How do I buy something in a communist society? Do I have worker credits that I earn and then can buy a guitar or a video game with?
I understand the farming community analogy where you divide up produce among each other so you all equally get enough food, but how do I buy luxury items?
Other urls found in this thread:
insurgentnotes.com
theguardian.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
theanarchistlibrary.org
marxists.org
twitter.com
...
Instead of markets, what I imagine is a sort of communal free-warehouse for commodities.
Is this from some porno?
You have free access to abundant surpluses created through labor, because hoarding has no economic incentives anymore with the abolition of the money form.
In its stead a currency based entirely on labor time such as personal credit or labor voucher, which you can spend on a product worth the same amount of labor time. Such forms of currency are rendered invaluable upon use, unlike money which is in itself a commodity under market economies because it needs to be reinvested.
>you should have worked in an agricultural coop
And this is what life under market "socialism" would look like.
And what it did look like: insurgentnotes.com
How do you stop people from treating these resources irrationally? Some people are just pricks.
Sounds like I could steal from that. So I would.
Post-capitalism does not promise to rid the world of any potential anti-social behavior. What it promises, however, is to make vanish many factors that impulse people to becoming pricks, or exacerbate already existing prickiness (profit motive, law of value, money form, etc.).
So obviously, local forms of communal law and order forms would emerge in accordance to this new mode of production designed for maximizing use value instead of exchange value.
So I can still be a professional musician and I'd still get food because there's excess food because the farmers don't need to sell the food anymore?
...
Yes.
You'd have an abundance of commodities that are necessary for a good quality of life - a living space, food and a computer maybe. Why would people need two computers and ten pizzas a day?
Then, you'd have luxury items like sports cars. Those are status symbols and would obviously be restricted to those that brought merit to society. But, unlike in a bourgeois society, defining yourself through shallow material objects is unlikely in communism.
A few stern warnings, followed by exile or something. It'd be a bit difficult to do something like that in the first place and everyone telling them to fuck off for wasting all the mustard I think would handle people who got a dumb immature wasteful idea.
Why would I care?
What stops everyone from wanting to do a seemingly labourless job like professional art? And what stops the farmers from being disgruntled that they do backbreaking labour all day to have people who contribute nothing tangible live off the produce of the farmers?
But she's still wearings panties
You can't trick me, I know the sex.
Gift economy
people will give you stuff or allow you to pick up stuff if they know you gave or will give something back to the community.
It's only seemingly labourless, and believe it or not there's a lot of people who actually want to farm. Go figure but I've seen growing weed get people into growing their own vegetables and interesting in communal farming, for food even.
People are going to be expected to contribute to society in some way, simply because it takes a conscious effort to go through life not contributing anything to a communist society.
interested*
there's no debate that painting requires less labour than farming
and there's probably lots of people who want to farm, for themselves or for money. but farming for other people who don't contribute anything to you seems unlikely.
Narcissism?
I think stupid behavior is mostly learned but not everyone is wired properly. All I'm asking is how communal ass beatings would be arranged.
You'd be farming for the community, not delivering it right to the neets themselves. Your community does contribute things to you. Your home, your farming equipment, your vehicle, maybe even your meals if you like food other than what you farm. You're giving it to the community, who gives it to everyone.
industrial farming is fucking wrong(as in incorrect) and stupid.
look into permaculture
It sounds like "the community" would decide the NEETS were parastic subhumans and throw them into the woods to get eaten by wolves, so theres no problem for the farmer.
I've never seen a good explanation as to how these sorts of systems wouldn't result in things like this. Not just with NEETS, if you're going to be edgy and say bipolar depressives with social anxiety deserve death, but anyone 'the community' decides in general they dont like.
""The community"' decides there were witches. Now what?
Why would that do that? Petty rage? Some sort of infantile militant work ethic? This is a society based on the concept of mutual aid on -well being for all-, without the pursuit of giving all their daily bread we have failed.
What you're arguing for is no sort of rule enforcement or societal structure at all?
