NationStates Jolt Archive

The Communists in this forum often say that the problem with the allegedly Communist governments of the USSR and East Germany was that they were totalitarian or authoritarian, and that true, nonauthoritarian Communism would serve as not only a viable, but an entirely desirable economic system. Your responses to this question will, hopefully, give me, and any others who read this thread, a better idea of what is meant by nonauthoritarian Communism.
What would a nontotalitarian/nonauthoritarian Communist state, according to your ideals, do if a large group of individuals refused to participate with the system and instead formed their own community where they engaged in all the useristic practices of capitalism and did not engage in any form of collectivism? Hypothetically, they managed to get past clauses in the collectivist agreement which would stipulate that no citizen can make an agreement that would place de facto ownership of any land into the hands of an individual who does not agree to the collectivist agreement and that any citizen who changes his/her mind concerning the collectivist agreement must leave the country.

1. It would not interfere: Although they are making a bad descision, people should be free to make bad descisions.

2. It would force those individuals cooperate with the system: Communism can not work without without everyone's participation.

3. Arrest/Punish the Userers: Not participating in the collectivism of society is acceptable, although foolish, but usery is an ethical disgrace and must be stopped.

4. Other (please explain).

I picked option 1. Seems fairly simple to me. I also don't see that a splinter capitalistic group would last very long, but I suppose it's conceivable.

Well... That is generally the problem.... The initial idea is to create a state where all are equal... However, for this to work, necessitates making all applicable to this "state"... And as such necessitates the use of violence (rebellion/revolution) in order to carry this out in the presence of persons who do not want to be applicable... Thus it requires "social reordering"... And the creation of force to bring it about... the problem with this is, as soon as such force is created... It automatically turns the system authoritarian (as demonstrated by the USSR)...

Idealing the principle would be to center the persons in communities that operate by the choosing of their own structure... Most Communists, unfortuneately in history do not do this... Since it is not as "good" for the society...

While their ideals are noble... There is no practicle framework in history where it has worked for an appreciable period of time...

The Communists in this forum often say that the problem with the allegedly Communist governments of the USSR and East Germany was that they were totalitarian or authoritarian, and that true, nonauthoritarian Communism would serve as not only a viable, but an entirely desirable economic system. Your responses to this question will, hopefully, give me, and any others who read this thread, a better idea of what is meant by nonauthoritarian Communism.
What would a nontotalitarian/nonauthoritarian Communist state, according to your ideals, do if a large group of individuals refused to participate with the system and instead formed their own community where they engaged in all the useristic practices of capitalism and did not engage in any form of collectivism?

1. It would not interfere: Although they are making a bad descision, people should be free to make bad descisions.

2. It would force those individuals cooperate with the system: Communism can not work without without everyone's participation.

3. Arrest/Punish the Userers: Not participating in the collectivism of society is acceptable, although foolish, but usery is an ethical disgrace and must be stopped.

4. Other (please explain).

the authoritarianism(?) of those countries was a great strength to them! that is nothing bad for them, only made them much better.

I picked option 1. Seems fairly simple to me. I also don't see that a splinter capitalistic group would last very long, but I suppose it's conceivable.

it would if the communists saw what financial freedom was like...

it would if the communists saw what financial freedom was like...

poor people starving to death while other people in society produce so much food it goes rotten or is even dumped in the sea?

For a true communist answer: no such splintergroups would come into existance. The people in a 'true communist paradise' would have been raised in this 'paradise' and they would not now the meaning of 'ownership', or at least not the way we do now.

To say it in my terms: this would be the 'steady state' of a 'communist paradise'. The problem is that this paradise has to exist in order to bring forth the people that must live in such a paradise. The 'transient state' is the big problem for communist countries as in this state it is very vulnerable to greed - for which ownership is required.

Note: this is why it only works in theory to me.

In a pure communist state, those people wouldn't exist. But I guess a non-authoritarian communist state would just send splinter groups on their way. They obviously couldn't stay in the communist state, but they wouldn't be killed or arrested or forced to act against their will.

But wouldn't being forced to leave the country count as being forced to act against their will?

But wouldn't being forced to leave the country count as being forced to act against their will?

They would most likely be asked nicely, and gently urged to leave.

