Communism and Crypto-Currencies

[tooAlive]

How do you anarcho-communists out there plan to deal with the recent surge in crypto-currency popularity and use, like Bitcoins, Litecoins, Dogecoins, ect..

I realize that one of your pillars is to eliminate the monetary system. But these crypto currencies can't really be shut down as long as people keep using them -- even anonymously. Not even governments could shut down these cryto-currencies once they're up, unless they effectively shut down the internet.

And as long as there is internet, how would you prevent future crypto-currencies from emerging, seeing as anyone with the knowledge can make one him or herself?

I suppose you may argue that people would no longer have a use for them once everything is freely available. I'd argue that by stating the obvious fact that not everything a person will want can possibly be mass produced or fabricated, and available for "free." I'll give one example:

Sex.

Sex is one thing that you can't produce or make sure everyone gets. Having sex is at the disposition of consenting people. Even in today's world it is known that people pay to have sex with others. What is to stop someone from paying to have sex with someone else using crypto-currencies in a post-capitalist society?

If you still argue that the "sex workers" would not work for money as nobody would have a need for it, I have another point I'd like to make.

Lets say it's summer, and a few more people than usual want to have a hand-crafted wooden boat. There's no shortage or anything and everyone will get to have a boat eventually, but there's a current waiting period to get a hand-crafted wooden boat. For the sake of this argument, lets say it's a reasonable number like 4 months.

It could be argued that in such a case where immediate acquisition of something is not possible because of increased demand, what is to stop someone from using his or her crypto-currencies to exchange with someone that already has a hand-crafted boat and is willing to trade it?

[The Feral Underclass]

There would be nothing to spend them on, including sex. People only sell sex in order to pay for things and since there would be nothing to buy, why would they do that?

[Tenka]

Aren't those crypto-currencies just useless data that only have worth in the context of financial capitalism? Anyway sex work is a useless service sector job, and insofar as there is a need for it, that can be fulfilled by willing amateurs under no economic obligation.

[tooAlive]

There would be nothing to spend them on.

You didn't read the entire post and assumed I wouldn't have addressed that.

I did.

[The Feral Underclass]

You didn't read the entire post and assumed I wouldn't have addressed that.

I did.

If there is nothing to buy, why would anyone require money?

[tooAlive]

Aren't those crypto-currencies just useless data that only have worth in the context of financial capitalism? Anyway sex work is a useless service sector job, and insofar as there is a need for it, that can be fulfilled by willing amateurs under no economic obligation.

I highly doubt it, considering hundreds of millions of Bitcoins are exchanged each and every day around the world.

https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd

[Sinister Intents]

Money just won't exist, those currencies will be useless as money will be useless.

[tooAlive]

If there is nothing to buy, why would anyone require money?

Perhaps you'd like to address the specific examples I made providing a reasonable incentive to want to exchange a currency or medium of exchange.

[tooAlive]

Money just won't exist, those currencies will be useless as money will be useless.

I addressed that.

Figured that would be the first argument so I presented a few examples to contradict that.

[The Feral Underclass]

Perhaps you'd like to address the specific examples I made providing a reasonable incentive to want to exchange a currency or medium of exchange.

I don't understand what you're confused about.

In order for an exchange of goods for money to be meaningful, the money would require having a value, and it only has value relative to goods produced for exchange. The person making the boats could choose to exchange a boat with these people for their currency, but why would they do that? There is nothing this person can spend their money on...You would be giving someone a boat that you used material and labour to produce for some metal...

[Tenka]

MMORPG-players pay real money for virtual items--data with no substance, commodity fetishism grown out of non-commodities--and these are called micro-transactions and they're equally a threat to future Communism as bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies: i.e., not at all.

These things are imaginary, less substantial than the paper money which gives them their imagined existence, which itself is meaningless outside of today's context of Capitalism.

[tooAlive]

I don't understand what you're confused about.

In order for an exchange of goods for money to be meaningful, the money would require having a value and it only has value because relative to goods produced for exchange. The person making the boats could choose to exchange a boat with these people for their currency, but why would they do that? There is nothing this person can spend their money on...

Money today isn't worth anything either.

It's fiat paper money, yet we still give them value. Bitcoins and all other crypto currencies are not infinite and their value comes from scarcity, which should theoretically give them more value than the money we use today. You also can't reproduce more crypto-coins once they're all in circulation.

You can't argue that nobody will want them because you can't predict what people will or won't want. I'm asking you all to explain how you plan on stopping someone from doing so, and what risks will it present to your communist world.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I suppose you may argue that people would no longer have a use for them once everything is freely available. I'd argue that by stating the obvious fact that not everything a person will want can possibly be mass produced or fabricated, and available for "free." I'll give one example:

Sex.

Sex is one thing that you can't produce or make sure everyone gets. Having sex is at the disposition of consenting people. Even in today's world it is known that people pay to have sex with others. What is to stop someone from paying to have sex with someone else using crypto-currencies in a post-capitalist society?

Well, nothing, just as there is nothing stopping people from proclaiming themselves to be the Grand Master of the Order of the Shiny Spoon of St. Bernard of Aquitaine and "paying" for sex with "titles", and I imagine using "crypto-currency" to "pay" for sex in a communist society would elicit the same response. Hell, we might print worthless money if people want to use it in prostitute-play.


If you still argue that the "sex workers" would not work for money as nobody would have a need for it, I have another point I'd like to make.

Lets say it's summer, and a few more people than usual want to have a hand-crafted wooden boat. There's no shortage or anything and everyone will get to have a boat eventually, but there's a current waiting period to get a hand-crafted wooden boat. For the sake of this argument, lets say it's a reasonable number like 4 months.

It could be argued that in such a case where immediate acquisition of something is not possible because of increased demand, what is to stop someone from using his or her crypto-currencies to exchange with someone that already has a hand-crafted boat and is willing to trade it?

Trade it for what? "Bitcoins"? Assuming that there are people who value these "bitcoins", perhaps, but that's simple barter. In the absence of a market, these "crypto-currencies" could not be the universal medium of exchange because most people and economic entities would not accept them. There would be no need for them, to put it simply.

Not to mention that a more obvious solution to the problem of access to scarce resources (and the scarcity in this case is mostly artificial; hopefully most people would have stopped buying this "hand-made" nonsense) is communal access, not waiting lists.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

This is like asking how will a post-revolutionary society deal with Monopoly money from the board game.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

I don't understand what you're confused about.

In order for an exchange of goods for money to be meaningful, the money would require having a value, and it only has value relative to goods produced for exchange. The person making the boats could choose to exchange a boat with these people for their currency, but why would they do that? There is nothing this person can spend their money on...You would be giving someone a boat that you used material and labour to produce for some metal...
If you really think about it, there are a few ways 'money' can have value even in a Communist society.

Things that you build yourself for example.. You could sell it for crypto currency, in order to buy other personal objects (things not mass produced, but done by themselves). Example: A guy who made a cool chess table sells it for crypto currency in order to buy his neighbor's painting.

I don't think it's a big issue, but it is a possibility.

[tooAlive]

What about services?

Lets give the example of an entertainer. You have some that are really funny, and others that aren't as funny. You're throwing a party and want to invite the funniest entertainer to come entertain your party.

But the thing is, there's already 4 other people that want his service the same night.

So what do the people do? They offer him something more in exchange for his service to them on that day. The easiest thing to use is Bitcoins, so they offer him those. Naturally, the entertainer decides to go entertain the guests willing to pay him more that night.

And why does he want Bitcoins? So that when he throws a party himself, he can afford to secure the services of the other funniest entertainers available, and not get stuck with a mediocre one that isn't funny at all.

I can keep dishing out examples like this as they're not hard to think of at all. There are infinite amounts of reasons why people would devise ways of trading "currencies" in a post-capitalist society where "everything" is supposedly available for free.

[The Feral Underclass]

If you really think about it, there are a few ways 'money' can have value even in a Communist society.

Things that you build yourself for example.. You could sell it for crypto currency, in order to buy other personal objects (things not mass produced, but done by themselves). Example: A guy who made a cool chess table sells it for crypto currency in order to buy his neighbor's painting.

I don't think it's a big issue, but it is a possibility.

But why would they do that?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

What about services?

Lets give the example of an entertainer. You have some that are really funny, and others that aren't as funny. You're throwing a party and want to invite the funniest entertainer to come entertain your party.

But the thing is, there's already 4 other people that want his service the same night.

So what do the people do? They offer him something more in exchange for his service to them on that day. The easiest thing to use is Bitcoins, so they offer him those. Naturally, the entertainer decides to go entertain the guests willing to pay him more that night.

And why does he want Bitcoins? So that when he throws a party himself, he can afford to secure the services of the other funniest entertainers available, and not get stuck with a mediocre one that isn't funny at all.

I can keep dishing out examples like this as they're not hard to think of at all. There are infinite amounts of reasons why people would devise ways of trading "currencies" in a post-capitalist society where "everything" is supposedly available for free.

Or perhaps the entertainer goes wherever he pleases, since he doesn't have to work or starve anymore.

[tooAlive]

But why would they do that?

That's actually a great example.

Because personal property like paintings, sculptures, ect.. things that can't be mass produced, have more value, as more people may want them but not all of them can have that particular object.

Lets say another Picasso comes along and everybody wants his paintings. Yeah you could mass-print replicas, but people don't want the fake stuff. Same reason they not willing to pay millions for fake paintings today -- everyone wants the original, the real deal.

So what do they devise? Whoever is willing to trade the most crypto-currencies gets to keep the rare and exclusive objects.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

That's actually a great example.

Because personal property like paintings, sculptures, ect.. things that can't be mass produced, have more value, as more people may want them but not all of them can have that particular object.

Lets say another Picasso comes along and everybody wants his paintings. Yeah you could mass-print replicas, but people don't want the fake stuff. Same reason they not willing to pay millions for fake paintings today -- everyone wants the original, the real deal.

So what do they devise? Whoever is willing to trade the most crypto-currencies gets to keep the rare and exclusive objects.

As with this nonsense about being "hand-crafted", I imagine most people would be happy to own "fakes" without the art industry and associated cultural phenomena, and probably most artists would donate their original work to the museums, for the terminally serious. Or they would put them in their living room or use them to wrap sausage - it would be their decision.

[The Feral Underclass]

What about services?

Lets give the example of an entertainer. You have some that are really funny, and others that aren't as funny. You're throwing a party and want to invite the funniest entertainer to come entertain your party.

But the thing is, there's already 4 other people that want his service the same night.

Your conception of communism is utterly bizarre. Society won't operate by the kind dynamics you are imagining. Those whom desire to be comedians won't advertise their services to be sold. Why would they do that? People sell their time in order to make money so they can buy things. Since there would be nothing to buy, there would be nothing to sell.


So what do the people do? They offer him something more in exchange for his service to them on that day. The easiest thing to use is Bitcoins, so they offer him those. Naturally, the entertainer decides to go entertain the guests willing to pay him more that night.

And why does he want Bitcoins? So that when he throws a party himself, he can afford to secure the services of the other funniest entertainers available, and not get stuck with a mediocre one that isn't funny at all.

There would be no entertainers whom you can buy.

