NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, communism is actually a good idea, if you were poor. Its basic idea was to pool in everything and divide it equally. So if I had $5 and someone else had $1 million, then we would have a $1,000,005 then we would split it evenly. Of course, I would be happy, I just got richer but on the other hand, the rich would be angry because he just lost half of his money. Now, communism is feared because it was malformed and used in the wrong way by corrupt leaders. Communism takes out capitalism, meaning it discourages competition between individuals. It also eliminates social classes because everyone is supposed to be equal, no rich, poor or middle class. So actually communism is a good option as a form of government if your leader isn't corrupt and not after dictatorship, which is almost impossible to find when you have trillions in the treasury from everyone in the country. Just putting it out there, although I still prefer democracy, ones thought by Renaissance thinkers saying there is supposed to checks and balances, the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and other awesome ideas. Funny how good idea for creating equal opportunities for everyone is the most feared idea for a form or government.

well, good, bad or indifferent, marxism and socialism are more different from each other then corporate capitalism is from fascism.

(almost) everyone says they want chainge. but as soon as anyone tries to actually chainge anything, all the idiots start screaming socialism and acting like the sky is falling.

when you've had creeping fascism for 60 years and not so much creeping as openly attacking and its ass being kissed for the past 30, any move in any more positive direction away from it can and of course inevitably will be, interpreted as a move IN THE DIRECTION of, socialism.

now procustianism IS hamstrung to motivate productivity certainly. but makiavellianism is just as hamstrung to motivate environmentally harmonious infrastructure and general well being, which are the only legitimate justifications for social organization of any kind on any scale.

We can share the women
We can share the wine
We can share what we got of yours
'Cause we done shared all of mine

~The Grateful Dead, "Jack Straw (http://arts.ucsc.edu/gdead/agdl/jstraw.html)" (video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHRRjt2lU_4))

Communism looks very good on paper. Hasn't done so well when applied to everyday life in anything larger than a village.

Well, communism is actually a good idea, if you were poor. Its basic idea was to pool in everything and divide it equally.

Your grasp of the fundamental of communism is shaky at the very best. Read chapter 2 of Das Kapital (or Cafiero's "Compendium to Das Kapital"), it's quite easy.

The basic idea isn't to pool and share. It's to abolish the private property of the instruments of mass production, thus eliminating the flux of surplus value going from wage labourers into the capitalists' pockets (aka alienation of Mehrwert). And I'm still oversimplifying, btw.

I've had an interesting thought regarding communism - perhaps the problem isn't that it only works on a small scale. Perhaps the problem is that it cannot be imposed on an existing societal framework.

The most successful examples of communism, AFAIK, are the Israeli kibbutzim. Not only were they small, they were created out of whole cloth. Every communist nation, on the other hand, tried to impose communism on a pre-existing society.

I suggest that if one were creating a brand-new society on a large scale (say, for example, a colony on Mars), communism could work, assuming everyone was on board. I'd suggest reading Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy for an example.

Communist, socialist and state capitalist economic and social systems are all can be combined with democracy. “Communist states” have problems with democracy only because they all implement variants of one-party political system. It is very hard to build democratic one-party state. But if you try to create capitalist one-party state it will become undemocratic too, of course.

Communism fails for one reason: Wealth cannot be created, only destroyed.

I've had an interesting thought regarding communism - perhaps the problem isn't that it only works on a small scale. Perhaps the problem is that it cannot be imposed on an existing societal framework.

The most successful examples of communism, AFAIK, are the Israeli kibbutzim. Not only were they small, they were created out of whole cloth. Every communist nation, on the other hand, tried to impose communism on a pre-existing society.

I suggest that if one were creating a brand-new society on a large scale (say, for example, a colony on Mars), communism could work, assuming everyone was on board. I'd suggest reading Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy for an example.

How do you know the problem isn't so much being imposed on pre-existing societies and more to do with the scale? It's very easy to place your interests above somebody else at their expense when you don't have close ties to them, and even then you get people who do so anyway. Any large scale society will be inevitably plagued by basic human selfishness.

Well, communism is actually a good idea, if you were poor.
Yeah but I'm not, so it isn't.

Commies hate freedom.

Commies hate freedom.
So do I and I still am no fan of communism :)

So do I and I still am no fan of communism :)

You're a foreigner.

