Communism--I just don't get it.

But there are people in small groups within the USA that choose to live a Communist lifestyle and have been reasonably successful. Some seem to have been able to put the theory in action.

Zoe: As in, living in a commune, where everyone shares everything? There’s no reason why it shouldn’t work on small scales… particularly when it’s a group of people who all get to see each other’s faces regularly… and who don’t have a leader who acts as a central controller for all the goods. (If they do have a leader, it’s still easy to smoke out corruption when the group is that small and everyone is that visible.) Aside from the most rudimentary concept of ‘sharing’, I don’t think capital-C Communism and communal living are the same thing.

Lobsang: like I said in my first post, I’d be very interested in hearing some statistics comparing capitalist and communist nations. I think what I’d like to know is how many people are ‘rich’ (they have way more money than they need), how many are ‘average’ (they might wish they had more money, but they can keep themselves comfortable and fed and have access to information) and how many are ‘poor’ (they have to choose between feeding the family and heating the house, or maybe they don’t even have a house).

Cambodia?

Communism, at it’s most basic form, is witnessed on small scale-families where everyone pitches in and helps out with the chores, for example, or in a monastery, where everyone does their share for the good of the community.

However, on a larger scale, as a form of government, it sucks.

Communism is an ECONOMIC system, not a form of gov’t. Most, if not all, communist nations have a totalitarian form of gov’t for the simple reason that communism cannot survive in a free society. Guinastasia hit the nail on the head. It works great for families, but TERRIBLE for countries. Communism essentially makes all citizens slaves of the state. You cannot own anything, not even your own work. What incentive would there be to work hard if all your money essentially went into the communal pot?

And don’t even start with the “it’s a noble system, but people are too greedy” whine. That implies that human nature, itself, is the enemy, to be twisted and tortured in order to fit some abstract system.

On a practical level, though, communism fails because there is no price mechanism. Nobody knows the worth of anything. Capitalism thrives because everyone is free to choose what is of value to themselves.

Buck: Atlas Shrugged is a great book and you should read it. Be prepared for a VERY long read, though. For non fiction, try THE ROAD TO SERFDOM by F. von Hayek. Or FREE TO CHOOSE by Milton Friedman. Both of the last two books are pretty short, but the final one is probably the easiest to read.

Its clear that Communism on a national scale is unworkable under every current system of Barbara we have yet invented. A lot of it does have to do with the profit motive. For example, how many people would seek MBA or Law degrees if you couldn’t make any more money as a business manager or lawyer than you could as a short-order fry cook? How many people would put in unpaid overtime to see their project succeed on schedule if they knew that there would be no bonus at the end of the year, no raise in their next review and that any promotion they got would only mean more responsibility with no increase in salary? How many managers would face one of the most uncomfortable situations imaginable: firing an unproductive employee whom you get along with on a personal level?

However, suppose we had an economy that significantly overproduced, do to our continual application of automation technology. Also assume that there were computer models sophisticated enough to predict demand accurately and provide supply policies that would realistically met. The demand problem would probably not be an issue after a reasonably long time of people seeing the shelves continuously full of whatever they needed (and of course we would still need some sort of quota management system supplies that remained rare). I think it could work. I think a lot of people would apply themselves to their work, because many people want to feel productive and work provides a fulfillment of sorts. Other people can sit and watch television all day, I don’t care.

But to get back to reality. I can’t see how it can work right now. I can’t even see how to get it started anywhere in the near future. In the 1950s is was even more ludicrous than it is today - and then there is everything else others have said. Also, although folks have said this in slightly different ways I don’t think anyone has quite spelled it out: the people with all the money have the loudest voice in this country. It is hard to be heard without cash, because most people are really not interested in hearing anyone. And of course, the people with all the money have the most to lose.

Good grief, I have to get a new spell check. I knew I had misspelled “bureaucracy” in my first sentence above, but I assumed it would pick the correct spelling and not “Barbara”!

This is getting off on a tangent but, despite the cite mandarax Mandarax provides, President Reagan really did say that people would know if Dr. King was a Communist agent in a hundred years.

Yes, he also said we would know in 35 years, and I am impressed that a citation for this was found. This statement about 35 years was made at a press conference in response to a question about remarks Senator Helms had recently made.

As stated above, the remark about one hundred years was made at the signing of the bill making Martin Luther King Day a federal holiday. I recall that there was a show on one of the broadcast networks at the time called The News Is The News. It was modeled after a British program called Not Necessarily The News. Both programs combined reports about absurd and surprising things which had happened in the past week with satirical stories about things which sounded more-or-less plausible but had never happened. One episode ended with a news reader quoting Reagan. I mistakenly supposed that this was one of the made- up stories, and then was astounded when, soon after, I saw a clip of Reagan making his remark on a regular week-in-review program. This is how the remark has stuck in my mind.

