Would everyone be equally poor under communism?

[armani09]

Correct me if I'm wrong, there will be no currency under communism, so everyone will just be provided their basic needs and thats it, correct? What about products from ipods to boats, who gets to decide who gets one or would they be distributed to everyone?

Also who would get the nice, big luxurious houses? I think I read that it would be based upon needs and who has the most kids and who needs the biggest space. Wouldnt this just encourage people to keep popping out as many kids as possible to get the nicest homes?

[spartan]

Why is the title of this topic called "Would everyone be equally POOR under Communism"?

First off in a Communist society everyone would be equal but there would be no rich and poor as the concept of rich and poor in a Communist society is completly against it's principles.
armani09:
Correct me if I'm wrong, there will be no currency under communism
You are correct.

so everyone will just be provided their basic needs and thats it, correct?
No people will work for there basic needs.

What about products from ipods to boats, who gets to decide who gets one or would they be distributed to everyone?
Here you are confusing personal property with private property so learn the difference!

Also who would get the nice, big luxurious houses? I think I read that it would be based upon needs and who has the most kids and who needs the biggest space. Wouldnt this just encourage people to keep popping out as many kids as possible to get the nicest homes?
Doing whatever it takes to get something "better" than what you have got (Even though what you already have is perfectly adequate) is a Capitalist concept not part of human nature.

Besides these silly concepts will die out after a few decades living in a Communist utopia where everyone will be satisfied with what they have which is an ideal equal and fair society where the people who operate the means of production, namely the workers, will control the means of production which they operate through workers councils and where the people not representatives of the people decide what they want in referendums.

All people will also have what they need (Not want as wanting is selfish against the collective). Here is a good quote for you from Mikhail Bakunin: "From each according to his faculties; to each according to his needs.".

I recommend you research these terms: Direct Democracy, Plebiscite/referendum, self sufficiency, workers councils and workers Democracy amongst others to get a better grasp of what you are talking about before posting topics such as this.

[armani09]

So you are saying that everyone will be perfectly happy even though there will be a huge housing difference? Unless of course we destroyed every single house in the country and built them all the same.

You also say there will be "personal property," well then how will things like MP3 players, computers, other stuff, etc. be provided or earned, especially without currency?

I don't think there would be much "freedom" since everyone else (the community) will decide where I live, what jobs I work, etc.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

actually, everyone would be equally rich in a hypothetical communist society.

A communist society would be far more coefficient than late capitalist society, i mean, just look at the number of pointless jobs, that don't even provide services, but just enable the transfer of money more easily etc. Like, estate agents, service sector workers, administrators, secretaries, human resources, security guards, cops, ticket inspectors, lawyers etc etc etc.

Only productive jobs and jobs like research and design, doctors, engineers are actually of use to society.

And, since we know, all the jobs that exist in capitalist, that, socialism or hypothetical communism would be rid of, we know that the amount of people in productive jobs would vastly increase.

So, what ever people, were the ones who were planning and running the society, and however it is run, you would know that, in order to continue the same standard of living you would only need to reduce the hours each person works.

Socialism and hypothetical communism are also more efficient because it allows popular decisions within the planned economy, so for example, pointless commodities that are in competition with each other on the market, even though one in technologically and aesthetically superior, might sell in equal amounts due to the ability of the corporation to market their commodity well.

So, i don't think anyone will be poorer unless you have some imperialist's invading your country and making life impossible.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:47 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, there will be no currency under communism, so everyone will just be provided their basic needs and thats it, correct? What about products from ipods to boats, who gets to decide who gets one or would they be distributed to everyone?

Also who would get the nice, big luxurious houses? I think I read that it would be based upon needs and who has the most kids and who needs the biggest space. Wouldnt this just encourage people to keep popping out as many kids as possible to get the nicest homes?
are you still here?

Why dont you go and play with your building blocks?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by armani09+October 11, 2007 07:47 pm--> (armani09 @ October 11, 2007 07:47 pm) Correct me if I'm wrong, there will be no currency under communism [/b]
Correct.


Originally posted by armani09+--> (armani09)so everyone will just be provided their basic needs and thats it, correct?[/b]
Not quite. Production will be organized in such a way that we have enough stuff to provide everyone with basic necessities, but in addition we will also make a whole lot of non-basic products, which will be distributed on the basis of need. That is to say, there will be a communal stockpile of products where you can go pick up anything you need. If you don't need it, you don't have to pick it up. It is safe to assume that most people will not try to fill their homes with stuff they find useless.


