Do you know any Communists?

Iwasfrozen · 24-02-2014 11:19AM

coolemon wrote: »

I dont know where you got that idea from.

Marx advocated the abolition of money and its replacement with 'Labour Time Vouchers' in a transition towards a 'free access' society.

Communism has no money, and therefore no system of banking.

As for the OP, yes I know many communists. Me included.

Did he now? And what of people whose labour is more expensive than others?

Tiddlypeeps · 24-02-2014 11:23AM

coolemon wrote: »

I dont know where you got that idea from.

Marx advocated the abolition of money and its replacement with 'Labour Time Vouchers' in a transition towards a 'free access' society.

Communism has no money, and therefore no system of banking.

As for the OP, yes I know many communists. Me included.

I'm not well versed on economic theory, could you possibly explain what 'Labour Time Vouchers' are and how they are different from money?

coolemon · 24-02-2014 11:23AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Did he now? And what of people whose labour is more expensive than others?

Give some context you your question.

Expensive in relation to LTVs? or Expensive in relation to a moneyless society? Expensive in relation to time expended?

Like, what are you talking about?

coolemon · 24-02-2014 11:28AM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I'm not well versed on economic theory, could you possibly explain what 'Labour Time Vouchers' are and how they are different from money?

Labour Time Vouchers would be more akin to the Favour Exchanges which exist at the moment - http://www.clonfavour.com/

With an LTV, 'credits' are accumulated based upon ones time engaging in labour. Money is accumulated irrespective of the amount of time a person spends working.

A cleaner might work 10 hours per dayand get 100 Euro. A Barrister might work 10 hours per day and get 1000 Euro. With an LTV system, both would have accumulated the same amount of LTV's.

Iwasfrozen · 24-02-2014 11:30AM

coolemon wrote: »

Give some context you your question.

Expensive in relation to LTVs? or Expensive in relation to a moneyless society? Expensive in relation to time expended?

Like, what are you talking about?

Expensive in relation to the amount of skill, experience and education necessary to complete the job and the amount of personal responsibility and risk the person will be taking on. As it is in our society.

Tiddlypeeps · 24-02-2014 11:31AM

coolemon wrote: »

Labour Time Vouchers would be more akin to the Favour Exchanges which exist at the moment - http://www.clonfavour.com/

With an LTV, 'credits' are accumulated based upon ones time engaging in labour. Money is accumulated irrespective of the amount of time a person spends working.

A cleaner might work 10 hours per dayand get 100 Euro. A Barrister might work 10 hours per day and get 1000 Euro. With an LTV system, both would have accumulated the same amount of LTV's.

So it would be very similar to saying all people should earn the same amount of money per hour?

Frank Lee Midere · 24-02-2014 11:32AM

jank wrote: »

Regards the internet argument. It was only after the deregulation of the internet which resulted in the growth of independent ISP's which spawned the 90's internet boom for home users.

Your BSD/UNIX/Linux roadmap is actually a perfect argument for a more open fee and libertarian methodology. Linux is an open source operating which is contributed to voluntarily by thousands of user groups across the world. Some companies have decided to offer enterprise flavours of linux e.g. RedHat, Novell where one can get support for a fee. Vast majority of flavours out there though are free and easy enough to use and download. People wrongly think that free market and liberation methods have to involve making a dollar. It is not about that. If one wants to voluntarily offer a service for free then no liberation would ever stand in their way. People coming together voluntarily to form a community of like minded individuals interested in tweaking software is exactly what the free market and libertarianism is about. I a heavily state regulated industry or society one could not do that.

I remember seeing a year or two ago Dublin Bus closing down a loophole that gave access to online data that was used by some clever guy to build an app to use in tracking and detailing timetable information which was free to download by everyone else. 'No, can not have that. Close it down and pay someone else to develop our own one and hand the tax payer the bill thank you very much!!'

That's anarchism not free marketism. Dublin bus own the data and have a right to protect it. And Linux wouldn't have evolved without university level Unix. A huge number of early technological innovations depended on the state. It's not either or, public capital and private capital intermix.

donegal__road · 24-02-2014 11:40AM

I know one of the guys that established the Communist Society of Cork back in the 80's.. I also know some communists from Southern Italy. There was a significant communist movement in Italy after WW2.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 11:41AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Expensive in relation to the amount of skill, experience and education necessary to complete the job and the amount of personal responsibility and risk the person will be taking on. As it is in our society.

Firstly, it is evident that reward is not based upon 'education', 'skill', 'experience', 'responsibility' and 'risk' in this society, and more to do with occupying an exclusive social position, and through taking advantage of favourable life circumstances.

