Communism

[immortalmack]

What are some of the benefits of a communist society?

[Dr. Haight]

Oh shit!

[Madrigal]

Yay another communism thread!

[zhang_bob]

Oh shit!Did you not read the "benefits" part of the post? "Oh shit" is the disadvantage not the benefit of Communism.:)

[Architectonic]

What are some of the benefits of a communist society?

Define 'communist society'.


In 10,000 words or more

[Hustler]

Definite 'benefits.'

[immortalmack]

Define 'communist society'.


In 10,000 words or more

Anything from the original Karl Marx doctrine to USSR to Cuba to what Hugo Chavez will eventually try to encourage in South America.

I have this Canadian friend who everytime I go over there he wants to let the whole neighborhood know I'm an American and how the world does'nt like americans. And i start feelin like these Maple leaves and fist are gonna start flying. He always says Capitalism is bad for human beings and he's sad I'm an american and blah blah blah. I always tell him that from the Bolshevics to Pol Pot I havent seen what Communism does for people but get their blood spilled.

[Architectonic]

Anything from the original Karl Marx doctrine to USSR to Cuba to what Hugo Chavez will eventually try to encourage in South America.

Which is? You'll need to go into a bit more depth than that - people consider that communism is a wide range of things and that range does not make it any clearer as to what you are really asking.

[immortalmack]

Which is? You'll need to go into a bit more depth than that - people consider that communism is a wide range of things and that range does not make it any clearer as to what you are really asking.

Inefficient industry, no private property, no protection from government , hardly any wealth distribution, agricultural shortages,not leaving the country when you will,poor health care, fear for safety; family; future;hardly any private industry..

wow must i really go on?

[Heleuiski]

Free Healthcare?

I think that communism as a theory is a noble one, however it will not work in practice as someone always wants to shit on the little people.

[zhang_bob]

Everyone would have a equal chance in life, people would not starve, free healthcare, free education, everyone would have housing, and guaranteed work.

[Heleuiski]

Everyone would have a equal chance in life, people would not starve, free healthcare, free education, everyone would have housing, and guaranteed work.

Sounds like the UK.

[Architectonic]

Inefficient industry, no private property, no protection from government , hardly any wealth distribution, agricultural shortages,not leaving the country when you will,poor health care, fear for safety; family; future;hardly any private industry..

But you see, Communism in practice doesn't neccessarily have to have any of those characteristics.

Although the existance of some of those aspects can vary depending on how you define them, especially 'no private property', 'no private industry', 'hardly any wealth distribution'... Even then, that does not automatically suggest that something being 'private' is better than the alternative.

Communism doesn't have to equal a huge authoritarian government.

[immortalmack]

Everyone would have a equal chance in life, people would not starve, free healthcare, free education, everyone would have housing, and guaranteed work.

But everyone doesnt. Thats the problem./ It sounds noble but why when a communist government is ushered in a whole lotta people die?Is it because it goes against human nature?

[immortalmack]

But you see, Communism in practice doesn't neccessarily have to have any of those characteristics.

Although the existance of some of those aspects can vary depending on how you define them, especially 'no private property', 'no private industry', 'hardly any wealth distribution'... Even then, that does not automatically suggest that something being 'private' is better than the alternative.

Communism doesn't have to equal a huge authoritarian government.

But communism in practice does have these Characteristics. I am closely watching Hugo Chavez now because he is aided by oil money. It'll be interesting to see how this goes when a communist is flushed with money.They always say theyre fighting for the poor. We'll if theyre fighting so hard why are the poor still poor.

(Wow that sounds like a question for the democratic party members.)

[zhang_bob]

Sounds like the UK.We was well on the way until Margaret Thatcher got into power, and her reversal of everything our best prime minister, Clement Attlee did. And also Michael Foot and Tony Benn sexual relations with the trade union leaders. I don`t even need to go into why Tony Blair is a dickhead. And Keir Hardie would be embarrassed by how the Labour Party is run now, under Tony Blair.



But everyone doesnt.Thats the problem.

You did not ask if we had "true" Communism, you asked "What are some of the benefits of a communist society?" I have told you the advantages of Communism.


It sounds noble but why when a communist government is ushered in a whole lotta people die?Is it because it goes against human nature? Sorry, I do not understand what you are trying to get at.

