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

Let's say, the system is 99% automated and it produces the goods to satisfy the 'basic needs' according to Ramil.

Say, I go to the store to get a bottle of vodka and meet Ramil in the same store. So, we start chatting and then discover Hanna is not in the store to pick up her daily fresh flower basket. It turned out Hanna got sick that day and the flower basket got delivered to her right to her doorstep (by automation, I guess). So, then I start asking: why do I have to get up and go to the store to get vodka? Ah, says Ramil, that's because that's not your basic need, since you can go to the store yourself. So, for you that would just be a comfort. And the comfort cannot be satisfied by definition, since there's never limits to the comfort. But, then I say: ok, but the store is closer to me than to Ramil, so Ramil would normally go an extra mile, meaning the location adds more value to me than to Ramil. Are you ok with that, Ramil? He would say, of course I'm not, I think I should live closer to the store because I'm doing sports for fun and I get tired more than Crocodile who is only writing poems all day long, also for fun. In the end, we all agree that there's no social justice until the food is delivered right to the doorstep of both Ramil's and mine.

And after that basic need is satisfied, we start wondering about who is going to cook for us? The freely delivered food tastes bad and not healthy, and both of us can't cook, so should we be going on destroying our health and writing worse poems and achieving worse results in sports than we could? No, we want the delicious and healthy food for both of us! And that would be another basic needs. So, let's say that is resolved by the automation. The next one is the orientation. Hanna is getting more sun, because her apartment faces the South, and Ramil's and mine are facing the North. Getting enough sun is a healthy issue and therefore is basic need. So, me and Ramil applied and got the automated parabolic outside mirrors which reflect the sun delivering some of it into our apartments. Then a new issue arises.. and so on. There's never end even to the so-called 'basic needs'.

And then, the bigger issue starts to loom: the socially just wealth distribution. Say, you have 7 people and 3 pieces of bread. So, Ramil says: there cannot be Communism in that case! The basic needs would have to be satisfied by automation. Ok, so let's do that and change the question: there are 7 people and 11 pieces of bread. Who gets the pieces and how many? Based on what?

Since, both of the problems (the satisfaction of the basic needs and the socially just distribution) cannot really be solved fairly, the Communism implementation according to Ramil is not feasible. There may be more Communism or less Communism, but there never could be THE Communism. What do you think of that?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

...

Impressive "towel", Cap. "Consumer society is incapable of self-restraint" TM

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Impressive "towel", Cap. "Consumer society is incapable of self-restraint" TM

And I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing. I know it's probably common to compare the Communist regimes to the prison, but let's look at that objectively. The inmates have clothes, roof, work, and some leisure time. The basic needs are satisfied. To the cave men, that would seem like a very decent life. Nobody is dying from hunger. There's even some medical service. At least, much more than you could wish in the tribal society. Some leisure time allows for some intellectual and creative life, like books and art. So, the Communism exists now. For the cave men though.

If that would seem like stretching it out, let's look closer to a typical person on the financial relief (like Welfare) in a typical bloody-sucking capitalist country. That person would have free: one-room apartment, food, clothes, etc. and don't even have to work for that! Isn't that the Communism a typical proletarian of the end 19th century would dream? It's right here, before our eyes! No need for Great October Socialist Revolution, Civil War, Industrialization...

Why the prison or the welfare is not acceptable for everyone? Obviously it's due to the social competition, which I think is a positive and constructive optimization force. We want to maximize our comfort and minimize our efforts. It's thanks to that drive that we're not in a cave right now.

from all according to their abilities, to all according to their needs.

Who will determin the abilities and especially needs?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

If that would seem like stretching it out, let's look closer to a typical person on the financial relief (like Welfare) in a typical bloody-sucking capitalist country. That person would have free: one-room apartment, food, clothes, etc. and don't even have to work for that! Isn't that the Communism a typical proletarian of the end 19th century would dream? It's right here, before our eyes! No need for Great October Socialist Revolution, Civil War, Industrialization...

Oh well, but you bloody capitalists at the same time fill his mind with images of supercars, diamonds and opulent palaces by the seaside. You tempt people, you desire his soul in exchange for devil's gold. You turn him into a consumption machine. That's the difference. You impress him with false values ridiculing much more important virtues.
Capitalists say - everything's possible, you just need to work very hard and you'll be rich and successful. THAT'S BULL$HIT, you know.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Oh well, but you bloody capitalists at the same time fill his mind with images of supercars, diamonds and opulent palaces by the seaside. You tempt people, you desire his soul in exchange for devil's gold. You turn him into a consumption machine. That's the difference.

The difference between what and what?

Originally Posted by Ramil

You impress him with false values ridiculing much more important virtues.

Ok, so let's talk about the values a bit. The last time I checked on the Communist manifesto they said [:]File Not Found "Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family. [...] The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital."

I would say a virtue of "social justice" is much more false than the family values. What do you say? There are also: "But you Communists would introduce community of women."

Originally Posted by Ramil

Capitalists say - everything's possible, you just need to work very hard and you'll be rich and successful. THAT'S BULL$HIT, you know.

Well, not everything is possible. I think you might have perceived the capitalism at some point in some brilliant colours and then got disillusioned, hence the anger in your words. However, the capitalism is nothing more than the declaration of the private property. And the communism is nothing more than the abolition of the private property. That is all to it, really. Those capitalists which tempt the consumers with new cars, are not devils which are trying to get souls, they are just trying to sell it to you. It is your personal responsibility not to buy it if you don't have money.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

The difference between what and what?

Between your point and mine.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Ok, so let's talk about the values a bit. The last time I checked on the Communist manifesto they said [:]File Not Found "Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family. [...] The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital."

I wonder why you are bringing it up. I wrote that 'communism is possible but not in the way Marx or Lenin saw it'. The basic principle still remains.
Let's speak of value. What is value? Comfort? Things that might get our lives better? OK, but what IS 'better'? These things depend on how we think of this world. And what determines the way how we think? Being determines consciousness. What is good and what is bad? Крошка сын к отцу пришел...
Let's remember the Moral code of the Builder of Communism - is it so bad? What, the cult of money and consumption is better than that?
Having more money and a better car is actually nothing compared to the number of saved lives by a surgeon, but who cares about it these days? Really? Moral comfort is sometimes more valuable than the comfort of your butt...
No, I think I'm wasting my time here...

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Well, not everything is possible.

Now, I'm really crushed. 'Working hard' doesn't get me a Maserati?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I think you might have perceived the capitalism at some point in some brilliant colours and then got disillusioned, hence the anger in your words.

Hardly that. I've never been all that taken by the capitalism, even though I'd happenned to visit Western Germany 2 years before the Berlin Wall fell. I always thought that Communism is a far better economical, political and social system than capitalism. If I ever was disillusioned that was rather in my countrymen who failed and surrendered. I've never felt any sympaties for capitalism. (Must be some heavy communistic brainwashing I've undergone in my childhood)

Originally Posted by Crocodile

However, the capitalism is nothing more than the declaration of the private property.

And? Is that good?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

And the communism is nothing more than the abolition of the private property.

Is that bad?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

That is all to it, really. Those capitalists which tempt the consumers with new cars, are not devils which are trying to get souls, they are just trying to sell it to you.

But why are they trying to sell it to me? To feel more butt-comfort?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

It is your personal responsibility not to buy it if you don't have money.

Oooookay. Responsibility. So, when the communists were saying 'It's a personal responsibility of every Soviet citizen to postpone his/her own interests to the public welfare' the capitalists were saying 'Lolwut? No sane man will do that, that's impossible, people are weak...' But when we spoke about temptation to spend more than you can afford in order to look (not to be) more successful (according to the devil's advertisements) the capitalists say 'I's his/her personal responsibility'. These guys are not being very consitent, really.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Moral comfort is sometimes more valuable than comfort of your butt... No, I think I'm wasting my time here...

Both types of comfort are subjective.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Now, I'm really crushed. 'Working hard' doesn't get me a Maserati?

No it won't. As much as killing 20 kulaks does not bring about the social justice for you.

Originally Posted by Ramil

And? Is that good? Is that bad?

It's good to some people and bad to others.

Originally Posted by Ramil

But why are they trying to sell it to me? To feel more butt-comfort?

I was trying to convey my opinion.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Oooookay. Responsibility. So, when the communists were saying 'It's a personal responsibility of every Soviet citizen to postpone his/her own interests to the public welfare' the capitalists were saying 'Lolwut? No sane man will do that, that's impossible, people are weak...' But when we spoke about temptation to spend more than you can afford in order to look (not to be) more successful (according to the devil's advertisements) the capitalists say 'I's his/her personal responsibility'. These guys are not being very consitent, really.

Yes, there are double standards and a lie in every propaganda. And Maseratis are not as good as they are advertized either.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

If that would seem like stretching it out, let's look closer to a typical person on the financial relief (like Welfare) in a typical bloody-sucking capitalist country. That person would have free: one-room apartment, food, clothes, etc. and don't even have to work for that! Isn't that the Communism a typical proletarian of the end 19th century would dream? It's right here, before our eyes! No need for Great October Socialist Revolution, Civil War, Industrialization...

Yes, this IS the Communism by fact. Why some people are unhappy?

When we speak about basic needs we forget to formulate strictly - needs for what? Needs for survival? With things like Welfare it is satisfied. In fact, they are needs for justice. If every person feels that everything is just - it is the Communism. But if everything is already just, what should we fight for and live for? If everything is forever just, the real life (with real work and real responsibility) is over and all we left to do are games of all kind. Homo ludens.

Communism is a kind of absolute abstraction like death or nirvana.

Crododile, I can only agree with it-ogo:

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Impressive "towel", Cap. "Consumer society is incapable of self-restraint" TM

Your speculations are wrong and here's why. You just put yourself and me (present day people) into a future so distant that normally even our great-grand children would be long in their graves by that time. You don't seriously expect our present day views would be still sound then, do you? Changes I spoke about will take time to happen, they won't just occur overnigt. Along with that peoples' views on life will change also and in great many ways. So we can only accept the fact that we cannot make any speculations about how people will act then. I'm only saying that technology level will eventually reach a point when, as I already said, 1-2% of population will be able to provide for the rest 98-99%. By that time, it is quite possible that people will live not only on Earth but on some other planets or even other solar systems. Yes, I'm speaking about that distant a future. So, Crocodile, you can calm your fears, no communism will happen during your lifetime. You can consume and continue being a capitalist without second thoughts.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I'm only saying that technology level will eventually reach a point when, as I already said, 1-2% of population will be able to provide for the rest 98-99%.

That's true I'm speculating as there's no way to tell reliably what will happen then. To tell the truth, both of us are speculating. I'm saying: here's the trend, it worked for hundreds of thousands of years. Let's extrapolate this trend and assume it will not change in the future. And then I make my conclusions. On the other hand, you make a leap to the unknown and say a totally new thing will happen and people would cooperate on the new level unimaginable in the entire previous history. Whose speculation is more reliable? We would never know. Predicting the future had never paid off.

I think that in the observable future the capitalism had not rotten to the point it had exhausted itself as a political organization of the society. Right now, there seem to be more capital than there are actually assets, meaning the entire humanity is basically in debt. That is because the humanity had capitalized on the expectations of the future profit. If the future profit does not turn out, it is going to be a global financial catastrophe. Very desirable for the communists and, perhaps, the anarchists. However, I would respectfully disagree with those who would insist that is inevitable. So far, the financial world had dealt with that issue by simply expanding the market. They cherish the 'innovation' and praise the 'education' so people could make up more and more ways to create more and more comfort in different ways. The next big market is in the outer space. In addition to the cheap energy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining]:

"At 1997 prices, a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1.6 km (0.99 mi) contains more than 20 trillion US dollars worth of industrial and precious metals.^[1][2] In fact, all the gold, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium, ruthenium, and tungsten that we now mine from the Earth's crust, and that are essential for economic and technological progress, came originally from the rain of asteroids that hit the Earth after the crust cooled."

In the observable future, the expansion of the humanity to space should create many new markets.

But, even then, I do not believe a person on welfare would be content with him living in a 3,000 cubic feet of a house, eating five steaks a day, and driving a his personal jet. He would look up at the others who live in their private asteroid, drive a new 5-Mach robotic flyer, eat delicious fruit which only grows in the space greenhouses, etc.