How to Make Communism Work(ish)

[innonimatu]

As for the redistribution of wealth... I don't believe everyone has to have the same for everyone to have enough. While I can see some redistribution being useful to help those who can't help themselves, I see any further interference as completely unnecessary, and a violation of individual rights.

But what individual rights are these? The right to hold property? But that's a social right, it depends on the existence of a society that accepts and enforces private property. Just as communism depends on a society that accepts and enforces the sharing of "property".

I know opponents of collectivism are often painted as greedy capitalists, but the truth is, we are more than happy to share with our friends and loved ones, and frequently do. I don't drink, but if I'm out with friends I still buy a round. Its having the choice taken away that doesn't really sit well with a lot of us.

The choice of whether to share? But I can and will now argue that I dislike having the choice to freely use any piece of "property" taken away. Property can be seen as an enabler of choice, or as a limitation on choice. There you go: property can indeed be theft, depending on people's expectations. Either system takes away choices.

Having your own personal finances also gives you more control over your life. I'm trying not to bring up the efficiency argument, but I do believe individuals are better able to decide what they need. Its the freedom to make those choices that makes life interesting. They make the difference between living and existing.

I don't want rations, or an equal share of the food the government thinks I should have. I might not like certain things, and I might like certain things more. I might eat less than someone else, or more because I do more physical activity. Luckily I don't require a special diet like some people, though I do avoid meat if i can (I'm not a proper veggie though).

I also dislike government control over people's lives. But I cannot ignore hat in the absence of government control there are still many other forms of control constraining my actions. Absolute freedom is impossible. "Communism" as it became understood proposed to use government control as a "temporary" (and no one ever explained how that would be ended) measure to remove several other constraints over people's lives. Unfortunately for the people who lived under that particular incarnation of socialism government control turned out to be neither temporary nor, perhaps, "lighter" than what it claimed to replace.

Money is only a means of exchange. By having your own money, and deciding how to spend it, you can make great changes to your lifestyle very quickly, in order to put funds where you want them. I don't care if I can have an equal share in a cabbage factory. I don't like cabbages. Or factories.

Unfortunately money tends to be hard to come by for the average individual. And once the principle of private ownership is enshrined (as economists supportive of the "Coase theorem" defend it should) and the trade economy established everyone must obey the rules of money (actually, those of property). Those tend to be dictated by the people who hold most of it - they will be another form of constraint on people.

One thing I wonder about is how a collectivist society would cope with people travelling abroad? What will they do when they get there if they don't have money to take? How will society fund the trips, and what rules would govern where people could go, and for how long? I can't see the government giving everyone a free cruise every year.

That is an old problem. Money, of course, is just an exchange medium, and collectivist societies do not necessarily expect it (or trade!) to be abolished. Most just defend that concentration of wealth should be strictly limited, and that some of the current forms of property should not be allowed. Would the modern world be conceivable without the modern corporation, or without publicly traded companies? What could possibly replace these institutions with others, without reducing "social welfare" (or, in a more modest but not any more measurable version, without losing "efficiency")?

These are some of the important questions. And there are plenty of answers. Many were never tried on a scale that would allow them to be judged. The power of the state usually defeats all other forces in a modern society, sometimes lending its weight to oligarchies disguised as democracies, sometimes to tyrannies disguised as socialism. The oligarchies, because they're usually more fluid, tend to be preferable - democracy and competition within elites, and between these and rising outsiders, can still impose some moderation. Tyrannies depend on the character of the people in power, and even if they start with "good principles", they can more easily betray them.

The big question, however, is: can the power of the state be reduced in a modern society, without causing that society to break down into violent anarchy? Find some way to make a positive answer possible and we can try many different social models.

Anyway, if you want communism to work, you need support. Right now in the west you don't have it, and its not just because of anti-communist propaganda. No matter how warped the systems were in the soviet union or wherever, they're the only examples that people have to go on.

If you want to convince people to throw out a system they are used to and feel secure in, you need to show them that your alternative can work. People aren't going to be happy when you tell them "its never been tried".

No, actually you were right in the previous paragraph: you only need superior propaganda in order to win.

The only way I think you could do it is to build a community yourself, with some buddies. Not only do you have to make it successful, you have to show you can operate it while respecting people's rights (I appreciate that you mentioned this yourself).

