# Kollectivisation: Could it work?? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 21, 2002, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823 "2002-04-21T16:47:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2002, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823/41 "2002-04-22T17:22:08Z")
An anecdote that, to me, kills the ideal of Communism dead: I was in Shenzhen, southern China. My Chinese friend and I were hungry. So I went to a state-run café to get a bite to eat. The café was open, but when I went inside, there was just one guy in there, and he was asleep on the table. We left. We went to another state-run restaurant. “Go away,” said the proprietor. We did. At the third café, the opening times were on the door, and we could see staff inside, but the place was locked. I asked my Chinese friend what was going on. “People get paid the same money if they have customers, or if they don’t have customers. So what’s the point of having customers? Better to discourage the customers from coming in, so you can be at home with the family, or asleep on the table.” We ended up in a new (capitalist) restaurant, where the people cared about making the place successful, and had a great evening. ---
**Author:** ![Komsomol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecc23a/32.png) [@Komsomol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Komsomol)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2002, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823/42 "2002-04-22T18:51:22Z")
Thanx you guys keep the answers coming! (THERE ALL GREAT AT THE MOMENT A PAT ON THE BACK PERSONALLY FROM ME!!!) ---
**Author:** ![ChoosyChipsAndCeilingWhacks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@ChoosyChipsAndCeilingWhacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChoosyChipsAndCeilingWhacks)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2002, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823/43 "2002-04-22T19:33:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > \*\* > > This is a problem in any society, whether it be collectivist, socialist, or whatever. It applies to a commune with 20 hippies, or a nation of 300,000,000 citizens. > > I’m not a sociologist, but I suspect that most societies have a rough consensus of what is appropriate behaviour and what is not. I do not see why this wouldn’t apply in the scenario I have proposed. > \*\* This is simply not true. First of all, the twenty people who get together to form a commune are most likely going to have the same value set and ideals. Whereas some guy in Georgia (or China, or wherever) is less likely to have anything in common with what _I_ believe is “normal” or acceptable. lucwarm, I seriously don’t understand the benefits of such transparency. What would be gained by such a thing? The ability to make sure no one smokes weed in their bathrooms? Seems like an awfully high cost for a very small gain. My opinion is that people will NEVER accept such a situation. No one wants their privacy invaded even if it DOES mean they can invade someone else’s. I don’t give a hoot what that guy in Georgia is doing with his time. And I fear that he might care too much about what I’m doing with mine. It’s absurd. Not to mention useless. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2002, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823/44 "2002-04-22T21:59:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\*Allright, **lucwarm** , let’s suppose your “cameras everywhere” idea is feasible and (somehow) democratic. You have now figured out how to _identify_ the free riders in a collectivisation system. > What you have not yet posited, however, is the **enforcement** mechanism. > In a village-level collective society, there are two tools of enforcement. For first or lesser instances of an individual not pulling his weight, there is social disapproval. For repeated or extreme cases, there is expulsion. > On the nationwide system you posit, social disapproval is useless. What the hell do I care if some bureaucrats 1000 miles away are annoyed at me for shirking? And expulsion won’t work either, because there is nowhere to expell the shirker to. What you are left with is force - do the work, or we kill you/throw you in jail. > \*\* Does collectivization exclude the possibility of paying people to do work? Note that in the U.S. right now, many services are provided by government employees who are paid by means of taxes on the public. (of course, taxation involves force) \*\* > [@](#): > > There is another problem with collectivisation - it only works when the type of vocations available are limited. In a farming community, your option is to be a farmer or something closely related to that profession. In a varied nationwide economy, the society may want you to be a farmer, but you want to be an engineer. How do you get the engineer wanna-be to be a farmer? > \*\* Well, you could bribe him, for one thing. In any event, the question is somewhat academic because, when technology improves to the point where the sort of surveillance I envision becomes possible, it will no longer be necessary for humans to work. All of our work will be done by machines. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2002, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823/45 "2002-04-22T22:12:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Angel of the Lord \* > \*\* > > I see someone who is taking a half hour break, and I think “well, he’s tired, and he’s been a really good worker; I guess I can let it slide just this once.” > > Someone else sees the same person doing the same thing and thinks, “He doesn’t need to take that long; everyone else is only taking a 20 minute break today.” \*\* As I mentioned before, this issue is not unique to global communism. In the U.S. today, we use elections, legislatures, courts, etc. to codify standards of behaviour. Even better means would be available under global techno-communism. \*\* > [@](#): > > . . .Um, I don’t know if you’re getting my point; I don’t want someone watching my most intimate moments. I don’t want someone watching me get undressed. I don’t want someone watching me while I’m sitting at my computer in my pajamas, looking like crap and sniffling so much I feel like my nose is coming off. It doesn’t matter if the person who is watching me is getting a thrill out of it or is just doing his job; I don’t want it. It makes me feel ooky. > > \*\* well, I’m not sure you understand my point. People generally don’t spy on other people if they know their spying will be detected. \*\* > [@](#): > > When I say maliciously, I don’t necessarily mean blackmail. I mean social exclusion, or teasing, or the loss of a job on grounds which are not based in absolute necessity or morality, but rather on the personal whims of those watching. This kind of thing would be impossible to avoid. \*\* I used the word “maliciouly” in a broad sense too. Even the perpetrator of a very mildly malicious act would be known to the world as such. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2002, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823/46 "2002-04-22T22:23:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > \*\* > > In a capitalist society, the problem of shirking is addressed by the “carrot and stick” method. If you work hard, you generally get ahead. If you don’t, eventually you are replaced. Some people are not as capable as others so some people become doctors and lawyers and others become factory workers or secretaries. What makes our system so superior to communism is not that everyone gets the same pay, but that anyone can aspire as far as their ability and ambition can take them. You want to be rich like Bill Gates, go right ahead. Just invent something revolutionary and market it to the world. Nothing is stopping you. But I suppose it is always easier to say “he doesn’t deserve to have that much money, we should take it away from him” instead of figuring out how to get ahead yourself. > > I wish that for once, one of the pro-communist people on this board give a legitimate reason why a communist society is preferable to a non communist society. We have already established that a communist society offers less freedom. So what benefit do we get for giving up our freedom? Better standard of living? Shorter work week? I see nothing to indicate that this is the case. > > \*\* The problem with our current system is that it is unfair. For example, some people are born into and doomed to poor circumstances. Of course it is true that some people overcome these poor beginnings by dint of hard work and a little luck, but many don’t. Also note that many such achievers make use of collectivist elements of society, such as free public schools, libraries, health care, etc. But many people, particularly poor people in the third world, are basically doomed to unfortunate circumstances. Unfortunately, modern society does not (currently) have the wealth or technology to take care of these problems. As **Sam Stone** would probably point out, any attempt (today) at global communism would produce disastrous results. But that does not mean that it’s out of the question for the future. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2002, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823/47 "2002-04-22T22:33:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SexyWriter \* > \*\* > > This is simply not true. First of all, the twenty people who get together to form a commune are most likely going to have the same value set and ideals. Whereas some guy in Georgia (or China, or wherever) is less likely to have anything in common with what _I_ believe is “normal” or acceptable. > \*\* Well, it’s interesting that you and your friend from Georgia live under many of the same laws. \*\* > [@](#): > > lucwarm, I seriously don’t understand the benefits of such transparency. What would be gained by such a thing? > \*\* I see three main benefits: First, transparency will allow the world’s resources to be distributed in an even manner. Second, transparency will allow us to stop the “little Hitlers” of the world. See, people mistreat eachother in all kinds of ways that are perfectly legal. These abuses are condoned because there is basically no way for our current system to address them. And people suffer a lot of psychological damage as a result. Finally, the technology for universal surveillance is coming whether we like it or not. I think that ultimately, we will have to choose between a situation where the powerful monitor the powerless (but not vice-versa), and a situation where everyone can watch everyone. IMHO the latter is a better option. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2002, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823/48 "2002-04-22T23:39:58Z")
I agree with those who said to cut the OP some slack as he sounds young and idealistic. I do not think it is an insult at all. He difinitely sounds like he has _a lot_ of learning to do. > [@](#): > > Kollectivisation can and will work but I need critisism, dissection of how it works and why it can and can’t work So if he _knows_ it “can and will” work why doesn’t he give us a good exposition of his analysis? I say the OP leaves quite a bit to be desired and cutting him some slack for being young is an act of kindness. I am not going to get into the substance of this discussion as I have already participated in several of these in the past and feel I have done my duty and I’ll let others take over. I’ll just point out that you can very easily see how communism works by visiting Cuba or some other communist country. I have been to Cuba and I can guarantee you it gets to be depressing _very_ fast. **Sam Stone** , I just want to correct you on something. How the price system works in a free market for the benefit of society as a whole was examined by [F. Hayek](http://www.hayekcenter.org/friedrichhayek/hayek.html) in his article [The Use of Knowledge in Society](http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Economics/HayekUseOfKnowledge.html) which I quoted liberally in a thread similar to this (maybe the one where someone was proposing a society without money) so I will not repeat here because this thread is deja vu all over again for several similar threads in the past. I highly recommend that article and, of course, The Road to Serfdom, also by Hayek. ---
