Competing Currencies?

[tuwix]

Then I don't see the difference.

It's just your choice. I write about a private property and free healthcare, the Wikipedia's quote does not. It's one obvious difference.

Besides I don't think right-wing libertarians agree with Wikipedia's state definition either.

[liberlict]

Nor do socialists support "individual freedom" in abstract, at least not in the transitional period. In the long run, individuals in a socialist society would be free to do as they please. But in the transitional dictatorship of the proletariat, you might find yourself dealing with a food dictatorship, labour service, internal passports etc. - as the situation demands. That was the case during the great bourgeois revolutions as well.

Good to know!

[liberlict]

It's just your choice. I write about a private property and free healthcare, the Wikipedia's quote does not. It's one obvious difference.

Besides I don't think right-wing libertarians agree with Wikipedia's state definition either.

How can you have definite universal free healthcare without coercion? If people are free, they are free decide if they want everyone to have free healthcare or not or any other scenario.

[tuwix]

How can you have definite universal free healthcare without coercion?

It's simple. You go to a doctor to get help.

If people are free, they are free decide if they want everyone to have free healthcare or not or any other scenario.

In the majority, yes. And free health service is just expression of freedom.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Good to know!

Well, did you think that a revolution could proceed without bourgeois "personal freedom" being violated left and right? It can't, no matter the character of the revolution - the bourgeois revolutions in France and China were not exactly kind to personal freedom either.

(Of course this does not mean we support the bourgeois state restricting personal freedom, or that we support arbitrary rules restricting sexuality etc.)

The problem seems to be that some "socialists" like to go on about how socialism is "true" freedom, democracy, apple-pie, whatever. It's a semantic game, and not even an entertaining one.

To make an omelet you have to shoot some people. Or something. I haven't made omelets in a long time.

[liberlict]

It's simple. You go to a doctor to get help.

You're missing the point.

In the majority, yes. And free health service is just expression of freedom.

I have no idea what that means.

[liberlict]

Well, did you think that a revolution could proceed without bourgeois "personal freedom" being violated left and right? It can't, no matter the character of the revolution - the bourgeois revolutions in France and China were not exactly kind to personal freedom either.

(Of course this does not mean we support the bourgeois state restricting personal freedom, or that we support arbitrary rules restricting sexuality etc.)

The problem seems to be that some "socialists" like to go on about how socialism is "true" freedom, democracy, apple-pie, whatever. It's a semantic game, and not even an entertaining one.

To make an omelet you have to shoot some people. Or something. I haven't made omelets in a long time.

No, you're absolutely right. I just like hearing about all the violence it's going to take to win the dictatorship of the proletariat. It's refreshing.

[Creative Destruction]

Socialists are opposed to monetary economy, so how do you feel about abolishing legal tender? Libertarians and Communists typically hose each other with spit during arguments, but, it seems to me, this is something both want? Communists don't have any interest in governments exercising exclusive power over what medium of exchange people can use, do you?

That's an end goal, but during the dictatorship of the proletariat and through the process toward "full" communism, some form of monetary accounting will be necessary, for the simple fact that we wouldn't have achieved post-scarcity. Once we do that, we could enter a communist age where money would be completely irrelevant.

But even during this stage of modified usage of money, there would be absolutely no reason to have "competing currencies" because currency would be a simple form of accounting for allocation, not a commodity. Marx briefly said this much in the Critique:

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...gotha/ch01.htm

[tuwix]

You're missing the point.

I don't think so. In fact, you have false impressions about free healthcare.
In societies that don't know property there are men and women who have role of doctor. And they don't get any money nor other property because such things don't exist there. Certainly they don't know a concept of state as well.

I have no idea what that means.

Apparently you have no idea about many things and believe in many things that can't even exist like free market...

[liberlict]

I don't think so. In fact, you have false impressions about free healthcare.
In societies that don't know property there are men and women who have role of doctor. And they don't get any money nor other property because such things don't exist there. Certainly they don't know a concept of state as well.

Where are these societies? I don't disbelieve it, but I'm just wondering about the quality of these voodoo physicians when compared to paid physicians. It all seems beside the point to me anyway. If a Dr wants to charge people for his services, he should be allowed to. If he want's to work for free, he should be allowed to. I know of lot of physicians who have given their services to humanity for free ... but it's a choice. The idea that you should demand this to happen as some kind of birthright is absurd.

