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

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

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

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.

"I will teach you profitable acts"-God (Bible). I am not using His Name in vain. It is written in the Word of God.

Originally Posted by heartfelty

"I will teach you profitable acts"-God (Bible).

Where in the Bible is this allegedly from? It is completely unfamiliar to me.

The word "profitable" has many meanings. Creating profit is just one of them. I believe that when the KJV version uses that expression it simply means "beneficial" or "good".

I forgot where in the Bible did I saw it. But I really saw and read it. The exact words. ...(Deleted.L.)

It's not in the Bible and you are talking absolute nonsensical rubbish as usual!

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?

The problem is that most of the people don't want to live equally
They want to live better and eventually better than others
Deficit wasn't 100% fault of the bad planning, sometimes it was created intentionally by people who can influence the production
If one can control deficit of something one gets power and using this power one can make one's life better

read this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow'...archy_of_needs
Communism cannot be built if most of the people in society haven't reached the top of the pyramid

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.

Maybe the solution is to set up a Communist nation somewhere and have people choose to join the "commune".
Then they would know what they were signing up for. Then if they do not pull their weight, they can be ejected

I think kibbutzim in Israel work in that way.That is a form of Communism I think. Inside of the kibbutz they don't use money, they just go and collect the stuff that they need. Everybody has a similar house, regardless of their position. They share everything that can be shared.

One question that interests me: Say I am a poor but clever person who is born in a backwards village deep in rural Russia and I want to study at a good university and get a nice job in a pleasant city: Would I have better chances of achieving this in the Soviet times, or today --- or is it not comparable?

Originally Posted by Hanna

Maybe the solution is to set up a Communist nation somewhere and have people choose to join the "commune".
Then they would know what they were signing up for. Then if they do not pull their weight, they can be ejected

That option is totally fine by me. And I think communes like that existed throughout the centuries. Think monasteries, etc. What usually happens with those communities is that there's division of the responsibilities. The entire community cannot participate in each and every decision, so the heads of the community are elected to run the community, and then the heads would select the lower level aides, which would select their aides, etc. In the end, you get a typical power pyramid. Similar assets, but different power.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I think kibbutzim in Israel work in that way.That is a form of Communism I think. Inside of the kibbutz they don't use money, they just go and collect the stuff that they need. Everybody has a similar house, regardless of their position. They share everything that can be shared.

Haha! Yes, they do. But, the kibutzim hire the workers to do the job they don't want to do. In a very capitalist way in the outer market. Does that makes the kibutz members 'better persons'? And also kibutzim regularly get subsidies from the Israeli government. Meaning, the kibutzim are, in part, parasite on the capitalist economy. Does that make them 'better people'?

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.)"

But anyway - who will invent new things?
Who will innovate existing?
If they will not get any benefits for their hard work - why bother?
If they will get benefits - then sooner or later - everyone will not be equal anymore.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.