NationStates Jolt Archive

yes or no? is communism the answer to everybodys economical problems? or will it just cause social uproar? [Russia was a pretty snazzy place for peasants]

yes or no? is communism the answer to everybodys economical problems? or will it just cause social uproar? [Russia was a pretty snazzy place for peasants]
This probably belongs in The General Forum (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227) - this is for discussion about the game UN, not RL life issues.

i see, but i'm a noob. whats a noob to do. oh well eh, boredom reigns!

i see, but i'm a noob. whats a noob to do. oh well eh, boredom reigns!
Well, no matter. They'll move it for you. In the meantime...

I think there's plenty of crap said about communism, and I think in many ways its supporters have worthy aspirations, but as an in toto system it's just not something I can support, or something that I see as being in our interests to support. I do think competition can produce greater productivity, and ultimately, greater rewards for all. I would personally favour regulated capitalism. Obviously the purges were not nice, but I don't hold that they were endemic of communism, but more generally of any autocratic system. That said, I don't know much economics, it's years since I read Marx, and that period of history is too modern for me, so I don't really know.

once again, im a noob to this. i'm only just studying this whole situation. But it seems that eventually alot of people would not try to reach thier limits as there would be no use. no reward, unless of course they did it for personal satisfaction...which most people wouldn't. so we'd have less doctors and the like, because why have such an off-putting job is there not getting anything extra out of it. so the whole idea of communism is fruitless anyway. Maybe something less drastic. hm...

I agree with you. The fundamental flaw of communism is that it ignores self-interest as a driving force of human nature.

The fundamental flaw of communism is that it ignores self-interest as a driving force of human nature.

Ah, so we're at the human nature vs social nature argument that socialism can't work. This always seems to pop up at some point.

Human Nature is not a given; it is rather a ever-changing social construct. It is constantly produced and reproduced in a continuoius process of social production. Self-interest may be a driving force for people in a capitalist society. However, there are many exceptions that show it self-interest is neither "universal" or "unchangable" and thus not "human nature". Take for insatnce familial relations (yes, it is a diferant scale, but, it is however a valid counter-example) or the army (in the sense that individualism is eliminated and group well-being becomes the aim taken to the extreme by the suicide bomber or the kamakaze pilot). Self-interest is a best a driving force of "human nature" within, and because of, capitalist society. In pre-capitalist society such as the Inca their is no conception of the self as the individual and among the Eskimo in times of hardship the elders of the tribe would commit suicide to preserve the well-being and continued exsistance of the tribe. Differant patterns of prodcution have differant patterns of social relations and differant "human natures".

Human Nature is not a given; it is rather a ever-changing social construct. It is constantly produced and reproduced in a continuoius process of social production. Self-interest may be a driving force for people in a capitalist society. However, there are many exceptions that show it self-interest is neither "universal" or "unchangable" and thus not "human nature". Take for insatnce familial relations (yes, it is a diferant scale, but, it is however a valid counter-example) or the army (in the sense that individualism is eliminated and group well-being becomes the aim taken to the extreme by the suicide bomber or the kamakaze pilot). Self-interest is a best a driving force of "human nature" within, and because of, capitalist society. In pre-capitalist society such as the Inca their is no conception of the self as the individual and among the Eskimo in times of hardship the elders of the tribe would commit suicide to preserve the well-being and continued exsistance of the tribe. Differant patterns of prodcution have differant patterns of social relations and differant "human natures".

Human nature definitely has a disposition towards self-interest. It is possible to create a working socialistic state, however, it would require a massive amount of brainwashing that would be almost equivalent to 1984.

Familial relationships are not a valid comparison, they are too small, the leaders(parents) have a great stake in the well-being of every member of the family the family ultimately draws its strength off of the benevolent dictatorship of the parents. Benevolent dictatorship could not exist in a country because of the massive scale involved in such and that a dictator deals with power levels that do not simulate that which a family is exposed to and a dictator would have difficulty creating the loving emotion towards himself that powers the family.

The army is sort of a killed or be killed sort of thing. Everyone is there and stripped of personality and the army is effectively a dictatorship as well. If a military government was imposed on the populace what would result is corruption and revolt. The army is ultimately sort of a fascist system that is not designed to incorporate every aspect of the lives of individuals but rather the lives of its volunteers and soldiers in war time which are different.

