The term communism typically is inherent with force to deny individual(s) the ownership of the means of production/existence.
It's not operational without force and coercion.
If people on a voluntary basis opt in or out of the social construct, and the construct doesn't violate individual sovereignty, then it is more in line with voluntaryism.
Which again, just labels, but what is contained in those labels, is whether a system will use violence and coercion or not. Distinctions like that matter.
So if I am seeing this correctly, the proposed idea is a public shelf system where people on a voluntary basis work to fill the shelves, then as they need things, they go to the shelves and remove the products they need.
Is that accurate?
Yes.
Instead of excess productivity accruing to trillionaires, it accrues to everybody in the form of more leisure.
We have to work if that work is no more than gathering food and preparing it.
But, the world only needs so many shoes and iphones.
So, no need to give up the division of labor, nor consumer goods.
Just the system that takes from the workers to give to the nonworkers.
Communism, as a term, was intentionally hijacked to poison what Emma and Alex had in mind when they advocated its adoption.
Im sure you will agree that the gambit was successful.
When i say communism, what i propose is not what comes to the average mind, but my definition predates marxism.
So, to be clear, rule by force comes off the table, either what i am selling is voluntarily adopted as the better choice, or crapitalism, in some form, continues.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Part of what you describe sounds like the era of cottage industries. People received the full value of their labor when they exchanged their products. Ordinary people were able to amass individual wealth in their own home industries relatively easily. They didn't have to work but a few days a week, unless they had reason to work more. I seem to recall in many instances it was two days a week, but it has been some time since I researched it. Only with the arrival of the factory did things change.
Your timeline seems a little off. Communism wasn't hijacked from Emma, and it was already poison on the creation of it's manifesto. The manifesto created approx. 21 years before Emma was born:
"centralise all all instruments of production in the hands of the state."
"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly."
"Centralisation of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state."
"Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state;"
That's the 1848 manifesto, it appears she was trying to fix all the flaws inherent in the original ideology trying to make a kinder, more voluntary version. That gambit was not successful. There is no mistake this stuff was toxic waste from the manifesto onward. The concentrating of all authority in the state and allowing the full force of authoritarianism to rise within it.
This is why I see the term ancom is somewhat a self detonating term. It's like choosing state rule to be free in anarchy. Again, it's just a label but the label has to be useful in language and terms to even be useful in a ontological way. The term 'voluntary' predates marxism also, and appears to be more inline with what you are describing.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Didnt pj use the term to describe what he was doing?
Marx was proudhon's student.
Either way, marx was selected as the name we need to associate with communism and not bakunin's.
A decision made by the msm of the day, and subsequent.
Since debating the finer points of the second international is accademic, lets discuss my proposal of today.
I still have a chance at success while alive.
Do you dispute my assertion that the workers could, on any given tuesday, simply stop paying?
That as long as the work continues to be done, that there is little the banksters could do except accept the new paradigm?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Proudhon distrusted consistency. He did very well describe what it is 'to be governed'.
Marx was the chosen one, and for whatever the reason, there is no unbaking that cake, or unwriting the manifesto.
I have no problem considering your assertion. Workers could stop paying. The question is would they?
I think to better describe the concept, instead of a public shelf, one could put up four walls and a roof and have basically a public building that had all the shelves in it to hold the goods.
We would ask everybody for voluntary work to fill the shelves with the neccesary goods.
When the shelves are full the workers can start to use the products.
Say for every product they pull off the shelf they are supposed to voluntary fill a empty shelf with equal valued goods from their own work.
Is that a reasonable model of the system you are proposing?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit