Farmers farm better when they own the land and they can make a profit. How can you get arounds that? This is one of the stumbling blocks.
Well, as I've mentioned, what *really* counts is the material *productivity*, and the process for this is changing quickly with recent technological advancements like hydroponics, robotics, automation, AI, etc.
FarmBot - open source backyard robot for a fully automated garden
Regarding collectivism itself, just look how farming is *done* these days -- it's *highly* mechanized and automated, to the point where I don't see why it has to be *private property* anymore. This isn't mom-n-pop stuff, it's highly computerized and could *easily* be done by the state, or better yet, the workers themselves, over *vast* expanses of land, without boundaries.
Remember, the larger the scale, and the more centralized, makes for far better *economies of scale*, versus the same done by *many* subdivided individual farms, that each has to have its own management, and which may all be *competing* with each other, for limited market share, which is inherently *wasteful*.
You're tied to the standard of *profit* / exchange value, while *I'm* thinking 'material efficiency', for the *most productivity*, per labor and material inputs.
"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher. How do you incentivize socialists to create wealth. OK, you say there is no wealth in socialism. HOwever, something equivalent has to be produced by the people to have prosperity. Even the Incas had some sort of exchange system.
See -- again you can't think outside of the *market mechanism* box.
What really *counts*? It's *material productivity*, and then how it's *distributed*. Those, under capitalism, who *don't have money*, *don't get the distribution*. How fucked-up is *that*? Look at the *real estate vacancies* for any given day -- capitalism yields *overproduction* of *all* commodities, including *housing*, and lets usable stuff just *go to waste*, like empty dwellings, even though people live on the streets and could *use* that housing, all so as to prop-up this exchange-value 'realm', a *social construction* that *despises* actual abundance even though it *produces* abundance.
We need a material economics that aims to fulfill actual organic *human need*, without that 'middleman' realm of 'exchange values'. We don't need it.
We can *plan* it, from 'A' to 'Z'. My model framework lays all this out. You should look at it.
We *don't* need wealth -- we can address all infrastructure, labor, materials, productivity, and consumption in terms of *logistical planning*.
labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338
Components of Social Production
A communist economic system would be characterized by advanced productive technology that enables material abundance, which in turn would enable the free distribution. WIKI That sounds a lot like wealth.
Okay, fine, cool, whatever -- it's semantics. Call it whatever the fuck you want. At least you get the *concept* of it, which is what matters.
Absolutely yes! That is quite doable right now. However, it would put capitalists out of a job. For example i purchase Turbo Tax to do my taxes. I often wonder why the IRS cannot provide the software disc. The reason they don't is that they don't want to putv Turbo Tax out of business.
Yes, the class divide is 'universal', meaning *global*, or worldwide.