The demands of a modern society require an easy way to stimulate the masses to be economically productive. Capitalism does this without much force or brainwashing and with minimal government interference. Most of the examples that you have provided are of situations that could not be created in a modern society due to the sheer scope of society. Individuals in a society as large as ours cannot be so easily motivated by feelings of closeness(as in a family or a tribe) nor can they be ruled over by elites as easily as in the army or in Inca tribes, there is too much room for unmonitored corruption. Self-interest is the most efficient way to rule in many regards due to the fact that every individual has some amount of self-interest, even if their self-interest ends up being invested in a group. Also, people soley motivated by personal would not be able to function in a communistic society due to lack of reward, however a communist would be able to work in a capitalistic system due to the desire to help.

Communism is the answer! Give your life for the red banner, the hammer, and the sickle and gain freedom to live freely in the process. Food, jobs, freedom for all!

IMHO Communism forms in low tech societies with high injustice and economic hardship the idea is that we all go into small farming communities and live happy blissful lives toiling the fields unfortunately large technological cities and universities are the future (things which are not communism)

remember: don’t confuse planned economics with communism since the economic model of a planned economy maybe complete state ownership but that is all

Human nature definitely has a disposition towards self-interest. It is possible to create a working socialistic state, however, it would require a massive amount of brainwashing that would be almost equivalent to 1984.

Familial relationships are not a valid comparison, they are too small, the leaders(parents) have a great stake in the well-being of every member of the family the family ultimately draws its strength off of the benevolent dictatorship of the parents. Benevolent dictatorship could not exist in a country because of the massive scale involved in such and that a dictator deals with power levels that do not simulate that which a family is exposed to and a dictator would have difficulty creating the loving emotion towards himself that powers the family.

The army is sort of a killed or be killed sort of thing. Everyone is there and stripped of personality and the army is effectively a dictatorship as well. If a military government was imposed on the populace what would result is corruption and revolt. The army is ultimately sort of a fascist system that is not designed to incorporate every aspect of the lives of individuals but rather the lives of its volunteers and soldiers in war time which are different.

The demands of a modern society require an easy way to stimulate the masses to be economically productive. Capitalism does this without much force or brainwashing and with minimal government interference. Most of the examples that you have provided are of situations that could not be created in a modern society due to the sheer scope of society. Individuals in a society as large as ours cannot be so easily motivated by feelings of closeness(as in a family or a tribe) nor can they be ruled over by elites as easily as in the army or in Inca tribes, there is too much room for unmonitored corruption. Self-interest is the most efficient way to rule in many regards due to the fact that every individual has some amount of self-interest, even if their self-interest ends up being invested in a group. Also, people soley motivated by personal would not be able to function in a communistic society due to lack of reward, however a communist would be able to work in a capitalistic system due to the desire to help.

Although it is almost a false dichotomy, I think we have to distinguish between self-preservation and self-interest. I do not deny that there is no tendency, at least in the almost all cases, toards self preservation. This is not so much human nature but, rather, an evolutionary instinct that has ensured the survival of man. On the other hand, self-interest, insofar as it exceeds this level of self-preservation, is not essential for the survival of man and is a product of social production; what you call akin to 1984. In other words self-interest, above the self-preservation threashold, is not an absolute given and therefore not "human nature".
Again i do not deny that in capitalist society self-interest is a major motivating factory, however, even where it forms the basis for economic and social life it is not an unchangeable absolute. You seem to accept that self interset can, under conditions such as the familial group, be eliminated as a motivating force. (I accept that most families operate under a patraichial dictaorship but deny that all do. Families can operate by consensus with decisions taken in the best interest of all). All that socialism requires is a generalisation of this behavour to encompass the wider community. Surely the Kantian (and Christian) golden rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" COULD provide an adeqaute moral foundation for such a society?

Even if self interest is, as you claim, part of human nature i still believe that socialism is possible. In capitalist society individual self-interest is, more often than not, tempered by moral imperatives such as do not murder do, not steal, do not decieve, do not discriminate, treat people equally ect. All that a socailst society needs to acomplish is more developed moral cannon extending these imperatives to their logical conclusions; do not steal expands to encompasse do not exploit workers; treat people equally becomes do not deprive individuals the means of production ect.

