19-05-2005 08:51									#91
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

can i retire at the age of 30?

	19-05-2005 09:01									#92
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious You're going to need capital for capitalism, but you don't need it for communism. All you need to do is prepare for people retiring. Identify changes in demographics and plan accordingly.

How do these people buy their house, or buy their car?

	19-05-2005 09:18									#93
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor How do these people buy their house, or buy their car?

They make payments.

	19-05-2005 09:22									#94
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious They make payments.

dude, that's like, far-out man

	19-05-2005 09:28									#95
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ell_man As long as we're talking utopia, here's mine: I'd have an Anarcho-capitalist society. Coercion by force will be unjust while coercion through other means will be allowed. So I wouldn't be able to steal your car, and you wouldn't be forced to give me necesities such as food, water, shelter. Thus, no governments would exist unless they recieved the explicit consent of everyone under their jurisdiction. Fuzzy social contracts and constitutions don't qualifiy. Anyone may secede their land or leave an area that a government is operating under. You have the right to discriminate against whoever you want for whatever reason but prepare to face the consequences of your actions. There would be no legal tender laws, anyone would be able to print their own money and circulate it. This would most likely result in a commodity money standard being created(ie gold/silver). I'm of the opinion that there is no optimum supply of money. Any will do as long as prices are able to adjust. Basically, everything provided which was previously provided through taxation(involuntary exchange) will now be voluntary. People will be able to buy exactly how much of numerous services they actually want to buy, instead of being forced into purchasing them indirectly through taxation. Private institutions will do practically everything more efficiently than governments can do. In addition, it will be consumers, not political games which control what is produced and who gets what.

I sure hope you're a troll, otherwise you are a greedy, self-seving SOB like the rest of you libertarians.

	19-05-2005 09:34									#96
	Put an end to popups!

I am fine with private property as long as it is not used to exploit others and as long as you can't pass on most of it to the next generation.

	19-05-2005 15:45									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Mr. Fun:
You're taking Che's and others' proposals to an unreasonable extreme. I'm sure that what they mean by "productive property" that cannot be legally privately owned, only concerns types of productive property where massive amount of capital is required for investment and a certain level of workers.



I hardly think that envelopes, crayons, and such would fall under this, if I'm correct on what Che and others mean by "productive property."

Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, or clarify something that I muddied up.

Che's reply:
Mr. Fun is correct.

My response would be...why are my answers "an unreasonable extreme?" Per the definition given, the things I described are indeed "productive property." If you don't believe that, create a hot property, get yourself a supply of CD's and a burner and just see how your "personal economy" grows like gangbusters.

Furthermore, human beings being...well...human beings, tend to take things to all extremes, especially when they find themselves in a too-confining box and are desperately seeking a way out.

Communism would be that box, and those who sought to escape from its meddlesome, tiresome, threadbare rules would start LOOKING to those very extremes for escape.

This in turn would force the ruling elite's hand, REQUIRING them to take "the list" to those aforementioned levels.

If you can't see that, then you need to learn a bit more about human nature before day 1 of the glorious revolution, cos it's gonna happen. People bend the rules. They take them to the extreme EVERY SINGLE TIME. This can be seen in simplest form by watching people's speed on any given road. You can predict like clockwork that the average speed on a given road will be ~10mph over the posted speed, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE POSTED SPEED IS!

Same principle, and if you don't plan for it, then the glorious revolution ain't gonna last long.

Kid: some nonsense about me juat making a fiat satement that brain surgeons are more valuable than burger flippers

My response: I know this is tough, so I'll go slow. Brain surgery requires years of schooling and highly technical knowledge and training that most people a) don't have the apptitude for, and b) don't have the patience for, to say nothing of the special desire that one must have to even GET INTO that field.

The above will ensure that there are NEVER a glut of brain surgeons just lying around in gutters of Kidatopia.