[email protected]
What about products from ipods to boats, who gets to decide who gets one or would they be distributed to everyone?
That depends very much on the product. Some products will be available for anyone to pick up for free at a local distribution center. Other products will be used in common. Boats, for example, fall under this category. You will be able to go to a harbor and take a boat for a ride, but you will have to return the boat in the end. There will probably not be any private boats.

Ipods are rather cheap to make (the only reason they're expensive is because Apple wants to make a monopoly profit). So they will be available at your local distribution center for you to pick up. You won't be allowed to pick up more than one, however.


armani09
Also who would get the nice, big luxurious houses?
No one. A communist society would not build big luxurious houses in the first place. Rather, everyone will get houses of more or less the same size, which you will be able to decorate however you like.

As for big houses that already exist, they will either be used for public purposes (museums, distribution centers, music halls, bars etc.) or they will be used as communal housing for more than one person.

[Dr Mindbender]

my take is, if you want to build extensions to your own house then fine, build that big house, as long as you do it through your own steam and dont exploit other people.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 11, 2007 05:41 pm
my take is, if you want to build extensions to your own house then fine, build that big house, as long as you do it through your own steam and dont exploit other people.
Other people would occasionally have to repair each other's houses, but this shouldn't be a problem. Many people in the trades, especially home construction, find their occupation rewarding.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+October 11, 2007 11:19 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ October 11, 2007 11:19 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 11, 2007 05:41 pm
my take is, if you want to build extensions to your own house then fine, build that big house, as long as you do it through your own steam and dont exploit other people.
Other people would occasionally have to repair each other's houses, but this shouldn't be a problem. Many people in the trades, especially home construction, find their occupation rewarding. [/b]
yes thats fine too. Say for example, im a builder and you're a car mechanic. I need my car fixed and you want an extension to your house. Not a problem, is it?

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+October 11, 2007 06:21 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ October 11, 2007 06:21 pm)
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 11, 2007 11:19 pm

Ulster [email protected] 11, 2007 05:41 pm
my take is, if you want to build extensions to your own house then fine, build that big house, as long as you do it through your own steam and dont exploit other people.
Other people would occasionally have to repair each other's houses, but this shouldn't be a problem. Many people in the trades, especially home construction, find their occupation rewarding.
yes thats fine too. Say for example, im a builder and you're a car mechanic. I need my car fixed and you want an extension to your house. Not a problem, is it? [/b]
That's a barter system, and what I want to see happen in the world. Bartering takes the power of the economy out of the hands of the economists, and put it in the hands of the workers.

[Axel1917]

A communist society would be far more coefficient than late capitalist society, i mean, just look at the number of pointless jobs, that don't even provide services, but just enable the transfer of money more easily etc. Like, estate agents, service sector workers, administrators, secretaries, human resources, security guards, cops, ticket inspectors, lawyers etc etc etc.

Services sector workers are worthless? How so? If it were not for janitors like myself, society would come to a grinding halt because the public buildings would be uninhabitable. More and more of the US is composed of service workers these days. What you are saying here almost reeks of MIMism.

Or am I misunderstanding something here?

[Djehuti]

Wealth in a communist society is not measured in commodities but in leasure time.

And as said: Communism will free huge ammounts of resources, material and human, that is now bound up in activities specific for a capitalist society.

Axel1917: Ticket inspectors, call-center-callers, advertisors and money administrators for example will have no function in a communist society, janitors however will. Cleaning is a very important task. However, I believe that cleaning (and many other tasks) in a communist society will be more like a collective task, a need that we will see to together. No one should be bound up entirely doing one or a few specific things, that is a waste of human talent.

[armani09]

If you don't need it, you don't have to pick it up. It is safe to assume that most people will not try to fill their homes with stuff they find useless.

People these days waste so much money and go into debt buying so much crap they don't need. What makes you think that people are only going to take what they need from these "free distribution" centers? Most people will be hauling so much stuff out of there that they dont need


As for big houses that already exist, they will either be used for public purposes (museums, distribution centers, music halls, bars etc.) or they will be used as communal housing for more than one person.

There are lots of big homes around here. What square footage would you say would be a good size for one family? Also, what about the real small homes and apartments, who gets to live there?


I believe that cleaning (and many other tasks) in a communist society will be more like a collective task, a need that we will see to together. No one should be bound up entirely doing one or a few specific things, that is a waste of human talent.

And regarding the jobs, who is going to decide what I have to do? I hate cleaning, but would I be forced to clean?

