Global Resource Bank
- This topic has 140 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
John Pozzi wrote:Socialism is not practicalCheers, John
At least now you know what socialism is and you recognise that it has nothing to do with your propositionWell, that's progress.I am sure there are many on this forum will counter your argument that it is not practical
Vin wrote:John Pozzi wrote:Socialism is not practicalCheers, JohnAt least now you know what socialism is and you recognise that it has nothing to do with your propositionWell, that's progress.I am sure there are many on this forum will counter your argument that it is not practical
There is a contradiction in your statement and your goals. In prior occassions you have written about socialists banks, and now you are saying that socialism is not practical, which means that you have removed your mask, you are just another capitalists lover, and you are in the wrong forum. Probably, you have a double personality in this forum
Vin wrote:John Pozzi wrote:Socialism is not practicalCheers, JohnAt least now you know what socialism is and you recognise that it has nothing to do with your propositionWell, that's progress.I am sure there are many on this forum will counter your argument that it is not practical
I am an old fox and I can see reactionaries, and capitalist agent far away. I have said several times that many peoples come to this forum as teacher, and then, they become student
John Pozzi wrote:Imagine, if you can, a community of over 7 billion people who contribute what they can to growing their commonwealth of natural resources to gain whatever the need.Socialism is not practical, there is no common medium to exchange my pigs for your shoes.Your two sentences are confused and contradictory. If you can imagine a community over 7 billion people "giving according to their abilities and taking according to their self-defined needs" then Socialism becomes immediately practical and by definition needs no common medium of exchange. Think about it…
Hi Vin,Thank you.Now I know my socialism is the direct democratic socio-economy where people own the means of production, distribution, and exchange and is directly regulated by the global community of GRB shareholders, and your socialism is not practical because you have no commonwealth to exchange.Regards,
John Pozzi wrote:Hi Vin,Thank you.Now I know my socialism is the direct democratic socio-economy where people own the means of production, distribution, and exchange and is directly regulated by the global community of GRB shareholders, and your socialism is not practical because you have no commonwealth to exchange.Regards,Your socialism ? Your own invention ? Engels description of socialism is much better when he said that it is a product of the working class. Why peoples will exchange when they have free access ? Only a moron, or a mental retarded person will be looking for exchange. Some workers in the USA do not want free health care services provided by the state because it is communism according to their defintion. Why in the hell peoples want to pay for medical service instead ?
John Pozzi wrote:Hi Vin,Thank you.Now I know my socialism is the direct democratic socio-economy where people own the means of production, distribution, and exchange and is directly regulated by the global community of GRB shareholders, and your socialism is not practical because you have no commonwealth to exchange.Regards,Your socialism is bourgeois communism as it is described on the Comunist. manifest. Another beauty parlor for capitalism
John Pozzi wrote:Hi Vin,Thank you.Now I know my socialism is the direct democratic socio-economy where people own the means of production, distribution, and exchange and is directly regulated by the global community of GRB shareholders, and your socialism is not practical because you have no commonwealth to exchange.Regards,John How can people collectively own the means of production and then engage in exchange with one another? Exchange means an exchange in property titles and therefore necessarily implies private property not common property. You have been asked this question several times but have yet to provide an explanation
Hello Vin,Vin said: How can people collectively own the means of production and then engage in exchange with one another? Exchange means an exchange in property titles and therefore necessarily implies private property not common property. You have been asked this question several times but have yet to provide an explanation.John: GRB shareholders collectively own the product of ecosystems, i.e., natural resources. People exchange ecos that value their commonwealth of natural resources. GRB shareholders define residency as private propertySmith and Marx defined economics based on their assumption that the product of labor was the basis of the economy. They were wrong. Today we know that natural resources are. People need only grow the product of nature to live well. Their GRB of natural resources, supplies everyone with a basic income and open communications for life.You might ask; what about the industrial age, products that are still needed during our evolution to a natural world economy? GRB shareholders can freely choose to work for GRB commercial accounts who produce these products to earn addition eco wages. However, commercial accounts are motivated to conserve by the ecosystem impact charge and the e350b/day free market eco flow that demands natural light, energy, air, water, land, food, shelter, climate, biodiversity, etc.Thank you for the feedback. Socialist can begin a new age of enlightenment now – simply network the GRB.PS: Can someone put me in contact with Bernie Sanders? CC: Monika Hoy @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-vgo0wre7w&list=PLBp0ocreIIc33v9PqncV4inXHwaDH0AoC&index=15Jo Anne Hissey, Marisa Arnolf
I didn't say this? What absolute rubbish.This forum is for discussing socialism. Your repetitive postings are clearly adverts.
