Communism must win, so that the world can be saved

Author: Best.Korea ,

Posts

Total: 112
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 2,517
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @3RU7AL
i'm not sure what kind of family you've experienced
A large one.

but it would seem to be pretty rare for a family to let one of their members walk around without clothes
Where did I imply this?
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 51
0
2
6
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
0
2
6
--> @Athias
The example which you provided is the example of free trade with later some hints of exploitation.

Free trade can exist in Communism in a way that you are free to sell your products at the price you set. And others are allowed to resell them.

Whether someone will get rich from that is not so important.

If your example was happening in Communism, the beautiful woman would still have to work spending her time selling burgers. She wouldnt be able to hire workers to work instead of her.

She would never have an empire.

There would be very little exploitation in that example. Some, yes. But still much lower than in capitalism. 

If my buisness fails because of her, it means the products I produce are no longer wanted by society. So the state provides me with different job to produce products desired by society.

Notice that the same example in capitalism would maybe allow her to start an empire, earn much more money with much less work.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 51
0
2
6
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
0
2
6
--> @Athias
"The rich provide capital which workers then use to produce products later distributed to the workers."
The capital of the rich was created by workers. The rich are not necessary in this situation.



Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 51
0
2
6
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
0
2
6
"If one or more of the workers dissent, how is their input evaluated?"
Probably by a vote of majority.
Basically, if there are 20 people owning the buisness, they set wages by a vote. Every worker gets to vote. If most of them agree on a wage, thats what the wage becomes.
But this is only in the case where there is a production line.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 51
0
2
6
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
0
2
6
"Who pays operation costs? Inventory costs? Costs of maintaining capital? Rent? Delivery expenses, etc.? The taxes which "benefit" them?"

The cost of production, to sum it up, is payed by the workers themselves. Either directly with their money, either helped by the state.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 51
0
2
6
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
0
2
6
"Who pays for this?"

Who pays the taxes? The workers. But workers only pay the taxes that they have benefits from. For example, worker pays tax that allows education. In return, children are able to have an education. That increases production and quality of life in society. So its for the benefit of a worker too and the society as a whole.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 2,517
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @Best.Korea
The example which you provided is the example of free trade with later some hints of exploitation.

Free trade can exist in Communism in a way that you are free to sell your products at the price you set. And others are allowed to resell them.

Whether someone will get rich from that is not so important.

If your example was happening in Communism, the beautiful woman would still have to work spending her time selling burgers. She wouldnt be able to hire workers to work instead of her.

She would never have an empire.
What would prevent her from enlisting workers to work instead of her? Penalty? And if so, what would that penalty be?

Wouldn't that violate "individual sovereignty"?

If my buisness fails because of her, it means the products I produce are no longer wanted by society. So the state provides me with different job to produce products desired by society.
How does the State determine products which are desired by society?

Notice that the same example in capitalism would maybe allow her to start an empire, earn much more money with much less work.
And this is bad?

The capital of the rich was created by workers. The rich are not necessary in this situation.
Not the same workers. And presumably, the capital was acquired by a willfully-entered agreement, correct? What is the basis of your objection?

"If one or more of the workers dissent, how is their input evaluated?"
Probably by a vote of majority.
Basically, if there are 20 people owning the buisness, they set wages by a vote. Every worker gets to vote. If most of them agree on a wage, thats what the wage becomes.
But this is only in the case where there is a production line.
So the workers who dissent will work for wages which they deem is incommensurate with the labor they provide? What happens in the case where there isn't a production line?

The cost of production, to sum it up, is payed by the workers themselves. Either directly with their money, either helped by the state.
What is the penalty for non-compliance?

Who pays the taxes? The workers. But workers only pay the taxes that they have benefits from. For example, worker pays tax that allows education. In return, children are able to have an education. That increases production and quality of life in society.
What if these children get degrees in Art History or gender studies? How does that increase "production"? Will these subjects be prohibited, allowing only for trades which produce a significant financial return (especially if you're going to tax them)?

