Communism: Can it work?

[donniedarko]

I personally believe that old school Karl Marx communism can work.
It's just never been tested.

Two rules from communist manifesto:
Open borders
fair elections

If you look at any case in the pat 1 of those 2 and usually both were broken
Soviet Union
Cuba
N. Korea
Vietnam

Other cases like Laos is just because it's a naturally poor nation. They always were and until there education picked up significantly they always will be. China whitch is 50/50 is the number one economy in the world. There economy is communist style. Also there are Kibutez in Isreal where on small scale communism works suberb.

If Communism is properly practiced there's always
equality
better education
100% employment
everyone has health care.

Now I know that everyone says that people don't have motivation. That's why an open border is vital. That's the main reason countries in the past failed. In this system everyone has to be willing.

That's why I conclude I don't think full blown communism can work on a large scale, but in a population of less than let's say 10 million (just pulling a number out of my ass completely honestly) then ya I think it could.

Also I never lived in a communist nation but my parents lived in The Soviet Union. Life was bad ther for them but really that's because of curruption on every scale. Buy My great grandfather (over 100 years old and living) has lived in the US for the past nine years. He still think he's in the soviet union. So how different can it be?

[Gabriella Lynn]

I still don't think it could because people that have and make more money wouldn't appreciate that kind of equality although it would probably significantly increase people with education and less homelessness.

[Powderfinger]

On Monday Night at 9:30 pm I watched this program (Q & A) on the ABC network it has no commercials. Anyway, there was this woman, educated in Russian..smart (gay). She spoke about Putin, and how he come to power. Mate, Putin is worth from 20 million dollars to 100 million dollars, that was years and years ago. At the moment they are arresting people who may protest, though, they haven't...**** me dead! She reckon Putin is as bad as Stalin, Hiltler and so forth. She went through about his history, years ago, he took out other politicians in a Mayor election in ......about 4 hours from Moscow. Also, he use to work near the Berlin War...KGB I think. I tried to get the you tube show, though I couldn't and I'm not the best at writing.

[Powderfinger]

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3502530.htm

[will.15]

Communism is the way to go.











I sure hope planet news doesn't see this thread.

[Monkeypunch]

Communism doesn't work. I dunno about you, but when I think of awesome places to live, that list doesn't include Soviet Russia, Cuba, North Korea, or China.

[Gabrielle947]

My parents and grandparents also lived in the Soviet Union and they say that people were equal then.There was no one richer,all had the same conditions,all people had jobs and people were given flats for free,they didn't have to pay for them.But there was so much propaganda and absolutely no chance to go abroad.My parents told that when they went to school,history teacher told them which pages they have to tear(it was those which said that USSR occupied,killed,sent to GULAG etc.).Everyone had to praise Lenin,my grandmother wanted to finish music school but the authority said that she can finish only when she learns THE USSR national anthem.
Well it was a good life based on lies.Anyway,I don't think that cummunism can work but I believe that it will come back someday because history always goes around. :/
Oh by the way,I think that USSR is a fascinating country with a good although mad leaders.I mean,how did USSR played with WW2?Took half of the Europe,"saved" countries from nazis and weren't punished for their crimes.

[gandalf26]

All of you have missed the point that the OP was tring to make, that true Communism has never really been tried on a large scale. The Soviet Union was NEVER a true communist state. More like a brutal dictatorship.

Can it work though? Well, Capitalism has turned into a resounding failure through weak oversight of Banking and Corporate ventures.

Perhaps it could work with a few tweaks. I mean there will be no incentive to go through all the training to become a Doctor if you are going to be no better off that a Garbage man.

So perhaps something like Communism but taking the best parts of other forms of Government.

[Tyler1]

Communism doesn't work. I dunno about you, but when I think of awesome places to live, that list doesn't include Soviet Russia, Cuba, North Korea, or China.

Today's commies are Communist on the outside, Capitalists on the inside, but still corrupt all the same. Although I must say that Vietnam has been rather successful for a communist country. So yes, communism CAN work.

[cinemaafficionado]

The basic premise of communism came from early tribal cuture: work as hard as you can and you will be provided for your needs.
In theory it seemed like a good idea but in practise it became the sweat of many for the sake of few. Talk about Big Brother and government control! Communism is anathema to personal freedom.

[Yoda]

The idea that "real" Communism could work, and that the massive failures we've seen just weren't "real" Communism, is not a new one. But there are some pretty clear problems with it, I think:

1) It'd be easy to defend any terrible idea by saying that, when it fails, it just wasn't done quite right. This is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

2) It's entirely possible that the corruption we see under Communism is not incidental, but an inextricable part of it. You're right about open borders; it needs to be entirely voluntary. But let's consider the idea that it's meaningful that it never is, in practice.

3) Even if you ignore both of these things, we're still left with a political system that, if it's not done "correctly," produces millions of deaths, starvation, and horrible human rights violations. And there's really no reason to have faith in people to do something perfectly, so that seems like too much of a risk to take. The best systems take human fallibility into account so that they don't have to be done just right to function, or at least don't result in untold suffering when they don't.

[honeykid]

No.

[Sleezy]

It seems to me that Communism fails because it doesn't easily mesh with the way humanity naturally seeks to ascend. Instead, the idea becomes exploited by the inclination of individuals or groups to negotiate, fight, cheat, or bully their way into acquiring more wealth and influence.

On the other hand, Capitalism works because it encourages that behavior. The creation of wealth and influence, no matter the method used to get there, makes the growth of a Capitalist economy possible.

So no, I don't think Communism would work. Nobody is ready to stop and say they're happy with what they currently have, and there are plenty of people in the world who have nothing.

It's entirely possible that the corruption we see under Communism is not incidental, but an inextricable part of it.

I'd be more inclined to argue that economic corruption is more a product of human nature, not necessarily of one economic model over another. There's plenty of corruption run rampant in Capitalist countries too.

[Yoda]

I should clarify: when I said "the corruption we see under Communism," I was singling it out as a different level of corruption altogether. Namely, the systematic, pervasive corruption that has occurred during all serious attempts to form a Communistic society. Obviously, corruption in general is a fact of life, so any reference to a system's corruption should be assumed to mean something above and beyond the kind of corruption you find in any organization containing people.

[Sleezy]

Examples?

[Yoda]

Examples?
I'm not sure what you're asking for. Anecdotes about Soviet government officials circumventing rules? Jailing political dissidents? Spies in the GDR threatening citizens they're monitoring? I can recommend a book or two, I suppose. Stasiland is particularly good.

[Yoda]

One other thing I'd like to add here: in any conversation about communism someone will inevitably say that it doesn't work because it doesn't allow for basic human ambition (or greed, if you're feeling less charitable). I think this is true as far as it goes, but it's a very pessimistic argument.

But there's a much more positive reason why capitalism succeeds and communism fails: information. Communism doesn't just fail because it's incompatible with human nature; it fails because it requires central planners, none of whom can ever have the slightest hope of having enough information to know how resources can be most efficiently utilized.

It's not just that greed is a fact of human existence and must be accounted for--though it is, and it must--it's that prices are the most stunningly successful way to transfer economic information in the history of the world. The mere existence of prices coordinates the transfer of efforts and the signalling of desires so incredibly well that it's almost like magic. The result is so elegant and seamless that it looks like it was designed (hence Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand"), even though no one person is in charge of it.

Economist Russ Roberts' (whose podcast (http://www.econtalk.org/) and writings (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/_featuring/russ_roberts/) I can't recommend enough) likes to use the example of Chinese student migration. Over the next few years millions of Chinese citizens will move from rural areas to cities. Public school rolls will swell and we'll see an inflated demand for pencils. Now try to imagine a scenario where you walk into a stationary store a few years from now and the guy behind the counter tells you "Sorry, we're out of pencils: the Chinese are using all of them." It's unthinkable.

The demand will grow, and so will the price. The higher price will increases the locations that are suddenly cost effective to mine for lead, inviting further investment, which will produce more lead, which will create more pencils. No shadowy figure in a government room has to notice this problem in advance, issue an edict to ramp up pencil production, try to guess what the new price should be, and pull people off of other assembly lines to make sure it all happens. It all happens on its own, because of prices. Because of capital.

So, it's all well and good to say that communism is at odds with human nature. But it's a lot more positive, and perhaps more important, to point out that it can't hope to utilize a fraction of a percent as much information as a society with free capital can. Prices aggregate and distribute human knowledge that no one person, or government body, could ever hope to know.

[Sleezy]

I'll admit, I was phishing. ;)

I was curious how you meant that Communist corruption was inherently different than other forms of political or economic corruption. The examples you cited, for instance, have equivalents that are pretty readily found in the U.S. as well.

Though I suppose this distinction can be made. Much of the corruption in Communism can be found within the government itself, since the government is the core of a state-run nation. Those who stand to benefit are primarily state leaders or those who are held in high regard by state leaders.

Capitalist corruption, however, tends to occur largely in the private sector (Enron, Bernie Madoff, etc.), since the free market allows for opportunities for private companies to work the system. Obviously, we see corruption in the U.S. bleed into government as well (on a far larger scale than we probably realize), but that's largely for the benefit of leaders in the private sector, with political leaders getting a trickle-down reward for the trouble.

Is that what you meant?

[Sleezy]

One other thing I'd like to add here: in any conversation about communism someone will inevitably say that it doesn't work because it doesn't allow for basic human ambition (or greed, if you're feeling less charitable). I think this is true as far as it goes, but it's a very pessimistic argument.

Eh. I rather think it's a realist argument. Yes, individuals can be good-natured. Yes, groups of people can be good-natured. But when you consider the entire population of a country, I think it's far less likely that you'll ever see a unified, well-intentioned effort to choose prosperity over profit. Even in the 1940s, when the United States was galvanized against the Axis powers, there were still plenty of instances of war profiteering. Personal gain is in our blood, man.

[Yoda]

I'm still not explaining myself very well, I guess. Sorry.

When I say it's different, I mean that I think it's instrumental, and not incidental. The rule, not the exception. I think the corruption in communist societies is essentially what holds them together (albeit not forever), whereas the opposite is true in capitalist societies: the corruption we have to deal with threatens the stability of our system.

Re: realist. I don't disagree. I just mean that it sounds pessimistic; it doesn't exalt capitalism so much as it denigrates the alternatives. Which is fine. As an argument it's totally valid. But there are limits to the rhetorical power of negative arguments, and I feel like the power of prices to coordinate information and resources is an amazing, positive thing that doesn't get talked about enough.

[The Rodent]

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/street/pl38/sect2.htm

I found this is interesting in understanding political systems.
Quite eye opening when it describes Capitalism too.

[Sleezy]

When I say it's different, I mean that I think it's instrumental, and not incidental. The rule, not the exception. I think the corruption in communist societies is essentially what holds them together (albeit not forever), whereas the opposite is true in capitalist societies: the corruption we have to deal with threatens the stability of our system.