My own view on the subject is that government ought to let people make whatever agreements they desire and should never force people to make any agreement. Once a nation adheres to these standards, the typical "invisible hand" and arguments simply do not apply, even if the system to which the people agree is Communism. That is, if Communism is the agreement which people make, so long as they make it freely, then they are trying to act in their own self-interest and the "invisible hand" exists in that system so the argument cannot be applied, logically, against it. That said, I think there is a mathematically discernable optimum level of collectivism. Hypothetically, it could be none whatsoever or complete socialization. I doubt either case is true, but this doubt is merely intuitive. What we need to do to discover the emperical truth on the subject is to simply apply the concept of voluntary participation in government to Nashian game theory in the field of economics to discover this optimum level of collectivism. The problem, I think, is that noboby has done this because, for the last fifty years, we have been focusing the debate on the liberal economic policy of forcible participation in government based welfare programmes, and the conservative economic policy of no collectivism, when in actuality it is entirely plausible to have both complete collectivization and optional non-participation in government economic policy.

I also think it is unrealistic to think that people will never experiment with other economic systems. Even if, hypothetically, we mathematically proved that the optimum level of collectivism is 100%, through the method described in my preious post, some group of people would eventually want to try out a different system. The population, in general, would then learn from the mistakes of these groups and attempt other economic systems, aside from Communism, less often, but these attempts would probably never cease entirely.

other, just relocate the capitalists to a capitalist country

If only there was some way to make enough money to be able to go and start your own communist country without being a horrible capitalist..... I'd say we should petition the government for funds to start a commune, but I already know what their answer would be so w/e.........

I don't suppose it takes any money to form a successful commune, only a certain number of people with various skills. A little bit of money would make it alot easier to get the project off the ground by purchasing land and tools.

What would a nontotalitarian/nonauthoritarian Communist state, according to your ideals, do if a large group of individuals refused to participate with the system and instead formed their own community where they engaged in all the useristic practices of capitalism and did not engage in any form of collectivism?

wait, how are they going to re-establish 'the practices of capitalism' without theft? wouldn't it just be some guy declaring that he alone owns some collective factory? and then the other people (who used to be full and equal owners too) are going to say, "sound's great, how about i stop using the commune distribution centers and you pay me less than my labor is worth to you?" and the first guy says, "works for me. you will of course have to follow my arbitrary commands and be subject to all sorts of pointless humiliation and degradation."

i mean, i can see people with a particularly weird sort of kink getting into it to mix things up in their sex life, maybe.

1. It would not interfere: Although they are making a bad descision, people should be free to make bad descisions.

2. It would force those individuals cooperate with the system: Communism can not work without without everyone's participation.

3. Arrest/Punish the Userers: Not participating in the collectivism of society is acceptable, although foolish, but usery is an ethical disgrace and must be stopped.

4. Other (please explain).
The capitalist counterrevolutionaries would be crushed. Option 1 is sucide for the state. I don't get the term "useristic." You mean usery like lending money for interest? The banks must be kept under state ownership, control of the financial machinery of society is essential for socialism.

Even in China ever being opened to capitalist reforms, the banks are all still nationalized and are the backbone of the socialist economy. The banks must remain in state control to keep afloat the state run enterprises, which in socialist society would not be expected to be run profitably but to serve national needs, purposes.

I believe the better interim, short of using authoritarian socialism, would be the establishment of co-op business... This has never been exercized properly under historical communism (where a 'workers party' is formed, and 'seizes' existing assets)... In effect this created a specific "corporation" from those who use said service... And the idea of surplanting traditional 'banks' with "Credit Unions" where all members are stock-holders in the corporate 'Union'... And hope the influx increases the use of 'Profit Sharing' in existing corporations, where employees get to buy stock in the company from their own pay... This would create a slow transitional 'region' where this "communist ideal" could find fertile soil to grow in, without rank authoritarian control over the entire process to bring things to sudden change.

It is obvious that Maxist Communism and its procedure of implantation does not work... The interim stage creates an enviroment where the final stage cannot be born. And thus, it is for the Communists to adapt to the understanding of this, and change the procedure by which they bring about this change in form...

