Successful Communism

[Love]

And that's why it won't work. Because people are always hungry for power.

 

[GenMarshall]

In Communism, there is no such thing as unemployment.

 

[Traitorfish]

And that's why it won't work. Because people are always hungry for power.

I would contest this; people are not innately evil, any more than they are innately virtuous. They are shaped by a variety of factors, and there is no reason to assume that the sort of vile homunculus that the sort of system in which we dwell so regularly churns out is representative of the human race on anything approaching fundamental level. After all, that sort of wretch doesn't even constitute the majority of humanity now, and that's in a system which actively rewards their cretinous ill-doing.

 

[Yeekim]

I would contest this; people are not innately evil, any more than they are innately virtuous. They are shaped by a variety of factors, and there is no reason to assume that the sort of vile homunculus that the sort of system in which we dwell so regularly churns out is representative of the human race on anything approaching fundamental level. After all, that sort of wretch doesn't even constitute the majority of humanity now, and that's in a system which actively rewards their cretinous ill-doing.

You don't need everyone to be evil to spoil your wonderful utopia. Even 5% of people being evil would probably be more than enough.

 

[sophie]

I would contest this; people are not innately evil, any more than they are innately virtuous. They are shaped by a variety of factors, and there is no reason to assume that the sort of vile homunculus that the sort of system in which we dwell so regularly churns out is representative of the human race on anything approaching fundamental level. After all, that sort of wretch doesn't even constitute the majority of humanity now, and that's in a system which actively rewards their cretinous ill-doing.

existentialist socialist hippie!

 

[Cutlass]

I would contest this; people are not innately evil, any more than they are innately virtuous. They are shaped by a variety of factors, and there is no reason to assume that the sort of vile homunculus that the sort of system in which we dwell so regularly churns out is representative of the human race on anything approaching fundamental level. After all, that sort of wretch doesn't even constitute the majority of humanity now, and that's in a system which actively rewards their cretinous ill-doing.

The same percentage of bad people who make a libertarian society untenable make a communist society untenable. It doesn't take much.

 

[aelf]

People just still haven't realized "true" communism is impossible to achieve so continue on their ideals without ever realizing its not possible.

But, you see, I like to challenge people's knowledge of communism when they say such things, and it invariably turns out that they either have no idea what they are talking about or are locked in a particular idea of communism that they have acquired.

 

[Archbob]

But, you see, I like to challenge people's knowledge of communism when they say such things, and it invariably turns out that they either have no idea what they are talking about or are locked in a particular idea of communism that they have acquired.

I know what pure communism is. At its impossible to achieve. That much should be common sense. You can spout your ideals all you want about how humanity could form a perfect society that shares and where everyone is happy being equal to everyone else. But, it still doesn't change the fact that it will never happen.

Your just not very realistic about things.

 

[Traitorfish]

You don't need everyone to be evil to spoil your wonderful utopia. Even 5% of people being evil would probably be more than enough.

I never argued otherwise; I merely observed that "humanity is innately evil" is not, I feel, a particularly robust assertion.

The same percentage of bad people who make a libertarian society untenable make a communist society untenable. It doesn't take much.

Of course, it can be argued that a libertarian society would actively promote these individuals to positions of authority, while a communist one work against them. Communism, unlike libertarianism, is a structured anarchy that would- or should- self-consciously deny such individuals the ability to prosper. Unlike individualist anarchy, collectivist anarchy doesn't simply insist that everything will be alright if you just screw up your eyes and wish really, really hard- it actively attempts to make things right. It's proposed methods are open to criticism, yes, but to depict as nothing more than "libertarianism with sharing" is simply too simplistic.

 

[Archbob]

Of course, it can be argued that a libertarian society would actively promote these individuals to positions of authority, while a communist one work against them. Communism, unlike libertarianism, is a structured anarchy that would- or should- self-consciously deny such individuals the ability to prosper. Unlike individualist anarchy, collectivist anarchy doesn't simply insist that everything will be alright if you just screw up your eyes and wish really, really hard- it actively attempts to make things right. It's proposed methods are open to criticism, yes, but to depict as nothing more than "libertarianism with sharing" is simply too simplistic.

But see, that also calls for methods of enforcement. Therefore communism without government is essential not possible. You need people or groups to enforce theses things, not to mentioned making sure everything is equally distributed. You can't avoid putting an enormous amount of power in the hands of a few individuals. You just have to pray that those individuals themselves are 'good'.

 

[Traitorfish]

But see, that also calls for methods of enforcement. Therefore communism without government is essential not possible.

Who ever suggested otherwise? All libertarian collectivists have ever asserted is that government need not necessarily be centralised and top-down in nature. That you cannot see beyond a narrow history of standard Western government-types does not mean that this ever-so-brief list is all that their can be.

And what do you mean by "enforcement", exactly, and why is it incompatible with libertarian collectivism?

 

[Deego3]

But see, that also calls for methods of enforcement. Therefore communism without government is essential not possible. You need people or groups to enforce theses things, not to mentioned making sure everything is equally distributed. You can't avoid putting an enormous amount of power in the hands of a few individuals. You just have to pray that those individuals themselves are 'good'.

