NationStates Jolt Archive

There have been several posters and threads lately that have debated the idea of communism. However, not a single one has refuted the following claim as to why communism cannot work. So I thought I'd start a thread to allow those who believe in communism to give it their best shot.

The death of communism is in it's fundamental tenant: From each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs.

"Needs" are not the same thing as "wants." However, most supporters of communism seem to equate them. They are not the same as shown by the following:
I need a car to go to work, I want a BMW;
I need a place to live, I want a 4,000 sq. ft. mansion;
I need $1.00/liter vodka to get drunk, I want $20.00/oz. 15 year old, single malt scotch;
I need ground beef to eat, I want prime rib; etc. you should have the idea by now.

communism assumes that I will voluntarily give up my wants in order to satisfy some unknown, 3rd party's needs, sorry, but I won't and most people are with me on this. This leads to the next point the dooms communism to the scrap pile. Most people are selfish and won't voluntarily give up for the common good what they feel they have earned by their hard work until they reach the point that they have enough money and resources at their disposal that any more would be pointless. Few, if any people, ever reach that plateau (I don't see Bill Gates giving up any significant portion of his $45 Billion+ to rescue anyone, let alone a group of any kind). Further, when you try and use the government to force people to give up their hard earned $ to help others, you only breed resentment in those people who have been coerced into giving. Also, those in charge of ensuring that wealth is equally distributed tend to fall prey to the "power corrupts" paradigm and start to take care of themselves and their families and ensure their continued power prior to making any distribution to anyone else and then they resist anything that would take their power and wealth away, something that as advocates of communism they shouldn't have anyway and should certainly be willing to give up. In short, you end up with an Animal Farm situation where everyone is equal, but pigs are more equal.

Communism could work if every participant in the system was voluntarily there, but the minute you force people into it, you lose. To believe that any significant population would voluntarily assent to a communist government is naive IMHO for the foregoing reasons.

OK, let the discussions begin.

Because people are greedy. Simple as that.

Because people are greedy. Simple as that.
that is the simple and correct summation of my post, but you have to spell it out for some of these people here. :)

Seems to me, though, that most ardent anti-communists, particularly objectivists, argue that people aren't selfish - but that they should be.

So, the basic entirety of your arguement can be summed up in the words of Frank Zappa:
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own things."

And don't get me wrong, I am a pinko/commie/evil soulsucker. Kill me now, please, before I become a professor and subvert the youth of America.

And I agree, forced communism doesn't work as well. Thats why communism must occur naturally through overthrow, or a progression from a socialist state, and then must not, under any circumstances, become the kind of totalitarianist state that Russia did. And then we deport all those red-blooded capitalist fuckers to rot outside of our utopia!

Seems to me, though, that most ardent anti-communists, particularly objectivists, argue that people aren't selfish - but that they should be.

And I would argue that communism fails because people are selfish, whether they should be or not.

Because people are greedy. Simple as that.

Because the easiest way to live comfortably and "successfully" in our present form of society is by being greedy.

Because the easiest way to live comfortably and "successfully" in our present form of society is by being greedy.
Yup.

And I would argue that communism fails because people are selfish, whether they should be or not.
But what does that even mean? Every year, people give billions of dollars to charities; why, if they're such selfish fuckers?

So, the basic entirety of your arguement can be summed up in the words of Frank Zappa:
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own things."

And don't get me wrong, I am a pinko/commie/evil soulsucker. Kill me now, please, before I become a professor and subvert the youth of America.

And I agree, forced communism doesn't work as well. Thats why communism must occur naturally through overthrow, or a progression from a socialist state, and then must not, under any circumstances, become the kind of totalitarianist state that Russia did. And then we deport all those red-blooded capitalist fuckers to rot outside of our utopia!

I won't kill you. :D

If you'll note, I said communism could work if it is voluntarily subscribed to. Their do exist small enclaves of people that work on a communist theory that seem to be doing ok. However, the buld of civilization won't give up their "wants" to satisfy some else's "needs."

Progression through socialism presents problems related to the "power corrupts" paradigm though. In socialism you have people that are in charge of managing the distribution of wealth, those people, generally, won't give up their power voluntarily and will use their position to promote their own well being. It all comes down to the "people like to own things" (as you and Frank put it) idea. If I own it, more particularly, if I feel I have earned it by my work, why in hell would I just give it to you? (not "you" specifically, but "you" as in any 3rd party).

And then we deport all those red-blooded capitalist fuckers to rot outside of our utopia!
:upyours:

You are probably making me too angry to respond sensibly, but I will try.

1. Under Communism the "people in charge of wealth distribution" are the people of the society in question, who control the economy. Selfish or selfless, you will still end up with a just arrangement, because everyone has a voice.

2. Nobody has any real idea whether or not human beings even have a nature, let alone what that nature is. What should be obvious to even the most casual observer is that most humans are not solely out for material gain. That is only one motive among many, some of which are altruistic, others more selfish.

3. In a system of social production (like a factory), the individual is distanced from the product of his labor. The argument could perhaps be made that a man, working alone, who builds a house from the naturally-grown trees of a forest will always regard that house as "his," and will be resentful of anyone taking it away, but who will regard the house as "theirs" if it's built by a construction company with timber cut hundreds of miles away? Social ownership makes sense with social production, and democratic social ownership (the only real kind of social ownership) will lead to just distribution.

But what does that even mean? Every year, people give billions of dollars to charities; why, if they're such selfish fuckers?

They only give after they feel their own, personal needs are satisfied. Also, many give, but most don't. I'm going to pull a number out of my ass, but I'd be willing to bet less than 25% of all people give to any charity. I'll also bet that less than 5% give to charities before they ensure they have enough to pay their house note/car note/electric bill/gas bill/water bill/waste pickup bill/credit card minimum payment bill, etc. They don't give till it hurts, they limit giving to what they can afford that won't hurt.

Communism doesn't work because it relies too much on altruism. The best system, if you could design it, would be a system wherein people doing what is best for themselves are also doing what is best for society. John Nash kinda concept.

I won't kill you. :D

If you'll note, I said communism could work if it is voluntarily subscribed to. Their do exist small enclaves of people that work on a communist theory that seem to be doing ok. However, the buld of civilization won't give up their "wants" to satisfy some else's "needs."

Progression through socialism presents problems related to the "power corrupts" paradigm though. In socialism you have people that are in charge of managing the distribution of wealth, those people, generally, won't give up their power voluntarily and will use their position to promote their own well being. It all comes down to the "people like to own things" (as you and Frank put it) idea. If I own it, more particularly, if I feel I have earned it by my work, why in hell would I just give it to you? (not "you" specifically, but "you" as in any 3rd party).

If you will note, I did say, "I agree, forced communism doesn't work..." and the problem of the corruption paradigm afflicts nearly every type of government. If one could really get a pure, uncorrupt government, any system could work. Sadly, people go tend towards greed. At least, in the society of today. But hey, one can always hope that one day our society will shift away from that and possibly progress towards less greed and a communist ideal, if only due to overpopulation and a lack of ways to make enough money for oneself to survive. Not that I am advocating that, necessarily. I'm hoping for massive nuclear war well before that happens.

Communism doesn't work because it relies too much on altruism.

Actually, Communism doesn't rely on altruism at all. If anything, pure capitalism does more, because someone has to altruistically care for those who cannot work.

I don't know what you mean by work, but I wake up every morning and go to work because I want to advance and make more money to have a better living. In a communist country you go to work because you care about the people. You must do your part for the party. I work hard because it means that people notice and I advance. There's no reason to work hard in a communist country.

In a communist country you go to work because you care about the people. You must do your part for the party.

Wrong. In a communist society you might work for a wide range of reasons:

1. Altruism
2. Peer pressure
3. Economic incentives
4. Fulfillment
5. Pleasure
6. Boredom

Wrong. In a communist society you might work for a wide range of reasons:

1. Altruism
2. Peer pressure
3. Economic incentives
4. Fulfillment
5. Pleasure
6. Boredom
The majority of Americans (at least) aren't going to be down with those reasons.

This thread's title is soooo McCarthy error. The new terms are evil doers and terrorists. Get with the times.

The majority of Americans (at least) aren't going to be down with those reasons.

Wikipedia.

If you will note, I did say, "I agree, forced communism doesn't work..." and the problem of the corruption paradigm afflicts nearly every type of government. If one could really get a pure, uncorrupt government, any system could work. Sadly, people go tend towards greed. At least, in the society of today. But hey, one can always hope that one day our society will shift away from that and possibly progress towards less greed and a communist ideal, if only due to overpopulation and a lack of ways to make enough money for oneself to survive. Not that I am advocating that, necessarily. I'm hoping for massive nuclear war well before that happens.
I guess I phrased it wrong, I was agreeing with you about forced communism not working. Also, I agree the corruption paradigm affects all government systems. However, I see the communist/socialist system as being particularly vulnerable to the corruption paradigm as the starting point of those systems is the concentration of power in a small group.

Maybe I haven't made it clear, but I do not oppose pure communism or even pure socialism, I just take the position that they are, realistically, not possible due to the "greedy" nature of people as a whole and that forcing either system on people requires those who would force it to step into the shoes of those they are trying to do away with. Once that is done, most will find those shoes to be comfortable and will not want to step out of them.

But what does that even mean? Every year, people give billions of dollars to charities; why, if they're such selfish fuckers?
Giving money to charity is called buying that warm toasty feeling inside. It's a luxury, just like everything else, just the results aren't quite as tangible. Other people give so as to allow their souls to get into heaven, or something like that. It's just a different kind of deal.

If you notice, people only give to the charities are tiny fraction of what they spend on luxuries. Hell, if someone got a million dollars, and then gave it away without keeping a penny for themselves, then I'd be amazed. I really would.

Actually, Communism doesn't rely on altruism at all. If anything, pure capitalism does more, because someone has to altruistically care for those who cannot work.

Wrong, in a pure capitalistic society, we don't give a fuck about those who cannot work, that is their problem. In a communist society, making sure those who can't work still have the ability to survive is paramount.

Wrong, in a pure capitalistic society, we don't give a fuck about those who cannot work, that is their problem.

Right. I was assuming that a system that "works" is a system that does, in fact, protect those without the ability to labor, and furthermore, a system that actually can survive longer than one generation. Long-term capitalism depends on people caring for their children.

6. Boredom
Believe me, I can amuse myself with a piece of string for over an hour. There's no force in the entire world that could make me voluntarily work if everything were provided (and a gun were not pointed at my head) if I had the piece of string.

Hell, if someone got a million dollars, and then gave it away without keeping a penny for themselves, then I'd be amazed. I really would.
Well, there is that lady who started the "Body Shop" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Roddick) chain. She seems to be the model rich person.

Believe me, I can amuse myself with a piece of string for over an hour.

And you cannot amuse yourself doing something socially useful?

And you cannot amuse yourself doing something socially useful?
But the string is right here...

But the string is right here...

There's got to be something socially useful you can do with string, too.

I guess I phrased it wrong, I was agreeing with you about forced communism not working. Also, I agree the corruption paradigm affects all government systems. However, I see the communist/socialist system as being particularly vulnerable to the corruption paradigm as the starting point of those systems is the concentration of power in a small group.

Maybe I haven't made it clear, but I do not oppose pure communism or even pure socialism, I just take the position that they are, realistically, not possible due to the "greedy" nature of people as a whole and that forcing either system on people requires those who would force it to step into the shoes of those they are trying to do away with. Once that is done, most will find those shoes to be comfortable and will not want to step out of them.

I agree with you entirely thetre, but I do not necessarily feel that being greedy is an integral part of human nature. Rather, I feel that it is a part of the way the societies of the world have evolved, because it has worked to keep people and the societies that they live in alive, and has advanced those societies most quickly and will continue to work, at least for the forseeable future. However, were circumstances ever to change so that it was more beneficial to a society as a whole to lean towards communism, and even-perhaps especially- if these changes occur over time, societal values will also shift, causing a change in how people act on a societal level, promoting socialist behavior/government.

However, I wouldn't put it past me to be completely wrong...these are, after all, merely the crazed ramblings of a 15 year old idealistic Californian.

Well, there is that lady who started the "Body Shop" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Roddick) chain. She seems to be the model rich person.
Never heard of her before. She sounds awfully nice.

If only I had been able to propose the "Poor little Andy's college fund fund" to her before she dumped it all.

But, all the same, I stand corrected.

There's got to be something socially useful you can do with string, too.
I can twiddle it...

Or eat it!

Wrong. In a communist society you might work for a wide range of reasons:

1. Altruism
2. Peer pressure
3. Economic incentives
4. Fulfillment
5. Pleasure
6. Boredom

However, in the real world, you work because you want a Porcshe 911, not an AMC Pacer. In the real world you work because you want to be in charge of the others that work with you instead of answering to those jerks in management. In the real world you work because you want to have a 5,000 sq. ft. home with a maid and butler and yard man instead of your roach infested 800 sq. ft. apartment. In the real world you work because you want a vacation to Hawaii for your 10th anniversary instead of dinner at Taco Bell. In the real world you work because you want to be able to afford to stuff $10 bills into the thong of a big titted stripper all night on Fridays instead of sitting home posting on internet forums. It is only in a fantasy world that your reasons become the primary reasons that you work.

However, in the real world, you work because you want a Porcshe 911, not an AMC Pacer. In the real world you work because you want to be in charge of the others that work with you instead of answering to those jerks in management. In the real world you work because you want to have a 5,000 sq. ft. home with a maid and butler and yard man instead of your roach infested 800 sq. ft. apartment. In the real world you work because you want a vacation to Hawaii for your 10th anniversary instead of dinner at Taco Bell. In the real world you work because you want to be able to afford to stuff $10 bills into the thong of a big titted stripper all night on Fridays instead of sitting home posting on internet forums. It is only in a fantasy world that your reasons become the primary reasons that you work.

Why are you arguing with me? Am I paying you?

-snip-
Or you work simply because you enjoy it and it is what you feel you are meant to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett

And you cannot amuse yourself doing something socially useful?

But why the hell do anything socially useful if communism will give him everything he needs no matter what? Oh, you're going to force him to "give according to his abilities." How are you going to do that without a centralized power structure of some sort. Peer pressure won't work, he's playing with his string and won't even anwer the door. Again, you are assuming he'll be altruistic voluntarily.

Why are you arguing with me? Am I paying you?
Because s/he derives some level of pleasure from it.

I'm clearly totally incapable of carrying on a sane conversation right now, so I shall leave this thread with a minimum of damage done. I hope I at least made you all laugh a bit with my absurd example. Nighty night.

Because s/he derives some level of pleasure from it.

But it's socially useful, isn't it? Someone's got to keep Communists from rioting on Friday nights.

No material benefit is derived from it, yet it's labor, and labor that has a productive effect.

I agree with you entirely thetre, but I do not necessarily feel that being greedy is an integral part of human nature. Rather, I feel that it is a part of the way the societies of the world have evolved, because it has worked to keep people and the societies that they live in alive, and has advanced those societies most quickly and will continue to work, at least for the forseeable future.

But isn't the beginning point of societal evolution the inherent nature of the people that make up that society? If people were inherently altruistic, wouldn't history reflect it the same way it does in fact reflect an evolution from people who wanted power/wealth for themselves and their own personal reasons?

I assert that that selfishness and greed are in fact an integral part of human nature. Those basic instincts can be overcome due to our ability to reason, but we must conceiously choose to act in a manner different that that which nature dictates. In order for communism to work, we must overrule our nature on a regular and consistent basis. Most people can't do that.

I hope I at least made you all laugh a bit with my absurd example.

You did. Thank you.

However, in the real world, you work because you want a Porcshe 911, not an AMC Pacer. In the real world you work because you want to be in charge of the others that work with you instead of answering to those jerks in management. In the real world you work because you want to have a 5,000 sq. ft. home with a maid and butler and yard man instead of your roach infested 800 sq. ft. apartment. In the real world you work because you want a vacation to Hawaii for your 10th anniversary instead of dinner at Taco Bell. In the real world you work because you want to be able to afford to stuff $10 bills into the thong of a big titted stripper all night on Fridays instead of sitting home posting on internet forums. It is only in a fantasy world that your reasons become the primary reasons that you work.

maybe it's just me, but I'd feel awful shallow if those were the reasons I worked.

Do I want recognition for my works? It'd be nice for some of the things i do to be noticed, yes. That doesn't mean I want a paypacket comensurate with some imagined level of achievement, though.

I work because it is a necessity, because I have to, to feed my family.

But - here's the weird thing, when I didn't have to... I still worked. Indeed, when my 'residency' was being processed, I donated about fifteen months of my time to two of my local municipalities, to work 'state certified' jobs.

I think our world would be a happier place, if we'd accept that selfishness is an evolutionary mechanism that is largely destructive in the modern species, and actually try to engage our 'civilised' selves for a change.

Oh, you're going to force him to "give according to his abilities." How are you going to do that without a centralized power structure of some sort.

If he doesn't contribute according to his ability, all sorts of penalties could be leveled by the members of the community in which he lives. Various forms of ostracism, restrictions on luxuries, etc. I am not proposing letting parasites remain parasites; we have had enough of that with the capitalists.

Or you could just keep money and pay people based on effort, while supporting those who do not work. There's nothing really un-communist about that, as long as nobody is hoarding the means of production.

But why the hell do anything socially useful if communism will give him everything he needs no matter what? Oh, you're going to force him to "give according to his abilities." How are you going to do that without a centralized power structure of some sort. Peer pressure won't work, he's playing with his string and won't even anwer the door. Again, you are assuming he'll be altruistic voluntarily.

You might want to look at 'tribal' organisations for an answer to this one. You assume a 'central mechanism' is essential, but it really isn't.

If you have a society in which every individual has equal input, and in which every individual is expected to make effectively equal effort, and in which every individual is expected to receive effectively equal reward...

...the mechanism controlling your effort is direct. If you can work, and you don't, you have chosen to except yourself from the LINKED equal representation, and equal reward.

Sure, you can stay inside and play with your string... but what do you then expect from your neighbours, when you decide you are hungry?

But isn't the beginning point of societal evolution the inherent nature of the people that make up that society? If people were inherently altruistic, wouldn't history reflect it the same way it does in fact reflect an evolution from people who wanted power/wealth for themselves and their own personal reasons?

I assert that that selfishness and greed are in fact an integral part of human nature. Those basic instincts can be overcome due to our ability to reason, but we must conceiously choose to act in a manner different that that which nature dictates. In order for communism to work, we must overrule our nature on a regular and consistent basis. Most people can't do that.

You know, form my observations on humanity, I might well be inclined to agree. However, it is my belief that humans have very little integral "nature" and the society that is naturally formed when people interact is simply a reflection of what works best for the survival of the group as a whole, and our "nature" is defined by our society, rather than the other way around. Which has led me to believe that were communism/socialism the best system for the survival of a particular society, then that society would change to adapt to whatever system.

Whatever. Hate all humans anyway, so I couldn't care less if we all came under the rule of a terrible authoritarian dictator who arbitrarily wiped out large parts if the population. In fact, I am all for it. Might help to explain me, a little bit.

this is all complete lies. I do not believe the bits about society. I irmly believe that humanity has an evil, wicked, greedy, selfish nature and must be destroyed. I'm just enjoying this too much...

Guys (gals?) I want to thank you for a reasoned debate and discussion this evening. Unfortunately, it's 1:30 am where I live and I've got to be awake and ready to go for the day in 5 1/2 hours or so, so I need to bow out for the night. I hope to continue this tommorow evening though and look forward to reading what is posted in my absescence. However, the arguments have been reasoned and while I see intense disagreement, I don't see childish flames or n00bish antics. What I see is empashioned belief with civility behind the attempts to convey and defend the belief. I find that refreshing after some of the other threads I've read and/or participated in. Thanks for an enjoyable evening of debate. I have learned things.

EDIT: I've particularly enjoyed arguing with you Soheran and look forward to continuing to destroy your arguments tommorrow. :)

EDIT: I've particularly enjoyed arguing with you Soheran and look forward to continuing to destroy your arguments tommorrow. :)

A fish in a barrel I am not, usually, though today is admittedly not one of my better days as far as successful argumentation goes. We will have to see about tomorrow.

It's been enjoyable arguing with you, too, even though I'm not being paid. ;)

communism assumes that I will voluntarily give up my wants in order to satisfy some unknown, 3rd party's needs, sorry, but I won't and most people are with me on this.
It assumes no such thing. Communists envision a restructured economy in which luxury items such as BMW's simply have no place: these products can only subsist, the communist argues, in an economy that allows vast inequalities in wealth. They do not ask you to give up your wants: you are free to satisfy most any want that you can obtain within the limits of the economic system. This is the same restriction put on you in ANY economy: in a capitalist economy, the restrictions are simply more individual, related to how much money you have rather than what the economy produces.

Some communist/anarchist theorists have, of course, hypothesized that the society might elect to procure certain luxury goods for collective use. It is, after all, fun to drive a nice car--hell, why not a race car?! But, rather than an economy that supports private ownership of such things, a communist economy would support (perhaps) a race-track where individuals could schedule time to drive as fast as humanly possible. (This sort of proposal may be controversial to some communists, and perhaps rightly so; I mention it only to emphasize what critics of communism inevitably forget, viz. there is no ONE conception of what communist society would look like.

Most people are selfish and won't voluntarily give up for the common good what they feel they have earned by their hard work until they reach the point that they have enough money and resources at their disposal that any more would be pointless.

True, but what communists (quite accurately) realize is that many (indeed most) societies have never rewarded hard work with individual material gain. In fact, even in capitalist societies, monetary remuneration is but one among many rewards for good work, and in research on workers it actually ranks fairly low on their scale of values: after such things as recognition (the esteem of their peers), "meaningful" work, and social values. Millions of people turn down higher-paying promotions every year because they value things besides material wealth.

Thus, most communists assume that people are, in fact, quite competitive--and quite unwilling to give up their personal earnings. Communists, however, recognizing that values are malleable--and individual values depend in the final analysis largely on the values of society--hope to turn human competition for material goods toward human competition for public esteem, the recognition of one's peers, rewards, and so on... not to mention simple pride in one's work. This is not an impossible goal, if the broad sweep of human history is taken as evidence. Moreover, in an economy structured to make personal material gain (at least in excess of one's neighbor's) quite difficult, people (who tend to take the easiest road) seem rather likely to compete where competition is possible.

Further, when you try and use the government to force people to give up their hard earned $ to help others, you only breed resentment in those people who have been coerced into giving.

Communists, for the most part, do not believe in money--at least not in the way we think of it. No one "earns money" to have it "taxed away." Instead, people work to earn a wide variety of goods, which no one can take away from them. The economic output of their work is distributed according to different rules than in capitalism, but the resentment of the communist should (at least) be no worse than any "resentment" the capitalist worker feels when the product of her labor is taken by the capitalist and distributed according to the rules of the economy in which she lives.

Also, those in charge of ensuring that wealth is equally distributed tend to fall prey to the "power corrupts" paradigm

Hence, communists value democratic accountability far more than most capitalists do.

Communism could work if every participant in the system was voluntarily there, but the minute you force people into it, you lose.

No more "force" would be involved than is already involved in holding children accountable to the society in which they grow up. Of course, for most communist theorists there would be significantly more opportunities for them to express dissent and to contribute to the ordering of society... being, after all, that communists desire as much democracy as possible.

Capitalists have always feared real democracy, precisely because they think that poor people might prefer communist institutions. If these capitalists are correct in their estimation of democratic tendencies, it seems difficult to argue that few people would "voluntarily" live in a communist economy. And if a few capitalists, privileged and powerful in the present system, are reluctant to change... so what? Surely the hereditary aristocracy was reluctant to give up its traditional privileges: yet no one takes this as an argument against democracy. No communist has ever claimed that every member of the present society would be pleased to make the change to a communist economy.

1. Altruism

In a society full of alturist people I think communism has a chance of surviving. I think the law of the monkey http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html
shows it scarcely extends to people I have not and will never meet

2. Peer pressure

So, now we need to be bullied into working. This again relys on everyone else supporting communism and thus pressuring you to follow.

3. Economic incentives

I have much more incentive to work when I see direct profit in my pocket, rather than my incentive being the equivilent to what an ant achieves for its collony.

4. Fulfillment

What about the sewers. People need to clean them and I don't think they'll "choose" to undertake in that job to be fufilled. Frankly writing a book or climbing a mountain are things I find fufilling and few things I find fufilling make society move on. Money needs to be an incentive to ensure this - heck I doubt the free speech that I would need to write a book could be ensured.

5. Pleasure

(i) Not every job I have ever done was pleasurable
(ii) If I were to find a job that was pleasurable, I would prob work up untill a point where I did not find it pleasurable (say 4 hours) rather than untill what I was doing was finnished.

6. Boredom

(i) Speak to the people on NS all I hear is my job is boring. And the fact is there are some boring jobs that NEED to be done.
(ii) Again if my job was not boring then I would work untill it became boring. As fun as these forums are, try to make me stay on for longer than I want and I will be bored.


I suppose for the lucky people who win the lottery and get fufilling and exciting jobs there is some reason to work. And there are those that might clean the streets because of their extreme altruism or from peer pressure, but otherwise don't kid yourself that anyone who has the personal responcibility to do well for themselves will co-operate in this type of system.

Back to the origonal post why will communism fail. Because people like me will fight if need be, should a communist revolution ever be tried again.

Back to the origonal post why will communism fail. Because people like me will fight if need be, should a communist revolution ever be tried again.

We're terrified. :rolleyes:

We're terrified. :rolleyes:

ah well, I'm not the one suggesting a violent revolution.

ah well, I'm not the one suggesting a violent revolution.

Generally speaking neither are we. There are a few revolutionaries left but most of us want to gain power through democratic means.

1. Altruism

In a society full of alturist people I think communism has a chance of surviving. I think the law of the monkey http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html
shows it scarcely extends to people I have not and will never meetThe law of the monkey also states that it's possible for people you've never met to enter your monkeysphere without you ever meeting them. For example, when people hear about a child being raped and murdered, they often will feel a strong sense of outrage without even knowing the child or the murderer. Perhaps what society needs, if the law of the monkey is true, is to focus on getting people to realize that the whole of society is within their monkeysphere.

2. Peer pressure

So, now we need to be bullied into working. This again relys on everyone else supporting communism and thus pressuring you to follow.That's one form of peer pressure. Another form would be for your peers to refuse to give you food when you want it if you can work but don't.

3. Economic incentives

I have much more incentive to work when I see direct profit in my pocket, rather than my incentive being the equivilent to what an ant achieves for its collony.That's you. I would have much more incentive to work when it provides me with access to various things that I wouldn't have otherwise.

4. Fulfillment

What about the sewers. People need to clean them and I don't think they'll "choose" to undertake in that job to be fufilled. Frankly writing a book or climbing a mountain are things I find fufilling and few things I find fufilling make society move on. Money needs to be an incentive to ensure this - heck I doubt the free speech that I would need to write a book could be ensured.If nobody can be persuaded to clean the sewers, then the work of cleaning the sewers will have to be divided up among the members of the community/society who use the sewers.
Why would free speech be eliminated? Communism (when done properly) is the best system there is, and has nothing to fear from the outside world.

5. Pleasure

(i) Not every job I have ever done was pleasurable
(ii) If I were to find a job that was pleasurable, I would prob work up untill a point where I did not find it pleasurable (say 4 hours) rather than untill what I was doing was finnished. Perhaps jobs could be structured in such a way that someone could take over for you and finish what you were working on while you go find something that's both pleasurable and productive to do.

6. Boredom

(i) Speak to the people on NS all I hear is my job is boring. And the fact is there are some boring jobs that NEED to be done.And either someone can be persuaded to do them or they can be divided up amongst everyone who wants them to be done.

(ii) Again if my job was not boring then I would work untill it became boring. As fun as these forums are, try to make me stay on for longer than I want and I will be bored.Why should you work until it became boring? Why would you only be doing one thing all day every day?

I suppose for the lucky people who win the lottery and get fufilling and exciting jobs there is some reason to work. And there are those that might clean the streets because of their extreme altruism or from peer pressure, but otherwise don't kid yourself that anyone who has the personal responcibility to do well for themselves will co-operate in this type of system.Most people will do better for themselves in communism than in capitalism.

Back to the origonal post why will communism fail. Because people like me will fight if need be, should a communist revolution ever be tried again.You're welcome to subsistence farm/hunt/food gather if you don't wish to live in a communist society, we won't stop you, but don't expect us to help you, either.

Generally speaking neither are we. There are a few revolutionaries left but most of us want to gain power through democratic means.

Democracy is safe enough to ensure communist candidates will pretty much never win an outright majority or enough to destroy capitalism. heck old labour struggle to even reform capitalism. But if communists do seek to win power, as long as they don't seek to ban non communist parties, or the right to flee the country after the communist party gets elected I'm happy for them to keep trying.

The fact America has a constitution with rights that would need to be changed to allow communism, kinda ensures revolution is the only way communists could achieve power, as far as I was aware fundamentalists were still mostly revolutionary.

1. Altruism
Who needs it? If you are attacking a communist theory that relies on altruism in any form, you are fighting a straw man.

2. Peer pressure

So, now we need to be bullied into working. This again relys on everyone else supporting communism and thus pressuring you to follow.

There may be a fine line between "peer pressure" and "social values." The simple empirical fact of the matter is that the values that are rewarded by society tend to be internalized by individuals of that society. There will always be some people who do not internalize those values, and sanctions are appropriate to keep these people in line. "Peer pressure" may be one of these. Fines and other formal penalties may be others. We call it "criminal law." Communist society would have the same enforcement weapons in its arsenal as capitalist society. To suppose otherwise is, again, to trade blows with a man of straw.

3. Economic incentives

I have much more incentive to work when I see direct profit in my pocket, rather than my incentive being the equivilent to what an ant achieves for its collony.

Since "economics" studies "value" in general, and not just material values, a more appropriate term would be "value incentives." People have much more incentive to work when they get something in return. Why this has to be money is a curious prejudice of capitalist ideologues--and notably, one that is not shared by honest economists. Economists know that people are just as willing to trade for leisure, esteem and awards, and any number of other things besides "stuff." The confusion arises, I think, because for the purposes of micro-economic calculations economists assign "dollar values" to these things: but this is just using money for what it is, a uniform measure of value. "Economic value" in itself is not coeval with material value.

4. Fulfillment

What about the sewers.

