A quick question for communists before bed...

reply to post by AudioOne


To be honest I don't even get your comment or how it relates to this thread, but hey thanks for commenting anyway.

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
reply to post by mee30

 

well at least gold is a usable resource and has a finite amount in the world(as far as we know) were as paper money can be counterfitted and printed as long as we have trees.

Yeah...the "finite amount" part should scare the bejeebies out of you. Sure...it's great for inflation...but it's one ugly mother for financial panics.

Why not peg the currency to the mercantile exchange as a WHOLE? Or at the very, VERY, least a BASKET OF METALS? Basing the entire global economic system upon a single commodity is BEYOND insane in the modern world....and allows a handful of uber-rich global bankers to EASILY monopolize and dominate the system in a world where gold is a wee bit harder to come by and requires lots more mining equipment than it was a few hundred or thousand years ago.

I agree that currency should be reflective of SOMETHING (besides debt)...but the idea that we can all "just go back to the gold standard" is seriously very, VERY, shortsighted.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by mee30

 

There is really no point in trying to continue this discussion. While a few people have tried to give you information that addresses your OP, I guess you have not liked the answers and have changed the context of the question a few times throughout this thread.

Clearly, you are anti-Communism. That's fine and well within your right. All I would ask is that if you are going to be anti-Communism....at least know what Communism is and how it works. Otherwise you just look like a scared idiot that hates commies because of what they heard on the TV.

Kudos once again sheepslayer. You are by far one of the more rational, logical, and coherent people on the site.

Originally posted by milominderbinder
Read up on Utilitarianism and Jeremy Bentham (a contemporary of Adam Smith's).

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." Adam Smith

Spoken like a true socialist. He would have apposed capitalism because capitalists are those who have property and use it to exploit those who have no property. Free-markets is not capitalism. He recognised that the state is only here to protect capitalist interests. Capitalism is NOT free-markets, it is a market controlled and manipulated by private property owners.

BTW the term 'capitalism' has was not in use yet at the time of Adam Smith. It wasn't until 50 years after he died that the term capitalism was coined to mean the system of private ownership of the means of production.

Absolute Socialism requires that individuals sacrifice for the good of the many.
Absolute Capitalism requires that the many sacrifice for the good of the few.

...Utilitarianism thinks you are intelligent enough to be able to use both philosophies responsibly. It's the economics of the MIDDLE classes.

That is not true. Socialism is not about sacrificing anything. Please explain to me what you would have to sacrifice?
Capitalists would have to sacrificed their right to earn from exploiting labour, is that what you mean?

You are right though that capitalism is the many sacrificing for the few, or more correctly the many being exploited by the few. It's only a good system for the few, and it will always be the few, no matter what illusion people have of being one of the few. Capitalism will not and cannot provide for everyone, it always causes the many to be in poverty, because the few take more than they need, will ever need.

We already have the ability to provide for everyone but people still go without. Capitalism is based on artificial scarcity, there are no profits when resources are in abundance.

reply to post by wildtimes


Thanks for the link I will certainly check it out, but it isn't what I was really talking about to be honest. I know communes exist I mean just look at gypsies etc... Although they tend to have some hierarchy...

I do think on small scale plots it can work and I encourage people getting together of THEIR OWN FREE WILL and helping each other... There is a town (can't remember the name sorry) but it is libertarian and when you arrive they will help you unpack while you sit back and get settled, you just get some beers in. They will help you find work and all sorts like that. I do think for certain circumstances it is a great thing to do and something we don't do enough of.

What I do not like is the forced aspect to communism, much like I don't like the forced aspect of democracy. It is merely mob rule...

Anok can pretend he hasn't told me that he is against hierarchy etc but he has... Now that is a big stipulation in my original op because I can not see a workplace operating without that structure. Can you imagine having a 1000 people in a workplace and there is no boss giving direction. There will be a 1000 ideas flying around about how best to do things and the whole thing would be a complete mess... Now I do not like companies either and that is why I work for myself! I have a friend who will only work for companies because it is a guaranteed wage. That is freedom!! That is personal choice. Anok does not agree with me on that, god knows why...

I think if communists want communism they could have it now (and some do within the communes) but I'm more interested in integrating into wider society. I'm confused as to why it has not been done... Anok says communists are against making profit, and that is cool, you could do it with no money (hence you would all be getting the same, nothing). Why hasn't it been done when there are so many that complain about corporations and the like.. Why don't those people get together and do something? The OP was not talking about slinking off to the woods, which btw is cool and something I would love to do.

Is that any clearer?

reply to post by Bone75

I just got all mooshy reading that Very well put and the amount of stars you've received so far is very encouraging. There might be hope for us after all. True Marxist Communism eliminates the need for money and all of the horrors that comes with it... In the right hands that is

Very strange indeed, lol... But hey whatever floats your boat.

You may want to have a word with anok though because to him marxism is not even communism at all...

Edit: Sorry one more thing, this is the point of my thread... You want to live without money? Why don't you guys do it? get together and start up a workplace where you can be self sufficient... What is stopping you? Do you have a garden? Do you know anyone who has one? Do you have local allotments etc... Start growing your own food, keep a portion of the food back to get your seeds for the next grow, no more need to buy food... Slowly but surely leave the evil money behind... I doesn't need to be an overnight transition.

reply to post by Trustfund

There are numerous employee owned, democratically controlled companies in the USA. Some of these were featured in Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story.

Okay that is great, do you happen to know the name of any of them so I can look into them? Do they have a hierarchy though? Like bosses and supervisor? Only the are elected in? I think the system would be rife for old boys club mentality. I am totally anti democracy/mob rule...

reply to post by mee30


This is an interesting article on the origin of capitalism, that is also related to that Wiki article you posted on the Middle Ages...

Feudal Origins of Capitalism

1. The end of the High Middle Ages

"Capitalism was not, by any means, a "free market" evolving naturally or peacefully from the civilization of the high Middle Ages. As Oppenheimer argued, capitalism as a system of class exploitation was a direct successor to feudalism, and still displays the birth scars of its origins in late feudalism.

And about how the establishment state has lied about it's history....

In short, history has been not only rewritten, but stood on its head by the victors.

- How many lies have been accumulated by Statist historians, in the pay of the State, in that period! Indeed have we not all learned at school for instance that the State had performed the great service of creating, out of the ruins of feudal society, national unions which had previously been made impossible by the rivalries between cities?.... And yet, now we learn that in spite of all the rivalries, medieval cities had already worked for four centuries toward building those unions, through federation, freely consented, and that they had succeeded.

As I said before, capitalist land owners simply took what the working class had already been doing and industrialised it, in order to concentrate the wealth created by the many into the hands of the few.

As I also said before, the working class was mostly autonomous, and their standard of living was improving to the point that they were not so subservient to the land owners anymore.

- The socio-economic crisis weakened the nobility such that the peasants steadily increased their share of the surplus from 1250 to 1450 or 1500.... It was the increase in the standard of living of the lower strata moving in the direction of relative equalization of incomes... that for the upper strata represented the real crisis.... There was no way out of it without drastic social change. This way... was the creation of a capitalist world-system, a new form of surplus appropriation.

That change started when the ruling class had the inclosure laws enacted. The land owners forced the people off their land, giving them no choice but to work for the land owner (private owner/capitalist) in order to feed themselves.

The land owners monopolised the ability to secure resources, giving the people no choice but to become slave labour. The wealth created lead to the industrial revolution and the mass industrial exploitation of labour, setting back the years of advancements the people had made.

Your history books were written by the "victors".

Kevin Amos Carson (born 1963) is an American social and political theorist and scholar of political economy writing in the mutualist and individualist anarchist traditions.

Kevin Carson

reply to post by DocHolidaze


Yeah I hear ya but it is money all the same... Also it is not infallible, there are bars found with tungsten inside etc... Still much better and something I would defo get behind, much more plausible than bartering.

reply to post by Drezden

It's unfortunate there is communist bashing here. However lets be realistic. Man in inherently flawed. Mix a flawed man with power and there is a very high chance of extreme corruption. Communism works as an idea, it may even work on a very small scale where leaders can be held accountable.

I find it hilarious you talk about communist bashing with someone that is capitalism bashing... Besides where on earth is the communist bashing? This was a thread designed to ask for examples of businesses run in the way communists often talk about... I will say not ALL communists, but I would say the majority...

I do think communism is really dangerous just by what the people say... I had anok telling me that he can go and take a factory back! Because the people built it so it is theirs, forget the fact they agreed on a price and were paid.. no no no, anok has decided the price wasn't fair and so he will take it back!!! lol I'm sorry but that is scary no??? He just wants to steal off people in my opinion, I don't know what else to call it...

reply to post by dustyceilingfan

To directly address OPs topic, collectively owned and managed workplaces and business are actually quite common and often very successful. They are a great example of how participatory democracy can be used to run a business in a efficient, equitable and fair way. If you want to understand what 'real' communism could look like, and not just the 'Actually Existing' communism of the soviet union, north korea, etc., read up on these worker cooperatives and imagine applying the management style to all aspects of society. Pure 'ideal type' socialism is really just participatory democracy applied to all aspects of society (law, economy, politics, education, etc.)

