hhmmm… good question… its hard to separate political and economic aspects… but I’d say that communism gives you way more control than regular fare totalitarianism, which can be bad or good depending on the situation.
Like the previous poster put it... extreme control of resources always ends up looking like communism. Nazi Germany at war would be more "communistic" than otherwise possible.Again, I don’t think it was communism, per se, that gave the control…it was the iron hand of Stalin that did it. Or the iron hand of Hitler in Germany’s case. Certainly Hitlers Germany didn’t resemble Stalins USSR in anything BUT the totalitarian aspects of its government…no way you could really say that their economy’s were similar, or that Germany was REALLY communist…just the opposite in fact. Same goes with Mao and China and Tojo(?) in Japan…again, two VERY different systems, but alike in the iron control aspects the government imposed.
-XT
When an authoritarian or wartime gov’t exerts a strong control over the economy though, it starts to look fairly communistic, at least so far as production and consumption being dictated from above. Also the workers and leaders in these countries are often encouraged to work primarily “for the greater good” instead of only making choices out of pure self benfit. This, I think, is why authoritarian and communist regimes often become so hard to distinguish.
The main difference, of course, is that in the case of communistic countries the “greater good” is supposed to be helping out your fellow workers, while in wartime or authoritarian gov’ts it is often a much less noble cause.
No, as I said, the real world ‘open source movement’ is a variant on communism. Code. Software. You copy code, you don’t give it away.
As far as replicators being impossible, they’re mostly impossible. But there’s certain nanotechnology concepts that may duplicate it. A machine that makes ‘seeds’ that are small nanite colonies that make one product only. For example. Only, like, fifty, sixty years away. The point being that it is possible to conceptualize a point in time when ‘from each according to their abilities’ does not beggar those it takes from.
The whole problem with soviet communism was scarcity of resources under highly inefficient centralized control. That, and brutal inhumanity. It’s possible to remove the first case.
I’m going to add to this: The kind of communism that works is that of the ‘motivated worker’. It doesn’t matter how many parasites there are, as long as one motivated worker can keep things productive for all. This means that an exceptionally high tech society can operate as a communism. To continue with my ‘seed’ metaphor… Assuming infrastructure as simple as the internet exists, with each terminal a ‘replicator’ that generates nanite seeds, all that is needed is a single programmer for each new type of seed. Existing seeds can continue in perpetuity. It doesn’t matter how many people do nothing, as long as enough people feel like working to continue progress. And truthfully, those people who would feel like advancing progress would work. Because they’re interested in things.
What was that book, the Diamond Age? Stephenson.
I thought that Marx himself said that communism would only be able to take root in nations where capitalism had run it’s course, Industrialized societies. One of the problems I heard with the USSR was that it was essentially a backwards nation and had never had full-scale industrial capitalism.
Or did I mix something up somewhere?
I agree in general withE-Sabbath’s idea that the open-source method provides an excellent example of people who are “self-motivated”. The problem of course is that its a lot easier to self-motivate yourself to solve interesting computer problems and design something with the participation and admiration of your peers. Its much harder to self motivate to go work in a factory 9-5 to inspect widgets coming down the conveyer belt. E-Sabbath claims this can be solved by having technology do the non-creative production work. Might be possible someday, though probably not in the near future.
Just to add, I would really like to see someone else’s idea of how a perfect Communist society would function, with details.
I would like the court to note that “communism” does not necessitate the complete absence of a “free market”… not to mention the reverse, that the lack of a free market does not equal communism (on that I hope we all agree).
On to your question.
The bit I removed was the above quoted “with no free market capitalist nations left in the world”.
My answer to this question rather directly involves removing that line. A communist world (small “c”, you aren’t referring to any specific communist system, of which there are many - any clue how many communist parties there are in the US? A lot) may not be that tremendously different than the capitalist systems we live under now. In fact, we all live under a form of psuedo-capitalism/communism, different countries dividing the line in different places (a “socialist” country like in Europe, for example, may tax 80% but provide health care, housing, etc, whereas a “capitalist” nation like the United States would tax less (30-40%) but require the citizens to purchase goods and commodities from private companies.
