothetical scenario in a hypothetical communist wonderland you advocate for, so you should technically be able to give me a hypothetical answer.

So far 26 posts have gone by and you guys are better at dodging the original question than Mitt Romney.

cause there is no question worth answering, you create a fantasy commune(makes you wonder where the orcs and elves are) and ask us how this fantasy commune would deal with a scenario that might would've been interesting for utopian communist in the 17th century. we live in the 21th century though and this scenario of yours is completly bonkers.

[tooAlive]

Well really your little 'hypothetical' parable thing is just super dumb. You seem to think communism is a bunch of peasants chopping firewood and trading berries.

Obviously, any hypothetical scenario that makes communism look bad is "super dumb."

[tooAlive]

cause there is no question worth answering, you create a fantasy commune(makes you wonder where the orcs and elves are) and ask us how this fantasy commune would deal with a scenario that might would've been interesting for utopian communist in the 17th century. we live in the 21th century though and this scenario of yours is completly bonkers.

The elves and orcs were expatriated because of their reactionary views.

Does that make it sound more believable?

[Sabot Cat]

The elves and orcs were expatriated because of their reactionary views.

Does that make it sound more believable?

No, but it does make it sound more entertaining.

[Remus Bleys]

But this isn't communism. Communism is post capitalist. Post industrialist

[tooAlive]

But this isn't communism. Communism is post capitalist. Post industrialist

There's no currency, no social classes, no state -- just the proletariat working and existing communally.

I'm pretty sure that's communism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

There's no currency, no social classes, no state -- just the proletariat working and existing communally.

I'm pretty sure that's communism.

The proletariat is a class. If it exists, there is no communism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

He's making a profit because of his initiative using the scarce resources. The goal post never moved.

Is he making a profit, though? Because I hardly think renting out a single wooden horse is going to be enough to support one person, let alone two. Especially if the material situation is as grim as you seem to be making out!


Because the others didn't care to learn! They called him an idiot in the beginning. They said it was a waste of time. He'd be more than happy to teach them, but nobody is willing to spend a few years bootstrapping, setting aside the firewood, and then take classes from the same person they called a fool.

So all of them thought this guy was an idiot, and none of them thought to do some learning? How did people that stupid and short-sighted maintain a community under conditions of scarcity for so long?


Looks like a few other fellow comrades would much rather just kill the guy.

Or maybe they're just frustrated with your ill-conceived hypothetical.

[Per Levy]

There's no currency, no social classes, no state -- just the proletariat working and existing communally.

I'm pretty sure that's communism.

how can there be proles if classes dont exist anymore?


The elves and orcs were expatriated because of their reactionary views.

Does that make it sound more believable?

no it doesnt, and if you're here to just have your prejudges agaisnt communism and commies reinforced then you should come up with something better then this fantasy tale.

[tooAlive]

The proletariat is a class. If it exists, there is no communism.

Ahh you're right -- I've incorrectly referred to the commune as the proletariat. That would imply that they sell their labour. I stand corrected.

The commune in question has overthrown the ruling class, and subsequently abolished all classes.

[sosolo]

Why would the villagers be reliant on wood? There would be all sorts of renewable energy, as this would be a priority. Thus, they would have furnaces to heat their homes.

Automated factories could produce more than enough interesting toys for children. If they want creepy old-school wooden horses, wooden horses they shall have.

What's next? The local cooper renting out barrel straps and sticks for the children to roll down the street? This is patently ridiculous.

The scenario sounds more like primitivism than communism. Where did the billions of people go?

Perhaps the Georgia Guidestones hold the answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Remus Bleys]

No. Communism is that but it is more. Communism is the rational centralized planning for use. This can only occur in an industrialized society

[Sabot Cat]

Okay, how about this. The commune holds a vote on Black Beauty the wooden horse. They vote that because he isn't just using it for his own purposes, it's not personal property, and because he isn't sharing it without compensation, they expropriate it for use by the community. Now children can take turns riding it for free. The End.

[Taters]

Obviously, any hypothetical scenario that makes communism look bad is "super dumb."

Of course. The secret police will be paying you a visit any moment now.
Geez you're definitely not getting any firewood or berries in FULL COMMUNISM.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Ahh you're right -- I've incorrectly referred to the commune as the proletariat. That would imply that they sell their labour. I stand corrected.

The commune in question has overthrown the ruling class, and subsequently abolished all classes.

Communes don't abolish class society, the proletariat does.

[tooAlive]

Is he making a profit, though? Because I hardly think renting out a single wooden horse is going to be enough to support one person, let alone two. Especially if the material situation is as grim as you seem to be making out!

Everything he makes is a profit, as there's no cost associated with strolling around town with the horse. In comparison to the amount of food and commodities he'd bring home while laboring like the rest, yes, he makes more with the horse than his neighbors.


So all of them thought this guy was an idiot, and none of them thought to do some learning? How did people that stupid and short-sighted maintain a community under conditions of scarcity for so long?

Because they didn't have the same vision he had. They never conceived that the wood could be used for anything other than lighting a fire.


Or maybe they're just frustrated with your ill-conceived hypothetical.

Sounds more like jealousy than frustration to me.

[tooAlive]

Communes don't abolish class society, the proletariat does.

Yes, I know.

The commune in question was once the proletariat that overthrew the ruling class via the dictatorship of the proletariat and subsequently became a commune.

How much more technical do I need to get?

[tooAlive]

Okay, how about this. The commune holds a vote on Black Beauty the wooden horse. They vote that because he isn't just using it for his own purposes, it's not personal property, and because he isn't sharing it without compensation, they expropriate it for use by the community. Now children can take turns riding it for free. The End.

I'd say that's just as disgusting as Taters wanting to kill the guy.

Everyone called this man an idiot for bootstrapping and setting aside the firewood, criticized him and laughed, then once it's all said and done when everyone sees just how valuable his work really was and the opportunity they all missed, they vote to take the horse he built away and use it themselves.

Some assholes those villagers are.

[Sabot Cat]

I'd say that's just as disgusting as Taters wanting to kill the guy.

Everyone called this man an idiot for bootstrapping and setting aside the firewood, criticized him and laughed, then once it's all said and done when everyone sees just how valuable his work really was and the opportunity they all missed, they vote to take the horse he built away and use it themselves.

Some assholes those villagers are.

Yeah, well he shouldn't have exhorted children for their food in order to ride a horse that he could have shared for free. You yourself said there is no cost associated for riding a horse around the town, so why does he need such compensation?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Yes, I know.

The commune in question was once the proletariat that overthrew the ruling class via the dictatorship of the proletariat and subsequently became a commune.

How much more technical do I need to get?

That was clearly a small proletariat that overthrew class society if every member of the proletariat is able to fit into a commune. Why did these people choose to organize into a small and isolated preindustrial commune?

[tooAlive]

Yeah, well he shouldn't have exhorted children for their food in order to ride a horse that he could have shared for free.

Nobody was exhorted. The children's' parents gave them extra food (In a modern society, gave them money) to go compensate the man for riding them around all day.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Everything he makes is a profit, as there's no cost associated with strolling around town with the horse. In comparison to the amount of food and commodities he'd bring home while laboring like the rest, yes, he makes more with the horse than his neighbors.

Wrong. There is a cost in time, and it won't exactly be cost-free in terms of physical energy, either - looking after and playing with kids can be hard work. So that's time and energy which could have been spent elsewhere.

Also, why can't the kids just share the horse? It's a small community after all.


Because they didn't have the same vision he had. They never conceived that the wood could be used for anything other than lighting a fire.

That doesn't answer my question of how they managed to survive, and in fact just compounds the problem. It doesn't take a genius to work out that wood can be made into toys as well as burnt for heat!


Sounds more like jealousy than frustration to me.

What? You think they're jealous of fictional people in a hypothetical scenario in which people appear to be living at a medieval standard of living? You'd best be trolling.

[tooAlive]

That was clearly a small proletariat that overthrew class society if every member of the proletariat is able to fit into a commune. Why did these people choose to organize into a small and isolated preindustrial commune?

Because that's where they live. This could be a village far away from civilization, an island, or who knows.

Why do you have such a problem acknowledging that such places exist on earth?

[Sabot Cat]

Nobody was exhorted. The children's' parents gave them extra food (In a modern society, gave them money) to go compensate the man for riding them around all day.

Then he's not making a profit if he's just being compensated for the labor of providing the service. Or, if that's not what he's doing, and he's making the kids give him more food than his labor is worth, I'd say he's exploiting them and thus the expropriation of the horse is justified.

[Fourth Internationalist]

So far 26 posts have gone by and you guys are better at dodging the original question than Mitt Romney.
Great, we finally get an honest answer.Was this not a sufficient answer on the first page?
Answer: No, it won't be allowed because I hope to God that communism isn't just a loosely connected system of preindustrial communes.

[tooAlive]

Wrong. There is a cost in time, and it won't exactly be cost-free in terms of physical energy, either - looking after and playing with kids can be hard work. So that's time and energy which could have been spent elsewhere.

Correct. That's why he's compensated for riding the horse around.

It just so happens that this work is quite enjoyable, and he makes more than the others that do regular labour.


Also, why can't the kids just share the horse? It's a small community after all.


Because the horse is that man's personal property, and years oh his saving wood, bootstrapping and learning how to woodwork.


That doesn't answer my question of how they managed to survive, and in fact just compounds the problem. It doesn't take a genius to work out that wood can be made into toys as well as burnt for heat!

I already said that wood specifically was a scarce resource, and was not to be made into toys or other non-essential uses.


What? You think they're jealous of fictional people in a hypothetical scenario in which people appear to be living at a medieval standard of living? You'd best be trolling.

Yes. The fictional characters are jealous of another fictional character for doing something they could have done but chose not to, in a hypothetical scenario.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

What's up with voluntary exchanges then? In order for this guy to be able to meet the demand of all the children, he can't go labour like everyone else.Or he could just do what every person does when children ask for more and more time on the wooden horse and tell them that he doesn't have time to ride children around on his wooden horse all day. Why does it take all day to ride children around on a wooden horse? He doesn't have a concept of "no". Have you ever taken care of a child? My nephew usually wants to play with his toys forever too, if I centered my life around his demands I too wouldn't have any time to do anything else with my life until he gets a few years older. That's why your situation is so stupid, even in real life existing capitalism people aren't anywhere near this.

But you want to make the argument that all the children come to this wooden horse guy so he doesn't have enough time to do anything else. Well at this point if you're watching all the kids in the village you're essentially a daycare, which is work. If you're watching everybody else's kids all day you're laboring, there's no need for you to exploit the kids. If you turned the horse into your private property and started demanding labor(berries, chores around the house, etc) if people wanted to ride it then it would be expropriated. There's a fine line between private property and personal property, you crossed that line when other people(children of all people) started working for you.


That's why he asks for food, items, favours, ect.. In order to stroll the kids around the community full-time. There is no child labour here or anything remotely close to it.Well you said chores around the house. You'd basically have a bunch of kids over at your house doing everything for you, isn't that what you said? That because of all the stuff the kids do he wouldn't have to work anymore. Who else is doing the work? If in today's world my kid came to me and said to give him food so he could ride a wooden horse some guy made I would say no, it wouldn't be any different in communist society. My guess is you'd run out of food quite quickly if that's how things were actually distributed in a communist society(but they aren't).