In a communist society, labour is desirable (indeed as it is in todays society). An individual would take up an 'expensive' occupation (as you refer) either because it is rewarding or perhaps because society organises labour allocation in that way.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 11:44AM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

So it would be very similar to saying all people should earn the same amount of money per hour?

Kind of similar. It levels reward based upon what we all have in common - our time.

Im not actually a fan of LTV's, and they were only proposed by Marx as a transitionary system.

Communism, as a moneyless society, is not an 'equal' system. We do not have the same abilities or needs. Naturally.

Frank Lee Midere · 24-02-2014 11:48AM

coolemon wrote: »

Firstly, it is evident that reward is not based upon 'education', 'skill', 'experience', 'responsibility' and 'risk' in this society, and more to do with occupying an exclusive social position, and through taking advantage of favourable life circumstances.

In a communist society, labour is desirable (indeed as it is in todays society). An individual would take up an 'expensive' occupation (as you refer) either because it is rewarding or perhaps because society organises labour allocation in that way.

That's nice of "society". Can we opt out?

Explain this (as google is unclear).

1) who issues the LTVs?
2) are they transferable?
3) if they are both transferable and storable why isn't that just money?
4) if they are not transferable (as some say) why or what are people selling?

That seems pointless. Obviously the state has to determine what people earn, and the vouchers can't be transferable, otherwise a market will develop and people will compete and pay more of their vouchers for in demand jobs ( like a babysitter when there is a shortage). That's just money.

Tiddlypeeps · 24-02-2014 11:49AM

coolemon wrote: »

Kind of similar. It levels reward based upon what we all have in common - our time.

Im not actually a fan of LTV's, and they were only proposed by Marx as a transitionary system.

Communism, as a moneyless society, is not an 'equal' system. We do not have the same abilities or needs. Naturally.

I can't get my head around how these would work. Who would issue them?

If it's only a transitionary system what would come next? How would someones time then be rewarded?

RichardoKhan · 24-02-2014 11:50AM

Yay!! cos Uber Capitalism is doing so very well......................

H3llR4iser · 24-02-2014 11:51AM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

By American standards, we're probably all commies.

There's a degree of truth in this...my positions were considered very left wing in Italy, but I discovered they would easily fall into the quite extreme right here :eek:

Iwasfrozen · 24-02-2014 11:51AM

coolemon wrote: »

Firstly, it is evident that reward is not based upon 'education', 'skill', 'experience', 'responsibility' and 'risk' in this society, and more to do with occupying an exclusive social position, and through taking advantage of favourable life circumstances.

In a communist society, labour is desirable (indeed as it is in todays society). An individual would take up an 'expensive' occupation (as you refer) either because it is rewarding or perhaps because society organises labour allocation in that way.

I totally disagree. The wages a person demands in our society is based on their education, skill, experience and the amount of personal risk and responsibility they are willing to take on. That a person from a wealthy background has easier access to the first one is irrelevant. It just makes it more challenging for others. I wasn't from a wealthy background but thanks to free education I was able to pull myself up.

How does a communist society order labor allocation?

For example I'm currently studying actuarial science. I'm not putting myself through 14 hard exams because I enjoy it. I'm doing it because Actuaries are paid a lot of money. Why would anyone be an Actuary in your society?

Frank Lee Midere · 24-02-2014 11:53AM

coolemon wrote: »

Kind of similar. It levels reward based upon what we all have in common - our time.

Im not actually a fan of LTV's, and they were only proposed by Marx as a transitionary system.

Communism, as a moneyless society, is not an 'equal' system. We do not have the same abilities or needs. Naturally.

So a system based on the idea that workers are exploited by "surplus value" will decide based on "need" what people earn from that society. Making need an asset, and ability a liability.

And since we don't need anything except food, shelter, and proletarian attire (nobody needs a beer, for instance or a phone), I can't see that system ending up as anyway different than pol pot, NK or Mao.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 11:56AM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

That's nice of "society". Can we opt out?

Explain this (as google is unclear).

1) who issues the LTVs?
2) are they transferable?
3) if they are both transferable and storable why isn't that just money?
4) if they are not transferable (as some say) why or what are people selling?

That seems pointless. Obviously the state has to determine what people earn, and the vouchers can't be transferable, otherwise a market will develop and people will compete and pay more of their vouchers for in demand jobs ( like a babysitter when there is a shortage). That's just money.

Of course you could opt out.

1) Presumably LTV's would be created in local communities organised in some type of workers council. In a similar way the Limerick Soviet printed its own currency.
2) LTV's are usually transferable for goods and services.
3) Because money allows a type of accumulation not possible with LTVs. LTVs are based upon a persons time.

