Capitalism 104

[grandpa]

Quote by: BobbyO Obviously land cannot be "free." And this is because it can be used for any number of things.

No, that is not "obvious." It has to be drilled into people's heads. Believe it or not, land can exist without human beings to claim it as theirs, and people can peacefully claim things as partially theirs without paying a dime for it. Those are elementary truths that must be denied in order for this state protection racket to go on unchallenged.

Quote by: BobbyO So there will need to be mechanisms to determine the value, and thus best use, of land.

You assume that in order to possess land, people have to be encapsulated together under some type of financial system. I don't think that's the case, at least to those who value the ability of people to apply basic, peaceful reasoning in order to shape their own lives (we don't have that now, we have conditions imposed upon us).

Quote by: BobbyO Yes, the tenants can maintain upkeep. But like I said, such activities takes time and effort and skills which tenants do not perhaps have, or perhaps would choose not to employ.

You can twist reality any way you want, but this scenario you proposed still doesn't justify landlords. If people need outside help, they don't need to turn to a landlord to do something. One doesn't need to be a landlord to fix a toilet.
Your argument is like saying someone needs to join the army in order to have weapons. You have nothing to support your argument.

Quote by: BobbyO It is certainly true that not all landlords keep up teir property to high standards. However, there are generally legal requirements that they do so and so tenants have options.

And even if every landlord kept their legal property up to a high standard, it still wouldn't by itself justify their legal claim to it. The only thing justifying their legal claim is obviously the law itself, which is designed to make people utterly dependent on the system. These may be rights for some, but offenses for others.

Quote by: BobbyO By your own admission, tenants would uphold property only to the extent that they wish, which is no standard at all.

You speak of independence as if it entails having virtually no standards at all. I don't think that's the case. But the crucial point is that people could choose their own standards without these legal obligations, these titles. I think if people entered that point they'd already be at a higher standard.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Autolykos I've already explained the logic here, so I don't feel the need to repeat myself. It's not my fault if you cannot understand it. You can have the last word here. - Rob

You just don't want to acknowledge that landlords are a type of authority, which is a point anyone with half a brain could admit.

Landlords are a legal title, but even if they somehow weren't they would still make up a social hierarchy. You should be opposed to them if you advocate
an-archy. "-Archy" is a suffix meaning a type of rule.

v. ruled, rul·ing, rules

To exercise control, dominion, or direction over; govern.
To dominate by powerful influence.

A landlord is someone who uses the system of private property--a state system, whether we call it public or private--to dominate land, buildings and people who become "tenants." You could try to prove this isn't some type of authority, but you're only deluding yourself.

It's not impossible to look up the history of landlordism.

Leasehold estate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Tenancy was essential to the feudal hierarchy; a lord would own land and his tenants became his vassals."

Vassal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The etymology of "vassal" is from a Celtic word gwas 'boy' that designated a young male slave.

Tenancy is nowadays very essential to corporate hierarchy.

Grandpa h.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: grandpa No, that is not "obvious." It has to be drilled into people's heads. Believe it or not, land can exist without human beings to claim it as theirs, and people can peacefully claim things as partially theirs without paying a dime for it. Those are elementary truths that must be denied in order for this state protection racket to go on unchallenged. You assume that in order to possess land, people have to be encapsulated together under some type of financial system. I don't think that's the case, at least to those who value the ability of people to apply basic, peaceful reasoning in order to shape their own lives (we don't have that now, we have conditions imposed upon us). You can twist reality any way you want, but this scenario you proposed still doesn't justify landlords. If people need outside help, they don't need to turn to a landlord to do something. One doesn't need to be a landlord to fix a toilet. Your argument is like saying someone needs to join the army in order to have weapons. You have nothing to support your argument. And even if every landlord kept their legal property up to a high standard, it still wouldn't by itself justify their legal claim to it. The only thing justifying their legal claim is obviously the law itself, which is designed to make people utterly dependent on the system. These may be rights for some, but offenses for others. You speak of independence as if it entails having virtually no standards at all. I don't think that's the case. But the crucial point is that people could choose their own standards without these legal obligations, these titles. I think if people entered that point they'd already be at a higher standard. Grandpa h.

You keep people can apply "peaceful" reasoning to solve these problems. But like so many anti-capitalists, you do not go further than that. Obviously to say one will apply "peaceful" reasoning, one still has to describe how that "peaceful" reasoning will function and demonstrate.