[tooAlive]

Then he's not making a profit if he's just being compensated for the labor of providing the service. Or, if that's not what he's doing, and he's making the kids give him more food than his labor is worth, I'd say he's exploiting them and thus the expropriation of the horse is justified.

So after 12pm he tells the kids that they can ride for free from then on as he's already made enough to meet his needs?

So some kids get to ride for free, and others that unluckily ride early in the day have to pay. Is that what you're saying?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Because that's where they live. This could be a village far away from civilization, an island, or who knows.

Why do you have such a problem acknowledging that such places exist on earth?

I have a problem with this because your hypothetical situation is placed in a world without industrialization, something that cannot exist unless Armageddon occurs. Secondly, it is based on this silly commune system which is not inherent to communism, unless you would consider the entire world in communist society "one big commune." But if that's the case, then wood never be a scarce resource, combined with the fact that hand produced goods, in the way this man made the toy horse, has already been surpassed by the industrial production of goods.

[Sabot Cat]

So after 12pm he tells the kids that they can ride for free from then on as he's already made enough to meet his needs?

So some kids get to ride for free, and others that unluckily ride early in the day have to pay. Is that what you're saying?

Er, what? I'm not sure why there would be block compensation for horse riding per day, and he can labor for more than his needs require and get excess resources in so doing. The difference would be that he isn't exploiting anyone.

[tooAlive]

Or he could just do what every person does when children ask for more and more time on the wooden horse and tell them that he doesn't have time to ride children around on his wooden horse all day. Why does it take all day to ride children around on a wooden horse? He doesn't have a concept of "no". Have you ever taken care of a child? My nephew usually wants to play with his toys forever too, if I centered my life around his demands I too wouldn't have any time to do anything else with my life until he gets a few years older. That's why your situation is so stupid, even in real life existing capitalism people aren't anywhere near this.

But you want to make the argument that all the children come to this wooden horse guy so he doesn't have enough time to do anything else. Well at this point if you're watching all the kids in the village you're essentially a daycare, which is work. If you're watching everybody else's kids all day you're laboring, there's no need for you to exploit the kids. If you turned the horse into your private property and started demanding labor(berries, chores around the house, etc) if people wanted to ride it then it would be expropriated. There's a fine line between private property and personal property, you crossed that line when other people(children of all people) started working for you.

Well you said chores around the house. You'd basically have a bunch of kids over at your house doing everything for you, isn't that what you said? That because of all the stuff the kids do he wouldn't have to work anymore. Who else is doing the work? If in today's world my kid came to me and said to give him food so he could ride a wooden horse some guy made I would say no, it wouldn't be any different in communist society. My guess is you'd run out of food quite quickly if that's how things were actually distributed in a communist society(but they aren't).

He doesn't have any kids working for him. They compensate him with items given to them by their parents for this sole purpose, or help him water his plants, or whatever agreement they mutually come to.

[tooAlive]

Er, what? I'm not sure why there would be block compensation for horse riding per day, and he can labor for more than his needs require and get excess resources in so doing. The difference would be that he isn't exploiting anyone.

I don't think you understood my point.

The kids compensate him as they ride, one by one. Everyone the same amount. I implied that by 12pm, he had already received what he and his family needed to survive. Any more kids he takes on after that would compensate him more than he actually needs. And by the end of the day, once all the kids have ridden, he's made much more than the the other who labored regularly.

[Sabot Cat]

I don't think you understood my point.

The kids compensate him as they ride, one by one. Everyone the same amount. I implied that by 12pm, he had already received what he and his family needed to survive. Any more kids he takes on after that would compensate him more than he actually needs. And by the end of the day, once all the kids have ridden, he's made much more than the the other who labored regularly.

Right, but the value of labor doesn't change when one's needs are met, so it doesn't matter.

[tooAlive]

I have a problem with this because your hypothetical situation is placed in a world without industrialization, something that cannot exist unless Armageddon occurs. Secondly, it is based on this silly commune system which is not inherent to communism, unless you would consider the entire world in communist society "one big commune." But if that's the case, then wood never be a scarce resource, combined with the fact that hand produced goods, in the way this man made the toy horse, has already been surpassed by the industrial production of goods.

It's a scenario!

One person figured out a way to use a scarce resource that can't be mass produced for his benefit, and now has something that the others don't, but could've had. That's the gist of it.

You're avoiding addressing my question by bringing in other hypothetical circumstances.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because the horse is that man's personal property, and years oh his saving wood, bootstrapping and learning how to woodwork.

It stops being his personal property when he rents it out for a profit.


I already said that wood specifically was a scarce resource, and was not to be made into toys or other non-essential uses.

If it's a scarce resource, then the wooden horse maker and his wife risk dying of hypothermia because of insufficient firewood, if they don't end up having to share the fires of others in the community. The others are aware that they could make toys out of firewood, but choose not to because they prefer being warm and alive. If they have to support one of their number because they chose to make toys instead of burning firewood, then that alone should be considered compensation enough.


Yes. The fictional characters are jealous of another fictional character for doing something they could have done but chose not to, in a hypothetical scenario.

When I said "Or maybe they're just frustrated with your ill-conceived hypothetical.", I was referring to users on this forum.

[tooAlive]

Right, but the value of labor doesn't change when one's needs are met, so it doesn't matter.

Cool. So you don't mind him bringing in 3x more resources than the others while not laboring as hard?

They labour while he and his wife take turns watching kids ride on a wooden horse.

[argeiphontes]

How much more technical do I need to get?

I have to say I'm a little appalled that everybody is unwilling to address your abstraction in order to illustrate their principles.

Anyway...

In communism, the guy would only be allowed to have his horse for his personal use. He would not be allowed to open a business that charged for it. If the community wanted a horse for the kids, somebody would have to propose it to the council of the commune, and they would democratically decide how to go about allocating the labor and materials needed. Knowing that he could never open a horse-based business, he would probably not have built it "on spec" in the first place.

[Sabot Cat]

Cool. So you don't mind him bringing in 3x more resources than the others while not laboring as hard?

He may not be laboring as hard, but he's laboring more.


They labour while he and his wife take turns watching kids ride on a wooden horse.

Child supervision is labor.

[tooAlive]

It stops being his personal property when he rents it out for a profit.

Doesn't seem fair to me, considering all he went through to make it.

But that's natural, I'm not a marxist.


If it's a scarce resource, then the wooden horse maker and his wife risk dying of hypothermia because of insufficient firewood, if they don't end up having to share the fires of others in the community. The others are aware that they could make toys out of firewood, but choose not to because they prefer being warm and alive. If they have to support one of their number because they chose to make toys instead of burning firewood, then that alone should be considered compensation enough.

I already addressed that. He split the logs and saved the bits he cut up for years until he had enough to build the horse. Nobody froze or came close to it.


When I said "Or maybe they're just frustrated with your ill-conceived hypothetical.", I was referring to users on this forum.

Gotcha. I was talking about the hypothetical members of the commune. :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's a scenario!

One person figured out a way to use a scarce resource that can't be mass produced for his benefit, and now has something that the others don't, but could've had. That's the gist of it.

They can still have it if they really want it. All they have to do is learn how to make a wooden horse and be willing to make do with less firewood for however long it takes. You don't need to be a "visionary" to do that!


You're avoiding addressing my question by bringing in other hypothetical circumstances.

You're the one hedging your hypothetical with ridiculous conditions, like a lack of industrialisation and no global economy. You're doing that because your hypothetical becomes redundant otherwise.

[tooAlive]

I have to say I'm a little appalled that everybody is unwilling to address your abstraction in order to illustrate their principles.

Anyway...

In communism, the guy would only be allowed to have his horse for his personal use. He would not be allowed to open a business that charged for it. If the community wanted a horse for the kids, somebody would have to propose it to the council of the commune, and they would democratically decide how to go about allocating the labor and materials needed. Knowing that he could never open a horse-based business, he would probably not have built it "on spec" in the first place.

Thank you.

So lets say that he doesn't rent it out for a profit or benefits from it in any way. We've already come to the conclusion that it would be penalized and a few on here are accusing him of exploiting children.

What if he decides to ride the horse himself around town with his wife?

When the others that previously called him an idiot ask for a ride, he politely declines and encourages them to build their own.

Is that allowed?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

He doesn't have any kids working for him. They compensate him with items given to them by their parents for this sole purpose, or help him water his plants, or whatever agreement they mutually come to.
"or whatever agreement they mutually come to" like watering his plants, mowing his lawn, trimming his hedges, washing his dishes, etc? This is all work and if I'm not mistaken you said that they wouldn't have to work anymore. So who's doing the work? Did you not say that the children are doing the chores? You did, that's exactly what you said. So please stop pretending like you didn't say that, you can say it a thousand different ways but in the end you're telling a bunch of kids that they can't ride your wooden horse unless they do something for you first. Whether it's more food(because you need more free food in a communist society right) or you're telling them to water your plants you're telling them no they can't ride your wooden horse until you get whatever you can out of them. So yes they are working for you so that they can access what is(at this point) your private property which would quickly be expropriated by the community where all the kids can ride it without having to either pay you in food or work for it.

If this whole hypothetical was to get a sense of whether you would be able to recreate conditions of capitalism within communist society I would say that no, people would oppose it.

[tooAlive]

They can still have it if they really want it. All they have to do is learn how to make a wooden horse and be willing to make do with less firewood for however long it takes. You don't need to be a "visionary" to do that!

Correct. Anyone can build a horse.. So long as they bootstrap for a few years and learn to make one.


You're the one hedging your hypothetical with ridiculous conditions, like a lack of industrialisation and no global economy. You're doing that because your hypothetical becomes redundant otherwise.

Even in a global economy scarce resources would continue to be scarce. So it wouldn't make a difference in terms of mass producing horses or not. The only way to make one is the way outlined above.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Doesn't seem fair to me, considering all he went through to make it.

But that's natural, I'm not a marxist.

Is it fair that by making this wooden horse, this person (and likely his wife) ends up relying on the goodwill of others just so that they can exploit the "pester power" of children for their own gain?


I already addressed that. He split the logs and saved the bits he cut up for years until he had enough to build the horse. Nobody froze or came close to it.

It took him years to make one wooden horse? I'm dubious about this guy's craftmanship. Either that or wood even scarcer than I thought, which makes putting some aside for toy-making even more stupid.

[Sabot Cat]

Here's an alternative ending that might make tooAlive happier:

The community has a vote on Black Beauty and its creator. They issue a public apology for unfairly criticizing his ideas, and give him a Medal of Innovation. Because he has made supervising children effectively his job, they officially begin allocating resources to him for the amount of hours he spends doing that task. The children are prohibited from doing the same.

[tooAlive]

"or whatever agreement they mutually come to" like watering his plants, mowing his lawn, trimming his hedges, washing his dishes, etc? This is all work and if I'm not mistaken you said that they wouldn't have to work anymore. So who's doing the work? Did you not say that the children are doing the chores? You did, that's exactly what you said. So please stop pretending like you didn't say that, you can say it a thousand different ways but in the end you're telling a bunch of kids that they can't ride your wooden horse unless they do something for you first. Whether it's more food(because you need more free food in a communist society right) or you're telling them to water your plants you're telling them no they can't ride your wooden horse until you get whatever you can out of them. So yes they are working for you so that they can access what is(at this point) your private property which would quickly be expropriated by the community where all the kids can ride it without having to either pay you in food or work for it.

