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

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.

Originally Posted by Hanna

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.

Is that what the Communism is about in your opinion? I need clothes, but I'm given the nails instead? If yes, then the USSR had implemented the Communism successfully.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Is that what the Communism is about in your opinion? I need clothes, but I'm given the nails instead? If yes, then the USSR had implemented the Communism successfully.

No I am talking about swapping around on such massive scale that everyone ends up happy.
The computer would also quickly be able to identify if there is something which lots of people want which there is not enough of, or if there is something produced which in fact nobody wants. And since the computer is not a greedy capitalist, it would not continue production of endless unhealthy junk just because there was a demand for it.

For example, A wants a cashmere jumper but hate eggs. B wants a bicycle but not a kitchen table. C wants eggs but not a bicycle. D wants a kitchen table but not a cashmere jumper.
Then apply that on a national scale and give everyone a certain allowance of everything, or a certain equal amounts of points, the swap around until everyone is happy.

Humans couldn't do this - it's too complicated. But a super computer could carry on until everyone got what they wanted or very close. It could also identify what gaps there were, and prevent cheating...

I think I have invented a new ideology! "COMPUNISM"

So how about it Croc, you write the code and I manage the project, whaddya say?

Originally Posted by Hanna

No I am talking about swapping around on such massive scale that everyone ends up happy.

USSR had this implemented. It was called Госплан. Everything was planned - Gosplan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But it relied on humans and humans make mistakes. Problems with logistics (intentional and not) created deficit - you have had enough nails inside the whole country but some regions have had too many nails and some haven't had enough

Originally Posted by Hanna

I think I have invented a new ideology! "COMPUNISM"

448px-Download_communism.jpg

Originally Posted by Hanna

I think I have invented a new ideology! "COMPUNISM"

So how about it Croc, you write the code and I manage the project, whaddya say?

Well, that is theoretically possible, however what do you do if you have the matching scores? How would you resolve the conflicts in that case? What if after the super-extra-complex calculations you have 3 chairs to divide among 7 people? How would you prefer one over the other? That would be SOCIAL INJUSTICE!1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111

If you have a shortage - that's not the communism, but if you have an extra, who would get it?

Seriously though, I think there are lots of things to dispute about above the 'basic needs', enough to create the injustice. The notion of the 'abilities' vs 'needs' is fundamentally controversial. I need that specific woman, but my abilities are not enough to get her. And so on...

The terms 'abilities' and 'needs' were coined at the time when that was still the major concern of the industrialized society. Now, it's apparent those terms have lost their initial meaning. For example, now Ramil wants to save souls from the capitalist BUL$$$IT. What does it have to do with 'needs'? If the goal is to satisfy the needs, why would the turning a person into a consumption machine is a concern all of a sudden? There's nothing in the Communist Party Manifesto that says being the consumption machine is bad or something like that.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

If you have a shortage - that's not the communism, but if you have an extra, who would get it?

Again, that's not an effective way of distributing wealth. The extra chairs will be immediately taken into a decomposition plant and the matter which constituted the extra chairs will be converted back to energy which in its turn will be converted back to a couple of glasses of martini for two of them who need some right now and the rest will be stored for future use.

Originally Posted by Ramil

The extra chairs will be immediately taken into a decomposition plant and the matter which constituted the extra chairs will be converted back to energy which in its turn will be converted back to a couple of glasses of martini for two of them who need some right now and the rest will be stored for future use.

LOL

"Карандышев (вставая). О, не раскайтесь! (Кладет руку за борт сюртука.) Вы должны быть моей.
Лариса. Чьей ни быть, но не вашей.
Карандышев (запальчиво). Не моей?
Лариса. Никогда!
Карандышев. Так не доставайся ж ты никому! (Стреляет в нее из пистолета.)
Лариса (хватаясь за грудь). Ах! Благодарю вас! (Опускается на стул.)"