Playing in team vs hermit

[AlexNT]

That is not how anarchy works.

Well, that's my limited understanding, anyway. Feel free to enlighten me.

direct democracy is not a necessary condition for a communist economic system.

Suggest other ways of fair distribution "according to one's needs"? The only practical way that I can think of, for preventing an individual from passing their "wants" as "needs", is to have a society-wide consensus on what "reasonable needs" are, based on the current state of technology and production capacity. But I'm open to alternative opinions.

I do believe, that direct democracy is the only government form possible in a true classless society. Any other form is prone to corruption, elitism, cronyism, and subsequent separation into classes, stations and castes (like it's happening in Russia right now).

What Snail describes is sufficiently close to the idea of distribution within a communist economy that you're either being a dumb-ass or a nit-picking asshat. Distribution only needs to occur such that those who need the produce receive it. Allowing village members access to the produce is sufficient.

Allowing everyone to grab whatever they personally decide they want is not a reliable way to ensure that everyone gets what they need, particularly when the given commodity is not abundant, and therefore needs to be managed. And the implication by Snail (based on how I read it) was that "people will grab whatever they feel like, to the detriment of others" -- that's what I responded to. If I misinterpreted that -- oh well, my bad.

In my defense -- that's probably #1 misconception about the topic: not understanding the difference between private and personal property, and consequently -- between the communal ownership of means of production (which is a thing), versus "communal ownership" of personal items / products (which is NOT a thing, and often employed as a scarecrow by underhanded / ignorant critics). My apologies, if I saw it where it was not implied.

[SnuggleSnail]

Yeboi is in a 6 man village of probably casuals who play MAYBE 5-20 hours a week at most. It's a little unrealistic to expect them to do a big public assembly larp and vote every time somebody wants to study a curio or harvest a field. Half of them probably aren't even in the same time zones or work different hours.

Arguing about political theory in this context doesn't make you seem smart, it makes you seem pedantic and bored. They just need some basic guidelines and an understanding of what the village will be like. People should know roughly what they're getting into from the onset.

Also, personal opinion but I don't think village leeches are necessarily bad. Dakkan has not contributed a single meaningful material or strategic thing to our village in two worlds, and he consumes so many resources paving gold/meteorite or whatever for larp... But it's, like, fun to be around him. Prolly one of my favorite villagers.

[AlexNT]

Yeboi is in a 6 man village of probably casuals who play MAYBE 5-20 hours a week at most. It's a little unrealistic to expect them to do a big public assembly larp and vote every time somebody wants to study a curio or harvest a field. Half of them probably aren't even in the same time zones or work different hours.

I didn't intend to suggest anything of the kind, obviously. In fact, I didn't have anything to say to the op in general. My comment was completely off-topic.

Arguing about political theory in this context doesn't make you seem smart, it makes you seem pedantic and bored.

That almost felt like the "alternatives" step from the Reid technique. I'm fine with either interpretation, tbh. I just got triggered by the "C"-word.

[WowGain]

That almost felt like the "alternatives" step from the Reid technique. I'm fine with either interpretation, tbh. I just got triggered by the "C"-word.

dude shut up this is the haven and hearth forum

[Sevenless]

Am I the only one a touch surprised at the topic this conversation wandered to?

[shubla]

How would you distribute roles in a village with 6 players? What are the key differences between playing solo and playing as a group?

Not everybody has to do everything, but everybody should do what they want or otherwise they'll just quit.

[MadNomad]

and there is a shared account with all necessary crafters for all crafts

actually forgot to mention that you could make a few of those accounts for each hearthling just incase you want them present in the world at the same time for whatever reason (like having one person use one hearthling while another person uses another hearthling)

I think at least two production characters, like miner/smith and farmer/tailor/cook is a basic requirement needed by any village

those two combinations are good, as dexterity crafting recipes use farming, sewing, and cooking stats, and both miner and smith use strength, also you won't have to complete a ton of credos for just two characters (I mean there is still a lot to complete, but less characters mean less credos to do of course)

[telum12]

That is not how anarchy works.

