Ancap here slowly converting to more leftist ideologies...

Ancap here slowly converting to more leftist ideologies. I absolutely love the ideas of communism and what not but I don't see how it would work in practice. I may not understand some fundamental things so please correct me when I'm wrong. Okay, so communism works like this…..

Step 1: Proletariat seizes means of production like factories and farms etc and democratically controls them.
Step 2: Vanguard party deals with foreign invaders counter revolutionaries etc while being democratically controlled by workers.
Step 3: Workers produce stuff and freely exchange with other workers via gift economy.
Step 4: Other countries see how cool we are and follow suit with their own revolutions.
Step 5: Vanguard party goes bye bye because it's no longer needed.
Step 6; Global communism and the next chapters in human history begin

Okay please correct me if I got any of that wrong. Now, here are my questions and concerns

I understand that there would be absolutely no market or currency under communism. I understand that resources would be used based on need not for profit so they'd be allocated most efficiently BUT what about resources that are scarce including but not limited to human labor? A simple example would be a really good doctor, logically everyone would want to see that doctor when they fell ill but he/she/they would have limited time and couldn't possibly cater to all those in the community. How would this problem be resolved? I'd imagine the doctor would work on other well known highly skilled laborers first in exchange for priority in receiving their respective services thus creating a de facto class/market.

What am I missing? sincerely potential comrade

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=MNVKoX40ZAo
mariborchan.si/text/books/fredric-jameson/an-american-utopia/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

you answered your own question. communism is meant to fix capitalism's contradictions, just like how capitalism is meant to fix feudalism's contradictions, doesnt mean its going to be 100% perfect. in a communist society, i'd imagine diseases would be a lot less common thanks to environmental protection and stress reduction from less working hour, etc.

What you're describing is Leninist theory. There are many other kinds of socialisms and communisms. The fundamental feature uniting all of them is not whether they eliminate markets or describe a role of government but that they eliminate the division between the value-producing working class and the value-appropriating capitalist class.

You're mixing like 3-4 different ideologies in these steps, but it's kinda a simple summary yes.

Sounds about right. Just drop your neo-feudalism and join the red side :)

Gift economy is primitavist/utopian nonsense. Currency is the natural end product of trade because it is simply the most convenient way to do it.

...

Look into mutualism, anarcho communism and syndicalism ;)

Also read Graeber, faggot

Fuck ups. Fuck ups, all around.

>Step 1: Proletariat seizes means of production like factories and farms etc and democratically controls them.
We are not democrats! We believe in the power of the communal process.

Dude, fuck "gift economy!" It's basically the Starbucks (that is: commuter urban worker's) dream of something more than it actually does! Communists don't want a market, to begin with. We believe that it is irrational.

Not so easy.

The withering away of the state isn't something "natural" as correspondent to the foreseeable futures.

Not gon' happen until global socialism, tbh.

Please, for the love of God, listen to this lecture first: youtube.com/watch?v=MNVKoX40ZAo
And read this book second: mariborchan.si/text/books/fredric-jameson/an-american-utopia/

The doctor won't chose his patients; society will.

They won't be able to, for they own nothing the doctor needs; society does.

OP Here.

How will society choose his patients? I mean society is just an aggregate of human beings so someone has to decide.

If I'm a good doctor and you're the best dentist whats to stop us from giving each other priority over others?

But what you are describing clearly violates the non-aggression princle, and aren't you supposed to hold it as your highest moral standard? I'm confused.

If you're the best wage-earner doctor in a private clinic, what stops you from choosing another patient than the one your boss tells you?
Your argument applies to capitalism as well as communism. It's only logical actually: communism requires a socialized production (eg: no doctor deciding for himself who his patients will be). And it's precisely what capitalism does (as opposed to former modes of production): socialize production.