You're a foreigner.
To most of the world, yes.

To most of the world, yes.

Stop lying. Even your own family thinks of you as a foreigner.:wink:

Stop lying. Even your own family thinks of you as a foreigner.:wink:
Ah the joys of being adopted.

Well, communism is actually a good idea, if you were poor. Its basic idea was to pool in everything and divide it equally. So if I had $5 and someone else had $1 million, then we would have a $1,000,005 then we would split it evenly. Of course, I would be happy, I just got richer but on the other hand, the rich would be angry because he just lost half of his money. Now, communism is feared because it was malformed and used in the wrong way by corrupt leaders. Communism takes out capitalism, meaning it discourages competition between individuals. It also eliminates social classes because everyone is supposed to be equal, no rich, poor or middle class. So actually communism is a good option as a form of government if your leader isn't corrupt and not after dictatorship, which is almost impossible to find when you have trillions in the treasury from everyone in the country. Just putting it out there, although I still prefer democracy, ones thought by Renaissance thinkers saying there is supposed to checks and balances, the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and other awesome ideas. Funny how good idea for creating equal opportunities for everyone is the most feared idea for a form or government.I have never heard that about communism, communism is not about splitting the money (it will always exist people that can only spend it, and that’s unfair for the ones who work for it), is about equal opportunities for all, and to give all according to theirs effort or needs.

In Europe we have a social security system paid by all, which helps the “weaken” to “get back on their feet”, and from that point they must be self sufficient (it doesn’t always works that way), and that might be considered a form of communism, by some people.

In the former Soviet Union, there was a dictatorship system, not a communism system, in witch the people had no word and no control over their politics, they turned a good idea in a horrible one, and stalin killed more Russians than Hitler.

Well, communism is actually a good idea, if you were poor. Its basic idea was to pool in everything and divide it equally. So if I had $5 and someone else had $1 million, then we would have a $1,000,005 then we would split it evenly. Of course, I would be happy, I just got richer but on the other hand, the rich would be angry because he just lost half of his money. Now, communism is feared because it was malformed and used in the wrong way by corrupt leaders. Communism takes out capitalism, meaning it discourages competition between individuals. It also eliminates social classes because everyone is supposed to be equal, no rich, poor or middle class. So actually communism is a good option as a form of government if your leader isn't corrupt and not after dictatorship, which is almost impossible to find when you have trillions in the treasury from everyone in the country. Just putting it out there, although I still prefer democracy, ones thought by Renaissance thinkers saying there is supposed to checks and balances, the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and other awesome ideas. Funny how good idea for creating equal opportunities for everyone is the most feared idea for a form or government.

Communism is not necessarily incompatible with democracy. There are places in the world (Italy and India come to mind) where notional Communist Parties have a history of winning democratic elections at sub-national levels.

Communism is not necessarily incompatible with democracy. There are places in the world (Italy and India come to mind) where notional Communist Parties have a history of winning democratic elections at sub-national levels.

And ruling local autonomies within the frame of the constitutional democracy.
Actually, in Italy the role of the italian CP was fundamental in isolating and defeating the Red Brigades.

There will ALWAYS be corrupt humans, which is why communism doesn't work.

Using the same logic, that's why religion doesn't work.

Communism's major problems in the real world:

1) Incentive. Incentive to do well relies upon non-financial means - the acclaim of one's peers, recognition by authority, and respect by one's family and friends, as well as personal satisfaction. It can be argued that this should be enough; however, this argument ignores the fact that human beings are individually and non-identically motivated. Financial motivation remains the most powerful and near-universal incentive to do well in business/labour.

2) Power concentration. Once past a certain point of size, a communist organization requires a coordinating body of some kind to maintain adequate distribution of goods and services to satisfy member's needs, and wants as much as possible. Such bodies, by their very nature, become very powerful, as they basically feed and clothe everyone, and decide how best to distribute those resources which are scarce. Even if these are elected positions, it's near impossible for distributors not to become "more equal than others".

3) Mediocrity. Under communist theory, the value of an object is dependent upon the amount of work put into it, regardless of the quality of that work. Thus, a car built in six hours by a fumble-fingered idiot and one built in six hours by a master craftsman have identical value. As anyone who has ever bought a lemon will tell you, this is a fallacy.

