Just out of curiosity, what kind of society would you consider a true utopia?
I’m no fan of communism. It’s a ridiculous idea. But comparing it to slavery indicates you haven’t thought very deeply on either subject. As you pointed out, nobody chooses to be a slave; millions of people have chosen to be communists. Communism in theory does have some attractive precepts; a strong emphasis on equality, freedom from economic hardship, opportunities for everyone to realize their highest potential, etc. Communism, like Santa Claus, is a wonderful thing as long as you discuss the subject in theory and don’t insist it prove itself.
Regarding your statement that millions of people having chosen to be communists…point taken. But…the precepts of communism, as you mentioned above…while they may look pretty in theory, do not work in practice. Why?
- We are not all the same.
- Individuals have individual wants and needs. And there is nothing wrong with that.
Unrealistic? From your cite:
How is it possible to deny the legitimacy of private property without a strong government to enforce it? In other words, how would you maintain such a beast without the muzzle of a gun to back you up? People simply wouldn’t go for no private property without a strong government to force them to it or some huge external or internal threat that forces them to it…at least not enough people to actually make up a society. What would you do with folks who DON’T think that its illegitimate to own private property? Especially when its a pretty big number? And especially if you also don’t want a strong government?
How do you force them out or force them to your way of thinking…because you’d HAVE to force them to it or force them out. ‘You’ll have to prize MY private property (and my company) from my cold dead hand.’ 
And without a strong central government to back you, you are going to have some trouble doing that…it will come down to you and me, or your friends and my friends…and all my friends are armed. 
I think that, nutty as it is, right wing big L Libertarianism actually would have a better chance because it better understands human nature…at least with respect to left wing libertarianism. And denying individuals the right to own property (who DOES own it btw if there is no central government? ‘The People’ is a bit vague isn’t it?) is to ignore how humans operate IMO. This might work for ants perhaps…but humans?
-XT
How does “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” get turned into “everbody’s identical”? Communism explicitly recognizes that everyone is unique and has different needs and abilities. It’s the United States that said “all men are created equal” and gave everyone the exact same set of rights.
There’s plenty of sound reasons to denounce Communism. There’s no need to invent strawmen.
The only remotely plausible utopia I can picture is one where every individual carries around a portable fusion reactor (thus unlimited energy) and has unlimited or near-unlimited resources at hand, i.e. a human colony gradually spreading out across the asteroid belt, expanding faster than conflicts can form. It would be several centuries of peace, as any social schisms can be remedied by a simple parting of the ways and wars become unneccessary as resources are plentiful. It’s essentially a so-called “technology unchained” utopic society.
In any case, if there is confusion over whether communism is closer to anarchy or slavery, it likely stems from some posters thinking of it as a purely economic system while others consider it a political system. The former is somewhat like anarchy, in that there is no central authority or aristocracy controlling vital resources or technologies. The latter is more akin to slavery, when the necessary beaurocratic infrastructure to keep the system reasonably well organized on a large scale succumbs to corruption and brutality to keep the workers in line. This is not a mere issue of “word association and misunderstanding”. [iIdeally*, communism would resemble a peaceful anarchy, without it being necessary to have anyone “in charge”. In practice, it more resembles slavery, as inevitably some people take charge and resort to increasingly ruthless tactics to keep that position. The OP was suggesting a society something like the former, but simple practical issues would inevitably (I and others believe) force his society toward the latter.
There’s a bit of disingenuity on your part, here. The Declaration of Independence’s use of the word “equal” does not have the meaning of declaring all men to be of equal needs and abilities. Rather, it declares that aristocratic ranking systems (and, I assume, caste systems generally) are obsolete. It was self-evident to the signers that legal systems that showed favour or disfavour to a citizen solely based on his station at birth were undesirable. I’m not aware of any indication in the DOI or later American documents that citizens were to be seen as equal in any manner other than their treatment before the law.
It does not necessarily follow that there will be no incentive towards excellence under a communist system. The problem is that we have a hard time figuring out what people would use other than money. We could use civic spirit, karma, favors, popularity, any number of things. But again, it would have to be voluntary, as stated above.
