Thread: Re-writing Communism

Originally Posted by SKA

I guess then the students wouldn't have a good idea of how well they are doing in their study. I don't believe I've ever said school grades should be equally distributed.

But let's stick to the core of this topic.
Let me first say that I am not 100% against any free-market kind of system.
It's just that I think some sectors of society, the vital ones, should be state owned and free of charge.

When it concerns anything else, I don't see a big problem with having a free market system. So basically I would settle for a more socialistic system.


A good way to realise this would be to make the basic nececities of life free of charge and evenly distributed.
This means food, warm water, electricity, drinklable water, housing, healthcare and education.

If those basics were free of charge and equally accessable to everyone, then the rest could be free-market orientated. I just don't think ANYONE should be denied or limited in these basic nececities. Off course this requires more ideology to serve as the replacement incentive of moneyprofit. This is where a Government can help.

Other, more luxurious things(like cars, swimming pools, sportclubs, world travel..etc) could be subject to Free-market regulations.

I'd like to see homeless people, people to poor to pay for healthcare or education and people starving due to poverty belong to the past one day.

If you work hard & earn alot of money then you could by a car, or have a swimming pool built in your backyard or travel to distant countries. It would be accessable under the condition of working and saving for it.
However I don't believe it is moral to cut poor people off from basic nececities such as Healthcare, food, housing and education because their income is too low; That should be unconditional.

You sound like an advocate of social democracy, a moderate form of socialism. It's a shame that socialism in America is so tightly fused with the word communism, mainly due to the right wing drivel that is Fox news and Co.

Originally Posted by drew

Fascism is not a form of socialism. Just because it shares some principles of socialism does not mean it is socialist, that is a very, very common assumption made by Americans.

Socialism sees the state as a vehicle towards greater equality. Fascism does not. You are confusing authoritarianism with socialism. The now-dead fascist ideology believes that the ruler is supreme, and thus their state is supreme. The superiority of the state ties in with several things, but chiefly, it is the will of the leader. Fascists believe that the leader is always right, no matter what. Remember that Hitler despised and killed the communists.

And the Bolsheviks always thought the party was right. You are not really giving me adequate justifications for why fascism isn't a school of thought in socialism. And yes Italy began their fascist regime with the idea that all are equal, in their obligation to serve the state for the state is the full realization of a given society. The state represents the mass of the people or is representative of the general will. If you actually read the works of Henri de Saint Simon and his Saint-Simonians, you find the beginnings of planned, socialistic society which can be seen as proto-fascism. Also you are incorrect to think that socialism thinks the state a means to achieving equality. There are in fact anarcho-socialists who think the state is a representation of hierarchical interests which seek to subjugate the working class. So the role of the state is rather ambiguous in socialism.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

And the Bolsheviks always thought the party was right. You are not really giving me adequate justifications for why fascism isn't a school of thought in socialism. And yes Italy began their fascist regime with the idea that all are equal, in their obligation to serve the state for the state is the full realization of a given society. The state represents the mass of the people or is representative of the general will. If you actually read the works of Henri de Saint Simon and his Saint-Simonians, you find the beginnings of planned, socialistic society which can be seen as proto-fascism. Also you are incorrect to think that socialism thinks the state a means to achieving equality. There are in fact anarcho-socialists who think the state is a representation of hierarchical interests which seek to subjugate the working class. So the role of the state is rather ambiguous in socialism.

Those are just strands of socialism. Karl Marx said that 'democracy is the road to communism'. Fascism despises democracy and sees it as corrupt and ineffective. If Marx isn't enough to convince you of this then, who is?

Fascist trails of thought are simply opposed to socialism. The vast majority of socialists believe in democracy, so quoting a minority strand isn't a very rational argument. Fascists believe that war is glorious and productive for humanity, mainly because is expands the state (this is chauvinist nationalism). Marxists believe that war is often contrived to suppress the working class and create a false class consciousness of national unity.

Fascism does not assert that the state should represent the people, as you claim. If they did, they would support democracy. In fact, fascists quite literally believe that the leader is supreme, the leader knows best.

Anarcho-socialists? I think you mean anarcho-communists. The paradox within this strand is well documented, and it's more to do with their views on human nature than their views on the state.

I too can quote random and minor strands to support arguments. If we're discussing ideologies then we generally need to use the consensus view. Obviously, a strand within an ideology can disagree with its parent ideology. Obviously, there are some socialists that oppose democracy. Obviously, we should use common sense. I wouldn't tell you that conservative's views on human nature stem from the works of the bible. They used to, but now they don't, and the majority simply don't look at it from that angle.

Originally Posted by drew

Those are just strands of socialism. Karl Marx said that 'democracy is the road to communism'. Fascism despises democracy and sees it as corrupt and ineffective. If Marx isn't enough to convince you of this then, who is?

Saying some quote [ I have never seen the citation from where that quote is from because I have seen it before ] from Marx who at best a befuddled thinker does not make it so. Fascists were not necessarily against democracy. They were against Boshevik communism which usually found itself in trade unions and labor unions which would try to vote their candidates into power to allow them to abolish private property.

Originally Posted by drew

Fascist trails of thought are simply opposed to socialism.

They are opposed to communism. Not socialism. In fact during this time period [ early 20th century ] lassiez-faire was seen as anarchonistic. It was an outdated ideology or so it was thought. An efficient society was a planned society and you either had Bolshevik Communism which made the bourgeois cringe or you had fascism which allow the bourgeois to retain their positions of power yet give the impression of solidarity and unification.

Originally Posted by drew

The vast majority of socialists believe in democracy, so quoting a minority strand isn't a very rational argument.

Well just because the vast majority think something doesn't infer correctness.

Originally Posted by drew

Fascists believe that war is glorious and productive for humanity, mainly because is expands the state (this is chauvinist nationalism). Marxists believe that war is often contrived to suppress the working class and create a false class consciousness of national unity.

Well you left out the part that Marxists also think in terms of production for humanity. Believing war is grand doesn't infer separation of fascists from socialism for if it was then you would also have to concede that Nazism or national socialism wasn't actually socialism.

Originally Posted by drew

Fascism does not assert that the state should represent the people, as you claim. If they did, they would support democracy. In fact, fascists quite literally believe that the leader is supreme, the leader knows best.

Not necessarily. Fascism retains the motif of technocrats, intellectuals who think they know the wishes of human nature and can plan accordingly.

Originally Posted by drew

Anarcho-socialists? I think you mean anarcho-communists. The paradox within this strand is well documented, and it's more to do with their views on human nature than their views on the state.

I've heard them called both ways. And that is not really a refutation. These are socialists who think that the state is an evil institution, whether you think this is rational is irrevelant because you presumed to think that socialism uses the state to achieve its ends. Clearly there is a school of thought that disagrees, therefore how the state is seen depends upon who you are talking about.

Originally Posted by drew

I too can quote random and minor strands to support arguments. If we're discussing ideologies then we generally need to use the consensus view.

Oh so you want to purposely neglect facts that refute your preconceived notions. Well let's just end it right there. You are right, you are always right and everyone else is wrong. There, the debate has full reach its effigy.

Originally Posted by drew

Obviously, a strand within an ideology can disagree with its parent ideology. Obviously, there are some socialists that oppose democracy. Obviously, we should use common sense. I wouldn't tell you that conservative's views on human nature stem from the works of the bible. They used to, but now they don't, and the majority simply don't look at it from that angle.

Well now you are contradicting yourself. Now you are implying that fascism can possibly fit under socialism because one of your contentions before was that fascism despised socialism because it was democratic. Now you say you can be a socialist and opposed to democracy.

They Saw it Coming: The 19th Century Critique of Fascism

Here Drew, pay attention to the beginning.

Yeah drew I guess I am an advocate of social democracy.
Forcing any kind of ideal uppon people and sacraficing individual freedom for it is Fascism by defenition. After all the NAZI political party claimed to be Nazional Socialistische Arbeits partij.

I think the unbalanced Free market Capitalism could be stabilised and balanced with a generous portion of socialism. That's why I think we need the Kibbutzim to spread across the world's Capitalist nations; It is democratic socialism. Voluntairy support of the poor and weak, without being detrimental to the free-market economy. The best of both worlds.

