How does cars situation work in an ideal communist society

[Individuality]

Ahh, Like if I'm walking down the street and there's a car on the side of the road, I have every right to go use it? Is that how it works?

If someone was driving down the street and had to stop at a stop light, and I opened up there door and hop in with this total stranger, this is all fair game right?

[spartan]

Ahh, Like if I'm walking down the street and there's a car on the side of the road, I have every right to go use it? Is that how it works?

If someone was driving down the street and had to stop at a stop light, and I opened up there door and hop in with this total stranger, this is all fair game right?

:lol::laugh::lol::laugh::lol:

Make the distinction between personal and private property and then you will have your answer.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ What he said, plus considering further developments in public transportation.

[pusher robot]

:lol::laugh::lol::laugh::lol:

Make the distinction between personal and private property and then you will have your answer.

So unlimited accumulation of personal property is okay then?

[Demogorgon]

So unlimited accumulation of personal property is okay then?

How does one accumulate unlimited personal property if one has to rely on one's own labours to gain their reward?

A capitalist can gain a quite extraordinary amount of stuff (for want of a better term) as they are able to gain substantial income through their property alone (whether they also work or not is irrelevant). Witht hat ability gone then any given individual can hardly accumulate so much that the rest of society loses out, can they?

[spartan]

So unlimited accumulation of personal property is okay then?

Say that everyone is given an equal opportunity, so everyone gets the same amount of rice a day (Yeah i know that it is a shit example).

Now what you do with that rice, either eat it or store it, is up to you, but at least you have always had the same equal amount of rice as the person next to you.

Its just what you do with it, when you have it, that is the difference.

Though it should be pointed out that you cant use the stored rice as some sort of currency or bargaining piece to trade with to gain access to other goods.

Someone posted something similar to this on revleft not to long ago, so i am a plagiarising bastard:D

[Kwisatz Haderach]

One word: carpooling.

[pusher robot]

Though it should be pointed out that you cant use the stored rice as some sort of currency or bargaining piece to trade with to gain access to other goods.

Why? I find this rather draconian. You're saying that even if everyone's share of rice is equal, that if I consume less than others and save the surplus, we can't make a mutually beneficial barter? How do you propose to stop such behavior?

[Tungsten]

:lol::laugh::lol::laugh::lol:

Make the distinction between personal and private property and then you will have your answer.
Why don't you tell us all what the distinction is? That car could, in theory be used as a "means of production". So is it still personal property or not?

[commiecrusader]

Why don't you tell us all what the distinction is? That car could, in theory be used as a "means of production". So is it still personal property or not?
What are you going to produce with a car? Fumes? This is a stupid argument man, your just trying to be awkward. Your not possibly this stupid you know what personal and private property are and you know the distinction.

[Jazzratt]

So unlimited accumulation of personal property is okay then?

Personal property is based on utility. If you use it regularly, it is yours. THus your bed, toothbrush, cheese or whatever would be yours. In theory you could even own a factory to yourself, as long as only you used it (i.e you were the sole worker) - although it would be more sensible to simply join a manufacturing syndicate, who own the factory in common, if you want to manufacture something.

[Tungsten]

What are you going to produce with a car? Fumes? This is a stupid argument man, your just trying to be awkward. Your not possibly this stupid you know what personal and private property are and you know the distinction.
Excuse me, but isn't driving "labour"? And is labour not the source of value? Do delivery drivers therefore not work for a living?

[Lynx]

If you do not exploit the labour of others, you can accumulate as much as you want. You are entitled to the fruits of your own labour.

You will be prohibited from using your car as a means of production for others. Thus, renting it out for non-leisure activities would be prohibited. (Rent as a concept may also be abolished).

Means of production are only nationalized if they are difficult to obtain and if they are needed. Thus commonplace items and obsolete items remain as de facto private/personal property.

[Individuality]

Will this anarchist society have like a list of what is public property versus private property? IS that how it works?


If you use it regularly, it is yours.
Hmmm, I have a feeling that isn't a universally held law.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Cars? I scough at your inferior cars!
The technocrats will invent us some Scotty-beams and hover shoes.

[spartan]

Who the fuck needs cars when we will have access to a free transportation industry run by the bus drivers union?

[Dr Mindbender]

houses and cars, unlike factories, offices, schools etc do not in themselves have the potential to exploit the labour of others therefore there is no justification to prevent every worker owning his/her own car.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/frequently-asked-questions-t65239/index.html

[Individuality]

Who the fuck needs cars when we will have access to a free transportation industry run by the bus drivers union?
To drive, for the sake of driving. Have you ever gone for a drive, just for the sake of driving?


houses and cars, unlike factories, offices, schools etc do not in themselves have the potential to exploit the labour of others therefore there is no justification to prevent every worker owning his/her own car.
What about a tread mill? I could sure as hell pay consenting adults to use it. I don't think I'd be exploiting anyone, since in a communist society all needs are provided for, and they'd be a consenting adult(See now you can't fall back on that argument "they have to work to eat").

DRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!

[spartan]

What about a tread mill? I could sure as hell pay consenting adults to use it.

There is no money in a Communist society.

