Incentives under communism?

[Crezth]

Nice to know commies are willing to just confiscate my property. In one breath say that I deserve the value of my labor and they’re not coming after my computer, car, and house, in another breath saying that you are willing to forcefully confiscate my property that I purchased with my own money from my own labor and have it returned to the Pequot, Mohegan, whatever tribe the Algonquian Peoples are in just because I live on and have property on “stolen land”.

Great incentive for communism .

I mean you can roll your eyes but what incentive did the Pequot have to give you their land in the first place? I reckon you’ve got the same incentive with respect to the communists. Definitely they have an incentive to take your stuff and call you a pig and say nobody cares what you think. Harsh, but communists are known for being harsh after all.

 

[Crezth]

I'm open to wealth tax on those 10% to fund homes for the bottom 30%.

How it used to work not that long ago. NZ essentially had 0 homeless and 3 people unemployed.

Friends mother bought her house on welfare. Government used to give you the deposit and pay you to have kids.

Paid to have kids did return tbf.

Grew up on welfare food and housing wasn't a problem.

Yes and everyone will keep explaining to you until the day you finally crumble into dust that the halcyon days you keep summoning are in fact GONE and never coming back and it’s because capitalism cannot keep that middle class promise scam going forever. It lasts a generation and then it busts and then they reset the table and set up the scam again somewhere else. Everyone left behind ends up rotting in hollowed-out countries. Then fascists convince the lonely morons to sign up for murder squads to kill the people who actually want to do something about it. Rinse and repeat until the end of time.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes and everyone will keep explaining to you until the day you finally crumble into dust that the halcyon days you keep summoning are in fact GONE and never coming back and it’s because capitalism cannot keep that middle class promise scam going forever. It lasts a generation and then it busts and then they reset the table and set up the scam again somewhere else. Everyone left behind ends up rotting in hollowed-out countries. Then fascists convince the lonely morons to sign up for murder squads to kill the people who actually want to do something about it. Rinse and repeat until the end of time.

Your system didn't even last the century out for sone strange mysterious reason.

We can't go back to that extent anyway. Fell apart sane reason USSR did. It stagnated due to outside factors.

Could bring back elements of it.

Communism couldn't fix NZs issues unless you look at supply and demand whichwoukld mean reduced immigration and building more houses (building industry is already at capacity).

So even if you seized the means of production and achieved it without killing anyone you would run into the same wall (quick fix is 0/minimal immigration for 10 years).

That's assuming the tradies just don't sod off for Australia. I guess you woukd close the ports and airports (hint they signed treaty of Waitangi partly due to unregulated ships being built here).

In practice immigration would collapse, people would die and the specialists you need would flee if able.

 

[Crezth]

Whataboutism again

 

[Zardnaar]

Whataboutism again

Not really those people whose houses you stole also have the skills to build boats. I'm not hanging around I'm off to Australia if able.

Your regime wouldn't last anyway 15% vs 85% won't work and you're assuming 15% are a monolithic block (hint they're not).

Your ideas don't add up basically. You're not going to get 100% of the Maori you're not gonna get 45% of the workers and that remaining 30-40% are you're middle class/specialists you need.

The ones who's houses you just stole.

It's literally the name of the thread. What's the incentive we take your house you work for us now. You can't really stop people leaving (Vietnam had boat people, NZ has lots of boats, even I learnt sailing 101 as a kid).

That's not a great incentive anywhere.

Just checked there is no functioning Communust party here. Electoral support 0%.

TPM massive by comparison. Less than 1 in 5 Maori support Te Pati Maori. They're about as radical as Maori get.

 

[Crezth]

The workers who have nothing take the stuff from the bourgeoisie who have everything. It’s the most basic incentive there is. Actually it’s as old as history maybe. To see something and go “I want that.” So what if the workers do it? The king is dead, baby. Long live the workers!

 

[Zardnaar]

The workers who have nothing take the stuff from the bourgeoisie who have everything. It’s the most basic incentive there is. Actually it’s as old as history maybe. To see something and go “I want that.” So what if the workers do it? The king is dead, baby. Long live the workers!

That's the theory. 60% aren't voting center left they don't want to do that.

Most of that 40% left over don't. The ones that want higher taxes on the rich add up to 13% total might be bit higher or bit lower in 8 days.

That's not a revolution there.

 

[Crezth]

Again your bourgeois democracy cannot be relied upon to count the votes of the oppressed. Besides, even a minority can outmaneuver a majority if they are united and determined. Then it’s all a matter of empowering non-gerrymandered people’s democracy. Then everyone wins, long love the state, y’all welcome.

 

[Zardnaar]

Again your bourgeois democracy cannot be relied upon to count the votes of the oppressed. Besides, even a minority can outmaneuver a majority if they are united and determined. Then it’s all a matter of empowering non-gerrymandered people’s democracy. Then everyone wins, long love the state, y’all welcome.