But you dont put power into the hands of a few, you put the power into everyones hands.

 

[Alassius]

I don't want to attempt discussing anything conceptual with you anymore, partly because I'm tired of having to either rehash the same points or explain some intuitively obvious things (like how liberty and individuality are related but distinct and should therefore not be treated as the same question). So I'm just gonna ask one question: Issues about utopia and abundance (which are not that important anyway - I'm sure you can see the distinction between the theory and the end point... or maybe not) aside, isn't the Marxist struggle partly about taking the issue of material needs off the table? That's why workers ask for more compensation, right?

Entirely, not partly. Marx imagined that he can solve the issue completely in his world of abundance. Essentially, he betted (perhaps not consciously) everything on that idea. When abundance did not materialise, all sorts of problems that were supposed to be taken care of by abundance started to emerge.

Marx wasn't asking workers to ask for more compensation. In fact, he was attacking people who thought workers should ask that. Asking for more compensation means you are compromising, that you can accept some form of exploitation as long as the compensation is good enough. That is something Marx couldn't stomach.

Very few people actually read Marx. Fewer still understand how extreme he was. On that scale he was the Ayn Rand of the left. He would not have tolerated Keynes any more than Rand liked Hayek. In fact I'm not sure if he agreed with anyone else, contemporaries or predecessors, apart from Engels and himself. It's really a marvel that people don't avoid him like they do Rand. I think this is partly because he's earlier - philosophies of his time were generally nutty by modern standards - partly because of the airbrushing by later communists who would avoid talking about his obvious mistakes. That second reason is why I recommend anyone interested to read his own works instead.

So, again, besides your constant use of the boogeyman in the form of the Soviet Union (even your criticism of dialectical materialism and collectivism, where you're not simply name-dropping, boils down to "Look at the Soviet Union!"), what else can you really say about Marxism?

I don't like telling people to read what I wrote again, so I'll rephrase myself here: besides "look at the Soviet Union", there are two more problems: how you can achieve the utopia without making it like the Soviet Union; and whether that utopia is achievable at all.

The same percentage of bad people who make a libertarian society untenable make a communist society untenable. It doesn't take much.

Since we're getting pretty pedantic in this thread, let me say that in Marx's true communist society such people would not be a problem. The only reason people want more power would be that they want more material possessions. People want more material possessions than they need because material is limited. If material is practically unlimited instead, you'd have no reason for taking more than you need, and hence no reason to acquire more power. Corruption is therefore impossible.

What is untenable was, funny enough, what Marx himself called "utopian socialism", or the kind of experiments by Robert Owen and Charles Fourier. These did not assume abundance; their goal was usually elimination of abject poverty, which was much more viable than "to each according to his need". As for the inner working of such societies, apart from fluffier ideas like class struggle, they would've relied on the good nature in man, or spontaneous cooperation and enlightened planning, much like Stalinist economies were, or indeed libertarian anarchies.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's really a marvel that people don't avoid him like they do Rand. I think this is partly because he's earlier - philosophies of his time were generally nutty by modern standards - partly because of the airbrushing by later communists who would avoid talking about his obvious mistakes..

It probably helps that, unlike Rand, Marx wasn't just rationalising his barely-restrained sociopathic tendencies.

 

[Archbob]

Who ever suggested otherwise? All libertarian collectivists have ever asserted is that government need not necessarily be centralised and top-down in nature. That you cannot see beyond a narrow history of standard Western government-types does not mean that this ever-so-brief list is all that their can be.

And what do you mean by "enforcement", exactly, and why is it incompatible with libertarian collectivism?

Its not just western government types. Eastern government types were even more centered and top-down. Many of the eastern countries where monarchies until recently(some still are). That's about as top-down as you can get.

Almost every single government type of any large entity(like a country) is top-down in nature.

The point of a central government is to provide supreme authority and have power to back it up. A decentralized government is not going to be as powerful nor have the power as a central government. Your also going to have trouble with states not obeying the central government, which in the past has caused enormous amounts of trouble.

 

[Archbob]

But you dont put power into the hands of a few, you put the power into everyones hands.

Then you basically get Mob rule. The will of the majority is absolute. This is the best environment for demigogues to come to power. You have too much faith in the rationality and intelligence of people in general I think. People are pretty easily swayed when they hear what they want to hear.

 

[aelf]

I know what pure communism is. At its impossible to achieve. That much should be common sense. You can spout your ideals all you want about how humanity could form a perfect society that shares and where everyone is happy being equal to everyone else. But, it still doesn't change the fact that it will never happen.

Your just not very realistic about things.

Keep your discussion at this level and I can be certain that you have little idea what you're talking about.

Entirely, not partly. Marx imagined that he can solve the issue completely in his world of abundance. Essentially, he betted (perhaps not consciously) everything on that idea. When abundance did not materialise, all sorts of problems that were supposed to be taken care of by abundance started to emerge.

Err, no? He believed that society had the industrial capacity to make abundance possible. But of course Marxism isn't really just a method to achieve abundance. If that's what you're implying then you really need to get back to the drawing board. Or maybe you just need to stop your own doublethink nonsense because on one hand you talk (if very sparingly) about dialectic materialism but on the other you place an inordinate amount of emphasis on Marx's utopian vision.

Marx wasn't asking workers to ask for more compensation. In fact, he was attacking people who thought workers should ask that. Asking for more compensation means you are compromising, that you can accept some form of exploitation as long as the compensation is good enough. That is something Marx couldn't stomach.

Not by my understanding of his quote about not being a Marxist. This isn't a question that anyone can answer with ease: To work within the present boundaries or to revolutionise things?

Certainly, being content with endless (but unavoidably slow) pay rises isn't going to be enough. But that doesn't mean greater compensation isn't one of the most important items on the workers' agenda in present society.

Very few people actually read Marx. Fewer still understand how extreme he was. On that scale he was the Ayn Rand of the left. He would not have tolerated Keynes any more than Rand liked Hayek. In fact I'm not sure if he agreed with anyone else, contemporaries or predecessors, apart from Engels and himself. It's really a marvel that people don't avoid him like they do Rand. I think this is partly because he's earlier - philosophies of his time were generally nutty by modern standards - partly because of the airbrushing by later communists who would avoid talking about his obvious mistakes. That second reason is why I recommend anyone interested to read his own works instead.

I'd recommend reading his works with an open mind too, instead of setting out to prove that Marxism is bunk.

I don't like telling people to read what I wrote again, so I'll rephrase myself here: besides "look at the Soviet Union", there are two more problems: how you can achieve the utopia without making it like the Soviet Union; and whether that utopia is achievable at all.

Uh, you essentially said "look at the Soviet Union" again in the first question there. I don't see why the Soviet Union (which period anyway?) has to be a yardstick anymore than Jacobin society or the Weimar Republic are yardsticks for democracy.

And, once again, I say that the these questions are beside the point. Which political philosophy doesn't aim for the betterment of society with the possibility of reaching a higher stage? The important thing now is to do things right. If exploitation exists, it should be reduced or eliminated entirely. Whether or not we will reach utopia doesn't strike me as a particularly interesting question. We can't know. We might as well ask whether heaven exists. And Marx didn't exactly construct a roadmap to utopia anyway.

 

[Archbob]

Keep your discussion at this level and I can be certain that you have little idea what you're talking about.

I don't think you know what Marx really meant in his communism. He wanted the workers to rise up and literally attack the capitalists.

Also as a side note, everyone that's argued against you, including myself, ends up concluding its like talking to a idealistic wall. Its impossible because you fail to realize that ideals like pure communism simply can't work in reality.

Its not just the soviet union. Its them, Maoist China, [INSERT OTHER TRIED AND FAILED COMMUNIST COUNTRY HERE] that proves that it really can't be implemented. You still haven't realized that a lot of humans simply aren't happy being just equal to their neighbor and thus communism in its ideal form completely falls apart.

And, once again, I say that the these questions are beside the point. Which political philosophy doesn't aim for the betterment of society with the possibility of reaching a higher stage? The important thing now is to do things right. If exploitation exists, it should be reduced or eliminated entirely.

That's just like say "Hey lets just defeat evil." A more realistic goal would be to keep exploitation at an feasible level. Workers are never going to earn as much as the people they work for. That's just a fact that eventually you'll have to come to realize. Fair pay is not evenly splitting profits, that will never happen. But you have to pay workers a wage that their willing to work at.

Communism essentially eliminates much of the reason people start enterprises and work so hard to innovate new things. Without vast amounts of personal profit, people are just less motivated.

 

[Love]

Communism didn't work because of the government... Someone didn't want to be equal, the government took it like that guy was spoiling the feast and took him away.

People won't ever be equal. Everything isn't material you know...

 

[Yeekim]

Err, no? He believed that society had the industrial capacity to make abundance possible. But of course Marxism isn't really just a method to achieve abundance. If that's what you're implying then you really need to get back to the drawing board.

I don't see where Alassius or anyone else has suggested this. As I understand it, M. believed it will happen the other way round; first industrial revolution would bring about abundance and workers' revolution would follow.

Uh, you essentially said "look at the Soviet Union" again in the first question there. I don't see why the Soviet Union (which period anyway?) has to be a yardstick anymore than Jacobin society or the Weimar Republic are yardsticks for democracy.

You sidestepped the question by creating a tired and poor analogy. We can demonstrate that Weimar Republic or Jacobin society are not yardsticks for democracy, because there is a large number of different, better, more successful examples of democracy that one can point to. The same can not be said about Marxism - there are no such examples. Of course, you have your right to believe that there is a different path (and you may be even correct - in theory ), however it seems you actually have no idea what it looks like. I mean no offense here - if you had, you'd probably make yourself a place in history

Everyone can say that USSR is a poor and failed example, what is lacking is knowledge of how to actually create a successful Marxist society while avoiding these same pitfalls.
I advise you back out from this argument while you can still retain some dignity. You are quite clearly outclassed.