Communism: Will it ever work?

[Gelion]

.....And when I say "work" I mean - achieve equal or greater living standards compared to contemporary capitalist nations plus the other benefits promised by Marx.

I would say it is unfair to judge a social (economic or political) system on only one parameter of "high living standards". First of all, what do we include under "living standards"? Free and acessesible transport? Good education? Many choices of consumer products? Good healthcare? Secondly, for whom? For the rich, middle class, poor? For Africans, Europeans, Americans?

To answer your question: yes it should work if the theory were to be implemeted worldwide...

 

[Traitorfish]

That is how capitalism is "To each according to his ability" except the free market decides what "Ability is." While, for instance, I think getting paid 10 million dollars to throw a football like Peyton Manning is is absurd for instance, its not the government's job to regulate that, its the markets'.

...Which is a fancy way of saying "Yes, you get what you grab". After all, the free market could well dictate that breaking your legs and stealing your shoes is profitable, but that doesn't mean that I deserve to profit from it. If you insist on throwing consistent judgement of "ability" to the winds, then why invoke the concept in the first place?
Which isn't to say that the free market is necessarily a bad thing in itself. Market socialism is a perfectly viable concept, and, I would argue, the most practical route for any contemporary socialist to take. Equally, a capitalist economy may be planned or partially planned, as in many right-wing authoritarian states, and many non-authoritarian states during times of major warfare.

Well, ideal capitalism is "Equal opportunity, you get what you build for yourself." Of course, inheritances make it easier for some people, and I'm not quite sure what to do about that, but whoever built the company from the ground up deserves what he earned for himself.

Of course he does, but to suggest that this extends to whatever he is able to squeeze from the business is simplistic. "Earn" does not simply mean "get", or thievery would be a legitimate form of employment. It means to have provided labour matching the returns received, which very few capitalists do. "Every time someone gets a dollar they didn't earn", as the saying goes, "someone else loses one they did."

And you can't do anything about inheritance, your system won't let you. That's why the richest man in Britain is the Duke of Westminster, the latest product of a family who have held a peerage since 1761 and an hereditary title since 1622.

Yet true. Government wastes wealth, hence why we need as little as possible.

"Of course my glib statement is true; observe, as I validate it by making an irrelevant and baseless assertion. Now, how can you stand before the force of such overwhelming logic?"

 

[amadeus]

Collectives and cooperatives are the preferred models, although a certain degree of "hired help" is permissible in certain contexts and given certain standards; in a professional cooperative, for example, it is possible that non-professional employees would be hired, rather than full members of the collective. It really depends.

The farmer seeking to expand his lot in life, however, is not going to want to turn his farm into a cooperative, though. There may be some people that think this way, but most are not willing to work hard in order for someone else to benefit.

Well, in this example the capitalist model of land ownership is brought into question, but that's another debate. More generally, it depends on the nature of the expansion; a farmer buying an extra field which he is able to work is one thing, an industrialist buying half a dozen factories which he profits from without labour (or without proportionate labour) is entirely another. The key is that contribution is proportional to gain, it's nothing so simplistic or inane as condemning all commerce.

I don't see a difference between the two activities. The capitalist that buys the factories is contributing to their operations by way of his (and his investors') capital.

But what if all opportunities for them are the same?

Perhaps it is time for them to expand their skill set or embark on an entrepreneurial development, or otherwise simply accept their relative inability to market their labor. The only way you can make me responsible for somebody else is by force, and I know you would not hesitate to use it.

 

[Traitorfish]

The farmer seeking to expand his lot in life, however, is not going to want to turn his farm into a cooperative, though. There may be some people that think this way, but most are not willing to work hard in order for someone else to benefit.

That is not how collectives/cooperatives are supposed to work. If it turns out that way, you're doing something wrong.

Besides, people pool their resources all the time, they're called "partnerships". That's not a socialist innovation, it's just good sense. All socialists suggest is that such proto-collectives be expanded, rather than turned towards the exploitation of non-members. And if you don't like collectives, then don't join one. You don't have to.

I don't see a difference between the two activities. The capitalist that buys the factories is contributing to their operations by way of his (and his investors') capital.

Unless your capitalist craps fully-formed factories, I'm not sure that this really dismisses my complaint.

 

[amadeus]

The capitalist supplies capital.

 

[Traitorfish]

The capitalist supplies capital.

I got that, yeah. I just don't see why you seem to think that capital simply falls out of his arse with no proletarian involvement.

