Communism--I just don't get it.

Great Debates
161

What percentage of these resources do you feel sit around unused? Corollary question: what, in your opinion, is the average time said commodities sit around before being used? Or don’t they get used at all as a regular state of affairs?

Describing how it is currently doesn’t answer how it will be allocated in a communist society.

Nor did I say it was. Even if I grant that some products are scarce due to artificial restrictions (say for instance a corporation making only a small amount of a commodity available in order to inflate the price) or because of political reasons (the India example you provided) or even due to incompetence (lousy manager…) I find it extremely hard to believe that all (or even a significant amount of) commodities are scarce for those reasons. Do you have any proof whatsoever that commodities in general (and I’m not just talking about subsistence level resources such as food, clothing and shelter) are sufficient to meet worldwide demand?

I’m not saying anything of the sort. What I am saying is that not all realestate is equal and that there is a greater demand for some parcels then for others. In other words, prime realestate is scarce. Everyone can’t have it.

Essentially the sticking point here is standard of living. If we were so inclined could everyone in the world be provided with some form of shelter, food, and clothing? I believe so. If we were so inclined could everyone in the world be provided with a standard education and decent medical treatment? Not in the near term. Perhaps in a long while (I may be pessimistic here but even setting that as a goal 100 years hence seems recklessly optimistic). If we were so inclined could everyone be provided with Pentium 4 3Ghz personal computers, Ferraris and penthouse apartments on Long Island? Never.

So Olentzero, just what standard of living are you saying the communist society should maintain?

Grim

162

I don’t know. Researching those numbers would take more time than I have at the moment. The India article, however, does show that resources do go unused, more often than not because an acceptable price can’t be gotten for them.

While it’s true that some resources may be finite even in a communist society, that’s no reason to assume that the amounts would be the same. The limit of, say, coal mined per year is limited by the fact that the mining companies don’t want to mine too much - if they mine more than they can sell, they begin to lose money on the venture- through payment of wages and upkeep of machinery, for example. Communism, being based on meeting need rather than generating profit, doesn’t seek to limit the amount of product available for consumption but to produce more than is needed and to set aside the rest for future use. Given that there are resources that will at some point run out, people might decide it’s a good idea to divert technology and research into exploring the use of renewable resources and lessening dependence on non-renewable ones. They might even occur at the same time - mining coal to keep things running now, while others explore ways of fueling and heating that don’t depend on coal so more of it doesn’t need to be dug up in the future.

No, again because such research would take more time than I have at present. A simple look around you ought to be more than sufficient, however - if we can build cities the size of Los Angeles, New York, Paris, London, Delhi, Beijing, and Tokyo and keep them running for the better part of a century (or more) without hearing so much as a peep about a worldwide shortage of stonemasonry, steel, glass, asphalt, cement, plastic, rubber, copper, or what have you (not to mention regular recurrences of mass starvation throughought the developed world) - then I’d consider it a safe bet there’s more than enough of everything to go around.

Now you’re falling back on equating the scarcity of a portion of a commodity with scarcity of the commodity in general. Just because everyone can’t have “prime” real estate doesn’t mean everyone can’t have a warm, dry and safe home to live in.

Add the word “decent” in there and we’re more or less in agreement.

Absolutely we could, and in much less time than that. If the US spent as much on primary and secondary education - and decent subsidies for post-secondary - as it did on the military, this country could have a top-notch education system.

Well, not everyone wants all those things (although I’m quite sure we could do a decent job of furnishing the world population with really good computers.

One in which people’s needs are met to the fullest possible. A society geared to producing to meet human need is more likely to achieve that goal than a society geared towards meeting only the demand than can pay an acceptable price.

163

are you being intentionally obtuse? You argued that “eventually, a creative person like Alex will be smothered under layers of mediocre goo”. I gave you a counterexample in the real world. In the entertainment industry, at least, this happens all the time to creative people.

164

Bolding mine…

The bolded portion is conjecture. You state that you don’t know the amount of resources that go unused yet you seem to take it as a matter of course that the amount will be enough to fulfill degree of current demand. If your stance is that unused resources are a proximate cause of scarcity then it would behoove you (or another communist sympathizer) to research that information. This would be of especial importance if this were a fundamental consideration as to the availability of goods when planning a communist society.

This still says nothing about allocation. Yeah, communism attempts to create a surplus, but when shortages occur (and they inevitably will) how are the resources allocated?

This seems to be saying “Since there seems to be plenty of stuff around me there must be enough for everyone”. Your subjective evaluation of the amount of “stuff” around doesn’t have any relevance when determining the scarcity of a given commodity.

This goes directly back to my question about allocation. Who gets the “prime” realestate? How do you allocate it?

Even though everyone may not want these things they would certainly be in a higher demand then the available supply. The ol’ allocation question again.

Sure. And if the US spent it’s entire military budget on researching ice cream flavors we’d have some pretty damn tasty ice cream. In either case allocating the military budget towards ice cream or the educational system would not be feasible. I can’t imagine a likely scenario where a strong and well trained military would not be necessary.

This has as much detail as the statement: “Capitalism, being more efficient, is more likely to provide the world’s needs then a society based on a command economy.” In other words, it’s pretty empty. Hypothetical: What if, by a magic wave of my wand, I could create a communist society. Furthermore what if it was determined that the best standard of living possible under this form of government was very much substandard to that of current day industrialized nations. However, everyone was “equal” in the sense that they all had the same (poor) housing, food, clothing, education and health care (all substandard). If this was the fullest extent to which communism could provide for the masses would it still be the form of government you would advocate and if so why?

Off the top of my head there are two broad categories that most of my objections fall under. Social and economic. Leaving the social aside for the moment some of communism’s greatest flaws are it’s efficiency, resource allocation, and commodity distribution. Currently we’re tackling allocation and in particular the question of scarcity but that’s only because the conversation has led in this direction. Fundamentally the question of scarcity relies on efficiency. The more efficient the production and allocation process the less scarcity is an issue. The question therefore is “Has communism shown itself to be at least as if not more efficient then capitalism with regard to the utilization of resources (both material and personnel) and creation of wealth?”. It is up to the proponents of communism to prove that is so and to date it simply has not been done.

Grim

165

I think this would be a mistake. The larger the organization the more inefficient and the slower it is to come to a consensus (depending on the question a consensus may never develop thus deadlocking the issue). However, I’ll use your vision of the structure for the purposes of framing my questions.

I’m assuming that his factory will have workers and departments which are specialized towards their given task just like current day companies are (i.e. Shipping, Marketing, Design, etc.) and that Alex & Friend run the day to day operations as well as organizing work between said departments. Based on this:

however it sounds as though the “board” does have a fairly significant role in the day to day running of the factory.

Just exactly where is the line drawn regarding who (Alex or the board) has the authority to make a given decision?

A few more questions.

In the society of Bob would it permissible for the tourist to return with foreign goods (purchased with the foreign currency allocated to him/her while they were abroad) and then to trade those goods with his fellow citizens?

Does private property exist? Or is it only companies and “means of production” that are considered to be collectively owned by society (i.e. your home is in fact yours, as well as “your” clothes, books, etc.)?

If there is no private property is there such a thing as theft? Can I simply walk away with someone’s favorite scarf and say “Hey, it’s my scarf too!”

Is bartering allowed? Let’s say I despise chocolate but have a sizeable store due to a well meaning but uninformed aunt. Can I trade that for a product more to my liking and at a rate that I and the other person in the transaction agree on?

Grim

166

No, you’re being a lousy debater. What happened was:
[list=1]
[li]cainxinth described “Bob”, using the phrase “social credit.”[/li][li]I challenged “social credit” as an undefined term[/li][li]You asked if the phrase “Clear channel” meant anything to me[/li][li]“Clear channel” in fact doesn’t mean anything to me. I assumed it was a phrase that had appeared somewhere in the description of “Bob”, though I didn’t feel like searching for it.[/li][li]On the assumption that both “Social Credit” and “Clear channel” were undefined Bob-isms, I asked for definitions of both.[/li][/list=1]

You introduced the term “Clear channel” without providing a link or even a description which was, frankly, kinda dumb of you. I’d never heard of “Clear Channel” before today (I hardly need point out that I am not American, as my location field indicates), and from little I can glean from reading their webpage as well as www.clearchannelsucks.org, I can’t see how they’re relevant to this thread. There is HUGE difference between blocking one person (or company) from monopolizing an industry and setting up a society where nobody owns anything (i.e. the oppressed, mind-numbed and vodka-addicted citizens of Bob).

The main complaint about Clear Channel that you (wrongly) think is relevant here is that CC programs mediocre music and talk shows in order to maximize market appeal. This is entirely different than having a governmental agency programming mediocrity in order to stifle dissent. If the market demanded a massive amount of radical listening material, CC would have to provide it or risk going out of business. You’re blaming the shepherd for the complacency of the sheep.

If you want to bitch about Clear Channel, you may as well start a new thread just on that.

In conclusion, I’m not obtuse, but your posting skills could be improved. I could follow your example and introduce counterexamples by name only, and then accuse you of being obtuse because you didn’t know what I was talking about, but that would pointless. In future, if you want to introduce a fact into an argument, at the very least, write a sentence or two explaining what the fact means and how it is relevant.

167

In Bob, all gifts have to be approved by a neighborhood Gift Committee, and you will have to show a “need” certificate (issued by your municipal Needs Committee) before you can be alocated your chocolate. After all, you can’t be allowed to have a luxury like chocolate until the national Food Allocation Committee is satisfied that all basic food needs have been met.

So, to get the chocolate you didn’t want in the first place requires a three-year waiting period and multiple documents filed in triplicate with various worker-run agencies.

After that, you can barter to yourt heart’s content, but don’t get caught, as Black Marketeering is a capital offence in the Worker’s Paradise of Bob.

Big Bobby Is Watching You!

168

True larger committees are slower to consensus, but I think ubiquitous networking as well as predetermined tie-breakers (e.g. business persons with top 10% social cred who work in Alex’s industry) would expedite the process. The board plays a strong role in that they have final say as to what company policies are best for Bob, but Alex and his management team are responsible for day to day operation. Ordering new parts within the project budget doesn’t require special authorization, but big problems do. For example say assembly line 4 is producing an abundance of defective widgets, Alex wants it investigated, but first he dispatches a memo to the board members electronically with a deadline for a decision to authorize new resources for the study.

I’m not sure exactly where the demarcation between the authority of a CEO like Alex who is trying to produce a product and his board which is looking out for Bob is, but I think it makes the most sense that Alex be given just enough leeway that he can run the company efficiently without putting overly extensive resources of Bob at his sole discretion.

In Bob there is no private property, but there is what I’m going to call limited personal property. If you want a cashmere scarf and you have the social cred authorizing you for one, you can go out and pick one up, and while you are authorized for it no one can take it from you. However, you don’t own the scarf, it belongs to Bob, you can’t heir it to your children, or trade it to someone for something else.

As for foreign goods, they also ultimately belong to Bob because you paid for them with money from the World Bank fund built with Bob exports. But, like the scarf it is your limited personal possession so long as you keep your cred up. Given your chocolate example I think bartering makes sense, however to prevent a black market from forming I think Bob should act as an intermediary. You can bring your chocolate to Bob and exchange it for something else.

169

When Bob acts as an intermediary between 2 citizens who wish to trade does Bob only do so in order to facilitate the transaction and to prevent a black market? In other words, does Bob let the 2 citizens set the exchange rate (12 oz of chocolate for 2 pairs of socks, one pillow for a pair of beach towels, etc.) ? Or does Bob determine how much chocolate a pair of wool socks is worth?

Grim

170

[hijack]

Bryan, nothing personal but you’re being a little overly defensive here. All sides of this debate, Marxists, capitalists, and utopian nutjobs like me are talking civilly, but you make repeated condescending remarks at anyone even slightly opposed to you. I’m not trying to cramp your style, I’ve read some of your other posts and I can see you have a naturally biting sense of humor, which I like, but Ludovic didn’t do anything wrong. You choose to make a comment based on a poor assumption. We all do it from time to time, lord knows I get called on it weekly. Suck it up and move on. We’re all friends here.

[/hijack]

171

Grim_Beaker:

No, the ranking citizens of Bob determine the social cred worth of all goods and services based on demand, its usefulness to Bob (a garden rake keeps Bob clean so its cheaper than a tennis racket which is used for personal enjoyment), and I suppose it’s relative worth in capitalist nations could be a factor as well.

172

Capitalists are horrified by piles of dead bodies?
American railroads were built by (for) communists, using slave labor?
Wow, Duncan, your grasp of history is worse than mine.
I’m trying to put some sense to these arguements, and you throw me a curve like that.
Thanks, bud. :smiley:

173

Well… that doesn’t quite answer my question cainxinth. Let me try again. I realize that the ranking citizens are going to put a social credit price on commodities. What I’m asking is if I want to trade chocolate (an item I “own”) to another person for socks (an item they “own”) am I only allowed to trade if the social credit amount of the chocolate is equal to the social credit amount of the socks (or whatever it is I’m wishing to trade for) as measured by the ranking citizens?

If for instance, I really wanted the socks, would it be ok if I offered more chocolate then the ranking citizens said the socks were worth? (i.e. Bob says the socks are worth 10 credits and I want to offer 12 credits worth of chocolate since I want them so badly… brrr! My feet are cold!)

Grim

174

Bob has no secret police so I think if you and your friend worked out a mutually satisfactory deal the state would overlook such a minor transaction. However for bigger things, like a car that was given as a graduation present from your stinking rich grandfather Alex, inventor of the all-purpose widget, you have to return it to the state to exchange it.