[tooAlive]

As with this nonsense about being "hand-crafted", I imagine most people would be happy to own "fakes" without the art industry and associated cultural phenomena, and probably most artists would donate their original work to the museums, for the terminally serious. Or they would put them in their living room or use them to wrap sausage - it would be their decision.

Reeeaally?

So the same people willing to pay millions of dollars today to buy rare paintings will happily own a fake in communism?

What will happen to the original? Will it be destroyed once the fakes are made so that nobody can fight to own it?

Seems all your iterations of communism exist with beings other than humans.

[The Feral Underclass]

That's actually a great example.

Because personal property like paintings, sculptures, ect.. things that can't be mass produced, have more value, as more people may want them but not all of them can have that particular object.

Lets say another Picasso comes along and everybody wants his paintings. Yeah you could mass-print replicas, but people don't want the fake stuff. Same reason they not willing to pay millions for fake paintings today -- everyone wants the original, the real deal.

So what do they devise? Whoever is willing to trade the most crypto-currencies gets to keep the rare and exclusive objects.

Paintings of common interest won't be for individual ownership. Picasso's art isn't for one individual, it will be held in common.

You simply don't understand what communism is.

[The Feral Underclass]

Reeeaally?

So the same people willing to pay millions of dollars today to buy rare paintings will happily own a fake in communism?

What will happen to the original? Will it be destroyed once the fakes are made so that nobody can fight to own it?

Seems all your iterations of communism exist with beings other than humans.

Those people will likely be dead or no longer rich, so what they think and want will be of absolutely no consequence.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Reeeaally?

So the same people willing to pay millions of dollars today to buy rare paintings will happily own a fake in communism?

What will happen to the original? Will it be destroyed once the fakes are made so that nobody can fight to own it?

Seems all your iterations of communism exist with beings other than humans.

Ah, the old "human nature" argument. But it's quite obvious that people, in general, are quite happy owning a copy of, say, "Capital" other than the original manuscript and are in fact quite happy to let the original manuscript lie in a museum. That's chiefly because the manuscript industry is not as successful as the art industry.

[tooAlive]

Your conception of communism is utterly bizarre. Society won't operate by the kind dynamics you are imagining. Those whom desire to be comedians won't advertise their services to be sold. Why would they do that? People sell their time in order to make money so they can buy things. Since there would be nothing to buy, there would be nothing to sell.

I think your conception of people is pretty bizarre. The kind of dynamics I describe are how people react nowadays to scarce objects.

Supply and demand.


There would be no entertainers whom you can buy.

You're not buying anybody.

You're compensating them for their service, and they'd be inclined to accept the highest payment so they can go buy more rare and exclusive items nobody else has. Sculptures, paintings, jewelry, ect..

Not everybody can have gold jewelry in communism, unless you deplete the planet's supply of gold. Or learn to become alchemists.

[tooAlive]

Those people will likely be dead or no longer rich, so what they think and want will be of absolutely no consequence.

Right, cause you'll murder them all in your revolution.

And then you guys say you're peaceful. :star3::thumbdown:

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

And then you guys say you're peaceful. :star3::thumbdown:

Who said that?

[tooAlive]

Paintings of common interest won't be for individual ownership. Picasso's art isn't for one individual, it will be held in common.

You simply don't understand what communism is.

Why? Picasso's paintings will be confiscated by the community? What ever happened to personal property?

Your ideology is becoming less and less appealing as the discussion goes on.

[Sinister Intents]

Right, cause you'll murder them all in your revolution.

And then you guys say you're peaceful. :star3::thumbdown:

What is this peace you speak of? It most certainly doesn't exist today

[The Feral Underclass]

I think your conception of people is pretty bizarre.

You put far too much credit into what you think.


The kind of dynamics I describe are how people react nowadays to scarce objects.

But nowadays and a communist society are fundamentally different things.


Supply and demand.

You understand that the purpose of communism is to replace capitalism, right?


You're not buying anybody.

You are buying their time, which for all intents and purpose, is buying them, and since people's time will no longer be something that you can buy, you will have to find different entertainment for your party.


You're compensating them for their service, and they'd be inclined to accept the highest payment so they can go buy more rare and exclusive items nobody else has. Sculptures, paintings, jewelry, ect..

I am absolutely certain that no such inclination will exist.


Not everybody can have gold jewelry in communism, unless you deplete the planet's supply of gold. Or learn to become alchemists.

The spectacle of shiny objects will not be something people in a communist society will be interested in.

[tooAlive]

Ah, the old "human nature" argument. But it's quite obvious that people, in general, are quite happy owning a copy of, say, "Capital" other than the original manuscript and are in fact quite happy to let the original manuscript lie in a museum. That's chiefly because the manuscript industry is not as successful as the art industry.

Hah!

Then why is the first edition selling for $30k???

http://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/capital/author/karl-marx/first-edition/sortby/1/page-1/

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Tenka]

The kind of dynamics I describe are how people react nowadays to scarce objects.

So your idea of human nature is how people behave in the context of capitalism where money buys life and the means of production are owned by an exclusive class of people. Your premise for this discussion is terribly flawed and I think you're just trolling.

edit: not to say it's a wrong idea of "human nature"; just that "human nature" depends on its context.

[Sinister Intents]

Why? Picasso's paintings will be confiscated by the community? What ever happened to personal property?

Your ideology is becoming less and less appealing as the discussion goes on.

The painting could be reproduced for people who have a demand for it, they will most likely be held in places like museums for people with those interests to see them. These paintings will be the property of all, not one person at all. They won't be confiscated at all. Personal property will remain that, personal property.

[The Feral Underclass]

Why? Picasso's paintings will be confiscated by the community? What ever happened to personal property?

Cultural artefacts that have had such a profound affect on human development are not the personal property of an individual.


Your ideology is becoming less and less appealing as the discussion goes on.

That's neither here nor there, really.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think your conception of people is pretty bizarre. The kind of dynamics I describe are how people react nowadays to scarce objects.

Supply and demand.

They react that way because that's how things work under capitalism. Under communism it would be a different story, because the way society and the economy is structured would be completely different.


Not everybody can have gold jewelry in communism, unless you deplete the planet's supply of gold. Or learn to become alchemists.

In a communist society jewelry would only have use-value as a form of decoration. If there's not enough gold for everyone to use as jewelry, then there are plenty of alternative materials that jewelry can be made out of.

Gold would be better put to use in circuitry for specialist high-performance applications, taking advantage of its high conductivity.

[tooAlive]

So your idea of human nature is how people behave in the context of capitalism where money buys life and the means of production are owned by an exclusive class of people. Your premise for this discussion is terribly flawed and I think you're just trolling.

edit: not to say it's a wrong idea of "human nature"; just that "human nature" depends on its context.

How people behave in the context of scare resources!

Your ideology assumes EVERYTHING will be freely available. That's why you're so hell bent on accepting the fact that there is the possibility of there being scarce items that not everyone can have, as that will pose a problem to your society.

I only see 2 solutions you have:

1) Destroy said scarce items
2) Kill those who want said scarce items

That's why you also deny the notion of human nature that will inevitably lead us to compete for those said scarce resources. Communism implies that humans are nothing but ants without any thought process or emotions to be able to function properly.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Why? Picasso's paintings will be confiscated by the community? What ever happened to personal property?

Communists distinguish between personal and private property, but we don't claim that anyone has an absolute right (or, really, a right at all) to personal property.


Hah!

Then why is the first edition selling for $30k???

http://www.abebooks.com/book-search/...rtby/1/page-1/ (http://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/capital/author/karl-marx/first-edition/sortby/1/page-1/)

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Because there is an industry built around these things, although not as pervasive as the art industry. Even so, most people are happy to own "reproduction" books, whereas there is a stigma associated with owning "fake" pieces of art.


Your ideology is becoming less and less appealing as the discussion goes on.

That's probably for the best. Different material interest and all that.

[tooAlive]

They react that way because that's how things work under capitalism. Under communism it would be a different story, because the way society and the economy is structured would be completely different.

I beg to differ. You can't deny that in the face of scarcity, it will be inevitable for some to try and compete for said scare resources. Oblivious to whatever economic system is claimed to be.


In a communist society jewelry would only have use-value as a form of decoration. If there's not enough gold for everyone to use as jewelry, then there are plenty of alternative materials that jewelry can be made out of.

Gold would be better put to use in circuitry for specialist high-performance applications, taking advantage of its high conductivity.

So people will be forbidden to wear gold jewelry? What if someone wants to? Who will enforce this rule?

[tooAlive]

Communists distinguish between personal and private property, but we don't claim that anyone has an absolute right (or, really, a right at all) to personal property.

In other words, your personal property rights were just as strong as Hitler's:

Private property should be enforced so long as it progresses the purpose of the state.. (or commune, in your case).

[The Feral Underclass]

I beg to differ. You can't deny that in the face of scarcity, it will be inevitable for some to try and compete for said scare resources. Oblivious to whatever economic system is claimed to be.

Again, you fail to understand communism. Competition is unnecessary if society is designed to find solutions collectively.


So people will be forbidden to wear gold jewelry? What if someone wants to? Who will enforce this rule?

Why would any one care what metal their jewellery was made from?

[tooAlive]

So far in this thread I have learned that:

1) Communists don't value personal property
2) All who wish to possess scarce resources shall be put to death
3) Communists don't really believe in peace, freedom, or a state-less society

What else?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

In other words, your personal property rights were just as strong as Hitler's:

Private property should be enforced so long as it progresses the purpose of the state.. (or commune, in your case).

And most of us wear pants, just like Hitler! If you think that the problem with the Nazi government was insufficient protection of personal possessions of the rich, then... well, what can you expect from someone whose reaction to communism isn't "well, I could certainly use food/water/shelter/not being beaten up" but "they're going to take away my Damien Hirst and won't allow me to hire Carrot Top!".

[Sinister Intents]

I beg to differ. You can't deny that in the face of scarcity, it will be inevitable for some to try and compete for said scare resources. Oblivious to whatever economic system is claimed to be.
[QUOTE]


[QUOTE] So people will be forbidden to wear gold jewelry? What if someone wants to? Who will enforce this rule?

No, people may still have gold jewelry. No one is going to take it away from you. The resources will be managed in a democratic way under socialism and will be put to the best use possible and meet the needs of people. Scarcity to me actually is a pretty good reason of why capitalism is entirely bullshit.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I beg to differ. You can't deny that in the face of scarcity, it will be inevitable for some to try and compete for said scare resources. Oblivious to whatever economic system is claimed to be.

There are other ways of dealing with scarcity, such as communal access. If there is an insufficient amount of whatever to give everyone freely, then on what basis does it make sense to ration access based on meaningless tokens?


So people will be forbidden to wear gold jewelry? What if someone wants to? Who will enforce this rule?

No, I'm not saying it would be forbidden. Your granny's gold necklace would remain her personal property. What I am saying is that gold as yet unmined or sitting around uselessly in the form of bullion and ingots would be put to more practical uses.

[The Feral Underclass]

So far in this thread I have learned that:

1) Communists don't value personal property
2) All who wish to possess scarce resources shall be put to death
3) Communists don't really believe in peace, freedom, or a state-less society

What else?