Erm we don't have gerrymandering here. All the electorates are roughly the same size population wise.

Ok I'll change tack. Your ideal communism how does it compare to the Federation in Star Trek? I can imagine that a lot easier.

Post scarcity society.

 

[Crezth]

Erm we don't have gerrymandering here. All the electorates are roughly the same size population wise.

Well you do, actually, and every liberal democracy has problems with over represented bourgeois interest, in the British colonies also predominantly white ones, which then form conspiracy against all the other interests to control the government. But we all recognize that’s part of the system. It’s just not really free nor even frankly all that democratic.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well you do, actually, and every liberal democracy has problems with over represented bourgeois interest, in the British colonies also predominantly white ones, which then form conspiracy against all the other interests to control the government. But we all recognize that’s part of the system. It’s just not really free nor even frankly all that democratic.

That's not Gerrymandering it doesnt involve electorate boundaries.

It is somewhat exploitive to get a party below 5% into parliament via electorate seat to soak up that 1-4% of the otherwise wasted vote.

I'll leave it up to the individuals as to how abusive it is eg it negates vote splitting to an extent in an electorate eg two left wing parties get 30% each right wing party on 40% gets into parliament.

It's kind of a flaw in the spilt vote and I think the electorate commission recommended abolishing electorate sears which would prevent it but due to the Maori seats they got grandfathered in.

So the desire for Maori representation left a loop hole and abolishing the seats would have been arguably illegal due to the Treaty of Waitangi.

 

[Crezth]

All right, I think the National Party-style rants defending New Zealand's electoral system against the indignities imposed on it by the Maori electorates are as good a place to call this thread as any.

 

[Zardnaar]

All right, I think the National Party-style rants defending New Zealand's electoral system against the indignities imposed on it by the Maori electorates are as good a place to call this thread as any.

I'm not ranting about it but that's why the seats were retained iirc. It's been 30 odd years and I was young at the time.

Personal view is tgey should only be abolished if and when tge Maori want them abolished eg no longer needed or replaced with what works better.

Parties can collude of corse regardless of Maori seats existing it's virtually impossible to stop.

At the worst guaranteed representation leaves the door open for minor collusion between parties that they could do anyway.

Comparatively it's a non issue.

 

[innonimatu]

Your system didn't even last the century out for sone strange mysterious reason.

We can't go back to that extent anyway. Fell apart sane reason USSR did. It stagnated due to outside factors.

Could bring back elements of it.

Communism couldn't fix NZs issues unless you look at supply and demand whichwoukld mean reduced immigration and building more houses (building industry is already at capacity).

So even if you seized the means of production and achieved it without killing anyone you would run into the same wall (quick fix is 0/minimal immigration for 10 years).

There was nothing misterious about the collapse of the USSR. It was a political collapse. The economy collapsed after Gorbachev and his clique undermined everything about it with their obsession with "markets" without haking any kind of plan whatsoever for the changes they wanted. They deliberately dusrupted trade all over the country, it was economic sabotage from the top after 1987.

The previous "stagnation" was very much akin to the stagnation in western Europe, the same economic problems. The birth rate declined sharply, resouces got harder to get, the era of rebuildiong from WW2 ended, etc. The 70s and 80s were not a golder era in the "west" either.

Have you ever wondered how come NZ has more immigrants, who are working age people, and suppoedly an inability to build more houces? It is importing the manpower to do it, or is it now?
What I see all over the EU is "markets" at work. Housing is expensive in many countries now because it became a speculative asset. And governments make it harder to build because they are captured by real estate lobbies.

Nice proper liberal ideologues that they are, politicians here are for sale in the market, to the highets bidder. Speculators ("investors") can afford the high bids.

 

[GenMarshall]

I never said I'm not coming for your property.

They'll be 'effectively' yours, as they'll be owned by the State - cheer up, considering how much mortgaging is backed up by the U.S government via control of the banking system, it's more like a clarityof relationships!

How does this said communist state own my property? They have to confiscate it, by force if necessary. If my property has been confiscated and owned by the state, it’s really not “effectively mine’s” now is it! Ergo, you are coming after my private property, belongings and all. Even your comrade Crezth admits to outright theft of other people's property.

People are not going to freely and voluntary give up their property to the state and the revolutionary red guard. I don’t know how many times that point has been addressed in this thread.

Settler colonists have been remarkably poor landowners and stewards, interested generally in exploitation. After all, your lot has caused a dustbowl, drained aquifiers, built cities in the worst possible places, etc. Is not even in capitalist landownership the case to be made that a negligent owner has to have their property repossessed until they fix it up?

The same can be said about the USSR and the Communist Chinese environmental records. The draining of the Aral Sea, using nukes to build the Pechora–Kama Canal, The Chinese Environmental Issues, the list can go on.

