# Can Communism Ever Work?



## Sukerkin (Sep 24, 2013)

This question was inspired by my reaction to this image:

View attachment $corn field brunette.jpg

Insects don't feel pain, which is why humans can never have a truly Communist society.

Of course it's not just that.  Communism is undermined at the very start because almost everybody, no matter how noble, has a small part of their being that wants something for themselves.  So any large enough conglomerate of people will, by inevitable nature, develop a hierarchy and a schism between those that have and those that do not.

Is this something that can be legislated against, effectively, and spare us from the vile rapine that is unfettered Capitalism, where Devil Take the Hindmost is the philosophical mantra of choice?

If it cannot be legislated against, which is likely as even creeping increments of power will lead to an elite that can overcome such barriers, is there a way to create a society where the "drive for self" of Capitalism can be melded to the "care for others" of Socialism to operate together for the good of all?


----------



## Takai (Sep 24, 2013)

In short you have described the mythical "utopia". Unfortunately, I do not think that human beings can create such a system. We are all flawed in some sense and those flaws will inevitably seep into whatever system or process that we "develop".

Of course, I see no real harm in trying to accomplish such an admirable goal.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 24, 2013)

[h=2]Can Communism Ever Work?[/h]No. People are not selfless.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 24, 2013)

I disagree, Don, people are imbued with the ability to be selfless.  Not exclusively selfless, that is true but most of us are instinctively wired to subsume our own desires for the good of the group.  That is how we have made it as a species.

I already covered that aspect in my original framing of the question, I think.  I was pondering if we could think of a way to contain that inner seed of destruction where a person who is more sociopathic can game the system to their advantage and the detriment of everyone else.  In much the same way as Capitalism cannot work without regulation and assistance for the major players.

There has to be a way around this impasse or we are doomed to endlessly repeat the same misery for all but a handful.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 24, 2013)

Mark, a person may be selfless, people as a group are not, and never will be.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 24, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> I disagree, Don, people are imbued with the ability to be selfless.



In my opinion People as a whole yes, People as a group can and are selfless.  However the individual person not so much.  Its even easier to be selfish when your an unknown face in the crowd of millions


----------



## granfire (Sep 24, 2013)

Hmm, I heard about small tribes in the rain forest that do practice true 'communism', not even having a word for 'mine' or 'yours'

But then again, they own hardly more than the loin cloth around their waist and the rock they need to build shelter....


Unlike insects, there is a biological incentive for the individual to be selfish. 
Ant or bees are not much more than detached 'cells' from the whole organism. Non can reproduce (except the queen and a few drones) 
For the rest of the animal kingdom controlled selfishness is more beneficial.


----------



## K-man (Sep 24, 2013)

Not sure why you are specifically listing Communism as distinct from Socialism.

Of course Communism can work for some. The great beauty of Communism is that everyone is equal .. just that some are more 'equal' than others.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 24, 2013)

Monastic communities are pretty communist.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 25, 2013)

K-man said:


> Not sure why you are specifically listing Communism as distinct from Socialism.
> 
> Of course Communism can work for some. The great beauty of Communism is that everyone is equal .. just that some are more 'equal' than others.



Socialism is just slow communism.


----------



## K-man (Sep 25, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Socialism is just slow communism.


No, sorry have to disagree. There are many commonalities but Socialism is way this side of Communism.



> noun
> a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
> policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
> (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.


Many years ago when I was a student of politics the policy of the Australian Labor Party included "The democratic socialisation on industry, means and exchange". It has since been modified to;  "The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields."

I know this must seem extremely left wing in a country that considers the Democrats to be the left but we would in no form consider the ALP communist.



> Noun
> a theory or system of social organisation in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. See also Marxism.



:asian:


----------



## TaiChiTJ (Sep 26, 2013)

One of the first introductions to communism I had was the statement: 

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - Karl Marx

The communist state decides what your skills are and proceeds to use them, and what your needs are and give it to you. There are alot of problems with this. A third party, the state, is deciding what you are going to do with your labor. And also, how many gallons of milk you are allowed in the fridge and how much meat on the table. A third party is deciding on this. 

So for example its 1975 or whatever and Steve Jobs has just sold his VW microbus.  He goes to the bank for more money and they ask him what he wants it for. He explains he and his buddy Wozniak are going to build personal computers. Problem: the bank officials don't know what that is. They do not know the abilities it takes to build one so they have no basis to judge if Steve and Woz have the ability to build one. Its not in their little black book of acceptable abilities. Furhermore, there is no compelling evidence that the personal computer will in any way improve the functioning of society because they do not exist yet, in a widespread manner. 

