Independent farmer who has control of his means of production and does all the work himself ( and has for years)...

It's very unlikely that he produces exactly what he eats. This was true with the native sibirians in the USSR, so they were left alone. No point.

But you're describing a Kulak here who hordes grain. He will have to comply or being forced to do so.

Where do independent farmers even exist outside of the third world? Companies like Monsanto have driven family farmers out of business and those that still exist likely get all of their seeds from restrictive contracts with Monsanto.

what's wrong with producing a lot of things? why should you be forced to share it? I thought Communism was about common ownership of MoP, not forced redistribution of good produced with private expended labour.

Leave him be, self-employment is socialism.

Pure Spite is powerful stuff. I know a few dudes at work who voted for Trump for that reason alone.

Why would you keep it? You'd want to sell it on the market under capitalism.

The only reason the Kulaks hordes grain was out of spite for the city folk

Why should the common ownership of the MoP end at the point that the product is produced?

Even if it means not having all the new fancy tech or cars or food other than what you grow yourself though? No matter how spiteful I am, I feel like a truck and a chicken burger would change my mind.

you might want to keep it because you want to have it for longer; either way, it's the product of their own labour, and to appropriate it is no different to what happens under capitalism

Under Communism you probably couldn't sell your excess product, so you could just keep it or give it to other people. Both of these seem OK with me tbh

because otherwise the product of labour is appropriated, and must be so by force (there will be people who don't want to give it up), which makes the system no different to capitalism in which you work for the benefit of others.

a worker should own what he makes; the guy down the road who's done nothing to contribute shouldn't get the product, unless by mutual and voluntary agreement. To each according to his contribution.

The land doesn't belong to him, so if he refuses to collectivize he will have to find some other mode of productivity. If he refuses to work, he'll starve.

racism & bigotry / historical grudges / self interest / geographical factors

there's a few scenarios i've imagined

lets say there are 3 communities. (A) steal mill community, (B) farmer community, and (C) machinery/automotive community.

what if steel mill community(A) decides it wants to start their own machinery/auto factory and cut original machinery community (C) out of the picture? as in it wont supply them with steel? (C) cannot open up its own steel mil due to not being near mineral rich location, and now farmer community (B) trades exclusively with (A) because (C) does not have anything of value to give to (B) community anymore.

community C is basically fucked.

now multiply that times a billion on a global scale, and add racism, historical grudges , community self interest, and geographical limitations to that .

without central planning (a state) it will never happen (at least on a global scale.)

thats not true , most US farmers are independent.

do nothing. if he wants sit in his little farm and personally make everything he will ever use and be ostracized from society, what do i care? as long as there is no shortage of farm land i don't see a problem here.

I'm not really sure how it's relevant to be honest. If they are properly provided for and we've done away with exchange elsewhere, clinging onto the goods they produce which they have no intention of using for themselves wouldn't do much for them.
Maybe some will feel some sort of ancestral attachment to their land or some dumb shit like that, but really I doubt there will be many of those.

You know, I thought that was a good question so I decided to look up farm demographic information (in the US at least), and it looks like the USDA collects census information on farms and farmers.

usda.gov/media/press-releases/2015/03/17/family-farms-are-focus-new-agriculture-census-data

1. Food equals family – 97 percent of the 2.1 million farms in the United States are family-owned operations.
2. Small business matters – 88 percent of all U.S. farms are small family farms.
3. Local connections come in small packages – 58 percent of all direct farm sales to consumers come from small family farms.
4. Big business matters too – 64 percent of all vegetable sales and 66 percent of all dairy sales come from the 3 percent of farms that are large or very large family farms.
5. Farming provides new beginnings – 18 percent of principal operators on family farms in the U.S. started within the last 10 years.

nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_Subject/Demographics/
usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/FarmLandIn/FarmLandIn-02-17-2017.txt

Interesting, but I think it needs closer study. "97% of farms are family farms" seems misleading somehow, because my understanding was that agribusinesses like Monsanto absolutely dwarf family farms in size and output, so my porky-conspiracy paranoia makes me think that words or definitions are being massaged to make the numbers look less one sided.

You don't understand the concept of motivation or incentive do you?
Why would they want to cut community C out of the picture in the first place? What is there to gain from doing this? What possible reason is this a good idea for anyone involved, if they're effectively only increasing their own work load and doing nothing else except that with these actions?

Here's a question for you.
Why would anybody allow a state when, they don't! Oh shit!

Also
"no"

monsanto mainly only sells seeds for their evolved plants

there are lots of farms that grow monsanto evolved plants, and are then packed as such and sent off to stores. that doesn't mean monsanto owns the farm, the farmer just decided to grow monsanto evolved plants.

What if he finds that trading his surplus crop with a neighboring community makes him more prosperous than joining the collective?

Not really possible considering how a gift economy works. Unless by "independent farmer" you mean "massive farming corporation with plenty of employees and a global market economy to rely on"

but anways who is he trading with? and for what?

How do they define "small family farm"? The US considers any business with under 500 employees who makes under 7.5 million a "small" business.

incentive? how about improving living conditions for your community? the more you produce, the more you can trade with other communities. now that community (A) produces more things other communities want, it can now trade other communities for things. maybe they trade with the lumber community so they can make nicer houses or buildings, maybe they want to open up amusement park, i don't know. but there is definitely incentive to expanding your communities production.

you act like when the revolution comes, everythings going to fall into place perfectly and its going to be organised and all the workers everywhere will come to the same conclusion and work out equal distribution for everything everyone produces. WRONG faggot. tribalism and self interest will poison that on the larger scale, if not fracture these communities even more.

>>>/gulag/
but unironically

This. The farmer just gets cut out of the larger economy and is left to fend for themselves in terms of acquiring necessary resources to maintain his operation. One of two things happens then:
Most who refuse will likely fall into the latter category, in which case they will be removed like any other counter-revolutionary force.

It would require a large amount of capital and an excess labor pool ready to take up the operation along with maintaining the existing levels of steel mill operations. A single community like that is unlikely to have the resources just lying around to completely supplant community C's operations in terms of scale and efficiency, and indeed they have very little reason to do so if community C is already meeting their needs sufficiently. Especially if we are talking in terms of a planned economy rather than market economy, the primary motivator for the communities in question is the production of goods for use over exchange.
Neither is necessary. Planned economies certainly are preferable to market economies in such circumstances, but it does not require centralization nor a state to maintain it.

Many farms in the US are "independent" insofar as they are owned by individuals or families, but they are not independent in the sense that the owner is responsible for undertaking all work done on the farm. Almost all farmers in the US hire AT LEAST seasonal workers, if not year-round farmhands. In many cases, those workers take the form of undocumented migrant workers, even as far as the northern Midwest and such.

Put down the commie books and experience real life kiddo.

For example instead of growing grain crop he could plant something more luxurious and more difficult to grow like wine grapes.
On the other side a collective generally doesn't produce luxury goods unless it's on a mass scale. So if he has a taste for wine that the collective doesn't produce he can grow his own grapes and exchange them for someone else to turn them into wine.

A neighboring country, unless in this scenario the entire world is somehow simultaneously communist.
Or just his immediate community. In totally equal re distribution some areas will get more than what they put in, some will get less.

Join the community or you get no benefits. If he doesn't need them and he's not abusing a wage system, he's not a problem.

If he wants competition with collective farms than he'll just have to pay lease for the land, buy the machinery and seeds and continue to work that land all on his own, while the collective farmers don't, they get free machinery, work the fields without lease, receive all support in work force for the harvests as an example and much more.