Then again, in a way Reagan’s remark was not surprising. This was, after all, the same man who wrote to Richard Nixon during the 1960 presidential campaign and expressed confusion over why more people didn’t realize that John F. Kennedy was a “Marxist”. In short, Reagan was one of those people who used “Marxist” and “Communist” in the “general” sense–it included all of the socialists, and pretty much any capitalists they didn’t like.

Another thought:

As discussed before, for most government leaders in the U. S., denunciation of Communism and public hand-wringing over an international Communist conspiracy during the Cold War was mostly a mask for furthering competition against the Soviet Union for economic influence in underdeveloped countries. At the same time, however, there was a minority of politicians who sincerely believed that the U.S. was in dire threat of conquest by the Soviet Union.

One such politican, evidently, was Ronald Reagan. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act have revealed that, particularly during his first administration, Reagan and his advisors believed that there was a strong possibility of a conventional ground war with the Soviet Union being fought on American soil in the near future.

One weird consequence of this paranoia was the growth of the numerous militia movements around the country. While it was little publicized at the time, and even less remembered today, the Reagan Administration undertook programs to arm and train volunteer militia groups. These efforts helped give birth to the largely anti-government militias which exist today.

Many members of such right-wing paramilitary groups believe that the U.S. is in eminent danger of its own government installing a dictatorial regime. Among the sources for this belief were the various more-or-less clandestine operations the Reagan Administration undertook to draw up plans and otherwise prepare U.S. troops for combat within the U.S., to plan for internment camps, etc. Oliver North even drafted a proposal to place dissidents in camps if opposition to government policy in Nicaragua and El Salvador became too great.

Our policy in Nicaragua and El Salvador during the 80s also serves as a good illustration of the largely bogus nature of the U.S.'s anti-Communist pose. It was claimed throughout the 80s that the Sandanista government in Nicaragua was a repressive Communist regime. While hardly an ideal model of democratic government, the Sandanistas permitted opposition newspapers and independent newspapers. The government in El Salvador, which we were shoring up at the same time, did not.

There was an incident in the mid-1980s where a newsprint shortage in Nicaragua effected the opposition newspapers in the country. The Reagan Amdinistration cited this as proof of the Communist nature of the government there, overlooking that the newsprint shortage was impacting pro-government newspapers as well, and that a Communist dictatorship would not have allowed opposition newspapers to operate openly in the first place. The fact that the El Salvador government forbade oppostion newspapers was, of course, also overlooked.

The Contra movement in Nicaragua which the Reagan Administration financed was composed in large part of people left over from the former Nicarguan government, which the Carter Administration had listed as a major abuser of human rights. In the end the Nicarguan people did not stick with the Sandanista government, but it did not go with the Contras either. Instead a broad coalition government succeeded the Sandanistas. There is a fine irony here, as that coalition included the actual Communist Party in Nicaragua. The U.S. was more comfortable with a coalition government from which it could extract favorable terms for doing business, even one with a minority Communist element, than it was with an agressively nationalist government which pursued the country’s general economic self-interest.

This is purely a personal interpretation, but I suspect that some of this fear of the Soviets and of Communism generally amounted to the expression of an inferiority complex. Many people with deep seated feelings of inferiority make continual, inflated assertions about their importance and accomplishments. It seems to me that some–but by no means all–conservatives do the same thing in continually boasting about the greatness of the U.S. and its system, continually defending it even in the absence of detractors. It is as though they are eassuring themselves that they shouldn’t have these feelings of inferiority about their nation which secretly plague them.

And there is plenty of reason for suspecting that Reagan and many of his closest advisors had a deep-rooted, unspoken fear that America and its system was actually inferior. Documents from the Reagan Administration have shown that the government had produced projections that the Soviet economy–which was actually about a sixth the size of the U.S. economy in terms of gross domestic product, and smaller than Japan’s–was growing so rapidly that it would rank ahead of the U.S. by the end of the 1990s. Similarly, the CIA estimated that East Germany, which was roughly a third the size of West Germany, was outproducing West Germany. After the two nations consolidated, it was found that the grossly inefficient East German economy was only about a quarter the size of West Germany’s.

The U.S. had a long history of making such inflated estimations of Communist nations and their accomplishments. In the years after World War II it was estimated by the U.S. government that the troops in East Germany outnumbered the ones in West Germany by two to one. In fact, they were about equal in number, and it was overlooked that the Western forces were vastly better equipped; the West German army was fully motorized at a time when roughly half of the East German army’s vehicles were drawn by horses.

A faulty statistic, followed by a “no true scotsman.” Nicely done.
:rolleyes:

Cooper, your second graf essentially describes Postscarcity Economics. The whole theory is based around, as you said, relentless automation driving humans out of all jobs that can be accomplished without creativity: Cabbies lose their jobs but not writers, for example. This leads to completely efficient utilization of resources and a massive overproduction of not only everything needed for life, but most luxuries, as well. Filet mignon costs the same as Purina People Chow costs the same as a new Bentley costs the same as a Yugo costs the same as a shack in the woods costs the same as a mansion: Nothing, because production is self-sustaining and no longer profit-driven.