 

[GhostWriter16]

...Which is a fancy way of saying "Yes, you get what you grab". After all, the free market could well dictate that breaking your legs and stealing your shoes is profitable, but that doesn't mean that I deserve to profit from it.

Agreed, and breaking people's legs infringes on other people's rights.

As you are in England, you may not 100% understand this example, but I'm gonna use Peyton Manning, all-star football player for the Indianapolis Colts, to make a point. He makes over 10 million per year for playing football. While I agree this is too much, somebody agreed to pay him that much, therefore, he gets that much (I'm not arguing against all taxation, just progressive taxation.)

Which isn't to say that the free market is necessarily a bad thing in itself. Market socialism is a perfectly viable concept, and, I would argue, the most practical route for any contemporary socialist to take. Equally, a capitalist economy may be planned or partially planned, as in many right-wing authoritarian states, and many non-authoritarian states during times of major warfare.

I'm not sure how market socialism works, or whether you consider yourself a socialist or are just arguing for regulated capitalism (Though they are sometimes the same thing.)

Of course he does, but to suggest that this extends to whatever he is able to squeeze from the business is simplistic. "Earn" does not simply mean "get", or thievery would be a legitimate form of employment. It means to have provided labour matching the returns received, which very few capitalists do. "Every time someone gets a dollar they didn't earn", as the saying goes, "someone else loses one they did."

I agree, however, who decides? I say the public. Obviously, and even I'll agree here, conspiring against the public should be illegal. With that, the market will regulate itself. Obviously, you can't force someone to buy a product, or take from someone else to gain that product, as thievery does.

And you can't do anything about inheritance, your system won't let you. That's why the richest man in Britain is the Duke of Westminster, the latest product of a family who have held a peerage since 1761 and an hereditary title since 1622.

Actually, while I don't support "Taxing inheritances" in the same way you probably would, my system does not forbid it. "Equal opportunity" means you keep what you earn, not necessarily what your parents earn.

I do support the right to spread an inheritance, though I agree with the issues of someone inheriting billions of dollars without working a day in their life.

What I'd support is, not taxing it, but the STATE governments requiring it to be distributed to multiple people. For instance, Bill Gates built Microsoft, Bill Gates earned 60 billion dollars of wealth. With the exception of the 10% that goes to taxes (In my system) he gets to enjoy what he's built and earned for the rest of his life.

AFTER HE DIES, Bill Gates would decide how much goes to each person, but the amount that goes to each person would be limited, thus causing the company to split into multiple companies, making the free market stronger. If he did not distribute it legally, or didn't take the time, the state government would distribute the rest amongst charities in that state.

I can support this the same way I can support mandatory organ donation. When you are alive, you have the maximum level of rights that doesn't interfere with someone else's. Once you are dead, you can no longer care what is done with your property, so its not yours anymore.

 

[Arakhor]

10% taxation is laughable, but then in your ideal world, where there is no government influence on your life and people have the absolute right to hunger and die by the wayside, there's not much need for taxes, is there?

 

[GhostWriter16]

10% taxation is laughable, but then in your ideal world, where there is no government influence on your life and people have the absolute right to hunger and die by the wayside, there's not much need for taxes, is there?

While I don't completely agree with it, I've heard it said "Deliver the mail, protect the borders." I think that mostly sums it up (I acknowledge there are a couple more things they need to do, and private companies can handle the mail.

Also, its not people have the right to starve, but that the government getting involved wastes money and gives free handouts, which is wrong.

 

[Arakhor]

Why is it wrong? Jesus often did remarkably charitable things and as I recall Peter saying at the beginning of Acts, "Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have, give I thee - in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk."

This obsessive, pervasive, American paranoia concerning anything that could even possibly be linked to Communism dishonours Jesus' teachings and has its roots in the Cold War and the insanities of McCarthyism.

 

[Ajidica]

AFTER HE DIES, Bill Gates would decide how much goes to each person, but the amount that goes to each person would be limited, thus causing the company to split into multiple companies, making the free market stronger. If he did not distribute it legally, or didn't take the time, the state government would distribute the rest amongst charities in that state.

Who is going to enforce the law making him split it up? The government? Then isn't the government dictating how people use their money.

Domination, Jesus supported communalism no matter how you try and phrase it. The Loaves and Fishes story is a good one. There wasn't enough food for the whole crowd when people kept it to themselves but when they shared there was more than enough. Sounds like a ringer for basic Marxist thought to me.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Who is going to enforce the law making him split it up? The government? Then isn't the government dictating how people use their money.

