You catch me selling excess ressources provided by the commune on the black market

You catch me selling excess ressources provided by the commune on the black market.

And me and 5 other friends all left their apartments vacant to come live with me. We use much less ressources than before and use those excess ressources to buy things that are rare and limited in quantity.

What happens after we get caught?

Other urls found in this thread:

anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/seci6.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Commissar Cletus and commissar Jamal execute you post hate for being a harmful bougoursie element.

please be serious

Nothing. Your life is punnishment enough.

Okay. I just thought of something. Imagine we are all neighbours or like 3 of us.

We tear down the walls between our aparments and repurpose extra rooms for idk what.

The point is we are sharing and giving up a bit of quality if life (differs on what perspective you have) to get more ressources.

This seems rather dumb, doesn't it?

Who would be dumb enough to give you something rare in exchange for something that can be found in excess?

What happens after you get "caught" depends. The black market goods you're selling; well, no need to punish each individual buyer or seller necessarily, but yeah black markets should be shut down. And with regards to you and your friends moving in; fine. The state can reclaim those vacant apartments. Buy your rare crap.

Also, this: and though.

matter of perspective

maybe we like each other's company


Another thing. What if we merge our apartments or go move to a house somewhere else?

More of what? What do you think that cutting down on your heating oil consumption will get you? Everybody already has enough heating oil, so it is not like people will be buying it.

Sure, why would that be a problem? Again, the state would reclaim the places you're not living in. If its just your original 3 apartments merged, and whatever communal social structures there are fine with that kind of construction being done (who knows, you and your community will decide on those rules democratically) then I see no reason why not.

You don't get it: you will find no buyer.

ECONOMICS DO NOT WORK IN A VACCUM.

YOU ARE NOT SUPPISED TO USE ABSTRACT SITUATIONS TO PROVE OR NEGATE ENTIRE PHILOSOPHICAL BRANCHES OF ECONOMY.

THIS IS PURE HORSESHIT HOLY FUCK READ A FUCKING BOOJ ON MARXIST ECONOMICS.

CAPITALIST ECONOMICS ARENT A SCIENCE, ITS OPINIONS AND IDEOLOGY WITH A DEGREE.

DELETE THIS SHIT THREAD.

Calm down dear, he's just asking some innocent questions. If you won't talk people through this, how can you ever expect them to ask the insightful and interesting questions you're demanding of them?

whatever we don't have or need more of or want

Surely that world wouldn't be perfect, or we could all just pick mansions with extremely expensive stuff.


Really? But we will have more than the other people.


It's not about economics per se, but what I am allowed to do in a commune.

How?

3 people in 3 apartments, becomes 3 people in 1 apartment 3x the size of each of the first. The same.

Force you to attend one of the few thousand Zizek re-education centres before your reintegration into the commune.

I implied that we will use less ressources. Like water and electricity cost less. I am sure I don't have to tell you that 3 (or 6 people as it was in the OP) living together all cost less than them living individually.

The jest of it was that we will use whatever we saved to buy some nice things.

Well that's okay. If your living costs are cheaper by sharing space, good for you. I don't really see any issue this poses.

Except no one will buy whatever you saved!

I said I will do it in the black market (implied that I am not allowed otherwise or … idk no money economy).

Is that okay? And if not what happens to me and my friends, if we get busted?

That would depend on what the commune democratically decided I suppose. I would suggest that you get your black market goods confiscated and given a warning - with harsher measures to come ifyou continue to operate the black market.

you would be put in mental asylum probably

What black market? No one will want your stuff! They have the same for free, why would they buy it from you?!

Let's say … we just gift each other presents. I gift some people something and they gift me something back?

You are not against exchanging presents, right user?


Not all of you guys are against money. And me and my friends primary goal is to not get money, but to get the things that money would buy us.

That can be really anything.

1. There's no money in communism.
2. You would have unlimited access to the articles of consumption.

Why would there be a black market for goods that everyone already has?

Hmm. Okay I don't think that could ever be implemented in real life, but let's just say I give you that.

How about I just use these ressources to get services? Like massages for example.

Everyone has unlimited access to those resources. They have no reason to exchange it for touching you when they can get it for free from somewhere else.

This.

If you get it for free from the state then why would they buy in on a black market.