No, it won't work, because you cannot escape the state (and its propaganda). Any such attempt will fail.
Only very motivated people would insist on trying to "break away" from mainstream society in such a way, and in some pasts attempts that motivation led to insanity and spectacular failures.
One thing the communists apparently did get right was their conclusion that breaking away from the "bourgois" system could only be done by taking over the state and imposing a new system, by violent means whenever necessary.

Can democracy lead to a similar shift? Perhaps, some experiences that were cut short by coups and other violent reactions might have led to it. But the existence of those coups in fact seems to prove the communist's conclusion that violence would be necessary...

Perhaps this is something you can look into. Try running an online MMORPG with a collectivist system. See if you get people interested in it, and see if you can keep the system working without too much interference and "cheating" by programming solutions around its problems.

An interesting proposal, especially coming as it does during the fight over whether "intellectual property" should or should not be allowed.
But online collectivist systems have been shown to work quite well already, not in MMORPGs (that might be a bad choice, as RPGs traditionally included the accumulation of loot as one of the possible goals) but in the "real world" of software development.

Of course, the "online world" has had the advantage of being mostly free from the state's weight... so far! The laws over "intellectual property" are seeing to it that this realm too is brought firmly under state supervision.
Which only shows, once again, that property is anything but natural: it is a product of laws, ultimately enforced by the state.

 

[Pirate]

I assume you have read both "The Communist Manifesto" and "Animal Farm." The Communist Manifesto is an excellent read, and I recommend it to anyone. However before beginning to believe that it will work, read Animal Farm as well.

The fundamental problem with Communism is that all it takes is one person to start hoarding and the entire system begins to unravel. It takes just one person to feel that they are entitled to something because the worked for it and earned it, and the system ceases to work. The system is an unstable equilibrium - a marble on top of a hill. If everything is perfect, than the system is indeed noble. However one jostle to one side and you will never get that perfect system back.

I don't believe that 'perfect' Communism necessarily requires a dictatorship. However it does require perfection, and no human is that. Once someone acts basically human and wants something, anything, to call his own, then it falls upon some authority to enforce the equality. And in that you have the famous line from Animal Farm "All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others."

Epilogue: Not to confuse my point, but another (funnier) way to look at it is this post from 'The Onion': http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38517

 

[Cutlass]

The fundamental problem with Communism is that all it takes is one person to start hoarding and the entire system begins to unravel. It takes just one person to feel that they are entitled to something because the worked for it and earned it, and the system ceases to work. The system is an unstable equilibrium - a marble on top of a hill. If everything is perfect, than the system is indeed noble. However one jostle to one side and you will never get that perfect system back.

I don't believe that 'perfect' Communism necessarily requires a dictatorship. However it does require perfection, and no human is that. Once someone acts basically human and wants something, anything, to call his own, then it falls upon some authority to enforce the equality. And in that you have the famous line from Animal Farm "All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others."

The irony here being that Libertarianism is just about exactly the same: As long as people live as perfect socialists, Libertarianism might function. As soon as people behave as, you know, people, then the system has a monkey wrench in the gears and will grind to a halt.

 

[amadeus]

So, does moderate communism take everything you own, but say "please" and "thank you?" Because, I don't get it.

 

[BasketCase]

I would like to ask for the advice and the opinions of some of the more knowledgeable members of the forum.

And here I am.

How about this: why not just have elections and let the citizens have the kind of system they want? In your OP you did mention denial of rights as one of the reasons Communism failed--and you're spot-on. Well, I consider choosing your own government to be a right. The people should be choosing.

On my last job, my paycheck was considerably larger than on my current job. I took a lower paying job. Why? Less stress. That software dev job paid a lot more, but the stress was causing me to occasionally wake up at 2 in the morning, run to the bathroom, and throw up in the sink. The paycheck wasn't worth it. I am now poorer economically than I used to be. By choice. I chose this path willingly.

You can't force economic equality on people, and I am living proof. Economic equality Will Never Happen. So, how about you just let Us The People choose for ourselves?

Is there anyway to make Communism work in any form? Our are we (Communists) all screwed?

Neither. In a democratic state you'll get most of what you want. No, it won't be perfect, but it's as close as we can get.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

And here I am.

How about this: why not just have elections and let the citizens have the kind of system they want? In your OP you did mention denial of rights as one of the reasons Communism failed--and you're spot-on. Well, I consider choosing your own government to be a right. The people should be choosing.