We'll see how long this appears viable to him.

This is the left's exact argument against Sweden-style immigration policy and fuck you for calling it authoritarian. It's fucking rational.

It's what distinguishes man (Marxist Leninists) from animal (anarchist scum and other liberals).

Provide incentive to collective.

i mean communism is global, but lets pretend its not. how is he transporting this stuff to another country? what is he getting out of this trade? i dont understand..

Authoritarianism has been discredited and sows more discontent than unity. The rise of recreational drug use despite laws universally prohibiting it proves this. When Marx was young, he had a violent bent. This went away when he grew up. Lenin didn't notice this, or just didn't care apparently.

Sounds like the Marxian dream to me.

What happened in your life that caused you to feel the need to fuck with people who are just minding their own business? Does seeing someone who you can't run roughshod over really bother you that much?

Glad your happy literally being a fascist by another name.

I guess it was too much to expect even one board on Holla Forums to not be a clone of Holla Forums.

well lets say steel mill community slowly but surely grows their machinery operation, until one day they cut (C) off? can you blame (A) for trying to improve their community and lifestyle? who wants to work in a mine all day and get lung cancer?i don't want that for my children. i would definitely push for changing or diversifying my communities production.

well what if he joins another community? a community that does not want to trade with your community, and they rely on each other but exclude you for whatever reason?

What if the pixies from Narnia come and trade his crops for golden wobbles? Or he strikes oil under his rutabega patch and makes a billion commieland labor vouchers? What if there's a genie that grants him the strength of twenty tigers and a devil-may-care attitude? What if he unearths an ancient evil locked beneath the floor of his simple reed hut and it turns out the only way to stop it is with the power of friendship?

see: any revolution ever. farmers get killed.

Then I don't care.

We'd be completely leaving him alone though. It's his personal property. I get that you're attempting to be Socratic, but it comes off more as projection.

Collectivization.
This is not "improving living conditions"

They can form a mutual aid network with other communes and trade with each other. Oh shit.

For those who don't recognize it, this is the "what's that got to do with the price of tea in china" remark that is used to mock people obsessed with what-ifs and endless contingency planning.

A very valid observation btw.

Also can you please stop this delusion that having less is somehow in their self interest.

The land isn't being taken from him because it never belonged to him in the first place. Since the land is communal, all its products are communal, and if he doesn't like that then he can find some other occupation with which to sustain himself. If he doesn't want to work for the commune, then he doesn't have to, but neither does the commune owe him anything if he chooses to abstain, in particular respecting "his property."

So he's a subsistence farmer who now replaces his entire grain crop with a vineyard because he wants to make wine as a hobby? How does he expect to eat?

Holy hell, this is some insta stage 4 shit.

The same way that stuff is getting to the collective. And unless you're cutting off outside influence merchants will come in looking for a good deal.

Said earlier in my post, something the collective doesn't produce on a mass scale and doesn't distribute to everybody, maybe some luxury product or a specialized tool.

Who is we? because it sounds like the majority of people here seem to think some form of strong arming is needed.

If you check who I was addressing in

you might notice that your response wasn't included, but if

is your stance then that pretty much falls in line with what I said about

being the only reasonable answers.

Let him?

Farmers can grow more than one crop. If he's confident he can grow more than he can eat he can use some of his land to grow something else.
A lot of times a small amount of cattle and other animals compliment farming so he would have some excess anime products he might want himself.

It isn't his land.

I can see that you're falling apart, because nobody is taking anything from anyone. Socialism is mostly about personal choice and agrarian justice, rather than priorities for becoming wealthy being foisted upon you by the ruling class. A self-sufficient farmer is totally classless.

Holy hell, this is some Donald Trump levels of debate tactics and dodging the question.

If you don't want to contribute to the discussion that's fine. I won't force you to contribute like your fellow authoritarians would force the farmer into their protection racket.

Because I'm not a FASCIST.

Yes it is, tankie.

It is all of our land, Rosa killer.

THIS LAND BELONGS TO US BECAUSE WE SAY IT DOES says the group of white farmers kicking out a black farmer for not joining their farming commune.

well its collectivised already, the people who work at the steelmill/mine own it. i wasn't making an argument for wage slavery

i was making a (A) workers community vs (B) workers community argument

why would a community (A) support community (B) when there is no benefit for supporting that community?

they can give them stuff in exchange for nothing, OR they can trade with another community which produces stuff that they want.

I take it that you don't have a problem with selective service (the draft), being forced to have insurance coverage (not buying it but having it, check the law), etc. then either right?

Also

How's that crystal ball working out for you?

Stop being retarded.

A lot of this thread is starting to sound like this comic.
Expect replace machine with land and capitalist with collective.

Why do you assume there is no benefit?

Except the subject is what happens to a peasant that refuses collectivization, which in effect becomes "what happens to people that try to arbitrarily monopolize communal resources?"

So what should happen then to a farmer or somebody that tries to horde or monopolize communal resources? Especially when in all likelihood "his farm" is going to rely on resources, labor, or protection from the commune in some form or another? What makes him selfishly hording land different from someone that builds a dam at the headwaters of a river and monopolizes a stream? Or should he just be given control over the whole river because he unilaterally decided it was "his property" now?

I wasn't trying to debate you, I was insulting you for my own amusement.

wow
cool

This.

Individualists should just drop the pretense and call themselves capitalists.

Personal property still exists. A self-sustaining farmer who employs no one and performs all labor him/herself on his/her own land is not bourgeois. The earth being tilled by one man is not a means of production to be seized by the proletariat.

Eh? I've been saying to leave the guy alone. Deny him benefits for not contributing to the community, at least until post-scarcity is achieved, but shit, we aren't going to just give things like healthcare out for free until then.

worker ownership =/=ownership by use or occupancy

Now this is a new tack. You think that there will be competetion for work in communism, because it makes work rewarding. That may indeed be an issue, but I would think that would encourage the production of new goods.

None the less, there are a few problems with your scenario. Firstly, it would make little sense for steel workers who want to do more work to open an auto plant when they are already supplying an auto plant. If they are producing more steel than is necessary but want to work more so that they can have more, then it would make far more sense to make something else out of steel, something that is not already being produced. Making a new industry would give them a lot more work than cannibalizing an existing one would. Opening an auto plant would only cut into their own steel business.

lets say that community produces lower quality products and there are other communities that produce the same, higher quality products.

Land is not personal property.

Can't self-sustain without the state reinforcing his delusional "property" rights.

That's one way to frame the whole of society.

Nigga you crazy.

What, as opposed to

What are you even trying to argue?

Why wouldn't the community who produces lower quality products be able to replicate what the other company is doing if there is no production for profit or intellectual property? Wouldn't the point be to make the optimal form of a product in an attempt to eliminate resource waste?

You're a capitalist.

You're projecting. I am a democratic socialist.

No, he's a peasant. Why be a peasant when you could be classless?

He serves no one. He is purely classless. And if he's happy, he's in his paradise.

ITT: Confused liberals trying to look at socialism through a capitalist lens.

You love porky. oink oink oink

Except it isn't what he's saying you stupid asshole.

Glad I come to this board for great leftist political discussion.

Think the same concept applies.
If you live in a more prosperous area your surplus value is going to be re distributed to one of the lesser prosperous ones.
On the personal level, the same thing is happening to you. just that extra value goes to different people.

this land belongs to me because i have built and worked it. this land is my means of production,

geographical factors, droughts, climate not being as good as others, lower yields, etc.

they would have to be helped by other communities.