Domination, Jesus supported communalism no matter how you try and phrase it. The Loaves and Fishes story is a good one. There wasn't enough food for the whole crowd when people kept it to themselves but when they shared there was more than enough. Sounds like a ringer for basic Marxist thought to me.

Communalism is still a long, long way from Marxism. Considering most Christian Economists are Distributists, not Marxists, and...oh yeah, there was no Proletariat at the time of Christ, Marxism is a poor fit.

 

[Traitorfish]

Agreed, and breaking people's legs infringes on other people's rights.

That it does, but why should I care? It is not, so you say, up to others to dictate what is and is not ethical behaviour on my part.
Now that, is a blatant strawman, we both know it, but how do you propose to topple this strawman? At what point does the collective right of the public protective their interests dissolve?

I'm not sure how market socialism works, or whether you consider yourself a socialist or are just arguing for regulated capitalism (Though they are sometimes the same thing.)

Market socialism is a system in which the means of production are collectively owned and democratically operated, but the free market is still used as a basis to distribute goods and services (although it is assumed that it will be a regulated free market, and support is often expressed for the nationalisation of industries or services deemed to be essential). It is distinct from social capitalism in that it demands the abolition of the bourgeois class, while social capitalism merely seeks to control and regulate that class. In many ways, social capitalism is it's natural precursor; a social capitalism government is in a position to encourage the growth of cooperative and collective businesses, without having to actively engage in revolutionary activity. It also ensures that socialism is rooted in the people from the start, which is rather important, given the historical failure of so many forms of imposed socialism.

I agree, however, who decides? I say the public. Obviously, and even I'll agree here, conspiring against the public should be illegal. With that, the market will regulate itself. Obviously, you can't force someone to buy a product, or take from someone else to gain that product, as thievery does.

But how does the public decide, if it has no authority? You forbid coercive government activity, which is indeed a desperate response, but do not seek the abolition of the malicious class. Are we supposed to simply "vote with our wallets"? How effective do you think that would be?
And I think that you underestimate the coercion that the capitalist class is willing to resort to, either in themselves or through government cronies. There is a large grey area between "illegal" and "unethical", and that is where all too much of modern capitalism dwells.

Actually, while I don't support "Taxing inheritances" in the same way you probably would, my system does not forbid it. "Equal opportunity" means you keep what you earn, not necessarily what your parents earn.

I do support the right to spread an inheritance, though I agree with the issues of someone inheriting billions of dollars without working a day in their life.

What I'd support is, not taxing it, but the STATE governments requiring it to be distributed to multiple people. For instance, Bill Gates built Microsoft, Bill Gates earned 60 billion dollars of wealth. With the exception of the 10% that goes to taxes (In my system) he gets to enjoy what he's built and earned for the rest of his life.

AFTER HE DIES, Bill Gates would decide how much goes to each person, but the amount that goes to each person would be limited, thus causing the company to split into multiple companies, making the free market stronger. If he did not distribute it legally, or didn't take the time, the state government would distribute the rest amongst charities in that state.

That still represents an obscene amount of money per heir; remember the sorts of volumes were dealing with, and how vast they are when compared to the sums encountered by the average individual. Even a hundred thousand is an obscene head start, and Gates has the power to hand that out hundreds of thousands of times over. At best, such a solution dilutes a symptom, rather than actually addressing the heart of the problem.
Nor am I sure that it would "make the free market stronger"; a company does not need to be owned by a single individual, and ones of that size very rarely are, so it doesn't follow that the company would split. Whether MegaCorp is owned by one man or a hundred makes little difference in most cases. This isn't Carolingian France, after all; limited collectivism is a basic component of the modern capitalism system.

I can support this the same way I can support mandatory organ donation. When you are alive, you have the maximum level of rights that doesn't interfere with someone else's. Once you are dead, you can no longer care what is done with your property, so its not yours anymore.

But property, technically speaking, is held to have been transferred to the designated heir at the moment of death, so it never stops being the property of any living person. As such, government intervention necessarily means intervention into the economic affairs of the living can not be avoided.

 

[Danielion]

I think it would always remain an Utopian idea. The world thrives on concurrence, this is the motor which generates ambition. I don't think you can let the population live in communes and expect optimal result. People have a need for their elite and rich people have to exist also.
We'll see what would happen. I expect Communism would someday take over in the Western world.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Why is it wrong? Jesus often did remarkably charitable things and as I recall Peter saying at the beginning of Acts, "Silver and gold have I none, but such as I have, give I thee - in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk."

