NationStates Jolt Archive

I was playing CoD 4 on my PS3 as Spetsnaz fighting for the motherland and the workers and what not I got to thinking. Communism is all about "to all according to their need". The next gen systems aren't exactly needs, just really shiny and fun, making it feel like a need. Further their is no competition in Communism, which of course stifles the incentive for innovation, likely no one would bother developing the technology for a PS3. So I'm curious, especially to hear from the communists here about what their take is.

No... in a comuunist society people are too busy working to have fun... at least in a capitolist society where plenty of people don't have jobs... they have tme for fun!

once needs are fulfilled, entertainment is in pretty high demand. seems to me more than plausible that freeing up the creative abilities of the entire population is going to lead to some rather excellent innovation in that regard.

Heh. I'd kinda like to see a commie gaming console. :p

Of course they would! Under Communism, everyone gets whatever they want.

Even Ponies! YAY PONIES!

Of course they would! Under Communism, everyone gets whatever they want.

Even Ponies! YAY PONIES!

To bad you would have to eat your pony while waiting in that bread line for days on end.

Well, maybe in the far future when some sort of high-tech distraction is needed to help the workers forget about their dull and dreary existence, the PS3 or the 360 (or an equivelant) would be developed.

This is all assuming society hasn't already been crushed by the weight of its own despair.

Heh. I'd kinda like to see a commie gaming console. :p

Got to wonder what type of game titles they would have.

Of course not. They'd have something better; they'd have the Wii.

To bad you would have to eat your pony while waiting in that bread line for days on end.

But I already named mine. We call him Scrufflemuffins.

Got to wonder what type of game titles they would have.

Virtual Marching?
Lenin Cadets?

I dunno. :p

I was playing CoD 4 on my PS3 as Spetsnaz fighting for the motherland and the workers and what not I got to thinking. Communism is all about "to all according to their need". The next gen systems aren't exactly needs, just really shiny and fun, making it feel like a need. Further their is no competition in Communism, which of course stifles the incentive for innovation, likely no one would bother developing the technology for a PS3. So I'm curious, especially to hear from the communists here about what their take is.

Opera, ballet and Tchaikovsky aren't exactly "needed" but they still flourished, somewhat, in Soviet Russia. Assuming a resource boom at some point of time, maybe, if only to keep the populace from being too discontent.

Of course not. They'd have something better; they'd have the Wii.

Maybe in a communist society third-parties would actually make good games for it too :eek:

Can't wait for SimSocialism! :D

or

Virtual Commune

Well, the Communists DID produce Tetris...

I was playing CoD 4 on my PS3 as Spetsnaz fighting for the motherland and the workers and what not I got to thinking. Communism is all about "to all according to their need". The next gen systems aren't exactly needs, just really shiny and fun, making it feel like a need. Further their is no competition in Communism, which of course stifles the incentive for innovation, likely no one would bother developing the technology for a PS3. So I'm curious, especially to hear from the communists here about what their take is.

Who said there is no competition in communism? And.. leisure is a need.

There really is no good reason why we shouldn't have a technological communism. It's easy to pretend that communism is somehow intrinsically backwards, that was certainly the way the old american propaganda cartoons used to portray it... but I hope we are a little more savvy, a little more realistic, and a little more.. well, grown up about it now.

The Russians beat the Americans into space. They beat the Americans to pieces, in fact.... the US had almost no success against the communist technology for something like a decade - and it took a massive effort on the part of the government, and a ridiculously huge amount of spending, to get to that point. Communism isn't intrinsically opposed to technology or progress.

Basically, so long as there was a demand for it, and people were interested in following a passion to create these platforms (for some reason other than 'getting rich', which is the main capitalist incentive), there is no good reason why communisms wouldn't be more than capable of creating platforms at least the equal of the current gen - plus, they wouldn't have to hold back technology the way big companies do now to maximise profits on a given line or gen.

once needs are fulfilled, entertainment is in pretty high demand. seems to me more than plausible that freeing up the creative abilities of the entire population is going to lead to some rather excellent innovation in that regard.

Ooh, like in... north korea! !

Like in... the USSR!

!!!

Well, the Communists DID produce Tetris...

All communism did was make sure that he didn't get any money for it. And now he makes puzzle games for XBLA.

EDIT: Turns out he left Microsoft two years ago, and is now working with WildSnake Software.

Ooh, like in... north korea! !

Like in... the USSR!

!!!

Yes!

And capitalism! democracy! being a christian nation!! and free and fair elections fail (!!!) also because Zambia is so poor!

!

Absolutely not. Outside of a specific group of military applications, the Communist world was massively backward when compared to the West. The second you crossed from the military to civilian production, you moved from near parity to literally years or even decades behind. Virtually all of the USSR's modern technology (perhaps with the exception of some East German products) was imported from the West and was often little more than mediocre reverse-engineered ripoffs that were at least a good product cycle or two behind the stuff in use in the West.

I mean, getting in to space first is great and all, but it doesn't mean anything if the technology involved has no benefit for the people financing it. Unlike NASA, the Soviet space program produced little or no meaningful technological advancement for the civilian economy of the Soviet Union. They may have had the edge in the Space Race, but the US could have run circles around them had we devoted the resources they did towards the program.

Absolutely not. Outside of a specific group of military applications, the Communist world was massively backward when compared to the West. The second you crossed from the military to civilian production, you moved from near parity to literally years or even decades behind. Virtually all of the USSR's modern technology (perhaps with the exception of some East German products) was imported from the West and was often little more than mediocre reverse-engineered ripoffs that were at least a good product cycle or two behind the stuff in use in the West.

I mean, getting in to space first is great and all, but it doesn't mean anything if the technology involved has no benefit for the people financing it. Unlike NASA, the Soviet space program produced little or no meaningful technological advancement for the civilian economy of the Soviet Union. They may have had the edge in the Space Race, but the US could have run circles around them had we devoted the resources they did towards the program.

It could be easily argued that satelitte tv, etc, wouldn't even exist without the pioneer work of the soviet union. It could be argued that the soviet achievements stretch at least a little further than you suggest, based on nothing more than the fact that we are looking like being dependent on Russian technology in just a few short years when our product lifecycle expires on the shuttle program.

