Communal Ownership?

[Comrade Kurtz]

This is by far the question that irks me most about Marxists. We're all taught to say "Communism is communal ownership" or "Socialism is public ownership" but I have a feeling that very few have a good idea of what this would really look like if applied to the real world.

Public ownership, which as long as it is democratic is mostly advocated by democratic socialists. This is easy enough, in that the government owns many/most/all industries and is directly accountable to the people. Another view point is a more syndicalist idea that the workers of a specific industry own and vote on decisions directly relating to their industry (i.e. workplace democracy).

Communism, though, stumps me. I completely disagree with communist teachings but that's an entirely different issue. My question is, how do you expect communal ownership (where everyone owns everything) to take form in a real, modern, 21st-century country? I realize that most communists believe it's a gradual process (stateless, classless, etc.) but how do you best explain the principle that everyone owns everything without any means of centralization?

[Phugebrins]

I'm not sure that I support what you might call 'complete' communism, but here's my interpretation of how society should work.

See, under socialism, the community has no interest in arbitrarily deciding to confiscate your vest. Actually, there's a few very good reasons for it not to. Most obvious is that the chances are no-one else wants to use your vest. There's a great deal of things for which it's just more practical if each keeps to their own: in economic terms, the utility of a vest that only you have worn is greater than that of a vest that's been passed around the rugby team, therefore there is greater utility if we each wear only our own vests.

But it's more than that. Socialism can permit the use of property which to all practical intents functions like modern society. See, we often forget that in modern society, a lot of what we 'own' isn't technically ours. Where I live - that's 'mine', but it isn't mine: it's rented. That's why, in a socialist society, we'd still be able to go down to the shops and 'buy' a sofa - we'd exchange part of our earnings for an effectively permanent lease of the sofa. And that's true for pretty much anything that we do on a day-to-day basis. We exchange our labour for the permission and right to consume a loaf of bread when we visit the baker's, we hand over labour-tokens (or whatever the currency is) at the grocer's to 'buy' a pound of pears.

Now, should it be suddenly be discovered that a neighbour has come fown with some sort of super-scurvy and I am then the only person in town with fruit that could cure him/her, I can't say 'well, I own the pears, it's tough'. 'My' pears are really 'society's' pears, which, up until now, it had been decided that I could make best use of. In emergencies, however, this can change. (Of course, I'd probably got a refund in labour tokens on them).

[Comrade Kurtz]

But you still haven't explained communal ownership of industries. How does one intend, without centralization, to keep industries running efficiently so people can eat without some moderating force, i.e. the government?

And am I to assume that communists believe that one can waltz into my living room whenever I want, plop down on my sofa, and stay at my house until further notice?

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 1 2006, 08:16 PM
This is by far the question that irks me most about Marxists. We're all taught to say "Communism is communal ownership" or "Socialism is public ownership" but I have a feeling that very few have a good idea of what this would really look like if applied to the real world.

Public ownership, which as long as it is democratic is mostly advocated by democratic socialists. This is easy enough, in that the government owns many/most/all industries and is directly accountable to the people. Another view point is a more syndicalist idea that the workers of a specific industry own and vote on decisions directly relating to their industry (i.e. workplace democracy).

Communism, though, stumps me. I completely disagree with communist teachings but that's an entirely different issue. My question is, how do you expect communal ownership (where everyone owns everything) to take form in a real, modern, 21st-century country? I realize that most communists believe it's a gradual process (stateless, classless, etc.) but how do you best explain the principle that everyone owns everything without any means of centralization?
Where the modes of production are revolutionized to make it so that labor is not necessary for survival, thereby necessitating a gift economy. In the absence of necessity to labor for survival, people lose their need to even have "property," so if they have none or anybody takes it away, it's no big deal. Nobody even would take it away, though, because no one would have any incentive to steal.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 1 2006, 08:44 PM
But you still haven't explained communal ownership of industries. How does one intend, without centralization, to keep industries running efficiently so people can eat without some moderating force, i.e. the government?

And am I to assume that communists believe that one can waltz into my living room whenever I want, plop down on my sofa, and stay at my house until further notice?
Under the conditions mentioned above, worker-owned corporations would work great.