So I have difficulty with seeing how technological innovation, any innovation really, takes place in that society. Its as if they do not acknowledge innovation.  Creativity is their blind spot. 

Our blind spot is when the capitalist system thinks it can take over governmental decisions.


----------



## DennisBreene (Sep 26, 2013)

granfire said:


> Hmm, I heard about small tribes in the rain forest that do practice true 'communism', not even having a word for 'mine' or 'yours'
> 
> But then again, they own hardly more than the loin cloth around their waist and the rock they need to build shelter....
> 
> ...



Actually, there are multiple examples of such small "hunter/gatherer" groups throughout the world and the one thing they seem to have in common is group altruism. Being selfish is considered poor behavior and generally frowned upon.  In those societies, with little or no excess, the survival of the group depends on such behavior.  Interestingly, our closest animal cousins, the chimpanzees and bonobos were noted to have similar societal behavior.  Naturalists altered the balance by placing large quantities of food in a single location (to draw the animals in for observation) and the behavior rapidly shifted towards avariciousness and aggressiveness as the animals attempted to monopolize the excess food. Source "Sex at Dawn; The Prehistoric Origins of Human Sexuality" Ryan and Jetha. (don't ask; I thought it was going to be about morning quickies)


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 26, 2013)

K-man said:


> No, sorry have to disagree. There are many commonalities but Socialism is way this side of Communism.
> 
> Many years ago when I was a student of politics the policy of the Australian Labor Party included "The democratic socialisation on industry, means and exchange". It has since been modified to;  "The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields."
> 
> ...



I think you have valid points. Socialism is not as extreme as communism, but ideology of initiating force and violating private property rests at the heart of both. The difference lies in control and scale. With communism, power was more highly concentrated and this caused the government to lurch toward utopia and crush the unfortunate in the gears of state power. With socialism, power is diffused through democracy, so these governments sort of stroll toward a "better place" under a veil of language. So, where communism kills, socialism merely impoverishes.

It will be interesting to see if the experiment of social democracy works. As it has been developing debt, inflation, special interests and public sector unions are all combining to sink several prominent social democracies around the world. I have a suspicion that this fate awaits all social democracies and the only difference is that some countries are more advanced toward that fate.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 26, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> Actually, there are multiple examples of such small "hunter/gatherer" groups throughout the world and the one thing they seem to have in common is group altruism. Being selfish is considered poor behavior and generally frowned upon.  In those societies, with little or no excess, the survival of the group depends on such behavior.  Interestingly, our closest animal cousins, the chimpanzees and bonobos were noted to have similar societal behavior.  Naturalists altered the balance by placing large quantities of food in a single location (to draw the animals in for observation) and the behavior rapidly shifted towards avariciousness and aggressiveness as the animals attempted to monopolize the excess food. Source "Sex at Dawn; The Prehistoric Origins of Human Sexuality" Ryan and Jetha. (don't ask; I thought it was going to be about morning quickies)



This book is really excellent. I think the whole field of evolutionary psychology has so much offer our modern world views.


----------



## K-man (Sep 26, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I think you have valid points. Socialism is not as extreme as communism, but ideology of initiating force and violating private property rests at the heart of both. The difference lies in control and scale. With communism, power was more highly concentrated and this caused the government to lurch toward utopia and crush the unfortunate in the gears of state power. With socialism, power is diffused through democracy, so these governments sort of stroll toward a "better place" under a veil of language. So, where communism kills, socialism merely impoverishes.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if the experiment of social democracy works. As it has been developing debt, inflation, special interests and public sector unions are all combining to sink several prominent social democracies around the world. I have a suspicion that this fate awaits all social democracies and the only difference is that some countries are more advanced toward that fate.


Mate, we have had Labor governments off and on for over 100 years. On the whole they stuff the economy each time they get in but they usually introduce some worthwhile social reforms that our conservative parties then get in and work out how to pay for the reforms. 

The "ideology of *initiating force and violating private property *rests at the heart of both" is totally false. It hasn't occurred here and it hasn't occurred in the socialist systems of Europe. I think you guys get indoctrinated that anything left wing of Genghis Khan must be communism.

If you reckon socialism fuels debt, compare the economies of Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, The Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium etc with the US. If any country knows how to run up debt it is America and America is as for from socialism as I can imagine.
:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 26, 2013)

K-man said:


> The "ideology of *initiating force and violating private property *rests at the heart of both" is totally false.



If your government creates a program and you disagree with it, can you with hold the portion of tax you would pay for that program? If you cannot, then your government initiates force and violates private property.

If you can tell the government to stuff it and not pay, then I take my statement back.


