What, exactly, is socialism? Again this discussion seems necessary.

"Your" land?? What on earth do you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about? My system would require you to pay the PROVIDER of exclusive tenure for it rather than a private parasite who is providing nothing, and to pay the CREATOR of the land's value for it rather than paying a greedy privileged, private parasite for what government, the community and nature provide.

 

Just rent to the landlord?

 

So I would have to pay a landlord in order to exclusively use that which nature has provided?

 

1) Market value is what we pay now. In money. And the RIGHT money means the price the seller is happy with, against other offers. You see this is how it works, in the world of egalitarian property ownership in a western capitalist democracy. Any of us can be the guy with the 'right money'. No govt, legal, or institutional obstructions to prevent any man or woman from exercising that option.

2) I can call my local greengrocer a 'greedy parasite' for taking my money in exchange for bananas, but it doesn't actually make him one. On the contrary, he's a lovely human being, and not in the least 'greedy' (whatever that word means to you). Your issues are yours alone, and don't reflect reality.

3) I oppose them because they're nonsensical. They change nothing about property transactions, and they introduce medieval dictatorship-like laws.

 

There are 7 billion of us, remember. It's not 15thC England.

Commons are now realised in collectives - which still require private property, but the end result is the same. You want to see a return to 'commons'? Get busy with collectives. My guess is that you don't really want it at all, else you'd be doing it.

 

Awesome. So if we all pretend we want plot A, we can all be compensated for not getting it. What a great model for exploitation!

 

1) We ALL pay for property. No one is stripped of anything, because we BUY land instead of stealing it.

2) Land hasn't been 'stolen' for centuries. Why do you want to drag us back to the Middle Ages?

 

Return to commons? They still exist! I just find it amusing that you bang on about collectives, but celebrate the anti-commons.

 

Commons only exist now in National Parks and the like, and these are not available for habitation or agriculture. Commons are now only possible (if we believe in democracy .. and I'm going to assume we all do) via the voluntary small holder model. The good thing is that none of us are prevented - what with having the freedoms that come with democracy - from realising that far more egalitarian life.

Or - we can sit in our armchairs revelling in our private home, enjoying our capitalist exclusivism, while bleating about how unfair it all is.

 

Sounds like, to ensure those likes from your right wingers, you've forgotten any valid application of economics. I'll go through it again for you. The commons is typically used to generate a false over-use resource problem, necessarily leading to a cheer over private property. We know that's false. It's really an example of how cooperation can be adopted to avoid the need for property rights. And what is private ownership? It is necessarily a switch to the anti-commons, where under-use is the most likely outcome.

Now the Georgists are right. It's not possible to generate justice without first ending the current system of land ownership. It's of no surprise, for example, that Britain can trace its inefficient inequalities all the way back to 1066 and the ultimate destruction of the Commons. The real debate is over the practicalities and whether the "True Levellers" (real libertarians unlike the big business fed Americans) are correct.

 

I'm sure thinking about economics feels almost like doing something, but you would be much more use to society if you took action to create a 'commons', like those of us who take this sh!t seriously. If enough of us put our money where our mouths are, problem solved.

 

Zero attempt to reply again. You support the destruction of the commons as you celebrate coercive creation of inefficient property rights. No wonder right wingers are sweet on you...

 

I support PEOPLE, by giving them access to 'commons' which haven't existed for decades.

PS: the efficiency of any given property is determined by its owner, not by you. Though mine is very efficient by any measure, because it provides security and resources to many. My Progressive 'socialist' neighbours however, not so much. Theirs is exclusively held for their own use and enjoyment, while their less able kinfolk are left to their own devices.

But go ahead, keep sneering. There's bound to be someone here who'll high five you from their own armchair.

 

We know that's guff as you celebrate the very coercive property rights that destroyed the commons. Looks like you've got yourself in a proper pickle!

This isn't a cunning response. Anti-commons, after all, is based on a framework which uses methodological individualism as its spine. However, it does have comedy value (given you're merely confirming your right wing credentials)

Your pretense really wont wash, given your whole approach is based on celebrating land ownership that delivers mass homelessness.

Run out of ideas already? Shame.

 

Dear Reivs, put your ire to good use and let it fire your alleged passion to be the solution. Of course if you really can't bear to get your hands dirty, nor tolerate the lifestyle sacrifices of a 'commons' existence, then I guess it makes sense to demand something you know will never happen. Safe, ya know. You get to avoid the unpleasantness of real action for another year or so.

 

No content again I'm afraid. This doesn't surprise as you've foolishly celebrated anti-commons to somehow support the commons. On the bright side, given you also supported supply side economics and blamed the poor for being poor, you're consistent in your right wing rant...

 

But back to left wing economics. Socialism is acceptance that efficiency and equity go hand in hand. It is a rejection of sheeple right wing attitudes who, through blind acceptance of divide and conquer, celebrate the 1% acquiring super yachts on the back of the working class and whine that they could buy more plastic crap if it wasn't for immigrants...

Merry Christmas (and the early form of communism adopted by the radical Jesus)

 

With Christmas 'spirit' being a wonderful example of a socialist concept made popular by capitalism.
Have a good holiday ..

 

Is this your maintainence work? I mean, even the armchair theorist has to keep up appearances (by slamming those who highlight the difference between words and action). Else it might look like he/she is actually thinking about his/her own role as part of the problem.

Edited to LOL at the 'right wing' thing. Bless you, Dear. Here I am being called not just a Commie (by people who know far more about me than you do), but a Bolshie

 

You can be forgiven your errors. Given neither of us are economists, it's perfectly reasonable to expect frequent error. However, you're terribly consistent with those errors. Despite your pretense and how this stuff would be naturally included in your internet warrioring, you clearly do not understand (anti-)commons. Crikey, you out-Chicago School the Chicago School in your blanket support of standard right wing rant. Let's ask a simple question: what left wing economics can be used in support of your celebration of supply-side economics?

 

I'm not sure the Coca Cola Santa is really the spirit of Christmas. But, hey ho...

 

You could share a coke with someone who's thirsty. HappyNY

 

No! Efficiency (production ) shared equally is communism. Confusion between Socialism and Communism appears to be an American preoccupation. I have lived under several Socialist governments and several Conservative ones. I live in the UK and like western Europe no sign of commies anywhere.

 

This is how socialism works:

You have two cows. Your neighbor doesn't have one. The government takes one from you and gives it to your neighbor. ... And you will be forced to set up a cooperative to help your neighbor with animal husbandry.

 

Communism is an evolutionary stage from socialism. Let's not over-simplify to avoid Marx!

Too much Guardian and not enough Novara Media?