I wonder what you mean by meaningful technology... mattresses made of 'space age' material?

It's funny that your argument against the achievements of the USSR seems to be that they worked harder at it, focused more resources on it. Isn't that exactly what the US did in the wake of Sputnik... with the massive investment in rapid-fix technology education? Is it a bad thing that the USSR invested heavily in technology? Isn't that kind of the point of this debate - communisms CAN be technologically advanced (even more advanced than their non-communist counterparts... even a corrupt version of the model, like the USSR) if they just put the effort in?

Aren't you basically admitting that, yes, a communism could easily have just the kind of tech we are talking about, if they chose to do so?

Of course not. They'd have something better; they'd have the Wii.

Damn straight =P
Unfortunately, the PS3 is still more likely under communism than a Wii because in communism products are generally made with the bare minimum effort (PS3 is just a flashy CPU and graphics card, Wii is a whole new way to interact with games) and communism also lacks competition (compared to Nintendo and Microsoft one could argue Sony doesn't even seem to be trying to compete).
But at the same time communism is also about need, and people need something that focuses on what's made to do more than they need a $400+ box that just sits around and looks pretty. And in that respect, the Wii is more likely to be around than a PS3.

Got to wonder what type of game titles they would have.

Super Trotsky brothers?

It could be easily argued that satelitte tv, etc, wouldn't even exist without the pioneer work of the soviet union. It could be argued that the soviet achievements stretch at least a little further than you suggest, based on nothing more than the fact that we are looking like being dependent on Russian technology in just a few short years when our product lifecycle expires on the shuttle program.

This is true. Of course, it was private firms that ultimately developed the applications of that technology and made it the revolutionary discovery it is now rightfully regarded as.

The Soviets excelled at basic research, like any public institution, but were ultimately unable to deal with the applications.

I wonder what you mean by meaningful technology... mattresses made of 'space age' material?

Well, among other things, advances in solar power technology, jet propulsion systems, fuels, various advanced structural composites, supercomputers and their programming, and of course Tang.

It's funny that your argument against the achievements of the USSR seems to be that they worked harder at it, focused more resources on it. Isn't that exactly what the US did in the wake of Sputnik... with the massive investment in rapid-fix technology education? Is it a bad thing that the USSR invested heavily in technology? Isn't that kind of the point of this debate - communisms CAN be technologically advanced (even more advanced than their non-communist counterparts... even a corrupt version of the model, like the USSR) if they just put the effort in?

It wasn't so much that they invested in it, but rather that their investment harmed them rather than helped. Ultimately, the Space Race didn't benefit the USSR in the slightest; once the strategic uses of space were neutralized through arms-control agreements, they were more or less helpless as the free market economies were capable of using their basic research to dominate the economic aspect of space technology, leaving the USSR extremely valuable as a scientific research partner but ultimately left holding all the bills and none of the benefit from that research.

Aren't you basically admitting that, yes, a communism could easily have just the kind of tech we are talking about, if they chose to do so?

Yes and no. Just because everybody's working collectively doesn't bar technological advancement in and of itself...it's the bureaucrats and the people who attempt to use ideology in places it doesn't belong that do, and that's the same in pretty much any system. The free market just happens to be better at circumventing these problems, so it has had a consistent edge in technological advancement over the alternatives.

Super Trotsky brothers?

Already done. You just don't know it yet.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/mariocommunist

:p

Yes and no. Just because everybody's working collectively doesn't bar technological advancement in and of itself...it's the bureaucrats and the people who attempt to use ideology in places it doesn't belong that do, and that's the same in pretty much any system. The free market just happens to be better at circumventing these problems, so it has had a consistent edge in technological advancement over the alternatives.

You are comparing authoritarian (even despotic?) versions of communism, with pro-consumerist (mainly the US, let's be honest) versions of capitalism, conflating consumerism and capitalism with free market, somehow assuming (seemingly) that only communists allow ideology to interfere with progress (stemcells, anyone).

No one will deny that competition has an ability to stimulate growth. The problem is that growth is also destructive to competition... and every innovation rapidly turns into stagnation (lack of non-carbon-fuel alternatives is a classic example). That's the big advantage of a different kind of reward system - where it doesn't pay to sit on progress. As ironic as it may seem, that's what communism has to offer.

Damn straight =P
Unfortunately, the PS3 is still more likely under communism than a Wii because in communism products are generally made with the bare minimum effort (PS3 is just a flashy CPU and graphics card, Wii is a whole new way to interact with games) and communism also lacks competition (compared to Nintendo and Microsoft one could argue Sony doesn't even seem to be trying to compete).
But at the same time communism is also about need, and people need something that focuses on what's made to do more than they need a $400+ box that just sits around and looks pretty. And in that respect, the Wii is more likely to be around than a PS3.

You are an utter, utter loser. This is supposed to be a serious, sensible conversation and all you can do is show blind, immature and irrational fanboyism. Its hardly even fanboyism, you're not saying anything is good you're just Sony-bashing. In a political thread no less. Its pathetic, GTFO FFS.

How can you have time to play consoles when you're busy having another worker revolution every couple years?

Super Trotsky brothers?

Super Marx Bros!

Groucho and Harpo battle the evil King Capital!!!

To save Princess Proletariat!!!

Possible? Yes.

I'm not sure they would play anything close to the role they play in today's society, though... part of the appeal of communism to me is an existence where we won't need video games and the like to be content.

Under communism this is what we would be using today.

http://www.csdm.qc.ca/pec/codes/atari2600.jpg

Possible? Yes.

I'm not sure they would play anything close to the role they play in today's society, though... part of the appeal of communism to me is an existence where we won't need video games and the like to be content.

Yes, all you would need is your government telling you to be content.

Under communism this is what we would be using today.

http://www.csdm.qc.ca/pec/codes/atari2600.jpg

I would. If my old VCS still worked, I'd totally still be using it. I even bought the little atari tv-plug-in games so I could still play Adventure.

I wonder why you think we'd be using the old VCS consoles, though... do you have so little faith in human ingenuity (curiousity, even, maybe?) that you don't think consoles would still advance without the prospect of someone making a killing?