Then you're an idiot.

[tooAlive]

Again, you fail to understand communism. Competition is unnecessary if society is designed to find solutions collectively.

What is a common solution to a few people wanting to have an original picasso painting? Will they cut the painting up into equal pieces for everyone?

I think you fail to understand that isn't designed for anything, and we're all individuals capable of wanting different things. Including opting to work alone, not share, cooperate with anyone else if they so wish.


Why would any one care what metal their jewellery was made from?

I do. And I know a few other people as well. There's also a few others that like to wear gold on their teeth.

Would we not be allowed to wear these items in communism? What state will stop us?

[Sinister Intents]

So far in this thread I have learned that:

1) Communists don't value personal property
2) All who wish to possess scarce resources shall be put to death
3) Communists don't really believe in peace, freedom, or a state-less society

What else?

I think your hilarious and when you create threads they become trainwrecks, and at times they make me cringe.

1) Your personal property will remain your personal property. We don't want your dirty, overused toothbrush. We want to make it so that the means of production, factories, land, and natural resources are owned collectively by everyone.
2) No.
3) I believe in peace, freedom, and a stateless society. What we seek will ensure peace and freedom for all!

[tooAlive]

There are other ways of dealing with scarcity, such as communal access. If there is an insufficient amount of whatever to give everyone freely, then on what basis does it make sense to ration access based on meaningless tokens?

How do you ration a painting?

Makes more sense to me that the highest bidder will get sole access to it.


No, I'm not saying it would be forbidden. Your granny's gold necklace would remain her personal property. What I am saying is that gold as yet unmined or sitting around uselessly in the form of bullion and ingots would be put to more practical uses.

What happens if everyone wants a necklace like granny's, and not a fake one that discolors or erodes?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So far in this thread I have learned that:

1) Communists don't value personal property

Not true, see my last post.


2) All who wish to possess scarce resources shall be put to death

Please stop lying, because nobody has said this.


3) Communists don't really believe in peace, freedom, or a state-less society

You say this because you don't actually respond to what we say, and constantly come out with strawmen.


What else?

Admitting you're a troll?

[tooAlive]

I only wear gold chains because other metals erode, stain and don't look as good.

When others see my pretty gold chain, many will want one too. What will you tell the community when they all want a gold chain but not everyone can have one?

[tooAlive]

Please stop lying, because nobody has said this.

...


Those people will likely be dead or no longer rich, so what they think and want will be of absolutely no consequence.

...


You say this because you don't actually respond to what we say, and constantly come out with strawmen.

I read between the lines.

[The Feral Underclass]

What is a common solution to a few people wanting to have an original picasso painting? Will they cut the painting up into equal pieces for everyone?

The solution is to hang it up in an art gallery so that everyone can get use from and enjoy it.


I think you fail to understand that isn't designed for anything, and we're all individuals capable of wanting different things. Including opting to work alone, not share, cooperate with anyone else if they so wish.

No one is asking you to share anything except your time in contributing to socially necessary work, in return for which you will be provided food, shelter, energy and all those things you need to survive. There won't be anywhere for you to "work alone" since all work will be done in common and ultimately if you refuse to co-operate then you will not be able to eat or have shelter, so, the choice will be yours.


I do. And I know a few other people as well. There's also a few others that like to wear gold on their teeth.

Then maybe they should reflect on their lives and their priorities.


Would we not be allowed to wear these items in communism? What state will stop us?

You're a troll and are now becoming increasingly tedious.

[Sinister Intents]

What is a common solution to a few people wanting to have an original picasso painting? Will they cut the painting up into equal pieces for everyone?

They'll get a reprinting of the original painting from a printer or printing press. Communism isn't about redistribution, my grandfather tried using this argument on me.


I think you fail to understand that isn't designed for anything, and we're all individuals capable of wanting different things. Including opting to work alone, not share, cooperate with anyone else if they so wish.

I think you're a selfish person who doesn't understand anarchism/communism/socialism


I do. And I know a few other people as well. There's also a few others that like to wear gold on their teeth.

I love how you parallel us to Nazi's when we seek the exact opposite of corporatism and racist nationalism taken to its extreme. We want the antithesis of fascism. If people have gold items as personal possessions that is their fucking business not anyone elses. They can keep their shitty bit of metal and rock.


Would we not be allowed to wear these items in communism? What state will stop us?

I think your arguments are hilarious. You'd be allowed to express yourself in whatever way you wish. No state to stop you from being you, no state enforce laws that go contrary to your interests and legalize the state's actions. States are organized crime, organized oppression. States are organs of class rule and we communists seek to get rid of states because of what they are.

[The Feral Underclass]

I read between the lines.

Rich people who can afford to own Picasso's in this society, will likely not survive into the next one. But they will have the opportunity to participate in our society if they wish.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How do you ration a painting?

Easy. Put it in a museum so everyone can see it.


Makes more sense to me that the highest bidder will get sole access to it.

Why? The guy with the money could have gained it through criminal or corrupt methods, and merely having money is no guarantee that they will look after a unique and important obbject properly.


What happens if everyone wants a necklace like granny's, and not a fake one that discolors or erodes?

Everyone won't, because there are such things as changing fashions and people have different tastes when it comes to jewelry.

Not all jewelry materials that aren't gold end up discolouring or eroding.

[The Feral Underclass]

I only wear gold chains because other metals erode, stain and don't look as good.

When others see my pretty gold chain, many will want one too. What will you tell the community when they all want a gold chain but not everyone can have one?

Perhaps you should reflect on the fact that your priorities in this debate is whether or not you will be able to wear gold jewellery.

That's a pretty tragic state of mind.

[tooAlive]

Picasso is my neighbor and he decides to hang his original work from his own house. Everybody is begging him to please hang it in the community gallery but he refuses. He also doesn't allow reproductions of his artwork.

Is this allowed?

[Sinister Intents]

Perhaps you should reflect on the fact that your priorities in this debate is whether or not you will be able to wear gold jewellery.

That's a pretty tragic state of mind.

I think he's afraid we're gonna rip his gold teeth out, rip his jewelry off, and kill him. Then melt all the gold into bars and use that to fuel our war effort and to have backup capital.

[tooAlive]

Perhaps you should reflect on the fact that your priorities in this debate is whether or not you will be able to wear gold jewellery.

That's a pretty tragic state of mind.

I don't even wear jewelry. I'm simply making a point.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't even wear jewelry. I'm simply making a point.

And the point you're making is vacuous and puerile.

[tooAlive]

Rich people who can afford to own Picasso's in this society, will likely not survive into the next one. But they will have the opportunity to participate in our society if they wish.

Why won't they survive? They will die once their money is worthless?

[The Feral Underclass]

Picasso is my neighbor and he decides to hang his original work from his own house. Everybody is begging him to please hang it in the community gallery but he refuses. He also doesn't allow reproductions of his artwork.

Is this allowed?

Picasso died in 1973.

[Sinister Intents]

Picasso is my neighbor and he decides to hand his original work from his own house. Everybody is begging him to please hang it in the community gallery but he refuses. He also doesn't allow reproductions of his artwork.

Is this allowed?

Well then he's an asshole and there are better painters than Picasso. If he's trying to capitalize on his works then he is an asshole, no one under socialism will want to deal with his bullshit, so I'm sure they won't be wanting his shitty artwork for long, and why the focus on art? Everyone will be able to express themselves through art under socialism if they wish.

[tooAlive]

And the point you're making is vacuous and puerile.

Well, tho notion of communism is pretty childish to me.

So I try to simplify my points as much as possible so that everyone can understand them.

[Sinister Intents]

Why won't they survive? They will die once their money is worthless?

Old age, disease, a lot of things people can die from.

[The Feral Underclass]

Why won't they survive? They will die once their money is worthless?

Because history shows us that people like that use whatever brute violence they can to prevent the exploited classes from gaining power and freedom from exploitation -- How do you think they made their millions in the first place?

[tooAlive]

Old age, disease, a lot of things people can die from.

Well, it's funny he only mentions the rich people dying.

[Sinister Intents]

Well, tho notion of communism is pretty childish to me.

So I try to simplify my points as much as possible so that everyone can understand them.

Communism isn't a simple, petty, or childish thing. It's something you're struggling to comprehend because of your fears and preconceived notions. I thought you were learning what communism truly was, but I guess not.

You're all too easy to understand, I don't think you're trying to simplify things.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, tho notion of communism is pretty childish to me.

You don't know what communism is, so how you have developed an opinion of it is beyond me.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I read between the lines.

I suggest you stop doing that and respond to what people are actually saying, not what your prejudicial preconceptions are making you ASS-U-ME we're saying.

[tooAlive]

Because history shows us that people like that use whatever brute violence they can to prevent the exploited classes from gaining power and freedom from exploitation -- How do you think they made their millions in the first place?

Oh yeah, of course. People only get rich by lying, cheating, stealing and being violent.

That's a load of crap the leftists tell themselves to feel good about being mediocre.

[Sinister Intents]

Because history shows us that people like that use whatever brute violence they can to prevent the exploited classes from gaining power and freedom from exploitation -- How do you think they made their millions in the first place?

He is under the impression they were hard workers who earned their keep because thats what hard workers do under capitalism. They work hard and become wealthy, and the lazy idiots go nowhere cuz they want shit handed to them.

That's at least what I think he's (tooAlive) thinking.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Picasso is my neighbor and he decides to hang his original work from his own house. Everybody is begging him to please hang it in the community gallery but he refuses. He also doesn't allow reproductions of his artwork.

Is this allowed?

As long as he is alive, then yes, because it would be his personal possession.

[tooAlive]

Because history shows us that people like that use whatever brute violence they can to prevent the exploited classes from gaining power and freedom from exploitation -- How do you think they made their millions in the first place?

Also, since this is a reply to my question asking how the rich will die, I'm gonna read between the lines and assume that you intend to have them killed.

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh yeah, of course. People only get rich by lying, cheating, stealing and being violent.

And exploiting people.


That's a load of crap the leftists tell themselves to fell good about being mediocre.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that communism is just something that we made up for the fun of it. Actually, it's the conclusion of a lifetime of work done by a man who dedicated his time to understanding the structures and relationships that exist within capitalism and produced a body of work that exposes minutiae of this kind of economics.

Once you've read Capital and all the accompanying literature, I'll be happy to discuss your criticisms. Until then, I suggest you accept you have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about.

[Queen Mab]

Picasso is my neighbor and he decides to hang his original work from his own house. Everybody is begging him to please hang it in the community gallery but he refuses. He also doesn't allow reproductions of his artwork.

Is this allowed?

I'm not sure why any artist would do this. Artists produce art for people to look at. Hiding a painting in one's house seems to me to defeat the purpose of production.

[The Feral Underclass]

Also, since this is a reply to my question asking how the rich will die, I'm gonna read between the lines and assume that you intend to have them killed.

That is correct.

[Sinister Intents]

Also, since this is a reply to my question asking how the rich will die, I'm gonna read between the lines and assume that you intend to have them killed.