A valid point. Most communists agree that no one would feel "fulfilled" if their role in life were merely to clean the sewers, or do the other dirty work required by civilization. They respond that these should be collective responsibilities, in one form or another. Some suppose, for instance, that communities might organize themselves like families--in which members work together to keep the house clean, usually without any individual rewards. Indeed, Japanese schools today have no janitors: the teachers and students alike work together to keep them clean. Others imagine that people might be drafted, perhaps in early adulthood, to work for a certain time in necessary but undesirable occupations--much as many nations draft their youth into the military. (The key for communists is that everyone would have to participate; no exceptions.)

There are any number of other ways to solve this problem without assuming that there must be an underclass of people whose only occupation will be cleaning up the shit of other people. No one needs to find it especially "fulfilling," they just have to understand (as members of most households understand) that there are some unpleasant chores that need to be done... and since they value equality and fairness, they agree as a matter of law that all must do their part.

5. Pleasure

(i) Not every job I have ever done was pleasurable
See above.
(ii) If I were to find a job that was pleasurable, I would prob work up untill a point where I did not find it pleasurable (say 4 hours) rather than untill what I was doing was finnished.

Most communists argue that when vast inequalities of wealth are eliminated, the labor necessary to maintain a comfortable, enjoyable life for all will be significantly less than what is necessary to maintain the upper classes today in all their luxury. Thus, the average person might only have to work for four hours a day.

Of course, some jobs may require, for whatever reason, that laborers remain at their post for longer periods. In this case, they should be rewarded as appropriate. For instance, they may be accorded special privileges with respect to things available for common enjoyment; or in exchange for their overtime they may receive a considerable vacation afterwards; or any number of other things for which people might agree to work longer than their own proclivities incline them to work.

6. Boredom

(i) Speak to the people on NS all I hear is my job is boring. And the fact is there are some boring jobs that NEED to be done.
See above.

I suppose for the lucky people who win the lottery and get fufilling and exciting jobs there is some reason to work.
What lottery? In every serious communist theory I know, people are free to choose their own occupations, besides being obliged to contribute to the common chores. Moreover, people are free to change their occupation whenever they see fit.

Look at it this way. Under capitalism, you pay taxes so someone else has to spend his life cleaning your gutters. Under communism, your "tax" is in the form of your own labor, with which you take your turn cleaning the gutters once in a while. All advanced societies have taxes. No one particularly likes paying them. But, we have a duty to pay them as our contribution to the public goods (like clean streets) that we enjoy. If we fail to pay them, the society in which we leave has every right to employ sanctions against us... including everything from peer pressure through criminal penalties.

(Of course, I imagine that any responsible communist society would have room for flexibility. If you, for instance, had an especially strong aversion to a particular job, you could fulfill your public duty in another way... and under this system, whoever performs the most unpleasant jobs--even temporarily--should be accorded some measure of reward.)

That's one form of peer pressure. Another form would be for your peers to refuse to give you food when you want it if you can work but don't.

That isn't really peer pressure. Peer pressure would be the scorn and contempt of those who do work being directed at those who won't. I'm guessing it would be remarkably effective (and if it isn't then your plan would come into force anyway).

Dude, you're living in the past. Communism has already failed to prevail. That's like, sooo 80s. :rolleyes:

Everyone knows that the current resurgence of fascism is the way forward.

It's a cultural issue. Communism requires a different cultural attitude than capitalism. It's not as though communism requires an extraordinary amount of self-sacrifice compared to capitalism. For the vast majority of people, capitalism means working hard for the primary benefit of someone else, anyway.

That isn't really peer pressure. Peer pressure would be the scorn and contempt of those who do work being directed at those who won't. I'm guessing it would be remarkably effective (and if it isn't then your plan would come into force anyway).True, I was thinking withholding food would come with a general display of ostracism towards someone who didn't work.

My big issue with communism and why I don't think it would work is unlike a free market economy, communism doesn't give one the freedom to pursue their preferred line of work. You could want to be a teacher and get stuck in the military. Where is the encouragement to do your best if no matter what you do you'll always be miserable?

My big issue with communism and why I don't think it would work is unlike a free market economy, communism doesn't give one the freedom to pursue their preferred line of work. You could want to be a teacher and get stuck in the military. Where is the encouragement to do your best if no matter what you do you'll always be miserable?Why wouldn't communism give someone the freedom to pursue their preferred line of work? How does the free market give someone the freedom to do so if their preferred line of work isn't going to give them enough to live on?

My big issue with communism and why I don't think it would work is unlike a free market economy, communism doesn't give one the freedom to pursue their preferred line of work. You could want to be a teacher and get stuck in the military. Where is the encouragement to do your best if no matter what you do you'll always be miserable?
Speaking as an ex-Russian, that's absolute rubbish. You were free to work in any area you wished. National service was only two years, and my parents became teachers. However, the state wage was broadly the same across all professions, so it didn't matter whether you were a teacher or a big cheese in a construction company, you still got paid the same. In that respect there was no financial motivation to progress your career, but there was internal motivation, if you believed in what you were doing.

My big issue with communism and why I don't think it would work is unlike a free market economy, communism doesn't give one the freedom to pursue their preferred line of work. You could want to be a teacher and get stuck in the military. Where is the encouragement to do your best if no matter what you do you'll always be miserable?

Actually, the free market is the same way. Do you really think a capitalist society would function any better than a communist one would if everyone in it became a teacher? Obviously not, and mechanisms exist that push people into other jobs, even in capitalism.

The law of the monkey also states that it's possible for people you've never met to enter your monkeysphere without you ever meeting them. For example, when people hear about a child being raped and murdered, they often will feel a strong sense of outrage without even knowing the child or the murderer. Perhaps what society needs, if the law of the monkey is true, is to focus on getting people to realize that the whole of society is within their monkeysphere.

But I'm not sure I could be persuaded to work to make sure everyone else can be in exacly the same position as myself. Being raped or murderd is an extreme example, a person having less resources than another because they didn't utilise their education or try hard enough to achieve what they want doesn't make me feel sad. And wouldn't convince me that total equality was neccessary.


That's one form of peer pressure. Another form would be for your peers to refuse to give you food when you want it if you can work but don't.

So your either bullied into doing something you don't want to do or your starved.. nice.


That's you. I would have much more incentive to work when it provides me with access to various things that I wouldn't have otherwise.


But under a more capitalist system, I have the opportunity to get an amazing car or top quality champagne (other luxuries ect..) and its already been suggested these things simply wouldn't exist in communism.
I don't see the incentive to work when, if you give the illusion you gave "according to your ability" you have access to all the basis of communism and never any more.


If nobody can be persuaded to clean the sewers, then the work of cleaning the sewers will have to be divided up among the members of the community/society who use the sewers.
Why would free speech be eliminated? Communism (when done properly) is the best system there is, and has nothing to fear from the outside world.


Well under capitalism one motivation for many to work hard early on is so they can avoid working in mcdonals or cleaning the streets and other remidial jobs. I dare to say I wouldn't be happy when I'll be told to clean the sewers or face having my food supply cut off.



Perhaps jobs could be structured in such a way that someone could take over for you and finish what you were working on while you go find something that's both pleasurable and productive to do.

And either someone can be persuaded to do them or they can be divided up amongst everyone who wants them to be done.

Why should you work until it became boring? Why would you only be doing one thing all day every day?
[QUOTE=Jello Biafra]

Why do the same thing all day every day? - You become an expert at it and become more productive. A brain surgeon requires years of training and investment to become competant. If the surgeon could stop after one patient (because he was bored) and then had to clean the sewers than thats one hell of an inefficient system and clearly less productive.

[QUOTE=Jello Biafra]
Most people will do better for themselves in communism than in capitalism.


Give people an opportunity rather than a guarentee. I don't want people reaching a glass ceiling where they can't achieve higher standards of living if they should have achieved it.


You're welcome to subsistence farm/hunt/food gather if you don't wish to live in a communist society, we won't stop you, but don't expect us to help you, either.

I'd rather flee to a nearby capitalist society that doesn't control my every move.

Capitalists have always feared real democracy, precisely because they think that poor people might prefer communist institutions. If these capitalists are correct in their estimation of democratic tendencies, it seems difficult to argue that few people would "voluntarily" live in a communist economy. And if a few capitalists, privileged and powerful in the present system, are reluctant to change... so what? Surely the hereditary aristocracy was reluctant to give up its traditional privileges: yet no one takes this as an argument against democracy. No communist has ever claimed that every member of the present society would be pleased to make the change to a communist economy.

If communists value democracy more than capitalists, and communists believe that they have the support of a majority of the poor (and maybe others?); then why has almost every communist government come to power through revolution? It is rare that a communist government has been democratically elected by a majority of the voting public in any country - like the short lived Labour government of Clement Attlee.

But I'm not sure I could be persuaded to work to make sure everyone else can be in exacly the same position as myself. Being raped or murderd is an extreme example, a person having less resources than another because they didn't utilise their education or try hard enough to achieve what they want doesn't make me feel sad. And wouldn't convince me that total equality was neccessary.Perhaps it wouldn't be within your best interest to do so, but it would be for most people. You're welcome to not live within the society, though.

So your either bullied into doing something you don't want to do or your starved.. nice.Or you can leave and pick your own food.

But under a more capitalist system, I have the opportunity to get an amazing car or top quality champagne (other luxuries ect..) Only if you have enough money to do so, or are good at stealing.

and its already been suggested these things simply wouldn't exist in communism. Perhaps or perhaps not, it depends on what the society wants; if the society wants an amazing car or top quality champagne, it will exist.
I don't see the incentive to work when, if you give the illusion you gave "according to your ability" you have access to all the basis of communism and never any more. Communism should be able to provide more than just the basics for people.

Well under capitalism one motivation for many to work hard early on is so they can avoid working in mcdonals or cleaning the streets and other remidial jobs. I dare to say I wouldn't be happy when I'll be told to clean the sewers or face having my food supply cut off.If you don't wish to clean the sewers then don't use them, haul your own feces away in a bucket.

Why do the same thing all day every day? - You become an expert at it and become more productive. A brain surgeon requires years of training and investment to become competant. If the surgeon could stop after one patient (because he was bored) and then had to clean the sewers than thats one hell of an inefficient system and clearly less productive.I highly doubt that a brain surgeon would go through years of training only to find then that brain surgery bored him; most likely he'd figure that out during the training. All the more reason to have free and copious amounts of training available, so people can become educated in more fields than just the field they plan to work in, their field may change.

Give people an opportunity rather than a guarentee. I don't want people reaching a glass ceiling where they can't achieve higher standards of living if they should have achieved it.I agree with this, but I think we have differing ideas of what "should have achieved" means.

I'd rather flee to a nearby capitalist society that doesn't control my every move.If there are any capitalist societies nearby.
Of course, I've said nothing about controlling your every move, but that's beside the point.

Why wouldn't communism give someone the freedom to pursue their preferred line of work? How does the free market give someone the freedom to do so if their preferred line of work isn't going to give them enough to live on?

Under capitalism if what you love to do does not pay the food bill than yes you have a free pick to find a job that does.

But under communism if you want to a job that doesn't help society I'm sure thats not allowed. Then of course popular jobs (like teachers or nurses) than give you a feeling of fufillment or enjoyment will be taken up quickly (and since not everyone can have a job thats nice) you have a good chance at being left to do work thats neither fufilling or enjoyable.

As I said in my last post will a gifted brain surgeon need 2 years compulsory military service, or need to participate in trivial tasks like cleaning a sewer or digging graves..? Because either he won't and he's an exception or he will and thus hes doing unskilled labour when he could be saving someones life.

If communists value democracy more than capitalists, and communists believe that they have the support of a majority of the poor (and maybe others?); then why has almost every communist government come to power through revolution? It is rare that a communist government has been democratically elected by a majority of the voting public in any country - like the short lived Labour government of Clement Attlee.

Democracy and revolution are hardly incompatible. Great Britain, the United States, France, Japan, Germany, Italy, Austria, Russia, Poland, and Czechoslovakia are all nations that set up democratic institutions in the wake of revolution.

Another way of stating my objection would simply be: how many capitalist democracies were constructed, implemented, and authorized by monarchies/despots?

Under capitalism if what you love to do does not pay the food bill than yes you have a free pick to find a job that does.But, in this instance, the person would not like to do the job that is paying their food bill.

But under communism if you want to a job that doesn't help society I'm sure thats not allowed. No, it wouldn't be, but it's possible to convince society that your job will help them. A person who loves physics should be able to persuade society to give some resources to physics; there doesn't have to be a short-term benefit to society in order to help society, society can think long-term, as well.

Then of course popular jobs (like teachers or nurses) than give you a feeling of fufillment or enjoyment will be taken up quickly (and since not everyone can have a job thats nice) you have a good chance at being left to do work thats neither fufilling or enjoyable.I don't know, there are plenty of people who like to do different things. Hobbies would make great careers for people if they could get paid to do them. Of course, not all hobbies would or should exist on a societal level, but the guy who likes fixing cars as a hobby could easily become a mechanic. There are studies of auto workers (in a capitalist system) who say that they hate their jobs, but when they come home all they wanna do is work on their cars. This indicates to me that the work environment is the problem, not the work itself.

As I said in my last post will a gifted brain surgeon need 2 years compulsory military service,Perhaps, but I don't think a standing military will be necessary, a militia should be fine.

or need to participate in trivial tasks like cleaning a sewer or digging graves..? Because either he won't and he's an exception or he will and thus hes doing unskilled labour when he could be saving someones life.It's possible that his job will be in such a high demand that he will be unable to give time to cleaning sewers, so yes, exceptions are possible, but they'd be rare.

But I'm not sure I could be persuaded to work to make sure everyone else can be in exacly the same position as myself.
If everyone possessed the same material wealth, don't you think you would be desperate to prove you're better than them in some other way?

a person having less resources than another because they didn't utilise their education or try hard enough to achieve what they want doesn't make me feel sad.
And in communist society, those people would be perfectly easy to pick out, and you could feel good about being better than they are. Indeed, they would probably be easier to spot than under capitalism, where one has to deal with the Paris Hilton's of the world who have all the visible marks of amazing effort and success... but who really earned little or nothing of what they have.

The marks of success under communism would depend on the particular system adopted, but they would always be present. They might be your esteemed career, your rank, or the leisure and other luxuries accorded to you for your contributions to society.

Communists don't care about "absolute" equality nearly so much as you think. Their first concern is a measure of material equality, and they are especially opposed to monetary systems that allow individuals to accumulate massive reserves of fungible resources. Why? Because these kinds of inequalities in wealth quickly amount to inequalities in political power, and communists are first and foremost committed to political equality.

Within this broad framework, there is even some room for personal material luxuries, perhaps purchased through a "credit" system... similar to money, except that credits expire after a set amount of time (say, a year), so that you cannot accumulate so much as to be able to buy your neighbors. You might, however, by working hard and saving wisely, accumulate enough to buy your champagne. (For especially expensive items, one might also allow a "lay-away" program in which you can make payments over time so that your credits do not expire... but you also cannot remove them once paid.)

Granted, this is a bit distant from what many communists imagine, but it has all the essential features of communist economy. The essential point is that communism does not in any fundamental way depend on a "sharing" economy. It does not even necessarily mean that you cannot enjoy certain luxury items if you are willing to work hard and save up for them. What it does mean is that you may not control vast resources of fungible material wealth.

And wouldn't convince me that total equality was neccessary.

See above. The only "total equality" communists want is true democratic political equality. Other equities are merely instrumental to this end.

But under a more capitalist system, I have the opportunity to get an amazing car or top quality champagne (other luxuries ect..)

Yes, but you cannot get a tank, or a slave, or any number of other luxuries. All societies place limits on what you can personally possess. Generally, people learn not to desire the things they cannot have; and if they try to have them anyway, they pay the penalty. Communists would just restrict personal ownership in a different way than capitalism already does.

and its already been suggested these things simply wouldn't exist in communism.

Maybe. It depends on the communist system. I think most could work with or without them.

I don't see the incentive to work when, if you give the illusion you gave "according to your ability" you have access to all the basis of communism and never any more.

The "according to your ability" stuff was 19th century romantic communism. No serious communist subscribes to that anymore, so get off it.

I dare to say I wouldn't be happy when I'll be told to clean the sewers or face having my food supply cut off.

No one expects you to be "happy" about cleaning the sewers, any more than they expect you to be "happy" about paying taxes. But these things need to be done to keep society running, and it's only fair that everyone should have to contribute to them. No getting out of it because you're rich.

Why do the same thing all day every day? - You become an expert at it and become more productive.
Both valid and admirable goals. I am sure that many, many communist citizens will work at the same thing all day every day... for precisely these reasons.

A brain surgeon requires years of training and investment to become competant. If the surgeon could stop after one patient (because he was bored)

Actually, that might be a good thing. First, consider that with the costs of medical school paid for (or easily within the grasp of the average citizen), there might be more people interested in becoming brain surgeons, so supply would be less of a problem. Second, ask yourself whether you would really want to be operated on by a brain surgeon who no longer cares about his job?

More than likely, your "one patient" example is ludicrous hyperbole, at best. If a person invested that much training into doing something, it is fair to presume that he/she knows what he/she is getting into, and will probably continue in her/his chosen profession for quite some time.

Or you can leave and pick your own food.
.
Or I could do a job that only a few people can do and make money. While the unskilled can pick my food for me and I give them some of my money for providing me with a service I had no time to do. Sounds nice to me ;)


Perhaps or perhaps not, it depends on what the society wants; if the society wants an amazing car or top quality champagne, it will exist.
Communism should be able to provide more than just the basics for people.
.

But I can't guarentee that society will want what I want. If I make the money I can guarentee someone will custom make me what I want - or if society wants what I want it will already be in the market.


If you don't wish to clean the sewers then don't use them, haul your own feces away in a bucket.
.

So now I need to clean the sewers, pick my own fruit and food - I'd assume raise my own livestock and hundreds of other jobs that I would normally let the market do for me..


I highly doubt that a brain surgeon would go through years of training only to find then that brain surgery bored him; most likely he'd figure that out during the training. All the more reason to have free and copious amounts of training available, so people can become educated in more fields than just the field they plan to work in, their field may change.
.

Okay he might get not get bored but communism lives under the principle why do one job, right?
So he'll get all this training but spend just as much time cleaning the sewers and harvesting food - inefficent!


If there are any capitalist societies nearby.
Of course, I've said nothing about controlling your every move, but that's beside the point.

:eek: I'm sure someplace somewhere voted to remain capitalist
Okay you won't control my every move, but you control me to the extent that you understand if I'm giving to the best of my ability. And thats too much.

If communists value democracy more than capitalists, and communists believe that they have the support of a majority of the poor (and maybe others?); then why has almost every communist government come to power through revolution?

Three answers:

1) So far, there have been no truly communist governments. Rather than building genuine democratic support, so-called communist movements of the past have been composed of political minorities who chose to advance communist revolution ahead of its time.

2) So-called democratic governments the world over are organized to oppose genuine the genuine democratic power of the masses. Access to elections and election campaign funds are controlled by capitalist elites. This makes the establishment of communism through existing "democratic" mechanisms problematic at best, since these are not truly democratic institutions.

3) When the capitalist elite is actually threatened with the possibility of communist politics, they do not simply sit back and let a revolution-by-ballot happen. They do things like outlawing communist parties, as in the United States of the 1950s. It's pretty hard to win electoral control as outlaws.

Or I could do a job that only a few people can do and make money. While the unskilled can pick my food for me and I give them some of my money for providing me with a service I had no time to do. Sounds nice to me ;) Why should the unskilled be relegated to performing undesirable services for you? Certainly if they enjoyed doing undesirable services, that's fine, but not if they have to do them in order to live.

But I can't guarentee that society will want what I want. If I make the money I can guarentee someone will custom make me what I want - or if society wants what I want it will already be in the market.It's possible that society would be willing to import something just for you in order to keep you happy. <shrug>

So now I need to clean the sewers, pick my own fruit and food - I'd assume raise my own livestock and hundreds of other jobs that I would normally let the market do for me..There are people who enjoy raising livestock and farming, so you would only have to do those things if you didn't wish to participate in society.

Okay he might get not get bored but communism lives under the principle why do one job, right?
So he'll get all this training but spend just as much time cleaning the sewers and harvesting food - inefficent!That's sort of the principle, yes. Most people, as you've said, would get bored doing one job. It's possible that a person may only want to do one job, and they would have the opportunity to do so.

:eek: I'm sure someplace somewhere voted to remain capitalist They probably would, but what will happen if all of the "grunt" workers, who are grunt workers because they can't afford not to be, move into the communist countries? How will capitalists pay the grunt workers and still make enough profit for themselves?

Okay you won't control my every move, but you control me to the extent that you understand if I'm giving to the best of my ability. And thats too much.Eh. People won't be required to work at 100% level all day every day, but it would be pretty obvious if you spent all day watching TV and eating Cheetos.

If everyone possessed the same material wealth, don't you think you would be desperate to prove you're better than them in some other way?
.
Perhaps, but to a lesser extent than under capitalism. Gaining material wealth because I'm better than someone is more of a motivation than gaining smugness or a good social standing because I'm better. Frankly if I gained no benefit for being better I'd want to just be equal.

And in communist society, those people would be perfectly easy to pick out, and you could feel good about being better than they are. Indeed, they would probably be easier to spot than under capitalism, where one has to deal with the Paris Hilton's of the world who have all the visible marks of amazing effort and success... but who really earned little or nothing of what they have.


Within this broad framework, there is even some room for personal material luxuries, perhaps purchased through a "credit" system... similar to money, except that credits expire after a set amount of time (say, a year), so that you cannot accumulate so much as to be able to buy your neighbors. You might, however, by working hard and saving wisely, accumulate enough to buy your champagne. (For especially expensive items, one might also allow a "lay-away" program in which you can make payments over time so that your credits do not expire... but you also cannot remove them once paid.)
.

I'll admit a better idea of communism than I've heard before. I could see it slowely seek in capitalism as someone does another persons work for some of their credits.



Yes, but you cannot get a tank, or a slave, or any number of other luxuries. All societies place limits on what you can personally possess. Generally, people learn not to desire the things they cannot have; and if they try to have them anyway, they pay the penalty. Communists would just restrict personal ownership in a different way than capitalism already does.
.

Granted. But slaves/tanks are dangerous and inhumaine. Capitalism has restrictions but less restrictions than communism.



The "according to your ability" stuff was 19th century romantic communism. No serious communist subscribes to that anymore, so get off it.
.

heh sorry. Thats the stuff I was tought


No one expects you to be "happy" about cleaning the sewers, any more than they expect you to be "happy" about paying taxes. But these things need to be done to keep society running, and it's only fair that everyone should have to contribute to them. No getting out of it because you're rich.
.

I suppose you'll disagree. But I think some people are above cleaning sewers. Some people are smarter and more tallented and their time could be better spent - while others can't achieve much more than cleaning and manual labour (even if given equal opportunitys). I'm happy to pay some taxes. As was said earler I use the sewage system, public transport, electricty... and governments need my money to ensure natural monopolys and other industry can be controlled ect..


More than likely, your "one patient" example is ludicrous hyperbole, at best. If a person invested that much training into doing something, it is fair to presume that he/she knows what he/she is getting into, and will probably continue in her/his chosen profession for quite some time.

Fair point bad example on my part. You paint communism better than I've heard before so cheers for the good post.

It assumes no such thing. Communists envision a restructured economy in which luxury items such as BMW's simply have no place: these products can only subsist, the communist argues, in an economy that allows vast inequalities in wealth.

I don't think this is accurate at all. The Marxist Communist theorists, at least, envisioned an eventual society where the means of production would be so efficient that everyone would be able to enjoy plenty of luxury items. In Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx basically states that only in such circumstances could full, pure communism arise.

So, now we need to be bullied into working. This again relys on everyone else supporting communism and thus pressuring you to follow.

Being bullied into working is substantially better than being starved into working. And if the majority does not support communism, communism doesn't happen.

I have much more incentive to work when I see direct profit in my pocket, rather than my incentive being the equivilent to what an ant achieves for its collony.

Fine. There is no reason a communist society could not reward extra effort at work with direct material benefits, as long as it doesn't interfere with "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

And there is no reason a communist society could not punish lack of effort with any number of means, though probably none of them would involve starvation, as capitalism would.

What about the sewers. People need to clean them and I don't think they'll "choose" to undertake in that job to be fufilled. Frankly writing a book or climbing a mountain are things I find fufilling and few things I find fufilling make society move on. Money needs to be an incentive to ensure this - heck I doubt the free speech that I would need to write a book could be ensured.

Firstly, writing a book is most definitely helping society "move on."

Secondly, different people seek fulfillment in different ways. Intolerable labor would be minimized in a communist society, which would try to ensure, through advanced technology and economic planning, that labor is as interesting and pleasurable as possible. If this didn't work for certain jobs, there are a number of possible ways the problem could be addressed:

1. Perhaps it isn't a problem at all. People seeking a challenge, or seeking to impress someone, or seeking to impress themselves, may well do even labor not many want to do, such as cleaning the sewers.
2. The labor could be divided up evenly, and everyone would do a small portion of it.
3. There could be some sort of extra economic incentive for doing it, like there isn't in capitalism, where it's allocated on a basis of class to the most exploitable.

(i) Not every job I have ever done was pleasurable
(ii) If I were to find a job that was pleasurable, I would prob work up untill a point where I did not find it pleasurable (say 4 hours) rather than untill what I was doing was finnished.

And you would probably only need to work four hours, too. But that aside, of course not every job you have worked has been pleasurable to you; you have no way of knowing that nobody else would find it pleasurable.

6. Boredom

(i) Speak to the people on NS all I hear is my job is boring. And the fact is there are some boring jobs that NEED to be done.
(ii) Again if my job was not boring then I would work untill it became boring. As fun as these forums are, try to make me stay on for longer than I want and I will be bored.

Labor in capitalism is drudgery. One of the reasons it is that way is because it is coerced, and brought about through a hierarchical system. Socially useful labor doesn't have to be that way.

Perhaps, but to a lesser extent than under capitalism. Gaining material wealth because I'm better than someone is more of a motivation than gaining smugness or a good social standing because I'm better.

I'm curious, why does it have to be material wealth? Would working less (because rewarded with time off) be no motivation? There are values that contribute to "wealth" that are not "material."

I'll admit a better idea of communism than I've heard before.

Call it "Star Trek communism" if you want to give it a name. I have seen few theorists discuss such a model, mostly because if you're going to have that much of a market, why not just let it slide right into market socialism instead of insisting on "pure" communism?

I could see it slowely seek in capitalism as someone does another persons work for some of their credits.
As long as we can assume a reasonable degree of technology, it's easy enough to make credits electronic--and non-transferable. One might still work for someone asking a particular reward in return (at the expense of the employer) but this amounts to a barter economy. The important thing is that no one can accumulate a terribly large amount of transferable, fungible assets.

Capitalism has restrictions but less restrictions than communism.
That's true. My point was only that it is a difference in degree rather than a difference in kind.

I suppose you'll disagree. But I think some people are above cleaning sewers. Some people are smarter and more tallented and their time could be better spent - while others can't achieve much more than cleaning and manual labour (even if given equal opportunitys).

Yes, I do disagree. On both counts. Even if some people are "above" maintenance labor, in the sense that their time could be "better spent," fairness is an overriding concern.

Of course, it may be the case that within the set of necessary public duties, there are some that require greater resources of intelligence... or stamina, for that matter... or artistic ability. The fundamental requirement should be that everyone has to engage in "chores" that are necessary to society's existence, not necessarily pleasant, and outside the scope of their regular occupation. If some chores require special abilities, then there should be an application process for them... and those who qualify will do those jobs and not the others. Meanwhile, the people doing the most horrible and menial of labor should be given special rewards.

I'm happy to pay some taxes.
Well, this is just another kind of tax.

Fair point bad example on my part. You paint communism better than I've heard before so cheers for the good post.

Thanks. The irony is that I do not consider myself a communist... I'm more of a market socialist, with anarchist leanings. But, as a political theorist, I get annoyed at the extent to which communism is misrepresented (most of the time). Thus, although I do not subscribe to the theory myself, I know it has more merit than most of opponents would allow... and I think if you are going to attack/reject/evaluate a theory, it is your intellectual and political duty to do it honestly.

I don't think this is accurate at all. The Marxist Communist theorists, at least, envisioned an eventual society where the means of production would be so efficient that everyone would be able to enjoy plenty of luxury items. In Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx basically states that only in such circumstances could full, pure communism arise.

First: Marx's conception of "luxury" had more to do with leisure and good food than with mansions and great cars (excuse the anachronism).

Second: Find me a a serious theorist today who still adheres to Marx's conception of communism--or, especially, his conception of human nature--and you will have a point. Yes, there are still some political parties out there who read Marx (or Lenin or Trotsky) as the final word on politics, but the people who are still actually developing communist theory reject the notion of a "fallen" humanity that is not "really" competitive, and who can ultimately "learn how to get along." We can thank Freud for that.

:D

First: Marx's conception of "luxury" had more to do with leisure and good food than with mansions and great cars (excuse the anachronism).

And, frankly, I'd rather have a four-hour work day than "mansions and great cars."

Second: Find me a a serious theorist today who still adheres to Marx's conception of communism--or, especially, his conception of human nature--and you will have a point. Yes, there are still some political parties out there who read Marx (or Lenin or Trotsky) as the final word on politics, but the people who are still actually developing communist theory reject the notion of a "fallen" humanity that is not "really" competitive, and who can ultimately "learn how to get along." We can thank Freud for that.

Marx's conception of human nature is that it is an idealist fantasy. Human social structures, and the "natures" that go with them, are founded on the material system of production, which depends on technological capabilities.

Anyway, it's the point that's relevant, more than the author. A lot of what people today call "selfishness" is not really the all-encompassing desire to advance oneself, as the apologists for capitalism want us to think. It's the desire to survive comfortably. If we can achieve a comfortable survival for all of humanity - "to each according to his need" - with only a little bit of labor, then the incentives problem is greatly reduced.

And, frankly, I'd rather have a four-hour work day than "mansions and great cars."
Indeed, me too.
Marx's conception of human nature is that it is an idealist fantasy. Human social structures, and the "natures" that go with them, are founded on the material system of production, which depends on technological capabilities.
Right. Now, find any serious intellectual today who believes that human beings have no innate aggressiveness, no competitiveness. Social relations and systems of production may privilege some aspects of human nature over others, but there is no escaping the fact that we are, after all, biological organisms.

Right. Now, find any serious intellectual today who believes that human beings have no innate aggressiveness, no competitiveness. Social relations and systems of production may privilege some aspects of human nature over others, but there is no escaping the fact that we are, after all, biological organisms.

Well, of course we do.

