3 ms·

Humans have tried all kinds of value transfer systems for thousands of years. Giving someone "tokens" (ie. currency) to convert that into whatever they want, or

Humans have tried all kinds of value transfer systems for thousands of years. Giving someone "tokens" (ie. currency) to convert that into whatever they want, or need has been the most flexible version of whatever has come before it. What one person needs to thrive is not the same another person needs to thrive, so who gets to set what that level is? I'd be skeptical of any system where there's no opportunity to get ahead as people will either find ways to take advantage of the system and screw others over, or the system becomes unsustainable as populations shift in size.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago
Generally the broad concept I work with is “community ownership of the means of production”. What this means is that you are part owner in a cooperative of cooperatives that owns the machinery you depend upon for your well being. Of course your community trades with others and you and everyone have free choice to vote how you please and contribute as you desire. There is no “enforcement” that prevents you from accumulating more wealth but most of what you rely on is borrowed from a “things library” where you are permitted to use it indefinitely but not sell or destroy it, and in times of need the community may request that you return some items you are not using. More broadly I would say that many people believe the current system actually does not serve people well. We have a very small portion of the society that owns the means of production and 99 percent of the population have to deal with the dictums of those owners with very little say in how production is allocated. This leads to a world where the output is heavily slanted towards the ownership class while everyone else is fighting for scraps. A world with community ownership of the means of production would mean MUCH more wealth for the average person, so concerns over resource allocation would be less of a concern. The point anyway is that in the current system I certainly don’t get to decide what my “level” is beyond trying to work hard, but in a community ownership model I would have much more say. As you have said we have been trying different value systems for thousands of years. No reason to believe attempts to improve the system should not continue.
- manoDev 3y ago
  > A world with community ownership of the means of production You seem to be trying really hard to avoid the word "communism". Is it a banned word in HN?
  - SequoiaHope 3y ago
    It’s not an officially banned word but I live in the USA and folks turn off their brain if you advocate for communism. Also it’s not very specific to advocate for communism because doing so leaves things quite open to interpretation. Would that mean I want Soviet style communism? Chinese style communism? Advocating for “community ownership of the means of production” is precise without being overly proscriptive. I’m not talking about a government at all - we can achieve this ownership a variety of ways. Way better to discuss specifics than use a term that will cause a million comments like “we tried that and it failed”. This openness allows people to decide on their own how the goal might be achieved instead of believing I am going to come in like Lenin or Mao and push a specific plan. I don’t want to do that!
    - manoDev 3y ago
      I understand "common ownership of means of production" is just plain communism in the way Marx intended when it refers to "post-capitalistic economic organisation".

TaylorAlexander 3y ago

Generally the broad concept I work with is “community ownership of the means of production”. What this means is that you are part owner in a cooperative of cooperatives that owns the machinery you depend upon for your well being. Of course your community trades with others and you and everyone have free choice to vote how you please and contribute as you desire. There is no “enforcement” that prevents you from accumulating more wealth but most of what you rely on is borrowed from a “things library” where you are permitted to use it indefinitely but not sell or destroy it, and in times of need the community may request that you return some items you are not using. More broadly I would say that many people believe the current system actually does not serve people well. We have a very small portion of the society that owns the means of production and 99 percent of the population have to deal with the dictums of those owners with very little say in how production is allocated. This leads to a world where the output is heavily slanted towards the ownership class while everyone else is fighting for scraps. A world with community ownership of the means of production would mean MUCH more wealth for the average person, so concerns over resource allocation would be less of a concern. The point anyway is that in the current system I certainly don’t get to decide what my “level” is beyond trying to work hard, but in a community ownership model I would have much more say. As you have said we have been trying different value systems for thousands of years. No reason to believe attempts to improve the system should not continue.

manoDev 3y ago
> A world with community ownership of the means of production You seem to be trying really hard to avoid the word "communism". Is it a banned word in HN?
- SequoiaHope 3y ago
  It’s not an officially banned word but I live in the USA and folks turn off their brain if you advocate for communism. Also it’s not very specific to advocate for communism because doing so leaves things quite open to interpretation. Would that mean I want Soviet style communism? Chinese style communism? Advocating for “community ownership of the means of production” is precise without being overly proscriptive. I’m not talking about a government at all - we can achieve this ownership a variety of ways. Way better to discuss specifics than use a term that will cause a million comments like “we tried that and it failed”. This openness allows people to decide on their own how the goal might be achieved instead of believing I am going to come in like Lenin or Mao and push a specific plan. I don’t want to do that!
  - manoDev 3y ago
    I understand "common ownership of means of production" is just plain communism in the way Marx intended when it refers to "post-capitalistic economic organisation".