Sorry, people, but this is all you could manage right now.
One of my main critiques of communism is that, absent a price / value mechanism, choices involving externalities or macro-policy tend to be sub-optimal.
In that, firstly, via mathematics we know that for economic choices (non-dependent of theory), the sum of the parts does not equal the sum of the whole (this is a flaw within macro-planning. Thus, some outcomes will be non-optimal for some actors.
Secondly, throughout history we have seen examples of communal living, communist society, appear to be stable when in small, isolated, confines. As the society grows larger, the strong social bonds tend to weaken, and economic problems such as the commons or like free-ridership tend to render such communities asunder (There's plenty of examples of hippie communes here in the USA, and of the small Christian sects from 100-600AD).
Given those issues, isn't the kind of "man", or actor, need to be in some way fundamentally different at the need/want core than currently is today?
Yes. People always need to adapt to new forms of social arrangements. Just keep in mind and see how difficult it was for people in the 17th century Europe to adapt to the fledling capitalism, being used as they wereto feudal social and productive relations.
Given what I've described, isn't it fundamentally more likely for communal/communistic governnance/economic union more likely to occur in Eastern cultures than in Western culture?
I don't think so. But I do think that every society needs to find its own way to develop.
Finally, given that we, as a unit, tend to at extremes abuse and use systems to our own selfish ends, how does prevent said abuse from occuring, as most examples that are commonly held to be attempts at communism end in autocratic rule?
There is, to my knowledge, no system that is insured against abuse. The only way to keep a society stable and approved of in the long run is to fullfill the needs of its population. I think an affluent socialist society can do this better than any other I know.
Why do aspiring communist people think that they (if they achieved power) will not submit to the
predictable actions of hoarding total power and crushing dissent, like every commie regime of old?
First of all, I don't know what "aspiring" communist people means.
Secondly, I think that picture needs to be modified somewhat. There were certain specific historical circumstances that need to be addressed; Russia for instance was invaded by capitalist countries several times, and post WW2 the capitalist West, which was superior in most ways due to the same historical circumstances (most countries in the Eastern bloc including Russia can be described as having a third world status in the global system form about the time of Columbus) tried in different ways to destabilize and sabotage the Eastern Bloc. One needs to be particulary gullible to believe that the Cold War was between the evil, aggressive dictatorships and the humane, peaceloving democracies.
Modern communists wants a transition to socialism in the most advanced capitalist countries where such problems should not arrive.
Why do young commies think that Josef Stalin's bestial regime was unique in it's oppression?
See above.
And, why do young cappies think that Adolf Hitler's truly bestial regime was unique in it's appearence. See, I can do demagogy too.
And I believe that I am older than you even...
This question was already "kind of" asked here, but I'd like to put it another way:
As the final goal is to abolish the state, what kind of power relations will replace it? The state is an entity, an organization, but it doesn't have a will. In the end it's just a vehicle for people to exercise power. Nothing showed this as dramatically as when a supposedly totalitarian empire first withdrew and then disbanded itself, within two years - states do get abolished. The big problem is, what else can we replace them with?
Your question is good, your example assuming that you mean the USSR, less so. I don't think it was so much that the state disbanded itself as a coup carried out by power elements within it.
As for what we should replace them with, "we" shouldn't replace them with anything. The people should, just as you suggest below..
I'm all for splitting the state's power into "smaller fragments", allowing people to actually have a say on how their lives are organized - which now they really haven't, "representative democracy" notwithstanding. That's the main reason I oppose (hopelessly, I fear) these "EU constitution" projects leading to the creation of ever "higher", more faraway power centers. But technology seems to be forcing us on that direction: easier movements, easier communications -> larger organizations. Can these changes be used to distribute power more widely, instead of concentrating it?
I don't share your pessimism regarding the EU - yet. Admittedly it is developing in a more ouvert fascist way, but I am not so sure if it will succeed.
I can't look into the future but I think that people will eventually mobilize towards such a develpment.
The historic examples I know better of attempts at anarchism or socialism, those during the spanish civil war and some ideas during my own country's more recent (1974-5) revolution, really leave me with little hope of escaping the weight of large political organizations (which always seem to be divorced from their supposed "base"). Any attempt to organize states in other terms (other than, as modern states go, single party dictatorship or multi-party "democracy") has been quickly suppressed, or even abandoned by its proponents in fear of violent reactions. Sure, most of these attempts were following the collapse of a single-party system, or happening on backwards regions. But can we really hope to see the alternative suggested by Marx, eventually having the political organizations of a multi-party system abolish themselves (or the state, it amounts to the same thing), ever happen?
(and forgive me if I'm taking some liberties in interpreting Marx for the current world situation)
Those historic examples are in my opinion largely irrelevant , because just as in the case with most of the countries in the former Eastern Bloc, these were rather backward countries lacking the necessary fundament for a succesful implementation of socialism. Also in the case of Spain, we all know the particular historical circumstances.
As for your question, I think that yes, it is possible given a peaceful development of a socialist society.