I don't think it's "human nature" to be a cog in the capitalist machine, though; in fact I think it's extremely opposed to human nature. The foundational point of my tentative advocacy of communism - as opposed to my advocacy of socialism, which is based on my egalitarian system of ethics and my instinctive anti-elitism more than anything - is that the way we labor in modern societies, egalitarian or not, is unnecessarily opposed to human nature and human freedom, and thus is torturous. Communism at least attempts to do away with this problem, and its democratic, decentralized framework allows for flexibility and variety in doing so.

It just doesn't make any sense that socially useful labor is "meant" to be annoying. We need sex to survive, so nature gave us the orgasm. We need sugar to survive, so nature gave us sweetness. We need socially-useful labor, so why would nature have made it hell for us?

This is the best thread about communism on NationStates and I'm confident it will receive thousands upon thousands of replies.

Indeed, me too.

Right. Now, find any serious intellectual today who believes that human beings have no innate aggressiveness, no competitiveness. Social relations and systems of production may privilege some aspects of human nature over others, but there is no escaping the fact that we are, after all, biological organisms.

You won't, Marx included. What he argues is not that we have a competitive drive only because of capitalism, but that because of capitalist processes like commodity fetishism what competitive impulses we have are corrupted and perverted in the name of consumerism.

We all produce goods, and we all by nature define ourselves by our work; I define myself as a farmer if I produce crops for a living, and I strive to be a good farmer who provides good crops. Unfortunately, capitalism alienates me from the product of my labor, because the crops that I produce are not mine, but the property of the shareholders that own Monsanto stock to whom I owe money. Capitalism, in other words, divorces me from my labor and therefore from the natural striving to perfect my labor. In it's place, it only provides a desire to buy as much stuff as possible, in the hopes that by holding goods, I can regain my sense of self; in other words, I try to define myself by falsely attributing traits to my goods wherein no such traits exist. For instance, instead of being a good farmer because I produce good crops, I am a good farmer if I can afford a "cool" or "efficient" or "powerful" truck or tractor.

What Marx proposes is simply a return to our natural state. No longer will I define myself by what I own, but by what I make, as is natural.

The fact America has a constitution with rights that would need to be changed to allow communism...

Which 'rights' need to be 'changed to allow communisim'?

Well, of course we do.

I don't think it's "human nature" to be a cog in the capitalist machine, though; in fact I think it's extremely opposed to human nature. The foundational point of my tentative advocacy of communism - as opposed to my advocacy of socialism, which is based on my egalitarian system of ethics and my instinctive anti-elitism more than anything - is that the way we labor in modern societies, egalitarian or not, is unnecessarily opposed to human nature and human freedom, and thus is torturous. Communism at least attempts to do away with this problem, and its democratic, decentralized framework allows for flexibility and variety in doing so.

It just doesn't make any sense that socially useful labor is "meant" to be annoying. We need sex to survive, so nature gave us the orgasm. We need sugar to survive, so nature gave us sweetness. We need socially-useful labor, so why would nature have made it hell for us?

We need green vegetables so why did nature make them taste like shit?

Which 'rights' need to be 'changed to allow communisim'?

The right to hoard of course. Duh.

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, or to hoard material wealth

My big issue with communism and why I don't think it would work is unlike a free market economy, communism doesn't give one the freedom to pursue their preferred line of work. You could want to be a teacher and get stuck in the military. Where is the encouragement to do your best if no matter what you do you'll always be miserable?

How many people in capitalist societies are pursuing their 'preferred line of work'?

I think you are confusing certain issues, anyway... you seem to be thinking all communist regimes MUST be totalitarian.

What Marx proposes is simply a return to our natural state. No longer will I define myself by what I own, but by what I make, as is natural.

The problem is that we can't return to that state, because we have a system of social production.

Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

Under capitalism if what you love to do does not pay the food bill than yes you have a free pick to find a job that does.

But under communism if you want to a job that doesn't help society I'm sure thats not allowed. Then of course popular jobs (like teachers or nurses) than give you a feeling of fufillment or enjoyment will be taken up quickly (and since not everyone can have a job thats nice) you have a good chance at being left to do work thats neither fufilling or enjoyable.

As I said in my last post will a gifted brain surgeon need 2 years compulsory military service, or need to participate in trivial tasks like cleaning a sewer or digging graves..? Because either he won't and he's an exception or he will and thus hes doing unskilled labour when he could be saving someones life.

Under capitalism, if no one WANTED teachers, there would be no teachers. If that is the 'job you love', tough buns. Exactly the same as under communism.

Again - you are imagining ONLY totalitarian communism: "under communism if you want to a job that doesn't help society I'm sure thats not allowed"... at least you admit you don't KNOW.

But totalitarianism isn't the ONLY way, any more than it is under capitalism. Example - the best job I ever had, was running a laser-tag venue. I loved that job. Under capitalism, that job was certainly not 'essential', but enough people wanted to 'do' the thing I offered, that capitalist principles supported my 'job'. Similarly, if enough people in a communist environment wanted to 'do' what I offered, they would have considered my use of time worthwhile.

To address your last point... why shouldn't a brain surgeon do 2 years military service, IF everyone else does? Why shouldn't the gifted academic dig some ditches, or graves, or whatever? Again, I think you are heading down the 'totalitarian' road, but regardless...

In my job at the moment, every day, I have 10,000 peoples lives literally running through my hands. And yet, I've worked on building sites, dug ditches, worked on farms..., even dug graves. And, strangely, every one of the jobs I have done, has made me a better and stronger 'me'.

The right to hoard of course. Duh.

Ha ha!... thanks for that... I was trying to remember which one it was.... :D

I don't think it's "human nature" to be a cog in the capitalist machine, though;
You'll have no argument from me! I am merely pointing out that serious advocates of an alternative must resist the temptation to take a naive view of human nature. Any society that will succeed must provide outlets for the baser instincts of humankind, just as it should nurture and encourage our more social inclinations.

We need socially-useful labor, so why would nature have made it hell for us?

Look, I agree that all people should be able to find useful, satisfying occupations. However, do not be confused: some useful things will always be unpleasant, and we cannot pretend that they do not exist.

You won't, Marx included. What he argues is not that we have a competitive drive only because of capitalism, but that because of capitalist processes like commodity fetishism what competitive impulses we have are corrupted and perverted in the name of consumerism.

It would be nice if this were true. However, not only does Marx not say this, but you contradict it in the remainder of your post. You seem to think that human competitiveness can be turned in on itself, so that my only "competition" is "myself." You, like Marx, think that human beings can become so sociable that we no longer care to distinguish ourselves from others, but only to be "good at what we do."

This is disastrously naive.

Any society that will succeed must provide outlets for the baser instincts of humankind, just as it should nurture and encourage our more social inclinations.

There's nothing "base" about competition in a chess match or a football game, and there's plenty "base" about our social inclinations when they're used to squash dissent and independent thought. There is nothing wrong with human nature, what's wrong is how it can be expressed, and the challenge is how to create a society that maximizes the better expressions and minimizes the worse ones, while still maintaining general freedom and pleasure.

Look, I agree that all people should be able to find useful, satisfying occupations. However, do not be confused: some useful things will always be unpleasant, and we cannot pretend that they do not exist.

Of course they do. I was speaking very generally; I don't think labor needs to be as horrible as it is now, and I believe we should do our best to make it better. Obviously, some greater incentives will be necessary for some jobs; I like your credit system, and social pressure will accomplish some of that, too.

Edit: Actually, about that credit system. I was going to reply to this earlier, but I didn't see any decent spot to jump in. The issue is not so much buying "political power" per se, as it is controlling the means of production. If all the capitalist could do with his money is build a bigger mansion, who cares, as long as he's earned it through hard work? The problem is when he becomes privileged - when, for instance, by virtue of owning a factory, he can leech off other people's labor and earn far more than his own labor would entitle him to. It is this that produces the intolerable class inequalities of capitalist society, and this that socialism and communism would do away with.

There's nothing "base" about competition in a chess match or a football game, and there's plenty "base" about our social inclinations when they're used to squash dissent and independent thought.
Did I say otherwise?
There is nothing wrong with human nature, what's wrong is how it can be expressed
That's a spurious distinction if ever there was one.

My only point here is that human beings are problematic, biological, emotional creatures. No system--ever--will eliminate that. A good system does, however, need to take it into account.

It is certainly true that human beings behave very differently in different times and societies, and it is possible to encourage people to be good. Here I am merely taking issue with the common retort of communists that "under communism" people will simply "be different." That's not enough. You need to tell me what you're going to do with all of the aggressive energy that is built into the human psyche.

and the challenge is how to create a society that maximizes the better expressions and minimizes the worse ones, while still maintaining general freedom and pleasure.

Right. But "minimizing" the worst expressions of human nature is not enough. You need to recognize that the drives behind them will never disappear, and you need to think of socially constructive outlets for those drives. You can't pretend they will ever "not matter."

To address your last point... why shouldn't a brain surgeon do 2 years military service, IF everyone else does? Why shouldn't the gifted academic dig some ditches, or graves, or whatever? Again, I think you are heading down the 'totalitarian' road, but regardless...
.

If we drag the most gifted people down to jobs like digging ditches and military service than we're not utilising their skills to the maximum potential. It benefits the economy when a person does the job they're best at (most productive, efficient). And in communism the "nasty" jobs is EVERYONES responcibility to do thus preventing the most skilled to do the most skilled jobs while the least skilled do the least skilled jobs.

I'm not going to go as far as some and say that capitalism is more efficient to the extent that everyone will ultimatly be dragged up to a higher point, but the country will have a stronger economy thus people have a chance to make more.


In my job at the moment, every day, I have 10,000 peoples lives literally running through my hands. And yet, I've worked on building sites, dug ditches, worked on farms..., even dug graves. And, strangely, every one of the jobs I have done, has made me a better and stronger 'me'.
.[/QUOTE]

Okay I don't know what your intrests are, but do you not think having the responcibility of looking after 10,000 entitles you to somewhat more of a reward than someone digging a grave.

Forget arguements of ideaology, the answer lies in practicality.

Economically speaking, Communism is beyond our means. That is to say, regardless of whether or not humans are capable of sharing, the kind of organisation and mass co-ordination is well beyond our current means (and those of the forseeable future).

The excluding factor of communism lies in the market, (the prerequisite for any kind of trade, be in capitalist or communist format). There are three economic prerequisites the MUST exist in order for a mass market to function.

1)The first is specialisation, this means everyone is producing more according to the comparative advantages of producing only one good/service of your strength.

2)The second is property rights, individuals must have confidence in their economically tradable goods and services. If a third party (e.g. bandits, competitors, military dictatorships,ect...) can freely take them, then the scope for trade and economic developement is severely limited.

-N.B. Most historical 'communist' nations have been ruled out by the 'property rights' clause. Nevertheless, for pure Marxists I will continue to reveal the flaws in a communist state even without a corrupt military-backed dictatorship.-

3)The third and final prerequisite for a *mass market* is an efficient means of coordinations of everyones needs and wants with the output of and distribution of resources. In Capitalist countries we have the 'free market' to co-ordinate this. The beauty of the free market is that people coordinate themselves. If Joe needs bread he goes to the baker and buys it with HIS MONEY. If Some one asks for bread, the Baker bakes it for them (efficeint businesses soon identify trends and attempt to pre-empt customer demand).

It is possible in very small economic communities (hippy communes, primitive tribes,ect..) for this to be done through a simple assesment and consequent delegation.

However, tofully comprehend the enormity of the 3rd task, consider this example. Every morning at 3am, Joe the Baker wakes up to prepare for a day of business. He thinks that today, he will sell 1000 loaves of bread (like he does most days). So he busies himself and bakes the bread. Later at 7am Amy wakes up and sees she has no bread and needs some more for breakfast, so she walks down to Joe's bakery and buys a loaf that Joe cooked earlier this morning. Over the course of this one day approximately 999 other people in joes are are going to need bread and do the same thing. Some of these people buy bread aily others may never buy bread except for today, but all of them have their needs met.
Now Consider this, in a largish city there may be more than 1000 bakeries (Sydney has 700 dedicted bakeries, not counting supermarkets and convenience stores). That means in one day, there are in excess of 1 million transactions for bread purchased from bakeries alone. Everyone of these transactions was co-ordinated and funded entirely by the two participants. Now imagine all of the transactions which occur in a city in 1 day. Billions, possibly trillions. Each self-arranged.

A capitalist nation manages this through the free market, and the idea that the person that receives goods is the one who *wants* it most, as decided by how much they will pay for it, but not neccesarily influenced by how much they have (you wouldn't pay $1000000 for a loaf of bread just because you had it). Unfortunately he who *needs* it most isn't neccesarily the one who gets it.

Now communism attempts to distribute evenly according firstly to needs, then equally for the left overs. Perhaps it could work, perhaps not. What couldn't work is the manual manipulation and co-ordination of trillions of transactions nationwide. How would you assess who needed what? Who decides who needs what? How would you proccess the daily data in time to get it to providers of goods and services? How do you deliver the various goods and services? Even if such an amazing system could exist, think of the kind of money it would require to maintain operations. Unreasonable.

What if the regulatory system underestimates demand for food? The whole country starves! At least in a free market if Joe the Baker underestimates demand, then the people in his area can buy bread elsewhere.

Again,communal subsitence works fine. If the group needs 10kg of potatoes/week, then plant the appropriate amount of potatoes. Unfortunately, large scale communism cannot be practically implemented.

That is why communism cannot work.

AnarchyeL - I am getting the impression, reading this last post of yours, that we are arguing about nothing, since I don't disagree with anything you wrote.

There are plenty of possible outlets for aggressive energy, both in productive pursuits and unproductive ones. I don't see why communism would restrain that any more than capitalism does. In fact, with the greater freedom communism allows, it would probably be able to deal with it even more effectively than capitalism.

If we drag the most gifted people down to jobs like digging ditches and military service than we're not utilising their skills to the maximum potential.
So? It's a capitalist prejudice that we need to be squeezing the last bit of productivity out of every individual. Here we are dealing with competing values, like fairness and equality.

Keep in mind, of course, that we are talking about a democracy here, with individuals capable of weighing competing values. If some individuals have skills that are so badly needed in a particular area, no doubt their fellow citizens will be willing to excuse them from the ordinary "chores." Just as if, for instance, a family has a teenager who is particularly good at fixing their buggy wireless network: no doubt if he spends considerable time doing this, he will be relieved of other chores.

The point is that everybody has to do some chores. (The young man just mentioned may not actually want to be a computer expert... His profession/education being directed at other things, this is merely a chore for him.) Some people may be suited to chores that others are not. We don't need everyone digging ditches all the time!

The point of the "pitch in" model is not to make everyone do back-breaking labor. The point is to make sure that no one is doing back-breaking labor all the time.

It benefits the economy when a person does the job they're best at (most productive, efficient).

It may benefit the economy just as well to have everyone working to clean up their waste. For one thing, it will discourage waste! For another, a friend of mine explains that in his experience in Japan, since everyone has to clean their place of work, they take collective pride and responsibility... that actually results in a better job getting done! Moreover, don't forget that they are not paying for someone else to do it, so those resources can be spent to better themselves/society, rather than just to clean up after themselves.

And in communism the "nasty" jobs is EVERYONES responcibility to do thus preventing the most skilled to do the most skilled jobs while the least skilled do the least skilled jobs.

See above. Everyone must contribute to collective enterprises that are not a part of their normal job--that they don't WANT to do. Their efforts may be expended in different ways, however. But, unless they have qualified for a particular, skilled contribution... well, yes. Everyone must contribute to the jobs no one wants to do. It's only fair.

