How will your communist/ideal society look like

I have a honest question how do you envision a daily life in your ideal society?

Can I get actual details of the lives of normal people in it?
Make me a outline of their daily life.

1)Say your ideology before starting, say if your viewpoint is accepted or not in the ideology you have named.
2)How will work look like?
3)What about decision making?
4)Will money exist?
5) Daily life of today. Cars? Planes? Trains? Computers? Electricity? Power generation?
6) Other things. Space travel? Mars colonies?

I want to shut down meaningless answers like
What dose this even mean? in reality? This is a propaganda slogan!
How will this look in reality?

Other urls found in this thread:

I don't know but it's better than today.

Are you for real?
This statement is self contradictory (You know not how it will work yet it will be definitively better then today).
And looks like some parody of a communist in propaganda says.

fuck off.

Whats with the hostility?

Do you even have a basic outline?
Even a plan?
Some vision?
Some ideas?

My communist nightmare is the age of consent being raised

A boot stamping on a human head for all eternity.

Most of these questions are completely dependent on future technological advancements. Shit thread.

This is true.
However assume absolute technological stagnation.
How would your ideal society look if implemented tomorrow using todays tech?

I'm interested.
Did Marx say this or is this a new invention?
You did not declare your ideology.

Also how will you get things?
(I'm not trying to be factitious I'm actually asking)

He advocated it in the Critique of the Gotha Programme if I'm not mistaken

Communism is a movement not an ideal. Its like asking the ancient greeks what capitalism will be like.

So do you have any idea how life in your ideal society will look?

I'm asking you.
This was a question for Holla Forums not communists only.

What did he advocate do you have the quote?

What exactly is communism?
What (from a Marxists viewpoint) is communism and the difference between communism and Marxism?

I was under the impression it was actually a way a society is organized and making it something other then this.

So how is your definition different from any nationalism etc?
You are still not answering anything here.

Communism is a historical movement generated by Capitalism thats aim is to abolish capitalism. Communism is something historical and the way it looks is determined by the conditions currently in existence. I can't tell you what communism will look like because its not a society I'm advocating but a historical movement.

What even is a "historical movement"???
How is this different from Marxism?
You are not answering this question.
Do you have any idea of your own?
It ok if they are not 100% correct.

really, OP? this has been answered a million times

Just like capitalism is a historical force created out of the contradictions of fuedalism communism is an actual movement created by the contradictions existant in capitalism.
Marxism is an idea, Communism is a name for the movement that abolishes capitalism.
Doesn't matter.

Can you even elaborate these words before introducing them?
you did not even answer what a "historical movement" is.
Now you are introducing historical force?!
What is a "historical force"?

Was capitalism not a mode of production?
How is capitalism a "historical force"?

And what is this idea?

So is communism a organization(political party etc.)?
What about people who say they are Marxists?
Are they wrong YES/NO?


Who are the authors of this work?
Something else?

In what chapter are the answers to the question I have raised?

they are both marxists, one is a computer scientist and the other is an economist. It doesn't answer anything extremely specific to the point of what kinds of cars will exist or what have you, but it does answer your questions about decision making and money. Essentially decision making will be made by direct democracy using computers, and money replaced by labour vouchers. Its only 200 pages, so its a relatively short read.

You know what a movement is right? Communism is a movement that through the process of history arises from the contradictions capitalism and abolishes capitalism. Just like Capitalism was a movement that arose from the contradictions of fuedalism and abolished fuedalism.
The ideas of Karl Marx.

No. Its a movement.

No blacks.

Thanks for the direct answers.

Why computers?
What is wrong with paper?

How is "labour vouchers" different from money? Especially that
I assume he is familiar with the definition of money.

I never asked this however I see I got a "direct democracy using computers" scenario.

Did Marx write about the things they are proposing?

2)Work as we know it today will not exist, rather the boundaries between everyday life and labor blur. Labor will be a directly social process and we will see far less division of labor.
3)This question is really impossible to answer, as it is totally dependent on things I can not possibly know.
5)All of those things most likely. Most likely more emphasis on public transport rather than personal cars and such. Of course we would have computers and electricity. Power production would rely more on green methods.
6)This is another thing that depends on way too many variables to be able to answer.

