Thread: Does Communism still have a role to play, or is it dead?

Communism in theory is nice.
You go and work for free, then you go to a store and take what you want for free.

The main problem is - why should I work if I can just go and take what I want?

Originally Posted by nulle

Communism in theory is nice.
You go and work for free, then you go to a store and take what you want for free.

The main problem is - why should I work if I can just go and take what I want?

Read my post above (#4 in this thread). Apparently you belong to those 98-99% who will do exactly that - parasite on the system. There will be 1-2% however who will do all the work for free simply because they feel like working a little. Work will become a privilege, not a burden.

It is possible. We just don't have all necessary technologies yet.

Originally Posted by Ramil

It is possible. We just don't have all necessary technologies yet.

I agree with those that say Communism is a lovely idea, and that human nature is the obstacle.
It's too bad that humanity is not (yet?) at the point whereby it can work. Also, I don't like revolutions and lots of the bad stuff that comes with implementing communism or even socialism.

But I particularly like "from all according to their abilities, to all according to their needs.

I am aware that socialist countries to varying degrees try to educate / influence people from childhood, to become better human beings, that would function better under Communism. But I am not sure how successful that really is/was.

The Christian view on socialism/communism is interesting too:

According to the Christianity I grew up with, Jesus pretty much WAS a socialist... The disciples shared everything, and likewise the early Christians, Jesus despised wealth and preached against rich people. Liberation theology etc. Christianity was all about solidarity and taking care of the weaker people in society.

According to other Christians, for example many in the UK and US, socialism is practically un-christian and communism is impossible due to the sinful nature of people. To try to create a paradise on Earth goes against God's will. Not to mention the fact that Marx was rather anti-religion.

Then we have the argument that nobody has actually managed really Communism anyway, so there is no telling whether it actually works once it is in place.

But I share Nulle's worries that people simply get lazy and don't work unless there is something making them. The majority of people do not have jobs that are stimulating, interesting or fulfilling...

Perhaps in the future when robots do all the boring work and humans do only interesting work, it would work.
Or perhaps somebody could refine communism in such a way that people have sufficient incentive to work, without having to threaten them.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Perhaps in the future when robots do all the boring work and humans do only interesting work, it would work.
Or perhaps somebody could refine communism in such a way that people have sufficient incentive to work, without having to threaten them.

That's the trick. We don't have to worry about 'sinful human nature'. At some point thing would turn upside down. People WILL be willing to work, because, as I said, work (a real work) will be too scarse. You can do nothing and get anything from that, but really, how boring this would become eventually? No goal, no focus, nothing to do... I see more problems in this area rather than in 'wealth distribution problem'.

Originally Posted by Ramil

You can do nothing and get anything from that, but really, how boring this would become eventually? No goal, no focus, nothing to do... I see more problems in this area rather than in 'wealth distribution problem'.

You are thinking like Isaac Asimov then. He predicted a future when robots would do all the work. However because there was nothing to spur the humans on, no incentive for doing anything really, society stopped developing, no new inventions were made, there was stagnation. Despite the robot based society being richer it eventually lost out to a society that banned robots and did the work themselves. (this is in Asimov's "Robot" series)

Originally Posted by Marcus

Who will determin the abilities and especially needs?

That is the $1,000,000 question my friend...
And your answer is?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

What do you think of that?

I propose that a super computer programmed with the best wealth distribution algorithms, as well as formulas for the practical application of communism might be able to solve all these problems Croc!

So that everyone gets an allocation that adds up to the same value. Then if it turns out that you particularly value a South facing flat and can get by on less vodka... then you can log this in the system and the computer can organise a swap with somebody who wants more vodka but doesn't care about the orientation of their flat.... ETC!

Plus the computer is not prone to abuse of power, cronyism or anything similar.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I propose that a super computer programmed with the best wealth distribution algorithms, as well as formulas for the practical application of communism might be able to solve all these problems Croc!

Can you divide 11 chairs among 7 people without a super computer?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Can you divide 11 chairs among 7 people without a super computer?

Of course, but I couldn't keep every distribution I ever made in my head and treat everyone fairly. But the computer could keep track on exactly what everyone got. The computer would work out that the people who got no chair get a particularly nice bed instead, or something. Or let you swap your allocation of vodka for a new laptop.

I am beginning to like the idea with the "fair" super computer.