So it is certainly true one does not have to be a landlord to fix a leaky pipe. But the odds are greater that the landlord will have a greater knowledge of doing so than the tenant, since the landlord has spent far more time working on that aspect, whereas the tenant has spent less time. Let the landlord worry about that problem, and you can worry about something else. Of course, one could call a plumber, but one still needs a mechanism to determine why a plumber should spend his time fixing YOUR leaky pipe as opposed to somebody else's leaky pipe.

[grandpa]

Quote by: BobbyO You keep people can apply "peaceful" reasoning to solve these problems. But like so many anti-capitalists, you do not go further than that.

I have gone further than that. Housing cooperatives are a way to go, unless you deny that you are capable of basic social organizating.
If I were to believe money is the only way people can do things it wouldn't be far from my becoming an apocalyptic wierdo.

Quote by: BobbyO Obviously to say one will apply "peaceful" reasoning, one still has to describe how that "peaceful" reasoning will function and demonstrate.

Apparently it's impossible for some to understand there is no perfect schema for social organization, whether we're talking hypothetically or in actual practice.
However, to comprehend my point one needn't look very far. I've already posted a link on post-Katrina organizing in New Orleans. Those efforts are anarchic in nature.
There is also the Israeli Kibbutz:
The Kibbutz

These efforts realize social organization needn't have an anti-social, class-based and deceptive nature.

Quote by: BobbyO So it is certainly true one does not have to be a landlord to fix a leaky pipe. But the odds are greater that the landlord will have a greater knowledge of doing so than the tenant, since the landlord has spent far more time working on that aspect, whereas the tenant has spent less time.

So tenants should just stay perpectually ignorant? The point of brains is for people to learn new things, especially applicable skills. Landlords aren't necessary for this to happen, either.
Can't fix a pipe? Either find out how or call a plumber.
If people really need outsid help, they needn't pay hundreds of dollars a month every month to get it. They can turn to someone else. A lot of landlords turn to external help anyway. A lot of problems have simple solutions. If the toilet overflows all you may need is a plunger and a mop. That usually works.

Quote by: BobbyO Let the landlord worry about that problem, and you can worry about something else. Of course, one could call a plumber, but one still needs a mechanism to determine why a plumber should spend his time fixing YOUR leaky pipe as opposed to somebody else's leaky pipe.

Okay, you just conceded the point I just made (I reply to most posts in order of appearance). Here's a question: Do people living in an RV need a landlord? I don't think so. What makes this situation so different than houses?

1. Most houses aren't on wheels.
2. There is not a legally imposed landlord.

I'm still highly amazed that so many people defend landlords, as if they are some sacred legal entity that people would die without. Have you people never been tenants or something? How do you not realize that what you call a "service" is more often than not just a pain in the ass? Are you incapable of understanding that without paying rent a great burden would be lifted from social life and everything from human creativity and independence would have a chance to better be realized? That would be something.

As for plumbers not being able to be at two places at once, no "mechanism" can solve that problem--not yours or not mine. Maybe human cloning, but still....

Grandpa h.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: grandpa I have gone further than that. Housing cooperatives are a way to go, unless you deny that you are capable of basic social organizating. If I were to believe money is the only way people can do things it wouldn't be far from my becoming an apocalyptic wierdo. Apparently it's impossible for some to understand there is no perfect schema for social organization, whether we're talking hypothetically or in actual practice. However, to comprehend my point one needn't look very far. I've already posted a link on post-Katrina organizing in New Orleans. Those efforts are anarchic in nature. There is also the Israeli Kibbutz: The Kibbutz These efforts realize social organization needn't have an anti-social, class-based and deceptive nature. So tenants should just stay perpectually ignorant? The point of brains is for people to learn new things, especially applicable skills. Landlords aren't necessary for this to happen, either. Can't fix a pipe? Either find out how or call a plumber. If people really need outsid help, they needn't pay hundreds of dollars a month every month to get it. They can turn to someone else. A lot of landlords turn to external help anyway. A lot of problems have simple solutions. If the toilet overflows all you may need is a plunger and a mop. That usually works. Okay, you just conceded the point I just made (I reply to most posts in order of appearance). Here's a question: Do people living in an RV need a landlord? I don't think so. What makes this situation so different than houses? 1. Most houses aren't on wheels. 2. There is not a legally imposed landlord. I'm still highly amazed that so many people defend landlords, as if they are some sacred legal entity that people would die without. Have you people never been tenants or something? How do you not realize that what you call a "service" is more often than not just a pain in the ass? Are you incapable of understanding that without paying rent a great burden would be lifted from social life and everything from human creativity and independence would have a chance to better be realized? That would be something. As for plumbers not being able to be at two places at once, no "mechanism" can solve that problem--not yours or not mine. Maybe human cloning, but still.... Grandpa h.

