How can anyone support facism?

[Ivan The Terrible]

Che,

I see were your going wih this and let me tell you that I don't disagree. I just think there will be problems...

The people do. Everything would be run in small communities. Let's say there's a town of 100 people. We need food. A central democratic assembly would put up ask for let's say 20 volunteers to farm. If they can't get enough people to farm, then the places which haven't been filled would be assigned to some one who'd do the job for a month or two and then another person would take his spot.

The only time I've seen this work is within small reilgous communities. There eveyone is tought to belive in the same thing were the smae cothes ect... So in effect there would have to be a strong moral ablgation to your cummunity. So far only reilguos communities are able to do this. I have yet too see a secular one last longer than a few years.

Fuel wouldn't run out it would be distributed evenly

The only consern I would think of is how would the fuel be divide?

we'd also research hydrogen and ethanol and use solar power. Since companies wouldn't have a lobby we wouldn't be slaves to the free market and the oil industry.

Have you every asked why the free market doesn't look kindly to solar power and hydrogen? Tell me your answer. Also who would want to research ethanol when they can be a teacher and get the same benafits? Also I don't know if there will be time for Tom to sit in a room and think of chemicals. A family of 5 needs food. Somebody has to farm.

Because different awards would be given to hard workers and punishments to slackers. For example, more days off would be given to a hard worker while slackers would spend more time at work.

I don't know about this idea.... If your talking about a small community I don't see how anyone can take a day off.

No you miss the point. There wouldn't be and economy at all. At least not a real market economy that we know today. things wouldn't be traded because they would be made only for the people of the community.

Thus everyone would have to work all the time. Because everything would consumed by the community.

 

[Iriemon]

The people do. Everything would be run in small communities. Let's say there's a town of 100 people. We need food. A central democratic assembly would put up ask for let's say 20 volunteers to farm. If they can't get enough people to farm, then the places which haven't been filled would be assigned to some one who'd do the job for a month or two and then another person would take his spot. Fuel wouldn't run out it would be distributed evenly. we'd also research hydrogen and ethanol and use solar power. Since companies wouldn't have a lobby we wouldn't be slaves to the free market and the oil industry.

The "people" do? Who are the people? Are you talking about demand? Or are you talking about people who make decisions for supply? Who decides whether to produce a washing machine and what kind?

What an incredibly inefficient system. Circulating people for jobs they don't want to do every couple months? No one knows how to do anything? What if someone needs a car? The town of 100 people build that too? Who would do research for AE? Why? You are going to cycle researchers for AE every month? That will make a lot of progress. Who would pay for it?

How could fuel not run out if it is given away? Why would you suppose everyone would use less? We wouldn't be slaves to the free market but it sounds like we would be slaves to the "central democratic assembly" whatever that is. I'd rather be free to choose my own employment than be assigned by some assembly to collecting garbage or whatever they decide I have to do. What if everyone wants to farm instead of collecting garbage?

On the micro level, why work hard if there is not financial reward. Prestige is great, but who needs it? I'll slack off, let someone else work hard and reap their benefits. Multiply that sentiment accross the work force and soon there won't be much produced, whether people need it or want it.

Because different awards would be given to hard workers and punishments to slackers. For example, more days off would be given to a hard worker while slackers would spend more time at work. There would be informal pressure to do your work because when you don't, you're stealing from your co-workers work and he'd realize and report you.

Awards? Punishment? Who decides that? Your co-worker would report you to whom?

Why not. Look at the human family. We all care for each other and work for each other and do chores etc... Communism would turn the community into a big family. There would be incentives like if you work hard then you get a plasma screen tv as opposed the slacker who'd get a regular tv or something along the lines however I think after several generations of communism, people would be used to the unity and compactness of the system just like we're used the materialism and greed of capitalism

Rewards are products? Work hard and you get more products? You are sounding like a capitalist. Just exchanging goods for dollars. Why not reward good workers with dollars and let them buy what they want? Doesn't that make more sense? Maybe they don't want a plasma TV but want a jet ski. If your goal is to provide incentives through rewards, providing incentives in dollars makes a lot more sense.

No you miss the point. There wouldn't be and economy at all. At least not a real market economy that we know today. things wouldn't be traded because they would be made only for the people of the community.

That is the point! If there is no market economy, how do you decide what to produce?

I think that if we have a really, really, really good social safety net then I'd be happen but then of course we'd be almost socialist.

The concept of a "safety net" are not like socialism at all, using the sense of socialism meaning state owned means of production. Totally different concept. A "safety net" implies a capitalist system where you need safety nets to catch folks who fall thru the cracks of a competitive system. But the core idea is a competitive system in which there are winners and losers, and that is why you need a safety net, to catch the losers and give them a chance at another shot.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Iriemon,

Nice post! I take back all the bad stuff I said about you. What do you think of what I said?

 

[Loxd4]

This is to Iriemon Guru :

Who determines what needs to be produced? The People!

Who determines what people "need"? The People!

If there is no competition between producers, why should there be any concern about what people "need," much less "want." Who said there would be no competition

I'll I have more tonight after school!