If you pay for it from the state, then you either sell it on the black market at a higher cost in order to make any surplus (so why would anyone buy it on the black market, when they can buy it from the state cheaper, like you did)
Or, you sell it on the black market at a cheaper cost than the state sells it, thus losing yourself credit/money/whatever currency.

What.

Okay, but the Earth is limited in size. There is an upper phsyical limit to just the amount of things there can be.

I mean I don't understand how you can just say everyone will have access to everything. That is kinda a cheap way out, because if you can somehow meet the demand of all the people, than that would obviously be the best system there is.

I guess I could say that everyone has free access to everything, than I would just stop working or find an excuse and permanently write in sick, if you force me to.
I probably would just enjoy my luxury and be obsessed with getting people to touch me.

There's a limited amount of people living for a limited amount of time capable of consuming only a limited amount of goods.

Part of the idea of communism is that less work would be needed to maintain society, and more of the work would rather become leisure.

It's not like people would choose to do nothing all day given the resources to pursue something they wish to.

Money usually exists in socialist models. Communism is the stage after socialism.


Everyone can have only as much as they consume. The limitation is set by the rate at which a person consumes without stockpiling. You get what you need and increase your own production to acquire luxuries. That is how post-scarsity works.


Nobody else will have any use for those things, since they have them already. If you want luxuries, you have to produce things that others will want.

Collectivization in communism occurs without a state.

That is our line.

Okay then, I don't mean state I mean "people's bureau of the organization and allocations of goods and services" or whatever.

Pedant

We now have almost seven and a half billion people living on Earth. There is a certain number where we can't produce enough to satisfy their needs.

That all sounds great, but I don't see how we can meet all the demands of people with today's technology.

What about cars, private jets or having access to some cool mansions?

I also want my house to be near a gigantic open forest no people are allowed to civilize, so I can camp innawoods.
That's a huge amount of empty land that could be used to plant houses in there, but forests do improve the quality of life.

There will probably be some kind of shortage, people could fill to get some extra ressources or service tbh.

What would I even get for wasting all that precious time and effort to become proficent in providing a service/luxury to not get anything out of it?


I stole it. :^)
Hang me.

Exponential demographic growth is a characteristic of societies in poverty.

This. In order to maintain a stable population (i.e. 0 growth rate) the birthrate should be at around 2.1 per woman.

In higher income societies, this birthrate is often lower than 2. In lower income societies it can exceed 4. Even within countries, we see that the rich have fewer children than the poor.

If anything, socialism will see a gradual population decline.

Okay sure. But you also have to keep in mind that technology advances -> bringing new products on the market .-> new demand for those products

It will be very difficult to meet these new demands.

My point is that also the demand of people can increase.

That's why socialism is a thing first. With the material conditions put in place with socialism and as automation technology develops society will begin to organise itself in a communistic manner. State institutions, class and money will cease to exist, as society will see no need for them, this will happen several decades down the line most likely.

Hell no. Communism includes two stages; socialism is one of them (the first).

Yeah, it can and will. I'm not claiming that communism will stop scarcity from becoming an issue eventually; that was another user. I was just saying that birthrates will probably drop under communism. But yeah, at some points society might have to collectively decide to hold back a bit and ration itself.

There will be no market.

Seems like we have basically the same goal, but support different pathes to reach it.

Hell, likely politics won't matter as much, if we really get technological progress going.

Or maybe not given that I want relationships between people to be voluntary, with you guys I am never quite sure.


Stop being cute with me, it's just a figure of speech. Might as well say introduce a product to the commune.

This would mean we already fuggd up

Kek

I don't know, but people naturally want to trade free with each other.

You can see it on the lower scale by just exchanging presents.

See


I mean you can say what you want, but imo free trade is pretty natural for humans to want.

u dun goofd

We already can. We just don't. There is already enough food to feed the world, enough housing for everyone to have a home, enough water for everyone to drink, enough materials to produce comfortable lives. That is where capitalism fails–allocation.


A bunch of shit that your own production fails to justify? Tough shit.


The problem of which is always exascerbated by hoarders. I would not expect the community to give too much concern to a hoarder's supposed right to be reimbursed in that situation.

theres no mental illness in communism? do the cows fart rainbows too?

Some markets would probably exist for the sake of it. However, without a capitalist economy, they would be politically powerless.

Also: kek

What you're allowed to do in a commune is generally impossible to answer concretely because it would depend on a multitude of things, from the stage of socialism you are in to the form of the commune, the resources available to the commune, and the disposition of that commune to certain behaviors.

Ideally you're able to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else or their ability to take part in/make use of communal resources.

Capital I., ch.1.

what did he mean by this?

what if it's some kind of luxury and not a necessity of life?


hmm? like what? I guess you are refering to hoarding or something of that sort?

Is there room for private ressources?

It depends on what you mean by "everyone" and "everything."

If you're talking about some sort of universal right for people to have or use whatever they want then that isn't what socialism or communism is about. Personal objects or property are for the exclusive use of those that own or otherwise use them. If your wife has a fancy necklace that she only wears on special occasions that doesn't give absolutely anyone the right to come into your living space and take it just because she isn't using it.

But if you're talking about everyone within a community having access to productive resources or things otherwise meant for communal use, community gardens or pools or whatever, then those things are managed by the people who use them in order to allow for the greatest amount of access possible to those that use them.

anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/seci6.html

Mental illness doesn't exist, to begin with.

Not at all. In fact, in pre-agrarian societies individuals frequently compete with one another to provide the most surplus goods to the community or to host the most lavish banquets with their own proceeds. The reward for extraordinary productivity is greater prestige and luxuries. "Free trade" only begins to appear when intensive agriculture and slave societies begin to take shape. In both slave societies and feudal societies gift exchanges are more common than markets among the lower classes, as only aristocrats (and occasionally the nascent bourgeoisie) have the power to purchase luxury goods.

"Free trade" is a result of surplus accumulation, not some inherent human quality. The exchange of goods predates the concept, and other methods of exchange are often more practical.

Hoarding, sure, but I mean whatever. Can men and women both go topless? What about complete nude? Is swearing in public okay? What about playing loud music in the middle of the night? How will the community deal with people that initiate physical violence? Should Sunday be a public holiday where absolutely no labor is performed? The list goes on infinitely.

Like what? If you mean "personal property" then yes, you own things like your car or computer if the commune has the ability to provide those things individually. If you mean "private property" as in you having sole ownership over some natural resource that you had no hand in making or some sort of productive resources like a factory then absolutely not.

I meant that the value of your own work is not likely to equal the labor and resources put into creating and maintaining a private jet or a mansion on top of all of your other expenses. The people who enjoy those things now did not earn them with their own labor. Rather, other people were reimbursed less than the value of their work to create a surplus that the capitalist then used to have his jet and mansion created.

Then there is no issue. The only way to acquire luxuries is by earning them through labor. If you can get alot of them, then that means that you must have created goods of equal value.

>anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/seci6.html
I like this, user, I like you. Very very nice!


Luxuries you say? So would you implement this in a modern commune as well?

I kinda cited gifts as a sort of loophole, since we can agree before that we want to exchange it, but if we are barred from trading we can just "gift" whatever we wanted to trade with each other.


I thought you were fine with people doing whatever they want as long as they don't restrict access to communal ressources or initate violence?

What about things that you and I are not exactly sure about whether they are personal property or should be reallocated as communal property?


You sure? I can't really get what he was going for with that sentence.

What problem does he have with what I was saying before?


Very interesting. So you affirm that I could get more than other people/what peopel get allocated in communes when I create value?

What issue do you have with money then?

Here's how you figure out between the to

Absolutely. Production in excess of what is necessary to provide necessities is turned toward luxury. The idea is not to eliminate luxury.


Doing so on a personal basis is not going to get you nearly as much as you would get doing so communally. One person is only going to be able to offer you a handful of goods and services, but a community will have a large variety to pull from. Also, if what you produce is divisible then it will be of more value to a larger pool of consumers. Say that you make pocket watches. A person only really needs one pocket watch. If you have a hundred watches then it makes more sense to distribute them communally rather than going to person after person to try to arrange agreeable trades.


Personal property and community property are fairly simple concepts. I can not imagine that there would be much confusion. If you earn a thing, then it is yours.


Mansions and private jets require so many resources and so many man-hours to produce and maintain that they can not reasonably be attained using only one's own labor, so just one person owning them makes no sense. Such extravagent things can only be had privately by the accumulation of capital (in the Marxist sense). A private jet could not be had in a communist society, but a community jet would be feasable. Its production and maintainance would be spread among various workers who would in turn have access to other communal luxuries by virtue of their labor.


Yes, greater production yeilds greater returns. The whole point is to make what you get out of the system equal to what you put into it.


It would be unnecessary.

...