Converting an anarcho-communist

[Syock]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

[BobRobertson]

You could, but it is requested that you leave as you are able, like a church offering plate

Only two things stand in the way of this working: Human nature, and history.

I know of 4 specific times when this was tried.

1586, North Carolina. The Roanoke colony, vanished.

1607, Virginia. 90% starvation prior to re-establishment of private property and profits.

1620, Massachusetts. 50% starvation prior to re-establishment of private property and profits.

1921 (approx), Russia. Lenin saw his cities empty as people left because they were starving, so much so that he abandoned his ideology and re-established the Ruble (money), and allowed enough markets that at least people had the illusion of prices.

But don't trust me, read from someone who was there. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1650bradford.asp

So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

As much as I enjoy reading my own writing, I think Bradford sums up the basic error of Socialism quite well in the next paragraph:

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.

400 years later, and idiots still assert how much better things would be if only there wasn't money.

[macsnafu]

You know what? The more I read his unlogic, the more I begin to realize that it simply doesn't make any sense. Taking his ideas into account on community and collective, let's say that there's a neighborhood made up of three houses. In two of the houses, the owners have food, and one house doesn't have any. Now, let's say that this community lives by the rules that everyone can partake (share) in the food that the other houses have, regardless of whether or not they worked for that food (taking the garden into account). What we would have is a society that simple condones the object of stealing. Under this system, the person with no food could simply take the food from the other two houses, making it impossible for the owners in the other two houses to acclimate their food in the manner that they see fit.

 His basic premise is a constant of immorality. Without the distribution of property, there isn't any sense of logical order. 

Well, not stealing, as everybody allegedly agrees that people take what they need.  But it does create a strong disincentive for not working, or at least not working as hard, to produce.  After all, if you can get what you need, but not more, no matter how hard you work, why shouldn't you slack off? 

Thus the real challenge is that it is an honor system, and relies heavily on social censure to get people to contribute their part.   The result is that they will have shortages, and have to start rationing, or take other extreme measures. It's just a matter of time before such a system inevitably breaks down.

[assasin7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

I have living experience of it not happening, for several years

[assasin7]

You know what? The more I read his unlogic, the more I begin to realize that it simply doesn't make any sense. Taking his ideas into account on community and collective, let's say that there's a neighborhood made up of three houses. In two of the houses, the owners have food, and one house doesn't have any. Now, let's say that this community lives by the rules that everyone can partake (share) in the food that the other houses have, regardless of whether or not they worked for that food (taking the garden into account). What we would have is a society that simple condones the object of stealing. Under this system, the person with no food could simply take the food from the other two houses, making it impossible for the owners in the other two houses to acclimate their food in the manner that they see fit.

 His basic premise is a constant of immorality. Without the distribution of property, there isn't any sense of logical order. 

Well, not stealing, as everybody allegedly agrees that people take what they need.  But it does create a strong disincentive for not working, or at least not working as hard, to produce.  After all, if you can get what you need, but not more, no matter how hard you work, why shouldn't you slack off? 

Thus the real challenge is that it is an honor system, and relies heavily on social censure to get people to contribute their part.   The result is that they will have shortages, and have to start rationing, or take other extreme measures. It's just a matter of time before such a system inevitably breaks down.

Also what about the common land owned by peasants in England that was destroyed to force into existance capitalist property norms. I was ruined by the property owners after being well cared for by those with common land rights.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh8ThKmME40" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh8ThKmME40</a>

[Syock]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

I have living experience of it not happening, for several years

Because you are working with a small group of like minded individuals.  That is fine, it works.  I've seen it work too.  The problem is when you take it to large scale.  You will get people that don't care.  It is just how people are. 

[assasin7]

By several years i mean since 1932, with a highly changing population make up. The source its success is the anti capitalist structure. I moved into the neighborhood 4 years ago

[SinCityVoluntaryist]

^Let me ask you this: do you accept that the community should be voluntary and abstain from forcing people to join it? If the answer is no, then you're doing nothing more than proving your communism is tyrannical in nature.

[AgoristTeen1994]

By several years i mean since 1932, with a highly changing population make up. The source its success is the anti capitalist structure. I moved into the neighborhood 4 years ago

Can you prove either of those statements, that it's existed since 1932, that it has a highly changing population makeup, and that it's success is because of it's anti-capitalist structure, rather than the some other fact?

Also like SinCityVoluntaryist said, are you willing to abstain from forcing people to join it? If so then you have to accept that some people may want to form a capitalist community

[Syock]

Just to be clear, when they say not forcing people to join, they mean people living in the community. 

[SinCityVoluntaryist]

 It's not just the community. When I say not initiating force, I mean abstaining from forcing them to affiliate in any way with his communist fairy tale.

[Syock]

He has been pretty clear in the past about wanting consensus, and those that disagree should stand aside.  

[SinCityVoluntaryist]

 Then he's not for freedom. Then again, most communists aren't.

[assasin7]

By several years i mean since 1932, with a highly changing population make up. The source its success is the anti capitalist structure. I moved into the neighborhood 4 years ago

Can you prove either of those statements, that it's existed since 1932, that it has a highly changing population makeup, and that it's success is because of it's anti-capitalist structure, rather than the some other fact?

Also like SinCityVoluntaryist said, are you willing to abstain from forcing people to join it? If so then you have to accept that some people may want to form a capitalist community

The problem is by claiming private property your threatening violence

[assasin7]

^Let me ask you this: do you accept that the community should be voluntary and abstain from forcing people to join it? If the answer is no, then you're doing nothing more than proving your communism is tyrannical in nature.

Thats a trick question, capitalism can't work if areas don't live under capitalism, private property has to be universal.