Communism seems to stipulate that every problem is a result of systemic inequities, that if you just adjust the system to ameliorate inequity that civil strife will disappear and we can have a harmonious society.
The problem with this idea, is that systemic inequities stem from personal selfishness. As long as there is even one person who craves to have more, not more than they have but more than someone else has, there will always be these systemic inequities.
The other problem is that if you can’t gain anything by your product, there is no need to create produce. It’s a system which makes it more profitable the lazier you are.
Everyone that has argued for Communism to me seems to believe that laziness and selfishness are products of a system with inequities, and would not be a problem in a world of total, pure, communism. If this is the belief of other communists, then that is another problem with communism- assuming the 2 biggest threats to your system, which just happen to be 2 fundmental behaviors of the animal kingdom, exhibited in dozens of other species as well, must be learned and not inherited ( unlike most other fundamental traits that are shared amongst species) - thats a prety handy assumption to choose to make.
I don’t agree with that, no. Personal ‘selfishnesses’ originate in systemic problems. Not inequities so much as entrenched competition, but systemic.
And the problem with communism is that is does not provide a solution for the problems that it identifies. “Capitalism” is just a fancy word for the market economy itself, and communism still uses it, albeit with post-facto redirects and band-aid ameliorations, most of which choke the market economy so it doesn’t work very well, but that’s not the same as replacing it with an entirely different model. AND on top of that communism is oblivious to power except insofar as power stems from unequal distribution of resource-ownership. Their proposed system places people rather firmly over others in positions of hierchical power and they do not see dictatorship or oppression as being a problem, and THAT’S a problem.
The 50s called and wants its bogeyman back.
Unless you’re saying that the problem of Communism has been solved, I’m not seeing your point. There’s never been a Socialist nor Communist test which hasn’t fallen apart, and there’s reasons for that. Figuring out what does or doesn’t work in the real world, and especially why, is the most valuable thing that a human can do. It’s unlikely that our own system is the best that humanity can do–but we’re never going to get to a newer, better system if we aren’t objective about all the various alternatives out there.
The spirit behind communism, having everyone share, is a respectable thing, but it seems to only work on a small scale. Look at Hutterite or Amish colonies. They all work to support each other, and that’s admirable. But once the idea becomes government-sized, it never works. You can’t force people to be kind and generous and caring towards each other. That has to be a genuine feeling from the heart, something no government in the world has ever had, or ever will have.
I commend those who live peacefully and share with others on their little communes. That’s awesome. The spirit behind that needs to remain in a small setting, though.
It’s not that I strive to have more things than Bob. Bob doesn’t even enter into it. However much I have, I’ll be happier with even more. Is that what’s being called “selfishness”? If so, what an odd use of the word “selfishness”; should I be sadder to get more?
No, but you should be satisfied with “enough.”
Hardly anyone is, which is why communism never works. Communes work, but only because they can cast out the noncompliant. The Amish shun, but the state can only punish.
This is one of those threads that’s going to say more about conservatives than it is about communism.
I’m not sure how that relates to what I wrote; could you explain?
I assume we are talking about basic “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” Marxist Communism?
The basic philosophy is that no one “owns” anything (except immediate use items like your toothbrush for example), everyone works as hard as their ability allows for the joy of their labor and will consume from society what they need regardless of what they have produced as their conscious dictates.
The most obvious problem with this is the “free rider” problem. People tend to overestimate their “need” and underestimate their contribution. If enough people do this, the system operates at a net loss and is unsustainable.
Another problem is incentive and efficiency. In a free market economy, greed inspires individuals to become entrepreneurs. It encourages people to educate and train themselves so they can have more than their neighbor. Competition encourages companies to invest in and produce products for markets were there is a demand. Inefficient or obsolete companies that can’t compete go out of business and their resources and labor can be used elsewhere in the economy. That’s called “creative destruction” and it’s a major arguement against subsidies and bailouts.
Communism removes those incentives and feedback mechanisms by disconnecting people’s needs from their labor. How does a communist economy “know” what to produce? How does it allocate labor and resources where they are needed most? How does it distinguish between a true need and mere wants?
Because this thread is going to degenerate into a screaming match between Left-wing “won’t someone think about the poor/children” socialist Liberals vs conservative Ayn Randian laissez faire conservatives.
I’ve said before that families use communist economics. Some members of the family earn more money than others and other members of the family consume more resources than others. People produce what they can and get what they need without trying to balance the levels of production and consumption. (And you can also argue that the parents act as the Party. Because of their superior knowledge, they have total control over how the family is run but they use their power for the good of the family as a whole.)
The key factor is that communism requires a group where the individuals in the group put the well-being of the group above their individual well-being. You can get that in a family or a religious community or even a small secular organization. But a nation state? Never going to happen.
Maybe after 1,000,000 more years of human evolution, the brains will evolve to have reach a higher Dunbar number than ~150.
If the future human brain can distinguish 100 million people and care for all of them like “family”, communism might work for small nations.
What will be the selective advantage for evolving to be more altruistic towards a larger number of people than are altruistic towards you?
A family unit isn’t a communist unit. It’s naturally hierarchical, you aren’t limited to it for social nor economic growth–most people do that in the real world–and basically just operates as a miniature safety net.
Amish societies, similarly, aren’t Communist any more than people of 150+ years ago were. They may act, again, as a safety net for one another, if Farmer Ant had a good year and Farmer Grasshopper didn’t, Grasshopper might not starve, but Farmer Ant is only going to share enough for Grasshopper to live–after taking out the minimum he needs for his own family–and probably he’s going to make Grasshopper pay his due in some way through the winter. If the Amish split up everything they own and dole it out evenly, I ain’t heard about it. And I suspect that the guy who everyone thinks is a bit of a sleezebag tends to get shunned, while the respected village elder tends to be able to get more people to come help out when he needs it.
That’s it exactly. Trite as it sounds, happiness isn’t ultimately going to come from possessions. Being financially secure is definitely a worthy goal; there are few things more antithetical to happiness than constantly being worried about money. But just being acquisitive is indistinguishable from greed, and unless you’re immensely shallow, any toys you buy aren’t going to leave you with any permanent sense of fulfillment.
In what way is this not a description of the problems inherent in capitalism?
Such a mind could not be anything remotely like humanity, of course, and is probably not physically possible. Families work not just because everyone knows and cares about each other, but because they can know each other’s wants and needs.
Interestingly, the more I read about Communism (Marxist and otherwise), the more I am convinced it was basically a crappy version of Christianity. The first Communists to go by that name and attempt a radical advance of social organization were explictly Christian. It later started falling to more secular groups - but they, too, were immensely Christian in concept even if they claimed to disdain the religion. They all failed, too, because their leader’s attempts to become God were rather disgusting in practice. Later Communists were a reaction against this, but they too fell into a religious mold, preaching, having holy books and prophets and promising salvation. id say it was ironic, but I think it was only crass and sad.