[sans-culotte]

As Bastiat said, once people can essentially satisfy all of their wants at will then communism can work.

Somewhat bizarre quoting a liberal about that, but okay. Yes, that is correct.

Things like 3-D printers are a step toward that but certainly not anywhere near the whole way there. The 3-D printer that synthesises food out of the air and make Jetson's food will be another step but certainly not anywhere near the whole way there. 3-D printers that can print personal Star Trek transportation devices powered from their biological waste will be a step toward it but certainly not anywhere near the whole way there.

A long-winded way of saying that wants are infinite, how about proving it? The indifference curve in microeconomic theory indicates a satiation point for any basket of goods.

On the contrary, such things would wither supply chains and decentralize production, undermining the centralized concept of the means of production belonging to society collectively - which is integral to the Marxist path to communism - in favor of individual private and co-operative property.

If we actually reached the far advanced stage of technology such that the most abundant materials can be transformed into basically anything a person needs (carbon may point to this, because we're discovering it has a kabrillion allotropes that can do a kabrillion things), then the result is not communism, but distributism, as private property in energy and production becomes easily replicable and spreads to all.

By law of dialectics that is identical to collective property.

[Technology]

By law of dialectics that is identical to collective property.

But it isn't, because collective property involves society as a whole owning the property, and making collective decisions about what to do with it. In communism, these decisions are democratically made on the basis of need. Private property is abolished under communism (well actually under socialism, which is supposed to give way to communism eventually).

A society of maximally spread out private property is distributist, and not communist.

[sans-culotte]

But it isn't, because collective property involves society as a whole owning the property, and making collective decisions about what to do with it. In communism, these decisions are democratically made on the basis of need. Private property is abolished under communism (well actually under socialism, which is supposed to give way to communism eventually).

A society of maximally spread out private property is distributist, and not communist.

Maximally decentralised out production would at the same time be maximally centralised at the level of management systems. It would have to be a single interconnected system. Resource inputs would have to be common and the means would have to be on zero-cost lease (i.e. also common, like library books), otherwise the system will not be efficient/cannot exist.

[The Immortal Goon]

This all brings up the general truth that conception of property and distribution would be as alien to us as capitalism would be to a feudal serf.

Theoretically, we would not only be working collectively, but we wouldn't be working in the sense that one works today. The distribution of goods, like society, would be collective.

Let's put it this way: if you and your friends buy a pizza, who gets the best piece? Objectively speaking, there will be a piece that has the best distribution of toppings, or is bigger, or something else. How do you and your friends or family distribute the best piece? The second best?

You probably don't even bother going over the process of lining up the pieces from best to worse because everyone has enough, you aren't in competition with the other people, and you'd probably be happy enough for someone else to get it anyway.

Socialism encourages that dynamic.

Capitalism encourages profit and value assigned to everything. Each piece of pizza is to be sold to the highest bidder in order to generate as much profit for the individual that has possession of the pizza.

I realize this is a crude analogy, but it's the general idea in marerialism in general. We will précis e these things differently when we have abundance and prosperity.

[Technology]

Maximally decentralised out production would at the same time be maximally centralised at the level of management systems. It would have to be a single interconnected system. Resource inputs would have to be common and the means would have to be on zero-cost lease (i.e. also common, like library books), otherwise the system will not be efficient/cannot exist.

This assumes that each part of the system needs rare resources to survive that have to be imported and managed far afield. Developments in material science and nanotechnology are already giving uses for worldwide abundant materials like carbon in electronics. Even if this wasn't the case, there's no reason why the system would have to be more centrally managed than today at any rate.

You need centralized systems as today to get to that point, but once each person or small communities own robots (which can maintain each other), they can send them to do work and farm resources, and are able to support themselves without copious human labor. Communities could support themselves with their own replicable infrastructure from local resources.

[sans-culotte]

Technology, think about the relationship of "the cloud" with the "personal computer", thats the sort of decentralisation/centralisation dialectic I am talking about.

