Re-writing Communism

I always find it amusing when people say "the extremes of either are bad, so we should mix the two and everything will be fine" yet don't realize that that is exactly what the U.S. has economically at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Fortunately, the stigma against socialism is starting to change. I mean, we live in a nation with a socialized health care system that about half of the country, (give or take,) supports. Most of our major allies incorporate socialism, are socialist, or use heavy socialistic principles. Canada, Britain, Germany, the list continues. So while people may have a deep seated hatred against communism or anything similar to it, (socialism,) that is changing. The Cold War has been over for about twenty years now- people are no longer as brainwashed.

---

I don't think it is a matter of brainwashing or irrational hatred, but a long history of socialistic/communistic failure both in practice and in theory. Those socialistic policies the U.S.'s allies incorporate will fail soon enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I always find it amusing when people say "the extremes of either are bad, so we should mix the two and everything will be fine" yet don't realize that that is exactly what the U.S. has economically at the moment.



I don't think it is a matter of brainwashing or irrational hatred, but a long history of socialistic/communistic failure both in practice and in theory. Those socialistic policies the U.S.'s allies incorporate will fail soon enough.

---

Socialism, when not done in a way that totally halts the free market, surely isn't all bad. Plenty of fairly prosperous countries have put socialism into practice and have not failed. Of course they may have their own set of failures, but so does capitalism. Perfect examples of working systems that incorporate many socialist principles but still have a relatively free market are Japan and Canada.

And really, what the U.S. has right now really isn't so bad. (With the exception of a handful of really stupid decisions and policies, of course.) I agree there are still very valid reasons to dislike communism and socialism, and did not mean to imply that those who dislike them have been brainwashed. Taking my post in context, I was refering to SwingMans comment about people dismissing the theories without any consideration and with hastily drawn conclusions. That is irrational, and I would say it comes from 50 years of subtle propaganda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Socialism, when not done in a way that totally halts the free market, surely isn't all bad. Plenty of fairly prosperous countries have put socialism into practice and have not failed.

---

Not failed yet. The money will run out soon enough.

Quote:

---

Of course they may have their own set of failures, but so does capitalism. Perfect examples of working systems that incorporate many socialist principles but still have a relatively free market are Japan and Canada.

---

Which sort of capitalism? I assume you mean free-market?

What sort of socialist principles are incorporated? It's easy to use blanket statements as evidence.

Quote:

---

And really, what the U.S. has right now really isn't so bad.

---

Yeah, the whole boom-bust cycle is really spiffy with all of its recessions and unemployed people scraping together a living.

Quote:

---

I agree there are still very valid reasons to dislike communism and socialism, and did not mean to imply that those who dislike them have been brainwashed. Taking my post in context, I was refering to SwingMans comment about people dismissing the theories without any consideration and with hastily drawn conclusions. That is irrational, and I would say it comes from 50 years of subtle propaganda.

---

Well you said you don't mean to imply that those who dislike socialism and communism are brainwashed, yet you say that 50 years of subtle propaganda has caused people to dismiss the theories without any consideration and with hastily drawn conclusions. Isn't that brainwashing?

I think there are several ways communism failed (in the historical sense not the idealogical).

Marx saw the state as a temporary structure for the workers to overthrow the capitalists, and that the state would eventually disappear, and a classless, communist but stateless society would emerge.
Marx saw the state as the transition between these two political situations, because the state is another form of human alienation (as with capitalism and orthodox religion).

I think if there had been a world revolution, this would have happened, but as it happened in only some parts of the world, these communist leaders began to distance themselves from their own people (as they had to have a state in order to survive against non-communist countries),

So in that sense I tend to agree with the Anarcho-communists who say that the state is yet another example of the minority oppressing the majority.

I think marxism-lenninism can only work if the state is a very temporary structure, otherwise another small group of people gain power.

Communism is ideal. It would be awesome. But it denies the crucial economic factor of incentives. You can't rewrite communism, you'll just make it socialism. Stick to capitalism man. There are incentives, and with incentives and competition, comes quality and a natural system of regulation. When you remove these with communism, you are setting yourself up for defeat.

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the baker, and the brewer that we expect our dinners but from their regards to their own self-interest. In layman's term, society flourishes off of the greed of it's citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lotsofface

Communism is ideal. It would be awesome. But it denies the crucial economic factor of incentives. You can't rewrite communism, you'll just make it socialism. Stick to capitalism man. There are incentives, and with incentives and competition, comes quality and a natural system of regulation. When you remove these with communism, you are setting yourself up for defeat.

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the baker, and the brewer that we expect our dinners but from their regards to their own self-interest. In layman's term, society flourishes off of the greed of it's citizens.

---

I've always found that a bit of a dubious claim, to be honest.. I'd say we first explore that premise..

So the question then becomes whether those are the only possible incentives, or whether these are simply the incentives we've been brought up with in this system.

Sure, the economy thrives on greed. But is that because the only possible incentive is greed, or is it because greed is the only incentive that works in this system?

