Ask a red

[Bigfoot3814]

I disagree with the principles of communism because I feel they reward lazy people. As a communist, what do you feel would motivate people to work hard even when there is essentially no personal reward for it?

 

[Virote_Considon]

Spoiler My background knowledge to my question :

In industrialized/modernized capitalist economies, the birth rate drops significantly, so that whereas before each family would have, say, 6 or 7 children, they would now typically have about 2 or 3. This is mostly due to the way that in such a society, having lots of children isn't viable(SP?) economically.

My question to you is:
Once the capitalist system is abolished, and there is no economic incentive to not have as many children as possible, how would you envisage managing to keep a sustainable population?

 

[greenpeace]

Greenpeace, how could one through direct democracy alone manage to coordinate the worldwide supply chains that allow for many of the miracles of modern technologies?

First of all I do not see the mass production of many modern technologies considering that few would think the amount of effort would be worth the end product. Second, I'm unsure what problem would arise coordinating the supply chains, can you please elaborate?

What do you think of Eric Hobsbawm?

He has very different views than me, and I do not like the fact he said "yes" to the question if saying "yes" would create a Communist utopia but kill 20 million people. I have not read his works.

@@greenpeace

So you are saying people will be less close socially as there are more people, right? I am saying you do not have to be close to everybody who follows the society you follow.
At higher levels of aggregation, yes, you have to have close knit bonds to keep communal groups intact. That comes straight out of studies on sectarian behavior (Rodney Stark)
But I don't need close knit bonds if I am fine on my own, and if I am not fine by myself, lets say I get knocked into a coma, than it doesn't take much close knit bonds to say "oh he will starve to death if we don't give him some food, lets feed him." Even if you have the most pessimistic view of humanity, if need be incentives can be used by the community in this case (violation of harm rule gives authority that power).
For example, if I am living on a permaculture farm with a comfortable 100 people close and generally deciding the decision that effect my life with those 100 people, what difference does it make if there are another 1000 people living nearby that I have no social bonds with?
Do you treat strangers differently than friends?
Yes, I can't talk to them because I don't see them. Need I see them constantly?

I do not understand exactly what you mean by "requires the full participation of all group members." Do you mean everybody must be working constantly or it all implodes?
In the simplest example, you and Bob are work a permaculture farm. Both you and Bob have the same abilities/habits etc. Really, the only differences are that you might like the Detriot Lions and he likes the Cleveland Browns.

Since everything is split down the middle, you and Bob rely on each other to put forth similiar efforts to optimize production. If Bob starts to shirk, because no matter what you both split the output, youre going to get upset. That's the bond breaking down. In the very small group (2 dudes), the bond isn't likely to breakdown, because there are things called credible threats.

Now make that example 30 people. Someone can shirk and hide.

In that example you are assuming I'm going to be working for Bob. Unless Bob is a baby, injured, very elderly or for some other reason can't live on his own without starving to death, than I do not need to help him, and instead he must help himself.
Central planning (by which I assume you mean having a group of people deciding how people work) is a must not, and violates core principles. Central planning would violate the rule of "you have the complete ability to do as you please so long as you don't damage others or inhibit others from their ability to do as they please, providing they do not violate others rights and are aware of all the consequences an action may have that you are aware of."
What mechanism then, do you have in your idyllic communistic society, to allocate resources amongst communities, groups, etc? There is no market, so no price mechanism. You just ruled out a command mechanism.
If you produce something, then it is yours which you can choose to give up by sharing (you get to decide how it is shared), or gifting, or keep. If a group produces something than ownership rights must be decided amongst them. The major difference is that you aren't allowed use things an incentives to attain an authoritarian position (authoritarian= in the way of an authority, an authority being an entity that attempts to limit how people may act; this can be done by practically forcing people to work for hours on end with the threat that they would starve otherwise, aka incentives). If you cannot live on your own without sustaining damage (most likely by starvation), and the amount of work to sustain you is reasonable (the authority deciding fairness, unless you are voluntarily helped), then you are given sustenance. That is all the resource allocation

