Communism: what is it?

[De Selby]

Continued from the McChrystal thread, the question is whether it is more accurate to say:

If you look at the theory of communism, it would work out very well. You have to have a population of programmed robots though. Once you insert humans and emotions like greed into it, you have the real world communism that we have seen over the last 75 or so years. Sadly, the proponents all want to try it again, because "we just need to change this one thing..." and before you know it, you have another million dead people.

Or

No, Communism is stupid, even in theory. It's akin to a theory of aviation that assumes gravity causes apples to float above the Earth's surface.

And to consider whether most negative comments about communism in theory are grounded on, we'll, actual communist theories.

What do we think folks?

[Fitz]

I'd say the burden of proof lies with those who would defend the theory of communism and it's potential "workability" in the face of all the evidence to the contrary

[De Selby]

I'd say the burden of proof lies with those who would defend the theory of communism and it's potential "workability" in the face of all the evidence to the contrary

I would agree with that, but no one really is arguing the workability of it.   Fistful had called Ben on saying that in theory it might be great, and I think that, at least in theory, it isn't so awful.  

The reason I question fistful is that my understanding of its theoretical goal is a situation where:

....The end game is for people to choose freely what they'll give to others and who they'll spend their time on, without laws or coercion to force them into economic activities they don't volunteer for.

I think there's certainly an argument to be made, but I'm not convinced that most who make the argument actually understand the theory and like to see some details.

Details being those as to how it's stupid, even in theory.  

[ArfinGreebly]

One of the predicates of communism is that disparity of ability is "unjust" and produces unjust outcomes, thus the old canard, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

An assumption built into this is that opportunity is zero-sum in nature, meaning that if person 'A' is availed of some opportunity, then that opportunity is unavailable to person 'B'.  This is adjudicated as "unfair," and the imbalance of the outcome must be redistributed for "fairness."

The obvious logical fallacy of this viewpoint is, however, completely lost on the faithful.

This biases any system implementing it in favor of under-performance, as the incentives of excellence are lost.  Well, stolen, actually.

And if there were nothing else at all wrong with it, that alone would doom communism.

[Ben]

Isn't that more along the lines of Marxism and "scientific socialism"? Which really to me is an implemented society of producers and looters, or even if started with good intentions turns into a society of producers and looters.

My understanding of the philosophical theory of communism (or communalism), versus the political construct and its many offshoots,  is that it's more akin to a closed, harmonious system of skilled producers sharing goods and services, similar to an Adhocracy.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Isn't that more along the lines of Marxism and "scientific socialism"? Which really to me is an implemented society of producers and looters, or even if started with good intentions turns into a society of producers and looters.

My understanding of the philosophical theory of communism (or communalism), versus the political construct and its many offshoots,  is that it's more akin to a closed, harmonious system of skilled producers sharing goods and services, similar to an Adhocracy.

For the philosohpical side, it actually can and does (at least according to some hippie communes) work on a very small scale with a small group of people.
However, it rarely seems to survive multiple generations.
I think that if the group is small enough, that everyone knows everyone, social pressure can act as a check against the failings we've seen on the larger scale attempts.
For such a group, as a personal choice to live under such arrangement, it's fine and can be functional. As a large scale, government implimented system, it fails everytime.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

when the best "success" you can tout is cuba you gotta call it a failure

[drewtam]

The words communism and socialism have changed definitions over the past century, but I think the original Karl Marx definitions were no private property and everyone just magically continues to work for the common good (communism); and an intermediate step of state ownership of the means of production (socialism).

For the philosohpical side, it actually can and does (at least according to some hippie communes) work on a very small scale with a small group of people.
However, it rarely seems to survive multiple generations.
I think that if the group is small enough, that everyone knows everyone, social pressure can act as a check against the failings we've seen on the larger scale attempts.
For such a group, as a personal choice to live under such arrangement, it's fine and can be functional. As a large scale, government implimented system, it fails everytime.

Even then it didn't work so well for the early american settlers from England. They wanted to create a new Christian community based on shared property. Even though it had immense powers of social and religious pressures to bring to bear within a very small and tight nit group, it still failed miserably and the settlers quickly learned to return to the English system of ownership and property laws. This episode of failure is tied to the Thanksgiving tradition of the east coast Indian nations rescuing the settlers from starvation.

In addition, the example of the nuclear family as a quasi-communal state falls apart because one of the adults always takes a leadership role; in good cases it is a captain-first officer kind of relationship. Which is more akin to socialism (oligarch - state ownership) or benevolent dictatorship (aka monarch, pharoah, etc).

[BlueStarLizzard]

when the best "success" you can tout is cuba you gotta call it a failure

I'm not counting that. Still way to big.