You mention a state. A state is a very misunderstood term. A state can range from a centralised totalitarianism to a decentralised workers council.

Frank Lee Midere · 24-02-2014 11:56AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I totally disagree. The wages a person demands in our society is based on their education, skill, experience and the amount of personal risk and responsibility they are willing to take on. That a person from a wealthy background has easier access to the first three is irrelevant. It just makes it more challenging for others. I wasn't from a wealthy background but thanks to free education I was able to pull myself up.

How does a communist society order labor allocation?

For example I'm currently studying actuarial science. I'm not putting myself through 14 hard exams because I enjoy it. I'm doing it because Actuaries are paid a lot of money. Why would anyone be an Actuary in your society?

The problem with capitalism and inequality has actually nothing to do with wages, after progressive taxes in this country a worker on 24k earns about 50% of someone on 80k.

It's the other stuff. Capital etc.

Frank Lee Midere · 24-02-2014 12:03PM

coolemon wrote: »

Of course you could opt out.

1) Presumably LTV's would be created in local communities organised in some type of workers council. In a similar way the Limerick Soviet printed its own currency.
2) LTV's are usually transferable for goods and services.
3) Because money allows a type of accumulation not possible with LTVs. LTVs are based upon a persons time.

You mention a state. A state is a very misunderstood term. A state can range from a centralised totalitarianism to a decentralised workers council.

Not getting too excited by this because the Limerick Soviets currency might be useless in Cork. And you can still accumulate money if paid based on time, just don't spend that much. Also a seller of something can clearly accumulate more money than a worker ( if shops are allowed). It's meaningless to say that somebody be paid only one LTV an hour is he is self employed. Clearly you can't allow private. In fact you can't allow any private enterprise as a local doctor or massager, might start charging 2 LTVs an hour.

And then, how do we decide who lives where?

coolemon · 24-02-2014 12:08PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I totally disagree. The wages a person demands in our society is based on their education, skill, experience and the amount of personal risk and responsibility they are willing to take on. That a person from a wealthy background has easier access to the first one is irrelevant. It just makes it more challenging for others. I wasn't from a wealthy background but thanks to free education I was able to pull myself up.

How does a communist society order labor allocation?

For example I'm currently studying actuarial science. I'm not putting myself through 14 hard exams because I enjoy it. I'm doing it because Actuaries are paid a lot of money. Why would anyone be an Actuary in your society?

Those are very big questions and I dont think I can do my position service here.

I maintain that reward are not based upon those attributes you mention - or if they are, they do not reflect the broader processes. Firstly, to obtain certain skills, certain types of knowledge, certain types of experience and so on, one needs to occupy certain social positions - to access certain social connections, access to certain types of cultural and economic capital.

These are all obtained through occupying an exclusionary social position and an exclusionary social space. The career occupation that results from the accumulation of these skills, experience and so on, is one garnered through the occupation of an (exclusionary) social position.

As for why someone would be willing to take on your career choice. Well that question is asked in your frame of mind, which is loaded with all types of ideological assumptions (as with mine). For example I dont think people work for money at all, but rather for what they can obtain with money - social status, security, basic needs and so on. Maslows Hierarchy does a good job of explaining human motivation irrespective of the economic system.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 12:11PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Not getting too excited by this because the Limerick Soviets currency might be useless in Cork. And you can still accumulate money if paid based on time, just don't spend that much. Also a seller of something can clearly accumulate more money than a worker ( if shops are allowed). It's meaningless to say that somebody be paid only one LTV an hour is he is self employed. Clearly you can't allow private. In fact you can't allow any private enterprise as a local doctor or massager, might start charging 2 LTVs an hour.

And then, how do we decide who lives where?

You would be accumulating Labour Time Vouchers, not money. But yes, you could accumulate them. But your accumulation would be limited by your time, which is no the case with capitalism or money.

Im not too keen on LTV's myself, as I have said.

Tiddlypeeps · 24-02-2014 12:17PM

coolemon wrote: »

As for why someone would be willing to take on your career choice. Well that question is asked in your frame of mind, which is loaded with all types of ideological assumptions (as with mine). For example I dont think people work for money at all, but rather for what they can obtain with money - social status, security, basic needs and so on. Maslows Hierarchy does a good job of explaining human motivation irrespective of the economic system.

This seems like a cop out to me. You are pretty much saying that in an alternate reality where peoples brains work differently to peoples brains in this system it would work perfectly.

You are attempting to propose an alternative to the current system. That system would need to be designed with the occupants of the current system in mind, not some ideal non-existent people in an alternate universe.