Well, that's my limited understanding, anyway. Feel free to enlighten me.

direct democracy is not a necessary condition for a communist economic system.

Suggest other ways of fair distribution "according to one's needs"? The only practical way that I can think of, for preventing an individual from passing their "wants" as "needs", is to have a society-wide consensus on what "reasonable needs" are, based on the current state of technology and production capacity. But I'm open to alternative opinions.

I do believe, that direct democracy is the only government form possible in a true classless society. Any other form is prone to corruption, elitism, cronyism, and subsequent separation into classes, stations and castes (like it's happening in Russia right now).

What Snail describes is sufficiently close to the idea of distribution within a communist economy that you're either being a dumb-ass or a nit-picking asshat. Distribution only needs to occur such that those who need the produce receive it. Allowing village members access to the produce is sufficient.

Allowing everyone to grab whatever they personally decide they want is not a reliable way to ensure that everyone gets what they need, particularly when the given commodity is not abundant, and therefore needs to be managed. And the implication by Snail (based on how I read it) was that "people will grab whatever they feel like, to the detriment of others" -- that's what I responded to. If I misinterpreted that -- oh well, my bad.

In my defense -- that's probably #1 misconception about the topic: not understanding the difference between private and personal property, and consequently -- between the communal ownership of means of production (which is a thing), versus "communal ownership" of personal items / products (which is NOT a thing, and often employed as a scarecrow by underhanded / ignorant critics). My apologies, if I saw it where it was not implied.

Communism is not defined by your beliefs. Communism is a very specific thing. It does not necessitate direct democracy no matter what your personal opinion is. (Alternative suggestion to distribution via direct democracy: Create a authoritarian bureaucracy that distributes goods.)

Similarly, it would not fall into anarchy. Anarchy is largely just a system where there is no governing body. In fact, your description of direct democracy within a communist system probably falls more into the anarchy category than anything else...

[AlexNT]

Communism is not defined by your beliefs. Communism is a very specific thing. It does not necessitate direct democracy no matter what your personal opinion is. (Alternative suggestion to distribution via direct democracy: Create a authoritarian bureaucracy that distributes goods.)

Ok. Which/whose definition of communism are you referring to?

Who controls "authoritarian bureaucracy"? If it by itself is the supreme power -- it'll eventually lead to bourgeois restoration, like it did in the USSR. Authoritarianism by a limited group of individuals (which is bound to become self-serving) is inherently antagonistic to classless society, which is the core principle of communism.

[telum12]

Communism is not defined by your beliefs. Communism is a very specific thing. It does not necessitate direct democracy no matter what your personal opinion is. (Alternative suggestion to distribution via direct democracy: Create a authoritarian bureaucracy that distributes goods.)

Ok. Which/whose definition of communism are you referring to?

Who controls "authoritarian bureaucracy"? If it by itself is the supreme power -- it'll eventually lead to bourgeois restoration, like it did in the USSR. Authoritarianism by a limited group of individuals (which is bound to become self-serving) is inherently antagonistic to classless society, which is the core principle of communism.

You can't point to history and say, "this isn't communism because it didn't work for country X."

Here is an excerpt from The ABC of Communism:

In consequence of this change, we no longer have
commodities, but only products. These products are not
exchanged one for another ; they are neither bought nor
sold. They are simply stored in the communal warehouses,
and are subsequently delivered to those who need them.
In such conditions, money will no longer be required.

And, in response to the claim that taking from there without direct democracy:

" But will not people find it to their interest
to take more than they need ?" Certainly not. To-d'ay,
for example, no one thinks it worth while when he wants
one seat in a tram, to take three tickets and keep two places
empty. It will be just the same in the case of all products.
A person will take from the communal storehouse precisely
as much· as he needs, no more. No one will have any interest
in taking more than he wants in order to sell the surplus
to others, since all these others can satisfy their needs
whenever they please. Money will then have no value.

This was obviously written in support of the Bolsheviks, but provides context to the theory surrounding communist economies that should be quite clear. If you have some higher authority on the subject that states something along the lines of communism necessitating direct democracy, I'm all ears. I really doubt that though, and I think you're just a shitter talking out of their ass.