Sfdebris.net

Madner Kami wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 9:37 am

Draco Dracul wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 8:36 amWhile we aren't post scarcity, we are at a doubt where most of the scarcity is artificial in nature.

My need to eat, sleep and invest my literal lifetime to afford even my most basic needs isn't artificial.

Your need to invest your literal lifetime to afford anything is very much artificial. There's plenty of food and beds for all, as pointed out.

Draco Dracul wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 7:50 am

Madner Kami wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 6:26 am Every economic system needs scarcity to exist... Producing and trading is literally about someone having something, that someone else needs or wants.

Really? Because everyone having the ability to have their needs and wants met in abundance sounds like it makes communism simple to achieve. From each according to his ability to each according to their need is much easier when you don't have to ration anything.

Communism also has specific non-democratic and state based views far beyond just being, "Everyone has all the stuff they need."

Basically, in a communist, material goods are publicly owned. Private ownership has to be abolished.

Private property is abolished, private possessions are not. There's a difference between having to share your toothbrush and having to share a mansion you don't even live in.

Private ownership is also not a built-in feature of democracy.

CharlesPhipps wrote: ↑Sun Jan 02, 2022 9:06 pm

Draco Dracul wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 7:50 am

Madner Kami wrote: ↑Sat Jan 01, 2022 6:26 am Every economic system needs scarcity to exist... Producing and trading is literally about someone having something, that someone else needs or wants.

Really? Because everyone having the ability to have their needs and wants met in abundance sounds like it makes communism simple to achieve. From each according to his ability to each according to their need is much easier when you don't have to ration anything.

Communism also has specific non-democratic and state based views far beyond just being, "Everyone has all the stuff they need."

Part of the end goal of communism is the complete abolition of the state. Leftist groups are largely defined by what they want to do with the state:

Social Democrats (right at the line between liberals and socialists) want to reform the system using the rules of the existing system.

Socialist want to create a new state that is totally controlled by the state.

Communists want to achieve socialism and then dismantle the state.

Anarchists want to destroy the state and capitalism together.

I personally favor anarchism because anarchist societies by and large do not fall to the same corruption by the state that the others do, meaning they only have to be concerned about being crushed from without rather than having the revolution destroyed from within as Stalin did to the Bolsheviks.

Basically, in a communist, material goods are publicly owned. Private ownership has to be abolished.

Right, but communists and capitalists have a different definition of what private ownership entails. Communists see three categories of ownership public, private, personal where as capitalists lump the latter two together. To a communist something is only privately owned if it is used to generate passive income. A landlord has private property because they rent out homes to generate passive income, where as a regular homeowner's house is not private property because they simply live there.

Tyranny and anarchy are never far asunder.

Thebestoftherest wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 1:27 am Tyranny and anarchy are never far asunder.

Can you actually provide an example of an anarchist or anarchist adjacent society falling to tyranny from within?

Isn't that what happened to Rome after Julious Ceaser since people will still try to raise their own position and without the old rules it becomes easier to enforce might make right.

Draco Dracul wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 1:07 am Right, but communists and capitalists have a different definition of what private ownership entails. Communists see three categories of ownership public, private, personal where as capitalists lump the latter two together. To a communist something is only privately owned if it is used to generate passive income. A landlord has private property because they rent out homes to generate passive income, where as a regular homeowner's house is not private property because they simply live there.

On the surface it sounds like your describing socialism more than communism, unless that public/private/personal dynamic is an official applet of Marx's Capital or something.

Thebestoftherest wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 3:44 am Isn't that what happened to Rome after Julious Ceaser since people will still try to raise their own position and without the old rules it becomes easier to enforce might make right.

How was Rome in any way shape or form anarchist? Rome had a very strict hierarchy.

BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 4:03 am

Draco Dracul wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 1:07 am Right, but communists and capitalists have a different definition of what private ownership entails. Communists see three categories of ownership public, private, personal where as capitalists lump the latter two together. To a communist something is only privately owned if it is used to generate passive income. A landlord has private property because they rent out homes to generate passive income, where as a regular homeowner's house is not private property because they simply live there.

On the surface it sounds like your describing socialism more than communism, unless that public/private/personal dynamic is an official applet of Marx's Capital or something.

The main difference between an orthodox marxists and a socialist is that a socialist sees socialism as an end goal while an orthodox marxists sees it as a neccessary transitional state. During Marx's own time the terms would have been used roughly interchangeably with the modern distinction being referred to as lower and higher phase communism.

I'm also not sure what strikes you as socialist about it as the primary distinction between the two is the existence of the state.