Can Communism Ever Work?

[K-man]

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]

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]

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]

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.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

[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]

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

 

[elder999]

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]

Monastic education commenced at the age of six years, his principal teachers being Yongdzin Ling Rinpoche (senior tutor) and Yongdzin Trijang Rinpoche (junior tutor).[/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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Isn't that called marriage?

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

 

[punisher73]

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.