Yep, you understood me correctly.

In a modern world kids would ask their parents for money to go ride the ferris wheel or merry go round.

I see you'd favor taking away the wooden horse from him, even after calling him an idiot for trying to make it.

I respect your opinion but think it's disgusting. :)


If this whole hypothetical was to get a sense of whether you would be able to recreate conditions of capitalism within communist society I would say that no, people would oppose it.

Yes. The people who called the man an idiot for building the horse in the first place, then taking it away when he wouldn't share/profited from it would certainly oppose of him. Again, I think it's disgusting.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Correct. Anyone can build a horse.. So long as they bootstrap for a few years and learn to make one.

So renting it out would be pointless, given that others could just make one themselves.


Even in a global economy scarce resources would continue to be scarce. So it wouldn't make a difference in terms of mass producing horses or not. The only way to make one is the way outlined above.

Wood isn't that scarce today, and I doubt it would be that scarce in the future. Even if it was, a global economy would be more than capable of making use of alternate resources, such as recycled plastic.

[Fourth Internationalist]

It's a scenario!

One person figured out a way to use a scarce resource that can't be mass produced for his benefit, and now has something that the others don't, but could've had. That's the gist of it.

You're avoiding addressing my question by bringing in other hypothetical circumstances.

Then use an actual scenario from a hypothetical communist society rather than a clearly non-industrialized and isolated commune. No one can give a universal answer to this scenario (which occurs in non-comunism) that applies to all others. It depends on what is being produced, or how this person had the ability to use this resource in the first place, which I would don't see a possible scenario for given that production would be collective in communism.

My hypothetical circumstances, like that industrial production doesn't cease to exist? Is that really such a crazy assumption, especially considering one important aspect of Marxist communism is that industrialization is a prerequisite to communism?

[tooAlive]

Is it fair that by making this wooden horse, this person (and likely his wife) ends up relying on the goodwill of others just so that they can exploit the "pester power" of children for their own gain?

I wouldn't call meeting a demand, exploitation.

Again, that's just me.


It took him years to make one wooden horse? I'm dubious about this guy's craftmanship. Either that or wood even scarcer than I thought, which makes putting some aside for toy-making even more stupid.

I used it as a metaphor to describe the process many people have gone through in order to make a better life for themselves in modern times. Usually starting a business or taking on an entrepreneurial venture takes years to to see results, and other times fail completely.

[argeiphontes]

So lets say that he doesn't rent it out for a profit or benefits from it in any way. We've already come to the conclusion that it would be penalized and a few on here are accusing him of exploiting children.

What if he decides to ride the horse himself around town with his wife?

When the others that previously called him an idiot ask for a ride, he politely declines and encourages them to build their own.

Is that allowed?

Yeah, all of that is allowed. There is no obligation to let anyone else use your personal property.

[tooAlive]

Then use an actual scenario from a hypothetical communist society rather than a clearly non-industrialized and isolated commune. No one can give a universal answer to this scenario (which occurs in non-comunism) that applies to all others. It depends on what is being produced, or how this person had the ability to use this resource in the first place, which I would don't see a possible scenario for given that production would be collective in communism.

My hypothetical circumstances, like that industrial production doesn't cease to exist? Is that really such a crazy assumption, especially considering one important aspect of Marxist communism is that industrialization is a prerequisite to communism?

Industrialization doesn't make up for scarce natural resources. I thought you guys wanted to protect the planet?

And yes, you can answer it. You just choose not to. Although some of your brethren were more honest and openly admitted to wanting to exterminate the horsemaker.

[Sabot Cat]

And yes, you can answer it. You just choose not to. Although some of your brethren were more honest and openly admitted to wanting to exterminate the horsemaker.

Taters was being facetious, and I offered at least two peaceful resolutions to the situation.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Industrialization doesn't make up for scarce natural resources.

Actually, it does. A society that knows how to harness nuclear fission has the option of using uranium instead of coal as a power source, meaning that it would have more coal for other purposes.


I thought you guys wanted to protect the planet?

Taking better care of the environment doesn't mean abandoning industry. Maybe you have us confused with primitivists?

[tooAlive]

Actually, it does. A society that knows how to harness nuclear fission has the option of using uranium instead of coal as a power source, meaning that it would have more coal for other purposes.

Again, you seem to be arguing in absolutes while I'm using examples to convey metaphors. Everything is hypothetical here.

Scarce natural resources aren't limited to nature, but also, unique abilities that not everyone has, for example.

The point is whether or not you will allow these unique circumstances that can't be replicated to be rewarded unequally to others, or squander them for the sake of the commune?


Taking better care of the environment doesn't mean abandoning industry. Maybe you have us confused with primitivists?

You're right. Please refer to my comment above.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I wouldn't call meeting a demand, exploitation.

Again, that's just me.

You're right. It's the "profit" bit that is exploitative, not the "meeting demands" bit. You can meet demands without making a profit.


I used it as a metaphor to describe the process many people have gone through in order to make a better life for themselves in modern times. Usually starting a business or taking on an entrepreneurial venture takes years to to see results, and other times fail completely.

Other times? Try most of the time.

The problem is that you seem to be under the impression that starting a business is something natural, rather than being the consequence of a particular socioeconomic system.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Industrialization doesn't make up for scarce natural resources. I thought you guys wanted to protect the planet?

That is not my claim. If you can show me where I argued scarcity is exterminated by industrialization, be my guest.


And yes, you can answer it. You just choose not to. Although some of your brethren were more honest and openly admitted to wanting to exterminate the horsemaker.
Yes, they were clearly being serious. :rolleyes:

I can answer, and I have said no this wouldnt be allowed in communism because the situation giving rise to this (an isolated commune of extreme environmental primitivists who abandoned industrialized production) is not an example of even a hypothetical communist society (communism, again, is industrialized and post-capitalist). I ask, again, for a more fitting example, one that occurs in communist society so that it is a problem that communists here can address.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Again, you seem to be arguing in absolutes while I'm using examples to convey metaphors. Everything is hypothetical here.

I don't know what you're on about. It's hardly a useful hypothetical if it doesn't correspond much if at all with reality.


Scarce natural resources aren't limited to nature, but also, unique abilities that not everyone has, for example.

Abilities can be cultivated.


The point is whether or not you will allow these unique circumstances that can't be replicated to be rewarded unequally to others, or squander them for the sake of the commune?

The circumstances you have provided so far have hardly been "unique" or hard to replicate. If we can mass-produce wooden horses today, then it hardly seems a stretch that we should be able to do the same tomorrow.

[tooAlive]

Here's an alternative ending that might make tooAlive happier:

The community has a vote on Black Beauty and its creator. They issue a public apology for unfairly criticizing his ideas, and give him a Medal of Innovation. Because he has made supervising children effectively his job, they officially begin allocating resources to him for the amount of hours he spends doing that task. The children are prohibited from doing the same.

I like the idea of the medal, that's very thoughtful of you.

And I respect your solution to his compensation as well. It's certainly refreshing to know you would not want to have his head cut off.

[tooAlive]

]I can answer, and I have said no this wouldnt be allowed in communism[/B] because the situation giving rise to this (an isolated commune of extreme environmental primitivists who abandoned industrialized production) is not an example of even a hypothetical communist society (communism, again, is industrialized and post-capitalist). I ask, again, for a more fitting example, one that occurs in communist society so that it is a problem that communists here can address.

Yes, I know you don't conceive of such a thing being possible because you assume everything will be mass produced at a whim.

That's why I specifically used a scarce resource that industrialization can't make more readily available or substitute to make my example.

[tooAlive]

The circumstances you have provided so far have hardly been "unique" or hard to replicate. If we can mass-produce wooden horses today, then it hardly seems a stretch that we should be able to do the same tomorrow.

Again, I'm using hypothetical examples.

Someone made something out of purely scarce resources that can't be massed produced. That person now has something that the others want, but can't have immediately.

That something now grants said person additional benefits that the others don't have. That's the gist of it.

[Manic Impressive]

Thanks, but nothing that resembles a scenario similar to the one I outlined or mentions of wooden horses.
Actually what I was hoping you might glean from the two articles is that people who live in societies without money or a market, even if they are microcosms, don't feel any need to try and make a profit of each other they take according to their needs and contribute whatever they can.

If your man, your horse guy, has created a pleasurable source of entertainment for what sounds like a large number of children. A high proportion of this commune by the sounds of it. Then he is already engaged in socially necessary labour. His "job" is to be the horse guy. In this situation he could carry on taking what he needed while putting in what he does best, being an entertainer.

The bit of your story that would not happen, because there is no need for it to happen, with them not living in a market economy is payment for his services. Your introduction of the need for a medium of exchange (the nuts and berries) is unnecessary and goes against all evidence past and present of human behaviour in non market economies.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Again, I'm using hypothetical examples.

Someone made something out of purely scarce resources that can't be massed produced. That person now has something that the others want, but can't have immediately.

That something now grants said person additional benefits that the others don't have. That's the gist of it.

The thing is, production doesn't work like that even under capitalism. Lone craftsmen have been superceded by mass production. Even in the case of single genius with a bright idea for a new product or service, they can't get it on the market without involving the labour of others.

[argeiphontes]

is not an example of even a hypothetical communist society (communism, again, is industrialized and post-capitalist)

What about so-called 'primitive communism'? That's not industrialized, yet it is communism, so it should work on the same social principles.

Not to derail the thread, but what if some people did want to live a lifestyle like that? It's perfectly possible for a primitivist commune to exist as long as people are willing to endure the hardship. Heck, it's possible for a single individual to live in the woods indefinitely, as anyone interested in outdoor survival skills can tell you. Add some more people and some agriculture, and you're set.

Would those people be unable to implement communist principles for some reason?

[argeiphontes]

Your introduction of the need for a medium of exchange (the nuts and berries) is unnecessary and goes against all evidence past and present of human behaviour in non market economies.

Well, money or other medium of exchange is ancient. So what non-market economies? Like barter systems? Personally I thought tooAlive's system was just barter. Those things are perishable and are going to be eaten.

[tooAlive]

Actually what I was hoping you might glean from the two articles is that people who live in societies without money or a market, even if they are microcosms, don't feel any need to try and make a profit of each other they take according to their needs and contribute whatever they can.

Sure, I don't doubt that one single bit. However those people that live in those societies do so out of their own free will, as it's the type of society they envision and see as optimal.

I just don't see the world behaving the same way once that way of living becomes imposed on everybody. I sure as hell wouldn't.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

In a modern world kids would ask their parents for money to go ride the ferris wheel or merry go round.Yes in capitalist society that's how it works. In communist society kids would ask their parents if they could go to the carnival where they can get on the rides for free. Oh how disgusting!


I see you'd favor taking away the wooden horse from him, even after calling him an idiot for trying to make it.Yes of course, I said that like 3 times I believe, but the only person that called him an idiot for wanting to build a wooden horse was you.


Yes. The people who called the man an idiot for building the horse in the first place, then taking it away when he wouldn't share/profited from it would certainly oppose of him. Again, I think it's disgusting.Well again, it's your hypothetical, the only people who called your person an idiot for building the horse are the made up imaginary people in your hypothetical. So I'm sorry you made the made up people in your imaginary circumstances to be disgusting people(according to you). I don't really have an opinion for or against wooden horse building. If he wants to take care of all the kids all day and basically set up a daycare center where he rides kids on this freakin' mystical pony then that's work, there's no reason to tell the kids they have to give you food(Which is already provided for you by the community, everybody's needs would be met in communist society, one of them being food) or work for you just so that they could play on this horse.

Or if you're really worried that the kids won't get their enjoyment(because that's what he's in it for right, not the fruits and labor provided by all the kids in the commune) then you could simply give it to the community and other people can give kids rides on the pony. I mean seriously you have to spend all day doing it...Why can't I just be the one to push my kid around on the pony? But you're not worried about the enjoyment of the kids, let's be real, you just want to set up your own little racket.

But that just couldn't work out huh, I mean after all the townsfolk said you were foolish for making it! Fuck them right? That's not petty at all.

[tooAlive]

Yeah, all of that is allowed. There is no obligation to let anyone else use your personal property.

Great. I'm glad we can agree on this.

[argeiphontes]

Sure, I don't doubt that one single bit. However those people that live in those societies do so out of their own free will, as it's the type of society they envision and see as optimal.

I just don't see the world behaving the same way once that way of living becomes imposed on everybody. I sure as hell wouldn't.

Add a place to fill scuba tanks, and Palmerston is paradise to me ;)

[Fourth Internationalist]

What about so-called 'primitive communism'? That's not industrialized, yet it is communism, so it should work on the same social principles.

Even if this situation were a potential problem in primitive communist society, it wouldn't matter on what one would do about it because primitive communism doesn't exist now.


Not to derail the thread, but what if some people did want to live a lifestyle like that? It's perfectly possible for a primitivist commune to exist as long as people are willing to endure the hardship. Heck, it's possible for a single individual to live in the woods indefinitely, as anyone interested in outdoor survival skills can tell you. Add some more people and some agriculture, and you're set.

Then it is not a problem that communists must deal with because it would be a deviation from communism, not a situation within communism.


Would those people be unable to implement communist principles for some reason?

It would not be the communism as Marx or Engels described precisely for the reasons like industrialization. Principles of communism, as in aspects of communist society, wouldn't entirely cease to exist within that deviant community if they chose to keep some of those aspects in place.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Yes, I know you don't conceive of such a thing being possible because you assume everything will be mass produced at a whim.

That's why I specifically used a scarce resource that industrialization can't make more readily available or substitute to make my example.

Yes, I ignorantly have assumed industrial production would be the norm due to the fact that there'd be no incentive to manually create products by oneself.

Again, I'd appreciate this if you could apply this problem with communism you've found into an actual hypothetical situation in communism rather than this non-communist crazy environmental primitivist preindustrial commune.

[Manic Impressive]

Sure, I don't doubt that one single bit. However those people that live in those societies do so out of their own free will, as it's the type of society they envision and see as optimal.

I just don't see the world behaving the same way once that way of living becomes imposed on everybody. I sure as hell wouldn't.
Who do you envisage as having the power to stop you? There's no state, no armed thugs in uniform to come around and kick your door down. If an individual wants to try and resurrect capitalism once communism has been established, I say good luck to him. He'll need it. Since who the hell is going to pay for something when they can get it for free.

[Buttscratcher]

Interesting question. I guess it would stop being personal property once it clearly stopped being something meant for personal use and started being used to benefit from others, therefore it'd probably be expropriated to become communal property.

[tooAlive]

Who do you envisage as having the power to stop you? There's no state, no armed thugs in uniform to come around and kick your door down. If an individual wants to try and resurrect capitalism once communism has been established, I say good luck to him. He'll need it. Since who the hell is going to pay for something when they can get it for free.

I posted an example of that with this thread.

Within communism, someone found something to offer the commune that would over-compensate him for his work.

Then you say that there would be no overcompensation, as compensation would be meaningless since everything is free.

Well, if everything is free, why work at all? Why not just stay home all day consuming all the freely available goods?

[argeiphontes]

Even if this situation were a potential problem in primitive communist society, it wouldn't matter on what one would do about it because primitive communism doesn't exist now.

The world is a big place. Wherever primitivists live together collectively, there primitive communism exists. Not everybody is as gung-ho about the internet as I am. I'm sure somebody would be living in a primitivist commune in the future, too.

Besides, you're just using the same rhetorical device as everybody else. :rolleyes: Saying that a hypothetical situation is hypothetical doesn't negate it, it just states the obvious. The question isn't whether it matters or not, right now, it's what principles would be applied.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I mean seriously this whole thing just seems petty and immature. Like I'm talking to my four year old cousin right now. No cousin, share all your cool toys with the other kids. You're not even using your Thomas the Train toy right now, don't be such a prick! Let other people play with your wooden horse and if you're not willing to share it you better not make my kid work for you so he/she could ride it.

[Fourth Internationalist]

The world is a big place. Wherever primitivists live together collectively, there primitive communism exists. Not everybody is as gung-ho about the internet as I am. I'm sure somebody would be living in a primitivist commune in the future, too.

You have yet to provide a reason why this, then, is a problem that communists must deal with. Secondly, primitive communism cannot just be made from will because it is a specific historical mode of production, not merely a never-going-to-exist primitive commune.


Besides, you're just using the same rhetorical device as everybody else. :rolleyes: Saying that a hypothetical situation is hypothetical doesn't negate it, it just states the obvious.

It does when it's a hypothetical situation that isn't a communist society yet is being used to introduce a problem within a hypothetical communist society. I have asked for tooAlive to provide an example of this occurring in a communist society, yet they refuse to do so. If you're up to it, do so.

[tooAlive]

I mean seriously this whole thing just seems petty and immature. Like I'm talking to my four year old cousin right now. No cousin, share all your cool toys with the other kids. You're not even using your Thomas the Train toy right now, don't be such a prick! Let other people play with your wooden horse and if you're not willing to share it you better not make my kid work for you so he/she could ride it.

If your cousin spent years focused on making his wooden horse while the other kids slacked off, played xbox, smoked weed, or whatever it is that kids do these days, then no, he shouldn't have to share it with anyone.

If that's the case he very well earned the right to have the other kids clean his room or do his chores for him in exchange of playing with the horse. I think that's perfectly fair, if he wanted to do that.


It does when it's a hypothetical situation that isn't a communist society yet is being used to introduce a problem within a hypothetical communist society. I have asked for tooAlive to provide an example of this occurring in a communist society, yet they refuse to do so. If you're up to it, do so.

First of all, any communist society is a hypothetical situation.

You're just disagreeing because the hypothetical communist society I outlined today differs from the ideal hypothetical communist society you envision.

[argeiphontes]

You have yet to provide a reason why this, then, is a problem that communists must deal with.


I'm just asking you to apply communist principles to a hypothetical situation. There is no requirement to participate. I'm happy to apply what I know about communism to these kinds of hypothetical situations because I think it's fun and can be insightful.

[Fourth Internationalist]

First of all, any communist society is a hypothetical situation.

You're just disagreeing because the hypothetical communist society I outlined today differs from the ideal hypothetical communist society you envision.

I have not stated that a communist society wouldn't be hypothetical. I have specifically asked you to apply this situation to a hypothetical communist society, not an isolated, preindustrial, noncommunist village. You refuse to do so because you insist that such a village would constitute communism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I'm just asking you to apply communist principles to a hypothetical situation. There is no requirement to participate. I'm happy to apply what I know about communism to these kinds of hypothetical situations because I think it's fun and can be insightful.

There's nothing here to "apply communist principles" to.

[tooAlive]

I have not stated that a communist society wouldn't be hypothetical. I have specifically asked you to apply this situation to a hypothetical communist society, not an isolated, preindustrial, noncommunist village. You refuse to do so because you insist that such a village would constitute communism.

That's exactly why it's hypothetical! It's not my fault you don't agree with it.

If I tailored my example to the precise fantasy world that you envision it, the scenario which I have outlined would not have been possible, seeing as working wouldn't be required and absolutely anything you could ever possibly want would be at your fingertips.

[Fourth Internationalist]

That's exactly why it's hypothetical! It's not my fault you don't agree with it.

A hypothetical situation still needs to make sense to what is being asked about it.


If I tailored my example to the precise fantasy world that you envision it, the scenario which I have outlined would not have been possible, seeing as working wouldn't be required and absolutely anything you could ever possibly want would be at your fingertips.

Industrial production doesn't just take place magically. People still have to work and produce goods to live. I have never indicated otherwise. If you can please show me where I said something like that, quote it. What I am asking you to do is to actually apply this supposed problem you have found in this noncommunist village to an actual hypothetical communist society. If you can do that, then I can address the problem. Until then, I will not reply any further in this thread.

[tooAlive]

A hypothetical situation still needs to make sense to what is being asked about it.

I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you.


Industrial production doesn't just take place magically. People still have to work and produce goods to live. I have never indicated otherwise. If you can please show me where I said something like that, quote it. What I am asking you to do is to actually apply this supposed problem you have found in this noncommunist village to an actual hypothetical communist society. If you can do that, then I can address the problem. Until then, I will not reply any further in this thread.

Hey, if you can't make sense of it because it doesn't resonate with your utopian vision of what hypothetical communism has to be like, then I don't think your further opinions will be missed in this thread. Have a good one.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you.

Hey, if you can't make sense of it because it doesn't resonate with your utopian vision of what hypothetical communism has to be like, then I don't think your further opinions will be missed in this thread. Have a good one.


First of all, it doesn't make sense in that you're describing a problem involving a noncommunist village while trying to argue that it is communism, therefore warranting a solution to said problem from us communists. Secondly, a Utopian version of communism is not one that is industrialized and is global, it is one of a small village of primitivists in a non-industrialized world even though industrial production is 1) a prerequisite for communism and 2) exists and will continue to exist for as long as humans do.

[argeiphontes]

There's nothing here to "apply communist principles" to.

I disagree. To me, communism, like capitalism or feudalism, is a system of socioeconomic relations of production. Where those relations are operating, then that system is in existence. It is a coherent whole that doesn't depend on its historical location. If ancient Rome had mostly capitalist relations, then I would consider it capitalist. If the social relations on Palmerston are those of communism, then Palmerston is communist. So, if the hypothetical village has communist social relations, then it is a hypothetical communist village. YMMV I guess.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I disagree. To me, communism, like capitalism or feudalism, is a system of socioeconomic relations of production. Where those relations are operating, then that system is in existence. It is a coherent whole that doesn't depend on its historical location. If ancient Rome had mostly capitalist relations, then I would consider it capitalist. If the social relations on Palmerston are those of communism, then Palmerston is communist. So, if the hypothetical village has communist social relations, then it is a hypothetical communist village. YMMV I guess.

Except these social relations cannot just be merely created by will. They come from and are created through history. If antiquity had been characterized by capitalist social relations, there would've been something to have causes the growth of capitalism in that time period, as did the events of history before capitalism in real life developed. The same conditions that created fuedalism, for example, cannot be recreated. Similarly, the world in which primitive communism existed will not exist again.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If your cousin spent years focused on making his wooden horse while the other kids slacked off, played xbox, smoked weed, or whatever it is that kids do these days, then no, he shouldn't have to share it with anyone.

Now you are shifting the goalposts, because in the OP you stated that the father made the horse, not the child. If the child really did make it, or his father specifically gifted the horse to him, then we're back to it being a personal possession. That stops however when profit becomes involved.