As such, does the possibility of other incentives exist? Are there incentives that do not operate on the reward, the extrinsic value of a certain act or service, but that operate on the purely intrinsic value of the act or service? Is a system impossible where, in stead of the butcher striving for perfection because he'll make more money when he does make things perfect, the butcher strives perfection for the intrinsic value of things being perfection?

If these incentives don't exist, then what about volunteerism? What about charities? What about the people who do things 'because they believe in them'? What about the people who get into certain subjects simply because they're inspired by it, because they find it interesting or fun? What about those billionnaires who do stuff 'just for teh lulz', in stead of continuing with the things that make them money? Etc. etc.

When you take money out of the picture, like in the examples above, aren't there still incentives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CryoDragoon

When you take money out of the picture, like in the examples above, aren't there still incentives?

---

The answer depends on the culture. In today's North America, no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

(1) Not failed yet. The money will run out soon enough.



(2) Which sort of capitalism? I assume you mean free-market?

(3) What sort of socialist principles are incorporated? It's easy to use blanket statements as evidence.



(4) Yeah, the whole boom-bust cycle is really spiffy with all of its recessions and unemployed people scraping together a living.



(5) Well you said you don't mean to imply that those who dislike socialism and communism are brainwashed, yet you say that 50 years of subtle propaganda has caused people to dismiss the theories without any consideration and with hastily drawn conclusions. Isn't that brainwashing?

---

(1) It is a good point that most successful socialist countries have low population and high amounts of natural resources. But I cannot say socialism is incapable of sustaining itself. Examples like Germany show that production within the country itself is possible to base a strong economy around.

(2) Sure. Pure capitalism would be a nation with no public sector and privatized governments as the only governments, which they obviously don't have.

(3) They both have universal health care, for one. I understand it that it is mostly social programs rather than social economic policy.

(4) The boom-bust cycle is a natural cycle in the business world. It is healthy for a free market. Why shouldn't it apply to government? I agree it is less than ideal for a boom-bust to happen to the whole country at once. But the answer isn't scrap everything about the American government. The answer is to treat government like the business that it is and allow competition.

(5) Eh, I suppose it is a subtle but effective form of brainwashing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

The answer depends on the culture. In today's North America, no.

---

Then we should consider this "problem of culture". If our basic premise is that the culture, the zeitgeist is unchangeable, then a society where these intrinsic incentives are possible are indeed impossible. If the zeitgeist or the culture is subject to change, then isn't the possibility there?

It's doubtful that any cultural change will ever make stateless communism possible, due to Dunbar's Number. Dunbar's Number is the maximum number of people any person can consider to be a conscious entity. For humans, it's about 150-200. For chimps, it's less, maybe a few dozen.

So if we're talking about 100 person communes, then yes stateless communism could work (in theory). Note: the nuclear family is an example of stateless communism. But if we're talking millions of people, stateless communism is simply impossible given the limitations of the human brain.

What on Earth.

I highly encourage looking into Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward and [Great Proletarian] Cultural Revolution. Those are both examples of communism (attempts at creating a classless society) that failed miserably and resulted in mass death. Why did those policies fail in such extremely devastating ways?

Mao Zedong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the way, I'm an anti-statist in the sense of free market libertarianism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CryoDragoon

Then we should consider this "problem of culture". If our basic premise is that the culture, the zeitgeist is unchangeable, then a society where these intrinsic incentives are possible are indeed impossible. If the zeitgeist or the culture is subject to change, then isn't the possibility there?

---

Of course it's possible if enough people believe in it, but for now I'd be content with socialism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I highly encourage looking into Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward and [Great Proletarian] Cultural Revolution. Those are both examples of communism (attempts at creating a classless society) that failed miserably and resulted in mass death. Why did those policies fail in such extremely devastating ways?

Mao Zedong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Because the policies were oppressive and the policy makers were telling the people what their needs were when it should be the other way around. This goes against the very basis of communism which has a "bottom-up" flow of government, and any government with a single, unquestionable leader strays very far from the communist ideal. It's kind of like a democracy where everybody is dragged from their home and forced to vote at gunpoint. It's still a democracy... but not really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmind

By the way, I'm an anti-statist in the sense of free market libertarianism.

---

ugh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmind

By the way, I'm an anti-statist in the sense of free market libertarianism.

---

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Because the policies were oppressive and the policy makers were telling the people what their needs were when it should be the other way around. This goes against the very basis of communism which has a "bottom-up" flow of government, and any government with a single, unquestionable leader strays very far from the communist ideal. It's kind of like a democracy where everybody is dragged from their home and forced to vote at gunpoint. It's still a democracy... but not really.

---

There cannot be communism without oppression. It has never happened, and there is no way that it could happen. A voting public will always reject communism. Do you think it is a coincidence that 100% of the communist governments that have existed have been ruthless totalitarian regimes? How else could it happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

There cannot be communism without oppression. It has never happened, and there is no way that it could happen. A voting public will always reject communism. Do you think it is a coincidence that 100% of the communist governments that have existed have been ruthless totalitarian regimes? How else could it happen?