The capitalist counterrevolutionaries would be crushed. Option 1 is sucide for the state.
Why would option 1 be suicide for the state? Not only would some of the biggest troublemakers no longer be part of the state, but when the capitalist segment of society fails, it bolsters the claim that communism is better.

wait, how are they going to re-establish 'the practices of capitalism' without theft? wouldn't it just be some guy declaring that he alone owns some collective factory? and then the other people (who used to be full and equal owners too) are going to say, "sound's great, how about i stop using the commune distribution centers and you pay me less than my labor is worth to you?" and the first guy says, "works for me. you will of course have to follow my arbitrary commands and be subject to all sorts of pointless humiliation and degradation."

Exactly. +10 respect points to you. :)

In Soviet Russa, Communists question you!

Why would option 1 be suicide for the state? Not only would some of the biggest troublemakers no longer be part of the state, but when the capitalist segment of society fails, it bolsters the claim that communism is better.

You don't want your people to start questioning Communism and eventually overrun the state. Not all would leave. And unless you want to kick them out. Then it's not no.1 anymore.

wait, how are they going to re-establish 'the practices of capitalism' without theft? wouldn't it just be some guy declaring that he alone owns some collective factory? and then the other people (who used to be full and equal owners too) are going to say, "sound's great, how about i stop using the commune distribution centers and you pay me less than my labor is worth to you?" and the first guy says, "works for me. you will of course have to follow my arbitrary commands and be subject to all sorts of pointless humiliation and degradation."

Exchange of goods, barter trade with the locals, not the collective factory.

Unless the locals themselves, it's only their "bare necessities" are met.

You don't want your people to start questioning Communism
Why not? Either they'll question it and come up with answers that strengthen their belief in communism, or they'll come up with answers that undermine communism, thus indicating that communism isn't the best possible solution for the world's problems.

I don't get the term "useristic." You mean usery like lending money for interest? The banks must be kept under state ownership, control of the financial machinery of society is essential for socialism.
Usery, in the most general sense (which I am employing here), means using money to make more money. It includes banking, investing in a stock market, and owning a company that pays its workers a salary rather then letting them have ownership of the company.

Usery, in the most general sense (which I am employing here), means using money to make more money. It includes banking, investing in a stock market, and owning a company that pays its workers a salary rather then letting them have ownership of the company.
There are still some capitalist features of socialist scoiety, like getting paid wages, workers' committees could run factories and shops but the whole take whatever you need idealist communist society would not be realized instantly. Like I said before Banking is absoultely 100 percent out of the question, or the whole thing unravels. Small doses of private enterprise is sometimes needed in socialism. In USSR Lenin had his New Economic Program which allowed farmers to sell some of their products, to revive agricultural production following the devestation of the civil war, however such accomodations to capitalism are necessarily temporary, and evenutally have to be reversed.

wait, how are they going to re-establish 'the practices of capitalism' without theft?
As in my earlier response on establishing a collectivist commune in a capitalist system, it would only require a certain number of skilled individuals. Also, what if they never agreed to collective ownership in the first place. As I stated in my earlier post on my own opinion, noone should be forced to make any agreement or prohibited from making any agreement. They could, then, entirely without theft establish their own capitalist community on land which they themselves own. (According to the state they only own the land in a de facto sort of way, but still they have the right to do with it what they want.) If they had already agreed to collective ownership then this becomes an issue of breaking a contract in which case the use of force, I believe, becomes legitimate. Also, a well run nonauthoritarian Communist state would stipulate, as part of the collectivist agreement, that if any of its citizens change their mind about the collectivist agreement those citizens must leave the country. Another part of this collectivist agreement would be that no citizen shall make any agreement that would place de facto ownership of any land into the hands of an individual who does not agree to the collectivist agreement. In that case it really does become impossible, without contract breaking, in which case, as I have said before, the use of force becomes legitimate, for a capitalist community to form within a collectivist state. However, the question is still worthwile to discuss as a hypothetical possibility, because my goal in this discussion was to gain more understanding of nonauthoritarian communist beliefs. So I will edit my original question so that it recognizes that this possibility is only hypothetical.

