Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

How should governance work in communism?

TheDebaytDood
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 7:32:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Hail the revolution, Comrades! This forum is to discuss the question of governance in a communist state.

In past communist states two things have happened: either the country lost its integrity and became communist in name only (People's Republic of China) or mismanagement by the government led to famine and poverty (everyone else except Cuba).

My personal model is what I call the suburban co-op model:

1. People will grow crops, instead of grass, in their yards.

2. Neighborhoods will have their crops collectivized (a fancy word for "pooled together") and sold at a local farmer's market.

3. The proceeds will be split equally amongst the citizens that produced the food.

This system is completely different from the forced collective farming practiced by Chairman Mao's China and the Soviet Union. Though it does indeed incorporate capitalist principles of buying and selling, it does not incorporate the biggest flaw at the heart of capitalism which will ultimately bring it down: the problem of corporate ownership. Instead of one person or a small group of people accumulating the profits from privately owned farms, the money is instead split equally amongst the workers who produce it. Yet, it also does not possess the fundamental flaw at the heart of Stalinism and Maoism: forced work and government regulation of food production, which leads to famine.

Feel free to post your thoughts. if you do, tell me the name of your model, and how it works.
Hail the Revolution!
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 7:51:13 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 7:32:17 PM, TheDebaytDood wrote:
Hail the revolution, Comrades! This forum is to discuss the question of governance in a communist state.

In past communist states two things have happened: either the country lost its integrity and became communist in name only (People's Republic of China) or mismanagement by the government led to famine and poverty (everyone else except Cuba).

My personal model is what I call the suburban co-op model:

1. People will grow crops, instead of grass, in their yards.

2. Neighborhoods will have their crops collectivized (a fancy word for "pooled together") and sold at a local farmer's market.

3. The proceeds will be split equally amongst the citizens that produced the food.

So, really, the people will buy the seeds, tend to the crops, give them away to the market, and then buy the crops back. That's an unnecessary loss of money. It would be more logical to grow a variety on your own land in a personal/private garden and reap what you sow.

This system is completely different from the forced collective farming practiced by Chairman Mao's China and the Soviet Union. Though it does indeed incorporate capitalist principles of buying and selling, it does not incorporate the biggest flaw at the heart of capitalism which will ultimately bring it down: the problem of corporate ownership. Instead of one person or a small group of people accumulating the profits from privately owned farms, the money is instead split equally amongst the workers who produce it. Yet, it also does not possess the fundamental flaw at the heart of Stalinism and Maoism: forced work and government regulation of food production, which leads to famine.

I think this is where you screwed up: this doesn't incorporate capitalism. True capitalism would be for you to buy the seeds, grow them, save what all you need, and sell the excess to those who are lacking to make a profit from buying those seeds.

In this instance, you are giving up money by purchasing the seeds, and then giving up even more when buying it from the market that took your crops.

You misunderstand capitalism. Capitalism finds it's roots in economic liberty. This naturally suggests private ownership not corporate ownership, albeit private ownership can turn into a corporate ownership. Those that become corporate do so fr good reason: their crops were of good quality, were readily available, and were affordable, all while having competitive wages for the many workers the company was able to hire.

This is still a form of government regulation in food production, since this system would be required. And the dispersion of profits equally amongst the citizens will easily result in unfair earnings - a family may have 6 people in it, and then a single individual will receive the same wages, but they will still be expected to uphold their part and produce the same amount of food even thought they must first buy enough food for themselves, the seeds to make more food, and provide any other basic commodity that is needed.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
TheDebaytDood
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 7:57:32 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 7:51:13 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/14/2016 7:32:17 PM, TheDebaytDood wrote:
Hail the revolution, Comrades! This forum is to discuss the question of governance in a communist state.

In past communist states two things have happened: either the country lost its integrity and became communist in name only (People's Republic of China) or mismanagement by the government led to famine and poverty (everyone else except Cuba).

My personal model is what I call the suburban co-op model:

1. People will grow crops, instead of grass, in their yards.

2. Neighborhoods will have their crops collectivized (a fancy word for "pooled together") and sold at a local farmer's market.