Communism has not, does not, and never will work, because a Communist society would be a utopian society, and since the idea of an utopia differs between person to person, a true communist society could not exist. If it did, it would only consist of about 3 people, and that doesn't really count...

Another reason communism would never work is that since communism has never truly existed (the Soviet Union was a socialist police state), the definition is unclear, and slightly differs from person to person, connecting to the utopia idea.

However, if you are a communist, the only way the get your dream, lose it to inescapable socialism, and die a sad person, disappointed in humanity and the country you hoped to free, the only way is revolution...:sniper:

Ahhh...Communism. The only theory that maximizes suffering while minimizing progress.

Ahhh...Communism. The only theory that maximizes suffering while minimizing progress.

Nicely stated...

Although it is almost a false dichotomy, I think we have to distinguish between self-preservation and self-interest. I do not deny that there is no tendency, at least in the almost all cases, toards self preservation. This is not so much human nature but, rather, an evolutionary instinct that has ensured the survival of man. On the other hand, self-interest, insofar as it exceeds this level of self-preservation, is not essential for the survival of man and is a product of social production; what you call akin to 1984. In other words self-interest, above the self-preservation threashold, is not an absolute given and therefore not "human nature".
Again i do not deny that in capitalist society self-interest is a major motivating factory, however, even where it forms the basis for economic and social life it is not an unchangeable absolute. You seem to accept that self interset can, under conditions such as the familial group, be eliminated as a motivating force. (I accept that most families operate under a patraichial dictaorship but deny that all do. Families can operate by consensus with decisions taken in the best interest of all). All that socialism requires is a generalisation of this behavour to encompass the wider community. Surely the Kantian (and Christian) golden rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" COULD provide an adeqaute moral foundation for such a society?

Even if self interest is, as you claim, part of human nature i still believe that socialism is possible. In capitalist society individual self-interest is, more often than not, tempered by moral imperatives such as do not murder do, not steal, do not decieve, do not discriminate, treat people equally ect. All that a socailst society needs to acomplish is more developed moral cannon extending these imperatives to their logical conclusions; do not steal expands to encompasse do not exploit workers; treat people equally becomes do not deprive individuals the means of production ect.
Technically we could describe every action as a form of self-interest, even the ones that harm the physical self. People may also work towards the promotion of their philosophies or for the benefit of people that they feel benevolent towards but all of this ends up being their self-interest extended to what they believe in. Self-interest can take an altruistic bent as many people view it in the interests of their philosophy to be altruistic but nobody follows another person's philosophy. In other words self-interest is a given, the form it takes isn't.

Self-interest really isn't removed in the existence of the family, it is just that it takes another form. Parents see it as their best interest to rear their children and make sure that they succeed(which makes evolutionary sense) and children see it in their best interests to be loyal to their parents out of loyalty created by the closeness of the emotional bonds. The generalization of this feeling can hardly extend to people outside of this family because of the lack of contact that forms this emotional bond, the family group is sort of naturally sized but larger groups tend to break apart into smaller ones that are marked by larger loyalty to ones allies and less concern to otherss which can simply be found in most organizations such as schools, political parties, practically any group. Teaching the Kantian (Christian) Golden Rule would not be effective on a large scale. Certainly people would learn it but they would also ignore it and rationalize around it in circumstances where nobody seems directly affected (like stealing from organizations vs people). The efforts that would have to be taken to makesure that people obey the Golden rule would have to be tremendous due to the large amount of people and rebellious tendencies and disconnectedness that forms within most large societies. Capitalism works because it makes people fall into line, work or starve, do well and we will pay you well is a philosophy that requires very little training or teaching to understand.

The rational system is the capitalist system. Every individual tries to maximize its own benefit at the cost of others. In the end they have to come to an agreement in order to profit. One thing about morality is that it is often irrational, it is based upon emotion rather than what would give the most benefit to the most people. Regulated capitalism gives the most benefit to the most people because it creates the most progress through individuals creating it for their own gain. Besides, who said that in capitalism those moral imperatives are effective? There are still murders, there is still thievery, there are still all of these problems(and there always will be no matter what political or economic system you have) but the thing is that if you get caught you get in trouble and it is probably easier to stop somebody stealing from a business than from the government simply because businesses have to make a profit, the government doesn't.