 

[Iriemon]

Iriemon,

Nice post! I take back all the bad stuff I said about you. What do you think of what I said?

Good points -- I wrote mine before I had read yours.

I've no doubt that capitalism is the most effective economic system. A planned economy and lack of personal incentives don't work historically or logically.

But capitalism is by its nature a system of competition that produces winners and losers, some really big winners and some (more) big losers, and can do so harshly in its pure form. Sometimes the losers are just temporary and will get up and become winners, but there are economic consequences to losing that can be devastating to people. In my view, it is a role of Govt to provide safety nets for the temporary losers and even minimum assistance for the big losers -- that is a "price" for a capitalist system if we don't want to live in a Dickenesque society (I don't). The tough trick is finding the balance that provides a safety net to help those who fall temporarily and assistance to those who are the big losers, but without removing the incentive to produce and compete which are at the core of the capitalist system. Not always easy decisions to make, I agree.

 

[Iriemon]

This is to Iriemon Guru :

Who determines what needs to be produced? The People!
Who determines what people "need"? The People!

I agree. The general economic term for "the people" is "the market."

If there is no competition between producers, why should there be any concern about what people "need," much less "want." Who said there would be no competition

If production is state owned, you don't really have "competition," since the state (in whatever assembly you want to call it) makes the production decisions. And if there is no reward for succeeding, you have no effective competition either.

I'll I have more tonight after school!

Great. You can tell us about new economic theories.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

Iriemon,

Great. You can tell us about new economic theories.

Don't be so mean... He's still learning...

 

[Iriemon]

Iriemon,



Don't be so mean... He's still learning...

LOL ... I didn't mean to be mean, I was sincere. My econ classes were taken about 25 years ago, and I've seen some new economic theories (ie the bubble theory of market overexpansion caused by monetary policy many people have espoused). I don't know what they are teaching in economic courses these days.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Ah I see I'm out numbered. Since I don't have the time too awnser both posts and since both are simialier I'll just respond to Ivan. I hope you understand.

The only time I've seen this work is within small reilgous communities. There eveyone is tought to belive in the same thing were the smae cothes ect... So in effect there would have to be a strong moral ablgation to your cummunity. So far only reilguos communities are able to do this. I have yet too see a secular one last longer than a few years.

that just proves my point. It does work. However, let's think why it works. It works because they all believe in what they're doing tremendously. They all do it because they feel it's the only way to live. This would be true in a post-revolutionary society because everyone has fought for something they believe in.

Also I've seen it happen in another place. A family. Now scale up a family to a neighborhood size and you have the type of society I'm thinking of.

The only consern I would think of is how would the fuel be divide?

Well I'm no expert on this but I guess based on space and how many people live in the space.

Have you every asked why the free market doesn't look kindly to solar power and hydrogen? Tell me your answer. Also who would want to research ethanol when they can be a teacher and get the same benafits? Also I don't know if there will be time for Tom to sit in a room and think of chemicals. A family of 5 needs food. Somebody has to farm.

Well I awnsered you in my last post, the freemarket doesn't look kindly on it because big oil has such a big lobby in Washington. They also have so many jobs tied into the industry and they are a very, very profitable industry which is part of the back bone of our capitalistic economy. Now I'm not saying that we stop using oil all together, but I am saying that we start looking for other methods, because sooner or later we'll run out.

I don't know about this idea.... If your talking about a small community I don't see how anyone can take a day off.

eh??? So what your saying is that we'll use all the stuff we make? that makes no sense. We'll obviously plan ahead and create more than we'll use in a day.

Thus everyone would have to work all the time. Because everything would consumed by the community.

No because we'd plant more crop in anticipation and manufacture more goods. I'm not saying it'd be easy. We'd still work hard, but poverty would be crushed!

 

[Iriemon]

that just proves my point. It does work. However, let's think why it works. It works because they all believe in what they're doing tremendously. They all do it because they feel it's the only way to live. This would be true in a post-revolutionary society because everyone has fought for something they believe in.

What works for a small group doesn't necessarily work for a nation. In a small group peer pressure and personal contact can be enforcement mechanisms that do not work outside a small group or family.

Also I've seen it happen in another place. A family. Now scale up a family to a neighborhood size and you have the type of society I'm thinking of.

Scale it up nationwide and it falls apart.

Well I'm no expert on this but I guess based on space and how many people live in the space.

Space and number of people is not an effective way to divide limited resources.

Well I awnsered you in my last post, the freemarket doesn't look kindly on it because big oil has such a big lobby in Washington. They also have so many jobs tied into the industry and they are a very, very profitable industry which is part of the back bone of our capitalistic economy. Now I'm not saying that we stop using oil all together, but I am saying that we start looking for other methods, because sooner or later we'll run out.

It is not the free market per se but the political system that allows extraordinary influence. Why would it be any different under a communist system? There will be lobbying of those that control the resources.

eh??? So what your saying is that we'll use all the stuff we make? that makes no sense. We'll obviously plan ahead and create more than we'll use in a day.

Who is "we" that will plan ahead and decide what to produce? On what basis?