In small groups, these problems can be managed or eliminated. But once past a certain point of size, when communism is used as a general economic system rather than an addition to an existing system, they become a cancer that eventually renders the system unworkable.

There will ALWAYS be corrupt humans, which is why communism doesn't work.

And also why capitalism doesn't.

And also why capitalism doesn't.

500 years of variously-moderated capitalism would seem to disagree.

No.

Why is this thread so long? It only needs one two-letter post.

500 years of variously-moderated capitalism would seem to disagree.

Depends from what perspective you look at it from.

Not to say that I'm rabidly anti-capitalistic or an ardent communist. I just find the "communism doesn't work because people aren't all good" cliche a rather weak argument. People acting in a corrupt and fraudulent manner against the common interest is hardly an issue limited to a particular economic system, if its regarded to be a fundamental part of human nature (though "human nature" as a concept I find rather problematic)

Communism's major problems in the real world:

1) Incentive. Incentive to do well relies upon non-financial means - the acclaim of one's peers, recognition by authority, and respect by one's family and friends, as well as personal satisfaction. It can be argued that this should be enough; however, this argument ignores the fact that human beings are individually and non-identically motivated. Financial motivation remains the most powerful and near-universal incentive to do well in business/labour.

2) Power concentration. Once past a certain point of size, a communist organization requires a coordinating body of some kind to maintain adequate distribution of goods and services to satisfy member's needs, and wants as much as possible. Such bodies, by their very nature, become very powerful, as they basically feed and clothe everyone, and decide how best to distribute those resources which are scarce. Even if these are elected positions, it's near impossible for distributors not to become "more equal than others".

3) Mediocrity. Under communist theory, the value of an object is dependent upon the amount of work put into it, regardless of the quality of that work. Thus, a car built in six hours by a fumble-fingered idiot and one built in six hours by a master craftsman have identical value. As anyone who has ever bought a lemon will tell you, this is a fallacy.

In small groups, these problems can be managed or eliminated. But once past a certain point of size, when communism is used as a general economic system rather than an addition to an existing system, they become a cancer that eventually renders the system unworkable.

I think that if you can blend competition with Communism then your issues would be addressed. China is attempting to do that.

Please don't think I'm being ideological here. I believe that China will eventually reject the Communist model but, hey, they may succeed yet.

I'm inclined to think that Soviet-style Communism failed because of lack of competition economically and politically. These are the same problems facing Capitalist societies, particularly in the economic sphere. Without government enforced competition through regulation there is a natural tendency towards monopolies. (I can see myself getting hammered, forgive the pun, by the economic true-believers in NSG.)

Depends from what perspective you look at it.

Not to say that I'm rabidly anti-capitalistic or an ardent communist. I just find the "communism doesn't work because people aren't all good" cliche a rather weak argument. In that people acting in a corrupt and fraudulent manner against the common interest is hardly an issue limited to a particular economic system.

I agree. Corruption is a problem in ALL economic and political systems. However, some systems deal with it better than others, and capitalism and democracy both tend to be better at controlling it that most others, making democratic, capitalist countries generally less corrupt tha the alternatives.

And also why capitalism doesn't.

True, pure capitalism doesn't work either.

I think that if you can blend competition with Communism then your issues would be addressed. China is attempting to do that.

Please don't think I'm being ideological here. I believe that China will eventually reject the Communist model but, hey, they may succeed yet.

I'm inclined to think that Soviet-style Communism failed because of lack of competition economically and politically. These are the same problems facing Capitalist societies, particularly in the economic sphere. Without government enforced competition through regulation there is a natural tendency towards monopolies. (I can see myself getting hammered, forgive the pun, by the economic true-believers in NSG.)

I'm not going to disagree. Capitalism, we have discovered, works best when regulated - and one of the most important regulations is anti-monopolism.

Communism, however, is fundamentally anti-competitive, if for no other reason than it's unrealistic system of valuation. Competition and Communism can be forced together by force or fiat, but I cannot believe they will ever be fundamentally reconciled.

Ekhm: Which Comunism?
Stalinism?Trockism?Maoism?Eurocomunism?New Chainise Way?Titoism?Marxism-Leninism? Guevarism?Castroitism?Anarcho-comunism? Other? There are may "comunism" and all of them have hugr differences!

