2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettSuppose your new country is a tremendous succes ..... lol ............ sorry ... erm ... I couldn't help it ..... and lots and lots of people decide they would like to live in your paradise. In fact they present themselves as political refugees on the borders trying to get in. How would you select the people who want to come and live in your country ? How many do you want to let in, say, per year ?
Yes.
Originally posted by rwingettTrue.
You seem to have great difficulty in conceptualizing a non-hierarchical, communal society in action, which is not surprising considering that you've been ingrained with a lifetime of capitalist lies and propoganda. But I assure you that such a society is not only possible, but that it does, in fact, work in practice.
What happens when one commune member decides to grow wheat and another sets up a free- range chicken farm on the same patch of earth?
What if some commune members plant organic vegetables and another member decides to spray them because he doesn't like caterpillars on his cabbages?
Capitalist lies and propaganda advance the concept of ownership - the person who owns the land decides to crop it or leases it out to a person who then has rights of possession.
If no-one owns land, how do you get consensus on its use?
Originally posted by steerpikeOnce again you are assuming a typically capitalistic mode of relation between people inwhich everyone is pursuing their own narrow path without any relation to the community as a whole. As agricultural land is owned colloctively, as opposed to being privately owned, what is to be planted on that land and how it is to be planted are decisions that the community will make collectively. Every member would have a vote in determining the land usage policies. So individuals wouldn't start their own chicken farm or purchase their own fertilizer. If the members decide a chicken farm would be an asset to the community, then such an enterprise would be collectively owned and maintained. Likewise, the community would vote on what farming policies to pursue. It's direct democracy in action.
True.
What happens when one commune member decides to grow wheat and another sets up a free- range chicken farm on the same patch of earth?
What if some commune members plant organic vegetables and another member decides to spray them because he doesn't like caterpillars on his cabbages?
Capitalist lies and propaganda advance the concept of owne ...[text shortened]... ho then has rights of possession.
If no-one owns land, how do you get consensus on its use?
Originally posted by ivanhoeWe would allow 100 Catholics into the country so we could parade them through the streets of the capital in chains and have the populace throw rotting vegetables at them.
Suppose your new country is a tremendous succes ..... lol ............ sorry ... erm ... I couldn't help it ..... and lots and lots of people decide they would like to live in your paradise. In fact they present themselves as political refugees on the borders trying to get in. How would you select the people who want to come and live in your country ? How many do you want to let in, say, per year ?
...but seriously...
How should I know that answer to that? Secularia would allow more people into the country, that's why I had a provision for the practice of religion in my introduction. It's assumed that eventually some believers will immigrate into the country or some citizens will convert at some point. But I don't have an immigration policy all ready to go. You can propose one if you wish.
Originally posted by rwingett
We would allow 100 Catholics into the country so we could parade them through the streets of the capital in chains and have the populace throw rotting vegetables at them.
...but seriously...
How should I know that answer to that? Secularia would allow more people into the country, that's why I had a provision for the practice of religion in my intro ...[text shortened]... . But I don't have an immigration policy all ready to go. You can propose one if you wish.
Why are you focusing on religion ?
The people I am talking about, refugees, are a mixture of everything you can think of, like in real life. You know .... real life ?
An immigration policy that is very popular among the left in your country/paradise would be to let everybody in. How about that ?
Originally posted by DecanterIn an economically "frictionless" society all service qulaities are based on the number of people and the infrastructure to support them. i.e. without a monetary system whether you get a decent train service is down to the number of people to run them and the tools to build & maintain them.
Not necessarily.
This country has heavily subsidized transit, heavily subsidized alternative energy sources, heavily subsidized post-secondary education, free health care, free primary and secondary education, and economic policy is heavily pro-labour.
All of this has to be paid for. Traditionally, the best source of income is taxation. Corporations ...[text shortened]... the government would basically have to run the entire society without any revenue to do it with.
Whether secularia has state run or privately run public services that still remains true (putting aside for the moment which one would entice more people to live there). In other words, with slight variance for the different types of bureaucracy, the man-hours/resources or "money" actually spent on the service itself is the same.
So, if I understand you correctly, you think that due to the labour friendly policies most of the money is flowing into the hands of the average taxpayer instead of the excessive taxpayer, thus there is less money to be spent on the public services. BUT this doesn't balance the books, because with public services you are no longer being charged for the (private) service you will have to pay an equivalent sum in taxation to cover the maintainance cost of the service.
So while taxes will be big (even with progressive taxation it will likely be the same or higher than capitalist societies for the average citizen), cost of living will be very low. The overall cost would remain the same...