So its for the benefit of a worker too and the society as a whole.
Except the rich...
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 12,878
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
--> @Shila
The goal is to stop American troops from withdrawing in disgrace. Eg Vietnam, North Korea,  USA, Somalia, Afghanistan! Iraq.
no, "the goal" is to transfer public funds into private coffers

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 12,878
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
--> @Athias
but it would seem to be pretty rare for a family to let one of their members walk around without clothes
Where did I imply this?
when you said,

Sure I might have my "own clothes" if and only if some arbitrary third party determines that I "need" them.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 12,878
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
--> @Athias
And presumably, the capital was acquired by a willfully-entered agreement, correct?
an agreement can only be truly voluntary if the workers are not desperate

imagine a world where nobody has to worry about getting decent food and shelter

how many of those people would show up every day for a shitty and or dangerous job to be routinely insulted by a cruel boss ?

it is always in the best interests of "the captains of industry" to make the world as hostile as possible in order to cultivate desperate workers

Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 2,517
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @3RU7AL
but it would seem to be pretty rare for a family to let one of their members walk around without clothes
Where did I imply this?
when you said,

Sure I might have my "own clothes" if and only if some arbitrary third party determines that I "need" them.
I'm still not seeing the implication. Did the comment I submit indicate that I would go without clothes or that my ownership of them would be qualified by some third party's assessment of "need"?

an agreement can only be truly voluntary if the workers are not desperate
How does a worker's being desperate make any arrangement he/she forms with an employer less than "truly voluntary"?

imagine a world where nobody has to worry about getting decent food and shelter
Decent food and shelter have expenses; if you're not worrying about it, someone else will.

how many of those people would show up every day for a shitty and or dangerous job to be routinely insulted by a cruel boss ?
#selfemployment

it is always in the best interests of "the captains of industry" to make the world as hostile as possible in order to cultivate desperate workers

How many of these "captains of industry" lack a government sponsor?

Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 3,804
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
I honestly don't understand why the mods allow these spam accounts to come on here and do this shit. Everybody knows that these are if not already established member setting up fake accounts idiots who come on here just to do this shit and they allow it to happen. It's why more than half the members here either high school or early college age kids because mature adults don't put up with shit like this.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 51
0
2
6
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
0
2
6
--> @Athias
"What would prevent her from enlisting workers to work instead of her? Penalty?"
Not penalty. If she uses her beauty to sell burgers, she needs to be there selling them. Hence, working.
If she hires another beautiful woman as a worker to work instead of her, she risks that the other woman might take over her buisness. Also, its not privately owned buisness, so the workers included in it have an equal vote. 

 "individual sovereignty"
In my view, people have sovereignty over their body and their territory. What is considered their territory? Their house, and a piece of land.

"How does the State determine products which are desired by society?"
Same way capitalists determine it.
If buisness produces things that arent desired, it will fail. Hence, move to another buisness.

About the woman earning more with less work
"And this is bad?"
It is bad considering that later in Capitalism she will not work at all, but have others do all the work for her. Others will earn less money doing more work, because she is taking most of it for herself.

"Not the same workers. And presumably, the capital was acquired by a willfully-entered agreement, correct? What is the basis of your objection?"
Your argument was that capitalists provide the capital to the workers.
Workers create all wealth and all capital in the society. Capitalists are not needed.
Capitalist existence means that workers work more to sustain themselves and the capitalists.

"Willfully entered agreement"
Yes, the workers consent to work for the capitalist. They consent to the wage. My argument was never about their lack of consent in capitalism. 

"So the workers who dissent will work for wages which they deem is incommensurate with the labor they provide?"
They dont have to. They can quit and search for other job somewhere else.

"What happens in the case where there isn't a production line?"
This is in cases where one worker owns buisness by himself. He decides his wage according to income he earns from buisness. The examples of this are small shops, small farms... basically any buisness owned by just 1 worker.
Production line happens when workers dont separate their work.

"What is the penalty for non-compliance?"
Penalty? Well, if you dont wanna work, you wont earn money. You are free to leave your job. You are free to change jobs.

"What if these children get degrees in Art History or gender studies?"
If people are ready to pay for such education, it would exist. For example, the art in North Korea is literally everywhere.

"How does that increase "production"?"
Art is a product, in that case. So the production would increase in a sense that products desired by people would be produced.
People would buy art.
Same with history, in cases where those who know history can work on educational shows or politics.
Now about gender studies... maybe... if people are ready to pay for that....doubt it.

