Communism. Good or bad. What do you really know about Communism?

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by crinolynne

I think you missed my point - there are of course companies that provide the service - but the local not for profit version doesn't exist. My point being that both the capitalist model is less than effective - cost, convenience etc. and the communal model have problems as you so eloquently describe for the latter.

Me, I'm thinking Uber-Grass, 'cept in these days people will think that's a marijuana delivery service... now that's an idea...

Capitalists will not provide a service if there is no profit in it. How can they make a profit from communal lawn mowers?

Uber is a for-profit company as well. it sounds like a good power-to-the-people idea, but the fact is, most of their drivers end up making minimum wage when the day is done, and the big money goes to the clever people sitting in an office somewhere who thought up the Uber app in the first place.

The downside for the consumer is, instead of getting a qualified taxi driver, you are getting an unknown in terms of temperament and skill. What if you get a crazy man for a driver? This has already happened.

There's plenty of capitalist shuck-and-jive behind most of these "revolutionary" new internet based businesses. Always plenty of suckers willing to jump in for a new capitalist experience too, even though their house may get trashed by an airbnb customer, or they might get bedroom-cammed by an airbnb lease-lord.

What PT Barnum said back in the day still holds true.

[Roubignol]

IMO. As long as there will be unsatisfied consumerist and greedy idiots on this planet, Communism will never succeed.

About the lawn mower story.
In France, farmers are exploited by supermarkets and their customers.
To financially survive, they often create small cooperative to buy one tractor together and share it for all the members of the cooperative.

For lawn mowers, it could be the same between people living in a village.
For example: a village of 2000 homes, instead to get 1500 lawn mowers, they could maybe get 200 shared by neighborhood.

The problem is that the price of a lawn-mower is extremely cheap, because of the robotization and the relocation of the industry (often in China) today.
So "rich" people instead to wait maybe one week to get the right to use the collective lawn mower, will buy their own ones.

When you look at Communism, you often think at USSR or Cuba.
But there are other forms of community that are very developped even in Capitalist countries.
They often are relied to "religion" as the kibbuz with Israelian Jews or the evangelist Mennonites in Bolivia.

Just read the definition of the kibbuz found on French Wikipedia:

The kibbutz is, by definition:

"A community deliberately formed by its members, essentially agricultural, where there is no private property and which is supposed to provide for all the needs of its members and their families". The predominantly agricultural character is today largely outdated.

"A settlement unit whose members are organized in community on the basis of common property ownership, advocating individual work, equality of all and cooperation of all members in all areas of production, consumption and and education ".

A Zionist organization intended for the settlement of Jewish populations in the land of Israel.

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

When you look at Communism, you often think at USSR or Cuba.
But there are other forms of community that are very developped even in Capitalist countries.
They often are relied to "religion" as the kibbuz with Israelian Jews or the evangelist Mennonites in Bolivia.

But how are the Kibbutzim and Mennonite supposed to defend themselves? No defence, not reason to join such things.

Such self-sufficient communes are known since ancient times, but why haven't they evolved into states? Or at least got defence against states?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Enrico32

But how are the Kibbutzim and Mennonite supposed to defend themselves? No defence, not reason to join such things.

Such self-sufficient communes are known since ancient times, but why haven't they evolved into states? Or at least got defence against states?

Because people are free to leave them.

Kibbutzim, I might add, might be communal internally-- but externally they participate in the market. That is, essentially what they are is a "worker coop" in a market economy.

That's entirely possible-- we've got lots of worker owned coops. They can work tolerably well for an enterprise that never needs capital investment. The Amish furniture makers are another example

But capital is required for all sorts of enterprises, and while some coops-- like the kibbutz- are able to get some debt finance, in general a coop can't do much in the way of growth in a dynamic market.

[sobaka]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Lawn mower - I have to have one to mow my lawn, lest the grass turn to high meadows and disease bearing bugs move in. Could I get by with a communal lawn mower shared with several neighbors? Dicey setting up times to use it. Also, when it breaks, who pays for repairs? What if one neighbor is more abusive of the communal lawn mower than the rest of us? Do we blame him, and order him to make repairs, and let our lawns go to seed when he doesn't take responsibility for his actions and fix it?

Soviet communists probably never had to consider this particular problem since almost none of them had lawns.

Well on the kholkoz where my in-laws live, most tractors and farm machinery was owned and operated by the communally-operated MTS (machine-traktor stansiya). As a result the field behind it is a large field of rusting inoperative tractors. No one owns, so no one maintains.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by sobaka

As a result the field behind it is a large field of rusting inoperative tractors. No one owns, so no one maintains.

I speak about the case of French cooperative farmers, I've seen, the middles of production that they share together are sent to a technician to be maintained and fixed. That's the fundamentum to survive.

No matter the cooperative or the company, if idiots are in the management, the system dies.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Because people are free to leave them.

Kibbutzim, I might add, might be communal internally-- but externally they participate in the market. That is, essentially what they are is a "worker coop" in a market economy.

That's entirely possible-- we've got lots of worker owned coops. They can work tolerably well for an enterprise that never needs capital investment. The Amish furniture makers are another example

But capital is required for all sorts of enterprises, and while some coops-- like the kibbutz- are able to get some debt finance, in general a coop can't do much in the way of growth in a dynamic market.

I watched an interesting report about Bolivian Mennonites (it's a community composed only by members having German and Dutch origins).
Honestly it was extreme. Women rights are not really respected in those communities and all non-Mennonites people are seen by them, as potentially highly subversive ones.
But they sell their products to local Bolivian people and the journalists asked to the Bolivian people, how were these Mennonites and the people answered: "Extremely productive, they help us a lot."

One thing is sure, climate change and waste of energy resources are not their
responsability.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

I watched an interesting report about Bolivian Mennonites (it's a community composed only by members having German and Dutch origins).
Honestly it was extreme. Women rights are not really respected in those communities and all non-Mennonites people are seen by them, as potentially highly subversive ones.
But they sell their products to local Bolivian people and the journalists asked to the Bolivian people, how were these Mennonites and the people answered: "Extremely productive, they help us a lot."

One thing is sure, climate change and waste of energy resources are not their
responsability.

There are some fairly horrific abuses in the South American Mennonite colonias. These are extreme places, little theocracies. A lot of efficiency, but they're highly authoritarian. In authoritarian entities, if the power is responsible, they can be decent places-- but sooner or later you get a bad leader or leadership group, and then you're kinda screwed.

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

There are some fairly horrific abuses in the South American Mennonite colonias. These are extreme places, little theocracies. A lot of efficiency, but they're highly authoritarian. In authoritarian entities, if the power is responsible, they can be decent places-- but sooner or later you get a bad leader or leadership group, and then you're kinda screwed.

But they don't start wars!!

Behold, do they even have leaders? Or something more along the clan line?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Enrico32

But they don't start wars!!

Behold, do they even have leaders? Or something more along the clan line?

They do somewhat worse than "start wars", at least in some of the colonias -- some sheltered Nazis, and kept locals as slaves, subject to brutality.

The worst was the Colonia Dignidad where there seems to have been a habit of drugging and raping children.

It all sounds a bit reminiscent of the despicable Warren Jeffs.

[sobaka]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

I speak about the case of French cooperative farmers, I've seen, the middles of production that they share together are sent to a technician to be maintained and fixed. That's the fundamentum to survive.

.

Aye, and there's the rub. The French co-op members own the equipment. They have an economic stake in the co-ops assets. The old communist Kholkoz system, did not have that element. Serfs were forced to join, their production was 'owned' by the state and they got to keep a minuscule portion which they survived on (sort of a reverse high rate taxation, in effect). They had no incentive to maintain the common assets, as that was the responsibility of the state.