Spain's Communist Village Is Making The Rest Of The World Look Bad - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43160309]Aren't these inherently contradictory? An internal revolt is conducted by some people due to injustices (real or perceived). How do you manage these people who demand a different way of organizing society, and how do you deal with the fact that by using force to crush an internal revolt goes against the core of your philosophy/[/QUOTE] When someone uses force against you because you're challenging the status quo, it's oppression. When you use force against someone because they're challenging the status quo, it's justified. I've yet to see a meaningful definition for 'oppression' in this thread because it seems to be the catch-all term for any application of force that the speaker disagrees with.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;43156147]I can guarantee I'll be fed tomorrow because I have money. And so will you.[/QUOTE] no you can't. maybe you will wake up and all the food will be gone! what then mr capitalist??? what if you wake up and the dollar crashes and it costs $1m to buy a loaf of bread? all you have are maybes.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;43159814]Any recommended reading? I'd like to know more about what has persuaded you to adopt your particular positions as you seem to put more thought into it than many on this forum.[/QUOTE] I would say the following have intrigued me: Philosophy: The little book of philosophy (It covers everything very broadly but I found it a good starting point for everything, disseminating outwards to read about other philosophers. Some inevitably are unreadable or have weird views (German Idealists being obvious, but they are interesting), but my favorite Philosophers are Roger and Francis Bacon, Ibn Khaldun, along with the English "empiricists" and analytical philosophers. History would be "A little history of the world" along with horrible histories and most history encyclopedias. (I loved the DK "Illustrated history of war" and "illustrated history of the world", both are massive and richly detailed doorstoppers on almost all of history). Others include 1491 and 1493 (both about economics and globalization to a large degree), not to mention "The Isles: A history", "Europe: A History", "A peoples tragedy" (Orlando Figes), "1812" (by Adam Zamoyski), "GULAG" (Anne Applebaum), plus many more I can't remember at present because I am not nearby my bookcase. There is also "The collapse of complex societies", "The Blank slate", "The journal of economic and social history (I bought about half a dozen of them from a charity shop)", "The dictators handbook", plus Menicus Moldbugs blog and a fair few others. I am careful with all philosophers, very often they have good ideas about something, but other ideas are often iffy or nutty. (Moldbug has an interesting analysis of the American Revolution, but he is an Austrian economist and climate change denialist. Plato was regarded as a great Greek philosopher but he also advocated the creation of an authoritarian class ridden society).

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43160553]no you can't. maybe you will wake up and all the food will be gone! what then mr capitalist??? what if you wake up and the dollar crashes and it costs $1m to buy a loaf of bread? all you have are maybes.[/QUOTE] As opposed to agrarian farming communities, with rich and colorful histories full of communities dying overnight due to droughts, fires, floods, harsh winters, crop pestilence, war, and disease? Even in the worst of our economic recessions there have still been markets. The more localized and small your proposed community is, the more vulnerable it is.

[QUOTE=catbarf;43160612]As opposed to agrarian farming communities, with rich and colorful histories full of communities dying overnight due to droughts, fires, floods, harsh winters, crop pestilence, war, and disease? Even in the worst of our economic recessions there have still been markets. The more localized and small your proposed community is, the more vulnerable it is.[/QUOTE] that great depression thingy ended up causing a lot of starvation too... [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] besides i don't advocate an agrarian community. i advocate a post-industrial communist society.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43160632]i advocate a post-industrial communist society.[/QUOTE] Which, given the sheer interconnectedness and globalization of modern society, will be reduced to agrarian subsistence farming within twenty years, desperately clinging to technological relics that they cannot replicate. For all its flaws, if there's one thing global capitalism is good at it's producing extremely complex products with the minimal resource expenditure needed. If you think small communities would be capable of working together to produce technology relying on resources found in far corners of the globe then I don't think you have much experience with corporate management.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43160553]no you can't. maybe you will wake up and all the food will be gone! what then mr capitalist??? what if you wake up and the dollar crashes and it costs $1m to buy a loaf of bread? all you have are maybes.[/QUOTE] Nope, there are no guarantees, but a capitalistic system gives people incentive to provide me with easily accessible food while your system provides no incentive.