[Heleuiski]

They always say theyre fighting for the poor. We'll if theyre fighting so hard why are the poor still poor.

(Wow that sounds like a question for the democratic party members.)

Because most Communist countries are run by ruthless dictators who syphon off the money for themselves.

It's not a true communist system.

[Dom]

no private property,

Could you please give me a good sound argument to support the right of anyone to own property/land?

[Dom]

But everyone doesnt. Thats the problem./ It sounds noble but why when a communist government is ushered in a whole lotta people die?Is it because it goes against human nature?

Because when ever government changes form lots of people die....

Not a single democratic government was set up without blood shed along the way..........

[LongSilence]

It's not a true communist system.

What IS a true communist system and what are the preventative measures needed to stop someone twisting the pipes?

[zhang_bob]

What IS a true communist system.
The stuff Marx`s talks about.



and what are the preventative measures needed to stop someone twisting the pipes?If we knew of preventative measures "true" communist system would exist. No taking power by force but by peaceful means would help, because the leaders would not be apprentice dictators. The main difference between Madrigal`s and my political views is she advocates that overthrow of capitalism by violent means and I don`t.

[LongSilence]

Indeed. But the problem also applies to preventing / dealing with elements that choose to differ with the government's / idealogy's way of doing things. The catalytic 'liberation' is one thing and can almost be justifiably compromised (Marx himself suggested the change might be "difficult"), but the proceeding "suppression" of "counter-communism" quite another...

[sbw]

He always says Capitalism is bad for human beings

does he live in windsor, the 'vegas of canada'? this might inform his perspective...

Scott

edit: where do you live in detroit?

[immortalmack]

What IS a true communist system and what are the preventative measures needed to stop someone twisting the pipes?
Maybe the question runs into socialism.Outside of France, the right to bear arms, Quebec and weed smoking prime ministers, I'm not real knowlegable on that sytem.

[Ferrus]

What IS a true communist system
There is no "true" communist system, only several systems that call themselves this. True Marxism is what Marx believed, obviously, but communism is such an ambiguous term that anyone can use it and claim to be a "true communist" when what they really mean is that they are a true Marxist. Communism is merely a social order, one that was even once used by such groups in the medieval age and early modern age as opposed to Marxism as fundamentalist Christians and liberal utopians (who would probably consider themselves more Socialists, Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon etc.).

The main problem with Communism is, seeing as the need to do work (and often very tedious and mundane work) is a necessity for human existence on any scale - unless you want to live as primitives and hunt all day - how is one to make people work? Capitalism merely forces people to do so by withdrawing the public share of production. Communism has no such means to force people to work, hence why you get such poor production in the work place - see Julius Nyerere's scheme in Tanzania, Ujamaa, or Mao's Great Leap Forward - for examples of the ruinous effect of collectivisation. Or you can use Stalinist fear tactics/Stakhanovitism. Both of these (as the experiment in the USSR lucidly displayed) are ineffiecient anyway as the engender ill feeling among the workers which results in vendettas being solved by claiming someone else is a slacker or by trying to sabotage a stakhanovite's produce.

Besides which a question no Communist seems to have properly addressed is how Communism is supposed to work in a large scale society.

In a large scale society you clearly have large numbers of good being produced for large numbers of people - millions, perhaps now billions. How does one control such a large number of goods an ensure that the everyone recieves according to their "need"? The only realistic answer Communism has ever had is by greating a giant, often inefficient due to diseconomies of scale and endlessly growing and self-serving bureaucracy. This very bureaucracy has its hands on the mode of production in a way that is far more secure and diffuse than any supposed unified group of capitalists had.

And of course such a large scale distribution will see endemic corruption when it has no real property right attached to it. Our very language and actions are suffused with notions of property. Group property does exist but in such cases it usually has a group purpose. Which is why personal goods flourished in a black market in the USSR, often abatted by the bureaucrats. Planned economies simply don't work, the mountains of unused concrete in the USSR or the way in which the famers, just gratuitously given arbitary numbers of tractors, always had either to many or too little. Communism has absolutely no idea of the demand of a large scale society. Capitalism at least does because of the market is essentially a giant nervous system that allows the good of the economy to flow.