I think we can both agree that corruption has existed in the United States in some form or fashion for... well, let's say at least the past 150 years. So you would argue that we have arrived at 2012 (politically, socially, economically, etc.) in spite of that corruption rather than because of it? Not a loaded question, I'm just wondering if that's your view.

[Yoda]

Well, I think the good things happen in spite of corruption. But the place we've "arrived" at in 2012 is not wholly good, so parts of it have certainly been arrived at because of corruption, rather than in spite of it.

[will.15]

Corruption in the United States today is miniscule compared to most other parts of the world.

But is that directly because of capitalism?

Capitalism was most rampant in the second half of the 19th century and that was when unregulated free markets was in its glory.

[planet news]

The question asked was can it work. What is it? If it refers to the totalitarian regimes of the late 20th century, then it obviously does not work. If it refers to something else entirely, then we don't yet know. For now, the only way we can define communism is as the system, whatever that might look like, following capitalism. The notion of following is complex. It does not mean merely following in terms of time but also in "logical" terms. Whatever follows capitalism must logically follow capitalism. A person is thus a communist if she believes that capitalism has problems that cannot be solved within capitalism.

At the highest level of abstraction, Communism begins with the idea that the Good exists. It continues with the idea that capitalism unavoidably violates the Good or makes the Good impossible. It concludes that, if we want to achieve the Good, then we must move beyond capitalism. At the least it says that capitalism is not the best system possible.

At least two common fundamental beliefs can easily block this:

1) The Good does not exist. (arguments from human nature (biological), original sin, relativism, anti-realism, etc.)

2) Capitalism does not violate the Good.

So, when we ask "can it work," I have to step back and first ask what it is. At this point, I have no real clue. The more important question I think is whether or not trying to think about it is even necessary.

Most people would say it isn't. For liberals (as in Statists) would say that is unnecessary because the State will solve that problems of capitalism, and conservatives would say it is unnecessary because there aren't any problems with capitalism. So, the question of whether or not communism can work is preceded by the question of whether or not it is necessary, and this question can be reduced to the following question:

Are there problems with capitalism that cannot be solved from within capitalism?

[will.15]

Darn it, he saw it.

[Yoda]

That question doesn't seem sufficient. It makes no distinction based on the severity of the hypothetical problem.

[will.15]

Are there problems with capitalism that cannot be solved without deviating from the pure free market model of Adam Smith?

[planet news]

I'm not sure what it's supposed to "suffice," or which distinction you're talking about, but I'm merely saying that the question of whether or not communism can work can only be addressed after the question of whether or not capitalism is irrevocably flawed is addressed. We must respect this order for at least three reasons.

1) We don't even know what it -- communism -- is yet.

2) We don't know if conjecturing about communism is any more politically relevant than conjecturing about, say, the men in black.

3) We can only move on to communism once we have isolated those specific problems that capitalism cannot solve, because it is from precisely those problems that we must construct communism. This is what is meant by "logically" (dialectically) following.

4) The failures of the 20th century were first a failure in diagnosing the problems of capitalism.

[Yoda]

I'm not sure what it's supposed to "suffice," or which distinction you're talking about, but I'm merely saying that the question of whether or not communism can work can only be addressed after the question of whether or not capitalism is irrevocably flawed is addressed.
The point I'm making is that it's entirely possible that capitalism does have some problems, and that some of those problems are not realistically fixable by capitalism itself...and that it's still the best system. "Problem" is too vague. It could encompass any number of things that are troublesome, or maybe a mere nuisance, but not nearly enough to condemn capitalism as a whole or suggest that better alternatives are available.

I suspect that "problems" is just shorthand for "really serious problems," but seeing as how we're not even firm on what communism means, it pays to be a bit more precise.

[ManOf1000Faces]

Communism.. You Crazy???

[planet news]

Oh, I see. That's the reason why I italicized problem. Clearly, if it justifies the downfall of the current system (leaving the space open for whatever follows it), then it is a 'serious' problem. Clarifying just what that means is the first step. A better term might be "crisis" or "impasse."

I'm not sure what the criteria for "serious" would be, since that depends a lot on what sorts of things are going on at the time, and whether or not the market-state can find a way of dispelling the problem. For example, financial crises might be an example. It's something intrinsic to the system, and it affects of a lot of people, but somehow not enough to conjure up any resistance more focused than Occupy Wallstreet, where the entirely wrong thing was being blamed.

Marx found what he thought was an impasse, and those were acted upon in many countries. Yet roughly the same things were occurring in many countries, including ours, but the problem was somehow 'resolved' -- organized labor, progressivism, the market itself?

The point I'm making is that it's entirely possible that capitalism does have some problems, and that some of those problems are not realistically fixable by capitalism itself...and that it's still the best system.Problems are always in relation to some Good. Either we believe in the Good but don't care or the Good is something to be aimed at. If there are problems that exist according to some Good, then we must fix them. Not fixing them is something like not caring about Good. That's obviously always an option: not caring.

[mark f]

When I think of "pure communism", I don't even think of Marx. That would be Marxism. I think of a group of people who put everybody else above themselves and therefore have no desire to accumulate their own things. This does cause several problems because it doesn't exactly clarify what to do with any things which the "commune" or "collective" bring to their environment and it also doesn't explain how decisions can be made without some kind of leader(s) or rules which somehow evolve "communism" into another form of social group.

I often think of "pure Christianity" as a form of "communism", but the ultimate outcome of the Christian philosophy is that when Jesus returns, the Christian world will become a Monarchy or a Dictatorship, depending on your point of view and creativity with the English language. It still involves freedom of choice, but certain choices are anathema with this basic world view, so they may not be allowed to participate unless the rebellious "free willers" change in some pre-determined way.

Sorry if you believe this is off-topic since I'm cutting it very short here. Go ahead all you Communists and correct my distorted ramblings. Thank you for reading.

[Yoda]

Problems are always in relation to some Good. Either we believe in the Good but don't care or the Good is something to be aimed at. If there are problems that exist according to some Good, then we must fix them. Not fixing them is something like not caring about Good. That's obviously always an option: not caring.
There are other options still: recognizing that we're not capable of achieving the Good through government or organization. Recognizing that attempts to fix certain things on a broad scale just make them worse.

The distinction missing in this paragraph is the distinction between personal and collective responsibility. I can agree with the above perfectly, but still oppose the conclusions it implies because the thing we "must fix" is best fixed on an individual level.

[Powderfinger]

Years ago I heard that Cuba helps people who are ill, with free Medical Care. I don't know if it happens still?

The Shoutout box, with people getting treated like dogs at Hospital and having to pay exorbitant amounts. Years ago John Howard (former Prime Minister) wanted to be like America in health care options...he didn't to it...thank God! If getting worse now, though it's better than the U.S. Sweden, eventhough their taxes are huge, they look after people in health care.

[Used Future]

Neither Communism nor Capitalism work because humans are fundamentally selfish, and what can look beautiful on paper is inevitably corrupted by those who actively seek power and a desire for personal gain.

With that said I think Communism looks significantly more beautiful on paper than Capitalism.

Who knows. Perhaps there's a parallel dimension in which they've found the perfect balance between the two.

Pretty sure it involves the democratic nomination of suitable provincial-national leaders (like a form of jury service) by the public, rather than aspiring powermongers campaigning for the privellege. That's really quite sick when you think about it.

[planet news]

There are other options still: recognizing that we're not capable of achieving the Good through government or organization. Recognizing that attempts to fix certain things on a broad scale just make them worse.I know what you're trying to do, but you're just not going to find this option, because it makes no sense, like logically.

I think what you mean is that, standing from where we are, any attempt to move towards the Good will ultimately fail and actually throw us further from the Good.

This can mean only two things. First, that the Good does not exist. The Good is, at best, a fairy tale, but cannot exist and should not be reached for. This option says that capitalism is not the Good, but that there is no Good. The other option is that the Good exists but that it is capitalism, so, of course, any attempt to move away from the present situation will distance us from the Good. And, as I said before, those were the only options.

1) The Good does not exist.

2) Capitalism does not violate the Good (Capitalism is Good).

My argument that follows from this is that 1) if you believe in the existence of the Good and 2) capitalism is not the Good -- i.e. it has problems that cannot be solved within itself, then it must be that there exists a better system -- i.e. a Good system exists.

So, again, it comes down to the question of whether or not capitalism has problems that cannot be solved within it. To make myself clearer, I might rephrase: it comes down to whether or not capitalism is or is not the Good.

The reason why I think this is an important point is that many people feel that capitalism is in some sense the best system around, but it's unclear where they would stand on whether or not capitalism is the best system period. And, if it is true that capitalism is not the best system, then why aren't we looking for a way out of it? What I'm trying to say is that you have only two real reasons why you wouldn't be, and these correspond to the views outline above. Either you're a 'pessimist' and you think that the Good is unreachable or you're a capitalist and you think that capitalism is just the best thing there is, was, and ever will be.

I think you're trying to wedge yourself in the middle saying that you believe in the Good knowing that capitalism is not the Good but somehow you still believe that capitalism is the way to go. If you do hold this, then it's simply an inconsistent one. It basically means that you don't really care enough about the Good to pursue it. Like I said, that's always an option: not giving an -- excuse my French -- f.

The distinction missing in this paragraph is the distinction between personal and collective responsibility. I can agree with the above perfectly, but still oppose the conclusions it implies because the thing we "must fix" is best fixed on an individual level.There is no distinction. The individuals we're talking about -- and, I might dare, 'individuals' in general -- exist within collectives. The individual-in-collective does not exist apart from community. In other words: the way an individual participates in the community is always partly determined by the way the community exists. This is inarguable.

For example, if I say I want to, idk, abolish money... How can you say this is an individual fix? It clearly isn't, because if it was then I could just refuse to use money and go live in a cave (http://gma.yahoo.com/going-without-money-hurt-economy-one-mans-quest-211049892--abc-news-topstories.html). But clearly, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the possibility of a world, or at least a community, where money is no longer. I'm talking about the collective and the individual-in-that-collective.

I mean, if you want to make that distinction, then you should also forget politics. What business has anybody thinking in terms of the collective?

[Yoda]

I know what you're trying to do, but you're just not going to find this option, because it makes no sense, like logically.

I think what you mean is that, standing from where we are, any attempt to move towards the Good will ultimately fail and actually throw us further from the Good.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. I thought I pretty much said this, too, but no matter. This is what I mean.

This can mean only two things. First, that the Good does not exist. The Good is, at best, a fairy tale, but cannot exist and should not be reached for. This option says that capitalism is not the Good, but that there is no Good. The other option is that the Good exists but that it is capitalism, so, of course, any attempt to move away from the present situation will distance us from the Good.
At this point I think you definitely need to define "the Good." Sometimes it sounds like you use it to mean "the perfect," but other times it sounds like you use it to mean "the best we can muster." Please clarify.