Apparently you have no idea about many things and believe in many things that can't even exist like free market...

Yep, way out of my depth here again / completely confused. "Thing's that can't even exist like a free market"?

[tuwix]

Where are these societies?

Primitive societies are mainly in South America and Africa. You've got a YT video about such society. you're ignoring it still. It's just your choice.

I don't disbelieve it, but I'm just wondering about the quality of these voodoo physicians when compared to paid physicians. It all seems beside the point to me anyway.

Earlier you've doubted that free healthcare is possible without a state as coercive. When I showed you that such healthcare is possible without coercion that was against your a beliefs, you're deliberately trying too question its quality.
Very nice rhetoric trick, but I see very well that you're ignoring the difference between levels of civilization. You're trying to ignore that you don't know that voodoo physician isn't able to give such level of help as doctor in Western countries for any price and you're ignoring that the point was: is a free healthcare possible without coercion? Because it is.

If a Dr wants to charge people for his services, he should be allowed to. If he want's to work for free, he should be allowed to.

And if a society wants to have environment where everything is free of charge, it should be allowed to.

Yep, way out of my depth here again / completely confused. "Thing's that can't even exist like a free market"?

Apparently you're ignoring an existence of primitive communism, but free market that isn't possible to exist according to its own definitions seems to be perfectly possible for you...

[liberlict]

Primitive societies are mainly in South America and Africa. You've got a YT video about such society. you're ignoring it still. It's just your choice.



Earlier you've doubted that free healthcare is possible without a state as coercive. When I showed you that such healthcare is possible without coercion that was against your a beliefs, you're deliberately trying too question its quality.
Very nice rhetoric trick, but I see very well that you're ignoring the difference between levels of civilization. You're trying to ignore that you don't know that voodoo physician isn't able to give such level of help as doctor in Western countries for any price and you're ignoring that the point was: is a free healthcare possible without coercion? Because it is.




And if a society wants to have environment where everything is free of charge, it should be allowed to.




Apparently you're ignoring an existence of primitive communism, but free market that isn't possible to exist according to its own definitions seems to be perfectly possible for you...

I don't doubt free healthcare is possible. Obviously it is
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/ Yes I'm not really convinces about these "primitive communisms" that some people romanticize because usually when you scratch the surface on them you find they have all sorts of barbaric customs that aren't really in the spirit of communism.

I think it's fair to question the quality of 'free' health care.

And if a society wants to have environment where everything is free of charge, it should be allowed to.

Asolutely. Why don't you lead by example. Go get your qualifications and treat people for free.. I think the Hippocratic oath requires physicians to treat people for free does it not?

[ckaihatsu]

[I'm] not really convinces about these "primitive communisms" that some people romanticize because usually when you scratch the surface on them you find they have all sorts of barbaric customs that aren't really in the spirit of communism.

'Primitive communism' is actually more of a *technical* designation, rather than one of political spirit:

Primitive communism is a concept originating from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels that hunter-gather societies of the past practiced forms of communism.[1] In Marx's model of socioeconomic structures, societies with primitive communism had no hierarchical social class structures or capital accumulation.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism

Also:


Civilization - Humanity Framework

[tuwix]

I don't doubt free healthcare is possible. Obviously it is
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/ Yes I'm not really convinces about these "primitive communisms" that some people romanticize because usually when you scratch the surface on them you find they have all sorts of barbaric customs that aren't really in the spirit of communism.

You doubt against the facts.
The fact #1: Primitive communism exists and you've got a video that proves that. You choose to ignore that fact.
The fact #2: If primitive communism exist which was proven by a video, there is free healthcare possible, because in every primitive society there is one who has a role of present doctor.

Besides let's consider some concepts in theory,
Do you really believe that humanity from the very beginning knew a concept of property? If so, then show me please any monkey that is aware of the property's concept. If not, then you must admit an existence of primitive communism because it's just lack of property.

I think it's fair to question the quality of 'free' health care.

But comparing completely different levels of civilization to hide the real point is pretty unfair.

Asolutely.

Very well. Shall we make a referendum worldwide with a question: Do you want everything free of charge? If you said 'absolutely', then you have to admit a need for such referendum, don't you?

Why don't you lead by example. Go get your qualifications and treat people for free..

If I had everything free of charge, then why I wouldn't do it? However, I think there are more talented people who would do it absolutely free of charge...

