What should happen is that the people who haven’t sowed the crops could do some work in order to earn access to the crops. Then we could create some kind of system whereby people get rewarded for the work they provide with an abstract token. We could call this money and people could exchange it for goods and services.
Or those that are able to farm can do that and provide the food for those that can cook and provide that for those that can build who can provide that for those who can sew etc etc and all that can be shared with those who can’t do anything because at the end of the day a person’s worth should not be determined by what they can provide.
If you can’t provide anything at all please tell me what the value of their life is? They better provide some dam good conversations. Cuz if the people are starving? I’m not wasting food on people that can’t contribute anything.
How do we ensure the correct amount of people are doing the correct amount of work? The good thing about markets is that when demand is high and supply is low it suddenly becomes lucrative to do that thing and it attracts people to doing said thing. It becomes self correcting. If you leave people to just do what they most want to do everybody will choose to do what they consider fun rather than what is needed.
Yeah so what? The problem is the disproportionate accumulation of resources, goods or money. Which leads to accumulation of more of them, which lead to accumulation of power. There must be a limit on personal concentration of these. Anything above a level that is considered personal should belong to the community. Then there will be no incentive to make people capable of exploiting other people.
There would also be no incentive for anyone to produce anything beyond what they personally need, which would definitely lead to widespread food shortages. The more food that is produced at once the more efficient the labour is per crop, which is exactly why farms boomed in size after the industrial revolution and advent of farming machinery.
They incentive would be the prosperity of the community as long as people stop seeing each other competitive. Personal gain over dead bodies is only cancer.
So you think human beings should change their basic hardwired nature? Obviously humans have a tendency to care for the people closest to them over complete strangers. Humans always will come into conflicts of interest. What you’re asking for is for humanity to basically act perfectly all the time.
Yes, but as long as the “better” community doesn’t interfere and doesn’t try to take advantage of the less good communities I don’t see a problem. And of course doesn’t steal them their area and resources. Or does’t try to expand in ways that they accumulate more goods and resources than they need and can consume
Is this a genuine question wanting to find an answer? Only their consciousness can really prevent them or a “law enforcement” that we should first find a way to be uncorrupted. Is this realistic nowadays? Of course not, but we were talking hypothetically I think
Wealth inequality trends to increase over time. Without some system that actively redistributes wealth, eventually a few people own everything of value, and ordinary people are obligated to do whatever the lords want in order to gain access to the material resources they need to survive. That’s feudalism.
Can you name me one single time in human history that this wasn’t just the condition of the human race? Every time humans try to institute a wealth redistribution mechanism it becomes corrupted in less than 70 years and it just becomes feudalism again where the people are impoverished and starving and the only people living well are state officials lol
Small scale hunting and gathering societies are universally egalitarian because it’s impossible for any one person to accumulate significant wealth or to control resources. The way members of such societies gain influence therefore is through virtue and personal merit. This is the social system that we evolved to live in over hundreds of thousands of years, and it’s why we still haven’t figured out an equally amenable replacement in the mere ten thousand years since we adopted agriculture.
That said, for better or worse, agriculture is a trap, and once we adopted it, there was never any going back, so we have no choice but to keep trying with what we have.
Well, utilizing a little thing called “context clues” you can see that I’m very clearly not talking about the person I’m responding to. I’m talking about the person claiming private ownership would be better.
My point, is the hypocrisy. But I get it, over half of America reads below a 6th grade level. Ya’ll need help getting there.
Just don’t assign corporate ownership of the fields and it’s all good baby.
Just don’t overadjust and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkhoz
Personal ownership is just as bad. That leads to OG feudalism.
If i care for area for years, build, plant etc, someone else can come take it?
No, but you should not be allowed to accumulate more than what you can consume when your community is starving
What should happen is that the people who haven’t sowed the crops could do some work in order to earn access to the crops. Then we could create some kind of system whereby people get rewarded for the work they provide with an abstract token. We could call this money and people could exchange it for goods and services.
Or those that are able to farm can do that and provide the food for those that can cook and provide that for those that can build who can provide that for those who can sew etc etc and all that can be shared with those who can’t do anything because at the end of the day a person’s worth should not be determined by what they can provide.