The reason why I think this is an important point is that many people feel that capitalism is in some sense the best system around, but it's unclear where they would stand on whether or not capitalism is the best system period. And, if it is true that capitalism is not the best system, then why aren't we looking for a way out of it? What I'm trying to say is that you have only two real reasons why you wouldn't be, and these correspond to the views outline above. Either you're a 'pessimist' and you think that the Good is unreachable or you're a capitalist and you think that capitalism is just the best thing there is, was, and ever will be.
I realize I can't (or rather, shouldn't) answer most of this until you clarify what you mean by the Good. But I can say that, if it means "the perfect," or something approximating it, then put me down for "pessimist," for I see nothing in human history or nature to suggest that it's remotely attainable.

I think you're trying to wedge yourself in the middle saying that you believe in the Good knowing that capitalism is not the Good but somehow you still believe that capitalism is the way to go. If you do hold this, then it's simply an inconsistent one. It basically means that you don't really care enough about the Good to pursue it. Like I said, that's always an option: not giving an -- excuse my French -- f.
See above; need a firmer definition. But I think there might be a third option: that a good socioeconomic system in the hand is worth two in the bush, particularly when the alternative, if not done just right, seems to result in some pretty terrible things.

This won't apply, however, if you mean "the Good" to something approximating heaven on earth, I suppose.

There is no distinction. The individuals we're talking about -- and, I might dare, 'individuals' in general -- exist within collectives. The individual-in-collective does not exist apart from community. In other words: the way an individual participates in the community is always partly determined by the way the community exists. This is inarguable.
Yet here I go, about to argue with it. ;)

For example, if I say I want to, idk, abolish money... How can you say this is an individual fix? It clearly isn't, because if it was then I could just refuse to use money and go live in a cave (http://gma.yahoo.com/going-without-money-hurt-economy-one-mans-quest-211049892--abc-news-topstories.html). But clearly, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the possibility of a world, or at least a community, where money is no longer. I'm talking about the collective and the individual-in-that-collective.

I mean, if you want to make that distinction, then you should also forget politics. What business has anybody thinking in terms of the collective?
I'm not sure why the distinction I'm drawing forces me to erase any conception of politics. I'm saying that some problems are better fixed bottom-up, rather than top-down. That some problems are best solved by applying individual knowledge and action directly, and not generalized government edict. If I get a hole in my shoe, that's better fixed by me fixing it than by setting up a Government Shoe Commission. That's what I mean.

[will.15]

What is capitalism?

The model described by Adam Smith?

We don't have that.

No country does.

Because it doesn't work.

We have a mixed system, a little socialism, a little capitalism.

[planet news]

What is capitalism?

The model described by Adam Smith?Nope.

We don't have that.

No country does.

Because it doesn't work.That's clear.

We have a mixed system, a little socialism, a little capitalism.If you mean that socialism is redistributing the flows of the market, then that is simply a more statist incarnation of capitalism, but capitalism all the same. As we've argued before, the state naturally comes with capitalism. And if capitalism is always the market plus the state, then the extent to which the state should interfere is not a matter of capitalism per se but rather a matter of ideology. Simply put, it is not a 'matter of fact' that the state plays a large or little role in capitalism, since capitalism must always in some minimal way include the state. Also, you can see in the Liberal 'resignation' to the state just what kind of thing I'm talking about above. Liberals see the state as a practical solution to the problems of capitalism. Liberals generally like capitalism, but think it has some problems but that it can be fixed. And I guarantee that all Liberals like capitalism in boom times. In other words, they want to fix capitalism in the here and now. They think it can be done with some simple legislation. I don't think it's that easy. That's why I have to reject both them and the laissez faire view.

[Yoda]

I dunno why you bothered to reply to that. It contributed absolutely zero to the discussion.

[will.15]

What is capitalism?

What is communism?

Without definitions none of this discussion makes a lot of sense.

If PN is talking about a definition of communism that has never been tried before, he needs to tell us what type of system he is defending.

If capitalism as practiced today is not classical captalism, and it isn't, then why can't the problems of it be cured by working with reforming the system instead of replacing it with something that has never been tried before? That is the current system and approach.

The only form of communism we can evaluate is what has been tried. Anything else is nebulous

The only form of capitalism we can evaluate is what exists or has existed, not philosphical or economic models that proved to be unworkable or never tried.

[planet news]

See above; need a firmer definition. But I think there might be a third option: that a good socioeconomic system in the hand is worth two in the bush, particularly when the alternative, if not done just right, seems to result in some pretty terrible things.I think the thing you don't get right now is that I'm saying something extremely simple. Nothing even remotely concrete is being discussed right now. I'm talking about the possibility of even considering something new. I'm saying the only reason we should even waste our time considering a new situation is if the current situation is flawed. If the current is either 1) flawed but as good as anything, 2) not flawed -- is as good as it could ever be, then conjecturing about communism (a word that stands for nothing more than the new) is no more political relevant than discussing S.H.I.E.L.D.

At this point I think you definitely need to define "the Good." Sometimes it sounds like you use it to mean "the perfect," but other times it sounds like you use it to mean "the best we can muster." Please clarify.

I realize I can't (or rather, shouldn't) answer most of this until you clarify what you mean by the Good. But I can say that, if it means "the perfect," or something approximating it, then put me down for "pessimist," for I see nothing in human history or nature to suggest that it's remotely attainable.

/

This won't apply, however, if you mean "the Good" to something approximating heaven on earth, I suppose.Bottom-line: right now we are talking at an extremely high level of generality. I mean the Good in the same sense that Plato means it: the absolute, ultimate, infinite Good. But Plato also talked at a very high level of generality when he spoke of the Good. Most of his argument are arguments against positions like nihilism, relativism, or inconsistent positions. In other words, most of his arguments are simply arguments about why, if there is a Good, we should pursue it. He doesn't talk much about the concrete reality of the Good, and when he does he is very careful to point it is largely unjustified.

The point is: this is pretty much the level we're at right now -- a very formal, structural, abstract level. I argued earlier that we cannot move onto concrete issues until we establish that concrete issues are worth discussion -- i.e. we cannot start to play with concrete models of communism until we establish that communism is even worth pursuing. Right now, we're not even arguing about that -- which would involve pointing out problems in capitalism that could be a potential source of rupture. Right now, we're arguing about whether or not you can even fashion an ultimatum that logically forces us into contemplation of communism. So, you can see that we're working at a very abstract level.

So... when you say that irresolvable might problems exist in capitalism, but you also don't think we should move forward, that's a blatant contradiction, since the existence of problems imply alienation from the Good. That's all that needs to be said at this stage in the discussion.

Yet here I go, about to argue with it. ;)When I said it was inarguable, it wasn't discouragement. It really isn't arguable. Many things you cannot abstract away from the context, and the individual is one of those things. To argue it, you'd have to isolate an individual-without-community and show how the collective can be constructed solely from individuals-without-community. Clearly, the first problem you run into is how non-sentient objects play a role in the collective. For example, where does money come from when money is fundamentally a contract between at least two?

I'm not sure why the distinction I'm drawing forces me to erase any conception of politics. I'm saying that some problems are better fixed bottom-up, rather than top-down. That some problems are best solved by applying individual knowledge and action directly, and not generalized government edict. If I get a hole in my shoe, that's better fixed by me fixing it than by setting up a Government Shoe Commission. That's what I mean.Bottom-up isn't is the same as moving the fix to the level of the individual. Bottom-up means, minimally, unplanned flows. I strongly advocate unplanned flows, but it's the kinds of flows that I am concerned about, and this is a political issue that cannot be addressed at the individual level but only at the generic level. In order to abolish the flows of capital for myself, it is required that everyone do so. You can think of it in terms of something like game theory where outcomes depend on the unplanned but still concerted behavior of many individuals. Most simply, the fix cannot be at the individual level if the fix is for a society as a whole precisely because the way an individual would 'fix herself' at any point is mediated by the way the society already is.

[planet news]

The only form of communism we can evaluate is what has been tried. Anything else is nebulousI get you, but I'm trying to change the question. I'm trying to argue that it is both far too late and far too early to begin evaluating communism in that way.


It is far too late, because 20th century 'communism' is over, and everyone admits that it was a failure -- more importantly, it's actually in the past and will never rise up again in the exact same way anyway.


It is far too early, because we haven't fashioned a historically relevant definition of communism that can be concrete in this day and age while avoiding a repeat of the 20th century. It absolutely is nebulous here, because I'm saying it's too early.

The question I'm concerned with is something we can concretely talk about: whether or not capitalism is actually flawed. We can talk about it on its own without communism. We can look at the current situation and ask ourselves if we are completely happy with all aspects of it.

My ultimatum is that: if we are not happy with all aspects of it and there is no solution within the current system, then we know that capitalism should -- at least eventually -- be abolished. In the event that we arrive at this conclusion, we can then start building concrete programs, etc. Otherwise, we can simply admit that capitalism has no real problems that can't be solved and work on solving those problems.

So, I ask you all, would you say, in your opinion, that capitalism is fundamentally flawed? Do you sense that there are some Bad things about capitalism that will always be a part of it?

If you do, then let's throw capitalism away: let's at least begin the process of thinking about what follows capitalism. If you don't, then let's work on making capitalism the best thing it can be (which is what Democrats and Republicans at least say they are doing in whatever ways they think works best). That's my ultimatum.

[will.15]

Capitalism is fundamentally flawed.

But the only alternative that has been tried has been more flawed.

What Churchill said about democracy also applies to capitalism.

It is easier and less scary to incrementally try to correct a flawed system than to replace it with something new and untested. That is only done through revolution, when the current system has been determined to be hopeless. The combination of democracy and capitalism prevents revolution at least for the moment. If we end up with another failure like the one four years ago and no relief through applying economic band-aids, if say hard right Republicans are in charge when a future crisis happens and their attitude is hands off and there are catastrophic consequences, then maybe the revolution will come. Dems and moderate Republicans in charge make it unlikely. If revolution comes, maybe the European crisis will bring it.

[Yoda]

I think the thing you don't get right now is that I'm saying something extremely simple. Nothing even remotely concrete is being discussed right now. I'm talking about the possibility of even considering something new. I'm saying the only reason we should even waste our time considering a new situation is if the current situation is flawed. If the current is either 1) flawed but as good as anything, 2) not flawed -- is as good as it could ever be, then conjecturing about communism (a word that stands for nothing more than the new) is no more political relevant than discussing S.H.I.E.L.D.

Bottom-line: right now we are talking at an extremely high level of generality. I mean the Good in the same sense that Plato means it: the absolute, ultimate, infinite Good. But Plato also talked at a very high level of generality when he spoke of the Good. Most of his argument are arguments against positions like nihilism, relativism, or inconsistent positions. In other words, most of his arguments are simply arguments about why, if there is a Good, we should pursue it. He doesn't talk much about the concrete reality of the Good, and when he does he is very careful to point it is largely unjustified.