No because we'd plant more crop in anticipation and manufacture more goods. I'm not saying it'd be easy. We'd still work hard, but poverty would be crushed!

Unless your a slacker, I suppose. What happens to them? Gulags?

 

[LeftyHenry]

What works for a small group doesn't necessarily work for a nation. In a small group peer pressure and personal contact can be enforcement mechanisms that do not work outside a small group or family.

Right which is why I want to maintain the community feel to it by most of the governments descions eing made locally.

Scale it up nationwide and it falls apart.

No it becomes the system of any humaine persons dream.

Space and number of people is not an effective way to divide limited resources.

Why is that? anyway I was talking just about fuel which I have little knowledge on. Most resources would be pooled and then distributed based on need. Someone who's taking more than it looks like he/she needs will get the wrath of the people around him or her.

It is not the free market per se but the political system that allows extraordinary influence. Why would it be any different under a communist system? There will be lobbying of those that control the resources.

so your saying democracy in general? well we don't really have democracy now. We have a Democratic REPUBLIC. Officials 'represent' us and thus the hot shots can be persuaded by deals. My system would not be a representitive republic. It would be a Direct democracy. Direct Democracy? who has the time? Well in this day and age where we have the possibility to log on and vote on polls we all do. Voting via the internet on bills and acts would take less than 5 minutes of your day and would be a more democratic system.

Who is "we" that will plan ahead and decide what to produce? On what basis?

Well big position would be elected (By big I mean like the janitor or the cabinet members wouldn't be elected). These elected officials would be responsible for central planning.

Unless your a slacker, I suppose. What happens to them? Gulags?

Well you'd probably get beat up by your co-workers because when you slack off you steal 'work' from the community, thus there's a sort of informal pressure from the people around you to work.

 

[Iriemon]

Right which is why I want to maintain the community feel to it by most of the governments descions eing made locally.

Do you mean government or economic decisions? We already have a system in which many government decisions are made locally.

No it becomes the system of any humaine persons dream.

It doesn't work as an efficient way to allocate resources. An informal communal decision making process doesn't work on a national basis.

Why is that? anyway I was talking just about fuel which I have little knowledge on. Most resources would be pooled and then distributed based on need. Someone who's taking more than it looks like he/she needs will get the wrath of the people around him or her.

So what? Many will grab all they can get, who cares about wrath? It already doesn't dissuade people from doing selfish things. It is human nature. It doesn't change based on reliance upon a system that relies upon people doing good for the whole. People don't do that. You need a some system to reward people for doing useful things and penalizes people for if they don't. That is what the free market system does well, if not without faults. It rewards people for doing useful things and penalizes people if they don't. What communism does is tries to replace the free market with a system of communal oversight which is either ineffective, or relies upon totalitarian government to institute punishment (since there is no effective reward), or ultimately relies upon quasi financial incentives (your plasma TV) which attempts to do the same thing a free market economy does, just much less efficiently.

so your saying democracy in general? well we don't really have democracy now. We have a Democratic REPUBLIC. Officials 'represent' us and thus the hot shots can be persuaded by deals.

Sure. Democracy is awful. It sucks. It is subject to corruption, controlled by ignorant massive, lead by demogaugs, and is inefficient. The thing is, to paraphrase Churchill, everything else is much worse.

My system would not be a representitive republic. It would be a Direct democracy. Direct Democracy? who has the time? Well in this day and age where we have the possibility to log on and vote on polls we all do. Voting via the internet on bills and acts would take less than 5 minutes of your day and would be a more democratic system.

You are talking about a changing the mechanism in which democracy is implemented -- that is different than a communist economic system.

Well big position would be elected (By big I mean like the janitor or the cabinet members wouldn't be elected). These elected officials would be responsible for central planning.

So much for the view of a government-less utopia. Now we need a elected group of folks responsible for central economic planning. These will be the guys who decide what cars to build, what kind of shoes to make, what kind of cereal is available, whether to build boats, who gets the oil, etc etc etc. A trillion economic decisions. So you want these kind of folks making decisions that intimately effect what we do and what goods are available? And you think they will be somehow immune to lobbying from special interest groups? Now you have all the ills of the current system, only worse, because the politicians have much more power and control.

Well you'd probably get beat up by your co-workers because when you slack off you steal 'work' from the community, thus there's a sort of informal pressure from the people around you to work.

We are trading economic incentives for legitimate beatings by your co-workers? Who decides whether someone can get beat up or not? The mob? An assembly? Your co-workers?

 

[LeftyHenry]

Do you mean government or economic decisions? We already have a system in which many government decisions are made locally.

I mean government desicions and economic decisions. Figuring out how to put everyone in a job they enjoy and dealing with social issues.

It doesn't work as an efficient way to allocate resources. An informal communal decision making process doesn't work on a national basis.

communism isn't nationally based. It's based on societies. There would be national leaders but they'd be there really to keep the order and perhaps discuss issues that have immense support from the majority of the communites. The point is that economic desicions such as jobs would be decided more locally.

So what? Many will grab all they can get, who cares about wrath? It already doesn't dissuade people from doing selfish things. It is human nature. It doesn't change based on reliance upon a system that relies upon people doing good for the whole. People don't do that. You need a some system to reward people for doing useful things and penalizes people for if they don't. That is what the free market system does well, if not without faults. It rewards people for doing useful things and penalizes people if they don't. What communism does is tries to replace the free market with a system of communal oversight which is either ineffective, or relies upon totalitarian government to institute punishment (since there is no effective reward), or ultimately relies upon quasi financial incentives (your plasma TV) which attempts to do the same thing a free market economy does, just much less efficiently.

No they won't. Not only will the butcher behind the counter cutting the meat find it odd that a guy is getting 54 hams but also the people behind you will say 'hey that's our food that we worked for, you can't hog it". let's not forget that there'd still be cops, or 'worker's militia' as my anarchist buddies like to call it.

Sure. Democracy is awful. It sucks. It is subject to corruption, controlled by ignorant massive, lead by demogaugs, and is inefficient. The thing is, to paraphrase Churchill, everything else is much worse.

WTF??? I said quite the opposite. What are you talking abou??

You are talking about a changing the mechanism in which democracy is implemented -- that is different than a communist economic system.

All I'm saying is that direct democracy is now possible so let's take advantage of it.

So much for the view of a government-less utopia. Now we need a elected group of folks responsible for central economic planning. These will be the guys who decide what cars to build, what kind of shoes to make, what kind of cereal is available, whether to build boats, who gets the oil, etc etc etc. A trillion economic decisions. So you want these kind of folks making decisions that intimately effect what we do and what goods are available? And you think they will be somehow immune to lobbying from special interest groups? Now you have all the ills of the current system, only worse, because the politicians have much more power and control.

But the difference is that it's done by neighborhood rather than previous 'communist' nations which did it nationally. here national government would only keep order. Besides I never said there can only be one type of product. Also the idea of a governmentless state would come probably a couple generations after the first communist levers were pulled, when people are used to it and have forgotton about the materialism and greediness and have grown used to the unity and compactness of communism.

We are trading economic incentives for legitimate beatings by your co-workers? Who decides whether someone can get beat up or not? The mob? An assembly? Your co-workers?

You turn a pebble into a boulder. What I said was that if there's a slacker who doesn't do any work, but reaps the benefits of his co-workers, his co-workers will get pissed. It has nothing to do with the mob. When you steal you pay the price and you'd indirectly be doing that in this case.

 

[Loxd4]

Well, here is how my government will work. It will kind of work just like the forum of government today, but just a little bit better. They will still be the rich the poor, so people will still fight to be on top. The only thing different about the two class is that there well be a smaller gap between the two. Since the gap can not grow, the only way the rich can move up is if they raise the stander of living for the poor class. The only thing that well be equal no matter how rich or poor a person is; is going to hosptails and schooling. Every person well recieve the bare minum for food and shelter, so they can strive to get better homes, but they receive these home they much give back more since they are in the higher class.

 

[Iriemon]

I mean government desicions and economic decisions. Figuring out how to put everyone in a job they enjoy and dealing with social issues.

Government bureaucrats deciding what we have to do for work. That is better, in your view, than a system where we are free to pursue whatever livelihood we think is best for ourselves. You want a system where bureaucrats decide what we work and what we get? No thanks!

communism isn't nationally based. It's based on societies. There would be national leaders but they'd be there really to keep the order and perhaps discuss issues that have immense support from the majority of the communites. The point is that economic desicions such as jobs would be decided more locally.

Economic decisions cannot be made locally because economics has a national and international affect. You can't have each of the millions of communes decide that it wants to build a car, or an aircraft, or shoes, or whatever it is. In a planned economy, there must be decisions made as to what is needed nationally (and internationally, for that matter).

No they won't. Not only will the butcher behind the counter cutting the meat find it odd that a guy is getting 54 hams but also the people behind you will say 'hey that's our food that we worked for, you can't hog it". let's not forget that there'd still be cops, or 'worker's militia' as my anarchist buddies like to call it.

What if the guy is having a banquet and needs the hams? What do you do? Beat him up? Arrest him and throw him in jail?

What if I need two cars but and so does my neighbor and there are only 3 cars available. Who gets the two cars? Who decides? Your local bureacrat? Instead of a "governmentless" system you have a system quite the opposite -- where government intrudes upon every detail of your economic life, from where you work to how many cars you can have, if any. Which in fact has ended up being the practice wherever communism was attempted.

WTF??? I said quite the opposite. What are you talking abou??

Sorry. I thought you were criticizing democracy.

All I'm saying is that direct democracy is now possible so let's take advantage of it.

OK, but that is another issue, and has nothing to do with communism as an economic system.

But the difference is that it's done by neighborhood rather than previous 'communist' nations which did it nationally. here national government would only keep order. Besides I never said there can only be one type of product. Also the idea of a governmentless state would come probably a couple generations after the first communist levers were pulled, when people are used to it and have forgotton about the materialism and greediness and have grown used to the unity and compactness of communism.

