Quote (InsaneBobb @ Sep 12 2021 12:06pm)

Read what you posted a little more critically. It's indicating that any private property that can be used to produce would be abolished. That would include residential, industrial, tech, vehicles, even computers, at this point. All forms of "capital". So you won't have your private farm, you won't have your private back yard garden, you won't have your private vehicle, you won't have your private revenue-generating computer, nothing.

Communism is a system of compulsory labor providing daily living requirements. No "saving for the future". Capitalism, in general, is a system where the harder you work today and the more capital you invest in, the more revenue you can generate to provide for your personal needs to not have to work in the future.

Think about it like this: If I own a half acre of land that I use to grow and can fruits and vegetables, I have a source of food not only for the season, but because I'm canning them, I have enough to have all the fruits and vegetables my family will need for a year. So, what if I then buy another half acre, and grow and can enough so that another family, who is not spending all their time growing and canning fruits and vegetables during the spring/summer/fall, but is instead invested in say... Fine art. Well, I personally have no need for fine art. But they DO have a need for food. So, they sell their fine art to somebody who wants or needs it, then use some of that currency to pay me for my excess food I now have. That is the result of capitalism. I now have extra money because of my capital investment and labor. BUT! Let's take a different look at things... If, rather than selling my excess food, let's say I just keep it. So rather than 1 year's worth of labor providing 1 year of my family's fruit and vegetable needs, now it provides two. So now, we can eat all the fruits and vegetables we need for two years, based on one year's worth of work. That's awesome, right? Now I don't need to work as long, or as hard, to eat. But, one can't live on fruits and vegetables alone, and how to get fertilizer, water, etc.?

The basic idea with capitalism is the acknowledgement that I will need more than my fruit and veggy acre will provide, so I produce more than I need, and do not save it, but instead trade it for other needs I have. Communism is that that option is not available. I do not own that acre. I do not own the product of that acre. Rather than that acre providing me 2 years worth of food based off 2/3rds of a year's worth of work, instead, I need to spend the full year and a half producing the food, I only get to keep what I need, the rest goes elsewhere, AND I then need to work in another job during the third of the year (winter) where I can't grow. And if I do not continuously work, then I no longer get the food I need to survive.

Effectively it takes away any and all control you have to provide for your own life and your own family, and instead drops that power directly into "the people". But the reality of "the people" is that the government enforces the distribution of goods and labor. Hence why so many people starved in the Soviet Union. Communism, in practice, at a national level, leads directly towards direct dictatorship in it's purest form. Socialism, on the flipside, does acknowledge that you do have a limited right to your own property, and the fruits of your own labor, and the capital you use to generate those products. However, it says that, "Because there are other people who have needs, we need you to pay taxes on your capital, we need you to pay taxes on your utilities, we need you to pay taxes on your transportation" effectively forcing you to sell the majority of the fruits of your labor in order to continue your private ownership of your capital to continue generating the end products you need to continue surviving.

Free market capitalism, on the other hand, which to my knowledge doesn't actually exist in the modern world, says, "My capital is mine. No taxes, no nothing. All the end product is mine. Others may need my excess, so they must trade for it. Based on what I gain from trading my end product, I can not only cover my needs that my capital doesn't cover, but I may be able to trade for more capital, to more adequately cover my needs. However, as my capital grows, so too do my labor requirements, so I need to hire others to help. Those others need to be compensated. That compensation can be used by those others to eventually purchase capital of their own, possibly creating direct competition for my end products." The most frequently raised objections to free market capitalism typically run along the lines of, "Well, who'll build the roads?" The simple answer is, "I will". Simply put, if I'm trading all my fruits and vegetables at a farmer's market, for instance, I need to be able to get to that market. The market and it's customers don't care how I get there, and they aren't coming to me. So it falls to me to make my path to transport my goods. On the larger scale though, "Dominoes will". Remember their road fixing campaign? Their business model relies on functional roads to operate. Likewise, Walmart will, as their business model requires their customers can get to them and that their vendors can deliver to them, and that they can transport from their warehouses to their retail outlets.