To make my concerns clear I add that I believe political (power relations) change must precede any change in economic relations, and see the issue of property as secondary (it's just one form or power), addressable only after organization issues are sorted out.
I also think that while the means necessary for any change are an important issue, what has undermines communism/anarchism is the lack of a clear final goal first and foremost. It may seem strange, but anarchists may need a clear proposal for a new social organization if they are to attract a meaningful following. With which the common understanding of the term "anarchism" is at odds.
Your point is a good one. However there is no contradiction between anarchy (in the political sense of the word) and organization. Also, I am not so sure that one shouldn't address the issue of property, or more correctly the means of production first. Ownership of the means of production is after all, a political issue. It seems clear to me that the failure of the social democracies (and given the professed goals of social democracy it is failures) has a clear connection with the power held by the possesing class.
Sorry for the long questions, but I'll add just one more: why was Marx so bent on attacking everyone who did not toe his line, after the 1840s? His attacks on Max Stirner, Proudhon, Bakunin, etc... culminating with the London conference and the Hague congress of the First International? Or, in other words, was he a power-hungry controlling bastard, or was he reacting to a conspiratorial Bakunin?
I think that the answer is a bit of both. Marx was undoubtetedly a difficult character with certain authoritarian traits, but the people he fell out with was hardly saints either.
This seems contrary to how society is headed, and in my mind how it should head. It seems there's a historical trend toward larger more integrated organizations. How can large projects like the mass production of complex electronics, or intercontinental transportation systems be developed in the abscence of large entities like corporations and governments?
That the state, as an repressive instrument in the service of the ruling class is abolished doesn't mean that all organization wil just disappear, one has to find new forms.
But that is hardly my task.
I am not at all suggesting that large entities should disappear, but I think that the people who work in them should also control them. This is actually not something new or sensational, it was not uncommon to think so among people in your own country some 150 years ago.
I have another question. Let's say we have a warm wonderful blanket factory under some hypothetical red state, how is this factory run and do those who run it determine if they are making too many or too few warm wonderful blankets?
Again, that's up to them, not me.
Communism, ironically, at least with how human beings are at this moment in time, is an all or nothing proposition.
Which is why I agree that trying to form a communist society tomorrow anywhere would fail miserably.
Oh, and I forgot, the first part, about "planning" Under communism, central planning I assume is a must, at least at the state level as there is no private ownership. Its again, just a math proof
I can't see why. But a socialist society, just like capitalist societies today will indeed need it.
How is a stateless society possible? Some problems seem to require some form of authority to deal with them, for example, crime. While nobody would need to steal in a society that provides for their needs, some would still do it out of greed, and there would still be the occasional nutter who kills someone or something, so how could that be dealt with without a central authority?
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.
That is situational and not what socialism or communism is about at all.
But to try to answer you, I don't see total output equality as something desirable or realistic. The important is that people's basic needs are to be fullfilled and that no able-bodied, mentally sane adult can live of the fruits of other people's labour.
I am really not a math genius, but I think that in most cases I would prefer something akin to society A.
How do you feel about tactical voting, as a red? I cant bring myself to vote for the Labour Party (similar to the UK Labour Party, not as right wing but not far off) or Fine Gael in the hope that Fianna Fail will lose out on a seat. In extreme circumstances I would do it (like in the Le Pen/chirac situation), but otherwise I just cant. How do you think Marx would have viewed voting for a 'democratic socialist' party to keep a conservative one out?
One of the great people in socialist history, Eugene Debs, reportedly once said that he rather voted for something he wanted and didn't get than voted for something he didn't want and got. In most cases I don't approve of tactical voting, and I think that is something large mainstream parties sometimes exploit to scare people from voting according to their conviction ("if you don't vote for Labour, the Tories will win and you don't want that to happen!").
But there are cases where it may be necessary, especially on the local level. It is, as so many other things, situational. Remember, a communist only has one virtue...
As for Marx, I can pretty well imagining him also approving such an approach if it was in the bet interest of the working class.
This is true in more than a few cases. However, I find that Communism creates an environment where an individual can work hard his entire life and get virtually nowhere, which I think is not right. In other words: Is thier any motivation other than bettering the society for someone to work hard in communism?
Again, that is up to said society. I suppose there are different ways of rewarding extraordinary efforts than the pure material ones. Otherwise, I want to draw your attention to the fact that a better society is usually preferable for all of us. Imagine a society with little criminal activity, little poverty and where you have plenty of time to do what you want. Do you take that or should I write you a check on 600$?
It's OK. I should have mentioned before that he said these things on the radio in America during the 1970s. Allow me to make the question my own: Do you consider yourself part of 'the people'?
Of course I do. Why shouldn't I? What should I be then? The only thing that separates me from many I know was that I was lucky enough to get an education so that I didn't have to work in a factory as my father and his predecessors did. But that hardly makes me any better than them.
The quote itself wasn't directly related to communism. It's more about the mentality some people have, that "everyone else is wrong and I'm right." And that if they were in charge there would be no problems. Do you think Communism would be an end to all political problems?
No I don't. But I partly think it is better than what we have today and partly that it is largely a historical inevitability.
.
, 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.