To start off I'd just like to set the setting. The communist revolution was succesful worldwide, states have taken up only a vague managetorial position of allocating resources to public/voluntary projects.
1) I should be speaking for all communists here :^)
2) Work willl be a word that has stopped having any meaning. People will be engaged in parts of society they find interesting, be it coding, bodybuilding, engineering, book writing, masturbating or all of them.
3) How decision making will be done will depend on the scale of the decision. Most things will no longer need to even be decided upon, because the people involved with the different parts of society can autonomously implement improvements to their field.
In terms of large scale projects such as megastructures intended to revert the effects of pollution etc, there would be popular scientists and engineers who collaborate and propose a solution, democratic meassures would be taken, and taxes would be allocated to the volunteering crew.
4) The labour voucher system that will be used previous to this society that I'm describing, will have stopped being meaningful. The common wealth of society will have increased to a point where no one has any interest in denying another person access to resources.
5) These things will tend towards common utility and efficiency, so I imagine cars and planes will wither in favour of efficient and comfortable public transportation. (Didn't notice untill now you posted a venus project picture, so I think most of their designs will be very useful for the design of efficient infrastructure).
6) Really, I don't know. I have no idea how feasible these things really are, or how meaningful it is to engage with it at this level of our development.

Elaborate this for me.
You are not answering this.
What is a difference a organization and a movement?

This explains nothing.
What exact idea? His idea what to eat this night?
You explain nothing.

Great post!
Thank you for answering my questions to this extent.
I threw that one out because I got

And I'm fishing for actual descriptions of this ideal future.

Thanks I was fishing for the ideas in this area.

For me its the starting point.
Or do you envision a possibility of a King or Dictator?

Interesting can you describe this average life and work of a citizen in this world?
Its ok if its only a estimate.
Something like:
Wake up at 07:00
08:00 Make food
09:00 Go to work
14:00 end of work
15:00 Recreation
22:00 Sleep
Only make a little more discretion of how this "rather the boundaries between everyday life and labor blur." might look like.

What is this position to money?
What do you understand under money?

What is this opposition to money?

1)Say your ideology before starting, say if your viewpoint is accepted or not in the ideology you have named.
1 world Communism government run by someone that can see everything everyone can do and his view is Existential science nihilism. Under this paradigm it would be pluralism where all other groups (religions) can exist.
That is to mean that you can be part of a religion that practices monotheism, you be part of a group that practices shooting there toes off in order to give to hand feed bears. etc… As long as murder isn't committed it is okay.

2)How will work look like?
as for "work" Everyone does there passion, if it's not there passion they're much doing what they want to do

3)What about decision making?
Free will, however if you have plans on murdering the all seeing stops you.

4)Will money exist?

Don't know

5) Daily life of today. Cars? Planes? Trains? Computers? Electricity? Power generation?

Don't know

6) Other things. Space travel? Mars colonies?

Don't know

This is how elections should work

Not that user, but
07:00 Wake up.
07:01 make love to whoever decided to sleep next to me.
07:02 Go shower.
07:10 Eat breakfast.
07:20 Take some LSD.
07:21 Go tend to the green house in the garden.
08:00 LSD getting trippy so head to the public square and look at/talk to people.
09:00 Go to the public workshop and work on the drone I've been building to send lewd pics on a secure physical line.
11:00 Go back home and jerk off in the garden.
11:01 Smoke weed while reading/writing a book
13:00 Eat some food and have sex
14:00 Watch a movie
16:00 Make mods for my favorite vidya
18:00 Eat doritos
19:00 Go to public square and socialize
19:05 Meet qt grill who turns me down so I go home and kill myself

no. once society has a attained a classlessness(one of the prerequisites for communism) the state will have no function. (Marxists believe the reason states arise is as a tool of class oppression, thus the need for a proletarian state to subordinate the bourgeoisie before communist society can arise.) Personally, as long as we need administrators to coordinate things on large level sortition should be used to fill these administrative positions and they should be limited to 6-18 months.
Again this kind of question is incredibly hard to answer but I will attempt to construct something for the sake of this conversation.
7:00 wake up, 7:30 grab some breakfast at the commune kitchen, 8:30 do some small chores at the commune, 9:00 leisure with some comrades, maybe we have a production project we are currently working on and we go to the community work shop and work for a few hours. 1:00 head out to cafeteria, help out make some of the lunch they are serving, then sit down and eat. maybe after lunch today i'll rest for a bit because i have big day tomorrow since i agreed to help lay some new rail that is part of a community project. so on and so on, we are still humans and do human things.
Communist wish to do away with commodity production, (hence exchange) money being the universal commodity at which all other commodities compare against it has no place in a communist society.
I don't know what this means.

