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

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 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'.

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

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.

And your answer is?

I see the strong connection between socialist ideas and totalitarism. So I'm afraid that will be some kind of rulers who will decide. The state or something like that even if it won't be called like that.

Also, liars, manipulators and hypocrites. Funny how all Communist systems in history have been cut throat and people have suffered. These communists posting say they love it and then in a subsequent sentence pretend they're not communists. Human nature is human nature.

Capitalism is imperfect but it is practiced via STATE INTERVENTION (i.e. interference) and that intervention steadily increases in phases. So, when you criticize it, you might want to keep that in mind. Communists don't and left wingers always want to deceive as evident in this entire forum.

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.

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.

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 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

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.

Maybe Gosplan would have worked if it had had great hardware and 1000 of the sharpest analysts and programmers working on continuously refining it?

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 Hanna

Maybe Gosplan would have worked if it had had great hardware and 1000 of the sharpest analysts and programmers working on continuously refining it?

And why the market economy worked fine without the sharpest analysts and programmers working on it and still produced good results?

Just to keep in mind, if you parasite on the capitalist economy in the west, you get welfare and clash your hands in envy, but if you tried to parasite on the communist economy in the USSR, you had breached the law (Статья 209 УК РСФСР) and could be imprisoned.