There are still some capitalist features of socialist scoiety, like getting paid wages, workers' committees could run factories and shops.
These workers commities would not count as userers, according to the state, because the represent the workers rather than their own self-interest.
Do you think a capitalist community ought not to be allowed to form its own banking system?

This is something I've asked the pro-communists on this forum from time to time. They invision a world where everyone agrees with their ideals of utopian anti-capitalism. How do they get there?... they never have an answer about how to convert die-hards like me. There is only one solution if they wish to have their way. REPRESSION and BRUTALITY.

Not surprisingly that's pretty much how the USSR went about it.

Ooh but ooh, "they weren't REAL communists."

This is something I've asked the pro-communists on this forum from time to time. They invision a world where everyone agrees with their ideals of utopian anti-capitalism. How do they get there?... they never have an answer about how to convert die-hards like me. There is only one solution if they wish to have their way. REPRESSION and BRUTALITY.

Not surprisingly that's pretty much how the USSR went about it.

Ooh but ooh, "they weren't REAL communists."
The methods I desribed in my response to Free Soviets would be legitimate in that they would not negate the "invisible hand" of the free market. Also they would probably be very effective.

None of that speculation means diddly!

Communist governments will never work, nor will they last, as long as one capitalist nation exist! So, if there is even just one lone hold out in a communist government, it automaticly make that communist state a dictatorship.

Mankind, as a animal, is a animal for freedom... his desires has and always will be , to be free of other humans, and Gods...

Arguments of freedome simply do not apply when a nation has optional non-participation.

Well instead of asking what a communist state would do... what do you think a capitalist country would do if a LARGE number would want a own communist state? I don't think any country would just say "hey ok here you go take half... ow wait.... take 3/4 of the countries land" ... so a non-authoritarian state would act no different than a capitalist

None of that speculation means diddly!

Communist governments will never work, nor will they last, as long as one capitalist nation exist!

Rubbish. Why?

So, if there is even just one lone hold out in a communist government, it automaticly make that communist state a dictatorship.

A dictatorship is where someone rules without the choice of the people. One person disagreeing with the majority would not stop it being a democracy. Is that was the case, there wouldn't be a single democratic country at all in the world right now.

Mankind, as a animal, is a animal for freedom... his desires has and always will be , to be free of other humans, and Gods...

Ok then, why don't you practise what you preach? If you want to be free of other humans, go away and sit in a room by yourself for the rest of your life. Humans are social animals, as can be proved scientifically and through history. Can you give me any evidence to support your claim that it is in human nature to be away from other humans?

These workers commities would not count as userers, according to the state, because the represent the workers rather than their own self-interest.

They would not actually "own" the enterprises, they would be owned by the state, and therefore owned by everybody. While workers would run the operations of enterprises ultimately they would be owned by the state. The workers would have to have democratic control over who runs them to prevent the rise of a parasitic bureaucracy, like the one that emerged in the USSR. In the USSR those who were in charge of state owned enterprises living comfortable lives, soon longed to be capitalists, meaning they would actually own their own enterprises, pass on their wealth to the children etc.

Do you think a capitalist community ought not to be allowed to form its own banking system?
Ha, no.

I am a Communist and would choose option 1 because I don't think any government has the right to force its will on the people except during the initial abolition of capitalism when the economy would be taken under the democratic control of the working class. I don't however believe that the situation suggested would ever arise or that such a group could be successful under Socialism or Communism since capitalism is impossible without an exploited underclass and no liberated worker is ever going to choose to be part of such a class.

I am a Communist and would choose option 1 because I don't think any government has the right to force its will on the people except during the initial abolition of capitalism when the economy would be taken under the democratic control of the working class.
Does this mean that during the transitional period, which I admit would probably be rather hectic, your ideal of a Communist government would not allow such capitalist splinter group or am I misinterpretting your statement.

They would not actually "own" the enterprises, they would be owned by the state, and therefore owned by everybody.
This is also precisely why a state owned banking system also does not qualify as usery.

Do you think a capitalist community ought not to be allowed to form its own banking system?Ha, no.
Sorry. I worded that last question oddly. Your response, technically, means that you do not have a problem with such a capitalist community forming its own banking system, but because of the odd wording of my question, you might have mistakenly claimed to believe that which you do not. Please clarify your actual position on the issue.