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

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Both types of comfort are subjective.

Yes, but what kind of comfort will dominate people when all types of 'butt-comfort' are satisfied?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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

This correlates with my previous quesiton. What good will be in private property when ALL your needs can be satisfied here and now. Will private property be so important to you? Even if it will - well, you can get a ton of gold and put a sign 'Private property' on it. Other people will just think you're a weirdo of sorts and pass you by.
They won't ENVY you and envy is the primary driving force for the desire to posess things.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I was trying to convey my opinion.

Let me answer this question for you - they try to sell me a car because they want my money to buy them something else (maybe even also a car ). Capitalism states that you are better if you posess more and consume more. But think - does a greater level of consumption really make you better?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

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

What? Maseratis are not good? (shoked) How that may be? They cost so much money! They must be good!

Your difficulties with communism lie not in the theory, but in the sad 'practice' you wintessed back in USSR. USSR had its faults, and many of them, but this doesn't automatically mean that the theory itself is bad.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Yes, but what kind of comfort will dominate people when all types of 'butt-comfort' are satisfied?

Even today the 'butt-comfort' is not the only comfort that is being consumed. In the early 21st century we have much less people in the production business and more people in the service business. So, to extrapolate that, if we have technologies to produce the goods very cheap by only 1% of the population, then the rest 89% would be doing services (let's leave 10% for the unemployed).

Overall, I think the idea of the most of the population parasiting on the automated society somewhat relates to the sentiments of the early era of the industrialization - that the automation would make people unemployed. People would just shift focus.

Originally Posted by Ramil

What good will be in private property when ALL your needs can be satisfied here and now. Will private property be so important to you?

The sense of ownership [presently] creates motivation for the people to act. The entire society of the parasites does not look very attractive to me. Unless, of course, some religion or another ideology, or fear would create the motivation in the future. Perhaps, there might be other incentives: if you're doing something useful, we will upgrade your body to be stronger and healthier, and if you don't - you will live as usual, only some 75-95 years. Every day of work useful for the society would give you an extra day of your life. I cannot rule those possibilities out. Like you said, I know nothing about that distant future. But, right now, I don't think the capitalization on the sense of ownership is the worst of all options.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Even if it will - well, you can get a ton of gold and put a sign 'Private property' on it. Other people will just think you're a weirdo of sorts and pass you by. They won't ENVY you and envy is the primary driving force for the desire to posess things.

I respectfully disagree. First, your future society satisfies 100% all basic needs, remember? And what about the extra? If you live in a small hut and have a free food, and at the same time Hanna lives in the 5,000 square feet penthouse with the walls covered by the paintings of the old Italian masters, and eats delicious fruits, that would create an envy and the desire to possess the same thing that Hanna has. And you can't really replicate the old Italian paintings (unless you're fine with the reproductions, which you probably aren't). There would ALWAYS be things which exist in limited quantities, so who would get them? The possession of those items would create envy. If you and I live under the exact same conditions, but you also have a rare mineral from the distant planet, you would invite Hanna over to show it to her, and I won't be able to do that. Hanna will find it more interesting and will go to your hut and not to mine. And then, you can start talking about things and God knows what happens next. Won't that make me wish I had a better mineral so Hanna would prefer to visit me first? Of course, it will.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Let me answer this question for you - they try to sell me a car because they want my money to buy them something else (maybe even also a car ). Capitalism states that you are better if you posess more and consume more. But think - does a greater level of consumption really make you better?

What is better and what is worse? That is purely subjective. Does the better knowledge of the Sun make you better? Does writing poems make you better? Does taking drugs make you better? Does marrying a beautiful, smart, and devoted woman make you better? Does donating a million dollars to charity make you better? What is better? And why is it better to be better?

Originally Posted by Ramil

What? Maseratis are not good? (shoked) How that may be? They cost so much money! They must be good!

There's something between you and the money. The money is only a temporary mutually agreed measurement for a value which is purely subjective to you. The advertisement for Maserati is trying to create a value for the customers by making the customers believe those cars are panty-droppers. For the transportation purposes, those cars are just cars, with their pros and cons. For example: Maserati recall: The last recall you will need

Originally Posted by Ramil

Your difficulties with communism lie not in the theory, but in the sad 'practice' you wintessed back in USSR. USSR had its faults, and many of them, but this doesn't automatically mean that the theory itself is bad.

My difficulties with communism are caused by the fact that it took 100 years and LOTS of lives to realize you can't introduce communism now in any country. So, on the onset, the communists promised the communism in 10 years, then in 20, then by 1980, then by 2000 and now in the distant future. All that is just BULL$$IT, using your expression. The communism postulates the cooperation and that would replace the competition. The life on our planet had been competitive since the onset, the competition was one of the major drives of the evolution of life. The cooperation exists as long as its more beneficial than the competition. You have to prove that the satisfaction of the basic needs is more beneficial for all individuals than being a consumption machine. The postulation of the private property does not prohibit some people to combine their property and have the common property in their circle. But the postulation of the common property prohibits the existence of the private property inevitably causing some people wanting to leave the system. As long as the communism is mandatory, it will have people flee the system or cause mass-prosecutions. That's what the practice of the 20th century demonstrates. You introduce the communism, and you inevitably have people fleeing your country. And then, you should prohibit the people from leaving otherwise you end up with a country with no people. The rest follows.