If that's the case he very well earned the right to have the other kids clean his room or do his chores for him in exchange of playing with the horse. I think that's perfectly fair, if he wanted to do that.

Not if the child didn't make it. And even if he did, do you really think a kid could "profit" by renting out a single toy in exchange for favours?

Besides, if a child or their parents invent a new toy that turns out to be popular with loads of other kids, then what exactly is to stop that toy being copied by others?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

If your cousin spent years focused on making his wooden horseHow long does it take to make a wooden horse? Are you the wooden horse specialist here, does it really take very long to do this?


while the other kids slacked off, played xbox, smoked weed, or whatever it is that kids do these days, then no, he shouldn't have to share it with anyone.You don't want to share your wooden horse(Who the hell cares about your wooden horse when the other kids have an xbox and weed) that you made, fine, but I'm going to have a problem when you're using your wooden horse to get my kid and all the other kids in the commune to work for you so that they can get a ride on it. Everybody in the commune provides for you, we worked on getting berries and fruits while you sat there apparently thinking about a wooden horse, we provided a roof over your head while you thought about wooden horses, we provided security while you thought about wooden horses, we provided you with clothes while you thought about wooden horses, we provided you with medical attention while you thought about wooden horses, we provided you with the tools to make the wooden horse, and in the end even the wood to make the wooden horse was rationed out to you by the commune. The second you make the wooden horse though you decide that you're going to make your wooden horse into your own private business where kids who have berries to give you get a ride on it and kids that do your chores get to ride on it. And then you're going to sit here and pretend like you're just too darn interested in the kids happiness to stop doing this, you just have to stop doing anything else as you accumulate more and more berries and they do all the work around your house. Now what if a kid doesn't want to wash your dishes or mow your lawn just for a chance to ride on the one and only wooden horse? No, sorry, better come back with some berries, your happiness doesn't mean shit unless you got berries or you want to do my chores kid. I'm sure your kid gets free rides though right, and when you die it will even be passed onto him so he can give kids rides too. Yeah, I'm sure you're really into giving kids rides on your wooden horse because you just love doing it, not the fact that you're doing it to squeeze whatever you can out of them and the community so you can sit there and have it all to yourself. In reality these kids would probably get bored a week after you built it and none of this would even happen.



You're just disagreeing because the hypothetical communist society I outlined today differs from the ideal hypothetical communist society you envision.Because leave it to the anti-communists to imagine future communist society right? It's not like you set up a straw man or anything. I mean you say it's a communistic society yet you have to pilfer off little kids for their parents food just so you can get some food! Is this how you imagine communist society works? Of course the hypothetical communist society you envisioned was wrong from the get go because you don't understand communism.

[tooAlive]

Now you are shifting the goalposts, because in the OP you stated that the father made the horse, not the child. If the child really did make it, or his father specifically gifted the horse to him, then we're back to it being a personal possession. That stops however when profit becomes involved.


Not if the child didn't make it. And even if he did, do you really think a kid could "profit" by renting out a single toy in exchange for favours?

Besides, if a child or their parents invent a new toy that turns out to be popular with loads of other kids, then what exactly is to stop that toy being copied by others?

I was talking about A revolutionary Tool's cousin in that quote. Since he referenced him, and acted out a conversation telling him to share his wooden horse.

[tooAlive]

How long does it take to make a wooden horse? Are you the wooden horse specialist here, does it really take very long to do this?

For being believers of an imaginary global system you sure seem to have very little imagination.

The toy horse is a metaphor for something that is built or done by someone over a period of time. A business, project, ect.. And tho wooden horse took so long to build because the man had to gather all the wood, which took a long time. Hypothetically and metaphorically.


You don't want to share your wooden horse(Who the hell cares about your wooden horse when the other kids have an xbox and weed) that you made, fine, but I'm going to have a problem when you're using your wooden horse to get my kid and all the other kids in the commune to work for you so that they can get a ride on it. Everybody in the commune provides for you, we worked on getting berries and fruits while you sat there apparently thinking about a wooden horse, we provided a roof over your head while you thought about wooden horses, we provided security while you thought about wooden horses, we provided you with clothes while you thought about wooden horses, we provided you with medical attention while you thought about wooden horses, we provided you with the tools to make the wooden horse, and in the end even the wood to make the wooden horse was rationed out to you by the commune. The second you make the wooden horse though you decide that you're going to make your wooden horse into your own private business where kids who have berries to give you get a ride on it and kids that do your chores get to ride on it. And then you're going to sit here and pretend like you're just too darn interested in the kids happiness to stop doing this, you just have to stop doing anything else as you accumulate more and more berries and they do all the work around your house. Now what if a kid doesn't want to wash your dishes or mow your lawn just for a chance to ride on the one and only wooden horse? No, sorry, better come back with some berries, your happiness doesn't mean shit unless you got berries or you want to do my chores kid. I'm sure your kid gets free rides though right, and when you die it will even be passed onto him so he can give kids rides too. Yeah, I'm sure you're really into giving kids rides on your wooden horse because you just love doing it, not the fact that you're doing it to squeeze whatever you can out of them and the community so you can sit there and have it all to yourself. In reality these kids would probably get bored a week after you built it and none of this would even happen.

1) While he was making the horse and gathering wood in his spare time, he also laboured exactly the same as anyone else.

2) It doesn't take a genius to figure out he was motivated by self-interest. Otherwise he would have given the horse to the kids to do with it what they pleased. This wasn't the case.

Obviously you see something wrong with self-interest, seeing as you're a marxist.

I believe self interest is good.


Because leave it to the anti-communists to imagine future communist society right? It's not like you set up a straw man or anything. I mean you say it's a communistic society yet you have to pilfer off little kids for their parents food just so you can get some food! Is this how you imagine communist society works? Of course the hypothetical communist society you envisioned was wrong from the get go because you don't understand communism.

Oh, I understand communism.. I just don't agree with it.

[argeiphontes]

Except these social relations cannot just be merely created by will. They come from and are created through history.


Then just pretend that the OP's village came into being through some historical forces. OP didn't specify how the village came into being, just that it hypothetically exists.



If antiquity had been characterized by capitalist social relations, there would've been something to have causes the growth of capitalism in that time period, as did the events of history before capitalism in real life developed.


Of course. If something exists, then the conditions for its existence must have been met. If antiquity had been capitalist, then it would have been because it was possible. But it would be called 'capitalist' because it had capitalist relations of production.



The same conditions that created fuedalism, for example, cannot be recreated. Similarly, the world in which primitive communism existed will not exist again.

Just because those systems came into being spontaneously in history, it does not follow that they can't be recreated. First of all, it is merely unlikely that the conditions for those systems won't recur, not impossible, unless time itself is somehow of the essence and not merely conditions. Conditions can recur or different conditions can cause similar effects.

But more importantly, you are saying that if some people decided to abide by the relations of primitive communism, and actually did so in the real world, then it still wouldn't be primitive communism. If a simulation of primitive communism could be constructed, it wouldn't be primitive communism. You are saying that it is impossible for a group of people to go live in the woods and practice communal sharing and decision making. Nobody or no group could go join a primitive communist society in the Amazon and live in primitive communism. Or are you just saying that it would need a different name, because it is not that primitive communism but a new one?

That's absurd to me, but I won't argue this anymore because I understand that it probably follows from a deterministic historical materialist or Marxist point of view, which you're of course entitled to.

[tooAlive]

Then just pretend that the OP's village came into being through some historical forces. OP didn't specify how the village came into being, just that it hypothetically exists.



Of course. If something exists, then the conditions for its existence must have been met. If antiquity had been capitalist, then it would have been because it was possible. But it would be called 'capitalist' because it had capitalist relations of production.



Just because those systems came into being spontaneously in history, it does not follow that they can't be recreated. First of all, it is merely unlikely that the conditions for those systems won't recur, not impossible, unless time itself is somehow of the essence and not merely conditions. Conditions can recur or different conditions can cause similar effects.

But more importantly, you are saying that if some people decided to abide by the relations of primitive communism, and actually did so in the real world, then it still wouldn't be primitive communism. If a simulation of primitive communism could be constructed, it wouldn't be primitive communism. You are saying that it is impossible for a group of people to go live in the woods and practice communal sharing and decision making. Nobody or no group could go join a primitive communist society in the Amazon and live in primitive communism. Or are you just saying that it would need a different name, because it is not that primitive communism but a new one?

That's absurd to me, but I won't argue this anymore because I understand that it probably follows from a deterministic historical materialist or Marxist point of view, which you're of course entitled to.

Thank you for seeing past my political leaning and actually trying to have a meaningful discussion about the scenario which I proposed, comrade. :)

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Since when did communism become Amish society?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Then just pretend that the OP's village came into being through some historical forces. OP didn't specify how the village came into being, just that it hypothetically exists.

But that wouldn't make it communist, which is essential to this whole thread.


Of course. If something exists, then the conditions for its existence must have been met. If antiquity had been capitalist, then it would have been because it was possible. But it would be called 'capitalist' because it had capitalist relations of production.

These conditions were historically specific.


Just because those systems came into being spontaneously in history, it does not follow that they can't be recreated. First of all, it is merely unlikely that the conditions for those systems won't recur, not impossible, unless time itself is somehow of the essence and not merely conditions. Conditions can recur or different conditions can cause similar effects.

They're not going to bring the world back to an old mode of production. When has a mode of reproduction repeated? Never. Will it ever? No, because the history of the world cannot be reversed. Historically specific conditions cannot be recreated now that they have already occured.


But more importantly, you are saying that if some people decided to abide by the relations of primitive communism, and actually did so in the real world, then it still wouldn't be primitive communism. If a simulation of primitive communism could be constructed, it wouldn't be primitive communism. You are saying that it is impossible for a group of people to go live in the woods and practice communal sharing and decision making. Nobody or no group could go join a primitive communist society in the Amazon and live in primitive communism. Or are you just saying that it would need a different name, because it is not that primitive communism but a new one?

Primitive communism was a type of hunter-gathering society, not a communal system. It makes no sense, first of all, to apply it to this village. This "communal sharing in the woods" does not equal primitive communism, nor does it equal the communism that is post-capitalist and industrialized. What would be much simpler than all this would be if the OP just applied this scenario into a communistic society that communists actually advocate for rather than trying it with some preindustrial 18th century Utopian socialist-style commune. But he's said he can't do that because then his point would be mute. Yes, exactly.


That's absurd to me, but I won't argue this anymore because I understand that it probably follows from a deterministic historical materialist or Marxist point of view, which you're of course entitled to.

Marxism is not deterministic.

[argeiphontes]

But that wouldn't make it communist, which is essential to this whole thread.

1) Ok, so what would a communist village look like? Assume that's the village. You can have any village you want.

2) Add some guy making a toy and renting it out for profit.

Let's close some loopholes here:

a) This toy was invented by the guy himself.
b) It has not been mass produced yet, so it is not possible to order it from the local toy factory.
c) None knows how the toy works. He enjoys a monopoly on the toy.
d) Kids have other things they can do, but this toy is so cool that they all want to use it.
e) Some parents are willing to trade nuts and berries so their kids can use the toy.
edit: f) The toy has already been made. Somehow, he made it. You don't know how, and it's too late to stop him since it exists.

What happens to the guy? :grin:

[tooAlive]

1) Ok, so what would a communist village look like? Assume that's the village. You can have any village you want.