I'm not going to go as far as some and say that capitalism is more efficient to the extent that everyone will ultimatly be dragged up to a higher point, but the country will have a stronger economy thus people have a chance to make more.
What you're describing is an economy in which a few people have an opportunity to make more because some others spend their lives cleaning up after them. If this is the cost of wealth, it's not worth it.

Okay I don't know what your intrests are, but do you not think having the responcibility of looking after 10,000 entitles you to somewhat more of a reward than someone digging a grave.

Sure. But why does the reward have to be money?

*snip* ...That is why communism cannot work.

Okay. Now explain to me why market socialism cannot work.

"Capitalist" is not the only kind of market... as evidenced by the fact that markets (indeed, "mass" global markets) existed for millenia before capitalism.

AnarchyeL - I am getting the impression, reading this last post of yours, that we are arguing about nothing, since I don't disagree with anything you wrote.
I think we are arguing about nothing, and I think we do agree on most points.

There are plenty of possible outlets for aggressive energy, both in productive pursuits and unproductive ones. I don't see why communism would restrain that any more than capitalism does. In fact, with the greater freedom communism allows, it would probably be able to deal with it even more effectively than capitalism.
I tend to agree. The point of contention (if there is one) is that I think communists would do well to make this more explicit. Capitalist apologists have the (not entirely incorrect) impression that communists believe changing the economy will "magically" change human nature. Communists encourage this impression to the extent that they respond to capitalist criticisms by insisting that people are only so "greedy" under capitalism.

We agree that there is truth to this. However, I think a more effective response to the criticism, for both theoretical and rhetorical reasons, is to say to the capitalist:

"You are 100% correct. In fact, I think human beings are more innately competitive than you do, apparently. You seem to think that if people are not allowed to compete for material wealth, they will become lazy and shiftless, unwilling to work--therefore undermining the system. On the contrary, people are so competitive, so eager to distinguish themselves in the eyes of others, that if they are deprived of material competition... well, they will just find something else with which to distinguish themselves!"

It is capitalists who mistake human nature... or rather, who insist on a fundamental ambiguity in human nature. They seem to think that people are so innately competitive that "cooperative" economies are doomed to failure, but not nearly competitive enough to distinguish themselves without the help of material possessions.

It is possible in very small economic communities (hippy communes, primitive tribes,ect..) for this to be done through a simple assesment and consequent delegation.

Right, and so you'd decentralize coordination, the way you do in capitalism. You try to maximize popular participation, thus accounting for everyone's needs. No one serious proposes wholly top-down central planning.

You maintain flexibility, and you can even introduce certain kinds of limited market mechanisms to properly assess demand.

Okay. Now explain to me why market socialism cannot work.

"Capitalist" is not the only kind of market... as evidenced by the fact that markets (indeed, "mass" global markets) existed for millenia before capitalism.

It can. In fact, it does. Right now, there are many market socialist nations who do okay economically (but not great). The reason they work is due entirely to the inclusion of a free, capitalist, market. Remember, despite the word 'socialism' market socialists are separate in the way the government regulates, taxes and spends its money. There is no change in the economic system prevalent in the market of such a nation. If ever there was one, market socialism represents a top comprimise of two great systems. It more or less utilises the means of capitalism (free market) to achieve the ends of communism (socio-economic equaility). It does both to a satisfactory level, but neither exceptionally. Overall, a nice place to live.

It can. In fact, it does. Right now, there are many market socialist nations who do okay economically (but not great).
Depends on what your measure is. No doubt you think the appropriate measure of economic strength is something like GDP... but there is nothing in the concepts "economic" or "strength" that requires this interpretation. One might choose any variety of social indicators (e.g. literacy, poverty, etc.)--or some combination of them.
The reason they work is due entirely to the inclusion of a free, capitalist, market.
Ah-ah-ah!! It's not a capitalist market, it's a socialist one--the difference being that capitalists necessarily compete for wealthy customers, while socialist markets do not differentiate between individuals based on wealth (because firms are not free to determine their own prices).

Check out the Belgian education system. The teachers have a national union, with pay-scales set at the national level... so individual schools have no choice in what to pay them. Parents can choose to send their children to any school, which is what makes it a "market"... but, the government pays the school a flat rate per student. So, you do not have expensive private schools catering to the wealthy, with "Wal-Mart schools" serving the poor, as you would in a capitalist free-market education system.

Socialist: Demand = Customers.
Capitalist: Demand = Customers x Wealth.

Very, VERY different!!

There is no change in the economic system prevalent in the market of such a nation.
See above.

If ever there was one, market socialism represents a top comprimise of two great systems. It more or less utilises the means of capitalism (free market) to achieve the ends of communism (socio-economic equaility). It does both to a satisfactory level, but neither exceptionally. Overall, a nice place to live.

You are not thinking of market socialism, but a "mixed economy." There is a HUGE difference.

Also, this is only one version of market socialism, and one very appropriate to a service like education. Some other (more theoretical) versions would also allow differentiation in prices, but it's rather complicated to explain how this would work. I don't want to hijack the thread by getting into it here, but I do want to make it clear that the system just described (which does have its flaws) is not the very definition of "market socialism."

Ah-ah-ah!! It's not a capitalist market, it's a socialist one--the difference being that capitalists necessarily compete for wealthy customers, while socialist markets do not differentiate between individuals based on wealth (because firms are not free to determine their own prices).

Check out the Belgian education system. The teachers have a national union, with pay-scales set at the national level... so individual schools have no choice in what to pay them. Parents can choose to send their children to any school, which is what makes it a "market"... but, the government pays the school a flat rate per student. So, you do not have expensive private schools catering to the wealthy, with "Wal-Mart schools" serving the poor, as you would in a capitalist free-market education system.

Socialist: Demand = Customers.
Capitalist: Demand = Customers x Wealth.

Excellent framework. I'm adding that one to my mental list.

I was thinking of "socialist markets" as free-market systems with worker-run collectives setting prices, but here you have an effective way to extend accountability without leading to inequalities in services.

The only problem is the maintenance of private tyranny ("ownership"), but you can deal with that, too, by empowering the students and the teachers within a democratic structure.

The only problem is the maintenance of private tyranny ("ownership"), but you can deal with that, too, by empowering the students and the teachers within a democratic structure.

Well, the idea is that since all customers are equal, and all employees are equal, the old capitalist promise that the market is "democratic" because it translates popular demand into production... well, it goes some way toward delivering on that promise, since the demand of the wealthy "counts" just as much as the demand of the poor.

In a fully realized socialist market, the public would actually own individual firms, which would nevertheless be set in competition with one another. The finances of each firm would be closed to direct influence from the government, similar to the way in which Social Security is "independent" today--not part of the regular budgeting process.

Also, market socialism usually features an "inverted" pay scale, in the sense that the least desirable jobs offer the most compensation, while occupations that are less objectionable--or indeed intrinsically enjoyable-- tend to pay considerably less. Indeed, this is not "enforced" in any way... Rather, based on known market principles, it is the way an economist would predict the labor market would work out under conditions of relative (never absolute) equality, and guarantees of basic services, food, and shelter.

Again, the calculations are on the complicated side... I have surely already said too much, but the ideas excite me! I can hardly help myself.

;)

Right, and so you'd decentralize coordination, the way you do in capitalism. You try to maximize popular participation, thus accounting for everyone's needs. No one serious proposes wholly top-down central planning.

You maintain flexibility, and you can even introduce certain kinds of limited market mechanisms to properly assess demand.

Who would maintain and oversee these decentralised distributions systems? You don't really expect people to 'wait their turn' do you? In order to ensure equal distribution, you would need a COMPREHENSIVE market assessment mechanism, paired with an equally efficient delivery system (or if it is self propelled, an even more elaborate monitoring system would be required to ensure everyone was following their quotas as laid out by the amazing market machine.

As I said before, decentralised communism works fine in small subsistence groups, but larger groups (or groups that demand goods beyond their own access or capablities), need to fall back on a free trade market. Your idea to decentralise communism would work fine (in some ways) regarding goods that could be produces in localities (like bread). What about high volume goods, like electricity, cigarettes, cars, computers,ect. How does the distributing authority allocate accurately and equally without a centralised system?

What happens when a localitly exceeds it's electricity quota? You can't charge them extra (as they shouldn't have money). You can either shut off their electricity or install invasive systems to limit and control individual electricity usage, or bitch at them.

Another thing for you to contemplate. In a perfect communism, all goods are public goods. Now economically the human race has a problem with public goods. To jog your memory on what happens to things which nobody owns but everybody has rights to let me give a few examples.
1) The atmosphere (Global warming)
2) Atlantic ocean (diminishing numbers of herring)
3) Amazon forest (poorly policed, thus over logging)
4) Australias water crisis (practically free)
5) Traffic jams (on public roads)

As early as infancy we see these characteristics in humans. If you have 2 three year-old children and you give them 500mL of strawberry milkshake, they each drink their own milkshake and all is well. However, if you give them 1L to share and a straw each we see each child drinking as fast as possible, and possibly even fights occurring. This is before the children even have any comprehension of supply, scarcity, money, or markets.

All I am saying is that to ensure equal distribution, a strong and comprehensive system must be in place. To some effect this system must be centralised. Ultimately,( in the most forgiving of circumstances), 75% or more of the economy would be devoted to holding it up

I'm not really sure why there is any debate about the possiblity of a true communist society of emerging. This issue has been settled years ago. All nations that have declared themselves to be communists have either has or is in the process of becoming a capitalist society or has become a dictatership.

I'm not really sure why there is any debate about the possiblity of a true communist society of emerging. This issue has been settled years ago. All nations that have declared themselves to be communists have either has or is in the process of becoming a capitalist society or has become a dictatership.

Thank you for being nice enough to answer your own question. :p

Thank you for being nice enough to answer your own question. :p


If a nation that tries to be communist can't even survive how the hell can you expect a real one to be any more successful?

Well, the idea is that since all customers are equal, and all employees are equal, the old capitalist promise that the market is "democratic" because it translates popular demand into production... well, it goes some way toward delivering on that promise, since the demand of the wealthy "counts" just as much as the demand of the poor.

In a fully realized socialist market, the public would actually own individual firms, which would nevertheless be set in competition with one another. The finances of each firm would be closed to direct influence from the government, similar to the way in which Social Security is "independent" today--not part of the regular budgeting process.

Right, that's how I would do it too. Variation and competition in socially-owned enterprises, so that the "losers" don't lose so much, the "winners" can't become privileged, and democracy is maintained.

Also, market socialism usually features an "inverted" pay scale, in the sense that the least desirable jobs offer the most compensation, while occupations that are less objectionable--or indeed intrinsically enjoyable-- tend to pay considerably less. Indeed, this is not "enforced" in any way... Rather, based on known market principles, it is the way an economist would predict the labor market would work out under conditions of relative (never absolute) equality, and guarantees of basic services, food, and shelter.

Indeed. The only reason it doesn't work this way in modern capitalism is because of extreme class stratification, though notably few of the apologists for capitalism like mentioning the issue.

Another thing for you to contemplate. In a perfect communism, all goods are public goods. Now economically the human race has a problem with public goods. To jog your memory on what happens to things which nobody owns but everybody has rights to let me give a few examples.
1) The atmosphere (Global warming)
2) Atlantic ocean (diminishing numbers of herring)
3) Amazon forest (poorly policed, thus over logging)
4) Australias water crisis (practically free)
5) Traffic jams (on public roads)

Yes, under capitalism.

I would respond in detail, but the Anarchist FAQ already does it for me:

What about the "Tragedy of the Commons"? Surely communal ownership will lead to overuse and environmental destruction? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI6.html)

Who would maintain and oversee these decentralised distributions systems? You don't really expect people to 'wait their turn' do you? In order to ensure equal distribution, you would need a COMPREHENSIVE market assessment mechanism, paired with an equally efficient delivery system (or if it is self propelled, an even more elaborate monitoring system would be required to ensure everyone was following their quotas as laid out by the amazing market machine.

As I said before, decentralised communism works fine in small subsistence groups, but larger groups (or groups that demand goods beyond their own access or capablities), need to fall back on a free trade market. Your idea to decentralise communism would work fine (in some ways) regarding goods that could be produces in localities (like bread). What about high volume goods, like electricity, cigarettes, cars, computers,ect. How does the distributing authority allocate accurately and equally without a centralised system?

You set up democratic confederations to control the distribution of goods on a larger scale. I don't see your point. Just like in capitalism, socially-owned institutions would adjust production based on demand. If Good A is being overused, then you ration it by price (if it's a luxury item) or by head (if it's a needs item) and try to increase production to better meet demand.

The problem is that we can't return to that state, because we have a system of social production.

Perhaps you misinterpreted me. My post doesn't deny that we have a system of social production; according to Marx, we always have a system of social production. I was not and never did refer to what you are apparently thinking of, which is some Hobbesian state of nature. Rather, I was referring to our natural state with respect to our inclinations. In other words, I was talking about our natural tendency to equate what we make with who we are, which is what Marx is speaking of when he talks about Homo faber in The German Ideology. Capitalism is an unnatural mode of social production precisely because it seperates us and alienates us from this natural tendency by placing ownership of the product of labor in the hands of those who had nothing to do with making them.


It would be nice if this were true. However, not only does Marx not say this, but you contradict it in the remainder of your post. You seem to think that human competitiveness can be turned in on itself, so that my only "competition" is "myself." You, like Marx, think that human beings can become so sociable that we no longer care to distinguish ourselves from others, but only to be "good at what we do."

This is disastrously naive.

Actually, what I was talking about was a rough synopsis of various parts of The German Ideology and Das Kapital. You have me at a disadvantage because I am at work and don't have the books handy to quote directly. Nevertheless, I assure you that Marx does say exactly what I said, explicitly.

More importantly, however, you make two mistakes in your reasoning. First, I don't necessarily think this way, and I never endorsed it as such. I am simply writing as Marx would in his own defense. Secondly, and more importantly, you seem to be suggesting, without any but the baldest assertion, that the only way men can produce is out of a sense of competition, and further that such competition can only occur between two or more people. Both assertions are manifestly false. Albert Einstein produced revolutionary revisions in physics, but hardly out of a sense of competition with some "other"; no one else was even considering the same problems as Einstein, and his theories came out ahead of many of the tests that suggested there were problems with the Newtonian account that Einstein corrected. Rather, he did it because he enjoyed his work in mathematics, and possibly for the esteem it might bring. The same thing is true every time I play Pole Position in single-player mode: I'm not competing against someone else, but only to perfect my own time and perhaps gain the esteem of vintage-video-game players.

In other words, your assumption that competition must be present to generate labor or effort is, to use your own words, dangerously naive.

If a nation that tries to be communist can't even survive how the hell can you expect a real one to be any more successful?

Who ever said they tried to be communist?

They tried to be something... but if that something is not the same as the communism under discussion ("true" communism, as you so eloquently put it), then any conclusion from their failure is a non sequitur.

Perhaps you misinterpreted me. My post doesn't deny that we have a system of social production; according to Marx, we always have a system of social production. I was not and never did refer to what you are apparently thinking of, which is some Hobbesian state of nature. Rather, I was referring to our natural state with respect to our inclinations. In other words, I was talking about our natural tendency to equate what we make with who we are, which is what Marx is speaking of when he talks about Homo faber in The German Ideology. Capitalism is an unnatural mode of social production precisely because it seperates us and alienates us from this natural tendency by placing ownership of the product of labor in the hands of those who had nothing to do with making them.

And I was pointing out that Communism probably won't solve this, because social production necessitates a distinction between the individual laborer and the goods he contributes to producing.

Thousands of years ago, a man could break off a branch of a tree, sharpen it, and call it his spear. No one would doubt it, because he had produced it entirely himself. But today, who's going to know how many different laborers put labor into the production of a tank, and into the survival of the laborers who made the tank? Who does it "belong to," naturally? The only good answer is that society as a whole owns it, but then the individual laborer is still distanced.

Depends on what your measure is. No doubt you think the appropriate measure of economic strength is something like GDP... but there is nothing in the concepts "economic" or "strength" that requires this interpretation. One might choose any variety of social indicators (e.g. literacy, poverty, etc.)--or some combination of them.

You measure economic strength in either the GDP or the PPP. Social welfare is quite different. I did say that this place would be nice to live in, just not all too efficient. Economics is all about maximisng efficiency, and not neccesarily social welfare. Economic goals might include social aspects, but this is a result of third party influence only. If economics had its way, the perfect state is facist consumerist state. The trick is to balance efficiency with welfare. Nevertheless, economies are measured in $'s not welfare.

Ah-ah-ah!! It's not a capitalist market, it's a socialist one--the difference being that capitalists necessarily compete for wealthy customers, while socialist markets do not differentiate between individuals based on wealth (because firms are not free to determine their own prices).

Irrespective of who sets the prices, the market is still a capitalist one. Just in this highly regulated system, the government sets the price based on various market assessments (as the firm would). However, the govt here subsidises the lost revenue from operating beyond the marginal benefits and costs of various businesses. The result is a capitalist economy which is being smothered by welfare imposing regulations. This kind of activity is fine, as long as the govt or the economy can make up the lost revenue in some other area, such as very high tax, or some form of high demand export (uranium? Oil?). Usually the former is true. Remember that if the people were unwilling to pay the govt. set amount, then the govt. would drop the price. Likewise, in this system, if the poorest person could pay more, the price would go up.

Check out the Belgian education system. The teachers have a national union, with pay-scales set at the national level... so individual schools have no choice in what to pay them. Parents can choose to send their children to any school, which is what makes it a "market"... but, the government pays the school a flat rate per student. So, you do not have expensive private schools catering to the wealthy, with "Wal-Mart schools" serving the poor, as you would in a capitalist free-market education system.

You seem to be confusing the capitalist 'free market' with 'laissez faire' market economics. The free market simply means consumers are free to choose, as you said. All that is happening with the belgian education system is that the govt(a rich economic entity) is operating a school (essentially a business) at a negative profit margin. This is equivalent to a subsidy program. It is great that the Belgians are doing this, as long as the govt. can afford it...

Socialist: Demand = Customers.
Capitalist: Demand = Customers x Wealth.

Very, VERY different!!

Wrong again.
Any market: Demand= Supply/Price or Price=Supply/Demand

In this case, however, the social market government is 'breaking the rules' as follows:
Socialist: Price=Demand/Supply
Result=Price does not reflect supply, and the economy runs at an undersupply which must be subsidised by the powers that be.



You are not thinking of market socialism, but a "mixed economy." There is a HUGE difference.

To be entirely honest, 'Market socialism' isn't an existing economic term for any market format. Neither is a 'mixed economy'. Both terms exist, but only as socio-economic labels referring to how these markets operate, not as systems in their own right. Both are different implementations of the free market (defining feature of capitalist economic theory).

And I was pointing out that Communism probably won't solve this, because social production necessitates a distinction between the individual laborer and the goods he contributes to producing.

Thousands of years ago, a man could break off a branch of a tree, sharpen it, and call it his spear. No one would doubt it, because he had produced it entirely himself. But today, who's going to know how many different laborers put labor into the production of a tank, and into the survival of the laborers who made the tank? Who does it "belong to," naturally? The only good answer is that society as a whole owns it, but then the individual laborer is still distanced.

Probably no one; after the revolution, tanks would be unnecessary.

As for the problem of production, I don't really see this as problematic, although Marx was never entirely clear exactly how such production would occur. It might be that, supposing I need a shirt, I simply make the shirt myself using the communal shirt-weaving factory. It might be that I go to the local shirt-making guild, give them the specifications, and they produce the best shirt possible. It may be that they are in need of glasses (supposing I was an optometrist), and I agree to fashion them for them in exchange for shirts. It could be some other way. In any case, however, the emphasis would be on producing only as much as I need, and producing it to the best of the individual/group's ability.

Rather, I was referring to our natural state with respect to our inclinations. In other words, I was talking about our natural tendency to equate what we make with who we are, which is what Marx is speaking of when he talks about Homo faber in The German Ideology.
Perhaps you should re-read the earlier manuscripts. Marx's concept of "species-being" entails the understanding that we are NOT what we make; this being, in fact, the distinctive characteristic of human beings. We discover ourselves in expressions of free will, one of which is the decision of how to use our own labor. But he refers just as eloquently to the joint expression of ourselves and our humanity as we read in solitude.

The danger, for Marx, is that we alienate ourselves in the product of our labor: we become laborers subservient to the object, rather than workers who create objects to serve our own human ends.

Capitalism is an unnatural mode of social production precisely because it seperates us and alienates us from this natural tendency by placing ownership of the product of labor in the hands of those who had nothing to do with making them.

Read his essay on "Alienated Labor." You are referring to only one form of alienation under capitalism, namely alienation from the product of my labor. Read carefully, however, I am already alienated from myself in the product, because I am not "man" I am merely "laborer," the servant to the object.

More importantly, however, you make two mistakes in your reasoning. First, I don't necessarily think this way, and I never endorsed it as such.
Yes, and I'm not really a communist. But for the purposes of the discussion, isn't it just easier to attribute thoughts as if the writer thought them?

I am simply writing as Marx would in his own defense.
No, you are espousing a common, seriously reductionist reading of Marx.

Secondly, and more importantly, you seem to be suggesting, without any but the baldest assertion, that the only way men can produce is out of a sense of competition, and further that such competition can only occur between two or more people.
No, that is the capitalist assertion. I assert, rather, that human nature includes various aggressive/destructive/competitive drives, and that any political theory that fails to take them into consideration is pathetically naive. Moreover, I supplied Freud (not to mention most other psychologist) as an authority, so I am mystified as to how this should be read as "without any but the baldest assertion."

I do not believe that competition is the only motivation to work. However, the capitalist argument against communism is seriously weakened when one points out that communism is perfectly capable of incorporating this motivation among others.

Albert Einstein produced revolutionary revisions in physics, but hardly out of a sense of competition with some "other";
Well, I am quite sure that his aggressive instincts were satisfied by tearing down the entire edifice of Newtonian physics.
his theories came out ahead of many of the tests that suggested there were problems with the Newtonian account that Einstein corrected.
On the contrary, his theories were developed specifically to explain experimental results that measured the speed of light as a constant.
Rather, he did it because he enjoyed his work in mathematics, and possibly for the esteem it might bring.
Ah! "Esteem." A critical good, and one that necessarily differentiates itself against the esteem accorded others. That is, an inherently competitive good.
The same thing is true every time I play Pole Position in single-player mode: I'm not competing against someone else, but only to perfect my own time and perhaps gain the esteem of vintage-video-game players.
Esteem counts.

And again, I never said you "must have competitiveness to do anything." I have merely been arguing that competitiveness is not absent in communist economies, and that you must therefore deal with it.

*snip*
I would respond in detail, but the Anarchist FAQ already does it for me:

What about the "Tragedy of the Commons"? Surely communal ownership will lead to overuse and environmental destruction? (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI6.html)

This FAQ outlines communal management, essentially subsistence economic theory. The theory is applied to the very relevant metaphor of sheep. but then related to the completely irrelevant topic of the environment. Mind you, in an anarchistic society, large scale economic co-ordination would be impossible (without protection of property rights) and thus the tragedy of the commons would not occur on a grand scale anywhere any more than it usually does in nature.



You set up democratic confederations to control the distribution of goods on a larger scale. I don't see your point. Just like in capitalism, socially-owned institutions would adjust production based on demand. If Good A is being overused, then you ration it by price (if it's a luxury item) or by head (if it's a needs item) and try to increase production to better meet demand.

Firstly, If you're talking communism here, you can't put a price on any thing. To allow money is to allow a market. To allow a market, is to begin the transference of goods from a needs basis to a wants basis for trade. As far as communism is concerned, if 1 man has luxury items, then the economy is doing impossibly well and everyone has access to this item. Secondly, democratic Confederations could work in a capitalist free market wherein the organisation would be rewarded for its co-ordination in cash. In a communist nation they would have to be govt co-ordinated, thus requirng a centralised system. Regardless of this, the numbers simply don't add up. regardless of what method of co-ordination you chose, the means would exceed that of the economy unless it was individually run by each citizen voluntarily at no cost (as in capitalism), which we have discussed- is practically unattainable in a communist economy.

Excellent framework. I'm adding that one to my mental list.

I was thinking of "socialist markets" as free-market systems with worker-run collectives setting prices, but here you have an effective way to extend accountability without leading to inequalities in services.

The only problem is the maintenance of private tyranny ("ownership"), but you can deal with that, too, by empowering the students and the teachers within a democratic structure.

Spoke too soon, check post #115

You measure economic strength in either the GDP or the PPP.
No, that's how capitalists measure economic strength. It entails a value judgment about what an economy "should" do, so it cannot be taken as a "given" of what an economy is.

Economics is all about maximisng efficiency, and not neccesarily social welfare.
No, capitalist economics is all about maximizing efficiency. Clearly, socialist economists would have different values.

Economic goals might include social aspects, but this is a result of third party influence only.
As is GDP. "The economy" in itself does not "want" anything. It has no "inherent" measure.

Nevertheless, economies are measured in $'s not welfare.
It should be obvious from the terms you use that this is nonsense. "Welfare" is a normative term. It means "goodness" or something to that effect. Now, capitalists assume that the welfare of an economy is measured in production dollars. Socialists assume that the welfare of the economy is measured according to other social values.

Irrespective of who sets the prices, the market is still a capitalist one.
No, it's not... unless this is some strange definition of "capitalist" that I have not encountered before.

However, the govt here subsidises the lost revenue from operating beyond the marginal benefits and costs of various businesses.
Who said anything about subsidies? About "operating beyond the marginal benefits and costs"? If a school cannot generate enough revenue (by attracting students) to maintain a profit margin, then it must close. That's what makes it competitive.

This kind of activity is fine, as long as the govt or the economy can make up the lost revenue
What lost revenue? Each firm is operating at a profit.

Remember that if the people were unwilling to pay the govt. set amount, then the govt. would drop the price.
Yes, but this is true of all socialist systems.

Likewise, in this system, if the poorest person could pay more, the price would go up.
Also true of all socialist systems.

You seem to be confusing the capitalist 'free market' with 'laissez faire' market economics.
No, you seem to be confusing the concept of a "market" with the concept of "capitalism."

All that is happening with the belgian education system is that the govt(a rich economic entity) is operating a school (essentially a business) at a negative profit margin.
Nope, that's what you are for some strange reason assuming. The whole point of the system is that if a school cannot run at a profit, it is forced to close.

Wrong again.
Any market: Demand= Supply/Price or Price=Supply/Demand
Yes, that relation holds.

However, what you are neglecting is the actual calculation of what the demand is. If there are a million people who want a product, but they do not have the money to afford it, then they have no demand for it. Thus, real demand in a capitalist system depends on the number of people who want something... and who have the money to pay for it. The market socialist response is to change the equation so that everyone has the same money to pay... so that now demand is composed of all people who want the product, not just the wealthy people who want it.

To be entirely honest, 'Market socialism' isn't an existing economic term for any market format.
Sure it is. I'd give you references, but Google can easily do that job for you.
Neither is a 'mixed economy'.
You're closer to the mark on this one. There is no "format" for a "mixed" anything.

Both are different implementations of the free market (defining feature of capitalist economic theory).
No, the defining feature of capitalist economic theory is a private relation to the means of production, coupled with private decisions regarding selling prices of goods and labor.

Monopolies are perfectly capitalist, after all.

-snip-
No, the defining feature of capitalist economic theory is a private relation to the means of production, coupled with private decisions regarding selling prices of goods and labor.
-snip-


Capitalism is where everyone has more through trade in a free market, via specialising in areas of comparitive advantage (thus creating a lower oppurtunity cost specifically for you in the production of of you good and/or service, according to the advantages you may have) then trading the product of your work to end up with more than you would otherwise have had. Likewise, the person you traded with is also better off for the same reason. means of production is irrelevant, as long as your good at what you do. The key part is private trade. Only the market has to be private to constitute a capitalism.

Economics is the study of the production and flow of goods and services within and between economic systems. So no, *social* welfare is not directly important when it comes to measuring economic success. You do not measure economic performance on how healthy or educated the population is. While they are contributing factors, they are not the subject of inquiry in terms of an assessment of a quantitative measure of a nations production, net worth, consumption, and any other manipulation of goods and services. It is important to be educated, but it is not economically relevant.

I would love to continue, but for the most part you are simply contradicting mainstream textbook economic theory (not ness. capitalist either) with "no it isn't" and simple reversals. That, and I have to get ready for work.

Perhaps you should re-read the earlier manuscripts. Marx's concept of "species-being" entails the understanding that we are NOT what we make; this being, in fact, the distinctive characteristic of human beings. We discover ourselves in expressions of free will, one of which is the decision of how to use our own labor. But he refers just as eloquently to the joint expression of ourselves and our humanity as we read in solitude.

Sort of; I was being a bit sloppy with my language, so I was unclear.

However, the correct way of saying it would be not "one of which", but rather "the primary method". He definately speaks of the value and humanity of knowledge acquisition and reason, but this is not what distinguishes us. Rather, it is the ability to use this knowledge acquisition and reason to produce goods in varying circumstances that distinguishes us; a badger can produce things like a burrow, certainly, but they cannot change their method of production if they were to live on a giant rock. Humans can, because they can use their reason to invent shovels and picks, and can change their method of digging from shovels to picks depending on circumstance.


The danger, for Marx, is that we alienate ourselves in the product of our labor: we become laborers subservient to the object, rather than workers who create objects to serve our own human ends.

No dispute here, but you neglect to mention that such a sense of alienation only occurs in certain modes of production. We would never become subservient to or fetishize our labor in a communist system.


Read his essay on "Alienated Labor." You are referring to only one form of alienation under capitalism, namely alienation from the product of my labor. Read carefully, however, I am already alienated from myself in the product, because I am not "man" I am merely "laborer," the servant to the object.

Yes, I know about all four forms of alienation. Honestly, you don't need to patronize me. I'm narrowing the scope of my discussion for two very basic reasons: 1) I don't want to get into an overly elaborate and technical breakdown of Marx's concept of alienation when a simpler system serves just as well, and 2) I don't have the books with me, so I wouldn't be able to offer the point-by-point analysis required of such a breakdown even if I wanted to.


Yes, and I'm not really a communist. But for the purposes of the discussion, isn't it just easier to attribute thoughts as if the writer thought them?

As this is a side point at best, perhaps it's better if we leave out such attributions altogether.


No, you are espousing a common, seriously reductionist reading of Marx.


I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean. In what way is my analysis "seriously reductionist"? Generally speaking, given that one of the main historical problems with Marx is the attribution to him of beliefs and words he never held or spoke, I would think it is a virtue to offer a reductionist account of Marx. What do you mean when you say "reductionist", and why is it vicious in this instance?


No, that is the capitalist assertion. I assert, rather, that human nature includes various aggressive/destructive/competitive drives, and that any political theory that fails to take them into consideration is pathetically naive. Moreover, I supplied Freud (not to mention most other psychologist) as an authority, so I am mystified as to how this should be read as "without any but the baldest assertion."

Perhaps in a prior post. IIRC, you point-blank stated that my statement was self-contradictory and naive without explaining the Freudian middle term. That being said, you seem to ignore the fact that Marx does account for these competitive drives; that is in fact the purpose behind our discussing fetishism and alienation (the reason for competitive drives in capitalism), and the return to a natural understanding of the relationship between men and labor in communism. Even further, I'm not sure why of all psychologists you would use Freud as an expert, as Freud is highly discredited within the psychological community in part because his theory had little empirical base (he for instance based his notion of maternal dominance and castration anxiety on the works of Shakespeare and Goethe), and also in part because what base he has cannot reasonably be verified empirically.


I do not believe that competition is the only motivation to work. However, the capitalist argument against communism is seriously weakened when one points out that communism is perfectly capable of incorporating this motivation among others.

I don't dispute this. But it is still necessary to point out that this isn't the primary rationale for why men produce goods and engage in labor in any but capitalist society.


Well, I am quite sure that his aggressive instincts were satisfied by tearing down the entire edifice of Newtonian physics.

On the contrary, his theories were developed specifically to explain experimental results that measured the speed of light as a constant.


I was referring more to black holes and the curvature of space, but yes, you are correct that the Michelson-Morley experiment happened rougly 20 years prior to Einstein.


Ah! "Esteem." A critical good, and one that necessarily differentiates itself against the esteem accorded others. That is, an inherently competitive good.

Esteem counts.

And again, I never said you "must have competitiveness to do anything." I have merely been arguing that competitiveness is not absent in communist economies, and that you must therefore deal with it.

Esteem is not an inherently competitive good. Achilles highly esteemed Odysseus, but not out of a sense of competition. Rather, it was because both Achilles and Odysseus realized that each possessed an unmitigated good that the other lacked: Achilles was an unparraleled warrior, while Odysseus was the shrewdest strategist in the Greek army. Apparently, you are confusing competition with comparison, as it is undoubtedly true that Achilles, in order to esteem Odysseus, must have first said "Gee, that man can make plans much better than I can", but it does not follow that from that he said "I must compete with him for preeminence in the Greek army, preeminence in strategic planning, preeminence in martial combat, etc."

As for the second part, if that is what you are saying, then yes, it is true, but trivially so, and in a way that Marxism can account for. Marx never said there was anything anticommunist about two shirt-makers, for instance, that compete with each other for the esteem of the community and title as "best shirt-maker" in the community. He only seems to imply that such a competition would be collaborative as much as competitive, and that such competition would never come at the expense of the community or that such competition would become all-consuming.

Capitalism is where everyone has more through trade in a free market, via specialising in areas of comparitive advantage (thus creating a lower oppurtunity cost specifically for you in the production of of you good and/or service, according to the advantages you may have) then trading the product of your work to end up with more than you would otherwise have had. Likewise, the person you traded with is also better off for the same reason. means of production is irrelevant, as long as your good at what you do. The key part is private trade. Only the market has to be private to constitute a capitalism.

Wrong. Capitalism is the private ownership - and thus the private management - of the means of production. Capitalism can involve a free market, but it doesn't have to. An aggressive monopoly that forcibly annihilates competitors is "capitalist."

You most definitely can have a free market without private ownership of the means of production, and that would not be capitalism at all.

A good deal of the right-wing attacks on socialism miss the "ownership" aspect for the "market" aspect, and thus often end up constructing a straw man.

There have been several posters and threads lately that have debated the idea of communism. However, not a single one has refuted the following claim as to why communism cannot work. So I thought I'd start a thread to allow those who believe in communism to give it their best shot.

The death of communism is in it's fundamental tenant: From each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs.

"Needs" are not the same thing as "wants." However, most supporters of communism seem to equate them. They are not the same as shown by the following:
I need a car to go to work, I want a BMW;
I need a place to live, I want a 4,000 sq. ft. mansion;
I need $1.00/liter vodka to get drunk, I want $20.00/oz. 15 year old, single malt scotch;
I need ground beef to eat, I want prime rib; etc. you should have the idea by now.

communism assumes that I will voluntarily give up my wants in order to satisfy some unknown, 3rd party's needs, sorry, but I won't and most people are with me on this. This leads to the next point the dooms communism to the scrap pile. Most people are selfish and won't voluntarily give up for the common good what they feel they have earned by their hard work until they reach the point that they have enough money and resources at their disposal that any more would be pointless. Few, if any people, ever reach that plateau (I don't see Bill Gates giving up any significant portion of his $45 Billion+ to rescue anyone, let alone a group of any kind). Further, when you try and use the government to force people to give up their hard earned $ to help others, you only breed resentment in those people who have been coerced into giving. Also, those in charge of ensuring that wealth is equally distributed tend to fall prey to the "power corrupts" paradigm and start to take care of themselves and their families and ensure their continued power prior to making any distribution to anyone else and then they resist anything that would take their power and wealth away, something that as advocates of communism they shouldn't have anyway and should certainly be willing to give up. In short, you end up with an Animal Farm situation where everyone is equal, but pigs are more equal.

Communism could work if every participant in the system was voluntarily there, but the minute you force people into it, you lose. To believe that any significant population would voluntarily assent to a communist government is naive IMHO for the foregoing reasons.

OK, let the discussions begin.
:fluffle: Correct you are!
Also, in a communist state everyone receives equal pay right? So...whats the difference in being a ditch diger and a doctor? Theres no reason to strive for better, because nothing will happen. Poeple would lack the will to make things happen, because they have no reward, and people are GREEDY.

This FAQ outlines communal management, essentially subsistence economic theory. The theory is applied to the very relevant metaphor of sheep. but then related to the completely irrelevant topic of the environment. Mind you, in an anarchistic society, large scale economic co-ordination would be impossible (without protection of property rights) and thus the tragedy of the commons would not occur on a grand scale anywhere any more than it usually does in nature.

The important difference is between collective democratic management and individual management.

Essentially, the problem is equivalent to the famous example of the Prisoner's Dilemma, except with more participants. When you have individual actors, each pursuing their own maximum rational self-interest, and common ownership, that is, the socialization of costs, in every given circumstance each actor will betray everyone else for his own benefit. Yet what this really represents is not socialism or communism, but capitalism. The "individual actors" are private corporations; the "commons" are the various externalities not added to the cost of the product, such as environmental degradation.

Yet the Prisoner's Dilemma is not a dilemma at all if both prisoners agree beforehand not to betray the other, an option preferable to both prisoners than both betraying the other. Similarly, the "tragedy of the commons" doesn't apply when the choice becomes collective - when the community as a whole decides whether everyone should ration, or everyone should indulge.

Firstly, If you're talking communism here, you can't put a price on any thing. To allow money is to allow a market. To allow a market, is to begin the transference of goods from a needs basis to a wants basis for trade.

Markets are just methods of distribution. It's child's play to make a market distinguish between "needs" and "wants" - have two currencies, one which buys necessities, the other luxuries. Allocate the former to everyone according to how much they need, allocate the latter through some other method, depending on what sort of incentives the system uses. In essence, this is how the Belgian education example works, except no one considers students to be a currency.

Secondly, democratic Confederations could work in a capitalist free market wherein the organisation would be rewarded for its co-ordination in cash. In a communist nation they would have to be govt co-ordinated, thus requirng a centralised system.

No, they would be formed through democratic means. Community A would vote to associate and trade with Community B. Or you could just have the structure existing from the start, but with power concentrated on the most direct democratic level, instead of at the centralized state one, as currently exists.

Regardless of this, the numbers simply don't add up. regardless of what method of co-ordination you chose, the means would exceed that of the economy unless it was individually run by each citizen voluntarily at no cost (as in capitalism), which we have discussed- is practically unattainable in a communist economy.

Look. No one tells Carlos to go to the store and get groceries. He does it of his own accord, capitalist or communist. No one tells Aisha to become an industrial worker. She does it of her own accord, capitalist or communist. The democratic institutions running the economy - worker's councils and collectives constituting the entire adult population, in my preference - do exactly what capitalists already do in our economy - they respond to those choices, and plan accordingly.

Sort of; I was being a bit sloppy with my language, so I was unclear.
It happens.

However, the correct way of saying it would be not "one of which", but rather "the primary method".
No. Marx is quite clear on the fact that our humanity is expressed equally well in our enjoyments as in our works. The problem with capitalism is that it forces such a sharp divide between the two.

He definately speaks of the value and humanity of knowledge acquisition and reason, but this is not what distinguishes us. Rather, it is the ability to use this knowledge acquisition and reason to produce goods in varying circumstances that distinguishes us; a badger can produce things like a burrow, certainly, but they cannot change their method of production if they were to live on a giant rock. Humans can, because they can use their reason to invent shovels and picks, and can change their method of digging from shovels to picks depending on circumstance.
It is the fact of free will and species-being knowledge that distinguishes us. Our ability to labor adaptively is merely evidence of this greater distinction.
No dispute here, but you neglect to mention that such a sense of alienation only occurs in certain modes of production. We would never become subservient to or fetishize our labor in a communist system.
I thought that I had intimated this fact with the words "the danger, for Marx," implying that alienation of self in the product is a problem to be overcome rather than a fact of labor itself. I apologize if I was unclear.

Yes, I know about all four forms of alienation. Honestly, you don't need to patronize me.
I didn't mean to patronize you. But to "narrow the scope of [your] discussion" when it comes to Marx's concept of alienation is, almost by definition, to treat him in a reductionist fashion. His philosophy of alienation is nothing unless taken as a whole.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean. In what way is my analysis "seriously reductionist"?
You insist that for Marx, "we are what we do/make." This is only true within the capitalist system that alienates the self in the product of labor. He envisions a communist system in which the self/species-being transcends its immediate product. While the alienation of the self in the product of labor is a very important critique of the "self" under capitalism, it is not an ontological statement on human nature. To treat it as such reduces Marx to saying that we should ennoble labor, because labor is all that we are. On the contrary, Marx believed that labor would be ennobled by turning it into work, a human process that encompasses both ends and means, both of which are subordinate to the worker, who is ontologically prior to them. We are not defined by our work (except under capitalism). Ideally, we are the ones who give definition to our work.

Generally speaking, given that one of the main historical problems with Marx is the attribution to him of beliefs and words he never held or spoke, I would think it is a virtue to offer a reductionist account of Marx.

I'll give you that, at least insofar as it is better than attributing to him beliefs he did not even remotely espouse.

What do you mean when you say "reductionist", and why is it vicious in this instance?
I have explained what I mean by it. I never said it was "vicious," nor do I think it was: I think it was a well-meaning interpretation of his work, that happens to reduce him to ideas that are purely contingent on his criticisms of capitalism, but which do not accurately represent his speculative philosophy.

Perhaps in a prior post. IIRC, you point-blank stated that my statement was self-contradictory and naive without explaining the Freudian middle term.
Perhaps it was in a prior post. Forgive me if I assume that my respondents have read the rest of the thread.

That being said, you seem to ignore the fact that Marx does account for these competitive drives; that is in fact the purpose behind our discussing fetishism and alienation (the reason for competitive drives in capitalism), and the return to a natural understanding of the relationship between men and labor in communism.

Yes, he "accounts" for them as due entirely to the capitalist mode of production. This is his error: he does not treat them as biological/ontological aspects of human nature that are not due strictly to the economic system. They are inherent, and he does not recognize this.

He is not alone. Many of the more romantic philosophies of the nineteenth century believed that human nature is fundamentally malleable, to the point that nothing at all can be said about the biological basis of our drives.

Even further, I'm not sure why of all psychologists you would use Freud as an expert, as Freud is highly discredited within the psychological community in part because his theory had little empirical base (he for instance based his notion of maternal dominance and castration anxiety on the works of Shakespeare and Goethe), and also in part because what base he has cannot reasonably be verified empirically.

1) Freud is an exemplar, as the first scientist to really grasp the fact that the human psyche is an expression of human biological drives. Whatever else psychologists may reject in Freud, few (if any) would still combat this point.

2) Freud is much less "discredited" than you seem to think--but this is a common opinion. I will spare you the full history of the treatment of psychoanalysis in the broader (American) psychological tradition. Suffice it to say that my father is a practicing clinical psychologist with a Ph.D. in a cognitive/behavioral school of thought and no training in psychoanalysis... who has related to me that a) psychoanalytic theories have recently been subjected to successful empirical tests; b) psychoanalytic practitioners are as successful clinically as other clinicians; and c) he has recently hired a Lacanian psychoanalyst as his assistant, to fill a hole in the practice. More broadly, psychoanalysis has enjoyed a fruitful history since the days of Freud.

I don't dispute this. But it is still necessary to point out that this isn't the primary rationale for why men produce goods and engage in labor in any but capitalist society.
I never sait it was. Again, my argument has had two prongs:

1) Capitalists are wrong to criticize communism for cutting off avenues of human competitiveness: it is perfectly capable of providing many such outlets without using money or material goods as one of them.

2) Communists should not be so naive as to think that aggression and competition are inherently products of capitalist production (as Marx did), but should admit that these aspects of human nature will not simply "disappear" after the communist revolution. Even communist society will have to deal with them.

I was referring more to black holes and the curvature of space,
These are verifications of relativistic theory: thus, non sequitur.

but yes, you are correct that the Michelson-Morley experiment happened rougly 20 years prior to Einstein.
Precisely. More to the point, there were competing theories, e.g. "aether."

Esteem is not an inherently competitive good.
Yes, it is. If I give everyone equal esteem, my esteem is worthless to all of them. The whole point of desiring "esteem" is that one wishes to be regarded as "better than others."

Achilles highly esteemed Odysseus, but not out of a sense of competition.
The competition arises in the seeking of esteem, not in the granting of it. Thus, the remainder of your explanation is a non sequitur. Yes, people grant esteem for non-competive reasons. But seeking esteem is always competitive, by definition.

Marx never said there was anything anticommunist about two shirt-makers, for instance, that compete with each other for the esteem of the community and title as "best shirt-maker" in the community. He only seems to imply that such a competition would be collaborative as much as competitive, and that such competition would never come at the expense of the community or that such competition would become all-consuming.

Correct. But it is precisely in this that he is naive: one should not expect competitiveness to "behave itself" without institutions designed to contain/constrain/channel/sublimate it.

Democracy is safe enough to ensure communist candidates will pretty much never win an outright majority or enough to destroy capitalism. heck old labour struggle to even reform capitalism. But if communists do seek to win power, as long as they don't seek to ban non communist parties, or the right to flee the country after the communist party gets elected I'm happy for them to keep trying.

The fact America has a constitution with rights that would need to be changed to allow communism, kinda ensures revolution is the only way communists could achieve power, as far as I was aware fundamentalists were still mostly revolutionary.The Anerican Constitution says nothing about whether or not there is a right to secession; the fact that the South tried to secede through violent means does not preclude the possibility of seceding via democratic means. So it is entirely possible to establish a communist state/society/community via democratic means.