On my last job, my paycheck was considerably larger than on my current job. I took a lower paying job. Why? Less stress. That software dev job paid a lot more, but the stress was causing me to occasionally wake up at 2 in the morning, run to the bathroom, and throw up in the sink. The paycheck wasn't worth it. I am now poorer economically than I used to be. By choice. I chose this path willingly.

You can't force economic equality on people, and I am living proof. Economic equality Will Never Happen. So, how about you just let Us The People choose for ourselves?



Neither. In a democratic state you'll get most of what you want. No, it won't be perfect, but it's as close as we can get.

Never before have I stated that Commusm should be forced upon people.

True enough as you said it should be by the people voting. And I understand that things such as Economic Equality will never happen, but while it can never happen I do believe it can be improved from its current state.

People do have the right the choose. I may a Communist but I am not Anti-Capitalist, I always believed the two systems, under correct circumstances could live together.

And who says that a 'Blue Communist' Party would even have to come to power to help improve things. Many Communists have a problem
, they believe they can only make a diffrence by coming to power Dictator, President, Ect.) but power corrupts.

I believe that a Communist Party, even if not in a role of major power can still be influential is making Social Equality and improving some aspects of life.

 

[BasketCase]

Never before have I stated that Commusm should be forced upon people.

Then, perhaps that's the reason Communism doesn't exist?

Communism isn't only an economic system--there's a belief system inextricably wedded to it, and most people on Earth (right now, anyway--that may change) don't want that part.

 

[pau17]

a system of moral and equal achievement.

...perhaps with limited private ownership with somewhat watch from the Government.

One such thing that would qualify for Private Ownership is Farmland and Anything Agricultural.

The Better part of my new system however is meant to address Human Rights and equality. I myself hold Equality and Rights above almost all else. Racial, Gender, Class, Ect. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Press. All that fine stuff many Communist Countries lack.

Is there anyway to make Communism work in any form? Our are we (Communists) all screwed?

How is this different from a general market society with some regulations for social welfare? Communism in the world as it is has already strayed from pure Marxism, and what you've put down doesn't at all look like "communism" to me. In communism you can't have private ownership, not even wages. And you have to distinguish between principle and reality. Most free-market societies strive to create equality of opportunity, freedom of press, etc., and they may not achieve them fully, but the intention and the institutional will is still there. If you presuppose a communist system that works perfectly in all its intentions, then you have to compare it with a hypothetical liberal democracy that works perfectly in all its intentions, or at least explain why your system would somehow establish all of these values better than other systems that are making tangible efforts to reach them. Otherwise just compare real-world "communism" and real-world capitalism.

 

[JerichoHill]

@@innonimatu
But what individual rights are these?
The right to make my own decisions, my own life, and deal with those consequences done by my decisions. It is my right to control my life, rather then letting the world decide for me what I shall be.

The right to hold property? But that's a social right, it depends on the existence of a society that accepts and enforces private property.
It is this right that gives rise to the motivation to improve one's property, to care for one's property. Renters do not treat their dwelling with the same care as those who own their dwelling, on average. That's just a fact. It is this right to private property that has created the massive amount of wealth that has gone a long way to improving life on this rock. Before private property, there wasn't a middle class.

But I can and will now argue that I dislike having the choice to freely use any piece of "property" taken away. Property can be seen as an enabler of choice, or as a limitation on choice. There you go: property can indeed be theft, depending on people's expectations. Either system takes away choices.
If property can be transacted, it is not theft. Put to myself, my body is my own. That I do not allow you to take my kidney without compensation is not theft from you. That you to take from me without compensation is theft from me.


I also dislike government control over people's lives.
Then communism cannot be acceptable
But I cannot ignore hat in the absence of government control there are still many other forms of control constraining my actions. Absolute freedom is impossible.
This we agree

"Communism" as it became understood proposed to use government control as a "temporary" (and no one ever explained how that would be ended) measure to remove several other constraints over people's lives. Unfortunately for the people who lived under that particular incarnation of socialism government control turned out to be neither temporary nor, perhaps, "lighter" than what it claimed to replace.
Perhaps that tells you something about the human ability to live without constraint. Or that, communism as a governing system is prone to corroption to a larger scale than democratic forms.

Unfortunately money tends to be hard to come by for the average individual.
Not in the developed world.

