Quote:
Originally Posted by Social Construct
communism
|
Perhaps you missed Paine's idea about those adsorbing resources in common ownership having a duty to provide compensation in the form of pensions? Looking beyond the surface it's apparent that other forms of recompense are equally beneficial.
Or more beneficial. When hunter/gatherers were in vogue anyone scooping in all the hazelnuts and selling them would be a menace. The human race, locally in this case, would lose access to the earth in its natural uncultivated state (insofar as hazelnuts were concerned) and be deprived of a common resource. In the case of communism, the state took the hazelnuts and they all went rotten. Oligarchs could enforce exchange rates
. . . . . . . hazelnut . . .mammoth . . . .opium
Oligarch 1 . . . 1 . . . . . . 1
Oligarch 2 . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Oligarch 3 . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . 1
but the problem is that no new resource is being generated and no-one has any more time than they had before. Agriculture enables not only earning capacity to increase but leisure time too. Let's say that a special caste took all the leisure time. They could exploit superstitions about weather and livestock fertility to get the best for themselves but essentially it's a parasite caste and every society based on such lies collapsed. The more you look to lies the more likely you are to collapse. Thomas Paine may not have obsessed over broccoli but did he see the value of distributed leisure? Where everyone could pursue their own leisure activities but not co-opt others as their minions?
Obadiah 1:3 The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee, thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high; that saith in his heart, Who shall bring me down to the ground?