General Music Chat

Apparently there's no optimum way to run a country.

No one has tried to eliminate the monetary system yet.
Not in thousands of years of human civilization has it ever been even attempted.

Not true Mike. Hundreds of communes have been formed in NorCal and Oregon based completely on non-monetary agrarian society living completely off the land and off the grid. The problem is they only last a few years before the system breaks down. Members leave when they are starving, freezing, or it turns into a Mad Max society. Hundreds of attempts, no successes.

Hey, I actually did some reading up a few months ago about communes and independent societies in the 60's and 70's.. found that all my perceptions were pretty inaccurate and laced with television propaganda that didn't really exist.

Among the most interesting parts of the reading involved the breakdown of these communities. It is believed that most of them failed primarily because none of them were true communes. As it turns out, the land itself was always owned by someone, usually the founder, who in every case eventually used that ownership to claim power or privilege, driving a social and political wedge into the community.

I tried doing a quick search for the page, but didn't find it. I did find a lot of crap sites that printed biased points of view as facts.. sad, as that was a time of great social diversity and learning.

Apparently there's no optimum way to run a country.

No one has tried to eliminate the monetary system yet.
Not in thousands of years of human civilization has it ever been even attempted.

Not true Mike. Hundreds of communes have been formed in NorCal and Oregon based completely on non-monetary agrarian society living completely off the land and off the grid. The problem is they only last a few years before the system breaks down. Members leave when they are starving, freezing, or it turns into a Mad Max society. Hundreds of attempts, no successes.

Hey, I actually did some reading up a few months ago about communes and independent societies in the 60's and 70's.. found that all my perceptions were pretty inaccurate and laced with television propaganda that didn't really exist.

Among the most interesting parts of the reading involved the breakdown of these communities. It is believed that most of them failed primarily because none of them were true communes. As it turns out, the land itself was always owned by someone, usually the founder, who in every case eventually used that ownership to claim power or privilege, driving a social and political wedge into the community.

I tried doing a quick search for the page, but didn't find it. I did find a lot of crap sites that printed biased points of view as facts.. sad, as that was a time of great social diversity and learning.

That goes to show how OWNERSHIP changes everything.
Property is POWER.
Remember the "Golden Rule": Whoever owns the gold makes the rules.

Apparently there's no optimum way to run a country.

No one has tried to eliminate the monetary system yet.
Not in thousands of years of human civilization has it ever been even attempted.

Not true Mike. Hundreds of communes have been formed in NorCal and Oregon based completely on non-monetary agrarian society living completely off the land and off the grid. The problem is they only last a few years before the system breaks down. Members leave when they are starving, freezing, or it turns into a Mad Max society. Hundreds of attempts, no successes.

Among the most interesting parts of the reading involved the breakdown of these communities. It is believed that most of them failed primarily because none of them were true communes. As it turns out, the land itself was always owned by someone, usually the founder, who in every case eventually used that ownership to claim power or privilege, driving a social and political wedge into the community.

Yes this exactly the argument Stalin and Mao made just before they murdered 50 MILLION of their countrymen "for the good of the republic".

It is simply not possible to take self-interest out of the equation. Once you accept that truth, socialism and communism become a dead-end road. (pun intended)

There are still several social collectives operating in NorCal. If you really think it can work, join one and live the dream. If it really is as magnificent as you believe, the joy of the experience will spread. One of my relatives has lived in one for several years. It is a third world existence similar to tribal New Guinea but so far she is not starving. Give it a try and report back.

Apparently there's no optimum way to run a country.

No one has tried to eliminate the monetary system yet.
Not in thousands of years of human civilization has it ever been even attempted.

Not true Mike. Hundreds of communes have been formed in NorCal and Oregon based completely on non-monetary agrarian society living completely off the land and off the grid. The problem is they only last a few years before the system breaks down. Members leave when they are starving, freezing, or it turns into a Mad Max society. Hundreds of attempts, no successes.

Among the most interesting parts of the reading involved the breakdown of these communities. It is believed that most of them failed primarily because none of them were true communes. As it turns out, the land itself was always owned by someone, usually the founder, who in every case eventually used that ownership to claim power or privilege, driving a social and political wedge into the community.

Yes this exactly the argument Stalin and Mao made just before they murdered 50 MILLION of their countrymen "for the good of the republic".

It is simply not possible to take self-interest out of the equation. Once you accept that truth, socialism and communism become a dead-end road. (pun intended)

There are still several social collectives operating in NorCal. If you really think it can work, join one and live the dream. If it really is as magnificent as you believe, the joy of the experience will spread. One of my relatives has lived in one for several years. It is a third world existence similar to tribal New Guinea but so far she is not starving. Give it a try and report back.

I honestly don't get the connection between Stalin / Mao and hippie communes, you might have to spell that one out a little more for me.