You can also shove the wokescolding "Your lot has caused bla bla dustbowl bla bla bla drained aquifers" bullfeathers up where the sun don't shine. I was not alive when when these events you blame on "capitalism" happened and I refuse to partake in your self-flagellating struggle session just because I'm White.

Your vision does not extend past your nose; you do not see past your house. You're more brainwashed than all of the supposedly slavish (ha!) North Koreans.

Cute, but I'm not the one that drank the Commie Koolaid .

So there isn't much incentive in your case, no.

It only shows me the incentive for a liberal democracy with a capitalist economic system to be far better than a dictatorial authoritarian communist state.

I mean you can roll your eyes but what incentive did the Pequot have to give you their land in the first place?

You’re asking someone who is not born in the 1600s with the property changing hands throughout the course of time before I was even born! Hell the land would have been occupied by another tribe prior to the Pequot. But sure do go on and on about “Muh colonial settlers are teh bad guys” .

I reckon you’ve got the same incentive with respect to the communists.

My incentive is opposing the authoritarianism of communism and opposing the chaotic violent revolution you espouse. No different than Cubans fleeing Communist Cuba, North Koreans fleeing North Korea, and Eastern Bloc citizens making their way to cross the Iron Curtain in the Cold War. As I stated before, I refuse to; own nothing and be happy, live in the pod, eat the bugs, and go through Woke Maoist Struggle Sessions.

Definitely they have an incentive to take your stuff and call you a pig and say nobody cares what you think. Harsh, but communists are known for being harsh after all.

Good to know commies are open about this attitude and belief. I would outline the details of the consequence of that, but that'd would breach the rules of the forum. Let's just say, Try that in a small town and see how that goes.

The workers who have nothing take the stuff from the bourgeoisie who have everything. It’s the most basic incentive there is

So basically just steal from them cause they have what I don’t have, out of envy and jealousy. Good to know.

 

[Lexicus]

Even your comrade Crezth admits to outright theft of other people's property.

The problem is that all private property in land can be traced back to theft. So the main difference I can see between you and comrade Crezth is that Crezth is honest while you are a hypocrite who decries theft while pretending to legitimately own stolen land.

 

[GenMarshall]

The problem is that all private property in land can be traced back to theft. So the main difference I can see between you and comrade Crezth is that Crezth is honest while you are a hypocrite who decries theft while pretending to legitimately own stolen land.

Keep telling yourself that in your delusional sanctimonious commie vision with “Muh stolen land” narrative. I’m not a hypocrite here and I the property I own is not “stolen land” when I payed for it with my money that I earned. You or any commie try to confiscate my property in the name of the revolution and the state, it’s still theft.

So spare me the woke “Muh stolen land” BS.

 

[Moriarte]

Keep telling yourself that in your delusional sanctimonious commie vision with “Muh stolen land” narrative. I’m not a hypocrite here and I the property I own is not “stolen land” when I payed for it with my money that I earned. You or any commie try to confiscate my property in the name of the revolution and the state, it’s still theft.

So spare me the woke “Muh stolen land” BS.

No one wants your 2-room apartment and your cat.

Natural resources and factories.

 

[Gorbles]

Keep telling yourself that in your delusional sanctimonious commie vision with “Muh stolen land” narrative. I’m not a hypocrite here and I the property I own is not “stolen land” when I payed for it with my money that I earned. You or any commie try to confiscate my property in the name of the revolution and the state, it’s still theft.

So spare me the woke “Muh stolen land” BS.

So much for the not-a-right-winger facade. Props on how long it lasted this time though, even got me to do homework for you. Got me good there

But beyond that, it's funny you can't see the hole in your argument. Let's take it as the truth yeah? You own your land, nobody can take it from you, and you're not responsible for the crimes of the past.

So why should anyone living in an ideal communist society be? The land grab will have happened, and be increasingly if not massively in the past by the time said ideal society has been established.

If you want to focus on the "how", you have to compare it to the "how" of modern capitalist societies came to be. If you want to excuse capitalism because it happened "in the past", you can't object to the same process for a communist society. Because otherwise that is hypocrisy, and I suspect this is what lexi was getting at anyway. But you won't read it

 

[GenMarshall]

So much for the not-a-right-winger facade. Props on how long it lasted this time though, even got me to do homework for you. Got me good there

But beyond that, it's funny you can't see the hole in your argument. Let's take it as the truth yeah? You own your land, nobody can take it from you, and you're not responsible for the crimes of the past.

That is correct. I have read in history and been told by other people that communists came and confiscated their property. The Kulaks being one example. My biggest fear is that my property will be confiscated and that I will be tossed into some re-education gulag.

Because otherwise that is hypocrisy, and I suspect this is what lexi was getting at anyway.

I was honestly expecting just some browbeating snark and did not see it that way. Then again, I’m biased against anything that’s socialist and communist because of its authoritarian tendencies.