There is a "functional" commune in Green that has survived since the 70's.
I put 'functional' in quotes since I'm pretty sure they (or rather their memebers) get a signifigent amount of government funding.
However, if they wern't a bunch of dirty hippies and had a source of actual income, i'm guessing it would work for them.

And it still supports my point. A classless system inwhich everyone contributes to the commen good can only work in a small group where everyone knows everyone else.
Once any degree of animity is reached within the group, it stops working simply because it's much easier for people to "cheat" when they are not known by and don't know everyone who they will affect.

[kgbsquirrel]

I'd say the burden of proof lies with those who would defend the theory of communism and it's potential "workability" in the face of all the evidence to the contrary

I think I would have phrased it a bit differently...


The supreme evidence showing an ideology to be inherently flawed is that its existence can not be supported under any form of objective logical or factual scrutiny, and must instead be enforced through deceit and murder.

[Perd Hapley]

What I meant by my comment is that Communism is tragically mistaken about human nature. The same way the Wright brothers would have been tragically wrong if they thought they could just get up into the air and float there.


OK, just saw the question that De Selby asked me in the other thread. I read a bit about Communism several years back. Maybe 1998 or 2000, or thereabouts. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject. I didn't read Das Kapital, exactly. I am aware that Marx expected the government of a communist state to eventually "wither away," as the new Communist men learned to be shiny, happy people holding hands. I guess that's the part of Communist theory where you're finding Karl Marx and Ron Paul to be brothers from other mothers.

But there's your big difference. Marx's theory starts with force and regimentation, and leads (supposedly) to some happy anarchy. The Ron Paul theory (if I may call it that) seeks to reduce the force and regimentation to suitable levels by, well, reducing the force and regimentation to suitable levels.

So, yeah, Communism's theoretical end game is not so objectionable. Marx just picked a bone-headed way to get there.

[Ben]

What I meant by my comment is that Communism is tragically mistaken about human nature.

Exactly.

[TommyGunn]

Communism: what is it?

A blight upon humanity.

[Regolith]

[MechAg94]

What I meant by my comment is that Communism is tragically mistaken about human nature. The same way the Wright brothers would have been tragically wrong if they thought they could just get up into the air and float there.


OK, just saw the question that De Selby asked me in the other thread. I read a bit about Communism several years back. Maybe 1998 or 2000, or thereabouts. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject. I didn't read Das Kapital, exactly. I am aware that Marx expected the government of a communist state to eventually "wither away," as the new Communist men learned to be shiny, happy people holding hands. I guess that's the part of Communist theory where you're finding Karl Marx and Ron Paul to be brothers from other mothers.

But there's your big difference. Marx's theory starts with force and regimentation, and leads (supposedly) to some happy anarchy. The Ron Paul theory (if I may call it that) seeks to reduce the force and regimentation to suitable levels by, well, reducing the force and regimentation to suitable levels.

So, yeah, Communism's theoretical end game is not so objectionable. Marx just picked a bone-headed way to get there.

And you hit upon another old saying there.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  Or as the same fallacy put another way, the ends do not justify the means. 

[Jamisjockey]

I'm not counting that. Still way to big.

There is a "functional" commune in Green that has survived since the 70's.
I put 'functional' in quotes since I'm pretty sure they (or rather their memebers) get a signifigent amount of government funding.
However, if they wern't a bunch of dirty hippies and had a source of actual income, i'm guessing it would work for them.

And it still supports my point. A classless system inwhich everyone contributes to the commen good can only work in a small group where everyone knows everyone else.
Once any degree of animity is reached within the group, it stops working simply because it's much easier for people to "cheat" when they are not known by and don't know everyone who they will affect.

A commune is a voluntary thing. 

[SADShooter]

To expand a bit on fistful's salient point: Any ideology which neglects to adapt itself to human nature, in permutations such as self-interest, love of family, pride, inter alia, is doomed to failure. Long-term behavioral & social conditioning (e.g. Europe) can somewhat mitigate this effect, but not eliminate it. Communism/socialism fails in its presumption that human nature can be engineered to a subjective perfection, whether by persuasion, coercion, or violence. In short, communism and other collectivist philosophies are perfect governmental models. For perfect humans. Since we'll never see such, the theoretical dispute is meaningless.

[Ron]

The means of achieving the communist goal were first distilled into ten points or planks. In many ways the political battles we have been fighting have been battles against those who insist on applying those ideas to the American system.


1-Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2-A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3 -Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4-Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5-Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6-Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7-Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8-Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9-Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.

10-Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.

[makattak]

In short, communism and other collectivist philosophies are perfect governmental models. For perfect humans. Since we'll never see such, the theoretical dispute is meaningless.

NO. No. No. No. No. No.