Brezhnev USSR is honestly good enough for me. I know we can do better but I don't care enough.

The parades alone make it worth it tbh

If you read Cockshott's ideas about e-democracy he explains how it would deal with voting fraud and such. Whats wrong with paper is that it is slow, e voting scales better
Labour vouchers dont circulate like money, they are given in exchange for a certain amount of labor to society for example i work for one hour and get a voucher that allows me to purchase products which take 1 hour of total labor time to produce.
Yes, he wrote Critique of the Gotha Programme, and their work is simply an extension of how you would practically implement the lower stage of communism as defined by Marx in that book, but in a modern sense with computers.

Space stations and colonies on Mars is something I would like to see big time. The ISS is pretty cool and that coasting off of pretty tiny budgets (NASA is less than .5 of US's budget, and ESA, roscosmos, etc are even smaller), imagine what we could accomplish if people interested and knowledgeable in expanding humanities had the resources Porky hoards.
one of the saddest things about Mir, the USSR's crown jewel in the sky, became decrepit and was whored out to rich fucks to mess around on and the cosmonauts were made to make commercials instead of conducting their science experiments after the dissolution of the Soviet union.

How exactly would e-democracy solves voting fraud, if anything, it's easier to make fraud with computer screen.

read that book, then listen to these:
then also read the stuff here
it explains that stuff

"the labor movement"

1. Cybernetic communism
2. Minimised to the smallest degree possible in all areas of production, all remedial tasks will be automated and incorporated with AI, services will be voluntary
3. Should be done through a open disussions and resolved by a vote by all relevant parties including experts and the population which the decision effects
4. No, if there is no labor required to produce goods, then there is no exchange value :) (Marx did not explicitly say this but if you read Capital vol. 2 this is obviously what is implied)
5. This one is just up to what the scientific advancements are like in the period of time we're discussion, I assume cold fusion has been achieved and there is widely available cheap sources of energy. Which then result in entirely new modes of transportation. Science would receive maximum resources to find solutions to as many problems that humans face and ones we can't even imagine today. The planet would be saved from global warming because there would be more retarded fossil fuels and other non-renewable energy sources.
6. If Profit isn't the deciding factor in whether projects are allocated resources anymore the we could instead do it according to human need.

And it was very simply answered. The laws of supply and demand will drive the economy - which works beautifully UNLESS you have a complacent citizenry that isn't engaged in their political process.
What's going on today isn't capitalism. That's why young people say really STUPID shit like "I don't know but it would be better than now"
Of course everyone knows being poor in the US is far worse than forced labor camps, manufactured famine, political imprisonment OR execution on an enormous scale.
Autistic idiot

it will be regular sleep-work-leisure routine. Just mellow. Exactly what socialist countries had after Stalin. And then people will feel safe and willing to risk more, thus implement capitalism until it ends in disaster and opression, then revolution, rebuilding, mellow, and again and again.

Eh, might as well LARP a bit. Someone somewhere might laugh at this in some reactionary rat's nest elsewhere on the internet, but to hell with them.

Stating my ideal society is a bit of a cop-out, it's more interesting to talk of the transitional period i.e. of the socialist society that should exist between the revolution and the communist society.

Number one priority, of course, ensure everyone has at least the minimum necessities not just for living, but for living with dignity. This obviously would require economic optimization. Leading me to…

Collectivization of the means of production is a given. But administration at lower levels, like co-ops, are a risky throwback to capitalism, and administration at high levels, like nationalization, well, see 20th century for an example. I'm growing increasingly convinced that automating the economy is a necessity for socialism and thus communism. And I don't mean automating all economic activities, I mean automating the economy itself, as a system. Cockshott and others inspired by the Soviet cyberneticians are my biggest hope on that front. As the system becomes more refined, the need for currency as a mediating agent will decrease; it might virtually disappear in the primary and secondary sectors and remain just as a simple scarcity regulator for individual consumers.

Other than this "decentralized planning", it's vital to keep industrial automation growing. As Marx said, industrialization is the only thing that truly brings wealth, as it multiplies the value that can be created, thus extensive or full automatization is necessary for a given commodity to ever reach post-scarcity, and I'm starting to think that the infamous "withering away of the State" can only happen when post-scarcity in the entire economy is reached, by virtue of it making the State more or less redundant.