But yet the Marxists persist. See, collectivism does work, to a degree in small scale communities. In fact observing these very small scale communities (which is where I believe collectivist ideologies have thier origin) people will habitually act in an altruistic manner in small groups, where they know each other. This occurs in schools, in work places, in friendship groups, and undoubtedly did in tribal groupings too. If your aim is primitivism, a return to a tribal based then I would agree with communism being a obtainable goal. In such an enviroment people, knowing everyone, will work towards the goal of the group. And of course the demands of this society will be palpable. The need for organisation is minimal. Indeed, this is why feudalism worked. I may add one way of getting people to work is by claiming they are doing it for some mystical figure (usually God) which means the credulous will work collectively even in a large society - although even in this the lack of effort from the cynical will inevitably reduce overall produce.

Yet what is utter folly is the notion that a technologically advanced society could be constituted in a communist style. Modern technology and the standard of living rely on large scale societies and cities. Why? Because our products are made by factories en masse, agriculture to feed the giant population of the world has to be done on an enormous scale and of course the various services that need to be provided to people in society can only be provided for through a large scale education, training and employment system. Capitalism through the price mechanism distributes and provides in a painless way 95% of the time - when it fails it is largely due to ignorance of the consumer, for example branding. This is one of the areas for which the state is given remit to resolve the situation in terms of education and taxing. As well as this, the state has a role recitifing and controlling effect of the market by moulding supply and demand for certain socially useful goods (positive externalities) (health care, education) or punishing negative ones (pollution, inherentence) - all this through the tax/spending effect. Also most failed capitalist societies have actually been the result of the dark mirror image of communism: the monopoly capitalist state where goods are produced by monopolies without competition, indeed it is worse than a state monopoly. Hence competition laws should be harsh and effective to keep the economy flowing - which includes coming down harsh on anti-competitive practices such as price obscufation. Now this may not seem a "capitalist" way of thinking, but compeition laws are just as essential to capitalism's effective working as property laws are in the beginning. It may be in one's advantage to be anti-competitive, hence "capitalistic" but then so is it in one's advantage to steal (a desire Marxists draw upon) yet this is not no way "anti-capitalist". The state should, even if it have some negative effects (for the general effects will be positive on society) provide a safety net so that it is not possible to fall into indigence, but not so high that the incentives to work are negilible. It also has a role to play in ensuring aggregate demand and more importantly now (since the stagflation of the 70's) aggregate supply is at the right level or in AS's case, as high as possible. Yes capitalism isn't perfect, and state intervention only has a ameliorative not a perfecting effect but it is still nonetheless the only means by which a modern society can be run.

I consider myself neither a communist or capitalist ideologue - both in their pure forms are impractical. I am merely a realist, and the mixed economy with an awareness of both Keynesian and supply-side issues provides the least worst economic system for a large scale society. I await Madrigal's obtuse ad hominem replies with relish. That she does not argue against what I say merely betrays her ignorance of Economics (maybe reading a textbook would help) and that all her political knowledge comes from the writings of facile, conceited, self-styled "revolutionaries". Clearly those who have provided far more "insightful" critiques of Marxism have simply been the anarchist dolts that are the relatives you mention.

[Stoic]

Forget communism, let's go with what works and has been shown to produce high standards of living: Social Democracy.

[LongSilence]

I quite liked mgbradsh's dream of communism working...


Through a free-market, or close to one, people have invented all these things and cheaper and more efficiant ways of making them. The economy has gotten to the point where the goods are readily available, including food, without the technological and physical limitations we now have on them. They have gotten easier and easier to assemble and distribute as people desired to make larger and larger profits off of them by doing less and less work with less and less losses. Pretty much a continuation of the market as you see it operating now.

Since 500 years ago, books had to be transcribed by hand, compared with now, I don't see this as being outlandish. Necessity being the mother of invention and all.

So, by this point, people will be able to sit around en masse quite easily. It practically happens now in a lot of cases.

You wouldn't need a servant to clean your house. Those hierarchical relationships would not exist. There could be house cleaners, who enjoy that work, but more likely there would probably be the means by which some sort of machine could do it, or heaven forbid, you pick up a broom sometimes.

Why can't they all be astronauts or firemen? Realistically, children want to be a lot of things when they are younger, that changes as they get to an age where they can actually begin to accomplish some of their dreams. That's an irrelevent example.

Someone's ability decides which job they get. You are still thinking of society as being hierarchical. No one decides because everyone does, the power structure is gone because it isn't needed. Each individual remains in control of their own power, the work and live for themselves as much as they work and live for the entire society.