Again, how can you have a system where economic decisions are made locally. Efficient means of production requires specialization of production. You cannot have every other commune deciding it wants to build a automobiles. Different communities produce different things and services and then exchange. How do you determine what the exchange is? That is what dollars are for, the bookeeping mechanism (as you describe it) for keeping track of the exchange; which is a far more efficient means of keeping track of exchange values than some bureaucrat.

You turn a pebble into a boulder. What I said was that if there's a slacker who doesn't do any work, but reaps the benefits of his co-workers, his co-workers will get pissed. It has nothing to do with the mob. When you steal you pay the price and you'd indirectly be doing that in this case.

Whether it is a pebble or a boulder, it is the crux of the problem with communism at the micro level. Capitalism induces work by providing financial incentives.

Communism removes those incentives; everyone gets paid the same. So why work really hard if there is no reward? Why take the risk of building a new a new product if there is no reward for it? If there is no incentive to work hard and take risks, many or most will not. Then what?

Instead of using the carrot approach, communism uses the stick approach. If you don't work hard, you will be punished somehow. How? Pissed off co-workers? So what? That won't stop slacking if they all get the same pay. What if there are no co-workers? What if there is a small facility like a fast food resturant and everyone there is slacking? What is the punishment?
Who decides what services they should be providing or the quantity of products they should be making and whether it is being met? Your local politician/bureacrat? Does that make sense? Is that a better way to run a society?

As a general matter of human nature, doesn't the carrot approach generally work better than the stick approach? It's it better to reward those who perform well rather than simply punish those who don't measure up?

These are not pebble issues -- they are boulders, it is the crux of the problem with communism.

 

[Iriemon]

Well, here is how my government will work. It will kind of work just like the forum of government today, but just a little bit better. They will still be the rich the poor, so people will still fight to be on top. The only thing different about the two class is that there well be a smaller gap between the two. Since the gap can not grow, the only way the rich can move up is if they raise the stander of living for the poor class. The only thing that well be equal no matter how rich or poor a person is; is going to hosptails and schooling. Every person well recieve the bare minum for food and shelter, so they can strive to get better homes, but they receive these home they much give back more since they are in the higher class.

You first have to describe what kind of economic system you are talking about.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Government bureaucrats deciding what we have to do for work. That is better, in your view, than a system where we are free to pursue whatever livelihood we think is best for ourselves. You want a system where bureaucrats decide what we work and what we get? No thanks!

No that's not how'd be. You'd apply for three jobs you'd like best to do and then you'd be assigned to one.

The goverment would just make it all connect.

Frankly I obviously don't know how the system would work completely. Afte the American revolution did the founding fathers know exactly how it'd work? No because countless changes were made which is the same in this case.

Economic decisions cannot be made locally because economics has a national and international affect. You can't have each of the millions of communes decide that it wants to build a car, or an aircraft, or shoes, or whatever it is. In a planned economy, there must be decisions made as to what is needed nationally (and internationally, for that matter).

by economic desicions being made locally I mean who works where. How to ration things. And etc... . by local government desicions I mean like what are the laws for crime and stuff like that. The 'national' govenment would bascially be there to link all the communes. Let's say one has lots of farm land and another has a factory but no famr land. Well they'd trade between commune.

What if the guy is having a banquet and needs the hams? What do you do? Beat him up? Arrest him and throw him in jail?

banquet? Well then the other people in town who are going to the 'banquet' would bring there hams there or something. Frankly I've never been to a banquet and I don't think such a problem would arise in communism. The point I was trying to make is that everyone is tied together so when one person steals from the system, he steals from the community and sooner or later people are going to do something about the person.

What if I need two cars but and so does my neighbor and there are only 3 cars available. Who gets the two cars? Who decides? Your local bureacrat? Instead of a "governmentless" system you have a system quite the opposite -- where government intrudes upon every detail of your economic life, from where you work to how many cars you can have, if any. Which in fact has ended up being the practice wherever communism was attempted.

We'd make another. people who really need two cars would request one. For the time being you'd have to manage with one car. Anyhow I think we'd rely heavily on public transportation because it's more efficient.

The idea of a government-less utopia would be the end product when people have forgotton their materialistic greed from capitalism and gotton used to unity and absolute equality. Eventually, hopefully, people would work out their own problems and governments would be unessacary. Until then there has to be people who gold the system together and fix problems. Of course politicians (Who aren't bearaucrats, because the majority of the government positons would be elected) would be different in communist societies. They'd meet in the evenings one o two nights a week and during the day they be workers like everyone else. They wouldn't use our money to buy mansions and cars like they do now. They'd be human not like the aliens we have in offfice now.

Sorry. I thought you were criticizing democracy.

Never. This system would be a system build at the mercy of the people. If the majority thought it was corrupt and failing they could tear it down.

OK, but that is another issue, and has nothing to do with communism as an economic system.

fair enough

Again, how can you have a system where economic decisions are made locally. Efficient means of production requires specialization of production. You cannot have every other commune deciding it wants to build a automobiles. Different communities produce different things and services and then exchange. How do you determine what the exchange is? That is what dollars are for, the bookeeping mechanism (as you describe it) for keeping track of the exchange; which is a far more efficient means of keeping track of exchange values than some bureaucrat.