EVEN if the incentive problem and the human nature problem did not exist, communism still cannot work.

Markets provide something more than just incentive to work for your fellow man (Adam Smith's "invisible hand.")

Markets, and specifically PRICES, provide information that a communist society does away with.

Let's say you want to make sure everything is divided equitably and those who have the greatest need get the items they need the most.

How do you measure their "need"? How do you quantify the fact that Family A is hungry but REALLY dislikes peanut butter while Family B is not quite as hungry (how do you measure that?) and also dislikes peanut butter (but maybe not as much as family A).

If you need to distribute peanut butter, who do you give it to, how do you make that decision?

Even in a commune the size of a small town, who would gather the information about which family likes what? Who would distribute the food "equitably"?

And that's just the problem of food. Let's say we have perfectly honest people. The people themselves cannot tell you how much they dislike (or like) every concievable good compared to someone else because every person's opinions are only held within their own minds.

You can't measure "like and dislike"... unless, of course, you make people pay for what they like and dislike. Then they have to measure how much they like or dislike certain goods against every other good. (That's what prices do.)

A communist economy can't do that. EVEN with "perfect humans".

[Ben]

The means of achieving the communist goal were first distilled into ten points or planks. In many ways the political battles we have been fighting have been battles against those who insist on applying those ideas to the American system.

But again, these points are within the construct of communism as a political and/or governmental construct. Communistic philosophical theory, I don't believe, has any "enforcement planks". It's all supposed to be shiny people voluntarily living that lifestyle. Marx, et al. are the guys that came up with the idea that communism was where it's at and we're gonna make you conform so that it works, and if you don't conform, we'll punish or kill you. Which is why communism never ended up working, even in the "Great Experiment" closed system of the USSR. Replace people with automatons in a computer simulation and a communist based simulated community gets along fine.

I've heard it said that all political philosophies are flawed, but that Republics, like ours, are the least flawed because we know about and accept the flaws, and take human nature into account and work with it. Part of accepting that all humans have natural rights and freedoms. We hold these truths to be self-evident.

[Ron]

That's the rub Ben, nobody is volunteering to be communists so they have to use the power of the state to make them volunteer.

The fatal flaw in communist philosophy is the unrealistic view of human nature.

With the degradation of our natural rights or rights endowed upon us by our creator into nothing more than social constructs; we will see the implementation of USSR style social engineering upon the masses here in the USA.

The end will justify the means with the crowd running the show currently. They are the One, the One who will do it correctly.

They are the Ãœbermensch and they will legislate the weakness and flaws out of society through their benign rule. Or else.

All animals will be equal, except for those of course who are more equal.

The Pigs are running the show, you must not question but work harder.

[SADShooter]

mak, I'm not asserting that communism could ever perfectly allocate to market demand. I agree that it cannot. I'm suggesting that for our (again, subjectively) "perfect humans", market considerations would be irrelevant, or at least unconsciously/willingly subordinated to the greater needs of the collective. Our families would willingly eat the peanut butter, because in so doing they serve the interest of the state which allocated it to them, which is more important than any individual want or preference.

Again, communism as an ideology can work perfectly if, and only if, tpeople become other than they are, and where ideology is more important than economic principles. I suppose I'm also arguing that communism is a political ideology simultaneously masquerading as economic theory, because the two can't effectively coexist.

[Ron]

Humans being what they are I think there are only two real types of "pure" government philosophy.

Most real governments exist in a continuum somewhere between the two.

A government that exists to protect individual liberty.

A government that sacrifices individual liberty so the governing elite can spread the wealth around and attempt to socially engineer favorable outcomes, all through force.

[makattak]

mak, I'm not asserting that communism could ever perfectly allocate to market demand. I agree that it cannot. I'm suggesting that for our (again, subjectively) "perfect humans", market considerations would be irrelevant, or at least unconsciously/willingly subordinated to the greater needs of the collective. Our families would willingly eat the peanut butter, because in so doing they serve the interest of the state which allocated it to them, which is more important than any individual want or preference.

Again, communism as an ideology can work perfectly if, and only if, tpeople become other than they are, and where ideology is more important than economic principles. I suppose I'm also arguing that communism is a political ideology simultaneously masquerading as economic theory, because the two can't effectively coexist.

That's great. However, as I said, it can only work at especially small levels for even that case.

With "perfect humans" how do you decide whether the syringe suppler for the neo-natal unit or the ambulance producer gets the next marginal shipment of steel?

My point is that even at especially low levels, you cannot distribute equitably. Once you try to aggregate to an entire economy, the lack of a price signal dooms production and you end up killing babies because you wrongly gave the ambulance manufacturer the steel that should have gone to the neonatal syringes.

[longeyes]

What is Communism?   It's a branch of entomology.