Successful communist village in Spain

Post Reply New Topic

While that sounds like a good idea, the problem is that you can't compensate for every brilliant idea that comes along.

If all the game makers came together and make ONE platform, we'd think it's great...until someone comes along with a better idea and is snubbed by those in power who don't want to do a massive re-tool to modify the platform his his idea. If his idea is superior and he gives up, we lose his innovation. If it is superior and he goes into competition, we're pretty much right back to where we started.

Competition lets the market decide whose product is better. The makers must compete for dominance. Eventually one dominates and gradually stops caring about the customer because they see no real competitor. Then a new competitor comes along who respects the customer and offers a better product. Old top dog is brought down and competition resumes.

It might stink if you are forced to buy more than one platform to play all the games you like, but you could just do like most others and just buy the one that best satisfies your needs and do without the other.

None of that is really a defence for the current set up.


Its more a nyeh nyeh nyeh, thats the way it is, so there.

Cheap, versatile, and good graphics. Choose two for your console. But not everyone wants those particular two, so we need 3 different machines.

Oh wait, we're back to having multiple consoles.

Thats not really an argument.

If I want cheap and cheerful I'll get a Wii but Xbox 360 and PS3 are technically almost identical.

The consoles are grossly overpriced anyway, and are made expensive for the same reason that I have to pay £420 a month rent in the UK as opposed to 15 euros a month in Marinaleda.

Go to a FabLab and make one yourself, then.

You seem to be arguing for the forcible merging on Nintendo and Sony, to produce on device - call it the WiiS One - which the users of the Wii will complain is too expensive, and the users of the PS3 will complain is too slow. In the end, everyone loses.

If a merger is economically advantageous, it will occur. They don't need someone who has absolutely no idea what they're talking about to tell them they should merge.

The guy who wants to arrest a homeless man for occupying 'his' unused land or building and refusing obey pretty much any command he chooses.

If the people in the town are behaving anarchisticly, I have no reason to care if they call themselves Leninists.

You'll actually be hard pressed to find anyone in favour of the free market who supports absentee ownership of unused land, and you're unlikely to find anyone in cases where that land title was granted by the state.

I don't know why you have to pay rent in this town. If you've built the house with your own labour...?

Well Mutualists don't. I don't know much about Agorism, but a lot of who say they believe in the free market do. I don't conflate markets with absentee ownership, I am opposed to markets for different reasons.

You have to pay something for the general upkeep of your town or city, wherever you live, regardless of whether you own your house or not. Its called taxes. I think the issue here is you own the structure of the house itself, just not the land on which it sits.

Either way, I don't really understand your basis of your grievance. In most other places in the first world you would pay a lot more than 15 euros a month just on taxes and all things considered, I think 15 euros a month rent beats the hell out of 600 or 700 euros a month rent or 60 thousand euros paid out on a piecemeal basis on a mortgage over the course of several decades (plus > 15 euros a month taxes).

In this country you can't even rent a TV for 15 euros a month.

The fundamental flaw in that cartoon is that it presumes the guy owning the factory is just another worker.

He is not.

He is bearing ALL the risk of the venture being profitable or failing.

He is the last one paid (by law) if the money doesn't cover all the bills. Employees are paid first. Creditors are paid second. Owner is paid last.

He is the most valuable person in that he had the initiative to start the business that puts everyone else to work. If he goes, it is most likely not one worker there would want to take his position or even know how to do his job to keep the company going.

The Paris Commune isn't exactly the best example in defense of communism.

Kibbutzim in Israel is a better example. These places are like little towns (or sometimes the size of a town properly) but people live in a community atmosphere where everyone is equal, earns more or less the same, and has no higher position or power than the others. In the past they were totally self-providing in terms of food etc, nowadays they trade with the outside world but the socialist equality model has been maintained to large extent inside the kibbutz.

Also, several very remote islands with few inhabitants have a de facto socialist model. For example on Pitcairn, St Helena etc you cannot just construct a competitive market as the Island is way too isolated and the citizens rely on each other to survive, so tasks are divided. That too is a sort of socialism.

Also, while sticking out my neck here and preparing for a lot of disagreeing replies, Belarus may be labelled a dictatorship but economically Lukashenko's policies work very well. His human rights records is less positive, but purely economically he has things organised properly. A mixed economy of which the largest portion is nationalised and under the scheme of a planned economy, private businesses continue to run but under supervision and can be nationalised if economic rules are violated. It's a semi-socialist state. Now without denying the sometimes doubtful election procedures, even if you take away some votes from Lukashenko due to fraude, he'd still win the elections by large difference. Protests mainly come from students and young academicals. But older people, people who live outside the capital, etc are glad with Lukashenko's economical policies and semi-planned economy, and would vote for him anyway. Belarus has a mixed economy but nationalised the core industries and keeps a close eye on the existing private enterprises. I think that sounds like a modern interpretation of communism that is very acceptable and realistic (his human rights record is bad but I am purely praising his economical model, not all the other stuff he does)

Indeed. I'm sure the OP will agree, as well...

I'd love to visit Saint Helena. I'm told it's like nowhere else on Earth.

That place is heavily dependent on British aid for the overseas territories, and that whilst the island is lovely they're poor by UK standards.

The last bastion of empire, huh?

It's wrong to call it an empire. Britain doesn't have an empire any more.

It's only imperialism or empire if the people there don't want it. For instance, the Maltese chose independence in 1964 (54% said 'yes', 45% said 'no'). Had they chosen not to go independent, they would not really be subjugated in any way as they had free choice. In fact, ten years before, the Maltese public were in favour of integration with the UK. (That blasted Foreign Office again.)

An independent Saint Helena would not be viable anyway. Gibraltar does not need aid. Bermuda does not need aid. The Falkland Islands does not need aid (apart from for its defence).

If you remember correctly, Bermuda had a referendum on independence in 1995 when former Conservative Home Secretary David Waddington (my local MP!) was Governor. Bermuda would have been well able to go for independence, as the territory was wealthy and big enough to stand alone. 74% of people who voted said 'no' to independence.

How many folks from the outside are trying to get in?

There is a an easy way to determine the best places to live. People vote with their feet.

ruveyn