Should Communism Be Declared A Criminal Ideology?

[rainbow]

Free association means that one doesn't need permission.

Please try to pay attention. I'm making these concepts as simple as I can so that you can understand.

[Scot Dutchy]

That is the ultimate point of capitalism: get a monopoly and control the market, bugger the rest.
Make sure inequality expands. Exploit employees and pay a little as possible. Picking up a few government subsides on the way, why not. When demand starts to wane just kick the cunts out of their jobs and let them starve. Not my problem. All else fails just declare bankruptcy. Poor suppliers will go bust, who is worried.

Just so glad I dont have live in such a society.

[Forty Two]

I'm not saying that the Soviet model rigid state control was a good thing.

It was a misguided means to achieve an ideological end.

They could not accept certain positives from capitalism. But communism is about total control as is extreme capitalism. The only thing that really is different; who benefits.
The good mix is somewhere in between on the centre left side.

Let me give you the example of our village mud-pit.

It belongs to everyone and every person can go and fetch as much as they like. So Lizzie the potter goes down and fetches clay to make her beautiful pots which she sells to the other villagers.

Doesn't she need permission from the national Worker's Committee or the Central Committee which determines the resources needed for pots and whether and how many would be made out of clay? If there are already enough clay pot makers, then Lizzie needs to do something else. The Workers Committee or the Central Committee designates her role as bookkeeper for the clay pot makers, even though Lizzie doesn't want to do that. It's her equal liability to work, and the community, through the Workers Committee or the CEntral Committee determine what Lizzie is best suited for. They don't need more clay pots.

Anyone else can also make pots, but if they are not as good, then they get fewer chicken per pot. Lizzie does well enough, and when she doesn't need to she sits by the river and relaxes drinking beer. Peter cannot make pots, but he mixes the clay with cow dung and makes bricks. He works really hard and makes just enough to buy food for his family. Anyone can grow chickens, if they don't like making pots or bricks.

If your system is that Lizzie is free to make a better clay pot, if she can, and she takes the risk of doing the work, hiring potters, packaging, marketing and distributing pots, and if her pots suck then nobody buys them and she loses her investment, then that's capitalism. In your scenario, though, Lizzie and anyone else aren't free to just go out and make pots, right? They need permission of the Workers Committee/Central Committee who determines what the mud resources (along with everything else) will be used for, if anything.

Not anyone can grow chickens, either, right? Because the workers committees/Central Committee for the nation determine agriculture and animal production for food -- how much is needed is determined by the community, including how many chickens. People who want to raise chickens can do so only if they are within the community plan, right? Too many chickens and too few pigs, and the plan isn't being followed. Lizzie may want to make pots, but if the Worker Committee/Central Committee has determined that we have a glut of pots, and we need extra bricks, they can direct Lizzie to switch from pot making to brick-making, right?

Now this is a Free-Market System, but is neither Capitalist nor Communist.
No-one is allowed to own the means of production, the mud pit.
In Capitalism, someone would own the pit and all the chickens, and force people to work or starve. Under Centralised Control, the pit is administered by an official who forces people to work, or starve.
What is the difference?

The Centralized Control you describe is fascism. Fascism is the marriage of corporations and government under a national plan - if Central Control is determining who produces what, where when and how, and the businesses carry out that plan - it's fascism.

Under capitalism, no one person would own all the mud pits or other resources. In free market capitalism, the theory is that the monopoly will break down, because generally if a monopolist raises prices too much on his mud pit monopoly, others would find ways to make bricks and pots out of other things (cement and plastic, e.g.). Then the monopoly would lose its power. Alternatively, regulated capitalism would have rules that prohibit anticompetitive behavior, and break up monopolies and trusts, etc.

Capitalism is freedom. Freedom to choose what you do. It's not freedom to hijack all the mud pits and hold them for ransom. Capitalism is Lizzie's freedom to decide that she does not want to make bricks, even if the Central Committee or Worker Committee says that the nation needs bricks. She wants to make pots because she, the individual, has come to the conclusion that people want her pots, and she is willing to sell the pots, and others are willing to buy the pots. Nobody is compelled to do anything.

Under both fascism and communism, Lizzie doesn't have that choice - she has a "liability" to work - she owes her labor to the community or the state, and the community or the state has its plan/program - Lizzie is a citizen in the community, and as such must be part of the plan.

[Forty Two]

That is the ultimate point of capitalism: get a monopoly and control the market, bugger the rest.
Make sure inequality expands. Exploit employees and pay a little as possible. Picking up a few government subsides on the way, why not. When demand starts to wane just kick the cunts out of their jobs and let them starve. Not my problem. All else fails just declare bankruptcy. Poor suppliers will go bust, who is worried.

Just so glad I dont have live in such a society.

Free market capitalism doesn't tend to create monopolies. States create monopolies.

The biggest examples of monopolies -- railroads in the 19th century, for example - were created by the government.

The ultimate point of capitalism is to make a profit and beating the competition. The result is better products and services, delivered to paying customers who can choose between voluntary associations with other competitors. That's why private enterprises generally are more responsive to the needs of customers than a government agency or bureaucracy.

You do live in a capitalist society, Dutchy. The Netherlands is capitalist.