Many peoples in this world, and in some particular countries, they have been sodomized by capitalism since they are born, and they continue loving and defending capitalism, and admiring rich peoples, they must be masochists . They obtain a doctorate degree from an university and the defense and ass kissing of their exploiter increase to a superlative level. It is incredible. I have met peasants who do not know how to read and write, and they hate capitalismThis so called socialism of John Pozzi is just another medication to revive an agonizing economical system. It is only a personal invention which only has suport inside his brain. This is the political party of myself. He calls it my socialism, like socialism is the implementation of myself, typical bourgeoise conceptions. or child dreams, or DisneylandThese are like the fanatics Evangelicals who love to subscribe to the forums of the atheists to obtain new souls for the lord, and they do not get any because they have abandoned ignorances, the same case is applied to this forum, this is a forum for socialism, and to discus about socialist ideas, for the working class to be aware of what their real interest are, and we have peoples subscribed to this forum who want us to support capitalism, and to complaint because we are not capitalist lovers
alanjjohnstone wrote:John, what makes the concept of socialism radical and revolutionary and, in turn, makes your own proposal into a relatively conservative reform is that socialism is the abolition of the exchange economy thus without buying and selling, there is no need for any medium of exchange such as money or even labour-time tokens. Society has no need for GRB to produce rationally and sustainably and to distribute justly and fairly.That is the stark truth which makes your idea superfluous and unecessary. And i'm afraid when somebody's world-view is shown to be a false vision – it hurts and takes time to re-evaluate your beliefs. But hopefully you can accept you may simply be wrong. Ours is not an arrogant position, even if it might sound as we are all know-alls and possess all the answers but having been in existence for 114 years, we have learned some things about capitalism. Maybe you think we have it all wrong and haven't learned any lessons after over a century of politics. In such a case, we invite you to prove we are mistaken and provide us with your evidence. Convince us you are right.Meantime, I suggest that you explore our website, John, and read the numerous articles and also dip into our archives since there has been many proposals about changing the form of economics, Major Douglas social credit being one, which became popular and were critiqued by ourselves.Try perhaps for starters reading an article of mine which may spur a few specific questions from yourself that we can respond to more positively.https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2015/no-1327-march-2015/socialism-keeping-it-human-family@Alanjohnstone,some quotes from your linked article (thanks for providing the link conveniently and re-using well thought out arguments to avoid recreating the concept). "In the world socialist ‘family’ we will still have planning, a list of ‘household chores’ requiring to be done to achieve social justice and prevent ecological catastrophe. But it doesn’t have to be centrally planned by Big Brother. We do this locally, primarily. Local control, with integration into larger areas; neighbourhoods, towns, districts, regions and the world as a whole."This means "there is an exchange". information is exchanged, and values such as a clean household are exchanged. for houshold chores one person might do dishes in "exchange" for another person sweeping. In a family there's few enough people that this is all kept in the head with a sort of "how much do you help me vs how much do I help you" type mental accounting of fairness. Unfortunately that only works because a family is a small group where you know each persons history and reliability and repuation from long experience with them. The unfortunate part is that won't scale to the large numbers needed for specialization. The woman who makes silicon chips doesn't know personally from long experience the people who want to use the silicon chips for making the computer that will be sold to to the family to use in creating a google doc for sharing chores. She has no knowledge about them or their reputation or if they are working against her or not. She could have that information if you gave her access to your google docs for sharing chorse an there was a chore in there that said something like "bring food to the people who help us out by making microchips". So that's a solution, but one that requires sharing a Shareable count and tally of chores and who benefits from the chores. In the family wthout a sharing chores speadsheet this count is kept internally to each person in their head and not sharable with the rest of the world except by word of mouth and then there's no way for strangers to check your reputation and history to see if you are honest. So the solution is to share the information and the family can share their chores so others can trust them. These spreadsheets with different interests being helped by different chores is effectiveliy (due to how it's used and how it works) a form of exchange and a form of "money".