2) Add some guy making a toy and renting it out for profit.

Let's close some loopholes here:

a) This toy was invented by the guy himself.
b) It has not been mass produced yet, so it is not possible to order it from the local toy factory.
c) None knows how the toy works. He enjoys a monopoly on the toy.
d) Kids have other things they can do, but this toy is so cool that they all want to use it.
e) Some parents are willing to trade nuts and berries so their kids can use the toy.
edit: f) The toy has already been made. Somehow, he made it. You don't know how, and it's too late to stop him since it exists.

What happens to the guy? :grin:

I've added this to the opening post to hopefully further clarify this for future visitors to the thread.

[Fourth Internationalist]

1) Ok, so what would a communist village look like? Assume that's the village. You can have any village you want.

Villages can't be communist. Only a village within a communist society would be communist.


2) Add some guy making a toy and renting it out for profit.

Other than products like nuts and berries that are massively available even to children, what real "profit" is he getting?


Let's close some loopholes here:

a) This toy was invented by the guy himself.
b) It has not been mass produced yet, so it is not possible to order it from the local toy factory.
c) None knows how the toy works. He enjoys a monopoly on the toy.
d) Kids have other things they can do, but this toy is so cool that they all want to use it.
e) Some parents are willing to trade nuts and berries so their kids can use the toy.

What happens to the guy? :grin:

I'd give him the already massively available nuts and berries from the and use the toy myself. I'd probably steal it, too, because he made the other children clean his house for it, which is quite of an asshole move on his part.

[argeiphontes]

Villages can't be communist. Only a village within a communist society would be communist.


I said you can have any village you want. It can be in any society you want. We are talking about communism, so it should be a communist society with a communist village. Absolutely.



Other than products like nuts and berries that are massively available even to children, what real "profit" is he getting?
He is only accepting nuts and berries. He's like a capitalist squirrel. He squirreled away the raw materials to build his toy, and now he's squirreling away nuts and berries. They are massively available, sure, but he'd rather not go pick them up or buy them himself.



I'd give him the already massively available nuts and berries from the and use the toy myself. I'd probably steal it, too, because he made the other children clean his house for it, which is quite of an asshole move on his part.Interesting. Your society would allow theft?

So if say: "Hey, I'll let you play with my toy if you give me ten nuts and twelve berries."
And you say: "Sure, here you go."

Then I forced you into the deal?

[Fourth Internationalist]

I said you can have any village you want. It can be in any society you want. We are talking about communism, so it should be a communist society with a communist village. Absolutely.

I know. That's the society/village I was going with.


He is only accepting nuts and berries. He's like a capitalist squirrel. He squirreled away the raw materials to build his toy, and now he's squirreling away nuts and berries. They are massively available, sure, but he'd rather not go pick them up or buy them himself.

I didn't know buying and therefore money existed in communism.


Interesting. Your society would allow theft?

Oh yes. Murder too. Infanticide, specifically. :rolleyes:


So if say: "Hey, I'll let you play with my toy if you give me ten nuts and twelve berries."
And you say: "Sure, here you go."

Then I forced you into the deal?
Nope. Nor did I indicate otherwise, nor could I have because this wasn't asked of me until now.

Edit: I am kidding about the stealing, murder, and infanticide. Anyways, I wouldn't care much about what the rest of the public did about a toy, especially considering he doesn't get any advantage to keeping the toy for rent like that. If this were to be a situation with some sort of useful technology, like life saving that he kept to himself for some sort of personal gain, then I'd be in favor of legal force in taking it from him and utilizing it for the greater good.

[motion denied]

Would there be the very notion of' theft' in a communist society?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Would there be the very notion of' theft' in a communist society?

Yes, in regards to personal property.

[a_wild_MAGIKARP]

I think it would technically be "allowed" that he asks for berries in return, because there's no state to stop him from just asking for something, and no one is forced to agree. But as everyone already said, it's unrealistic and simply wouldn't happen. And it would be completely pointless for him to ask for berries from these kids in the first place, because berries (or whatever other goods) would already be available to him, so he doesn't need someone else's.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Again, we're talking about communism here. You must understand that any example I make will inevitably be fairytale-like and unrealistic.

Why do you keep acting like you want a serious answer?
Communism is not a fairytale, how badly you want it to be.

Anarcho-capitalism however...

So no, i will not give a serious answer to a bullshit question.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Again, we're talking about communism here. You must understand that any example I make will inevitably be fairytale-like and unrealistic.

But thanks for ignoring my serious answer.

[Five Year Plan]

They're not going to bring the world back to an old mode of production. When has a mode of reproduction repeated? Never. Will it ever? No, because the history of the world cannot be reversed. Historically specific conditions cannot be recreated now that they have already occured.

So when the slave mode of production in the ancient classical world was extinguished with the over-extension and eventual collapse of the Roman empire, slavery ceased to exist everywhere for all time as a mode of production. I am sure the slaves harvesting sugar 17th century Barbados and picking cotton in 19th century Georgia would have loved to hear you explain your rigidly unilinear understanding of historical development.

[Fourth Internationalist]

So when the slave mode of production in the ancient classical world was extinguished with the over-extension and eventual collapse of the Roman empire, slavery ceased to exist everywhere for all time as a mode of production. I am sure the slaves harvesting sugar 17th century Barbados and picking cotton in 19th century Georgia would have loved to hear you explain your rigidly unilinear understanding of historical development.

I didn't mean to say that once a mode of production is surpassed in a part of the world, it can't exist anywhere else ever. Of course, the different parts of the world developed at different times, which allowed primitive communist societies, for example, to exist at the same as early parts of capitalism were developing. My point there was to say that, for example, we're not going to have a feudal world, or, in general, a world based on a pre-capitalist mode of production any longer.

[Five Year Plan]

I didn't mean to say that once a mode of production is surpassed in a part of the world, it can't exist anywhere else ever. Of course, the different parts of the world developed at different times, which allowed primitive communist societies, for example, to exist at the same as early parts of capitalism were developing.

I know that's not what you meant. You suggested that a mode of production cannot be "repeated." Even if we take this in your back-peddling and more restrictive sense to mean "repeated in the same territory," the historical record demonstrates your claim not to be true. Feudal relations existed throughout parts of rural Europe (e.g., Germany) prior to its conquest by the Roman empire, when these economies were transformed into the tributary mode of production by a centralized bureaucracy that succeeded in converting local rent-extracting landlords into extensions of the central state apparatus. This authority devolved back onto the land-owning lords after the collapse of the empire, toward the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire at the end of the first millennium. There is your repetition.


My point there was to say that, for example, we're not going to have a feudal world, or, in general, a world based on a pre-capitalist mode of production any longer.Says who? Reverses in global development have occurred in the past, and they can occur again. Most probably not so extensive that it will result in a turning back the clock to feudalism, but this cannot be ruled out prima facie as a deduction from first principles, as your confused formulation has it.

[Radio Spartacus]

So when the slave mode of production in the ancient classical world was extinguished with the over-extension and eventual collapse of the Roman empire, slavery ceased to exist everywhere for all time as a mode of production. I am sure the slaves harvesting sugar 17th century Barbados and picking cotton in 19th century Georgia would have loved to hear you explain your rigidly unilinear understanding of historical development.

Slavery is not a mode of production. The mode of production in 19th century Georgia was capitalist, and slaves are workers who essentially have all of their labor exploited rather than some of it.

This is basic marxism. Feudalism, capitalism, and communism are examples of modes of production.

As for the OP, you don't understand basic marxist thought either. It's not that a few of us conceive of communism as an industrial society, it's that marxist communism is by definition industrial. It's not that industrial communism is a form of communism, its that right there in the fucking manifesto it says that communism is industrialized (perhaps post-industrialized is better here but you understand my point that we aren't advocating a system of hippies living in the woods).

"Imagine a hypothetical communist society (in the woods because reasons) in which bananas are poisoned so that they cause you to generate and spit acid at the nearest person to you at random hours of the day. How would you communists deal with this banana acid crisis? and dont you collectivist freedom hating bastards tell me that bananas cant be poisoned in such a manner
or that communist society wouldnt do that, thats just your ideal conception of bananas and communism"

Seriously though I'm amazed. It's really easy to go "in communism this could happen" then when COMMUNISTS tell you what communism is based on actual theory go "that's just what you think communism is".

The wooden horse shit is creepy too.

[Five Year Plan]

Slavery is not a mode of production. The mode of production in 19th century Georgia was capitalist, and slaves are workers who essentially have all of their labor exploited rather than some of it.

This is basic marxism. Feudalism, capitalism, and communism are examples of modes of production.

As for the OP, you don't understand basic marxist thought either. It's not that a few of us conceive of communism as an industrial society, it's that marxist communism is by definition industrial. It's not that industrial communism is a form of communism, its that right there in the fucking manifesto it says that communism is industrialized (perhaps post-industrialized is better here but you understand my point that we aren't advocating a system of hippies living in the woods).

"Imagine a hypothetical communist society (in the woods because reasons) in which bananas are poisoned so that they cause you to generate and spit acid at the nearest person to you at random hours of the day. How would you communists deal with this banana acid crisis? and dont you collectivist freedom hating bastards tell me that bananas cant be poisoned in such a manner
or that communist society wouldnt do that, thats just your ideal conception of bananas and communism"

Seriously though I'm amazed. It's really easy to go "in communism this could happen" then when COMMUNISTS tell you what communism is based on actual theory go "that's just what you think communism is".

The wooden horse shit is creepy too.

Not sure where you get the idea that slavery isn't a mode of production, or that the slave plantations were examples of the capitalist mode of production. Capitalism requires wage labor. Slave labor is not wage labor. The plantation colonies used slave labor to produce (mostly) commodities for sale on the international market. This made the production taking place capitalist in terms of circulation, but not in terms of production, which was still slave-based. Consult Eugene Genovese's Fruits of Merchant Capital and Ashworth's Slavery, Capitalism, and Politics in the Antebellum Republic. You might also want to read some of Marx's Das Kapital to see that Marx very clearly identifies wage labor as an essential component of the capitalist mode of production.

[Radio Spartacus]

Not sure where you get the idea that slavery isn't a mode of production, or that the slave plantations were examples of the capitalist mode of production. Capitalism requires wage labor. Slave labor is not wage labor. The plantation colonies used slave labor to produce (mostly) commodities for sale on the international market. This made the production taking place capitalist in terms of circulation, but not in terms of production, which was still slave-based. Consult Eugene Genovese's Fruits of Merchant Capital and Ashworth's Slavery, Capitalism, and Politics in the Antebellum Republic. You might also want to read some of Marx's Das Kapital to see that Marx very clearly identifies wage labor as an essential component of the capitalist mode of production.

Yeah maybe that was dumb. Other points made still stand.

EDIT: On second thought, I wouldn't say the existence of slave labor necessitates that a society's mode of production is slavery. I'm not talking about our specific historical example of the south necessarily, just that if capitalist production is dominant that that society's mode of production is capitalist even if it contains elements of a different mode of production. I'll agree that slavery is not an example of capitalism due to the lack of wage labor, but I think to qualify as a society's mode of production, slavery has to be the dominant method of producing. I'm thinking we have different notions of the "mode of production" because I tend to see a society as having one mode of production even if elements of another are present.

I mean, I think we can all agree that the American South employed the capitalist mode of production despite slaves not performing that essential component of wage labor.