----------



## K-man (Sep 26, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> If your government creates a program and you disagree with it, can you with hold the portion of tax you would pay for that program? If you cannot, then your government initiates force and violates private property.
> 
> If you can tell the government to stuff it and not pay, then I take my statement back.


Garbage! Tell me one country in the world that operates that way.
If there is a controversial program envisaged, our parties normally take that to an election as policy. If you agree you vote them in, if you disagree, out they go. If any party implemented a policy that most people disagreed with they would be out at the next election and the policy rescinded. It's a novel approach I know, but we call it democracy!


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 26, 2013)

K-man said:


> Garbage! Tell me one country in the world that operates that way.



I understand this concept is probably hard to swallow, but it's actually very simple. If the government can force an individual to fork over blood and treasure, even for the things the individual despises, then the government is fundamentally the same as any totalitarian government. In social democracies, it is only the fact that so many groups are reaching for that power that sets them apart. That is the true nature of democracy, it's two wolves, two lions, two bears, two tigers and a bunch of sheep voting on what's for dinner. 

Real democracy, or real free choice, only exists when the ability to say "no" is preserved for the individual. Governments do not operate on this principle by definition, but much of your life does to varying degrees. Societies exist on a continuum where the ability to say no is highly restricted on one side and hardly restricted on the other. People flourish when they have the freedom to choose their own paths in life, when the ability to say no to each other is preserved. 

Australia is pretty nice, but it would be better if you were free.


----------



## K-man (Sep 26, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I understand this concept is probably hard to swallow, but it's actually very simple. If the government can force an individual to fork over blood and treasure, even for the things the individual despises, then the government is fundamentally the same as any totalitarian government. In social democracies, it is only the fact that so many groups are reaching for that power that sets them apart. That is the true nature of democracy, it's two wolves, two lions, two bears, two tigers and a bunch of sheep voting on what's for dinner.
> 
> Real democracy, or real free choice, only exists when the ability to say "no" is preserved for the individual. Governments do not operate on this principle by definition, but much of your life does to varying degrees. Societies exist on a continuum where the ability to say no is highly restricted on one side and hardly restricted on the other. People flourish when they have the freedom to choose their own paths in life, when the ability to say no to each other is preserved.
> 
> Australia is pretty nice, but it would be better if you were free.


It might be simple but such a country doesn't exist.  As I was told in no uncertain terms some years back, I think by Bill Mattocks, America isn't even a democracy, yet most people think of it as such. America, the Land of the Free! Joke! More people in jail than anywhere in the free world. And you've had a dysfunctional government for the past year because the man you elected as President isn't allowed to exercise his mandate. How is that free?

As I asked, what country satisfies your criteria as 'Free'?  The only people free to do anything they choose are criminals and anarchists, neither of whom have a particularly bright future.

Oh! Don't worry yourself about Australia. We're fine honestly. We certainly wouldn't want the US brand of _free_!


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 26, 2013)

K-man said:


> If you reckon socialism fuels debt, compare the economies of Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, The Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium etc with the US. If any country knows how to run up debt it is America and America is as for from socialism as I can imagine.
> :asian:


How much do those countries send out in foreign aid? The US sends Billions to other countries even some on that list.    Have they been involved in a War for the last 13 years spending trillions of dollars?


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 26, 2013)

K-man said:


> It might be simple but such a country doesn't exist.  As I was told in no uncertain terms some years back, I think by Bill Mattocks, America isn't even a democracy, yet most people think of it as such. America, the Land of the Free! Joke! More people in jail than anywhere in the free world. And you've had a dysfunctional government for the past year because the man you elected as President isn't allowed to exercise his mandate. How is that free?
> 
> As I asked, what country satisfies your criteria as 'Free'?  The only people free to do anything they choose are criminals and anarchists, neither of whom have a particularly bright future.
> 
> Oh! Don't worry yourself about Australia. We're fine honestly. We certainly wouldn't want the US brand of _free_!



Nonsense.  Total BS


----------



## granfire (Sep 26, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> How much do those countries send out in foreign aid? The US sends Billions to other countries even some on that list.    Have they been involved in a War for the last 13 years spending trillions of dollars?



OMG foreign aid.....

Good lord, really!
The amount spend on that is pittance compared to, say....defense....

Don't take a national trade deficit into account....

Foreign aid tends to reap much higher awards than it costs, on many levels, selling US junk to those nations is usually one outcome. It's hardly altruistic and rather cheap, considering alternatives.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 26, 2013)

granfire said:


> OMG foreign aid.....
> 
> Good lord, really!
> The amount spend on that is pittance compared to, say....defense....
> ...