(I'm thinking about this actually... it seems that almost all the real progress in the computer-ish industry is made by people pottering around in their sheds, workshops, dorms, etc. Consoles and other computer tech might be even more likely to progress just on the fanboy geekdrive than any other industry.

I somehow doubt that games produced in People's Sodomkov Memorial Video Game Factory #14 would be all that fun.

Recall, communism - the most wicked and depraved system of government so far devised - involves outlawing freedom of conscience and expression.

Yes, all you would need is your government telling you to be content.

That makes no sense. I think you watch too many Red Terror era cartoons.

That kind of propaganda bullshit was no more specific to communism than it was to capitalism. Authoritarian rule is no more intrinsically linked to communism than to capitalism. Mind-control, propaganda, etc... are no more intrinsic to communism than to capitalism.

It always amused me (and depressed me, I guess...) how Americans were 'warned' about the dangers of Soviet propaganda... through a system of propaganda. It's a little sad that people still fall into the same old traps.

Of course, if such a system was somehow miraculously devised, the dictator would no doubt suppress any civilian use and have his secret police exploit it for whatever use it could have in interrogation and torture. No doubt they'd have some use in a gulag or something

Because communism is evil, dastardly, mean and totally not nice. Boo. Hiss.

Am I doing NSG right?

I would. If my old VCS still worked, I'd totally still be using it. I even bought the little atari tv-plug-in games so I could still play Adventure.

I wonder why you think we'd be using the old VCS consoles, though... do you have so little faith in human ingenuity (curiousity, even, maybe?) that you don't think consoles would still advance without the prospect of someone making a killing?

(I'm thinking about this actually... it seems that almost all the real progress in the computer-ish industry is made by people pottering around in their sheds, workshops, dorms, etc. Consoles and other computer tech might be even more likely to progress just on the fanboy geekdrive than any other industry.

Because if communism is about everyone being equal, and if everyone is equal, then why bother? I mean it's not like you're going to be a house hold name, hell there's not going to be that much competition, so where's the drive to make the next greatest and latest thing? To simply have the best? HA, the government will take it away from you, make copies of it so that everyone can have it. Kinda soul crushing if you ask me.

Yes, people do create the latest and best things in capitalist society for the money, but at least they're doing it.

I somehow doubt that games produced in People's Sodomkov Memorial Video Game Factory #14 would be all that fun.

Recall, communism - the most wicked and depraved system of government so far devised - involves outlawing freedom of conscience and expression.

No it doesn't.

Even by NS standards, that's one of the dumbest posts I've encountered...

I was going to make a joke...but now I've completely forgotten it. DAMN YOU JOLT AND YOUR DATABASE ERRORS!

Under communism this is what we would be using today.

http://www.csdm.qc.ca/pec/codes/atari2600.jpg

You can do worse than the 2600... I mean it's got a wood finish!

Give'n enough time probably, but it would take quite a long time. Tech and advancements dont come to quickly to the communist governments after all.

Authoritarian rule is no more intrinsically linked to communism than to capitalism.


This is absurd and divorced from reality.

Communism requires authoritarian rule -> communism requires that the property of every be stolen by force and then given away to others. Authoritarian violence, or, as communists call it, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" is the basis of communist society. Capitalism can be run either with or without authoritarian rule, communism cannot.

As to your second point, where you vainly and ignorantly bandy around the word 'dumb,' I ask you to find me a single communist government that permits its subjects to criticize it vehemently, call for its reform or replacement with a different system, or speak and publish freely on any topic their conscience desires.

The communist world is dotted with prisons where they chain, torture, work to death or otherwise slaughter people who dare to have a conscience or speak their minds.

Only two people could afford it, and neither would be interested.

do you have so little faith in human ingenuity (curiousity, even, maybe?) that you don't think consoles would still advance without the prospect of someone making a killing?

There problem is not with lack of creativity and advancement, but with implementation. Why introduce the new console if the people are content with the old one? It costs a lot.

Of course not. They'd have something better; they'd have the Wii.

When I heard about Wii-Fit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_Fit) for the first time it made me think of Winston Smith doing aerobics infront on his telescreen in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Obviously Nintendo will take over world and the rest of human history just consist of newer and newer iterations of Mario, Metroid, Zelda et al inbetween bouts of Wii fit so we don't get too out of shape. ;)


Am I doing NSG right?

More...

:sniper:
:mp5:
:gundge:

Don't feel restricted to just the one, the more the merrier :)

I mean it's not like you're going to be a house hold name

Why not?

i think the question becomes, if you could create and explore in REAL life, if everyone were doing so, and no one had to feel uncomfortable or awkward about it, why, precisely would you WANT a dedicated game machine you couldn't create YOUR OWN imaginary worlds on?

in cameroi, where ALL idiologies (and idological fanatacisms) are blythly ignored, you could certainly get all the components, scematics and the loan of a laser soldering pencil and workspace (though you'd probably have the last two of your own anyway) at the nearest local craftufacturing center. (your own village's almost certainly)

=^^=
.../\...

This is one of the strangest threads I've ever seen.

Grand Theft Tractor: St Petersburg is one of my favourite games.

*Something about capitalism and its ability to create a need for personal escapism, and how people wouldn't need that in a "communist" society*

Of course they would. A game system like that costs little to produce, and I can't imagine a better propaganda machine than 'Super Maxio' or 'Mega Man of the People'. Halo games would star Commisar Chief, and instill a sense of pride in the nation's millitary the same way Call of Duty and other titles do in America.

How about "Return to Castle Hentai" :)

It would be open source games (i.e. mostly crap compared today). But then again, everyone would be too poor to afford a computer, so no one would be making any open source games anyway.

Tetris was created under communism. So far it's the only thing they have contributed.

. Communism is all about "to all according to their need".

You're looking at it the wrong way. I don't technically need to live. You're taking "need" to literally.

Under communism this is what we would be using today.

http://www.csdm.qc.ca/pec/codes/atari2600.jpg

That beats a PS3 in my mind. Atari rocks!

Got to wonder what type of game titles they would have.

Tetris :D

Why not?