That does not require a hierarchy to deal with, if a people directly democratically (that is not by elected representatives) decided how to deal with said issues, than no power holding class emerges.
Direct democracy leads to rule by the mob. Mobocracy isn't exactly ideal either. Granted, direct democracy could work efficiently if every voter had full and complete information on every problem, to divying up fertilizier to the soy and corn farms, to defense, to social law. But you need perfect information, amongst all. That's just mathemetics again.
Well, in the matters such as these much less information is needed, because instead of having extremely complex legal codes, directing how people work, etc. it is simply
“1. Whether or not a person (in the community) intentionally has, or is, or eminently will be causing net harm and what to do about it. Harm is defined as anything that inhibits a person’s ability to do something other than inhibit someone else’s ability to do something (the primary way is offering of incentives excluding emotional reactions and other forms of authority). Also harming is inflicting unwanted damage on another. The established authority is the only entity that can legally offer incentives to counter harm. If there is a situation where it is literally impossible for one to not harm another, then the authority must attempt to reduce the harm as much as possible. There is one exception in which one may restrict another's actions other than preventing eminent harm without the direct consent of the authority. That is preventative action to prevent the consequence(s) of the other's actions, if the consequence(s) are unknown to the person.
Also harm is taking away the produce of another person/groups production without their consent. Also harm is not allowing natural resources to be shared fairly (the authority decides fairness with the basis primarily being need).
2. Whether to include a new member to a community or not.”

Its definitely better than an elected representative, because it simply wouldn't make sense to have a large government when the matters it determines are so small, and having communal presidents would most likely lead to tyranny.

what do you think about marx' idea that the state would just die off after the revolution?

Well in this case the less the authority is required, the less people are hurting each other, the happier people most likely will be. Since the community isn't involved in anything else, with a significantly compassionate enough group, there would most likely be no, or extremely little, need for it.

I disagree with the principles of communism because I feel they reward lazy people. As a communist, what do you feel would motivate people to work hard even when there is essentially no personal reward for it?

There is no reward for being lazy because unless you are incapable to sustain yourself, you are not entitled to anything.

Spoiler My background knowledge to my question :

In industrialized/modernized capitalist economies, the birth rate drops significantly, so that whereas before each family would have, say, 6 or 7 children, they would now typically have about 2 or 3. This is mostly due to the way that in such a society, having lots of children isn't viable(SP?) economically.

My question to you is:
Once the capitalist system is abolished, and there is no economic incentive to not have as many children as possible, how would you envisage managing to keep a sustainable population?

If there are so many people that people are being hurt due to lack of say space, then a community may take steps to prevent more babies. Also, often in more rural areas, it is sometimes economically beneficial to have as many children as possible. For example, maintaining a monoculture farm (which is today's standard farm), you need as many hands as you can get, and more family is basically some of the cheapest labor around.

 

[scy12]

I would like you to answer my questions as well if you don't mind.A different person = a different perspective and that means i am not losing anything by asking you the same questions . Those are.

A) What is true communism ?

B) In a communist system not only the means of production generally are owned by the state but also the means of transferring Information . The Media. How can one have a plurality of opinions in a communist system and in addition have the state be criticized by several Media (newspapers/radio/TV ) , which are owned for example by people with opposite interests , in a communist system ? Can Criticism against the State ever be viable in a communist system ?

And how do we avoid the Government employing a Secret police to oppress criticism against it , since in there eyes they are protecting their interests by doing so ?
C) If True communism is a political ideology that strive for a society without a state and classes, thereby also without private property.
A communist society is one as described above then :

You have not mentioned any methods so i guess that supporting capitalism and wishing that once in the future there is no need for Private property because Capitalism is just the best system for the advancement of society would make you a communist then ?

I never thought of my self as a communist , actually.

And D)

What you describe here are tenets of a socialist society. As mentioned above, there is no state in a communist society.

Ofcourse there is. There is a state in all societies today. If your philosophy has any suggestions about what will happen now, until we reach "true communism" , you have not answered my question.

How should a State that will help transform it self and the world into a "communist society" be ?

Basically my question has to do , with how would a state in the transition period until we reach "true communism" , look like ?

 

[greenpeace]

I would like you to answer my questions as well if you don't mind.A different person = a different perspective and that means i am not losing anything by asking you the same questions . Those are.

A) What is true communism ?

B) In a communist system not only the means of production generally are owned by the state but also the means of transferring Information . The Media. How can one have a plurality of opinions in a communist system and in addition have the state be criticized by several Media (newspapers/radio/TV ) , which are owned for example by people with opposite interests , in a communist system ? Can Criticism against the State ever be viable in a communist system ?