Well I awnsered this before but I'll say it again. The national government will keep order. This is very broad but should mostly mean that they'll assign the main industry for each commune and work out trade and special cases. Like a commune in let's say New York City won't be able to grow corn while a Commune in certain parts of Long Island wouldn't be fit to have managing and factories. So the too communes would trade there end product. By locally planned economy I mean how they'll go about plannign the communism in their particular town.

Whether it is a pebble or a boulder, it is the crux of the problem with communism at the micro level. Capitalism induces work by providing financial incentives.

That's very true. Communism has lot's of problems at the micro level but so do/did many untried systems before they were used. Capitalism had and still has an abundance of problems but we've fixed many. The same would happen in this communalist society we're debating about.

Maybe it does but I had to step over 5 homeless people today during by commute and capitalism has really helped them.

Communism removes those incentives; everyone gets paid the same. So why work really hard if there is no reward? Why take the risk of building a new a new product if there is no reward for it? If there is no incentive to work hard and take risks, many or most will not. Then what?

There would be incentives. They could come in days off, vacations, and etc... for hard workers, and punishments, losing your right to vote, or being stuck with the crappiest job imaginable for slackers. Besides your job in communism would be your passion in life. it'd have to be something you're good at or enjoy doing. Something you do because you're just fascinated by it.

Instead of using the carrot approach, communism uses the stick approach. If you don't work hard, you will be punished somehow. How? Pissed off co-workers? So what? That won't stop slacking if they all get the same pay. What if there are no co-workers? What if there is a small facility like a fast food resturant and everyone there is slacking? What is the punishment?

Communism uses a bit of both. The reason there's no money because with money there becomes inequality. With ineqaulity there becomes oppression and sterotypes. With oppression there becomes people sitting on the streets starving and people sitting in mansions driving 3 lambourginis. In this day and age we've been poisoned into thinking the only reason for doing anything is for money. That's ****! There are other purposes in life and other incentives that don't include having people die on the streets!

Who decides what services they should be providing or the quantity of products they should be making and whether it is being met? Your local politician/bureacrat? Does that make sense? Is that a better way to run a society?

the community would. The assemballies I speak of would be sort of like town halls. People would brain storm for ideas to solve problems and then people woudl vote on the best idea. The services and products being made are up to basically the type of place you're living in. If you live in a rural area you'd be farming. The way you want to go about doing that is up to you.

As a general matter of human nature, doesn't the carrot approach generally work better than the stick approach? It's it better to reward those who perform well rather than simply punish those who don't measure up?

These are not pebble issues -- they are boulders, it is the crux of the problem with communism.

As I said before we'd use both. If the people don't like the idea of a cure for poverty, equality for all, a comfortable life, and everything being provided for them in turn for working at something you enjoy fine go ahead topple the government because nothing would stop you.

 

[Iriemon]

No that's not how'd be. You'd apply for three jobs you'd like best to do and then you'd be assigned to one.

The goverment would just make it all connect.

"The government." There's that word again. So much for the governmentless system.

"Comrade work allocator, I'd like to work tending bar at a resort, or being a rock star, or being a professional baskeball player."

"Sorry comrade worker. Sewer detail. Next."

Frankly I obviously don't know how the system would work completely. Afte the American revolution did the founding fathers know exactly how it'd work? No because countless changes were made which is the same in this case.

I don't know how it could work either.

by economic desicions being made locally I mean who works where. How to ration things. And etc... . by local government desicions I mean like what are the laws for crime and stuff like that. The 'national' govenment would bascially be there to link all the communes. Let's say one has lots of farm land and another has a factory but no famr land. Well they'd trade between commune.

That makes sense. How would it be determined how much is traded? How many bushels of wheat for one automobile? The government (there's that word again) I suppose.

banquet? Well then the other people in town who are going to the 'banquet' would bring there hams there or something. Frankly I've never been to a banquet and I don't think such a problem would arise in communism. The point I was trying to make is that everyone is tied together so when one person steals from the system, he steals from the community and sooner or later people are going to do something about the person.

How are "people" going to be that. You mean the local government (ouch) bureaucrat, don't you?

We'd make another. people who really need two cars would request one. For the time being you'd have to manage with one car. Anyhow I think we'd rely heavily on public transportation because it's more efficient.

But I need two cars, comrade. So does Mr. Jones. Who gets the two cars?

Or are you, meaning the government (ow!) makes these decisions.

The idea of a government-less utopia would be the end product when people have forgotton their materialistic greed from capitalism and gotton used to unity and absolute equality.

Needing two cars is not material greed, comrad. Both my wife and I have to drive to work and we have to take our kids to the communal educational center.

Eventually, hopefully, people would work out their own problems and governments would be unessacary.

People, meaning a mob? That is the function of govenment -- work out problems between people.

Until then there has to be people who gold the system together and fix problems. Of course politicians (Who aren't bearaucrats, because the majority of the government positons would be elected) would be different in communist societies. They'd meet in the evenings one o two nights a week and during the day they be workers like everyone else. They wouldn't use our money to buy mansions and cars like they do now. They'd be human not like the aliens we have in offfice now.