A lot of this depends on the style of the communist system you use and - crucially - how much of the “free market” is left functioning. It is entirely possible for a communist system to exist in which companies owned by the state are in competition with each other - either bidding for contracts from the state, or pushing more of their product to the people and being more successful. The main difference would be that the management of said successful companies would not reap what they had sown, the state would. Which leads to the “a communist management system is a negligent one because they aren’t rewarded for doing a better job”, in which case I point you to freely capitalist Russia (or even Iraq, though it is still early there) and ask you how well the opportunity to make money has flourished - right into the pockets of the sembankrshchina (in essence, a few rich and powerful people bought everything cheap at mass state auction and suckered in foreign investment while the factories rotted from unuse).
The system of communism I envision has a fair deal of free marketing, only with high tax rates (certainly no one making over $100,000 a year). Want to see property values drop like .com stocks?
Much the same way “welfare state” economies function.
The question for me is - does the state become the business, or does the business become the state?
I suspect some people’s jobs would be to not have jobs. Or, if you wish, they may join the military services.
Borsch and roast pheasant. What do you think? If there was a demand for a product, a government-owned company would see the demand and produce the product. An opposite of this question is “why would the auto and fuel industries companies invest in energy-efficient, polution-free, electricity or hydrogen run automobiles when they make so much money selling the opposite?” In such a case, a state-run company would have much more motivation to work on a new solution to a problem.
How do they now? Do you think that mega-corporations investing hundreds of millions of dollars into research turn out every new wonder-invention? Or do they just turn out pieces of crap until some kid comes out of college with a nifty idea?
To get assigned to a better job? More money/stock options/stuff isn’t the only carrot you can put on a stick.
Well, your “global communism” idea is absurd in its very essence, but I’ll try to answer this as best as possible. The failure of current and past communist regimes hasn’t necessarily been communism, but the regime. Lenin and Trotsky et al were playing with fire when they started, and they got burned a lot. They were children playing with matches (Marx and Engels, of course, invented the match box). Unfortunately for billions of people, Stalin came and stole their matches. The communist regimes in the Soviet Union, China, Indochina, Cuba, etc were all inherently flawed in the fact that they were/are pretty much all corrupt dictatorships, which doesn’t leave much room for an economy to flourish. Vast sums of money are diverted to stupid projects to glorify the nation while the economy itself is neglected terribly. China is now beginning to make up for their past mistakes, but it will be a long road. I sincerely hope that Cuba gets a shot when Fidel checks in.
Two notes
One problem with your thread concept is that you apply this under a world government, instead of interoperating states. Ironically, a set of communist states would interact between each other with capitalism. For instance, the reason for a given industry to work harder or better would be to outdo a neighboring industry, which would then import product and exchange monies between governments.
Two, this is going to be like post #49 and no one will read it, so nya nya to you all.
Post #49, w00t.
You all seem excessively gloomy about this whole communist thang. Even as an ardent free-marketer, I think theres a more optimistic scenario.
Imagine: The world is under a single government, totalitarian, but benevolent. The state of AI research is up to a point where it is capable to simulating the intelligence of an average person with an IQ of 80. All menial jobs are taken over purely by robotic agents. But, having, foresight, the government can see that if current trends continue, eventually all jobs could be taken over by machines. The government issues a fiat to stop all research on AI and robotic except government sponsered work and the public responds favourably because they trust the government. The government draws up a basic list of human rights which it guarentees to provide, free food, government housing, free health care, free transport and everything else that can be provided soley by machines.
In theory, nobody need ever work again but it reality most people do just because the average human feels empty without a sense of purpose. People set out to work not because they have to but because they enjoy their jobs. At the same time, social education changes the value of society so that “human made” products are preferred over “machine made” ones much the same way as “made in the USA” products are preferred now even if objective measures of quality mean that machine made products are better. Products are valued not so much for their intrinsic quality as much as the social interaction with people who make them. The “neighbourhood” becomes a integral part of peoples lives again, not so much in the geographical sense as rapid transport and virtual reality make the world seem tiny, but in the social sense. You might go to a certain tailor because your family has been going to them for 5 generations. Or have your haircut by a guy who is buddies with one of your friends from highschool.
Eventually, all the trappings and beurocracy of the communist system should aim to fade into the background and become invisible. Even though the government theoretically provides you with shirts, people rarely even need them. More people will become tailors since they don’t need to work a “day job” to support themselves and each tailor will be more productive since all the boring bits of their job are automated. This means that things like tailor made shirts, restaurant cooked meals and the like will all be commonplace and all the official trappings of the communist state can be gradually dismantled.
I admit it’s a bit of a stretch and I don’t see it happening in a country like America. But maybe a country like singapore could pull it off where it seems concern for the general welfare of society is a lot more strongly expressed.
