Neo-Communism

[Commodore]

As requested by luiz and luceafarul in the "Do You Think North Korea is Communist?" thread, I intend to give an overview on how I feel Communism can be adapted to better suit human nature.

As luiz has already stated, the main problem with Communists is that they refuse to modify their ideology in any way, despite its shortcomings (very similar to the behavior of a religious fanatic, as luiz also stated). In a book I am currently working on, I intend to modify Communist ideology in such a way that both deviates from and remains loyal to the ideas of Marx. Right now I am calling it Neo-Communism, but that is just a working name for the new ideology (can't really think of anything better just yet).

Now, since I usually have trouble lecturing about my ideas, I think I could express them better if you all just ask questions and I answer them accordingly (and obviously, you can offer rebuttals to answers that I may give). With that said, let the discussion commence!

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Does it involve extensive deregulation and having people live in smaller groups, which is where communism usually has a chance?

What authority would there be to command an army in case of war?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

How exactly does it deviate from traditional communism? What is the difference?

Edit:

If I created a thread advocating "neo-capitalism" and said I was trying to modify capitalism while still remaining true to the message of Adam Smith I would find it hard to come up with an economic system that was still capitalist while not merely being a mixed economy like capitalism is today.

What authority would there be to command an army in case of war?

This has little to do with the economy.

 

[Commodore]

Does it involve extensive deregulation and having people live in smaller groups, which is where communism usually has a chance?

What authority would there be to command an army in case of war?

It mostly involves a massive decentralization of power in an attempt to implement direct democracy on a large scale. This means technology and education will be paramount. Education will obviously teach the people to act as the government and make responsible decisions for the nation. Mass communication technology will be hevily relied upon to allow the people to participate in "real-time voting" to allow the people to vote on issues without bogging the nation down in difficult electoral processes.

The military will also be controlled by the people. This all-volunteer military will mostly be centered around defense of the homeland. Its upper-level officers will be elected by the populace. As for war, seeing as the military will be defensive only, it would be very rare that a decision to go to war would be necessary.

 

[Commodore]

How exactly does it deviate from traditional communism? What is the difference?

One of the differences is that it does not demonize Capitalism as previous forms of Communism have done. It recognizes Capitalism as part of the natural evolution of human society. Marx wrote this himself, and it is a fact that most Communists forget.

This Neo-Communism also does not advocate a bloody revolution, but rather a peaceful transition as part of the natural evolution of society.

Those are the two main differences, there are more minor deviations, but I'm sure those will be brought up as this thread progresses.

 

[amadeus]

So, it's not really at all different, you just now acknowledge the fact that you want to take us from a system that we know works rather well (capitalism) to a system that clearly does not.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

One of the differences is that it does not demonize Capitalism as previous forms of Communism have done. It recognizes Capitalism as part of the natural evolution of human society. Marx wrote this himself, and it is a fact that most Communists forget.

If both capitalism and communism are coexisting then it is a mixed economy (though I think you want it more to the side of communism). Your description of a "real-time direct democracy" is interesting but unrelated to whether there is a communism. Also, if there is a direct democracy, what is to stop the people from voting agaist neo-communist measures? It seems to me that either a dictatorship or a constitution that irrevocably mandates neo-communism is required for neo-communism to reliably exist.

This Neo-Communism also does not advocate a bloody revolution, but rather a peaceful transition as part of the natural evolution of society.

OK. I like this. The people deserve to get what they ask for (make of this what you will).

Those are the two main differences, there are more minor deviations, but I'm sure those will be brought up as this thread progresses.

Since capitalism is not demonized, under what criteria will businesses be nationalized?


*I can't wait until JericoHill gets here.

 

[Left]

So, it's not really at all different, you just now acknowledge the fact that you want to take us from a system that we know works rather well (capitalism) to a system that clearly does not.

It works well for you and I, but not for the average Haitian.

 

[Commodore]

So, it's not really at all different, you just now acknowledge the fact that you want to take us from a system that we know works rather well (capitalism) to a system that clearly does not.

Actually, sharpe, I acknowledge the fact that much can be learned from the Capitalist system, and its economic processes can actually aid the people in their quest for the stateless and classless society. That's why I am trying to think of a new name for it, as it doesn't really fit with traditional Communism (one could say I am a heretic of sorts ).

