Why does Communism keep failing?

[blackheart]

Simply put it goes against human nature, and no true communism has ever come about.

Human nature isn't a constant.

Human nature is taught, not there from birth. BF Skinner (psychologist) had this crazy notion if you could control every aspect of a child's development, he/she could become whatever you wanted (doctor,police,soldier,sociopath,etc.). So if you could this to all the children of the world and weed out the laziness, procrastination, apathy, etc. then you could make yourself a utopia for communism, socialism, capitalism, antidisestablishmentarianism, etc.

 

[Perfection]

Capitalist societies don’t seem to use that kind of carrot much either. If that was the case attractive jobs like CEOs and such would have been low wage jobs while terrible jobs that nobody wants to do, like cleaning toilets and such things, would be high wage jobs. For some reason it is the opposite way in capitalist societies. Clearly high wages isn’t the only way to make people do jobs they hate. Even capitalist countries are able to make people take such lousy jobs, and we don’t even have to pay them decent wages to do it. Why should that be harder to pull off for a communist society?

That's incorrect, CEO positions are high paying because very few people can do a good job with it. Just about every sucessful CEO I've known have been very smart people who work very hard often under a tremendous amount of responsibility and stress. It's not easy to be a CEO, that's why people that can do it get high wages. As for srubbing tiolets, I can think of quite a few worse jobs, it's not dangerous and it's not stressful. Plus, you don't need an expensive education or more than 10 minutes of training so anyone can do it. That's why people who do it get lower wages.

 

[blackheart]

That's incorrect, CEO positions are high paying because very few people can do a good job with it. Just about every sucessful CEO I've known have been very smart people who work very hard often under a tremendous amount of responsibility and stress. It's not easy to be a CEO, that's why people that can do it get high wages. As for srubbing tiolets, I can think of quite a few worse jobs, it's not dangerous and it's not stressful. Plus, you don't need an expensive education or more than 10 minutes of training so anyone can do it. That's why people who do it get lower wages.

How about the middle manager and the factory worker? You don't have to have exceptional skills to be a middle manager (except butt kissing), and you DO have to have physical endurance to be a factory worker.

As for the CEO thing, how many CEOs do you know (if you even know any personally at all) that would scrub toilets?

 

[Yom]

And what is this basic nature of man?

To put it simply, greed. Greed (and laziness) are the basis for modern economics because we know them to be true. The process of evolution results in organisms that are prone to self-preservation, as those are the ones that survive and pass on their genes. An important aspect is that organisms evolve to do things with the least amount of energy possible, as it is part of self-preservation.

Communism, however, is based off of pure altriusm. I admit that there are evolutionary pressures that encourage altruistic behavior as it results in the survival of the group, but not to the extent that communism requires.

 

[Perfection]

Human nature isn't a constant.

Human nature is taught, not there from birth.

I disagree, there is a lot of evidence that points to partial genetic control of people. Were you taught emotions?

BF Skinner (psychologist)

You're thinking John Watson

had this crazy notion if you could control every aspect of a child's development, he/she could become whatever you wanted (doctor,police,soldier,sociopath,etc.).

I disagree, people tend to have natural personalities and while societal effects can influence thier decisions greatly it's really that the environment accepts one's personality or works to destroy it.

So if you could this to all the children of the world and weed out the laziness, procrastination, apathy, etc. then you could make yourself a utopia for communism, socialism, capitalism, antidisestablishmentarianism, etc.

More like distopia if you ask me, learning about differing ideas is a wonderful thing that alows you to see things you never noticed. I am glad we live in a world with many different opinions, even if a few just make me want to whack them over the head with a broom.

 

[blackheart]

To put it simply, greed. Greed (and laziness) are the basis for modern economics because we know them to be true. The process of evolution results in organisms that are prone to self-preservation, as those are the ones that survive and pass on their genes. An important aspect is that organisms evolve to do things with the least amount of energy possible, as it is part of self-preservation.

Communism, however, is based off of pure altriusm. I admit that there are evolutionary pressures that encourage altruistic behavior as it results in the survival of the group, but not to the extent that communism requires.

That isn't laziness, it's working smarter not harder. If evolution rooted out weak traits, wouldn't the lazy have been eaten by some sort of carnivore long ago?