I agree. Corruption is a problem in ALL economic and political systems. However, some systems deal with it better than others, and capitalism and democracy both tend to be better at controlling it that most others, making democratic, capitalist countries generally less corrupt tha the alternatives.

Yup. People are imperfect, and don't magically become perfect when put in power, so corruption is always going to happen. But in authoritarian systems without checks and balances things are always going to be worse. Mind, I will say that a pure unregulated capitalism raises major concerns about the rich buying off the government or exercising excessive influence through lobbyists, or forcing the wages of workers lower and lower with the threat of moving abroad, which is why I continue to favour a social democratic system with economic regulation to keep them in check. Both state control and the free market have potential for corruption, and I'm inclined to think a system in which the two are mixed can eliminate the worst elements of both.

I'm not going to disagree. Capitalism, we have discovered, works best when regulated - and one of the most important regulations is anti-monopolism.

Communism, however, is fundamentally anti-competitive, if for no other reason than it's unrealistic system of valuation. Competition and Communism can be forced together by force or fiat, but I cannot believe they will ever be fundamentally reconciled.

But competition goes beyond economics. The charm of democracy is the primacy given to the competition between ideas and the regulation of the political system to ensure there aren't ongoing political monopolies.

Ekhm: Which Comunism?
Stalinism?Trockism?Maoism?Eurocomunism?New Chainise Way?Titoism?Marxism-Leninism? Guevarism?Castroitism?Anarcho-comunism? Other? There are may "comunism" and all of them have hugr differences!

Most of which, unfortunately, are cosmetic. The fundamental concepts remain the same, just as Keynesian, New Model and Reaganomics were all minor changes to Capitalism.

But competition goes beyond economics. The charm of democracy is the primacy given to the competition between ideas and the regulation of the political system to ensure there isn't ongoing political monopolies.

To a certain extent both Communism and Capitalism go beyond the economic sphere, at least to the extent of impressing the fundamental concepts upon the society that uses them. Communism goes further, and unites the political and economic spheres philosophically, and it's for this reason that I do not believe communism and competition can ever truly coexist. It's not that the cat is half white and half black; it's that someone has attached a dog to the back end of the cat.

Yeh - "cosmetic differences" between Anarcho-Comunism and Stalinism... Buehehehehehe...

Yeh - "cosmetic differences" between Anarcho-Comunism and Stalinism... Buehehehehehe...

They don't really disagree on much, thats why the Stalinists got on so well with the Anarchists back in the Spanish Civil War :p

Yeh - "cosmetic differences" between Anarcho-Comunism and Stalinism... Buehehehehehe...

Oddly enough, yes.

Oh, I'm sure the differences would appear great and overwhelming to anyone espousing either system. But from the outside, the similarities outweigh the differences by a significant margin.

Communism is only good for 2 things.

1. To giggle at the memory of former Communist fools who's 'dreams' have been effectively killed as the capitalist market, even going through one of its worst periods, has taken domination over the global economy.

2. To giggle at teenage fools who think they are cool wearing their "Che" shirts.

My name is Jonas.
I'm carrying the wheel.
Thanks for all you've shown us.
This is how we feel.

There are two problems with Communism, as far as I can see. One, it requires central control and a large bureaucracy to get things done, which is inefficient and slow, and sometime completely unnecessary. See the famous "Who is in charge of London’s bread supply?" question as a symptom of this problem.

Secondly, people like capitalism. It just makes sense to them. When China made the switch from communism to capitalism they continued to set quotas on things like steel mills and coal mines. But they allowed any place that produced above the quota to trade their surplus on the open market. This was entirely voluntary, but in about five years almost 95% of those places that were allowed to do this were engaging in it.

My name is Jonas.
I'm carrying the wheel.
Thanks for all you've shown us.
This is how we feel.

Sorry, Anda, I don't get the reference (though I have a nasty idea I should).

2. To giggle at teenage fools who think they are cool wearing their "Che" shirts.

I can think of no punishment Che'd like less than the mass production of his image on clothing made by the poor and sold on the open market by massive international corporations.

He must be spinning in his grave so fast that he's bored a hole right down into the centre of the earth.

Sorry, Anda, I don't get the reference (though I have a nasty idea I should).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TSliR1RQmE


The workers are goin' home!

The workers are goin' home!

The workers are goin' home!

Yeah!