On the other hand, about the only special skills needed to be a burger flipper are to show up on time and have a basic understanding that fire is hot.

Note any particular difference between the two?

How easy would it be to replace your average burger flipper?

Contrast that with how easy (read: difficult) it would be to replace your average brain surgeon.

Cast rests.

Other comments:

Ownership is an interesting concept, and under the various communisms proposed here, it gets even more twisted and interesting:

I can own the shirt on my back, but not the loom that created it, EVEN IF I build the loom with my own sweat and labor in my back yard?!

Now THAT is intriguing.

Why can't I?

Have I don't something horriffic and bad by building a loom? What PRECISELY is different about owning the loom vs. owning the shirt that can be created from it?

To date, no one has been able to offer me a good explanation of the supposed differences here.

If I can own my own home to live in, then why is it suddenly pure evil to own a second? A third? A fifth? It is the EXACT same mechanism (owning good X), but you class one as acceptable and one as objectionable.

Folly and nonsense.

-=Vel=-

EDIT: And one more
Che: Sorry, Vel, you twist around too much to make a fun adversary. You're like a greased pig in an argument, and I don't mean that in a good way.

Yes, I can imagine! That's because unlike many other folks who lock horns with the reds on these topics, I enjoy drawing attention down to what's NOT being said....the stuff that always tends to get glossed over and not talked about regarding the "glories of the revolution."

You know...those nasty little details that it'd be easier if nobody asked about? Yep...I'm all about 'em.
-v.

	19-05-2005 15:51									#98
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Odin I sure hope you're a troll, otherwise you are a greedy, self-seving SOB like the rest of you libertarians.

"Slave of the ideology" is more like it IMO. It's fairly easy to become slave of the ideology: you merely have to simplify your idea of good to the extreme (here: good = being free to dispose of one's property without restriction), and then you simply have to create a whole belief system around this one idea.

The implications of the actual implementation are no matter. When you're a slave of your ideology, you don't care if your ideology will result in epidemics, will result in massive illiteracy, or will result in the emergence of a new feudalism (those are examples: a slave of a strictly egalitarian form of communism wouldn't care if it meant the collapse of production and growth, penuries, etc.)

	19-05-2005 15:54									#99
	Increase Your PM Length

Forgot about Spiffor, but given that what he is espousing is, by his own definition, NOT communism, it deserves separate treatment anyways.

Good answer re: seasonal workers, but I must say, I'd still be right upset if I devoted years of my life to bringing some project to life, and some guy shows up (to work full time), and after a year or so, he magically has an equal say in the stuff that took me years to put together.

There seems to be something too arbitrary about that, IMO. Too heavy-handed, and while you may have the banking system in place to spur investment, the approach above would seem to choke off any desire to innovate at all.

-=Vel=-

	19-05-2005 16:01									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx I hardly think that envelopes, crayons, and such would fall under this, if I'm correct on what Che and others mean by "productive property."

I don't know. As an author, you make money thanks to your pencils and to your personal computer today. Are they considered part of the "Vel Company" by the IRS? I suppose not. Now, imagine you owned a factory: it will definitely be labeled "Vel Company" by the IRS.

In commie threads, you consistently speak about very low-level capitalism (personal productive activity, and often one that is a secondary source of income). You seem to believe we are maximalists that'll pry your crayons from your hands.

But there's no reason to believe that we will behave in a completely rigid manner once in power, when it comes to the definition of what is productive capital and what isn't. Just like today's IRS is flexible when it comes to defining something as productive capital or not.

	19-05-2005 16:05									#101
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara 1) An economic system where all productive property, i.e., factories, farmland, mines, banks, are owned collectively. The specific mechanism of whether the ownership is held by those working the property or held in trust by the government. 2) Merit is rewarded through other means, such as public recognition, extra perks, longer vacation. 3) The government is democratically elected, with each level responsible to the level below it, with instant recall for all officials. Campaigns are publicly financed.