IDK if greed is either. Do you see humantype greed in animals? They don't wantonly kill and attack other animals for the sole purpose of territory, they do it to survive (hunting grounds, grazing lands, etc). Greed is a human made trait.

 

[Perfection]

How about the middle manager and the factory worker? You don't have to have exceptional skills to be a middle manager (except butt kissing),

And you don't think manipulating people to do what you want them to do is a valuable skill for middle management?!?

and you DO have to have physical endurance to be a factory worker.

How rare is that endurance? Plus it's higher paying then other jobs (such as fast food) which require low physical enducance

As for the CEO thing, how many CEOs do you know (if you even know any personally at all)

I know a few personally (one happens to be my father, though his company isn't very large)

that would scrub toilets?

For a living? Not many. Most CEOs become very obsessed with thier work and seem to thrive on it, a type of dedication not seen in most people.

 

[Babbler]

Human nature isn't a constant.

That true, but it is only changable on evolutionary time-scales, which is millions and millions of years, so pracitically, human nature is constant.

Human nature is taught, not there from birth. BF Skinner (psychologist) had this crazy notion if you could control every aspect of a child's development, he/she could become whatever you wanted (doctor,police,soldier,sociopath,etc.). So if you could this to all the children of the world and weed out the laziness, procrastination, apathy, etc. then you could make yourself a utopia for communism, socialism, capitalism, antidisestablishmentarianism, etc.

Not true -- some human nature is inborn, natural, hardcoded into the brain. Sciencists have found unversial human traits, that seem natural to normal human beings.

 

[Yom]

That isn't laziness, it's working smarter not harder. If evolution rooted out weak traits, wouldn't the lazy have been eaten by some sort of carnivore long ago?

IDK if greed is either. Do you see humantype greed in animals? They don't wantonly kill and attack other animals for the sole purpose of territory, they do it to survive (hunting grounds, grazing lands, etc). Greed is a human made trait.

You're not thinking of the same laziness that I am. Basically, I mean laziness as a connection to greed and self-preservation. It is inefficient for an organism to have superfluous organs/tissues/whatever: its "goal" (not actually a goal, of course) is to minimize the amount of work needed to sustain itself and lower the amount of energy it needs as much as possible. Similarly, if you don't have to do something, oftentimes you won't do it. It is only when incentives are added into the equation that you will be coerced into an activity. For instance, you probably don't want to do your paper for your Government class, but if you are faced with the incentive of wealth as a result of good grades (which result in better employment; the disincentive of poverty as a result of bad grades, which result in worse employment can just as well be considered), then you are more likely to do the paper.

 

[Portuguese]

Stalinistic Communism: you need to know how a market system works and what are it's advantadges. Then you'll see the price system is a must, as an indicator of people needs, tastes and wills Vs resource scarcery, cost and development costs. Basically, it is the best system to equalize marginal utility to marginal cost. A "planned" way will start diverging from it till the difference is unbarable.

Marx communist: Never tested, but impossible till we have much more culturally developed societies, where people don't consider power important. For the closest example, take Iceland, Sweeden, Norway,... There, the prez gains 4 medium wages. In Port it gains 19. In Angola 4300+. This shows the real stratification of a society,in a monetary prespective, but it would be the same if you picked other aspects. The road towards real communism is achieved with center parties, developing countries both econ. and socially.
In the future, all people will gain the same for the same effort, being the president a publi employee like any other and as well payed as a electrician with a technical diploma and working the same hours.
Course this will take some hundreds of years to achieve. Like Karl Marx predicted in his book, REVOLUTIONS will never work and this needs a path, an EVOLUTION, but it is inevitable. The time it takes depends on tech rates, cultural blockages (like the TV, who levels it's level low so it can be understood and seen by as many as possible, with the problem that a single message has to be understood by everybody, thus stupidifying it too enlarge it's possible audience...) or speeders (like printing press, or in other way the internet) and catastrophes, like the Fall of Rome (a millenium of time lost) or WWII (just a decade or two). This is the future, the only question is WHEN...

As Marx said: Recoleccionism > Feudalism > Capitalism > Communism

No revolutions
No quick shortcuts
But inevitable

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Communism was made for robots thats why it doesn't work. When society losses taste for things such as pleasure, independence and individualy then it may be a possibility.

 

[Portuguese]

I think Communism was not made for robots or ants.

