Converting to Communism?

**CoolKidX** · Subject: Re: Converting to Communism? Fri May 22, 2009 12:42 am

zealot wrote:

If every single human disagrees with each other (which is impossible) the implications of said disagreement would show up immediately forcing people to agree. Interdependant beings that need interaction can't alienate themselves totally form each other.

We got people, who are very hard on their point, as in, always saying no to shit or yes. If every one disagrees with each other, doesnt mean all of them will agree of a sudden.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Some of us socialists favor decetralized industrial communities, operated and ruled by themselves, but centrally coordinated with others in a rationing framework. Basically all workers within a certain region and different kinds of industries will be coordinated with each other through councils to suffice each other's needs.

Other socialists like Anarcho-Syndicalists (and that if I get them well) favour trade unions per industry, for example, a trade union of construction workers which would comprise all civil engineers, masons, carpenters etc. within all regions and that would be centrally coordinated within itself to cover big enough regions. These trade unions would trade with other trade unions what they produce fro what they need, in other words, contruction workers would trade houses for food and food industry workers would trade food for houses.

But you need a country with all recources to trade, to trade with each other in the same country. But what if you run out of something?
You need to wait, or trade with other countries, but cant since those are capitalist and this is the only commie country. So now there is not enough wood or stone to make houses, they can't make houses, so now they cant get food. What now? I guess the food workers could make them a loan, with no intrest ofcourse, its communist. But they loaned already much food, and they finally got some wood and stone, but ofcourse not already enough to pay all the loan off. That means, that the other workers, the one for stone and wood etc need to work harder? Or better give me a solution to this.

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Converting to Communism? Fri May 22, 2009 12:58 am

CoolKidX wrote:

We got people, who are very hard on their point, as in, always saying no to shit or yes. If every one disagrees with each other, doesnt mean all of them will agree of a sudden.

No one can be too stubborn, specially when material conditions and their assesment take their toll.

And again, it's not necesary that all agree out of a sudden. It's necesary that people agree on some basic things like the truthfulness of the statement "chairs exist".

enviro wrote:

maybe i may be mistaken
but you did not answer my question on how communes would trade with capitalistic communities

Because you didn't ask.

Communist communities require autarchy to exist, if autarchic they don't need to trade with non communist nations. If ecopnomic interaction was convenient or necesary at some point, then communist communities would manage money as another resource, acquisible through selling. But then again, communist communities require autarchy.

enviro wrote:

and roman as in 100 people elect 1 person as a representitive

That makes decisions for them? If so, then no. And representatives to what or to whom? And as I said, there are several different possible organizational schemes within a socialist framework.

_________________

**CoolKidX** · Subject: Re: Converting to Communism? Fri May 22, 2009 1:00 am

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

No one can be too stubborn, specially when material conditions and their assesment take their toll.

And again, it's not necesary that all agree out of a sudden. It's necesary that people agree on some basic things like the truthfulness of the statement "chairs exist".

Oh in that way, I think many people will agree, but dicuss about that, or make a vote about it. Kinda silly.
But if a guy disagrees with it he better have some sweet ass arguments.

_________________
"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."--Jose Narosky

"A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities; an optimist is one who makes opportunities of his difficulties." --Reginald Mansell

Eazy-er Said Than Dunn

**Zealot_Kommunizma** · Subject: Re: Converting to Communism? Fri May 22, 2009 1:24 am

CoolKidX wrote:

But you need a country with all recources to trade, to trade with each other in the same country. But what if you run out of something?

What you talk about is autarchy. As actual countries few are able to achieve it. Commonwealths of countries, in the other hand may have an easier time with that.

A fact is that autarchy is required. How to achieve it? Controlling enough rich enough territory. This is achieved through revolution all along said territory. That's one of the reasons for which I believe Russia and several former USSR nations could be excellent spearheads for global revolution. A Latin American Union could be a good spearhead as well, or better yet a commonwelath between ex-USSR, Latin America and China.

Many comrades argue that the whole world is necesary and sure it's necesry taht teh whole world is eventually communist, but, being realistic, revolutions ought to start somewhere, they won't happen simultaneously like fire starting on gasoline due to a spark.

Many argue that the 1st world should spearhead the revolution, but I believe it's unlikely that it will start within apathetic and content-through-imperialism 1st world working classes, for which I believe 2nd and 3rd world are more likely starting points.

CKX wrote:

You need to wait, or trade with other countries, but cant since those are capitalist and this is the only commie country.

Believe me, if socialism is to be established first somewhere, it won't be in Haiti.

CKX wrote:

So now there is not enough wood or stone to make houses, they can't make houses, so now they cant get food.

Without autarchy, food could be scarce, so?

CKX wrote:

What now? I guess the food workers could make them a loan, with no intrest ofcourse, its communist.

So you think that construction workers will keep building houses permanently so they can get food? Not likely or rational. Housing needs are met after a certain period, it's a need that for its satisfaction just requires sporadic production - you can have a single house for the rest of your life but you need food several times a day. Houses may need production just once or twice in the lifespan of an entire generation, but food requires constant generation.

That means that construction workers may eventually face without having too much to do. Within the organizational scheme I favour, which is rationalist, construction workers, after meeting all housing needs would go to the food industry to work. What for? So that 1) enough food is produced and 2) laboural burden diminishes dramatically, which would benefit directly the both initial food producers as they'd have to work less and the construction workers as they wouldn't lack food and would as well work less than they used to.

As for resources' scarcity, no economic system in the world can cope with that. If you can't grow food or wood you can't grow food or wood whether you have communism, capitalism or teocracy.

And again, I acknowledge autarchy within the community as necesary for the stablishment of socialism.

CKX wrote:

But they loaned already much food, and they finally got some wood and stone, but ofcourse not already enough to pay all the loan off. That means, that the other workers, the one for stone and wood etc need to work harder? Or better give me a solution to this.

Pay off the "loan" with houses? Read above to understand better how it would work.

Also, I'm personally against economically alienationist systems, that is, in which the workforce is divided in different industries isolated from each other (while still being interdependant) that just trade with each other.

I favour rationalist non-alienated economies in which all the workforce is united and is distributed accordingly to the needs. Once a certain need is met or manages to require less human workforce (through automation and such) then more workforce is diverted into the satisfaction fo other needs to lessen laboral burden being more free-time and more production the reward for everyone.

_________________