---

Communism could happen within pure capitalism, (that is, complete free exchange of money and services.) In fact, to deny communism would mean the capitalism is not pure capitalism. Sure, state capitalism cannot work, practically or morally, but within a capitalist system a group of people could come together and voluntarily pool resources then share them amongst each other. Anarcho-communism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

Communism could happen within pure capitalism, (that is, complete free exchange of money and services.) In fact, to deny communism would mean the capitalism is not pure capitalism. Sure, state capitalism cannot work, practically or morally, but within a capitalist system a group of people could come together and voluntarily pool resources then share them amongst each other. Anarcho-communism.

---

A few people, sure. But I am talking about nations. Is the idea of a nation becoming communist, because the people are collectively willing, a realistic idea? It can exist in theory, and it wouldn't defy the laws of logic or physics, but it would defy the actual realities of sociology and human psychology. It will never happen. Communism, on the national level, comes only from oppressive governments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A few people, sure. But I am talking about nations. Is the idea of a nation becoming communist, because the people are collectively willing, a realistic idea? It can exist in theory, and it wouldn't defy the laws of logic or physics, but it would defy the actual realities of sociology and human psychology. It will never happen. Communism, on the national level, comes only from oppressive governments.

---

You are probably right. When I picture an anarcho-communist community, I can only really imagine one of a few hundred. Maybe a couple thousand. Not hundreds of thousands or millions.

I should point out that while a communist community could exist in a capitalist community, the reverse (capitalist within communist) could not. Just an interesting thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmind

It's doubtful that any cultural change will ever make stateless communism possible, due to Dunbar's Number. Dunbar's Number is the maximum number of people any person can consider to be a conscious entity. For humans, it's about 150-200. For chimps, it's less, maybe a few dozen.

So if we're talking about 100 person communes, then yes stateless communism could work (in theory). Note: the nuclear family is an example of stateless communism. But if we're talking millions of people, stateless communism is simply impossible given the limitations of the human brain.

---

How one of 'em inner sanctum boys ged in 'ere!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I should point out that while a communist community could exist in a capitalist community, the reverse (capitalist within communist) could not. Just an interesting thought.

---

That is interesting. Because of that fact, pure capitalism would be a way to prove how effective communism is for those that prescribe to communism. If communism was effective, assuming governments themselves were private entities, a commmunist government could beat out the competition using free market principles and convince others to become communist by virtue of their system being more stable then other systems. I don't think communism would expand like that, but the idea of capitalism being the best way to initiate communism even if communism was a smart system is ammusing, to say the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

That is interesting. Because of that fact, pure capitalism would be a way to prove how effective communism is for those that prescribe to communism. If communism was effective, assuming governments themselves were private entities, a commmunist government could beat out the competition using free market principles and convince others to become communist by virtue of their system being more stable then other systems. I don't think communism would expand like that, but the idea of capitalism being the best way to initiate communism even if communism was a smart system is ammusing, to say the least.

---

The idea isn't that using capitalism is a good way of initiating capitalism. I'm not saying that communism is even viable or good at all. What I am saying is that, say, in a market-anarchist situation, communist groups could exist. I'm not sure they'd exist very long, of course.

The idea is that capitalism can have other forms of smaller economic systems working under it if people in various communities wish to deviate from the capitalistic norm. Even if the concept of property rights is the norm, people may relinquish them and go full commie. But since communism tends to imply the rejection of property rights, capitalism couldn't exist under it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The idea isn't that using capitalism is a good way of initiating capitalism. I'm not saying that communism is even viable or good at all. What I am saying is that, say, in a market-anarchist situation, communist groups could exist. I'm not sure they'd exist very long, of course.

The idea is that capitalism can have other forms of smaller economic systems working under it if people in various communities wish to deviate from the capitalistic norm. Even if the concept of property rights is the norm, people may relinquish them and go full commie. But since communism tends to imply the rejection of property rights, capitalism couldn't exist under it.

---

Oh, I fully agree, all I am saying is that even if communism did work well, it wouldn't need to work in opposition to capitalism and could even benefit from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

There cannot be communism without oppression. It has never happened, and there is no way that it could happen. A voting public will always reject communism. Do you think it is a coincidence that 100% of the communist governments that have existed have been ruthless totalitarian regimes? How else could it happen?

---

We've been over this before. Last time I pointed out how every "communist" regime came about after a period of extreme national instability such as civil war, not exactly a good foundation for government. In fact you could say that all these regimes were inspired by and emulated Stalin's Soviet Union, which is a horrible template for communism. Communism can only be achieved gradually through socialism, and tons of people vote for socialism all the time. I've convinced others that communism is a good thing, it's not like nobody would ever want it, most people are just very misinformed. The stigma around communism (especially in the US) is so huge that it's hard to pierce through all the propaganda and show people the real deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

That is interesting. Because of that fact, pure capitalism would be a way to prove how effective communism is for those that prescribe to communism. If communism was effective, assuming governments themselves were private entities, a commmunist government could beat out the competition using free market principles and convince others to become communist by virtue of their system being more stable then other systems. I don't think communism would expand like that, but the idea of capitalism being the best way to initiate communism even if communism was a smart system is ammusing, to say the least.

---

You can't have free market principles within communism. Capitalism is based on competition and communism is based on pooling resources.