The more we centralize and socialize, the more the "do nots" gain without labor, while the "dos" lose the product of their labor and capital investment. And the ultimate end, in full out communism, is you simply own nothing, do what you're told, and HOPE your basic needs are met, and you don't end up being one of the nearly 4 million Ukrainians starved by your overlords.

Quote (inkanddagger @ 12 Sep 2021 12:07)

Wow you wrote all that. And you still have no idea what communism even is. None of what you wrote is accurate.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Sep 12 2021 12:15pm)

No, I'm quite familiar with communism, and what it really is. And am fully aware and engaged with why every attempt at communism turns into dictatorship.

And rather than refuting or even acknowledging any portion, or attempting to reeducate on how everyone but you is wrong, instead you spam. Good one! :rolleyes:

Quote (inkanddagger @ 12 Sep 2021 12:22)

No. Everything you wrote is wrong. Please stop saying you are familiar when you obviously aren’t. All of us who have read the source material facepalm when we see you post.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Sep 12 2021 12:06pm)

Read what you posted a little more critically. It's indicating that any private property that can be used to produce would be abolished. That would include residential, industrial, tech, vehicles, even computers, at this point. All forms of "capital". So you won't have your private farm, you won't have your private back yard garden, you won't have your private vehicle, you won't have your private revenue-generating computer, nothing.

Communism is a system of compulsory labor providing daily living requirements. No "saving for the future". Capitalism, in general, is a system where the harder you work today and the more capital you invest in, the more revenue you can generate to provide for your personal needs to not have to work in the future.

Think about it like this: If I own a half acre of land that I use to grow and can fruits and vegetables, I have a source of food not only for the season, but because I'm canning them, I have enough to have all the fruits and vegetables my family will need for a year. So, what if I then buy another half acre, and grow and can enough so that another family, who is not spending all their time growing and canning fruits and vegetables during the spring/summer/fall, but is instead invested in say... Fine art. Well, I personally have no need for fine art. But they DO have a need for food. So, they sell their fine art to somebody who wants or needs it, then use some of that currency to pay me for my excess food I now have. That is the result of capitalism. I now have extra money because of my capital investment and labor. BUT! Let's take a different look at things... If, rather than selling my excess food, let's say I just keep it. So rather than 1 year's worth of labor providing 1 year of my family's fruit and vegetable needs, now it provides two. So now, we can eat all the fruits and vegetables we need for two years, based on one year's worth of work. That's awesome, right? Now I don't need to work as long, or as hard, to eat. But, one can't live on fruits and vegetables alone, and how to get fertilizer, water, etc.?

The basic idea with capitalism is the acknowledgement that I will need more than my fruit and veggy acre will provide, so I produce more than I need, and do not save it, but instead trade it for other needs I have. Communism is that that option is not available. I do not own that acre. I do not own the product of that acre. Rather than that acre providing me 2 years worth of food based off 2/3rds of a year's worth of work, instead, I need to spend the full year and a half producing the food, I only get to keep what I need, the rest goes elsewhere, AND I then need to work in another job during the third of the year (winter) where I can't grow. And if I do not continuously work, then I no longer get the food I need to survive.

Effectively it takes away any and all control you have to provide for your own life and your own family, and instead drops that power directly into "the people". But the reality of "the people" is that the government enforces the distribution of goods and labor. Hence why so many people starved in the Soviet Union. Communism, in practice, at a national level, leads directly towards direct dictatorship in it's purest form. Socialism, on the flipside, does acknowledge that you do have a limited right to your own property, and the fruits of your own labor, and the capital you use to generate those products. However, it says that, "Because there are other people who have needs, we need you to pay taxes on your capital, we need you to pay taxes on your utilities, we need you to pay taxes on your transportation" effectively forcing you to sell the majority of the fruits of your labor in order to continue your private ownership of your capital to continue generating the end products you need to continue surviving.