**Author:** ![Angel\_of\_the\_Lord](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/angel_of_the_lord/32/2949_2.png) [@Angel\_of\_the\_Lord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Angel_of_the_Lord)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823/49 "2002-04-23T02:48:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm **well, I’m not sure you understand my point. People generally don’t spy on other people if they know their spying will be detected.** [/quote] You’re suggesting that there be universal camera coverage for what then? Someone is going to have to be looking at those cameras. And if no one looked at the cameras, then there would be no point to them. If the cameras existed, they would be used. ---
**Author:** ![Angel\_of\_the\_Lord](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/angel_of_the_lord/32/2949_2.png) [@Angel\_of\_the\_Lord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Angel_of_the_Lord)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823/50 "2002-04-23T02:51:48Z")
Apologies for the horrific coding in the last post. :o ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823/51 "2002-04-23T03:41:24Z")
**Sailor:** I wasn’t claiming that Friedman was the originator of the informational problem of collectivism. I hadn’t read that particular Hayek work (thanks for pointing it out), but my copy of “The Road to Serfdom” is well-worn. But these ideas go back even further than Hayek. I believe Claude Shannon touched upon it briefly in his work. It’s been years since I read _The Mathematical Theory of Information_, but I’m pretty sure he said something about it. But certainly Friedman and other, later economists popularized and expanded those ideas. Didn’t someone win a Nobel for his application of information theory to capital markets? I think this is a very fruitful area for criticism of socialism/communism. The informational problems of trying to manage any even remotely large system from the top down becomes pretty overwhelming. It’s interesting that many traditional engineering and management philosophies are coming to recognize this. There is a revolution in the programming world right now with a transition to ‘lightweight’ design, extreme programming, etc. These are attempts to add negative feedback and bottom-up, iterative design instead of traditional ‘waterfall’ design techniques that seek to anticipate, determine and solve all problems from the top down. There’s a direct analogy there to communism vs capitalism. ---
**Author:** ![Demosthenesian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Demosthenesian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demosthenesian)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823/52 "2002-04-23T04:05:11Z")
While I can understand a dislike for Marxism, and certainly don’t advocate the system, the idea that intelligent people can’t advocate in the “real world” is ludicrous. It can happen, it does happen, and it likely will happen, because the basic ideas behind it are interesting, even if they’re flawed as hell. By arguing this, you simply ensure that anybody who is intelligent and who isn’t an “ivory tower academic” will immediately ignore any valid criticisms that you might make. There’s a reason that ad hominems are bad debating strategy. C’mon, folks. Even an incredibly cursory examination of the “communism” of Russia will show that it has little to do with what Marx and Engels (or, for that matter, social democrats) were talking about. The fault can be laid squarely at the feet of Lenin, Plekhanov, and ol’ Stalin himself, who executed most of the communists of the revolution and wrote his own interpretation that he whimsically called “marxism/leninism”. OTOH, Sam makes a good point about the inherent inefficiencies of command economies, although I’m skeptical that it can be applied universally to every aspect of any economy. Even elementary game theory can show situations where markets can fail, and Keynes did a pretty good job of showing that governments do have a role to play on a macroeconomic scale. Indeed, it’s funny that he brought up health care, because that’s one of the situations where market mechanisms are not necessarily a cut-and-dried solution. The sick are rarely dispassionate consumers. (Canada seems to get along ok with socialized medical insurance, and I don’t see a clamour for privatized health care in Europe.) Msmith: If you really want the Marxian reason for eliminating capitalism, it’s because capitalists (according to Marx) don’t produce anything. The workers produce value by labouring on nature or on commodities that other workers have shaped through their labour. (The pencil, as an example: labour is spent on mining the graphite, growing and cutting down the wood, making the tools to cut the wood and graphite with, making the yellow paint to paint it with, cutting up the wood and graphite, assembling them together, and painting it… or on the machines that do it). The workers actually _produce_ something of real value. The what does the capitalist do? He takes it, hires somebody who sells it, pays the workers a wage sufficient to keep them going for another day, and pockets the difference… without actually having produced a damned thing. He didn’t produce any value (under the Marxian system) because all value comes from labour. He just ripped off the difference between what he paid and what he charged. Therein lies the benefit: under the communist system, nobody is ripping off anybody else’s labour. I don’t advocate this particular form of economics, but if you’re going to criticize Marxian political economy and insult everyone who actually subscribes to it, you might at least take the time to find out what it is first. ---
**Author:** ![Demosthenesian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Demosthenesian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demosthenesian)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823/53 "2002-04-23T04:11:55Z")
Sam: Hmm… was that the Nobel won by Stiglitz, Spence and Akerlof for the concept of asymmetric information? Interesting that you brought it up in a discussion advocating Austrian price theory, considering the central issue there was how asymmetric information can pervert price and lead to market failure. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823/54 "2002-04-23T05:43:50Z")
I wasn’t trying to claim that markets are perfect. I was pointing out a structural difference between capitalism and command economies, and showing how it’s a major flaw, even in theory. Communism is simply structurally inefficient, even given a homogenous population that truly wants to work for the good of the state and has no ‘free riders’. Capitalism is simply a superior architecture for a modern economy, for sound theoretical reasons. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect. Just better. ---
**Author:** ![Komsomol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecc23a/32.png) [@Komsomol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Komsomol)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823/55 "2002-04-23T16:59:00Z")
One thing that really bugs me is why the hell couldn’t they increase there yields? I mean the Ukraine was one and still is one of the richest farming areas in the world and even there they still had trouble producing sizable yields why??? I mean why would they implement it if they knew it was a bad thing to do? ---
**Author:** ![Komsomol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecc23a/32.png) [@Komsomol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Komsomol)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823/56 "2002-04-23T17:41:13Z")
And why were the Soviets always striving for Wheat? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823/57 "2002-04-23T18:44:30Z")
**Sam Stone** , that article by Hayek has been one of my favorite readings now and it is short enough that I have formatted it to print as a small booklet and have given many copies to my friends. For being so short it has a high density of content and reading it for the first time sort of lit a bulb in my mind as I saw it so clearly and obvious. The idea that Capitalists produce nothing is just marxist nonsense. They produce direction and guidance and feedback and efficiency. We say in Spanish: “What fattens the horse? The eye of the owner is what fattens the horse!” As Hayex explains in “The Road to Serfdom”, planning or direction has and is going to be done. The question is whether it is more efficient to have it centralised at the top or distributed at the lowest level. Quite clearly, societies where economic decisions are distributed and given to the free market forces are quite more efficient then those with centralised plannning. ``` >> Why were the Soviets always striving for Wheat? ``` Um… because they hadn’t had breakfast and were hungry? \>\> Let the Revolution begin!!! Can I finish my Wheatties first? \<\\> ---
**Author:** ![Komsomol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecc23a/32.png) [@Komsomol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Komsomol)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823/58 "2002-04-23T18:48:21Z")
It’s just that I see all the time on soviet symbols pictures and smbols of wheat. ---
**Author:** ![LiquidLobotomy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/898d66/32.png) [@LiquidLobotomy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LiquidLobotomy)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823/59 "2002-04-23T19:39:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > \*\* > > Well, it’s interesting that you and your friend from Georgia live under many of the same laws. > \*\* > > I see three main benefits: > > First, transparency will allow the world’s resources to be distributed in an even manner. > > Second, transparency will allow us to stop the “little Hitlers” of the world. See, people mistreat eachother in all kinds of ways that are perfectly legal. These abuses are condoned because there is basically no way for our current system to address them. And people suffer a lot of psychological damage as a result. > > Finally, the technology for universal surveillance is coming whether we like it or not. I think that ultimately, we will have to choose between a situation where the powerful monitor the powerless (but not vice-versa), and a situation where everyone can watch everyone. IMHO the latter is a better option. \*\* So you propose that the society you envision is deviod of any emotion and is basically composed of drones who never deviate from the norm? The moment you flip the switch and invade everyone’s privacy you have just eliminated any incentive for anyone to advance technology or go above the call of duty. Everyone will do the bare minimum so as not to stand out and get watched. With no incentive to produce new technology, because there would be no reward for doing so, you have just doomed your society. ---
**Author:** ![ChoosyChipsAndCeilingWhacks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@ChoosyChipsAndCeilingWhacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChoosyChipsAndCeilingWhacks)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2002, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823/60 "2002-04-23T20:14:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by LiquidLobotomy \* > \*\* With no incentive to produce new technology, because there would be no reward for doing so, you have just doomed your society. \*\* Does anyone else feel like the SIMS? I don’t want to be a SIM! No! Please! Seriously, don’t we already have the technology to watch anyone, anywhere? It’s seriously not that high tech. Waterproof vid in shower, voila! What is this amazing new technology going to allow us to do that we’re unable to do now? We HAVE high tech survellance equipment. We choose not to use it now for many reasons. In this country at least, one of those reasons is our “probable cause” principle. You have to have a REASON to spy on someone. Doing it for fun wastes your time and the subjects. I don’t see our reasons for choosing to value privacy suddenly dissipating any time soon. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kollectivisation-could-it-work/104823.md?page=4)