First off can you point out a name as they are so common? All I hear is people complaining about corporations etc. But if these places are so common why is there all the fuss?

Now I hear you and I half agree... Okay so democracy in the work place, I am not so against that because hell it wouldn't effect MY life as I work for myself. If people could choose to work there are not work there that is all fine and dandy with me.

Where we fall out of sync is when you then want to put that democracy INTO my life.. I don't want your mob rule forced upon me... I know we have it now and I never have nor ever will participate in it. It is immoral... It is forcing the will of the majority onto the minority. Well actually in the democracy we have now it is the other way around... Roughly half vote and then one or the other gets roughly half of that... So in effect 25-30 percent of voting age people are telling everyone else what to do! lol

I want a voluntary society... democracy is cool as long as it stays voluntary, same as communism or anything else...

This ain't your daddy's Cold War conception of socialism/communism. Don't let other people tell you what Marxism/communism/socialism is. Look into yourself.

LOL I mean come on man, read the thread please... I have looked into it myself and I have never referred to the god damn cold war! All I ever hear is communist supporters saying that old cold war cliche line! I go by the things I read and the people I talk to... Anok is one of them, would you like me to find the thread we had a large debate in? Where he tells me he can go steal a factory? Because in his mind someone didn't get paid enough to build it and so he can go take it back and it's not stealing!

Please do not assume what I know and do not know...

Originally posted by Unrealised


Real communism doesn't have any need for money.


The work is done either because it needs to be done, or because one has a passion for it.

You won't find any true communist business in this capitalist filth-pit of a society.

Funnily enough, I've always thought this is the way the world should work ... I guess there is the problem of the lazies and the greedies.... but we're conditioned that way BECAUSE of capitalism. Or rather, capitalism forces us to practice that selfish part of human nature, and that is who we have become.

If we did things only out of love and passion for each other and our planet, this could actually work.

So it will probably never happen.

reply to post by AlexIR

Oh no! Another person scared by communism! Oh no! Because i come from a former communist country i can tell you that capitalism and democracy damaged my country in 23 years more than communism in 40 years. Oh and by the way are you by any chance british or american? signature:

When people in the communist community openly tell me they feel they have the right to steal peoples stuff then yes, that is scary...

I am NOT for our current system, I advocate voluntary society, an anarchist society where NO-ONE has the monopoly of the use of force...

So I'm sorry but your comment is totally unfounded and useless, much like many of the others...

reply to post by milominderbinder

That's one of the most ignorant paragraphs I have ever read on all of ATS. ...which is really saying something.

SIGH... Care to elaborate? Otherwise this is just a useless ad-hom attack.

reply to post by milominderbinder

That's one of the most ignorant paragraphs I have ever read on all of ATS. ...which is really saying something.

SIGH... Care to elaborate? Otherwise this is just a useless ad-hom attack.

reply to post by theiceone

You will never understand communism, actually any other form of social/political/economical ideology, if you keep thinking that capitalist (the one that we live in, not the utopia one) values are mandatory or even present in other ideologies

Oh I understand it alright and it is distasteful to me... I am not talking about communes or people joining together and pooling resources voluntarily. My problem is with the communism that anok and the like talk about... As everyone seems to love anok so much I take it you have the same beliefs (not you personally but most commenting here)...

When have I said they have to be or are? What are you on about? See it really gets on my tits when people just assume stuff and jump to conclusions... Examples or you are talking useless fluff...

It's like trying to use an old Linux OS expecting to be just like Windows. It's a poor metaphor, I know

Poor? I use both and it makes no sense to me whatsoever, lol...

It works different and there's a lot of good explanations in this topic if you are willing to listen OP. You don't need to agree, but just listen and try to understand.

You talk like this is the first time I have even thought about communism... I am 31 years old with 3 kids my friend, there are not many ideologies I have not toyed with... I am very open minded and I have truly considered every approach. Why do all you communists ALWAYS make out the other person doesn't know squat? Look through the posts, it is the same boring crap again and again...

I have listened not just on this thread but MANY times throughout my life to many different perspectives and I do not agree with communism. I have settled on anarcho capitalism. It is the only reasonable choice in my opinion.

reply to post by milominderbinder

Nope. Both are completely and utterly failed economic systems. Neither one is any more effective in producing a decent civilization than the other.

Capitalism is merely free exchange and it works perfectly, check out ebay... In fact it is voluntary, mutually beneficial exchange. If it wasn't then why would you buy it? Say you buy a toaster, you are happy to pay money for that because you feel it adds benefit to your life. How can that system fail?

Let me ask you, do you think that the banker bailouts were a capitalist policy? Do you think that is how capitalism works?

reply to post by milominderbinder

Yeah...the "finite amount" part should scare the bejeebies out of you. Sure...it's great for inflation...but it's one ugly mother for financial panics. Why not peg the currency to the mercantile exchange as a WHOLE? Or at the very, VERY, least a BASKET OF METALS? Basing the entire global economic system upon a single commodity is BEYOND insane in the modern world....and allows a handful of uber-rich global bankers to EASILY monopolize and dominate the system in a world where gold is a wee bit harder to come by and requires lots more mining equipment than it was a few hundred or thousand years ago. I agree that currency should be reflective of SOMETHING (besides debt)...but the idea that we can all "just go back to the gold standard" is seriously very, VERY, shortsighted.

I do agree with you here actually and what I advocate is free market. Let people trade with whatever the hell they want to trade with, lol... Super simple really... I mean it already happens today, with the various payment methods you have online and now with wordpress accepting bitcoin I think it could really take off... It is the future all this control is the problem... We need to loosen up lol

reply to post by ANOK

This is an interesting article on the origin of capitalism, that is also related to that Wiki article you posted on the Middle Ages...

Not sure if this was meant for me because I remember posting no such link

As I said before, capitalist land owners simply took what the working class had already been doing and industrialised it, in order to concentrate the wealth created by the many into the hands of the few.

See we are just going to have the same old problem that we had before... YOUR guy is NOT the sole authority on anything! It is his opinion and as he has noted others have argued the opposite... We can argue like this till we are blue in the face but I know what capitalism is to me and many more like me... I see capitalism as voluntary mutually beneficial transaction. That is all... You try and make some crap about people stealing land or work etc... Industrialization was a bad thing now yeah? Jesus christ...

Look I really can not be bothered to argue like this with you... Basically everyone you read is right and everyone I read is wrong and that's that... lmao... I want to use logic and reasoning with you but you want to quote people I couldn't give a damn about...

So okay let us try this again, (as I did before but got zero response as usual...

Let us try to agree... Forcing ones ideology upon someone with violence is immoral, would you agree?... Lets just start there, keep it a bit short because I really can't be bothered to type, would be much better to just have it out over skype or something. lol

That change started when the ruling class had the inclosure laws enacted. The land owners forced the people off their land, giving them no choice but to work for the land owner (private owner/capitalist) in order to feed themselves. The land owners monopolised the ability to secure resources, giving the people no choice but to become slave labour. The wealth created lead to the industrial revolution and the mass industrial exploitation of labour, setting back the years of advancements the people had made. Your history books were written by the "victors".

But this is just it, I'm not coming from a history book perspective! What you outline is NOT what we have TODAY! You can buy a farm or a factory or a small shed... You just need to build up some savings and work hard! You can do it! Do it with some of your communist friends... Seriously, why not? If you are as for the workers as you say then you will be the best boss ever and everyone will love you and flock from miles around to work for you...

You make out like only big corps own businesses but that is just utter non-sense! There are many small businesses and some are doing very well... Also remember that some of these big corporations started out as just a tiny store...

reply to post by dustyceilingfan


Just been watching some of the video you posted and I have gotten to the part where he talks about PROFIT, good for them, what they have is really nice and small... 43 families, this can absolutely work and is great that they all VOLUNTARILY joined together and did something, would it upscale to our cities? Not so sure...

Also I would like to note that they seem fairly early on in development, as the houses have not even been built yet... I wonder how they get on in ten years or so, will be interesting...

On with the rest now...

Edit: Okay I'm at the part where they talk about private property... He said it is private property, just like a corporation really, these people are share holders... Perhaps they do not employ workers (yet) but they are shareholders non the less... So far this looks like the sort of capitalism I would love! Anok would want to come and steal these peoples private property and use it for the wider collective... How do you feel about that? He will take it by force if he has to...


Edit: Oh sorry my mistake, they do have owners, there are 7 of them... ahhhh so this is getting even more like a corporation only a more ethical one, at the moment... I would like to know what happens if one day they change their minds and sell up... It would of been better if they ALL owned it..


Edit: You know what, I just gave you a star, you are the only one that actually addressed the thread. I will say that this is not communism you see before you... It is co-operating, which is a fantastic thing to see... Is this maybe a middle ground that the communists and capitalists can meet on? I certainly have no objections to any of this... I would have this with no government any day of the week...

You see people think that because I have a problem with communism that I must have a problem with the people or working together, or that I love corporations that influence the government etc.. It is pretty tiresome to be honest...

Anyway thanks again for the vid...