Only the most violent war criminals. There will be capitalists who get killed because of their disgusting and inhumane actions. There will be others who will just meld into proletarian society, and some bourgeois people will support the proletariat and become part of the proletariat.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Also, since this is a reply to my question asking how the rich will die, I'm gonna read between the lines and assume that you intend to have them killed.

What he or I "intend" is neither here nor there, because it's not our decision to make. It will be the decision of those taking part in the revolution.

[tooAlive]

And exploiting people.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that communism is just something that we made up for the fun of it. Actually, it's the conclusion of a lifetime of work done by a man who dedicated his time to understanding the structures and relationships that exist within capitalism and produced a body of work that exposes that minutiae of this kind of economics.

Once you've read Capital and all the accompanying literature, I'll be happy to discuss your criticisms. Until then, I suggest you accept you have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Marx's words seem vile and reprehensible to me, to be quite honest.

[Queen Mab]

Oh yeah, of course. People only get rich by lying, cheating, stealing and being violent.

That's a load of crap the leftists tell themselves to feel good about being mediocre.

:laugh:

Are you going to say that poor people are stupid and lazy and it's their own fault for being poor?

[helot]

Im kind of amused by the example of art. Most people aren't interested in owning a Picasso or a Turner to hang on their wall. For decoration generally there's two kinds of people, there's those that find various images and objects they like the look of regardless of who it was done by and display it... then there are artists who fill their home with their own works.

Sure, Picasso's paintings can fetch a fair bit and some people want them but usually those who do only want them because they've got an exchange value that they want to use as a status symbol.

[tooAlive]

What he or I "intend" is neither here nor there, because it's not our decision to make. It will be the decision of those taking part in the revolution.

...So, after the bloodshed and all the rich are dead,

"Oh, it was not our decision. The circumstances forced us to do it.."

[Sinister Intents]

Marx's words seem vile and reprehensible to me, to be quite honest.

I don't think you've read any Marx n Engels.


:laugh:

Are you going to say that poor people are stupid and lazy and it's their own fault for being poor?

I think he's going there haha

[tooAlive]

Im kind of amused by the example of art. Most people aren't interested in owning a Picasso or a Turner to hang on their wall. For decoration generally there's two kinds of people, there's those that find various images and objects they like the look of regardless of who it was done by and display it... then there are artists who fill their home with their own works.

Sure, Picasso's paintings can fetch a fair bit and some people want them but usually those who do only want them because they've got an exchange value that they want to use as a status symbol.

You've brought up a good point.

Why would the desire to have a status symbol not exist in communism?

The notion that you can predisposition everyone's thoughts is comical to me, if you say no.

[The Feral Underclass]

Marx's words seem vile and reprehensible to me, to be quite honest.

Which words are those, exactly?

[Sinister Intents]

...So, after the bloodshed and all the rich are dead,

"Oh, it was not our decision. The circumstances forced us to do it.."

You're funny. Some members of the bourgeoisie need to die, they do horrible things and they can't be allowed to commit atrocities again. I would kill Hitler and all those associated with him for being the disgusting individuals they were.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Marx's words seem vile and reprehensible to me, to be quite honest.

Care to quote any particularly damning passages, or are you merely blowing smoke?


...So, after the bloodshed and all the rich are dead,

"Oh, it was not our decision. The circumstances forced us to do it.."

It won't be my decision because I'm not expecting to see it in my lifetime. Best I can hope for is that those who come after me will keep a level head.

[The Feral Underclass]

...So, after the bloodshed and all the rich are dead,

"Oh, it was not our decision. The circumstances forced us to do it.."

It won't matter to you, because you'll be in a ditch with them.

[tooAlive]

:laugh:

Are you going to say that poor people are stupid and lazy and it's their own fault for being poor?

No, because there are poor people who work very hard and are still poor.

My grandmother in Cuba is 70-something, and still has to work. She isn't rich. So hard work alone definitely doesn't make you rich.

[tooAlive]

It won't matter to you, because you'll be in a ditch with them.

How nice of you to let your true colors out.

You're no different than the Stalins, Hitlers, Castros, Kim Jong Uns, and other like-minded individuals throughout history.

[helot]

You've brought up a good point.

Why would the desire to have a status symbol not exist in communism?

The notion that you can predisposition everyone's thoughts is comical to me, if you say no.


You'd have to try to understand why some are drawn to status symbols (as not all are, some people are humble) and what affects the form this status symbol takes. In one society a status symbol may be the head of an enemy in another alcoholic drinks with gold leaf in them... The form the symbol takes is determined by the social conditions.

I'd rather a society where helping people is considered a status symbol than some dumb-as-fuck display of shiny metal.

[Queen Mab]

Marx's words seem vile and reprehensible to me, to be quite honest.

Far less reprehensible than the violence and brutality of capitalism he was opposing. Look up the Bloody Week after the Paris Commune. That's what happens when the violence inherent in the system is brought out into the open.

[The Feral Underclass]

How nice of you to let your true colors out.

You're no different than the Stalins, Hitlers, Castros, Kim Jong Uns, and other like-minded individuals throughout history.

Blah, blah, blah (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rasZzenuYxI)

[Sinister Intents]

How nice of you to let your true colors out.

You're no different than the Stalins, Hitlers, Castros, Kim Jong Uns, and other like-minded individuals throughout history.

Why do you keep comparing communists to fascists? We're direct fucking opposites

How the FUCK was Hitler like minded to Stalin? How is Hitler socialist?

[tooAlive]

Care to quote any particularly damning passages, or are you merely blowing smoke?

A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain.

[The Feral Underclass]

LOL, this dude's trippin'

[Sinister Intents]

A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain.

I don't think you understand what you're quoting. Explain? Answer my previous questions

[Sinister Intents]

LOL, this dude's trippin'

I wish I could get that high :(

[tooAlive]

Why do you keep comparing communists to fascists? We're direct fucking opposites

How the FUCK was Hitler like minded to Stalin? How is Hitler socialist?

They accomplished roughly the same things with their countries, so I'll put them in the same place together where they belong.

Totalitarian abominations.

[Sinister Intents]

They accomplished roughly the same things with their countries, so I'll put them in the same place together where they belong.

Totalitarian abominations.

What are you on? What drugs have you consumed because I would like to try them to get as fucked up as you are. The MLists didn't accomplish the same things as the Fascists. I don't think you know what fascism is or what National Socialism is. You definitely don't know what communism and socialism are.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

What are you on? What drugs have you consumed because I would like to try them to get as fucked up as you are. The MLists didn't accomplish the same things as the Fascists. I don't think you know what fascism is or what National Socialism is. You definitely don't know what communism and socialism are.

I don't think "a lifetime of being rich and white" counts as a drug, to be honest. Someone give the poor brave Maker a break, both Hitler and Stalin would have taken his stuff, who cares about Jews anyway, most of them are poor and therefore lazy... :rolleyes:

[tooAlive]

What are you on? What drugs have you consumed because I would like to try them to get as fucked up as you are. The MLists didn't accomplish the same things as the Fascists. I don't think you know what fascism is or what National Socialism is. You definitely don't know what communism and socialism are.

There you go again.

I don't think the people living in the USSR had it much different than the ones living in Nazi Germany.

Especially the dissenters or "undesirable people."

[Sinister Intents]

There you go again.

I don't think the people living in the USSR had it much different than the ones living in Nazi Germany.

Especially the dissenters or "undesirable people."

I want you to go back to the text, that essay by Emma Goldman, I sent you, and then compare that to Nazi Germany.

[tooAlive]

I don't think "a lifetime of being rich and white" counts as a drug, to be honest. Someone give the poor brave Maker a break, both Hitler and Stalin would have taken his stuff, who cares about Jews anyway, most of them are poor and therefore lazy... :rolleyes:

Just subtract the years working a minimum wage job. Not that you have to work any less harder therafter, however.

[Queen Mab]

The first people that the Nazis put in concentration camps were the communists. Even before the Jews.

Oh and Stalin had all the genuine communists purged and shot too. So I'm not sure what we have in common with them.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Why? Picasso's paintings will be confiscated by the community? What ever happened to personal property?

Your ideology is becoming less and less appealing as the discussion goes on.
I kinda see the questions you're raising.
But you say communism is less appealing because of this small issue, but a system directly responsible for millions of deaths every year gets a pass?

[Future]

Keep in mind tooAlive, that anarcho-communism and anarcho-collectivism are two different things. Anarcho-collectivism desires the creation of labor credits (money), at least for a while. Anarcho-communists want to abolish currency right away. The point that TAT is trying to make is that money cannot have any value in anarcho-communism. If you want to work in the sex industry, what would be the purpose of asking for money when you can get whatever you want for free anyway? What incentive would have the owner of a "valuable" painting to ask money from you if you want the painting, when the owner can get whatever they want in return anyway? I can't provide the owner of the painting with money that would be used to buy goods and services when they can obtain those same goods and services without my money anyway. I'll make a silly little conversation to demonstrate it:

"Hey there, I am so happy you did this favor for me. You worked really hard for me and I appreciate it so much. Here, have some money in compensation. Use this to buy your food, pay for your travel, buy that new suit, and spend it on any other materialistic endeavors you desire or require. Oh, wait! That's right, you can get all that stuff for free anyway!"

I hope that clears it up. Under anarcho-communism, as long as you work at something, you are entitled to the fruits of our common labor as a people.

[tooAlive]

I want you to go back to the text, that essay by Emma Goldman, I sent you, and then compare that to Nazi Germany.

Take your partisan blinders down for a minute.

Both the USSR and Nazi Germany were hell holes. Ask the people that "disappeared." Although you can surely try to lift one up a bit higher since it's on the left.

[tooAlive]

The first people that the Nazis put in concentration camps were the communists. Even before the Jews.

Oh and Stalin had all the genuine communists purged and shot too. So I'm not sure what we have in common with them.

A commie kills a fascist, and a fascist kills a commie.

Who is the better person?

If you actually answer the question, you prove my point.

[tooAlive]

Keep in mind tooAlive, that anarcho-communism and anarcho-collectivism are two different things. Anarcho-collectivism desires the creation of labor credits (money), at least for a while. Anarcho-communists want to abolish currency right away. The point that TAT is trying to make is that money cannot have any value in anarcho-communism. If you want to work in the sex industry, what would be the purpose of asking for money when you can get whatever you want for free anyway? What incentive would have the owner of a "valuable" painting to ask money from you if you want the painting, when the owner can get whatever they want in return anyway? I can't provide the owner of the painting with money that would be used to buy goods and services when they can obtain those same goods and services without my money anyway. I'll make a silly little conversation to demonstrate it:

"Hey there, I am so happy you did this favor for me. You worked really hard for me and I appreciate it so much. Here, have some money in compensation. Use this to buy your food, pay for your travel, buy that new suit, and spend it on any other materialistic endeavors you desire or require. Oh, wait! That's right, you can get all that stuff for free anyway!"

I hope that clears it up. Under anarcho-communism, as long as you work at something, you are entitled to the fruits of our common labor as a people.

The money received from the sale of the painting would be used to acquire other rare paintings or similar items that aren't freely available.

[tooAlive]

The first people that the Nazis put in concentration camps were the communists. Even before the Jews.