Because everyone is 'equal' in Communism, you can't be special because if you are special then you're not equal to everyone else and they can't have that.

Damn straight =P
Unfortunately, the PS3 is still more likely under communism than a Wii because in communism products are generally made with the bare minimum effort (PS3 is just a flashy CPU and graphics card, Wii is a whole new way to interact with games) and communism also lacks competition (compared to Nintendo and Microsoft one could argue Sony doesn't even seem to be trying to compete).
But at the same time communism is also about need, and people need something that focuses on what's made to do more than they need a $400+ box that just sits around and looks pretty. And in that respect, the Wii is more likely to be around than a PS3.

Nonono. Communism would produce the better quality Wii because it produces better quality stuff.

This is one of the strangest threads I've ever seen.

thanks :)

I was playing CoD 4 on my PS3 as Spetsnaz fighting for the motherland and the workers and what not I got to thinking. Communism is all about "to all according to their need". The next gen systems aren't exactly needs, just really shiny and fun, making it feel like a need. Further their is no competition in Communism, which of course stifles the incentive for innovation, likely no one would bother developing the technology for a PS3. So I'm curious, especially to hear from the communists here about what their take is.

Religion and gaming consoles are the opiate of the masses :p

Because everyone is 'equal' in Communism, you can't be special because if you are special then you're not equal to everyone else and they can't have that.

incorrect. like obviously so, both on theoretical and crazed leninist grounds.

Nonono. Communism would produce the better quality Wii because it produces better quality stuff.

But the Wii doesn't produce anything, the joke about it printing money is just a joke :confused:

As for the games, third-parties are mostly using it as a quick cash-in, except for Capcom's support (RE4, Zack&Wiki, RE:UC, Okami) the system's basically riding Nintendo's games like every generation.

Maybe we should clarify what kind of communism. Marxist paradise communism? Or Stalin, Mao communism?

Virtual Marching?
Lenin Cadets?

I dunno. :p

Comrade Mario's Party
CoD: The Great Patriotic War
Breadline Dash
Communist Hero
KGB: Moscow (instead of GTA)

Maybe we should clarify what kind of communism. Marxist paradise communism? Or Stalin, Mao communism?

we can be fairly sure that early christian death-cult communism would not be in the lead on video game development

incorrect. like obviously so, both on theoretical and crazed leninist grounds.
Your being special just can't be expressed in material reality in any way whatsoever.

As for the OP, I don't think so. The sheer complexity of designing a machine that advanced requires huge numbers of people working towards this goal, giving up many things they might rather be doing at that point in time. So communism would firstly have the usual incentive problem, and secondly just not have the sorts of scale economies that are necessary to create something like a PS3. I think most reasonable commies accept that the system will be based around local communes, because you can't expect everyone to be feeling for their fellow man if he lives thousands of kilometres away.

I was playing CoD 4 on my PS3 as Spetsnaz fighting for the motherland and the workers and what not I got to thinking. Communism is all about "to all according to their need". The next gen systems aren't exactly needs, just really shiny and fun, making it feel like a need. Further their is no competition in Communism, which of course stifles the incentive for innovation, likely no one would bother developing the technology for a PS3. So I'm curious, especially to hear from the communists here about what their take is.

I'd like to think they had more important priorities than producing entertainment for the bourgeoisie.

But your comment on communist countries lacking technology for a PS3... sounds like cold war propoganda passed down by your parents.

I'm just guessing but a lot of components in that would be made in China... guess what China is.

Communism has nothing to do with hindering technology. Google or wikipedia the name "Yuri Gagarin"

I'm just guessing but a lot of components in that would be made in China... guess what China is.

Capitalist? In fact, the Chinese support the free market even more wholeheartedly than we do...

Well, the Communists DID produce Tetris...
If you think about it, I'm sure you can find some communist themes in there. All the different pieces working together towards a common goal, though some are far better at it than others.

Grand Theft Tractor: St Petersburg is one of my favourite games.
On that subject, stealing a combine harvester in GTA and driving off a cliff is great fun.

The video system would be subject to severe cost cutting and restricted to shades of red only! :p

Nonono. Communism would produce the better quality Wii because it produces better quality stuff.

But the Communists scarcely produced a single product capable of competing on the free-market global economy...well, except for perhaps raw materials. For some reason, playing with a gigantic rock of tungsten isn't exactly as fun as the PS3 or 360.

This is absurd and divorced from reality.

Communism requires authoritarian rule ->

I got that far, and could stomach no more.

Anarcho-communism, for example, instantly makes a lie of your inanity. If that's the best you've got, I'm losing nothing by ignoring the rest.

Fail.

There problem is not with lack of creativity and advancement, but with implementation. Why introduce the new console if the people are content with the old one? It costs a lot.

See the logical solution in your own question?

Why introduce the new console if the people are content with the old one?

You don't.

You introduce the new console when people are NOT content with the old one. It's really not that elusive an answer.

It would be open source games (i.e. mostly crap compared today). But then again, everyone would be too poor to afford a computer, so no one would be making any open source games anyway.

What a load of rubbish.

Being 'poor' is only relevent if there is an economy that allows for economic polarity. If you mean the whole nation would be poor... well, that rather depends on how it manages it's internal resources, and how it interacts with it's neighbours.

Much like any other state.

Communist games aren't that much fun, anyway. Here's the score of a Comrade Halo round:

Player 1: 5 points
Player 2: 5 points
Player 3: 5 points
Player 4: 5 points

Player 1 and Player 2 and Player 3 and Player 4 tie

Because everyone is 'equal' in Communism, you can't be special because if you are special then you're not equal to everyone else and they can't have that.

Not all communisms are equal.

But, that aside, if you actually had even the faintest clue about the subject you are pretending knowledge of, you'd be aware of the fact that you are pursuing a nonsense. Stakhanov has already been specifically mentioned, within this very thread.

I got that far, and could stomach no more.

Anarcho-communism, for example, instantly makes a lie of your inanity. If that's the best you've got, I'm losing nothing by ignoring the rest.

And so does anarcho-capitalism...honestly, in theory both systems are pretty much as viable as one another.

And so does anarcho-capitalism...honestly, in theory both systems are pretty much as viable as one another.