[Baseball]

Wood isn't that scarce today, and I doubt it would be that scarce in the future. Even if it was, a global economy would be more than capable of making use of alternate resources, such as recycled plastic.


The recycled plastic is being used for shampoo bottles and children's board games.

[Baseball]

I think it would technically be "allowed" that he asks for berries in return, because there's no state to stop him from just asking for something, and no one is forced to agree. But as everyone already said, it's unrealistic and simply wouldn't happen. And it would be completely pointless for him to ask for berries from these kids in the first place, because berries (or whatever other goods) would already be available to him, so he doesn't need someone else's.

The wooden horse is not available to everyone. Why would the berries be available to everyone?
The entire scenario rests upon the limited availability of wood at any particular time (which is a fact of life and will impact the availability of berries in a communist society as well)

[Baseball]

The problem is that you seem to be under the impression that starting a business is something natural, rather than being the consequence of a particular socioeconomic system.

However, you have been unable to explain why starting a business is NOT natural in a particular socioeconomic system.

[Baseball]

I have to say I'm a little appalled that everybody is unwilling to address your abstraction in order to illustrate their principles.

Anyway...

In communism, the guy would only be allowed to have his horse for his personal use. He would not be allowed to open a business that charged for it. If the community wanted a horse for the kids, somebody would have to propose it to the council of the commune, and they would democratically decide how to go about allocating the labor and materials needed. Knowing that he could never open a horse-based business, he would probably not have built it "on spec" in the first place.

Curious-- the guy used less wood for fire in order build the horse. He kept warm AND created a venue for entertainment. The society is wealthier as the guy has used his wood for two ends, as well saved other wood for other ends.

Your solution results in the guy burning his wood and not creating a venue for entertainment. Instead, he has to propose to others (who didn't have the idea to begin with) for them to sacrifice some of their wood, and he has to hope he gains majority support for the proposal (and the likelihood of people sacrificing definite warmth for a toy which MIGHT amuse children...) Society likely poorer as they have wasted wood and lack some amusement for children.
How is your idea better for society?

[Baseball]

You're the one hedging your hypothetical with ridiculous conditions, like a lack of industrialisation and no global economy. You're doing that because your hypothetical becomes redundant otherwise.

What does a "lack of industrialization and no global economy" have to do with anything?
What is the problem that the above is supposed to solve? That somebody in another community is making wooden horses and charging a fee for its use?

[argeiphontes]

How is your idea better for society?

Hey, it's not my idea, I'm a market socialist! ;) I was just responding with the communist answer since nobody else was willing to do so. (I think I'm qualified to do so.) I don't think that markets are magically good or magically bad. As you and tooAlive say, they have positive aspects that can't just be dismissed, IMO.

[Comrade #138672]

Huh? Scarcity in communism? Private trade in communism? :confused:

Yes, please trade some valueless berries for my wooden horse.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The hypothetical question doesn't work and can not be answered because capitalism or communism is an entire system of relations.

So this example - even if something like this did happen for some reason (though I think you have a really silly and warped view of humanity based on this hypothetical situation) it does not change the overall social relations of communist society. No more than someone creating a commune in capitalism causes communism, no more than giving someone a sandwich or a friend letting you crash on their couch when you get evicted destroys capitalist exchange relations and creates communism.

If someone made an awesome mix-tape in communism and all their friends wanted to have the same mix, either they would figure out ways to make an analog, trade in kind (the mixtape took you an afternoon to make so I'll trade this painting I made that you always liked), or do without.

People had personal items for a long time, people traded personal items and even commodities - in kind - for a very long time. This does not create capitalist societies, at least it is not inevitable. A system of wage exploitation and a monopolization of the essential ways to produce what society needs is what makes capitalism as a system possible.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The recycled plastic is being used for shampoo bottles and children's board games.

What, all of it? I very much doubt it.


However, you have been unable to explain why starting a business is NOT natural in a particular socioeconomic system.

Because you can't compete with free.


What does a "lack of industrialization and no global economy" have to do with anything?

Everything, because their presence or absence changes things really significantly. Do you always ask such fucking stupid questions?


What is the problem that the above is supposed to solve?

You seriously think there is no difference in economic and material terms between an isolated and primitive village and an interconnected global economy with billions of people?

[Baseball]

What, all of it? I very much doubt it.



Because you can't compete with free.



Everything, because their presence or absence changes things really significantly. Do you always ask such fucking stupid questions?



You seriously think there is no difference in economic and material terms between an isolated and primitive village and an interconnected global economy with billions of people?

The scenario is that this guy used a resource in an unorthodox manner and in doing so discovered a previously unknown need. He met that need, by charging for it. For this he is being called son of the devil.

The real objection here though has been the nature of the distribution, not the nature of the supply. So this problem is supposedly solved by the existence of a global economy with billions of people. But its a SOCIALIST global economy, and such has to be looked at in this way.

The expectation seems to be that this global economy will distribute these wooden horses in a manner more to your liking. The obvious question is: why would they? Remember- these other communities have planned, via democratic votes over unspecified periods of time, for their own production to satisfy their own local needs. Why would they upend their planning and what they wish to do, to satisfy another community's problem (which is in reality an ideological problem) which may be just be passing fad?
Another issue to be considered is cost in shipment-- remember again, shipping goods cost fuel and one of the complaints by socialists of capitalism is that it is extremely wasteful in distribution costs.

[xxxxxx666666]

The obvious question is: why would they?

Why?

How about just begin generous and caring towards one another?

Not everyone thinks in terms of "worth" you know.

Maybe I should add before you say it's "human nature" to be greedy and ask for "worthy" things I'll say that it's also human nature to be giving, look at a historical communities, the native "Indians" whom Columbus met and described, I'll quote from Christopher Columbus, Letter to Luis de Sant’ Angel (1493):

" they are artless and generous with what they have, to such a degree as no one would believe but him who had seen it. Of anything they have, if it be asked for, they never say no, but do rather invite the person to accept it, and show as much lovingness as though they would give their hearts. And whether it be a thing of value, or one of little worth, they are straightways content with whatsoever trifle of whatsoever kind may be given them in return for it."

http://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/objects/1481/1517173/primarysources1_1_1.html

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

The scenario is that this guy used a resource in an unorthodox manner and in doing so discovered a previously unknown need. He met that need, by charging for it. For this he is being called son of the devil.

The real objection here though has been the nature of the distribution, not the nature of the supply. So this problem is supposedly solved by the existence of a global economy with billions of people. But its a SOCIALIST global economy, and such has to be looked at in this way.

The expectation seems to be that this global economy will distribute these wooden horses in a manner more to your liking. The obvious question is: why would they? Remember- these other communities have planned, via democratic votes over unspecified periods of time, for their own production to satisfy their own local needs. Why would they upend their planning and what they wish to do, to satisfy another community's problem (which is in reality an ideological problem) which may be just be passing fad?
Another issue to be considered is cost in shipment-- remember again, shipping goods cost fuel and one of the complaints by socialists of capitalism is that it is extremely wasteful in distribution costs.

And thus capitalism re-emerges fromout communism in the same way this primitive/medieval-like communism-setting came about: As a made up fairytale, without any sense.

[Baseball]

Why?

How about just begin generous and caring towards one another?

Not everyone thinks in terms of "worth" you know.

Generous with what? These wooden horses have yet to be built.


Maybe I should add before you say it's "human nature" to be greedy and ask for "worthy" things I'll say that it's also human nature to be giving, look at a historical communities, the native "Indians" whom Columbus met and described, I'll quote from Christopher Columbus, Letter to Luis de Sant’ Angel (1493):

" they are artless and generous with what they have, to such a degree as no one would believe but him who had seen it. Of anything they have, if it be asked for, they never say no, but do rather invite the person to accept it, and show as much lovingness as though they would give their hearts. And whether it be a thing of value, or one of little worth, they are straightways content with whatsoever trifle of whatsoever kind may be given them in return for it."

Maybe there is a reason that stone age people were stone age people in 1493.

[Sinister Intents]

Generous with what? These wooden horses have yet to be built.



Maybe there is a reason that stone age people were stone age people in 1493.

We'll build wooden horses as demand for them persists, which probably won't be too much because of the other more fun things people want.

Would you consider those people 'primitive'?

[Baseball]

We'll build wooden horses as demand for them persists, which probably won't be too much because of the other more fun things people want.

Would you consider those people 'primitive'?

Who is "we?"

Primitive doubtful poor yes.

[Sinister Intents]

Who is "we?"

Primitive doubtful poor yes.

The people in the commune who are building toys I would assume. They're building them, and they'll be distributed accordingly to those children who want a 'wooden horse' but there will be other more fun toys that children will want, and plus there are plenty of toys that already exist. So we don't really need to produce more, perhaps just refurbish the toys that are used and then who ever wants the toys can have them.

So you would say people like the American Indians were primitive? I wouldn't say they were primitive at all, they were adapted to there situation. To call them primitive is an insult IMO. I would say in many cases they were more 'civilized' than the European colonists.

[Baseball]

The people in the commune who are building toys I would assume. They're building them, and they'll be distributed accordingly to those children who want a 'wooden horse'

Noxion had declared that the entire thread was ridiculous because there would be other socialist communities who presumably would ship wooden horses so as to.. I guess.. avoid the ideological embarament created when a person behaving in a capitalist fashion identified and met a need.
If this other, toy making commune, is going to sweep in and supply this rather impoverished socialist community with toys, it itself is going to have to determine whether its gains in doing so outstrip its costs.



So you would say people like the American Indians were primitive? I wouldn't say they were primitive at all, they were adapted to there situation. To call them primitive is an insult IMO. I would say in many cases they were more 'civilized' than the European colonists.

I am not sure what the Indians have to do with anything.

[Sinister Intents]

Noxion had declared that the entire thread was ridiculous because there would be other socialist communities who presumably would ship wooden horses so as to.. I guess.. avoid the ideological embarament created when a person behaving in a capitalist fashion identified and met a need.
If this other, toy making commune, is going to sweep in and supply this rather impoverished socialist community with toys, it itself is going to have to determine whether its gains in doing so outstrip its costs.




I am not sure what the Indians have to do with anything.

Ahhh I see, Noxion makes very good points often. Yeah other communes would trade with other communes I would assume. Could create a global accounting system perhaps so resources get distributed and used accordingly. Plus a forum I don't think is truly the greatest place to be discussing this broad topic. It seems really broad to me. Also going on about profiting from personal property in communism, it seems more it should be called private property, there is a difference between personal and private property.

The Indians really don't have much to do with the subject at hand, I'm just saying the whole primitive thing is kinda stupid haha.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Noxion had declared that the entire thread was ridiculous because there would be other socialist communities who presumably would ship wooden horses so as to.. I guess.. avoid the ideological embarament created when a person behaving in a capitalist fashion identified and met a need.

No, I pointed out that the original scenario was ridiculous because it described a primitive, localised economy that bears no resemblance to the advanced global economy I actually advocate. You seem to think that the two are equivalent, which is plainly ridiculous.


If this other, toy making commune, is going to sweep in and supply this rather impoverished socialist community with toys, it itself is going to have to determine whether its gains in doing so outstrip its costs.

The fact that you (and tooAlive) conceive of communism as a bunch of shit-kicker villages just shows that you are fully aware that industrialisation and mass production can provide the abundance necessary, which is why you insist on erecting such primitivist strawmen in the first place.