[Dros]

Why? I find this rather draconian. You're saying that even if everyone's share of rice is equal, that if I consume less than others and save the surplus, we can't make a mutually beneficial barter? How do you propose to stop such behavior?

Communism is based off the end of commodity exchange. If you want something, you can get it (surplus). There is no need for that kind of exchange and no material basis for its occurance.

[Individuality]

There is no money in a Communist society.
We fall back on the semantic argument. There may not be a society recognized currency, but there will always be money. There is money in prisons and it is exchanged for goods and services.

You can always fall back on your piss poor definition, but a black market will always exist, simply because all areas of production aren't going to meet everyone society.

I was actually going to have people run on my treadmill to help power my methamphetamine lab and pay them in the sweet dry ice.

I'm sure there will be plenty of women that will have sex in exchange for something in your communist society.

So I think it's probably best to reevaluate your definition of money.



If you want something, you can get it (surplus). There is no need for that kind of exchange and no material basis for its occurance.
That's interesting and seems sort of wasteful. Are you saying, if the communist society was 1million people, that 1million shirts would be produced every month, along with 1million Xbox 360s, along with 1million cars, along with 1million houses, along with 1million month reserve of food, 1 million computers, 1million toilets, 1million shoes,

I'm not going to keep going on, but I'm very curious to how such a demand could be met? And even more, how it could be met without subjecting workers to no breaks and longer hours?

How does a communist society produce enough sex to meet demand? That's a serious question. Sex is a big market.

[apathy maybe]

What do you use money for? Money is used as a substitute for barter. It is worth something only if people will accept it.

Where you have a gift economy, where things are not sold or exchanged, you have no need for money.

Sure people might exchange things, but it won't be the same sort of system that you are obsessing with, it won't be universal (like money) etc.


As for the second half of your ignorant post, capitalism is much more wasteful then a technocratic communist system. Ever been dumpster diving? (If you haven't heard of it, look it up, and don't come back whining about dirty or whatever, I'm simply pointing out waste.) Communist doesn't produce shirts for everyone, and neither does capitalism. Capitalism produces shirts that the sellers think will get sold. In a communist system it would be what producers think would be used. Both would use a similar system of statistics and usage data from previous months and years. (Not to mention the future possibilities of production on demand for certain items.)


Sex is something different, not being a hard tangible thing. But it doesn't change that there will no doubt be some people who would be willing to have sex as a community good, in a similar way to prostitutes today (with the obvious differences). Otherwise? How do people who want sex, but are poor, ugly, (ethical), etc., in today's society get it?

[pusher robot]

But it doesn't change that there will no doubt be some people who would be willing to have sex as a community good, in a similar way to prostitutes today (with the obvious differences).


I find this intriguing. Prostitutes do what they do not because they enjoy being porked by ugly losers, but because they want the considerable compensation that can come from that work - well above what equivalent labor-power would fetch in most other low-education jobs. In a society without such compensation levels, why exactly would they continue to do this?

[apathy maybe]

Actually, I'm sure if you examined the motives of various prostitutes you would come up with a lot more answers then just "in it for the money".

I personally have heard about people having sex with people who have disabilities, as a community good (as it were).
Also, what about those people who just like having sex?

Anyway, I'm sure the techno-minded folks will have developed much more life like "Real Dolls" (or whatever they are called) for folks like Individuality, by the time we get communism.

[Individuality]

What do you use money for? Money is used as a substitute for barter. It is worth something only if people will accept it.
Just hit it right on the head. That's good.


Where you have a gift economy, where things are not sold or exchanged, you have no need for money.
You just said "if people will accept it". Right? So how can you dictate what people will accept?

All societies that don't have a currency or have one destroyed(like Germany after being destroyed), will end up with some sort of currency. If it be cigarettes, or shiny rocks. It's always the same.

The only way it wouldn't happen is if every single need(that includes materialistic) is met, there's going to be a black market and a currency will develop.

I doubt a communist society is going to produce methamphetamine. There's more importantly places for human labor to work. So I can take normal personal property products(that cost me nothing) and produce something of value that people want.

Some people may end up with more bananas than others. Some people may end up with a hotter wife, than others. Some people will have an xbox360 and others won't.

Naturally something that will evolve, so each person can have a benefit of my dry ice instead of people that have something that meets my direct needs. 'Cause I don't need fucking bananas.


capitalism is much more wasteful then a technocratic communist system.
No I don't agree. You can't just produce products for everyone when some people don't want them. You might as well take that human labor and make a bomb that blows up in the middle of nowhere. Produces absolutely no value to anyone.


Communist doesn't produce shirts for everyone, and neither does capitalism.
I know. They shouldn't, but I was replying to drasera99's comment that stated everyone will have access to each product and used the term surplus, so I'm assuming he thinks more shirts will be made than people.


Sex is something different, not being a hard tangible thing.
See there's two sides of a communist society, products and services. How do you meet sex demand? If you don't meet it, a capitalist black market will be created. Same thing with health care. How do you insure that there is enough doctor output to meet demand? I'm not talking about the tangible number of doctors, but how much a doctor produces in a service.


How do people who want sex, but are poor, ugly, (ethical), etc., in today's society get it?
They pay for it. A mutual exchange. Which I suspect would be the same in a communist society.

[apathy maybe]

You missed a word there. I said poor. As in, they don't have money to pay for things like sex. Dinosaur.

[Individuality]

I said poor. As in, they don't have money to pay for things like sex.Aren't you going to replyto the rest of my rebuttal? lol

Don't worry, you can find great crack whores for very little money in America. The land of opportunity.

Or if you don't like that answer. They could start a relationship with some ugly poor ***** and plow that.

[apathy maybe]

You are a reject and your rebuttals are worthless. You smell, and you are sooo ignorant.

I'm not going to bother any more with such pathetic waste of oxygen.

Oh, and have a nice day.

[Individuality]

You are a reject and your rebuttals are worthless. You smell, and you are sooo ignorant.

I'm not going to bother any more with such pathetic waste of oxygen.

Oh, and have a nice day.
Are my rebuttals just that uber-tastic?

That's right walk away. I'll give you the old Fonz, ""EHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!" *double thumbs up*

[Cryotank Screams]

I'm not going to keep going on, but I'm very curious to how such a demand could be met? And even more, how it could be met without subjecting workers to no breaks and longer hours?

I doubt that in a city of [x] million people the entire population of that city is going to want [x] million xbox, [x] million skateboards, etc. The best way to track demand however would be through energy accounting. This would track both consumption and production and thus it would be relatively easy to track the demand of [x] product. As for "subjecting workers to no breaks and longer hours," that is something that is rapidly becoming a 'thing of the past' because as technology advances humans have to work less and less.

[Entrails Konfetti]

A few things.

About barter, there is only so much storage space a person could abtain.
Theres only so much time within a life time, so for someone to accumulate goods, they would have to abstain from activities and from using the consumables themselves.

So, if someone were to do that, these goods won't be as fresh as the ones available to society.

As for meeting demands. I'm a Left-Communist, I cannot forsee and have not seen an unaccountable bureaucracy ruling over production as being efficient. The only way I see, is that the producers are consumers themselves, and a body of social book-keeping --which has no power to direct production (they record what's been produced and consumed). Also, consumers co-operatives, and their imput.

If the social-book says that such and such is being consumed faster than we envisioned, more will be produced. And the reverse, less will be produced.

Consumers co-ops (which workers will co-incidentally be apart of) can suggest improvements in this or that product, new products, more or less products.

The workers decide how long they will work and how, what technology they need to produce and make their jobs easier, they record all production and send all the data to the social book-keeping body.

Keeping in mind, with capitalism if too many people are replaced by technology this can cause economic troubles, stagnation, inflation, depression. With Communism, this shouldn't be a problem, though there might be need of people to walk into the manfucatories and seeing the machines are runing smoothly.

I can't give you blue prints, but I can give principles on the Communist production system.

[Entrails Konfetti]

I doubt a communist society is going to produce methamphetamine. There's more importantly places for human labor to work. So I can take normal personal property products(that cost me nothing) and produce something of value that people want.


Why the hell not. The public meth will be better manufactured, safer and fresher, than your personal hoard meth.

Also, if we produce it, the addiction rate shouldn't be so high, as its not being pushed for profit.

If alcohol is public, why not meth.

[Individuality]

I doubt that in a city of [x] million people the entire population of that city is going to want [x] million xbox, [x] million skateboards, etc.I agree 100%. I was replying to someone that suggested it.


The best way to track demand however would be through energy accounting.How would energy accounting work in an anarchist society? If it had to do with measuring demand for food, would a few people have to starve before things could be calibrated?


This would track both consumption and production and thus it would be relatively easy to track the demand of [x] product. As for "subjecting workers to no breaks and longer hours," that is something that is rapidly becoming a 'thing of the past' because as technology advances humans have to work less and less.People have to make those machines, service those machines, make the parts for those machines.

You must be able to agree there is a bar that must be met with production. Like food for example, so much food needs to be produced or people starve. Are workers going to be pushed harder, so people don't starve, or are people going to be starved, so workers don't get pushed?


About barter, there is only so much storage space a person could abtain.
Theres only so much time within a life time, so for someone to accumulate goods, they would have to abstain from activities and from using the consumables themselves.Very true. Unless it's intellectual property which can easily be stored on a thumb drive. Or something that I can consume. Like Crack or Methamphedamine. Or maybe the cure for the cancer, which can be easily stored in my brain.


So, if someone were to do that, these goods won't be as fresh as the ones available to society.I probably wouldn't make Meth if it was free. But society can't make every single thing. There's going to be something that it misses.


s for meeting demands. I'm a Left-Communist, I cannot forsee and have not seen an unaccountable bureaucracy ruling over production as being efficient. The only way I see, is that the producers are consumers themselves, and a body of social book-keeping --which has no power to direct production (they record what's been produced and consumed). Also, consumers co-operatives, and their imput.If there is more than enough, the measuring part would work. But if there isn't enough, do they take a poll on people that would need x, y, z?


The workers decide how long they will work and how, what technology they need to produce and make their jobs easier, they record all production and send all the data to the social book-keeping body.How can society know if the data is accurate? It wouldn't be hard to manipulate the numbers so more of something is produced, which bookkeeper wants.


Keeping in mind, with capitalism if too many people are replaced by technology this can cause economic troubles, stagnation, inflation, depression.People have to make the technology, service it, build the parts, learn to use, etc. Technology never hurts the economy.