Care to read my opinion and comment it?

 

[Perfection]

I think Communism was not made for robots or ants.

Care to read my opinion and comment it?

I think it's niave to think that human labor will be equally valued by society. The salary of the leader is not a good method of determining this because the supply of people to fullfill that role is high, taking a look at other professions, however and you'll find that some skills are worth more than others. How can society change that?

 

[Damnyankee]

What does the wiki have to say

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism


Everyone still with me? Good. First, let be start off as saying that I am a Economic lefty and on any other issue, a righty. However, even though every God fearing american(and judging by this forum, that isn't a high number ) has a certain distaste of communism due to propaganda that started in the 50's and ended with the movie Red Dawn being put out. We feel that it is wrong flawed, etc, etc. It is flawed. Thats right, human nature is "flawed". We cannot be conformed and stuck in the same place for the rest of our lives, we want better, we always will. That is not necessarly a bad thing. It always us to strive to better places and discovery. That is why I think Communism will never work. But, Socialism does conform if intermingled with capitalism(Democratic Socialism). I can attest to that because it has succeded in America. I admit that this brand of socialism is not as close to what marx professed, but has worked for America since the late 1800's. It was in certain ways the crux of the Populist Party, it was important to the Progressive party, and the New Deal certainly can be considered socialist in the way it put people back to work and created social security. All i'm saying is that Pure-Capitalism is hell, Pure-Socialism is hell(a point that will be argued, no doubt), but the middle ground is just right

 

[Portuguese]

I think it's niave to think that human labor will be equally valued by society. The salary of the leader is not a good method of determining this because the supply of people to fullfill that role is high, taking a look at other professions, however and you'll find that some skills are worth more than others. How can society change that?

IS high, but I think it was much higher in the pass and much much higher in the tribe's longinquous pass, and I propose with this theory that will be as high as any other profession in the future. Reason: it will have no more power than any other person, just filling the role of representing the state in international ocasions and deciding things not by personal beliefs or interests, but only based on papers, done by the area specialists (diplomatic in foreign affairs, engineers in dams, economists in eco policy,...).

Try to see nordic example and not the US one. By these criteria, US is a very poor exmple, although decisions are already in big part taken by the prez concellors, not by prez himself...

 

[Perfection]

Portuguese, you're missing the key point I'm trying to make. Although I disagree a lot with what you said and I will ask for some clarification, my main point is societal demand for certain skills is higher than societal demand for other skills, I am asking how you propose to rectify that?

IS high, but I think it was much higher in the pass and much much higher in the tribe's longinquous pass, and I propose with this theory that will be as high as any other profession in the future. Reason: it will have no more power than any other person, just filling the role of representing the state in international ocasions and deciding things not by personal beliefs or interests, but only based on papers, done by the area specialists (diplomatic in foreign affairs, engineers in dams, economists in eco policy,...).

But those decisions will still be very powerful, and they still will be able to shape policy much greater than that of a regular citizen.

Try to see nordic example and not the US one. By these criteria, US is a very poor exmple, although decisions are already in big part taken by the prez concellors, not by prez himself...

You must however, admit that they still wield considerable power over regular people, unless you propose the abandonment of a represenate democracy I don't see how you could change that.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I think Communism was not made for robots or ants.

Care to read my opinion and comment it?

I was commenting on your opinion. Maybe a bit too breifly though. Communism doesn't take human feelings and desires into mind thats why it needs the excuse of only working when we have "more culturally developed societies." For society as a whole to conform to Marx's stanards, it would be unatural unless its by artificial process or some type of evolutionary regression. This has nothing to do with advancing or improving culture. If anything its a perversion of culture which relies on the individuality, pain and suffering that make up humanity.

"A single message has to be understood by everybody?" What kind of nonesense is that? Humans do not and will not agree 100% on anything. They do not and will not all understand one message. Then you have another problem. If society does not deem power important then who ever dictates what the greater good is will have too much power and society will be an easier victim to control.

If real communism hasn't been implemented then it has no real credibility. Its really a silly idea to come up with a system the relies on people being completly different then they are. There are too many ifs and conditions and no proof that communism would be a good idea even under the most ideal circumstances. From a scientific point of view Marx has made a hypothesis that could only be correct if the laws of science were different.