The point is: this is pretty much the level we're at right now -- a very formal, structural, abstract level. I argued earlier that we cannot move onto concrete issues until we establish that concrete issues are worth discussion -- i.e. we cannot start to play with concrete models of communism until we establish that communism is even worth pursuing. Right now, we're not even arguing about that -- which would involve pointing out problems in capitalism that could be a potential source of rupture. Right now, we're arguing about whether or not you can even fashion an ultimatum that logically forces us into contemplation of communism. So, you can see that we're working at a very abstract level.

So... when you say that irresolvable might problems exist in capitalism, but you also don't think we should move forward, that's a blatant contradiction, since the existence of problems imply alienation from the Good. That's all that needs to be said at this stage in the discussion.
It's only a blatant contradiction if I think "the Good" is attainable. But I'm probably jumping ahead a step.

If you're saying only that capitalism is clearly imperfect, and may not be able to perfectly self-correct, and that we therefore need to at least proceed to considering whether or not there are better options, then that's fine. You can consider that established and we can move on to the risks involved.

I'm haggling about this because I feel like you're defining the problem in an overly restrictive manner that will deny capitalism a "fair hearing" down the line. If you establish, from the outset, that a mere lack of perfection means alternatives must be put on some equal footing of consideration, then whatever the current system is, it will be at a relative disadvantage. This is because a) all systems will be imperfect and b) it is easier to enumerate problems with an existing system than to anticipate and attack problems with a hypothetical one.

So, I'm trying to establish a fairer baseline. Which means I'm totally prepared to admit that an imperfect system (with imperfect mechanisms of self-correction) merits mere consideration of alternatives. But no more than that. I don't concede that an acknowledgement of a system failing to perfectly achieve the Good requires that I advocate a change, unless your conception of the Good considers the inevitability of a lack of knowledge and can account for the idea of risk. If it does, or if you're fine with the broader conclusion I mentioned before (that we can simply now consider alternatives), then we're on the same page and can continue.

When I said it was inarguable, it wasn't discouragement. It really isn't arguable. Many things you cannot abstract away from the context, and the individual is one of those things. To argue it, you'd have to isolate an individual-without-community and show how the collective can be constructed solely from individuals-without-community. Clearly, the first problem you run into is how non-sentient objects play a role in the collective. For example, where does money come from when money is fundamentally a contract between at least two?
I know what you meant; I was being cheeky.

I think the problem is that you're extrapolating what I'm saying. I didn't say you can "abstract [the individual] away from the context." I said there's a difference between recognizing a problem and prescribing a collective, top-down solution. That's all. There's no reason to read in anything about people existing independent of circumstance, which I don't believe at all. I think the same basic extrapolation took place in our last discussion about art, where you (for reasons I don't really understand) thought I was suggesting that all art is produced in isolation.

You can safely assume that, if I say anything that makes it look like I think any person is an island independent of their circumstances, there has been a miscommunication somewhere, even if it's mine.

Bottom-up isn't is the same as moving the fix to the level of the individual. Bottom-up means, minimally, unplanned flows. I strongly advocate unplanned flows, but it's the kinds of flows that I am concerned about, and this is a political issue that cannot be addressed at the individual level but only at the generic level. In order to abolish the flows of capital for myself, it is required that everyone do so. You can think of it in terms of something like game theory where outcomes depend on the unplanned but still concerted behavior of many individuals. Most simply, the fix cannot be at the individual level if the fix is for a society as a whole precisely because the way an individual would 'fix herself' at any point is mediated by the way the society already is.
I think the confusion is that you're asking me a question and then saying my answer doesn't fit with your answer. It's true that, in the possible prescription you're building towards, you can't make this distinction between individual and collective, because the whole point of the change is to make collective changes. Check. Got it. But seeing as how whether or not this possible prescription is a good idea is the whole point, my answer doesn't have to be consistent with it. My answer is consistent with a different idea.

When I say that some problems are better solved on an individual level, as opposed to a society-wide level, that may pose a problem for someone who wants to engineer a massive change in society. But it doesn't pose a problem for my position.

[planet news]

I don't concede that an acknowledgement of a system failing to perfectly achieve the Good requires that I advocate a change, unless your conception of the Good considers the inevitability of a lack of knowledge and can account for the idea of risk. If it does, or if you're fine with the broader conclusion I mentioned before (that we can simply now consider alternatives), then we're on the same page and can continue.I'm not sure how to address this, so I'm gonna clarify the Good.

It's only a blatant contradiction if I think "the Good" is attainable. But I'm probably jumping ahead a step.It still is a blatant contradiction regardless of whether or not the Good. And I can only say this because of the level of generality in which we are talking: extremely abstract.

In relation to the Good we have only three options: 1) approach it, 2) be indifferent to it, and 3) move away from it.
Approaching the Good means either that 1a), we can reach it, or 1b) we can never reach it. Whether or not we can ever reach it doesn't make a difference, since if we are reaching for it, then the Good is still Good. Indeed, our 'distance' from the Good then becomes a measure of the Good. If there is a limit to our level of closeness to the Good, then that maximal level of Good we can reach simply becomes the Good. In other words, if Capitalism is the best possible system, but still imperfect, then it's still what the Good 'commands' and thus Good. The vast majority of economists would probably take this stance: capitalism is the best possible system for humans period. It may not be the actual, true ideal system by the ideal system is impossible to reach (just like, idk, fairy tales are impossible to reach), so capitalism is thus the ideal system. To make myself clear, I want you to say this, and I'm pretty sure you are this. You think capitalism is the best possible system, because it alienates us least from the Good.


Indifference to the Good is what I'm accusing you of based on what you've said, but I know that you aren't, if you get what I mean. I'm accusing you of being comfortable in the situation in which we find ourselves to the point of not caring about its distance to the Good. My basis for accusing you of this is that you somehow (just how is not important!) recognize that capitalism is imperfect or not the Good, yet feel that we must settle for it. 'Settling' is ultimately an act of indifference (at this level of generality, it is anyway). I think I know that you actually believe in the Good and want to aim towards it as much as possible, but I just want to clarify (against what you were saying earlier) that there is no middle position without being indifferent -- i.e. the position that capitalism is not the best possible system, but moving further towards the Good is not warranted (a contradiction).


Moving away from the Good is a situation in which you know the Good but actually move away from it for... some reason. Let Evil by thy Good type stuff. I'm not sure anyone really accuses anyone of this relation in the political realm.

If you establish, from the outset, that a mere lack of perfection means alternatives must be put on some equal footing of consideration, then whatever the current system is, it will be at a relative disadvantage. This is because a) all systems will be imperfect and b) it is easier to enumerate problems with an existing system than to anticipate and attack problems with a hypothetical one.
a) As I demonstrated above, if you think the Good exists, then there must be perfect or ideal systems, even if they are fundamentally alienated from the Good, because there is then a 'place of least distance' from the Good that can and should be achieved.


b) I get you, but we are not laying out all the possible systems of ever and comparing them to Capitalism. The reason is we are talking about politics, which requires action. Since we are stuck here in capitalism, every move we make starts from here regardless. Thus, we must 1) look for irresolvable flaws within capitalism, 2) construct a truly novel system that addresses those flaws specifically. This is absolutely the only way to go, because we are stuck in a historical situation, namely capitalism. Communism is post-capitalism. It is moving-on-from-capitalism. That is the only definition we can posit at this time. There is no other. Furthermore, we move on from capitalism in a distinctly 'logical' way in which the problems of capitalism are specifically addressed. Marx told us that the nature of capitalism suggests that we are already 'close' to the final move, but there is no reason to think it will be the final move.

My goal here is to change the question of communism to a question of whether or not there is even just one more historical situation after capitalism (that is better than capitalism.) This question will obviously revolve entirely around capitalism and nothing else.

I think the problem is that you're extrapolating what I'm saying. I didn't say you can "abstract [the individual] away from the context." I said there's a difference between recognizing a problem and prescribing a collective, top-down solution. That's all. There's no reason to read in anything about people existing independent of circumstance, which I don't believe at all. I think the same basic extrapolation took place in our last discussion about art, where you (for reasons I don't really understand) thought I was suggesting that all art is produced in isolation.

You can safely assume that, if I say anything that makes it look like I think any person is an island independent of their circumstances, there has been a miscommunication somewhere, even if it's mine.Just to be precise, I want to say that top-down and bottom-up is not really relevant to the topic. Our topic is communism or political change that occurs to address a problem of (not merely within) capitalism. So, whatever the change is, it is a political change -- that is, a generic change (politics only exists on the generic, collective level) -- and so it is systemic, inter-(not intra)-situational. This does not automatically mean top-down OR bottom-up. It just means everything changes for the new. This change in actuality can be achieved top-down or bottom-up. We know most revolutions began as small, local rebellions that spread either by recruiting or merely inspiring others. So I think you're conflating the idea of a huge change with the idea of top-down. Huge changes can happen gradually, so that we don't even realize it happened. They can be grassroots movements or by dictatorial edict. The point is the actual change itself must be generic, universal, not individual, local. The process by which the change happens must of course begin with people.

When I say that some problems are better solved on an individual level, as opposed to a society-wide level, that may pose a problem for someone who wants to engineer a massive change in society. But it doesn't pose a problem for my position.That's totally correct, which is why I'm trying to argue it. The primacy of the individual is something like a premise or axiom of the 'capitalist situation.' Of course it poses no problems to capitalism, since capitalism is 'derived' from the axiom. What's important is to identify these base axioms of our mutual positions and see precisely where we differ. I suspect that the axiom of the primacy of the individual is just one of these key points. It is not a matter of activity within capitalism, but the very constitution and justification of a system like capitalism at all.

For example, something I realized a while ago from talking on here is that disagreements about the size of government are not disagreements on that axiomatic level. Rather, they are intra-situational disagreements. It is for that reason that I consider such disagreements (the Democrat-Republican divide) to be matters wholly internal to capitalism.

Now, it may very well be that the axiom of individualism as virtue is actually correct after all, but I am here willing to test it and argue against it. The point is, for me, that we identify as many of these ideas as possible -- so that we may reverse them or adapt them, throw them away, etc. in the hope that doing so will solve the problems of capitalism. You can see my rejection of the axiom of individualism is clearly influenced (read: biased) by its opposite, the idea of collectivism. In communism, we can delete individualism, delete the idea of the individual entirely by erasing this axiom in its development. Or we could 'reverse' it in that we continue to celebrate the individual but always as individual-in-community. Or we could posit some other alternative. Sure, there are at least a few ways. Still, the pivot point is the axiom itself. Eventually, we may even find that the axiom is here to stay. I'm merely drawing focus to the axiom as a possible point of contention and a possible location were 'fixes' can be had.

===

TL ; DR


I first want you to clarify your position as either 1) capitalism is the best possible system, or 2) capitalism isn't the best possible system, but I like it anyway (it's my wager you actually don't hold this view).


In this way, I'll know whether or not to even try discussing it with you, because the latter position is completely indifferent to any kind of Good -- which, let me just say right now, is (as it was for Plato) the same as Truth.


