Why aren't you all Communists?

[EgonSpengler]

My answer to the thread title is simpler than to the questions posed in the OP: I'm not an "-ist" of any kind. I think certain things work well as free-market commodities and some do not, and some things can be both at the same time.

 

[red_elk]

Dude, even a variety of animals 'get' property. The legal recognition of property didn't just fall out of the sky as a good idea.

Communists recognize concept of personal property either, except for means of production.
They are not going to force you share your socks with neighbor, if that's what you are afraid of.

 

[BvBPL]

So does this contradict what I said? Can you empirically support this notion?

The Montagnais had limited concepts of private real property until beaver became more difficult to obtain. This scarcity caused the Montagnais to institute a system of private ownership of hunting grounds within their lands.

 

[W|M]

I am a communist

So I mean, I'm sure in some implementations communism can be freaking amazing (i.e. perhaps a democratic society with no restrictions on human rights and freedoms, with a communist economy in place that is not super restrictive and allows people to own businesses, includes a strong middle class, etc.) But I don't see such an implementation ever getting past the planning stages anywhere

The whole point of communism is that people don't own businesses and that economic classes are abolished. What there was in Poland may have been called communism by a lot of people, including those at the top of society there, but it was by no means actual communism

 

[Lexicus]

The Montagnais had limited concepts of private real property until beaver became more difficult to obtain. This scarcity caused the Montagnais to institute a system of private ownership of hunting grounds within their lands.

So am to infer from this that your view is that an analogous process caused the emergence of private property in every relevant historical instance?

 

[AlpsStranger]

Communists recognize concept of personal property either, except for means of production.
They are not going to force you share your socks with neighbor, if that's what you are afraid of.

I've always been curious about precisely where the line is drawn on this. What about a 3D printer? What about a compiler? What about intellectual property?

 

[warpus]

The whole point of communism is that people don't own businesses and that economic classes are abolished. What there was in Poland may have been called communism by a lot of people, including those at the top of society there, but it was by no means actual communism

Ohhh so that wasn't really communism. Oh okay. And this isn't a bulletin board I'm posting on I assume and you aren't a human

By the way, the main aspect of communism is the state controlling the means of production. Businesses can exist.

 

[AlpsStranger]

The whole point of

communism is that people don't own businesses and that economic classes are abolished. What there was in Poland may have been called communism by a lot of people, including those at the top of society there, but it was by no means actual communism[/mod]

This. The idea that Single Payer and Welfare = Communism is Fox News bull<snip>.

Social programs are simply something that capitalist societies do because they aren't barbaric brutes who want to watch the unlucky struggle, starve and die of treatable illnesses. Except in America where we seem to have decided that anything short of total cannibalistic barbarism is basically Communism.

Oh sure, you can get Good Christian Charity if you fall on hard times, but you better be ready to kiss that denomination's ass at the very least, if not convert outright.

Moderator Action: Please do not use foul language. FP
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889[/mod]

 

[BvBPL]

So am to infer from this that your view is that an analogous process caused the emergence of private property in every relevant historical instance?

You are supposed to realize that you asked for empirical support, and that I gave it to you.

 

[AlpsStranger]

The idea that wanting to own stuff is somehow socially constructed is so obviously silly to me that I can't really listen to anyone who believes it with a straight face, with respect.

 

[Lexicus]

You are supposed to realize that you asked for empirical support, and that I gave it to you.

No, you didn't. You didn't give empirical support for your theory as a general theory of how property rights come to be in society. You gave one example of a culture that already had access to/knowledge of the property systems of neighboring cultures adopting a property system when faced with a specific set of circumstances.

If your theory was only meant to be applicable to that case, fine, but if it was meant to be generally applicable you haven't even begun to support it empirically.

 

[galdre]

By the way, the main aspect of communism is the state controlling the means of production. Businesses can exist.

No, it's about the workers owning the means of production - every business would be a collective.

 

[Lexicus]

The idea that wanting to own stuff is somehow socially constructed is so obviously silly to me that I can't really listen to anyone who believes it with a straight face, with respect.

Nonetheless it is obviously true, considering that we have observed plenty of societies in which the people display no such desire.

 

[W|M]

Ohhh so that wasn't really communism. Oh okay. And this isn't a bulletin board I'm posting on I assume and you aren't a human

By the way, the main aspect of communism is the state controlling the means of production. Businesses can exist.

That's the main aspect of Leninism, not communism as a whole, because Leninists are the ones who believe in a ''worker's state'' to slowly transition to communism.

 

[BvBPL]

No, you didn't. You didn't give empirical support for your theory as a general theory of how property rights come to be in society. You gave one example of a culture that already had access to/knowledge of the property systems of neighboring cultures adopting a property system when faced with a specific set of circumstances.

Definition of empirical

1. 1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>

 

[galdre]

Nonetheless it is obviously true, considering that we have observed plenty of societies in which the people display no such desire.

Which? It's an honest question, not a sarcastic one... if you can restore some of my lost faith in humanity please do so.

 

[red_elk]

I've always been curious about precisely where the line is drawn on this. What about a 3D printer? What about a compiler? What about intellectual property?

If you own a 3D printer and use it as a home appliance, it is not means of production.
If you own a factory with 3D printers, hired workers, sell production and collect profit, you are a capitalist.

 

[warpus]

I mean we can disagree what is and what isn't communism all day long, but anyone who says 1970s Poland wasn't a communist country has 0 credibility on the subject

 

[galdre]

I mean we can disagree what is and what isn't communism all day long, but anyone who says 1970s Poland wasn't a communist country has 0 credibility on the subject

If you are acknowledging that there can be dispute in regards to the definition of communism, you can not then say that anyone who claims Poland was not communist in the 70s has no credibility.

 

[W|M]

Just because it called itself communist, doesn't make it communist