"Will these subjects be prohibited, allowing only for trades which produce a significant financial return (especially if you're going to tax them)?"
They are not gonna be prohibited, I dont see the need for that. Maybe they simply wont be financed. If people dont want to pay money to finance gender study, it goes to say that gender study would have to rely on unpaid volunteers.

Benefits for all
"Except the rich"
Yeah, except the rich.

The basic economical classes in Communism are:
1) The state
2) The workers

The state must be democratic, so controlled by the workers. State is funded by taxes. It return, it protects the workers and their property and their freedom to own buisnesses.

The basic economical classes in Capitalism are:
1) The capitalists
2) The workers

The capitalists own the capital and most of the means of production. Workers agree to work for the capitalists in trade for the wage. Capitalists allow workers to use means of production to produce products. From this, the capitalists usually gain profit.
The protection of property is regulated without the state. So it is privately regulated.

The economical structures look similar. Both societies are, in theory, based on consensual participation of every individual.

However, in one of them, the workers have more power.
In the other, the rich have more power.

About stateless societies:
I dont know for any examples of societies that have no state or government.
Even tribes have "government" that forces individuals to participate in rituals.

About force:
Its hard to remove the element of the force from society. People just find it easier to use force rather than respect consent and individual sovereignty.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 12,878
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
--> @Polytheist-Witch
I honestly don't understand why the mods allow these spam accounts to come on here and do this shit. Everybody knows that these are if not already established member setting up fake accounts idiots who come on here just to do this shit and they allow it to happen. It's why more than half the members here either high school or early college age kids because mature adults don't put up with shit like this.
i'm starting to think your account is an alt of rationalmadman
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 2,517
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
Not penalty. If she uses her beauty to sell burgers, she needs to be there selling them. Hence, working.
If she hires another beautiful woman as a worker to work instead of her, she risks that the other woman might take over her buisness. Also, its not privately owned buisness, so the workers included in it have an equal vote. 
No penalty? Good start. What if she disagrees, could she still not act as I described? Can she not merely claim that her business is private?

In my view, people have sovereignty over their body and their territory. What is considered their territory? Their house, and a piece of land.
Piece of land? Is there a limit other than their financial capacity to acquire land?

Same way capitalists determine it.
No, they can't. Because Capitalists determine "desires" by using a free-flowing price system. Communism eliminates this by at best incorporating the labor theory of value, at worst, the State implements an arbitrary price. In other words, the State dictates that which it believes everyone desires.

If buisness produces things that arent desired, it will fail. Hence, move to another buisness.
It's difficult for the State to "fail" in accordance to its own standards.

It is bad considering that later in Capitalism she will not work at all, but have others do all the work for her. Others will earn less money doing more work, because she is taking most of it for herself.
How are they earning "less" money, if she's paying them that which they agreed? She may not be putting the labor into making the burgers, or manning the stands, but her beauty is the primary factor in generating the commerce. So let me ask you this: what is the basis of your belief that the amount you work is directly and necessarily related to the amount you (should) earn?

Your argument was that capitalists provide the capital to the workers.
Workers create all wealth and all capital in the society. Capitalists are not needed.
Capitalist existence means that workers work more to sustain themselves and the capitalists.
Yes, Capitalists provide capital, which was created by workers, who were provided capital by Capitalists, so forth and so on. My argument was that in any given employment relationship, workers produce consumer goods and the capitalists/owners provide the capital. Your suggestion is that they acquire the capital from workers, who are not necessarily under their employ. Are you proposing that purchasing raw material, machines, and the like, is also "exploitation"? If not, then this mention of where capitalists acquire their capital is irrelevant.

Yes, the workers consent to work for the capitalist. They consent to the wage. My argument was never about their lack of consent in capitalism. 
Yes, but you are claiming that workers are "exploited" in Capitalism which connotes an unfair or inequitable arrangement, correct? If consent is not the issue, then I presume the "share" of the revenue is, despite the fact that, as we've already established, the worker consented to the wage. If a worker believes that he or she deserves a larger share of the revenue, and is unsuccessful in renegotiating in his or her bid for a higher-wage, then, to use your own words:

They can quit and search for other job somewhere else.
Right? How is the arrangement in Capitalism any more "exploitative" than the arrangement you described in communism?