And how do we avoid the Government employing a Secret police to oppress criticism against it , since in there eyes they are protecting their interests by doing so ?
C) If True communism is a political ideology that strive for a society without a state and classes, thereby also without private property.
A communist society is one as described above then :

You have not mentioned any methods so i guess that supporting capitalism and wishing that once in the future there is no need for Private property because Capitalism is just the best system for the advancement of society would make you a communist then ?

I never thought of my self as a communist , actually.

And D)

Ofcourse there is. There is a state in all societies today. If your philosophy has any suggestions about what will happen now, until we reach "true communism" , you have not answered my question.

How should a State that will help transform it self and the world into a "communist society" be ?

Basically my question has to do , with how would a state in the transition period until we reach "true communism" , look like ?

A)Well, This really calls for me restating the rules:
“Society should be decentralized (to the point where a community is completely self-goverened). The decentralized government must be made of all people able to communicate in the community. These people make decisions by the democratic process in which the majority agrees with the decision. The two types of decisions it is allowed to make will be:
1. Whether or not a person (in the community) intentionally has, or is, or eminently will be causing net harm and what to do about it. Harm is defined as anything that inhibits a person’s ability to do something other than inhibit someone else’s ability to do something (the primary way is offering of incentives excluding emotional reactions and other forms of authority). Also harming is inflicting unwanted damage on another. The established authority is the only entity that can legally offer incentives to counter harm. If there is a situation where it is literally impossible for one to not harm another, then the authority must attempt to reduce the harm as much as possible. There is one exception in which one may restrict another's actions other than preventing eminent harm without the direct consent of the authority. That is preventative action to prevent the consequence(s) of the other's actions, if the consequence(s) are unknown to the person.
Also harm is taking away the produce of another person/groups production without their consent. Also harm is not allowing natural resources to be shared fairly (the authority decides fairness with the basis primarily being need).
2. Whether to include a new member to a community or not.”

That said, different places will produce happier citizens. For example, if you have a very compassionate people that don't hurt each other, its alot better than a bunch of thugs.

B) The means of production aren't really owned by an elite group, each individual either decides to produce or not, and in what way they produce. So no elite group has access to all information outlets.

C) Well if you work to produce something its yours to do as you please with except cause harm (one way being trying to basically force people into work). Anyways, if you are asking how to implement the society, than this how it would basically happen. First of all, all people coming into the society from a foreign state must do so voluntarily, ie. no forced conversion. Second, the main two things needed to form such a society is enough knowledge for sustainability (read: at least one person forming it knows how to build a permaculture farm, and build simple shelter and clothing, hopefully basic medical treatments as well), and the resources to build it on (read need land and some basic things to get it started). This does require people to attain things from the previous society. This should be as non-violent and unforced as possible. For example, land should be attained from unused land or sympathetic owners. The goal is to coexist as peacefully as possible with the main society as death, violence, and forced conversion is a severe grievance that violates the whole point of the society.

D) The governing body of the community does not change in its function at all, just its usefulness (the less useful the better).

 

[m4gill4]

Hi luc, nice thread.

I have long been interested in anarcho-syndicalism, and have been progressively drifting that direction ever since I escaped the clutches of my highly embarrassing teenage Ayn Rand phase .

The only thing stopping me from embracing it completely and proudly wearing the "red" moniker as you, is that while on paper what you describe meshes well with what I would consider to be a superior (ethically, environmentally etc.) way of life, the gulf between here and there is incomprehensibly wide (to me at least).

It could be chalked up to my bourgeois capitalist upbringing , but I find it difficult to picture a functioning society without a centralized state or some other organized authority. I have a few questions in this regard which you may answer individually or collectively as they are all of the same vein.

Who will maintain the roads and other critical infrastructure? More importantly, what motivation will replace the profit motive to get people working? How will the workers be organized so that they are working efficiently without overlap without some kind of hierarchy?

Under the current capitalist system, things like food distribution are handled by corporations. For better or worse, corporations are organized groups who are capable of the not-insignificant task of distributing vast quantities of food to far corners. In a non-hierarchical system, how will these challenges be met? Without currency based commerce, will this kind of trade even be possible or desirable?

I could go on and on with these types of questions, but I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this; the overarching problem I see is that of organizing large groups of people for complex tasks with no central authority or hierarchy; how will anything get done if nobody is giving orders? Have I just got it all wrong?

 

[downtown]

Hey Luc, I appreciate the effort for this thread.