Communism in theory would be the best kind of government.

The only problem is, it would never work. Theres always people who want power, and with everybody at the same level, it wouldnt be hard to take over.
Also, I think it would be boring. You cant really persue any career you want, there would never be war, and you could never make fun of people for being more stupid than you :( . hmmmm, I would probly be one of the many people wanting to take over and rule everybody! muahahahah!

Oh, and I read this story called "Harrison Bergheron" or something like that, and its a world where they actually force people to be the same in every way-beauty, intelligence, strength-but it shows the government is just corrupt because they dont imply these things on themselves. Exactly why communism will never work.

For it to work, I think every single person would have to want it, and that also wont happen....ever.

yes or no? is communism the answer to everybodys economical problems? or will it just cause social uproar? [Russia was a pretty snazzy place for peasants]

Depends on what you mean by communism.

Marx etc. don't describe it very clearly, aside for a society where private property is completely eliminated and stateless direct democracy replaces the authoritarian revolutionary representative democracy of the "dictatorship of the proletariat."

I do think complete social ownership of the means of production, preferably on a decentralized level for the most part, is a good idea, but administering the economy through purely direct democracy - necessitating extreme decentralization - would end up victim to the possibility of individual units seeking their own best interests at the expense of everyone else, eventually resulting in an economic rendition of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Some way of compelling a singular path for certain broad decisions is necessary, as are ways to ensure universal human rights.

Basically, a combination of Marxian Socialism and Communism, with a few touches of my own and of a few other intellectuals, and the realization that, ultimately, it's not for a few intellectuals but for the workers as a whole to decide how to organize socialism, is the model that should be advanced.

Communism is good if it gives me control over the world supply of badger meat.

Yeah, I would agree that Communism would be in theory the best economic system. It eliminates the waste of consumerism and is motivated by national good more than anything else, it is just that few people would actually want to be socialist. There are problems with lazy people and with corrupt people and with how it stifles ambition by trying to make everyone equal and all of that. The only communism that I can see working is super-authoritarian communism and I can't even see that working out very well, only that it would continue along due to oppression and nationalism and continue along very wastefully and such.(It would be sort of similar to the government in 1984, very wasteful, very controlling)

Yeah, Harrison Bergeron is a good example of a failing of the communistic system, the common man may be benefitted temporarily by a communist system but the uncommon man is hurt, and we owe a lot to the uncommon man.

Communism in theory would be the best kind of government.

Then you contradict yourself by arguing theoretical points as to why it would not be.

Theory represents reality, otherwise it is worthless. If there is a contradiction between theory and reality, your theory is not really theory, and is just delusion. Get rid of it, and think up a new model.

Sorry, I'm just tired of this ceaselessly repeated cliche.

The only problem is, it would never work. Theres always people who want power, and with everybody at the same level, it wouldnt be hard to take over.

So people enjoying equality are just going to sit back and watch as somebody seizes power? Why? Why is equality somehow more prone to being overthrown than another system of power organization?

Also, I think it would be boring. You cant really persue any career you want,

You can't in capitalism, either. If the people want them, in a democratic economy job options would be maximized.

there would never be war, and you could never make fun of people for being more stupid than you :( . hmmmm, I would probly be one of the many people wanting to take over and rule everybody! muahahahah!

Sure you could make fun of people being more stupid than you. If all the assumptions about communism radically changing human nature are true (not necessary for it to work, but if they were true it would be interesting) it would probably be frowned on a lot more than it is now, but you still could do it.

Oh, and I read this story called "Harrison Bergheron" or something like that, and its a world where they actually force people to be the same in every way-beauty, intelligence, strength-but it shows the government is just corrupt because they dont imply these things on themselves. Exactly why communism will never work.

Communism does not compel homogeneity. The market often can (think Wal-Mart and the other chain stores) but most models of communist societies, especially anarchist ones, advocate a great deal of diversity. Read what the Zapatistas have to say, for instance.

*Insert "Ah geez, not this shit again!" pic here*

I think theres a time and a place for communism.

*feels foolish looking at the small sentence* hehe