This also brings up the question of how to deal with rare or unique items, like a signed baseball card. I think all the individuals with a cred line to afford it should bid on it with community services. If a rich old coot wants that card he has to bid 40 hours reading to sick kids at the children’s hospital, etc.

Your questions keep fleshing out Bob in greater detail. I think at this point we can say Bob is a mostly decentralized, communistic democracy without private property, where personal prestige and wealth is accrued by pursing collectivist goals, creating an unusual form of meritocracy, and where policies are in place to encourage social responsibility.

175

If the state doesn’t have secret police, how is it going to know?

I can’t remember where I heard this, but it seems appropriate to this discussion: The people who advocate a communist state always seem to be the ones who think that, come the revolution they will be the ones with the clipboards telling everyone else what to do.

Olentzero: Economics in general has as its whole purpose the allocation of scarce resources. If we all had everything we want, we wouldn’t need organization at all. There isn’t just scarcity of raw materials - there is scarcity of labor, scarcity of intelligence and education, scarcity of finished goods, scarcity of talent, etc. Not everyone is a genius, and not everyone works as hard as others. These qualities are therefore scarce, and need to be allocated.

Without a price system, the only way to do to it in the end is at the point of a gun. And not only is that despicable, it’s horribly inefficient.

176

I would think labor would be the commodity of the highest scarcity. Particularly for unpleasant jobs, as we can’t all be writers, poets, artists, social theorists, etc. For that matter, where would these folks be in the social credit scale, and why?

Labor is what makes raw materials finished products, and has an intimate relationship with wealth. But it requires a motivation. It doesn’t seem realistic to me to expect people to perform less-than-pleasant tasks without a personal reward. I’m afraid Sam Stone’s “at the point of a gun” comment may have to apply here…

177

Poppycock. I’m not being defensive because I’m not actually defending anything: I’m merely picking apart the many flaws in your hypothetical model of Bob, as well as your claims that it was quasi-plausible. Not that it matters, really, since whenever confronted with a design flaw in Bob, you seem happy to make up new and equalliy implausible solutions. You response the striking garbage collectors is a case in point: the garbage collectors get their four percent, and everyone is happy and no-one else goes on strike. Ridiculous.

As for Lodovic, the bad assumption was initially his; namely his assumtpion that I would be familiar with “Clear Channel”, and then implying I was obtuse because I wasn’t. We are not all friends here, because I accept such bullshit from no-one.

And you and I are certainly not friends, because I can’t accept as a friend someone who would seriously argue in favour of slavery while calling it social justice. Communism on a national scale is demonstrably unworkable and all attempts to implement it have been nightmares. Arguing otherwise will always invite attack from me.

Nothing personal.

178

Bryan, this isn’t deserving of anymore bandwidth in this thread, but if you still feel the need to defend yourself the pit is always available. The last thing I’ll say is, you didn’t take the time to look up a term you were unfamiliar with, incorrectly assumed it was something I wrote, and then you snapped at Lodovic for calling you on it. Granted, he could have been more tactful, but you’re not exactly mister tact yourself.

And frankly, I’m not terribly concerned with what you think of a hypothetical society I was toying around with on a debate message board. It started as a what if and I thought it would be interesting to see how it panned out. I’m somewhat pleased with it actually, the idea of connecting personal and communal incentives is a concept I haven’t explored. If that’s a reason for you to count me as your enemy or some melodramatic blather so be it, and good riddance.

179

You’ve said nothing that would compel me to defend myself. I have some interest, however, in challenging communist ideas (or any other extreme philosophy with a proven bloody record)whenever they are presented in a rosey-eyed unrealistic fashion. At heart of such ideas is the notion that all citizens’ control over their own lives should be taken away from them for their own good, and that’s something I will challenge… well, pretty much as long as I live, actually. Accusing me (wrongly) of being defensive does not increase the amount of evidence for your position.

Don’t flatter yourself. I’m challenging your stated views, not your personality. If you ever got into a position to implement those views in a manner that started to dimish my freedom, then you’d become my enemy.

180

**

We should give this social credit a name. One unit of social credit could be called a dollar. 1/4 of a social unit can be called a quarter, 1/10 of a social unit can be a dime, 1/20 of a social unit can be a nickle, and 1/100 of a social unit can be a penny.

**

Why is it worth more and who makes that determination?

**

So basically I’m not free to toil for myself. I am put on this earth to give unto Bob. Bob determines how much of my own labor I get to keep.

**

So I can’t just take a big bundle of social credits and stick some in the g-string of some stripper? What good does social credit do me if I can’t use it for goods or services?

Marc