[Comrade Kurtz]

Impossible. A state needs to be in place to make sure people's needs are provided for as well as to moniter industries. Centralization is the only way everyone can own everything.

For instance, people talk of communal cafeterias where you can go to eat when your hungry. First off, who cooks the food? Even before that, who provides the resources to make food. Furthermore, who cleans up to make sure the cafeteria isn't a health hazard?

You can't say "No one has to work" and expect jobs to be done. As much as I hate to admit it, people are always going to need some sort of collateral compensation for their work which is why I suggest a welfare state.

[Whitten]

You are under the false assumption that labour is necessary for production.

[Comrade Kurtz]

Of course it is! Raw materials cannot simply be consumed. What's more, if no one is cleaning then how are you to protect people from disease?

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 1 2006, 10:13 PM
Impossible. A state needs to be in place to make sure people's needs are provided for as well as to moniter industries. Centralization is the only way everyone can own everything.

For instance, people talk of communal cafeterias where you can go to eat when your hungry. First off, who cooks the food? Even before that, who provides the resources to make food. Furthermore, who cleans up to make sure the cafeteria isn't a health hazard?

You can't say "No one has to work" and expect jobs to be done. As much as I hate to admit it, people are always going to need some sort of collateral compensation for their work which is why I suggest a welfare state.
Centralization does not work because you end up dividing workers into "governors," and "the governed." Governors have only their own interest in mind, regardless of their intended role, a socioeconomic incentive for them to carry out that role must exist for them to carry it out. So, in the case of dictatorships and oligarchies (USSR, China, North Korea, etc), such countries regress into what could be described as either a degenerated worker-state or state-capitalism. They may be described as degenerated worker-states, because they are states intended for the benefit of workers, but which degenerated back into oppression. They may be called state-capitalism because they exist in order to generate capital for the state's rulers.

In the case of direct democracy, it will again either be taken over by capitalists or transition through violent anarchy, followed by defaulting back to capitalism. This is because, empirical observation of democracy shows that democracy leads to capitalism.

You also need to clarify the difference between social policy under the current economy and Communism after the Revolution. The world economy, after the Revolution, is not comparable to any economy of today. Social policies taken under economies of today would be unnecessary in Communism. Re-read my point above regarding the drastic change in the mode of production. Communal cafeterias would not need people to "serve food," because we would be technologically advanced to the point that machines would serve it. These machines would be repaired by other machines. And these machines which repair other machines, if they themselves need repair, they would be repaired by anyone who voluntarily chose to do so. Now, you may ask, "But why would anyone choose to do so?" Someone would. Under such a system, the amount of labor required to fix the machines which serve the entire economy would be minimal.

In case I'm not being clear, as economies progress, the amount of harm that a single individual can cause increases. Hundreds of years ago, a person could only kill maybe a handful of people with a melee weapon. Then, there was the creation of the automatic rifle, where a person could commit mass-murder of several dozen people. Then, there was the creation of the bomb, where a person could kill several hundred people. Now, there are nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, where a single person could kill millions, if not the entire human race.

So, as history progresses, the power of the individual increases, but the power to commit acts of good, not just evil. Under a future where poverty is eliminated and psychological disorders can be immediately discovered, there is no incentive for anyone to harm anyone else. And, for the maintenance of the world's machines, it would only require a single person or a handful of people to perform that role. Such a person or group would undoubtedly exist.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 1 2006, 10:29 PM
Of course it is! Raw materials cannot simply be consumed. What's more, if no one is cleaning then how are you to protect people from disease?
I think what he means is that you assume that the amount of labor necessary for production is fixed. As time progresses, the amount of labor necessary for production decreases eventually to the point that production will take virtually no labor at all.