I think Chicago Faucet gave a pretty accurate picture of what a world Communist state would look like if it was founded in a modern society.
The big issue I see is how the lack of a non-Communist rvial would affect the Communist state. On the one hand, there would be no need for diverting production to military needs, so the economy would benefit. But a Communist society does need some form of psychological motivation to function and the threat of an opposing society has often filled this role. It’s hard to say whether a Communist society could function in the long term without some kind of “them” out there.
The only way I could ever see a Communist society realistically working would be in a technologically advanced world. As others have noted, the big problem with Communism is its inability to motivate the mass of people to produce without coercion. But in a technologically advanced society - with advanced automation, nanotechnology, and cheap fusion for example - production might be so easy that it could be carried on by the minority of people who were self-motivated to do so. The majority would receive all their needs without having to put in any work.
Either you don’t understand a free market economy or you are defining it differently than anyone else I’ve ever heard. A free market is one that’s free of government controls…letting the MARKET decide what it will make or not make. Communism by definition is one where the government decides what it will or won’t make, what prices it will set, etc. At least that’s how I see it…perhaps you would like to take a shot at defining your vision of how free market communism would work?
Ya, I think I have a ‘clue’ as to how many communist parties are in the US. I deliberately left the flavor of ‘communism’ open for this very reason…in case it slipped your mind.
I don’t think we live under pseudo-capitalism/communism at all. I’d say we live under a capitalist system with some socialist aspects added. Again, maybe you could define your idea of communism that we are currently living under…I think you are confusing communism with socialism…two different things.
Why would companies owned by the state compete WITH the state for contracts? Where has this system ever operated? Why would the state HAVE different companies doing essentially the same job?? Why would managers be efficient or more productive if they ‘reap what they had sown, the state would’…i.e. why would I, as a manager, WANT to product more or more efficiently if there was nothing in it for me?? What the hell do I care if the state gets more…I’m already getting mine after all. If there are no rewards to me, personally, for doing a better job…well, why would I? And so your system collapses exactly like the other communist states.
Russia is not (yet) a free market capitalist system…and corruption is rampant there. Iraq is not a stable government yet…no meaningful statements can be made yet on where they will end up. They certainly aren’t (again, yet) a free market capitalist system. Give both countries the time it took, say, Japan or South Korea to become economic powers then come back with your analysis…its WAY too early right now to tell where they are going.
Why? Why would a government-owned company NEED to be responsive to demand? After all, whets the reward for being responsive? They aren’t after profit after all. The workers aren’t motivated or rewarded for doing a better job, people aren’t rewarded for being innovated, etc. Maybe you could go into WHY a government owned company in such a system would be responsive to the people…and consider how REAL government owned companies, not just in communist countries, have failed miserably at this in the past…with very few exceptions.
To your ‘opposite’ question: Why would they? Why to make money of course. If it was cost effective to do, and if you could make more of a profit by selling fuel efficient, pollution-free, blah blah blah cars, then you can bet they would making them and marketing them. Unfortunately right now, the MARKET has decided that on a large scale, consumers still want what they are currently buying…which sort of splits the difference. I.e. the market has decided that we want somewhat fuel efficient cars, with some pollution controls, etc.
I fail to see why ‘the state’ would more responsive though…after all, there aren’t any market forces at all. So, they would make what ever they wanted to make without input at all from the consumers. Again, one has only to look at the abysmal environmental record of all of the past (and current) communist states to see this at work. You are trying to say that somehow a ‘free market’ would still exist, but you are saying that the government would control it…a contradiction in terms. You want your cake and eat it too essentially. 
Most new ideas or innovations come from individuals Zag, not huge corporations. Or they come from individuals working in research departments of your ‘mega-corporations’. Big corporations buy or license such ideas, or they work in evolving the technology they already have (i.e. they make their cars more fuel efficient or more powerful, or the engines smaller…they make the operating system with more features, or more secure, etc etc). In YOUR system, there are no rewards to me, the inventor, for coming up with a new operating system or a new innovative revolutionary widget. There is no incentive for your state owned corporation to innovate either…or more specifically there is no incentive for the workers at your state owned company to innovate.
Again, as I said before, it’s not MY ‘global communism’…and I agree it IS absurd. It’s the end product of the communist theory. I disagree that the failure of all the past communist states were because of there ‘regime’ and that, if only a good regime would have come along it all would have worked somehow. It’s a flawed system that could never work in its pure form.