John Pozzi wrote:Hello Vin,Vin said: How can people collectively own the means of production and then engage in exchange with one another? Exchange means an exchange in property titles and therefore necessarily implies private property not common property. You have been asked this question several times but have yet to provide an explanation.John: GRB shareholders collectively own the product of ecosystems, i.e., natural resources. People exchange ecos that value their commonwealth of natural resources. GRB shareholders define residency as private propertySmith and Marx defined economics based on their assumption that the product of labor was the basis of the economy. They were wrong. Today we know that natural resources are. People need only grow the product of nature to live well. Their GRB of natural resources, supplies everyone with a basic income and open communications for life.You might ask; what about the industrial age, products that are still needed during our evolution to a natural world economy? GRB shareholders can freely choose to work for GRB commercial accounts who produce these products to earn addition eco wages. However, commercial accounts are motivated to conserve by the ecosystem impact charge and the e350b/day free market eco flow that demands natural light, energy, air, water, land, food, shelter, climate, biodiversity, etc.Thank you for the feedback. Socialist can begin a new age of enlightenment now – simply network the GRB.PS: Can someone put me in contact with Bernie Sanders? CC: Monika Hoy @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-vgo0wre7w&list=PLBp0ocreIIc33v9PqncV4inXHwaDH0AoC&index=15Jo Anne Hissey, Marisa ArnolfIn my vocabulary, "exchange" does not require property or imply property necessarily. There are exchanges that involve property, but there are also exchanges that do not. Perhaps it would help if you considered "moving an object from one location where it is accessible to one person (but not owned by them) to a location where it is accessible to a different person. So you might exchange the location of a tractor from one field to another without owning it. or there's the problem with "who gets drives the tractor" since they only have one seet, you might "exchange" roles with the driver of the tractor farming carrots so that you drive the tractor while the other person eats lunch and then you might exchange roles again at the end of the day if one person has to go home in the same direction as where the tractor is needed for the next day and can take the tractor back to their home on the potato farm(wich is not their property, and just where they sleap) with them to save a trip. So if you object to calling that an "exchange" because it's not what you personally consider "exchange" then please provide a word that you understand as a replacement. I'm not really concerned with what it's called and am focusing on how it works.
Quote:In my vocabulary, "exchange" does not require property or imply property necessarily. There are exchanges that involve property, but there are also exchanges that do not.Exchange value. A relative magnitude which expresses the relationship between two commodities. The proportion in which commodities tend to exchange with each other depends upon the amount of socially necessary labour-time spent in producing them. Commodities actually sell at market prices that rise and fall according to market conditions around a point regulated by their value and, more specifically, their price of production. (See also LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE; PRICE OF PRODUCTION; VALUE.)We use accepted definitions used by Marx and other economists and don't make up words. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." ..Yup, exchange within the family exists as Steve indicates…so let us permit mums to charge babies for breast milk. A balance can be created at birth and children can pay back the debt when they grow up. But on the wider scale, production is a social process with a worldwide division of labour but within the market consumption is not social but dog eat dog profit making. Marx called it the "anarchy of production", everybody out to make a fast buck individually. It was Marx who said people could in fact "exchange" work-roles"in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic."
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:John Pozzi wrote:Hello Vin,Vin said: How can people collectively own the means of production and then engage in exchange with one another? Exchange means an exchange in property titles and therefore necessarily implies private property not common property. You have been asked this question several times but have yet to provide an explanation.John: GRB shareholders collectively own the product of ecosystems, i.e., natural resources. People exchange ecos that value their commonwealth of natural resources. GRB shareholders define residency as private propertySmith and Marx defined economics based on their assumption that the product of labor was the basis of the economy. They were wrong. Today we know that natural resources are. People need only grow the product of nature to live well. Their GRB of natural resources, supplies everyone with a basic income and open communications for life.You might ask; what about the industrial age, products that are still needed during our evolution to a natural world economy? GRB shareholders can freely choose to work for GRB commercial accounts who produce these products to earn addition eco wages. However, commercial accounts are motivated to conserve by the ecosystem impact charge and the e350b/day free market eco flow that demands natural light, energy, air, water, land, food, shelter, climate, biodiversity, etc.Thank you for the feedback. Socialist can begin a new age of enlightenment now – simply network the GRB.PS: Can someone put me in contact with Bernie Sanders? CC: Monika Hoy @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-vgo0wre7w&list=PLBp0ocreIIc33v9PqncV4inXHwaDH0AoC&index=15Jo Anne Hissey, Marisa ArnolfAs an economist you won't make it Exchange is an economical term it has nothing to do with changing. places or activity . It takes place within commodities. Since there would not be commodity in a socialist society exchange will not exist. For the rest just read Paul Lafargue. The right to be lazy I explained it to my eight years grandson and he understood ithttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/
- The topic ‘Global Resource Bank’ is closed to new replies.