[Technology]

Okay, but if the system is decentralized on the basis of private property it simply can't be communism, even if there is interconnectedness, because private property is antithetical to the theory of communism (supposing the administrators don't constitute new owners, but in which case communism is actually impossible).

Take this family. They are striving to support themselves and become as independant as possible from corporations and government, and they doing so using their private ownership of the means of production in land. Right now, this is the preserve of the hardy, risk-takers, with the know how, but if agriculture can be verticalized and minaturized, and human labor can be reduced through automation, this is more and more possible for more sets of people. A society built upon this basis is built upon private property, but is not necessarily capitalist, because wage labor is unnecessary, and is not communist either, because communism refutes private property. The already existing philosophy set which aims for this state is (ironically, considering it's rustic and theocratic origins), distributism; the category of philosophies dedicated to spreading out private property, not abolishing it.

Society wide collectivisms such as communism are undermined when what can be owned individually suffices to easily support the individual's survival and lifestyle.

[Leninist]

Okay, but if the system is decentralized on the basis of private property it simply can't be communism, even if there is interconnectedness, because private property is antithetical to the theory of communism (supposing the administrators don't constitute new owners, but in which case communism is actually impossible).

Take this family. They are striving to support themselves and become as independant as possible from corporations and government, and they doing so using their private ownership of the means of production in land. Right now, this is the preserve of the hardy, risk-takers, with the know how, but if agriculture can be verticalized and minaturized, and human labor can be reduced through automation, this is more and more possible for more sets of people. A society built upon this basis is built upon private property, but is not necessarily capitalist, because wage labor is unnecessary, and is not communist either, because communism refutes private property. The already existing philosophy set which aims for this state is (ironically, considering it's rustic and theocratic origins), distributism; the category of philosophies dedicated to spreading out private property, not abolishing it.

Society wide collectivisms such as communism are undermined when what can be owned individually suffices to easily support the individual's survival and lifestyle.

The problem with trying to distribute rather than collectivize private property is that it has a habit of globing together again. That could mean several things, but I think it would most probably mean that someone would just begin to accumulate more property and eventually you'd just wind up with classes and inequality again. All it takes is for one family to decide to sell its farm, and then suddenly someone has twice as much as anybody else. If you maintain the greed and personal self-interest of private property, than people will act on it. I mean, our society used to be agrarian, and then it changed. Why would it not again? The peoples' greatest strength is organization, and you suggest we move back to a "every family for itself" society. That would only pave the way for future exploitation.

[Technology]

Inequality is only important when it means that people can't comfortably survive. Trying to pursue it any farther than that is just making people slaves to the mean.

[Eauz]

Inequality is only important when it means that people can't comfortably survive.

But, it's not really to do with creating equality amongst people, but ensuring the equal access to ownership and control over the means of production. Marxist inequality is exemplified by the relationship between the bourgeois class and the working-class (proletariat).

The Marxist view is that inequality is inherent in the capitalist mode of production. Inequality is inevitably produced during the normal operation of capitalist economies, and cannot be eradicated without fundamentally altering the mechanisms of capitalism. In addition, it is funcational to the system, which means that powerholders have vested interest in preserving social inequality. There is little point, therefore, in devoting political energies to the advocacy of policies which deal only with the symptoms of inequality without altering its basic generating forces. Hence, the call for social and economic revolution, the overthrow of capitalism and the subsituation of a method of production and an associated life designed around the principles of of equality of social justice.

Source

[Leninist]

Inequality is only important when it means that people can't comfortably survive. Trying to pursue it any farther than that is just making people slaves to the mean.

It should be the objective of any just society to create equality and then raise living standards and better the people's lives.

[The Immortal Goon]

Posts removed for violation of rule 15.

Do not allow this to happen again.

---

Further edits made. This is not the place to talk about moderation policy, or implementation of policy. Should you have a concern feel free to PM the moderator or go to the Basement.

-TIG Edit

[BATIK]

It should be the objective of any just society to create equality and then raise living standards and better the people's lives.

Do Marxists believe that no inequality is a result of differences in ability and talent? How could people with different ambitions and skills be equalized in a communist society? I understand that there would exist equal access to the means of production, could you perhaps outline that a bit for me?