1. Who decides?

2. Public Recognition? Nebulous "perks"? Longer vacations?

Hell, if I can do little and get paid the same as the guy that works hard for the extra vacation, I'd do it.

3. No problem.

ACK!

	19-05-2005 16:06									#102
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Good answer re: seasonal workers, but I must say, I'd still be right upset if I devoted years of my life to bringing some project to life, and some guy shows up (to work full time), and after a year or so, he magically has an equal say in the stuff that took me years to put together.

When things are at such personal level, people will have to learn to think of their co-workers as associates. You need someone to send the letters and answers the phone? Then you need an associate who does that, while you do the other stuff.

quote: There seems to be something too arbitrary about that, IMO. Too heavy-handed, and while you may have the banking system in place to spur investment, the approach above would seem to choke off any desire to innovate at all.

I don't see why. When you create your own company, it's generally because you want to make a living out of it. In my system, you can make a living off your company (by working there, i.e you create your workplace). I can see how it'll discourage one or two-person ventures to quickly hire people, but once they've begun hiring people, the corporate culture adapts to that of a commune, which isn't scary.

	19-05-2005 16:08									#103
	Put an end to popups!

Spiffor:

Quite right! Because in making laws that harm the big corporations (well, make them extinct as they exist now), those same laws will have to apply equally to smaller operations that employ people, and THOSE are the people who truly drive capitalism. The big corps take it to the extreme (in the same way that my pencil and paperclip example takes YOUR views to the extreme), but the INDIVIDUAL CAPITALIST is still the lifeblood of the system.

And for the record, yes...I am have my own, registered corporation for all my media creations. Velocigames actually "owns" all the stuff I have produced to date.

As to rigid behavior....you are right. In that, I have only history to guide me, and while history cannot tell me with absolute certainty what YOU would do if you came to power, it can tell me a lot about what your predecessor revolutionaries HAVE done.

Forgive me for saying so, but their collective track record makes me less-than-enthusiastic, and that impacts YOUR chances of success directly, because human nature hasn't changed one whit.

Thus, the typical reactions of people when folks start talking about how great the revolution will be "this time."


-=Vel=-

	19-05-2005 16:12									#104
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Spiffor: I don't see why. When you create your own company, it's generally because you want to make a living out of it. In my system, you can make a living off your company (by working there, i.e you create your workplace). I can see how it'll discourage one or two-person ventures to quickly hire people, but once they've begun hiring people, the corporate culture adapts to that of a commune, which isn't scary.

The point is....we're talking about unequal compensation again, but this time, in the opposite direction. If it takes me five or ten YEARS to bring an idea to fruition, that's a LOT of time invested.

To create a company and then essentially GIVE control of it to those who run with it is to totally discount all the time I've put into it leading up to the creation OF the company.

If you're okay with paying interest so that capitalists will provide capital for investment, why balk at acknowledging that a lot of "pre work" goes into any enterprise, and that said work is just as "compensatable" as any other?

-=Vel=-

	19-05-2005 16:34									#105
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx And for the record, yes...I am have my own, registered corporation for all my media creations. Velocigames actually "owns" all the stuff I have produced to date.

In a commune system, Velocigames will own the same stuff, and you'll be in full control of Velocigames.

quote: As to rigid behavior....you are right. In that, I have only history to guide me, and while history cannot tell me with absolute certainty what YOU would do if you came to power, it can tell me a lot about what your predecessor revolutionaries HAVE done. Forgive me for saying so, but their collective track record makes me less-than-enthusiastic, and that impacts YOUR chances of success directly, because human nature hasn't changed one whit. Thus, the typical reactions of people when folks start talking about how great the revolution will be "this time."

The very reason why my system is so different from theoretical communism (the name it actually deserves is "market socialism") is because I hope to have learned from the past mistakes: 1. I consider revolutionary rise to power to be extremely dangerous, and 2. I focus as much on wealth creation than on wealth distribution.