And once the principle of private ownership is enshrined (as economists supportive of the "Coase theorem" defend it should) and the trade economy established everyone must obey the rules of money (actually, those of property). Those tend to be dictated by the people who hold most of it - they will be another form of constraint on people.
Property exchanges hands, if not put to product use falls in value, allowing those who can produce with it the ability to purchase it. If the acquisition fo property was the sole determinant of wealth, 25% of wealthy families would not decline in class status within a generation.

That is an old problem. Money, of course, is just an exchange medium, and collectivist societies do not necessarily expect it (or trade!) to be abolished.
And why do we need to exchange things? What brought upon the development of a common currency? Or a common metals system? That barter was inefficient?


Tyrannies depend on the character of the people in power, and even if they start with "good principles", they can more easily betray them.
Tyrannies never end with good principles

One thing the communists apparently did get right was their conclusion that breaking away from the "bourgois" system could only be done by taking over the state and imposing a new system, by violent means whenever necessary.
And yet, what happened when those took power and control from that state? They reverted back to a controlling state.

Can democracy lead to a similar shift? Perhaps, some experiences that were cut short by coups and other violent reactions might have led to it. But the existence of those coups in fact seems to prove the communist's conclusion that violence would be necessary...
Absolutely not. Reduce the cost of life's necessities (food, shelter, clothing, care) would probably start the steps towards a shift. But that means we must also work to eliminate the finiteness of our wants



An interesting proposal, especially coming as it does during the fight over whether "intellectual property" should or should not be allowed.
And really, your collectivist systems had a profit element somewhere . But it should be a choice whether to give something of yours to the rest, or to not.


Of course, the "online world" has had the advantage of being mostly free from the state's weight... so far! The laws over "intellectual property" are seeing to it that this realm too is brought firmly under state supervision.
Which only shows, once again, that property is anything but natural: it is a product of laws, ultimately enforced by the state.

The state of nature, is nasty, brutish, and short. If property is not natural, then well, if that's what we must have to not have nasty, brutish, and short lives, so be it.

 

[JerichoHill]

How is this different from a general market society with some regulations for social welfare? .

its not. Communism is just the sexier term for folks who dont get the mixed economies of today

 

[warpus]

Is there anyway to make Communism work in any form? Our are we (Communists) all screwed??

I think that communism could work.. but in order to implement that type of communism, you'd have to jump through way too many hoops.. So it ain't ever gonna happen, basically.

My vision of a communism that works is a world-wide multi-party democratic communist state with a strong government that regulates the economy. It would essentially be a federal republic like the United States, with a constitution filled with communist economic principles (the main thing being that the people jointly control the production).

So, basically, the people would still vote for parties and elect officials, but the contents of the constitution would be set in stone (mostly), and the elected representatives would thus have to treat the state as a communist entity.. as far as economic issues go.

You would still have businesses, and corporations would still compete with each other economically.. but they would just not be able to control the production, in any sort of way. Control of production would be set in stone.. controlled equally by everyone.

So what exactly would this mean, really? Well, it'd be pretty much like the U.S... except that the government would have a lot of power. You'd have your freedom of religion, speech, etc. You could run a business, if you wanted to. You could start unions, political parties, etc. The freedoms would all be the same.. Corporations would end up having a lot less power, though.. This would be shifted to the government. (I can already hear all the protests from Americans)

You'd also need this to be world-wide, because.. well.. capitalist states would outcompete the communist state economically, and the communist state would approach fail as time approached infinity.

Edit: Hmm I just realized that I came very close to describing China there. A workable communist utopia: A mixture of China and the U.S.

 

[GenMarshall]

It would never work.

People would still want the freedoms to own property, make the money deserve, the freedom to choise where they work.

I'd rather see Communism burried

 

[Richard Cribb]

Is there anyway to make Communism work in any form?

Yes. If I was pompous enough I think the best thing to do would be to open a thread called "Ask a communist", but consdiering current health problems and the high yahoo/troll posts it would generate, that will have to wait.
So to put it briefly, we are on our way, just keep in mind that patience is required. After all, Rome wasn't destroyed in one day...
Capitalism is a rotten system, and not destined for eternity, just like no other exploitative social system did.
You and I will never experience a communist society. I at least will probably not experience a socialist one neither. But in due time, that is the course things eventually will take. As for what we can do; just don't build castles in the air but rather engage in the more trivial political struggle while never losing the vision of a more human society.

Our are we (Communists) all screwed?

