You’ve got it backwards. First you make people do what you tell them because if they don’t, you’ll fucking kill them with this here sword* . Then and only then can you start trying to make them believe it’s what God wants, too.
*(or fucking fire them and then they’ll be bums and starve)
Communism can work in a few specialized situations. One common example is within the average family. Nobody expects that what each family member receives will be based on how much income they bring into the family. The parents will earn the vast majority of the income and the children will be receive things they didn’t pay for - that’s classic “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” And the management of the family will not be democratic - the parents are the informed elite who will make all the major decisions about how the family is run.
But trying to run a general society on these communistic principles won’t work. It certainly never has in any of the countries which have tried it. As the OP said it goes against human nature. When people’s rewards are seperated from their efforts, most people will not willingly put forth anything above the minimal effort. Barring rewards as an incentive, the only way to motivate most people to work is to use coercion and the threat of force.
And any ruling elite, regardless of whether it’s a hereditary aristocracy or a council of workers, will generally tend to put its own interests above those of society in general.
After over 160 years, you’d think that Marxism would have had enough time to be tested, but the way communists distance themselves from the mass murders, from the dictatorships, from the move to capitalist economies, from the crushing of personal freedoms, and on and on and on, it looks like the poor dears have not had the opportunity to test their belief. That, or it has been tested and found gravely lacking.
It isn’t. While you were fairly on target by inserting the word ‘incorrectly’ into my original phrase, there was no grounds for making the leap to concluding that I call it ‘fake communism’. Calling it communism/socialism, fake or otherwise, rests on the assumption that as a communist, I think there is something defensible or worthy of emulation in those countries’ systems. I don’t.
So now we have yet another squabble over what is and is not a communist country – Olentzero-communist v. non-Olentzero-communist countries.
Yes, well we saw where that led to – millions of deaths. Which brings us back to the question of what is it about communism that lends itself to ruthless dictators, deadly mass purges of its own people, and famine?
It’s unfortunate, the previous question asking about how the extraordinary attributes of the “working class” bypasses the human desire for power remains unanswered. Instead we waste time over the basic mechanics of English word structure and syntax. The phrase “fake communism” is nothing to be offended by. Let explain why.
I know you think it isn’t. That is exactly why I called it “fake communism.”
You said it’s wrong to leap and assume you call it “fake communism.” This isn’t a valid complaint. We don’t need you to literally call it “fake communism.”
The “communism” part of the phrase does not mean it’s approved or endorsed; it’s simply a reference point for something previously said. The key modifier is the prefix “fake-“
Modifiers such as “fake-”, “false-”, “non-“ prefixes are conveying negative meanings of “not real”, “opposite”, or “reverse.” Instead, if I had called it “semi-communism” or “half-assed communism” or “incomplete communism” you might have something to gripe about. “Semi” and “incomplete” are much weaker modifiers.
If a forgery painter creates a counterfeit “Mona Lisa”, it’s perfectly acceptable (and very convenient, and very accurate) to call it the “fake Mona Lisa.” The “Mona Lisa” embedded in that phrase does not mean it is endorsed by Leonardo or any legitimate museum curator. It’s doesn’t connote any redeeming quality about it. It’s simply a reference phrase not an approval phrase. See how the mechanics of English works?
How else could we describe the counterfeit painting without the words “Mona Lisa” in the label? Do we use long-winded tortured phrases such as “the painting that is approximately 77cmx53cm that closely matches the painting completed 1503-1506.” What normal human beings or news broadcast would talk like that? We need reference points as substitution. The longer phrase is not any more precise than the short and sweet “fake Mona Lisa” – in fact, it’s more ambiguous and confusing!
To use your own example in post #29, you reworded Sage Rat’s comments as “process” and “ingredients.” Sage Rat could have nitpicked this as “putting words in his mouth.” He never said “process ingredients.” Thankfully he didn’t torment us readers over such pointless minutiae. Sage Rat as a courtesy has to let you use synonyms or reference point phrases to avoid monotony and long-winded sentences. This is how we converse in normal fashion.
Anyways, the question remains: Why is the working class immune to power consolidation and abuse? Many dictators came from humble beginnings (the “working class” in other words.)
I’m just as afraid of a strongman birthed by a mob of burger flippers exterminating every one he doesn’t like just like I’m afraid of Hitler. (I hope you don’t respond with “don’t put burger flippers in my mouth” – we’ve just been through that syntax exercise.)
Most folks just want a burger in their mouth, and if they don’t get it, mobs will rise, be it through Lenin’s Bolsheviks (professional revolutionaries who organized and mobilized the mob), or through Hitler’s brown shirts (see his 25 points that included nationalization and commercialization, and look at how Strasser and Rohm mobilized the mob by promoting working class socialist activism). Once in power, the nomenklatura rule the working class, rather than the working class ruling themselves.
communalization, not commercialization (I screwed up with the spell check)
Mmmmnnnyeah all right, I see your point. It still sticks in my craw, but it might as well be labeled ‘fake communism’ as anything else for purposes of this debate. Fair enough.
