I think the private ownership is coming from this:
Also, as a defender of the idea of division of powers, I honestly prefer when executive powers at all levels are distinct from planning/legislative. So if it does really “necessarily trend towards Communism” I’d hope whatever replaces the private owners does the same job of assuming responsibility if/when unfairness happens as it did before the fall. I’d hate if the same level of scrutiny and legal/social pressure wasn’t placed against the ones replacing them.
The liberal idea of… meritocracy, ah, not that’s maybe part of it, but… I know what I want to say, but I forget what it is called, hopefully you can guess it.
I think meritocracy covers it, it’s a very “liberal” idea that doesn’t really make any material sense. Like, private owners don’t assume responsibility, that’s part of the problem. Kinda like noblesse oblige.
No, by “assume responsibility” I mean: be the one who’s executed / imprisoned / their head cut off
It’s the State who should be enforcing that. I’m not saying private owners magically are responsible people… what I sad is that they will be the ones found responsible by the State.
I literally mean punishing the one who is the owner, whenever unfairness is found.
Who would be punished in Communism? and how?
But thanks for the attempt at trying to understand me, even if not very successfully :P
(also thanks @Edie@lemmy.ml )
In Communism, there will be administrators and planners, and the economy will be run more democratically. In the instance that someone is committing a crime, they would be rehabilitated, likely not punished. In Capitalism, business owners aren’t punished, really.
Yes, but that would be the legislative / planning arm… there should be, I expect, an executive arm carrying out the redistribution. Essentially, they would act as the owners of the profit generation-distribution of the particular service, in the same way the private owners do.
So my hope is that they are treated with the same level of scrutiny / social pressure. Essentially, there would not be a lot of difference between private ownership and a form of common ownership when both have a good control. Because at the end of the day, the control is what matters, not whether they have a paper that says “owner” or a paper that says “distributor”.
Number 1, the reason Communists don’t put too much stock into how Communism will function is because we believe it has to be built towards. We can only speculate. That being said…
In Communism, there’s no such thing as profit. Commodity production for exchange-value doesn’t exist. There is only production for Use-Value. There’s no need for a “profit redistribution” arm of anything, the administration will likely have different ministries like Ministry of Education, etc but there’s no need for these individual redistributors. There will be managers, planners, “accountants,” and more.
I think you’d do well to investigate how AES, countries trying to build towards Communism, function in reality.
I already asked you this question before, but you did not answer it, and I remember you were the one to use the word “profit” (in quotes) when talking about Communism for this same reason (I did notice).
How do you ensure the ones who work the hardest get the most Use-Value of the community “profit”?
Or do we no longer care about unfair redistribution of goods / services / food / water / housing / etc ?
Is it only under “private ownership” where we need to make sure we give more value to the ones who work the hardest? is it not unfair if someone who works the least gets more than someone who works the most? what about someone who happens to be friend with the one distributing housing?
…
And with this I go to bed, it’s late here… thanks for the discussion!
It depends on the phase in Communism. In lower phases, Labor Vouchers (centrally administered and destroyed on first use) would likely be used to for goods and services that aren’t essential, essentials would be free. Rates of Labor Vouchers would be based on hours worked, with more for higher skilled or more intense labor, and the same vouchers payed for less time worked in more strenuous or dangerous conditions. In higher phases, it likely wouldn’t matter, productivity would be high enough for the mantra “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.”
You can read more on economic planning, but again, please research AES to see how these countries are already attempting to work towards such a system.
I think the private ownership is coming from this:
The liberal idea of… meritocracy, ah, not that’s maybe part of it, but… I know what I want to say, but I forget what it is called, hopefully you can guess it.
I think meritocracy covers it, it’s a very “liberal” idea that doesn’t really make any material sense. Like, private owners don’t assume responsibility, that’s part of the problem. Kinda like noblesse oblige.
No, by “assume responsibility” I mean: be the one who’s executed / imprisoned / their head cut off
It’s the State who should be enforcing that. I’m not saying private owners magically are responsible people… what I sad is that they will be the ones found responsible by the State.
I literally mean punishing the one who is the owner, whenever unfairness is found.
Who would be punished in Communism? and how?
But thanks for the attempt at trying to understand me, even if not very successfully :P (also thanks @Edie@lemmy.ml )
In Communism, there will be administrators and planners, and the economy will be run more democratically. In the instance that someone is committing a crime, they would be rehabilitated, likely not punished. In Capitalism, business owners aren’t punished, really.
Yes, but that would be the legislative / planning arm… there should be, I expect, an executive arm carrying out the redistribution. Essentially, they would act as the owners of the profit generation-distribution of the particular service, in the same way the private owners do.
So my hope is that they are treated with the same level of scrutiny / social pressure. Essentially, there would not be a lot of difference between private ownership and a form of common ownership when both have a good control. Because at the end of the day, the control is what matters, not whether they have a paper that says “owner” or a paper that says “distributor”.
Number 1, the reason Communists don’t put too much stock into how Communism will function is because we believe it has to be built towards. We can only speculate. That being said…
In Communism, there’s no such thing as profit. Commodity production for exchange-value doesn’t exist. There is only production for Use-Value. There’s no need for a “profit redistribution” arm of anything, the administration will likely have different ministries like Ministry of Education, etc but there’s no need for these individual redistributors. There will be managers, planners, “accountants,” and more.
I think you’d do well to investigate how AES, countries trying to build towards Communism, function in reality.
I meant profit of Use-Value.
I already asked you this question before, but you did not answer it, and I remember you were the one to use the word “profit” (in quotes) when talking about Communism for this same reason (I did notice).
How do you ensure the ones who work the hardest get the most Use-Value of the community “profit”?
Or do we no longer care about unfair redistribution of goods / services / food / water / housing / etc ?
Is it only under “private ownership” where we need to make sure we give more value to the ones who work the hardest? is it not unfair if someone who works the least gets more than someone who works the most? what about someone who happens to be friend with the one distributing housing?
… And with this I go to bed, it’s late here… thanks for the discussion!
It depends on the phase in Communism. In lower phases, Labor Vouchers (centrally administered and destroyed on first use) would likely be used to for goods and services that aren’t essential, essentials would be free. Rates of Labor Vouchers would be based on hours worked, with more for higher skilled or more intense labor, and the same vouchers payed for less time worked in more strenuous or dangerous conditions. In higher phases, it likely wouldn’t matter, productivity would be high enough for the mantra “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.”
You can read more on economic planning, but again, please research AES to see how these countries are already attempting to work towards such a system.