You do raise one good point about entrepreneurs, which relates to whether you would have enough people wanting to live in secularia to provide decent quality public services. Indeed, this is why, in today's climate, secularia would indeed fail to demonstrate itself as a superior society (which it isn't and is why it isn't).
In a capitalist society, entrepreneur means something completely different to what it would in a communal society. On the basic level there actually a lot of similarities:
Mr. Cap will have to persuade a bunch of rich, greedy financiers to fund him, find and pay the workforce required, purchase the required resources and finally deliver a result or go bankrupt.
Mr. Com will have to find a bunch of similarly minded individuals, persuade them to join (fund & work) his enterprise and with their support request the needed resources (land) from the government. Collectively they will either thrive or fail and lose the land grant from the government.
Both Mr. Com and Mr. Cap need similar skills to acheive their ends, the risks and potential losses they take are slightly different. Where the difference really comes in is in who each will find to support their enterprise.
Mr. Cap will not be put under any restrictions, aside from a few legalites and assurances, the financiers will pretty much give him a carte blanche to do what he wants with the money...but will expect better results and higher profits.
Mr. Com will be put under a more constant (rather than severe) restriction in that the very people he has recruited for his enterprise all have an equal say in it's running (more or less), but because the payout is more equally shared Mr. Com stands to make betteer profits than Mr. Cap.
So in capitalaria an entrepreneur is someone who can handle adversity.
In secularia it's someone who can handle adverse people.
Due to modern western society the population of the world tends more towards creating the egotistical, individualistic and self-centred type of entrepreneur which is more suitable for capitalist econmies. This means there less of the empathic, broad-minded and sociable types of entrepreneur needed for secularia.
Frankly, I 'd love it if someone could come up with the political/economic idealogy that can take both types on board...but that's way, way, way in the future still.
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by MayharmI have a couple of problems with what is generally a well thought out post on your part.
In an economically "frictionless" society all service qulaities are based on the number of people and the infrastructure to support them. i.e. without a monetary system whether you get a decent train service is down to the number of people to run them and the tools to build & maintain them.
Whether secularia has state run or privately run public service ...[text shortened]... gy that can take both types on board...but that's way, way, way in the future still.
MÅ¥HÅRM
The tax rate in Norway and Sweden (for example) is higher than it is in the US. Do those countries lack in entrepreneurs, or are entrepreneurs flooding out of the country in droves? No. Norway and Sweden have plenty of entrepreneurs AND they have among the highest Human Development Indexes in the world. Obviously there is something that makes people want to live in those countries. I think, contrary to your assessment, that a country like Secularia would have a great number of attractions to draw people in.
I think my system would provide the best of both worlds that you seem to be seeking. There is a capitalist sector which allows for a level of entrepreneurial maneuvering and which provides an avenue for people who have no interest in a communal lifestyle. Plus there is a communal sector which, I think, would be hugely popular if it were to be presented to people as a realistice alternative, rather than as some kind of counter culture hippie thing. If you were to strip away all the 60s/cult/and Stalinist misconceptions that people have and demonstrate that it's a viable way of running society at large, then I think it would prove to be very popular.
Originally posted by ivanhoeDo you mean, would we take any type of person, or would we take an unlimited number of people? I would probably say yes to the former and no to the latter.
Why are you focusing on religion ?
The people I am talking about, refugees, are a mixture of everything you can think of, like in real life. You know .... real life ?
An immigration policy that is very popular among the left in your country/paradise would be to let everybody in. How about that ?
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI don't think refugees wanting to immigrate to Secularia would be a problem...the problem would be the huge amount of people who'd want to emmigrate.
Why are you focusing on religion ?
The people I am talking about, refugees, are a mixture of everything you can think of, like in real life. You know .... real life ?
An immigration policy that is very popular among the left in you ...[text shortened]... /paradise would be to let everybody in. How about that ?
Originally posted by rwingettYeah sorry about that, got so caught up in describing the difference between communist and capitalist entreprenuers with decanter that I didn't really reference your stuff appropriately.
I have a couple of problems with what is generally a well thought out post on your part.
The tax rate in Norway and Sweden (for example) is higher than it is in the US. Do those countries lack in entrepreneurs, or are entrepreneurs flooding out of the country in droves? No. Norway and Sweden have plenty of entrepreneurs AND they have among the highest H ...[text shortened]... it's a viable way of running society at large, then I think it would prove to be very popular.
However, I dont think your capitalist sector will function, at least not the way you think it will. With your socialist policies in place and such severe restrictions on capitalism, I think most people would actually end up choosing different means of doing business, the communal approach being the obvious one since it's part of the country's setup.
