> Besides the general statement that we should be heading toward
> communism, this sitting down and thinking is actually something
> that socialists have consistently failed to do.

Well, THAT would be an instance of a 'damned lie'. And more cherry-picking, AFAIC.

Where do you people come up with this [deleted for profanity], anyway? There are *national libraries-full* of the works of socialists of all stripes, detailing exactly this. And *then* when we do try to work anything out in detail, we get castigated for supposed "utopian" planning, by exactly the same shameless critics... However in _your_ case, Gilbert Holmes, I think we should stick to far simpler things than "communist central planning" for entire societies...

> Not true? Perhaps you can explain a few details for us then.

Your strawman arguments only demonstrate the poverty of your philosophy, Herr Holmes. Obviously Marx or (most) marxists would not make such crude, artificially-polarized claims. Life is more complex and nuanced than that. You talk like a damned stalinist or Republican, AFAIC.

> What about the communist method for appointing government officials

First off: there is no "communism" in this world. Yet. Only _communist parties_. To go on in this vein is to engage in simple and crude propaganda. As well: you really mean _stalinist_ here, when you write "communist". And I have already -- repeatedly -- disavowed stalinism's proclaimed identity with socialism. Hell -- worry about unaccountable appointed officials in your own society, for that matter.

> or the communist interpretation of what drives inflation and how to
> manage that within the economy,

Howsabout youse stopping printing money like there was no tomorrow (which very well may be the case) -- AND creating debt-money claims on multi-thousand multiples of real economic output..?

> or even whether communists believe in heavy specialization and
> free trade (or centralized distribution) or protectionism and
> local self-reliance.

Say what? Is one of the above a reference to "opportunity cost" and "comparative advantage"? Or maybe eco-freakdom..? I could add more; but the number '350' limits our intellectual horizons here.

*What's sad is seeing the likes of Yabby wilfully taken in by this propaganda [deleted refers to deleted comment above]*

Sorry Grok, but clearly you are blind. For you are one of the
beneficiaries of the huge amount of innovation going on all around
you, every day. You clearly never had to use Soviet issue sandpaper
to wipe your butt! You live in a society which produces such surpluses, that we can still afford to feed you, clothe you etc,
if you decide to work or not, head off to the Nimbin hills and become
a dope smoking, guitar strumming hippie or not.

Innovation takes place at every level of society, as people make
choices about their lives, consumers get to vote with their wallets,
its highly democratic.

Even Fidel recently admitted that his system is a failure. Its
seemingly just taken him 50 years or so to realise it.

The internet, PCs etc, all here today because of the innovation
going on by millions of individuals, right under your nose. But
you are too blind to see even that.

[Deleted for abuse.]

.

> you are one of the beneficiaries of the huge amount
> of innovation going on all around you, every day.
> You clearly never had to use Soviet issue sandpaper
> to wipe your butt!

Ever seen a clearcut forest..? Cherry-picking again.

"Innovation" actually _pre-dates_ capitalist relations of production. But it's a classic conceit of capitalism's apologists to give it credit for even the rising and setting of the sun.

As for Soviet products (aside from you refusing to understand 'stalinism !== socialism'): where markets were not a factor -- such as the military -- production often outperformed their imperialist analog. As for market commodities themselves: AFAIK some were indeed superior to their Western analogs, comparing apples with apples. However, your limited grasp of the issue doesn't take into account anything outside of a cartoon image of economics IMO, and all the factors involved. Let alone any political considerations.

> Innovation takes place at every level of society,
> as people make choices about their lives, consumers
> get to vote with their wallets, its highly democratic.

What's democratic about voting with your wallet, when you have no money..? Besides the incontrovertible fact you've inadvertently pointed out: that bourgeois society truly operates on the principle 'one dollar/one vote'. And guess who wins all the "elections", eh..?

> Even Fidel recently admitted that his system is a
> failure. Its seemingly just taken him 50 years or so
> to realise it.

You're not qualified to analyze what Castro says. Neither are your media friends.

> The internet, PCs etc, all here today because of the
> innovation going on by millions of individuals,

It's well understood -- more by marxists than anybody -- that capitalism has indeed been a *great* advance: compared to feudal or slave society. However, you continue to ascribe "innovation" as being innate to only capitalism. It manifestly is not. Socialist/communist production will certainly leave the wretched, primitive capitalist variety in the dust.

> Perhaps its just all tht verbal masturbation making
> you go blind :)

At least I'm not deaf and dumb to boot.

*Ever seen a clearcut forest..?*

I certainly have and I've seen it regrow. I've also
seen recycled toilet paper. Fact is, I have and want
a choice what I use, not be told by people like you.

*"Innovation" actually _pre-dates_ capitalist relations of production.*

Sure it does, its the natural system, its how humanity
progressed as hunter gatherers. It was only later on that
those with a power agenda of Govt, tried and still try to
impose their will on the rest of us, by force if need be.

*What's democratic about voting with your wallet, when you have no money..? *

You are free to get off your butt and earn some. Otherwise we create
so much wealth in our generous system, that we will give you some.

*However, you continue to ascribe "innovation" as being innate to only capitalism. It manifestly is not. Socialist/communist production will certainly leave the wretched, primitive capitalist variety in the dust.*

In that case let me choose, between your "Govt issue" product and
that created by people more innovative then Govt committees.
The problem is that you want to rule by dictate, whilst your
political elites live it up to the max.

Today's workers in Australia, largely own the means of production.
Their super funds are worth around 1.2 trillion, as much as the
whole ASX combined. Marx would turn in his grave lol.

> I certainly have and I've seen it regrow. I've also
> seen recycled toilet paper. Fact is, I have and want
> a choice what I use, not be told by people like you.

What an innane, evasive reply. FYI: a clearcut forest never actually just "regrows". More than simply the trees are destroyed when such an ecosystem is ravaged by capitalist moneygrubbers -- 'Mr. Ecology' 'recycler'.

> *"Innovation" actually _pre-dates_ capitalist relations of
> production.*
>
> Sure it does, its the natural system, its how humanity
> progressed as hunter gatherers. It was only later on that
> those with a power agenda of Govt, tried and still try to
> impose their will on the rest of us, by force if need be.

You're really a broken record. According to your logic, even government powertrippers are "natural". Be consistent, ferkrissakes.

> *What's democratic about voting with your wallet, when you have no
> money..? *
>
> You are free to get off your butt and earn some. Otherwise we create
> so much wealth in our generous system, that we will give you some.

Comic book 'common sense'. Tell that one to all the hardworking people who never seem to be able to make ends meet under capitalism. Perhaps they're just STUPID, huh?
Sheesh.

> you continue to ascribe "innovation" as being innate to only
> capitalism. It manifestly is not. Socialist/communist production will
> certainly leave the wretched, primitive capitalist variety in the
> dust.*
>
> In that case let me choose, between your "Govt issue" product and
> that created by people more innovative then Govt committees.
> The problem is that you want to rule by dictate

You know NOTHING about socialism. It's about *getting rid of government*. Just like libertarian ideologs claim to be about.

> workers in Australia, largely own the means of production.
> Their super funds are worth around 1.2 trillion, as much as the
> whole ASX combined. Marx would turn in his grave

That's not what I'm reading, mate. But do dream on in DreamTime...

Grok says "...socialism.... It's about *getting rid of government*"

That's funny. Getting rid of government is apparently what Peter Hume is on about too. Yet another case of the extreme yin flipping over to become the extreme yang perhaps.