Tiddlypeeps · 24-02-2014 12:18PM

coolemon wrote: »

You would be accumulating Labour Time Vouchers, not money. But yes, you could accumulate them. But your accumulation would be limited by your time, which is no the case with capitalism or money.

Im not too keen on LTV's myself, as I have said.

You said you consider yourself to be a communist. What would you suggest as an alternative to money/LTV's?

coolemon · 24-02-2014 12:22PM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

This seems like a cop out to me. You are pretty much saying that in an alternate reality where peoples brains work differently to peoples brains in this system it would work perfectly.

You are attempting to propose an alternative to the current system. That system would need to be designed with the occupants of the current system in mind, not some ideal non-existent people in an alternate universe.

No need to be so hostile.

A communist society will require a different ideological form. If thats "peopels brains working differently", as you put it, then yes.

Communism must be built by the people themselves, not a "design" imposed on them from a state.

coolemon · 24-02-2014 12:36PM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

You said you consider yourself to be a communist. What would you suggest as an alternative to money/LTV's?

This is a question that, for you to understand, would require you to fully understand my broader political outlook in greater detail. Otherwise your ideological presuppositions and assumptions will not mesh with mine, leading to misunderstranding.

But I will explain.

I propose having no money. I believe in a society of 'free access' (within reason). A subjective intangible and non-quantifiable 'market' of needs would operate. I believe under certain conditions people can consume, and want to consume, based upon an objects use value alone, and where social values are not attached to objects in the same way it occurs under capitalism.

I would take the fact that when things are freely available, they are not accumulated. This as no social value (social status, prestige etc.) is derived from their accumulation. Leaves are not accumulated - they have no social value. Aluminium cans are thrown away on the street - they have little to no exchange value and no social value. Unlike when Napolian wanted plates and spoons made from aluminium when access to the material was restricted and exclusionary, for example.

24-02-2014 12:38PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

For example I'm currently studying actuarial science. I'm not putting myself through 14 hard exams because I enjoy it. I'm doing it because Actuaries are paid a lot of money. Why would anyone be an Actuary in your society?

Hail fellow well met o/

karma_ · 24-02-2014 12:46PM

Look at the world today, shrinking middle classes and more and more people slipping into poverty and you know what, Marx predicted that very thing would happen and how the middle classes would be crushed by the logic of late capitalism. He spoke specifically about how small shopkeepers and tradespeople would be pushed out and wealth would be accumulated into a very small minority of the ultra-rich. He was of course right and there is a growing number of people slipping into a category now where all they have is a a modicum of freedom and just enough to get by whilst the mega rich exploit the very same people to generate even more wealth.

Now of course it's perfectly acceptable to criticise hie theories and have a different ideological standpoint but for fúck sake his extremely accurate predictions cannot just be dismissed.

Tiddlypeeps · 24-02-2014 12:54PM

coolemon wrote: »

No need to be so hostile.

A communist society will require a different ideological form. If thats "peopels brains working differently", as you put it, then yes.

Communism must be built by the people themselves, not a "design" imposed on them from a state.

I apologise if you took my post to be hostile, that was unintentional and I was not even remotely angry when writing it.

What I meant by cop out was that the answer you gave doesn't really address the question. I can come up with any random economic theory and say that it would work perfectly if people/society only thought/operated differently. It's meaningless because those are not the circumstances we are in and are unlikely to be anytime soon.

If you were to include a workable plan for moving society towards the right ideological form for the system to work then that would be different. But without that the whole concept is a meaningless thought excercise.

jank · 24-02-2014 12:56PM

coolemon wrote: »

Labour Time Vouchers would be more akin to the Favour Exchanges which exist at the moment - http://www.clonfavour.com/

With an LTV, 'credits' are accumulated based upon ones time engaging in labour. Money is accumulated irrespective of the amount of time a person spends working.

A cleaner might work 10 hours per dayand get 100 Euro. A Barrister might work 10 hours per day and get 1000 Euro. With an LTV system, both would have accumulated the same amount of LTV's.

Of course the simple flaw of that is ignoring the fact that a surgeon's time is vastly more valuable than a street cleaner. Not everyone's output of labour is the same and not everyone is equal in capacity, work ethic or capacity. Thus a LTV system is fundamentally flawed and would never work.

jank · 24-02-2014 12:59PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

That's anarchism not free marketism. Dublin bus own the data and have a right to protect it. And Linux wouldn't have evolved without university level Unix. A huge number of early technological innovations depended on the state. It's not either or, public capital and private capital intermix.

What exactly is anarchism about what I described. You think a public body paid for by the tax payer has the right to privatise bus timetable and tracking data….. Really?
What makes you think a similar OS would not have evolved without Unix? What is more popular now?

Do you know any Communists?

Comments