I fully recognise there is no perfect scheme for social organization; people are not perfect.

Which is why you demanding that people solve their own problems, as a principle of social organisation, seems quite flawed. I have no love for landlords. But hey, its their job to fix those types of problems that a tenant may not have sufficient knowledge or interest in doing (and since I know you dislike a "money system" it would seem the problem is greater as there is LESS reason for a person to learn things, in your society, which do not interest them. A leaky faucet? Call the plumber who likes doing this kind of stuff and it doesn't cost me anything).

But again, why should the plumber respond to your desire for him to fix your leaky faucet? Since he can't be in two places at once, why go to you, and not to the fellow on the other side of town? Again, mechanisms are needed to make these types of determinations.

[grandpa]

Quote by: BobbyO I fully recognise there is no perfect scheme for social organization; people are not perfect. Which is why you demanding that people solve their own problems, as a principle of social organisation, seems quite flawed.

I may not agree with every
point you made, but overall, you address some really good points.

I hope my responses help you understand ahy I think the current scheme for social organization has poisoned all life.

The system as we know it implies the need to make resources and services unavailable to the public unless they have money.
Here I agree with what Noam Chomsky has said:
"We have not developed the cultural and
moral resources or the democratic forms of social
organization that make possible the humane and rational use
of our material wealth and power."
Abtract principles and overarching authority prevents this from taking place.

Quote by: BobbyO I have no love for landlords. But hey, its their job to fix those types of problems that a tenant may not have sufficient knowledge or interest in doing (and since I know you dislike a "money system" it would seem the problem is greater as there is LESS reason for a person to learn things, in your society, which do not interest them.

I don't think I've advocated a total breakdown of human knowledge. In fact, I've encouraged the opposite. I fail to see how all knowledge could simply disappear, or all the desires to repair what is broken around the house would vanish. I think getting rid of money could be helpful in project planning, but it would require a more scientifically-minded appraoch to a given situation. For example, one needn't spend money to do something--whether we are talking about construction, destruction or picking up tidbits of knowledge. That is a fundamental fact, whereas spending money is socially conditioned.

That the profit motive undermines people's ability to pursue their naked interests is simply irrefutable. Rather than develop the skills they want to have, people may find themselves routinely doing tasks nobody actually has to do do, like maybe serving popcorn at a movie theater or making Telemarketing calls just to get money to afford whatever those interests are. These are unnecessary hurdles, and dangerous ones to social development and sometimes even to survival.

Quote by: BobbyO A leaky faucet? Call the plumber who likes doing this kind of stuff and it doesn't cost me anything).

Or one can learn basic plumbing skills, which seems possible for most people.
When it comes to fixing a situation, it obviously depend on the individual initiative to ask "If not Now then When? If not ME then Who?"

But the point again is that a landlord isn't necessary to either do it yourself or get outsidee help.

Quote by: BobbyO But again, why should the plumber respond to your desire for him to fix your leaky faucet? Since he can't be in two places at once, why go to you, and not to the fellow on the other side of town? Again, mechanisms are needed to make these types of determinations.

Again, you assume that this fundamental problem can be easily solved.
your desire to believe this doesn't make it so. But the easiest mechanism could be procximity, or how about free housing cooperatives that encourage everyone to learn plumbing and other skills? So it doesn't just come to a sense of
doing what is morally right, but of doing what is practical for its own sake.

I think you underestimate human mechanical intelligence. I once fixed a guitar without knowing hardly anything about how they work, so I know that even the less machanically inclined can work things out. Sure, there may be times when we turn to outside help, and money may be involved, but it makes little sense to not be pacified and content with the illusion that money and related authorities are absolutely necessary. In fact, there are plenty of situations that seem to occur randomly which render using money impractical or impossible as a solution.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

I found something relevant to the discussion. Here is a preview to a film about how people are organizing to combat the pitfalls of privatization of reosurces:

BAVARIA FILM INTERNATIONAL | TRAILER | THE BIG SELLOUT

Grandpa h.