If you hold the first position -- that capitalism is the best system -- then we can begin to engage in concrete discussions in which I (the communist or post-capitalist) attempt to find flaws in capitalism that warrant 'external' resolution.


At this point, you will categorize the flaws presented as either 1) flaws-yes-but-the-best-possible-flaws (axiomatic flaws) or 2) merely-contingent-flaws-because-capitalism-can-solve-them-if-you-give-it-a-chance.


If you allow any flaws under the first category (axiomatic flaws), then those will comprise the pool of flaws from which communism or post-capitalism is ultimately constructed in order to solve.


Only now can this constructed, concrete communism be compared to capitalism as it is today.


Though, I will tell you, one does not become a communism to come up with novel systems -- one becomes a communist because that system is either the Good or closer to the Good than the current system, so actual political action begins with a prior commitment. I just think failing to come up with a workable system of resource distribution is the main reason for the 20th century failures.
I just think this is the only way any worth-while discussion on communism (which, to make us all feel better, we can simply call post-capitalism) can proceed.

[Yoda]

Hmmm. I think there's some tension here in saying that a) we're being abstract enough to make what I'm saying premature, but b) not so abstract that it can still be contradicted. But I'm with you on moving forward, regardless of what was said before. And your guesses about what I really want to say are right on: I am definitely not indifferent to the Good, and I do indeed think capitalism is probably as close as we can come to it, thereby making it "the Good" itself, by definition.

This abstract starting point is a good one. And if we're lucky, it'll have the added bonus of turning off anyone who has an intellectual allergy to all things philosophical. We may still have to endure a few interjections about how none of this proves anything, but that's still a net gain, to my mind.

I first want you to clarify your position as either 1) capitalism is the best possible system, or 2) capitalism isn't the best possible system, but I like it anyway (it's my wager you actually don't hold this view).
My position is that capitalism is the best system, yes. Though I want to clarify that this is something I believe based on information I acknowledge to be incomplete. I believe it is clearly the best given what information and experience we have available to us, but it does not follow that I think this information or experience to be exhaustive. Make sense?

In this way, I'll know whether or not to even try discussing it with you, because the latter position is completely indifferent to any kind of Good -- which, let me just say right now, is (as it was for Plato) the same as Truth.
And Beauty, if we want to get Kipling into the mix. I agree with this, with the possibly important caveat that I may very well argue that the risks of reform (and the penalties in misstepping) are intolerably high. But I assume assessing these risks is part of determing what the Good is, so it should be cool, yes?

If you hold the first position -- that capitalism is the best system -- then we can begin to engage in concrete discussions in which I (the communist or post-capitalist) attempt to find flaws in capitalism that warrant 'external' resolution.
Have at it.

At this point, you will categorize the flaws presented as either 1) flaws-yes-but-the-best-possible-flaws (axiomatic flaws) or 2) merely-contingent-flaws-because-capitalism-can-solve-them-if-you-give-it-a-chance.
If there is a flaw that seems likely to exist in all times, under all systems (IE: hey, sometimes people hurt each other, or steal from each other), would that comprise a third category, or does it go under the first one? I'm guessing the latter. If so, that's fine.

If you allow any flaws under the first category (axiomatic flaws), then those will comprise the pool of flaws from which communism or post-capitalism is ultimately constructed in order to solve.
With the idea being that you try to construct a system which will show those flaws to not actually be axiomatic in total, but just axiomatic under capitalism, right? And then we get to the business of seeing if they hold up, and if so, putting those solutions on one side of the scale against, say, areas in which it may be susceptible to something else, while sticking our thumb on one side to try to account for risk/reward, as well.

Though, I will tell you, one does not become a communism to come up with novel systems -- one becomes a communist because that system is either the Good or closer to the Good than the current system, so actual political action begins with a prior commitment. I just think failing to come up with a workable system of resource distribution is the main reason for the 20th century failures.
You're practically begging me to jump ahead here. ;) The question, of course, is "workable" to whom? If our ends are maximum economic output, or average standard of living, etc., then capitalism is the most staggeringly efficient system of resource distribution any of us have ever seen.

That's why this is tricky: it's actually a philosophical question. I don't think I could take someone seriously if they thought the above things--standard of living, total economic output, etc.--were primary goals, but still thought we needed to move past capitalism. I think that's nonsense. But I could take them seriously if they wanted to move past capitalism because they thought it would promote some other primary goal; greater total happiness through learning to be content with less, greater charity, etc. That, at least, would be an internally consistent position. And one with some truth to it, whether it merits a revolution or not.

[stealthfighter077]

On a smaller scale, yes. If you do your part, I'll do mine. I think this is a lot more complex now a days, the worlds getting bigger and everybody wants a taste of freedom. Everyone will always want what they can't have.

[planet news]

My position is that capitalism is the best system, yes. Though I want to clarify that this is something I believe based on information I acknowledge to be incomplete. I believe it is clearly the best given what information and experience we have available to us, but it does not follow that I think this information or experience to be exhaustive. Make sense?It makes perfect sense. I wanna say a few more abstract type things to this just so I know you get me. It also will facilitate the discussion.

Just so you know, the whole point of these abstractions is to get us to a point to talk about concrete matters -- namely, issues within the current historical situation of capitalism. The reason why we need all these broad relations to things like 'the Good' is because there is no current historical situation of communism. Talking about communism as such is not unlike talking about heaven; it is inherently abstract.

Still, we might infer some concrete things about heaven. For example, whether or not they serve your favorite food in heaven might be inferred from your Earthly taste. I'm being cheeky here regarding theology, but the analogy works.

[DexterRiley]

Communism doesn't work. I dunno about you, but when I think of awesome places to live, that list doesn't include Soviet Russia, Cuba, North Korea, or China.

Can't speak to the others, but i've vacationed in Cuba over a dozen times over the years.

[planet news]

I'm gonna draw a picture. I've spent at least two hours today trying to describe in words what would be so clear in one diagram. I guess a picture really is worth at least two hours today.

[will.15]

It makes perfect sense. I wanna say a few more abstract type things to this just so I know you get me. It also will facilitate the discussion.

Just so you know, the whole point of these abstractions is to get us to a point to talk about concrete matters -- namely, issues within the current historical situation of capitalism. The reason why we need all these broad relations to things like 'the Good' is because there is no current historical situation of communism. Talking about communism as such is not unlike talking about heaven; it is inherently abstract.

Still, we might infer some concrete things about heaven. For example, whether or not they serve your favorite food in heaven might be inferred from your Earthly taste. I'm being cheeky here regarding theology, but the analogy works.
They don't serve food in heaven.

[Arch Stanton]

One other thing I'd like to add here: in any conversation about communism someone will inevitably say that it doesn't work because it doesn't allow for basic human ambition (or greed, if you're feeling less charitable). I think this is true as far as it goes, but it's a very pessimistic argument.

But there's a much more positive reason why capitalism succeeds and communism fails: information. Communism doesn't just fail because it's incompatible with human nature; it fails because it requires central planners, none of whom can ever have the slightest hope of having enough information to know how resources can be most efficiently utilized.

I'd agree with this. Marx criticised capitalism as an inefficient way of organising resources. He had a point but, unfortunately for Marxists, it turns out that central state planning is MUCH more inefficient. That's not to say that government planning has no role in modern economies (it's actually rather important) but that by itself it achieves significantly worse results than capitalism in providing for the needs of its citizens.

Over all, I'd say Marx had a lot of valuable criticisms to make about the inadequacies and injustices of capitalism (certainly 19th Century capitalism) but (just like most economists) he was less reliable when it came to predicting the future and/or suggesting solutions. This is largely because his theory of history (adapted from Hegel) is a ridiculous, metaphysical fairy story.

[Yoda]

Just so you know, the whole point of these abstractions is to get us to a point to talk about concrete matters -- namely, issues within the current historical situation of capitalism. The reason why we need all these broad relations to things like 'the Good' is because there is no current historical situation of communism. Talking about communism as such is not unlike talking about heaven; it is inherently abstract.
I understand. I have no problem with you doing this. It's a little cumbersome and it's probably taking too long, but I have no problem with it. I think we should be about ready to get into specifics, though, yeah?

[will.15]

That is the problem. You want to talk about communism that has never been tried. There have been plenty of governemnts that said they were following Karl Marx and it is a miserable system. So if you could transform the United States into your idea of communism, what would it look like, with specifics.

[Monkeypunch]

Can't speak to the others, but i've vacationed in Cuba over a dozen times over the years.

Yeah, but vacationing there and being ruled with Castro's Iron fist are two different things.

Personally, I'm all for socialized medicine, because the current healthcare system is a huge disgrace that is roundly rejected by every other civilized country (I have a relative who is a doctor in England, and she was horrified by the for profit nature of healthcare here), but I draw the line there.

[Arch Stanton]

That is the problem. You want to talk about communism that has never been tried. There have been plenty of governemnts that said they were following Karl Marx and it is a miserable system.

Indeed. I think the "it's never been tried" line falls down for a couple of reasons.

First, there have been so many honest attempts to establish a form of Communism, and they have all failed so blatantly to achieve the one thing they're supposed to (ie, release the proletariat from lives of drudgery and exploitation) that it becomes harder and harder not to conclude that the problem lies with Communism itself rather than the coincidental failings of individual regimes.

The second reason is more theoretical. If you postpone all happiness, justice and morality to some unspecified future when the state will wither away and the dictatorship of the proletariat will begin, then you are just begging for brutality and murderous injustice in the here-and-now. As Albert Camus was pointing out 60-odd years ago, Marx's materialist dialectical theory of history writes a blank cheque for murderers and psychopaths. The reason so many Communist states go bad is intrinsic rather than superficial.

[Yoda]

I'm with you on "communism has never really been tried" not adding up, but that's not quite the argument we're having right now. It's more "well, what hasn't been tried, and should we try it?" We're just calling that communism for purposes of this discussion, since any pushback against capitalism is probably going to be more communal in some way, and we need a placeholder name for this unspecified change.

Obviously, I'm inherently skeptical of any such shift, but heck, let's at least have the discussion.

[Arch Stanton]

Personally, I'm all for socialized medicine [...] but I draw the line there.

You might think that's the only form of government intervention you support, but I'm willing to bet there are dozens of others you accept, often without realising they are there. Two examples:

Immigration control: one of the key ways governments distort the labour market. If the borders came down you might find you weren't quite so competitive in the market place as you believed.

Child labour laws. We all more or less accept now that children shouldn't be sent out to work. But the laws governing this idea were introduced in the teeth of fierce opposition from industrialists who argued that it was "anti-business" and distorted the market place. Sound familiar?

The idea of a completely free market is a myth. It's all politics.

[Arch Stanton]

I'm with you on "communism has never really been tried" not adding up, but that's not quite the argument we're having right now. It's more "well, what hasn't been tried, and should we try it?" We're just calling that communism for purposes of this discussion, since any pushback against capitalism is probably going to be more communal in some way, and we need a placeholder name for this unspecified change.

