Free healthcare is delivered efficiently, free at the point of use, in many countries. This is an established fact. Now consider a communist society. In this system, that the employees in the state healthcare industry are not paid. They receive no money at all. However, the state has taken over completely free provision, not only of healthcare, but of housing, food, water, and everything else the healthcare workers need. Therefore they don't need to be paid money to maintain a happy and healthy life.
You may wonder how the state gets money, then, to build hospitals and schools, if everything is provided free, and there are no industries or wages. If the state takes in no money, it seems certain that they will be unable to pay for any new construction projects. But the fact is this: not only does the state face no wage costs, but they face no construction costs. Construction is really a wage cost paid to construction workers, and indirectly to the people who mine the concrete and other raw materials. These workers also don't receive a wage in a communist system, so construction becomes in this sense 'free'.
Now you may wonder, if the state is not paying doctors and nurses, or controlling the construction of schools and hospitals, what is the use of the state in this system? In fact, you are correct. The state being an unnecessary evil, it has been abolished.
But, you may wonder, without the state who will plan the economy? How will the construction workers and the doctors and teachers know what to do with themselves to create the orderly deployment of labour resources in different parts of society which we see every day?
The truth is this. Not only politicians, but everybody really wants an orderly deployment of resources in society. But communists don't think someone with a megaphone is the best person to do it. The community, or representatives of the community, should absolutely create instructional, voluntarily followed plans together. They might have the construction workers build a hospital that the doctors will work in to make people healthy. That's good for everyone.
We don't see why sophisticated planning systems couldn't spring up from the wishes of the people, without any sort of commands, exploitative taxes, 'parliamentary sovereignty', or people in funny hats.
Anyway, the last big worry you might have is: if everything is free, what incentive is there to work?
This is a good question, and it's a leap of faith to say enough people will labour voluntarily without anything to force them to, for society to function. But we think they will. When they have comfortable lives and aren't ruined by the fight for survival, people are far from the self centred, calculating laybouts of myth. Not only will doctors, scientists, teachers, and labourers work to cure the wants and hungers of their fellow human beings- for only that reason- but out of desire for admiration, or the sense of having done something that could be admired. In addition, a life without labour is too sedentary for a majority of personality types.
The main take-away is this. People will work to be helpful, admired, and active, instead of parasitic, detested, and inactive.
Taking all that into account, then, we see that a communist society is one in which no-one is paid any wages, everything is free, the state is abolished, everyone is equal, and people work because they want to be helpful, admired and active, and enrich the lives of those around them.
This seems like a very admirable society to live in. It's also completely different from the arrangement they had in the former USSR. We can conclude that the USSR was not a communist society.
Communism
Communism isn't possible or ethical with our current level of technology.
Maybe after AI.
...
...
AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Maybe I could find fulfillment in your society as a concrete miner; but I doubt it.
Communism highly underestimates the insatiable human appetite for greed, sloth and apathy.
Dammit
Delete this
I understand where your idea of people doing things out of love of career or fulfillment but lets be fucking honest thats just an excuse to like something youre forced to do to earn money,no sain person in this day and age would do it
...
In a communist society there will be no classes. But if there will be no classes, this implies that in communist society there will likewise be no State.
If there are orders being given, if there is one group of people subduing another group of people, if there is a dark star of violent subjugation under which an individual's forever falls silent, then communism has not being achieved.
You do it for free, right?
*has not been achieved
...
In a world of 100% men your communism would work perfectly. It women with their damn 'my body, my choice' that get in the way. Communism cant have ideas of private property like that about means of (re)production. And then men start to compeate for comparitive advantage and and everything goes to shit.
And the best part is the enemies of The People can be be arrested and disposed of en masse. That includes trouble makers and saboteurs like those who can't meet their work quotas because the tractors are broken or complain about starving when you sell all the grain to buy US made machine tools. As Unlce Joe said: "no man, no problem".
I think we should kill the poorest .5% of people every year until people stop being entitled to free stuff. Giving away free stuff just doesn't seem productive.
...
But capitalism is -merely- the private ownership of the means of production
Name one country that is real capitalism then… (I'm waiting).
Also, capitalism isn't just that at all, it's more than that.
Real capitalism is just capitalism.
'Fake' capitalism would be something which is called capitalism, but isn't.
The United States of America is capitalist.