The other problem I see with general anti-capitalist leftism today is how hostile it is to changing conditions in the world. All movements with the intention of ridding the world of capitalism (or weakening it) have pretty much failed. Capitalism just ended up getting stronger and even more entrenched. The movements which were once exceedingly powerful in the right conditions (like trade unions or communist states) ended up ossifying and collapsing in on themselves. If things are to progress and advance, there must be some kind of reconciliation with capitalist methods of resource allocation. As a social system, it has evolved and ended up becoming more humane and rational over time, especially when existing in an environment where criticism and scrutiny can be used to address and correct faults.

[QUOTE=catbarf;43160690]will be reduced to agrarian subsistence farming within twenty years, [/QUOTE] source? [QUOTE=sgman91;43160704]Nope, there are no guarantees, but a capitalistic system gives people incentive to provide me with easily accessible food while your system provides no incentive.[/QUOTE] i think the incentive of having doctors and engineers and scientists who can help improve your standard of living is a pretty strong one. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=H8Entitlement;43156649]So..... Just to be clear- even though your ideal society exists (apparently) in Spain none of you have any plans of moving? Just saying cause if my idea of utopia existed i would move by tonight.[/QUOTE] i would actually love to take part in this, even if temporarily, just to experience it first hand. but i don't know spanish and i don't have money to get there.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43160755]source? i think the incentive of having doctors and engineers and scientists who can help improve your standard of living is a pretty strong one.[/QUOTE] You seem to rest very serious concerns with "I think" and that's not going to be enough to convince anyone tbh

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43160755]source?[/QUOTE] You think that small communities with no objective means of establishing value and relying on exchange of goods for commerce will be able to maintain the technological standards we have today? You were the one a few pages ago saying 'well maybe we shouldn't have computers' so why are you getting all defensive over the notion that a social model that, apparently, has only worked in subsistence farming (see: this thread) might not be as effective at producing technology as a capitalistic model?

[QUOTE=Juniez;43160797]You seem to rest very serious concerns with "I think" and that's not going to be enough to convince anyone tbh[/QUOTE] so you personally would not be willing to feed someone who would be able to provide you with medical care? you would let that person starve? [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;43160808]You think that small communities with no objective means of establishing value and relying on exchange of goods for commerce will be able to maintain the technological standards we have today? You were the one a few pages ago saying 'well maybe we shouldn't have computers' so why are you getting all defensive over the notion that a social model that, apparently, has only worked in subsistence farming (see: this thread) might not be as effective at producing technology as a capitalistic model?[/QUOTE] you made an outrageous claim with a very specific timespan. source something that backs it up or get out.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43160839]so you personally would not be willing to feed someone who would be able to provide you with medical care? you would let that person starve? [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] you made an outrageous claim with a very specific timespan. source something that backs it up or get out.[/QUOTE] I would (probably) help but there is no way I would speak for anyone else on that matter or use it as a guaranteed support of an entire society's functionality - that would be assuming far too much in such a risky scenario

[QUOTE=Juniez;43160880]I would (probably) help but there is no way I would speak for anyone else on that matter or use it as a guaranteed support of an entire society's functionality[/QUOTE] what sort of person would not be willing to feed someone who was providing a very useful service to the community? it isn't simply a matter of being "altruistic", it's realizing that if we don't want to live on sustinence farming, we need to provide food for people not directly involved in food production. it's realizing that if we want doctors, we need to provide for doctors. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] you aren't relying on someone's sheer "goodwill", you are relying on the idea that they know how useful your services are to the community and that the community wants to keep that service around.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43160913]what sort of person would not be willing to feed someone who was providing a very useful service to the community? it isn't simply a matter of being "altruistic", it's realizing that if we don't want to live on sustinence farming, we need to provide food for people not directly involved in food production. it's realizing that if we want doctors, we need to provide for doctors. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] you aren't relying on someone's sheer "goodwill", you are relying on the idea that they know how useful your services are to the community and that the community wants to keep that service around.[/QUOTE] So its like trading goods for services