Obviously, I'm inherently skeptical of any such shift, but heck, let's at least have the discussion.

Good luck, gentlemen. [Bows out] ;)

[planet news]

First, there have been so many honest attempts to establish a form of Communism, and they have all failed so blatantly to achieve the one thing they're supposed to (ie, release the proletariat from lives of drudgery and exploitation) that it becomes harder and harder not to conclude that the problem lies with Communism itself rather than the coincidental failings of individual regimes.'Communism itself' is an empty placeholder, an abstract location beyond the current situation. This is all that communism per se can be said to mean.

The second reason is more theoretical. If you postpone all happiness, justice and morality to some unspecified future when the state will wither away and the dictatorship of the proletariat will begin, then you are just begging for brutality and murderous injustice in the here-and-now. As Albert Camus was pointing out 60-odd years ago, Marx's materialist dialectical theory of history writes a blank cheque for murderers and psychopaths. The reason so many Communist states go bad is intrinsic rather than superficial.I'm not sure what "go bad" refers to. Does it refer to the fact that they were willing to murder? Or does it refer to the fact that, ultimately, those regimes collapsed and were reclaimed by capitalism?

I think it's pretty safe to say that most every first world conception of justice writes a "blank check" to murder. Most any conception of the Good writes a "blank check" to murder. Every conception of the Good will draw a relation to those it considers enemies of the Good. Depending on the extent of their attempts to oppose the Good, potentially anything is justified. From a slap on the wrist to outright murder to torture to anything in between. It is entirely dependent on the situation. Sometimes, bad guys need to actually be killed. I'm not justifying anything that actually happened. I'm simply saying that this idea of "blank check" does little to no work in condemning communism specifically.

What it condemns is the existence of the Good.

One does not measure the legitimacy of the political project by the body count. Furthermore, it's totally unclear that communism is especially egregious in that regard.

[planet news]

I'm with you on "communism has never really been tried" not adding upHow? Perhaps it's more clear if I put it this way:

Communism-as-it-will-be has never been tried. It hasn't. I might as well say:

Communism-which-has-never-been-tried has never been tried.

It's really that simple. It's an amazing obfuscation to name the exact political structures of the 20th century as Communism-in-itself and play the easy game of picking them apart based on the precise events of their failure which we already witnessed.

Why would anyone think that the communist of today or the future would ever replicate the exact moves of past revolutionaries (as if even that were possible). This is the core of Marx's theory of history. Progress towards the Good based on the current situation. It is called dialectical because it is like dialectics: an argument, a conversation.

At this point in the conversation, I am saying one thing: you've won all the other past arguments, but I still think you're wrong. And for these reasons...

[Yoda]

It's no more an obfuscation than defining Communism by whatever form it takes next, thereby making it conveniently exempt from any criticism. It's the no-true-Scotsman fallacy. If the next form fails, I presume someone will end up saying that that isn't Communism, either. And on and on. The idea is not that the next form Communism takes will be identical, it's that the fundamental premise is flawed to the point at which anything which avoids those flaws can't really be called Communism. At some point the word has to mean something.

Obviously, we've agreed in this thread to use the word as a placeholder of sorts. I've agreed to that obfuscation for the sake of argument. I don't think Arch was using the word that way, however, so I was merely replying in kind. He was referring to people who regard the failures you're talking about as some incidental problem of execution, rather than being indicative of a fundamental flaw in the underlying systems. I agree with him. But in the "placeholder" sense of the word, this has yet to be determined. However, it's obviously prudent to compare this next iteration to the previous ones to see if it is sufficiently different from those that have failed. And determining that will depend largely on why we think they failed.

Anyway, ready when you are. I think we're still back at determining what problems may be both innate to capitalism and immune to self-correction.

[will.15]

But capitalism corrects itself by turning away from pure capitalism. The difference between capitalism and communism is capitalism is flexible and can absorb non capitalism beliefs as defined by Adam Smith and all attempts at communism has failed. The Russian system collapsed and China still claims to be communist, but obviously is not. Cuba and a few others limp along in a system that does not inspire the revelutionary fervor of previous decades. All that remains communist in China is the worst aspect of Lenin Marxism, the totalitarian control.

[Powderfinger]

They believe China has more Millionaire than any other country.

[planet news]

Anyway, ready when you are. I think we're still back at determining what problems may be both innate to capitalism and immune to self-correction.After reading this post, I'm convinced we're not at all ready, since we're not on the right terms. And really, the 'right terms' are very easy to understand. What hard is to shake off the old, familiar patterns of discussion about communism that pretty much all of us have been raised on. Although it might seem self-serving, everything I've tried to do in this thread has been towards enabling an actually productive discussion of communism: communism as a possibility, not a failed mistake. You can easily see how, to enter into the discussion on, say, Arch Stanton's terms is to already assume communism utterly dead.

And, of course, the past is dead in that sense.

It's no more an obfuscation than defining Communism by whatever form it takes next, thereby making it conveniently exempt from any criticism. It's the no-true-Scotsman fallacy.I know it's fashionable to simply call out these fallacies and consider the case won, but unless they are formal, these 'fallacies' are merely familiar patterns of discussion and themselves are subject to counterexample. Furthermore, it's precarious to apply them, since they are merely generalizations. Still, I think your understanding of my position based on this fallacy is very useful, because through it I may have finally found a way to explain to you what I think the only 'right terms' of a discussion on communism are.

Wikipedia says that the no true Scotsman fallacy involves rejecting the legitimacy of a counterexample to a universal by discounting that counterexample's relation to the universal.

Consider the following. When Michelson and Morley attempted to detect the presence of ether by measuring the speed of light, they famously found that the speed of light was, contrary to the ether hypothesis, constant in all measured reference frames. While, in our current relativistic conception of the world, this result is clearly a counterexample to the idea of ether, Michelson and Morley themselves declared their experiment a failure.

Now, were they committing the no true Scotsman fallacy or where they simply being good scientists by insisting on the precision of their measurements?

We know now it would take the revolutionary figure of Einstein to make a proper place in science for their result, but until that point, it's clear that they had no real reason to throw out the entire edifice of Newtonian Mechanics based on their result.

Now, while I am making an analogy, know that I consider this analogy to be perfect in that what happens in politics is not merely metaphorically related to what happens in science but IN ACTUALITY the same, exact movement. I'm using science as an example now because, since it is a perfect analogy, it has the effect of clarifying while brushing away familiar patterns of discourse native to contemporary political ideology.

What both display is a commitment to an idea. The idea in MM's case being the Newtonian framework, the idea in our case being Communism. Each failed iteration of Communism is, as in science, a failed experiment. A matter of contingent human error. The failure is not in the idea itself. The idea somehow remains eternal.

Now, of course, we know now that for MM, the failure was in fact in the idea itself of Newtonian mechanics. But this would take the intervention of Einstein and relativity as an alternative option. And, in this same way, we find Marx proposing the alternative option to capitalism. He is revolutionary in that he insists, as MM could not, that there an alternative option IS available. That science has progress YET to be made. That we have not reached the final configuration of human thought.

Indeed, there was no single 'counterexample' or even set of 'counterexamples' that defeated Newtonian mechanics. For decades, scientists let counterexamples build up and up, continuing to construct what could be called ad hoc solutions to integrate them into the overall framework. If relativity did not come along. If Einstein did not intervene (and of course he did not do all the work here, I'm simplifying), then perhaps we would have lived with these ad hoc solutions for eternity. There was no progress of science between these two points but a radical leap of perspective: a revolution.

So, you can see how, this idea of particular undermining universal introduces two ideas crucial to having a proper discussion of communism:


Communism is necessitated by capitalism before communism has any concrete existence -- in science, all the data needed to CONSTRUCT relativity existed prior to the establishment of the theory itself


Communism is a way to properly integrate -- make necessary -- capitalism's 'ad hoc' solutions

If the next form fails, I presume someone will end up saying that that isn't Communism, either. And on and on. The idea is not that the next form Communism takes will be identical, it's that the fundamental premise is flawed to the point at which anything which avoids those flaws can't really be called Communism. At some point the word has to mean something.I've actually given you a very clear definition of what the word means. Communism per se is, quite simply, the political situation following capitalism.

The fact that no past project can be called 'true communism' is simply due to the fact that they have not actually succeeded in changing the situation. We know this because the essential features of the capitalist situation have remained entirely the same from its inception. This is all anyone means by the idea that 'true communism' has never been tried. 'True communism' is defined by its success.

This perhaps is the no true Scotsman as the fallacy is intended, and as you can see, it becomes quite a useless talking point. But perhaps now you can see how I never made it. The appearance of me making it was informed by the ideology from which we've been raised. You expected me to say it, so you simply project it onto my words without really reading them. What I've been saying throughout this thread has been very different.

[planet news]

I'm sorry, bro.

[Yoda]

No worries; I'm kinda sorry for you, because that post is crazily unnecessary. The key part of my last post was this:

Obviously, we've agreed in this thread to use the word as a placeholder of sorts. I've agreed to that obfuscation for the sake of argument. I don't think Arch was using the word that way, however, so I was merely replying in kind.
I understand why we need to use the word as a placeholder for purposes of this discussion, and I have no problem with it. Someone else came in using it differently (and understandably), and I responded to that response using the same terminology. We don't need to go through this whole thing of reestablishing what I've already agreed to establish.

I haven't projected anything onto you. I wasn't even speaking to you when I replied. Not that I mind you jumping in, but when you do, and you consider the context of what I was replying to, I think it's pretty clear there's no issue here.

That said, I can't resist responding one thing, even though it's only going to delay the actual discussion further: The scientists in your example were being good scientists, yes. But they also generally have the sense to use a different name for something when it changes a certain amount. In your analogy, Communism is Newtonian Mechanics, not the idea of Science itself.

[MovieMad16]

The Idea of a uncorrupt Communist world can work, but there will always be corruption in the world, so the idea of an Communist fair society is unlikely.

[shlomi]

communism is a system that sounds good in theory: everyone is equal and we're all friends and let's live together without religion and without nationality and without anything blah blah blah.

But in practice, as it happens in the Soviet Union, its Brought disaster upon tens of millions of people and it is the worst thing that happened to mankind second only to Nazism.

[Powderfinger]

What;s happening in Russia now? Putin is like, the Russia dictator? I can't remember his name, bloody hell.

[will.15]

How? Perhaps it's more clear if I put it this way:

Communism-as-it-will-be has never been tried. It hasn't. I might as well say:

Communism-which-has-never-been-tried has never been tried.

It's really that simple. It's an amazing obfuscation to name the exact political structures of the 20th century as Communism-in-itself and play the easy game of picking them apart based on the precise events of their failure which we already witnessed.

Why would anyone think that the communist of today or the future would ever replicate the exact moves of past revolutionaries (as if even that were possible). This is the core of Marx's theory of history. Progress towards the Good based on the current situation. It is called dialectical because it is like dialectics: an argument, a conversation.