Free market capitalism, on the other hand, which to my knowledge doesn't actually exist in the modern world, says, "My capital is mine. No taxes, no nothing. All the end product is mine. Others may need my excess, so they must trade for it. Based on what I gain from trading my end product, I can not only cover my needs that my capital doesn't cover, but I may be able to trade for more capital, to more adequately cover my needs. However, as my capital grows, so too do my labor requirements, so I need to hire others to help. Those others need to be compensated. That compensation can be used by those others to eventually purchase capital of their own, possibly creating direct competition for my end products." The most frequently raised objections to free market capitalism typically run along the lines of, "Well, who'll build the roads?" The simple answer is, "I will". Simply put, if I'm trading all my fruits and vegetables at a farmer's market, for instance, I need to be able to get to that market. The market and it's customers don't care how I get there, and they aren't coming to me. So it falls to me to make my path to transport my goods. On the larger scale though, "Dominoes will". Remember their road fixing campaign? Their business model relies on functional roads to operate. Likewise, Walmart will, as their business model requires their customers can get to them and that their vendors can deliver to them, and that they can transport from their warehouses to their retail outlets.

The more we centralize and socialize, the more the "do nots" gain without labor, while the "dos" lose the product of their labor and capital investment. And the ultimate end, in full out communism, is you simply own nothing, do what you're told, and HOPE your basic needs are met, and you don't end up being one of the nearly 4 million Ukrainians starved by your overlords.

Quote

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property.

Quote

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that.

Quote (inkanddagger @ Sep 12 2021 12:22pm)

No. Everything you wrote is wrong. Please stop saying you are familiar when you obviously aren’t. All of us who have read the source material facepalm when we see you post.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Sep 12 2021 11:14am)

Buy a property, you don't own it. Proof? You're taxed on that property every year, and if you do not pay that tax, the property can and will be taken away from you. Home ownership simply means that rather than renting from a landlord, you're renting from the government.

Quote (Handcuffs @ 12 Sep 2021 12:38)

I'm more concerned with primary source material. From the Manifesto:

It's clear that Marx distinguishes between personal property/possessions and what he calls "private/bourgeois property". The latter confers a social power over others, involves a monopolization of the means of production, utilizes exploitative wage-labor over the many for the benefit of the few in pursuit of more capital, and leads to alienation and class antagonism.

You may personally feel that communism makes no distinction, but reviewing the actual source material reveals otherwise. Marx had no desire, intention, or thought of abolishing the personal property of the artisan or peasant.

Quote (JessiWan @ 12 Sep 2021 12:43)

Ok, I can't find anything wrong with what you said, but I just want to point something out. Yes, it's bad that we have to pay property taxes, however my house (assuming I have one) doesn't exist in a vacuum. The waste and waste water produced by the residents need to go somewhere, it needs to be treated, my house uses electricity, heating, running water, and the garbage men come and collect our garbage every week. All of this cost money, so I think that it's fair that the government asks for a small amount of compensation for running all the required services.

But I agree that it's bad that they can simply take your house away. This does sounds quite fucked up, and I never thought of it this way before. Thanks for pointing it out.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Sep 12 2021 12:45pm)

You do not know what "bourgeois property" is, do you? Here, let me define it for you, so that you gain a clearer understanding of why you are contradicting your own source material: "private property in the means of production"

You're welcome. Private property in the means of production is all capital. If anything can be used in production, it is bourgeois property. That includes land, tools, vehicles, computers, etc. Your own quote directly says all capital aka "bourgeois property" will be abolished. That means that the only things you could "own" would be end products that cannot be used to produce other products. So you may be able to own food and toilet paper. The question, though, is how do you GET food or toilet paper? Since you do not and cannot own the means to produce them, they are not yours. Answer? They are rationed out to you by the dictator who enforces your lack of property ownership.

Once again, by posting that quote, you're making my point for me, and are too ignorant of the terminology that quote uses to even understand your mistake.

Quote (Handcuffs @ 12 Sep 2021 12:47)

So "private property" = means of production?