[Phugebrins]

"Centralization does not work because you end up dividing workers into "governors," and "the governed.""
Not at all. Hierarchy means you do that. Capitalist markets are quite distributed in nature, but they most definitely split governers and governed. A centralised, but democratically, controlled decisionmaking process certainly does not entail creation of a ruling class. Just let everyone have equal and direct access to the center.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 11:02 PM
"Centralization does not work because you end up dividing workers into "governors," and "the governed.""
Not at all. Hierarchy means you do that. Capitalist markets are quite distributed in nature, but they most definitely split governers and governed. A centralised, but democratically, controlled decisionmaking process certainly does not entail creation of a ruling class. Just let everyone have equal and direct access to the center.
In a democracy, the ruling class is the majority and the demagogues they are duped into following. And, as pointed out several times now, Switzerland is extremely directly democratic and extremely capitalist. America is the second-most democratic nation on Earth, yet they are more capitalist than Europe, which is far more aristocratic. Socialism seems to often be supported because of Paternalism. And Paternalism seems to only be able to flourish under moderate aristocracy. Of course, aristocracy is just as bad as democracy. I favor a combination of the two because, historically, they've been both the least oppressive and least capitalist.

[Comrade Kurtz]

A perfect, democratic socialist state would have all industries publically-owned by a government directly accountable to the people (strictly for efficiency matters; you can't give uncentralized ownership to people because it's simply not possible). This democracy would be a greater extent than what we have now. Some possible manefestations of this would be shorter terms for elected officials as well as an easier impeachment process, not to mention third-party accountability groups.

However, because the government is such a broad and dull tool, workplace democracy (some call it syndicalism) must be established so the workers are democratically voting and making decisions for their specific industries. After all, shouldn't the people making decisions be the ones whom the decisions affect the most?

It's not practical to say that one day machines will develop to the point where we don't have to do anything. Even so, purpose and work ethic is eliminated, which are the cornerstone principles of Marxism (Everyone is essential). Your version of communism is among the most inefficient I have seen. How do you expect to get anything done?

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 2 2006, 12:38 AM
A perfect, democratic socialist state would have all industries publically-owned by a government directly accountable to the people (strictly for efficiency matters; you can't give uncentralized ownership to people because it's simply not possible). This democracy would be a greater extent than what we have now. Some possible manefestations of this would be shorter terms for elected officials as well as an easier impeachment process, not to mention third-party accountability groups.

However, because the government is such a broad and dull tool, workplace democracy (some call it syndicalism) must be established so the workers are democratically voting and making decisions for their specific industries. After all, shouldn't the people making decisions be the ones whom the decisions affect the most?

It's not practical to say that one day machines will develop to the point where we don't have to do anything. Even so, purpose and work ethic is eliminated, which are the cornerstone principles of Marxism (Everyone is essential). Your version of communism is among the most inefficient I have seen. How do you expect to get anything done?
But democracy does not make the government accountable to the people. It makes it accountable to the often ignorant majority.

In Switzerland, any law may be passed by a referendum and any revision to the Constitution simply requires a supermajority of the people. Yet they are still Capitalist, in fact, MORE Capitalists because of it. Corporations dominate American politics today partially because of democratic reforms. Being able to donate money to campaigns is itself democracy.

If workers ran their own industries, who would settle disputes between industries? What if one industry eventually grew out of use? Should it be maintained, solely out of sentiment? And what's stopping one industry from overwhelming another?

[apathy maybe]

Disclaimer: I am not a communist as such, though I think it would be grand.

Communism has a really simple distribution model, you need something, you ask for it, if it is available you get it. In cases of rare items or luxuries there a few different possibilities to distribute fairly, a 'reward' for doing dirty jobs, lottery for some items, you could choose to have less of the items that are easier to make so that you can have some of the items that are hard to make.


When finished items are made, they would go to a central (to the community) warehouse. From here people who need such items would come and pick them up.


Ownership of land and 'means of production', would be community owned. People would not come and go in other peoples houses, that would be an invasion of privacy, though hopefully such strange taboos as nudity and sex will go with the revolution. Travellers can be put up at either hostels or in private houses if the occupiers wish. It is possible that individuals or small groups could have exclusive use of a plot of land to grow flowers or what have you,

For personal items, it depends on who you talk to. Some will say that personal items are actually owned by the individual, and that the community cannot take such items away. Most (I think) would say that the community owns all items, but who the fuck would want to take away your toothbrush? Or your research notes?

