Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

No

[Muz]

But I want to touch the problems that came up after 40 years of destruction of private property - much property was without owners - the people died, and property changed hands but noone bothered to write it down because the property wasn't really his, the records were a total mess (many people came illegaly into ownership of such property), with which my country struggles even 20 years after revolution!

That kinda sounds more like problem with the bureaucracy than a problem with the system itself. But agreed, it's harder to keep track of stuff when they're more casual and less legalese.

[FearfulJesuit]

Collectivisation and collectivism aren't the same thing. Just because some of the worst totalitarianisms of the 20th century claimed to be socialist doesn't mean they were, or that the idea is bunk.

[alway]

Current and near-future tech can deal with the management issues of tracking things; if a system like the Internet of Things were implemented, all those transactions could be automated and tacked.

[ChairmanPoo]

I think what we need is a mixed economy

[NRDL]

China has both communistic and capitalistic elements, look how well they're doing.  Their government was smart, they have control over a lot of the industry, and a lot of the workers, which meant that the government had a LOT of say in how the economy went, but they allowed corporations, giving people a reason to work hard and earn money. 

[Strife26]

It'll work great, provided that people act neither lazy nor greedy.

[Criptfeind]

Collectivisation and collectivism aren't the same thing. Just because some of the worst totalitarianisms of the 20th century claimed to be socialist doesn't mean they were, or that the idea is bunk.

But the fact they got their power though a system trying to be socialist does mean you need to think if it is such a good idea.

[Flying Dice]

Collectivisation and collectivism aren't the same thing. Just because some of the worst totalitarianisms of the 20th century claimed to be socialist doesn't mean they were, or that the idea is bunk.

But the fact they got their power though a system trying to be socialist does mean you need to think if it is such a good idea.

The fact that corrupt, power-hungry individuals have manipulated a system to their own ends does not invalidate that system. If it were otherwise, capitalism would be the worst possible economic system ever created. Claiming that Stalin or Mao are representative of socialism is a fallacy on the same order as claiming that the Nazi Party was socialist because they included it in their name. Appearances don't matter, actualities do.

[alway]

China has both communistic and capitalistic elements, look how well they're doing.  Their government was smart, they have control over a lot of the industry, and a lot of the workers, which meant that the government had a LOT of say in how the economy went, but they allowed corporations, giving people a reason to work hard and earn money.

The problem with the China comparison is that in the end it's a developing nation. Communism works superbly during the transition from demi-feudal serfs controlled by lords into a modern society, but once it gets standards of living up some of the way, it sort of gets confused about what to do next. It's good at putting people to work, not so good at most other things. The China example falls apart for another reason: the size of the country. If you actually look at the per capita GDP rather than overall, they're still only ranked about 95th; below Colombia, Tunisia, Libya, and a ton of others not particularly known for having good economies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
They are similarly ranked on the HDI (#91, again outranked by Colombia, Libya, Tunisia; not exactly known as great places to live)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Medium_human_development_.28developing_countries.29

Note that by 'communism' in this case I'm referring to 20th century style communism, rather than technological communisms or other varieties not yet/not widely seen.

[Levi]

It'll work great, provided that people act neither lazy nor greedy.

Sounds like its doomed to me then.   

[Criptfeind]

If it were otherwise, capitalism would be the worst possible economic system ever created.

Other then communism of course.

Appearances don't matter, actualities do.

Here is the actuality, communism fails on the basic level of understanding natural human actions and is super easy to corrupt. We hear people whining all the time that communism would work if it was only given a chance, and all the past tries have never counted because they were corrupt, but the actuality is that it is a super corruptible system.

Past tries do count. They show it does not work period.

[Strife26]

It'll work great, provided that people act neither lazy nor greedy.

Sounds like its doomed to me then.   

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
Perhaps some day, you'll join us
And the world will be as one

[Zrk2]

I dislike the idea. What about the rights of the individual living on the property?

Let's assume I have built myself a house.

Now let's assume the ruling coucil has several members, one of them named Jim.

Jim has a nephew in need of a new house.

Jim convinves the council that I am not using the house and it should be given to his nephew.

I am forcibly removed with no means of appeal since it is 'for the greater good.'

This presents several problems:

1. No avenue for appeals.
2. Rights are ignored.
3. a) Humans are fundamentally selfish, denying it changes nothing.
3. b) The only system that can work is one that acknowledges human nature and allows humans to function in a way that is compatible with our nature, and respects the rights of the individual.

There are my thoughts on the matter. It might work better if their were a constitution to protect the rights of the 'occupiers' of the land and guarantee that they may continue to use it. This is, of course, tantamount private property, rendering this system ineffective in any logical evolution of the idea.

[Montague]

Collectively owned land doesn't really work on a larger scale, where it becomes subject to abuse by assholes.

It works fine if there is plenty of land, and only a handful of close-knit people to divvy it up. Even then, it doesn't always work great either. In OP's example it looked like the elders owned the land and simply granted permission to use it however they deemed, which isn't true collectivism either..

Collectivism would be impartial and use of land would be determined by law. It would be more like "what's mine is mine and what is your's is mine too" to apply to everyone.

Also, collectvism has been tried many many times in different places and has failed time and time again. I'm astounded that people still think it is a good idea after history has shown it to be utterly destructive and ruinious to the people who live under it.

[ChairmanPoo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J208HUdcnuE