While we do have a State tho, it has to be treated like the beast it is and be kept in a tight leash. The legislative branch is abolished, and any citizen has the power to participate in parliamentary practice at all levels, which will no doubt require telecom to accomodate everyone. Executive offices (which include a body to organize the "people's legislative") are short term, as in 1 or 2 years, and occupants are determined by either sortition or direct democracy, depending on the job, and they all have to pass competence tests devised by a conference of all public universities. As for the judiciary, I'm torn. It requires highly specialized knowledge, and it's particularly important that it relies on merit instead of election or sortition. Possibly an arrangement involving the university conferences choosing candidates for judge spots.

On more ambitious scales, remodeling of cities, beginning with transport. Virtually all modern cities have been built to accomodate cars not humans. The amount of space dedicated to vehicles is preposterous. In fact, cars themselves are preposterous in this day and age, as I don't need a 1.5 ton metal behemoth to transport my 70 kg self, or even my 200+ kg immediate family. The vast majority of the energy from the combustion of fuel isn't transporting me, it's transporting the transportation itself, and that same unnecessary mass makes for horribly dangerous crashes. It's insane. Almost all transportation should be both public and automatized, perhaps with a system analogous to that which controls the economy, and vehicles are as small and light as possible, which combined with automatized driving, makes accidents both rare and non-threatening. Bigger vehicles are available for people carrying luggage or cargo or such. Product transportation might be the part that requires human drivers. Needless to say, transportation between cities should be completely by rail (or a successor technology) if possible. Ultimate goal would be to dismantle highways.

Then the cities themselves, assuming resources allow, should be slowly dismantled and rebuilt. Streets made narrower because of optimized traffic, public areas made bigger, better and more "humanized", and buildings designed with aesthetics in mind too instead of just functionality, by collaborative planning between architects, artists, public officials, and of course, the people. Nearby buildings should try to harmonize, not necessarily belonging to the same style. Hell, anything would be better than the chaotic jumble of contrasting, ugly matchboxes we have now. Maybe a small city can be remade completely in a single old style, another remade completely in a single new style, a big city could be composed of a style for each neighborhood and the buildings between them slowly "morph" from one neighborhood to another with features of the respective styles etc. etc.

Because that's what mankind should be doing: being able to build what they want, not what they have to. Enjoying life instead of surviving. We have in our hands all the materials needed to build, if not heaven on Earth, at least an Earth worth living in. And yet we used those materials to build a cage right around ourselves.

That pic looks like something straight from Soviet cosmic architecture.

It would basically be like high school that never ends. Plus massive warfare on the side.

We should have trains connect all the cities, but what about villages. It isn’t possible yet to create a train stop for every fucking village.

what do you think about question 6 famrade. I am quite curious to hear your response to that.

So, like tha USA then.

Oh yeah, forgot about food production. Luckily I just made a post about it:
Basically, something like that "spider" blueprint, with cities surrounded by food belts and every village directly connected by railroad with at least one city. I admit I don't have a good answer for your question. I like to imagine that it would be possible to control population numbers in each city and village, so the latter would always be big enough for the economy of scale to sustain a railroad. Or maybe all farms are collectivized or nationalized, ensuring thriving villages? Or maybe we could just use a cheaper, slower vehicle to travel that small distance.

Under capitalism? Hell no. It's destroying this planet, and we owe it to the rest of the universe to at least making sure it stays contained here.

Within socialism, sure, it could be a distant goal I guess, but I would prioritize fixing and improving this planet before getting started on others.

But, if I'm going to be perfectly honest, I would rather not colonize other planets at all. Partly because of conservationism, partly because I can't help but see a twinge of imperialism in this drive some people have to just go explore and exploit everything, partly because some artificial space habitats can be much better anyway. Ideally, Earth would remain the only inhabited planet, with the rest of mankind living in those habitats and leaving all other planets pristine. The main problem here is that building these fancy space habitats requires considerably higher technology than simply settling a favorable planet.

That's one comfy as fug civilization.

what about old buildings with historical significance that happen to be in cities, should they be dismantled as well?

There is no 'ideal society' and we'll never create anything like one.


The ideal society is one where Holla Forums can fuck off from one other

My life under communism would probably be the same somehow, just minus bills.

OP here thanks for all the responses I try to manage them all.

Thanks for this concise answer.
Interesting perspective.
(I only find religion or its treatment to be irrelevant IMO)

Don't you think this is a little childish? Because your answer raises questions, questions raised in anti-communism/anarchy propaganda videos. What if everyone dose not want to be a farmer or its not their passion? Global starvation?

Pic semi related the same problem demonstrated.

Even more Marxist words and notions that are unexplained and raise more questions.
Demonstrate that classlessness is possible.
Demonstrate that classlessness will result in one and only one outcome.
Demonstrate that its your favorite outcome (that you actually have no idea what it is, some did actually say this ITT).

To be honest before Marx even addresses this issue in his writings I seriously can not take him seriously. Can some show the demonstration that is something else then Marxist assumptions and introducing unexplained concepts?

Hold on a second was communism not supposed to be a "movement" that already exists? Now its some thing to arrive in the future? How the hell can you say you are communists? What are even communists?
To illustrate this its like some people saying they are Martians today.
Only they live and are born on earth.
And they say
Its a contradiction or a extremely bad word choice.

You can argue for the "Martian movement" who want to achieve going to Mars and becoming "Martians". However be extremely careful with these words and by this wording you can never say someone is a a Martian today.

Once again what exactly is communism, communists and what is it relation to Marxism, Marx and Marxists?

Can you please use the 24 hour clock?
Or AM/PM because this scheduled suggests you worked from
09:00 to 01:00
Meaning 16 hours! And it was in the night! And you finished work the other day! One hour after midnight!

I hope you meant to write 4 hour work.
09:00 to 13:00

Elaborate on this what is a commodity and what is commodity production.
Also why?

You did say
You keep talking about money, define this word, you want to abolish something named money what is it.
In your world view.

Yes and?
Are 2~3 days so terrible to wait for the results?
Especially that e-voting is child's play to fake and has astronomical attack vectors.
The correctness of the results is more important then you getting them in 1 second after the vote ends.
I gladly wait 3 days for the results.

So its exactly like money.
Only the price of a item is determined in a different way.

Who exactly says what products cost what "labour vouchers" and who gets what "labour vouchers" for what work?

Ohh time = money.
This is a teribly stupid idea.
So if I work in a coal mine for 8 houers I get payed 8 dollars and if the manager works 8 houers in the office siting on his ass he also gets payed 8 dollars?!?!?!?!?!

Hard work =/= office work.

This has a number of other problems however this is the most obvious.
Other problems include

I will read it.
Have a link?
Also from my experience Marx is a terrible writer(Trotsky is far better at making points and explaining things) and I finished the communist manifest from start to finish (its a book for no one) 99.9999% of it is
can you give me the summary of it or do I subject myself to a text that included multiple unexplained concept introductions and proves nothing (see me asking questions about what a Marxist is VS communist and getting even more Marxist words that I want explained)

I'm betting that it turns out its uninformed nonsense like

And like expected this definition is nonsense.
How is this different from a political party?
It must have organization to function.
This can be applied to everything from corporations to governments.
How is a "movement" different from these entities?

I cut the chatter and say it outright movements don't exists.
there is no way to even define what a "movement" is or even give examples of "movements".
From what I see its another nonsense word to obscure and make up a idea of some autoimmune grass roots thing see "grass roots movement" who all turn out to be nothing more then actual cover-ups for precisely planed operations of organizations.
See NATO/USA operations

No you dumb nigger, the difference is that it doesn't circulate. When you "spend" a voucher it's destroyed rather than accumulated by another private individual or organisation. It's simply a rationing tool.

Once again you're a fucking idiot, no one said everyone would get payed the same regardless of the type or intensity of work, in fact marx implies the opposite.

I should also add here that labour vouchers/credit are personalised: it can only be spent by the person who earned it (along side any dependents). These factors taken together mean vouchers cannot be used for private economic activity and are therefore not money.

OK thanks for this.
This is naive.
The main reason to have money (and we are speaking about Fiat money here) is to allocate resources basically it means you can select what you want to get in the store and don't have the problem of one person taking everything.

Money is more flexible then Ration stamp who actually specify the number of things you can get.

What is preventing someone from simply going and saying

My friend, calm down. This is a communist board, so we use the economic criticisms of capitalism developed by Marx, Lenin etc primarily.

This is not to say that bourgeois economics is not useful or a refreshing perspective on some topics. But for the question at hand we are discussion exchange value which is a very particular thing that is related to commodity production.

If you were to read for example, TANS the production of goods are not commodities per se (exploitation does not exist, there is no market etc) but they are assigned a specified value that is the equivalent of it's labor time content. Of course it is not only socially necessary labor time that is important when considering value.

Let us do a thought experiment:

Due to scarcity and labor time constraints.

If we were to reduce the time to make goods to their absolute minimum whilst also maintaining a sustainable source of natural resources (through recycling etc).
What would be the purpose of money?
The value of all commodities would be decreasing asymptotically to zero, and when it reaches zero (zero labor time content required in production at full human consumption capacity i.e full automation) we would no longer require money at all. We would be on the cusp of replicator technology

Hope this explains it a bit better :)

That ain't happening, comrade. That's just not how nuclear physics works. Best we can hope for is more fission plants, more fuel reprocessing, more research into molten salt reactors, and maybe fusion. In the far distant FALGSC future, matter-antimatter reactors. But probably not cold fusion.

Beautiful post here are my counter arguments.
A lot of this AI/computer worship is really dangerous and wrong.
I once did see a similar statement from someone saying computers will allow direct democracy, I jokingly answered:

Ah the current disconnect and not knowing how civilization works.
The majority of transport is by rail already.
Rail is cheap for mass and heave transport.

The problem is you need to plan out the rail and build it.
The unloading of transports is made by ships arriving, trucks getting loaded and going to rail where its transported.

Here is a fun game to do, go to a train station and look at the rail start counting every time you see a cargo transport like
Cargo containers
See how often they pass next to this station.

Count the number of carts one train has.
I have no idea where you live in however i live next to a see port and you can see this daily.
The trucks are only doing a ship to train move at best.

The problem is that capitalists are extremely smart, they obscure this fact from your knowledge and don't broadcast it in public education.
Capitalists often hide little key creepies to how exactly their industry actually works.
Its named trade secret something like the Coca-Cola formula only no one gives a shit how this sugar poison is actually made and transport infrastructure is important.

If only school teched important knowledge and skills and not autistic shit like

*key recipes


It was intensional I hope to evoke a semi futuristic soviet look.


I have no idea where you live however I doubt there exists a sane place where trains don't connect all cities today.
Especially major cities.
I suggest looking into train maps for your country to check this.
Here is a fast google:
Talks about new rail the white ones are the existing ones.

Fun fact most villages are connected by rail and sometimes don't have serious roads (no asphalt/etc only dirt patch etc).
You seriously need to look into how this looks in reality or travel more by rail and look out the windows to see how the landscape really looks.
Finding this in books/internet might be hard because capitalists are more interested in showing you meaningless factoids like distances and borders between countries and will not want to tell you how you live in your city and surrounding area.

Knowledge is dangerous after all.

I use ideal to describe what you are aiming for or think it will look and want it.
Perfection is impossible ideal is possible.

I did not want to use the word utopia.
Any suggestions for a better word?

Nice debating skills there professor racist-rage.
OK you did not say it before.
So you are basically using ration coupons yes?
Then by definition its not money however it has multiple other problems(I will expand on this)

hold one second.
You did say that the voucher is based on time.
I'm only asking here.
So are they based on time and only on time?
If not who determines who gets more vouchers?

See the problem.
Don't link to Marx to demonstrate he disagrees with your "all work is equally hard".
You started with the:

Don't change the subject, what is with this "*money based on time worker*"(I'm paraphrasing it) idea coming from?

And if its not based on time who is determining who gets more of the vouchers?
And why bring time into the discussion?
I'm asking you about your views.

Suburbanites leave. Last pic looks good, but that’s a village, not a suburb. Any one involved with planning in a socialist society should have to read this book.

No need for this. If it vanishes after spending its not money be definition.

This is insane!
It takes 3 minutes to realize why its wrong.
Even using simple examples of ration stamps that where used in reality.

Personalizing them, WHY?!?!?!?!
So lets say you get you ration stamp for breed and need to pick it up so you go to the store.
Thane your wife needs to pick up her ration and walks to the store.
Then your kids need to get their rations and all of them walk into the store.

The question is why can not the wife only go to the store and bring you all the food?
Why can you not say to a buddy have $10 and while you are at the store buy me a peace of breed.
Or why can you not say, hey buddy buy me bread I pay you back its value (because you don't want to go to the store).

You see the problem here do you?
Its introducing insane inefficiencies because someone is anal about

I'm calm
I'm here to ask Marxists and other leftists so….
I have no idea why you quoted this post I made.
and how this is relevant to anything.
I think I can agree with this, however however I 'm unable to understand the rest and it looks to me like internal Marxists sophistry.

Money has many purposes, one that is actually extremely useful is rationing.
Money and Ration stamps ration things.
What is preventing someone from simply going and saying

Yeah I understand, the preamble wasn't necessary.

I'll just say that initially there is a limit to what can be 'bought' from the store because there are real supply constraints of commodities. But if you can reduce the time that it takes to produce that same commodity to near zero, how is that any different to having a replicator at every store?

The product that was produced a week ago can be resupplied instantly and the only time factor is transportation, with good logistics and supply chains even this ceases to be a problem. You can have just about anything, instantly and furthermore you can have as much as you want because there isn't a lag time between you and the guy next you. There is relative abundance NOT absolute abundance. There are still physical resource constraints (You can't have a continent sorry)

1) Libertarian Communist with anarchist sympathies

2) optional / people will do what they enjoy doing

automation will supply everyone with the essentials.

3) local decisions made be made by communities, global scale decisions (such as environmental ones) made by specialized committees with local input.

4) no

5) sure, but walkable environments will take priority over highways, etc. nature balanced with technology.

aesthetics will be emphasized so humans can live in beauty. craft will imbue objects with care & the touch of humanity. old things, like old computers, cars & buildings will be preserved & combined with new technology. new architecture & design will be organic & integrated into nature. see ==SOLARPUNK== for aesthetics.

6) sure, why not? but care of earth comes first.

Love it, isn't it so funny how the end goal is the exact same, shame that anarchists and authcoms can't see more eye to eye on this stuff.

Communism by definition is anarchist, its just that dastardly transition from capitalism that causes so much friction ugh

I have to say its nice having a conversation with you.

Here is the problem.
I walk into the store and say:

Forgot to quote you in

Yeah I agree with everything you said, the idea of give me all your bread seems ridiculous to me because you would be full and there would be no point in hoarding it, you can have as much as you can carry. There may be some mechanisms preventing this sort of thing though because it's antisocial behaviour.

Also yeah is absolutely a concern in the long run, and resource constraints as well. In the short term we economise on labor because humans and time are the most important characteristic of production (we want to maximise leisure) but in the long term it is energy and resources that come first because we have to switch our attention to doing whats best for the planet and making sure we can sustainably live. Asteroid mining and advanced recycling creating a circular economy minimizing wasted energy and resources is the final step before we can abolish 'economics' i.e the study and management of scarcity to meet human desired and needs.

Steeve Keen's Post-Keynesian group discusses this along with the Ecological economists group. He's trying to create an 'energy theory of value'.

Paul Cockshott discusses the long term focus towards energy and resources instead of economising on labor here:

This a drastic scenario however it shows why rationing is important or you can end up in ridicules scenarios.
One thing you will learn is that every system will work if only 100% morally perfect angels life only in it.
The problem is we need to anticipate people abusing the system or simply try to break it while designing.

So are you still going with the idea of

And are you opposed to money?

I'm getting the wheel barrow ready also my car.

And we end up in something that looks like the worst "communists distopia" from anti-communist propaganda (I'm only saying) where you have secret police checking if you are not taking to much.

Why are you people opposed to simply giving workers stamps and saying they can exchange them for food or in more luxurious times giving them $5000 and saying they can buy with it whatever they want.
Far better then finding yourself pants down and needing to make up mechanisms to try to solve some antisocial behavior hoarding.

Trust me I did think this over.
I initially wanted to think of a new organization to revolutionize the way we live with no money.
The more I thought about it the more problems materialized and in the end the best solution was simply taking what we have (fiat money) and simply adopting it to a different way of living (capitalists can go away).

Personally the utopia you are proposing would encourage incredible consumption.
For example I know that I might go out and get 3 monitors for my PC, or a new PC.
Actually why not get the newest PC for every room in my house?
With 3 monitors.
If it costs ZERO why not?
Also I can get a brand new car or 2 (if the one breaks I can still be mobile).

I know this looks excessive however its not wasteful and I can use all of them.
Who is saying this is to much?
And I think a lot of other people would do the same.
I think using money is a great way to ration these things I can only spend a given number of money in a given time.


I think you misunderstood.
I can post the essay where I tried to illustrate this concept(its rambly) if you want.
The point is it was always this way and always will be.
The just of it.
Even if we say we have magical (ignore recycling for one minute) device to transform every metal into any shape (spoons, knifes) and this manipulator can make it in less then 1 second you are still limited by the fact of needing to give this device iron to transform.
And you getting iron is limited by the fact how fast you can dig it out of the ground.
This was always true for all times and will always be true unless we develop some techno-magic Star Trek Q style.
The weakest link is how strong a chain is and the slowest step is how maximally fast a process can be.
Even if i grant you fantastical transformation speeds like 1 second you are still limited by the speed you can min iron.
Got the point?