Thanks, DrunkenDove. They're not a band I know well.

I can think of no punishment Che'd like less than the mass production of his image on clothing made by the poor and sold to middle class American and 1st World teenagers by massive international corporations.

He must be spinning in his grave so fast that he's bored a hole right down into the centre of the earth.
Even better. ;)

I can think of no punishment Che'd like less than the mass production of his image on clothing made by the poor and sold on the open market by massive international corporations.

He must be spinning in his grave so fast that he's bored a hole right down into the centre of the earth.

Still, now he's there, it won't be long before he's revived and sent back up by the technically advanced dwarves living in the hollow interior. Viva La Zombie Revolución!

Communism is less successful than capitalism because it is a much newer system of economics, having been developed only in the past two centuries whereas humans have been capitalistic (to some degree) quite possibly since the rise of human civilization.

The failure of any communist system to work in practice is further evidence that communism's value as a system of economics is low. I could make a lot of other arguments as well, but other people already did.

Zombie Che Guevara, on the other hand, = win.

The failure of any communist system to work in practice is further evidence that communism's value as a system of economics is low.

Of course, the fact that in this world Communist = Enemy of the USA probably doesn't help either.

Of course, the fact that in this world Communist = Enemy of the USA probably doesn't help either.

Meh. Enemy of the USA or not, no communist system has been able to sustain itself independently without degenerating into dictatorship or otherwise falling apart, except on a very small scale. Unless you're suggesting that all of that was actually engineered by the USA in a plot to discredit communism. And they can hear what you're thinking now because they have cameras in your house, etc., etc.

Communism is less successful than capitalism because it is a much newer system of economics, having been developed only in the past two centuries whereas humans have been capitalistic (to some degree) quite possibly since the rise of human civilization.


You're mixing merchantilism with capitalism. Capitalism began in Italy during the late Middle-Age (age of the "Comuni"), with the first modern banks, and their proprietors substituting the aristocracy as ruling class (see the Medici from Florence).

You're mixing merchantilism with capitalism. Capitalism began in Italy during the late Middle-Age (age of the "Comuni"), with the first modern banks, and their proprietors substituting the aristocracy as ruling class (see the Medici from Florence).

Yeah. I'm not much for economics, really. Having displayed my ignorance of it here numerous times, that should be obvious.

However, I was always under the impression that the differences between capitalism and mercantilism were not much more significant than the differences between communism and socialism. Feel free to correct me as patronizingly as you like.:wink:

Meh. Enemy of the USA or not, no communist system has been able to sustain itself independently without degenerating into dictatorship or otherwise falling apart, except on a very small scale. Unless you're suggesting that all of that was actually engineered by the USA in a plot to discredit communism.

It's a fact that all major powers from 1918 to 1989 have focused on countering CCCP and communism, with both economical and military means - which hasn't quite lessened the paranoia of the soviet CP.

(With a short interlude between August 1939 and May 1945, that is).

It's a fact that all major powers from 1918 to 1989 have focused on countering CCCP and communism, with both economical and military means - which hasn't quite lessened the paranoia of the soviet CP.

(With a short interlude between August 1939 and May 1945, that is).

*shrugs* well, f'rinstance, the Soviet Union started out as a communist state and before all too long had become simply another repressive dictatorship, probably as early as the late 20s or early 30s, although the West wasn't aware of this quite yet as there were still communist parties who wanted to install Soviet-type regimes in the US, etc. It never managed to achieve "ideal" communism and eventually fell apart under its own weight, while the more capitalist Western countries failed to fall apart despite the Soviet bloc's best efforts, and numerous other wars and conflicts before and since. that's what I meant.

*shrugs* well, f'rinstance, the Soviet Union started out as a communist state and before all too long had become simply another repressive dictatorship, ...
It never managed to achieve "ideal" communism and eventually fell apart under its own weight.

You know, it can be hard to have your State working well and democratically, even under the best premises, when you've had all world powers supporting directly the White armies in 1918-1921, had a whole country to rebuild and modernise from scratch, while being massacred by the Axis in WW2 and being confronted by the other superpower's bloc for 45 years thereafter.

I'm not saying that CCCP was bound to be a dreams' country had it not been for the naughty kapitali$t $wine; but surely the hostility of the rest of the world has played no small part in shifting CCCP into Stalin's dictatorship (who played on the very realistic fears of invasion) and into economical crisis.