Of course, it hasn’t happened yet, but it just might be the only functional form of Utopian Socialism that’s even possible. Or it might, in some quasi-mystical way related to the laws of nature' and a Lamarckian notion of devolution’, lead to humanity’s downfall.

I agree with furt, Lobsang’s argument is pretty lame.

Also, I’m nowhere near being included in the 5%. But in spite of this we live well. We have a new home in a nice area. We travel and generally have a very comfortable life.

Thanks, in large part, to capitalism even 5% of the American pie is still a butt-load of pie.

I did say the ideal kind, the kind that we haven’t seen yet, not the kind that is evil and isn’t actually communism.

I would imagine that in ideal communism (which doesn’t exist anywhere) there would be a much more even share of the wealth.

Mans ego is to big for communism to work!

If it were simply a matter of worrying about internal pressures causing a revolution and a switch to Communism you might have a point. (Actually, I’m not sure I would buy it even then – the Western governments weren’t the ones building walls and fences to keep their people from leaving.) The fact is, though, that there was a good deal of mutual animosity between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. It is hard to discount Kruschev’s pouding on a podium with a shoe, yelling “We will bury you!”
ProjectOmega said “Simply put, at its base level, communism requires a lack of government.” This is not true. At any rate, it hasn’t been true of any communist government so far, that I’m aware of; they have all relied on central planning, which is necessarily a function of the government.

BuckleberryFerry, I echo some of the advice you have already received: check out the threads that samarm linked to. They have a ton of information.

RR

I think you’re mischaracterizing Reagan’s remark. Helms (and others) had been saying that MLK was a communitst, and that the proof was in his FBI file, which had been sealed for 50 years. The National Archives web site says:

My math says that the unsealing would’ve been 44 years from the time Reagan made the remark, but maybe he was assuming that the 50-year timer began running at the assassintation.

Lobsang:

There might be a more “even” share of the wealth, but you have to create wealth first before you can share it. What is the wealth producing mechanism of communism??? What you end up sharing is poverty. Good luck.

And, BTW, are you sure that “real” capatalism has been tried? Funny how people are so willing to throw out that argument for communism, but not for capitalism.

The incident where Kruschev said “(w)e will bury you!” and the infamous scene where he pounded with his shoe were two different events.

Kruschev made his notorious remark about “burying” us at the so-called kitchen debate. Nixon was talking to Kruschev, Breshnev and a few other top Soviet officials at an exhibit on American consumer culture and Nixon, in a heavy-handed attempt to be friendly, talked about how the U.S. could learn about improving the thrust of rockets from the Soviets and the Soviets, in turn, could learn a lot about industrial development and consumer products from the U.S.

It was a reasonable observation, but it made the Soviet premier uncomfortable, and he appeared to find Nixon patronizing. He began huffing about how the Soviet Union didn’t need any help from the U.S. and was doing fine on its own. The remark about “burying” us appears to have been taken out of context. He appeared to mean that the Soviet Union’s economy was growing quite nicely, thank you, and would eventually outstrip the U.S. Saying they would “bury” us would seem to have been another way of saying they would “leave us in the dust” or “make us eat their dust”.

During the same exchange he also told Nixon that he didn’t know anything about Communism except that he was afraid of it. That zinger rarely gets reported.

The incident with the shoe–at least the one everyone cites–was when he was speaking at the U.N. He had come to urge nuclear disarmanent by his country and the U.S. The degree to which he could have been trusted on this is a separate issue, but the reason he was speaking there at all is a part of the story which tends to be overlooked.

As for the debate over whether Communism requires a lack of government, a semantic issue is complicating the discussion. In the parlance of dialectic materialism, “Communism” is an ideal communal condition to which human society is inevitably evolving. When Communism arrives there will be a land of milk and honey where no government is necessary. “Socialism” is the system which comes just before this eventual utopian state, and prepares the way for it. The Soviets claimed that they were practicing Socialism and that they were doing such a good job of it that eventually the state would “wither away”.

Communists and Faschists both misused the word Socialism in describing themselves because the word has favorable connotations in Europe. In the U.S. the word Socialism is also widely misused, but that is because the word has unfavorable connotations here.

So, Communism is the best socioeconomic system, except that it has never existed, and will never exist? So how do you know it works? If every nation that has attempted to implement communism has devolved into a squalid totalitarian dictatorship, perhaps one might take that information into account when imagining how great communism might be. Of course, next time it will be different. The trouble all those other times was that the wrong people were running the show, like Stalin and Mao. If only we got the right dictators, communism would work. Except, every country that ever called itself communist was a dictatorship. And every dictator, for some reason, was a rat bastard. The reason that dictators tend to be rat bastards is left as an exercise for the student.

You thus seem to be saying that true communism has never really existed, may be unattainable, and the system of government that’s been called by that name is some sort of persistent delusion with a marked tendency to turn evil.

If this is a defense of communism, it’s a strange one.

I’ve been told that on both occassions, Khrushchev was drunk off his ass.