this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
1365 points (97.4% liked)
linuxmemes
21226 readers
106 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There are a lot of benefits to it, like no real central leadership (more like central steering, not really iron fisted dictators which is what most implementations of it turned out to be), abolishing the monetary system (if implemented all the way), communes decide for themselves, good free healthcare, people are at the center of the system, not money/profit, etc.
If you abolish the monetary system, how do people acquire goods and services and get compensated for their labor?
Abolishing money is a very gradual process, not an immediate one. In lower stages, Labor Vouchers would be paid, and these represent an hour of labor. The difference is that labor Vouchers are destroyed upon first use.
Secondly, difficult, unpleasant, or otherwise undesirable labor would either be paid at a higher ratio, or require less labor per week to make the same amount of labor Vouchers. Alternatively, these dirty jobs may require rotation, so nobody is stuck working them. There are many ways of handling this, with more proposals than you would expect.
So labor vouchers are money that give special treatment to people who do undesirable tasks? Or are they forced upon people at random, like a temporary forced labor lottery?
Neither. It's a replacement for money, based on hours worked. The difference between money and LVs are that LVs are destroyed upon first use, ie you create 4 hours of Value, then trade that for 4 different hours of Value.
Who distributes these vouchers, and how? If everyone gets everything for free, what use are these vouchers?
People don't get everything for free until productivity is so high that it's practical, which comes from development. The distribution is handled by the Socialist State, typically, until it becomes vestigial and no longer necessary.
Would that require unlimited resources and automation to guarantee that level of productivity ethically?
Nope, just like it doesn't require unlimited resources and automation to get you to do your chores. However, at a societal scale, its definitely a futuristic goal, which is why Communism is only achievable after Socialism, which is similar to modern society except industry is collectively, rather than individually owned.
Even at a global scale? How would communism produce enough resources to sustain the human race while doing so ethically when at the same time removing all incentives by providing free food, shelter, clothing, entertainment, and everything else for free?
It can only happen at a global scale. There are numerous answers to your question, but again, it isn't as simple as removing all incentives. Read theory, Marx never pretends to know what Communism must look like, which is why Communists focus on achieving Socialism first, as we can very well transition to that now.
That requires a different mindset and (maybe) a different level of eveolution. Food is free, you take what you need. Services are free, if your house needs something fixed, you call the adequate people, they do the job, that's it. Same for healthcare, you just go to the doctor, no bill, you just leave (we used to have that around here). Tech products are free, you take what you need (TV, stereo, phone, PC, etc.). You go to work and do the same as everyone else, do your job and go home.
This is a very simplified version and as I said, it requires a different mindset. We're not used to that right now, it's alien to us.
You have to put someone in charge of distributing the goods and services, set laws to make interactions between parties fair, and divy up resources, and remove/rehabilitate criminals, and that inherently creates a power imbalance. How do you suggest we keep the leaders beholden to the governed in this system so they dont abuse this power?
You groom them from children. This is an unpopular opinion, but it's the best solution I could think of. Shamans have done the same in tribes. Some children show empathetic and leadership skills, stading behind the weak and sharing things equaly among siblings and other children. You pick those and groom them from children to take on the burden to be leaders. Yes, this is not fair, they'll never grow up to choose what they want to be, but so are so many things in life. Sacrifices have to be made for the greater good... and so many far worse things have happened in human history.
Under that system, all leadership would be exclusive and homogeneous, as they would all be a part of some select leadership class, not unlike the nobility class of europe. Picking people from childhood and grooming them to be leaders is no guarantee that they will be good leaders. What do we do if someone is a bad leader in this sytem?
You resign them from their positions because those leaders will not be the only ones in the country/world, more like a part of a council.
I have thought about this as well... this is the best I could come up with.
Who chooses when and why a leader will be removed?
The council, the rest of the people in it.
That concerns me because that creates a conflict of interest if the only people who can invite or remove people from the council are other members of said council. We see in the real world that breeds nepotism and corruption and makes non-violent policy change nearly impossible. Wouldn't it be better to allow the people to choose council members and remove them by vote when necessary?
Yeah, I see your point of view. May be better like that... or a combo of votes maybe (the people and the council).