Art is a product, in that case. So the production would increase in a sense that products desired by people would be produced.
People would buy art.
And which demographic pays the most for art?

Same with history, in cases where those who know history can work on educational shows or politics.
Not just History, Art History.

Now about gender studies... maybe... if people are ready to pay for that....doubt it.
The State is willing to pay for it.

They are not gonna be prohibited, I dont see the need for that. Maybe they simply wont be financed. If people dont want to pay money to finance gender study, it goes to say that gender study would have to rely on unpaid volunteers.
Fair enough.

The basic economical classes in Communism are:
1) The state
2) The workers

The state must be democratic, so controlled by the workers. State is funded by taxes. It return, it protects the workers and their property and their freedom to own buisnesses.

The basic economical classes in Capitalism are:
1) The capitalists
2) The workers

The capitalists own the capital and most of the means of production. Workers agree to work for the capitalists in trade for the wage. Capitalists allow workers to use means of production to produce products. From this, the capitalists usually gain profit.
The protection of property is regulated without the state. So it is privately regulated.

The economical structures look similar. Both societies are, in theory, based on consensual participation of every individual.
No they are not. The state is an institution which implements regulations that violate individual sovereignty, otherwise it wouldn't be "a State." Its being democratic makes it worse since it conscripts dissenting individuals into submitting their resources to the majority. Unless the vote is always unanimous, there's going to be some infraction on individual discretion. And a unanimous vote would make a State unnecessary since people could just as easily act in service to the goals their unanimity suggests.

Now if government subjects itself to the free market, where it operates in accordance to consumers' preferences, as opposed to its self-imposed prerogative, then you have a Stateless society. Government would cease to be government, given that individual consumers would be de-facto governors, and instead become service providers--namely mediators over private disputes. In this arrangement both capitalists and workers have the "power" that they are owed--and that is, to enter and leave arrangements as they please.


Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 2,517
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @3RU7AL
i'm starting to think your account is an alt of rationalmadman
Haha, I thought the same exact thing.
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 244
1
2
6
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
1
2
6
--> @Best.Korea
So, you're saying that if we just steal everyone's wealth and then redistribute it that we will all be fine.

There's just one problem with that: It would require a massive totalitarian state that removes everyone's freedoms and makes them all slaves to accomplish it.

Let's take your extremely cherry-picked version of Juche Socialism:

Kim Jong Il explains that Socialism centered on masses cannot perish, because masses support it and it supports the masses.
So, in accordance with your supplied idea of "equal standards" for socialism, this would mean, since the only logical way possible for this to happen would be this way, that everyone on the planet must forfeit their jobs, belongings, and bodily autonomy all receive an equal amount of everything, do an equal amount of work, and have an equal number of children, a wife that looks just like all the other wives, and be just as good-looking as everyone else.

If we do not do this, then how do we know for certain if everyone has equal belongings, equal standards, or equal anything?

So to accomplish this massive feat, it would take some central planning body to snoop on everyone's houses, tell people exactly how much more they can and cannot do, exactly what they can and can't do in their free time, whom they can and cannot marry, etc.

Because one person might have better usage of their free time than someone else, we must make sure everyone is doing the same exact thing with their free time.

Because one person might be a more productive worker than someone else, we must limit his speed of work.

Because one person might be more attractive than someone else, they need disfiguring plastic surgery.

Because one person might marry someone more attractive, all women need to be disfigured the same way, have the same haircut, the same body frame, and more. The same with all the men.

Because some are more intelligent than others, we need to physically damage some peoples' brains to make them "equal."

Now, we aren't even through to the distribution of the common wealth yet.

We need cameras and microphones in every room of the home to make sure nobody is hiding anything or doing anything illegal.

We need a prison guard system to force people into the respective schedules.

We need a person or group at the top, somewhere, to keep a schedule of everything and determine who does what, how much a person gets, and more.

But, and here is where the system gets fucked, assuming the above isn't fucked up to you. There is absolutely no way of keeping the person or group at the top accountable. In fact, if we made him/them average, just like everybody else, he/they would be unable to do his/their job. This goes for whomever is in leadership.