The "police" decides you're a terrorist. Now what?
The "private security" decides you're violating the NAP. Now what?
Frankly, if some moron wants to take home 9 TVs, he can go ahead and do that. I would call him and idiot for it, but I wouldn't stop them.
Eventually the need to "keep up with the jones's" will die out and we will reach an equilibrium, I think it would be a mistake to put a lid on that behavior though, it would only encourage it on the down-low.
You get a trial that isn't the local charismatic sociopath providing ""evidence"" of bewitchment.
Your own private security intervenes.
...
what if you can't afford private security?
The market has judged you unworthy.
Whip out your uzi and let the market decide some more.
THEY'RE BENEFITING FROM MY WORK WITHOUT GIVING ANYTHING BACK
Such shit could also happen to people hte majority just decided were somehow scary or bad.
You're retarded if you think everyone is going to be dedicated to the ideals the society is built on, especially a hundred years later when they arent somehow revolutionary, they're normal.
emmeffdubblyu
There you go you that's the obvious answer. Stop assuming a directly democratic society would suddenly stop being democratic when it's convenient for your argument. We both know the police fabricate evidence, but they have little carrots on the end of sticks for them to put people in prison. The community (that being, everybody voting together) does not have this.
There's an overwhelming chance the average person will not have private security.
Are you fucking retarded or just absolutely retarded? Do you just pick out key words without paying attention to the full message and have a knee jerk emotional reaction based on that?
The only way you could prevent them from SURVIVING off your work, would be to deny all of society your food, which would be hoarding food.
Guess what happens when you hoard food from the community that has provided you with all of your luxuries, and necessities?
I'm not defending that reasoning user, im saying people would use it. Stop focusing on it in particular, it was only supposed tobe one potential example of everyone else socially deciding someone should get fucked.
...
They wouldn't have much reason to be so petty and spiteful though. Capitalism wouldn't have drilled a competitive greedy nature into them.
Generally if you have society you have the possibility that at one point somebody is going to earn the wrath of that society. There's no getting around that.
"They might get the wrong guy" is a bullshit argument, anybody who ever enforces anything might get the wrong guy or get an innocent person.
...
People in nature are pricks though. People have been gluttonous shitheads since time began. It doesn't matter if you're in a post-capitalist society or not.
you don't
It would be decided communally just like it used to.
In England for example, before enclosures you had communal lands meant for the upkeep of peasants called the "commons." Theoretically you could do anything you wanted with whatever you found there. Debris for firewood, grasses for threshing, game for eating, etc.
So, in theory, a peasant could spend all day out in the commons killing every animal he saw. The constraints of material reality still effect him though. He can only eat so much roebuck, so many hares, quail, whatever. After a certain point it just becomes wasteful.
At the time he probably would have just gotten his ass kicked and hopefully lesson learned. If he violated an actual legal code, he'd be dragged before his local magistrate/constable/whatever, who usually happened to be the feudal lord or whoever owned the district the affected peasants and the commons were in. Usually their fate would depend on tradition–what punishments had been meted out in the past for similar infractions–and the will of the judge.
But things have advanced considerably since then. Alternate solutions are possible and vary from leftist to leftist, but I think in general the ideal is for those directly affected or their representatives to decide what happens to those in their community.
Either necessity, if they don't do the work then they can't paint/whatever, or imperative, if you don't help us fill sandbags to protect the town from flooding then the commune will withhold its support/whatever.
The ideal is for everyone to be able to choose the work they do, and to organize society along fulfilling that ideal as closely as possible.
theguardian.com
One solution is to make everyone do necessary work in shifts. Say, divide a community up into four groups, A-D. A works the first week of the month, B the second, C the third, D the fourth. Once you're done with your monthly work, you're free to spend the rest of your time as you wish.
Another is to try and do away with farmers entirely. Food already grows itself, and the process can be easily automated in most respects. When agriculture is organized around feeding people rather than profiting corporations, much of the modern incongruities that currently surround agriculture evaporate.
Proof.
unghhhhhh
The neets would obviously be organized in their own union which would intercede on their behalf if one of their brother members was being wronged by the prejudices of the commune.
Duh
...
You could get into genetic factors, but for anecdotal evidence, for example you have Dante Alighieri's famous book Comedìa, where, allegory aside, he talks about the same shit we deal with today with greediness, doubt, etc., etc,.
Also, humans are animals and therefore driven by impulse and animistic tendencies. If you don't think so you're retarded.
Why are you citing Dante on the subject of people in a state of nature?
Proof please.
...
Do religions, political parties, or tumblr engage in witchhunt-like behavior because of capitalism?
I dont see how individuals would be protected from society, or how the need for that would go away. i know its not necesarially better now with the government and the police, but thats the point.
So you're saying humans aren't animals?
I don't like capitalists.
Watch the WEBM.
I believe Karl Marx advocated the use of labor vouchers.
Using the classical Marxist model, any hour of labor was as productive as any other hour of labor. These hours of labor entitled the workers to labor certificates
Do you think god created the current world lol? The current system is nature working.
He's saying you have no fucking proof idiot
If all you have to support your baseless assertion is an allegorical work of fiction from the 15th century then maybe you should shut up
hmmm
Tell that to africa
Tell me what you think. You're not making this clear, you're just using ad hominem.
Not because of capitalism but because of the conditions capitalism creates, yes. They do.
The point is, it's worse now, so we shouldn't make it better because it won't be perfect? That's not a good point.
I'm saying you're providing no proof.
Anarcho primitivists usually cite anthropology, you're citing something like muh common sense. Provide proof, please.
hmmm
not an argument
top fucking kek
And who the fuck hands out labor vouchers?
The state? The employer?
Marxism is a literal joke.
This is funny, because its actually true… I cant name a single food which doesnt grow itself. (salt is not a food)
The trick is growing as much food as efficiently as possible
I must prove humans are animals now? Must I prove the sky is blue too, or the grass is green? Are you really this dense?
If humans aren't animals, please tell me where they come from so I can understand where you're coming from.
It's a good thing for you that being stupid isn't against the rules here because you'd be permabanned.
That's like saying a baby grows itself. Sure, but without it's mother it's as good as dead.
Marx is the same as doctors were during the dark ages of medicine. In the Western world, economics was not a separate discipline, but part of philosophy until the 18th–19th century
>en.wikipedia.org
Marx was the equivalent of doctors during the dark ages of medicine.
He is able to identify the symptoms and can begin to catalog the causes, but due to the time period he came from, the correct solutions to this problems evaded him
No. I'm not saying that people aren't animals. What makes you think that I am?
Not an argument. Tell me something buddy.
Implying theres no such thing as agriculture, which DOES grow itself. Once again, the trick is growing large ammounts efficiently. I can walk into the woods and find an apple tree or raspberry bush or whatever.
Food does grow itself.
Pheasents grow themselves.
Turkeys grow themselves.
Fish grow themselves.
Fruit trees grow themselves.
Pigs grow themselves.
Food grows itself.
Fair enough. Who has the answers though to the problems?
Not in my country, or the countless others were they aren't naturally from.
Yes, capitalist societies are a requirement for food to grow.
Someone has to feed them, or they have to be left to run wild and then you cannot efficiently farm them.
Then what are you saying? You keep muddying the waters. What I said from the beginning is that humans are animals, and therefore impulsive and prone to greed.
I'm not arguing anything to do with capitalism. I'm arguing that large scale farming to meet the needs of many people requires a lot of effort and just expecting the food to grow wont work.
...
give me the sauce,>>1305992
Dude but you haven't considered the creative nothing~~
Animals don't have the Unique.
Nice argument friendo.
exactly. food will still naturally grow itself without human intervention. the trick is doing it on large scale and as efficiently as possible.
A single wild turkey wont feed a city.
I agree with this.
But the point "food doesnt grow itself" does not equate to "food will grow itself, but not in enough quantities to support a large community"
You validated my point that yes, food will grow itself. the trick is growing as much as efficiently as possible.
No. That's what you're doing.
I'm asking you to prove that humans in a state of nature are assholes. Anarcho primitivists cite anthropology. You're just appealing to common sense.
Not proof. For a start, humans can control their greed.
Are you shitting me lol? Countless animals will over-eat given the chance. Dogs, foxes, cats, etc will kill for fun. Animals are not perfect beings in harmony with the world.
...
Presumably something grows in your shitty country, or that it could be induced to do so.
Yeah, but why does some"one" have to feed them instead of some"thing?" In any event the point is that fields full of laborers performing backbreaking labor just to survive isn't the technological reality existing in the west.
Animals literally aren't prone to greed because greed is a human moral value. It would be like saying a volcano is naturally wrathful.
But humans are animals and therefore humans aren't prone to greed either.
I aint reading all that shit.
Maybe he lives in greenland. Or antarctica. But, even so, fish and penguins are a form of food which readily "grow themselves" so to speak
Hmm, really makes you think.
Yet we still farm fish to deal with increases in demand.
If you won't learn then you just have to trust those who do.
You're going into the "people only do bad thi ngs because they live in a capitalist system" argument now. Nor do I think the rest of your town ruining your life because of stupid paranoid scapegoating/high school social bullshit/others or being able to do that would be better than the government or the police doing so for the reasons they do.
In a system where things are decided communaly, can you really not see the likelyhood of people deciding that hermit who lives on the edge of town is "weird" and "scary" and kicking him out with nowhere to go, or deciding the depressed NEET is a parasite who needs to be expunged, or shit like that? The world wouldnt just become a utopia without any of the things that causes such bullshit.
I appreciate leftists criticisms of capitalism and the way things are now, and the alternatives they propose are much less retarded than ancaps or facists ideas, but I've yet to see an adequate answer to this problem. muh individualism.
Maybe I should read more, I bet someones talked about what im complaining about before.
good job. Do you finally admit though that the wild-caught fish do ineed "Grow themselves"?
this is a fact you dont seem to want to admit, given:
(assuming these are you, user)
Yeah, because animals aren't reasoning creatures capable of growing their own food. When you're a wild animal living in a state where you might not see another meal again for days, weeks, or even months, it's beneficial to eat as much as possible whenever possible.
But that's not fucking greed, you relentless dipshit.
It's called a carry capacity. Also, for someone who, I presume buys into global warming, you should realize the scarcity of that resource.
...
Not everyone lives near the ocean, not everyone can sustain a population on fishing rivers or catchments.
...
This problem is present in every system of governance though.
Are disabled people just sent to work camps in a socialist society and then shot because they can't work?
You are now changing the original point which was being argued. I wont fall for that.
this dialectic you and I are having isnt about who can or cant grow food. This isnt about scarcity of natural grown food.
This started because I wanted you to understand the fact that yes, indeed, food will grow itself without human intervention, the trick is growing as much as possible as efficiently as possible.
lel. why the trouble to send them to a work camp?
maybe I'm just bitter about systems of governance in general then.
No
I don't think you have any fucking clue how anything you're talking about works.
Well, you should be
But just because government, governing, and being governed are fucking bullshit doesn't mean that there aren't better ways to do things
You are so fucking stupid.
If food doesnt grow itself, how did we manage to domesticate it in the first place?
nice strawman
The mass graves are at the work camp.
That does make sense. A true socialist realizes that dead people are simply the proletariat who is living-challenged. They could be put to work as fertilizer.
Trying to horde your nutrients instead of being reconst'd at the end of your labor-time is counter revolutionary, prole.
foods growing sporadically in certain areas is very different to cultivating and growing entire crops in environments where the food didn't naturally grow.
Question: By Marx's standard, is every workers' hour of labour equal, or do some jobs that require a greater degree of effort, skill, risk etc, provide more "vouchers per hour" or what ever? I plan on reading and studying Capital a chapter or two a week, but I'd like to know about this.