[Baseball]

No, I pointed out that the original scenario was ridiculous because it described a primitive, localised economy that bears no resemblance to the advanced global economy I actually advocate. You seem to think that the two are equivalent, which is plainly ridiculous.

Yes. I understand this.
That guy has produced a product. He identified a need. He met that need. What is the problem which the advanced (socialist) global economy is supposed to solve?




The fact that you (and tooAlive) conceive of communism as a bunch of shit-kicker villages just shows that you are fully aware that industrialisation and mass production can provide the abundance necessary, which is why you insist on erecting such primitivist strawmen in the first place.

It can provide the abundance in a capitalist community; the jury is still out on the socialist one. In fact, by the reactions by the folks around here to the actions of that guy, suggest the socialist community will have trouble doing so.

[Baseball]

Yeah other communes would trade with other communes I would assume.

How?


Could create a global accounting system perhaps so resources get distributed and used accordingly.

Yes-- use of money and trade for profit would seem the best way.
But socialists tend to look askance at this.

[Sinister Intents]

How?



Yes-- use of money and trade for profit would seem the best way.
But socialists tend to look askance at this.

Personal trading would work on a local scale. Like: "Hey man, I got this television I don't want anymore, you got anything in return?" "Yeah, I got a bunch of old CD's I don't listen to anymore. Do you like Thrash?" "Fuck Yeah! Sounds Good." Not just trading though, people can freely give and take things from places where you drop off unneeded or unused things, kinda like a pawn shop, but you don't need money, and you can take what you need and drop off what you don't want or use anymore, or something that doesn't work you can drop it off at a place where someone with the no how can fix it up. Trading and distribution on a larger scale can be taken care of using a massive global accounting network. Things to be distributed via train, truck, ship, plane, et cetera. You don't need money for any of this to work. Specific communes that need specific things will be able to send a message about what is needed and what they've produced to be distributed elsewhere.

I'm probably missing something and perhaps I've made shitty reasons, but I'm trying. Someone can amend what I've said and tell me where I'm wrong and or better ways to look at it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes. I understand this.
That guy has produced a product. He identified a need. He met that need. What is the problem which the advanced (socialist) global economy is supposed to solve?

You tell me. Profit isn't necessary to meet needs, indeed the profit incentive often gets in the way of meeting needs. People in West Virginia need clean water but the profit-seeking of entities like Freedom Industries has prevented that need from being met.


It can provide the abundance in a capitalist community; the jury is still out on the socialist one. In fact, by the reactions by the folks around here to the actions of that guy, suggest the socialist community will have trouble doing so.

It's the profit-seeking we find problematic, not the toy-making.

[Baseball]

Trading and distribution on a larger scale can be taken care of using a massive global accounting network. Things to be distributed via train, truck, ship, plane, et cetera. You don't need money for any of this to work. Specific communes that need specific things will be able to send a message about what is needed and what they've produced to be distributed elsewhere.

I'm probably missing something and perhaps I've made shitty reasons, but I'm trying. Someone can amend what I've said and tell me where I'm wrong and or better ways to look at it.

OK- so people just produce things--whatever-- and its kind of hoped that somebody, somewhere wants it.

[Sinister Intents]

OK- so people just produce things--whatever-- and its kind of hoped that somebody, somewhere wants it.

Not really, supply and demand will exist in communism. People will produce a supply, and it will meet the demands of people who have needs and wants.

[Baseball]

You tell me.


You are the one who brought it up.


Profit isn't necessary to meet needs, indeed the profit incentive often gets in the way of meeting needs. People in West Virginia need clean water but the profit-seeking of entities like Freedom Industries has prevented that need from being met.

I am not aware that socialism would be perfect, no problems, no accidents.


It's the profit-seeking we find problematic, not the toy-making.

The manner by which use of the toy is distributed, to be exact. Wherein came the comment of the interconnected global economy...
What does that solve?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You are the one who brought it up.

You are the one equating innovation with profit-seeking. As far as I'm concerned there's no problem to solve, because innovation predates capitalism and therefore will endure the passing of that system.


I am not aware that socialism would be perfect, no problems, no accidents.

Shit like that keeps happening way too often under capitalism for it to be merely accidental. Stop dodging the issue by attacking claims I never made.


The manner by which use of the toy is distributed, to be exact. Wherein came the comment of the interconnected global economy...
What does that solve?

As I have explained at least once before, it precludes the whole ludicrous scenario presented in the OP.

[Comrade #138672]

Baseball, I am still not sure what you are on about. Your questions have been answered over and over again. Yet you keep bringing up the same stuff.

[Sinister Intents]

Baseball, I am still not sure what you are on about. Your questions have been answered over and over again. Yet you keep bringing up the same stuff.

It's exactly the same as when I argue with my father, it just goes in circles like the individual person is failing to grasp the concepts, ideas, and other things laid out before them. I've argued very similar things with my father and he simply refuses to care. I'm pretty sure he is content with being a capitalist because its so normalized to him and he's so indoctrinated into it and can't understand the concept fully or he just rejects it because it goes against his perceived human nature. Also bringing up ideas like revolution, he replies "who fucking cares, its not gonna happen and I don't want people to get killed. I've seen into the future (he claims he has because of a couple near death experiences) where the higher ups just keep maintaining there order, so it doesn't matter." Not verbatim, but you get the idea. I bring up how money won't be needed and how needs will be met, and yet he still insists capitalism is best and you will always need money because it simplifies shit apparently. It's pointless arguing with the heavily indoctrinated IMO.

[liberlict]

Why does communism have to be based on this idea of a decentralized system of local, independent, and apparently isolated communes that for some reason haven't industrialized?

Diseconomy of scale.. (as a purely practical reason).

But then there's issues like 'self-determination' that I think are worth thinking about. I don't particularly like the idea of the world being a culturally homogeneous blob. Even if I thought it were likely, which I don't.

[Baseball]

You are the one equating innovation with profit-seeking. As far as I'm concerned there's no problem to solve, because innovation predates capitalism and therefore will endure the passing of that system.

However, a socialist system would vastly different, far more different from capitalism than capitalism is different from other systems.

[Sinister Intents]

However, a socialist system would vastly different, far more different from capitalism than capitalism is different from other systems.

What you say doesn't make sense at the moment, could you elaborate?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

However, a socialist system would vastly different, far more different from capitalism than capitalism is different from other systems.

Yes it would. And?

If even a slave economy like that of the Romans or Classical Greeks couldn't dampen the human tendency for inventive artifice but merely redirected it (e.g. Roman military & civil engineering, Antikythera mechanism), then I hardly think you should be worrying about a socialist society's capacity for innovation. Especially since no socialist worth paying attention to advocates the wholesale destruction of technical knowledge gained from previous eras.

Since there's no reason why telecommunications would cease to exist, and since "intellectual property", patents etc would have been abolished, in a socialist economy there would no barriers preventing the spread and adaptation of inventions across the world.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's exactly the same as when I argue with my father, it just goes in circles like the individual person is failing to grasp the concepts, ideas, and other things laid out before them. I've argued very similar things with my father and he simply refuses to care. I'm pretty sure he is content with being a capitalist because its so normalized to him and he's so indoctrinated into it and can't understand the concept fully or he just rejects it because it goes against his perceived human nature. Also bringing up ideas like revolution, he replies "who fucking cares, its not gonna happen and I don't want people to get killed. I've seen into the future (he claims he has because of a couple near death experiences) where the higher ups just keep maintaining there order, so it doesn't matter." Not verbatim, but you get the idea. I bring up how money won't be needed and how needs will be met, and yet he still insists capitalism is best and you will always need money because it simplifies shit apparently. It's pointless arguing with the heavily indoctrinated IMO.

Yeah no one needs to "advocate" capitalism because we have to deal with capitalist relations as a fact of life. So it's either reject capitalism and deal with whatever conclusions you draw from that or apologize for it. The apologists mearly have to argue: well your head is not on fire, so I guess capitalism works pretty well - could socialism guarantee that my head doesn't catch on fire, no.

The apologists tend mistake "supply and demand" for capitalism itself as if peasants and serfs were tilling fields for shits and giggles rather than to produce so that society could function. Really capitalism is a particular way of production, a particular relationship of how production happens. Marxists define capitalism as the competitive accumulation of profits for the sake of accumulation organized through wage labor (exploitation). This definition works in any place where capitalist relations are generalized - both in booms and busts, in parlenetary democracies and military rule dictatorships, in "free-market" and state-capitalist economies. The "supply and demand" non-definition breaks down as soon as there is an overproductive crisis (bust) or when you consider abundance alongside inequality. "Supply and Demand" doesn't explain why capitalism in Africa means people can no longer support themselves as they did a few generations ago, it doesn't explain why we produce more food than can be consumed at the same time that there are famines. Where's the breakdown? There's demand and supply, but the demand is not met. Actually there is no breakdown because capitalism is supply and demand based on... the competitive accumulation of profits for the sake of accumulation organized through wage labor (exploitation)!

Some of these apologists are like debating creationists: well we all have two eyes and thumbs and so this is the inevitable and divinely chosen form! They reject any explainations looking to the history of the development of capitalism and class societies and then demand empirical proof showing how things will develop. As if you could deny evolution by demanding proof that in the future people won't have bat-wings and twelve toes.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Some of these apologists are like debating creationists: well we all have two eyes and thumbs and so this is the inevitable and divinely chosen form! They reject any explainations looking to the history of the development of capitalism and class societies and then demand empirical proof showing how things will develop. As if you could deny evolution by demanding proof that in the future people won't have bat-wings and twelve toes.

So true. They deny the obvious reason that we have a preference for even numbers because we are pretty much even. (though i only have one D... so there goes your creationism ;) )

Capitalism got to where it is not only because of the immense amount of variables, but because of it's vast array of fixed parameters. Those fixed parameters will only allow change within the range of it's variables, which is not as big a range as anCap's would like.

Capitalism will always amount to oligarchism or monopolism and a government. The form of the government may differ (centralised/decantralised, full state or minarchism/DRO, etc.) but one will always arise. Alike with oligarchism/monopolism: ity is only a question of the amount of influence it has on the government and vice versa.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Some of these apologists are like debating creationists: well we all have two eyes and thumbs and so this is the inevitable and divinely chosen form! They reject any explainations looking to the history of the development of capitalism and class societies and then demand empirical proof showing how things will develop. As if you could deny evolution by demanding proof that in the future people won't have bat-wings and twelve toes.

Talking about that there recently was a short interview with Peter Schiff on Daily Show. They talked about minimum wage and Peter Schiff of course talked about supply and demand, how the State creates unemployment etc.

At one point he was asked what would he say to someone who's 48 years old, has a BSc degree and demands higher wages from McDonalds. His answer was: "That doesn't happen in reality". Of course it was followed by a video clip where 48-year-old with BSc degree is protesting for a living wage...

He also said that all the people in fast food industry are young kids enjoying their lives...

On top of that he mentioned that everyone in free-market gets foods and nobody starves, it's only socialism that creates famines.

I am writing this not to point out that there are some lunatics on the right. I point this out, because this is the guy who is invited to right-wing "libertarian" conferences, write books on economics and is one of the leading figures on the "libertarian" right! I think he captures this creationist-like denial of reality on the right quite well.