How would a communist handle this situation?

[elaina]

Can we change the citizens in the thought problem into crypto currency miners in order to make it more interesting?

And like hell am I giving some singer one of my turnips. Those are my turnips.

[d00mGuArD]

there is no monopol in communism, so your "business cannot handle demands" is not an issue. and you do not get any sort of prestige just because you got your newest <whatever it is> a week earlier than your uncle.

The question will still be, who (or what mechanism) decides who gets it first, and who has to wait one week or one month or half year to get it
No matter your mechanism, some people will want it more, some people will want it less.
At some point some people that want it more may have to wait. Some people that want it less may get it soon(er)
Then, people that want it more, will trade stuff or favors to people that want it less, to get it.
Some people that want it less, may specifically queue for it, to trade it to people that want it more, to gain stuff or favors
Capitalism will be born

Capitalism will be born, in any model where you don't have some sort of star-trek device that creates anything in your house instant
Because capitalism is just a word to describe the natural way of how people interact with other people when they have something someone else wants, or someone else has something you want, in any scarcity system (unlimited resources is not enough, there is still scarcity of time without the futuristic item creator/printer, as described in the previous post (the one you quoted))

In fact, even with unlimited resources, AND unlimited production via some future device, there will still be scarcity in many things like for example human performance
(Listen to your favorite band concerts, see your favorite actor/play in a theater etc) and the same thing will happen: Capitalism

[Endus]

In a communist system without unlimited resources:
If resources are limited, at some point, a factory or business will produce X items but more than X people will want that item (that can be any item you can imagine)
Then you will need to establish a system that decides who gets that item
Then you no longer have true communism

The third sentence doesn't apply, at all. Why would you need a system to determine that? Why wouldn't they just say "Sorry, Joe, we just ran out. We'll hit you up first with the next run, okay?"

In fact, even with unlimited resources this will happen. (let's say a country with 100mil people)
If resources are unlimited, at some point a business will create a new design of an item.
The next day they will produce X items. (it will take long to create 100mil of those)
If more than X people want that item, a system will be needed to decide who gets it.
Then you no longer have true communism

You can't propose a post-scarcity society and then immediately impose artificial scarcity and say "oh noes". Resources are unlimited, so you just get more equipment to churn out more product.

And that's without nesting into, again, that there's absolutely no need for any such "system" that you're proposing, in the first place. People aren't just mindless cogs in the machine.

[Deleted]

For this scenario, you live in a communist country. You work in a mine (a job you are suited to, and even LIKE) and make 5 ration point. Another citizen even after working in the mine (horribly sucking at it), developed his singing ability and started to sing in the public. You and other miners who also make the same 5 ration point enjoyed the show, and decided by your OWN free will to donate 1 ration point to the singer(you like his singing and it does not cost you much). There were 20 miners who did the same. Thus, the singer made 20 ration point by singing alone. This is more than all the miners made alone. Now, my question, how would you like the gov't to deal with the singer? on one hand, you gave up your ration point willingly and on the other hand, the singer has 4x the ration point other miners and you make. he thus has MORE resource than any of his peers. Is not wealth inequality, something that should not exist in communist society by principle? How would you like the gov't to deal with him? Take his ration points away, the ones that you and other miners freely donated because you enjoyed his singing?

The answer is simple, "Kill the man, Kill the problem" - Josef Stalin.

[Endus]

The question will still be, who (or what mechanism) decides who gets it first, and who has to wait one week or one month or half year to get it
No matter your mechanism, some people will want it more, some people will want it less.
At some point some people that want it more may have to wait. Some people that want it less may get it soon(er)
Then, people that want it more, will trade stuff or favors to people that want it less, to get it.
Some people that want it less, may specifically queue for it, to trade it to people that want it more, to gain stuff or favors
Capitalism will be born

Capitalism will be born, in any model where you don't have some sort of star-trek device that creates anything in your house instant
Because capitalism is just a word to describe the natural way of how people interact with other people when they have something someone else wants, or someone else has something you want, in any scarcity system (unlimited resources is not enough, there is still scarcity of time without the futuristic item creator/printer, as described in the previous post (the one you quoted))

In fact, even with unlimited resources, AND unlimited production via some future device, there will still be scarcity in many things like for example human performance
(Listen to your favorite band concerts, see your favorite actor/play in a theater etc) and the same thing will happen: Capitalism

That isn't "capitalism", it's trade. They aren't remotely the same thing. Trade mechanisms exist outside capitalist theory. In fact, the distribution you're talking about under your hypothetical communism is trade. At best, you're maybe talking about shifting away from true communism to a market-based socialism, but that isn't remotely capitalist in any appreciable sense.

[Grapemask]

I think some other people have probably mentioned this, but this scenario in general is a misunderstanding of communism and trying to basically slot it into capitalism.

One of the primary tenants of true communism includes that famous meme-able line: the people own the means of production. That is to say, no higher actor would be giving you "ration points." The people generate these things themselves.

So we can keep trying to alter the scenario to make sense - do people get rations instead of points? But then isn't that the same, people are voluntarily giving their rations to someone who then becomes part of the uber ration elite? The correct answer is that in the ideal system, these rations are simply available because the people produce them themselves; no one is giving them. Therefore, they have no particular value, and being an elite horder of rations is as remarkable as having brown eyes. It's just a thing you have.