Can Communism Work? page 18

Originally posted by Zachary_Greene:

Originally posted by vikaTae:
The human brain was not an adaptation intended to work in a communist society. Whilst the society style works really well, it runs into problems when you try to involve humans in it, because of the way the human brain itself works.

That’s one of the biggest issues.
It used to work fairly decently back in the day with families and tribes and all, but now things are too advanced and people have changed to become even more greedy than back then.

That’s one reason why I disagree with a large group of communists that say everyone would and should be equal and get the same.
That will never work now unless a gigantic horrifying disaster happens where we actually NEED to work together, which won’t happen.

But if we let people get more benefits for different jobs/working harder than others it would possibly fix part of the issue with how greedy we are.

The issue with communism is that it can’t be on a small scale a lot of the time because a large group of people will be convinced what you make is no good or just will hate you for living in a communist place.
If there’s a drought, it’s going to be horrifying.

That’s why I like it on a bigger scale better.
If one place has a drought another place that has too much food could trade/ship some food over and other things the place is running low on.

---

Really every house-hold is a mini communist society in a way if you think about it.

If you think of it, we’re not equal. Not at all. So, it’s hard to think we would have all the same benefits. What should be the same for everybody, as a base, is the right to have food, clothes, shelter, health care and education. Just the basic a human being needs to take an active part on a society. If you have all that, then the society is as a whole, in many aspects, your new “family” and could be called a comunist society. And then, once human life continuity is already stablished for everybody, you may have “benefits” for working harder, being smarter, most talented, etc.

Originally posted by Zachary_Greene:

Originally posted by vikaTae:
The human brain was not an adaptation intended to work in a communist society. Whilst the society style works really well, it runs into problems when you try to involve humans in it, because of the way the human brain itself works.

That’s one of the biggest issues.
It used to work fairly decently back in the day with families and tribes and all, but now things are too advanced and people have changed to become even more greedy than back then.

That’s one reason why I disagree with a large group of communists that say everyone would and should be equal and get the same.

Actually communism is not about everyone getting the same but what they need. Sadly the believers in Marxist communism and many off shots, while correctly assuming the ever growing pace of production miss judged the ever growing pace off consumption. And this is actually not about greed but about the staggering advances in technology that allowed ever more Products in ever greater quality to become “necessary”.
The communist models only worked when the consumption stayed stable while productivity ever increased into the unimaginable. Quite easily think of todays modern societies as they are, with the current productivity these societies can enable a decent living for all most all of its citizens and give many of them even more. With the upper 10% living in riches. The communist models rely on the Belief that every one can live as the 10% do now if the ownership and thus profits of the businesses is shared and the productivity is increased 10 fold.
The vision was a shared utopia of the overproduction. A great buffet where everyone could chose their own course with there always being enough to satisfy.
Turns out that does not work so well when technological advances change how that productivity is consumed.

The vision was a shared utopia of the overproduction. A great buffet where everyone could chose their own course with there always being enough to satisfy.
Turns out that does not work so well when technological advances change how that productivity is consumed.

Even at the most basic level it’s a flawed vision. Mountains of unsold goods represent dead money, and suck up even more in storage and depreciation costs. Cash flow is vital in any business model, and without it the whole system grinds to a halt without ever increasing subsidies.

Originally posted by beauval:

Even at the most basic level it’s a flawed vision. Mountains of unsold goods represent dead money, and suck up even more in storage and depreciation costs. Cash flow is vital in any business model, and without it the whole system grinds to a halt without ever increasing subsidies.

It should work if you use the more extreme high-end tech. The concept of a molecular assembler in the home, would be compatible with communism, as well as a few other models of home manufacturing. However, that would require a massive paradigm shift, where we don’t have physical goods, beyond the basic elements used in assembly.

It would only really work on an almost purely information-driven economy, where the physical basic needs and luxury items could be made for the same basic cost, by all residents.

As I said before, communism is viable, but not at our present level of development. It is a system worth keeping in mind, but beyond making individual factories internally communist, it is not something that is going to work, yet.

Originally posted by beauval:

The vision was a shared utopia of the overproduction. A great buffet where everyone could chose their own course with there always being enough to satisfy.
Turns out that does not work so well when technological advances change how that productivity is consumed.