[QUOTE=Juniez;43160950]So its like trading goods for services[/QUOTE] in a more abstract sense, yea. it's not barter or a monetary system because people aren't directly paid any set amount. people are free to take from "the common" as much as they want or need as long as they are a part of the community, and the community will naturally accept new members that provide useful services.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43160839]you made an outrageous claim with a very specific timespan. source something that backs it up or get out.[/QUOTE] I need to find a source on the idea that a small, local community won't be able to maintain technology that in the real world requires millions of people across the world to maintain? You want me to just pull up stats on Microsoft or the history of the Middle Ages or something? [QUOTE=yawmwen;43160913]you aren't relying on someone's sheer "goodwill", you are relying on the idea that they know how useful your services are to the community and that the community wants to keep that service around.[/QUOTE] Instead of relying on their goodwill, you're relying on their knowledge of the utility of your job. Hey, what if instead we let people have compensation for the act of doing their job directly? And while everyone may recognize the utility of doctors or engineers, you're going to be facing an uphill struggle to justify subjective things like art or softer sciences to the average person.

[QUOTE=catbarf;43160990]Hey, what if we let people have compensation for the act of doing their job directly?.[/QUOTE] that can exist in an anarchist system btw. anarcho-collectivism is one tendency that specifically allows for "compensation". as a communist, i don't think it is the ideal solution.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43160974]in a more abstract sense, yea. it's not barter or a monetary system because people aren't directly paid any set amount. people are free to take from "the common" as much as they want or need as long as they are a part of the community, and the community will naturally accept new members that provide useful services.[/QUOTE] That's pretty idealistic. What happens when a cold winter comes, there isn't enough food, and Bob starts thinking that Joe's impressionist painting isn't any good and isn't pulling his weight? That maybe Joe should be trying to help farm instead? If you call a vote, does he get forced to change his profession, or exiled if he won't conform? Or is he allowed to do whatever he wants, no matter how greedy or self-centered, or damaging to the rest of the community?

my problem with the compensation thing is exactly what you said in the next paragraph. it's hard to "compensate" someone for their work if they do something like art or theoretical sciences. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;43161013]That's pretty idealistic. What happens when a cold winter comes, there isn't enough food, and Bob starts thinking that Joe's impressionist painting isn't any good and isn't pulling his weight? That maybe Joe should be trying to help farm instead? If you call a vote, does he get forced to change his profession, or exiled if he won't conform? Or is he allowed to do whatever he wants, no matter how greedy or self-centered, or damaging to the rest of the community?[/QUOTE] during a cold winter they would probably petition other communes for surplus food.

So the problem isn't neccecarily the concept of free market itself - but rather in the current selfish attitude of society

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43161016]during a cold winter they would probably petition other communes for surplus food.[/QUOTE] That's not an answer. You can't just assume that someone else always has the solution to your problem. Real life doesn't work that way. Unles you live in absolute abundance, sooner or later there are going to be tough questions about who's worth their weight. How do you deal with it?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43160755]i think the incentive of having doctors and engineers and scientists who can help improve your standard of living is a pretty strong one.[/QUOTE] Capitalism doesn't just incentivize the giving of food to doctors, it incentivizes growing the kind of food I want and having it be conveniently located close to me. Also, about the information problem. Let us say a certain community has 100 people and needs 3 of them to be doctors so sufficiently take care of the other 97, but 10 people want to be doctors because they enjoy helping people. Is society going to still give bread and food to those other 7 unneeded doctors? If not, how do they choose who to support and who not to support?