Because, unlike other ruling classes that have come before it, it does not depend on building a society based on the economic exploitation of another class. Capitalism depends on the labor of the working class in order to produce for the market (which is not efficient; else why are there unsold goods that are eventually disposed of?) to increase profits for the few at the top of society, whereas socialism and communism depend on the labor of society as a whole to meet the needs of society as a whole, not just those who are able to pay for it (a phenomenon acknowledged and described by capitalism as ‘effective demand’). Power consolidation and abuse only occur if there is a lower class to economically exploit; it is only logical to conclude that if a society is organized and built by the lowest class of the preceding society, there can be no one else to exploit when that class takes power. This is not to say that there was no exploitation in Stalin’s USSR or Eastern Europe or Vietnam or Cambodia or that there is no exploitation in Cuba or China or North Korea; this is to say that the exploitation anyone with half a braincell can point to in those countries is a clear indication that the systems in question are/were not socialism or communism. As far as I am concerned, if you want to debate the merits or faults of the political theory, there are damned good reasons to reject Stalin’s USSR/Eastern Europe/Cuba/China/North Korea as concrete examples of socialism or communism and proceed from another basis entirely.
So you believe that all the many attempts at communism have reliably metastasized into something else (something evil) - but “this time for sure” with your scheme?
Perhaps you can excuse the rest of us our lack of enthusiasm for this apparent triumph of hope over experience.
Nope. As I’ve noted in this very thread, there was in general nothing to metastasize from in the first place with the exception of Russia, and that because of external circumstances, not because of the application of Marxist theory. North Korea, for example, was the result of US/USSR wrangling over the peninsula and the consequent weakening of society overall, rather than a victorious working class uprising going horribly wrong. (Even Wikipedia confirms Kim Il-Sung came into power through the machinations of Stalin rather than anything close to resembling a socialist revolution on the peninsula.) Top-down political change. Diametrically opposite to what Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky wrote about and championed. Not anything close to approaching socialism or communism from Day One. Not even an attempt. Period.
I want to make some clarifications/statements:
In Marxist theory Socialism is the stage between Capitalism and Communism (the classless society), just to to correct that mistake. Of course, Communism as a theory existed long before Marx. People tend to conflate socialism and communism, which is understandable.
Socialism traditionally means the social control of the means of productions, mostly that the workers control the means of production. Communism (the theory) is a believe in the eventual classless society. Communism (the political ideology developed first by Marx then Lenin and so on) is much more specific as to how that classless society should be reached.
This is sometimes interpreted (by almost every actually-existing socialist country) as the government controlling the means of production. The government being in the hands of whatever party is there. The Party is then claimed to be the representative of the workers, therefore the workers control the means of production through the Party, at least in theory. I would argue that the Party does not represent the workers, but that’s just my opinion.
The political system in most of the countries held up as examples of communism are simply one form (interpretation) of communism, mostly Marxist-Leninism. It seems the most effective at gaining power, but also the most repressive/authoritarian.
Another interpretation of Socialism is the direct control of the means of production by the workers. Lenin even talked about the difference between nationalization and socialization, though in practice he and his successors had trouble differentiating this.
This interpretation implies nothing of the political system (democratic, authoritarian, etc.) and can exist in most if not all types. In Tito’s Yugoslavia, a lot of the factories were directly worker controlled. In Franco’s Spain (or Mussolini’s Italy) cooperatives were encouraged and thrived. Worker’s Cooperatives thrive in the US and Western Europe.
There is also no definitive answer on the question of markets. And there’s a whole section of socialist theory called Market Socialism.
My main point is that one can be a communist (and especially a socialist) and still denounce actually-existing communist countries and believe that communism can come about without the baggage of NK, USSR, PRC, etc. This is not to say that Olentzero has shown that his interpretations would not lead to such a situation.
Finally on human nature. The only truth about human nature is that it changes often and is varied enough to be meaningless as a support for almost anything. Most people tend to embody all aspects of what can be called human nature to some extent (good/bad, love/hate, altruistic/selfish). The argument always seems to be: the majority of people in this place and time do/ have done this or that therefore that’s human nature. (e.g. People is capitalist countries act in the logic of capitalism). Ultimately people only tend to use examples that support their position.
So what motivates people to produce in a communist society? Let’s say I’m a plumber. I can go out and work on toilets for eight hours a day. Or I can stay home and play video games. I prefer playing video games to working on toilets. And I get paid the same either way.
So why am I going to go out to work on toilets?
Faulty assumption. Even back in 1917 one of the main slogans was “If you don’t work, you don’t eat.” Production is a necessity for any society, and socialism/communism is no exception. The difference, however, lies in what socialism and communism aim to achieve as opposed to capitalism; the former seek to create a society with a permanent surplus of goods so that nobody needs to work if they choose not to while at the same time making work so easy and pleasurable that people want to anyway. Capitalism, on the other hand, only seeks to produce what it can make a profit from and, unless forcibly compelled, doesn’t care about working hours or conditions, which is why we end up with attitudes like your hypothetical plumber who (understandably) would rather stay home and play video games if he can get away with it. Give him a job where there’s a challenge to design a plumbing system that cuts down on household water usage and maintenance time, offer him a decent standard of living in exchange, and see if that has any affect on how much gaming time he’s happy with.
Look, Olentzero, if you believe the real-deal social revolution is yet to come, what is to come after? I mean, nuts and bolts. How are the results you describe to be achieved? A centralized state-run economy, or a federation of autonomous collectives, or what?
So the difference is that capitalism motivates people to work by the promise of rewards and communism motivates people to work by the threat of punishment? And the system that threatens workers with starvation is the one that supposed to be set up for the workers?
So let’s get this straight – a communist plummer uncloging the shit out of a toilet is a happy plummer, whereas a capitalist plummer uncloging shit out of a toilet is not a happly plummer.
Which of course is why the people of the People’s Republic of China hand over their surplus of goods to western capitalists rather than chosing not to work.
I hear that the People’s Republic of China is considering universal health care.