If Marx turns out to be right...

[Noders]

I'd go into the military and become a sniper.....oh wait I'm already doing that soon for the IDF.

[GeneralHaNor]

for 80% of the worlds population, that is a non-option
Besides I reject Auto-Soverignity doctrine.

I will live where I please, and I will reject any authority that makes any arbitrary claim over me, because I live in said area.

Why would a commune want you if you didn't want to be part of it? The situation you are describing is counter-intiutive the commune wouldn't benefit by having people in it if they didn't want to be.

I currently live in a small town, I own property here, if the revolution came and the city council declared my property to be group, is my option to move or to fight them?, either way I lose my property, and my freedom.

It's not a matter of a commune choosing to allow me to live it. I already live here. Maybe tomorrow I'll live somewhere else, but that is my choice, and no entity has the authority to tell me otherwise.

[Mussoliniopoli]

Why would a commune want you if you didn't want to be part of it? The situation you are describing is counter-intiutive the commune wouldn't benefit by having people in it if they didn't want to be.

I currently live in a small town, I own property here, if the revolution came and the city council declared my property to be group, is my option to move or to fight them?, either way I lose my property, and my freedom.

It's not a matter of a commune choosing to allow me to live it. I already live here. Maybe tomorrow I'll live somewhere else, but that is my choice, and no entity has the authority to tell me otherwise.

I again fail to see why a commune would take you in if you didn't want it. Nor would it just spring up according to Marxist Doctrine. So your whole example isn't even based in theory nor is it even remotely practical.

[Natapoc]

Why would a commune want you if you didn't want to be part of it? The situation you are describing is counter-intiutive the commune wouldn't benefit by having people in it if they didn't want to be.

I currently live in a small town, I own property here, if the revolution came and the city council declared my property to be group, is my option to move or to fight them?, either way I lose my property, and my freedom.

It's not a matter of a commune choosing to allow me to live it. I already live here. Maybe tomorrow I'll live somewhere else, but that is my choice, and no entity has the authority to tell me otherwise.

Is it property as in "means of production" that many people use or is it property as in "my house and garden?"

[Trotskylvania]

So you think that enforcing collective property of the means of mass production would be "coercive destruction of the human mind and soul"?

My, your mind and soul are quite frail if they cannot survive without owning a company with 50 employees.

Yes. I actually understand property rights. I'm theologically, philosophically, and economically literate enough to understand precisely how horrible eliminating the concept of time preference in resource management is for human beings. Communal ownership destroys property rights. With no sense of property, there is no sense of the individual. With no sense of the individual, there is no planning for the satisfaction of later wants and desires. Time preference b/c immediate. We turn into savage beasts again. Unaware and dim. We would be a society of pillage and rape and wonton destruction b/c we want want want right now.

Society has it's issues now, IRL. But there is a propensity for delayed satisfaction of wants. And that is a wonderful thing. I suppose having never been nostalgic for the days of a lack of responsibility has somehow helped to make me immune to the fantasies of fuck that socialists and all the other brands of collectivists spew. I enjoy being an adult. I have never wanted to be a child again. I enjoy being a human being. I am no mindless animal. So no communism for me. Ever.

I'll commit suicide before then. And I'm Orthodox. I'd rather take the remote risk that I'm wrong about the existence and grace of God and violating the Image of Him in me by destroying it myself, than endure a lifetime of living like a rabid dog under communism.

You're projecting a modern conception of property onto the whole of human history. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Human beings were making art, culture and civilization long before even the very concept of ownership had been spoken into existence. And for much of civilization, the majority of property was communal or state owned in someway. People had no less individuality then, whether they were working on a medieval peasant commune or owning their own lands.

And I have honestly no idea where you're getting any idea that communism seeks to undo time preference. I'd be willing to venture that I'm probably more well-read on the entire breadth and depth of socialist political economy and philosophy, and I am completely at a loss as to how you could even construe that from communism. One of Marx's central criticisms of political economy was how situations of markets and private ownership would calculate time-preferences in a non-optimal manner, favoring short-sighted actions over long term viability.

It's a simple fact that the future is just another commons that can't be privatized, and capitalism treats it as such, squandering it for short-sighted objectives.

[Sucrati]

Well, if your goods are produced by the will of the people, then what stops people from not creating anything?

[Genivaria]

Well, if your goods are produced by the will of the people, then what stops people from not creating anything?

Common fucking sense.

[Trotskylvania]

I'd go into the military and become a sniper.....oh wait I'm already doing that soon for the IDF.

The IDF is also filled with socialists. Their track record of support for the economic and political left is pretty much unbroken.

[GeneralHaNor]

I currently live in a small town, I own property here, if the revolution came and the city council declared my property to be group, is my option to move or to fight them?, either way I lose my property, and my freedom.

It's not a matter of a commune choosing to allow me to live it. I already live here. Maybe tomorrow I'll live somewhere else, but that is my choice, and no entity has the authority to tell me otherwise.

Is it property as in "means of production" that many people use or is it property as in "my house and garden?"

Wealth redistribution happens first, which means some member of the new communist vanguard might decide that my Cadilliac is a luxury I don't deserve.

But other then that, why should I hand over my production rights to the "Commune" they are mine after all. What is the point of labor if I am not allowed to profit or advance my position because of it? I have no incentive, worse I have no freedom.

"Free Markets, create free men" is a bit dogmatic, but it's a whole hell of alot better than "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" because the implications of the latter are worse then wage slavery, it's just flatout slavery.

[Staenwald]

I currently live in a small town, I own property here, if the revolution came and the city council declared my property to be group, is my option to move or to fight them?, either way I lose my property, and my freedom.

It's not a matter of a commune choosing to allow me to live it. I already live here. Maybe tomorrow I'll live somewhere else, but that is my choice, and no entity has the authority to tell me otherwise.

Is it property as in "means of production" that many people use or is it property as in "my house and garden?"

gardens grow food and flowers for the people- means of production! houses are the incubators for new workers- means of production! isn't the greatest means of production man himself? we cannot allow him to go without food or a home. In the USSR people were forced to house others in their homes because they didn't have homes themselves.

[Sucrati]

Well, if your goods are produced by the will of the people, then what stops people from not creating anything?

Common fucking sense.

Hey, remember, most people lack common sense, so in that sense, a Socialist or Communist Society is unrealistic, because you would have to get rid of the uneducated masses... wait that means violence, I mean... uh...

[Lacadaemon]

It's hard for something to actually "end badly" when it really didn't even start to begin with. A bunch of coffee house intellectuals in Russia thought they could spark a world revolution and skip the capitalist phase of development, and they were left to do the brute work of capitalist industrialization themselves.

The only difference between the enclosures in Britain and the Stalinist collectivization was intensity: the Soviets were forced to accomplish the same job in a lot shorter time.

What about eastern europe?

Also I'm not convinced that enclosures in England and Stalinist collectivization were really the same thing.

[Meryuma]

Is it property as in "means of production" that many people use or is it property as in "my house and garden?"

Wealth redistribution happens first, which means some member of the new communist vanguard might decide that my Cadilliac is a luxury I don't deserve.

But other then that, why should I hand over my production rights to the "Commune" they are mine after all. What is the point of labor if I am not allowed to profit or advance my position because of it? I have no incentive, worse I have no freedom.

"Free Markets, create free men" is a bit dogmatic, but it's a whole hell of alot better than "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" because the implications of the latter are worse then wage slavery, it's just flatout slavery.

Even neo-Lockean ancap would lead to wealth redistribution.

As for the topic of this thread, depends what kind of socialism it is. If we're talking some form of libertarian socialism, I'd be pretty happy. If we're talking state socialism, I'd be pretty pissed.

[GeneralHaNor]

I currently live in a small town, I own property here, if the revolution came and the city council declared my property to be group, is my option to move or to fight them?, either way I lose my property, and my freedom.

It's not a matter of a commune choosing to allow me to live it. I already live here. Maybe tomorrow I'll live somewhere else, but that is my choice, and no entity has the authority to tell me otherwise.

I again fail to see why a commune would take you in if you didn't want it. Nor would it just spring up according to Marxist Doctrine. So your whole example isn't even based in theory nor is it even remotely practical.

They wouldn't take me in, they would exist where I would exist.
The population of any given industrial nation is far to large to assume that my house wouldn't fall within some communes "border" indeed I highly doubt communes would even be the norm.

In order to function in modern society, one must be apart, but a communist society would either force me to accept their doctrines, or reject me entirely., My choice is to abandon my property and live in the woods and/or fight them, or conform and tow the party line.

Either way, I lose freedom.

[Staenwald]

Common fucking sense.

Hey, remember, most people lack common sense, so in that sense, a Socialist or Communist Society is unrealistic, because you would have to get rid of the uneducated masses... wait that means violence, I mean... uh...

ahem...school?

[Trotskylvania]

It's hard for something to actually "end badly" when it really didn't even start to begin with. A bunch of coffee house intellectuals in Russia thought they could spark a world revolution and skip the capitalist phase of development, and they were left to do the brute work of capitalist industrialization themselves.

The only difference between the enclosures in Britain and the Stalinist collectivization was intensity: the Soviets were forced to accomplish the same job in a lot shorter time.

What about eastern europe?

Also I'm not convinced that enclosures in England and Stalinist collectivization were really the same thing.

I think the Trotskyist metaphor of "deformed workers' state" is apt. Eastern Europe wasn't much better developed than Russia in the early 1900s, and after WW2, it was pretty much a level playing field. They end up being mimics of the Soviet Union, of varying degrees of craziness.

[Natapoc]

Wealth redistribution happens first, which means some member of the new communist vanguard might decide that my Cadilliac is a luxury I don't deserve.

But other then that, why should I hand over my production rights to the "Commune" they are mine after all. What is the point of labor if I am not allowed to profit or advance my position because of it? I have no incentive, worse I have no freedom.

"Free Markets, create free men" is a bit dogmatic, but it's a whole hell of alot better than "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" because the implications of the latter are worse then wage slavery, it's just flatout slavery.

Even neo-Lockean ancap would lead to wealth redistribution.

As for the topic of this thread, depends what kind of socialism it is. If we're talking some form of libertarian socialism, I'd be pretty happy. If we're talking state socialism, I'd be pretty pissed.

The OP said:

and some new socialist society replaces it, based on a genuine common ownership of the mans of production

Genuine common ownership would mean that if there is a state that the state is at least democratic.

[Meryuma]

I again fail to see why a commune would take you in if you didn't want it. Nor would it just spring up according to Marxist Doctrine. So your whole example isn't even based in theory nor is it even remotely practical.

They wouldn't take me in, they would exist where I would exist.
The population of any given industrial nation is far to large to assume that my house wouldn't fall within some communes "border" indeed I highly doubt communes would even be the norm.

In order to function in modern society, one must be apart, but a communist society would either force me to accept their doctrines, or reject me entirely., My choice is to abandon my property and live in the woods and/or fight them, or conform and tow the party line.

Either way, I lose freedom.

Anarcho-communism wouldn't be like that. Just read Kropotkin if you don't believe me.

[The Southron Nation]

You're projecting a modern conception of property onto the whole of human history. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Human beings were making art, culture and civilization long before even the very concept of ownership had been spoken into existence. And for much of civilization, the majority of property was communal or state owned in someway. People had no less individuality then, whether they were working on a medieval peasant commune or owning their own lands.

And I have honestly no idea where you're getting any idea that communism seeks to undo time preference. I'd be willing to venture that I'm probably more well-read on the entire breadth and depth of socialist political economy and philosophy, and I am completely at a loss as to how you could even construe that from communism. One of Marx's central criticisms of political economy was how situations of markets and private ownership would calculate time-preferences in a non-optimal manner, favoring short-sighted actions over long term viability.

It's a simple fact that the future is just another commons that can't be privatized, and capitalism treats it as such, squandering it for short-sighted objectives.

Civilization can only arise out of property rights, division of labor, and time preference. Without this, and communism presumes to destroy all 3, there is no civilization. The reason you are at a loss to account for a persons preference for goods and services sooner rather than later is b/c communism (socialism) fails to account for a pricing structure. This is precisely the issue that led to Marx giving up following Bohm Bawerk and Menger thoroughly trouncing his theories as childish fantasies. As well read as you are, you simply don't understand human activity in a collectivist way. Humanity is made up of individuals who live in voluntary collectives. Humanity is not a collective made up of individuals. The sovereign self comes first.

Marx was wrong. About everything. Without an adequate concept of human activity, human beings are relegated to automatons. As such, all collectivist doctrine is designed to remove the individuals incentive for individual action. In so doing, collectivism destroys the mind. Capitalism did not lead to lower standards of living. It still hasn't, despite all of the supposed "wonders" socialism has brought the world. Socialist economies are the ones in squalor. Marx was and will forever be, wrong. The triumph of Socialism is not inevitable. It's failure is.

[Noders]

I'd go into the military and become a sniper.....oh wait I'm already doing that soon for the IDF.

The IDF is also filled with socialists. Their track record of support for the economic and political left is pretty much unbroken.

That was my point......heh

[GeneralHaNor]

They wouldn't take me in, they would exist where I would exist.
The population of any given industrial nation is far to large to assume that my house wouldn't fall within some communes "border" indeed I highly doubt communes would even be the norm.

In order to function in modern society, one must be apart, but a communist society would either force me to accept their doctrines, or reject me entirely., My choice is to abandon my property and live in the woods and/or fight them, or conform and tow the party line.

Either way, I lose freedom.

Anarcho-communism wouldn't be like that. Just read Kropotkin if you don't believe me.

Just answer this question, is their room in an Anarcho-Communist society for a "Propertarian", because I am a propertarian, and I extend that right from self ownership. That would be non-negotiable.

If I couldn't own the product of my labor, then I could not live in that society, which leaves me only two choice, Fight, or Flight.

Either way, I again lose my freedom.

[Sucrati]

Hey, remember, most people lack common sense, so in that sense, a Socialist or Communist Society is unrealistic, because you would have to get rid of the uneducated masses... wait that means violence, I mean... uh...

ahem...school?

"Hey Kiddies, we're going to send you to School to learn about Marx!"

"Yay!"

*A few hours later of Marx related lessons*

"So, what did you learn?"

"Well, we learned the production of goods is controlled by the will of the people"

"Okay"

"We were told to follow that, so we decided that we wouldn't produce answers to our pop quiz"

"Why not?"

"Aren't we people too?"

Yes, the kids, who are much easier to mold into a belief system followed the advice of Marx and produced nothing because they willed it, therefore the teacher willfully produced Fs for all the class, this continued until the kids had to continue to repeat the same class over and over and over...

Plus an education can be described as a 'good' produced from the willful collaboration of a student and teacher, however, as they can willfully collaborate, they can also willfully resist one another.

A better description would be:

A class of college students were discussing that Socialism would be the best system, the professor then tested them on this.

Telling his students to study, they all took a random test based on what they learned over the week.

A majority of students studied, some partied, as such the grades were averaged for all the students as a B

The next test, less studied, more partied, the average was a C

Again, less studied, more partied, the average was a D

This went on until the class failed entirely, the professor just replied smugly to a question on why they all failed.

That's how Socialism and Redistribution of wealth works, fair, isn't it?"

[The Last Hope for Bees]

Anarcho-communism wouldn't be like that. Just read Kropotkin if you don't believe me.

Just answer this question, is their room in an Anarcho-Communist society for a "Propertarian", because I am a propertarian, and I extend that right from self ownership. That would be non-negotiable.

If I couldn't own the product of my labor, then I could not live in that society, which leaves me only two choice, Fight, or Flight.

Either way, I again lose my freedom.

You don't really have the right to self ownership at the moment, but you're bitching on the internet instead of fighting in the streets.

Are you sure you're just not all talk?

[Sucrati]

Oh, and we don't need socialism to have common ownership over the means of production, hasn't anyone heard of the Stock Option?

[Mussoliniopoli]

Oh, and we don't need socialism to have common ownership over the means of production, hasn't anyone heard of the Stock Option?

Yes because all Wage-Laborers can afford stock.