Oh and Stalin had all the genuine communists purged and shot too. So I'm not sure what we have in common with them.

Well, one of your comrades wants to put my kind in a ditch.

You may not share his or hers sentiments, but I can't guarantee what they will choose to do during a hypothetical revolution.

[Sinister Intents]

Take your partisan blinders down for a minute.

Both the USSR and Nazi Germany were hell holes. Ask the people that "disappeared." Although you can surely try to lift one up a bit higher since it's on the left.

They both actively attacked and killed real communists to maintain their rule. Neither are socialist in any way except in that they use the rhetoric against the working class. The Nazi's were trying to create a white Roman empire that would last a thousand years or some shit like that. Russia was an authoritarian state capitalist nation.


A commie kills a fascist, and a fascist kills a commie.

Who is the better person?

If you actually answer the question, you prove my point.

The communist is the better person. Fuck the FASH.

[Tim Cornelis]

Keep in mind tooAlive, that anarcho-communism and anarcho-collectivism are two different things. Anarcho-collectivism desires the creation of labor credits (money), at least for a while. Anarcho-communists want to abolish currency right away.

No they are the same thing.

Anarcho-Collectivist http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/guillaume/works/ideas.htm:

Everyone will draw what he needs from the abundant social reserve of commodities [wrong term of course]

The practice of selling, which was adopted as a sort of deterrent to immoderate consumption, will be abolished; the communal banks will no longer sell commodities, they will distribute them in accordance with the needs of the consumers.

Anarcho-Communist Platform http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/1926/platform/ch02.htm:

The centre of gravity of the construction of a communist society does not consist in the possibility of assuring each individual unlimited liberty to satisfy his needs from the first day of the revolution; but consists in the conquest of the social base of this society, and establishes the principles of egalitarian relationships between individuals: As for the question of the the abundance, greater or lesser, this is not posed at the level of principle, but is a technical problem.

We need to sidestep this whole non-existent dichotomy between collectivist and communism anarchism. They are both communist. Collectivist anarchism is just an archaic term for communist anarchism.

Nor would I consider labour credits money.

[Taters]

A commie kills a fascist, and a fascist kills a commie.

Who is the better person?

The commie that kills the fascist.


Well, one of your comrades wants to put my kind in a ditch.

Boy, do I ever.

[sosolo]

That's actually a great example.

Because personal property like paintings, sculptures, ect.. things that can't be mass produced, have more value, as more people may want them but not all of them can have that particular object.

Lets say another Picasso comes along and everybody wants his paintings. Yeah you could mass-print replicas, but people don't want the fake stuff. Same reason they not willing to pay millions for fake paintings today -- everyone wants the original, the real deal.

So what do they devise? Whoever is willing to trade the most crypto-currencies gets to keep the rare and exclusive objects.

Works of art and items of cultural value should be on display for all to see, not squirrelled away by some boat maker/prostitute or whatever.

And before you ask...yes, these items can be expropriated if necessary.


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

[tooAlive]

They both actively attacked and killed real communists to maintain their rule. Neither are socialist in any way except in that they use the rhetoric against the working class. The Nazi's were trying to create a white Roman empire that would last a thousand years or some shit like that. Russia was an authoritarian state capitalist nation.

The communist is the better person. Fuck the FASH.

Yeah, I figured you'd answer the question. Can't see it yet I guess.

[tooAlive]

Works of art and items of cultural value should be on display for all to see, not squirrelled away by some boat maker/prostitute or whatever.

And before you ask...yes, these items can be expropriated if necessary.

Really? Who will expropriate them? The state?

What if the painter refuses to give up such works? Will he or she be put to death?

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, one of your comrades wants to put my kind in a ditch.

You may not share his or hers sentiments, but I can't guarantee what they will choose to do during a hypothetical revolution.

I'll torture you first.

[tooAlive]

The commie that kills the fascist.

That's why I refuse the notion that communism isn't totalitarian.

Most of you are blind to the point where killing everyone else and imposing your beliefs is justified and righteous as it furthers your cause.

[Future]

The money received from the sale of the painting would be used to acquire other rare paintings or similar items that aren't freely available.

But how can that currency have any value? You're talking about a specialized currency used to trade rare items, but why not just simply trade the rare items? If Bob wants Tom's Painting X and Tom wants Bob's Painting Y, Bob and Tom can trade without the need for a currency medium. And say that John doesn't have any rare paintings, but he would love to have Susan's Painting Z - well, giving her some kind of specialized currency would be meaningless. What is she going to use it on? Not goods and services. Not on other rare paintings (since she can just make a non-currency trade).

If Lily has Painting A and Victoria wants it really badly, Victoria can try to make some kind of trade with Lily, but if Lily loves her painting too much to trade it, Victoria will just be out of luck. Victoria can't "buy her out" with tons of rare painting currency since that currency would be completely meaningless for all areas of her comsumptive life.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Yeah, I figured you'd answer the question. Can't see it yet I guess.

You can't see the difference between someone who thinks his race is superior and someone who wants to be free from opression?

How blind are you?
__________________


And it's a shame this topic went to shit, because I was genuinly interested in it.
While some scarce goods are easy to collectivize, others are not, and I'd like to know how would this be solved.

[tooAlive]

But how can that currency have any value? You're talking about a specialized currency used to trade rare items, but why not just simply trade the rare items? If Bob wants Painting X and Tom wants Painting Y, Bob and Tom can trade without the need for a currency medium. And say that John doesn't have any rare paintings, but he would love to have Susan's Painting Z - well, giving her some kind of specialized currency would be meaningless. What is she going to use it on? Not goods and services. Not on other rare paintings (since she can just make a non-currency trade).

If Lily has Painting A and Victoria wants it really badly, Victoria can try to make some kind of trade with Lily, but if Lily loves her painting too much to trade it, Victoria will just be out of luck. Victoria can't "buy her out" with tons of rare painting currency since that currency would be completely meaningless for all areas of her comsumptive life.

It's the same thing. Using a currency is simply making the exchange easier.

It's not a specialized currency, just like any other that we assign a value to make trading easier. Simple as that.

[The Feral Underclass]

That's why I refuse the notion that communism isn't totalitarian.

Most of you are blind to the point where killing everyone else and imposing your beliefs is justified and righteous as it furthers your cause.

Communism is a social relationship. It's not an idea you can impose.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

That's why I refuse the notion that communism isn't totalitarian.

Most of you are blind to the point where killing everyone else and imposing your beliefs is justified and righteous as it furthers your cause.

Yes. That is true. Comin' for ya.

[Future]

It's the same thing. Using a currency is simply making the exchange easier.

It's not a specialized currency, just like any other that we assign a value to make trading easier. Simple as that.

How is using currency to trade easier than just trading? The value of a personal possession is assigned by the owner. There are no market forces determining the price of paintings in this kind of society.

[tooAlive]

You can't see the difference between someone who thinks his race is superior and someone who wants to be free from opression?

How blind are you?



Because there is no difference between two people who would kill each other for thinking differently.


And it's a shame this topic went to shit, because I was genuinly interested in it.
While some scarce goods are easy to collectivize, others are not, and I'd like to know how would this be solved.

Yes, it's a shame. I was interested in knowing that as well, until someone proposed the the extermination of said individuals who'd want to possess said scarce items. Maybe that's the answer to the question.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

I'll torture you first.
Dude, be careful because you still live in a Orwellian state, there have been people arrested for comments like that on a videogame.

[tooAlive]

Communism is a social relationship. It's not an idea you can impose.

Well then, communism is rape. Because you can't have a relationship unless all parties agree to it.

[Sinister Intents]

tooAlive are you a patriot?

[The Feral Underclass]

Because there is no difference between two people who would kill each other for thinking differently.

No one wants to kill any one for thinking differently, but we have a duty to defend ourselves against exploitation and oppression. If the ruling classes want to just stand aside, that's fine, but they never do and so we have to defend ourselves.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well then, communism is rape. Because you can't have a relationship unless all parties agree to it.

What?

[Sinister Intents]

Well then, communism is rape. Because you can't have a relationship unless all parties agree to it.

All parties will agree to it when the revolution occurs. It'll be mutualism not parasitism like capitalism. If anything capitalism is a most brutal torturous rape which you seem intent on keeping this rape alive you sick fuck.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Because there is no difference between two people who would kill each other for thinking differently.



Depends, there's active and passive fascists. Those who stay quiet are less of an issue, those who spread hate are not, so those can go die.

[tooAlive]

tooAlive are you a patriot?

A patriot? Can you elaborate?

[tooAlive]

Depends, there's active and passive fascists. Those who stay quiet are less of an issue, those who spread hate are not, so those can go die.

Same can be said about the non-passive communists spreading hate about the rich.

Hate is hate. Violence is violence.

[Future]

That's why I refuse the notion that communism isn't totalitarian.

Most of you are blind to the point where killing everyone else and imposing your beliefs is justified and righteous as it furthers your cause.

Yes, because a slave overthrowing his slave master's monopoly on freedom makes him totalitarian. And yes, attempting to get the 99% to join our cause through education and organization makes me totalitarian. And yes, advocating a society of free agreement, self management, decentralized communities and workers' councils without authority and direct democracy where every individual is allowed to puruse their dreams in life without anyone infringing on those dreams makes me totalitarian. Give me a break. I'm an anarchist communist - a true communist - someone who wants to overthrow immoral authority and put in its place a moral society. I wish not to be ruled, and I sure as fuck wish not to rule anyone. The working class is tired of being a slave. We want our freedom and we will work to achieve it, that doesn't make them totalitarian. Jesus.

And I don't endorse killing anyone out of any sort of retributive justice. I to not want capitalists do die, I simply want to take from them what is not rightfully theirs. I want the former capitalists to become part of the working class they so abused for so long. I want former capitalists to live like everyone else in the working class - and if anarcho-communism ever comes to fruition - they'll have a much better life than what they deserve.

That said, revolutions can take lives. Defending one's right to freedom if the oppressor is violent does not make the defender totalitarian.

[Sinister Intents]

A patriot? Can you elaborate?

Do you love America so much you would die for it? Are you like som Cubans are patriotic about Cuba?

[tooAlive]

Anyways, I think I've already gotten the answer I came looking for. This thread has deviated much more than I had imagined it could and don't want to get into another arguing match, or before one side gets thrown into a ditch.

In a nutshell it seems the idea of the mere existence of scarce items poses a threat to the stability of communism, and can lead to the inception use of crypto-currencies already available, and subsequently underground economies for said items.

Although it still seems unclear what the solution to deal with said scarce items that can't be shared is.

I'm out. Hope everyone has a nice day, and for the record, I don't support throwing any of you down a ditch, or a well, or doing anything that causes harm. I just don't want to join your revolution. :)

[Tenka]

Because there is no difference between two people who would kill each other for thinking differently.

Commies don't intend to kill anyone. The working class will kill whom it must in order to establish its dictatorship to end all dictatorships. tooAlive you are... I don't want to get infracted for flaming.

[tooAlive]

Do you love America so much you would die for it? Are you like som Cubans are patriotic about Cuba?

No.