Guess you missed the part where I said trillions.  But when comparing the US to other nations foreign aid comes into play


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 26, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Nonsense. Total BS



No it isn't "Total BS", my friend, it's just not a point of view you want to accept and one that you may have heard one time too many, which makes you angry.  

Likewise with Foreign 'Aid' either really - that's just foreign policy with a velvet glove rather than an iron fist and to pretend otherwise is an error.  Best not to go into where all that money came from in the first place of course; it wasn't from free trade and pure-hearted, honest, economic activity  .

None of which is relevant to the perfectly good discourse on why Communism has not and probably cannot be a viable form of governance for humans.  Tho' it might be relevant as to why there has never been and can never be a true Capitalist system of governance either.  The Victorians were the closest we've had to that and that sucked the resources of a fifth of the globe before money lost it's meaning ... and still failed to be a truly free expression of the market.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 26, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> No it isn't "Total BS", my friend, it's just not a point of view you want to accept and one that you may have heard one time too many, which makes you angry.
> 
> Likewise with Foreign 'Aid' either really - that's just foreign policy with a velvet glove rather than an iron fist and to pretend otherwise is an error.  Best not to go into where all that money came from in the first place of course; it wasn't from free trade and pure-hearted, honest, economic activity  .
> 
> None of which is relevant to the perfectly good discourse on why Communism has not and probably cannot be a viable form of governance for humans.  Tho' it might be relevant as to why there has never been and can never be a true Capitalist system of governance either.  The Victorians were the closest we've had to that and that sucked the resources of a fifth of the globe before money lost it's meaning ... and still failed to be a truly free expression of the market.


It is nonsense I was talking about this position that he's more free then we are.  What freedoms do they have in Australia that I don't have here?


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 26, 2013)

They've got ...

View attachment 18318

Which counts as a win, I believe 

And I confess I failed to realise that your point was in reference to a comparison of relative freedoms rather than a denial of the inherent truth of what *K-Man* said :bows in apology:.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 26, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> They've got ...
> 
> View attachment 18318
> 
> ...



We have them too at the zoo.  Plus we have Kate Upton for the win.


----------



## pgsmith (Sep 26, 2013)

Communism on anything other than a very small scale is doomed to failure. This is because of the nature of life on our planet. All life here (including man) evolved through competition and strife. The utopian society that you describe in your original post depends upon elimination of competition. It may be possible to do on a small scale, where innovation and improvement is not necessary and those few people that are naturally dominant or competitive can be suppressed or eliminated. On a larger scale however, it would be much harder to suppress the competitive ones who will end up gravitating to positions of leadership, where they will inevitably distort the level playing field that communism requires to function. 

  Just my opinion.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 26, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> On a larger scale however, it would be much harder to suppress the competitive ones who will end up gravitating to positions of leadership, where they will inevitably distort the level playing field that communism requires to function.



It would seem to me that this very criticism could be leveled at nearly all Western governments.  Based on my observations, all societies struggle with elite classes taking the reins in government.  What I would like to see is an example society where the power of government is restrained.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 26, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> What freedoms do they have in Australia that I don't have here?



This is a perfectly reasonable question.  In my experience, other than a few notable exceptions, Australia and the United States basically "allow" people to do the same things.  The degree of freedom in our societies aren't that far apart.

I think the fundamental difference between the US and Australia (and other countries by default) lies in who holds the reins of government power.  In the US, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, BOA, Monsanto, Merck, Halliburton, Raytheon (and all of the sattalite corporations that surround the Military Industrial Complex) and other corporations dominate the government.  

For those of you who live in other countries, *K-man, Sukerkin, et al*, who holds the reins of power in your society?


----------



## Instructor (Sep 26, 2013)

A better question is:  "Why would anybody WANT communism to work?"  I like a world where if you work hard and things break your way you have a fighting chance of having something more than the bum who does nothing.  That's a nice photo though..


----------



## Tgace (Sep 26, 2013)

Any method of government that counts on people ignoring their self-interest is doomed to failure. 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 26, 2013)

Far too much now of people throwing the "It'll never work!" meme on the table.  Recall that the opening sentiment is that "Insects don't feel pain, which is why humans can never have a truly Communist society". 

Read the OP again and answer the ****ing question!  Bit much to expect out of the Internet I suppose :lol:.

The whole point was to try and envision a way in which it could work, no matter how elaborate or how much groundwork would be necessary, rather than enumerate the obvious reasons why it hasn't.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 26, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> For those of you who live in other countries, *K-man, Sukerkin, et al*, who holds the reins of power in your society?