I can't give you blue prints, but I can give principles on the Communist production system.You should check out my thread on questions about the communist utopia.

Thanks for all the replies.


Why the hell not. The public meth will be better manufactured, safer and fresher, than your personal hoard meth.Obviously you can't produce everything, right? Labor is better served in other places. Why would anyone want to help people get meth(which would be the only return of producing it in a communist society)?


Also, if we produce it, the addiction rate shouldn't be so high, as its not being pushed for profit.People don't use Meth for profit. They use Meth because of the feeling it produces. Drug dealers are definitely not marketers.


If alcohol is public, why not meth.Alcohol is a more accepted by the public.

I'm not trying to illustrate meth. My point is that society isn't going to produce everything. How about the theoretical drug "oogly boogly" that is made in the basement of some anarchist society. Obviously society won't be producing it when someone starts selling it out of their basement.

[Dr Mindbender]

To drive, for the sake of driving. Have you ever gone for a drive, just for the sake of driving?


What about a tread mill? I could sure as hell pay consenting adults to use it. I don't think I'd be exploiting anyone, since in a communist society all needs are provided for, and they'd be a consenting adult(See now you can't fall back on that argument "they have to work to eat").

DRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!
a treadmill isnt a means of production.

The common denominator between a school, office, hospital or factory is that they all require the labour of others to produce a finished product.
A treadmill as with any other manufactured product, is a consequence of labour, not a cause of it.

[Cryotank Screams]

How would energy accounting work in an anarchist society? If it had to do with measuring demand for food, would a few people have to starve before things could be calibrated?


Energy Accounting is a method of Distribution based on the only measurable factor common to all products and services, and that is Energy. In an Energy Accounting system, all the energy used in the production, conversion, and transportation of goods and services would be accurately accounted for. This would be done by the relevant personnel in each Functional Sequence.

Primarily, Energy Accounting provides the accurate measurement of consumption, as well as production. This would be done with a device relevant to the available technology of the time. Technocracy's first proposed device was called the Energy Certificate. It would be distributed to all citizens and have the features of both a blank cheque and a traveller's cheque. It would be a document that would identify the user, with spaces to record information concerning the purchase, including what was purchased, the time and date, and what distribution center it was purchased from. This information would be immediately tabulated and sent to the Distribution Sequence, which could then use the information to determine what products were needed and where. Today, it is more likely that some sort of smart-card would be used. It could contain a microchip that could record all the relevant information, and also make the card far more difficult to tamper with.

What this would allow is for the Continental Control to know exactly how much of what items are being consumed and where. This information would allow production to be geared to consumption, and that the appropriate amounts of goods be delivered to the areas where they are desired. Since the energy it takes to produce and transport an item does not change, cost of items, measured in terms of energy, would not fluctuate, except in cases where a more efficient method of production was discovered, in which case the cost would only go down.

Source (http://www.technocracy.ca/simp/Technocracy_FAQ_1.x.htm).

To answer your second question, no, no-one would have to starve.


People have to make those machines, service those machines, make the parts for those machines.

Point being? Producing and maintaining those machines will have to be done yes, but my point was that humans in a future society will have to work far less because of them.


You must be able to agree there is a bar that must be met with production. Like food for example, so much food needs to be produced or people starve. Are workers going to be pushed harder, so people don't starve, or are people going to be starved, so workers don't get pushed?

In a future society why would workers have to be pushed at all? Again machines and technology will revolutionize how we do things thus I don’t see why workers would have to worker harder period regardless of what area work needs to done. As for a bar minimum of what is to be produced this can be easily calculated; if people consume [x] amount of bread then we will work to produce a minimum [x] amount of bread because due to this consumption we can conclude that people require said amount however if people consume less bread within the follow month, year, etc. then we will know to produce less amount of bread and concentrate out resources and time else where.

That is how we would know how much to produce of a certain food. I also think that in a future society scarcity of food will also be a ‘thing of the past’ due to advances in technology.

[pusher robot]

Also, what about those people who just like having sex?


Well...hmmm...it's been my observation - purely second-hand, you understand! - that those sorts of people tend not to prefer the "ugly loser" demographic.



Anyway, I'm sure the techno-minded folks will have developed much more life like "Real Dolls" (or whatever they are called) for folks like Individuality, by the time we get communism.

Maybe, maybe - though I think such a product is far likelier to be produced under capitalism than socialism. On the subject, you may find this an interesting read: http://www.amazon.com/Love-Sex-Robots-Human-Robot-Relationships/dp/0061359750

The larger failure, of course, is to explain why anybody would perform unpleasant work that mostly benefits other people, unless there is some other commensurate benefit to one's self. It's just patently implausible that there would be sufficient numbers of volunteers.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Let it be known,
I don't understand energy accounty, nor do I see it's necessity.
I'm arguing infavour of a post-Labour time voucher system.
For more info on LTVs:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/6579/

[Entrails Konfetti]

IPeople have to make those machines, service those machines, make the parts for those machines.

Yes, owners are very careful to not replace their entire workforce at once. Otherwize there would be a period of time where less products will be consumed, which could result in problems.