 

[Portuguese]

You speak as if this could be done next year.
Try to imagine larger. The power wilded by Pharaohs, by roman emperors, by absolute kings, by modern kings, by european presidents have been diminushing. I believe this trend will continue in the future.
Leaders will be much more just icons. Referendums will become much more comum (like in Switzerland, where there are many every year), leaders are to become much less authocratic (you are a temporary exception to this rule... one of the reasons we criticize your system so much (you are very centralized in SOME issues and your prez is quite arrogant and power seeker, IMHO), but let's for now leave that in peace), power tend to be much more divided with the common citizen, and based on hyoothesis given by technocrats. As societies go on, people tend to respect more one another, power seekers tend to calm down, common interests seem to appeal more to citizens and these force the political power to decide less "unrationally", but based in principles accepted by all. New generations will be educated in new ways, calling those persons of old diseases and through generations change will come. 100 years from now, your country will be like Canada, you'll see. Doors open during the day, calmer politicians, more understanding between people,...

"But those decisions will still be very powerful, and they still will be able to shape policy much greater than that of a regular citizen." > I dont't think so. They will act according to referendums and public opinion. They will not decide based in God knows what (like fake proofs or a lobby interest...), but in facts, technical opinions and true people choices. As I said, just one more public worker.

"my main point is societal demand for certain skills is higher than societal demand for other skills, I am asking how you propose to rectify that?" > Salaries will not be the same for all people. They will be the same for people with the same:
- level of studies
- competence in what they do
- hours worked
- quality of results

So, the salary will be the same for a electrician, doctor or minister, but only if they are equal in that criteria. Nevertheless, the Angolan example is to be extinct permanently. 3x, or +200%, the salary of another person will be considered an abomination. And an plumber with a technical diploma, very good at what it does and that works several hours per day may gain more than the prez of a good company or the prez...

 

[Portuguese]

I was commenting on your opinion. Maybe a bit too breifly though. Communism doesn't take human feelings and desires into mind thats why it needs the excuse of only working when we have "more culturally developed societies." For society as a whole to conform to Marx's standards, it would be unatural unless its by artificial process or some type of evolutionary regression. This has nothing to do with advancing or improving culture. If anything its a perversion of culture which relies on the individuality, pain and suffering that make up humanity.

"A single message has to be understood by everybody?" What kind of nonesense is that? Humans do not and will not agree 100% on anything. They do not and will not all understand one message. Then you have another problem. If society does not deem power important then who ever dictates what the greater good is will have too much power and society will be an easier victim to control.

If real communism hasn't been implemented then it has no real credibility. Its really a silly idea to come up with a system the relies on people being completly different then they are. There are too many ifs and conditions and no proof that communism would be a good idea even under the most ideal circumstances. From a scientific point of view Marx has made a hypothesis that could only be correct if the laws of science were different.

One thing is MArx, other is the "real communism" the stupid Soviets try to impose. For the record, I'm a member of a right party in Portugal and I activelly fight against that Marx murderes that call them selves communists...

1st: Communism is not a planned society! The true communism is nothing more than a capitalist system where difference between "classes" (I hate this word) are residual or non existant. These evolution from Capitalism to equality (not in the stupid or utopic sense that all have the same, but in the economic sense that everyone may have the same for an equal effort, whatever "class" they are in) is not, and cannot be a rupture. It is a process of cultural, political, social and economic evolution!

2nd: "A single message has to be understood by everybody?" What kind of nonesense is that? Humans do not and will not agree 100% on anything. > I was refering to the TV and justifying why the mass TV stations must bet on stupidifying programs such as Big Brother. Unlike the book editors and the internet sites, the TV can only pass 1 program at a time, while yahoo or msn can have different homepages for everybody.
If the objective is to serve the masses, excluding here cable stations such as discovery and similar, those big TV stations have to pass programs everybody understand like the Jerry Springer show. This way, it can be seen by the most people possible, maximizing it's audience and so it's publicity recipies. This is called here the common multiplal minimum (spelling?).
That's why our developed societies have so much stupidified people, in many people opinion.
Hope you have understood better that sentence now. It was just an addition to my point, not a really important issue.
It seemsd by your following text that you thought everyone had to think the same to work in a true robotic society. Nothing is further from my point. In the true communism, cultural people will think for their own, full of own ideas and opinions, will debate them and most important issues will be referended.