[MachineCode0110]

I don't really get the people versus "the corporations" mentality of the anti private property crowd.

[BobbyO]

Quote by: grandpa I may not agree with every point you made, but overall, you address some really good points. I hope my responses help you understand ahy I think the current scheme for social organization has poisoned all life. The system as we know it implies the need to make resources and services unavailable to the public unless they have money. Here I agree with what Noam Chomsky has said: "We have not developed the cultural and moral resources or the democratic forms of social organization that make possible the humane and rational use of our material wealth and power." Abtract principles and overarching authority prevents this from taking place. I don't think I've advocated a total breakdown of human knowledge. In fact, I've encouraged the opposite. I fail to see how all knowledge could simply disappear, or all the desires to repair what is broken around the house would vanish. I think getting rid of money could be helpful in project planning, but it would require a more scientifically-minded appraoch to a given situation. For example, one needn't spend money to do something--whether we are talking about construction, destruction or picking up tidbits of knowledge. That is a fundamental fact, whereas spending money is socially conditioned. That the profit motive undermines people's ability to pursue their naked interests is simply irrefutable. Rather than develop the skills they want to have, people may find themselves routinely doing tasks nobody actually has to do do, like maybe serving popcorn at a movie theater or making Telemarketing calls just to get money to afford whatever those interests are. These are unnecessary hurdles, and dangerous ones to social development and sometimes even to survival. Or one can learn basic plumbing skills, which seems possible for most people. When it comes to fixing a situation, it obviously depend on the individual initiative to ask "If not Now then When? If not ME then Who?" But the point again is that a landlord isn't necessary to either do it yourself or get outsidee help. Again, you assume that this fundamental problem can be easily solved. your desire to believe this doesn't make it so. But the easiest mechanism could be procximity, or how about free housing cooperatives that encourage everyone to learn plumbing and other skills? So it doesn't just come to a sense of doing what is morally right, but of doing what is practical for its own sake. I think you underestimate human mechanical intelligence. I once fixed a guitar without knowing hardly anything about how they work, so I know that even the less machanically inclined can work things out. Sure, there may be times when we turn to outside help, and money may be involved, but it makes little sense to not be pacified and content with the illusion that money and related authorities are absolutely necessary. In fact, there are plenty of situations that seem to occur randomly which render using money impractical or impossible as a solution. Grandpa h.

Chomsky's comments are interesting. But what he says is basically what the anti-capitalists always say: capitalism isan inefficient way of producing goods and services. Then they proceed to be totally indifferent to describe a different solution.

The solutions presented by yourself are not solutions at all. It would seem to compound the problem. People learn basic household skills because it is in their best interest to do so. It is cheper, it costs less money to install your own plumbing then to hire someone to do it. Eliminate a money system (which you have called for) and suddenly that motivation is eliminated. Why waste time installing your own plumbing when a certified, well trained professional can do it at no cost to you? But again, why should that plumber spend his time installing your plumbing, and not somebody else's? That you might be closer? Of what relevence is functioning plumbing to the closeness of its installer? You suggest cooperatives where everyone becomes a plumber, or at least learn baisc plumbing skills. But what if I do not wish to spend my free time fixing plumbing (what authority would exist to tell me I must?) And in any event, is it not more sensible to have trained professionals doing such work, then partially trained apprentices?

I find Chomsky's comments meaningless. A plumber (or anyone else) cannot fix all things at the same time, Which means services will ALWAYS be withheld for periods of time, regardless of the system. That will never change. So any system will need to figure out the best ways to allocate the use of the plumber's time and labor. The money system is the best, most rational, and fairest way to do it.

[grandpa]

Quote by: MachineCode0110 I don't really get the people versus "the corporations" mentality of the anti private property crowd.

Then look into labor history, and consider how corporations curb rights of workers and consumers by preventing them from having a say in their own work and consumption.

They also dominate reosurces and divvy them out. People don't need these authorities depriving them of resources.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: BobbyO Chomsky's comments are interesting. But what he says is basically what the anti-capitalists always say: capitalism isan inefficient way of producing goods and services. Then they proceed to be totally indifferent to describe a different solution.

Actually, Chomsky didn't appear in that clip. The point isn't even entirely about efficiency (although I would argue that deprivation and hogging of resources is not a true application efficiency, let alone firect democratic ideas). I haven't been totally indifferent to solutions. The solution is simple: Get rid of the authority titles and organize in an egalitarian manner.

Quote by: BobbyO The solutions presented by yourself are not solutions at all. It would seem to compound the problem. People learn basic household skills because it is in their best interest to do so. It is cheper, it costs less money to install your own plumbing then to hire someone to do it. Eliminate a money system (which you have called for) and suddenly that motivation is eliminated.

Again, your points assume that the incentive for plumbing would instantly disappear if money did. You've just redefined human beings as incapable of performing tasks and retaining basic knowledge without money. But people needn't be perpetual children, nor are they. You fail to consider how people are literally compelled to be motivated by money, for they are not supposed to survive unless they have it. Obviously, that's a motivator. Exploitation and the domination is guaranteed to breed reliance when the only other option seems to be being a total outcast from social and economic life.
And any society set up in this way is obviously going to cause
problems.

As an alternative, consider Anarchists in the 1936 Spanish Civil War, which had in its name egalitarianism:
YouTube - Anarchists in the 1936 Spanish Civil War

It wasn't perfect, but whatever is? Also, not all the Spanish anarchists totally eliminated the money idea, but that's not the main point. They wanted to basiacally do things for their own sake.

Just as pertinent is the practicality of not demanding that "someone else do chores for me."

Quote by: BobbyO Why waste time installing your own plumbing when a certified, well trained professional can do it at no cost to you? But again, why should that plumber spend his time installing your plumbing, and not somebody else's? That you might be closer? Of what relevence is functioning plumbing to the closeness of its installer?

Well, these questions have obvious answers. Yes, proximity is very important, and an individual with plumbing experience could certainly want to focus more on plumbing emergencies--especially ones closer to him/her.

Quote by: BobbyO You suggest cooperatives where everyone becomes a plumber, or at least learn baisc plumbing skills. But what if I do not wish to spend my free time fixing plumbing (what authority would exist to tell me I must?) And in any event, is it not more sensible to have trained professionals doing such work, then partially trained apprentices?

If you don't want plumbing, that's your prerogative.
If anything, though, most people would go in the other direction. They would want to know more about mechanical skills, especially in an independent fashion.

I wouldn't say there is no use for some level of required status or qualification in certain types of work (for example, a doctor or an airplane pilot), but, even then it still comes down to knowledge and skills, without which

Quote by: BobbyO I find Chomsky's comments meaningless. A plumber (or anyone else) cannot fix all things at the same time, Which means services will ALWAYS be withheld for periods of time, regardless of the system. That will never change. So any system will need to figure out the best ways to allocate the use of the plumber's time and labor. The money system is the best, most rational, and fairest way to do it.

Not all is working correctly with capitalism, as you suggest. For example, there truly are auto mechanics who fix some parts to vehicles and sabotage others, or hospitals which don't treat patients with care. And there are companies who will fix water systems, only to come back and deprive them of water if the bill isn't paid in full (I've seen it happen). I would hardly call depriving people of resources the best, most rational and fairest way to organize society. In fact, it's indefensible. You haven't provided an argument for it, you just assume that because people can survive by following economic rules that these rules must be benign. They are not. They are grounded in inequality, in elitism, in distrust--and it follows quite naturally that we'd see all kinds of problems come out of this. People can still survive through basic solidarity under these conditions. But people have lived under all kinds of conditions and worked and survived. It doesn't mean an authoritarian archetype is the best people can do.

Seeing as to how you dismissed Chomsky's views, here is a much better, much more in-depth take on what anarchism could be like:

Part one
1974 Anarchism interview with Chomsky p.1 - Google Video

Part two
1974 Anarchism interview with Chomsky p.2 - Google Video

Grandpa h.

[Century 25]

Quote by: MachineCode0110 I don't really get the people versus "the corporations" mentality of the anti private property crowd.

Did ya ever hear of "robber baron's" ?

[MachineCode0110]

Yes.

And?

[Century 25]

Quote by: MachineCode0110 Yes. And?