Making too significant strides in technology can hinder the economy, and so technological development has to be hindered.



You must be able to agree there is a bar that must be met with production. Like food for example, so much food needs to be produced or people starve. Are workers going to be pushed harder, so people don't starve, or are people going to be starved, so workers don't get pushed?


Production won't be geared toward commodity production, also if too much is produced then alot is wasted. I don't believe abundance should be based on the principle of much society can waste, I believe we should produce so that everyone can have a comfortable, secure, healthy, happy life-style.

Also, if producers are consumers, they'd no the consequence of making too much wasteful crap. They waste time, energy, and resources.


Or maybe the cure for the cancer, which can be easily stored in my brain.

Why would you even think about the cure for cancer, when all your planning to do is keep it to yourself. What good would it do for you?
Unless the cure was something so simple, that anyone once treated by you can blurb to everyone else.


I probably wouldn't make Meth if it was free. But society can't make every single thing. There's going to be something that it misses.

How can society miss something, when it doesn't know it misses anything.
It like asking a fatherless child, if they miss having a father. How the hell would they know.

Were getting too philosophical, but everything we have is an adaption of something else. Grunting, screaming, and drawing consildated into written and spoken language. From there the mail system, telegraph, telephone, internet. Yeah, it isn't as linear than that.


If there is more than enough, the measuring part would work. But if there isn't enough, do they take a poll on people that would need x, y, z?

Workers in their workplaces can say they need such and such, as with the consumers too. As what should be produced more or less of could be in proportion to the populace. Poll could be a possibilty, but if I say they are the basis, then I'm making a prediction.


How can society know if the data is accurate? It wouldn't be hard to manipulate the numbers so more of something is produced, which bookkeeper wants.

Simply follow the record of resources. If an establishment says it made more than the resources it was given, then someone is going to call bullshit. All data is going to be public, in numbers, or tangible objects.



You should check out my thread on questions about the communist utopia.

I don't feel like looking into a crystal ball.




Obviously you can't produce everything, right? Labor is better served in other places. Why would anyone want to help people get meth(which would be the only return of producing it in a communist society)?


Meth users would probably be working at that establishment.
And yes, this my opinion, drug-use just isn't going to be stomped out, to prevent a black-market and its associated problems, would be to make it public. While simultenously have treatment programs.


People don't use Meth for profit. They use Meth because of the feeling it produces. Drug dealers are definitely not marketers.

Why else would drug dealers sell it. The smart ones know not to get high on their own supply. And they push to get rich and richer.



Alcohol is a more accepted by the public.

Not always, like the Prohabition era. So many public funds were used up in crime-fighting.



I'm not trying to illustrate meth. My point is that society isn't going to produce everything. How about the theoretical drug "oogly boogly" that is made in the basement of some anarchist society. Obviously society won't be producing it when someone starts selling it out of their basement.


Okay and when drug users make the switch off meth to "oogly boogly" meth will probably be produced less. There's always fads in drugs. It used to be Exstacy, now it's Meth.

[Dr Mindbender]

Maybe, maybe - though I think such a product is far likelier to be produced under capitalism than socialism.
.
If the rationale for a man using prostitutes in the first place was due to their lack of upward mobility, then owing to the technology required it is unlikely that 99% of the intended demographic would be able to afford the 'advanced real dolls' under capitalism so the purpose is self-defeating.

As a rule of thumb, rich-but-ugly men are able to compensate for their naturally given inadaquecies with their wallet so even for for them finding willing, human partners isn't that difficult.

Therefore such an endeavour is more likely to occur under socialism, although that said most of the social and material conditioning that sustains such social exclusion and alienation would be eradicated anyway.

[pusher robot]

such social exclusion and alienation would be eradicated anyway.

Oh, come on. Socialism will cause hot women to desire ugly losers?

[Entrails Konfetti]

Great, you're gonna cause me to lose some comrades by saying that, PR

[Tungsten]

Oh, come on. Socialism will cause hot women to desire ugly losers?
I've already told you he was a utopian.

[Dr Mindbender]

Oh, come on. Socialism will cause hot women to desire ugly losers?
no, but if you look at todays gossip and lifestyle media, masculine sexuality is synomonous more with financial prominence than it is based on 'rugged good looks'. So socialism will largely do away with the materialist mentality outlook on sex behind today's consumerist culture.

Socialism will be proactive in demonising the ''one size fits all'' capitalist stereotype of what it deemed 'sexy'.

[ironguy]

Ahh, Like if I'm walking down the street and there's a car on the side of the road, I have every right to go use it? Is that how it works?

If someone was driving down the street and had to stop at a stop light, and I opened up there door and hop in with this total stranger, this is all fair game right?

Maybe in anarchy, but ideally that wouldn't happen. in communism, this wouldn't be an issue. depending on what the people decide and what they classify cars as.

if it is privet property, than GTFO of my car pall. (at least thats what i would imagine the person saying to you)

if it is government property, than wait your turn.

[Dr Mindbender]

you wont need to 'take' cars under communism because in a communist society there would be enough cars to go round for everyone.

I really don't see why thats so hard to understand.

[Dros]

We fall back on the semantic argument. There may not be a society recognized currency, but there will always be money. There is money in prisons and it is exchanged for goods and services.

You can always fall back on your piss poor definition, but a black market will always exist, simply because all areas of production aren't going to meet everyone society.

I was actually going to have people run on my treadmill to help power my methamphetamine lab and pay them in the sweet dry ice.

I'm sure there will be plenty of women that will have sex in exchange for something in your communist society.

So I think it's probably best to reevaluate your definition of money.

No. There will be no commodity exchange. No need for that kind of market or that kind of system of trade. It has nothing to do with semantics.



I'm sure there will be plenty of women that will have sex in exchange for something in your communist society.

Other than fun/love? I doubt it. They could just go get it. Again, Communist production does not operate on the level of commodity exchange!


That's interesting and seems sort of wasteful. Are you saying, if the communist society was 1million people, that 1million shirts would be produced every month, along with 1million Xbox 360s, along with 1million cars, along with 1million houses, along with 1million month reserve of food, 1 million computers, 1million toilets, 1million shoes,

I'm not going to keep going on, but I'm very curious to how such a demand could be met? And even more, how it could be met without subjecting workers to no breaks and longer hours?

Errmmmm...... No. Demand would be gauged and production would be increased or decreased to meet the demand. In fact, production would be much more efficient in a socialist system do to the end of anarchic production, enfranchisement of workers, end of luxury production, and developed means of production.


How does a communist society produce enough sex to meet demand? That's a serious question. Sex is a big market.

a.) sex is a natural phenomenon that would occur spontaneously for fun/love/reproduction/boredom/whatever.
b.) prostitution (in a very very different sense) would still be legal in Communism (I imagine). This is because a few women enjoy sex work as such. That group could continue under socialism and communism especially because the coercive production relations previously associated with "the oldest profession" would have been destroyed. So I see no problem with it.

[Jazzratt]

Oh, come on. Socialism will cause hot women to desire ugly losers?

No but the problem most people have with ugly losers is not so much the ugliness as the loserdom. Someone who is fairly standard looking, borderline ugly or whatever and has no job or money is instantly less appealing as a partner. I'm not saying that being unattractive doesn't factor in, just that the emphasis on "ugly loser" is more on the "loser".

I do think that US is right in saying that it would be best if we didn't have all this beauty myth crapola about, but that's a separate issue.

So yes, one may be slightly more likely to be laid in socialism but I don't think this is a cornerstone of socialist theory or even something that's considered much as it is fairly trivial.

[Dean]

So yes, one may be slightly more likely to be laid in socialism but I don't think this is a cornerstone of socialist theory or even something that's considered much as it is fairly trivial.

I disagree. I think that relations of all sorts are important to socialism, and this includes the sexual. I think it is clear that socialism is a social philosophy, and further that it is a philosophy of love, association and openness. This is why concepts like the sexual collective and anti-family divisions are so common in socialist thought.

Sex is, emotionally, an act of becoming one with another human being; so long as the act is egalitarian, this entails reaching for the core of a human's existance and therefore recognizes very few arbitrary distinctions. However, under a capitalist social organization, sex often takes on a meaning of power, dominance, and above all inequality. A socialist society necessarily fosters these traits of equality, if only due to the absence of the capitalist traits.

[ironguy]

you wont need to 'take' cars under communism because in a communist society there would be enough cars to go round for everyone.

I really don't see why thats so hard to understand.

well, you can't always say that now. communism shares a similar flaw in capitalism. lack of resources. not really flaws but more like problems. in communism, you would have to ration more of the resource and decide who gets what. in capitalism, those that are wealthy will be taken care of and those that are poor, well... sorry.

[Green Dragon]

a treadmill isnt a means of production.

The common denominator between a school, office, hospital or factory is that they all require the labour of others to produce a finished product.
A treadmill as with any other manufactured product, is a consequence of labour, not a cause of it.


A finished spark plug is not the cause of someone else's labor?

Don't athlete's use treadmills to get in shape for their work (entertainment)? is that not a cause of labor as well?

[careyprice31]

I've only been here and made this forum my second home for just a few days but already I see why my beloved sweet comrades dislike Individuality so much.

The guy is repulsive tbh.

Jazzratt: Are you sure you're a real leftist?

It appears to me you make statements that can be considered as reactionary.

[Dr Mindbender]

well, you can't always say that now. communism shares a similar flaw in capitalism. lack of resources. not really flaws but more like problems. in communism, you would have to ration more of the resource and decide who gets what. in capitalism, those that are wealthy will be taken care of and those that are poor, well... sorry.
there is no scarcity.
Capitalism suffers from overproduction of highly priced goods that few people can afford. The only scarcity is a lack of practical customers.
Things like cars (which are already produced en masse with many remaining) could easily be portioned out to each respective worker. The only problem would be the environmental implications, but with greater research into renewable source vehicles this is not a problem that couldnt be resolved.

[Dr Mindbender]

I've only been here and made this forum my second home for just a few days but already I see why my beloved sweet comrades dislike Individuality so much.

The guy is repulsive tbh.

Jazzratt: Are you sure you're a real leftist?

It appears to me you make statements that can be considered as reactionary.
you'll have to bear with jazzrat, it's his ironic sense of humour.

[Dr Mindbender]

A finished spark plug is not the cause of someone else's labor?