He is not classless; he is a peasant. If he were classless then he would socialize his production to receive the equivalent value in goods that he did not himself make.

It doesn't

Land belongs to no one.

So now we're back to just farming? I thought you were including steel mills and the auto-industry, too. Ok.

So this farming community is completely self sufficient? They utilize no resources outside of their immediate geographic location?

But he doesn't need that. As a democratic socialist, I don't think most people would approve of stealing this guy's farm.

Think of it this way: you cannot come onto the land on which I reside or I will shoot you. Ergo, that land belongs to me. You will not be able to gather a significant group of people to steal my land, because it is not worth stealing to anybody else with a rational mind, and pretty much everybody who is not a tankie is opposed to ripping off peoples' homes. That's why democratic socialism is better than dictatorial socialism.

An ancap with a succdem flag? Makes sense.

How can you steal that which is held in common?

I am a democratic socialist with certain anarcho-communist views, particularly those regarding personal property.

A small tract of land where a person lives and sustains their existence is not to be held in common.

that makes a lot of sense…

Oh, so farm lands are someones home now?

No, you are a capitalist.

Invite him on a compulsory hike to Siberia.

All of the land is held in common. Just because he's personally shitting on it doesn't mean he owns it.

and where does he get the means to transport it? this doesn't sound like a single man operation.

Is this true gommunism?

no, no one owns any of it. He can do what he wants as long as he's not hoarding all the available arable land to himself. You people are collectivist scum bags. He doesn't owe anyone else his fruits of his labor. The collective has no rights, its just a domain.

that's everyone though…

A small farm where someone grows food to sustain themselves, doesn't need to trade with anyone outside and is happy existing in that mode is not "farm lands". Are you truly saying that my grandmother would be obligated to provide a fraction of the small amount of food she grows in her garden to the state? Are you trying to starve out farmers?

But he is not causing problems for anyone anywhere ever by doing it.

you might build onto the land, but you don't create the land or the resources in it, which means you aren't entitled to their exclusive use

working it would entitle you to the use of the product from it, but nowhere does building on it or working it entitle you to the right to exclude others from their common property

the land is a resource, not a means of production, which would be the tools you use to cultivate the land itself, and which presumably, unless you're intent on using stone or wooden tools to try and eke out sustenance from "your land" would be the produce of some other commune

so why shouldn't the people's militia come by and run you off of the piece of land you're illegally trying to monopolize?

Traveling merchants, if he's close to the border he can move it himself during the off season. Farmers were still able to move their goods before the industrial revolution.

Maybe his entire village decided to treat their contributions to the collective as a tax and traded their surplus among themselves.

it doesnt

if you have worked and built it, it is your means of production.. a farmer who has worked the land, has a better claim than a bunch of teenage anarchists from the city who want his farm

i used farm as a simple example it would be way more complex.

basically what i'm trying to say is that without central planning

1 communities will be forced to expand and compete in order to improve their communities

2 smaller, communities with less resources and pre-revolution industries, are at risk of being abandoned by communities with more resources due to community self interest

think about this yall. what happens to all the workers in the middle east when oil becomes obsolete??? they have literally 0 other industries or resources that they can trade other communities with,

Your dumbass grandma is self-sustaining with a small garden?

well then if the collective comes to bother him he can just wave his magic wand and sprinkle some fairy dust while he's at it and there'll be no problem

There are no travelling merchants in communism. We're not going back to ye olde medieval times.

succdem flags need to be banned

Oh, then he can trade his excess crop for a vehicle.

Oops, the "independent" farmer left his land to go sell it on a none existent market. I walk onto his land while he's gone and it's now mine since he needs a state to protect his unjustified private ownership of the land.

what exactly are you basing this premise on? why are communites "forced to compete" isn't of being "forced to cooperate?"

...

you first

What would be the point? There is no market for the merchant to sell his commodities on. There's no money for him to accumulate so he can't buy more commodities to sell.

...

That sounds a lot like a protection racket.

When was the last time you patronised a tinker, you dumb faggot? There won't be merchants not because it's prohibited, but because the entire idea of a merchant would be obsolete.

This is what happens when theoreticals aren't framed with precise circumstances. People just start making things up based on their own biases and ideology, defeat the strawmen they create, and then acts smug about it.

No. That's why I'm wondering whether or not you are trying to starve out farmers. Answer the questions, Joseph.

You literally just described how a shotgun works. And that is the exact solution to that situation.

Hoarding is when you have too much of something that it causes issues for you and those around you. A self-sustained, off the grid farmer is not hoarding. He's living. His lifestyle is not excessive or decadent. That is his preferred mode of living. He does not cause social issues by existing.

Or…get this…he could contribute to the community and be given a vehicle for his efforts.

You finally revealed your hand. Good effort all around tho.

yes, forced to cooperate with other communities for their self interest, BUT what if a community has no or little beneficial value for other communities? it could be excluded,

i dont think you have m8. you expect workers from one community to completely take care of another community?

unless the community is ran by dicks and they give a car to some port faggot instead of him because the poet is popular.

youtu.be/lfLkK-4MI2g

lol you people either spend too much time on here or not enough time on here. Not everyone who dislikes commies are Holla Forums or /liberty/ and not everyone who dislikes communes is a Liberal.

4 youtu.be/lfLkK-4MI2g

My original point was this . How he's going to move his product is tangential.

Yeah, I totally see how claiming private property rights of land that can be used to provide resources for everyone doesn't cause issue for those around you.

can you actually form an argument or do you only have baseless assertions

no, it won't, human curiosity is limitless and the autistic sociopath commune leaders won't produce all the goods that people want. There will always be novelty and specialty artisan goods that only craftsman, artisans and merchants have access to and people will always be willing to negotiate or barter for those goods. Stop being a rationalist faggot and observe with your own two-eyes the empirically verifiable behavior of people around you especially at festivals, parties and get-togethers outside of the traditional marketplaces. Stop being a sperg.
massive projection
Yup, massive retarded smug projection. The idea that most people would want to live on an ant-farm and eat soylent and army rations for the rest of their lives is nonsense. We either have to depopulate or live like insects there is no way we can support equality for 10 billion people which is where the population will be in 2050 before it levels off. Its not possible. So either depopulate, which you guys won't discuss OR everyone lives like ants. Which means black markets and grey markets. Stop being stupid

You're embarrassingly stupid.

Nah. I'd say that's the crux of the issue. Products don't magically appear on the other side of the world.

Yeah it will
You shouldn't use words you don't understand.
So why did you make up such a nonsensical strawman?

Argument:

Communism is an unrealistic assumption about the limits of logistics and human decision making. Most people do not want to live life on the margins as would be necessary for 10 billion in an egalitarian, planned society. If this society was ever enacted it would result in grey markets. People do not understand that Marxism is both unscientific and unphilosophical and an unsound line of reasoning for organizing society. Wealth inequality is a natural state in nature and is the default state for most humans. Even basic tribal societies have wealth inequality. Inherited differences in ability and the bio-material nature of organic life prevents idealistic jumps in ability that would close the gap between ability levels that prevent equality from being sustianable. Thus no matter what either a large amount of depopulation is necessary OR there needs to be a bug-people society. So, Communism is an unscientific, unrealistic understanding of logistics, heredity, decision making and the scope of human economic activity. It does not fathom the consequences of nuclear weapons or the internet. Therefore believing in it, is as advisable as being a Jehovah's Witness.

There, that's an argument. Have fun with that. I'm sure you're a well trained logician

Why wouldn't the person just acquire it directly from the creator? Why would their be a merchant to mediate the transaction?