Even at the most basic level it’s a flawed vision. Mountains of unsold goods represent dead money, and suck up even more in storage and depreciation costs. Cash flow is vital in any business model, and without it the whole system grinds to a halt without ever increasing subsidies.

I think your criticizing the wrong things. Dead money is totally okay to certain extents in any economy, it is actually a signature of most capitalistic economies.

And in the communist vision Money quite often does not exist, because peoples primary income is the shared ownership of all companies and businesses. If Money is used at all its concept is quite different, since the buyer basically gets his money back once used, because he is one of the owners of the company selling/providing to him. The money symbolizes more of a Vote/Maker representing which products should be produced are necessary and which because of lack of buyers should not.

The communist vision was heavily influenced by the repeated technical advances that made the former basic jobs of whole industries obsolete, Machines replacing human-workforce enabling 1 worker with the help of a machine to do the work of 100 or 1000 of workers without such machines.

The idea is still held by some communist that the technical advances will reduce the amount of work to be done ever more and that the “high” number of jobless is an expression of this advance. The optimum of this imagined future would be a world where humans do not need to work at all, since all necessary and non liked work is done by machines, while the less necessary work is done by those who preform the work more as hobby(mostly entertainment and creative work).

Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

The idea is still held by some communist that the technical advances will reduce the amount of work to be done ever more and that the “high” number of jobless is an expression of this advance. The optimum of this imagined future would be a world where humans do not need to work at all, since all necessary and non liked work is done by machines, while the less necessary work is done by those who preform the work more as hobby(mostly entertainment and creative work).

We were supposed to be living in such a utopian world now. However, instead of that, work hours have shifted to be more and more service based, and less and less about making a physical product. Even if we automate all of the physical construction of goods, it is difficult to believe we won’t have legions of tasks demanding the attention of potent minds to deal with.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

The idea is still held by some communist that the technical advances will reduce the amount of work to be done ever more and that the “high” number of jobless is an expression of this advance. The optimum of this imagined future would be a world where humans do not need to work at all, since all necessary and non liked work is done by machines, while the less necessary work is done by those who preform the work more as hobby(mostly entertainment and creative work).

We were supposed to be living in such a utopian world now. However, instead of that, work hours have shifted to be more and more service based, and less and less about making a physical product. Even if we automate all of the physical construction of goods, it is difficult to believe we won’t have legions of tasks demanding the attention of potent minds to deal with.

Yes, true. Thats the quint essence why communism as envisioned by Marxist theory can not work(until we actually reach the utopia state of machines duplicating and even outperforming anything a human can do). Even today there is a legion of tasks that are not being (adequately) performed even though society could profit from them. In richer/more advanced societies many tasks are seen as “necessary” which are not considered as such in less rich/advanced societies.

As a related tangent Johnny, how do we deal with those individuals whose cognitive capabilities are below those of our machines? If a communist society is to function as it should, unrest due to essentially not having a place in the world, has to be eliminated. Otherwise the system slowly tears itself apart.

How do we find tasks for those whose minds are sub-par to perform, when we can do all menial tasks far more efficiently with automation?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

As a related tangent Johnny, how do we deal with those individuals whose cognitive capabilities are below those of our machines? If a communist society is to function as it should, unrest due to essentially not having a place in the world, has to be eliminated. Otherwise the system slowly tears itself apart.

How do we find tasks for those whose minds are sub-par to perform, when we can do all menial tasks far more efficiently with automation?

Don´t get me wrong i am no believer in communism(i tend more towards certain forms of socialism). So i can´t speak for what the communist solution to this would be.

From what i hear the communist solution is mostly these people doing nothing except what ever hobbies they might have in societies where all necessary work is being done by machines or those humans who are capable and actually want to work as self-fulfillment or have them doing make work(menial tasks that are not really necessary but still at least somewhat beneficial and are just there to create jobs).

From my experience as a social worker working with jobless individuals and especially retired senior citizens, i don´t think that the the former idea of doing nothing except hobbies is the right solution for the majority of people. While some people have learned or instinctively know how to fill their days with fulfilling activities many seriously degenerate physically, mentally and socially when confronted with long extents of time that used to be filled out by work.
Here i think entertainment could be a valuable bridge, but for that entertainment would have to change largely from the passive audience experience it commonly is today into more inclusive active experience. So instead of watching/listening people play sports, perform music and so on, more being the one playing sports, performing music and so on. And this with the limitations in mind that many people bring with them.