The Crown.  Many people don't realise it but that's where the power actually lies for, to borrow your "government is violence" theme, that is where the allegiance of the military is given (and most of them mean it too (or the ones that I know do).


----------



## K-man (Sep 26, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> This is a perfectly reasonable question.  In my experience, other than a few notable exceptions, Australia and the United States basically "allow" people to do the same things.  The degree of freedom in our societies aren't that far apart.
> 
> I think the fundamental difference between the US and Australia (and other countries by default) lies in who holds the reins of government power.  In the US, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, BOA, Monsanto, Merck, Halliburton, Raytheon (and all of the sattalite corporations that surround the Military Industrial Complex) and other corporations dominate the government.
> 
> For those of you who live in other countries, *K-man, Sukerkin, et al*, who holds the reins of power in your society?


On the surface it would appear that government is relatively free of outside interests with a couple of notable exceptions. Influencing governments of all persuasions is the press. They can make or break a government. What they get back is favourable treatment in preserving their position WRT competition.
On the Labor side the big backers are the unions. Prior to recent times they controlled the party by determining policy at the Labor party conferences. The conference members comprised six union representatives from six states and they were dubbed 'The 36 Faceless Men" by one Liberal leader and this slogan cost the Labor Party the election. Now, the unions still have a major influence but not quite as much. Big business, and small business too for that matter, usually sides with the Coalition. Because of disclosure rules the big business end of town usually hedge their bets and back both sides, knowing that they need the ear of government regardless of its colour.

Within the electorates themselves, local issues play an enormous part that any member ignores at their peril. In our election a couple of weeks ago with a huge swing back to the conservatives one of the sitting members, actually a front bench member of the cabinet, lost her seat to an independant because she had ignored her constituents.

So, to give the short answer, apart from the press and the unions, Australian politics is relatively clean when compared to the rest of the world. Certainly no big companies have anything like the influence they have in the US.
:asian:


----------



## Tgace (Sep 26, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Far too much now of people throwing the "It'll never work!" meme on the table.  Recall that the opening sentiment is that "Insects don't feel pain, which is why humans can never have a truly Communist society".
> 
> Read the OP again and answer the ****ing question!  Bit much to expect out of the Internet I suppose :lol:.
> 
> The whole point was to try and envision a way in which it could work, no matter how elaborate or how much groundwork would be necessary, rather than enumerate the obvious reasons why it hasn't.



It could work by killing all opposition and forming secret police squads to liquidate ...er reeducate anybody who wont fall in line. Or you could starve people by the millions if they are an obstacle.

Oh....that's already been done.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 26, 2013)

:chuckles:  But that didn't really work .  

Like all totalitarian and brutalist regimes, the squeezing iron fist has an impact in the short term but the longer it goes on the more resistance there comes to be.  That's why the premier Western nations like the USA and the UK chug along quite nicely - we think we are free because we are told we are and we still 'believe' it, rationalising the necessity of restrictions and control, even when we intellectually know we are not really free (thinking somewhat in the absolute terms of extreme Libertarians or anarchists there).


----------



## Tgace (Sep 26, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> :chuckles:  But that didn't really work .
> 
> Like all totalitarian and brutalist regimes, the squeezing iron fist has an impact in the short term but the longer it goes on the more resistance there comes to be.  That's why the premier Western nations like the USA and the UK chug along quite nicely - we think we are free because we are told we are and we still 'believe' it, rationalising the necessity of restrictions and control, even when we intellectually know we are not really free (thinking somewhat in the absolute terms of extreme Libertarians or anarchists there).



I still posit that my way is the only way it will "work". Taking some of my property through taxes is different from taking ALL of the fruits of my labor at the literal point of a gun....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## K-man (Sep 26, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> The Crown.  Many people don't realise it but that's where the power actually lies for, to borrow your "government is violence" theme, that is where the allegiance of the military is given (and most of them mean it too (or the ones that I know do).


Actually, seeing *Suk'*s response, we have the Queen as our nominal Head of State albeit her power is vested through her representative determined by our Parliament. This person, called the Governor General is an eminent Australian who is basically above politics and can if the situation arises such as 1975 when we had a deadlocked house, not unlike the US situation, dissolve the Parliament and send the whole sorry mob back to the people.

That's a little of an aside because although the Governor General oversees the Parliament, she doesn't influence it. The military swears its allegiance to the crown, although that is more ceremonial than anything else. 
:asian:


----------



## K-man (Sep 26, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> It is nonsense I was talking about this position that he's more free then we are.  What freedoms do they have in Australia that I don't have here?


I didn't suggest we had more freedoms. It was just I took issue with *Maka*'s illuminating and annoying comment "Australia is pretty nice, but *it would be better if you were free*".

We have the same freedom as all other first world countries and possibly more than some. We also have some of the same problems that other first world countries have as a result of that freedom. I'm not suggesting we have more freedom than you but in the context of civilised and responsible society, we have all the freedom we need.
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 26, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Far too much now of people throwing the "It'll never work!" meme on the table.  Recall that the opening sentiment is that "Insects don't feel pain, which is why humans can never have a truly Communist society".
> 
> Read the OP again and answer the ****ing question!  Bit much to expect out of the Internet I suppose :lol:.
> 
> The whole point was to try and envision a way in which it could work, no matter how elaborate or how much groundwork would be necessary, rather than enumerate the obvious reasons why it hasn't.



So what's your ideas to make it work?  I just think it goes against human nature.  Even small children have a sense of private property when it comes to things like their toys.  "Mine" is usually spoken not long after momma and dadda


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 26, 2013)

I don't think it can be made to work either, not in the purest utopian form at least.  

Obviously, not being American and missing out on the brainwashing you get that Communism is the Devil in political form, I have a bit more freedom of thought on the matter as I don't reflexively dismiss it out of hand at a genetic level as ludicrous and wrong.  But even so, my thoughts on the matter are pretty clear in the OP.

Socialism is a whole other animal, which is something I noted being raised in the posts above that I intended to respond to but got distracted by real life events.  That has more of a chance as it is more of a compromise, an alloy of systems that is stronger than either by itself.  I live in a socialist country, as do most Western Europeans, even if our governments are nominally Conservative or Liberal or some mix of the two. So I know Socialism works and works rather well (externally applied economic shocks not withstanding).  Which is why I specifically wanted us to focus on and think about Communism and what measures would be necessary to make it actually work.


----------



## K-man (Sep 26, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> I don't think it can be made to work either, not in the purest utopian form at least.
> 
> Obviously, not being American and missing out on the brainwashing you get that Communism is the Devil in political form, I have a bit more freedom of thought on the matter as I don't reflexively dismiss it out of hand at a genetic level as ludicrous and wrong.  But even so, my thoughts on the matter are pretty clear in the OP.
> 
> Socialism is a whole other animal, which is something I noted being raised in the posts above that I intended to respond to but got distracted by real life events.  That has more of a chance as it is more of a compromise, an alloy of systems that is stronger than either by itself.  I live in a socialist country, as do most Western Europeans, even if our governments are nominally Conservative or Liberal or some mix of the two. So I know Socialism works and works rather well (externally applied economic shocks not withstanding).  Which is why I specifically wanted us to focus on and think about Communism and what measures would be necessary to make it actually work.


I think the big difference between extreme Socialism such as you might find on the kibbutz in Israel and Communism as you may have experienced it under Stalin is that in Israel you still had the right to have an opinion and be heard. Voice the wrong opinion under Stalin and if you were lucky you got to die in a Gulag camp. That said, I think that the type of Communism Marx had in mind was probably closer to the Israeli situation than the regime under Stalin which was a brutal dictatorship that was nominally Communist.

Let's look at what the Communist manifesto put forward:



> 1.   Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
> 2.   A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
> 3.   Abolition of all right of inheritance.
> 4.   Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
> ...


Obviously some of these reforms could be achieved peacefully, but many of them needed the help of the military and elimination of the influential and wealthy who would strive to maintain the status quo.

So yes, philosophically it isn't such a bad idea but how you can convince all the people with wealth and power to relinquish it for the good of the people is hard to imagine. 

Then you throw in lack of incentive without reward and you start to get the divide between the 'rewarded' and the 'unrewarded' and the comment that _'all are equal but some are more equal than others'_.
:asian:


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 26, 2013)

Funny thing is for Communism to take effect you need capitalism to build everything first and then take it over.  I think the only way it could work if it were possible would be to start totally from scratch like starting a colony on Mars or something where nobody has any private property and everyone needs to work together for their own survival.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 27, 2013)

As I said earlier, most monastic communities are economically communist in nature.

Notice the similarity between those words: "communities" and "communist."

Sure, communism can work, if all the members of a given society-like a monastic one-choose to accept those conditions-it helps if each member of that society have a common goal and ethos-like a monastic society, or, as gran pointed out, a tribal subsistence lifestyle. Communism works fine for small communities with a common goal, where all members of the society have chosen to share the same kind of thinking....sort of like ants.....