Why do you suppose politicians and bureaucrats would change their nature? Given the amount of power you are giving these folks, they'd be worse than ever. Power corrupts.

Never. This system would be a system build at the mercy of the people. If the majority thought it was corrupt and failing they could tear it down.

Like what happened in Eastern Europe.

Well I awnsered this before but I'll say it again. The national government will keep order. This is very broad but should mostly mean that they'll assign the main industry for each commune and work out trade and special cases. Like a commune in let's say New York City won't be able to grow corn while a Commune in certain parts of Long Island wouldn't be fit to have managing and factories. So the too communes would trade there end product. By locally planned economy I mean how they'll go about plannign the communism in their particular town.

And this distribution of labor, effort, products and services and trading and exchanging products will all be decided by goverment (yikes!) officials working a couple evenings a week, eh?

That's very true. Communism has lot's of problems at the micro level but so do/did many untried systems before they were used. Capitalism had and still has an abundance of problems but we've fixed many. The same would happen in this communalist society we're debating about.

I'll wait then until I see a proposal that seems like it could work.

Maybe it does but I had to step over 5 homeless people today during by commute and capitalism has really helped them.

What would you do with those same 5 people under communism? Beat them for slacking? Throw them in the gulag?

There would be incentives. They could come in days off, vacations, and etc... for hard workers, and punishments, losing your right to vote, or being stuck with the crappiest job imaginable for slackers.

Instead of paying good workers they get to work less. That does sound very efficient.

What do you do with the slackers when they slack off at the crappiest jobs?

Besides your job in communism would be your passion in life. it'd have to be something you're good at or enjoy doing. Something you do because you're just fascinated by it.

How many rock star positions do you think will be available under your system?

Communism uses a bit of both. The reason there's no money because with money there becomes inequality.

But more days off or having to work the crappiest jobs is equality?

With ineqaulity there becomes oppression and sterotypes.

How about the slacker who everyone is pissed off at and gets the crappiest job. That is not oppression? That is not stereotyping? Of course it is. Just done in a more inefficient manner.

With oppression there becomes people sitting on the streets starving and people sitting in mansions driving 3 lambourginis. In this day and age we've been poisoned into thinking the only reason for doing anything is for money. That's ****! There are other purposes in life and other incentives that don't include having people die on the streets!

I certainly agree with that, but that is an individual decision. I don't agree with people dying on the streets either. Maybe they were the slackers.

the community would. The assemballies I speak of would be sort of like town halls. People would brain storm for ideas to solve problems and then people woudl vote on the best idea. The services and products being made are up to basically the type of place you're living in. If you live in a rural area you'd be farming. The way you want to go about doing that is up to you.

How does the community know what the slackers are doing at work?

As I said before we'd use both. If the people don't like the idea of a cure for poverty, equality for all, a comfortable life, and everything being provided for them in turn for working at something you enjoy fine go ahead topple the government because nothing would stop you.

OK. Sign me up for the rock star position, please. I play guitar.

 

[LeftyHenry]

"The government." There's that word again. So much for the governmentless system.

"Comrade work allocator, I'd like to work tending bar at a resort, or being a rock star, or being a professional baskeball player."

"Sorry comrade worker. Sewer detail. Next."

'Sewer detail' would be a job that is collectivly shared. People would work on it for a very short time and then someone else would take his place. People who've slacked off repeatedly and continously steal from society may end up there as well.

I don't know how it could work either.

Capitalism? Yes I know. How the hell can we reduce ourselves to savage animals by lettng the unlucky and weak fend for themselves?

That makes sense. How would it be determined how much is traded? How many bushels of wheat for one automobile? The government (there's that word again) I suppose.

Based on need. If a commune needs 10 bushels of wheat and another needs three cars then they strike a deal.

How are "people" going to be that. You mean the local government (ouch) bureaucrat, don't you?

What's up with you and this beaurocrat thing? You don't have a problem with it in capitalism where bearocracy runs rampant. Do you know what a bearaucrat is? It's someone appointed by an official. No such thing exsists in communism. Everything or just about everything from judges to military officials to economy planner are elected.

But I need two cars, comrade. So does Mr. Jones. Who gets the two cars?

Or are you, meaning the government (ow!) makes these decisions.

Needing two cars is not material greed, comrad. Both my wife and I have to drive to work and we have to take our kids to the communal educational center.

Walk? Bike? Use public transportation? Roller blade? Skateboard?

Okay let's say that you live in surburbia so you reeeeeally need two cars. People in the city don't. There they'd produce cars and trade them with you for whatever product is created in your hometown.

People, meaning a mob? That is the function of govenment -- work out problems between people.

When have I ever uttered the word mob? The idea behind it is that people would be come so used to the loving, caring, and sharing of the community that eventually the government wouldn't have to do anything any more because everything would be clockwork. Of course this would take generations.

Why do you suppose politicians and bureaucrats would change their nature? Given the amount of power you are giving these folks, they'd be worse than ever. Power corrupts.

Because this is a post-revolutionary society. One of the reasons there would be a revolution is because people would be tired of all the **** politicians talk.