[armani09]

What about transportation? Would we still all drive cars or would it just be public transportation/buses?

I like driving fast cars, around tracks mostly. Would I be able to do this under communism?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:06 am

A communist society would be far more coefficient than late capitalist society, i mean, just look at the number of pointless jobs, that don't even provide services, but just enable the transfer of money more easily etc. Like, estate agents, service sector workers, administrators, secretaries, human resources, security guards, cops, ticket inspectors, lawyers etc etc etc.

Services sector workers are worthless? How so? If it were not for janitors like myself, society would come to a grinding halt because the public buildings would be uninhabitable. More and more of the US is composed of service workers these days. What you are saying here almost reeks of MIMism.

Or am I misunderstanding something here?
No, i don't mean janitors, rubbish collectors or anything like that. They provide services that are actually needed. We don't need the people { to do those jobs) who work at record stores, what i did when i was younger, we don't need people to sell coffee and bring it to your table.

I just mean that things in the Tertiary sector are essentially redundant in a hypothetical communist society, while other workers in the Tertiary sector, like yourself, are indeed very much needed.

According to some economists, the service sector tends to be wealth consuming, whereas manufacturing is wealth producing.[1] Sir Keith Joseph in his lecture Monetarism IS Not Enough, contrasted wealth-producing sectors in an economy such as manufacturing with the service sector which tends to be a wealth-consuming sector. He contended that an economy declines as its wealth-producing sector begins to shrink. [2]

From Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_sector_of_industry#Attitudes_toward_terti ary_sector)

I'm certainly not suggesting tertiary sector workers are not working class though. As you used the word janitor, I'm assuming you're American, and therefore you live in the country with the highest rate of workers changing jobs. Which means that, most people will spend some of their life in tertiary sector, secondary sector and primary sector.

I'm really not a MIMite :D

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 04:35 pm
People these days waste so much money and go into debt buying so much crap they don't need. What makes you think that people are only going to take what they need from these "free distribution" centers? Most people will be hauling so much stuff out of there that they dont need
Did you ever go to a shopping center? Notice how the restaurants there provide you with free salt, free toothpicks, etc? What keeps people from gathering as many toothpicks as they can?

I like driving fast cars, around tracks mostly. Would I be able to do this under communism?

I don't know, and if anyone gives you any definite answer, they are taking it out from their bowels.

In any society, the owners of the means of production decide what is going to be produced or not. It is no different under communism; the difference is, the owners of means of production will be the workers themselves. They will decide if producing cars is worth the pain or not, and they will decide that from a position in which they can see and understand the economy as a whole. Now we don't have the amount of information necessary to take such decision.

If you absolutely need a wild guess, I would say that the production of cars will continue at least for a while, until a different system of transportation is put in place. People will still need to travel from one city to another, and, for good or for bad, we have in place a transport system that takes them from one place to other. Also, you cannot transform an automobile plant into something else in a few days. Until that is done, I see no reason it wouldn't continue to do what it was designed to do.

As for the distribution of cars, it is possible that those who already own automobiles will keep them. Cars are not means of production; they are not capital, there is no reason to take them from their owners. Cars produced in a socialist or communist society - if they are produced at all - probably won't be meant for individual possession though.

When you say you like to drive fast cars, I imagine you fancy driving them in roads, not in the city (where, frankly, no cars can be fast at all, and they are probably the worst solution for mass transportation one can imagine). Now tell me, do you travel so often between different cities that you need to have a car at your disposal at any moment? What would be the point, for instance, of keeping a car of your own to use it once a month, and maintaining it idle 29/30 of the time? Isn't it a waste?

These, however, are just wild guesses. No one who is posting here is likely to have any active say in such decisions, that will probably take place only long after the last of us is long dead.

Luís Henrique

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 04:48 pm
What about transportation? Would we still all drive cars or would it just be public transportation/buses?

I like driving fast cars, around tracks mostly. Would I be able to do this under communism?
I dont see any reason why not, certainly under technocratic socialism you'd be able to drive even better cars because the market restrictions which impede the release of new technologies under capitalism would no longer be in force!

[hajduk]

believe it or not in EX-YUGOSLAVIA everyone been equally rich under socialism

example
the average sallary in EX-YU was 100 000 $ per year,and for everyone that was god becouse everything else,like education,life insurance,health care etc. been payed by the state so the difference for example beetwen sallary for minner and doctor been only in 100 $,i mean the doctor have 100 $ more then minner and only poor people in EX-YU was gypsies