What exactly is so wrong with communism?

[BasketCase]

To make it clear: my point is that the biggest problem with a communism is the need for perfect cooperation, which is purely unattainable.

Well, that's certainly a lot more readable than some of your previous posts. If you said this before, I missed it.

We agree, then, that communism is impossible? Fine by me.

So, if you didn't list that as the number one reason for why communism will not work, then I assume that you assumed it was the case, and are pointing to the problems supposing that unattainable goal has, in fact, been attained.

Okay, this must be where we get our wires crossed. Most of the stuff I've written previous is reasons why that required cooperation among the citizens is unattainable.

And, under this perfect construct, it seems highly unreasonable to think that there will be any other real problems, such as corruption of power, or general disagreement amongst the populace, given the perfectly cooperative society already formed.

How about invasion by another society?

Or, here's another one. Suppose all of us here in CFC decided to form our own communist society this very minute: the Communist Federation of Citizens....

Problem is, all of us are computer nerds. Let's assume that the population of CFC consists of 472 software engineers, 155 web developers, 50 scientists of various persuasions, and 23 lawyers. Here's the problem: there are no doctors or automobile mechanics or farmers or plumbers or electricians in the bunch (just assume this for the sake of the exercise).

Somebody in this crew is going to have to change professions; we need doctors and automobile mechanics and farmers and plumbers and electricians--most particularly farmers. And all of us hate doing these things; we're computer nerds. So, in order to get people to change to the professions needed for the Communist Federation of Citizens to survive, one of two things must be done: either people must be forced to retrain, or they must be tempted with a larger paycheck. Yeah, I know--somebody's going to claim that some of the people will be convinced to change professions for the good of society. That's not communism--it's the central tenet of fascism. And it also produces a disadvantaged lower class: the class of people who were pressured by the masses to change professions.

So either people are forced to do stuff against their will, or different groups of people start earning different paychecks. One way or the other, a class structure will emerge, whether by force of law or by economics.

Those are just a couple. Use your imagination, and other problems will pop up--even among a population of perfectly willing and cooperative citizens.

 

[BasketCase]

If you think military ranks is the same things as economic classes, then you probably should stay out of this thread

The two are inextricably linked.

A strong economy always leads to a strong military; conversely, in wartime, any military force that knows its stuff will make an effort to destroy its opponent's economy.

Any Civ player will tell you both of these things are essential for a winning game.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Communism - Powerstructure generally results in the most ruthless and brutal person taking power
Far too much power is then concentrated in one person which thus results in a government which is a dictatorship in everything but name.

 

[Whomp]

Communism - Powerstructure generally results in the most ruthless and brutal person taking power
Far too much power is then concentrated in one person which thus results in a government which is a dictatorship in everything but name.

But even when it was done voluntarily in kibbutz' it still unraveled.

 

[FriendlyFire]

But even when it was done voluntarily in kibbutz' it still unraveled.

I thought that kibbutz had move well away from the old communist style model ?
Common eating areas are paid for, common laundry is paid for, child care and education is paid for with vast majority opting not to use these services.

 

[Whomp]

I thought that kibbutz had move well away from the old communist style model ?
Common eating areas are paid for, common laundry is paid for, child care and education is paid for with vast majority opting not to use these services.

That was my point. Even under the most favorable circumstances it didn't work.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The two are inextricably linked.

A strong economy always leads to a strong military; conversely, in wartime, any military force that knows its stuff will make an effort to destroy its opponent's economy.

Any Civ player will tell you both of these things are essential for a winning game.

Once again, you simply don't understand what an economic class is. Hint, its in the name.

That was my point. Even under the most favorable circumstances it didn't work.

The biggest problem faced by the kibbutzim was that, because their children were raised together (because the practiced the Marxist idea of abolition of the family; an excellent case study why this is a bad idea), they came to think of each other as siblings and were thus far less sexually attracted to one another, so they had to always go outside the kibbutz to find a mate, and not all of them went to other kibbutzim. So their numbers dwindled. But for a long time I'd call them very successful, not just in their social role, but their defensive one as well, against the fedayeen in the early years of Israel.

I think a much better case study of small-scale collectivism is the Amish communities.

But again, both of these example are highly collectivist, and socialism is not necessarily collectivist. That's more of a communism thing, and only supposed to follow the socialist phase, when people gradually learn to do such things as that.

 

[Whomp]

Very true on child rearing and education were both flawed Cheezy. However it also was flawed on the basis of motivational problems, effort/reward, internal bickering, autonomy and disillusionment. Intertingly, it did produce a large proportion of elite army units.

Personally, there's nothing in capitalism that says one can not create a community or organization based on egalitarian ways. Zenspider has said he would like to do ot this way and I say go for it. How ironic that kibbutzim and Amish were able to evolve in Canada, Israel and U.S.

The overarching problem will be the individual works harder for himself than the collective.

 

[thekaje]

You know what else never worked is Whigism. Whigism, Whiggery, and Whigophilia are simply perverse and weird, having done nothing but oppress Irish or German immigrants and force modern banking on a populace that does not want it. Some people argue that it was never implemented properly, but I think it was just a crackpot idea from the start.

 

[BasketCase]

Once again, you simply don't understand what an economic class is. Hint, its in the name.

Communism doesn't concern itself only with economic classes. That's socialism.

Communism concerns itself with the unequal distribution of ALL forms of power. Military, economic, doesn't matter. Communism seeks a society in which there are no concentrations of power--hence, a classless society.