Like what happened in Eastern Europe.

Do you think this local communalist ultra democratic communist system sounds anything like the tyrants of eastern europe? If you do you're completely missing my point and 21st century communism's point. Communist have leared from the atrocities of the USSR and co. and make it there number goal to prove they support a demoratic ideaology. I agree with Stalin like Israel worships Hitler.

And this distribution of labor, effort, products and services and trading and exchanging products will all be decided by goverment (yikes!) officials working a couple evenings a week, eh?

the government is the people don't you get it? Maybe there'd be more town meetings or assemaballies but you get the idea. The government would consist of your neighbors not people up in mansions and fancy suits.

I'll wait then until I see a proposal that seems like it could work.

You mean like a party platform?

What would you do with those same 5 people under communism? Beat them for slacking? Throw them in the gulag?

Heavens no! I'm insulted! Quite the opposite. We'd feed them find them a jobs and house them.

Instead of paying good workers they get to work less. That does sound very efficient.

well the slackers will make up their time. Also by working hard they've created as more product then they would if they just worked the full work day sluggishly.

What do you do with the slackers when they slack off at the crappiest jobs?

Well it doesn't have to be a crappy job, just one that is undermanned. If they do slack off then they'll be punished worse. I see your attempting to make the system look draconian. It's not compared to the punishments you get in capitalism.

I do think that when people slack off it's because they don't enjoy what they're doing. So we'd try to find another field of work which he may enjoy more. Giving him a hard job would probably be after his 3rd srtike.

Also there's the possibility of 'those who have the ability and opportunity to work should not except societies help'.

How many rock star positions do you think will be available under your system?

umm I'd be a hobby.


[/QUOTE]
But more days off or having to work the crappiest jobs is equality?
[/QUOTE]

Everyone has equal oppurtunity and the people who devote themselves to everyone around them deserve better than the people who steal from them. It's still more equality than you have currently in capitalism. In this system your punishment is a tough job. In our system it's death on the streets.

How about the slacker who everyone is pissed off at and gets the crappiest job. That is not oppression? That is not stereotyping? Of course it is. Just done in a more inefficient manner.

ehh?? No someone as to do the job and why not the thug who steals from everyone around him. Just like criminals do jail time or pay a fine or community service. This is just community service. The guy used everyone around him and sneakily stole from everyone and it's not stereotyping. look up sterotype and you'll understand why.

I certainly agree with that, but that is an individual decision. I don't agree with people dying on the streets either. Maybe they were the slackers.

That's right wing propaganda used to make the rich feel good about themselves. I personnally wouldn't like the idea of sitting on the street eating garbage. Do you? No. Does the homeless guy? No he's just didn't get as good an education, didn't go to college, or got layed off and never got back on his feet. I'm sure most have made big mistakes in their life with maybe drugs or alchohal but they're human and all they need is a little
help.

How does the community know what the slackers are doing at work?

Because the community is at work while the guy is slacking off at work.

OK. Sign me up for the rock star position, please. I play guitar.

It has to be a job that produces something whether it's a automobile, corn, or a new technology. Music would be more of a hobby. Certain communities might have recording studios and some may have people who teach guitar and that would something you can do on your free time.

 

[Loxd4]

We'd make another. people who really need two cars would request one. For the time being you'd have to manage with one car. Anyhow I think we'd rely heavily on public transportation because it's more efficient.
QUOTE]

You could't have said it any better!


P.S. CHE what state do you life in?

 

[Loxd4]

Ok, This is how my government would work with ten familys, with each family have's five member or less("Number of Member are NOT fixed integer").

The People of "The Community" will have to come togather and set Stander of Living Up and Goal's, for the community. Each family will have to produce something to meet that Goal. With ten family the job are limited so they would have to pick from farming, carpentry, limber jack, or something like that. The builder well build house for everyone. And in return the builder would recieve food, labor, and labor in return.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Ok, This is how my government would work with ten familys, with each family have's five member or less("Number of Member are NOT fixed integer").

The People of "The Community" will have to come togather and set Stander of Living Up and Goal's, for the community. Each family will have to produce something to meet that Goal. With ten family the job are limited so they would have to pick from farming, carpentry, limber jack, or something like that. The builder well build house for everyone. And in return the builder would recieve food, labor, and labor in return.

Right that's pretty close to what I was thinking.

 

[LeftyHenry]

We'd make another. people who really need two cars would request one. For the time being you'd have to manage with one car. Anyhow I think we'd rely heavily on public transportation because it's more efficient.
QUOTE]

You could't have said it any better!


P.S. CHE what state do you life in?

New York, you?

 

[Loxd4]

I used to live on Long Island, but know i live in South Carolina...where i plan to start my soicalist platform, with about 200 people. Right now i have about 30, a long way from 200. And if it dosn't work in America then i try in in Africa.

 

[LeftyHenry]

I used to live on Long Island, but know i live in South Carolina...where i plan to start my soicalist platform, with about 200 people. Right now i have about 30, a long way from 200. And if it dosn't work in America then i try in in Africa.

whoa that's pretty cool. Actually taking action. Very interesting. Best of wishes on the project.