What can be done to improve communism?

[msmith537]

@cj finn

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.

We already do that. It’s called “credit”.

@cj finn

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.

Except this goes against common sense. Unless of course you were in a system of hyperinflation where you wanted to get rid of money as quickly as possible in exchange for tangible goods.

[Little_Nemo]

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.

Frederik Pohl wrote a science fiction story using this premise. Is that the story you read?

[Shodan]

The “problem of the commons” seems to have been addressed.

Another of the inherent flaws in communism I think comes from the other end.

Suppose I am living in Commie Utopia, with my state-mandated salary, state-mandated house, state-mandated life. But I am not completely satisfied.

So I plant a fruit tree in my back yard. I prune it, I fertilize, I take care of it generally, and five or ten years down the road, I have a couple of bushels of fruit.

The state says I have to give the fruit to them. Share everything, right? But I don’t care for the idea. I want the fruit for myself.

What does Commie Utopia do with me? SentientMeat’s idea seems to be that the Commie Utopia equivalent of the IRS shows up at my door and takes the fruit, regardless of what I might want. All property belongs to everybody/nobody.

And, since all economic decisions are made for you by someone else, there is less freedom than when you make decisions for yourself.

Regards,
Shodan

[John_Mace]

@cj finn

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.

Well, as you say “it’s not communism”. But all that system would do is encourage people to hold goods instead of “obligations”. Something like a gold based economy would emerge as people looked for something portable and of recognized value. Sooner or later, banks would issue notes to people who deposited gold in the bank, and presto… you’re right back to where we are now.

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).

Goes against human nature, so entirely unworkable-- too easy to game the system. Castigate me all you want, and I’ll laugh all the way to the bank.

[cj_finn]

You guys are correct in that these systems would be difficult to implement. While they are pie in the sky, they are not conceptually unworkable. These systems would have checks in place that are similar to what we have now.

John’s example of gaming the system is a good one. How would the system put an end to that? (That story is available at baen.com in a collection of short stories called The World Turned Upside Down).

@John Mace

Castigate me all you want, and I’ll laugh all the way to the bank.

Trust me, you wouldn’t be going anywhere, let alone laughing under the system described in that story. There wasn’t really active castigation going on, but if someone in that system stepped over the line, extremely efficient corrective measures were instituted. Another interesting feature of the system described in that story was that those who wielded that power were chosen from the population at large and were not actually seeking the job. Therefore, the folks in that government hadn’t really wanted that job but were chosen on ability, not on the type of realpolitik type stuff we normally see.

Is it just me or does it seem like this is the type of converstation that would be most likely to happen in a crowded dorm room during a philosophy study session?

CJ

[Bryan_Ekers]

@cj finn

Is it just me or does it seem like this is the type of converstation that would be most likely to happen in a crowded dorm room during a philosophy study session?

CJ

Possibly, but by now we’d have drowned you out in drunken derisive hooting and pelted you with peanut shells for continuing to insist your proposals are “not unworkable” yet being unable to suggest any feasible means by which they could be… uh… worked.

[Liberal]

I’ve never understood why the solution demanded for the so-called “problem of the commons” is that the authority be a magistrate. Why can it not be a land owner?

[Little_Nemo]

That may work fine for the town commons but I assume you realize it’s just a metaphor. Who should own the Atlantic Ocean? Or the atmosphere? These are real examples of “commons” that are subject to overuse if everyone is allowed to do whatever they want to them. So society as a whole restricts the rights of individuals to take actions which contribute to that overuse.

[cj_finn]

@Bryan Ekers

Possibly, but by now we’d have drowned you out in drunken derisive hooting and pelted you with peanut shells for continuing to insist your proposals are “not unworkable” yet being unable to suggest any feasible means by which they could be… uh… worked.

True again, but since the topic of conversation was how to improve communisim, not how to rehash the problems communism already exhibits, I’d be able to hold my head high for giving it the old college try.

And I haven’t insisted that my proposals are unworkable. I simply put them forward as the basis for further conversation. I didn’t realize that I was supposed to set forth the rules for a new society, complete and above reproach.

Shodan points out a definite problem with communism in that complete central control is not palatable. I’m not sure central control is necessarily required. But if central control did not exist in such a system, what would replace it? I’m not sure how it would work, but the trick would be to align the perception of success directly with the best interests of the whole. Incentives in that society would be towards that version of success. To be successful, a system would have to tolerate different levels of success. None of this everyone is equal shite.

In reality, success seems to be tied directly to the amount of wealth and power one controls, with a leavening of respect and admiration thrown in. Creature comforts would have to be part of success as that IS aligned with human nature. What about defining success in terms of respect and admiration with a strong ‘what have you done for me lately’ type of ethic. For example, you like fruit trees and manage to get a grove going. The grove provides enough wealth to get you a comfortable home, nice car, and regular vacations, all of which is a positive thing for you personally, but is a push on the success scale being neither good nor bad. With money above and beyond what you need, you choose (are not forced) to build a new wing on an orphanage or funding basic research at the local university. Respect and admiration follow and you make the who’s who list. But, since you won’t stay on that list for long without continuing such works, you’d have an incentive to keep doing that sort of thing.

This system has the benefit of moving wealth back into areas where it does more good for the whole. Of course, this system would also have to give one a pass for murdering folks that won’t shut up about how good they are for society, a rule we should probably have today anyway.

CJ

[Frankenstein_Monster]

@cj finn

Shodan points out a definite problem with communism in that complete central control is not palatable. I’m not sure central control is necessarily required. But if central control did not exist in such a system, what would replace it?

Why, decentralized decision-making. You are both wrong that this has much to do with communism.

@Liberal

I’ve never understood why the solution demanded for the so-called “problem of the commons” is that the authority be a magistrate. Why can it not be a land owner?

The idea behind collective ownership and democratic control of the means of production (not of all property) is that involvement of multiple people results in smarter decisions. And of course, the idea that it is “just” for multiple people to be able to influence a decision that affects many.

[Frankenstein_Monster]

@Liberal

I’ve never understood why the solution demanded for the so-called “problem of the commons” is that the authority be a magistrate. Why can it not be a land owner?

Hey, sure it can be a landowner. In my current country, which is as socialist as they come, the vast majority of the forest area has always been privately owned (by “small” forest owners). And consensus is that the system has worked very well (overall). And it has been that way, and worked well, for centuries. An honest communist should be able to acknowledge this.

[Frankenstein_Monster]

…and one reason it has worked, to be sure, is this. A nice balance of communism and libertarianism.