At this point in the conversation, I am saying one thing: you've won all the other past arguments, but I still think you're wrong. And for these reasons...
Maybe communism as you see it hasn't been tried because it can't be.

[planet news]

I understand why we need to use the word as a placeholder for purposes of this discussion, and I have no problem with it. Someone else came in using it differently (and understandably), and I responded to that response using the same terminology. We don't need to go through this whole thing of reestablishing what I've already agreed to establish.

I haven't projected anything onto you. I wasn't even speaking to you when I replied. Not that I mind you jumping in, but when you do, and you consider the context of what I was replying to, I think it's pretty clear there's no issue here.Okay, cool. Still, I'm worried you're making concessions to me just to get the ball rolling without actually taking them seriously. At this point, I won't force it any more, because I can see it's far past annoying, but if you do happen to take the framework we've laid out seriously (really, just a Platonic framework), there's a chance you could walk out someday a communist! Or, as much a communist as I am (which is as much as one could be, I'd claim).

Communism is a placeholder, but in a very specific sense: it is a placeholder for Truth, the Good. It is an Idea in the Platonic sense. This is how movement towards it becomes synonymous with the movement of science... and beauty among other things.

That said, I can't resist responding one thing, even though it's only going to delay the actual discussion further: The scientists in your example were being good scientists, yes. But they also generally have the sense to use a different name for something when it changes a certain amount. In your analogy, Communism is Newtonian Mechanics, not the idea of Science itself.As long as it was, I laid it out fairly poorly back there. Communism is Newtonian Mechanics insofar as I wanted to show how the no-true-Scotsman 'fallacy' is not a fallacy at all when it comes to doing something like scientific work: which, again, I claim to be the same kind of movement as 'political' work.

But Communism is Einsteinian Relativity insofar as I wanted to show how revolutionary movements relate to contemporary situations. In other words, how the no-true-Scotsman 'fallacy' becomes a fallacy: only after the fact when we can stand back and see how unreasonable we were being. In this case, Capitalism is Newtonian Mechanics, since, at the time of MM, it was the dominating regime.

Analogy as a Theory of History:

Capitalism : The current situation : Newtonian Mechanics (NW)
Communism : The future situation : Einsteinian Relativity (ER)

When a regime dominates, it becomes the thing itself: the Good, the True. Newtonian Mechanics was Truth itself -- especially so in modernist times. Even today, Relativity is Truth itself. As long as no alternative theory exists, there is no way to even conceive of how it could be false. Even in the presence of overwhelming 'counterexamples,' the current situation can still be justified by means of the no-true-Scotsman 'fallacy.'

What it amounts to is maintenance of being, a care of being; making sense of the world in whatever way you can. All communist want to do is help to make sense of the world in a different, possibly better way.

I will claim that the entire ideological edifice of what is in the U.S. called 'liberal' is nothing more than a perpetration of the no-true-Scotsman fallacy through the power of the state. Market failure, in the eyes of the democrats, is not a counterexample to the market, but simply a failure of true market, which is heavily mediated by the state. Liberal in the European sense, the reactionary/conservatives, are pure insofar as they need not resort to the arbitrary ad hoc machinations of the state to solve their problems.

Still, ultimately, both lay in the same situation.

Analogy as a Framework for Our Discussion:

inconsistencies of data with theory in NW : 'problems' with Capitalism : N/A
elegant re-integration of (inconsistent) data into theory in NW : results of laissez-faire theorists : Conservatism
ad hoc re-integration of (inconsistent) data into theory in NW : market regulation by the state : Liberalism
re-necessitation of (now consistent) data into new theory in ER : the Communist 'solution' : Communism

And, lastly, the shift from NW to ER was an axiomatic shift. A shift in universal principles. Still, what ultimately enabled the formulation of ER was the onslaught of particular, concrete issues with NW. Thus, we begin with particulars. Concrete matters of the present situation.

[MovieMad16]

This could work in smaller communities but nothing remotely big with different viewpoints.

[Yoda]

Where is this left? You proceed now by talking about these new, axiomatic principles, yes?

[D34DT0Y]

Let me start by saying that I have limited knowledge on this topic, so if I'm way off base feel free to bash the hell out of me. ;)

I think it was Will who asked ... how do we define communism? That's a good question, since there are many types of communism.

It seems to me that communism can work and has worked on a small scale, but not on a large scale. For example, some of the Native American tribes used (is used the right word here?) primitive communism and it worked out just fine for them. Well, until ... you know what happened.

[Deadite]

Communism can't work because the nature of life, at least in this universe, is a competitive struggle for resources against an entropic backdrop. Any collectivist system based on sharing leaves itself wide open to predation, and inevitably gets corrupted. Idealism about living in total harmony forever and ever is sadly naive and quite simply contrary to the status quo of biological necessities for physical lifeforms hanging on for dear life and scraping out an existence in a physical universe that is gradually falling apart.

As others have said more clearly and succinctly, it can't work because of human nature, and, I'll add, because of Nature's nature and our universe's nature too.

Okay, all done talking kooky. Life sucks. I'm goin' back to bed.

[planet news]

The human nature line is the refrain of this thread and all contemporary liberal ideology about communism, but it doesn't make much sense if you just think about it for even a second. Everything you say sounds fine if we were just human animals. But we're not. We're also subjects. We can make decisions.

Tomorrow, everyone could randomly wake up and decide to be good to one another. This is something that we are all capable of. It is absolutely possible. You just cannot deny this possibility. So we know that it is within the realm of possibility that this could happen. The fact that we are stuck in a historical age and so forth doesn't make this possibility less likely. It helps us understand just how we might bring this possibility around by looking at how to reverse the way things work today.

Furthermore, for any version of communism, it will ultimately be the case that 'human nature' will be modified to the extent that predation is no longer a part of human nature. This doesn't take any internal transformation per se. The internal is already external. In short, there is no stable human nature. If the system of distribution can make living plentiful, then competition does not appear internally nor externally.

Lastly, it is not at all necessary that resources are scarce. There is such a thing as plentitude. We know this. The fact that resources are scarce now does not imply they will always be -- think of technologies. You speak cosmically of 'the universe.' Can you not imagine just one planet where food is plentiful? It is also unclear just how resources are scarce. It is often pointed out how the collective spending on one luxury -- jewerly for example -- could compensate for the starvation of billions. Of course, I am not saying that this wealth could even in principle be freed to do such work, but the scarcity here seems much more a kind of lopsidedness than absolute lack.

Accusations of naivete are popular here, but it is those who take the way things are as the way things always will be who are truly naive. Indeed, this is the definition of naivete. Humans are still very young. We have a long way to go. We're not at the end of history yet, kids.

Why are teens the most suicidal age? They think they know it all.

[Yoda]

That's a very interesting response. I have some thoughts:

1) Yes, we are active, rational agents and can override our baser instincts. Absolutely. But saying we can do something is different than counting on it, and counting on it across the vast majority of the population, which is what's necessary to make this sort of thing work. Being capable of doing a thing is not the same thing as being capable of doing it consistently. When you say we're capable of being good to one another, that's kind of like saying we're capable of running a 3:45 mile. We have that within us, too, but not everyone can do it and even fewer can do it consistently.

2) "Human nature will be modified." While I agree with the idea that systems can have a huge effect on how we behave (assuming that's what you mean), I think history shows us over and over that certain basic human impulses will always strenuously resist control. We can curb and suppress temporarily, or redirect, but we can't never merely modify people. The only two ways I think you can say this are either a) by suggesting we'll be ready for this after many, many generations are basically bred for things other than base survival, so that communism will be possible in some far distant future once humanity has evolved into something very different, or b) that it'll be made possible through pacifying the population with genetic modification. Which is absolutely horrific.

3) Regarding scarcity. Technically, you are correct: scarcity always exists in the sense of what we desire in comfort. If we desire much less, it's possible that we will have much less scarcity. But that goes back to the idea of modifying human nature. It's also a tough sell, because it's basically talking about trading a huge amount of basic human striving and excellence for this communist ideal. Even if you find this to be worthwhile trade off, it is a trade off.

Also, even then, there will be scarcity. Maybe a lot less, but there will always be some. Things will always go wrong, even if we're much better to each other and much more modest in our expectations of comfort and wealth.

[Deadite]

PN, your rebuttal relies on too much what-ifing and more of the same naive idealism. I was only pointing out how existence actually is. Sure, we can imagine, yet your position still isn't strengthened by imagination. Just because we can imagine everybody acting like hippy Jesus tomorrow, that doesn't make it truly possible. Anything isn't possible. Reality is not beholden to imagination and some ideas are destined to remain imaginary. We live in a universe that is following its course of winding down toward oblivion, and humanity can't ultimately be greater than that. We're products of an environment who have painfully learned to modestly re-shape it for our own survival, but we're not going to be able to re-shape the entire universe that much. Even if we manage to forge an ideal social system for ourselves, it will be around only as long as we are, for as long as we all pretend together that way, but it would have no actual reality beyond us and couldn't last. That is just the reality.

[planet news]

You're just making assertions. Assertions that are not unfounded if they are modest, but you are not being modest. Your grand, cosmic assertion is ultimately about the closure of existence around largely things that you, personally, have experienced. My assertion is grounded in the only thing we've come to know about existence: that existence is fuzzy, and holds as many secrets as you are willing to find in that haze. You know just how existence 'actually is' and furthermore, that there is nothing more than what it is that you know. You rely on the results of a young, under-powered, and highly local science to predict our fate billions of years from now. This is what is imaginary -- of images. I look to what we have not already seen, already experienced, already discovered. The fact that being has been unfolded so many times in the last couple hundred years even should lead us to /go further/, not arrogantly assume that we have done practically everything that could have been done. Where is the 'strength' of your argument? That what-is is enclosed around what we have already known? What is your justification for thinking this closure?

Finally, the point is not to forge an 'ideal' social system. The point is to maintain the idea of a better social system, to always keep moving towards that which resolves the hopelessness in the present system -- the very thing that leads to your pessimism about all of being.

[Deadite]

We were only able to make those advances because of our efforts to figure out how our physical existence actually works. We didn't bend the rules of our universe. We exploited them.

I'm sorry if you took anything personally but I'm only re-asserting what is concretely evident, not wooing with vague ideation, and anything more is essentially mental masturbation.

[planet news]

1) Yes, we are active, rational agents and can override our baser instincts. Absolutely. But saying we can do something is different than counting on it, and counting on it across the vast majority of the population, which is what's necessary to make this sort of thing work. Being capable of doing a thing is not the same thing as being capable of doing it consistently. When you say we're capable of being good to one another, that's kind of like saying we're capable of running a 3:45 mile. We have that within us, too, but not everyone can do it and even fewer can do it consistently.The fact that my reply was in fact a reply and not a thesis is where you're confused. Deadite seems to think that it is something like a property of being that prohibits the possibility of a better society. He used facts about our animal existence to back this up. However, the fact that we are clearly something more than animals denies this. The possibility is clearly there, and so you cannot use the over-determination of our animal natures to close it out.