Have you ever heard of someone going to work in a spark plug?

[Green Dragon]

A few things.

[QUOTE]
The only way I see, is that the producers are consumers themselves, and a body of social book-keeping --which has no power to direct production (they record what's been produced and consumed). Also, consumers co-operatives, and their imput.

If the social-book says that such and such is being consumed faster than we envisioned, more will be produced. And the reverse, less will be produced.


The problem here is this:

The social book has to have two columns- credits and debits.

When the co-op delivers an item to a customer, it gets to credit itself.
When it recieves items (ie when it is a customer) it has to debit itself.

That has to be the only way to track its CONSUMPTION of goods and its PRODUCTION of goods.

So the objective of the co-op has to be a situation where its credits exceed its debits on its social book. Because that means it is producing more than it consumes. If the debits exceed its credits, it means it is consuming more than it produces. If the two balance out, the co-op is not producing anything of value. The latter cannot be considered a rational objective for the co-op.

So when a co-op receives a shipment of soap, it is entered as a "debit" on the store co-op social book, but entered as a credit on the soap co-op social book. And both co-ops are striving for a situation where the credits exceed the debits. The social book agency is not going to like a situation where debits exceed credits.

So yes, the workers in the co-op may be determining how many hours they work (which is a debit for the co-op, but a credit to the worker), or how they work (which could be a credit or a debit to the co-op). But they have to use the social book to direct how they are making their decisions.

[Green Dragon]

Have you ever heard of someone going to work in a spark plug?

I have never heard of anyone driving to work WITHOUT a spark plug.

Yet a spark plug is someone else's finished product.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Green dragon why don't you read the work I posted.
Thats all explained there.

[Dean]

Green dragon why don't you read the work I posted.
Thats all explained there.

He's not looking for answers, only conflicts.

[Jazzratt]

Jazzratt: Are you sure you're a real leftist?

It appears to me you make statements that can be considered as reactionary.

Yes I'm fucking sure, what the ****ing wank is the matter with you?

Statements considered reactionary by whom? I would understand some scepticism on your part if I had been roundly denounced by the leftist community in general, instead of a few of the gibbering morons on its fringes, but I think it's entirely unfair to label me "reactionary" because I've made statements you disagree with. Out of a kind of morbid curiosity though I would like to ask what posts of mine you consider "reactionary".

[careyprice31]

For example the way you have talked about women

also your post made against not allowing certain groups to receive a certain consideration for being members of an oppressed group is a right wing belief. Im sorry, but it is. I have heard many right wingers say it at university. They have even held an election based on wether or not the University Centers....six of them at my university - should be allowed to elect members to the Students Union because they were centers for oppressed groups. The rightists said vote no "Vote for equality !!" they said and no left wing ever agreed with them.

That is why I was skeptical.

and by the way you did not need to swear at me for being skeptical.

[RNK]

and by the way you did not need to swear at me for being skeptical.

Yes he does. Jazzy here's developed something of a reputation for being vile, so he's got to milk it for every single drop.

[careyprice31]

there's a comforting thought. :rolleyes:

[Jazzratt]

For example the way you have talked about women

What the fuck are you talking about?


also your post made against not allowing certain groups to receive a certain consideration for being members of an oppressed group

Lay down the crack pipe or find some quotes.


is a right wing belief. Im sorry, but it is. I have heard many right wingers say it at university. They have even held an election based on wether or not the University Centers....six of them at my university - should be allowed to elect members to the Students Union because they were centers for oppressed groups. The rightists said vote no "Vote for equality !!" they said and no left wing ever agreed with them.

That's a fascinating story, but it's got fuck all to do with anything I've ever said.


That is why I was skeptical.

and by the way you did not need to swear at me for being skeptical.

I do need to swear at you for being a lying little ****.

[Dimentio]

Jazzratt:

1. I do not think it is nice to call people - especially not women - "****s". I think you should soothe your temper a little bit.

2. I do not know what she interpreted as rightist positions, but I am sure everything is just a misunderstanding. I know her and I do not think she is lying.


What the fuck are you talking about?



Lay down the crack pipe or find some quotes.



That's a fascinating story, but it's got fuck all to do with anything I've ever said.



I do need to swear at you for being a lying little ****.

[R_P_A_S]

Individualist are you still angry about your girlfriend fucking and blowing commies? Is it really worth it coming on this forum making a complete dick of your self since you are too lazy to read and understand communism and you just rather bash it?

go kick rocks.

[Dr Mindbender]

I have never heard of anyone driving to work WITHOUT a spark plug.

Maybe you would have if capitalism had bothered to find a renewable replacement for the 4 stroke cycle engine!
:lol:

Anyway, people should walk or cycle to work where possible. It would be better for them and help prevent road rage incidents.

[Comrade Rage]

Mass transit should take the place of cars. If someone wants private transportation, they should cycle.

[Dr Mindbender]

Mass transit should take the place of cars. If someone wants private transportation, they should cycle.
nope, someone should just find a clean alternative to petrol consumption that is both efficient and readilly available.

[Dean]

nope, someone should just find a clean alternative to petrol consumption that is both efficient and readilly available.

