True Communism already exists!

[Neu Leonstein]

How many of you live with families, or share accommodation with friends in a family-like way?

How close do you think is this household-internal life to libertarian communism, if you ignored the outside world? Do you share things? Do you decide things democratically? Do you find ways to distribute labour that does not involve direct, monetary payment?

And if the difference is not that great, then isn't our current system basically a large collection of communes, which relate to each other materially through trade? Wouldn't two more reasonable ways of improving the current setup be to encourage more people to move into your home (provided the place is big enough, etc) or to merge households, and secondly to improve the efficiency of and freedom to engage in these trades with other households?

[Barringtonia]

Gosh, this is somewhat where our conversation was heading on the other thread..

Is the trend in developed societies more living by oneself?

I think it is.

Is that a problem?

I think it is.

[WWII History Geeks]

My family is a dictatorship.

[Vandengaarde]

My family is a republic. We elect a new parental figure ever 4 days.

[Coffin-Breathe]

My family is a dictatorship.

I´ve to agree - most familys tend to be, more or less.

[Neu Leonstein]

Is the trend in developed societies more living by oneself?

Well, but libertarian socialism should by rights leave that option open to any individual as well, right? I've been told many times by socialists that if you don't want to be part of the community, you're free to leave and there'd be no way they could hold you, or your skills, for the benefit of society against your will.

In that sense, single-person communes are catered for in libertarian communism as well.

[Neu Leonstein]

My family is a dictatorship.

I´ve to agree - most familys tend to be, more or less.

Which in itself leads to interesting question about how (small) communist communes might be organised in real life when they don't just include particularly committed ideologues.

Of course, it might also just be an issue of children not having the same rights to make decisions as adults. Which I'd wager would be true under libertarian socialism as well.

[Antilon]

Huh... that's a real eye-opening epiphany. Now I'll just add this to my arsenal of tidbits to annoy my conservative friends!

[ElJefe]

Households are generally not self-sufficient.

Groups of households are called neighborhoods/towns/cities.

[Uawc]

How many of you live with families, or share accommodation with friends in a family-like way?

How close do you think is this household-internal life to libertarian communism, if you ignored the outside world? Do you share things?

Eh, it depends how you do things. It's not how things work in my family, sadly.

Do you decide things democratically? Do you find ways to distribute labour that does not involve direct, monetary payment?

No and not really.

And if the difference is not that great, then isn't our current system basically a large collection of communes, which relate to each other materially through trade? Wouldn't two more reasonable ways of improving the current setup be to encourage more people to move into your home (provided the place is big enough, etc) or to merge households, and secondly to improve the efficiency of and freedom to engage in these trades with other households?

Yes. That' s what UAWC does.

[Ashmoria]

How many of you live with families, or share accommodation with friends in a family-like way?

How close do you think is this household-internal life to libertarian communism, if you ignored the outside world? Do you share things? Do you decide things democratically? Do you find ways to distribute labour that does not involve direct, monetary payment?

And if the difference is not that great, then isn't our current system basically a large collection of communes, which relate to each other materially through trade? Wouldn't two more reasonable ways of improving the current setup be to encourage more people to move into your home (provided the place is big enough, etc) or to merge households, and secondly to improve the efficiency of and freedom to engage in these trades with other households?

do you come from a small family or something?

as a communism, large families SUCK. if that is how it would work in the larger world, it would be a dismal failure.

[Kookoo Kachu]

My family is a republic. We elect a new parental figure ever 4 days.

HAHAHAHAHAAH, you just made my night !

[Barringtonia]

as a communism, large families SUCK. if that is how it would work in the larger world, it would be a dismal failure.

Why?

I don't see that at all and, living in Asia, I see great benefit to extended families.

EDIT: having said that, it might also lead to greater levels of corruption as well but then, as I've often said, corruption is just as equal a system if everyone knows everyone is corrupt.

[The Adrian Empire]

Meh, my family runs like a corporation, parents are the BoD, and I'm just a lowly pencil pusher, with some company stocks to swing around

[Ashmoria]

as a communism, large families SUCK. if that is how it would work in the larger world, it would be a dismal failure.

Why?

