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.
Again, I’m not asking what form that distribution takes, I’m asking how do you ensure it’s fair.
If there’s unfair exploitation, I could not care less if it involves Labor Vouchers, cheques, salt or cryptocurrency…
What I’m looking for is methods to detect and punish those who manipulate the system to distribute those goods unfairly. Those who lick the right boots to try and get favors from their distributing friends. I want to see how those countries are placing measures to punish THEIR OWN friends if they are unfair EVEN when it would benefit the one executing punishment to let it slide, I’m asking what method of PROTECTION (not prosecution) those who denounce problems in the system will receive. I’m asking how do you ensure transparency… how can people detect if something might be wrong? and if something is wrong and someone finds Xi Jinping with heir hands in a pot of foul honey, how can they guarantee they’ll be able to openly criticize and denounce leading to punishment in the same way my ideal State would punish those who distribute unfairly for their own benefit.
Those are the things that are important. Those are the things that prevent exploitation. I have not yet heard one measure against abuse that could not be applied in a system with private ownership. You could perfectly provide free essentials in a “private ownership” society, in fact many countries considered capitalists already do some level of this (admittedly, not enough, but it’s a good direction), my ideal State would have this cranked to 11.
We are getting nowhere with this. Why don’t you start over from the beginning. Tell me what your approach is, what your Utopia looks like, why it’s a good thing, and why it will come to be.
We reached max comment depth in the other thread so I cannot reply there… I’ll post the response here to your question:
That’s decided by the State, they are the ones enforcing those rights and demanding those obligations.
This is idealism, not materialism, ie this believes ideas create reality, rather than the inverse.
No, materialism is the view that all of reality can be reduced to the material, while idealism is the view that all of reality is in the realm of the mind / mental experience. I think you are mixing concepts, and in any case, neither of those positions has ever been able to be proven true… I’m perfectly happy to talk about philosophy of the mind (though you’ll find I’m more of an epiphenomenalist… even though all positions in this case have their issues), but it’s a completely different topic and you are not applying the concept correctly here.
I am applying them correctly, and it’s important, your shift in definition of them is more semantical than functional. You think the name of a concept is the driving factor in what it is, functionally. I can point you to Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy if you don’t trust my knowledge of philosophy.
When it comes to your argument, “Ownership” is just an authority position recognized by the state as falling under that term. There’s no functional requirements or powers. This is an absurd definition that adds confusion, rather than clarity. A society where “owners” have no actual ability to buy or sell what they “own” and who are selected by society to “own” rather than by virtue of posession aren’t owners at all. They are administrators and managers that society has chosen to refer to as “owners” despite not being such in any traditional capacity, and by “traditional” I mean in all of history.
This form of “ownership” is so far divorced from the common meaning of the term that its only purpose is for the semantical game you’ve decided to play.
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.
Again, I’m not asking what form that distribution takes, I’m asking how do you ensure it’s fair.
If there’s unfair exploitation, I could not care less if it involves Labor Vouchers, cheques, salt or cryptocurrency…
What I’m looking for is methods to detect and punish those who manipulate the system to distribute those goods unfairly. Those who lick the right boots to try and get favors from their distributing friends. I want to see how those countries are placing measures to punish THEIR OWN friends if they are unfair EVEN when it would benefit the one executing punishment to let it slide, I’m asking what method of PROTECTION (not prosecution) those who denounce problems in the system will receive. I’m asking how do you ensure transparency… how can people detect if something might be wrong? and if something is wrong and someone finds Xi Jinping with heir hands in a pot of foul honey, how can they guarantee they’ll be able to openly criticize and denounce leading to punishment in the same way my ideal State would punish those who distribute unfairly for their own benefit.
Those are the things that are important. Those are the things that prevent exploitation. I have not yet heard one measure against abuse that could not be applied in a system with private ownership. You could perfectly provide free essentials in a “private ownership” society, in fact many countries considered capitalists already do some level of this (admittedly, not enough, but it’s a good direction), my ideal State would have this cranked to 11.
Are you asking about how to remove people from government? Recall elections.
No, I wasn’t asking that. And I feel I might have answered why I think that’s not a sufficient response to my question in the other comment.
We are getting nowhere with this. Why don’t you start over from the beginning. Tell me what your approach is, what your Utopia looks like, why it’s a good thing, and why it will come to be.
We reached max comment depth in the other thread so I cannot reply there… I’ll post the response here to your question:
That’s decided by the State, they are the ones enforcing those rights and demanding those obligations.
No, materialism is the view that all of reality can be reduced to the material, while idealism is the view that all of reality is in the realm of the mind / mental experience. I think you are mixing concepts, and in any case, neither of those positions has ever been able to be proven true… I’m perfectly happy to talk about philosophy of the mind (though you’ll find I’m more of an epiphenomenalist… even though all positions in this case have their issues), but it’s a completely different topic and you are not applying the concept correctly here.
I am applying them correctly, and it’s important, your shift in definition of them is more semantical than functional. You think the name of a concept is the driving factor in what it is, functionally. I can point you to Georges Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy if you don’t trust my knowledge of philosophy.
When it comes to your argument, “Ownership” is just an authority position recognized by the state as falling under that term. There’s no functional requirements or powers. This is an absurd definition that adds confusion, rather than clarity. A society where “owners” have no actual ability to buy or sell what they “own” and who are selected by society to “own” rather than by virtue of posession aren’t owners at all. They are administrators and managers that society has chosen to refer to as “owners” despite not being such in any traditional capacity, and by “traditional” I mean in all of history.
This form of “ownership” is so far divorced from the common meaning of the term that its only purpose is for the semantical game you’ve decided to play.