Communism

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by polymath
Communism cannot work for two reasons.

1) You cannot tell people what to do.

2) Why should a man study for years and gain all manner of knowledge and technical skills, only to be paid the same as the man who digs up the potatos? Knowledge and skills should be rewarded commensurately with the difficulty of the job.

1) I a democracy the majority decides on what the minority should do. For example the majority decides that unemployment benefits should go and forces the minority to apply for 'job training'. During 'job training' the reciepients will earn less than proper laborers, but would still do the same amount of work. This means that companies are now able to hire at lower wages - and the proper laborers would have to compete with that.

2) If the technician, who has studied for many years, has invented a potato-harvesting machine, he can sell that to the landowner. If the machine is more effecient than hiring labourers digging up potatoes he will propably buy it. However if the price offered for the machine is lower, than what the technician would have earned digging up potatoes in the time and resources he spent on inventing the machine - then he will perhaps not sell it. Difficult to say. Of course in order to solve that the patent system has been put into effect. Still if the patent system is not for the benefit of the capitalist why has it been introduced?

 

[polymath]

"During 'job training' the reciepients will earn less than proper laborers, but would still do the same amount of work" - Dr Dr Doktor

hmmm...like the German praktikant system. But anyway,that's just a wage law, that's not telling people what to do.

Telling people what to do is saying: the nation needs electricians so that is what you are going to do. And you will live in the same kind of house as everyone else, earning the same money as the bin man and the president, and everyone will be the same and therefore blissfully happy.

Except people aren't like that. People just would not see it as doubleplusgood at all.

For your 2nd point, you've missed the point. People aren't equal at all, and jobs are not equal at all. So why should they be rewarded as equal when they are not?

 

[thestonesfan]

Many inventors have taken that path, and then sold the rights when they wish to retire.

The patent system benefits the inventor greatly, which induces inventions. It certainly helps capitalism.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by polymath
[B
For your 2nd point, you've missed the point. People aren't equal at all, and jobs are not equal at all. So why should they be rewarded as equal when they are not? [/B]

I can argue like that.
People aren't free at all, and jobs are not free at all - that is it does not result in freedom. So why should people be awarded with freedom when they are not free?
However people should be free, like they should be equal.
Equality provides the opportunity for everyone to be free, not just the few. And a person who is truly free will not prevent others from gaining equality, will he?

 

[thestonesfan]

How can there ever be equality when human beings are NOT EQUAL?

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Being equal is not the same thing as being similar.
Speaking economics, even if everyone were paid an equal amount of money some would make the money last longer than others. Hence economic equality would not take away the freedom on what and how to spend. It would give people equal opportunity.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Originally posted by Souron

Point taken. Mass revelotion is however equaly impractical. I am very interested in hearing other proposals.

Capitalism does motivate people to work, otherwize those people just would not go to work. If the 6 billion people did not work, then you have the british solution to world hunger: everyone starves. no offence ment to the intelegent englishmen.

In the light of food, each man must work as the same amount as he would need to to make eneugh for himself and his kids. this is not entirely acurate, but close enough.

Saying it 'motivates' people gives a false impression. People work because they want money to buy stuff to live. It's more instinct than it is motivation.

Motivation is to much of a positive word. People have to work if they want to feed their families, they are forced into it by the way society is structured.

Maybe the fact that they "do the minimum" is the reason that they are stuck in "their boring dead end jobs." At least with capitalism you have an incentive to work hard: you have a better chance of rising in responsibility and salary. Personally, I work hard and there is no way I am going to support lazy bastards (I think that word's allowed?) who don't bother to do a good job any more than I already have to. Sure it's hard to work your way up, but at least it's possible and I personally feel that it is worth it.

As to the second part, there would be an even worse problem with 'work shortage' in communism, because everyone would have a job. In modern capitalism, the difference between the number of workers and the avaliable work is made up for by unemployment. Even if everyone had a job, it would not change the reality of supply and demand: Overproduction causes depressions, recessions, and lack of work in the long run. I think that it is certain that a communist economy would have more problems with underproduction due to lack of motivation, but addressing the so-called 'ideal communism' where everyone works hard for everyone else should be done as well just for the sake of argument.

1 - Lots of peopel do work hard. And don't get rewarded for it. Or if they do, it's a measly sum, which matters little (i.e my mum got £70 a week pay rise, well that isn't going to go very far with bills, food, car etc).

Plus if you dedicated yourself to getting promoted, you aren't gpoing to have much of a life outside work! Personally, I see my job as a means of having money to afford my social/personal life. I am not going to work really hard because I will not get promoted. I will get a pay rise after a few months anyway because that is standard. I do not want to do this job my entire life and I am not goign to bust my gut for no reason!