But you agree that the assertion that communism MUST necessitate authoritarianism is way wrong?

But you agree that the assertion that communism MUST necessitate authoritarianism is way wrong?

Yes and no. Yes in that I believe it is entirely plausible and possible for such a system to exist without authoritarian aspects, but no in that all of the attempts to date have ended in some form of authoritarianism.

However, how much of this trend is due to the actual system itself or to the inherent tendency towards authoritarianism that many forceful revolutions seem to possess, I don't know. There have easily been just as many capitalist dictatorships created from violent revolutions as there have been communist ones, and there haven't really been that many communist societies that successfully established themselves in a peaceful, democratic, and economically developed country, so it's not an easy question by any stretch.

Yes and no. Yes in that I believe it is entirely plausible and possible for such a system to exist without authoritarian aspects, but no in that all of the attempts to date have ended in some form of authoritarianism.

However, how much of this trend is due to the actual system itself or to the inherent tendency towards authoritarianism that many forceful revolutions seem to possess, I don't know. There have easily been just as many capitalist dictatorships created from violent revolutions as there have been communist ones, and there haven't really been that many communist societies that successfully established themselves in a peaceful, democratic, and economically developed country, so it's not an easy question by any stretch.

Unless I'm much mistaken... that's actually a yes.

It's a yes with qualifiers.

There's no need for qualifiers. The post I responded to set up a scenario - that there MUST be authoritarianism. That suggests that there can be NO non-authoritarian models (ever) even possible. Qualifiers are irrelevent - if you can come up with a scenario where authoritarianism is NOT needed, even WITH qualifiers, then you agree with me.

Unless I'm much mistaken... that's actually a yes.

It's a yes with qualifiers.

In Communist Russia, the video games play YOU!

Capitalist? In fact, the Chinese support the free market even more wholeheartedly than we do...

:S Wow, no idea where you pulled that one from.

They have been a communist nation since 1949... look it up :|

Yes, if the society should wish to make such things.

:S Wow, no idea where you pulled that one from.

They have been a communist nation since 1949... look it up :|

Look up their recent economic policies.

What a load of rubbish.


Well it was only a half serious cheap shot.


If you mean the whole nation would be poor... well, that rather depends on how it manages it's internal resources

Exactly. Every theory of implementation of communism I have seen thus far, fails completely at managing its internal resources.

Exactly. Every theory of implementation of communism I have seen thus far, fails completely at managing its internal resources.

Every theory? Or - every statist application? Any state - capitalist or communist - that is based around a cult of personality, or sheer despotism, willfind that it's internal management of resources is very one-sided.

Every theory? Or - every statist application? Any state - capitalist or communist - that is based around a cult of personality, or sheer despotism, willfind that it's internal management of resources is very one-sided.

Well a statist government isn't communist, communism does not have a state (in theory) as you know. I've had many people try to explain to me how anarcho-communism would work, and I still haven't been convinced that it could come close to working. Unless you want to try, but I doubt you would convince me.

Well a statist government isn't communist, communism does not have a state (in theory) as you know. I've had many people try to explain to me how anarcho-communism would work, and I still haven't been convinced that it could come close to working. Unless you want to try, but I doubt you would convince me.

Why would I even try?

For one - I'm actually of the opinion that the right state model would be superior to anarcho-communism on a large scale. For another thing - those who preach anti-communist rhetoric tend to have failed to travel as far down the road as pro-communists do.

By which I mean - most of those who arrive at a communist or communist-ish perspective do so through a methodology much like this: Examine capitalist society ---> find fatal flaws ---> try to work out how capitalist society can be cured of fatal flaws ---> look for alternative --->arrive at (something like) communism.

Whereas, those who decide on the capitalist platform tend to have arrived at their perspective through one of the following routes:

Examine capitalism, but only a bit. Decide it's okay.

or:

Examine capitalist society ---> find fatal flaws ---> get told by someone that the flaws arent fatal, and those aren't the droids you are looking for ---> arrive (back) at capitalism.

or:

Examine capitalist society ---> don't find fatal flaws. Maybe don't even examine capitalist society. Why would I, the President says it's good.

Whereas, those who decide on the capitalist platform tend to have arrived at their perspective through one of the following routes:

Examine capitalism, but only a bit. Decide it's okay.

or:

Examine capitalist society ---> find fatal flaws ---> get told by someone that the flaws arent fatal, and those aren't the droids you are looking for ---> arrive (back) at capitalism.

or:

Examine capitalist society ---> don't find fatal flaws. Maybe don't even examine capitalist society. Why would I, the President says it's good.

That's interesting.

My experience went more like this:

Examine capitalist society ---> find flaws ---> study alternatives ---> find flaws in those too ---> conclude that all economic models are contingent upon certain sets of cultural values for optimal implementation ---> feel comfortable with capitalism and advocate some practical reform while holding no particular antipathy towards other economic systems

I'm the fatal flaw in communism. I love money and I don't give to panhandlers!

I'm the fatal flaw in communism. I love money and I don't give to panhandlers!

That's neither the fatal flaw of communism, nor even a flaw peculiar to communism. The idle rich, and the terminally selfish, actually inhibit all economic models that involve production and/or investment.

By 'panhandlers' I assume you mean children? People that are injured fighting a war while you stayed home. Those kinds of people?

That's interesting.

My experience went more like this:

Examine capitalist society ---> find flaws ---> study alternatives ---> find flaws in those too ---> conclude that all economic models are contingent upon certain sets of cultural values for optimal implementation ---> feel comfortable with capitalism and advocate some practical reform while holding no particular antipathy towards other economic systems

I suspect 'feel comfortable' might be the operative phrase...

If both communist and capitalist societies had equal cultural values met, I can't understand how anyone would choose the capitalist model. All things being equal (we're assuming no despotism, no corruption, etc - I assume) one of the models rewards those who parasitise those who actually do the work, and cannot actually ever give an equal share or equal chance to all - it depends upon the inequity. The other model should reward those who do the work at least as well as those who parasitise (hopefully, it would remove that unpleasant trend), and can at least attempt to give equal chance, if not equal share.