Somebody has to be more competent, more intelligent, and significantly freer than everyone else to be able to make decisions and do whatever is needed. So that one person, the dictator or oligarchy (because, ultimately, that becomes his/their role, since he/they must dictate the lives of everyone else) becomes above the huddled masses. And, being intelligent, he/they simply take whatever he/they want, do whatever he/they want, and everyone else is too stupid or uneducated to oppose him/them, since he/they control the intelligence and the education system and peoples' free time.

So this is why your antiquated ideas of socialism and totalitarianism simply don't work. Because you basically create for yourselves a ruling class that has everything and a bunch of unintelligent slaves who have scraps. Kind of like what North Korea is.
SupaDudz
SupaDudz's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 13,994
5
8
11
SupaDudz's avatar
SupaDudz
5
8
11
If you immigrate from North Korea, then you can be honest with yourself
SupaDudz
SupaDudz's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 13,994
5
8
11
SupaDudz's avatar
SupaDudz
5
8
11
Communism is the reason "Comedy" should be a subforum topic
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 51
0
2
6
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
0
2
6
"What if she disagrees, could she still not act as I described? Can she not merely claim that her business is private?"
Buisness in Communism is owned by the workers. Private buisness is limited in a sense that in most cases you cant own means of production and at the same time not use them for work.
A lot of the territory, objects, and means of production are owned collectively and not privately. Hence those are then being distributed to the workers for use.
One could still have private buisness on his territory. However, not on the territory owned collectively.
This is designed to help reduce exploitation.
In your example, the woman could have a private buisness only on her own territory.
On the territory of a collective, she has to follow certain rules. These rules are what makes capitalist private buisness impossible on collective territory. Number one being that all workers have equal vote.

"Piece of land? Is there a limit other than their financial capacity to acquire land?"
Yes, there is a limit. You cant own too much land while others own none. In my opinion, everyone should own a piece of land, which represents their territory.

"No, they can't. Because Capitalists determine "desires" by using a free-flowing price system."
So do Communists.

"Communism eliminates this by at best incorporating the labor theory of value, at worst, the State implements an arbitrary price."
Or allow workers to set price for the product they create, and then engage in free trade with other workers.
The entire point of workers owning a buisness is to let workers decide and trade between each other.

The labor theory of value:
This is a very old theory. It consists of "time value", by which a price of a product is determined by the usual time needed to make it.
The problem with this in practice is the difficulty of control. It cant be left to be managed by the workers, because then some workers might lie about the price. There would need to be mass control and inspection just to make sure prices are right.
Also, it gets complicated because some jobs have more intensive labor. Some others, like agriculture, would have to be calculated with a total sum of seconds or minutes of work in every day worked in a year.

Seems like a lot of work.

Arbitrary prices determined by the state:
This was a practice in USSR during Stalin. Similar problems as in previous case.

Also, the problem is that some workers might hide the products and sell them privately.

These two ways to calculate prices create many complications.

Its much simpler to just let workers decide the price of their products and engage in free trade.

Many people think that Communism abolishes free market. 
No.
Communism lets workers own buisnesses. Free market can still remain in many forms.

"It's difficult for the State to "fail" in accordance to its own standards."
Workers owned buisness can fail if no one wants to buy their products. They earn no money, and have to change buisness.

"How are they earning "less" money, if she's paying them that which they agreed?"
If they lived in Communism, workers would earn more. Since they are in capitalism, they earn less.
The distribution of products in capitalism is according to the amount of money. Since rich have more money, more products are distributed to them. In case of absence of the rich, those products are instead distributed to the workers.

"She may not be putting the labor into making the burgers, or manning the stands, but her beauty is the primary factor in generating the commerce."
I agree that in capitalism, she would make a lot of money doing basically nothing. In Communism, she would earn less money. So this is more fair towards those who actually work.

"So let me ask you this: what is the basis of your belief that the amount you work is directly and necessarily related to the amount you (should) earn?"
Simple. 
No workers = No products
I am pretty sure that the class who actually works to produce products should be the one to also consume them. The opposite case is exploitation. 

While exploitation is hard to be eliminated entirely, it should at least be minimized.

"Yes, Capitalists provide capital, which was created by workers, who were provided capital by Capitalists, so forth and so on."
Workers can create products without capitalists.
Capitalists cannot create capital without workers.