2 - In communism, with everyone working etc, there will be pleanty of time for people to ahve holidays and swap jobs. Besides, it is hard to try and percieve what it will/would be like, because things change over time.

Being equal is not the same thing as being similar.

 

[andrewgprv]

When I was in Highschool I thought that socialism was the way to go that it was the fairer system.

Then I moved out of my parents house and faced the real world head on. I work hard for my money and I watch my budget, thus I have provided myself with a good life. However all around me are those that do not manage their money wisely and who do not want to work hard for a good living. Should I and them recieve the same rewards? no.......

The fact is that people will get away with laziness if they can afford it, and socialism lets them afford it. I prefer a system where there are no free lunches but plenty of rewards if you are willing to do something to get them.

 

[EdwardTking]

An amazing number of misunderstandings about communism:

1) People have no reason to work hard!

The way it worked was that working was compulsory,
workers were assigned to teams. If they didn't pull their
weight the team would beat them up. If persistently
recalcitrant; they'd get a transfer to Siberian mines.
If they did not work there, they were not fed at all.

This system worked very well until the 1970s
and the soviets started to relax their terror.


2) Everybody earms the same so no incentive to excel

The reality was that money was not important in communist society because the communist society was very much a non cash society. Cars, holidays, houses and quality clothes
were allocated to the state who of course gave the party,
the managers and technocrats the first opportunity.

The ordinary Russian had a good incentive to get qualified
and be productive.

3) It is assumed that a desire for money is paramount.

This reflects modern USA society and was not so relevant to
the religious feudalism that preceded the cooperative approach in Russia.

Furthermore how much are people really motivated by money. Does a scientist decide to become a scientist because he/she wants to become rich? Does a person become a doctor to be rich or to help people? Did Sid Meier design games because he wanted to be a billionaire or because he wanted to produce fun products that people enjoy?

Many people like to take pride in doing good quality useful beneficial work or working in successful teams, and as long as they get enough to get by and a few modest luxuries, they are content to go home content with the feeling of having accomplished a worthwhile job. That doesn't mean they won't look for money; but money is only one of many drivers and in communist and soviet societies it was not the most important.


There are many flaws with communism; both theoretical and practical; but this thread has succeeded in missing nearly all of them.

 

[Souron]

Originally posted by polymath
Communism cannot work for two reasons.

1) You cannot tell people what to do.

Yes you can, try persuasiveness. this goes back to the problem of how to bring communism about.

2) Why should a man study for years and gain all manner of knowledge and technical skills, only to be paid the same as the man who digs up the potatos? Knowledge and skills should be rewarded commensurately with the difficulty of the job.

Problem # 3 the need of had working people. Knowlage and experience motivates some people, but not others. Now if so then shouldn't it be posible to persuade the rest? I eugenics the solution? or can we get eneugh loyars together? I don't know. but do note there are some people for whom knowlage for the sake of knowlage's sake does work. those people could thrive in the free education offered by communism. Even in the communism we have had there are people who did.

 

[Souron]

Originally posted by EdwardTking
An amazing number of misunderstandings about communism:

1) People have no reason to work hard!

The way it worked was that working was compulsory,
workers were assigned to teams. If they didn't pull their
weight the team would beat them up. If persistently
recalcitrant; they'd get a transfer to Siberian mines.
If they did not work there, they were not fed at all.

This system worked very well until the 1970s
and the soviets started to relax their terror.

Clearly the communism depicted here is non benefitial, however communism does not imply harsh punishment. unfair punishments are unfair and connot exist in a utopian sossiaty. on the other hand if you conclude that communism can only be reached that way, then clearly communism is not the way to go.

2) Everybody earms the same so no incentive to excel

The reality was that money was not important in communist society because the communist society was very much a non cash society. Cars, holidays, houses and quality clothes
were allocated to the state who of course gave the party,
the managers and technocrats the first opportunity.

The ordinary Russian had a good incentive to get qualified
and be productive.

the problem here is that the insentive was not as you say to be productive, but to be part of management and law enforcement. In the real communism this was not the result of productivity. However given less selfish managers, it could work. to get less selfish managers is still a problem but seems easyer to solve.

3) It is assumed that a desire for money is paramount.

This reflects modern USA society and was not so relevant to
the religious feudalism that preceded the cooperative approach in Russia.

Furthermore how much are people really motivated by money. Does a scientist decide to become a scientist because he/she wants to become rich? Does a person become a doctor to be rich or to help people? Did Sid Meier design games because he wanted to be a billionaire or because he wanted to produce fun products that people enjoy?