[Messiah]

Democracy leads to capitalism? Since when?

[Phugebrins]

Nathyn, I don't think you've quite grasped this 'democracy' thing.
Capitalism inhibits democracy. Vast income disparity and the mercenary nature of the media means that a capitalist 'democracy' will nurture capitalist demagogues and spurn dissenting voices. The more a populace is held in the ideological and economic grip of capitalism, the more the rulers can afford to extend the façade. Switzerland, whose wealth rests for a good part on housing low-tax, no-questions-asked banks, is one of the best places in the world, if you're looking for a population pliale to the interests of capital. Since there's no danger of the people rebelling, they're granted referenda - it keeps them happy and loyal.

(Quite how you manage to name the US, with not just FPTP on pretty much all levels, but two layers of FPTP for the highest office in the country, as 'second most democratic country in the world', I don't know.)

A socialist democracy, however, would mean that the direction would not, and could not, come from rulers on high. Participation in the democratic process would not be limited to ticking a box every now and then, it would mean actually getting involved in any and every debate going.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 2 2006, 12:38 AM
A perfect, democratic socialist state would have all industries publically-owned by a government directly accountable to the people (strictly for efficiency matters; you can't give uncentralized ownership to people because it's simply not possible). This democracy would be a greater extent than what we have now. Some possible manefestations of this would be shorter terms for elected officials as well as an easier impeachment process, not to mention third-party accountability groups.

However, because the government is such a broad and dull tool, workplace democracy (some call it syndicalism) must be established so the workers are democratically voting and making decisions for their specific industries. After all, shouldn't the people making decisions be the ones whom the decisions affect the most?

It's not practical to say that one day machines will develop to the point where we don't have to do anything. Even so, purpose and work ethic is eliminated, which are the cornerstone principles of Marxism (Everyone is essential). Your version of communism is among the most inefficient I have seen. How do you expect to get anything done?
Democratic socialism. Blah Blah Blah. An easy way to vote once a year, sit on your ass, and feel good because your party got "two more seats" and brought in a tax cut for the poor.
Government is an unneccessary institution that breeds inefficiency. People elect representatives who get things done for them. Why don't people just do things themselves? Centralization increases power in the hands of view and limits individual rights. Decentralization allows people to collectively assemble. Their actions and abilities are not dictated by officials.

Who says that people working in certain industries won't get more influence? People aren't stupid unless the capitalist media makes them that way. People realize that the dividing of a medical budget is best handled by people in the field.

Stop making factual statements without backing them up, please.

And just so you know, decentralization does not mean chaos. It means people have the ability to centralize and decentralize as they wish. It means a structure of centralization does not exist by which the people can be oppressed.

[norwegian commie]

I have a questions for you.
How will the society be governed?

-As in, I snapp, invade the lokal coffe shop and start breaking stuff. Who do you call?

-I want work, where do i go

-I dont work, what is the reaction and who reacts.

-My workplace needs moore men, hoe hire people?

-I want to start a stoor or something. How?

My question in general, with no one calling some shots. how is the society balanced in a fair matter. I mean, i no one is seeing the big picture.

[Comrade Kurtz]

Are you asking me or the communists?

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:40 AM
Nathyn, I don't think you've quite grasped this 'democracy' thing.
Capitalism inhibits democracy. Vast income disparity and the mercenary nature of the media means that a capitalist 'democracy' will nurture capitalist demagogues and spurn dissenting voices. The more a populace is held in the ideological and economic grip of capitalism, the more the rulers can afford to extend the façade. Switzerland, whose wealth rests for a good part on housing low-tax, no-questions-asked banks, is one of the best places in the world, if you're looking for a population pliale to the interests of capital. Since there's no danger of the people rebelling, they're granted referenda - it keeps them happy and loyal.

(Quite how you manage to name the US, with not just FPTP on pretty much all levels, but two layers of FPTP for the highest office in the country, as 'second most democratic country in the world', I don't know.)

