Totally Transparent Communism

[Sultan Bhargash]

Originally posted by Anti-EUA
I like your idea also Sultan, but as mentioned before from a fellow brazilian friend, those in power would do what they wanted...
Although I disagree with Karl Marx being not a bright person. I think the concept is perfect, but won't work due to our nature...

This will serve as a general response: what I guess I would propose would have to involve some way to keep there from being a "ruling party" at all. Hence the open records (and a proliferation of internet access to the status that television viewing has today in America). Could you not then vote thru a central computer system ultimately verifiable?

I guess one worry is that it would turn in to a lot of lawsuits over people owning too nice furniture or some such hogwash...

(You can never have too nice furniture).

 

[luiz]

Why not think about a system where everybody is free to have as much as they achieve, but where everyone also have a secured minimum? Isnt it better than a system where ones possessions are limited?

 

[Ohwell]

Originally posted by luiz
Why not think about a system where everybody is free to have as much as they achieve, but where everyone also have a secured minimum? Isnt it better than a system where ones possessions are limited?

Socialism is close to it.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by Ohwell


Socialism is close to it.

Considering that Socialism is a state in the transition to Communism, and is also known as "dictatorship of the proleterians" I find it hard to believe.
Cuba is socialist

 

[Mojotronica]

I do not favor a 100% taxation/redistribution of assets. I think that the opportunity to accumulate some relative personal wealth benefits everyone.

I don't think that Communism is incompatible w/ Democracy, but I do think that it is inefficient compared w/ Capitalist economies. Head to head, pure capitalism will beat pure communism because pure capitalism does not have to provide for it's least productive citizens.

Across the board transparency would be less ominous if legislators would stop passing laws that imprison folks for consensual crimes.

Here's an absurd example of how far it could go -- would you want to get a speeding ticket every time your Speedometer hit 56mph...?

Also I'd worry about identity theft.

 

[Mojotronica]

My highest ideal would be a system that provides the barest essentials, but allows for the accumulation of wealth beyond that. So instead of working to eat, we work to buy things that we want.

And to pay for it, taxes people lightly until they are relatively welathy but taxed medium-high (capped at say, 50%) once they have achieved a certain lvl of wealth (perhaps $3M.) I think this is enough to cover the basics but not too much to squash incentive to continue producing.

 

[EdwardTking]

Actually I think that the biggest problem, modern alternative forms of communism have is not the allocation of wealth; but the effective allocation of useful work because everybody would want the fun jobs and nobody would want to do the unpleasant jobs.

 

[nixon]

Communism is communism. A sick man's work.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

What about rotating the "fun jobs" - what about sharing in the most unpleasant tasks or farming them out to convict labor, or zealots? Rotating training, being a trainer, all based on the needs of local communities?

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
What about rotating the "fun jobs" - what about sharing in the most unpleasant tasks or farming them out to convict labor, or zealots? Rotating training, being a trainer, all based on the needs of local communities?

But then people would not be specialized in their jobs, like they are in capitalism.

 

[EdwardTking]

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
What about rotating the "fun jobs" - what about sharing in the most unpleasant tasks or farming them out to convict labor, or zealots? Rotating training, being a trainer, all based on the needs of local communities?

Sci-Fi writer "Adam Roberts" wrote a book about a
year or two ago called "Salt" which postulated this.

 

[Suki]

Originally posted by luiz
Of course not! Artificial distribution of wealth cant and will never work

one really interesting idea was in Kim stanley robinson's "Red Mars" trilogy which toyed with a society a new way of doing things an new economic/political/social model.
i agree with Luiz here but it happens too often that one percent of the population has 95 percent of the wealth.
robinson suggested communism on a smaller scale instred of the whole country just in buisness. no corperations ust worker owned coops... sort of a fractured communism. he did a much better job of explaining it than I ever could, the book is the books are really interesting and worth reading, even though that part of it only takes up a couple of chapeters.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by Suki


i agree with Luiz here but it happens too often that one percent of the population has 95 percent of the wealth.

You see, when 1% of the population has 95% of the wealth, it means that the countrys economic policy is forcing the concentration of wealth, which is another form of artificial distribution that can be as harmfull to the economy as communism.
Here in Brazil the tax system tend to beneficiate the richer, creating one of the worse societys in terms of wealth distribution. That is very harmfull to our country, since we have a population of 175 million people but only about 60 million are actually part of the consumer market(consumer market as it is understood in the developed world, of course the other 115 million people buy stuff.)

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Mojotronica
I don't think that Communism is incompatible w/ Democracy, but I do think that it is inefficient compared w/ Capitalist economies. Head to head, pure capitalism will beat pure communism because pure capitalism does not have to provide for it's least productive citizens.

How do you define "beat"? what measures does the government have to meet? IMO capitalism would not meet many of these measures. having more personal assets doesn't define which theory is better.