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 27, 2013)

elder999 said:


> As I said earlier, most monastic communities are economically communist in nature.
> 
> Notice the similarity between those words: "communities" and "communist."
> 
> Sure, communism can work, if all the members of a given society-like a monastic one-choose to accept those conditions-it helps if each member of that society have a common goal and ethos-like a monastic society, or, as gran pointed out, a tribal subsistence lifestyle. Communism works fine for small communities with a common goal, where all members of the society have chosen to share the same kind of thinking....sort of like ants.....



There is a big difference between communism and communitarianism. One is voluntary, the other is not. One works, the other does not.


----------



## pgsmith (Sep 27, 2013)

Sukerkin said:
			
		

> Read the OP again and answer the ****ing question! Bit much to expect out of the Internet I suppose :lol:





			
				Sukerkin said:
			
		

> If it cannot be legislated against, which is likely as even creeping increments of power will lead to an elite that can overcome such barriers, is there a way to create a society where the "drive for self" of Capitalism can be melded to the "care for others" of Socialism to operate together for the good of all?



  No.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 27, 2013)

And here I am with odd, small, squarish indents in my forehead again ... and I need another new keyboard!  What on earth is going on?! :lol:.


----------



## Balrog (Sep 27, 2013)

[h=2]Can Communism Ever Work?[/h]
The answer, in a nutshell, is yes and no.   :hmm:

Communism, and all the other related -isms, are economic models that look great on paper and in theory.  The problem is that they all break down once you get more than about 100 people in the mix.  They can work on a tribal or small village scale, but they fail miserably once you get past that scale of application.


----------



## Instructor (Sep 27, 2013)

Show of hands, who here want's to give up half their possesions so somebody with nothing can have something?


----------



## elder999 (Sep 27, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> There is a big difference between communism and communitarianism. One is voluntary, the other is not. One works, the other does not.



Mmm.....how "voluntary" is it for the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso?:



> A search party was sent to locate the new incarnation when the boy who was to become the 14th was about two years old.[SUP][9][/SUP] It is said that, amongst other omens, the head of the embalmed body of the thirteenth Dalai Lama, at first facing south-east, had mysteriously turned to face the northeastindicating the direction in which his successor would be found. The Regent, Reting Rinpoche, shortly afterwards had a vision at the sacred lake of Lhamo La-tso indicating Amdo as the region to searchspecifically a one-story house with distinctive guttering and tiling. After extensive searching, the Thondup house, with its features resembling those in Reting's vision, was finally found.
> Thondup was presented with various relics, including toys, some of which had belonged to the 13th Dalai Lama and some of which had not. It was reported that he had correctly identified all the items owned by the previous Dalai Lama, exclaiming, "That's mine! That's mine!"
> 
> [SUP]
> ...


[SUP]

Oh, and one more thing:



> Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilisation of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classesthat is, the majorityas well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism."
> Dalai Lama



How much difference do you think *he* sees between "communitarianism" and "communism?"[/SUP]


----------



## granfire (Sep 27, 2013)

Instructor said:


> Show of hands, who here want's to give up half their possesions so somebody with nothing can have something?



Isn't that called marriage?


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 27, 2013)

granfire said:


> Isn't that called marriage?



Who has nothing to start?  Hell when we got married we both had nothing.

Good news is we got most of it left


----------



## WaterGal (Sep 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I understand this concept is probably hard to swallow, but it's actually very simple. If the government can force an individual to fork over blood and treasure, even for the things the individual despises, then the government is fundamentally the same as any totalitarian government.



So then, every government on the face of the planet is totalitarian?  Because every government has taxes, some of which will go to things you don't agree are things they should be spending money on.    Maybe you could try moving to Somalia - there, the government won't take your money, only the pirates and terrorists will.


----------



## WaterGal (Sep 29, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Of course it's not just that.  Communism is undermined at the very start because almost everybody, no matter how noble, has a small part of their being that wants something for themselves.  So any large enough conglomerate of people will, by inevitable nature, develop a hierarchy and a schism between those that have and those that do not.
> 
> Is this something that can be legislated against, effectively, and spare us from the vile rapine that is unfettered Capitalism, where Devil Take the Hindmost is the philosophical mantra of choice?
> 
> If it cannot be legislated against, which is likely as even creeping increments of power will lead to an elite that can overcome such barriers, is there a way to create a society where the "drive for self" of Capitalism can be melded to the "care for others" of Socialism to operate together for the good of all?



I agree that Marxist Communism is doomed to failure, for a couple reasons.  Firstly, because of the revolutionary approach that Marx advocates - the idea that you can overthrow the existing government and then set up the party leaders as the absolute rulers until they can turn the country into a perfect communist state, _after which they'll step down_. That's deeply naive. Communism, this way, will be inherantly totalitarian, because those guys are never going to give up running the country to go work on a farm or whatever. Secondly, for the reason you mention - people want something for themselves, and will work harder to get it.  If everybody gets the same thing - which isn't what actually what happens in communist countries, because of corruption and nepotism - they're not going to work that hard.