As I stated, I have no issue with Capitalism. I view it as an essential step to our growth as a society, but it is by no means the final step in our development.

EDIT: @FugitivSisyphus- There will be a Constitution of sorts that will establish the basic political and economic standards of the nation. This Constitution will be ratified by the people (two-thirds majority seems fair to me) and will be the only semblence of a central government that exists.

To your other point: Capitalism will not coexist with the new society, but it will rather evolve into it. The great opportuinties for growth that Capitalism provides will build the necessary infrastructure to support such a society.

 

[Elrohir]

The military will also be controlled by the people. This all-volunteer military will mostly be centered around defense of the homeland. Its upper-level officers will be elected by the populace. As for war, seeing as the military will be defensive only, it would be very rare that a decision to go to war would be necessary.

That's an absolutely awful idea, and would most likely lead to catastrophic losses in the event of an actual war. Generals should be soldiers, not politicians. The one who can do the job quite often isn't the one who get's the most votes, or can convince the most people to support him. With civil authority, that's the price we pay for democracy, and things eventually work out as people can see who is incompetant, and who isn't. But in the case of soldiers, of generals being elected, you won't get that chance before a war happens - and when your country is being invaded, you want a brilliant strategist with bright tacticians deciding how it should be defended - not politicians.

I believe Ancient Athens had a system similar to this around the time of Alcibiades, and the Pelloponesian War - a war, I might add, that the Athenians lost to the more militaristic and realistically minded Spartans.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Interesting. Left says capitalism shouldn't be the beginning (using the example Haiti) and Commodore says that is shouldn't be the end.

 

[Commodore]

That's an absolutely awful idea, and would most likely lead to catastrophic losses in the event of an actual war. Generals should be soldiers, not politicians. The one who can do the job quite often isn't the one who get's the most votes, or can convince the most people to support him. With civil authority, that's the price we pay for democracy, and things eventually work out as people can see who is incompetant, and who isn't. But in the case of soldiers, of generals being elected, you won't get that chance before a war happens - and when your country is being invaded, you want a brilliant strategist with bright tacticians deciding how it should be defended - not politicians.

I believe Ancient Athens had a system similar to this around the time of Alcibiades, and the Pelloponesian War - a war, I might add, that the Athenians lost to the more militaristic and realistically minded Spartans.

Excellant point Elrohir. Let me present another idea: Instead of the general populace electing the officers, the soldiers will. Many soldiers I know complain about the incompetency of their officers in the field. Perhaps if soldiers elected their officers, more competent minds would prevail.

 

[Elrohir]

Excellant point Elrohir. Let me present another idea: Instead of the general populace electing the officers, the soldiers will. Many soldiers I know complain about the incompetency of their officers in the field. Perhaps if soldiers elected their officers, more competent minds would prevail.

I'm not sure if that would be superior to the current system (Based upon time served and merit) but it would certainly be a great improvement upon electing officers by votes in the general population.

 

[mdwh]

This has little to do with the economy.

The issue of defence and the military - who produces it, what arms are produced - are certainly economic issues. Not to mention that if a requirement of an economy is something like "must be small", then this has knock on implications with politics. And indeed, communism isn't just an economic system, but a political one also.

 

[mdwh]

Also, if there is a direct democracy, what is to stop the people from voting agaist neo-communist measures? It seems to me that either a dictatorship or a constitution that irrevocably mandates neo-communism is required for neo-communism to reliably exist.

Isn't this like saying that capitalism needs a dictatorship or constitution to reliably exist, otherwise people could vote against capitalist measures?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

The issue of defence and the military - who produces it, what arms are produced - are certainly economic issues. Not to mention that if a requirement of an economy is something like "must be small", then this has knock on implications with politics. And indeed, communism isn't just an economic system, but a political one also.

Who is in charge of the military and how weapons are produced are two different things.

Isn't this like saying that capitalism needs a dictatorship or constitution to reliably exist, otherwise people could vote against capitalist measures?

Yes it is. That is why all modern capitalist societies have major socialistic aspects to them.