You know, it can be hard to have your State working well and democratically, even under the best premises, when you've had all world powers supporting directly the White armies in 1918-1921, had a whole country to rebuild and modernise from scratch, while being massacred by the Axis in WW2 and being confronted by the other superpower's bloc for 45 years thereafter.

I'm not saying that CCCP was bound to be a dreams' country had it not been for the naughty kapitali$t $wine; but surely the hostility of the rest of the world has played no small part in shifting CCCP into Stalin's dictatorship (who played on the very realistic fears of invasion) and into economical crisis.

Quite true.

I was trying to think of a parallel which proved that capitalist societies didn't crumble when international opinion turned against them and they faced internal economic problems, but there isn't really one that I know of. Maybe Israel (and they could easily be interpreted as a theocratic dictatorship, so they won't count either), and even then they have the economic support of the US, if only that.

Quite true.

I was trying to think of a parallel which proved that capitalist societies didn't crumble when international opinion turned against them and they faced internal economic problems, but there isn't really one that I know of. Maybe Israel (and they could easily be interpreted as a theocratic dictatorship, so they won't count either), and even then they have the economic support of the US, if only that.

After all, we can agree that Karl Marx identified correctly at least one thing: economy is the key issue.:D

After all, we can agree that Karl Marx identified correctly at least one thing: economy is the key issue.:D

*nods*

Wait, Karl Marx? Was he Groucho, Chico, or Zeppo?

*nods*

Wait, Karl Marx? Was he Groucho, Chico, or Zeppo?

Karlo.

(ah, the old je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho joke)

(ah, the old je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho joke)

('cept in my case it was a sort of self-deprecation regarding my ignorance of economics.

Adam Smith? Wasn't he the Antichrist?)

('cept in my case it was a sort of self-deprecation regarding my ignorance of economics.
I always recommend Carlo Cafiero's "Compendium to Das Kapital" (dunno if it's been translated exactly like that in English, though)

Adam Smith? Wasn't he the Antichrist?)

No, he was the first Homo faber.:D

I cannot believe this debate is going on. It has been just TWENTY YEARS since the Soviet Union imploded, and already we've got morons going "Hey, maybe we should try that again...". STOP. JUST FUCKING STOP. The system doesn't work. It is rubbish. Give it up. If you love socialism so much, go to fricken Cuba or Vietnam or Laos already and shut up about it!

Yay, this again.

*Reads thread*

Oh damn, this again?

Yes, it's fairly clear that centralised state communism doesn't work - the USSR proved that quite adequately. However, I would like to link this (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Archive/BakuninMarx.html) piece by Mikhail Bakunin, written in 1873. He rather clearly points out the fundamental flaw in Marx's idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat (the stage the USSR never progressed beyond).

Anarchist communism, as advocated by Malatesta, Bakinin, Kropotkin, and Goldman (to name but a few) is a very different beast, and one with (in my opinion) much more potential. For an interesting look at this, try Ursula K. LeGuin's book The Dispossessed. While it is SF, it avoids simply preaching the virtues of anarchism. It rather presents a surprisingly realistic anarchist society, both its flaws and its benefits, and compares it with others. Excellent book.

Communism's major problems in the real world:

1) Incentive. Incentive to do well relies upon non-financial means - the acclaim of one's peers, recognition by authority, and respect by one's family and friends, as well as personal satisfaction. It can be argued that this should be enough; however, this argument ignores the fact that human beings are individually and non-identically motivated. Financial motivation remains the most powerful and near-universal incentive to do well in business/labour.Perhaps so, but while it can be generally said that people do good things for non-financial reasons, the things people do for financial reasons are often not good, or are less good.

2) Power concentration. Once past a certain point of size, a communist organization requires a coordinating body of some kind to maintain adequate distribution of goods and services to satisfy member's needs, and wants as much as possible. Such bodies, by their very nature, become very powerful, as they basically feed and clothe everyone, and decide how best to distribute those resources which are scarce. Even if these are elected positions, it's near impossible for distributors not to become "more equal than others".And if there is no distinction between the distributors and the populace at large?