I don't see that at all and, living in Asia, I see great benefit to extended families.

oh are large asian families a conglomeration of equals?

children dont work equally. some are always more obedient and harder working than others. there is always the one who takes advantage of the others, manipulates the parents, takes other kid's stuff.

and it is the parents who decide what will be worked for, if the children disagree on the direction the family is taking, tough shit.

large asian families are dictatorships or oligarchies at best.

[Barringtonia]

oh are large asian families a conglomeration of equals?

No, and I don't really see why this has to be intrinsic to communism, in fact I feel we're losing sight of the fact that we aim for equality of opportunity not equality of ability.

children dont work equally. some are always more obedient and harder working than others. there is always the one who takes advantage of the others, manipulates the parents, takes other kid's stuff.

Children are children - though I don't deny this behaviour leaches into adulthood - but the equilibrium of managing that takes more than just the parent, it takes the input of grandparents, aunts and uncles and more to create a whole - no one's under the illusion that it's always a cohesive whole, but there's advantages in dependency and shared responsibility, and it takes a lot of workload off the government as well.

and it is the parents who decide what will be worked for, if the children disagree on the direction the family is taking, tough shit.

Why are children being touted as equal in judgement?

I don't get it.

large asian families are dictatorships or oligarchies at best.

I'm not sure about that.

[Ashmoria]

oh are large asian families a conglomeration of equals?

No, and I don't really see why this has to be intrinsic to communism, in fact I feel we're losing sight of the fact that we aim for equality of opportunity not equality of ability.

children dont work equally. some are always more obedient and harder working than others. there is always the one who takes advantage of the others, manipulates the parents, takes other kid's stuff.

Children are children - though I don't deny this behaviour leaches into adulthood - but the equilibrium of managing that takes more than just the parent, it takes the input of grandparents, aunts and uncles and more to create a whole - no one's under the illusion that it's always a cohesive whole, but there's advantages in dependency and shared responsibility, and it takes a lot of workload off the government as well.

and it is the parents who decide what will be worked for, if the children disagree on the direction the family is taking, tough shit.

Why are children being touted as equal in judgement?

I don't get it.

large asian families are dictatorships or oligarchies at best.

I'm not sure about that.

all im saying is that as a communism, large families suck.

familes dont work as communisms. they work as .....families.

[Beachchairs]

My Socials 11 teacher said that the classroom was a commune where he was the dictator. Makes decent sense. So does a family being a commune. EXCEPT, most kids seem to get allowance these days for doing chores. That's definitely capitalistic wage labor.

Weird thing I noticed. On Canadian income tax and student loan forms, it asks you if you are a member of a commune.

[Errinundera]

Gosh, this is somewhat where our conversation was heading on the other thread..

Is the trend in developed societies more living by oneself?

I think it is.

Is that a problem?

I think it is.

I was at a briefing given by the City of Darebin (our local council) who said that by 2030 an extra 10,000 dwellings will be need to be built within the municipality. The population is predicted to remain roughly unchanged (128,000 at the 2006 census).

I am an example of this trend. I purchased a flat in 2007 here in Darebin and moved in at settlement. I displaced a family of four who had been renting the flat.

[Neu Leonstein]

Households are generally not self-sufficient.

Is self-sufficiency a requirement for libertarian socialism? And if so, why? Isn't that rather inefficient?

Groups of households are called neighborhoods/towns/cities.

Really?

do you come from a small family or something?

Four heads, so I guess so.

as a communism, large families SUCK. if that is how it would work in the larger world, it would be a dismal failure.

You said it, not me.

[Ashmoria]

Households are generally not self-sufficient.

Is self-sufficiency a requirement for libertarian socialism? And if so, why? Isn't that rather inefficient?

Groups of households are called neighborhoods/towns/cities.

Really?

do you come from a small family or something?

Four heads, so I guess so.

as a communism, large families SUCK. if that is how it would work in the larger world, it would be a dismal failure.

You said it, not me.

i did.

american communism already exists in the form of co-operatives. housing co-ops, producers co-ops, consumer co-ops. some do quite well, some just limp along. but to me they are better examples because of the freedom of association and equality involved.

[Neu Leonstein]

american communism already exists in the form of co-operatives. housing co-ops, producers co-ops, consumer co-ops. some do quite well, some just limp along. but to me they are better examples because of the freedom of association and equality involved.

And even that still supports the underlying point I'm making in this thread, and which people haven't explicitly picked up on:

Capitalism contains within itself true communism.

True communism, made up of free, democratic communes with communal property, requires the association with other communes on some level, unless all of them are truly self-sufficient, which I'd call a physical impossibility. The best way for these communes to relate to each other is not to have ever larger democratic meetings (or representative democratic meetings) but to decentralise the process by letting these communes trade with each other. Many libertarian communists agree with me on this one, because many don't reject markets per se.

And since capitalism contains within itself even now families and communes, I don't see at all why communists are calling for any sort of grand social change beyond exactly that kind of change which libertarian capitalists are calling for: an end in the intervention by means of violence into the economic (and indeed any other types of) interaction between sovereign communes (including communes of one). And further, I don't see why libertarian communists even need the rest of the world to be communist, because I see no difference (given an actually free market) between living in a commune and occasionally trading with another commune and living in a commune and occasionally trading with a capitalist.

[Panzerjaeger]

My family is a republic. We elect a new parental figure ever 4 days.

My family is a semi-autonomous Anarcho-Syndicalist Collective...yeah beat that.

[Ashmoria]

american communism already exists in the form of co-operatives. housing co-ops, producers co-ops, consumer co-ops. some do quite well, some just limp along. but to me they are better examples because of the freedom of association and equality involved.

And even that still supports the underlying point I'm making in this thread, and which people haven't explicitly picked up on:

Capitalism contains within itself true communism.

True communism, made up of free, democratic communes with communal property, requires the association with other communes on some level, unless all of them are truly self-sufficient, which I'd call a physical impossibility. The best way for these communes to relate to each other is not to have ever larger democratic meetings (or representative democratic meetings) but to decentralise the process by letting these communes trade with each other. Many libertarian communists agree with me on this one, because many don't reject markets per se.

And since capitalism contains within itself even now families and communes, I don't see at all why communists are calling for any sort of grand social change beyond exactly that kind of change which libertarian capitalists are calling for: an end in the intervention by means of violence into the economic (and indeed any other types of) interaction between sovereign communes (including communes of one). And further, I don't see why libertarian communists even need the rest of the world to be communist, because I see no difference (given an actually free market) between living in a commune and occasionally trading with another commune and living in a commune and occasionally trading with a capitalist.

well.

ya.

the need to do it the marxist way (or the stalinist way, or the lenninist way) is kind of silly. those guys had no special knowledge that makes them better at deciding how things should happen today.

[Uawc]

american communism already exists in the form of co-operatives. housing co-ops, producers co-ops, consumer co-ops. some do quite well, some just limp along. but to me they are better examples because of the freedom of association and equality involved.

And even that still supports the underlying point I'm making in this thread, and which people haven't explicitly picked up on:

Capitalism contains within itself true communism.

True communism, made up of free, democratic communes with communal property, requires the association with other communes on some level, unless all of them are truly self-sufficient, which I'd call a physical impossibility. The best way for these communes to relate to each other is not to have ever larger democratic meetings (or representative democratic meetings) but to decentralise the process by letting these communes trade with each other. Many libertarian communists agree with me on this one, because many don't reject markets per se.

And since capitalism contains within itself even now families and communes, I don't see at all why communists are calling for any sort of grand social change beyond exactly that kind of change which libertarian capitalists are calling for: an end in the intervention by means of violence into the economic (and indeed any other types of) interaction between sovereign communes (including communes of one). And further, I don't see why libertarian communists even need the rest of the world to be communist, because I see no difference (given an actually free market) between living in a commune and occasionally trading with another commune and living in a commune and occasionally trading with a capitalist.

Just because there is trade doesn't necessarily constitute capitalism. The capital is collective public property, and nobody is getting necessarily more than anybody else. It's like this:

Commune A has lots of wheat, but not a lot of iron. Commune B has lots of iron, but not a lot of wheat. They trade their excesses and everybody's happy.