Former ancap myself. Glad to see your interest

I think it would be best to have some sort of governing body to allocate the doctor's resources most efficiently. Everything has a tradeoff, in this case we are trading autonomy for efficiency. I wouldn't always default to this, a sense of autonomy has its value and there's no need to micromanage every human interaction. But autonomy isn't the pinnacle of importance, human well-being is. And in the case of doctors, an enforcement mechanism for efficiency seems appropriate, at least while we have the a shortage of them.

The NAP isn't relevant in communist societies or no?

I see what you're saying to an extent but let me rephrase the question

If I'm the best widget maker in my city and everyone wants my widgets but I can't create enough widgets to meet the demands what's to stop me from colluding with others and exchanging my high quality widgets in exchange their respective goods and services that are also of a higher quality than the norm. Wouldn't this create a market and a higher class?

According to my ancap ideology I have no objection to this because I view class and markets as an inevitable phenomenon occurring in human interaction, but I thought the objective of communism is to create a classless stateless currencyless society

Thats really idealistic kind of hope.

Its probably more like this:


I really don't see money as anything other than a distribution tool, which we can use to redistribute scarce resources. Its only until we produce enough of something that it can supply the demand of all people at (little to) no cost that it can be free. Bit by bit, we will have more items and commodities not subject to scarcity and thus slowly inch toward moneylessness.
The more items become freely for free available, the less money is required in society. These "free" items will still have a cost, because those working on them need money to pay for scarce goods. However, the more you make things free, the more you reduce the required labour by people, the less money the ones who do this work require. At some point, you reach a pivot at which there is so little scarce goods that people can cover it with their basic income (to ensure even the unpaid can have access to scarce products) and people will start to do the little jobs left for free, volunteering for them. At this point, costs drop, scarce goods will soon also be made by volunteers, thus their price will go towards zero, you then make everything free and now you can abolish money altogether.

What? It's always relevant, but they obviously don't believe in it or they wouldn't be communists.

What I'm asking is how someone can give up his principles so easily.

Yep. Except, you missed two steps:
Step -1: organization of Vanguard
Step 0: Vanguard Party organizes Proletariat to actually let it seize the MoP (it's industrial society we are living in; you can't just "seize" anything by murdering some people).

Nope. At this point Party becomes/creates government. Even if real people will keep significant influence on things, there is a crucial difference.

No. That's a strong "No". Neither Socialism nor Communism is gift economy.

If we are talking ML, Revolution is not limited to "seizing means of production". This is when transition period begins. Well, IRL we will get "reconstruction period" even before that (dealing with consequences of Revolution/wars).

For ML this step is Socialism: rapid industrialization of the state, until we are all sufficiently wealthy. At the very least, that means that we increase productivity of our work, until we earn 4-5 times more than we do now, but work 4 hours a day.

Revisionists (see Bolivarians, as an example; or late USSR) don't do it, try to avoid it, or don't put enough effort into it. Which is why they fuck up and crumble into Capitalism. Socialism works only as long as society is advancing towards Communism. Not unlike bicycle. Industrialization (and - yes; mostly planned economy) is this next step that cannot be avoided.

Also, see Piketty's to get the general idea. Keep in mind, that he is pandering to the Capitalists and tries to present Socialism as compatible with Capitalism (SocDem, basically).

Socialism is a process of displacing Capitalist elements (unregulated scarcity) of economy with Socialist (democratically regulated scarcity) and then Communist (mostly unregulated due to abundance).

Not necessarily true for all countries.

Capitalists will get scared of revolutions and some start allowing partial reforms. See picrelated: US and Cold War. No actual revolution happened, but Capitalists got weakened anyway. Some countries might experience gradual transition to Socialism (at least initially), instead of full-on Revolution.

As I've pointed out, Vanguard effectively stops existing before Step 2 (even if it keeps the name, it is not VP anymore, it has different functions).

Government becomes truly democratic, dissolving it's functions among the population. It's not immediate process.

Yep. Being pragmatic I don't really care about this part, though.

What is Communism? This "Step 6"? Or Socialism (Step 3)?

Personally, I think currency/market will be slowly shifted out of use, maybe staying somewhere as an oddity. Horses did not disappear completely, despite cars making them mostly obsolete.

You missed the whole point here. Communism is post-scarcity economy (Step 6). If you have scarcity, it is not Communism.

Scarcity economies are either Planned (democratic decision on what to do) or Market (whoever has more money decides).

NB: you can have post-scarcity in one area (healthy food for everyone), but scarcity (luxury food) in other.

No idea. Depends on circumstances.

In general, things are divided into luxuries and necessities. Scarce luxuries can stay with Market (i.e. if you have some surgeon that is very good at making elf ears, you throw money at him until he agrees to turn you into Special Snowflake). On the other hand necessities mean that society intervenes and establishes some procedure (i.e. if there is a dying man, surgeon needs to treat him first, rather than make you special snowflake elf ears).

Questions?

Moustache man knows his shit

imo for a long time it will work like USSR was, patients bringing alcohol and chocolate to bribe a doctor/widget maker.

Is Japan's tradition of gift-giving also a bribery?

I am not familiar with Japan's tradition, but I suppose it is similar to our tradition of giving tips to waiters, or tradition of gift giving to some service providers in former ussr countries.

imo it depends if you give gift before or after service. Giving gifts after service is nice way to build relationship, so I do not necessarily see it as some bad thing.

Yes.

But you said in USSR it was bribing.

Ya done goof'd.

Worker self management for the worker self management God! Collective enterprise for the collective enterprise God!

I'm sorry but you're missing the point entirely. This kind of situation:
doesn't exist anymore, because the production is socialized.

For example, one doesn't trust the best doctor anymore: one trusts the best hospital, whose doctors have the best diplomas from the best university, and use the best tools from the best factory.

And don't get me wrong: this isn't the end goal of the communist movement; this is its basis, the doing of capitalism itself.

Your mistake here is to see society as something static, where removing trade would simply be getting back to pre-capitalist society, thus getting back to the conditions that brought us capitalism in the first place.

Just read Proudhon:What is Property its short and you simply need to understand why Private Property violates what you would call 'the NAP' or whatever.

not only are titoists revisionist, now they are delusional too.

Well personally I'd rather have Tito's economic model combined with a bottom up federal structure of representative multi-party democracy.

Single party states are pretty much always repressive shitholes.

I was you once. Read some Carson, Proudhon, Tucker, etc. They make a great bridge between AnCap and leftist ideologies.

Fresh from 4/g/

I can't get around the no property stuff.
I agree, capitalism is somewhat abusive and exploitative.
but I just don't see myself having nothing or sharing everything.

Private property is different to personal property.
You still own what you use. You simply can't claim to own some huge ass piece of farm land and tell people that they have to give you some of their produce to farm on that land.

We're not coming for your fucking toothbrush or forcing you to use the 'people's toothbrush'.

Socialists are against private property, not property in general. You'd still have a home, furniture, whatever you produced (not what your employees produced however), etc.. You just wouldn't be able to own factories or more land than you could take care of yourself he vast majority would have way more than we do under capitalism.

What if I leave for vacation and my house and everything in it is being occupied by a lot of people I don't even know.
I just don't want to be relocated.

No one supports that type of society (unless you're gone for like 6 months),why would anyone want that.

under Holla Forums terms I'm just an Anti-statist.

I prefer to keep my shit under my control.

I cant get my head around abolishing money and the markets.

Pure Idealistic bullshit.
I just don't get how an Ancap could be turning red.

Maybe because ancapism is just neo-feudalism and that's dumb and idealistic/impossible to achieve as fuck? :^)

Meanwhile we get screwed by the state.
we are all fucking slaves.

And will remain so as long as the institution of private property exists.

dont call me an expert on this or anything, but i assume someones going to write down in some documents saying "the johnsons live here" so its not available for anyone else to live. Private property is not personal property.

What shit? If you own a significant amount of private property, leftism isn't for you