[Future]

In a nutshell it seems the idea of the mere existence of scarce items poses a threat to the stability of communism, and can lead to the inception use of crypto-currencies already available.

Lol, yes, because our time spent refuting this nonsense just didn't make its way into your mind. It's unacceptable to you for communism to have good answers to your questions, it seems, if it threatens the status quo you love so much.

[tooAlive]

Lol, yes, because our time spent refuting this nonsense just didn't make its way into your mind. It's unacceptable to you for communism to have good answers to your questions, it seems, if it threatens the status quo you love so much.

No, it's just that nobody gave a straight answer as to what exactly would be done is such a case.

Everyone's focus was bent on disproving the notion that said items would even exist or that there would be any demand for them. They're not rebuttals, just strawman arguments to deviate from the original question.

Although a few posters did show genuine interest in discussing the scarcity items.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, it's just that nobody gave a straight answer as to what exactly would be done is such a case.

People have given you straight answers, it's just that you've chosen to ignore them.


Everyone's focus was bent on disproving the notion that said items would even exist or that there would be any demand fro them.

How can one put in a museum what doesn't exist? Where did I deny that people will want jewelry?

[Future]

No, it's just that nobody gave a straight answer as to what exactly would be done is such a case.

Everyone's focus was bent on disproving the notion that said items would even exist or that there would be any demand for them. They're not rebuttals, just strawman arguments to deviate from the original question.

Although a few posters did show genuine interest in discussing the scarcity items.

Please read my posts about rare paintings and value based on personal possession.

[tooAlive]

People have given you straight answers, it's just that you've chosen to ignore them.

Most of you denied there would be any demand for scarce items like paintings or sculptures, and said they could just be replicated and people would still want them.

That doesn't address my point of what would happen if there was indeed demand for such items that couldn't be shared or reproduced.

[Tenka]

In Communism I don't see artists having an issue with mass copies of their works being distributed to those who desire them so where does scarcity come into play? And something being rare or unique won't magically make currency relevant in an economy that has ceased totally to rely on it. Stupid thread. Not even sure what there is to answer. The questions have ridiculous premises and suck.

[Future]

Most of you denied there would be any demand for scarce items like paintings or sculptures, and said they could just be replicated and people would still want them.

That doesn't address my point of what would happen if there was indeed demand for such items that couldn't be shared or reproduced.

I address the "if" tooAlive. Just read my posts on the last two or three pages.

[tooAlive]

In Communism I don't see artists having an issue with mass copies of their works being distributed to those who desire them so where does scarcity come into play? And something being rare or unique won't magically make currency relevant in an economy that has ceased totally to rely on it. Stupid thread. Not even sure what there is to answer. The questions have ridiculous premises and suck.

Right, because you're a shaman that know what every artist will want to do under communism. That's one of my problem with you people. You assume what everyone will assume.

And you know what happens when you ASS-U-ME...

[tooAlive]

I address the "if" tooAlive. Just read my posts on the last two or three pages.

I did. Guess you missed me addressing you, so I'll requote:


If you want to work in the sex industry, what would be the purpose of asking for money when you can get whatever you want for free anyway? What incentive would have the owner of a "valuable" painting to ask money from you if you want the painting, when the owner can get whatever they want in return anyway?

Why would the painter sell his paintings for money or crypto currencies? To buy other scarce items like paintings, sculptures, jewelry ect.. that aren't already freely available. The fact that he's even able to sell it implies the existence of a market for such items.

Once you accept the fact that there will be scarce items, you can't imply the premise of everything being freely available.

[Tenka]

Right, because you're a shaman that know what every artist will want to do under communism. That's one of my problem with you people. You assume what everyone will assume.

And you know what happens when you ASS-U-ME...

No artist would want to gain anything material for her art if it were not possible for her to be wealthy or to starve.

[tooAlive]

No artist would want to gain anything material for her art if it were not possible for her to be wealthy or to starve.

Can you verify that every other artist out there feels the same way? What about sculptors?

Are you the elected leader of these artists and can fully vouch that you represent each and all of their sentiments?

Also, you imply that all artists are women. Can you verify that as well?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Can you verify that every other artist out there feels the same way? What about sculptors?

People don't go into art for the money, because there's precious little money in it for the artists (as opposed to art dealers who make a lot of money off the creativity of actual artists). That's why we have terms like "starving artist" and phrases like "doing it for the art".

[Future]

I did. Guess you missed me addressing you, so I'll requote:



Why would the painter sell his paintings for money or crypto currencies? To buy other scarce items like paintings, sculptures, jewelry ect.. that aren't already freely available. The fact that he's even able to sell it implies the existence of a market for such items.

Once you accept the fact that there will be scarce items, you can't imply the premise of everything being freely available.

I think you're trolling me. I responded to this and I did so talking about currencyless trading and personal possession and owner value placement.

[tooAlive]

People don't go into art for the money, because there's precious little money in it for the artists (as opposed to art dealers who make a lot of money off the creativity of actual artists). That's why we have terms like "starving artist" and phrases like "doing it for the art".

What can you tell me about artists/photographers like Peter Lik?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Also, it turns out that financial incentives (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100603/0311539672.shtml) actually make people less motivated creatively.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What can you tell me about artists/photographers like Peter Lik?

What about him?

[tooAlive]

Also, it turns out that financial incentives (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100603/0311539672.shtml) actually make people less motivated creatively.

Hey, if you're willing to work more for less money, go for it.

[Tenka]

What can you tell me about artists/photographers like Peter Lik?


Lik spent the early 1990s working for Tourism Queensland. In the mid-1990s he opened a post card stand in Cairns, Queensland. He started his own publishing company and opened his first gallery in the town.[citation needed]

He moved to Las Vegas where he opened his own business, LIK USA. He opened four galleries in Las Vegas, nine others across the U.S., and one in Noosa Heads, Queensland. In December 2010, Peter Lik sold his first million-dollar photograph, which he calls One: a fleetingly beautiful nature shot captured on the banks of the Androscoggin River in New Hampshire. The purchase amount of $1,000,000 USD for this work places Lik in rare company.[4]

So he's a bourgeois photographer which makes him rich and therefore, you might propose, there's money in being an artist? (leaving aside the debatability of photography being art...)

Also off-topic.

[tooAlive]

What about him?

Not exactly a poor artist, is he?

http://www.lik.com/theartist/biography.html

So no, not all artists are broke and doing it for the love of art. Also, you might find his story to be be pretty interesting.

[Future]

Here, tooAlive:


Keep in mind tooAlive, that anarcho-communism and anarcho-collectivism are two different things. Anarcho-collectivism desires the creation of labor credits (money), at least for a while. Anarcho-communists want to abolish currency right away. The point that TAT is trying to make is that money cannot have any value in anarcho-communism. If you want to work in the sex industry, what would be the purpose of asking for money when you can get whatever you want for free anyway? What incentive would have the owner of a "valuable" painting to ask money from you if you want the painting, when the owner can get whatever they want in return anyway? I can't provide the owner of the painting with money that would be used to buy goods and services when they can obtain those same goods and services without my money anyway. I'll make a silly little conversation to demonstrate it:

"Hey there, I am so happy you did this favor for me. You worked really hard for me and I appreciate it so much. Here, have some money in compensation. Use this to buy your food, pay for your travel, buy that new suit, and spend it on any other materialistic endeavors you desire or require. Oh, wait! That's right, you can get all that stuff for free anyway!"

I hope that clears it up. Under anarcho-communism, as long as you work at something, you are entitled to the fruits of our common labor as a people.


But how can that currency have any value? You're talking about a specialized currency used to trade rare items, but why not just simply trade the rare items? If Bob wants Tom's Painting X and Tom wants Bob's Painting Y, Bob and Tom can trade without the need for a currency medium. And say that John doesn't have any rare paintings, but he would love to have Susan's Painting Z - well, giving her some kind of specialized currency would be meaningless. What is she going to use it on? Not goods and services. Not on other rare paintings (since she can just make a non-currency trade).

If Lily has Painting A and Victoria wants it really badly, Victoria can try to make some kind of trade with Lily, but if Lily loves her painting too much to trade it, Victoria will just be out of luck. Victoria can't "buy her out" with tons of rare painting currency since that currency would be completely meaningless for all areas of her comsumptive life.


How is using currency to trade easier than just trading? The value of a personal possession is assigned by the owner. There are no market forces determining the price of paintings in this kind of society.

[tooAlive]

So he's a bourgeois photographer which makes him rich and therefore, you might propose, there's money in being an artist? (leaving aside the debatability of photography being art...)

Also off-topic.

Yeah, you forgot to mention the part where he came to the US with literally nothing and taught himself to take pictures, yet was somehow able to get where he is today.

But of course, stories like that are off-topic..

[tooAlive]

Here, tooAlive:

Come on man. Seriously?

Do I have to explain why trading with currency is easier than trading bare items? Or why people would even prefer to do so, for that matter?

I'll let you figure that one out..

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hey, if you're willing to work more for less money, go for it.

If the popularity of free software etc is any indication, then it seems that plenty of people are willing to work for no money at all.


Not exactly a poor artist, is he?

http://www.lik.com/theartist/biography.html

So no, not all artists are broke and doing it for the love of art. Also, you might find his story to be be pretty interesting.

I didn't say that all artists are poor, I said that there is precious little money in it for them. And that is true because most people who are artists don't make piles of money, and even when they are handsomely remunerated, other factors such as the irregularity of their work can make their financial situation more precarious than you'd expect.

[Future]

No they are the same thing.

Anarcho-Collectivist http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/guillaume/works/ideas.htm:

Everyone will draw what he needs from the abundant social reserve of commodities [wrong term of course]

The practice of selling, which was adopted as a sort of deterrent to immoderate consumption, will be abolished; the communal banks will no longer sell commodities, they will distribute them in accordance with the needs of the consumers.

Anarcho-Communist Platform http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/1926/platform/ch02.htm:

The centre of gravity of the construction of a communist society does not consist in the possibility of assuring each individual unlimited liberty to satisfy his needs from the first day of the revolution; but consists in the conquest of the social base of this society, and establishes the principles of egalitarian relationships between individuals: As for the question of the the abundance, greater or lesser, this is not posed at the level of principle, but is a technical problem.

We need to sidestep this whole non-existent dichotomy between collectivist and communism anarchism. They are both communist. Collectivist anarchism is just an archaic term for communist anarchism.

Nor would I consider labour credits money.

Well, this is where I got my understanding of the dichotomy (from "An Anarchist FAQ")

Begin Quote:

The major difference between collectivists and communists is over the question of "money" after a revolution. Anarcho-communists consider the abolition of money to be essential, while anarcho-collectivists consider the end of private ownership of the means of production to be the key. As Kropotkin noted, "[collectivist anarchism] express[es] a state of things in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the labour groups and the free communes, while the ways of retribution [i.e. distribution] of labour, communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself." Thus, while communism and collectivism both organise production in common via producers' associations, they differ in how the goods produced will be distributed. Communism is based on free consumption of all while collectivism is more likely to be based on the distribution of goods according to the labour contributed. However, most anarcho-collectivists think that, over time, as productivity increases and the sense of community becomes stronger, money will disappear.