Nope.

Originally posted by Crash301:

Nope.

Why not?

Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

Don´t get me wrong i am no believer in communism(i tend more towards certain forms of socialism). So i can´t speak for what the communist solution to this would be.

I see communism as a solution in some cases, but not in every case. My views tend towards more complex, dynamic social structures, but for the purposes of this thread, I’m sticking with communism.

From what i hear the communist solution is mostly these people doing nothing except what ever hobbies they might have in societies where all necessary work is being done by machines or those humans who are capable and actually want to work as self-fulfillment or have them doing make work(menial tasks that are not really necessary but still at least somewhat beneficial and are just there to create jobs).

Make-work won’t work. I suspect you know why. Work needs to be fulilling and rewarding to give the worker a sense of accomplishment. make-work is neither; it is just there to fill up timke and the worker is well aware of that fact.

From my experience as a social worker working with jobless individuals and especially retired senior citizens, i don´t think that the the former idea of doing nothing except hobbies is the right solution for the majority of people. While some people have learned or instinctively know how to fill their days with fulfilling activities many seriously degenerate physically, mentally and socially when confronted with long extents of time that used to be filled out by work.

I would definitely agree. In order to prevent degradation there needs to be challenge, something to test the limits, and force them to constantly push those limits. If they don’t grow cognitively, at least they are not declining.

Here i think entertainment could be a valuable bridge, but for that entertainment would have to change largely from the passive audience experience it commonly is today into more inclusive active experience. So instead of watching/listening people play sports, perform music and so on, more being the one playing sports, performing music and so on. And this with the limitations in mind that many people bring with them.

You’re describing active entertainment along the lines of SimStim, or full-body virtual reality aren’t you. Even the modern holodecks don’t go far enough in that regard. Are you suggesting however, that once we do have full sensorium VR that this will be the tipping point towards being able to dispense with work for work’s sake, and being able to create fulfilling experiences for each individual, whether or not they are in traditional employment? More pertinently, do you believe this is a prerequisite to having such an experience, that we won’t accomplish it in a meaningful way before we reach this point, other than through the same types of technologies?

Currently communsime is not a viable form of gouvernement, But I belive in the future it will be.
If everybody could beceome doctors or scentists, company managers or a lawer, who would be the country farmer? the worker or the janitor? even the stupidest of people have higher ambitions.
Plus, currently, If people slack off, it would result in them leeching of the system, taking the same chunk as hard working pplz without doing anything.
I think in the future the costs of manufacturing basic human needs (housing, food, water) and goods will fall to a point where, if distributed equaly by a central system would be able to provide all humans with enough of watever that even if half the population are slackers it would not matter, as all humans would be able to live comfortably (if the wealth is evenly spread out, that is)

Right now, we have capitilisme cause if we shared everything with everybody (comunisme) The pplz that work hard would be pissed that there living in the same shack as dudes who do abasutly nothing.
But when we get to the point where we can previde the hole human race with Nice houses in the suberbs, and no one lives in a shack or in a mansion, Everybody would be pleased.

I hope the dawning of communism teaches you how to spell.

EVERYBODY WINS Comrade!

Communism has never worked in it’s entire period of existence, still does not work, and will never, ever, ever work.

Some examples of communist failures (although every Communist country that has ever existed has failed or is failing or will fail):

North Korea: the country cannot provide for it’s people, people starve, are in political and/or enemy-of-the-state-and-communism concentration camps, have little or no education (unless favored by the government), and are daily subjugated and brainwashed to hate the free world through both individual brainwashing techniques and/or government instituted and produced propaganda in the form of posters, government television and radio, and even math problems (“One of our glorious land’s soldiers killed 654 American soldiers and 759 British soldiers. What is the difference between the American and British soldiers killed?”)

Actually, that describes pretty much every Communist country that has ever existed. So I don’t need to write slightly varying descriptions between these cesspools.
Here are the rest:

Cuba
U.S.S.R.
North Vietnam
East Germany
Romania
Somalia
Congo

And so on and so forth…

Hehehehe.

