Communism - utopia or not?

[Djordje]

Title and the poll says it all - I would like anyone to argument his answer to the poll.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Djordje

[Mr Skeptic]

Communism is great in theory. In practice, there are several difficulties such as that the people in control tend to have a larger share of the wealth, and depending on how you implement there is little incentive to do any work (or to do productive work as opposed to easy work).

[CaptainPanic]

Communism is great in theory. In practice, there are several difficulties such as that the people in control tend to have a larger share of the wealth, and depending on how you implement there is little incentive to do any work (or to do productive work as opposed to easy work).

Meh. Mr Skeptic, that is indeed the classical argument against communism. It's nice to get that in the 1st reply. Especially because I disagree.

 

Under capitalism the rich have become far richer than under any commie regime. The only difference is that capitalism applauds such achievements (even if it wasn't through hard work), and it seemed hypocritical under a commie regime.

Also, in our capitalist system there are plenty of lazy people who aren't exactly motivated to move up the ladder. They just do their 9-5 job, and rush home as fast as they can, and will definitely not work a single minute extra if it's not necessary. People who turn on a flash-game on the computer when the boss isn't watching, etc. That's quite a similar attitude to what you describe.

 

And in the same time, there are people who choose to earn less to do what they like to do - like myself. So the reward isn't always a good motivator to work hard.

 

Personally, I think that utopia cannot exist because we humans will always desire something else and something new. But a different distribution of wealth wouldn't be a bad idea. Communism is too much to one side (too equal), and our current system is too far to the other side (too unequal). I'd like to move back to some less extreme capitalism.

[thinker_jeff]

How do you define "communism"?

 

In reality, I don't see the standard model for the society of communism. The kind of Soviet Union disappeared. The kind of China is still changing, which they call it "under reforming".

 

 

 

[Djordje]

How do you define "communism"?

 

In reality, I don't see the standard model for the society of communism. The kind of Soviet Union disappeared. The kind of China is still changing, which they call it "under reforming".

 

 

 

 

Communism = classless society, with equality, peace and ownership of the means of production by workers.

Soviet Union wasn't communism and neither is China.

 

(...)

Personally, I think that utopia cannot exist because we humans will always desire something else and something new. But a different distribution of wealth wouldn't be a bad idea. Communism is too much to one side (too equal), and our current system is too far to the other side (too unequal). I'd like to move back to some less extreme capitalism.

 

A workers' self management system perhaps?

Edited March 23, 2011 by Djordje

[thinker_jeff]

Communism = classless society, with equality, peace and ownership of the means of production by workers.

Soviet Union wasn't communism and neither is China.

If this is your communism, I should vote: yes, it is utopia.

The reason is due to human beings because they are imperfect. There are always someones trying to gain their advantage in the system so that the system cannot work as you wished.

Soviet Union made some changes to overcome this problem, but they failed.

In China they realized the serious problems in the system so that they are trying very hard to modify it.

[lemur]

The ideal of communism is a utopia in the sense that everyone works happily to contribute to the good of all and conserves for the same purpose. Ironically, this was also the original goal of capitalism: i.e. 1) produce as much as you can to make as much money as possible and 2) spend as little of your money as possible to save and re-invest in getting even richer. Both strategies basically pursue the famous Marxian ethic, "to each according to his needs and from each according to his abilities." The difference is that communism involved abolition of private property while capitalism maintained private property as a motivation to strive and save for the future.

 

The most striking example I've heard of communism in practice is that if you are driving in Cuba, I am told, you are required to pick up hitchhikers because the car belongs as much to them as to you. Theoretically, the person walking would only hitchhike if they were really in need, because it would otherwise be a waste of your effort (not to mention brakes, tires, and gas) to stop to pick them up. Likewise, you would probably not be driving in the first place if you could walk to whatever you needed to do. But what are the chances no one would abuse the right to appropriate public property for less than rational reasons? Probably about as high as the chance that individuals under capitalism maximize productivity, efficiency, and savings in the most rational, self-denying sense. In all economic systems greed, waste, short-sightedness and other irrationality, etc. impair attainment of maximum social-economic good; not the system itself.

[Djordje]

If this is your communism, I should vote: yes, it is utopia.

The reason is due to human beings because they are imperfect. There are always someones trying to gain their advantage in the system so that the system cannot work as you wished.

Soviet Union made some changes to overcome this problem, but they failed.

In China they realized the serious problems in the system so that they are trying very hard to modify it.

 

The dictatorial of the proletariat is there to make 'em a bit more perfect - educate kids from the earliest days, give lots of money to good workers etc. and punishing those who want to gain advantage/exploit others.

[lemur]

The dictatorial of the proletariat is there to make 'em a bit more perfect - educate kids from the earliest days, give lots of money to good workers etc. and punishing those who want to gain advantage/exploit others.

Is that like when unions fine people for doing work above, beyond, and/or outside their contractual call of duty? And is "giving lots of money to good workers" a reward system for submission to union "management?" This doesn't sound much different than authoritarian capitalism except class-distinctions are denied and management is off-limits for critique because it is supposedly of the proletariat for the proletariat. Or am I misinterpreting?

[thinker_jeff]

The dictatorial of the proletariat is there to make 'em a bit more perfect - educate kids from the earliest days, give lots of money to good workers etc. and punishing those who want to gain advantage/exploit others.

Now you are modifying your definition of communism. That was what Soviet Union did; however, it created a new class above the worker class.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ecoli]

Under capitalism the rich have become far richer than under any commie regime. The only difference is that capitalism applauds such achievements (even if it wasn't through hard work), and it seemed hypocritical under a commie regime.