Other folks here have told me otherwise. My view on personal property is not unreasonable.

A tiny tract of land where a person has a home and grows/breeds and slaughters their food is not going to cause a measurable difference in output from the collective farms established for the benefit of the community.

...

There are always going to be communities near the borders against countries who might have a better deal. Unless the only way you consider it a real communism is with global domination.

Also I'm repeating myself be he can just make a trade deal with his neighbors.
He grows some wine grapes, the neighbor spends less time farming and more time turning grapes into wine. or something to that effect.

Where do they get the tools necessary to slaughter cattle and work the land?

You just said a bunch of dumb, unsubstantiated shit. Repeating buzzwords and meaningless rhetoric isn't an argument.

You think land is personal property. That is very much unreasonable, but what can we expect from capitalist socdems.

no, it won't because there is no reason for the community to meet the demands of human curiosity and desire, which the capitalist market does. Thus novelty and extraordinary technology and privatized experiences will become highly sought after commodities which merchants on the outskirts of civilization will satisfy and vast grey and black markets will prop up along these cracks in the commie iron curtain. This has happened in all communist and socialist civilizations without fail. Its never not happened.
You're projecting your own pseudo-intellectual gnostic understanding of a dead-field of political theory onto the FACTS of the matter of how human economics and psychology functions. This is a case of projection. I am not ignorant, you are the one who is ignorant.
I didn't, you're just unimaginative and a wishful thinker. All descriptions of a commie global civilization are either dystopian Brave New World hell-scapes or Bug-People land. There are no other ways that collective ownership and a management class cna exist globally. Otherwise autonomy and private ownership have to take place. You don't get culture without stratification and fragmentation of human populations. Entirely homogenous hordes produce nothing but vacuums of culture. That's why modern China and India have produced nothing in the way of arts or philosophy. They're ant-farms. Ant-farms are sustainability projects for nations with too many people and too few resources.

He's not allowed to go to a co-op tool store in town and barter?

A small farm is not unreasonable to claim as personal property. A Monsanto farm is.

Damn dude, where did you find 3 billion previously undiscovered people? That's a hell of a discovery.

Any claim of private property over land is unreasonable.

This is an invalid counter-argument, you lose.
No you don't know what an argument is, its not hearing what you want to hear. Its a formal set of claims called the premises which are intended to support another set of well formulated forms called the conclusions. The premises must lead to the conclusions for it to be valid. For it to be sound all the premises must be true. You don't understand what arguments are, just like most Holla Forumsyps don't understand how Fractional Reserve Banking or the IMF work, because they're illiterate. Read a book.

You are either intentionally or mistakenly forgetting to differentiate between private and personal property. Either way you're wrong.

It's not surprising when stupid people agree with other stupid people.

wew

Well gee, ya got me there.

From the studies where its projected that 10 billion will be our population by 2050, and then it will stop growing significantly after that. Around 11 billion it may or may not shrink, at 12 billion its supposed to completely halt.
only if you're an illiterate faggot

Land cannot be personal property.

Or he could contribute to the community in a positive way and be given the tools.

Except your premises aren't based on anything you dumb shit. You just keep baselessly repeating the same assertions over and over, you dipshit.

i forgot that communism is a perfect and unassailable theory but its never been tried ever. Never mind the USSR and CCP and Cuba, all of which faced severe famines and food shortages and medical supply shortages and severely restricted ownership of luxury goods and were severely behind the US and EU in development of state-of-the-art technologies and transportation systems. Which is why huge swathes of those countries were undeveloped going into the 90's contrary to all "lol USSR had higher standard of living" propaganda nonsense.

Not only is this ahistorical, it's just flat out retarded "muh human nature" bullshit.

I thought he was "self sustaining." Oops, I guess he needs the commune after all!

Oh, so he's a leech?

Oh shit I totally forgot the USSR eliminated the law of value, wage labor, and commodity production.

if i build an irrigation system, what entitles you to use my irrigation system for your crops? that's called stealing someones labor.

does the "land" extend to crops? can you just come onto "my" land and harvest my crops and take them home?

First of all, you don't actually have to have true premises for it to be an argument. The soundness of the argument depends on the truth value of the premises. Second of all, my premises are true. Communism is unscientific, communism is bug-people civilization, communists do not understand molecular psychiatry or molecular biology or population genetics or heredity or evolutionary biology or evo-psyche, communism is a system that has failed every time its been tried, communism is not compatible with high levels of luxury or novelty unless a huge portion of the population is liquidated using eugenics, the world population will balloon to 10 billion and then level off to 12 billion permanently. This is unavoidable, and thus a commie society would not have sufficient resources to feed 10 billion people UNLESS it resorted to people eating ant-people paste and soylent and living in eco-domes/pods. these are my premises. They are all true, or at least maintain a high enough degree of truth to by de facto be true. Therefore my premises are true, so the problem has to be with my conclusions. What is your problem with my conclusions?

Cuba? With it's incredibly high literacy rates, high standard of medicine and medical research, and its elimination of homelessness? Damn, what a failed society because they have old cars.

GOD, YOU FAGGOTS ARE SO AUTISTIC

WHAT IF HE DOESNT CALL HIS FARM "HIS LAND" what if he just doesnt share with the commune?

Leave him alone like the CNT did

If I call my dog a bird it can fly now.

Vegetables and meat a farmer grows and raises on his own farm are not capital. A self-sustaining farm is built in a socially fair way. Only natural vegetation is the property of the collective. Vegetation that someone has grown by themselves is personal property.

When I think of this farmer, I don't envision him as having any opposition to the collective, just a lack of need to any great degree. Tools are not that massive of a need and only need to be bought once or twice in a lifetime if they're built by good workers.

How is this leeching?

That is literally bartering. He has goods to trade. He's not a bourgie looking to profit on them, he just wants to keep living.

...

is your computer YOUR COMPUTER?

das the communities computer, give it here faggot, the community has decided.

There is no bartering or trading. Shit is made for it's use-value not it's exchange-value. Read a fucking book.

Its not a-historical, the women of the tribe had no say over the distribution of wealth and the weakest men who could not hunt well ate last and the least amount and had the least access to desirable females. Weaker physical specimens received less attention and were not part of the Chief's lineage and thus did not have primary mating rights. There was no anarchist egalitarian period. all hunter gatherer tribes have elite wise men, leader hunters and then matriarch gatherers. There is no egalitarian human default, this is an impression you would get from never studying physical anth or history at all and just typing in "egalitarian hunter-gatherer" on a search engine. Its funny because leftists on this board spam links to blogs and websites that I used to reflexively link-to when right wingers would question me about these issues. After doing actual research by reading scientific articles and studies its really obvious that a sexual-caste system based on fitness has always existed, that primitive people's were extremely violent, that intelligence is 100% hereditary and there are billions in research dollars lavished on these studies to back this up, that we do not at all have the technology even in the near future to feed $10 billion to "nordic model" levels of nutrition. The healthiest people on Earth are Nords because they can afford to feed everyone properly. That luxury would not be available to 10 billion spread across 7 continents. We can't 3-D print nutritious complete diets, we can't teleport food and we don't have renewable energy that doesn't requrie strip mining. FALC is a utopian fantasy and the singularity is over a hundred years away if not more. The best we can do is downsize the population to around 2-3 billion and then we could possibly feed everyone like the Dutch or Danes do.

...

Nope, sorry population stats, genetics and molecular biology aren't spooks. Either materialism is true and thus bio-materialism is true OR its not true and communism can be rejected as not being a valid form of idealism. Pick one or fuck off. I'm not going to pretend science isn't useful just so i can feel good about a bug-people dystopia that I force onto the whole species. If i was that delusional I'd just go post on Holla Forums about hyperborea

hi Holla Forums

lol

Nah, a computer is definitely a consumer good and therefore personal property. The argument these funny guys are putting forth is that nobody can own part of the earth, even if it's a tiny farm and they aren't sowing opposition to the collective, they're just existing off the grid like some people are apt to do. I wonder if under these guys' systems they would punish Mennonites or the Amish.

I would make an exception for the wise old farmer. You are behaving like a presumptuous and petulant child.

Why would somebody barter for something that's freely available to them?

Well I'm not so sure we should base society around the wants of a "wise old farmer".

Cool. Tell me more how an individual can claim ownership of the land and take the goods he produces on that land to market and it is still "personal" property.

no, leave. This is a materialist board. bio-materialism is the rational form of materialism. Marxism is not bio-materialist and thus not materialist and doesn't belong on this board. Bio-materailism is the only sane, rational world view that doesn't require believing in the idealism.

Now again, either Genetics and Thermodynamics and Chemistry and Physics decide why people are the way they are OR there is a non-material aspect to consciousness and reality which would by default negate atheism and marxism.

Pick and then please fuck off.

You people are so tiresome and full of cognitive dissonance. I can't believe how little scientific literacy you display on average as a board

Because they don't have any need to go all in with the collectivism thing. The collective should have no need for them either, but I see my collective as a compassionate body of people who would allow this kindly old farmer to exchange goods for some of ours.

I don't think giving someone a hoe is "basing society" around any particular individual.

Your dumb ass hypothetical farmer sounds more like a petulant child than anyone who's arguing with you.

Oooo, next are you going to pull out your calipers and start teaching us about skull shapes?

...

Sounds like having to shape society around your retarded dumb farmer. At this point we should just kill him and put the retard out of his misery.

Hmmm, or maybe I'm just a compassionate person who doesn't believe in exerting physical or psychological force to get my way. I don't believe in the "abusive parent" style of collective.

Murdering people who don't need your society to support their simple lifestyle is not cool. Hardly agrarian justice.

Except when he does have a great need I guess. Woops.
Man you're really dumb. Tools are pretty fucking important to a farmer you dumb, dumb idiot.
If they're made of Dwarven Mythril maybe but in the real world tools wear out and break all the fucking time. And besides that, what if the commune doesn't "have any opposition to the farmer, just a lack of need" for him and his piddling monopoly. Why should they give him any tools for his undoubtedly inferior and minuscule produce?

Damn, you got my synapses firing.

i never advocated for primitivism, I advocated for depopulating the Earth by 4 billion people, peacefully, using voluntary eugenics. That's not the same thing as genocide you ape.
But, i'm an anarchist and communists are collectivists and collectivists can not be anarchists and they replace the State with the Mob

No, I'm going to ask you to go on Sci-Hub and start looking up molecular psychiatry and molecular biology studies and observing how well documented genetic causes of intelligence are and how strongly genes correlate with life outcomes and how heredity works. Then you can go look up how exactly intelligence is distributed across the Earth, then you can look up how its distributed among developed nations, then you can look at how its distributed by Sex and religion and ethnic group, then you can look up how Marx was completely ignorant of genetics and evo-psyche.

He just gets the tools he needs to manage his farm from magic? He is able to exert force to maintain his property rights through magic?

Yeah I guess theorycrafting is pretty easy when you just make up circumstances that favor whatever you personally support and malign those that you don't.

Weren't you supposedly leaving the board hours ago because people couldn't handle your intellectual might? Or are you yet another of the enlightened redditors shitting up the board?

lmao
hahhaha

I am my own advocate, and my premises are air-tight and have a positive truth value. None of you have levied adequate counter-arguments or proven by reductio ad absurdum that my premises lead to false conclusions.

...

...

I haven't posted on reddit since /r/conspiracy was flooded with stormniggers back in 2014, I've been posting on this board on-and-off since last Spring. I was also waiting to finish digesting my breakfast so I could go lift.

hahahahahahahahaha

please depopulate the earth, beginning with yourself

I AM A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN
AM I BEING DETAINED
AM I BEING DETAINED
THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THE NAP
MY DIAPER IS OVERFLOWING

You left when your buddies showed up?

apex lel

hmm…

Meanwhile automation produces an equivalent of 5000 calories for every man woman and child

...

I am pretty sure you're a raider because never have I witnessed such retarded pseudo intellectualism in this board while committing the most basic logical fallacies.

i'm not in the habit of befriending people who don't know how to read or understand basic deductive logic

What the fuck are you on about?

kek this is the stupidest criticism of collectivization I have ever seen

Can you start talk about brain pans next?

What monopoly? He's not profiting off of the things he grows, he's eating them. Oh, but in this case, being able to feed yourself is profit? This literally is not Soviet Russia we are talking about. This is an ideal collective society where everybody is already without need for things like food. This guy just isn't part of it, and you still feel like excluding him from even the smallest things. Fucked up, I'd say.

But you are coming onto his land to steal it from him, possibly kill him, in a very imperialistic and statist manner. You are the one exerting force to get your way, not the guy defending his life.

Defending your life and your livelihood is not exerting force. Again, this guy is not a capitalist, he is, as you said, a peasant, and he's happy that way. Coming and trying to steal it is the exertion of force. Treating a peasant as if he is a lower form of life who should be executed for not giving up peasantry is exertion of force.

One of these things is not like the other. And I said he would barter for the hoe, not just be given it. Though that wouldn't be unreasonable to do.

Meant to get to this earlier:

That depends. If community A is able to objectively produce what community C does at higher efficiency while still reasonably overcoming the resource investment/maintenance necessary to generate new production of machinery, then it would likely be brought before whatever higher economic planning body is involved (think like a Federation under a syndicalist system) to work to re-structure the staple production of community C to suite some other need of the larger association. Community C still receives its existing resource allocations as it had previously as well as part of the resources necessary for the aforementioned restructuring. Again though, this is dependent on whether community A is actually capable of undertaking the new production while not having it undermine existing production in terms of resource and labor expenditure.

If community A realistically is not in a position to fulfill all of the above criteria when attempting to undercut community C's economic role, then it rapidly becomes a lose-lose situation for all parties involved. Community A shifts production to fuck with community C, community A likely faces sanctions or other penalties for taking such actions that are to the detriment of virtually all other parties involved, and everyone is left to try and re-organize the economic role community C should pursue (with all associated costs).

Two assumptions you make in regards to these interactions is that
A) economic interactions between socialist communities operate on an atomized market model rather than the theoretical and (non-Soviet) historical models that usually trend towards voluntary and relatively decentralized planned economies
B) that community economics can be entirely broken down into a single productive effort rather than the reality whereas communities have a myriad of productive enterprises being undertaken.
Both assertions are steeped in capitalist ideology that limits perspective on the very possibility for what autonomy looks like.

Sir excuse me sir my premises have positive truth value which you'd understand if you were educated in STEM like myself thank you and good day *tips bunsen burner*

Lol cry more, why don't you formulate a counter-argument and point by point refute my premises. If the premises are false, then the conclusion is not sound. However my premises lead to my conclusions. And it is necessary that if my premises were true then my conclusion must be true, thus it is a valid argument. It "might" be unsound, depending on how you define some of the terms I used and your understanding of Science. but overall my premises have a high degree of truth and thus come close enough to a positive truth value to render my premises true and thus the argument is valid and sound. Its necessarily true if its premises are true AND its premises have a high degree of truth and thus are practically true thus the argument is air-tight. Gotta learn how to logic, otherwise you just post "fallacy" "straw man" over and over.

You can't steal land. It doesn't belong to him.

then ill just plant my crops and wont give you any.

checkm8

So says the murderous tankie. Yeah, I'm spooked about murdering people. You shouldn't do it.

So says the murderous Rosa killer. Got any fascists you want to get in bed with?

What did he mean by this?

cool

No you guys don't understand deductive formal logic at all. Because most people on here are economics majors and NEET's and college drop-outs. the premises do not have to be true for the argument to be valid, the validity comes from whether the conclusions is a necessary result of the premises possible truth. If the premises were true, then the conclusion must be true. And since the premises are certainly highly plausible, they have a high degree of truth, we can say they have positive truth value. Which makes them true, which makes the argument sound. Which means its a sound and valid argument.

...

His "private farm" you obtuse dipshit.
Because you have severe brain damage

You say it's an ideal collective society where people don't need food. Fine, then why does he have his own farm? So he's growing food (on "his own land" no less) explicitly for his own use and not participating in collective production? Okay, so then why is he entitled to the collective product the generation of which he actively abstains from? You want it both ways where this dumb faggot has a right to the fruits of the commune while violently separating himself from the commune and unilaterally taking possession of land to which everyone is communally entitled.

SIR I'LL HAVE TO TAKE YOU TO COURT SIR IF YOU CONTINUE TO DEFAME THE TRUTH VALUE OF MY ASSERTIONS SIR DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND FORMAL LOGIC YOU CROMAGNON SIMPLETON I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW I'VE BEEN IN NUMEROUS PHILOSOPHICAL SYMPOSIA AND HAVE DISCOVERED OVER 500 EMPIRICAL TRUTHS OF HIGH VALUE SIR

No, this doesn't work. Communism is not scientific, the population will grow to around 9-10 billion by 2050, we do not have the technology to feed that many people up to the standards that the Nordic Model states feed their populations, the sudden violent redistribution of wealth will not be voluntary and will severely stretch the logistical capabilities of the global supply chain and will reduce massive numbers of people to subsistence living where everyone is living in domes on rations. This can be avoided, as in we could live like commies, if we slowly eliminated surplus population. But, that's the only way. Also since collectivism requires subsistence living, as it is unwilling to deal with differences in ability and logistics, it is inherently going to give rise to black and grey markets where novelty and luxury can be provided for a price. Thus, the market will continue to satisfy human greed and boredom while most people live like ants. These are my premises, they are not even remotely controversial. Most academics and most intellectuals who are not leftists would agree with me on most of those points. The ones who disagree are invariably leftists who are invariably unfamiliar with the slow down in Moore's Law growth, logistics, strip-mining for fuel cells, the cost of ethanol, the damage that low nutrition diets do to population's autism levels and the sheer scope and scale of the global supply chains. You are completely reduced to spamming memes, because none of you spend even a little time researching ideas and studies that contradict your worldview, which because it is not scientific, is not capable of accommodating new information.

Good in my books. He isnt doing any harm to anyone, as long as there isnt a seriously good reason to move him to another piece of land, why pester such a person?

...

I am a democratic socialist with some anarcho-communist views, but there is no democratic socialist flag and the symbols are identical. I don't know anything about the Rosa meme other than who that person was vaguely, and that she was a relatively controversial figure among communists. I don't know what social democrats have to do with her death.

Stalinist then.

The English language makes people violent.

Ah yes, that classic anarcho-communist viewpoint that private property is good actually.

ok m8

A home and homegrown crops are personal property.

¿Qué quiso decir con esto? Is this some new form of post-meta-ironic shitposting?

Man, you just keep finding new ways to be dumb.

Land is a home now. Cool.

You could extrapolate to a modern citizen producing less overall value than he contributes.

What's so crazy about an individual in a collective working the minimum amount if it doesn't affect his pay?

I know that a tankie is a Stalin apologist, fucker. You nitpicked my language so I chose a different word.

if land isnt personal property (at least on some level or temporarily)

can i destroy your crops? or just take your crops?

Now you're just sucking up my time of day.

no one owns the earth man

I'm sure you are on a busy schedule. Those fascists aren't going to collaborate on their own.

No, the collective takes them and distributes them equally, because apparently growing enough food to feed yourself, and feeding yourself, is decadence to these kids.

They aren't my crops. They're the communes crops.

You won't feel that way when you starve to death because you only grew enough to feed yourself because that was the purpose of your farm.

Farmers take note: shoot any commies that step onto your land; they are here to steal from you

but i turned the soil, planted, and watered them.

wouldnt that be stealing the fruits of my labor?

...

Fuck now I won't be able to approach them in my T34 and classic Red Army uniform thanks to your genius PSA.

Holla Forums go home and take your retarded socdems with you

I have been emphasizing in all of my posts that he is not taking any of this food to market.

so let me get this straight.

youtu.be/lfLkK-4MI2g

Then why does he have so much farmland if he is producing so little food?

Where did you get the seeds to plant? Or the means to carry the water? Or the tools to till the soil? Or the knowledge of agriculture? Or the land in which to plant them in the first place?

I have specifically been emphasizing that he does not have "so much farmland" as well. I literally said earlier that a Monsanto farm is not personal property.

So are you saying not to invest any money or have any nice property, because by 2050 it will be "redistributed"? Fuck that, if I slave away on a fishing ship or in a coal mine for the next 30 years, I am KEEPING what I've earned. You can fuck off and if you try to take what I earned I will cut your dick off, if you aren't already post-op that is

Are you a magician? Are you producing all of the tools you need and other resources you need to live out of thin air?

Personal property =/= Private property.
This is 101-tier stuff.

Use paragraphs you fucking retard

No one's going to take your Megumin figurines user

From the commune nearby who compassionately provides these things, even for outsiders, because they are post-scarcity.

So he's a leech.

More worried about my gaymen PC tbh

We are not an asshole society who psychologically abuses you into participating in our collective, but in asshole terms, yes.

Yeah, the collective should just let some asshole take from the commune because, well, just because.

You call it taking, I call it giving. And no, it's not just because, it's because we subscribe to the "it's the right thing to do" spook.

It's not the right thing to do.

...

You and your community are perfectly free to believe that.

That's not really quite there, because it wasn't done democratically, nor are the "Ber" and the "nie" sides of the sign equal.

Truly the crybaby party.

Stop being retarded, porky.

...

All things come from Allah, peace be upon him

Really sucks.

Knowledge has to be transmitted some way duder, unless we're in fully erotic hyper pansexual transwarp communism where knowledge is coded directly into your genes

Learning is bourgeois.

wtf I hate Trumpets now
jk, mfw didn't vote and had no sign to boobytrap

How DO you run a farm in a communist society anyway? Who decides which plot of land is designated for farms and whatnot? How do you decide who makes decisions on that plot of land? Who decides what crop is to be planted there? Is it all decided democratically by the people in the area or on a national scale?

It depends entirely on what kind of leftist ideology you subscribe to.

In a tankie's view, it's controlled entirely by the party because the guy who leads the farm workers is probably a bourgie and probably deserves to be executed. In a democratic socialist's view, it's a worker's democracy.

...

I am for consensus democracy, not majoritarian democracy. Majoritarian democracy exerts force. If a consensus cannot be reached, the issue is to be dropped until a later date when people are more informed about the facts. That's why I believe this past presidential election should have been postponed.

youtu.be/lfLkK-4MI2g

Serious question - does anyboy here actually farm?

No, and I wouldn't presume to tell a farmer how to do it.

farmers don't come to Holla Forums

You aren't a leftist so why do you presume to tell leftists how leftism should work?

;3

Because leftism literally wants to tell everyone how to work

There is some guy that comes around from time to time that owns and works his own land, but I'm sure he has enough sense to avoid this thread

No it doesn't, that's stupid to say.

Or until they've been persuaded to the falsehoods. Or if the people who voted against them mysteriously die off.

The ultimate problem with Communism is that it cannot exist indefinately. If a group exists in a leaderless commune then you'll get nothing done due to the lack of direction. If you have a ruling party then they're the ones who get decide what's fair and what isn't. If you're living in a commie block and the party wants to renovate it into an office for members of the party, then you're shit out of luck. The party de facto owns it, if not de jure. Yeah you can have parties who aren't assholes but it's foolish to assume that those in power will remain good forever.

Usually it's the good guy who dies and gives way to a shit guy.

Consensus=general agreement
Those people are Democrats and generally agreed that niggers should die

I can find a bunch of guys who will unanimously vote that we should rape your mom. Forced redistribution of her eggs, from her ability to reproduce to each according to their need for a son

Okay, well then form that society and it will run well. Agreement on all issues is how you win and keep your society moving in a positive direction in real life. Disagreement and division is undesirable.

you know what, maybe I am more lefty than I thought. Thanks user (being srs)

That's not how smart decisions work. You won't necessarily find the best way of doing things by doing things everyone agrees on. After all, there's rarely much disagreement in a sucessful suicide cult.

Pls be joking.

Generally I'm going for a materialist, factual consensus, not a consensus on some dogma.

Just going through this thread in the past 5 minutes is fucking abysmal Tankie wet dreams of murdering amish people.

Syndicates don't operate like a Star Trek Borg where 2 billion people are all part of the same commune and if you don't assimilate you're thrown into a meat grinder, you have syndicates that operate on the local level, closest to the people themselves, not some far away politician that is deciding how you live your life from 500 miles away in a mansion, and if there is some dude in a log cabin with solar panels and chickens and a greenhouse (which, this is a "what-if" scenario people, ffs this isn't going to be common based on genetic need for human interaction) I doubt you would even be aware this guy existed in the first place, because he is literally the equivalent of a wild animal in a forest somewhere, not in any way inside civilization itself, no way to keep track of, as much of a nuisance as a squirrel in a tree somewhere.

and the ultimate agenda of leftism is quickly revealed

Of course you people always resort to Murder & Enslavement because you're all bitter pathetic losers unable to make it in the world without a ruler to hold your hand.

Why do these people even care if the guy doesn't want to assimilate? Going as far as wanting to kill the guy.
Seems extremely authoritarian.

Authoritarian is just a word.

It sure is, just like everything else in the dictionary.
Your point?

So I live in Amish Lancaster County PA, and the Amish live in a very cooperative manner, that said, the society is still strongly gerontocratic (rule by old) and patriarchal. I know these are idpol concepts, but these identities are based on the fact that among men in amish society, distribution of property is pretty much more equal than under financial capitalism. Thus the identities are, as always, based in relations of production. Therefore the (entirely petty) bourgeoise is almost solely composed of men with the very infrequent widow landowener, with women and children making up 100% of the proletariat. So that's the problem I'd have with this "independent farmer" if he wants to proletarianize women and children.

this is what they did during the Spanish revolution

Nah.
Nah.

like pottery.

OK but if we catch him attempting to solicit others for help in farming "his" land we will castrate him and confiscate his children.

I was joking about the shooting part but not the first part. Why should the rest of society bend over backwards for some petite-bourgeoisie peasant piece of shit that wants to have private property and yet still benefit from the labour of the rest of society?
If they think they can make it alone they're welcome to try, but I'm sure as hell not going to lift a finger to help them and I don't see why anyone should either.

I'm coming for that toothbrush, libcuck.

...

...

Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Capitalism did the exact same thing to peasant farmers to establish itself.

Though, I'm more in favor of withholding tech and other services until they voluntarily collectivize. Turn off their water and electricity, let their roads crumble and their equipment break and rust, and they'll eventually see the merit in joining with society.

I don't know what you're talking about. It's an exchange of equal values. Some bumblefuck isolationist on a farm provides no value to society, and so he deserves no value back.

literally barbarism

Isn't that exactly what you cappies say about the unemployed?

...

This. You can't force EVERYONE to collectivize, but it would be in his self interest to join in.

his land belongs to me

Let him, if he is working on his own he isn't exploiting anyone.

I'm a socialist.

God it was truly baffling how many middle aged men were crying when they're paper signs got vandalized in my town this last election.

Identify yourself in the riot room please

"These are my premises, they are not even remotely controversial."
"Also since collectivism requires subsistence living, as it is unwilling to deal with differences in ability and logistics,"
This is an incredibly narrow-minded view, equality doesn't mean literally everyone is the same, some people actually have nuance, and realize it means higher equality of both opportunity (socialized education and assistance with bare essentials of living ex. food, housing, water covered, individuals can respecialize more freely) as well as higher equality of outcome (eliminating the conditions that allow excessive centralization of capital into the hands of few, providing more for the community). Also, good luck with your forced sterilization of what is inevitably gonna be Third World people, care to explain the logistics of that? Maybe we should all invite them here for that :3

Surely such a farmer would be able to protect himself from these invading Straw Men

Just leave him be
He would eventually have to join the Commune if he wants to enjoy the benefits of the Community but if he doesn't, then fine

...

Not sure what you're not getting
Are you saying if you work in an area with rich soil and produce 2 bushels of wheat, it has the same value as 1 bushel produced in a poor area because the same effort was put in?

Yes. One hour of work for one hour of work.

Socialism is not forcing people in some shitty boy scout summer camp.

Going back to the post and comic here
If you're a worker unaware of the poorer areas, you could think
and then some inspector comes in and says

Top down, the mechanics are different, but from the perspective of the individual it's about the same.

Kill him for being an asocial greedy hermit.

kulak going to kulak

that why we have gulags

Let him be. In fact, encourage independent small farmers like him instead of collectivization.

JEFFERSONIANISM FOR LIFE

Forgot my flag.

...

And the other farmer worked really hard producing 2 bushels of wheat.

Or, in actuality, neither of you worked particularly hard because wheat is one of those easily automated crops that you could have pre-programmed combines produce.

If you want to benefit from socialism, participate in socialism.

youtube.com/watch?v=61Ye47Cm8zE

"Participation is not compulsory, and if you try to 'make it compulsory' for me, I will shoot you, because otherwise you probably would shoot me because I will not do it." The farmer.

Good luck getting public support in your commune to go take over this old dude's farm.

this is actually exactly what Collectivism is, perpetual Mami Camp for the whole species. everyone suckling from Mami State's teat endlessly. The big mami state coddling everyone forever.

This. That simple.

...

Democracy is good. Especially majoritarian democracy.

Fuck niggers and minorities.

Tyranny of majority for life.

this is a new strain of autism

This shit is tiresome. I think I get why so many teachers are miserable fuckers, beyond the shit pay of course.

Repeating myself again from here .

If you're going to pay everybody the average, everybody producing above that average is just going to want to trade with each other than have to prop up those producing less.
In the original context of an independent farmer, say he's at the edge of your territory and produces 4 bushels of wheat. You offer the standard 2 bushels worth of redistributed value, but his neighbor offers 3, he has no reason to join you.
Alternatively if a self sufficient village produces more on average than you're collective's average, they don't have a reason to join either.

And I still insist it's relevant that the farmer would feel he's getting shafted because the result of his labor is being taken away by a faceless collective of people.

The argument can be extrapolated to other industries where more effort equals more produced. Also a bit of a cop out to say technology that doesn't exist yet will solve the problem.

Communism is Mami Society though. Fascism is Big Poppa State, Communism is loving but firm handed Mother State. They're projections of unresolved developmental psychology, Freud was right.

Your shitposting was already too obvious, but you blew it here.

really makes you think

Well meme'd.

The naked authoritarian wankery in s thread is why I don't consider myself any kind of communist, and it'll be a cold day in hell before I ever help them do squat.
If it's not voluntary, I'll have no part in it, and the first party functionary shows up and tells me I have to do something wins a free bullet.

I didn't mean to reference developmental psychology as in modern cog-psyche and neuro-psyche research or anything post-freud. I was just using the word to describe the specific idea I was getting at.

Commies in their development become attached to a maternal presence in their lives, Fascists in their development become attached to a paternal presence in their lives. Commies are Mami Statists and Fascists are Poppa Statists.

...

Don't allocate any goods toward him in the production plan.

Who said anything about taking over his farm?

I was advocating giving him exactly what (he thinks) he wants: isolation. Then we can see how long he lasts without electricity, running water, roads, new equipment, and all the other benefits of being in the society he has decided he doesn't want to be a part of.

If he's truly dedicated to being a hermit, let him be a hermit, but it isn't our responsibility to subsidize his anti-social behavior.

I don't see many people opposing this policy either. Do you really want the value you help produce going to fund the lifestyles of people who refuse to participate?

There is no market exchange. And this is part of the point of collectivization, to put to rest these sorts of petty bourgeois sentiments. If two farmers work just as hard, but produce different yeilds, it's obvious that it isn't the farmer that produced the extra crop, but nature. His fields were more fertile, he got better rain, whatever. He's attempting to give himself credit for factors that were, in actuality, beyond his control.

The technology already does exist.

Is there no market exchange because you've built a wall keeping out countries that don't share the same sentiment? Are you enforcing a complete ban on trade with threat of violence? Or are we under the assumption that the entire population doesn't even consider it a possibility, even at their own detriment.
Guessing the previous post is yours, does giving him isolation also mean cutting him off from other farmers and communities not aligned with you?

Again, the imagined scenario I was working with was the one in the OP with an independent farmer and the question being what to do with him. In my case, an already prosperous one. So you can say he got lucky, but there's still no incentive for him to join you.

Also how do you separate effort from environmental factors? In any job, not just farming. Assuming your brand of communism rewords the extra work.

Farms are extremely efficient but are still a lot of work. If you have video of a fully automated one I'd like to see it.

You can't be socialist in any meaningful sense of the term and still support the existence of private property. Which is exactly what you've been doing in this thread.

Then we'll deprive you of all goods and services until you either give up and start producing socially or give up the land so that others can use it to benefit society. Or you can go full anprim and live like an early medievel peasant.

If communism exists then there are no other societies to trade with as communism is by necessity global. If we haven't reached than point then the Dictatorship of the Proletariat still exists and we will use whatever underhanded tactics are necessary to abolish commodity production and capitalism. Up to and including the violent repression of reactionaries.

Revolution is an inherently violent affair, just ask Engels:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

There are no other countries, communism is a global system.

This is communism, right? There are no other communities. You're talking about tiny outliers. One-man farmers account for a negligible part of the economy, they would not be able to form some kind of alternative society.

Once again, the benefits of society will be withheld from him if if he refuses to participate with society.

I was talking about combines. They're already pretty close to automated already. I've been in one. With self-driving tech already out there, it's only a matter of time.

Communism and socialism is the answer to the limits of logistics, human decision making and human information processing abilities.

Those limits vastly contribute to starvation and poverty, which in turn becomes self-perpetuating.

The capital accumulation and falling rate of profit slowly but surely turns former capitalists into well paid wage earners, essentially pauperizing everyone but the most wealthy capitalists.

The petty bourgeoisie are slowly driven out of business through the mechanisms of market competition, where they cannot compete with bigger competitors. The ones who manage either have enterprise in something people actually need. Those who produce goods to satisfy artificially induced desires will surely meet their fate of bankrupcy, as the falling rate of profit (ratio between variable and constant capital, where the constant capital is always increasing while the variable is roughly the same, and only from variable capital can profit be made).

Meaning you cannot extract profit out of machines, since other machines do not buy anything and do not earn a wage from other capitalists.

Capitalism is the race to the bottom. The faster they go, the bigger profits they make. But due to the limitations of the society and economy, there is a bottom, it is not a bottomless pit.

A communist does not argue against differences between people, in knowledge, ability, which gives rise to wealth inequality.

To say depopulation or bug people are a requirement for it is a gross simplification proving that you do not have even a primitive understanding of cybernetics and complex systems with feedback loops.

Homework: Look at the model of thermal engine, and look up laws of thermodynamics. Today mathematicians use models from physics to model societies. Also look up engineering analyses of efficiency of engines.

The model of inefficiency watches the flow of energy and part of it is diverted outside as inefficiency. I would say in money flow, a capitalist making a profit is the inefficiency, diverting some part of money to make a profit.

Spare yourself an embarrassment of talking about human nature. I did not talk about anything human in my post. Everything was observation of flow of energy, or dead labour.

Marxism as a philosophy openly states that its view of world is not perfect and needs to be constantly updated. Good job disproving the Marx and Engels by pointing out they were not prophets farseeing into the future.

I would like to work things out with this individual if possible. I'm certain his unwillingness stems from something that deeply concerns him about this system and that we may yet find a peaceful agreement that would benefit both sides; himself partaking in the benefits of collectivization and the collective benefiting from his involvement.

All will be fine, comrade.

I don't even know what to say to this. I have to assume it's some kind of joke or some very obtuse mental gymnastics
I mean, you're trying to advocate one system over the other, and the only way that works out in your head is if there are no alternatives? Literally any system works under this premise.
How do you expect to persuade anybody to your side when the core of your argument is that the other argument doesn't exist?
Why spend all this time studying and engineering this complex system in the first place? Just cut out the middle and dream up a world where everybody's unconditionally happy and nobody wants anything.

I honestly came here with the thought that maybe communism was unfairly written off, but all I'm seeing is a bunch of bitter people wanting to vent their frustrations.

Well, isn't the whole idea that you're supposed to help the other argument not exist? The greatest strength of capitalism is that it can wear any mask and subvert any ideology, as its central focus is around the accumulation of power, so clearly the only thing that can stand up to it is an equivalent display of force.

...

As long as he does all the work himself, nothing.

First and most importantly, we are not liberals, nor do we continue to suckle at the teat of liberal ideology like so many right-wingers and the pseudo-left. Our argument is that capitalism is an inherently exploitative and destructive system destined to cannibalize itself. We have no desire for this "laboratories of democracy" nonsense. History has shown that capitalist societies act with the utmost hostility towards socialist societies, and attempt to disrupt and subvert those societies at every turn. We can only respond in kind. Thus, the creation of communist society necessarily depends on the destruction of capitalist society.

If what you are asking is if such people will be barred from participating with other capitalists during the dictatorship of the proletariat, when capitalism has not yet been destroyed, the answer is yes. The whole point of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to enforce the class interests of the proletariat and suppress the bourgeoisie. This also means suppressing petty bourgeois sentiment with so-called freelancers.

fpbp

...