Forum Post: The truth about Common-ism before it's been filtered through Capitalist mediums
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 21, 2011, 1:54 a.m. EST by huemanoun
(18)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Communism..known as but not pronounced as commonism stated that some things should be common and not privately owned.."the means of production" aka food, utensils, clothing, shelter should all just be common property for the people instead of priced and private. However this ideal is not what is practiced in china or russia...it is a virtue that they tell their people that they practice...much like the united states tell its people that capitalism promotes competition which means lower prices for higher quality goods...this is the ideal of capitalism but that is not the real state of capitalism out there...but it sounds good if the country does it...
anyways commonism states that no people should be excluded by privitization and that they should have things for common use..AKA it is SHARING
take for example some cups you have at your house...when you are not using them your neighbor can use them..they are yours they are your neighbors they are common..you dont have to go out and buy them...you dont need two sets of your own to use half the time..you can commonly use one..and they mean this for everything..food...books...machines etc etc..and it sort of makes sense..there are tribes of eskimos where the entire tribe has two snowmobiles..and the entire tribe uses them...whereas in america every fucking person needs his or her own car..to the point we pile them up in lots and they sit their all day and night..because we refuse to share them...if im not using my car...what do i care if its being used...communism makes sense...why produce ten cars for ten people..when they can have two that they have for common use...I'll tell you why
you can make more money selling everybody his or her own fucking car..so why sell two cars when you can sell ten..and people are so warped by capitalism they all want their own private space...that they can lock themselves up in...meanwhile you have everybody using cars...thus pollution increases as well
you dont get smog alerts and global warming in alaska when one tribe uses two snowmobiles..they still get the advantage of modern technology without the price of pollution because they share..it is COMMONLY OWNED
this is what COMMUNISM is all about..COMMONLY OWNED things rather than privately owned things...however capitalism creates increased production from industry which means more sales..which means more money in the pockets of the owners of industry..and they dont care about the environment..they care about their own wealth..so they will go to war with communism because it means that people dont need their own fucking car..they all share one...and that means they cant sell ten fucking cars..thus nobody is getting rich..so they go to war with commonism...and they call it communism so people don't fucking know what it really is
Oh yes, everything was held in common in the U.S.S.R. The elite gamed the game and hoarded all the wealth while the 99% stood in bread lines.
Okay... instead of going off on all that I see wrong with this, because I'd be here all night, I'll just bring up one very simple point.
What's to stop me from going into my neighbor's house and eating all of his food instead of bringing my own food home?
I mean, if I own the food he brings home as much as he does, then why can't I just walk through his front door (which is also mine), drink his single-malt whiskey (hey, don't I have a share in that), eat all of his kid's birthday cake (mine too), take a crap on his brand new persian rug (because his/my bathroom's too far away), then eat the meal his wife prepared for him when he gets home from work (because I'm hungry and his/my food looks really good), and then take his brand new 52 inch TV (because I want to watch his/my TV at my/his house that I'm sleeping in) home with me?
In fact, why even work? If he's a manager at a local company making $500,000 worth of paper a year, isn't part of that paper (which he has the audacity to call "his" money) mine too?
what's to stop you? someone else would have already done that.
huemanoun, your argument is flawed because it fails to recognize ownership; I own a car and John lives 30 miles away; John does not own my car simply because we live in the same country.
You understand what ownership is, right?
Google "The Tragedy of the Commons"
I think communism is naive, but the tragedy of the commons fails just as hard for private property. It's the best argument for government regulation of common resources that there is.
About one page down see "Libertarianism and the Tragedy of the Commons" http://www.spectacle.org/897/trust.html
"But most human beings, left in complete freedom to act, will select the short-term gain"
this is a pretty haphazard explanation of communism. as an anarchist communist, I have to say, nobody wants you to collectivize your cups. Cups can be personal possessions. Its property that we have a problem with. Not possessions.
land itself in capitalist countries is divied up and sold as a private commodity which is ridiculous...a perfect example of how inefficient capitalism is take the homeless they have no home and yet while we are at work or school 90 percent of our homes are empty...so you have people with no homes and homes with no people...this is how inefficient our society is..however the bottom line is capital not standard of living...so when people say neo feudalism...they are close to right
I have a dumb question how can you be an anarchist and communist at the same time arent those mutually exclusive?
all anarchists are socialists yo! Anarchism has always been a libertarian, dissenting current within the socialist tradition. It means free communism without a state!
http://libcom.org/thought/anarchist-communism-an-introduction
That's not ALL what communism is about, but I like the idea of sharing. When I think of what's in my hut, e.g. when I have to move, then it is a lot of things that I hardly ever use. And sometimes if I want, I don't find them in time, because it is to many to organize storage properly. Hey man you are right, why don't we generally share things like tools or things that you need just to try if some hobby would interest ourselves (often you only try it and then that's it). Why are there not lending storages in every neighbourhood where those hardly ever used things are stored properly like books in the library and everybody who just needs one can borrow for just some days. The lending administration are homeland work places and energy and material resources are saved ...
Another things what we have much to much is all those pretty or funny to look at stuff that you always get as presents. Who to hell invented this rule, that it is forbidden to give useful things as present, a rule that regard so many that I know. Isn't it possible for example to give then at least extremely useful things that look pretty as well, like coffee makers in porsche design?
If the many would not have the things, they hardly ever need, there would from a perspectiv of planet resources, I am sure, definitely ALL PEOPLE be able to have all the things that they DO need.
The main principal is that people have things and they are COMMONLY owned rather than everything being privately owned...however when people have commonly owned things they are consuming less because the things they have are used more efficiently amongst them...as I said this is an enemy of corporate capitalism greed because if the people are buying less of their things..if ten people share 3 cars...then their is no demand for everyone of them to have his or her own car..thus they cannot sell ten cars..they can only sell 3...so they fucking hate commonism
But in a "commonist" world they could then think of instead producing many, many shared cars for those billions of people in the world, who cannot afford any car or sharing of a car at all ... And this is exactly another major issue: All this current crisis economy now and hundreds of millions of poor individual soles have is not due to lack of resources. So many, even high educated look for work, every industry of so many today is hungry for increasing the turnover of goods they produce and is able to immediately multiply it if needed. Genious middle class engineers of all subjects invented in the last hundred years already the definite base for a real paradise on earth for all of us by increasing productivity incredibly far by new technological methods now available. The only thing hindering is the extremely unequal distribution of the funds for buying things, which is getting worse and worse nowadays in very rapid movement.
The miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fish is the keyTHE KEY for all our problems that everybody has today. This is Christian but also a good example of Commonism that should lead politicians thinking now but just doesn't, nowwhere!
The bad thing is that economy is like if the wealth distribution problem will go on for a longer time, real resource problems will be ahead, as the number of functioning production units will soon adapt to sinking purchasing power of the multitude. And that is why this is now the latest moment in nearer history to politically stop that type of crises that will be much more severe to all of us and people everywhere, when we will really have lack of available resources for living!!!
Difference in degree of crises will be: Many don't have the money to buy things they need and that are in principle available (that is already today) versus the things many need to buy are not even there!!!