Also, I'm not sure how I'm 'counting' on anything. Clearly, the communist position is an inventive one, where a new society is to be constructed in order to realize that particular possibility I'm speaking of.

First, we must know that we are in fact capable of running that time. Then, we must train. Deadite is pretty much just pointing out to a fat person that, because he is currently fat, it is impossible for him to think that he'll ever get into shape. What I pointed out was that any fat person can at any moment decide to shape up. This is the power of the subject. I don't count on fat people doing this, but I know that it's possible. Of course communism will take work. No one ever denied this.

2) "Human nature will be modified." While I agree with the idea that systems can have a huge effect on how we behave (assuming that's what you mean), I think history shows us over and over that certain basic human impulses will always strenuously resist control. We can curb and suppress temporarily, or redirect, but we can't never merely modify people. The only two ways I think you can say this are either a) by suggesting we'll be ready for this after many, many generations are basically bred for things other than base survival, so that communism will be possible in some far distant future once humanity has evolved into something very different, or b) that it'll be made possible through pacifying the population with genetic modification. Which is absolutely horrific.I put human nature in quotes, because there is no real human nature apart from the world they are in. Certainly not for a human who lives within a society not an ecosystem. There is no human nature is what I'm saying. There is total autonomy of what we call human apart from what is the human animal. Human nature is simply an internalization of what we call humanity. The fact that previous historical situations internalized the same sorts of things as capitalism says nothing about future historical situations, because they are just that... historical situations. history shows us societies not biologies.

People are ALWAYS 'modified.' They are NOTHING BUT the mediation between others. There is absolutely no notion of the self without the community. This is what i mean. Neither of your choices. To finally bring this fact out is yet another characteristic of communism insofar as it focuses on the community and not the individual.

3) Regarding scarcity. Technically, you are correct: scarcity always exists in the sense of what we desire in comfort. If we desire much less, it's possible that we will have much less scarcity. But that goes back to the idea of modifying human nature. It's also a tough sell, because it's basically talking about trading a huge amount of basic human striving and excellence for this communist ideal. Even if you find this to be worthwhile trade off, it is a trade off.There is no reason why there should be a trade off at all. It is only a trade off in capitalism where donating movie money to africa would collapse the movie industry and make it impossible for us to watch movies whilst not doing much for africa in the long run. What communism must be if it is to be truly a resolution of capitalism is not at all a redistribution of already existing wealth as it is in the system but a reconstruction of how 'wealth' is constituted in the first place.

i'm not saying that human nature has to be curbed. I'm saying there is no human nature, but what you call human nature is simply a result of the social relations in which we find ourselves, and that this will unavoidably be changed by a change in social relations.

again, it is a direct response to deadite. a system following capitalism will be precisely an attempt to nullify the social relations of predation and competition within 'human nature' which does not exist and is simply a reflection of society in the first place.

Also, even then, there will be scarcity. Maybe a lot less, but there will always be some. Things will always go wrong, even if we're much better to each other and much more modest in our expectations of comfort and wealth.things 'going wrong' has nothing to do with anything. things 'go wrong' in any system and so bears not at all on any particular system. furthermore, you cannot say that capitalism deals with things going wrong better than any other system due to its fluidity. there are simply other ways in which we can concieve of 'going wrong' that captialism alone runs into that compensates for this.

people steal and so forth. this is going wrong in capitalism. this is not something that would happen in communism, you understand. so that entire 'wrong' is eliminated. surely, there will be other problems perhaps analogous to 'stealing' but people will not steal per se. this is not a problem in communism. it is a problem in capitalism that has no translation into communism.

every system has its 'random' problems like earthquakes and so forth. every system also has its structural problems. communism is an attempt to resolve the structural problems of capitalism. geoengineering would an attempt to resolve the problems of earthquakes.

[planet news]

We were only able to make those advances because of our efforts to figure out how our physical existence actually works. We didn't bend the rules of our universe. We exploited them.This is a claim about what science is. That 'our universe' is the result of certain laws, and that, by looking closely, we saw them.

What really occurs though is something much more like a conversation than a seeing. We spoke to the universe, poked and prodded it through experiments, and it spoke back through results, which we then proceeded to translate into the language of universal laws. But you forget it only answered the questions we asked it. Again, there is no closure here. We have not asked the question 'are we there yet?' How would this question even be asked? I doubt it can. But unless we can get an answer to that question, there is no reason to think that there are 'rules of our universe' at all.

You cannot ask the universe 'can I impose these laws onto all of you?' You can only ask local bits of the universe certain local questions and get answers, and then, in your confidence, extend those laws to the whole thing -- furthermore, forbidding the existence of any other laws.

[Deadite]

You're confusing your perception with objective reality, it seems. Calling science a "conversation" with the universe may sound appealing, but the actual fact is there is no meaningful dialectical exchange. The physical universe is what it is, and our investigations get results precisely because it is an objective thing that works certain ways and not others. Your attempt to re-frame that as a two-way relationship is embarrassing. I'm afraid you're on the verge of telling us The Secret of Quantum Attraction and how humans create reality...

[Deadite]

i'm not saying that human nature has to be curbed. I'm saying there is no human nature, but what you call human nature is simply a result of the social relations in which we find ourselves, and that this will unavoidably be changed by a change in social relations.

This is incorrect, I think. There is such a thing as human nature. That nature is cooperative selfishness. Humans are just as much instinct-driven social animals as they ever were. We just have a more sophisticated repertoire now.

[matt72582]

No country has ever practiced Communism or Capitalism. Communism has to exist in all the world or nothing. The USSR were state capitalists.. The U.S. has a socialized fire department, army, etc etc... The key is what a citizen gets for their taxes, the basic necessities, how safe you are.

And really, I don't think one system can fit all. People can't agree on anything, and more and more countries are consolidating, the EU, or currencies, military alliances, etc..

I think the best way to go is to get rid of the labels, and do what's best for the times. I think the basic necessities should be taken care of taxes - if you want cigarettes or prostitutes, you should work for it.

[Monkeypunch]

Nope! Three years later and Communism still sucks pretty damn hard. I don't know about you, but I want rewards for my hard work, not receive the same pay as somebody who sits on their ass and does less. A bit of socialism here and there is alright, like our taxes go to pay for the T or the Army and the like (and I'm all in for socialized medicine, don't even get me started), but man, Communism removes all incentives to succeed or strive to better yourself. Yeah, Capitalism can be a cruel, survival of the richest sort of way of life, but we also don't have true Capitalism here in the U.S.. If we did, Wal Mart would run our schools. :P

[matt72582]

Capitalism or Communism has never happened, so we can't make judgements.

[matt72582]

"I dabbled in pacifism once"

:)

[Yoda]

Capitalism or Communism has never happened, so we can't make judgements.
I responded to this a few years back (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=813657#post813657):

The idea that "real" Communism could work, and that the massive failures we've seen just weren't "real" Communism, is not a new one. But there are some pretty clear problems with it, I think:

1) It'd be easy to defend any terrible idea by saying that, when it fails, it just wasn't done quite right. This is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

...

3) Even if you ignore both of these things, we're still left with a political system that, if it's not done "correctly," produces millions of deaths, starvation, and horrible human rights violations. And there's really no reason to have faith in people to do something perfectly, so that seems like too much of a risk to take. The best systems take human fallibility into account so that they don't have to be done just right to function, or at least don't result in untold suffering when they don't.
I'll add another point: requiring that any system be completely pure in implementation to be judged is to eliminate the utility of the question. It makes the question purely academic/hypothetical, rather than anything about reality, since a completely pure system is never possible.

[90sAce]

Communism's not supported by evolutionary biology so I don't think it can ever work in our current species. Too much of the communist ideal is based on the myth that all human behavior is the result of social conditioning (ex. capitalist indoctrination)- even though it's ingrained into our genetis and been in development for millions of years.

I'm talking about real communism of course - because to the hardcore GOPers in the US anything an inch to the left of Marie Antoinette is "communist" - lol

[matt72582]

I responded to this a few years back (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=813657#post813657):


I'll add another point: requiring that any system be completely pure in implementation to be judged is to eliminate the utility of the question. It makes the question purely academic/hypothetical, rather than anything about reality, since a completely pure system is never possible.

I agree that a completely pure system is not only not possible, but the definition itself can be misinterpreted. There was also no internet in the 1850's, which leads me to an "I Don't Know" answer. I don't want to speak for Marx, but I'll say that cooperation has to be established between every nation, so it's impossible in my opinion to have one system. Also, one country has certain resources that others don't, I could go on and on...

It's the same with Capitalism. Sweden technically has a market economy, but a great social welfare system - this is not even close to capitalism, let alone "pure capitalism" based on "Wealth of Nations" - but I think they have the best system. Not perfect, but the results are there. I'd say most of Western Europe is doing pretty well, and that the terms are not as important as the policy.

[Guaporense]

Communism is so 20th century. Now the new wave the new kids are all about Anarcho-Capitalism. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

It works? Of course, 19th century Iceland had some anarcho capitalistic elements. Ohhh....

[ashdoc]

Communism is based on the ideology of violence , and in any system based on violence soon the goons take over . All the social and economic theories go into the dustbin as power goes into the hands of those who can use violence .

[Guaporense]

aschdoc, You mean 20th century communism (i.e. real socialism) I guess, the system where the government takes direct control of all large scale industrial, communication and transportation activities and tries to micromanage everything from a central planning bureau, resulting is disastrous inefficiencies.

The idealized communism by Marx would be a society such that:

1 - Everybody is happy and talented and works only when he/she feels like working.
2 - There is no property, everybody consumes what they want to consume and in any quantities desired.
3 - There is not government, no war and no problems in the world.

This is called Heaven in other religions (Marxism is in a sense a religion, as characterized by Schumpeter). "Can it work?" What do you think? :rolleyes:

[ashdoc]

The idealized communism by Marx would be a society such that:

1 - Everybody is happy and talented and works only when he/she feels like working.
2 - There is no property, everybody consumes what they want to consume and in any quantities desired.
3 - There is not government, no war and no problems in the world.

This is called Heaven in other religions (Marxism is in a sense a religion, as characterized by Schumpeter). "Can it work?" What do you think? :rolleyes:

yes , but marx also envisages the workers and peasants taking over and replacing the existing elites in the positions of power . and how does this change take about ?? by violence of course....for when marx elucidated his theories very few nations had true democracy for communists to be allowed to be elected to power in democratic elections .

but once those who led the workers and peasants taste power , are they interested in holding elections and allowing other people to take over if they lose elections ?? naah....

remember those who led the workers and peasants in revolution have come to power with some bloodshed , and have made many physical sacrifices to come to power . so they are hardly going to relinquish their hard won power so easily in elections . so the earlier elites are replaced by new elites who are probably worse than the earlier elites due to their habit of using violence .