Your quote can apply to Che (He's a revolutionary who thinks that all revolutions but one have been infected by the same cancer (Stalinism), and that the cancer has now disappeared, and thus a revolution will bring a better society), but it doesn't apply to me.

	19-05-2005 16:41									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by MrFun dude, that's like, far-out man

	19-05-2005 16:48									#107
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx My response: I know this is tough, so I'll go slow.

Already getting rude eh?

	19-05-2005 19:46									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I'm curious about your last post, Spiff. You said that in a communal system, VG would still own the same stuff and I'd be in full control....you mean, until I hire my first employee, yes? At which time, my control gets cut in half, be split evenly with the full time guy who just started?

And Kid...not being rude, especially, but yes...I'll be the first to admit that it gets tiresome having to explain that which everyone else seems to see as blindingly obvious....or maybe it's the meds...

-=Vel=-

	19-05-2005 20:11									#109
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Thinking that crayons are a mean of production is assenine.

And wrong.

Think of the simple difference between non financial service sector and the agricultural and industrial sectors.

Power generation, all industry, and agriculture, these are the mean of production, as well as those that create capital.

The more valid question is that of land ownership, not crayon ownership.

	19-05-2005 20:15									#110
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Tuberski 1. Who decides?

Under a system of anarcho-syndicalists, the decision is democratic. Under the Marxist notion, the proleteriat (hence the decision is also democratic), under Leninism, the Party (which means its either a democratic choice, or a dictatorial choice, depending on the make up of the party.

quote: 2. Public Recognition? Nebulous "perks"? Longer vacations? Hell, if I can do little and get paid the same as the guy that works hard for the extra vacation, I'd do it.

But you might never get a better apartment, since in theory those could be reserved for the people who actually work hard. Also, no one ever said anything about equal pay.

	19-05-2005 20:20									#111
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx I'm curious about your last post, Spiff. You said that in a communal system, VG would still own the same stuff and I'd be in full control....you mean, until I hire my first employee, yes?

Yes. Think of it as "until you bring in a venture-partner". The very core of coops is that people are empowered in their workplace.

Edit: this means that you'll have to find someone with the qualities of a good venture-partner: someone who shares your general vision, someone who understands what it can bring and what you can bring to the company.

In larger companies, where the relationship between co-workers is less immediately personalized, there would be less need of such "venture-partner" virtues when looking for new coworkers.

	19-05-2005 20:21									#112
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by GePap Also, no one ever said anything about equal pay.

Kid most certainly has.

	19-05-2005 20:25									#113
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki Kid most certainly has.

And you people pay attention??

Next you'll be telling me you pay attention to Ned...

	19-05-2005 20:25									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by GePap The more valid question is that of land ownership, not crayon ownership.

touche

	19-05-2005 20:38									#115
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GePap Thinking that crayons are a mean of production is assenine.

Crayons can be means of production. A means of production is an item that you use to make money. A machine-tool is a means of production. A pool of computers in the office is a mean of production. The stockpiles of pen/papers etc. held by a large office building is a means of production.

You are making an old mistake of not taking the service secotr into amount. Nowadays, the service sector is what creates most wealth in the developed world, and it is a place of exploitation just as much as the factory ("exploitation" in the marxist meaning: the owner of the means of production makes a profit without having to work in the company he owns)

It is extremely unlikely that a modern socialist or communist State leaves the service sector untouched.

	19-05-2005 20:44									#116
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Crayons can be means of production. A means of production is an item that you use to make money. A machine-tool is a means of production. A pool of computers in the office is a mean of production. The stockpiles of pen/papers etc. held by a large office building is a means of production.