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by MayharmThat's fine. I only included a capitalist sector for people who objected to communal societies and who wanted to be entrepreneurial go-getters. They would have a chance to acquire a modest little fortune. But nobody needs or deserves to be as rich as Bill Gates. So if everyone chose to live in the communal sector, then that would hardly be a disaster. But at least they would have a realistic choice between the two.
Yeah sorry about that, got so caught up in describing the difference between communist and capitalist entreprenuers with decanter that I didn't really reference your stuff appropriately.
However, I dont think your capitalist sector will function, at least not the way you think it will. With your socialist policies in place and such severe restrictions on ...[text shortened]... the communal approach being the obvious one since it's part of the country's setup.
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by rwingettSorry - I have misunderstood completely what you meant by communal farming societies.
Once again you are assuming a typically capitalistic mode of relation between people inwhich everyone is pursuing their own narrow path without any relation to the community as a whole. As agricultural land is owned colloctively, as opposed to being privately owned, what is to be planted on that land and how it is to be planted are decisions that the commun ...[text shortened]... , the community would vote on what farming policies to pursue. It's direct democracy in action.
I had assumed you were talking about real farms - where enough food is produced for a reasonable unsubsidised income for those working on the land. This implies a certain size for most farms to allow machinery to be used effectively and a concentration on a small range of crops and animals. These economic rules apply regardless of who owns the land. Real farms produce abundant food for city dwellers, provide employment for other country people and provide a tax base for public services - such as hospitals and schools.
As well as real farms, there are play farms. These are set up by middle class urbanites who have a dream of living like the Waltons. A few hectares, a big house away from neighbours, a ride on lawn mower and a big four wheel drive is the right wing dream, for left wingers, community sharing and organic vegetables. What they have in common is they have made their money in a capitalist system and can run their farm as an expensive hobby - there is no need for it to produce any food or income at all.
So a group of half a dozen people playing at being farmers is going to work out fine. But I would plan on importing food into your country and taxing the productive sectors to pay for the lifestyle of your communal farmers.
Originally posted by RedmikeYou are. But you should learn not to sign your posts that way. Far too honest.
Nutcase.[/b]
You still read Mao every day? How many millions did he kill? I'll give you a hint... "More than any other Dictator In The History of the world".
It is good that you still dream of beating that lofty goal. And remember... not quite so honest. Instead of signing "nutcase", just say , "Commie and Proud".
Originally posted by steerpikeOnce again you are merely bringing your own misconceptions to the table. A half dozen people operating what amounts to a large garden is not what I am advocating at all. I'm talking about a community with as many as 500 people farming a very large area of land. Of course, with modern farming techniques it doesn't require 500 people to operate a farm. So agriculture would be only one area of production that a typical community would specialize in. There is absolutely no reason why a society organized in such a fashion would not be able to feed themselves adequately. There is no reason why a communal sector could not be a productive sector.
Sorry - I have misunderstood completely what you meant by communal farming societies.
I had assumed you were talking about real farms - where enough food is produced for a reasonable unsubsidised income for those working on the land. This implies a certain size for most farms to allow machinery to be used effectively and a concentration on a small ran ...[text shortened]... our country and taxing the productive sectors to pay for the lifestyle of your communal farmers.
People steeped in capitalist mythology like to point to the Chinese, Russian, or North Korean examples of collective farming and make the claim that it doesn't work, or it is ineffecient. In those cases it may be so, but I am not advocating a system based on failed Stalinist/Maoist guidelines. My example is one of a community of people collectively managing their own affairs within their autonomous community themselves.
Originally posted by rwingettA community of 500 people would indeed require a large farm. Most farms around here support a single famuly so you are talking about a collective farm considerably larger than a capitalist farm. I am glad you will use modern farming machinery - so not all will have to do the farm work. Unless your farm is very large, it is hard to imagine work for more than about 50 people.
Once again you are merely bringing your own misconceptions to the table. A half dozen people operating what amounts to a large garden is not what I am advocating at all. I'm talking about a community with as many as 500 people farming a very large area of land. Of course, with modern farming techniques it doesn't require 500 people to operate a farm. So a ...[text shortened]... of people collectively managing their own affairs within their autonomous community themselves.
Do those who do not contribute to the farm work have a say in collective decision making and the work that others do for them?
And would practical and theoritical knowledge of farming be a pre-requisite before a commune member is allowed to join in decsion making?
And if the commune members are not happily driving their tractors, what other productive work could they do way out in the country-side?
How do you get 500 people to agree on anything without factionalism and politics?