End Quote:

Labor credits are used to help the community allocate based on relative work input. The harder you work the more labor credits you get in Anarcho-collectivism. Just as long as you work period you'll get an equal share regardless in Anarcho-communism.

[tooAlive]

If the popularity of free software etc is any indication, then it seems that plenty of people are willing to work for no money at all.

What free software? Open-source operating system such as Ubuntu, Centos, Debian, Fedora, ect??

They may be free for you, but those developers don't exactly work for the common good. Their corporate end of things pays quite handsomely actually.


I didn't say that all artists are poor, I said that there is precious little money in it for them. And that is true because most people who are artists don't make piles of money, and even when they are handsomely remunerated, other factors such as the irregularity of their work can make their financial situation more precarious than you'd expect.

Yes, I'm familiar with those professions. Owning a business doesn't exactly guarantee a profit every day.

[Future]

Come on man. Seriously?

Do I have to explain why trading with currency is easier than trading bare items? Or why people would even prefer to do so, for that matter?

Yes, you will have to explain this to me in the context of an anarcho-communist society.

[tooAlive]

Yes, you will have to explain this to me in the context of an anarcho-communist society.

Impossible.

It's all hypotheticals. You all imply people will all be different, so you can argue that none of the scenarios I pose are valid as your fictitious people will never do those things.

[tooAlive]

Anyways, I'm done for now.

It was a good thread -- got to see a few different sides of your supposed un-totalitarian communism. Derailed a bit in the end but I think it was inevitable.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What free software? Open-source operating system such as Ubuntu, Centos, Debian, Fedora, ect??

They may be free for you, but those developers don't exactly work for the common good. Their corporate end of things pays quite handsomely actually.

I'm sure high-level programmers can easily land a prestigious well-paying job (although they won't be as well paid as the management parasites), but people like that also do a lot of useful shit for in their spare time because they're professionals who enjoy their line of work and find doing a good job to be a reward in itself.


Yes, I'm familiar with those professions. Owning a business doesn't exactly guarantee a profit every day.

Artists aren't necessarily business owners, and I'd wager most of them aren't.

[Tim Cornelis]

Well, this is where I got my understanding of the dichotomy (from "An Anarchist FAQ")

Begin Quote:

The major difference between collectivists and communists is over the question of "money" after a revolution. Anarcho-communists consider the abolition of money to be essential, while anarcho-collectivists consider the end of private ownership of the means of production to be the key. As Kropotkin noted, "[collectivist anarchism] express[es] a state of things in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the labour groups and the free communes, while the ways of retribution [i.e. distribution] of labour, communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself." Thus, while communism and collectivism both organise production in common via producers' associations, they differ in how the goods produced will be distributed. Communism is based on free consumption of all while collectivism is more likely to be based on the distribution of goods according to the labour contributed. However, most anarcho-collectivists think that, over time, as productivity increases and the sense of community becomes stronger, money will disappear.

End Quote:

Labor credits are used to help the community allocate based on relative work input. The harder you work the more labor credits you get in Anarcho-collectivism. Just as long as you work period you'll get an equal share regardless in Anarcho-communism.

I got my renunciation of this dichotomy from Marxism. a lower or the initial phase communism uses labour vouchers, a higher or advanced stage does not. They're both communisms, so I apply this to collectivist anarchism and communist anarchism. We have collectivist anarchists saying they believe in distribution according to needs in a more advanced stage, and we have communist anarchists saying they believe it is a technical question, and it wont be implemented instantaneously. In what way is it useful to differentiate between the two, representing them as two different though related historical currents, over such a mundane question.

[Tenka]

-- got to see a few different sides of your supposed un-totalitarian communism.

Whoever is saying Communism isn't Totalitarian does not know what the latter word (at least) means. Communism is necessarily Totalitarian because it is a radical change in global human society's functions and economy (that is to say it is Total).

Oh but thanks, brick wall, for gracing us with your presence. We could all use some talking to a well-laid brick wall from time to time, if only to remind us that we're human.

edit: fuck bourgeois definitions, also

[Future]

I got my renunciation of this dichotomy from Marxism. a lower or the initial phase communism uses labour vouchers, a higher or advanced stage does not. They're both communisms, so I apply this to collectivist anarchism and communist anarchism. We have collectivist anarchists saying they believe in distribution according to needs in a more advanced stage, and we have communist anarchists saying they believe it is a technical question, and it wont be implemented instantaneously. In what way is it useful to differentiate between the two, representing them as two different though related historical currents, over such a mundane question.

Okay, I understand. And I agree with you that collectivists are communists, albeit communists that desire a transition that I don't see as necessary.


Whoever is saying Communism isn't Totalitarian does not know what the latter word (at least) means. Communism is necessarily Totalitarian because it is a radical change in global human society's functions and economy.

Well, I think most people say totalitarian when they mean "total control in accordance with the principles of extreme authoritarianism". In that sense, of course communism is not totalitarian, it's the exact opposite. I assume you mean totalitarian in the sense of being global, aiming to totally transform the world for the working class, etc. If so, then sure.

[Tenka]

Revolution is authoritarian but that's not Communism nor is authoritarian the same thing as totalitarian except in popular bourgeois usage! Sorry for keeping off-topic. This post'll probably end up in the rubbish bin of RevLeft.

[helot]

I got my renunciation of this dichotomy from Marxism. a lower or the initial phase communism uses labour vouchers, a higher or advanced stage does not. They're both communisms, so I apply this to collectivist anarchism and communist anarchism. We have collectivist anarchists saying they believe in distribution according to needs in a more advanced stage, and we have communist anarchists saying they believe it is a technical question, and it wont be implemented instantaneously. In what way is it useful to differentiate between the two, representing them as two different though related historical currents, over such a mundane question.


That's quite interesting as my conception would be rationing not labour vouchers and so 'according to need' pretty much straight away. In this way i can conceive of a difference between collectivist/communist that is if other ancoms would agree with me on rationing but that's not always the case.

[Future]

That's quite interesting as my conception would be rationing not labour vouchers and so 'according to need' pretty much straight away. In this way i can conceive of a difference between collectivist/communist that is if other ancoms would agree with me on rationing but that's not always the case.

Yeah, I agree, and the more I read about these two the more it becomes apparent there is a clear dichotomy. Communist anarchists want "according to need" as soon as possible. They do not want a collectivistic transition at all. Collectivist anarchists do clearly want a collectivistic transition before "according to need". I mean, I definitely consider them both communisms, but anarcho-collectivism is a kind of communism that I think promotes a very unnecessary transition to anarcho-communism.

[Future]

Impossible.

It's all hypotheticals. You all imply people will all be different, so you can argue that none of the scenarios I pose are valid as your fictitious people will never do those things.

Okay, thanks for the non-argument. It really convinced me.

[Rafiko Bingo]

Now I get why the staff used to ban reactionaries ...

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Kk. I know I'm super late to the game, and probably should have read the first nine pages but . . .

Isn't "crypto-currency" just a particularly wacky and unstable commodity?

Like, why is this even a relevant question? It seems just, well, stupid, from even an ECON101 perspective.

Shouldn't you pick something less elastic? Say, cigarettes?

"Communism and Cigarettes" would be a much better thread.

This, on the other hand, is moronic.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

That's why I refuse the notion that communism isn't totalitarian.

Most of you are blind to the point where killing everyone else and imposing your beliefs is justified and righteous as it furthers your cause.

Nah. The only thing that should be going through the brains of fascists is lead. We don't want to convince them. We want to smash them. And we want to do this, not because they're Bad People thinking Bad Thoughts, but because they are a direct material problem for us, like cops and bosses.

It wasn't that long ago that the bourgeoisie understood the necessity and expedience of lopping off a head or two. Then the defenders of the rotten feudal order acted much like our friend tooAlive does - they preached social peace, nonviolence and so on, while desperately trying to preserve a psychotically violent state of affairs. Now our friend tooAlive wants us to forget about the people who starve, are killed and beaten everyday - after all, solving that problem might result in a bourgeois monster or one of their lackeys getting shot or, horror of horrors, someone might confiscate a Picasso. This entire thread is nothing less than an advertisement for communism.

Oh, and are communists totalitarian? Of course we are, in Bordiga's sense. Communism is nothing less than the transformation of society. Anyone who hasn't got the stomach for that (but can stomach the present society in which case, congratulations) need not apply.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Nah. The only thing that should be going through the brains of fascists is lead. We don't want to convince them. We want to smash them. And we want to do this, not because they're Bad People thinking Bad Thoughts, but because they are a direct material problem for us, like cops and bosses.

Speak for yourself, I hate fascists and neo-fascists and I want them out of this world in any type of mode of production.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Speak for yourself, I hate fascists and neo-fascists and I want them out of this world in any type of mode of production.

I don't think anyone on the site, even in the OI, likes fascists or is neutral towards them. But anti-fascist organizing isn't premised on our hatred of fascists, but the threat they pose to workers and oppressed people. Monarchists of the Action Francais type are just as disgusting, but their small numbers and "traditional" mode of organization mean that there is no point in organizing specifically to smash them.

In communism, of course, there would be no fascists, just like there are no supporters of the divine right of kings in the imperial metropole today.

[sosolo]

Really? Who will expropriate them? The state?

What if the painter refuses to give up such works? Will he or she be put to death?

In a DotP, yes, the state may collect these items. The idea of intellectual property will be abolished. Artists will be taken care of just like any other worker.

Personally, the opportunity to have your work seen by everyone seems like something to be proud of.


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

[Baseball]

So your idea of human nature is how people behave in the context of capitalism where money buys life and the means of production are owned by an exclusive class of people. Your premise for this discussion is terribly flawed and I think you're just trolling.

edit: not to say it's a wrong idea of "human nature"; just that "human nature" depends on its context.

So what is the communist context?

[Jimmie Higgins]

That's actually a great example.

Because personal property like paintings, sculptures, ect.. things that can't be mass produced, have more value, as more people may want them but not all of them can have that particular object.

Lets say another Picasso comes along and everybody wants his paintings. Yeah you could mass-print replicas, but people don't want the fake stuff. Same reason they not willing to pay millions for fake paintings today -- everyone wants the original, the real deal.

So what do they devise? Whoever is willing to trade the most crypto-currencies gets to keep the rare and exclusive objects.

Collectors don't want fake paintings, not for any particular use in the enjoyment or whatnot, but because they are seeking the luxury value.

If in a fully communist society, I personally produce something that holds some extra personal value to me, then I might trade it or not depending on if I felt it was worth it or not... but this really has little similarity to commodity trading - let alone elite luxury collecting/investing as we know it today. I would be exhanging one object for another based on a pretty subjective evaluation of "use value". So if I was sentimentally attached, I would probably not sell it. In fact when modern colonizers were exploring the world they were so confused by why some indigenous people wouldn't place a market value on some item that the colonizers came up with an explaination that certain tribes believed some piece of land or object to have supernatural significance to the tribe - often it was just that they didn't place (or have a conception of) commodity values on things like that and so it was not for "sale" at any price.