China is now doing what much of western Europe did in the 80’s…they are incorporating just enough of free market economics in order to make their economy work. However, they have opened Pandora ’s Box and is rapidly approaching a wall…eventually something will have to give. Either communism will completely collapse and China will become a hybrid free market-SOCIALIST nation (like many western European nations), or it will have to crack down again to save ‘communism’…in which case they will have to remove many of the things that are making them successful now. My guess is ‘communism’ in China will be going out the door in the next decade or so.
Thanks for your input on this Zag. I’m going to do a socialist or free market thread next week sometime when this thread dies completely…hope to see you there.
-XT
Thats a thought thats occured to me as well. If true artificial intelligence is possible, eventually we will reach a point whereby all goods and services can be provided with no human input whatsoever. Capitalism would break down at this point, and something resembling a communist system would become necessary. I don’t think that a halt on progress would be needed though, why not just see the trend though, so that noone would have to work. It is possible to imagine two economies if this happens - a machine driven one which provides goods and services free, and a secondary one which produces goods/services with (voluntary) human labour. So if you prefer the ‘human touch’ then fine, you would have to work to earn enough to pay for it. If you’re happy with machine goods and services then you wouldn’t have to work unless you wanted too.
But consider this about a vast advanced technological communist society: If you had machines doing all the work and basically let the people have all their basic needs taken care for them, you would eventually lead to stagnation. Who would innovate after all? What would be my reward for doing more than eat, drink and be merry (all of which are picked up on the states tab after all)? Why should I stretch myself or exert myself if there are no rewards for doing such? And if we, as a race, decide to just stand still, eventually this would lead to our complete dependence on such machines…because people would no longer be capable of doing much of anything. Eventually such a system would collapse for any number of reasons.
I think in an advanced technological society, communism would still not be the optimal system…or even work at all in the long run. Sure, maybe for a generation or two things would be great…but eventually the lack of human input into the system, of human innovation or advancement would doom it…and the only way to GET human innovation or advancement is to reward those who innovate or advance.
-XT
Once computers become advanced enough, computers can do the innovating. But, based on studies of lottery winners and other folk who suddenly have the basic needs of survival met, the incentive for work is still strong within us. Not many people are capable of living a playboy lifestyle and feeling truely fulfilled in it.
I will let Zagadka answer his own post, he’ll do better than me. But I’d like to get a few stereotypes out of the way.
I think you should broaden your idea of Communism. Communism by definition is, that the means of production are democratically controlled. There is still private property. There are still free markets. There is plenty of reward for people.
I don’t think that you should limit your outlook to what has only been tried by vicious dictators. At least, if you want a broad and fair discussion on the merits and failures of commununism.
Well, that’s not how I see it.
Because the state sets them up to compete with each other. The best one gets the job. The worst one is out of a job.
Soviet union, aircraft and spacecraft design bureaus. Came up with many neat innovations, too.
The system must indeed make sure that there IS something in it for you. I don’t think that Communism must be automatically interpreted as a system where there never is something in it for anybody. How does that follow from the above definition of communism?
Imagine you are a top notch spacecraft designer. You get to design the coolest space missions. Reward should be obvious.
With free-market Communism, any person (or even bureaucrat) who sees a demand can start an institution to address it. This is just plain entrepreneurship. I don’t see why such impulses wouldn’t be present in Communist society. (Communists think that Communism actually encourages, brings out and nurtures the full human capabilities for entrepreneurship that are suppressed in capitalism. I can give plenty of examples where large corporations have tried to suppress innovation in order to protect profit. You are 100% right that innovation comes from individuals.)
Claritification: I am not defending the former Soviet Union system. Quite the opposite. The design bureau example is only to address the narrow question, of whether the idea of competing government insitutions has ever been tried in history. I think it does illustrate how even a stagnant authoritarian central-planning doomed-to-failure form of “Communism”(?) was able to generate a nontrivial amount of innovation by harnessing competition. (I certainly very much favour competition as one tool for creating incentives.)
The same reason potholes get fixed. In a democratic government the voters will hold the administration responsible for public services. If that service included building cars, then low mileage and standard a/c would be campaign issues.
I will grant the obvious; socialist industries often fail to live up to their theoretical standards. But grant that the opposite is also true: private companies often fail to live up to the standards of a theoretical free market. My personal preference for capitalism is based on the historical fact that it usually works better than socialism.
But some people would want to work, even if this made no difference in their income. If society ever reached a point where all work could be performed by people who wanted to do it, what would be the need for having people work if they don’t want to.