Competing Currencies?

[tuwix]

I know I can't put doubts in communists minds.

Don't be so modest. Yes, you can and you do. The reasons are interesting. Ideological or financial?

[liberlict]

Don't be so modest. Yes, you can and you do. The reasons are interesting. Ideological or financial?

Why would my reasons be financial? What could I be gaining?

My reasons, believe it or not, are because of my fascination with communist thinkers, Marx and Bukharin especially.

[tuwix]

Why would my reasons be financial? What could I be gaining?

Well, I don't know your sources of income.

My reasons, believe it or not, are because of my fascination with communist thinkers, Marx and Bukharin especially.

Then we have contrary opinions again. I don't think Bukharin was communist, because I don't think Leninists are.

[liberlict]

Sorry, I meant to say Bakunin. It's cool that my google spell-check has both these name's in it's dictionary though heh.

Yeah I don't think Lenin was Marxist. "Communist" maybe, but "communism" is a pretty vague term. It doesn't really have a precise meaning.

[tuwix]

^^ I think that communism is very clear term. It's originated from Latin 'communis' which means common. And it means ideology that wants to everything (or almost everything) to be common. Leninism put in practice didn't want that. And the more time passed from the October Revolution, the more Leninism was going away from that idea.

And it's very delicate question if Bakunin was communist or not. The most known anarchist communist is Kropotkin. Bakunin has created his vision of Marx's first phase of socialism/communism but he didn't very much care what next. And there are many people who distinct communism from socialism (anarchists, Leninists). Kropotkin has created a vision of world without money, but I don't think that his methods would be advisable.

[ckaihatsu]

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.

Universal Pattern of Organization of Living Systems and Viable Human Social Systems



http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=167


---

agreed. i'm simply pointing out also that capitalism is a doctrine.

Austerity Against Democracy:

An Authoritarian Phase of Neoliberalism?

From its very beginnings, the new doctrine was quite consciously set in opposition to socialism as an alternate economic and democratic order to capitalism and as an unyielding defender of the institutions of private property. In its specific programmatic mandate, neoliberalism was an offspring of the Great Depression and set against Keynesian state intervention. But however much its protagonists set themselves up as outsiders, neoliberalism was never an alien political doctrine to economic and political elites of Western Europe and North America: neoliberal ideas were always incorporated as a legitimate component of state policy discussions.

This pamphlet is the latest in the Socialist Interventions series, written by Greg Albo and Carlo Fanelli.

Read online

[liberlict]

ideology that wants to everything (or almost everything) to be common.

That seems extremely vague to me .. it begs so many questions .. what is in "common"? What is to be owned in common? This could reasonably apply to anything from toothbrushes to houses, or even further (productive equipment etc).

Re Bukunin; yeah really I don't see the point in arguing about if XYZ was a "communist". Is there a prize if you win the semantic war to be called a true communist? Really who cares.? I think Bakunin was an amazing thinker, and I would loved to have lived his life. Unlike Marx, his ideas don't really amount to a formula .. but that's just fine with me. I'm not even sure that Marx's do. But I'm still learning ..

[tuwix]

What is to be owned in common?

Generally there is agreement between communists that everything beside personal property. But I expect you'll ask what is personal property? And there really there is no strict limits. But there can be. For sure, none of corporate property is personal one. Property that maintain itself due to exploitation isn't personal property. And beside that there should me a financial limit of owned wealth that would be personal property. Then a definition of personal property would be very strict.

[liberlict]

Generally there is agreement between communists that everything beside personal property. But I expect you'll ask what is personal property?

Good guess!

And there really there is no strict limits. But there can be. For sure, none of corporate property is personal one. Property that maintain itself due to exploitation isn't personal property. And beside that there should me a financial limit of owned wealth that would be personal property. Then a definition of personal property would be very strict.

Ok, but then come questions like "what is exploitation?" If person A has productive equipment and wants to employ person B as a wage-"slave", is that exploitation? And where do you draw the line between means of production and personal property?

I agree there should be a cap on limitless accumulation. I am a cowardly Liberal, after all.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Ok, but then come questions like "what is exploitation?" If person A has productive equipment and wants to employ person B as a wage-"slave", is that exploitation?

Only if his working day exceeds a certain point, that is if it lasts longer than what it takes for the worker to produce value equivalent to the value of his labour power.