[rainbow]

Doesn't she need permission from the national Worker's Committee or the Central Committee which determines the resources needed for pots and whether and how many would be made out of clay?

Nope. No central committee. Just the Free Market.
No barrier to entry due to the non-ownership of the resource.
Also anyone can own chickens, goats, cows and they all graze or browse on communal land.

You've never been to Africa, I assume.

[DRSB]

Isn't this communism?
Luxembourg is set to become the first country in the world to make all its public transport free.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... -9JKCFh8qg

[Forty Two]

Doesn't she need permission from the national Worker's Committee or the Central Committee which determines the resources needed for pots and whether and how many would be made out of clay?

Nope. No central committee. Just the Free Market.
No barrier to entry due to the non-ownership of the resource.
Also anyone can own chickens, goats, cows and they all graze or browse on communal land.

You've never been to Africa, I assume.

What do you mean "no barrier to entry?" The resources are the chickens and goats and cows, so don't you have to buy those things? And chickens are fed feed, they don't graze. So, that's another resource.

The communal aspect of resources only really works in a state of plenty. Capitalism allocates scarce resources. So, your system of cow herding by anyone and everyone only works if there is plenty of land to around. As soon a the number of cattle ranchers and cows starts to make it difficult to have enough land to go around, then the advantage of the supply/demand/price market system is that the value of the land goes up as the demand for the land goes up, and then those who want to stay in the business buy land from those who prefer to get out.

I haven't been to Africa, and I wouldn't trade a western capitalist economy (of any type) for pretty much any example of an African economy.

[Forty Two]

[Forty Two]

Isn't this communism?
Luxembourg is set to become the first country in the world to make all its public transport free.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... -9JKCFh8qg

Not really - but Luxembourg makes the point. It is easy to provide free stuff when you live in a state of plenty. Luxembourg is a country where the average person makes like $110,000 per year, as the second highest per capita GDP in the world, and is ranked as the 14th freest economy in the world. It's capitalist economy allows it to do this.

[Jason]

Isn't this communism?
Luxembourg is set to become the first country in the world to make all its public transport free.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... -9JKCFh8qg

Meanwhile they're starting to charge for gas in Turkmenistan.

[DRSB]

Isn't this communism?
Luxembourg is set to become the first country in the world to make all its public transport free.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... -9JKCFh8qg

Not really - but Luxembourg makes the point. It is easy to provide free stuff when you live in a state of plenty. Luxembourg is a country where the average person makes like $110,000 per year, as the second highest per capita GDP in the world, and is ranked as the 14th freest economy in the world. It's capitalist economy allows it to do this.

110' and more in offshore finance and structuring, where you can put 10% and more of a turnover into your pocket just for being the director of a shell company, a business that is fading, same as in Switzerland and the Channel Islands, (but they have no corporate pension funds in Lux), no industry, no production, capitalism is supposed to be a production engine.

[Scot Dutchy]

Yep a dying race. I would not like to live there. It is so dull that dishwater sparkles.

[pErvinalia]

But George Orwell said that what really happened was "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

Indeed. The revolution merely changes the ruling class.
Power did not go into the hands of the oppressed, but to the new elite. That is not Communism.

How can power ever be in the hands of someone who is oppressed?

Please do not exhibit your stupidity. They'd no longer be oppressed if the power relations were changed in their favour.
I'm afraid that "Marxism for Dummies" that you quickly read hoping for a quote, didn't actually teach you anything.

Once another group has the power relations changed in their favor, they become the "new elite." Get it?

Also, under Communism, how is it decided what factories to build, what goods to produce, what quantities, how they are to be delivered, how they are distributed, how to more equally distribute the population from cities to countryside, the structure of the industrial armies, and the seizure of the assets of emigrants and rebels, and how is it decided what peoples' needs are and what their abilities are?

Workers committees. A free vote and free association.
Are you opposed to that?

If so, why?

Oh, yes, absolutely. Why? Isn't it self evident?

But, let's do it this way. How would that work in actual practice. I.e. - take the auto industry. Worker committees would decide how many cars the nation needs, and of what types? Then how many factories are needed to build them, where the factories would be located, and all the design and build decisions from concept through the factory floor? How would they make that determination?

Many reasons exist for opposing such a scheme - one is that Elon Musk wouldn't have been free to simply have a vision and decide to pursue it, and create Tesla. Someone would have had to convince a "workers committee" that something new was needed.

I hate to say it, Rainbow, but 42 is right. Workers committees can't anticipate needs and demands. You need the actual consumers involved in that.

[Seabass]

Isn't this communism?
Luxembourg is set to become the first country in the world to make all its public transport free.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... -9JKCFh8qg

Not really - but Luxembourg makes the point. It is easy to provide free stuff when you live in a state of plenty. Luxembourg is a country where the average person makes like $110,000 per year, as the second highest per capita GDP in the world, and is ranked as the 14th freest economy in the world. It's capitalist economy allows it to do this.

It's called a "mixed economy". It's what you vote against when you vote Republican.

[pErvinalia]

42's logic is spectacular. Everything that isn't 100% socialist is capitalist. Using that sort of logic it's easy to claim any and all successes as due to capitalism. The reality is that everything that isn't 100% socialism and isn't 100% private enterprise is a mixed economy with varying levels of capitalism and socialism influencing it.