How could anyone actually choose the capitalist model? Or is philanthropy a lot rarer than I'd assumed?

I suspect 'feel comfortable' might be the operative phrase...

If both communist and capitalist societies had equal cultural values met, I can't understand how anyone would choose the capitalist model. All things being equal (we're assuming no despotism, no corruption, etc - I assume) one of the models rewards those who parasitise those who actually do the work, and cannot actually ever give an equal share or equal chance to all - it depends upon the inequity. The other model should reward those who do the work at least as well as those who parasitise (hopefully, it would remove that unpleasant trend), and can at least attempt to give equal chance, if not equal share.

How could anyone actually choose the capitalist model? Or is philanthropy a lot rarer than I'd assumed?

I tend to have an interesting understanding of what capitalism is. For example, in my view, genuine capitalism only has room for real persons, not the artificial persons known as corporations. (As I recall, Adam Smith was opposed to corporations as well.) Also, vast inequity isn't a necessary component. People can be motivated to create quality products because they enjoy their work and take pride in it, and perhaps out of a sense of tribalism, not necessarily because they see someone who's rich and want to be rich too. Those are still selfish motivations, just not monetary ones.

And you're right that we're talking about no despotism and no corruption (or at least minimal corruption), but not only that. Let's assume that there's been a significant shift in cultural thought. People understand themselves both as individuals and as being part of an interconnected web of life. So they are more willing to share what they have with others, and more willing to live simply in an effort to engender sustainable resource use. People are still operating out of selfishness, but they understand that certain benefits to the whole are beneficial to themselves.

At this point, what's the big difference? You're either going to share what you have through taxes, or do it through private charities, or by just giving personally. And because you're living more simply, that's likely to lead to a more or less equitable distribution of wealth. There are inevitably going to be a few who don't buy into the larger culture and will find a way to abuse the system, regardless of whether capitalism or communism reigns. It's just that they'll be a drain on the system in different ways.

Because people understand themselves as individuals, they'll be more inclined to pick a trade that doesn't cause alienation, or at least change their own attitudes in a way that minimizes the problems of alienation. In both capitalism and communism, small family-run and/or locally-run places of work would become more the norm. But due to existing telecommunications technologies, they would still be able to experience the wider world and cooperate with it.

When it comes down to it, I see capitalism and communism looking awfully similar under the ideal cultural conditions for their optimally just and effective implementation.

Why would I even try?

For one - I'm actually of the opinion that the right state model would be superior to anarcho-communism on a large scale.

Could have fooled me.


Whereas, those who decide on the capitalist platform tend to have arrived at their perspective through one of the following routes:

Examine capitalism, but only a bit. Decide it's okay.

or:

Examine capitalist society ---> find fatal flaws ---> get told by someone that the flaws arent fatal, and those aren't the droids you are looking for ---> arrive (back) at capitalism.

or:

Examine capitalist society ---> don't find fatal flaws. Maybe don't even examine capitalist society. Why would I, the President says it's good.

That's a rather large generalisation. I've examined many forms of anarchism, anarcho-communism, statism, democratic socialism etc... (I even used to be an anarchist btw). The only reason I tend now to use short concise points (rhetoric as you will), is because I'm getting rather bored of having to explain in depth why I think free market libertarian(ish) economies are better constantly. I'd rather see how people would dispute my short points and work from there. I suspect this is the same with many rightists. Most of the people who haven't really examined capitalism in depth may support it, but only because that is the environment they are raised in, and not because they really understand how it works.

I tend to have an interesting understanding of what capitalism is. For example, in my view, genuine capitalism only has room for real persons, not the artificial persons known as corporations. (As I recall, Adam Smith was opposed to corporations as well.) Also, vast inequity isn't a necessary component. People can be motivated to create quality products because they enjoy their work and take pride in it, and perhaps out of a sense of tribalism, not necessarily because they see someone who's rich and want to be rich too. Those are still selfish motivations, just not monetary ones.

And you're right that we're talking about no despotism and no corruption (or at least minimal corruption), but not only that. Let's assume that there's been a significant shift in cultural thought. People understand themselves both as individuals and as being part of an interconnected web of life. So they are more willing to share what they have with others, and more willing to live simply in an effort to engender sustainable resource use. People are still operating out of selfishness, but they understand that certain benefits to the whole are beneficial to themselves.

At this point, what's the big difference? You're either going to share what you have through taxes, or do it through private charities, or by just giving personally. And because you're living more simply, that's likely to lead to a more or less equitable distribution of wealth. There are inevitably going to be a few who don't buy into the larger culture and will find a way to abuse the system, regardless of whether capitalism or communism reigns. It's just that they'll be a drain on the system in different ways.

Because people understand themselves as individuals, they'll be more inclined to pick a trade that doesn't cause alienation, or at least change their own attitudes in a way that minimizes the problems of alienation. In both capitalism and communism, small family-run and/or locally-run places of work would become more the norm. But due to existing telecommunications technologies, they would still be able to experience the wider world and cooperate with it.

When it comes down to it, I see capitalism and communism looking awfully similar under the ideal cultural conditions for their optimally just and effective implementation.

I agree that our (by which I mean human in general.. there have been occassional flashes of insight) culture is bumping along (at best), and thus both communism and capitalism are at least a bit broken, based on now.

But, even in your perfect scenario, capitalism is still based around inequality - it just has to be. It doesn't have to be huge but it must exist. That's why the idea of a capitalist paradise doesn't work - capitalism must be utopian. If one person makes a profit on the deal, someone else must be taking some manner of less - direct or indirect.

If you somehow envision a version of capitalism where no one profits, why then we have agreement that capitalism can work equalitatively (ooh, did I make that up?).. but you also basically have a communism that uses little metal disks as it's 'token' of exchange.

An ideal structure doesn't have money (to my thinking), because money is an extension of a concept. It represents the idea of value, not even an actual value itself. The fact that there are entire industries based around handling that extended metaphor is half the problem in the capitalist structure. The fact that people trade in the concept... indeed, that people are living at the expense of the working mass, because they handle that concept, is just insane.

