Communism: Can it work?

Tools    





will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
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.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
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.
__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
The only form of communism we can evaluate is what has been tried. Anything else is nebulous
I 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.
  1. 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.

  2. 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's Avatar
Semper Fooey
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.



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's Avatar
Registered User
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.
  1. 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.

  2. 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).

  3. 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.



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.



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's Avatar
Registered User
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.



Keep on Rockin in the Free World
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.
__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
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's Avatar
Semper Fooey
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.



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.



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's Avatar
Semper Fooey
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.



I'm not old, you're just 12.
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.
__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/



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.



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.



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.