 

[Kozmos]

communism sucks.....now technocratic demosocialism.....that rules

 

[Evil Tyrant]

Excellant point Elrohir. Let me present another idea: Instead of the general populace electing the officers, the soldiers will. Many soldiers I know complain about the incompetency of their officers in the field. Perhaps if soldiers elected their officers, more competent minds would prevail.

That might create the danger of an undisciplined army. Officers might shrink from disciplining and assigning duties to their soldiers for fear of alienating potential voters. It would also open up the possibility for a popular and charismatic leader to get the soldiers to support him over the existing government, essentially giving him control of the army, and putting himself in a position to be a dictator.

 

[colontos]

Oh great, a new form of communism, and this time it's from OHIO.

Let's get down to the nitty-gritty, if you don't mind. Who controls the means of production? Is there a state to do it, or will the people do so based on 'direct democracy'?

If it's the state, then welcome to the Soviet Union. This will be similar to the worst parts of unrestrained capitalism, with worse things added in as well.

If it's the people (in which case 'anarchism' might be a better starting point for you) then the obvious questions are: what makes you think that 'the people' know anything about anything, like how to run a factory? Where's the quality control if there's no one in authority? How can this possibly work in one country (which it would need to, for a while at least)?

If there's no revolution, but a peaceful transition, then how can you (or anyone) go about implementing this system in the forseeable future? With no plan for implementation, aren't you just daydreaming and not 'constructing an ideology'?

As for the military, ditto what Elrohir said, plus: who pays the soldiers, who, after all, sit around all day not producing anything? If the army is all volunteer, then what kind of incentives can you provide to get people to join? If officer promotion is not based on merit, how can the army have any effectiveness? Having soldiers vote is no more effective than having the general populace vote, and perhaps less so; the officers will have a direct relationship with the soldiers, so election will equal bribery essentially. Buying votes for better rations or better assignments, etc. An all volunteer army will be small, what if the country gets invaded? Will there be any mechanism for conscription in such a case?

And, finally, WHY SHOULD ANYBODY WORK HARD IF THEY AREN'T GETTING PAID?

 

[Commodore]

Okay colontos, I will answer your questions one by one. Firstly, Neo-Communism is just a working title until I come up with something better.

Let's get down to the nitty-gritty, if you don't mind. Who controls the means of production? Is there a state to do it, or will the people do so based on 'direct democracy'?

The means of production are controlled by the people in an economic democracy. In this economic democracy "corporations" will still exist, but all who are in the employ of the corporation will vote on the direction the company shall go (from the janitor, all the way up to CEO). This, I believe, will create a work environment that promotes equality, yet maintains the competetive spirit of Capitalism (yes, an individual can still start their own business) that allows for continued growth of the economy.

If it's the people (in which case 'anarchism' might be a better starting point for you) then the obvious questions are: what makes you think that 'the people' know anything about anything, like how to run a factory? Where's the quality control if there's no one in authority?

That, my friend, is why education is the key factor to the success of the new society. An integral part of all citizens' basic education will be the teaching of the qualities of responsible government and sound economic policy. This will allow even the most basic of laborers to make informed decisions and essentially seize control of their own future. As for quality assurance, the people of a "corporation" would realize that to put out bad products would jepordize their livlihood and also threaten society as a whole with economic collapse.

If there's no revolution, but a peaceful transition, then how can you (or anyone) go about implementing this system in the forseeable future? With no plan for implementation, aren't you just daydreaming and not 'constructing an ideology'?

By peaceful transition I mean that there will be no riots or civil war (hopefully). The transition would take place democratically, with the people (assuming they support the new ideology) voting out the old government and creating a new Constitution as described in a previous post. This would be a gradual process, as too rapid a transition could allow for a powermonger to rise and derail the whole thing.

And, finally, WHY SHOULD ANYBODY WORK HARD IF THEY AREN'T GETTING PAID?

Ah, but they will get paid. The workers will vote on their wages. Now, I know your immediate response may be that the workers would take advantage of this and, thus drive the economy into the ground, but I assure you that with the economic education citizens will recieve, they will make responsible decisions. Not to mention, the owership thing I talked about with quality assurance also applies to workers' incentive to be productive.