I never said I wanted to join a commune, I said that I found them interesting and read up on them. I was curious how they worked, and more curious about the social movement of the 60's in general. So I did a lot of reading. Education isn't a bad thing. No, communes aren't "my thing".

I do believe we can learn a lot of history, and am an avid reader of just about any factual history I can find, which can sometimes be difficult, as many a commentator has noted: the winning side usually writes the history from their perspective.

Apparently there's no optimum way to run a country.

No one has tried to eliminate the monetary system yet.
Not in thousands of years of human civilization has it ever been even attempted.

Not true Mike. Hundreds of communes have been formed in NorCal and Oregon based completely on non-monetary agrarian society living completely off the land and off the grid. The problem is they only last a few years before the system breaks down. Members leave when they are starving, freezing, or it turns into a Mad Max society. Hundreds of attempts, no successes.

Among the most interesting parts of the reading involved the breakdown of these communities. It is believed that most of them failed primarily because none of them were true communes. As it turns out, the land itself was always owned by someone, usually the founder, who in every case eventually used that ownership to claim power or privilege, driving a social and political wedge into the community.

Yes this exactly the argument Stalin and Mao made just before they murdered 50 MILLION of their countrymen "for the good of the republic".

It is simply not possible to take self-interest out of the equation. Once you accept that truth, socialism and communism become a dead-end road. (pun intended)

There are still several social collectives operating in NorCal. If you really think it can work, join one and live the dream. If it really is as magnificent as you believe, the joy of the experience will spread. One of my relatives has lived in one for several years. It is a third world existence similar to tribal New Guinea but so far she is not starving. Give it a try and report back.

I honestly don't get the connection between Stalin / Mao and hippie communes, you might have to spell that one out a little more for me.

I never said I wanted to join a commune, I said that I found them interesting and read up on them. I was curious how they worked, and more curious about the social movement of the 60's in general. So I did a lot of reading. Education isn't a bad thing. No, communes aren't "my thing".

Yes exactly. And the direct connection between a hippie commune and Stalin/Mao must not be missed. It is Marxism's fatal flaw.

I thought you did want to join a commune on a grand scale. I thought a Marxist collective society was your idea of a balanced and benevolent political government. Seeing it in action by living within such a system on a small scale is a great way to test the waters and evaluate it's efficacy don't you think? Without such a test, how are you certain it could work?

It is written . "Those who shall not work should not eat"

King had it wrong, his vision was for the government welfare state. I don't see that in the founding documents anywhere, however protecting the citizenry from threats outside as well as from within our boarders can be found in the founding documents of our republic. Thus, the military, not the welfare state is deserving of financial support.

Keep cutting back military spending and you or your children will be learning the new language of the conquering oppressors.

Apparently there's no optimum way to run a country.

No one has tried to eliminate the monetary system yet.
Not in thousands of years of human civilization has it ever been even attempted.

Not true Mike. Hundreds of communes have been formed in NorCal and Oregon based completely on non-monetary agrarian society living completely off the land and off the grid. The problem is they only last a few years before the system breaks down. Members leave when they are starving, freezing, or it turns into a Mad Max society. Hundreds of attempts, no successes.

Among the most interesting parts of the reading involved the breakdown of these communities. It is believed that most of them failed primarily because none of them were true communes. As it turns out, the land itself was always owned by someone, usually the founder, who in every case eventually used that ownership to claim power or privilege, driving a social and political wedge into the community.

Yes this exactly the argument Stalin and Mao made just before they murdered 50 MILLION of their countrymen "for the good of the republic".

It is simply not possible to take self-interest out of the equation. Once you accept that truth, socialism and communism become a dead-end road. (pun intended)

There are still several social collectives operating in NorCal. If you really think it can work, join one and live the dream. If it really is as magnificent as you believe, the joy of the experience will spread. One of my relatives has lived in one for several years. It is a third world existence similar to tribal New Guinea but so far she is not starving. Give it a try and report back.

I honestly don't get the connection between Stalin / Mao and hippie communes, you might have to spell that one out a little more for me.

I never said I wanted to join a commune, I said that I found them interesting and read up on them. I was curious how they worked, and more curious about the social movement of the 60's in general. So I did a lot of reading. Education isn't a bad thing. No, communes aren't "my thing".

Yes exactly. And the direct connection between a hippie commune and Stalin/Mao must not be missed. It is Marxism's fatal flaw.

I thought you did want to join a commune on a grand scale. I thought a Marxist collective society was your idea of a balanced and benevolent political government. Seeing it in action by living within such a system on a small scale is a great way to test the waters and evaluate it's efficacy don't you think? Without such a test, how are you certain it could work?

Well you reinforced the "connection" but still haven't explained it any further than saying it exists.

I think my statement that I didn't want to live in one more than implied that I wouldn't want to live in that type of society. I've additionally been very careful to state in every post where marxism is mentioned, that it is flawed and not desirable.