No they are not. A Machine tool most certainly is a means of production, a pen, or pencil, or crayon is NOT. Making a drawing and making a tool are too very different things.
As for saying a means of production is what you use to make money- that definition is so broad as to mean that anything is a means of production, since anything can, in some form, be used to make money, since somone, anywhere, might be willing to trade for it.

quote: You are making an old mistake of not taking the service secotr into amount. Nowadays, the service sector is what creates most wealth in the developed world, and it is a place of exploitation just as much as the factory ("exploitation" in the marxist meaning: the owner of the means of production makes a profit without having to work in the company he owns)

My terminology was flawed, and no, I don't think the service sector would remain untouched, but not all services would be touched either. Certainly any large CORPORATE businesses would be collective. That can't be said for smaller, individual businesses, and being an artist or artican most certainly is that. There is a difference between McDonalds and the local family Dinner.

Also, not all communists are Marxists, so enthralled by the whole notion of "exploitation" as Marxs defined it.

	19-05-2005 20:48									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

What Spiff said.

Furthermore, there IS no discussion about property ownership. That has already been defined by our communist friends.

For any meaningful discussion to occur, we must assume that the revolution has occured. Thus, the big stuff (factories, etc) has already been decided upon...and the answer is that it's controlled by the state (or by communes, in Spiff's case), and all that remains is to discuss what happens "at the margins" where the smaller stuff gains big importance.

-=Vel=-

	19-05-2005 20:56									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I love this . . . . .








according to people like Vel, crayons can be used to exploit and manipulate workers.

	19-05-2005 21:08									#119
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Mr Fun: We have already established in this discussion thread that it is acceptable to own a wide variety of "personal items" ranging from the aforementioned crayons, and vehicles, and stuff like personal computers.

My point is that if you want to do away with capitalism, then these things I AM allowed to own (and have already been put on the "allow list" by the folks here) will have to be outlawed as well.

It does not matter that I no longer have a factory. I'll start over. I'll start small, with the things I AM ALLOWED TO OWN, and I'll make it work.

I'll create something that didn't exist before, and I'll use my spiffy, privately owned computer and scanner to mass produce it. I'll make posters and greeting cards and I'll sell them. Eventually, I'll get such demand that I'll need to hire people to assist. It'll have to be very quiet though...clandestine capitalist meetings held after work and stuff by people who WANT to be exploited so they can get ahead.

And we will.

The system is reborn.

	19-05-2005 21:51									#120
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by GePap No they are not. A Machine tool most certainly is a means of production, a pen, or pencil, or crayon is NOT. Making a drawing and making a tool are too very different things. As for saying a means of production is what you use to make money- that definition is so broad as to mean that anything is a means of production, since anything can, in some form, be used to make money, since somone, anywhere, might be willing to trade for it.

Yes, my definition wasn't clear. A "means of production" is anything that you use in order to produce value. When you're a child who uses pencils to draw something for mother's day, your pencil isn't a mean of production.
When you're a corporation that hands pencils to the workers so that they can work, create value, and let you decide how the profits are used, your pencils are means of production.

Vel uses his PC isn a venture he hopes will bring money for himself (book, games). From what I understand, Vel's PC is actually owned by VelociGames. Vel's PC (and maybe other office stuff, like pencils) are means of production, and are treated accordingly by the US economic regulations.

quote: My terminology was flawed, and no, I don't think the service sector would remain untouched, but not all services would be touched either. Certainly any large CORPORATE businesses would be collective. That can't be said for smaller, individual businesses, and being an artist or artican most certainly is that. There is a difference between McDonalds and the local family Dinner.

There's a difference in size, but not really in nature. If the family's dinner has employees that have worked there for the past 20 years without being part of the family (just like the family's dinner where I washed dishes a short time ago), The employee has no say in the way the company is run. The owners (the family) make a profit off the employee's work. They have the right to do so because they own the restaurant, the means of production.

A socialist/communist economy can adress the issue of small businesses (i.e. smallscale ownership of the means of production) in different fashions. The USSR allowed personal ventures to be run on a private basis (personal parcel of land, personal hairdresser's salons...). I don't know if it allowed small ventures that were beyond personal.