 

[Earthling]

Any Civ player will tell you both of these things are essential for a winning game.

Attacko would tell you that's all dead wrong.

Edit: Take it up with Attacko.

 

[BasketCase]

And ten million treatises on military strategy, not only for computer games but in the real world, would tell you I've got it exactly right.

Edit: Oops. My mistake. I apologize.

It was TWELVE million.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Communism doesn't concern itself only with economic classes. That's socialism.

ORLY. And just how much socialist and communist literature have you read, that you can so clearly and concisely describe the two?

Communism concerns itself with the unequal distribution of ALL forms of power. Military, economic, doesn't matter. Communism seeks a society in which there are no concentrations of power--hence, a classless society.

You spent so long trying to trash this thread, its a wonder you didn't pick up anything meaningful during your presence there. I'll link to it so you can read it, but I already know you won't, because that would be a violation of your self-describing username. Hopefully someone with a more capable understanding of the English language, maybe along the levels of a trained baboon or greater, will come along, see that great bastion of ignorance that is your post, and follow my link, because they aren't content to absorbing such gross violations of the truth as you are.

Ask a Red

And for clarification, there's a few other useful threads a bit more recent:

Communism thread

Socialism thread

 

[Earthling]

Cheezy, trained baboons are far inferior to amphibious elephants. Though incidentally I do think there is a serious divide in socialist/communist theory, at least at the popular level, between those who see human equality as the sole priority and wouldn't care much about the treatment of the rest of the planet otherwise, and those who don't.

 

[Gustave5436]

Communism doesn't concern itself only with economic classes. That's socialism.

Communism concerns itself with the unequal distribution of ALL forms of power. Military, economic, doesn't matter. Communism seeks a society in which there are no concentrations of power--hence, a classless society.

Communism is the form of socialism in which the results of production are available to all. All forms of socialism, regardless of whether they are communist or not, make the means of production free to all. The difference between, say, communism and mutualism is not that communism is more anarchist; they are both equally anarchist, they only differ on the specifics of how they administer their economies.

Ask a Red

Note that that thread should be considered "ask an authoritarian red," i.e. ask a Marxist.

 

[BasketCase]

ORLY. And just how much socialist and communist literature have you read, that you can so clearly and concisely describe the two?

Pretty much all of it.

Enough to know this: most of it is extremely verbose and uses lots of words most ordinary people can't even pronounce. The authors of said literature use gigantic sentences, sometimes entire paragraphs, to express very simple ideas that, yes, I did in fact distill down into single sentences.

I think they do it intentionally. Karl Marx was not posting on an Internet message board, he was writing a manifesto, and if he'd written it all down in five easy lessons, he wouldn't have had a manifesto--it would have been known to all of history as the Communist Cliff Notes.

If there was an actual problem in any of my arguments, you would have been able to point out what it is, instead of spouting the usual crap about poor English and trained baboons.

 

[bender19]

@BC- I don't think you quite understand what my point is. I am not saying that a truly a society with perfect cooperation can be achieved, I am saying the opposite of that. To make it clear: my point is that the biggest problem with a communism is the need for perfect cooperation, which is purely unattainable. So, if you didn't list that as the number one reason for why communism will not work, then I assume that you assumed it was the case, and are pointing to the problems supposing that unattainable goal has, in fact, been attained. And, under this perfect construct, it seems highly unreasonable to think that there will be any other real problems, such as corruption of power, or general disagreement amongst the populace, given the perfectly cooperative society already formed. i.e. Once you attain this unattainable thing, you wont have any more problems, making your reasoning as to the problems of communism outlined previously moot, assuming your assumption of the aforementioned.

Near perfect cooperation could be acheived if it were in everybody's interests. The problem with communism is thus the incentive to cooperate. Any system thats proposes perfect cooperation, first needs to explain how perfect cooperation is in anyway rational and acheiveable. The fundamental area where the system breaks down is that communists want to acheive equal resource consumption despite the fact we are all unequal. In the real world we all have different mental and physical strengths and weaknesses. Ignore capital for the moment, labour isn't equal, not everyone has the intelligence to be a doctor or a lawyer or manage a large business. We've got unequal resource endowments before we even talk about capital. So the problem with conmunism is how do we get the most productive 50% of the population to work optimally but yet happily part with the fruits of their labour.

Thats of course not the only flaw. Communism puts to much emphasis on economic power. Its assumed that if somehow you can artificially create equality in resource distribution that you will have eliminated power. You won't, you'll simply have redistributed it, there'll still be a hierachy. For cooperation you need leadership and coordination for that you need a hierachy, once you have a power structure you have the potential for corruption.

Communism has the potential to work for small groups of like minded people, however its not an economic system with any merit at the national level.

 

[Camikaze]

Near perfect cooperation could be acheived if it were in everybody's interests.

And herein lies the problem. The chances of making it in everybody's interests are so negligible as to be labelled zero. There will always be someone whose interests it is not in. In fact, it is self proclaimed that it won't be in everyone's interest (confirmed by statements such as 'the rich should be scared'), which automatically makes it void.

 

[BasketCase]

WARNING: ME-TOO POST

Near perfect cooperation could be acheived if it were in everybody's interests.

This is the problem, right here. The people have conflicting interests.

Edit: Heh heh. Looks like bender got me-too-ed twice in a row.