This obsessive, pervasive, American paranoia concerning anything that could even possibly be linked to Communism dishonours Jesus' teachings and has its roots in the Cold War and the insanities of McCarthyism.

A misconseption is that I consider all communists to be like Stalin. I don't. I consider all communism wrong, but Stalin is wrong for far worse reasons than simple communism. Hitler was no better, but he was just a socialist, not a communist, but mass genocide is a far bigger concern.

Jesus did charitable things, but he didn't force anyone else to. He told his followers to do so, but he didn't MAKE THEM. He didn't say Rome should MAKE THEM.

Domination, Jesus supported communalism no matter how you try and phrase it. The Loaves and Fishes story is a good one. There wasn't enough food for the whole crowd when people kept it to themselves but when they shared there was more than enough. Sounds like a ringer for basic Marxist thought to me.

Not even close. Did you see Jesus forcing the boy to share anywhere? Nope, he willingly did so, at least, that's how I saw the story.

That it does, but why should I care? It is not, so you say, up to others to dictate what is and is not ethical behaviour on my part.
Now that, is a blatant strawman, we both know it, but how do you propose to topple this strawman? At what point does the collective right of the public protective their interests dissolve?

That's the role of government (NOTE I said it has little role not none.) That's why government is necessary. Its job, as Ronald Reagan put it, is to protect people from each other, not themselves (This is a paraphrase.)

Market socialism is a system in which the means of production are collectively owned and democratically operated, but the free market is still used as a basis to distribute goods and services (although it is assumed that it will be a regulated free market, and support is often expressed for the nationalisation of industries or services deemed to be essential). It is distinct from social capitalism in that it demands the abolition of the bourgeois class, while social capitalism merely seeks to control and regulate that class. In many ways, social capitalism is it's natural precursor; a social capitalism government is in a position to encourage the growth of cooperative and collective businesses, without having to actively engage in revolutionary activity. It also ensures that socialism is rooted in the people from the start, which is rather important, given the historical failure of so many forms of imposed socialism.

So, according to your view, all present capitalist governments are social capitalist to an extent?

But how does the public decide, if it has no authority? You forbid coercive government activity, which is indeed a desperate response, but do not seek the abolition of the malicious class. Are we supposed to simply "vote with our wallets"? How effective do you think that would be?

I think if nobody bought from a company it would fall rather quick.

And I think that you underestimate the coercion that the capitalist class is willing to resort to, either in themselves or through government cronies. There is a large grey area between "illegal" and "unethical", and that is where all too much of modern capitalism dwells.

I admit to not having an answer and not knowing quite how many businesses operate in the gray area, however, it seems the problem is the clarity of laws rather than capitalism.

That still represents an obscene amount of money per heir; remember the sorts of volumes were dealing with, and how vast they are when compared to the sums encountered by the average individual. Even a hundred thousand is an obscene head start, and Gates has the power to hand that out hundreds of thousands of times over. At best, such a solution dilutes a symptom, rather than actually addressing the heart of the problem.
Nor am I sure that it would "make the free market stronger"; a company does not need to be owned by a single individual, and ones of that size very rarely are, so it doesn't follow that the company would split. Whether MegaCorp is owned by one man or a hundred makes little difference in most cases. This isn't Carolingian France, after all; limited collectivism is a basic component of the modern capitalism system.

Strictly speaking, some of Bill Gates money is gonna have to go somewhere else after he dies. I suppose my proposed system makes more sense when we are talking millions of dollars than billions. For instance, one million dollars split between 100 people is 10,000 per person, which boosts opportunity but doesn't break equal opportunity too much.

I'll have to think more on it. I admit I don't really know what to do with people like Bill Gates after death.

But property, technically speaking, is held to have been transferred to the designated heir at the moment of death, so it never stops being the property of any living person. As such, government intervention necessarily means intervention into the economic affairs of the living can not be avoided.

Well, you can make tax incentives to widen the distribution.

 

[Airstrike92]

No. True communism can't happen due to individuality and jealousy/laziness. Soviet Communism doesn't work because it isn't true communism. Thus, creating a paradox.

 

[Red Door]

As you are in England, you may not 100% understand this example, but I'm gonna use Peyton Manning, all-star football player for the Indianapolis Colts, to make a point. He makes over 10 million per year for playing football. While I agree this is too much, somebody agreed to pay him that much, therefore, he gets that much (I'm not arguing against all taxation, just progressive taxation.)

This is way too simplistic reasoning to be taken seriously as an example of how salaries in the NFL are done.