Now everyone’s trying to forget about this thread. lol.

Yes, you just dazzled us with your brilliant exposition.

Of course, N. Korea ISN’T in fact a communist country; it’s a dictatorship that deliberately masquerades as one, and conditions in N. Korea are far worse than in any communist country since the stalin-era purges.

Cuba was until recently somewhat similar, but had the advantage of being blessedly free of Americans.

Communism Vietnam, in case you didn’t get the memo, won the war and rebuilt their country into something vaguely approaching industrialized prosperity…they remain communist to this date.

None of the African countries you mention are considered to be Communist. Somalia was more of an anarchy but even that’s stretching the use.

But yes, on the whole, a gold star is you. Your middle school teacher would be pleased, I’m sure.

Communism Vietnam, in case you didn’t get the memo, won the war and rebuilt their country into something vaguely approaching industrialized prosperity…they remain communist to this date.

And ended a brutal genocide in a neighboring country that the rest of the ‘civilized’ world refused to acknowledge.

Also, no one referenced Yugoslavia. Which… did not end so well. But the odds were stacked against them. Unifying the Balkans and increasing general posterity was quite the feat. It was still a far cry from a utopia, and was heavily subsidized by both the Soviets and the West (good job Tito). Still pretty alright, and certainly list worthy.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Yes, you just dazzled us with your brilliant exposition.

Of course, N. Korea ISN’T in fact a communist country; it’s a dictatorship that deliberately masquerades as one, and conditions in N. Korea are far worse than in any communist country since the stalin-era purges.

Cuba was until recently somewhat similar, but had the advantage of being blessedly free of Americans.

Communism Vietnam, in case you didn’t get the memo, won the war and rebuilt their country into something vaguely approaching industrialized prosperity…they remain communist to this date.

None of the African countries you mention are considered to be Communist. Somalia was more of an anarchy but even that’s stretching the use.

But yes, on the whole, a gold star is you. Your middle school teacher would be pleased, I’m sure.

FAIL.

North Korea is communist. Same policy, structure, and results. (political labor camps, etc.) They still have a much lower standard of living compared to capitalist countries.

Under communism there is ALWAYS a dictator or dictators. I dare anyone to name one communist country that did not or does not have a dictator while purely communist.

The lack of Americans (unless they are reporters there to write stories about how great Cuba is) has nothing to do with this discussion.

Cuba still has political prison camps. People still have a much lower standard of living compared to capitalist countries.

Vietnam is approaching “industrial prosperity” because they are leaving communism and slowly moving to democracy.

If you paid attention you would have noticed that I wrote a list of these nations that EVER HAVE EXISTED. This means that most of these are no longer communist. (note USSR, East Germany, Somalia, Congo)

Name one communist country that “worked”. You can’t. Because one never has existed, does not exist, and never will exist.

Notice I did not use modern China as an example.

Why are they thriving? Because they have moved towards capitalism.

Without reading the last 18-some pages I would say—in general, communism can’t work.

Why? Because to have a communal pool of resources (in other words, extensive social benefits), a large part of the populace needs to be taxed. I think that the human nature and intent demonstrates that it is an unsustainable model—the more people that work while collecting benefits, the greater the strain on the system, and the less incentive for the rest of the population to work and provide resources to care for such programs.

Very astute Twilight.

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Without reading the last 18-some pages I would say—in general, communism can’t work.

Why? Because to have a communal pool of resources (in other words, extensive social benefits), a large part of the populace needs to be taxed. I think that the human nature and intent demonstrates that it is an unsustainable model—the more people that work while collecting benefits, the greater the strain on the system, and the less incentive for the rest of the population to work and provide resources to care for such programs.

so why then is Sweden at this moment the strongest economy in the world, when they have possibly the biggest communal pool of resources?

I’m not sure I’d call Sweden one of the strongest economies right now. It’s external debt per capita is about 100k, which is pretty outlandish. Pretty much twice that of the USA, which is generally given shit on account of it’s rating. It’s Net International is at a negative 729 Billion, about 22% of it’s total GDP. Also a worse off position then the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_international_investment_position
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt