It wasn't REAL communism

Who decides who is higher up the hierachy? Intelligent people? Who decides who is intelligent?

So... you're saying that there will be an entire society, with no administrative class? No wonder there's no such thing as "true communism," because it is literally retarded.

>How would you instil this common understanding of structure and discipline?

How do we make people not cut their legs off? Because people don't want to do it. The same applies to this, people don't want to break a leadership system that's entirely democratic and ruin their livelihood and entire community.

Some crazies might, but if they won't take part, they won't eat. Just like in our world.

>What incentive is there to become a manager if you do not benefit?

Better pay?

dont know what these retards are on about, communism isnt anarchy, you still have hierarchy.

Yes but i'm asking who is the ruling class. For a hierarchy to exist there must be a ruling class. In a capitalist society, whoever has the most money occupies that position.

What happens if I choose to start my own specialty business in a communist society, and hire other people to work for me without giving them a share of the business? How would the prohibition of this be enforced, would the police come arrest me?

>What happens if I choose to start my own specialty business in a communist society, and hire other people to work for me without giving them a share of the business? How would the prohibition of this be enforced, would the police come arrest me?

You'd be arrested by the commune's defence for thievery. There's still authority.

Average dumb people workers. If they keep hiring retarded managers that over promise and under deliver, the market will eventually course correct, just like in market capitalism. A person with a job already knows they have to put up with a certain amount of stuff they don't like in order to get paid. They just have to realize that if they want to be paid, they still have to put up with stuff. They just get to pick the better of the available options for them instead of owners.

It's like when you vote for government. You can vote for the guy that will fix potholes and tax you, or live with potholes and vote for no taxes. You get a say. There's trade-offs. It's still better than having some land owning lordling that taxes for personal gain, and only fixes potholes to the point that tax revenue is increased, and pockets all the money because it's not like you can just depose him and put someone else in his place.

Going by how communism actually works, you'd probably be shot or sent to a "reeducation" camp.

I'm not trying to imply there's no authority, just curious how you would solve this problem. So then why would anybody with any sense of creative ability want this system? There's no incentive to starting any sort of small enterprise if I have to give up ownership of my company every time I want to expand it beyond a one-man operation.

Because no one would respect your "private" property, so unless your business was based around self ownership, and you were a prostitute and paid people with sex, they just wouldn't recognize the business belongs to you or that you own whatever you're paying them with.

You sound very naive. What is to stop the administrative class which makes the rules with no oversight not to seize power like every other time communism is tried? And what is the incentive for the worker to do better work and put out a better product if they're just going to be paid the same at the end of the day, like everything that wasn't a military good under communist rule? And your pothole example is retarded, because the big cities in the U.S. rake in money, and spend it like drunken sailors on shore on personal projects, incestuous staff kickbacks, etc and leave the public without any potholes being fixed, and naive fucks will still vote for them because that's the false dichotomy they still see.

>pay people with sex
>they give you profits
>they give you money, you have sex with them
Isn't that just normal prostitution and they're not you're employees but your clients?

>and hire other people to work for me without giving them a share of the business?

Why would anybody want to work for you?

>So then why would anybody with any sense of creative ability want this system? There's no incentive to starting any sort of small enterprise if I have to give up ownership of my company every time I want to expand it beyond a one-man operation.

You aren't 'Giving it up'. It's just agreeing that every person who joins gets their fair share. You still get to lead, manage and make money, you just don't get to take wages out of your subordinates' pockets.

Because the business owner provides wages, these wages are used to buy food to keep you alive. Everyone benefits from this system, and don't give me the usual "greedy capitalists exploiting the factory works" bullshit, 21st Century employees usually work in comfy, air conditioned offices; the few that work in factories/manual labour have far better working conditions than that of the 19th Century.

>Because no one would respect your "private" property
Can you explain what this physically entails? If I start making handcrafted furniture out of my garage and I offer a wage to somebody that's competitive enough that they choose to work for me over a cooperative, what would happen? And mind you this doesn't necessarily have to be a wage in money, it could just as easily operate under a barter system.

The same reason anybody wants to work for any company ever: competitive wage. And mind you this doesn't necessarily have to be a wage in money, it could just as easily operate under a barter system.

I am giving it up, I am giving up power of my business that I started based on my personal idea. I no longer have the absolute power to choose how revenue is distributed. It is a more rigid system that limits my power as the founder and manager of my business.

>You sound very naive. What is to stop the administrative class which makes the rules with no oversight not to seize power like every other time communism is tried?
An armed populace. That's why America has the 2nd amendment isn't it? To protect against the tyranny of government. To serve as a check and balance against the abuse of the state.

>And what is the incentive for the worker to do better work and put out a better product if they're just going to be paid the same at the end of the day
But who says they'd be paid the same? They weren't paid the same under Soviet rule, and Karl Marx said equality was a bourgeois concept. You're confusing equality with egalitarianism with communism.

> And your pothole example is retarded, because the big cities in the U.S. rake in money, and spend it like drunken sailors on shore on personal projects, incestuous staff kickbacks, etc and leave the public without any potholes being fixed, and naive fucks will still vote for them because that's the false dichotomy they still see.
So you'd literally have a King George collect taxes and not fix potholes? Taxation without representation. Or are you trying to demand absolute perfection, because hate to break it to you kid, but the world isn't perfect. You can only try to make things better for yourself.

Communism sounds good in theory but in the real world it just doesn't work

>do everything that involves creating and running a successful business
>"fair share" means that the peons who press buttons to make the machine work get as much as you

Maybe you should try starting a business, and against the odds with all your blood, sweat, and tears be on an even keel enough to keep going.
Then give a shitheel worker who has only half a brain and can only run the cash register his "fair share." After all, you're both equals in this business, but you get to lead and manage the money.

>Because the business owner provides wages, these wages are used to buy food to keep you alive. Everyone benefits from this system, and don't give me the usual "greedy capitalists exploiting the factory works" bullshit, 21st Century employees usually work in comfy, air conditioned offices; the few that work in factories/manual labour have far better working conditions than that of the 19th Century.

Yes, but why would people work for him when they can work in a cooperative and make far more?

>the few that work in factories/manual labour have far better working conditions than that of the 19th Century.

Oh, so I guess it's okay.
>The same reason anybody wants to work for any company ever: competitive wage. And mind you this doesn't necessarily have to be a wage in money, it could just as easily operate under a barter system.

how are you going to pay them more than a cooperative without giving up more of your share, ironically? A basic understanding of maths might help here.

>I am giving it up, I am giving up power of my business that I started based on my personal idea. I no longer have the absolute power to choose how revenue is distributed. It is a more rigid system that limits my power as the founder and manager of my business.

Yeah, get over it. it's fucking fair. if people are going to work for you, they are entitled to the product of their labour.

You sound extremely entitled.

>"fair share" means that the peons who press buttons to make the machine work get as much as you

PEOPLE AREN'T PAID THE SAME YOU UTTER FUCKING MONKEY

>Can you explain what this physically entails?
Every single other member of the commune takes your toothbrush and use it and there's nothing you can do about it.

>If I start making handcrafted furniture out of my garage
That's you

>I offer a wage to somebody that's competitive
From what, your bank account? That's not your money anymore now.

>that they choose to work for me over a cooperative
Why would they when they could make it themselves without you as a boss? Because you own some machinery? Unless this surplus of value somehow directly comes from your self-ownership, not ownership of money to pay "wages" or capital in the form of machinery, there's very little reason for them to work for you.

>And mind you this doesn't necessarily have to be a wage in money, it could just as easily operate under a barter system.
How can you barter is property is not freely alienable or private property rights are not observed? The only thing you can barter is your ideas and labor for their ideas and labor.

>I started based on my personal idea.
So not even actual property, but intellectual property? Now that's spooky.