My points were very specific, and as well as Mike spelling it out, nobody seems to want to discuss the points I made, but rather take shots at marxism itself, when what I said had little to do with it, other than marxism being the conclusion of a very interesting debate of capitalism. So I'm reserving myself to discuss capitalism, including the philosophies that marxism concluded on capitalism; but I do not wish to discuss marxism itself, as it is completely irrelevant to my points, or this discussion. Hippe communes, fwiw, are hardly based on marxism. They are much closer to socialism, if not some other ism I'm not acutely knowledgeable about.

I realize that this topic is deep and wide. Concepts about forms of government and economic philosophies require a great deal of thought and understanding. You and Mike have both already touched on the fatal flaw common to Marxism/communism/socialism and yet fail to realize all the implications. It is property ownership.

In order to have a pure Marxist/communist/socialist society either in a small collective or nation, every man woman and child must abandon all claims of ownership to all property which then becomes common property of the state. Every car, house, guitar, apple, shoestring, guitar pick, the shirt off your back... everything no matter how small or insignificant. People are simply not willing to do that... ever. Everybody wants their stuff whether it is your great grandmothers wedding ring, family dishware, photo albums, a Fender Strat or a car. Once you allow property ownership of any kind, you have undermined the fabric of Marxism/communism/socialism and it is doomed to end badly. (See Stalin/Mao)

Capitalism implies ownership by definition. If you want to keep your stuff, you are a practicing capitalist. If we accept that we want our stuff and are indeed practicing capitalists, then we need to set aside Marxist philosophies and get down to the business of making capitalism work in the real world instead of pursuing an idealistic utopian society that is simply not possible.

I hope this clarifies things a bit. For more on this read Milton Friedman and James Buchanan. They clearly understand the realities of our human needs and wants and are far more articulate at defining a realistic capitalist society than I am.

what were the Native American tribes then J7? they did not own land but yet they can't be considered commies? can they? I know they are extinct or at least their way of life is..

what were the Native American tribes then J7? they did not own land but yet they can't be considered commies? can they? I know they are extinct or at least their way of life is..

As a part Native American it is my understanding that they were indeed practicing capitalists. They owned property (clothing,weapons lodging) and the most successful hunters got the best babes. Though land was not specifically owned, territories were jealously guarded and tribal wars were often fought over simple trespass into another tribes hunting grounds.

what were the Native American tribes then J7? they did not own land but yet they can't be considered commies? can they? I know they are extinct or at least their way of life is..

As a part Native American it is my understanding that they were indeed practicing capitalists. They owned property (clothing,weapons lodging) and the most successful hunters got the best babes. Though land was not specifically owned, territories were jealously guarded and tribal wars were often fought over simple trespass into another tribes hunting grounds.

Dude, I think you need to reread the definition of capitalism.
Native Americans (yes, I am part Cherokee too, thank you) were largely communal.
Of course everyone owned personal property and guarded their hunting grounds.
But, the strong supported the weak and everyone accepted their roles in dividing up material gains.
I'm pretty sure the hunters kept a larger share of what they killed.
But, they also made sure everyone in the tribe was well-fed.
Likewise with gatherers, I suppose.

They bartered with other tribes and white men for supplies.
But, that's not exactly high finance is it?
I don't think the indians made investments very often.

This is capitalism?
"Economic system in which most of the means of production are privately owned, and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets. "

Exactly!

With Native American tribes substitute:
Means= tools
Production= hunt, gather, build homes, craft tools and clothing
Operation of markets= barter

Yep they were clearly capitalists on a small scale but capitalism for sure with private ownership. Hunting and gathering is clearly a team sport and just as in a car dealership, the income is distributed throughout all participants in the company even though only the salespeople actually make the "kills". Same game different setting.

Note: Native Americans also had an average life span of around 25years.

This is capitalism?
"Economic system in which most of the means of production are privately owned, and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets. "

Exactly!

With Native American tribes substitute:
Means= tools
Production= hunt, gather, build homes, craft tools and clothing
Operation of markets= barter

Yep they were clearly capitalists on a small scale but capitalism for sure with private ownership. Hunting and gathering is clearly a team sport and just as in a car dealership, the income is distributed throughout all participants in the company even though only the salespeople actually make the "kills". Same game different setting.

Note: Native Americans also had an average life span of around 25years.

average life span was 25 years because inferior genetics from inbreeding and baby/infant deaths.. if you made it to 10 you stood a good chance to make old age..

This is capitalism?
"Economic system in which most of the means of production are privately owned, and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets. "

Exactly!

With Native American tribes substitute:
Means= tools
Production= hunt, gather, build homes, craft tools and clothing
Operation of markets= barter

Yep they were clearly capitalists on a small scale but capitalism for sure with private ownership. Hunting and gathering is clearly a team sport and just as in a car dealership, the income is distributed throughout all participants in the company even though only the salespeople actually make the "kills". Same game different setting.

Note: Native Americans also had an average life span of around 25years.