3rd: If real communism hasn't been implemented then it has no real credibility. > Plain error. What has no real credibility is the Stalinistic model. Communism have been misunderstood by Russians in agony in the middle of the 1st WW and mislead to a point where Marx itself said that he was not a Marxist... (I hate the "Marxists", who completelly adultered Marx ideas and create an horror state).

4th: Its really a silly idea to come up with a system the relies on people being completly different then they are. > I Agree. Good.

5th: There are too many ifs and conditions and no proof that communism would be a good idea even under the most ideal circumstances. > Like any other thing untested. Don't see a point here.

6th: From a scientific point of view Marx has made a hypothesis that could only be correct if the laws of science were different. > Hmm... too deep. I didn't understand.

Final comment: People tend to demonize communism or, what is worst, to compare it to the historical examples of suposedly comunists countries. Personally, to me this is like compare it to Fascism or Islam republics.
IMHO, the comparation must be done to the nordic, Swiss and Canadian societies.

And other thing: communism is not that different from capitalism (which I as an economist who loves history tend to love). Think just in a capitalism where "classes" are forgotten due to a progressive aproximation of the conditons of living of all members of the society. Just that. And don't make of it a complicated monster or an organized ant tribe! It has simply just nothing to do with that.

Hope to have clarified some things towards my personal vision of this problematic.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Maybe in your hypothetical seemingly paradoxical niave and impossible "communist utopia" it is. When I refer to communism I refer to every form that's vaguely implementable/realistic.

This is rhetorics and not arguments.
To put it bluntly, you don't have the competance to decide what is implementable/realistic.
Neither have it for that matter.
The question is if one is open for the possibility of the progress of humanity or not.
I don't think I am the naive one here.

It's different for every man, that's one of the many reasons why communism doesn't work.

Sorry, but no. This is why a society based on confomity doesn't work.

No incentive? There's plenty of incentive for the poor! Money certainly is an incentive. As for the rich, I say if a parent wants to provide for their children let 'em!

Am I right when I presume that you don't know much about how it is to be poor? I don't bother to go further into this, but I will just confront you with a dilemma. In today's capitalist dominated millions of people are starving or wasing their lives in sweatshops. How many of them, given the opportunities, could have utilized their talents to advance mankind? Think it over...

I don't disagree, but that still doesn't give me time to read him.

If you don't disagree, then why did you write this:

Anyways, the last few folks who have consulted Marx seem to have majorly screwed things up...

And if you don't have that time, why do you enter a discussion about things you are uninformed about?

There's a certain level of social responsibility toward them sure, as pure capitalism is not that beneficial, but that doesn't negate the fact that communism is pretty much by nature fascist.

This doesn't make sense at all. And define fascism, please.

To put it simply, greed. Greed (and laziness) are the basis for modern economics because we know them to be true. The process of evolution results in organisms that are prone to self-preservation, as those are the ones that survive and pass on their genes. An important aspect is that organisms evolve to do things with the least amount of energy possible, as it is part of self-preservation.

Communism, however, is based off of pure altriusm. I admit that there are evolutionary pressures that encourage altruistic behavior as it results in the survival of the group, but not to the extent that communism requires.

We are not discussing the views modern economy has on human nature, but rather human nature in general.
Which is quite a complicated topic,where both natural and social sciences have important knowledge to contribute.
And I don't know from where you got the idea that communism is based on pure altruism.

--- if you don't have to do something, oftentimes you won't do it. It is only when incentives are added into the equation that you will be coerced into an activity. For instance, you probably don't want to do your paper for your Government class, but if you are faced with the incentive of wealth as a result of good grades (which result in better employment; the disincentive of poverty as a result of bad grades, which result in worse employment can just as well be considered), then you are more likely to do the paper.

There is incentive, but there is also motivation. A lot of things we do does not carry any financial or social reward, but is done because we find the task interesting in itself or because we care about something or somebody else. It is only in a hierarchical society based on economical competition the incentive part is valid, and even there a lot of things we do will be done for the reasons just mentioned.

I also want to ask everybody this: where has Marx or any other champion of egalitarian socities stated that in said societies individuality, creativity and pleasure should be abolished?
And does somebody still confuse being equal and being identical?