Exactly. I have noticed a lot of eople saying that driving for fun, or more than you need to is bad for the environment. Of course, its true. But it's not my fault, it is th efault of the oil companies primarily. They should shoulder the burden; while I have cut back on my driving for this reason, I will not limit my own freedom because some other jerks want to buy and keep dormant patents for alternative energy sources. Counteracting the state and corporate interests should go beyond cutting back one's own driving; it should mean violence against the state and institutions.

[Green Dragon]

Green dragon why don't you read the work I posted.
Thats all explained there.

I have not read all of your posts. I did the read the one to which I responded.

You want to say the social book will not in any way direct production. But then you say the workers will make certain decisions based upon certain information that they will (magically?) know.

But it is not magic. The information is found in the social book. That will tell the workers what they have to do.

Its a more rationale source of knowledge, far better than Ulsters or Mike vision of I guess questionares which are sent from consumer to factory.

But those problems I mentioned are real problems.
Another problem is that it is incomplete. While it records 500 units of X are being produced and consumed, it doesn't measure whether those 500 units are being produced in the most efficient way possible.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Either you don't understand, or you're just trying to stump me.

I previously posted a link to a book.

[pusher robot]

nope, someone should just find a clean alternative to petrol consumption that is both efficient and readilly available.
And smells like cookies. And gets your laundry sparkling white. And cures cancer. Oh, and makes a tasty cocktail.

[Dr Mindbender]

And smells like cookies. And gets your laundry sparkling white. And cures cancer. Oh, and makes a tasty cocktail.
absolutely sidesplitting.

Why are you wasting your talents on this forum when a wonderful stand-up career awaits you?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Large consumer items that can't be processed continuously on-demand (houses, cars) will follow a queue process where, foremost, those most in need will acquire their possessions. Assuming car development doesn't reach the point where we can churn automobiles out like a toothbrush, you would submit to the car factory your request. You would then receive your car and (probably have it "recognized" by the community - like "insured" only without all the money hoobla). After a certain period (6 months? 1 year? 2 or 3 sounds reasonable at this time) you would be able to get a new car. Anyone who gets in an accident and is found to be at fault will be given an old car and forced to wait until their time arrives.

Depending on what the community decides is the appropriate age for driving, the process can start as soon as you turn (16? 18?).

Alongside this development mass-transit will be made more available. Also, the whole notion of a work week will be (I hope) abolished. The concept creates messes on the roads and a giant strain on workers taking on the weekend shifts.

[Dr Mindbender]

Large consumer items that can't be processed continuously on-demand (houses, cars) will follow a queue process where, foremost, those most in need will acquire their possessions. Assuming car development doesn't reach the point where we can churn automobiles out like a toothbrush, you would submit to the car factory your request. You would then receive your car and (probably have it "recognized" by the community - like "insured" only without all the money hoobla). After a certain period (6 months? 1 year? 2 or 3 sounds reasonable at this time) you would be able to get a new car. Anyone who gets in an accident and is found to be at fault will be given an old car and forced to wait until their time arrives.

Depending on what the community decides is the appropriate age for driving, the process can start as soon as you turn (16? 18?).

Alongside this development mass-transit will be made more available. Also, the whole notion of a work week will be (I hope) abolished. The concept creates messes on the roads and a giant strain on workers taking on the weekend shifts.


I'm not sure I like the way you use phrases like 'you would' and 'can start'.

The thing i don't like about models proposed by traditional socialists is that they assume the means of production that it inherits from capitalism will be consistent throughout. There seems to be little interest in developing them with a view to allowing people to one day disassociate entirely.

I envisage a model where one day cars could run entirely on AI and GPS systems. So in theory a child could ride in a car relatively risk free and be unaccompanied by an adult.

[careyprice31]

genecoasta I know this doesnt have anything to do with the topic but just wanted to say that your sig made me laugh

"the capitalists would privatize air if they could"


How true !

here water got privatized they even sell bottled water and make a profit on it. :lol:

In Newfoundland, Canada one of our capitalist premiers even offered to sell water out of Gizbourne Lake in exchange he would give us uni students no tuition.

sorry for change of topic but i had to say it.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm not sure I like the way you use phrases like 'you would' and 'can start'.

The thing i don't like about models proposed by traditional socialists is that they assume the means of production that it inherits from capitalism will be consistent throughout. There seems to be little interest in developing them with a view to allowing people to one day disassociate entirely.

I envisage a model where one day cars could run entirely on AI and GPS systems. So in theory a child could ride in a car relatively risk free and be unaccompanied by an adult.

:) I've envisioned something similar, but I thought I would just propose a solution to contemporary circumstances. It has been my experience that regular proponents of capitalists are not visionary futurists.

[pusher robot]

absolutely sidesplitting.

Why are you wasting your talents on this forum when a wonderful stand-up career awaits you?
Oh, that hurts. If you can indulge your fantasies, why can't I?

[Dr Mindbender]

Oh, that hurts. If you can indulge your fantasies, why can't I?

theres a difference between fantasy and condenscendtion

[Tungsten]

Maybe you would have if capitalism had bothered to find a renewable replacement for the 4 stroke cycle engine!
:lol:
Pity the laws of physics stand in our way, isn't it. Perhaps they will re-written after the revolution.