Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
nice answer! though i'd argue it would be an economy without money. but let's not get lost on semantics. alright, please tell. how does it work?
|
Imagine you live in a flat with three other people and the cost of certain amenities is shared. We already know that everyone needs to wipe their own bottom when they go to the toilet, so you need constantly replenished stock for that purpose alone. It's not a disputable fact that other than toilet paper, only water and soap are better things to keep your bottom clean. But as you already know, the wiping of fecal matter off your arse with paper has an immediate practical functionality which makes you feel that little more comfortable after you've dumped your waste. Knowing this is an absolute truth, and not something that any ideological meandering is going to find a credible argument against, the people in the flat are aware of their duties to keep the stock of toilet paper in check in the interest of optimized communal living.
You could say that this is the tail-end of a much bigger picture, and you'd be right. Central and local bodies would make sure that this practice would be kept in check in the flat, but without the mind-boggling burocracy and method used by a
government which serves profit-making policies. Also, as Marxism is tightly-knit with materialism and ''theory and practice'' foundations, it means that production and distribution would take their definitive shape in a communist system, after the actual revolution asserted the dicatorship of the proletariat. Capitalism didn't always have the same ''look'' when it first started, after all.