We'll know we have a truly civilised culture when - as you say, people are self-aware - but also when the culture values people as a real commodity, rather than a means to an end. And that basically means every 'people resource' is supplied with sufficient input for all it's requirements, and we can do away with the smoke and mirrors concepts.

I agree that our (by which I mean human in general.. there have been occassional flashes of insight) culture is bumping along (at best), and thus both communism and capitalism are at least a bit broken, based on now.

But, even in your perfect scenario, capitalism is still based around inequality - it just has to be. It doesn't have to be huge but it must exist. That's why the idea of a capitalist paradise doesn't work - capitalism must be utopian. If one person makes a profit on the deal, someone else must be taking some manner of less - direct or indirect.

Sure. Inequality would still exist, though to a lesser degree, it just wouldn't be all that relevant. Why would you concern yourself with the fact that your neighbor has a thousand dollars more than you do when you have all that you need and you are working at a job that fulfills you?

If you somehow envision a version of capitalism where no one profits, why then we have agreement that capitalism can work equalitatively (ooh, did I make that up?).. but you also basically have a communism that uses little metal disks as it's 'token' of exchange.

Sure. In the end, the system being used is largely irrelevant, and may not be easily distinguishable from other systems. That's because justice arises out of human behavior, not the system the behavior occurs in. I've noticed that a lot of the debates about the merits of economic and political systems often come down to arguments on human nature. That's because human behavior is the true determining factor of the success of any economic or political framework. You can have monarchy, communism, capitalism, or anarchy, and every one of them will ultimately fail to meet basic standards of justice if the people involved aren't truly interested in acting such that justice is achieved. On the other hand, any of those systems can function justly if the people involved are willing to act justly.

An ideal structure doesn't have money (to my thinking), because money is an extension of a concept. It represents the idea of value, not even an actual value itself. The fact that there are entire industries based around handling that extended metaphor is half the problem in the capitalist structure. The fact that people trade in the concept... indeed, that people are living at the expense of the working mass, because they handle that concept, is just insane.

I can understand the desire to eliminate what are ultimately unnecessary components of economies. I'm just a bit more inclined to allow unnecessary components in them because I think that they're mostly harmless when the requisite cultural values are in place.

We'll know we have a truly civilised culture when - as you say, people are self-aware - but also when the culture values people as a real commodity, rather than a means to an end. And that basically means every 'people resource' is supplied with sufficient input for all it's requirements, and we can do away with the smoke and mirrors concepts.

That sounds almost like you want a truly genuine love for your fellow person to become a powerful cultural value. I'd be very happy with that.

By 'panhandlers' I assume you mean children? People that are injured fighting a war while you stayed home. Those kinds of people?

or people to lazy to get a job.......

or people to lazy to get a job.......

Good point. Fuck the vets. Tough shit kiddies. It's so important that we don't accidentally reward some lazy guy, that you lot can all go to hell too.

All the talk of selflessness being against human nature is easily enough refuted, the answer is of course political violence, in a time when the reactionary tendencies to selfish behavior still persist, then the 'incentive' for patriotism is the fear of pain and death. It may sound horrible, but to change society you must force it to change. And as one great man once said, 'It is time for all Frenchmen to enjoy sacred equality, it is time to impose this equality by single acts of justice upon traitors and conspirators, make Terror the order of the day'.

All the talk of selflessness being against human nature is easily enough refuted, the answer is of course political violence, in a time when the reactionary tendencies to selfish behavior still persist, then the 'incentive' for patriotism is the fear of pain and death. It may sound horrible, but to change society you must force it to change. And as one great man once said, 'It is time for all Frenchmen to enjoy sacred equality, it is time to impose this equality by single acts of justice upon traitors and conspirators, make Terror the order of the day'.Except of course, that the French Revolution ended up with a more authoritarian government than the one they overthrew...
...as is the case with violent revolutions.

Except of course, that the French Revolution ended up with a more authoritarian government than the one they overthrew...
...as is the case with violent revolutions.

Like the american revolution, right?

Oh, wait... no.

Heh. I'd kinda like to see a commie gaming console. :p
It would have vacuum tubes and lots of relays... I sort of imagine ENIAC when I think of commie computers.

It would have vacuum tubes and lots of relays... I sort of imagine ENIAC when I think of commie computers.

Actually...that's not too far off the mark. Of course, they did manage to produce fairly workable clones of modern products from the West, and East Germany produced a few good computers of its own, but by and large the Communist bloc was pretty much incapable of keeping up in high-tech, and that was part of the reason they began to decline so rapidly in the 1970's and 1980's.

You can't rely on cement, raw materials, and machine tools forever...

Actually...that's not too far off the mark. Of course, they did manage to produce fairly workable clones of modern products from the West, and East Germany produced a few good computers of its own, but by and large the Communist bloc was pretty much incapable of keeping up in high-tech, and that was part of the reason they began to decline so rapidly in the 1970's and 1980's.

You can't rely on cement, raw materials, and machine tools forever...
In a previous job, I did a lot of exploitation of Soviet material. It was very interesting to see how they overcame different problems. We would typically use brute computing force to solve a simple problem to the most exact precision. The Soviets would figure what precision they needed and then find typically an analog solution, or a very simple digital solution, to the same problem.

They had some very good engineers -- knowledgeable and resourceful. They could typically produce an item that had about 90 percent of the capability of a comparable US product, but for a tenth of the cost.

The Soviets would figure what precision they needed and then find typically an analog solution,

Did you perchance have anything to do with hydraulic computers? During my studies in the USSR in 1988 besides working on a PDP-11 clone I was shown some very simple hydraulic logic parts and assemblies that I was told were able to solve almost instantly and with amazing precision simultaneous differential equations (IIRC) that would take some serious coding and a considerable machine time for digital computers to solve. I never saw a practical application of these though.

Like the american revolution, right?

Oh, wait... no.Do you mean the American war for independence?

Did you perchance have anything to do with hydraulic computers? During my studies in the USSR in 1988 besides working on a PDP-11 clone I was shown some very simple hydraulic logic parts and assemblies that I was told were able to solve almost instantly and with amazing precision simultaneous differential equations (IIRC) that would take some serious coding and a considerable machine time for digital computers to solve. I never saw a practical application of these though.