..And..?? :rolleyes:

[grandpa]

Quote by: Century 25 ..And..?? :rolleyes:

Some people are utterly incapable of studying labor history. They fear it like the plague, though studying reveals some very obvious things about money and power.

Grandpa h.

[MachineCode0110]

Quote by: Century 25 ..And..??

Did you have a point to make about how robber barons somehow are relevant to today's society?

[Century 25]

You stated that you "don't really get the people vs 'the corporations' mentality:

Quote by: MachineCode0110 I don't really get the people versus "the corporations" mentality of the anti private property crowd.

..hence the queries asked of you by grandpa & myself.. grandpa already answered for all of us.. since you offer nothing but further.. questions..

Quote by: grandpa Some people are utterly incapable of studying labor history. They fear it like the plague, though studying reveals some very obvious things about money and power. Grandpa h.

Thank you grandpa.. 'tis true as you said.. utterly incapable..

[BobbyO]

Quote by: grandpa Actually, Chomsky didn't appear in that clip. The point isn't even entirely about efficiency (although I would argue that deprivation and hogging of resources is not a true application efficiency, let alone firect democratic ideas). I haven't been totally indifferent to solutions. The solution is simple: Get rid of the authority titles and organize in an egalitarian manner. Again, your points assume that the incentive for plumbing would instantly disappear if money did. You've just redefined human beings as incapable of performing tasks and retaining basic knowledge without money. But people needn't be perpetual children, nor are they. You fail to consider how people are literally compelled to be motivated by money, for they are not supposed to survive unless they have it. Obviously, that's a motivator. Exploitation and the domination is guaranteed to breed reliance when the only other option seems to be being a total outcast from social and economic life. And any society set up in this way is obviously going to cause problems. As an alternative, consider Anarchists in the 1936 Spanish Civil War, which had in its name egalitarianism: YouTube - Anarchists in the 1936 Spanish Civil War It wasn't perfect, but whatever is? Also, not all the Spanish anarchists totally eliminated the money idea, but that's not the main point. They wanted to basiacally do things for their own sake. Just as pertinent is the practicality of not demanding that "someone else do chores for me." Well, these questions have obvious answers. Yes, proximity is very important, and an individual with plumbing experience could certainly want to focus more on plumbing emergencies--especially ones closer to him/her. If you don't want plumbing, that's your prerogative. If anything, though, most people would go in the other direction. They would want to know more about mechanical skills, especially in an independent fashion. I wouldn't say there is no use for some level of required status or qualification in certain types of work (for example, a doctor or an airplane pilot), but, even then it still comes down to knowledge and skills, without which Not all is working correctly with capitalism, as you suggest. For example, there truly are auto mechanics who fix some parts to vehicles and sabotage others, or hospitals which don't treat patients with care. And there are companies who will fix water systems, only to come back and deprive them of water if the bill isn't paid in full (I've seen it happen). I would hardly call depriving people of resources the best, most rational and fairest way to organize society. In fact, it's indefensible. You haven't provided an argument for it, you just assume that because people can survive by following economic rules that these rules must be benign. They are not. They are grounded in inequality, in elitism, in distrust--and it follows quite naturally that we'd see all kinds of problems come out of this. People can still survive through basic solidarity under these conditions. But people have lived under all kinds of conditions and worked and survived. It doesn't mean an authoritarian archetype is the best people can do. Seeing as to how you dismissed Chomsky's views, here is a much better, much more in-depth take on what anarchism could be like: Part one 1974 Anarchism interview with Chomsky p.1 - Google Video Part two 1974 Anarchism interview with Chomsky p.2 - Google Video Grandpa h.

Why would people want to know more about technical skills as an aside from their regular jobs more so than today? If anything why would not the opposite be true, considerig that in your ideal situation there is no "cost" for a person to utilised a trained professional as opposed to using one's own limited knowledge?

As you yourself has said, no system is perfect. and there is no reason to suppose that one would not encounter shoddy service in an anarchial community. I would suggest the odds are greater there would be shoddier in such a community, as you have not described how goods and services will be allocated (I am not talking about here about some sort of council casting otes. In order to do make such decisions, there needs to be an underlying knowledge. What is that knowledge?)

In the capitalist community, prices and money is how allocation is determined. Its the knowledge used. So far, all you have said is that people will "want" to to do certain things. I am sure they will, but even so, a person cannot do everything at once.

So resour