Capitalism run under a state =/= real capitalism as it forces businesses to comply with the government regulations, also a government can just seize your property (see Imminent Domain). So therefore it's not real capitalism since you don't truly own private property.
en.wikipedia.org
Nope. Public corporations/publicly traded companies =/= capitalism. Also minimum wages isn't capitalism, it's socialism.
Still private ownership
Still private ownership
I didn't know there were autists on Holla Forums
TRUMPism =/= real capitalism
Not an argument.
Publicly traded companies = privately traded companies. Huh.
So the companies traded on the stock exchange are actually communally owned?
It's communally owned as in anyone can contribute to the stock exchange, also by spending money on it you effectively own that portion of the stock, so uh yeah it's "publicly" owned (exactly what socialism is), also communities are just a concept get your fucking facts straight… Communities don't exist. Not as actual, acting, choosing entities. The word "community" is an abstract aggregation; a fiction which makes it easier for us to think and talk about lots of people at once. A community cannot decide anything, it cannot do anything. Individuals who are thought to make up part of the community can, but the community itself cannot.
"I get to arbitrarily decide what the words private and personal mean even though it can change the meaning of any political ideology if you swap those around and act like you didn't"
equally miserable.. Sounds great! Sign me up!!
Fuck basic economics!
No one actually owns a fucking public company you retard. Jump off a cliff you dumb nigger. But oh that's right… race is social construct (a spook). GTFO. Also Imminent Domain proves that no one actually owns private property.
What the fuck am I reading?
People from the public can privately own resources. That doesn't mean the resources aren't privately owned.
Personal property =/= private property. Actually read a fucking book on law you retard.
A public company is a company that sells stock to the public. Stock doesn't entail ownership.
If they sold shares to the public, the company would be owned by members of the public who owned shares.
Wrong. You have the choice to sell the stock whenever you feel like it. It isn't owned by a private entity. Therefore you own the fucking stock. Man your dense.
It doesn't entail ownership of the company / means of production
The means of production will be privately owned by someone else though
What are you even arguing about
man, that's a lotta bullshit to read
Pic related
No one actually owns the company therefore it's market socialism not capitalism.
So why would someone waste 10 years in college to become a Brain Surgeon if they are getting paid the same as a McDONALDs worker?
The companies are privately owned. Who do you think sells the stocks? The owners.
There won't be wages though
They won't be materially better off, but they will be able to do more social good by saving lives. And they might prefer more mental activity
The only correct system is one in which the state puts no regulations on people, and collect no taxes, but, in a completely free market, builds up its wealth trough investments, and uses the entirety (except a smaller than average wage for its very few employees) of that wealth on hospitals, roads, schools, etc. If the state starts to build an army or a police force, or tries to keep riches to themselves, the people would be armed and trained to mercilessly kill them all with no hesitation.
That's the correct answer.
You know, I keep seeing you say this and it has become glaringly obvious you don't know the difference between personal property and private property. You say that products are "privately owned", but that's totally wrong. Private property is a plot of land. Personal property is something you can move easily. Although houses (personal property), is an exception.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Wrong 100% wrong.
en.wikipedia.org
government ownership =/= privately owned. If a government can use Imminent Domain on anyone they chose, it's not really privately owned.
lol go make me a sammich for free you dumb commie.
who are you to decide what someone can and can't own?
What kind of question is this??? Personal ownership is different from Private ownership is my point you jackass and the person I was replying to didn't know the difference between the two. Learn reading comprehension and come back.
What are you honestly keeping alive in that situation?
The problem right now is they all still breed like rabbits and don't die like flies.
Stop the huggle muggle bullshit.
just because you say so doesn't make it so
Okay so you are retarded.
If you own a company and control the means of production, it's private property not personal property.
I honestly don't know what the fuck is wrong with you, it's like you spent an hour on Holla Forums and just got yourself confused. And now you're trying to correct people and sperging out immensely
Still privately owned
How is it helpful to pretend you don't own it because 'muh eminent domain'? The system is characterised by private ownership, it's just that the State can take it from people. Why create new terms for 'private property but the state can take it from you?
Nothing free you faggot. Nice bait.
Did you even read the wiki articles I posted?
Here's what private ownership means:
Now here's what personal ownership means:
Now do you understand the difference? This is just common law tbh. And no, I'm not a communist if that's what you're thinking. I believe private ownership and personal ownership is very important, unlike communist oxymorons.
See above you are the only one that's fucking retarded. Also, no one actually owns a public company you fucking retard. If anything you are the one that's making shit up.