No. Sounds interesting, though. I should ask a couple of guys I met after the USSR became no more.

Along those lines, I did run across an analog computer that was developed to solve quaternion problems. Good article, if you're interested in analog computing, but you'll probably need to go to the library to find it.


Mitchell, E., A. Rogers, Quaternion Parameters in the Simulation of a Spinning Rigid Body, in "Simulation" Edited by J. McLeod, McGraw Hill, New York, NY, (1968). Describes an analog computer implementation of quaternion equations.

In a previous job, I did a lot of exploitation of Soviet material. It was very interesting to see how they overcame different problems. We would typically use brute computing force to solve a simple problem to the most exact precision. The Soviets would figure what precision they needed and then find typically an analog solution, or a very simple digital solution, to the same problem.

Interesting. This likely explains the ability of the Soviets to achieve some major successes despite lacking some of the most advanced technical equipment available to Western engineers. Had they been able to successfully apply that know-how to technical equipment, the USSR would probably not only be around today but thriving. Of course, as always, bureaucracy doomed many of their initiatives to failure.

Every single time, really, that the Soviets made a mistake, it was due to the actions of people who had no knowledge of what they were doing. I mean, look at the damage Brezhnev managed to inflict on the country during his disastrous 17-year reign...the only time he did well was back in the 1960's, when there were still enough competent officials left over from the Khrushchev era to keep things running properly.

They had some very good engineers -- knowledgeable and resourceful. They could typically produce an item that had about 90 percent of the capability of a comparable US product, but for a tenth of the cost.

Well, that was the thing. Soviet engineers were incredible (if the feats of civil engineering they produced are any evidence), and were skilled at overcoming incredible odds, from bureaucrats to ideologues to outright environmental and physical challenges to produce solutions to problems that would have been impossible if they didn't have the kind of training and skills they did.

Interesting. This likely explains the ability of the Soviets to achieve some major successes despite lacking some of the most advanced technical equipment available to Western engineers. Had they been able to successfully apply that know-how to technical equipment, the USSR would probably not only be around today but thriving. Of course, as always, bureaucracy doomed many of their initiatives to failure.

Every single time, really, that the Soviets made a mistake, it was due to the actions of people who had no knowledge of what they were doing. I mean, look at the damage Brezhnev managed to inflict on the country during his disastrous 17-year reign...the only time he did well was back in the 1960's, when there were still enough competent officials left over from the Khrushchev era to keep things running properly.

Of course the classic case of exploiting Soviet technology probably let to their downfall. That was the discovery of an article, in open sources, describing the idea of numerous facets reflecting radar energy to create a low-observable radar signature. A bright guy read it and Presto! The F-117 was born.

A site like NationStates Jolt-Co-UK Forums where we can all debate, argue, discuss, and share our different economic, political and social views would not be possible, would not be allowed in a communist nation., like Cuba for exsample.

Internet use is limited to high government officials and the privileged governing elite with special monitoring, internet use for average citizens is limited and highly controlled.

A site like NationStates Jolt-Co-UK Forums where we can all debate, argue, discuss, and share our different economic, political and social views would not be possible, would not be allowed in a communist nation., like Cuba for exsample.
Lack of free exchange of ideas surely makes technical progress harder. But I think for the purposes of this thread we should differentiate between "communist" totalitarian states like Cuba or the USSR and the hypothetical ideal communist (stateless) society that never existed yet.
In the first case I'd say the PS3 or some clone touted as its equivalent would became available around 2012-2017. In the late 1980's when everybody were building the 16 bit home computers in Moscow shops one could buy a lame Z-80 based 8-bit computer Mikrosha - if one was incredibly lucky or patient and ready to spend the annual earnings on it. This little thing had trouble holding its memory contents. I mean literally, when I was trying to write a simple program in Basic consisting of maybe 20 lines of code I was getting syntax errors because one bit (and consequently one letter in a word) somewhere has changed randomly! In short, the solid state circuits that were available to the general public sucked. But I guess they would have overcome the teething problems of their microprocessor industry by now.
In the second case - the ideal communist society - I have absolutely no idea. The people could make something much better than PS3 if they wanted, but I just don't see the purpose for it if the life around is so much more interesting, as it would be if everyone was allowed to do whatever he/she pleases. Because that's how the ideal communist society would look like, right?

No. Sounds interesting, though. I should ask a couple of guys I met after the USSR became no more.
Thanks, my knowledge of this topic is not really current or wide nor it ever was, I was studying agronomy of all things (long story, I ended up at biology faculty where I wanted to be from the beginning). But the concept of liquid performing the role of the medium in a logic array was so fascinating that I remember it vividly to this day.

A site like NationStates Jolt-Co-UK Forums where we can all debate, argue, discuss, and share our different economic, political and social views would not be possible, would not be allowed in a communist nation.

Rubbish.

Communist countries are no more DESTINED to become repressive than capitalist countries. A government can be benevolent or malevolent under either model. You certainly can't (legitimately) rule out the idea that there could be debate forums in a communist state.

Virtual Marching?
Lenin Cadets?

I dunno. :p

Endless tris games.

...as it would be if everyone was allowed to do whatever he/she pleases. Because that's how the ideal communist society would look like, right?
Most certainly not.

The ideal communist society is one where property is owned communally, with a few exceptions. You're not free to use the community's scarce resources, including thousands of your own manhours, on something that isn't approved by the community as a whole. If you had the right to do so, it would imply that you have a property right to the resource in question, since by putting it to your own selfish use you are depriving others of it. And if you have such a property right and you don't require the approval of others, it implies that your property right is an individual one, which cannot exist in a communist society as it would in turn imply an inequality of means and in all likelihood outcomes as well.

That's the oppressive part of this "free" society, just as the oppressive part of the free market is that one will find oneself deprived of positive freedom at times when making choices about the use of one's own resources due to the existence of others' negative liberties.

once needs are fulfilled, entertainment is in pretty high demand. seems to me more than plausible that freeing up the creative abilities of the entire population is going to lead to some rather excellent innovation in that regard.

Tetris ;)

Out of all the things I'd miss under communism, these shiny wastes of time are very far down on my list.