Many people like to take pride in doing good quality useful beneficial work or working in successful teams, and as long as they get enough to get by and a few modest luxuries, they are content to go home content with the feeling of having accomplished a worthwhile job. That doesn't mean they won't look for money; but money is only one of many drivers and in communist and soviet societies it was not the most important.

In soviet communism power and wealth were 2 directly related cheif motivations for gov't officals. Once agian we run into the probem of selfish managers. Also if people are able to get by they will want luxuries, and if they get those they will want more. This is unelimitable. Capitalism solves this problem by taking advantage of it to induce labor. In communism this might pose problems, However, given the lack of an alternative, not many. It does however increace the need for a lack of alternative to a must be (there must be a lack of alternative = there must not be alternatives).

there is one other issue you miss in this statement however and that is that communism is not sopposed to have any form of promotion. this eliminates the earlyer proposed motivation method. Managers in communism should get the same privilages aside from the ability to arrest people who do not follow the order.

There are many flaws with communism; both theoretical and practical; but this thread has succeeded in missing nearly all of them.

What you have proposed is not communism. Everyone is not equal. you have however made me realize a 4th problem in communism: how can you have law inforcement without giving people extra privilages? perhalps by making everyone a part time law enforcer.

note: in communism the turms "manager" "law enforcement" "gov't official" and "poliecemen" are interchangable.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by Souron
How can you have law inforcement without giving people extra privilages? perhalps by making everyone a part time law enforcer.

Well I guess this is what they did in East Germany where a large part of the population was spying on the remainder. Of course the Western European states, and presumably some subjects within them, were spying on the subjects they believed were communists, but that is percieved as being different. (I don't believe the west has opened any archieves on that yet). Also In most late-capitalist countries they have the concept of a 'citizens arrest'.

From a theoretical perspective it would be interesting to think about a communist state which was not being threatened by subversion or aggression from the outside. Would they be as repressive of dissent as historians would like people to think they were?

I think it fairly obvious that most crime derives from poverty. Of course there are always mental cases plus a surprising number of rather well to do people who indulge in various scams. Hence a reduction of poverty should lead to a significant reduction in the overall crime rate. At least crime seems to have risen sharply after the collapse of the Eastern bloc.

 

[ss3goku]

Socialism with demcracy has produced good results across Europe, communism has failed to survive or even be born in the world, and democracy has prevailed. I see socialism as the next step for all capitalistic democracies. Because more and more people will expect the government to care for them more and more.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by ss3goku
Socialism with demcracy has produced good results across Europe, communism has failed to survive or even be born in the world, and democracy has prevailed. I see socialism as the next step for all capitalistic democracies. Because more and more people will expect the government to care for them more and more.

You say that as if it's a good thing. It's the next step all right, The next and last step of democracies. But frankly, I would prefer anarchy to a society of senseless rubber-spined weaklings.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor


I think it fairly obvious that most crime derives from poverty. Of course there are always mental cases plus a surprising number of rather well to do people who indulge in various scams. Hence a reduction of poverty should lead to a significant reduction in the overall crime rate. At least crime seems to have risen sharply after the collapse of the Eastern bloc.

I don't think so. There is as much crime today as there ever was, and even the poorest people in America would be considered well off in any century before the 20th. The vast majority of crimes are not commited out of necessity. It's the result of a messed up head.

 

[Jorge]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
How can there ever be equality when human beings are NOT EQUAL?

Since when people with similar incomes are equal? Are all the people from the middle class in USA equal?

Communism only says that all people should have similar incomes, with some differences but not as big as in capitalism where some people are rich while others have no money to eat. Similar incomes don't force people to be equal.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Originally posted by ss3goku
Socialism with demcracy has produced good results across Europe, communism has failed to survive or even be born in the world, and democracy has prevailed. I see socialism as the next step for all capitalistic democracies. Because more and more people will expect the government to care for them more and more.

as you say, a social-democracy works well here. I don't see pure socialism as the future though, I think it's gonna be democratic-socialism, which means just little change is needed politically. We'd still have a free market.

 

[lz14]

OK, some people think communism involves equal/similar pay, that's totally wrong, nothing is more wrong than that. The ground block of Marx's theory is labor value. i.e, how much things worth is how much you work. What communism don't want is put a zillion bugs in the bank, sit there do nothing and have another zillion bugs.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by thestonesfan
I don't think so.

I think his response was poorly phrased in some respects, but areas of poverty breed crime. Whether the link is direct or indirect is irrelevant. Any reference to the statistics regarding offending, areas of poverty, etc and the corelation of them will confirm this.

 

[amadeus]

The only way for communism to work is to make personal incentive a crime.