If a government can seize your property it's obviously not privately owned, it's actually owned by the government. Wow you are fucking stupid.
Why the fuck are you idiots wasting your time discussing semantics on Holla Forums?
I understand the difference you fucking retard and I have throughout this thread. Public companies are owned by people other than the stock owners. They extract profit from the workers and give it to the stock owners.
Or they just seize it even though they don't own it, because fuck you.
Either way, it isn't useful to divide groups up into 'public ownership, private ownership, ownership which behaves like private ownership 99% of the time but ISN'T PRIVATE OWNERSHIP HEHE MUH EMINENT DOMAIN'.
No, fuck off, it's a private ownership system
You are a nitpicker who doesn't contribute anything anyone could find useful or interesting
There are annoying people who enjoy trying to correct others. They don't really bother trying to make sure of themselves, but jump right in and assume other people are stupid.
Or they give some of it to the stock owners, and the rest to themselves
what people would those be?
if that's the case, why don't the workers just form their own company and keep all the profit themselves?
Comcast is owned by a family but sells stock
Not enough capital
and by selling stock they're transferring part of the company's ownership to others
that's what loans are for
Market socialism isn't a real thing is your argument then.
No you clearly never did. You've maintained that private ownership = goods/personal property. Which is completely wrong.
Anyone can be a stock owner in a fucking public company you fucking retard. Also, no one owns a PUBLIC company you dumbass.
Ok, that family owns only 1% of the fucking stock you retard. Also, nice isolated evidence you retard. That's only one company.
the stock owners do
Exactly. The public does. Defeating the claim that a public company somehow equals a private one.
To certain private individuals
The private individuals then get part of the profit from exploiting the workers
It's still privately owned
Also the family retain a majority share
Probably because of inability to get credit / prohibitive rates of interest.
They also perhaps don't 'exploit themselves' of profit as efficiently as capitalists do
Didn't say this
And have private ownership and a claim to some of the profit
The shareholders do
The family have a controlling stake.
How can one family have a controlling stake in something that is communal property / isn't privately owned?
No, because the whole economy is filled with businesses that are privately owned
no, the public doesn't. the individuals who own the stock do.
You're gay though. The workers don't own it. The vast majority of people aren't owners. It's privately owned.
not like they can't buy part of it, though
If 'the public' owned the company why would individuals need to buy stock? They would already be the owners
They don't have much savings
And anyway that's bad finance. It means if you lose your job you also lose your savings. Sad!
well maybe they should
wut? you don't lose your stock in a company if you lose your job in it
Anyone can invest in a public company and I mean anyone. A private company are private shareholders and don't allow the public to invest in shareholding.
again. anyone can invest in it. therefore it's publicly owned.
I'll quote you now:
Exactly. You fucking said that the "means of production" can be privately owned which is a falsehood, you are just a liar is what you are.
There you fucking go again. It's fucking PERSONAL ownership over the means of production, not PRIVATE ownership you retard. Honestly you're an oxymoron. So what? Socialism under a state amounts to private ownership then? Does that logically make sense to you, you braindead motherfucker?
Anyone can have a "stake" in public companies. Therefore it's simply not privately owned.
Keep making shit up bucko.
Yeah but… they don't
I mean if the company goes bust
You would be screwed
that's why you don't put all your money in one company
A sack of potatoes is private property is your argument.
Wrong
wanna be a communist? join a commune
until you do that you're just a poser
wanna be a capitalist? get some capital
until you do that you're just a poser
You would need quite a lot of people to join before you could build a really properly functioning society
you don't need capital to participate in capitalism, you can sell your labour
The answer to your question is that it's impossible to have any company/corporation without leadership. Private or not. Just look at socialist countries for example. They have leaders of factories/corporations just like capitalists do. If you seriously believe that everyone can own something in a country as "community owned", you are sorely mistaken. The truth of the matter is, people need to be lead, otherwise civilization would fall apart at its seems. Also, government pretty much owns everything in societies. If you seriously think ancommunism is at all feasible you're fucking kidding yourself. It's already been tried and tested. Ancommunism has either:
Honestly, if you don't have a leader to build a building under a group of people, it will be a very poorly made building. Also, "leading the way" (not putting your commands in words) is also a hierarchy as you are putting authority over what other people should do. Anarcho-communism is oxymoronic. It's probably the worst/least feasible out of any anarchic society. Even fucking anarcho-capitalism is more feasible than this trash.