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

Originally Posted by nulle

If they will not get any benefits for their hard work - why bother?

because they care
Communism won't work for mere mortals people who don't give a damn

Originally Posted by nulle

I think that USSR was lagging behind the West partially because its inventors/scientists/etc. did not get fair compensation for their work.
For example Mikhail Kalashnikov - his invention is produced in massive quantities - yet - he does not have any benefit from that.

I'm not sure the USSR was lagging behind the West. It was lagging behind in certain things and was a way ahead in the others. The scientists were compensated worse than their counterparts in the West, however adequately. The problem was not the compensation, but the centralization and as a result the bureaucratization of everything that resisted any innovations. Each bureaucrat had only to report the success up the ladder, so they couldn't take risks. As a result, it was more beneficial for the bureaucracy which led the country to sell raw materials to maintain the best spy organization in the world which would steal and buy new technologies from the West and then copy them and promote to production than to promote the local inventions. The local inventions were reported up the ladder, but rarely experienced practical implementation. That caused the inevitable lag between the invention in the west, trial and error in the west, mass production in the west, success in the west, and ONLY THEN copy in the USSR, trial and error in the USSR, and mass production in the USSR. All that took years. Hence the lag. By the 80s the Soviet-manufactured calculators were displaying the magic word ЕГГОГ which meant nothing in Russian, but everybody knew it meant an error. That situation caused enormous frustration among the scientific community in the USSR hurting the motivation.

Originally Posted by nulle

But anyway - who will invent new things?
Who will innovate existing?

People will.

Originally Posted by nulle

If they will not get any benefits for their hard work - why bother?

Have you ever done anything just because you wanted to do it? Not because somebody paid you, but simply because you wanted it done? That's what I've been talking about - there will always be people who will be curious enough to continue pushing sciences further and further. Besides, there are non-material benefits that will remain - respect of others, for example, taking pride in your own work, etc.
There will be a choice - to work and get everything and not to work and get the same. Some will choose not to work, but there will be plenty of others.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Have you ever done anything just because you wanted to do it? Not because somebody paid you, but simply because you wanted it done? That's what I've been talking about - there will always be people who will be curious enough to continue pushing sciences further and further. Besides, there are non-material benefits that will remain - respect of others, for example, taking pride in your own work, etc.
There will be a choice - to work and get everything and not to work and get the same. Some will choose not to work, but there will be plenty of others.

I'd rather agree with what you said before - there will be plenty of those who will choose not to work, and there will be some who will consider working as a privilege. But again, it's a fantastic system that would in no way be working now.

Interesting then - how will new inventions appear on the "market" under communism?
I capitalism it is quite simple - if I have made it - I can go and sell it myself either through a retailer/reseller/publisher, garage sale, ebay, whatever and get $$$ in return.
And then I can see if there is a demand for my product - maybe I will produce more.
Unlike Soviet Union which sometimes produced something way more than neccessary, and sometimes not enough.

Originally Posted by nulle

Interesting then - how will new inventions appear on the "market" under communism?

There will be no market if communism would be everywhere
That was the INITIAL and NECESSARY goal of the Marx theory. He wanted communism to be world wide
you can imagine that US(or any other country with built capitalism) would consider it is as terrorism

Originally Posted by Doomer

There will be no market if communism would be everywhere
That was the INITIAL and NECESSARY goal of the Marx theory. He wanted communism to be world wide
you can imagine that US(or any other country with built capitalism) would consider it is as terrorism

No market, then people will be teleporting them or something. Again as I said, let's wait till your thoughts are enough to create material stuff, and there are people who are ready to voluntarily work for other's welfare.

Now very few things are invented and introduced in Russia despite the capitalism. Or probably because of.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Now very few things are invented and introduced in Russia despite the capitalism. Or probably because of.

I think that is because the main business in Russia is still exporting raw materials and not production. Production requires innovation to stay competitive.

When it comes to innovation and standard of living in the USSR, what are you comparing it with?
Africa or Germany? A black American in the South, a poor farmer in Kentucky or a company director in New York?

Most of the major Western powers got rich through imperialism, colonialism or slavery. Through exploiting peasants, workers and even child labourers. Then today, neo-colonialism in the form of sweatshops, forced bargain prices on third world produce etc. Or even starting a war or an invasion to get cheap access to the assets you need.

The USSR did not do any of that, really, at least not on a big scale, or outside its own borders.
So with less exploitation they achieved less wealth. Plus, the USSR "wasted" a lot of money that could have been spent on consumer comfort on supporting other socialist countries, on the arms race etc.

But it doesn't seem like an appalling standard of living, just not comparable to the richest Western countries at the time.

I visited both the USSR and Spain closely following each other in the mid 1980s when I was a kid. I remember thinking that the Soviets lived better than the most people in Spain. Just as a comparison, my own reflection, I have no stats to support that. Spain at the time had just come out of being a right wing dictatorship under Franco.

The USSR had many amazing achievements and inventions, just not in the area of consumer products.

Originally Posted by Hanna

When it comes to innovation and standard of living in the USSR, what are you comparing it with? Africa or Germany? A black American in the South, a poor farmer in Kentucky or a company director in New York?

I'm comparing the soviet-made calculators to the US-made calculators and the soviet-made cars with Italy-made cars. They are exactly the same.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Most of the major Western powers got rich through imperialism, colonialism or slavery. Through exploiting peasants, workers and even child labourers.