 

The US is about as far away from capitalism as it is from communism (ok, maybe a little closer to being capitalist but you see my point) so your point is fairly moot.

[mississippichem]

The US is about as far away from capitalism as it is from communism (ok, maybe a little closer to being capitalist but you see my point) so your point is fairly moot.

 

Couldn't agree more. The problem here in the US is that we want to "have our cake, and eat it too". We tax people like a libertarian capitalist state would, yet we also try to fund massive entitlement programs that are due to run dry here pretty soon. My opinion on "capitalism vs. communism" aside, the current trend in unsustainable. We should either ramp up the taxes and fund our entitlements (not my preferred choice, but would work), or cut taxes further and make draconian cuts to entitlements.

 

This unfunded mandate nonsense has to stop. Democrats unashamedly support these entitlements, (hey, honesty counts for something right?), while the Republicans are just empty "budget-mongers" who give face to libertarian capitalism but won't touch their holy idol: medicare. We need to just pick a side. I'm a belligerent libertarian capitalist (don't throw tomatoes yet please ), but I would be more content with a socialist welfare state than this nasty hybrid system we have now which obviously isn't going to cut it. Economics 101 shows that this system is doomed to fail ab inito.

 

By the way, can anyone give one example where a purely Marxist state achieved a quality of life even near that obtained by the capitalist western world? I'm defining quality of life in terms of GDP per capita. If not, what is the point of any economic system besides maximizes productivity? Is communism all done in the name of fairness? I find that to be an ill defined, shallow, and frankly unattainable goal.

Edited March 23, 2011 by mississippichem

[lemur]

I'm a belligerent libertarian capitalist (don't throw tomatoes yet please ), but I would be more content with a socialist welfare state than this nasty hybrid system we have now which obviously isn't going to cut it. Economics 101 shows that this system is doomed to fail ab inito.

Is it possible to have socialism or communism without it basically elevating corporatism further above individuality? The one thing I like about capitalism (at least in theory) is the individuality possible with private property/control of resources (including oneself). It seems to me that communism makes individuals subordinate to the proletarian collective, which is supposed to over-ride the individual's will to even have their own thoughts about collective interests, let alone their own prerogative/freedom. Personally, I am for non-corporate capitalism or at least a form of capitalism that limits corporate activity to the minimum necessary for industrial efficiency. I am also for individuals being able to express their own will with regard to corporate work. I can understand the mentality of individuals coordinating their activities to achieve certain goals "collectively" but it's when the "collective" becomes a rationale for suppressing individuality that it really becomes oppressive, imo.

[Djordje]

Is that like when unions fine people for doing work above, beyond, and/or outside their contractual call of duty? And is "giving lots of money to good workers" a reward system for submission to union "management?" This doesn't sound much different than authoritarian capitalism except class-distinctions are denied and management is off-limits for critique because it is supposedly of the proletariat for the proletariat. Or am I misinterpreting?

 

The rewards and prize for good workers should serve only for education and improvements - by good workers I mean those who willingly do their best. Those who do not wish to contribute should look at them as examples of what they should be. I am perhaps a bit radical, but frankly I don't see any other way to achieve a better life for all of us.

Communism was the first system to exist and it worked well though people had no idea what they had and did nothing to keep it.

[lemur]

The rewards and prize for good workers should serve only for education and improvements - by good workers I mean those who willingly do their best. Those who do not wish to contribute should look at them as examples of what they should be. I am perhaps a bit radical, but frankly I don't see any other way to achieve a better life for all of us.

Communism was the first system to exist and it worked well though people had no idea what they had and did nothing to keep it.

My sense is that there is within capitalism a culture of work-subjugation that basically views submission and obedience to authority as being a good worker and deserving reward. To me it is like a behavioral reward system you would use to train animals, but it seems to be exceedingly popular among the people who flourish with it. It is ironic to think that capitalism emerged from protestant ethics like the ones published by Thomas A Kempis (I think in the 15th or 16th century) where he says that submission to an employer should be whole-hearted (Imitation of Christ). I suppose that's what people think they are doing when they stop thinking critically and just do what they're told or what others expect of them, but to me this ethic results in the most senseless economic activities.

 

Uncritical submission to social expectations of work is where I think any economic system goes wrong. It is like the moment where the workers proverbially "sell their souls" because they give up critical creative voice in their economic contribution. I don't see anything wrong with engaging in economic activity with social responsibility in mind. It's when people are stuck in a system of behavioral rewards and punishments for (dis)obedience to collective authority that it becomes a problem and this happens as easy with capitalism as with communism. I just think capitalism holds more potential for liberating individual critical thought and will power from collectivism because of the emphasis on respecting private property. Of course, corporatism usurps this value to subjugate individuals to corporate property and management by reference to collectivism, similarly to communism, imo.

 

Ironically, I think Marx himself viewed individual creative control over her/his labor as a value that he viewed as being undermined by worker-alienation in industrial capitalism. What I don't understand is why he advocated forward progress of capitalism into totally collectivist communism, since that would seem to only further alienate individuals from control of their own labor. Maybe he thought that if the workers would own the means of production, they would not try to control and subjugate each other the way owners/management does. Imo, workers exercise most of the repressive social-control in workplaces, and the unions are a formalization of this. Socialist governments coordinate union control with manager/owner control by adding government control to the cocktail. I guess all this is making me sound libertarian too. I'm not sure what libertarianism all entails, but I just think economic activity should be emergent from the individual level (ground-up), should be non-exploitative, and I think the rational values that emerged under protestant capitalism, such as individual work ethic, saving, and frugality (avoiding unnecessary spending and waste) are all means for achieving good, both individual and social.