>But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity…
Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme
marxists.org
what did he mean by this
no, really? i dont understand
If mutualists knew anything about political economy, they wouldn't be mutualists.
...
Ideally OP we would exhange labour, not property rights, you wouldnt buythe luxury item, but exchange your labour, embodied ina comodity with someone elses, the exhange ratiowould be determined by the people involved
literally every thread on this board
Nice market-but-lets-not-call-it-a-market you've got there, sophist
Marx was a mistake, his only valuable works are the 3 volumes of capital
Yes, marxist unironically belive the "comune" ( actually an authoritarian planned state) keeping your surplus oflabour isnt exploitative
Black market.
Supposedly.
what did he mean by this?
If you think about it though, exchanging 'labour hours' is fucking retarded and won't work
You wouldn't need to be fixed in that back breaking labor job, there could be a rotation basis where you farm for a period then paint for a period then reach for a period etc. Marx said this in the manifesto. Also consider when we have full automation of farming and factories no one would work in these derisive or menial tasks.
So we need capitalism to achieve communism?
According to Marx, yes.
Communism follows socialism follows capitalism follows feudalism
Not necessarily, scientific achievements occur irrespective of capitalism or communism. Space race as an example. Also factories in and of themselves are not capitalist entities, it only the mode of production employed that determines this. You want to make a farming robot that is 1000x more efficient. You farm the necessary natural resources for the scientists to use, they develop through extensive trial and error and working together a legion of them to work the fields. No private property means no intellectual property so all knowledge is free to everyone instantly, this greatly improves the rate at which new technology is developed. Freeing large amounts of labor to be used for other purposes.
Space race occured because the US and USSR both took as many German scientists that they could get their hands on, gave them infinite funding, and told them to build rockets.
What is the purpose of this infinite funding? It gives them the amount of materials they need when they need it right? Basically a blank check? Well if there is no money and you had both the us and ussr scientists working together with no nonsense like intellectual property rights and open sharing of information while providing all the necessary steel, electronics, (for free without cap) how fast and efficient do you think they could have developed the space program?
Except the USSR won the space race in every meaningful way until Americans put a guy on the moon 5 years after the space race was over and done with.
LABOUR VOUCHERS
A
B
O
U
R
V
O
U
C
H
E
R
S
Yeah I know, I was just making the case that scientific and technological achievement in a communist system would be much better. Consider today all the portions of science that get little to no funding because they aren't profitable…smh I unironically believe we don't have cures to diseases like cancer because of this.
Sorry, I should have replied to
your "private security conglomerate" decides all non paying customers are witches and decide to expropriate all assets from those with the "presupposition" for witchery.
now what?
Labour vouchers
Bartering
Gifting Economy
Resource Based Economy
Any other possibilities?
Central planning dawg
...
look at those sweeping statements by god he must be right
We've been through this before piratefag, it's not generalised commodity exchange, but a simple exchange of labour time.
Jesus christ, you still you the liberal definition of the state. Why don't you head on back to /liberty/ you lolbert troll.
Also known as multi-level planning. It still has a central planning component though.
That isn't an alternative form of currency that is just capitalism without a free market.
Not if the means of production are *collectively owned* ma nigga
If it's democratised sure but it still has a similar issue of currency capitalism has. What would the value be based on? Currently it is based on debt.
No, you don't have to buy anything. That's what so great about it! No credits or shit like that, you just work all day and the state provides you with everything you need.
You shouldn't presume to know what sort of luxury goods you need, that's better taken care of by proper experts. Perhaps you should play the guitar, but perhaps you will serve the glorious collective better with a tuba.
Every month you get a video game made at the bureau of video games. Maybe this month it's "standing in line simulator" or maybe it's "depression quest." It all depends on what that purple haired little hottie the video game commisar is fucking cobbled together in the state game engine this time.
Lmao yeah you should always get the choice between starvation and poverty because liberty worship is above material conditions
That sort of anti-social thinking will not serve the peoples collective well. Gulag for you my friend.
Told you about marxists
Thats still a market
Under communism a salary is meaningless.
This goy gets it.
Dont post it
Sure, in a very limited sense, but it's not a commodity market, which is what you "market socialists" advocate.
No it's not. And which value? Exchange value? Production value?
Money isn't backed by silver or gold or anything. It's backed by nothing but peoples faith in it and it's backed by money itself which makes no sense. If money had a set value you wouldnt see its value constantly dropping. Exchange value I mean.
You don't.
Oh look fascism telling you how to live your life
I dont understand the whole community gives you everything.
What if someone doesnt work, is he forced to work and thus be inefficient because it is forced?
People should want to work so they can use their labor to get things to make life more fun for them, it is completely selfish and normal
And with public education people could become whatever they like thus work and be efficient and use their labor time to buy things they want like video games, a big computer etc.
The issue might come from the labor required, some jobs are harder while some others are all about sitting on a chair and typing stuff
What about jobs that are more about organization and design, literally the idea man
Why would you make it so they couldn't get them if they wanted to? If your surplus volume is high enough to be dependable for all people within a geographical range, this should not be an issue, so is this not allowed somehow?
hardly, Call it le human nature meme or whatever but there will never stop being pricks, like some other user said.
People should want to work, yeah, but who needs to work, what work needs to be done, and who decides who does what, will necessarily vary from place to place.
Generally speaking, the community should provide you with all those things necessary for living, or at least essential commodities like a home, clothing, food, education, that kind of stuff. Anything "extra," like video game consoles or smartphones or something, the individual would be responsible for providing himself.
I would imagine that general, unskilled labour would be assigned on a rotating basis, with skilled laborers either assigned to tasks on a semi permanent basis. Like anyone can pick potatoes, but doing electrical work requires a certain level of education and skill. It wouldn't make sense to have an electrician out in the fields if the electrical grid is failing, you know? I would think also that there would be allowances for those that volunteer for certain types of labor. There are some people that would be totally happy digging in the dirt all day, or that derive pleasure from particular activities or occupations.
You'd have to be a bit more specific than "idea man" though. If all they do is sit around and think of stuff then they can do that on their own copious free time.
probably wouldn't have developed it at all because it happened out of competition between opposing states.
academics are known to fudge their findings to make their research seem valuable and in need of federal funding. it's endemic to the system atm.
in the private sector though fudging your stats won't work because if it doesn't work a profit cannot be made off it.
...
I know this is a joke post, but I feel like this is what tankies unironically believe.
So I'm required to somehow know how to build xboxes or phones because they aren't deemed a requirement by the community?
How do you know this?
I'd like to see what would you do if some guy gave you 30 millions euro and told you that you need to prove that pure water causes cancer.
Source pls?
The world will have many communities, some will definitely prefer to make video games, or tv series, or gadgets, and people who are interested in that sort of thing will travel there to study and advance this
Some people will want to farm etc
You haven't worked in the private sector, have you?
If it's not being made elsewhere by someone else or you can't find someone willing to do it for you then yeah, you're going to have to do the labor yourself. Socialism doesn't mean you're guaranteed all the consumer products that you want.
Because I leave my basement and talk to people.
Didn't it just come out that the sugar industry has been "fudging" data for decades?
How many people do you talk to who like picking potatoes all day?
No it just means luxury items don't exist in a socialist society because the community doesn't deem their job necessary.
Do you have autism or do you just take everything literally because it's easier for your little brain to handle?
WTF I hate communism now
Good luck thinking there wont be people who want to make vidya and gadgets and there wont be people who will want to get them
By the liberal definition of state any group of people that collectively control something could be considered a state, including your precious co-ops.
Wow, I didn't know my local co-op was a sovereign state.
What if that is your own private security firm?
I have the Blackwater Gold Plus plan.
...
...
because they recognize that I am the money maker and if they simply take all my shit that's it, they wont be getting anymore.
it's better for them to let me generate profit for them over time.
A gentle beating and prison sentence.
How do you prevent people from dumping radioactive shit in their backyard now? You make laws against it.
