Communism--I just don't get it.

Great Debates
61

Well, yeah, but that’s how it works.

Communism is pretty much a religious concept. It is prophetic- Communism will replace Capitalism eventually, just as Capitalism inevitably replaced Feudalism. It requires a lot of faith. A true Communist state is just about incomprehensable to us. Once you are no longer alienated from your labor, your whole paradigm shifts until your way of percieving and living in the world is completely changed to something we can barely imagine right now. It will give us a kind of freedom we have never never known

62

Absolutely not. The replacement of capitalism by socialism (and its evolution into communism) is the outcome of the struggle between social forces. Same for the replacement of feudalism by capitalism. This requires organization, militancy, and solidarity - in other words, conscious effort on the part of those seeking change. Socialism won’t just come about if we sit around and wait for it. The working class has to bring it about.

63

Interesting story about the failure of communism under authoritarian regimes:

A high school history teacher of mine used to tell a funny story about communal farms in China under Mao. Apparently, massive farms with industrial equipment supplied by the state were failing to meet or just making their quotas. Meanwhile each farmer was permitted a tiny plot of land in front of their home to cultivate after work, and any harvest went directly to their family. As you can imagine those tiny plots were being put to maximum use the pseudo-private farms were producing far more per capita than the communal farms.

Anyway, the funny part is that Mao didn’t think the problem was that the farmers were unmotivated to work for the good of the state; he thought birds were eating up all the crops! So he instructed farmers all over China to wake up at 4 am every morning for a few weeks, go outside, and bang drums and pots and pans together causing small birds (which have tiny, fragile hearts and high blood pressure) to drop dead from heart attacks. Without the birds the insect population boomed and crop yields dwindled to almost nothing prompting China to embarrassingly buy grain from the US.

This is the story as I recall it, I couldn’t find a definitive cite linking the bird extermination with the farming problem so take it with a grain of salt; funny nonetheless I think.

P.S. I always thought Star Trek style communism was cool. There’s no money, technology makes sure everyone eats and doesn’t go cold and whatnot, and everyone works for the good of humanity and for personal satisfaction and prestige. If we could do such a thing tomorrow I would be on board. Until then… every man for himself, and you first after me! :wink:

64

wait wait wait-

This is a fascinating thread. In fact, one of the better ‘serious’ GQ threads I’ve read in a while. More informed discourse than one finds even on public radio.

That said, the was mention of a Major Smellie Butler and no one has batted an eye?

Major Smellie Butler?

jb

65

And one with the interesting property that when it’s tried on a moderate scale it tends to crash and burn, leaving hundreds of thousands dead, incarcerated, starved, etc. To work as the true believers hope apparently requires the arrival of some space ship or comet that will cause fundamental and essential changes in all humans.

66

And yet each time they do so it metastasizes into something brutal and virulent that destroys those who are part of it, those who are trapped within it, and ultimately itself.

67

Actually, that’s Smedley Butler…

68

Interesting what constitutes “proof” to some folks. The reason some people see it necessary to fight communism is that it has a definite appeal to people who haven’t thought it through completely, or who wish to ignore human nature in favor of imagining how things could be if everyone would just cooperate. I don’t like the “communism = evil” tactics used to fight it, but they sure as hell don’t constitute proof that it’s superior.

69

From my limited understanding of communism - the wealth in ideal communism comes from the capitalism that came before.

The capitalism sets the stage for the communism.

70

I thought no one was going to mention the One Crucial Fact but then slipster (finally) did. The One Crucial Fact is that Karl Marx’s view was that the state would eventually wither away.

There is no theoretical reason why communism has to be a dictatorship, and it’s a shame that all communist regimes have been. Once the state has withered away, we would be left with anarchism. Anarchism is the truest form of “government”. People who consider themselves communists just haven’t got the balls to go all the way and establish an anarchist framework.

An anarchist society would have to be divided into small groups of, say, 60 000 in each group as some people in this thread have noted that.

Those people who say communism doesn’t work are right but that is because communism is just half-assed anarchism. Communism is only doing half a job, so of course it is bound to fail.

The full beauty of communism would only be realised once it flowers into anarchism. However, the communist stage of development is too dangerous because it temporarily places the reigns of power into the hands of the ruling committee.

This is why no communist regime has ever progressed into the kind of society envisaged by Marx - because, whatever happens, you cannot trust people to wield absolute authority even for a short time.

The only solution is to establish an anarchist framework immediately without the intervening “communist” stage. This is where Marx was wrong. There is no need for a “temporary” communist stage and we cannot risk it.

We have a couple of historical examples of situations where anarchism has been attempted and on each of these occasions it has worked perfectly well but on each occasion it has been put down by outside fascist forces. The two examples I’m thinking of are the Paris Commune in 1870 and Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War 1933-36.

So whilst communism has been shown to have failed, the only historical examples we have of anarchism show that it works but that it needs to be strong enough to defend itself.

Anarchism could never degenerate into a dictatorship because the dictatorship is the exact political opposite of anarchism. Anarchism is even further away from dictatorship than democracy is. Democracy gives you a choice of two or three different parties representing two or three different viewpoints, anarchism means there as many different viewpoints as there are people.

ps I also noticed Major Smellie Butler

71

Lobsang:

So, capitalism provides the golden eggs and then communism comes in and kills the goose? What do all those happy little commimes do when the golden eggs run out? Go back to capitalsim again and hope the goose can be resuerected? Or maybe they live off golden eggs from those countries smart enough to stay capitalistic in the first place.

Don’t be fooled by people who think human nature is maleable and you can create some sort of Homo communistensis by gov’t mandate.

It’s no accident that communism has only existed under a dictatorship. No democratic country would keep communists in power for any length of time.

72

Anarchism, communism, libertarianism. I always have trouble distinguishing between the three. All, in their purist forms, depend upon universal selflessness. (Testosterone just won’t allow that. ;))

73

John Mace No, the capitalism establishes the money making systems (corporations and such) then communism takes over and channels the profits back into the collective pockets of the population.

(as opposed to the pockets of the few imorral corporate bosses)
The corporations stay in place, communism lasts in a kind of equilibrium.

(from my limited understanding, again)
And (I do not mean to suggest that this should be moved) but I am surprised that this has stayed, for so long, in GQ. I would have thought it would be moved to GD quite quickly.

74

Now that’s just not fair, John Mace. :stuck_out_tongue:
Communism, as defined here, is a very narrow concept. Capitalism isn’t. To really compare the two you have to assume an ultra-capitalist government. No social programs, no bridges or roads without tolls, no free health care at all, a prison pretty much as we have now. You get my drift.
Peace,
mangeorge

75

Yes, I’m surprised this is not in GD…

So, those “immoral” corporate bosses keep working so that wealth can get channeled back to the masses? I’m surprised you haven’t seen the flaw in your logic yet. I guess you imagine some sort of stasis, where all the hard work is already done and we just sit back and reap the rewards. The problem is, you have to provide people with rewards to work even to maintain the status quo. Without insentive, people slack off. It’s just human nature. It’s a falacy to think that only progress requires hard work. You’d still have to work damn hard just to keep our society at it’s present standard of living.

76

People keep throwing around the phrase “human nature.” What exactly is that and can you prove it even exists?

77

** John Mace**

No, the " “Imorral” " bosses are replaced by people who are willing to do the job knowing that everyone is happy.

That might have something to do with the fact that I am enjoying myself via the gift of alcohol. What is the flaw in my logic?

I do not imagine a situation where all the hard work is done. You are too quick to assume Joun Mace. I imagine a situation where people are happy to do the hard work, and to continue doing the hard work until they die.

I imagine a system where people are happy that everything is controlled because it means they get what they want, and everyone else gets what they want.

I value happiness higher than freedom. I value happiness higher than financial wealth (which is drastically overrated)

78

Also I think John Mace is failing to appreciate that in much of the so-called Non-Western World collectivism is of higher consequence than individualism. Too many Americans and Western Europeans assume there is a universal conception human nature when in fact it’s a hotly debated idea.

Take Weber’s theory of the Rational Actor: According to him we are all similar in that we seek to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Commonsensical to the point of stating the obvious to a Westerner, but not as cut and dry to someone from Japan or Indonesia where their pleasure and pain is inextricably intertwined (say that three times fast) with the pleasure and pain of their families, communities, and even nations.

79

Humans are also as lazy as they can be. That is because humans are mammals, not insects: That is, humans can make a decision to work or to not work, and humans display a preference to not work as long as something else doesn’t override that. That `something else’ could be boredom or social pressures or ingrained traits related to early home life, but it must upset the individual enough to throw him off his genetically-programmed path of least work.

Communism falls flat on its face for neglecting the above fact.

80

Is laziness a universal human trait, or just an extremely common one? What about stupidity, fear, or short-sightedness? Every human probably posses them, but to different extents and with different cultural relevancy. IMHO, communism was simply ahead of it’s time. Give us another century or two and we’ll make it work.