"My argument was that in any given employment relationship, workers produce consumer goods and the capitalists/owners provide the capital."
Since workers produce all capital, capitalists are not necessary.

"Your suggestion is that they acquire the capital from workers, who are not necessarily under their employ."
This happens all the time. One capitalist exploits the workers and acquires capital from them. Then trades that capital to the capital of other capitalists.

Assume you are my worker, and you made a chair.
I sell your chair to some other capitalist. In this scenario, you made the chair of that capitalist even tho you are not his employee but mine.

"Are you proposing that purchasing raw material, machines, and the like, is also "exploitation"?"
Thats just trade of the exploited goods. Thats how one capitalist ends up with materials not produced by his own workers.

"Yes, but you are claiming that workers are "exploited" in Capitalism which connotes an unfair or inequitable arrangement, correct?"
Yes, unfair. 

"If consent is not the issue, then I presume the "share" of the revenue is, despite the fact that, as we've already established, the worker consented to the wage."
The consent is given, yes. However, what options are present if consent is not given?

"If a worker believes that he or she deserves a larger share of the revenue, and is unsuccessful in renegotiating in his or her..."
He can go seek other jobs, yes. And in every job, he will find a new capitalist exploiting him.

"Right? How is the arrangement in Capitalism any more "exploitative" than the arrangement you described in communism?"
There would be no capitalists to exploit workers. Workers  would have more wealth. Those who produce would be those who consume. The rich, who produce nothing while consuming the products of workers, wouldnt exist.

"And which demographic pays the most for art?"
In North Korea, its the citizens. Through taxes.

"Not just History, Art History."
Anyone thinking art history is important is welcome to give his money to support it.

"The State is willing to pay for it."
The state only pays for it if workers pay taxes for it.

"No they are not. The state is an institution which implements regulations that violate individual sovereignty"
Who exactly has the incentive to defend individual sovereignty? Do the rich defend individual sovereignty?
Because sovereignty has to be defended if its going to exist.
Sovereignty is an ideal that cannot be realized unless most people support it and defend it.

"It's being democratic makes it worse since it conscripts dissenting individuals into submitting their resources to the majority."
If it shouldnt be democratic society, what should it be and who would control it?

"Unless the vote is always unanimous, there's going to some infraction of individual discretion."
What if the masses accept the idea of individual sovereignty and decide to defend it?

"And a unanimous vote would make a State unnecessary since people could just as easily act in service to the goals their unanimity suggests."
Yes, this is assuming there will be unanimous vote on all decisions.

"Now if government subjects itself to the free market, where it operates in accordance to consumers' preferences, as opposed to its self-imposed prerogative, then you have a Stateless society."
Same way, if all people defend individual sovereignty, we will have sovereignty.
Who appoints this "government"? The rich? The majority?
The reason why so many countries are either democracy either monarchy is because most other ways to ellect government get complicated.


"Government would cease to be government, given that individual consumers would be de-facto governors, and instead become service providers--namely mediators over private disputes."
Ideally, yes. However, you need military to defend yourself. Who controls the military and why he wont misuse that power? And who controls him?

"In this arrangement both capitalists and workers have the "power" that they are owed--and that is, to enter and leave arrangements as they please"
In Communism, you can have that same power. Its just that in Communism, its not the rich that own buisnesses. Buisnesses are owned by workers. And the wealth is enjoyed more by those who produce it.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,587
3
3
2
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
2
The fact that America is faltering  is a big  blow to capitalism. Trump even went to Korea to meet Kim Jung Un and learn from him. The tides are changing. China might revert to Communism after it  sees the fall of western Democracies. North Korea will be held as a shining  example.



Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,265
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
I agree. Juche is the future. 
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,587
3
3
2
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
2
--> @Dr.Franklin
I agree. Juche is the future. 
Kim Jong -un is only 38. He will outlive Biden, Trump and most of the world leaders. So yes he is the future.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 51
0
2
6
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
0
2
6
When you buy a smartphone, you are buying Communism.

Half of all smartphones are made by Communist China and Communist Vietnam.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,587
3
3
2
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
2
--> @Best.Korea
When you buy a smartphone, you are buying Communism.

Half of all smartphones are made by Communist China and Communist Vietnam.
That was the most unkindest cut of them all. To suggest we are all indirectly supporting communism.