The reason why many people (myself included) think capitalism is a better system than communism, is that with Capitalism every person truly has a chance to work hard and make a better life for themselves and their children than they might have had given the circumstances. Yes, there are wealthy families who pass that wealth along - But look at all of the other wealthy individuals in the United States who started from nothing and built an empire around them.

That's why communism is so fundamentally flawed - You never have a chance to increase your standing without political involvement, so all of the most ambitious (usually brightest) youth go into that leaving a huge lack of skilled labor to keep the state running... It also stifles innovation as there is quite literally no reason to improving anything because anything you do or create is owned by the state and you will have the same amount of resources dispersed to you.


The reality of the matter is that both "Communism" and "Capitalism" as we know them are not in their true form. In Russia (and everywhere else Communism has been attempted) the system was corrupted by government resources being used to service the private interests of the men running the Gov. In the US we've had our "Capitalism" replaced by corporatism.

The good news is its a self correcting system, we saw it with communism in Russia and I think more and more we'll see it fall apart with the US in the near future.

Frankly it doesn't matter what type of system of government we're talking about, all of this is really meaningless until countries evict their irresponsible and abusive governments. I can't think of a single one on the planet that consistently acts in the best interest of their citizens be it "Carbon Caps" or taking part in the secret ACTA talks while claiming the agreement we're signing with 172 other countries is a "National Security Secret".

The pendulum swings, and the higher to one side our corrupt leaders push it the harder it comes smashing down.

/rant

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Saying some quote [ I have never seen the citation from where that quote is from because I have seen it before ] from Marx who at best a befuddled thinker does not make it so. Fascists were not necessarily against democracy. They were against Boshevik communism which usually found itself in trade unions and labor unions which would try to vote their candidates into power to allow them to abolish private property.

But it's not the quote that's important, it's the fact behind it. The prevailing feature of all your posts is you saying something along the lines of 'not necessarily' or 'not all of them'. If you have ever studied fascism you will know for certain that at the core of its ideology is a hatred for democracy. Don't overcomplicate things, Occams razor is popular for a reason.

This is hardly me saying that I don't want a different opinion. You intentionally convolute the debate my throwing in what I thought was an axiom; there's never going to be one ideology with one single school of thought.

They are opposed to communism. Not socialism. In fact during this time period [ early 20th century ] lassiez-faire was seen as anarchonistic. It was an outdated ideology or so it was thought. An efficient society was a planned society and you either had Bolshevik Communism which made the bourgeois cringe or you had fascism which allow the bourgeois to retain their positions of power yet give the impression of solidarity and unification.

Yep, if I said socialism, I meant communism. I agree with what you write here.

Well you left out the part that Marxists also think in terms of production for humanity. Believing war is grand doesn't infer separation of fascists from socialism for if it was then you would also have to concede that Nazism or national socialism wasn't actually socialism.

I was giving examples of the stark differences between the two ideologies. Individually, they are easy to pick apart but collectively, they create clear distinctions.

I've heard them called both ways. And that is not really a refutation. These are socialists who think that the state is an evil institution, whether you think this is rational is irrevelant because you presumed to think that socialism uses the state to achieve its ends. Clearly there is a school of thought that disagrees, therefore how the state is seen depends upon who you are talking about.

Keep in mind they are anarcho-communists, not socialist-anarchists (paradox). So no, they're not socialists as you claim.

Oh so you want to purposely neglect facts that refute your preconceived notions. Well let's just end it right there. You are right, you are always right and everyone else is wrong. There, the debate has full reach its effigy.

/Thread


Well now you are contradicting yourself. Now you are implying that fascism can possibly fit under socialism because one of your contentions before was that fascism despised socialism because it was democratic. Now you say you can be a socialist and opposed to democracy.

Some strands of conservatism want to reinstate the death penalty, abolish all welfare and institute a neo liberal economy. Does that mean that the British conservative party is going to follow suit? No.

Most anarchists are non violent. However, anarcho-syndicalists believe that violence is justified. Does that mean that all anarchists are violent? No.