Art Collection and things like Bit-coins are pretty marginal to the functioning of capitalism as a whole. Basically they are a side-bet in the game of capitalism, a little way for the rich to invest, buy low and sell high, on extra money. It "makes" no extra value itself (a Picasso painting is worth a Picasso painting on any given day, the "real value" is only created when Picasso transforms pigment and a canvass into an image), but people can gain or loose extra money based on fluctuations in the market just as a poker player can win or loose money in the pot, but they are not gaining any additional value other than what people put into the game.

So would people trade things in communism, probably if it's personal items or things they made themselves. But these kinds of exchanges (exchange in kind) is not how capitalism functions or generates its wealth. So people trading some future version of baseball cards for other baseball cards or trading a rare copy of an old first edition book for a significant painting or something of sentimental value would no more create capitalism than people giving you a present today creates communism.

[Crabbensmasher]

That's actually a great example.

Because personal property like paintings, sculptures, ect.. things that can't be mass produced, have more value, as more people may want them but not all of them can have that particular object.

Lets say another Picasso comes along and everybody wants his paintings. Yeah you could mass-print replicas, but people don't want the fake stuff. Same reason they not willing to pay millions for fake paintings today -- everyone wants the original, the real deal.

So what do they devise? Whoever is willing to trade the most crypto-currencies gets to keep the rare and exclusive objects.

I suppose the idea of barter could still be used in very limited examples. The point however, is that market forces of supply and demand would never get a chance to exist again, because they rely on scarcity. When everything is free, no form of exchange can develop, because, really, there is no exchange

The very limited instances where barter may occur (I'll trade you my blue shirt for your red shirt) would only be done out of convenience, and not necessity. It is situational. The problem occurs under very specific, rare circumstances

Or your idea of the boat. Yes, a small 'trade' may occur, but it is situational. Perhaps there is a waiting list for a certain type of wooden boat at a certain lake in a certain part of the world. It is by no means universal

Note, in neither example are people 'bartering' their labour power, nor any of their means to sustenance. In both examples, the demand for a specific 'thing' doesn't warrant the creation of a currency. It is simply too situational, relies on too many variables, and is ultimately, too uncommon. Again, it would only be done out of convenience, and not in the interests of anything else.

[argeiphontes]

Hah!

Then why is the first edition selling for $30k???

http://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/capital/author/karl-marx/first-edition/sortby/1/page-1/

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

It would be ironic if book collectors started a crypto-currency called the Kapital that represents the value of a First German Edition of das Kapital in Very Good condition, and use it as a means of exchange to trade out of print books among themselves. ;)

[Baseball]

If in a fully communist society, I personally produce something that holds some extra personal value to me, then I might trade it or not depending on if I felt it was worth it or not...

This is true in a fully communist, partially communist, or capitalist society as well. Exchanging one condition for that of another.


but this really has little similarity to commodity trading - let alone elite luxury collecting/investing as we know it today.

Its exactly the same thing, albeit far more complicated and more involved. Decisons are made whether such exchanges are "worth it" Such measurements need to be made by money since barter is impossible amongst billions of people.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is true in a fully communist, partially communist, or capitalist society as well. Exchanging one condition for that of another.

Its exactly the same thing, albeit far more complicated and more involved. Decisons are made whether such exchanges are "worth it" Such measurements need to be made by money since barter is impossible amongst billions of people.

No, exchanges and currency pre-date capitalism and currencies for most of history have basically been a symbolic way to barter. You continually generalize capitalism into a non-descript mush as if any exchange is capitalist in nature. But while blurring any useful description of capitalism, you also demand empirical evidence for things that as of right now exist only in potential. Your arguments boil down to something like: well people need to travel from one place to another, so cars are the only and inevitable way to travel, I haven't seen an efficient public transportation system so hence cars are the only way it is possible to travel.

The kinds of exchanges being discussed here would be the exceptions to the generalized relationships in society. With food, housing, basic services, rationalized and socialized for "use-value" then they would be no more an exchange commodity than tap water in your house is. For the odd personal item, then barter probably would be one of they ways people exchanged personal things - they might do this with some symbolic measurement, like currency, but then again, they might not need to. Billions of people would not be bartering to get basic necessities, but would be exchanging things on a more informal level just as people have done for most of history.

[Baseball]

You continually generalize capitalism into a non-descript mush as if any exchange is capitalist in nature.

No. I describe exchange as human in nature, an action which will continue in the socialist community.
When people exchange something, it is because they believe they will benefit, that that the cost of what is given is less than the gain made ie profit.


But while blurring any useful description of capitalism, you also demand empirical evidence for things that as of right now exist only in potential.

It is not enough to offer up criticisms of capitalism. So yes, explanations of socialism are certainly warranted.


Your arguments boil down to something like: well people need to travel from one place to another, so cars are the only and inevitable way to travel, I haven't seen an efficient public transportation system so hence cars are the only way it is possible to travel.

As above, one would need to place forth the argument that public transportation is the best way to go. Offering up faults of car traveling doesn't demonstrate that public transportation is better.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

No. I describe exchange as human in nature, an action which will continue in the socialist community.
When people exchange something, it is because they believe they will benefit, that that the cost of what is given is less than the gain made ie profit.

See, there are two fundamental errors here, one in equating "gain" (subjective, qualitative) with "profit" (objective, quantitative), and the second, economic, in positing exchange as a source of profit. I don't expect to convince you of the second error, but the first should be embarrassingly obvious when light is shed on it.

The "gain" in exchange - even in capitalist society - is rarely quantitative. Lovers exchange gifts, neighbours help each other out, and friends smoke each other up not for profit, but for "use values" - which are intangible, subjective, and fundamentally disconnected from profit and "exchange value". Certainly, exchange for "gain" is ubiquitous - but to conflate this with accumulation reflects the most horrifying internalization of alienation and/or the grim theorization a loveless, lonely life.

On the second front, we have to interrogate the origins of the values that "appear" in trading: do objects appear on the market ex nihilo? Do they exist there only in relation to one another, severed from all social context? Of course not! It follows, then, that the lemonade at my stand isn't "worth" $0.50 a glass simply as an inherent property of itself: so if I make $0.10 "profit" per glass, it must be coming from some other activity that is "congealed" in the lemonade. I know this seems like a petty distinction, but I think it's crucial to debunk the notion that one profits from exchanges themselves.

[Baseball]

The "gain" in exchange - even in capitalist society - is rarely quantitative. Lovers exchange gifts, neighbours help each other out, and friends smoke each other up not for profit, but for "use values" -

However, we are not talking about relationships with the next door neighbor, but rather relationships amongst millions of people who do not know the other person exists. The value of assistance which neighbors apply to each other is going to vary from person to person and can't be used to measure amongst large population.


Measuring that value which are intangible, subjective, and fundamentally disconnected from profit and "exchange value". Certainly, exchange for "gain" is ubiquitous - but to conflate this with accumulation

Like I said, the word "profit" doesn't just mean financially, a person can profit by reading a book, though its not often used this way.


On the second front, we have to interrogate the origins of the values that "appear" in trading: do objects appear on the market ex nihilo? Do they exist there only in relation to one another, severed from all social context?

Of course not! It follows, then, that the lemonade at my stand isn't "worth" $0.50 a glass simply as an inherent property of itself: so if I make $0.10 "profit" per glass, it must be coming from some other activity that is "congealed" in the lemonade.
It reflects the costs of I guess, the lemon, the transportation ect.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

However, we are not talking about relationships with the next door neighbor, but rather relationships amongst millions of people who do not know the other person exists. The value of assistance which neighbors apply to each other is going to vary from person to person and can't be used to measure amongst large population.

I agree! Attempts to measure or quantify values, not in the sense of exchange value, but in terms of subjectivities break down even at relatively small scales. Any such project premised on such quantitification is necessarily premised on a false and homogenizing universalism - speaking in concrete historical terms, the project that has attempted this, capitalism, is the vicious colonial "liberalism" of Europe that has committed mass murder on a planetary scale.
It is precisely for this reason that such assumptions must be challenged - your implication that a world in which mutual intersubjective relations are impossible is not only historically falsifiable (worlds of neighbours helping neighbours have existed and persist in spite of massive force arrayed against them), but ethically bankrupt.

(Sorry, bad joke there.)


Like I said, the word "profit" doesn't just mean financially, a person can profit by reading a book, though its not often used this way.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about economics. Maybe I should have known better.


It reflects the costs of I guess, the lemon, the transportation, [etc.]

Yup.

[Loony Le Fist]

tooAlive:

So the only problem you can come up with to communism is that there would be people that would be opposed to such a system and would be ostracized. Funny how you don't seem to have a problem with all the communists here that are ostracized and are forced to subject themselves to the wage slavery of this irrational system called capitalism.

[liberlict]

It's just not possible to abolish money. People naturally invent a common unit of exchange, even if there's no legally recognized one.

Digital currency is the future anyway. The reason societies use paper/coin money is because it is light, and is easy to move around. Well, bytes are even easier to move around. So we will soon adopt digital money as the standard.

Many of us already do this, in the form of debit cards and such.

In the future I suspect we will use digital fingerprints to keep track of it.

Money is really best seen as a technology, like the wheel, steam engine or computer.
Just like these technologies evolve and become more efficient, so will money.

And there you go.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's just not possible to abolish money. People naturally invent a common unit of exchange, even if there's no legally recognized one.

What a silly argument. People naturally can't fly either, and yet now many people do thanks to human ingenuity overcoming our natural limitations.


Money is really best seen as a technology, like the wheel, steam engine or computer.
Just like these technologies evolve and become more efficient, so will money.

So? Technologies can also become obsolete. How was your chariot ride to work today?

[liberlict]

What a silly argument. People naturally can't fly either, and yet now many people do thanks to human ingenuity overcoming our natural limitations.

I think you're missing my point there. It's not about what people can't do, it's about what they can and will do.




So? Technologies can also become obsolete.

Well that's true. But they are only obsoleted by superior technologies. Which communism obviously can't provide.

[argeiphontes]

What a silly argument. People naturally can't fly either, and yet now many people do thanks to human ingenuity overcoming our natural limitations.


I've never seen a person flying. They all use a machine.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think you're missing my point there. It's not about what people can't do, it's about what they can and will do.

But what people "can and will do" is not something that is set in stone for all eternity. Human nature isn't immutable because we are creatures subject to evolution as well as whole array of developmental and socio-environmental influences.


Well that's true. But they are only obsoleted by superior technologies. Which communism obviously can't provide.

Are you talking of the ideologies or the mode of production?


I've never seen a person flying. They all use a machine.

Hence the "naturally" part. Money and markets are just as much inventions as flying machines are. Just as we've invented better flying machines than the wood-and-canvas biplane, so it is possible that we will invent better economic tools than money and markets.

[liberlict]

But what people "can and will do" is not something that is set in stone for all eternity. Human nature isn't immutable because we are creatures subject to evolution as well as whole array of developmental and socio-environmental influences.

True.




Are you talking of the ideologies or the mode of production?

Latter.




Hence the "naturally" part. Money and markets are just as much inventions as flying machines are. Just as we've invented better flying machines than the wood-and-canvas biplane, so it is possible that we will invent better economic tools than money and markets.

Yeah agreed. I certainly haven't seen any rational proposals around here though.:lol: