Serious, not troll question:

You're a floppy vulva.

Standardized gift unit?

Sorry anarkiddie, we don't all want to live in farming communes :^)

It can't be used for private enterprise, speculation, etc, the only use is to trade back to the state socialist economy for the stuff you need/want. It avoids all the problems of money like wealth inequality.

Use this flag from now on.

So you are saying that the only way to have an advanced mode of production is to have a state authority?

a thing would naturally develop in order to make trade easier. Which would be backed by something valuable, say gold

That's my impression, yes. Advanced society needs organisation, order, top-down planning to an extent. How could an anarchist society ever have a space programme for example? I just can't see it.

Organization, for sure but this does not imply centralisation or any representation-based ruling.

By order you mean having a police institution? Thanks, but no, thanks.

Get your shit together

There's literally no reason why a bottom-up society can't form a space program.

Can you explain to me how? Considering the vast resources, energy, and precision that has to go into it?

multiple levels of delegates. delegates will choose people approved by their respective communes to oversee the project. the autonomy granted to those within the project is ultimately decided by the communes, as well as the level of resources given to them.

Nothing.

First of all, money isn't "a tool invented to be a standardized medium in which to value goods". Money is a good. A good to which its physical characteristics naturally (without anyone "inventing" it) gave the role of being a general equivalent in the context of the exchange of goods.
So money isn't the problem, because when you talk about money you are really taking about exchange of commodities.
We communists do not simply want to abolish money, for abolishing money while keeping the exchanges of commodities doesn't make sense. We want to abolish every form of trade.

I mean I don't know.. aren't you just saying that a mini-hierarchy will be created just for the space program? Won't it be a nightmare to do anything when it all has to be approved by hundreds or thousands of communes?

Perhaps it could work but it seems like a hell of a struggle. You're basically saying they agree voluntarily to send workers and materials from their settlement?

I wouldn't call it a "mini-hierarchy". The degree of micro management is at the discretion of the communes involved. They would have to voluntarily give resources, yes.

Okay, let's take it down a step though, how could communes sustain a high-tech society? I mean will each village be centered around one factory or?

Who can say? I'm not a fortune teller. The people will decide such things whichever way they feel is best.

Oh cmon. Now that just sounds like the ancaps who respond to questions about how private courts will work with "I'm not going to centrally plan liberty". Surely you need to know how a system will work before you advocate it.

I've laid out how the system works. Everything that results from that system is anybodies guess.

how does that work though? It's not only a thing people will naturally do, but it's the only way complex societies can exist. Some areas will have more resources of one type than other areas and this is not a thing that can be changed as long as human society remains in a place as varied as earth

But you're just giving up responsibility for if it actually works or not. Don't you want to live in an advanced (socalist) globalised world? I know I do. Through my system, I can tell you how that would be accomplished, more or less.

It's pure hubris to think that everything you plan for will go as perfectly as planned. I'm not going to pretend to know every eventuality under any system, and to do so would be foolishness. The one thing you can do is setup a system of ethics regarding societal organization, and even then your ethics will be subject to modification should the need arise.

But the people living in this area won't own these resources. The entire society will own them and decide what to do with them.

That's called utopia. That's precisely a thing you cannot do.

On paper they might not own it, but this is how black markets and corruption occurs. If a building sits upon an oil well, and oil is a useful good, then whoever manages (but not necessarily owns) the building will seek to extract it in exchange for favors regardless of the policy from the local community is regarding it.

Taken more broadly, it also breaks down when you consider that the carrying capacity of certain regions is not high enough to permit large cities there if food is not imported. This may not be a problem with greenfield projects, but it's a problem present in the vast majority of metropolitan areas presently.

And, even assuming that issue can be fixed, some areas will just have certain features (like a beach) that have a limited capacity but great demand to use. In which case, conflicts between what the community and what individual building/bloc managers want will occur. Even in capitalist societies, demand in housing in certain places for purely aesthetic reasons causes people to do things (like renting out garages) that are against local laws.

If so then you're just as guilty of making one as me.

I think that's ass backwards. A system of ethics is nice and all, but when planning a society it rarely survives contact with reality if it's at all strict. eg: "everybody should only do what they want to do", well, food still needs to be produced by someone so what if everyone decided they didn't want to do anything? Even if only a minority wanted that, it's unfairness. Or how about 'nobody should do anything against their will', well, what about murderers, should we lock them up or not? And so on. I don't think a strict ethical system is a good basis for society, you have to develop the society with both ethics and reality in mind.

How is what you're doing anything more then useless speculation? Not only that, the situation described is based on completely irrational actors. In no way am I ignoring reality. On the contrary, I recognize that reality hardly ever follows whatever speculation or planning we might formulate.

What kind of favors could I possibly expect from people who do not own anything either?

Even in capitalism, where the manager could actually expect favours, the oil company is able to keep its oil.

Your argument consist in invoquing a so-called impossibility to defend Society's "property", in order to justify to continuation of… private property. Don't you see the problem here?

As for scarcity, there is a reason communism comes after capitalism you know: communism requires important production capacities. These capacities have been developed more than enough by capitalism.

Communism also requires socialisation of the production, which capitalism does too.

Marxism has nothing to do with ethics.

Communism seeks for the workers to own the means of production.

When that plan inevitably fails, doesn't it turn into fascism?

Define ethics and marxism. Only then can this conversation continue.

The philosophy of Karl Marx

As for ethics, duckduckgo gives me this:
Sounds right to me.

That's literally what the nazis did. When will you cucks finally realize that the only way to get communism is to first elect a fascist regime that can start a labor-backed economy? You always shut off your brains when someone compares your visions to fascism.

things that they have access to, but don't necessarily own

Only because there's a guard in place willing to oppress him, or kick him down back into the oppressed class. If everyone is classless, then the threat of losing a job and getting totally fucked over is gone.

You just assume that the world will be full of people willing to trade with you for some reason. I'm telling you about a tradeless society, and your answer is: "what if everybody wants to trade in your tradeless society?". This is just another variation of "muh human nature".

So is the incentive to appropriate something.

person 1 manages a beach, person 2 is a 10/10 futa. Point is that human nature finds a way.

yes, and this is the core problem when dealing with societies made up of humans. The only way around it is gulag.

Society determines human nature. Not the other way around.

go back to your containment board >>>Holla Forums

a workers owned collective would get us in to space

each village would be centered around a factory, that much is true. maybe for things that are to complicated for that. they buy it elswhere
(like in this society)

This isn't "like in" capitalism. This is capitalism.