I saw that you answered a question on differing opinions as to political participation from Fifty, and was wondering if you might be interested in going into a little more depth. Regarding political participation, what approach to you favor? Are there "case studies" that are commonly cited for arguments for either side? What side do you think is most popular among the more relevant thinkers and opinion makers in the "left" community?

Thanks

 

[Whomp]

Thank you for your time spent on the topic. Feel free to answer my questions or not.

If everything is held in common then who is in charge of the children?

Under what appear to be ideal circumstances (land and water gifted by the Jewish National Fund and the state of Israel), the kibbutz movement has slowly moved further away from a communal life. Why do you think this is?

 

[Perfection]

First of all I do not see the mass production of many modern technologies considering that few would think the amount of effort would be worth the end product.

I find that hard to believe! Certainly there are some modern technologies that we may like to do without, but there are plenty we do not, such as the Internet and modern medicine. If you're asking me to give that stuff up, I'd say that your utopia is a step backwards rather then forwards.

Second, I'm unsure what problem would arise coordinating the supply chains, can you please elaborate?

Well, let's consider the case of a implantable defibrilator for little spazzy-heart Jimmy. Implantable defibrilators require the production of ASICs (application specific integrated circuits) can only be made with extremely complicated machines. All of those machines require thousands of parts mass produced from materials strewn about the world. Nowadays this isn't that big of a problem, because of massive systems of corporations that are willing to devise and supply the componants needed. How can this be coordinated in your system? What will happen to little spazzy-heart Jimmy?

 

[m4gill4]

Well, let's consider the case of a implantable defibrilator for little spazzy-heart Jimmy. Implantable defibrilators require the production of ASICs (application specific integrated circuits) can only be made with extremely complicated machines. All of those machines require thousands of parts mass produced from materials strewn about the world. Nowadays this isn't that big of a problem, because of massive systems of corporations that are willing to devise and supply the componants needed. How can this be coordinated in your system? What will happen to little spazzy-heart Jimmy?

Yes, this is something like the situation at the heart of my above questions regarding organization and leadership. The defibrilator for "spazzy-Jimmy" could not exist without a global trade network. The defibrilator incorporates raw materials from all across the globe, and requires a great deal of education to even conceive, much less to actually construct.

With no profit-motive, and with an ideological aversion to central authority, how could such a vast global trade network (nevermind an academic bureaucracy) be coordinated to the degree necessary to maintain (much less expand upon) our technological progress? Is the globalization of trade and resources even desirable under such a system?

I hope it is evident that I am asking in good faith and not being contentious or obtuse. Upon reflection I realize that my affinity for anarcho-syndicalism/communism is less because I am being attracted to the merits of said political philosophy, of which I am largely ignorant; rather it is the opposite. I am being driven towards that view by my revulsion at the excesses of modern capitalism. Any way in which you could help inform my views would be appreciated, thanks.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

How do you respond to these quotes by my hero, Jean Shepherd:

"Most dedicated Communists I know don't consider themselves part of 'the people'. They do not consider themselves 'the little guy'. No, they want to help the little guys and they want to do things for the little guy. Today's Communist doesn't see himself down in the fields with the scythes, harvesting wheat and singing. Nah, they see themselves in the palace or the headquarters somewhere giving direction."

"It's always the 19-year-old kid who burns down city hall. He thinks if he burns down city hall, everythings going to be good... Because he and his friends are beautiful, and if he can just get rid of the old people, it'll all work out... However, what happens to the beautiful people when the NEW beautiful people come and burn down thier city hall? ... Yes friends, life is beautiful, if only they'd let ME run it."

-Jean Shepherd​

Bear in mind, his show was not political or anything. It was all meant to be fun and satire.

 

[BasketCase]

I disagree with the principles of communism because I feel they reward lazy people. As a communist, what do you feel would motivate people to work hard even when there is essentially no personal reward for it?

There is no reward for being lazy because unless you are incapable to sustain yourself, you are not entitled to anything.

Goodie, me and greenpeace are probably about to bump heads in a Communism thread again. Meaning, this thread is doomed.

The kicker here is how to figure out if any given person is being a lazy-ass. There's no way to do it. If a person is working for half the salary, is it because he's doing half the work? Or is he getting shafted by his boss and not being paid equitably? There's no way to know. If a person isn't working at all, is it because he can't find a job or refuses to find a job? No way to know that either.