But obviously, pure capitalism is pretty rough on a lot of people, and having a social safety net is important.

I think there could be socialist middle grounds.  For example, making every person gets what they need to survive - and then anything beyond that is what you work for for yourself.  I feel like this minimum should still be tied into work, though, to make sure people do something productive, and if a person can't find a job, they could do work for the government like cleaning litter or fixing the roads.  Another idea would be workers getting partial ownership in their company - so that when productivity and efficiency goes up, their income goes up.


----------



## K-man (Sep 29, 2013)

WaterGal said:


> I agree that Marxist Communism is doomed to failure, for a couple reasons.  Firstly, because of the revolutionary approach that Marx advocates - the idea that you can overthrow the existing government and then set up the party leaders as the absolute rulers until they can turn the country into a perfect communist state, _after which they'll step down_. That's deeply naive. Communism, this way, will be inherantly totalitarian, because those guys are never going to give up running the country to go work on a farm or whatever. Secondly, for the reason you mention - people want something for themselves, and will work harder to get it.  If everybody gets the same thing - which isn't what actually what happens in communist countries, because of corruption and nepotism - they're not going to work that hard.
> 
> But obviously, pure capitalism is pretty rough on a lot of people, and having a social safety net is important.
> 
> I think there could be socialist middle grounds.  For example, making every person gets what they need to survive - and then anything beyond that is what you work for for yourself.  I feel like this minimum should still be tied into work, though, to make sure people do something productive, and if a person can't find a job, they could do work for the government like cleaning litter or fixing the roads.  Another idea would be workers getting partial ownership in their company - so that when productivity and efficiency goes up, their income goes up.


We have people in Australia advocating the 'work for the dole' line.  One of the problems is with limited means, getting to work. Another is that in genuine cases, working a certain number of hours for the dole reduces the time you have to look for work.
Nothing is simple when you have lots of people out of work.
:asian:


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 29, 2013)

My primary objection on economic grounds to making people work for their 'dole' is that it is denying the existence of an actual paying job to someone.  I know that we have discussed before that some no-to-low-skill jobs should not pay a living wage but I have to say that I disagree on that - the tax payer ends up paying one way or another for some people not to be criminals (and pay even more if they are criminals) and I think that, overall, less societal damage is done if people can do a job that is useful, not matter how unglamorous, and get paid enough to actually live off the fruits of their labours.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 29, 2013)

granfire said:


> Isn't that called marriage?



I thought that was divorce?  Giving up half your stuff...


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 29, 2013)

I agree with Elder and a couple others that "communism" works on a small scale.  We can look at several examples of "communes" that people shared their work and labor to benefit the group.  I think the key to being successful is having a group of like minded individuals that all share that vision and goal and know the role that they will play in the big picture.

If we look to the example of the early Christians, they set up small groups that shared everything and would even sell off their possessions to get money to help out those who didn't have any.

I think the breakdown comes when it is forced onto people and groups do take advantage to keep the "common people" equal and set it up to give themselves an advantage, much like we have seen in the former Soviet Union and in China.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 29, 2013)

punisher73 said:


> I thought that was divorce? Giving up half your stuff...




_The Wife's Creed_

*"What's mine is mine, and what's YOURS is mine."*
:lfao:


----------



## K-man (Sep 29, 2013)

punisher73 said:


> I agree with Elder and a couple others that "communism" works on a small scale.  We can look at several examples of "communes" that people shared their work and labor to benefit the group.  I think the key to being successful is having a group of like minded individuals that all share that vision and goal and know the role that they will play in the big picture.
> 
> If we look to the example of the early Christians, they set up small groups that shared everything and would even sell off their possessions to get money to help out those who didn't have any.
> 
> I think the breakdown comes when it is forced onto people and groups do take advantage to keep the "common people" equal and set it up to give themselves an advantage, much like we have seen in the former Soviet Union and in China.


Brings back memories from "Animal Farm".



> No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?
> &#8213; George Orwell, Animal Farm


:asian:


----------



## pgsmith (Sep 30, 2013)

Instructor said:


> Show of hands, who here want's to give up half their possesions so somebody with nothing can have something?



  Didn't want to, but her divorce lawyer insisted!


----------



## K-man (Sep 30, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> Didn't want to, but her divorce lawyer insisted!


You only lost half? I obviously had the wrong lawyer!


----------

