Thread: Re-writing Communism

I know of a model you can use. Imagine a really big house with ten adults living in it. Three of the people living in the house are lazy ass bums who work as little as possible and mooch off people whenever given the opportunity. Two of the people in the house are hard workers because they want to have the money it takes to live in the house and to have extra spending money and also savings every month. The other roommates do a little bit above getting by for themselves.

What we want to do is figure out how to make the household communist and still function effectively and fairly. Instead of each person paying his part of the rent, he/she just puts money in the rent and bill money box (Let's assume for now that nobody in the house has the power to steal money out of it.). Nobody is required on an individual level to put any certain amount of money in the box each month. However, if the bills don't get paid, the utilities get shut off. If the rent doesn't get paid, they get kicked out of the house. So, if anybody puts absolutely nothing into the box, the others have to compensate for what wasn't put in.

What will happen? How can we adjust the system to make it work effectively... and fairly?

UM, now imagine the lazy ass is the son of a very rich CEO, and the hard-working person is an illegal immigrant. See why capitalism doesn't work? Because it's not a meritocracy.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

UM, now imagine the lazy ass is the son of a very rich CEO, and the hard-working person is an illegal immigrant. See why capitalism doesn't work? Because it's not a meritocracy.

Not the best example to show why Capitalism doesn't work (that claim itself is pretty silly). That might be a case for the future failure of a company, though.

Edit - Actually, how is Capitalism not a meritocracy? Do the most efficient and consumer-oriented companies not move on to success? Government regulation aside, they do.

Pure communism (not Stalinism or Maoism - which are bad for obvious reasons) is bad for several reasons.

First, it makes the citizen subservient to the government rather than the government subservient to the citizen.

Second, while communism seeks to serve the whole, it fails to provide specific protections for the individual.

Third, state control of resources, business, and income distribution stifles innovation as the human spirit is depraved of the will for personal success. The political party becomes the means for recognition as personal and business related endeavors are regarded as servitude to keep the state functioning.

If you think communism is good, more power to you. Just don't forget where communism comes from and how it's supporters have used domination to deprive citizens of their rights, of their property, and of their lives in order to make it happen.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

UM, now imagine the lazy ass is the son of a very rich CEO, and the hard-working person is an illegal immigrant. See why capitalism doesn't work? Because it's not a meritocracy.

Yes, some people have more money than others. Wrecking success because you don't like it would not be productive.

What do you think will happen with the rent and bills in the house?

I don't think that Kromoh's analogy quite works because the son is a dependent of the father.

Oh yeah, so the problem is with my analogy? I'm not the one making an analogy of a closed house. I'm making what actually is an example. The amount of money you have isn't about how much you fought for it, but about what opportunities you had. Born rich, become richer. Born poor, become poorer. Vicious cycle. Social inequality skyrockets. You know, it's pretty silly, because the proponents of capitalism initially criticized social inequality, and now defend it. Hypocrites.

Also - economy isn't only about companies. It's about people too. People working for companies. Tell me for what reason shouldn't a company drop workers' salary in order to increase the owner's profit. Tell me for what reason should a company pollute and exploit resources without conscience. In capitalism, there is no reason at all.

so if communism doesn't work, how can we very basically define the goal of communism and change the strategy so that it might actually be achieved? (I think this is the purpose of the thread)

I'd say the idealist goal of communism is to develop a system in which everyone has what they need to be happy and healthy.

Kromoh, are you going to explain what the rent and bills situation at the house would be like? I am having a hard time getting you to tell me about it.

Do you really think nobody in a capitalist system goes from poor to rich through their efforts? You are way off. I have seen lots of people do it, including my parents. They paid $3 a month on a dental bill when I was a kid. We lived in a $100 a month apartment with one bathroom that had a bath tub and no shower. Now my father is a millionaire. It is because he worked for it. I have seen several of their friends do it too. All of them worked while going to school and graduate school and then climbed really high ladders after school. Under a communist or socialist system, why climb? Please tell me that. Why would people in general want to climb? If the financial reward isn't there and everybody gets the same thing no matter what, why not just answer a phone or sit on a lifeguard stand for a living? I really want your explanation on that. I have asked you about it before and never gotten an answer.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why would people in general want to climb? If the financial reward isn't there and everybody gets the same thing no matter what, why not just answer a phone or sit on a lifeguard stand for a living?

Because people want to work out of the good of their hearts for the greater good, duh.

Kromoh is right about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer thing. But then, we don't live in a fully capitalist society. In American society in particular, we have many scholarships and financial aid programs that help the children of less fortunate folk.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Kromoh is right about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer thing.

How so?

UM, don't ignore all the other things I've said. Your analogy is improper, because it doesn't consider the pre-existing rich of each of the people in the house. Something I've already explained.

Reply to my last post. Then, we can go on.

---

@ Blueline:

If you are born rich, you have access to better education, to better opportunities, and to financial support when starting a career. I think I do not have to explain to a capitalist that profit is proportional to investment. If you are, however, born in a poor family, you have access to bad education, have little opportunities, and no financial support at all when you become economically active. High chances are you'd end up in a lousy job. That's why it's a vicious cycle, and that is why social inequality has only been getting worse. It's not an opinion, it's a fact - all studies show social inequality is on exponential rise.

That is why capitalism isn't a meritocracy. If everyone started their economical activity with the same amount, and had the same opportunities, it would be a meritocracy, but that's not how it works. You probably don't see this because you're at the superior end on the social pyramid. If you were poor, you'd realize this presto.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

@ Blueline:

If you are born rich, you have access to better education, to better opportunities, and to financial support when starting a career. I think I do not have to explain to a capitalist that profit is proportional to investment. If you are, however, born in a poor family, you have access to bad education, have little opportunities, and no financial support at all when you become economically active. High chances are you'd end up in a lousy job. That's why it's a vicious cycle, and that is why social inequality has only been getting worse. It's not an opinion, it's a fact - all studies show social inequality is on exponential rise.

That is why capitalism isn't a meritocracy. If everyone started their economical activity with the same amount, and had the same opportunities, it would be a meritocracy, but that's not how it works.

Would you agree that the definition of "meritocracy" is a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement, or something of that sort?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

UM, don't ignore all the other things I've said. Your analogy is improper, because it doesn't consider the pre-existing rich of each of the people in the house. Something I've already explained.

Reply to my last post. Then, we can go on.

I know there are differences, as there are with all analogies. The point of an analogy is not to be identical. It is the relevant parallel that matters. The relevant parallel concerning the house and a nation is the level of efficiency and effectiveness in a system that lacks individual incentive. See the parallel? Now tell me how that house system would work. Then tell me why I know people who went from rags to riches in a capitalist system. I also want the answer to my question of why people would climb the ladder if they are not rewarded for it. You have dodged that question of mine repeatedly in several threads now. I am not going to keep chasing every tangent you bring up. Answer my questions, and then we can move on to your next topic changes.

I'm assuming you're speaking of the global scale?

Just because social inequality is on the rise doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer.

The reason many Westerners have such a difficult time with the concept of communism is that they can't imagine any reason to work other than money. The concept of the greater good is lost to them and it's all about elevating oneself above other individuals rather than forming groups and pooling resources.

This is a cultural issue, not an economic one. There have been many examples of cultures working for other reasons than money. Think of ancient Greek scientists, or the great minds of the Renaissance. I hardly think they were motivated by money, more like the advancement of humankind. Overcoming the mentality of individuality over collective good is the single greatest barrier against communism in the West.

Originally Posted by SkA_DaRk_Che

Pure communism (not Stalinism or Maoism - which are bad for obvious reasons) is bad for several reasons.

First, it makes the citizen subservient to the government rather than the government subservient to the citizen.

Second, while communism seeks to serve the whole, it fails to provide specific protections for the individual.

Third, state control of resources, business, and income distribution stifles innovation as the human spirit is depraved of the will for personal success. The political party becomes the means for recognition as personal and business related endeavors are regarded as servitude to keep the state functioning.

If you think communism is good, more power to you. Just don't forget where communism comes from and how it's supporters have used domination to deprive citizens of their rights, of their property, and of their lives in order to make it happen.

In communism, the citizens ARE the government, that's the whole point. Of course it's impractical to hold a referendum over every minor issue, so there would have to be "bureaucrats" to take care of the day to day stuff, but a communist government seeks to be dictated by the masses as much as possible. The fact that some nations of the 20th century that have declared themselves "communist" turned out to be more like dictatorships is an unfortunate cause of their individual social and political situations at the time, and was certainly not caused by the implementation of "communism" (if you can call it that).

Also communism is mostly an economic policy, so although ideally people have no material possessions, individual personal rights (or what we'd call human rights) are definitely preserved...

And in your third point you're still using a "worker vs state" mentality whereas in communism there is no distinction. The worker doesn't work for the government, it IS the government... His productivity should depend on how much he wants to improve the well being of all, and thus, himself included.


For me, the main problem with communism is that when it grows to very large sizes, there is a delay between the supply and demand causing shortages of needed items and abundance of common items. I suppose the only counter to this would be to have several "centers" of government to cut down on red tape. Taking cultural differences into account, it would be a challenge for everyone to stay on the same page.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

The reason many Westerners have such a difficult time with the concept of communism is that they can't imagine any reason to work other than money. The concept of the greater good is lost to them and it's all about elevating oneself above other individuals rather than forming groups and pooling resources.

This is a cultural issue, not an economic one. There have been many examples of cultures working for other reasons than money. Think of ancient Greek scientists, or the great minds of the Renaissance. I hardly think they were motivated by money, more like the advancement of humankind. Overcoming the mentality of individuality over collective good is the single greatest barrier against communism in the West.

As i understand it the Greek Scientists and the great minds of the Renaissnace where simply intellectuals with a muse to pursue knowledge and expand the horizons of understanding. They did not pursue this as a profession I'm sure, the Greek Scientists had slaves and a great amount of leisure time to pursue their muses, the minds of the Renaissance had other professions within Academia or incorporated their studies into their professions as well.

It is simple to say people should work for the greater good etc, but try telling a man to go to university for 10-15 years to become an anatheisologist, or an other kind of Physician, and then to accept only minimum wage and some rations as a wage afterwards.

Why would he spend his youth at university just "for the greater good"? People need an economical incentive for their investment (time and money). That is not to say that the man does not like helping people, just he is not going to go to school for 15 years to become a highly speicalised physician and earn the same as a day labourer (when all is said and done and he has completed his studies).

Originally Posted by Spartiate

In communism, the citizens ARE the government, that's the whole point. Of course it's impractical to hold a referendum over every minor issue, so there would have to be "bureaucrats" to take care of the day to day stuff, but a communist government seeks to be dictated by the masses as much as possible. The fact that some nations of the 20th century that have declared themselves "communist" turned out to be more like dictatorships is an unfortunate cause of their individual social and political situations at the time, and was certainly not caused by the implementation of "communism" (if you can call it that).

In theory the citizens are the government, but it really does not work out that way in practice. Humans are by their nature greedy, it is no surprise that often after the communist party in a nation has taken stewardship of the nation that they often become a dictatorship and do not hold free elections and the whole gambit.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Also communism is mostly an economic policy, so although ideally people have no material possessions, individual personal rights (or what we'd call human rights) are definitely preserved...

And in your third point you're still using a "worker vs state" mentality whereas in communism there is no distinction. The worker doesn't work for the government, it IS the government... His productivity should depend on how much he wants to improve the well being of all, and thus, himself included.

You make the critical assumption that communist nations are and were accountable to the people in the same way the government is in countries that have liberal democracies. While it is a fine line to say that in a communist nation the worker and the government are one and the same this proves to be a very difficult transition in practice(real life).

In practice we have seen that without any real accountability to the people, the government becomes corrupt and alienates and betrays the people. Thus the rights are not preserved.

This is the difference between idealism and practicality.

Amen. Exactly.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

...

Wow. A ghost from the past. Welcome back.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I know there are differences, as there are with all analogies. The point of an analogy is not to be identical. It is the relevant parallel that matters. The relevant parallel concerning the house and a nation is the level of efficiency and effectiveness in a system that lacks individual incentive. See the parallel? Now tell me how that house system would work. Then tell me why I know people who went from rags to riches in a capitalist system. I also want the answer to my question of why people would climb the ladder if they are not rewarded for it. You have dodged that question of mine repeatedly in several threads now. I am not going to keep chasing every tangent you bring up. Answer my questions, and then we can move on to your next topic changes.

Oh well. You just don't wanna admit you have no answer for what I brought up. It's not tangent, it's the one single reason Capitalism doesn't work. It's the core of my arguments.

-------------------------------

BLUELINE, my definition of meritocracy is a different one. But still, Capitalism is not a meritocracy, even in your terms. A genius in Cambodia will never be rich. A genius in a rich family in England probably will.

Im sorry, it is easy to generalize the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer in capitalism, but apparently thats not what goes on or there wouldnt be a middle class that poor can go up to, or that from the middle can move to upper.

As I see it, both pure communism and pure capitalism do not work. One because of no guiding forces for the successful businesses to have to follow, the other because it does not take human greed in to account. A balance of the two principles is needed. Id write a detail of how but its late ><

Originally Posted by tkdyo

Im sorry, it is easy to generalize the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer in capitalism, but apparently thats not what goes on or there wouldnt be a middle class that poor can go up to, or that from the middle can move to upper.

Just a remark here. Social inequality has been getting worse day in and day out. The middle class starts to merge with the working class everywhere. The generalization here isn't improper at all. If there is anyone born poor that got rich, or born rich that got poor, you just know it's one rare exception.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Oh well. You just don't wanna admit you have no answer for what I brought up. It's not tangent, it's the one single reason Capitalism doesn't work. It's the core of my arguments.

You dodged all of my questions, some of which were points about new issues you brought up in order to dodge the previous questions, and you accuse me of dodging? Kromoh, I am not going to follow you on subject change after subject change. I made initial points and then asked you stump questions on your dodges. Now answer what I brought up, or we are through here. I guess you are stumped.

Originally Posted by SkA_DaRk_Che

As i understand it the Greek Scientists and the great minds of the Renaissnace where simply intellectuals with a muse to pursue knowledge and expand the horizons of understanding. They did not pursue this as a profession I'm sure, the Greek Scientists had slaves and a great amount of leisure time to pursue their muses, the minds of the Renaissance had other professions within Academia or incorporated their studies into their professions as well.

It is true that the great minds of Antiquity were often well-off and had no need to live off their inventions or philosophical teachings, but this is only because no average man back then could spend time on any pursuit of knowledge. They were uneducated and too busy plowing the fields to feed their families. However, great scientists like Archimedes and Da Vinci were engineers by trade (among other things), and they didn't sell their creations to the highest bidder. I'm simply trying to establish that innovation can exist outside of the pursuit for profit.

It is simple to say people should work for the greater good etc, but try telling a man to go to university for 10-15 years to become an anatheisologist, or an other kind of Physician, and then to accept only minimum wage and some rations as a wage afterwards.

Why would he spend his youth at university just "for the greater good"? People need an economical incentive for their investment (time and money). That is not to say that the man does not like helping people, just he is not going to go to school for 15 years to become a highly speicalised physician and earn the same as a day labourer (when all is said and done and he has completed his studies).

Technically speaking, in pure communism there is no exchange of money, no wages or bills (as there is nothing to own). The state provides everything you could need in exchange for work. Of course getting to that point would take a long, long, long time... I don't see however how in the interim, the state couldn't compensate a person in accordance with the complexity of their work. This is fairer even than ours, where teachers make half the wages of garbage men.

You raise a good point against pure communism though. Although I don't believe there would be a shortage of people willing to spend the long years in university to become qualified in a very specialized field (as most people studying for these positions do so out of interest), I could see how nobody would be interested in less desirable but currently highly paid jobs (e.g. garbage man) that require little skill. I suppose there could be a system where every citizen must "help out" with these jobs for short periods of time, kind of like jury duty.

In theory the citizens are the government, but it really does not work out that way in practice. Humans are by their nature greedy, it is no surprise that often after the communist party in a nation has taken stewardship of the nation that they often become a dictatorship and do not hold free elections and the whole gambit.

The fact that many nations that have declared themselves "communist" were actually dictatorships has little to do with communism, which was rarely ever implemented in its proper sense. The truth is that all these "communist" countries are the result of revolutions against previous dictators (not the most stable of political atmospheres here), and the revolutionary party used the notion of communism to gain the backing of the impoverished populace which was eager for a change and a spread of the wealth. Just because these parties branded themselves as communist doesn't make it so, they were never communist from the start. There has yet to be a politically stable, advanced society that has attempted to make a proper peaceful transition through socialism and into communism.

As for the notion of human greediness, it is a difficult concept for most people, but a group can achieve things an individual could never on his on. There are simply more resources and ideas available to the "team". I don't see people embracing that concept unless they experience a successful example of it themselves, chicken and egg thing...

You make the critical assumption that communist nations are and were accountable to the people in the same way the government is in countries that have liberal democracies. While it is a fine line to say that in a communist nation the worker and the government are one and the same this proves to be a very difficult transition in practice(real life).

In practice we have seen that without any real accountability to the people, the government becomes corrupt and alienates and betrays the people. Thus the rights are not preserved.

This is the difference between idealism and practicality.

Once again, past examples of "communist" nations are deceiving. All the perceived corruptions and human rights abuses are not a result of the implementation of communism, but rather the great confusion and social turmoil that was easily exploited by a few men following a massive national revolution.

I'll cover the USSR right now since it's the most obvious example. After centuries of drifting between the monarchy and the working class, Lenin and the Soviets revolted against the monarchy and created the Soviet Union. So what do we have here: a leader inspired by communism who, after a long and bloody civil war, abolished a millennium-long form of government overnight with the backing of impoverished, uneducated farmers and factory workers. This isn't really the most stable environment to successfully introduce such a radical political and economical concept as communism for the first time in history is it? Well within a few years, Lenin died, and Stalin, seeing an opportunity in all this mess, took over the country (against Lenin's final wishes). He turned out to be a brutal dictator and a pretty bad leader and the Soviet Union's pursuit of communism died at that point (until Gorbachev unsuccessfully tried to bring it back in the 80s). This is a pattern that repeats itself throughout the history of so-called communist nations, but really the concept that a communist regime should be totalitarian or centered around a single figure is a total contradiction...

I'm confident that if communism was to be progressively, properly established in a stable, peaceful country, the results would be much better than anything we've seen in the 20th century.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Amen. Exactly.



Wow. A ghost from the past. Welcome back.

Hey UM