One thing that would have to be done is to carefully define how incentives are, or should be, distributed. If you had a system where resources (of whatever kind) were hoarded by some portion of the population that is actively trying to game the system, the incentive system would have to figure out a way to even that out. For example, if favors were the coin of the realm, hoarding could be considered vulgar, thereby ensuring that favors stop coming in. This is not original to me, by the way, I just think that its an interesting idea. If we could set up a system wherein all of the feedback loops tended to benefit the whole, rather than a few, we’d be doing well. Of course we’d still have problems with disparities in real or imagined worth (entrepreneuers v. layabouts), but on a whole things would probably work out well.
CJ
Under communism (little c), everyone is equal no matter what. Everything is shared no matter what. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”.
In a nutshell, there is no incentive to excel at anything. One person may be working his ass off, and be great at everything he does, but he only gets what he needs (decided by someone else). Another does jack shit, but is “needy” as hell and gets more. So, one is leeching off the efforts of the other. There is no incentive. The good performer will eventually say “to hell with this”.
communism (little c) falls apart in groups of any size, that is why it’s most pure forms are only seen in stone age hunter gatherer groups. Small groups in which the members are all related to each other. These small groups have an added incentive in, if one fails to cooperate, they all starve.
Communism (big C) is a whole other story, in that it is conrtolled by group of “elites”, (the Party) or by one central “strong man”. The state controls the people and he controls the state. There is no equality. The “proles” exist to work and die, the “leaders” exist to rule and reap the rewards. For the most extreme, think Stalinist Russia or North Korea.
Well, conceivably you could propagandize the bejeezus out of your citizens and convince them that all foreigners are determined to invade and atrocity everyone. As a result, your citizens may work very hard to come up with new ideas for weapons and whatnot, which the rulers can then use against citisens who don’t play ball. Natch, youll have to greatly limit contact with the outside world, including banning personal ownership of radios and televisions and such, lest your citizens become “contaminated”. I’m pretty sure a carefully cultivated fear of the Americans provided much of the driving force for the USSR’s military development, much of which was downright ingenious.
Again, this isn’t true. A communist society does not suppose that everybody has the same needs. Communist doctors do not give everyone insulin because some people are diabetic. The theory is that those who need insulin get insulin; those who don’t, don’t. Or to use more common examples, in an ideal communist society, people don’t get a car because they can pay for it, they get a car because they need to drive places. Families get a bigger house because they have more kids not because they have more money. You can see how this theory sounds appealing to people who have more needs than cash.
Iwas not talking about medical necessities here, such as insulin. However, the example of family size is a good example where a “slacker” can game the system. Let’s say you have a single person or a couple with only one child. They give their all for The State. They each get a small salary (determined by the State) and a small apartment (based on need). They don’t need a car because they live in town. Now let’s say there are the slackers who do nothing but drink, make babies and complain. They now have lots of kids. They “need” a huge house. They “need” more money. They “need” a car because they chose to live outside a city. Who is paying for them? The State is, by taking away the rewards of the couple who is actually contributing (redistribution of wealth).
The incentive would be to goof off and make more babies. There would be a disincentive to work or be an achiever, because no matter what you do or accomplish, the State will keep you right where you are.
There are few real Needs - food and shelter. I would say clothing, but inhibitions aside, that has more to do with climate.
However, effort should be rewarded. In communism, it is not.
By eveyone volunteering to do without it. Of course this is as unreasonable as everyone volunteering to pay their taxes (when I said “What am I?” I was asking “What is Libertarian Socialism then?” - I personally am a social democrat who only becomes a Libertarian Socialist if democracy is somehow threatened, philosophically speaking).
The same as I do to folks who don’t think that taxation is illegitimate either: Obey their democratic mandate or leave the country.
Then you would be the government. How is that Libertarian?
And thus becomes a government itself. Original (communist) Libertarianism and American (capitalist) Libertarianism are as unrealistic and unrealizable as each other, IMO.
That which belongs to everybody belongs to nobody. Property is theft, and anarchy is order. - PJ Proudhon.
Interesting question.
I think one of the strongest shortcomings to communist systems is the idea that in such a system all economic activity, no matter how small or insignificant, must be controlled directly by the government (or governing economic body).
Envision a spectrum between capitalism and communism, not a black and white divide:
Capitalism Communism
All goods private ==={O}====================== All goods public
|
USA is about here
Here in the USA we have a fair number of public goods (Goods and services, I’m saying goods for brevity), depending on how you define public.
-
Mail service
-
Roads
-
Libraries
-
Water
-
Electricity (depending on where you live)
-
Social Security
The last one is fairly interesting, as the SS system almost fits “from each by ability, to each by need” directly - giving an age based separation to ability and need rather than what people feel like doing vs getting.
My observation is that with each of these public goods there are significant advantages to being under gov’t management - and they all fit the same basic classifications.
Namely, that they’re what one would call “needs” or at least very fundamental wants, and the markets for them are stable or very slow moving. Note also that their existance does not preclude private counterparts from cropping up - you can ship via FedEx as well as USPS, and you can buy spring water bottled rather than drinking out of the tap.
I envision a successful communist system as principally being a matter of sliding the bar over to the right a bit; having more public goods available but not to the exclusion of private enterprise or consumer retail.
You appear to assume that coercion is necessary. Why does it have to be? In any society, some proteciton is needed from misfits that would do harm, i.e. criminals, and some protection is needed from outside threats, i.e. invasion. But coercion of the masses in the manner in which North Korea is run doesn’t necessarily follow.
Do you believe that coercion would be required in ANY communist society?
CJ
Not so much “coercion” but “incentives”. Basically a capitalist society provides incentives to do the jobs that need to be done by the natural adjustment of salaries in the job market.
The problem with communism is not that people are lazy or greedy. It’s that it does not provide an effective method of CHOOSING between goods and services. All economics is about choices. Should I buy food or clothing? DVD player or an MP3 player? How do we decide to utilize resources so that the most needs and wants are addressed? Absent a market for a product or service, rationing becomes the order of the day. Some central body needs to allocate how much of each good each person needs. Not very efficient and pretty much always leads to shortages, gluts and black markets (since the market forces don’t actually disappear).
I suppose one way to improve the “each according to his need” model would be to set salaries based on factors like number of children or driving distance or whatever. Problem is that once again, people work for what you pay them for. If a child earns you more money, people will have more children.
As for communal ownership, you pretty much get the “village wine” effect (a short story where everyone in a village ‘borrowed’ a little wine from the barrel and replaced it with water. When they opened it for the party, nothing but water poured out). Basically if no one ‘ownes’ something, everyone thinks the other guy will take care of it.
Yes, and that’s pretty much the problem with communism. The bottom line is that people are primarily motivated by rewards and punishments. According to communist theory, the rewards a person receives are independant of their efforts. This being so, the only consistent method for motivating a person to produce greater effort is punishment.
Right. So to improve communism, we have to come up with a workable incentive system. This is what I said in my first post to this thread. At least that is what I tried to say; perhaps I wasn’t clear.
I’ve read a few short stories lately that have this as a theme. Its not communism, but these systems are different than the money system we use. The first describes a system of trading obligations. For example, I want information from you and in exchange for an obligation to do or provide something, you give it to me. That obligation can be redeemed within a reasonable period of time. If not redeemed within that period of time, the obligation lapses. The obligations are readily transferable as you could trade my obligation to you to your neighbor for something. Hoarding and failing to fulfill your obligations were, in the story, anathema and basically resulted in your becoming an outcast with whom no one would trade.
Another story described a system in which the goal of any transaction (money was used), was to give up as much value as you could. Accordingly, when you tried to buy something, you would try to pay as much as possible and the seller woudl try to talk you down. In this way, one put as much value as possible into the market place. Again, taking advantage of the system resulted in castigation (in this case of a more sinister type that was the hook for the story so I won’t describe it).
The second doesn’t seem too workable, but the first could be adapted readily enough.
What say you?
CJ
I say thee nay. You’re describing some kind of hopped-up bartering system, which will be incredibly inefficient compared to using simple notes and coins. Besides, inevitably some people will be able to casually produce “information” for which a great many people will be willing to trade, i.e. a popular artist or singer, and thus you’d still have wealthy people, sort-of. Also, there exists no way to conduct trade with someone over a distance. If I want to order something manufactured five hundred miles away, what kind of “obligation” could I incur to the producer?