And where do you draw the line between means of production and personal property?

Means of production is literally that - things used in production (machines, tools, factories, warehouses...). Personal property refers to ownership of means of subsistence - things consumed in order to reproduce labour power (food, housing, toothbrushes, toilet paper...).

[liberlict]

Only if his working day exceeds a certain point, that is if it lasts longer than what it takes for the worker to produce value equivalent to the value of his labour power.

How do you determine that?

Means of production is literally that - things used in production (machines, tools, factories, warehouses...). Personal property refers to ownership of means of subsistence - things consumed in order to reproduce labour power (food, housing, toothbrushes, toilet paper...).

Well anything can be used to produce. A "petite bourgeoisie" person can use personal property to employ others. Is it just about appropriating land? Things like "tools" is a problematic definition of means of production. This implies that a hammer should be communally owned ..

[tuwix]

Ok, but then come questions like "what is exploitation?"

And you claim that you're fascinated by Marx... And now do you ask what is exploitation?
The truth is that probably you've never read Marx...

If person A has productive equipment and wants to employ person B as a wage-"slave", is that exploitation?

Yes. Exploitation is everywhere, when there is a profit of someone else. And the will to be exploited has nothing to do with that. If one agrees to be slave, it doesn't means he isn't slave. He is very much.

And where do you draw the line between means of production and personal property?

In present world it's very easy. Corporate property isn't personal property at all. And in the UK each employer must be corporate and this is why all companies have Limited (Ltd.) responsibility. I don't know how it is in the USA, but I suppose there are similar regulations.

I am a cowardly Liberal, after all.

Even right-wing libertarian. I'd say...

[ckaihatsu]

---

What is to be owned in common?

Generally there is agreement between communists that everything beside personal property. But I expect you'll ask what is personal property? And there really there is no strict limits. But there can be. For sure, none of corporate property is personal one. Property that maintain itself due to exploitation isn't personal property. And beside that there should me a financial limit of owned wealth that would be personal property. Then a definition of personal property would be very strict.

[1] eliminate all finance, [2] whatever you can't hold on your person or actively be in the presence of will potentially be reclaimed by someone else. No force required. Annnnnnnnd we're done.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

If it's not labor vouchers or bread trucks, fuck it.

[ckaihatsu]

If it's not labor vouchers or bread trucks, fuck it.

Ooooop -- that's my trigger word, unfortunately.... Out come the diagrams -- !


Pies Must Line Up

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Ooooop -- that's my trigger word, unfortunately.... Out come the diagrams -- !


Pies Must Line Up

Tf?

[ckaihatsu]

Tf?

Just take your time with this one.

[tuwix]

[1] eliminate all finance, [2] whatever you can't hold on your person or actively be in the presence of will potentially be reclaimed by someone else. No force required. Annnnnnnnd we're done.

You're certainly much over the line of economic knowledge (or it could be called better: ignorance) of this forum. However, this definition of personal property isn't strict at all. And strict definition for it is needed for capitalism. In socialism (the first phase) the difference between personal property and collective one will be so clear that it wouldn't need any further clarification.

[consuming negativity]

We already have competing currencies... each country or group of countries issue their own. Not only that, but many firms use their own internal currencies (ie. store credit), in addition to currencies such as bitcoin.

Libertarians are great at suggesting things that already exist but are phrased differently. "Oh no, we don't want corporatism, we want capitalism."

[Zukunftsmusik]

How do you determine that?

I'll come back to this.

Well anything can be used to produce. A "petite bourgeoisie" person can use personal property to employ others. Is it just about appropriating land? Things like "tools" is a problematic definition of means of production. This implies that a hammer should be communally owned ..

I think you're making it more complex than it is. We're talking about social production, i.e. production for the market. Tools are only means of production when they're used in social production. That is, if you own your personal hammer and use it to build a table in your house for your personal use, it's "just" a hammer. If you however use your labour-power and hammer to build a house that is made for selling on a market, that hammer is part of the means of production. The second you're no longer using it to build this house, for example if you go home straight arterwards to continue building your table, the hammer is no longer part of the means of production. Tools (or any other means) become means of production when they enter the sphere of production.

In other words it's not problematic to define tools as part of the means of production (not the other way as you seem to think: define means of production as tools), because the tools we're talking about are only means of production in so far as they're used for actual social production. I'm aware this is tautological, but that's kind of the point.