I know the unemployment system can be scammed because I myself scammed it last time I was unemployed five years ago. See? I cheated the system once, but none of you know who I am or where to find me in real life. Or maybe I'm making all this up--there's no way for anyone in this thread to know.


That's why we have to have police and laws and other freedom-reducing cruelties, and that's why a socialist system based on the honesty of the citizens will never work.

 

[JerichoHill]

@@greenpeace

First of all I do not see the mass production of many modern technologies considering that few would think the amount of effort would be worth the end product. Second, I'm unsure what problem would arise coordinating the supply chains, can you please elaborate?
Okay, now how do you feed a massive populace without mass production?

So you are saying people will be less close socially as there are more people, right? I am saying you do not have to be close to everybody who follows the society you follow.
Psychological research begs to disagree wholeheartedly. You've got to either have everyone working towards the common good, because if one person shirks, that encourages others too.


But I don't need close knit bonds if I am fine on my own, and if I am not fine by myself, lets say I get knocked into a coma, than it doesn't take much close knit bonds to say "oh he will starve to death if we don't give him some food, lets feed him."
Yes it does. We do not care for the homeless on the street. The family a block down may fall on hard times, but the neighborhood does nothing, even though they are well known and are "friends"


For example, if I am living on a permaculture farm with a comfortable 100 people close and generally deciding the decision that effect my life with those 100 people, what difference does it make if there are another 1000 people living nearby that I have no social bonds with?
Do you treat strangers differently than friends?
Yes, I can't talk to them because I don't see them. Need I see them constantly?
do you trust them any differently. Would you give them more money than a friend in need? More of your time? You need STRONG social bonds for communism to work. Why do you think the USSR was building the state as the institution rather than the family?


In that example you are assuming I'm going to be working for Bob.
I never, at all assumed that. I assumed you worked together, communally.



What mechanism then, do you have in your idyllic communistic society, to allocate resources amongst communities, groups, etc? There is no market, so no price mechanism. You just ruled out a command mechanism.
If you produce something, then it is yours which you can choose to give up by sharing (you get to decide how it is shared), or gifting, or keep.
Thats' a free market.

If a group produces something than ownership rights must be decided amongst them. The major difference is that you aren't allowed use things an incentives to attain an authoritarian position (authoritarian= in the way of an authority, an authority being an entity that attempts to limit how people may act; this can be done by practically forcing people to work for hours on end with the threat that they would starve otherwise, aka incentives). If you cannot live on your own without sustaining damage (most likely by starvation), and the amount of work to sustain you is reasonable (the authority deciding fairness, unless you are voluntarily helped), then you are given sustenance. That is all the resource allocation
First, you say that you cant have authority, but then you do say you can. WHo is this authority? Who prevents the authority from being...too authroritarian?


Well, in the matters such as these much less information is needed, because instead of having extremely complex legal codes, directing how people work, etc. it is simply
It is not as simple as you make it. I could utterly destroy the following vis a bis logical deconstruction. I could easily interpret such in a way that no one person can do no action, because i can claim harm in innumerable fashion.

I wish luce would answer my questions.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Unless I'm mistaken, this is meant to be a question and answer thread, not a discussion thread.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Is there any substance to the analogy between communism and a well-functioning family? Obviously there is a power structure in family between parents and children, but that is largely out of necessity. As parents get old and need special care that power role can reverse as they aren't capable of making all decisions. So ignoring that, is there?

What I would consider good families tend to operate on the basis of from each according to ability and to each according to need.

 

[El_Machinae]

I must admit that I'm kinda reeling at the idea of no currency. It's a very alien concept.

 

[Fifty]

Suppose for a moment that we can quantify material well-being by some unit (I'll just call them "units").

Which of the following two societies would a communist rather have exist, and why:

Society A: 20% of the population has 10 units, 60% of the population has 15 units, 20% of the population has 20 units.

or

Society B: 100% of the population has 12 units.

Assume that the poverty line in both of these societies is such that 10 units of happiness would be today's 1st world country working class style quality of life.

 

[BasketCase]

Personally, Fifty, I think political power is more important than material well-being. Different people are content with different amounts of material stuff, so there's no real reason to force people to take stuff they don't have any use for. (I, for example, have no need for baby shoes--there's no point in my having an equal share of U.S. baby shoe production)

 

[Perfection]

You're not a red.

 

[BasketCase]

Nope. I have common sense.

Btw, what the heck is up with your new avatar???

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889