[QUOTE=Juniez;43161032]So the problem isn't neccecarily the concept of free market itself - but rather in the current selfish attitude of society[/QUOTE] there is a thing called a "free market socialist". collectivists and syndicalists also generally believe in some form of direct compensation. it isn't the "selfish attitude" of society, it's capitalist resource allocation that needs to be fixed. [QUOTE=catbarf;43161038]That's not an answer. You can't just assume that someone else always has the solution to your problem. Real life doesn't work that way. Unles you live in absolute abundance, sooner or later there are going to be tough questions about who's worth their weight. How do you deal with it?[/QUOTE] idk. those are situations that need to be made by the community. they are unique and very heavy situations. i can't provide an "ideal" answer in every hypothetical circumstance. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;43161100]Capitalism doesn't just incentivize the giving of food to doctors, it incentivizes growing the kind of food I want and having it be conveniently located close to me. Also, about the information problem. Let us say a certain community has 100 people and needs 3 of them to be doctors so sufficiently take care of the other 97, but 10 people want to be doctors because they enjoy helping people. Is society going to still give bread and food to those other 7 unneeded doctors?[/QUOTE] idk ask the commune.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43161102]idk ask the commune.[/QUOTE] This is a basic problem with non price/profit based systems and one of the necessary components in modern economics. You can't brush off a foundational problem like economic information with a non-argument like that. If no concrete argument can be given to simply take care of those problems then you don't have a complete ideology.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43161102]idk. those are situations that need to be made by the community. they are unique and very heavy situations. i can't provide an "ideal" answer in every hypothetical circumstance.[/QUOTE] Dude, you can't just palm off fundamental questions about your proposed society as too specific. You have a society in which you expect everyone to contribute, yet you don't have an answer as to what they're supposed to do if someone is taking more than they're contributing and doesn't want to change. You're expecting everyone to be perfectly altruistic and equally recognize the value of their work, and that's just not realistic.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43161146]This is a basic problem with non price/profit based systems and one of the necessary components in modern economics. You can't brush off a foundational problem like economic information with a non-argument like that. If no concrete argument can be given to simply take care of those problems then you don't have a complete ideology.[/QUOTE] not really. the idea is that communities find solutions on their own. i'm not "yawmwen, dictator of the commune". i believe in democracy instead of rigid policy to deal with these problems.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43161196]not really. the idea is that communities find solutions on their own. i'm not "yawmwen, dictator of the commune". i believe in democracy instead of rigid policy to deal with these problems.[/QUOTE] My hypothetical applies to literally every single job and resource used by the community. This isn't a problem of specifics, but of the foundational workings of the system. Capitalism provides this information through prices and profits. Using this very general idea I can answer basically any hypothetical very easily. It seems you don't have any comparable general idea to fall back on, but must take every single hypothetical as a new problem to face.

i think the idea that communities solve problems on their own, amongst themselves, is much better than having a policy imposed from a hierarchy. you can see the way rigid policy can fail like the ukraine famine in 1921, the great depression, socialist india(where they throw away massive amounts of grain to keep prices stable), the agricultural sector of the usa(where farmers are paid NOT to grow corn to keep prices stable), etc. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;43161217]My hypothetical applies to literally every single job and resource used by the community. This isn't a problem of specifics, but of the foundational workings of the system.[/QUOTE] unless it was a situation where refusal to take part in a certain profession meant actual starvation, then i think people wouldn't really care enough if there were excess doctors.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43161220]unless it was a situation where refusal to take part in a certain profession meant actual starvation, then i think people wouldn't really care enough if there were excess doctors.[/QUOTE] People in the real world care about their pay being impacted in even the slightest ways because it affects their ability to provide for themselves. In a society with an unnecessary surplus of a profession, you bet people will be looking at what they don't have and wishing those effectively useless people were contributing in more useful ways. And what if it means starvation? What then? Are you willing to coerce someone into changing profession, or cut off their access to communal supplies? How a society deals with resource allocation is a fundamental question. You keep saying communities solve problems on their own without saying [i]how[/i] they could solve these problems short of enforcing a majority opinion by force, which you seem to label oppression.