No. See above. I know that is not glorious, heroic nor romantic about this, but neither is the world we are living in.
A lot of posts in this thread is unsurpringly enough, especially seeing they are made from some of the most usual among the Usual Suspects what we here in Ultima Thule refer to as old porridge, and old porridge we should rather stay away from.
So for the moment all I care to comment on is this:

Take a look at Sweden.

Sorry, but Sweden is a capitalist country. Even more than mine...

I'm not sure that I want communism to work, even if it were possible. Why is one conception of equality more equal than another?
Why is equal distribution of wealth more fair than distribution according to the value of the job?

Communism is about production relations, not income relations.

Not at all, have we reached a stalemate. Communism was tried and tested and proved to be completely ineffective. You may have heard of some countries that have been under communism, such as Russia or Albania. Both countries are still suffering from the effects of a communist "government". You have no reason to say I am stupid.

I have every reason to say that you are stupid. And ignorant. And trollish. And etc.etc.
Those countries you mention were socialist societies, where socialism were implemented under very unfavourable conditions.

It depends communism being the (-,+) grid on the political compass can't work. The idea of equality of the classes falls apart when there is a dictator. Socialism on the other hand (-,-) can work and does so i Scandinavia currently.

The political compass is silly.
There is no dictator nor classes in a communist society.
The Scandinavian countries are not socialist.

Really is it so difficult to learn what socialism and communism is? At least the Americans can blame their poor educational system, but still...

 

[Brighteye]

OED:
1. a. A theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no private ownership, all property being vested in the community and labour organized for the common benefit of all members; the professed principle being that each should work according to his capacity, and receive according to his wants.

Well, given that human wants are always for more than is currently available, this doesn't work unless one interprets 'wants' more like 'needs'.
My labour is my own; I don't see the intrinsic goodness in working as hard as I can just so that other people can benefit. If I contribute 20 units of work to a system, and others 15, why should I still receive 16 units of output? The equal distribution of material goods (or near-equal distribution, according to people's needs) is unfair if people work at different capacities.
Since we cannot change the fact that people can work at different capacities, equal distribution of goods will always be unfair, unless everyone works at the lowest capacity (because people can voluntarily work less, but not more). With this work rate, little will be done.
Worse, we have no way of defining what the minimum work rate actually is, so someone who is lazy, but theoretically capable of working harder, could not work hard, and thereby lower the work rate, until no-one does any work at all.

This is the basis of my original statement that I did not understand why one form of equality (equal distribution) was better than another (equal treatment), the two being incompatible. If I am paid 16 units for 20 units, and others are paid 16 for 15, then I am being paid 0.8 reward/work and others just over 1 reward/work. That is not equal.

 

[JerichoHill]

You would still have businesses, and corporations would still compete with each other economically.. but they would just not be able to control the production, in any sort of way. Control of production would be set in stone.. controlled equally by everyone.

Umm, I do not understand how this could possibility work or what the point of a corp would be if they have no say over what they produce. Seems it may lead to waste of resources or waste of idle labor

 

[Xyan]

I think Communism is a beautiful concept. But its implementation will be terribly difficult because of the selfish nature of men and their warpped perception of values.

But I'm no political science student. -shrug-

 

[Cutlass]

Every "communist" country so far has had a fascist government. If you tried to have a communist country without government, people would go their own way and acting on self interest would build a market economy. If you tried having communism in a democracy, it would eventually be voted out.

 

[plarq]

Voluntary collectivism is often "competed out in the market" by "greedy entrepreneurs".

And by "communist countries had fascist governments", I think you mean "fascistic", by using large scale security measures and arbitrary arrests and threats.

 

[warpus]

Umm, I do not understand how this could possibility work or what the point of a corp would be if they have no say over what they produce. Seems it may lead to waste of resources or waste of idle labor

How come? A lot of corporations would simply end up being in the business of distribution.. or in the service industry.

 

[lovett]

You'd also need this to be world-wide, because.. well.. capitalist states would outcompete the communist state economically, and the communist state would approach fail as time approached infinity.

Surely this would be a sign that capitalists states have some significant advantages?

I.e, if they can out-compete communist states to the point in which they become more attractive to the citizens of said state then the communist country, doesn't this suggest that they are, well, better?

How come? A lot of corporations would simply end up being in the business of distribution.. or in the service industry.

Why don't these industries count as production?
Does the service industries include health-care and so on?