[Brother of Karl]

I believe state socialism is supposed to take the whole "ownership" of any kind of "investment" out of the equation. So you're left with making money from jobs, rather than from return on investment. A doctor, for instance, would still make more than a ditch digger. An upper level manager or some kind of [government owned] enterprise might make as much or more than the doctor. However, without return on investment or other passive income, the difference between the highest income and the lowest isn't overly excessive.

I have no idea how a full-scale communist society is supposed to distribute goods among its members. It was said that meaningful work should be life's primary goal, rather than a means to an end (making money), so in a mature communist society, ability and talent wouldn't directly lead to higher "pay". Instead, it would make one a pillar of the community and lead to a rewarding lifestyle.

I have lived on communes before, and they function largely as a gift economy, where people contribute as best as they can figure how, and in exchange, everyone receives food, shelter, and is allowed and expected to be involved with the community. I don't know if that is anything like what Marxists expect from "mature communism". I suspect it is closer to a sort of tribal society.

[Harmattan]

In communist society, there is no place for massive wealth inequality, especially given that they plan to abolish private property. In that case, how would they expect to distribute very luxurious or expensive things?

The answer is pretty obvious: whatever your regime is, it will have a ruling class and the ruling class will seize the rare prestige commodities.
No matter the political and economical regime, mankind is still the same.

[fuser]

Delete.

[Leninist]

Do Marxists believe that no inequality is a result of differences in ability and talent? How could people with different ambitions and skills be equalized in a communist society? I understand that there would exist equal access to the means of production, could you perhaps outline that a bit for me?

Vast amounts of potential of average humans are wasted everyday due to poor education and diet. In point of fact, things like intelligence are just as affected, if not more, by early life diet and education than genetics. I'm not saying everyone would be geniuses but there would be far fewer people who you might consider as social lia ilities or the like. Further, it is the goal of communism that one day people will be free to pursue pretty much anything they desire. If you want to be a doctor, then you can. Philisohically speaking, the equality of communist society is not everyone contributing the same objective amount, but rather, "from each according to his ability", which understands that while you and I might not contribute the exact same amount, if we both give what we can it will work.

[BATIK]

Philisohically speaking, the equality of communist society is not everyone contributing the same objective amount, but rather, "from each according to his ability", which understands that while you and I might not contribute the exact same amount, if we both give what we can it will work.

That's all well, but I thought communism is an anarchist society without a government.

The rest of that quote, "to each according to needs", assumes that the wealth accrued and accumulated by, let's say, a doctor, would be enjoyed more by those with higher needs. How will that process work without a government?

[Brother of Karl]

Well think about the natural power and respect one gains in a community through age, charisma, wisdom, leadership qualities, and skills that add value to the community as a whole. In a community that has a capitalist mindset, such a person may be wealthy, or may not depending on whether their skills were monetized properly. When they are too old to work, they are unlikely to receive the support of the community and if they have no strong family ties or wealth, could actually end up in poverty in old age. In a communist society, they would be guaranteed respect and gratitude from the community, and may have a better lifestyle as a result of these relationships. That may happen in capitalism as well, but it is much less apparent.

[BATIK]

Well think about the natural power and respect one gains in a community through age, charisma, wisdom, leadership qualities, and skills that add value to the community as a whole. In a community that has a capitalist mindset, such a person may be wealthy, or may not depending on whether their skills were monetized properly. When they are too old to work, they are unlikely to receive the support of the community and if they have no strong family ties or wealth, could actually end up in poverty in old age. In a communist society, they would be guaranteed respect and gratitude from the community, and may have a better lifestyle as a result of these relationships. That may happen in capitalism as well, but it is much less apparent.

Pretty good point. So essentially, the community will directly assume all functions of government, and because the entire system of how things are produced changes, so too will attitudes towards wealth accumulation.

I'm starting to see a clearer picture, but I am battling to understand how localized this sounds, and how a post-industrial, information age economy could adopt this system.