Most of the major Western power riches which were gained that way were destroyed during the WWI and WWII. Japan have not done all that imperialist/colonialist/slavery stuff, but despite that it's one of the major innovative nations in the world.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Then today, neo-colonialism in the form of sweatshops, forced bargain prices on third world produce etc. Or even starting a war or an invasion to get cheap access to the assets you need.

I think we've been through that in several circles. The USSR had their peasants exploited in the way unimaginable to the sweatshop neo-colonialists. Those peasants had not even have the passports so they were unable to leave their place of living. And if they had done the trick to leave, they weren't accepted in the cities without the employment. And they were only hired to do the dirtiest job no regular city worker would do. The neo-colonialist sweatshops is fairly comparable to what it was.

Originally Posted by Hanna

The USSR had many amazing achievements and inventions, just not in the area of consumer products.

I agree. I think that what I said to nulle. There were a lot of inventions even in the consumer products area, but they were rarely implemented. Perhaps, one of the most famous example in the innovation area is the stealth technology which originates from Russia. It was rejected by the USSR bureaucrats, but it was successfully implemented by the US. We have all seen what effect the stealth bombers had.

Most of the major Western power riches which were gained that way were destroyed during the WWI and WWII. Japan have not done all that imperialist/colonialist/slavery stuff, but despite that it's one of the major innovative nations in the world.

Japan were major imperialists prior to WW2. They had all of Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria and lots of islands that I don't keep track of. They treated the Koreans and Manchurians more or less like slaves. Their know-how did not disappear just because they were defeated in the war.
After the war they did absolutely everything that was asked of them politically and they work fanatically hard. Hence they were able to create an export industry that did not start out as an inventor, but moved gradually towards that.

Ramil, your fantastic system sounds good to me, the only problem I've seen so far is, we gotta invent an immortality pill to live till that day when we can see it happen. Anyway, the system where you can get any amount of anything you want, and where you can think in whatever way and you won't be persecuted for that seems to be the best solution humanity could ever think of. But would you mind telling me what the USSR system had to do in common with yours? That was just a regular totalitarian dictatorship, where people's needs were beneath the "state needs" - in fact the leaders' needs + there was a developed infrastructure that let the leaders have infinite control over people's minds and deeds. But nothing unusual, really, we all know what such systems look like, Orwell was able to see that over 60 years ago.

So, my point is, Ramil's system is the best to run as soon as it's able to run. From what can work now, capitalism is one of the best solutions, and the USSR system was one of the worst.

Most of the major Western power riches which were gained that way were destroyed during the WWI and WWII. Japan have not done all that imperialist/colonialist/slavery stuff, but despite that it's one of the major innovative nations in the world.

Japan were major imperialists prior to WW2. They had all of Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria and lots of islands that I don't keep track of. They treated the Koreans and Manchurians more or less like slaves. Their know-how did not disappear just because they were defeated in the war.
After the war they did absolutely everything that the USA asked of them politically and they work fanatically hard. Hence they were able to create an export industry that did not start out as an inventor, but moved gradually towards that.

I think that is because the main business in Russia is still exporting raw materials and not production. Production requires innovation to stay competitive.

You mixed the cause and the consequensis here. We produce mainly raw materials because of the free trade and capitalism.

Originally Posted by Marcus

You mixed the cause and the consequensis here. We produce mainly raw materials because of the free trade and capitalism.

"Yeah, it's George Bush's fault!" (c)

Originally Posted by Marcus

You mixed the cause and the consequensis here. We produce mainly raw materials because of the free trade and capitalism.

Not quite. Today's export of raw materials is a business which is among the few surviving the crush of the USSR. The USSR had exported raw materials, especially oil to sustain the state at least since Khrushev's time. It reached the peak of production by the end of its existence in 1991:

File:Top Oil Producing Counties.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You mixed the cause and the consequenses here. We produce mainly raw materials because of the free trade and capitalism.

Raw materials were practically the only thing that West purchased from USSR - they did not need any other goods (maybe with some exceptions) produced in the USSR.

And how comes that other former USSR countries (that do not have oil or gas) can maintain higher standard of living than Russia without raw material export?

Those peasants had not even have the passports so they were unable to leave their place of living.

That's true - my grandparent's passports belonged belonged to kolkhoz chairman - they were not allowed to move - especially because they have been deported and were considered "enemies of the state" by KGB.

If UK and other colonial powers colonized places with a lot lower living standards than their country - USSR did the opposite - they looted places that were richer than their country - Baltic States, Finland, Poland, Germany, Austria, etc...

There will be no market if communism would be everywhere

That's why I put word "market" in quotes.
If there will be no money and no market in capitalist sense, etc.
How new products will appear in stores?
How they will be manufactured and who will decide what to manufacture, what to replace, and what new to introduce?
Nowadays free market does that quite good - people "vote" with their wallets.

And Hanna - you mentioned sweatshops - but nowadays they are mostly in undemocratic and totalitarian states like China.
And after USSR collapse - we do not have to work in sweatshops - at least my family lives a lot better than we did under Soviet occupation.

Originally Posted by nulle

That's why I put word "market" in quotes.
If there will be no money and no market in capitalist sense, etc.
How new products will appear in stores?
How they will be manufactured and who will decide what to manufacture, what to replace, and what new to introduce?

I guess if it would be an easy answer - we would have communism everywhere by now