Can Communism Ever Work?

[Sukerkin]

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]

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]

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

 

[Sukerkin]

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]

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

 

[ballen0351]

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]

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]

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]

Monastic communities are pretty communist.

 

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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 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.



:asian:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!