Communism: Can it work?

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.

__________________

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.

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.

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.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

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?

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

Darn it, he saw it.

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

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

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.

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.

Communism.. You Crazy???

__________________
no one else is dealing with your demons friend - tyler joseph.

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?

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.

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.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

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.

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.

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.

__________________
100 Favourites From The Future: REWIRED

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.

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. 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?

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. I thought I pretty much said this, too, but no matter. This is what I mean.

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.

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.

Yet here I go, about to argue with it.

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.

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.

Nope.

That's clear.

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.