2) There is another resource energy.
Its the ultimate resource.
Even this fantastical manipulator of 1s construction its 100% useless with no energy.
To change the shape of iron you need to give energy into this device.
Even if you recycle your own ion knifes you need to feed it energy.
Electricity obscures this however if you imagine it like you needing to throw in coal into this device before it starts working you get the picture.

So you need to throw in
iron (Duh)
coal (for energy)
And while you can recycle iron energy can never be recycled once used up its forever lost.

So you are limited by the fact how fast you can extract energy.
This is, was and always in all likelihood(even if perpetual motion machines are possible) will be true for all ages. Even medieval times.
Got the point?

I am not the user you're debating, I just wanna throw in a few Marx quotes to illuminate how we see the communist society emerging.
In the first phases of communist society, we will use something like a labour voucher system. Money received after so or so many hours of work, that cannot be traded, and that you use to draw from the social stock. This way, no one profits off of another man's labour.

Aww shit!
This can be totally misunderstood I was thinking you give people $5000 every month so its impossible for them to spend more then $5000 + some reserves they have saved up.
Ignoring todays massive money reserved some capitalists have in their bank accounts.
This new money would be introduced like this.

Oh lol I completely forget that I didn't say anything about labor vouchers, I thought it was common knowledge. The thing is like if you're going to be the kind of guy who grabs 20 cars and crashes them right outside the store every 10 minutes you're going to be fucking dealt with. That type of malicious waste is absolutely unacceptable tuck what anyone says.

I explained in detail why its terrible everyone can see this.
Its like wanting square wheels.

Elaborate on this.

Also can you answer the "I want everything you have in the store" scenario? And how it will look in practice?
See: and

Ok however his quotes are nothing more then catch phrases and propaganda.
How will this even work in practice especially when your labour voucher system is on the same level like driving a car with square wheels?
And the next step is even a bigger disaster?

What? What is even this sentence supposed to mean?

Now to your other musings:
I actually specified the scenario in

There is nothing about

I like you to explore exactly how this will be dealt with don't be shy or ambiguous.
at no point will I say

This whole thing of "but then my wife needs to(…)" can easily be avoided by using joint accounts or something. And also, people tend to stay in the same place for a while, so the people at the local distribution center might know that X and Y use each other's credit card.
It's not about creating the absolute most convenient way of organizing distribution, it's about using the way that will lead to a communist society.

Yes and you invented the octagonal wheel.
And completely contradicted the (retarded beyond help) personalized vouchers idea.
You are contradicting the personalised vouchers idea.
And you are trying to work around it.

Yes this is better then a (square wheel) of personalized vouchers however its still infective and (octagonal wheel).
Why not go full round wheel?
Why do these dam things need to be personalized?

And I love how I got this example from one of the technocracy talks in the 90s.
Its at the end and its the only part that actually substantive.
These questions are not going away.

Also why do I need to have some rinkey-dinkey system of
"Oh I recognize you to be the friend of X so I let you use his card" instead of what we use today?
Say to your child to get some food from the store and give him money and demand he show you the paper receipts after it.

Same other way around

simple attach a person's labour tokens to their id, and have them be able to transfer them to each other, however the labour tokens you transfer are still attached to your identity, and each time you buy something it's registered whether people have transfered labour tokens to you, and if they have then which people, so you are still able to give money to friends as an exception, however a neural network monitors the flux of tokens out of people's cards, then it becomes very easy to detect when a person is buying or selling stuff

in that sense the system wouldn't even care about transfers of tokens with value lower than a given sum, the system would look for huge transfers of money and unusual activity, it really wouldn't be that different from the way the bank monitors your credit card activity, except the information in this case can be made private, by encripting everything that comes into/out the central computer. you are missing the point, and drowning in a puddle, which ever mecanism you implement doesn't need to be perfect at getting people to not trade, it just needs to be good enough, other systems would be put in place to de-incentivise the same in other ways, like feedback loops in production, in order to meet demand, and just generally trying to satisfy people's needs in a resonable manner

You see here is the problem this is actually illegal under the
personalized vouchers system.
The technocrats think its a great idea to have it this way.
Here is the actual lecture where the technocrats say this shit:

I can not find the moment in
(Have technocrats make themselves look like idiots by thinking in 1994 Big Brother is fake instead) I do remember this exchange by this joker who was saying something like

Can you explain this?