3. The proceeds will be split equally amongst the citizens that produced the food.

So, really, the people will buy the seeds, tend to the crops, give them away to the market, and then buy the crops back. That's an unnecessary loss of money. It would be more logical to grow a variety on your own land in a personal/private garden and reap what you sow.

This system is completely different from the forced collective farming practiced by Chairman Mao's China and the Soviet Union. Though it does indeed incorporate capitalist principles of buying and selling, it does not incorporate the biggest flaw at the heart of capitalism which will ultimately bring it down: the problem of corporate ownership. Instead of one person or a small group of people accumulating the profits from privately owned farms, the money is instead split equally amongst the workers who produce it. Yet, it also does not possess the fundamental flaw at the heart of Stalinism and Maoism: forced work and government regulation of food production, which leads to famine.

I think this is where you screwed up: this doesn't incorporate capitalism. True capitalism would be for you to buy the seeds, grow them, save what all you need, and sell the excess to those who are lacking to make a profit from buying those seeds.

In this instance, you are giving up money by purchasing the seeds, and then giving up even more when buying it from the market that took your crops.

You misunderstand capitalism. Capitalism finds it's roots in economic liberty. This naturally suggests private ownership not corporate ownership, albeit private ownership can turn into a corporate ownership. Those that become corporate do so fr good reason: their crops were of good quality, were readily available, and were affordable, all while having competitive wages for the many workers the company was able to hire.

This is still a form of government regulation in food production, since this system would be required. And the dispersion of profits equally amongst the citizens will easily result in unfair earnings - a family may have 6 people in it, and then a single individual will receive the same wages, but they will still be expected to uphold their part and produce the same amount of food even thought they must first buy enough food for themselves, the seeds to make more food, and provide any other basic commodity that is needed.

I see what you mean. Suppose the members of the co-op did a seed sharing program so that seeds don't need to enter or leave the system at all?

Also, it does in fact incorporate elements of capitalism. People would collectively sell and buy their crops at the market.

As for individual farming, well that's no better than what we had 10,000 years ago. the point of collectivizing crops is this: Suppose one person doesn't grow enough crops to feed themselves? Or suppose someone else grew way more than they could possibly eat and the surplus just spoiled? Would it not be the better part of wisdom for the system to be arranged so that those with too little receive the surplus produced by those with too much?
Hail the Revolution!
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 8:18:19 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 7:57:32 PM, TheDebaytDood wrote:
I see what you mean. Suppose the members of the co-op did a seed sharing program so that seeds don't need to enter or leave the system at all?

That would cut down on having to buy the seeds and would allow for more than one crop to be grown simultaneously, but it still wouldn't make sense to give it to the market and then waste money when you could keep it.

Also, it does in fact incorporate elements of capitalism. People would collectively sell and buy their crops at the market.

So then all forms of economic policy would incorporate capitalism. In Soviet Russia and China, citizens still had to go to the market to buy goods made within that country, since neither were too big on importing foreign goods (as that is an element of capitalism). Buying and selling isn't limited to capitalism - it is included in all economic stances. That is an all-too-common misconception.

As for individual farming, well that's no better than what we had 10,000 years ago. the point of collectivizing crops is this: Suppose one person doesn't grow enough crops to feed themselves? Or suppose someone else grew way more than they could possibly eat and the surplus just spoiled? Would it not be the better part of wisdom for the system to be arranged so that those with too little receive the surplus produced by those with too much?

If one person doesn't grow enough, then it is either 1) the job of a more successful farmer to sell their surplus to the one in need - this is the law of supply and demand, and this would lead to many people wanting to sell to these people to make a little more cash, and the competition would lead to lower prices. Or 2) charity steps in and provides. There would not be a need for a system to disperse the excess if there were charity.

And, of course, there are even more capitalistic elements involved here: the development of better yielding and preservation techniques, advanced technology to enhance a farmer's ability to grow more crops of higher quality, etc. The process leads to better gardening overall. Also, this would help in establishing businesses/services that would produce and sell these technologies, thereby creating jobs, expanding the gardening industry, increasing competition amongst these companies, leading to more advancements within the industry, and increasing revenue for the state. It's a recursive process that, if left alone, will benefit all.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.