3) Mediocrity. Under communist theory, the value of an object is dependent upon the amount of work put into it, regardless of the quality of that work. Thus, a car built in six hours by a fumble-fingered idiot and one built in six hours by a master craftsman have identical value. As anyone who has ever bought a lemon will tell you, this is a fallacy.Perhaps so, but one would wonder why the fumble-fingered idiot is building the car in the first place. Generally people are not good at the things they dislike, so one would assume the idiot is doing something s/he likes instead of building cars.

In small groups, these problems can be managed or eliminated. But once past a certain point of size, when communism is used as a general economic system rather than an addition to an existing system, they become a cancer that eventually renders the system unworkable.What 'certain point in size' is this?
Why must groups become larger than this?

Communism is only good for 2 things.

1. To giggle at the memory of former Communist fools who's 'dreams' have been effectively killed as the capitalist market, even going through one of its worst periods, has taken domination over the global economy.For now.

I cannot believe this debate is going on. It has been just TWENTY YEARS since the Soviet Union imploded, and already we've got morons going "Hey, maybe we should try that again...". STOP. JUST FUCKING STOP. The system doesn't work. It is rubbish. Give it up. If you love socialism so much, go to fricken Cuba or Vietnam or Laos already and shut up about it!We're talking about communism here. Why bring up non sequiturs?

Yay, this again.

*Reads thread*

Oh damn, this again?

Yes, it's fairly clear that centralised state communism doesn't work - the USSR proved that quite adequately. However, I would like to link this (http://question-everything.mahost.org/Archive/BakuninMarx.html) piece by Mikhail Bakunin, written in 1873. He rather clearly points out the fundamental flaw in Marx's idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat (the stage the USSR never progressed beyond).

Anarchist communism, as advocated by Malatesta, Bakinin, Kropotkin, and Goldman (to name but a few) is a very different beast, and one with (in my opinion) much more potential. For an interesting look at this, try Ursula K. LeGuin's book The Dispossessed. While it is SF, it avoids simply preaching the virtues of anarchism. It rather presents a surprisingly realistic anarchist society, both its flaws and its benefits, and compares it with others. Excellent book.

I don't know much about anarchist communism, but the "anarchist" part of it suggests that it is idealistic in the extreme, and thus unlikely to work out in a pragmatic world.

How exactly would an anarcho-communist state work? Or stateless, if you prefer.

I don't know much about anarchist communism, but the "anarchist" part of it suggests that it is idealistic in the extreme, and thus unlikely to work out in a pragmatic world.

and why is that?

How exactly would an anarcho-communist state work? Or stateless, if you prefer.

well that's a broad sort of question. how broad of an answer are you willing to accept?

This would work, if everyone treated everyone else as a loving family, which is not human nature.

We all think differently, I hate your ways and you hate his ways, we live in difference and competition.

Communism is basically slavery to those that actually work because people have no incentive to work. Why would I work extra hard or at all if i can get away with it?

and why is that?
It implies rule by a majority of the people alone, without any government officials overseeing it, and as a rule, the majority is only as smart as its least intelligent member. Decisions would be short-sighted and easily swayed by demagogues and media, provided such things exist. The intellectuals and élite who actually have some chance of running the country successfully would have only a limited voice if they were in the minority. Et cetera.


well that's a broad sort of question. how broad of an answer are you willing to accept?
Fairly broad, assuming an anarcho-communist society to be established from scratch rather than on the foundations of an existing nation, and in its ideal state.

Communism is a perfect system. Everyone is equal, and every gets what they should get. But like with the most of the perfect things, when the people touches them they stop to be so perfect.

Sorry for my grammar. :) (I should put this in my signature)

I don't know much about anarchist communism, but the "anarchist" part of it suggests that it is idealistic in the extreme, and thus unlikely to work out in a pragmatic world.

How exactly would an anarcho-communist state work? Or stateless, if you prefer.

There are as many models suggested as there are thinkers who have considered it. Still, one can pick up on the common features.

Roughly speaking, such a society would be structured as a federation of communes. Each of these is small - a few dozens - and run by common consent. These are generally fairly agricultural, and mostly or totally self-sufficient. They will also likely produce surpluses of various goods, which can be passed on to other nearby communes which need them.

One cannot put much more than that down as a 'standard' anarcho-communist society, but I think it's a decent enough broad picture. Decisions are taken democratically at the lowest possible level, and distribution is done from the bottom up, by passing goods from where they are to where they are needed.

Again, I recommend The Dispossessed for an interesting view of an anarchist society.

New name for post: Sun is cold?

Communism is basically slavery to those that actually work because people have no incentive to work. Why would I work extra hard or at all if i can get away with it?

And that's why communist countries had such a shoddy standard of living. It's really not that implausible to believe that they spent more time and effort trying to cover up their shoddy workmanship and corruption than they did actually working...

New name for post: Sun is cold?

Fook off, would ya? We all know you want to kill commies, but could you try and add something interesting to the debate or just keep quiet?

It implies rule by a majority of the people alone, without any government officials overseeing it, and as a rule, the majority is only as smart as its least intelligent member. Decisions would be short-sighted and easily swayed by demagogues and media, provided such things exist. The intellectuals and élite who actually have some chance of running the country successfully would have only a limited voice if they were in the minority. Et cetera.

eh, if people are too stupid to run their social systems, we're more or less fucked no matter what. its not like the state has historically been a shinning beacon of intellectual rule and good governance. and by leveling and decentralizing power, we at least can keep people from doing quite so much harm.

also, pure majoritarianism isn't really all that worthwhile of a goal in the abstract, though clearly majority decision-making has a role to play.

Fairly broad

well, in broad strokes, its all about restructuring the power relations of society so that the fundamental unit (beyond the individual) is the commune/collective/syndicate, which are the local levels of face-to-face social interactions - the neighborhood, the workplace, etc. these then federate together for whatever purposes are deemed worthwhile by the people involved, with the 'higher' levels working to coordinate between their various component members. among these purposes, obviously, will be creating and providing goods and services and such in order to maximize human happiness and potential to the greatest extent possible.

for a bit more detailed account, check this out
http://infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html

These are generally fairly agricultural, and mostly or totally self-sufficient.

that sounds awful

that sounds awful

Well, for the billions of people that would have to starve to death or otherwise be "liquidated" to make that possible on any appreciable scale, it would be.

Using the same logic, that's why religion doesn't work.

As a means of controlling the masses, religion is still quite effective. Or did you mean religion for something else?

But competition goes beyond economics. The charm of democracy is the primacy given to the competition between ideas and the regulation of the political system to ensure there aren't ongoing political monopolies.

That only lasts until people figure out career politicians and start making political dynasties.

Well, for the billions of people that would have to starve to death or otherwise be "liquidated" to make that possible on any appreciable scale, it would be.

um, no, that's not actually among the problems associated with that conception of the commune.

Communism fails for one reason: Wealth cannot be created, only destroyed.

thats not even close to being true. And "wealth" as you so aptly put it acts like energy it can neither be created nor destroyed but simply moved from place to place.

Perhaps so, but while it can be generally said that people do good things for non-financial reasons, the things people do for financial reasons are often not good, or are less good.

Wihin limits, true. The greatest creations and designs do come from those who have personal incentives to do well. But financial incentive drives the manufacture of reasonable products at reasonable standards from pretty much everyone - and it is that universal incentive that communism lacks.

And if there is no distinction between the distributors and the populace at large?

Past a certain size that can't work. Distribution of goods and services over a large group has a name - logistics - and is a professional skill employed by professional distributors. Remove the professionals from the equation, and the entire process will fail catastrophically. Allow the distributors carte blanche without competition, and you have another ruling class.

Perhaps so, but one would wonder why the fumble-fingered idiot is building the car in the first place. Generally people are not good at the things they dislike, so one would assume the idiot is doing something s/he likes instead of building cars.

That's merely an example. The point is that communist theory is wrong on a fundamental level regarding the value of items or services.

What 'certain point in size' is this?

Unknown. It appears to be somewhere above the point where everyone can operate as a true democracy and make all decisions in a comittee of the whole. Somewhere between a Kibbutz and a city, probably.

Why must groups become larger than this?

If you wish to do away with the nation-state, go ahead and organize a country into hundreds of thousands of Kibbutzes. But say goodbye to economies of scale, a unified economy, and even universally acknowledged currency, and accept that an awful lot of your time will be engaged in negotiating for trade of goods your Kibbutz produces for those you don't, and continuous arguments over values therof - not to mention that you'll either need to practice population control or have plenty of land to found new Kibbutzes on.

Really does not sound like a system capable of providing for people's needs to me.