[Claverhouse]

There is no "true" communist system,...

Excellent post.



Forget communism, let's go with what works and has been shown to produce high standards of living: Social Democracy.

Let's not.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Stoic]

Let's not.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

Just apathetic or have something better in mind?

[s'box]

No rent

No taxes

No bosses

Its a good deal

[Ferrus]

No bosses
No, you get a friendly neighbourhood Commissar instead. Joy.

[Claverhouse]

Just apathetic or have something better in mind?

No, I despise Social Democracy.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Ferrus]

No, I despise Social Democracy.
Purely to sate my interest; why is this?

[Dom]

Forget communism, let's go with what works and has been shown to produce high standards of living: Social Democracy.

It is not democracy which has been proven to work and produce high standards of living, it is capitalism, it is the economic not political system that drives standard of living...

I do not understand why you do not allow personal gain in a communist state.

Kind of having money, everyone has a basic standard, a home, a job, etc etc, but they can move around the system trying to improve themselves etc, and change the mind numbing job they hate every so often, allowing cash incentives to move up, the cash the recieve for their labour is linked first to the 'need' and secondly to incentivising the work force... you can do this with out allowign people to own land or factories without letting the means of product slip to a few men.

[Architectonic]

Could you please give me a good sound argument to support the right of anyone to own property/land?

You might want to start a new topic for the answer to that question...


But communism in practice does have these Characteristics.

Yes and why do you think that is?
Merely stating that communism is an inherently flawed ideal, is not a real answer.

[Dom]

You might want to start a new topic for the answer to that question...


Yes, but what is the point as it is not possible to adequetly answer it?

[Architectonic]

Yes, but what is the point as it is not possible to adequetly answer it?

Why do you say that?

[Dom]

Why do you say that?

Try it! I'll start a thread in the philosophy forum....

[immortalmack]

does he live in windsor, the 'vegas of canada'? this might inform his perspective...

Scott

edit: where do you live in detroit?

Yes he does live in windsor. yes I do live in detroit.

[sbw]

Yes he does live in windsor. yes I do live in detroit.

I'm from detroit--my cousin used to go to windsor all the time when he was still a minor here. I don't know if he goes anymore now that he's legal in america.

Scott

[immortalmack]

I'm from detroit--my cousin used to go to windsor all the time when he was still a minor here. I don't know if he goes anymore now that he's legal in america.

Scott

Yea I think hes bitter his wife is american but he still canadian and he change his name to some muslim name and now he gets stripped searhed at the border. Hes talking about moving to british Columbia or something.

[sbw]

Yea I think hes bitter his wife is american but he still canadian and he change his name to some muslim name and now he gets stripped searhed at the border. Hes talking about moving to british Columbia or something.

this is really funny, for some reason.

do you actually live in detroit? I lived technically in detroit, but it was almost redford.

Scott

[immortalmack]

this is really funny, for some reason.

do you actually live in detroit? I lived technically in detroit, but it was almost redford.

Scott

yea i'm by rouge park.

[Dr. Haight]

I find it serendipitous that a discussion about Chicago has found it's way into a "Communist" thread. Reason being, that the closest thing I can think of that reflects a true modern day Libertarian project was the city of Chicago in its infancy.

Carry on....

[immortalmack]

I find it serendipitous that a discussion about Chicago has found it's way into a "Communist" thread. Reason being, that the closest thing I can think of that reflects a true modern day Libertarian project was the city of Chicago in its infancy.

Carry on....

I don't know much about Libertarians but the one that holds the flame. When i read about it today I'll start a thread.

[sbw]

I find it serendipitous that a discussion about Chicago has found it's way into a "Communist" thread. Reason being, that the closest thing I can think of that reflects a true modern day Libertarian project was the city of Chicago in its infancy.

Carry on....

chicago? I find it serendipitous that dr. haight is drunk.

Scott

[Lee]

The economist George Ayittey summed up African Socialism nicely as: What is mine is mine, what is yours we share.

Also seems to hold for most experiments with socialism around the world.

[Heleuiski]

The economist George Ayittey summed up African Socialism nicely as: What is mine is mine, what is yours we share.

Also seems to hold for most experiments with socialism around the world.

Nicely put Lee.