4 ms·

Maybe it's you that has a too narrow definition of "collective". It's a cooperative organization. Nothing in that definition demands self-sacrifice.

WalterBright 6y ago
> Nothing in that definition demands self-sacrifice. Sure it does. In a commune, everything produced is shared equally. That's self-sacrifice, as in if you produce more than the mean, that is taken from you.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Sure it does. In a commune, everything produced is shared equally. Is this thread about some naive US conception and fear of "socialism" and such? Heck, not even in USSR "everything produced was shared equally". Not to mention really existing communism is hardly the main example of the idea of a collective (or a good one)...
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    > Heck, not even in USSR "everything produced was shared equally". That was the plan. Of course, it didn't work. > Not to mention really existing communism is hardly the main example of the idea of a collective (or a good one)... Existing communism is when people try to implement communes, and wind up having to rely on force to do it.
- smolder 6y ago
  I'm not here just to pile on, and for the record I didn't downvote you. Like some others, I never took the word "collective" to mean the same as commune, which ~explains my reply earlier. I'm not interested in starting a commune where everyone gets strictly equal treatment. Fair, meritocratic treatment is great. I could debate about what a fair accounting of merit looks like from my POV. Back to the point I wanted to make here, though: It's possible in a commune, as with other organizations, to contribute more than the mean and still get back more than you would get for your effort independently. That's the nature of cooperation, that the whole can be more than the sum of the parts, through economies of scale like specialization.
- ganafagol 6y ago
  You realize that "collective" and "commune" are different words right?

WalterBright 6y ago

> Nothing in that definition demands self-sacrifice. Sure it does. In a commune, everything produced is shared equally. That's self-sacrifice, as in if you produce more than the mean, that is taken from you.

coldtea 6y ago
>Sure it does. In a commune, everything produced is shared equally. Is this thread about some naive US conception and fear of "socialism" and such? Heck, not even in USSR "everything produced was shared equally". Not to mention really existing communism is hardly the main example of the idea of a collective (or a good one)...
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > Heck, not even in USSR "everything produced was shared equally". That was the plan. Of course, it didn't work. > Not to mention really existing communism is hardly the main example of the idea of a collective (or a good one)... Existing communism is when people try to implement communes, and wind up having to rely on force to do it.
smolder 6y ago
I'm not here just to pile on, and for the record I didn't downvote you. Like some others, I never took the word "collective" to mean the same as commune, which ~explains my reply earlier. I'm not interested in starting a commune where everyone gets strictly equal treatment. Fair, meritocratic treatment is great. I could debate about what a fair accounting of merit looks like from my POV. Back to the point I wanted to make here, though: It's possible in a commune, as with other organizations, to contribute more than the mean and still get back more than you would get for your effort independently. That's the nature of cooperation, that the whole can be more than the sum of the parts, through economies of scale like specialization.
ganafagol 6y ago
You realize that "collective" and "commune" are different words right?