A socialist democracy, however, would mean that the direction would not, and could not, come from rulers on high. Participation in the democratic process would not be limited to ticking a box every now and then, it would mean actually getting involved in any and every debate going.
You have a point, yet I fail to see how you would change that.

[norwegian commie]

Are you asking me or the communists?

The communists

[KC]

We're all taught to say "Communism is communal ownership" or "Socialism is public ownership"

Actually communism is complete lack of ownership.


My question is, how do you expect communal ownership (where everyone owns everything)

On the contrary, communism is where nobody owns anything.


See, we often forget that in modern society, a lot of what we 'own' isn't technically ours. Where I live - that's 'mine', but it isn't mine: it's rented.

Even the stuff we claim ownership on is really on loan from capitalists.



And am I to assume that communists believe that one can waltz into my living room whenever I want, plop down on my sofa, and stay at my house until further notice?

Well, there's two sides to this issue. First, is that you don't own where you live, but that it is "yours". Second, why would it matter if someone came into your house and "plopped down on your sofa"? Does it really affect you? Why would someone do that in the first place if they have their own place with their own TV?



Where the modes of production are revolutionized to make it so that labor is not necessary for survival, thereby necessitating a gift economy.

Labour is always necessary for survival.


Nobody even would take it away, though, because no one would have any incentive to steal.


Plus, stealing implies ownership. Even if someone came into your house and took your TV, you could just go down to the local distribution center and pick another up for free. Of course, there's no point in someone taking your TV, since they could just skip the trouble and go straight to the distribution center themselves.

When something's free and available, nobody's going to steal it.


A state needs to be in place to make sure people's needs are provided for as well as to moniter industries.

A state is a system of organized violence used by one class to maintain the conditions of its rule over another class. Since communist society is classless, it is therefore also stateless. The "state" withers away and becomes a mere administration of things.


First off, who cooks the food?

Well, there could be a cook if people want one. Or you could cook your own food. Or members of the community could take turns working there. Or it could be automated. There's tons of different possiblities.


Furthermore, who cleans up to make sure the cafeteria isn't a health hazard?

Well, I bet the people that use it would! After all, nobody wants to get food poisoning or eat in a rat-infested cafeteria!



In a democracy, the ruling class is the majority and the demagogues they are duped into following.

That's a bourgeois "democracy".


And, as pointed out several times now, Switzerland is extremely directly democratic and extremely capitalist.

That's a bourgeois "democracy".


America is the second-most democratic nation on Earth

America is hardly democratic. See: Electoral College, election rigging, campaign funding, etc...


A perfect, democratic socialist state would have all industries publically-owned by a government directly accountable to the people (strictly for efficiency matters; you can't give uncentralized ownership to people because it's simply not possible). This democracy would be a greater extent than what we have now. Some possible manefestations of this would be shorter terms for elected officials as well as an easier impeachment process, not to mention third-party accountability groups.

I suggest you read The State & Revolution by V.I. Lenin if you would like to learn more about this subject.


It's not practical to say that one day machines will develop to the point where we don't have to do anything.

Not a lot of people say that, and I think you can agree with me on what they're full of. (and it's not good ideas!) ;)


People elect representatives who get things done for them. Why don't people just do things themselves?

Because that is much less efficient and many times impossible.



-As in, I snapp, invade the lokal coffe shop and start breaking stuff. Who do you call?


People at the coffee shop can handle it.



-I want work, where do i go


Depends on how society is structured.



-I dont work, what is the reaction and who reacts.

Society ostracizes you and might go so far as to deny you the fruits of society's labour if they so choose.



-My workplace needs moore men, hoe hire people?

Bring it to the attention of the community and others around it.



-I want to start a stoor or something. How?

Bring it to the attention of the community and vote on it.

[Comrade Kurtz]

It's too shady. You can't expect resources to magically increase with the coming of communism which is why you need a governing body to at very least regulate consumption.

What's more, jobs like refining oil and farming are tedious. Who will do these in a communist society if there is no incentive? Why wouldn't I just be a teacher or something a little less manual?

[KC]

It's too shady. You can't expect resources to magically increase with the coming of communism which is why you need a governing body to at very least regulate consumption.

Nobody said that resources would increase. What increases is the productive forces. We would also have access to more resources than we did under a capitalist society because of the fact that many resource gathering operations aren't done because they're just not profitable.


What's more, jobs like refining oil and farming are tedious. Who will do these in a communist society if there is no incentive? Why wouldn't I just be a teacher or something a little less manual?

Every single job will be automated, done away with, remain as it is, or divided up among the community. So no matter what job you can think of, it fits into one of those categories.

[norwegian commie]

well. I am not trying be critical, if you understand.
I am wondering if representatives and leaders is non existing... How the society will function.


People at the coffee shop can handle it.

I get you


Bring it to the attention of the community and others around it.

How? media?


Bring it to the attention of the community and vote on it.

Who votes? everybody?
What about the minor things? Vote on everything?

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 5 2006, 07:37 AM


It's not practical to say that one day machines will develop to the point where we don't have to do anything.

Not a lot of people say that, and I think you can agree with me on what they're full of. (and it's not good ideas!) ;)
Here's a graph of American and Japanese labor productivity.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/LabourProdComparison.PNG/800px-LabourProdComparison.PNG

Labor productivity increases each year. The labor productivity required for material goods, or even for the economy as a whole, will inevitably be reduced to nothing within the next century.

[norwegian commie]

pluss. If i want something, who desides what i can or cant have.

If my request is a luxury (something wich is not available for everyone) who decides if i get it?

[workers unity]

Let me begin by saying that communism is antithetical to ownership, whether it be communal or otherwise. Communes are economic organizations void of ownership/property concepts.

Your first mistake is, thus, calling it ownership.

>> Socialism can permit the use of property which to all practical intents functions like modern society.

No it can't. In all practical terms socialism is a society in conscious efforts to destroy property, to permit use is antagonistic to that goal.

>> And that's true for pretty much anything that we do on a day-to-day basis. We exchange our labour for the permission and right to consume a loaf of bread when we visit the baker's, we hand over labour-tokens (or whatever the currency is) at the grocer's to 'buy' a pound of pears.

In modern society, labor power is exchanged for money. Money is then exchanged for essentially anything you wish. We should not intend to exchange our labor. We should intend to labor, which creates goods and services necessary for the survival and fitness of our societies, and we should be capable of acquiring goods and services in our society for use. Plain and simple.

>> How does one intend, without centralization, to keep industries running efficiently so people can eat without some moderating force, i.e. the government?

The workers will organize them. Produce and distribute in accordance with the needs of the community.

>> And am I to assume that communists believe that one can waltz into my living room whenever I want, plop down on my sofa, and stay at my house until further notice?[/QUOTE]

Yes.

[b]>> A state needs to be in place to make sure people's needs are provided for as well as to moniter industries.

Why?

>> Centralization is the only way everyone can own everything.

But that's not what we propose. No one owns anything.

>> First off, who cooks the food?

People who can cook (mostly anyone).

>> Even before that, who provides the resources to make food.

Lots of people. If this society occured tomorrow (not that it would), it would be all the people currently producing those resources. In time, they may diversify their interests and their labor, as would others. And others would take part in their activities.

>> Furthermore, who cleans up to make sure the cafeteria isn't a health hazard?

Perhaps people who do janitorial work. Or you could implement an amazing concept of cleaning up after yourself.

>> You can't say "No one has to work" and expect jobs to be done.

The concept that no one has to work is as false on a social level as is the capitalist notion that everyone can get rich. Of course someone has to work. So long as there is a need for human labor in production/services, someone will have to work. I'd imagine most, if not everyone would work.

>> As much as I hate to admit it, people are always going to need some sort of collateral compensation for their work which is why I suggest a welfare state.

Perhaps if you supplied evidence that such is the case, we may believe you. Until then, saying people are always going to need some sort of collateral compensation for their work is little different than saying people will always need slavery.

>> -As in, I snapp, invade the lokal coffe shop and start breaking stuff. Who do you call?

I'd imagine the people in the shop would subdue you, eventually have some sort of community hearing, and probably get you some sort of counceling.

>> -I want work, where do i go

What do you want to do? If you're uneducated in the field, I would suggest you begin by talking with people who currently do it, working with them, side by side to learn whatever it is you wish to do.

>> -I dont work, what is the reaction and who reacts.

Initially, probably distrust and disdain. Eventually I assume we will grow accustom to the idea that some people just don't want to work, or don't enjoy doing things most people consider work.

>> -My workplace needs moore men, hoe hire people?

Post a community bulletin. Maybe find other people from other areas who would wish to spend some time working in your workplace. Discuss it with people who volunteer to do odd assortments of jobs. Or work with your fellow workers to make it more efficient so less workers are necessary.

>> -I want to start a stoor or something. How?

You wouldn't be able to. Merely selling and ringing out a product is a gross aboration of labor power which is only relevant to capitalism.

>> I mean, i no one is seeing the big picture.

I'm afraid it is you who does not see the big picture. People talk, discuss, vote, and do what needs to be done.

>> You can't expect resources to magically increase with the coming of communism which is why you need a governing body to at very least regulate consumption.

No, we can't. That's why most communists discuss varying economic concepts for transitional periods. DoP and/or Socialism.

>> What's more, jobs like refining oil and farming are tedious.

I imagine that we'll be off our oil dependency by the time of revolution. But yes, some jobs are tedious.

>> Who will do these in a communist society if there is no incentive?

The question you are asking has nothing to do with "who will do them?" The question is whether or not incentive is necessary, how do we define incentive, what other forms of incentive can there be outside of money and wealth?

These things have been discussed.

>> Why wouldn't I just be a teacher or something a little less manual?

Perhaps you don't like teaching or doing things less (by a little or a lot) manual. I myself enjoy a good mix of things. I would never wish to sit in a chair all day or even stand still all day or even pace back and fourth all day at a computer or in front of a class room. Although I do wish to teach people, I also wish to build things.

>> If i want something, who desides what i can or cant have.

Nobody. Although I suppose there would be some community standards. We don't want 4 year olds driving cars. They would most likely vary as they are social issues as opposed to economic ones. The economic issue is always, is there enough? No one decides that you get it or someone else does. The question is, is there enough?

>> If my request is a luxury (something wich is not available for everyone) who decides if i get it?

Please don't listen to people talking about scarce luxury distribution. Many people have a very narrow view of communism and still think of it in terms of capitalist production and distribution. You have to think far beyond that point.

What is the luxury? Why do you want it? Is it something that is generally socially necessary (perhaps not necessary in an absolute sense)? Are there resources to produce it? Is there enough?

[Floyce White]

workers unity: "Communes are economic organizations void of ownership/property concepts."

In general I agree with your post. But you couch many ideas in the language of commodification of life and division of labor.

Communes are not economic. "Economy" means "property ownership and trade." Communists oppose economy and fight to restore natural human ecology--non-violent socialization instead of gunmen protecting trade. As I put it:

"The commune is a form of struggle against exploitation. So is the similar soviet, or council form. By any name it is the comprehensive local organization of working-class struggle."

(Communism Means Communes (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A18), October 1, 2002.)

The point I'm getting at is that the commune is anti-economic. Calling an anti-economic organization "economic" is like calling atheism a "religion." It's a logical false upon which are built false conclusions.

workers unity: "...socialism is a society in conscious efforts to destroy property..."

No. Socialism is a form of capitalism characterized by nationalization of big business. Keeping property forms does not end property forms. There is no such thing as a "lower stage of communism." "Socialism is communism" is a lie.

[KC]

"Economy" means "property ownership and trade."

Economics is the allocation of resources. Economy is the system in which resources are allocated.


There is no such thing as a "lower stage of communism." "Socialism is communism" is a lie.

Marx coined the term "lower stage of communism" meaning the beginning of the process towards a full communist society, or the higher stages of communism. Socialism is a process in which society moves towards communism and can be classified as the lower stage of communism because of the fact that communist society is created through this process.

[norwegian commie]

I mean, i no one is seeing the big picture.

I'm afraid it is you who does not see the big picture. People talk, discuss, vote, and do what needs to be done.

You misunderstood me. It was a typoe. My point was, if nobody is seeing a big picture or deciding anything, how do we make decitions?

and dont give me that cheap ansver: you do or everybody does. It cant function like that. I am a communist, i just realised i needed some info.
If everything is voted on, am afraid there is little spare time.


Please don't listen to people talking about scarce luxury distribution. Many people have a very narrow view of communism and still think of it in terms of capitalist production and distribution. You have to think far beyond that point.

What is the luxury? Why do you want it? Is it something that is generally socially necessary (perhaps not necessary in an absolute sense)? Are there resources to produce it? Is there enough?


You did not ansver me, So i will answer myselvf.
The situation of "luxures" will occur.
There is plenty of items that cant be distrubuited to all people, so if we got 10 bicylcles or electronic super house cleaners or whatever, and 15 people request it. Hwo gets what, what if 13 people need it? There is no mine and yours, we will share it. When house one is done with the thing for the day or for life, they pass it on to next building/family whatever.

By the way, thanks for the ansvers.

[workers unity]

and dont give me that cheap ansver: you do or everybody does. It cant function like that. I am a communist, i just realised i needed some info.
If everything is voted on, am afraid there is little spare time.

Not everything is voted on. Why would it be? You wouldn't vote when and what to produce, that would be based on need, which can be determined through means that need none of the human subjectivity involved in voting. You wouldn't vote on what to have for lunch either. Those things which are individual in nature would be determined by the individual. Many things which are economic in nature would be determined by an objective economic system where determining them is a matter of calculation. Other things of social and political importance would indeed be voted on, and socially so with regard to the contexts they affect.


There is plenty of items that cant be distrubuited to all people, so if we got 10 bicylcles or electronic super house cleaners or whatever, and 15 people request it.

Bicycles could be purely social. Do all 15 people need it at the same time? These are ridiculous examples to begin with, industrial production has moved us beyond the possibility of 10 bicycles or electronic super house cleaners -- the fact that it's electronic is evidence enough that it can be mass produced.

If you're going to use examples, at least make them meaningful. How do you define a luxury item? Means of transportation is not a luxury, but a social necessity. An "elextronic super house cleaner," whatever that may be, could easily be shared amongst neighbors, it is not as if it would consume any serious amount of time as the concept which you imply seems to be one of automated house cleaning.


There is no mine and yours, we will share it. When house one is done with the thing for the day or for life, they pass it on to next building/family whatever.

Yes, although again, the type of things you're talking about are easily mass produced.

[Floyce White]

Khayembii Communique: "Economics is...allocation..."

That's as illogical as the nonsense about "administer things not people." Who allocates what? How does someone get authority over others so that he or she is an allocator. If no one has authority to make decisions beyond one's self and one's own activity, then there is no allocating happening. Duh. Your definition is petty-bourgeois self-serving propaganda.

Communism and capitalism are relations between people--not relations between people and things. Discuss communist revolution as the actions of people towards other people.

Khayembii Communique: "Socialism is a process in which society moves towards communism..."

Repeating a lie does not make it true. Workers' revolution with the immediate abolition of property is how society achieves communism.

[KC]

Who allocates what? How does someone get authority over others so that he or she is an allocator. If no one has authority to make decisions beyond one's self and one's own activity, then there is no allocating happening.

The form that Economy takes is dependent upon the society in which it is implemented. This also determines "who allocates what" and "how...someone get[s] authority over others so that he or she is an allocator". Moreover, the allocation of resources can be performed democratically such as in a communist society. Your definition is of bourgeois economy (allocation and distribution of bourgeois private property in a capitalist society), or perhaps economy in a class society.


Communism and capitalism are relations between people--not relations between people and things.

I agree. What's your point?


Repeating a lie does not make it true. Workers' revolution with the immediate abolition of property is how society achieves communism.

What are you, an anarchist now?

[LoneRed]

Economics is the study of the allocation of resources, I believe that is what KC meant, it doesnt help for you to rip on that point FLoyce

[norwegian commie]

Hey, workers unity. It was a retorical question. I answered it myselvf.