It's a case of this. There are 50 men called Sam. There is a female called Sam. Since Sam is a female, anyone else called Sam must also be female.

Originally Posted by SKA

I guess then the students wouldn't have a good idea of how well they are doing in their study. I don't believe I've ever said school grades should be equally distributed.

Is that all?

It's an analogy. I am asking the question in regard to work incentive. How would it be affected?

Originally Posted by SKA

A good way to realise this would be to make the basic nececities of life free of charge and evenly distributed.
This means food, warm water, electricity, drinklable water, housing, healthcare and education.

So all of the food, drink, grocery, and restaurant companies should be hijacked by the government? Wouldn't that make the companies less productive and therefore less beneficial to the economy? You are talking about an enormous portion of the economy, and it would go much closer to stagnant. In the Soviet Union, even under Gorbachev, they had a real problem with restaurants not having much of the items on their menus, and service was ridiculously slow. Have you ever been to a grocery store or restaurant that was out of way too much stuff? We have that problem here once in a while, but the advantage is that the places go out of business when they screw off too much like that. Fear of business collapse has a way of keeping stuff available. What does socialism have? Can you tell me that? In a socialist system, what reason would they have to avoid such a weakness?

Originally Posted by SKA

I'd like to see homeless people, people to poor to pay for healthcare or education and people starving due to poverty belong to the past one day.

I would too, and I'll tell you how it all can happen. I'll use my country as an example.

Once upon a time, the United States did not have a homelessness problem. Then the Democrats decided that it was an infringement on the rights of severely mentally ill homeless people to pick them up and put them in mental institutions after testing them because they are homeless and making their mental illnesses obvious, so the cops had to keep allowing spaced out crazy people to sleep in dumpsters and on sidewalks and yell to themselves about how they are Jesus. The result was a homelessness problem, which was greatly compounded by the escalation of the war on drugs and the emergence of crack in an illegal form. The war on drugs made drugs so outrageously expensive that the addicts in many cases would blow every dime they had on drugs and end up on the streets. If those two policies would change, we would not really have a problem with homelessness.

We have a public education system in the U.S., and nobody is denied it. I think what we should have instead is a private education system with a voucher program for those who cannot afford school on their own. If we lowered taxes enough, private charities could handle the vouchers instead of the government.

Good luck finding a truly "poor" person in the United States by general world standards, aside from homeless people, most of whom are fat because people on the streets give them food all day.

Health insurance would be much more affordable if people would take care of themselves and if we could put caps on damages in tort cases. The mindless suing of doctors and the mindless fattening up, daily drinking, and smoking of Americans is what makes our health insurance so expensive. You can still get a minimal policy for about $150 a month, which most Americans can afford. It's just a matter of whether they decide to. Also, a problem that never really gets addressed here is the mass reproduction of people of the lowest economic class. The public needs to do more to make it taboo to have kids if you can't easily afford to have kids. It's politically incorrect to say it publicly, and that needs to change big time.

Originally Posted by SKA

Nazional Socialistische Arbeits partij.

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP)

Originally Posted by SKA

Yeah drew I guess I am an advocate of social democracy.
Forcing any kind of ideal uppon people and sacraficing individual freedom for it is Fascism by defenition. After all the NAZI political party claimed to be Nazional Socialistische Arbeits partij.

I think the unbalanced Free market Capitalism could be stabilised and balanced with a generous portion of socialism. That's why I think we need the Kibbutzim to spread across the world's Capitalist nations; It is democratic socialism. Voluntairy support of the poor and weak, without being detrimental to the free-market economy. The best of both worlds.

Don't you think this is slightly defeatist? In my eyes the large problem with capitalism is that despite what it has done for the world the majority remain internationally, "poor and weak". Surely we are aiming to eradicate the masses of ultra poor not just give them voluntary support. There has to be something inherently wrong with a system that requires such an underclass.

Originally Posted by SKA

Yeah drew I guess I am an advocate of social democracy.
Forcing any kind of ideal uppon people and sacraficing individual freedom for it is Fascism by defenition. After all the NAZI political party claimed to be Nazional Socialistische Arbeits partij.

Ever heard of the word "demagogy"?

Socialism was popular at the time. Pseudosocialism was a very good way to get to power. They realized this and started the Nazi movement.

Originally Posted by drew

But it's not the quote that's important, it's the fact behind it. The prevailing feature of all your posts is you saying something along the lines of 'not necessarily' or 'not all of them'. If you have ever studied fascism you will know for certain that at the core of its ideology is a hatred for democracy. Don't overcomplicate things, Occams razor is popular for a reason.

You aren't using Occam's razor coherently. You are purposefully neglecting facts that are contrary to your preconceive notions and passing it off as being 'the simplest explanation.'

Originally Posted by drew

Yep, if I said socialism, I meant communism. I agree with what you write here.

Yes, so fascism is not necessarily opposed to socialism broadly defined. Fascists don't like communism but that doesn't make them anti-socialism.

Originally Posted by drew

I was giving examples of the stark differences between the two ideologies. Individually, they are easy to pick apart but collectively, they create clear distinctions.

Distinction doesn't equate to separation. There are distinctions between social democrats and Marxists, that doesn't mean one is socialist and the other isn't.

Originally Posted by drew

Keep in mind they are anarcho-communists, not socialist-anarchists (paradox). So no, they're not socialists as you claim.

Where is the paradox? What displaces them from socialism? Because you want to enact your faulty concept of a school of thought?

Originally Posted by drew

Most anarchists are non violent. However, anarcho-syndicalists believe that violence is justified. Does that mean that all anarchists are violent? No.

And some socialists think the state is a form of oppression that sustains private property through bourgeois interests and thus call for the abolition of the state. Does that mean that all socialists think the state is evil? No. But does it mean that thinking the state is evil is anti-socialist? No.

Hi UM,

I seriously think that certain public services should be deprivatised and..yeah well, hijacked by the Government indeed.

I think it's rediculous to see how the prices of energy-bills and house-rent prices skyrocket while in this crisis people have only less and less to spend.
I think it's time for certain unendurable irresponsibly and immorally run businesses to be taken into government hands again and be drasticly reorganised.

If Housing, food, clean water, electricity, Healthcare and Education were all free of charge the people would save alot of money. This money could then be spent on other, more luxurious goods and services; which will simply benefit different kinds of business.
It wouldn't be detrimental to the total economy of a country; it would only be detrimental to the people working in those business.
But for other businesses it would mean their golden age. The wealth wouldn't dissapear, it would simply shift to other businesses and stay in the country's money circulation.

In these government organised businesses(Hospitals, Senior Residence, Schools, Food Farms, Water filtering yards, power plants and construction companies) people could simply work for money wages. I mean they will have free housing, food, healthcare, electricity and education, so they will simply spend their money on different things.

Imagine the epic possibilities of the miriad of new markets arising from that development?
I think Capitalism is affraid to change and is being far too conservative.

Sometimes I just love the Broken Window.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Sometimes I just love the Broken Window.

How is this contributing to a discussion about re-writing communism?

Originally Posted by SKA

How is this contributing to a discussion about re-writing communism?

It was a snide remark relating to a certain fallacy, which you seemed to have overlooked when you posted. You're looking only at the immediate benefits of things instead of the whole picture.

It wouldn't be detrimental to the total economy of a country; it would only be detrimental to the people working in those business. But for other businesses it would mean their golden age. The wealth wouldn't dissapear, it would simply shift to other businesses and stay in the country's money circulation.

The wealth would shift to different areas in the market; areas to where it would not have originally gone, thus creating discrepancies and malinvestment in the markets.

It's the same as "we need to save *this* industry!" You're taking from productive industries to give to probably nonproductive industries. Not to mention you're also calling for nationalization of certain markets which is...well, I won't even touch that issue.

I seriously think that certain public services should be deprivatised and..yeah well, hijacked by the Government indeed.

"Public services" being taken over by the government. I thought that's what "public" meant. Huh.

All socialists see the state as a constructive vehicle towards greater equality. That's what any form of socialism borders down to. You however, reject this, erroneously.

Some of you guys in this discussion aren't open minded to socialism at all. You have allready made up your minds and can't see socialism in any other light than "impossible". This kind of defeats the purpose of discussing how we might re write communism.

Blueline, you say that the market shift that deprivatisation would bring would lead to discrepancies and malinvestment, but you failed to explain how and why.
You simply refuse to consider the possibilities. Isn't that being a little conservative?

If people don't have to pay for food, housing, electricity or clean water all would benefit from it. From the bums in the street to the wealthy businessman. Everyone's living costs would be drastically cut down.

If these public services and goods are government run and free of charge people would spend ALOT more money on things like travel, arts, music, festivities, developping ecology-friendly, more endurable power sorces and technologies, setting up various businesses..etc etc etc

There's no need to worry about possible malinvestment and discrepancies it may bring.
We can't say that our present day business men( especially our bankers and stockbrokers) have been investing responsibly with the interrest of the public at heart.
How do you think we ended up in this global economical depression in the first place?

The problem is that in our free-market systems the public services and goods are privatised; Hospitals, Schools,Senior Residence, Psychological healthcare/Pharmacuitic industry,, Pubic transport, Supermarkets, Energy companies; all privatised. And the bigger corporations that run these businesses, in their blind, obsession for profit and profit alone, drive the prices of their goods and services through the ceiling, totally disregarding the fact that many people can not keep up with the prices of these dayly, basic needs and can no longer afford them. This inevitably results in masses of people that can no longer afford to pay for a roof over their heads, can no longer afford to feed themselves properly and can no longer pay for healthcare. If the costs of our dayly nececities keep rising during an economical depression such as this, a mayority of the Middle class drops down into a vaslty growing Lower class. These people become cut off from their societies. Without money to house themselves, feed themselves, have access to healthcare let alone have a drink at a bar or pay the entree fee of a party these people become Parias.
This is what's happening today in this depression and it has been happening repeatedly in the endless cicle of sociopolitical and economical instability throughout the history of Capitalism.
I don't know about your sense of Morality, but I find this completely unacceptable.

I say the only we to go from here is up. Our unstable economical and political systems are very ripe for radical change, allthough it's supporters are affraid of change and clamp onto it tightly.

In this topic I had hoped to discuss how communism could be re-writen to a system that does work in terms of civil freedom and economical stability.
If this topic is to be any kind of constructive we're going to need some people that are more open to socialism and communism, otherwise this topic will fall down into a thread where every idea/concept about a socialist/communist system is being rediculed and passed off as impossible for no clear reason by a mayority of rather cynical anti-communists.

This topic's title is "Re-writing Communism" not "Writing off Communism".

The real issue with communism, and any "utopian" that dooms it to ineffect is that it has no meaningful way to compensate higher efficiency or outside-the-box thinking since everything is exploited to the maximum for the greater good for the largest number of people.

It's one of those things that sounds great when you're talking about it after a couple of beers but until you find a way to make literally everone *want* to work, you'll always have a disparity between people who work hard, and those who don't, can't or won't work.

Until you figure out a way to actually incentivize individual participation at excellent levels, you'll see the "brain drain" effect.

Even if people are indeed lazy, Slacking, Parasitical pieces of freeloading poop, don't you think it's a little immoral, extreme and inhumane to punish them with homelessness, starvation and disease?
You're affraid that the deprivatised businesses in hands of the government would offer it's employees no incentive to deliver quality work, right?

If the employees of the government run Power plants, water cleaning facilities, Hospitals, Schools..etc were payed money?

Okay so they don't need money to buy food, pay rent, pay electricity bills or access healthcare, so they will have alot of money to spend, Alot of people that couldn't afford a Car, a Swimming pool, a Journey around the world, a greenhouse, a Motorcycle..etc before now suddenly could.

Because people have so much money to spend and therefor the demand for such more luxurious goods and services would skyrocket, naturally so would the prices of these now high demand goods and services to reach some kind of economical equilibrium again.

With the market shifting and re stabilising around more luxurious goods and services, we can at least say that we take care of our people well by providing at least the minimum goods and services free of charge to provide for all our people's basic nececities
( Housing, Food, Clean water, Electricity)

Now THAT I would call a Society.

SKA, where does the government get the money to pay for all of that stuff, and why would getting money that way be more effective than creating it through a private sector?

You didn't get back to me on the university situation. A university has 20,000 students, and grades are evenly distributed (or substantially distributed) at it. How does that affect overall and individual incentive and learning?

Originally Posted by SKA

Some of you guys in this discussion aren't open minded to socialism at all. You have allready made up your minds and can't see socialism in any other light than "impossible". This kind of defeats the purpose of discussing how we might re write communism.

Some of us have done a little research into the theoretical and real-life examples of socialism/communism and have seen that it's a bunch of this:

+ + =

Blueline, you say that the market shift that deprivatisation would bring would lead to discrepancies and malinvestment, but you failed to explain how and why.

What, do I need to quote an entire introductory economics book for you?

You simply refuse to consider the possibilities. Isn't that being a little conservative?

Conservative?

If people don't have to pay for food, housing, electricity or clean water all would benefit from it. From the bums in the street to the wealthy businessman. Everyone's living costs would be drastically cut down.

How would you rationally distribute goods if everything was free?

If these public services and goods are government run and free of charge people would spend ALOT more money on things like travel, arts, music, festivities, developping ecology-friendly, more endurable power sorces and technologies, setting up various businesses..etc etc etc

How would you rationally distribute the goods, services, and capital if everything was free?

There's no need to worry about possible malinvestment and discrepancies it may bring.

SKA, you say that we don't need to worry about possible malinvestment and the discrepancies it may bring, but you failed to explain how and why.

How do you think we ended up in this global economical depression in the first place?

During the 1990s and early 2000s the Federal Reserve had started to inflate the money supply (similar to the 1920s). Then the government sprinkled in easy-credit programs which essentially forced banks to make high-risk loans to people that sure-as-hell wouldn't be able to pay them back. Throw in some price controls on housing and bam, recession/depression/economic fuck-uppery.

The problem is that in our free-market systems the public services and goods are privatised; Hospitals, Schools,Senior Residence, Psychological healthcare/Pharmacuitic industry,, Pubic transport, Supermarkets, Energy companies; all privatised.

This is like saying Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are private companies. Everything you listed is in some way owned by the government.

And the bigger corporations that run these businesses, in their blind, obsession for profit and profit alone, drive the prices of their goods and services through the ceiling, totally disregarding the fact that many people can not keep up with the prices of these dayly, basic needs and can no longer afford them.

Tell me, why would a company, looking for profits, raise their prices through the roof? No one would use their services or buy their goods! Those business would/are go/going out of business. Not a very intelligent business plan.

Profits act as a market mechanism to show either success or failure of a good/service. Higher profits = high demand for a good/service. Consumers, wanting that good/service, bid more money for said good/service. Lower profits = lower demand for a good/service. Consumers big less for said good/services or don't bid at all.

With higher profits, the company is then able to pour more money back into the company, thus being able to raise the supply of the goods/services offered, lowering the costs, etc.

This is what's happening today in this depression and it has been happening repeatedly in the endless cicle of sociopolitical and economical instability throughout the history of Capitalism.
I don't know about your sense of Morality, but I find this completely unacceptable.

Read my above response, then my response about the causes of the current economy shenanigans, then look up "state capitalism" and "laissez faire capitalism."

In this topic I had hoped to discuss how communism could be re-writen to a system that does work in terms of civil freedom and economical stability.

Kind of hard when you're saying "Everything should be free! What? Economics? Bah, who cares about malinvestment."

If this topic is to be any kind of constructive we're going to need some people that are more open to socialism and communism, otherwise this topic will fall down into a thread where every idea/concept about a socialist/communist system is being rediculed and passed off as impossible for no clear reason by a mayority of rather cynical anti-communists.

This topic's title is "Re-writing Communism" not "Writing off Communism".

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A university has 20,000 students, and grades are evenly distributed (or substantially distributed) at it. How does that affect overall and individual incentive and learning?

How many of them are just going to school to get one of them jobs, and how many of them are going because they realize we have a brain capable of learning great things and genuinely take pleasure in doing so?