If you can’t provide anything at all please tell me what the value of their life is? They better provide some dam good conversations. Cuz if the people are starving? I’m not wasting food on people that can’t contribute anything.
Sounds about right. You vote Republican, right?
You poor soul. You’ve been indoctrinated so hard by capitalism that you can’t value a human life if that life can’t give you something.
I hope you don’t have pets.
How do we ensure the correct amount of people are doing the correct amount of work? The good thing about markets is that when demand is high and supply is low it suddenly becomes lucrative to do that thing and it attracts people to doing said thing. It becomes self correcting. If you leave people to just do what they most want to do everybody will choose to do what they consider fun rather than what is needed.
What’s wrong with doing what’s fun? Necessity is an interesting motivator. The problem is when capitalists commoditize necessity.
There’s nothing wrong with having fun, but if people just did what they wanted to do all the time, society would just straight up collapse.
How likely is it that people’s preferred jobs match up with exactly what is needed?
You can still have money and markets. The fundamental problem is the ownership of land and businesses.
Yeah so what? The problem is the disproportionate accumulation of resources, goods or money. Which leads to accumulation of more of them, which lead to accumulation of power. There must be a limit on personal concentration of these. Anything above a level that is considered personal should belong to the community. Then there will be no incentive to make people capable of exploiting other people.
There would also be no incentive for anyone to produce anything beyond what they personally need, which would definitely lead to widespread food shortages. The more food that is produced at once the more efficient the labour is per crop, which is exactly why farms boomed in size after the industrial revolution and advent of farming machinery.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
They incentive would be the prosperity of the community as long as people stop seeing each other competitive. Personal gain over dead bodies is only cancer.
So you think human beings should change their basic hardwired nature? Obviously humans have a tendency to care for the people closest to them over complete strangers. Humans always will come into conflicts of interest. What you’re asking for is for humanity to basically act perfectly all the time.
But you can throw people out of your community? Then some communities will be a lot better off than others
Yes, but as long as the “better” community doesn’t interfere and doesn’t try to take advantage of the less good communities I don’t see a problem. And of course doesn’t steal them their area and resources. Or does’t try to expand in ways that they accumulate more goods and resources than they need and can consume
Hmm, who decides when they have too much area, and stops them from not following rules?
Is this a genuine question wanting to find an answer? Only their consciousness can really prevent them or a “law enforcement” that we should first find a way to be uncorrupted. Is this realistic nowadays? Of course not, but we were talking hypothetically I think
I wasn’t advocating personal ownership either. But how does that lead to OG feudalism?
Wealth inequality trends to increase over time. Without some system that actively redistributes wealth, eventually a few people own everything of value, and ordinary people are obligated to do whatever the lords want in order to gain access to the material resources they need to survive. That’s feudalism.
Can you name me one single time in human history that this wasn’t just the condition of the human race? Every time humans try to institute a wealth redistribution mechanism it becomes corrupted in less than 70 years and it just becomes feudalism again where the people are impoverished and starving and the only people living well are state officials lol
Every pre-agricultural society? I’m not saying they didn’t have their own problems, but feudalism wasn’t one of them.
Small scale hunting and gathering societies are universally egalitarian because it’s impossible for any one person to accumulate significant wealth or to control resources. The way members of such societies gain influence therefore is through virtue and personal merit. This is the social system that we evolved to live in over hundreds of thousands of years, and it’s why we still haven’t figured out an equally amenable replacement in the mere ten thousand years since we adopted agriculture.
That said, for better or worse, agriculture is a trap, and once we adopted it, there was never any going back, so we have no choice but to keep trying with what we have.
You mean like how it is right now?
Were I not lazy, I’d be willing to bet if I sift through their comments that I’d find something about landlords being bad.
They don’t like feudalism? ohhh noooooo.
Well, utilizing a little thing called “context clues” you can see that I’m very clearly not talking about the person I’m responding to. I’m talking about the person claiming private ownership would be better.
My point, is the hypocrisy. But I get it, over half of America reads below a 6th grade level. Ya’ll need help getting there.
Well, you called it with me. I was denied an education so I could work and support my family.
Horrah. Good on you. Very observant.
What hypocrisy have you unearthed?
“Were I not lazy”
I get it, you don’t read.
deleted by creator