Eyewitness accounts and studies of the Revolution
The Tragedy of Spain, by Rudolf Rocker
There is very little to suggest that this form of communism couldn’t have worked. In particular, it completely debunks (again) the notion that “No one could get all of 1000 people to adhere sufficiently well to such a system to make it workable, (…)” so often stated (in many guises) by sceptics.
The worst self-critique of the Spanish Revolution that I could find so far was this.
I see no reason to assume it could have worked. Again, there’s a limited regional movement, and in a couple years it’s gone. This is in the midst of a bloody war, mind you, where the people are rebelling against fascists, etc., and actively looking for/experimenting with ideological opposites. It’s a period of considerable societal ferment in Spain, in other words. Would such anarcho-communism (or whatever it should be called) arise spontaneously in peacetime, without any external pressures, and survive perpetually, or would it simply “devolve” into a capitalistic system in a few years? I see the case for anarcho-communistic movements (or whatever they should be called) as far from proven based on this isolated and brief success.
With all the other evidence we have to go on, it would apear such pure voluntary adherence to communism over long periods of relative peace is non-existent, and in the case of every other manifestation of communism, they have failed to resist transformation into some form of market economy.
What the Spanish Revolution illustrates is that many of the reasons usually given by people as to why communism doesn’t work, aren’t true. You can get large people to volutarily agree to a communist system. They will be motivated to work hard for the benefit of causes larger than themselves. And they will be able to increase agricultural or industrial production or suchlike. Although there was a revolution going, these impulses had still been present and lingering for many years before the actual thing happened. (I know I wouldn’t mind a true communist ®evolution and I wouldn’t work any less than I do now, but I guess that doesn’t count.)
If a communist society fails because it is attacked by external forces that corruptly resent their loss of power, or that irrationally fear such a system, then it is not a failure of communism.
I agree there is not enough historical data for long-term large-scale communism during peacetime. At least I can’t think of any. Unfortunately enough. (Authoritarian systems do not count.) If people just wouldn’t always attack these societies!! I use the Free Software and original hacker communities as peacetime examples but realize the limits of that analogy.
But how will you convince skinny people?
The Spanish experience is interesting, but could they have sustained it for any length of time?
If any system fails because of outside attack, how is it anything other than a failure of that system? The system was unable to provide for common defense or its own perpetuation. Sounds like a failure to me, regardless of the motivation of the attackers. You can claim the conquerers are relatively immoral, if you like. That might hold 'em back for a microsecond or two.
Indeed. I somehow thought I had that covered in my first post when I said “as long as the rest of the planet doesn’t play along, that country gets preyed upon from the outside”.
They’ve been doing just fine for hundreds of years.
The only problems I’ve heard them having lately is the rising increase of land values. But even then an Amish couple trying to start a family and get a house has a much greater advantage than your average joe, since the Amish Community will help them out.
Frankly I’m surprised that libertarians and conservatives don’t use the Amish more often as examples of why government entitlements are not neccesary.
Communism does work in some circumstances. It is for example the economic basis for how most families work. But it can’t be scaled up to a larger society. The problem is that if you truly implement “to each according to his needs” you’re going to have a hard time acheivng “from each according to his abilities”. Without incentives how do you motivate people to put forth effort? There are two methods; appeal to a higher good (which is how families work and how communist societies work in the good years) or compel people to work by threat of punishment (which is how communist societies usually work).
Why not simply modify Democracy (I’m ignoring for a moment the fact that communism is an economic model. Said system could work quite nicely under ANY government model…well, if it worked at all of course)? It would be easier to modify a democratic or republic style governmetn to conform to this than to try and shoe horn it into a communist model don’t you think?
In fact, what you are talking about (at least in this paragraph) is essentially how the US used to be layed out, with states having more power than the weak federal government…i.e. United STATES of America, a collection of semi-autonomous states bound together by a common government but making most of the decisions locally. LOTS of Republican/Libertarian types would love to return to this system. I seriously doubt many liberals/socialists/communists would be thrilled though.
You couldn’t govern a continent sized nation this way…ask the Greeks. So, unless you are proposing a bunch of postage sized statelets it wouldn’t work for the larger countries like the US. You’d need to have regions, not city/state semi-autonomous entities. Like I said, your above paragraph basically is the old US model. Why dink with communism at all (again) when Democracy already take into account this model?
lol, why not just toss the baby out with the bathwater on this one? Again, why not modify a Capitalist system (you know, like they did in Norway?) to be on a sliding scale than to modify communism to the point where its pretty much unrecognizable anymore AS communism? Like, well, the Chinese have (as far as much of their economy goes these days). If you want a safety net for people like the Europeans have, do what the Europeans have done…Democracy/Capitalist system with socialist programs strapped on. Sliding scale in otherwords.
Er…who would START the companies? If the workers owned them, who founded them? The state? Generally speaking, even worker owned companies are founded by SOMEONE…what happens to those founders in your system? Are they compensated for their hard work in founding a successful company? Do they stay on afterwards to run the company? If not, what incentive does anyone have to found a new company??
Finally, who DOES run the company? You realize I’m sure that even worker owned companies (like SAIC) have a guy (or a board) in charge, right? Workers committees are all well and good, but SOMEONE has to actually run things.
If you want to lower income disparity then more heavily tax the wealthy and redistribute said funds to the poor…like they do in Europe these days (and if everyone does the same thing maybe you won’t have your best and brightest pull up stakes and move to America or some other place where the ‘free market’ is a bit freer 
).
Again, toss that baby out with the bath water and simply modify Capitalism in this case. If you have to change something THAT fundamentally then perhaps this answers your OP, ehe? 
What you are proposing is such a fundamental change to communism that its not communism anymore…and its closer to a Capitalist system (i.e. Capitalism a la Europe) from an economic perspective and a Democratic/Repubic system from a government that you might as well use what works…i.e. what we have now.
As others have pointed out repeatedly in this thread (with some wishful thinking about the Spanish model of course), communism whether it be big C or little c just doesn’t work in the real world either as a government type or as a viable economic model. Oh, I have no doubt you could get it to work for a time on a small scale if you had REALLY dedicated folks as citizens…or if there was some kind of external threat that drove people to make things work. But it would only be on a small scale, and only for a limited time. In the end, unless the entire world adopted a communist system (and so no one could bolt for better climes), it would fall apart…the grass really IS greener in the neighbors yard after all.
-XT
Actually, this is true. I am not overly concerned whether (some people might think that) “my” communism looks closer to Capitalism. Since frankly it does. Imagine Communism, minus Authoritarianism, plus Free Markets, plus Entrepreneurs - alot of apparent Capitalism there. I am concerned with progressing beyond the remaining problems in our current society. (I have no problems with dropping the heading “Communism” from my ®evolution. Especially since that term elicits so much irrational opposition.)
Biggest difference would be how big enterprises are run. I imagine they would be run more like big science projects like the Superconducting Super Collider. That was a large project, with no profit motive and no shareholders, yet (I hear) very innovative and efficient and well-managed. As well as democratically and meritocratically controlled. (Yes I know it was canceled, that doesn’t affect my point.)
Demorian, have you read The Dispossessed, by Ursula LeGuin? It is technically a sci-fi story, but she’s really done her homework. The book focuses on a communist/anarchist society, but it is clear that it only works because:
The society exists on a harsh planet, where everyone has to work together to survive at all.
There is massive social programming against selfishness starting at birth. Even the language lacks possesive pronouns.
The society exists in near-isolation, as it is alone on the planet and communication and travel are severely restricted.
The population, in total and in the individual cities, is kept low by the harsh conditions
Families as we know them have been abolished and replaced by the community.
LeGuin deals with the “who cleans the sewers” question by having all jobs assigned by a central computer system. The individual has the option of rejecting or accepting a job, but people hardly ever do the former, due to the social pressure and fear of ostracization involved in small-town life. IIRC, everyone had to spend a certain percentage of each day in manual labor.
It isn’t a true Utopian novel, because there are clear abuses and corruptions in the system.
We can’t improve communism. That is like asking how you can improve slavery. The only way slavery can be acceptable is if the people chooseit. And who in their right mind mind would consciously, of their own free will, choose slavery? Oh…ummm…never mind! Repeat after me: “We are all individuals.”
No. All other people are individuals, but I’m not!
Interesting how divergent people’s views of “communism” are. It is apparently both anarchy and slavery at the same time.
Rock on!
Well, better to imagine it as anarchy or slavery than utopia, which is by far the least probable of the three.
Meh. It is word association and misunderstanding.
Communism is in no way, shape, or form compatible with anarchy. There is no individual liberty in a communist society. What it really comes down to, though, is invidualism vs. collectivism. A socialist/communist/collectivist society does not allow for individual freedom, private ownership, etc. It does not allow a person to pursue their own personal dreams, pursue their own private goals, and amass their** own ** wealth. That is slavery. Anarchy, or self-government, is the absence of slavery. I am looking forward to the day when we are all grown up enough to govern our own lives and don’t need a dictator or goverment body telling us the right or wrong thing to do. Sadly, I doubt it will happen in our life-time.
Yes, I am prepared for the bashing I will recieve from those who somehow think that communism/anarchism are one and the same thing, or at least compatible. Sorry, but no matter how much you may want them to be, they are not.
Obviously so. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=ACfreefem]
It does not allow a person to pursue their own personal dreams, pursue their own private goals, and amass their** own ** wealth. That is slavery.**
:dubious: It’s not slavery, it’s merely a diminished range of opportunities. If you could use a time machine to pick up a chattel slave from from the antebellum South and give the slave a tour of modern Cuba, the slave would tell you there’s a big difference. Furthermore, people living in Spain’s short-lived experiment with anarcho-communism in 1936 seem to have enjoyed a lot more personal freedom than they did before the revolution, or thought they did.