I think the Hippocratic oath requires physicians to treat people for free does it not?

Your ignorance against the facts about primitive communism indicates that you can believe in it too and it isn't just a poor irony due to lack of real argument...

[Lowtech]

Apparently you're ignoring an existence of primitive communism, but free market that isn't possible to exist according to its own definitions seems to be perfectly possible for you...

He ignores primitive communism because his position is incapable of refuting it directly. To make such distinctions clearly (which is essential to any serious scientific study) would fully expose how unique our current capitalist "system" actually functions. Separating it from the underlying economic process and further separating it from practical systems whose purpose is to sustain a civilization. His apologetics would then defeat itself. He can't have that, so his language stays vague, camouflaged.

If you follow his posts, there's never a clear explanation of how capitalism functions. Just vague descriptions of life within the context of a market economy. Its sort of like seeing life through the eyes of a caveman and expecting the caveman to tell us why things are as they are. The caveman has no answers, but he can certainly rationalize. The same way an economist rationalizes market systems based on the view from the inside.

Primitive communism teaches us that regardless of the sociological system atop, the underlying economic process is universal and therefore separate from class relations. this realization breaks all foundations of capitalist doctrine.

[tuwix]

^^I'd put it otherwise. Existence of primitive communism destroys his beliefs in terms of current capitalism and communism. So he must deny it as any religion follower deny anything that is contradictory to his religion.

It's usual behavior for the free market religion followers and I've experienced it many times before...

[Lowtech]

^^I'd put it otherwise. Existence of primitive communism destroys his beliefs in terms of current capitalism and communism. So he must deny it as any religion follower deny anything that is contradictory to his religion.

It's usual behavior for the free market religion followers and I've experienced it many times before...

agreed. i'm simply pointing out also that capitalism is a doctrine. yet liberlict implies that capitalism is an axiom of economics and forms naturally, neither which are true. capitalism, as with the majority of modern law and functions of the state, is based on doctrine, in contrast to the common belief that it was developed at some point for practical or ethical reasons. many doctrines are based on some barbaric things that we "modern" and "civilized" people would be mortified to think we'd support (whereas by simply abiding it's existence we are supporting), like the discovery doctrine.

[tuwix]

^^ Also I had impression that his main objective is to seed doubts in us towards communism. For example, he's admitted that he knows that competing currencies that is name of the topic isn't any option for us, but he's created this topic.

So I decided to seed some doubts in him about capitalism and communism.

[liberlict]

You doubt against the facts.
The fact #1: Primitive communism exists and you've got a video that proves that. You choose to ignore that fact.
The fact #2: If primitive communism exist which was proven by a video, there is free healthcare possible, because in every primitive society there is one who has a role of present doctor.

Besides let's consider some concepts in theory,
Do you really believe that humanity from the very beginning knew a concept of property? If so, then show me please any monkey that is aware of the property's concept. If not, then you must admit an existence of primitive communism because it's just lack of property.


Your ignorance against the facts about primitive communism indicates that you can believe in it too and it isn't just a poor irony due to lack of real argument...

I don't doubt against any facts. I believe that "primitive communism" is possible and realizable. I just don't think it is what you think it is, or a good model for civilized society. But my opinion does not matter. If you do, go live with those primitives or else start your own commune like them.

Free healthcare is also possible. Doctors could be willing to, and sometimes do, doctor for free. It's an awesome idea and I wish it would happen more.

Re monkeys: Good point, no monkey's have a concept of private property. My thought is that monkey's are, sorry to sound anthropocentric, too primitive to have a concept of private property. A monkey knows how to appropriate items as much as a human. Just because a monkey does not pose his wants in legal terms doesn't make it a higher form of being.

But comparing completely different levels of civilization to hide the real point is pretty unfair.

Well I don't believe in linear stages of civilization, so the whole line of argument is useless to me. Why do you believe in "levels" of civilization?

If I think there are more talented people who would do it absolutely free of charge...

Maybe. Good for them. Maybe you are one of them?

[liberlict]

^^ Also I had impression that his main objective is to seed doubts in us towards communism. For example, he's admitted that he knows that competing currencies that is name of the topic isn't any option for us, but he's created this topic.

So I decided to seed some doubts in him about capitalism and communism.

I don't know what you mean. I know I can't put doubts in communists minds. I like the idea of legalizing other currency's and I was wondering how communists feel about it.