Thats just what buthurt marxists say because they don't wanna admit communism isn't compatable with human nature

>fair share means same

>literal 'muh humus nature' argument

>how are you going to pay them more than a cooperative without giving up more of your share, ironically? A basic understanding of maths might help here.
I don't know if you've ever been involved in starting a new enterprise, but they rarely operate at a profit from day 1. Like any small business, I am assuming that I will be operating at a loss at the beginning of my operation. I will have saved up enough wealth (again not necessarily money) prior in order to operate at a loss for long enough to make a profit. I'll pay a wage competitive enough to get people to work for me with this saved wealth.

>if people are going to work for you, they are entitled to the product of their labour.
>entitled to the product of their labour.
>You sound extremely entitled.
You're the one preaching entitlement here user. And really, your answer comes down to "lol fuck you get over it"? How is that any different than someone saying "kill all niggers lol get over it"? You could justify anything with that sorry excuse for a justification. What fucking trash.

>Yes, but why would people work for him when they can work in a cooperative and make far more?
Who's to say they will make far more? Can a cooperative guarantee high wages?

>Oh, so I guess it's okay.
Yes, it is okay. Working conditions and wages have improved massively over the past 100 years. Are you against that?

Human nature is why every example of large scale communism has failed whilst capitalist societies have thrived.

Americans really need to learn what Communism actually is.

Pro-tip: if it has a state it isn't communism. Whoops.

>I don't know if you've ever been involved in starting a new enterprise, but they rarely operate at a profit from day 1. Like any small business, I am assuming that I will be operating at a loss at the beginning of my operation. I will have saved up enough wealth (again not necessarily money) prior in order to operate at a loss for long enough to make a profit. I'll pay a wage competitive enough to get people to work for me with this saved wealth.
That's called capital and no one recognizes that you own it any more than if you told people you own the moon. You're too grounded in thinking property is an inalienable right. Personal property in communist society is allowed only so much as in it's practical because the value of the property would be diminished by joint usage.

Why wouldn't they just start up their own business? If you think communism includes welfare, they can afford to operate at a loss.

>entitled
Derives from title, which is legalese for exclusive property rights. In communist society the only thing you really own is yourself. Which isn't so awful, lots of people live in debt and owe the bank money while the bank really owns what they have because it's collateral if you default.

How do you calculate what a fair share is?

If there was no state, someone with power would create a new one. A state is basically a protection racket. You pay taxes and the government protects you - like the mafia.

>Pro-tip: if it has a state it isn't communism. Whoops.

So never been tried?

In the absence of anything better, a labor market free from the effects of privately owned capital. Like Ricardian Socialism. Keep the market part of market capitalism. Get rid of the capitalism part of market capitalism. Most of the praise of market capitalism is about the relatively self regulating and optimizing effects of free markets rather than private ownership of capital.

They can organize themselves.

>That's called capital and no one recognizes that you own it any more than if you told people you own the moon
So if I work at a jewelry cooperative my entire life making gold rings, would I not be entitled to my share of the rings I help create? And if so, what's stopping me from hoarding some of those rings in my closet over time, so that I have enough rings to one day pay a competitive wage to employees in my startup furniture-making firm?

>Personal property in communist society is allowed only so much as in it's practical because the value of the property would be diminished by joint usage.
So in other words if I hoarded the rings that I am entitled to owning from having worked at a jewelry cooperative for my entire life as a worker, eventually the police would come into my house and take them away because I hoarded too many? Essentially I'm not allowed to do what I want with the products of my labor in a communist society then? If I'm too productive, you'll come and take them away from me?

>Derives from title, which is legalese for exclusive property rights. In communist society the only thing you really own is yourself.
So then how do a reap the products of my personal labor at a cooperative? How is a manager allowed to be payed more in a cooperative?

You can't have a free market without private capital. No one would buy or sell anything.

By definition, no. But hey, Americans are ignorant of their own language and anything they don't like (thanks to the red scare).

Muh human naychur.

A society without a state is an impossibility.

How are decisions made? How are they enforced?
Whatever your answers are is your state.

>a labor market free from the effects of privately owned capital

So where does the money to start new businesses come from? Say you invent something, how do you get the capital to make a factory to produce that new invention?