[quote]karva wrote:
The question that interests me is, does communism as a governmental system differentiate from full blown monarchy? I mean, the strategies for survival in the system are quite alike, aren’t they?[/quote]
No. Communism is a completely economic principle and lacks the structure of conventional governmental administration–that is where all the failures of communism lay. Governments have always tried to administer these principles with force on a large scale. It just doesn’t work.
Not necessarily. It can be non-interventionist; just like the US with regard to democracy.[/quote]
It’s fantastic that you always discuss this in the idealistic sense, completely unencumbered by reality - the rest of us are focused on what happens when the inevitable human nature takes over.
There is no Communism 2.0 - you didn’t invent anything new.
If people live to make themselves happy as rational beings, and don’t expect others to live for them, the world would be peaceful and better off in every way.
Its when someone expects others to live for something ‘bigger than themselves’, for the Proletariat or the Race, for the Poor and Homeless, that we get into spirals of destruction.
It is irrational to expect humans to go against their nature — only a whip or a gun can force them to act against their own rational interest.
That’s when the world turns into a ruin of chaos and slaughter.
Whoever thought up altruism, the whole insane notion of unselfishness, is the greatest criminal who ever lived. Whoever tricked people into confusing benevolence with unselfishness deserves a rung in hell.
First of all, if we are talking about socialism as it existed in Soviet Union and Western Block, there were different pay scales. Yes, not as disparate as in the United States, but it’s not like people got paid the same no matter what they did.
But under what circumstances would communism (not its socialist precursor)work? Well, under the circumstances that Marx envisioned (he writes about this in the Grundrisse and in “The German Ideology”). Think of a time, when computerisation and mechanisation are such that humans did not need to work and could just pursue their interests. In other words, work (as we know it) no longer exists.
That may not seem near (and maybe it isnt) but it exists at least in the popular imagination: Star Trek The Next Generation exemplifies that type of society, where hunger and human needs can be easily satisfied and man spends his time pursuing things he enjoys.
I’m talking about how communism existed in Soviet Union. A bureaucratic system in which people tried to cope. Communism is a a bureaucratic principle, not economic. That’s the reality.
Communism is always with us. Even in capitalism. There is always a community thast shares their interests.
Not necessarily. It can be non-interventionist; just like the US with regard to democracy.
It’s fantastic that you always discuss this in the idealistic sense, completely unencumbered by reality - the rest of us are focused on what happens when the inevitable human nature takes over.
There is no Communism 2.0 - you didn’t invent anything new.[/quote]
I am speaking theoretically. All the failures of communism are failures of administration and not failures of the philosophy.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kroby wrote:
Are you suggesting that small communes reach for one another creating a cooperative? A collective? Now you’ve brought in the need for one community to get the most out of what it has, perhaps at the detriment of another.
Maybe because they live in the far north, where it gets cold, and they can’t grow crops year round. Competition does not work to better the communist economy. Yet competition is always the end result. That’s why a communist economy can’t work. Or did I miss something?
Who ever said competitive trade is not allowed? Communes are free to trade with whomever they wish for whatever they need or want. [/quote]
I didn’t say this at all. I said competition does not work to better the communist economy - that of the collective communes that make up the whole. Competition breeds bad sentiments. Like if you felt you got cheated - after finding out another commune got a better deal.
And why shouldn’t a commune get the most out of it’s resources? So they get a better deal. Do you just sit idly by, or do you try to pressure better deals for your commune? All of a sudden, you’re not in a communistic economy, you’re in a free market.
Fair and equitable are relative, depending on demand and supply. That’s the problem with a communistic economy, when regarding a cooperative or collective set of communes. That is an economy. Right?
So the only communistic economy that is viable is familial?
I am speaking theoretically. All the failures of communism are failures of administration and not failures of the philosophy.
[/quote]
I see.
You know, Nazism is perfectly acceptable in theory as well - providing that Germans voluntarily all cleave to the idea of the Aryan state and Jews, of their own free will, throw themselves into furnaces.
Problem is in administration, not theory.
Is this a useful discussion to have as well, in theory?
[quote]karva wrote:
I’m talking about how communism existed in Soviet Union. A bureaucratic system in which people tried to cope. Communism is a a bureaucratic principle, not economic. That’s the reality.
Communism is always with us. Even in capitalism. There is always a community thast shares their interests.
[/quote]
Bureaucracy is a concept in sociology and political science referring to the way that the administrative execution and enforcement of legal rules are socially organized.
Four structural concepts are central to any definition of bureaucracy: a well-defined division of administrative labor among persons and offices, a personnel system with consistent patterns of recruitment and stable linear careers, a hierarchy among offices, such that the authority and status are differentially distributed among actors, and formal and informal networks that connect organizational actors to one another through flows of information and patterns of cooperation.
Examples of everyday bureaucracies include governments, armed forces, corporations, hospitals, courts, ministries and schools. (wikipedia).
Notice there are no economic philosophies listed there.
Bureaucracy does not speak to the economic principles of commonality and non-competitive inter-dependency. Communism’s problems have always been with the bureaucracies administering it.
Communism goes beyond just sharing. It emphasizes sharing interests and responsibilities and restricts ownership of the productive forces and rights that are co-opted by the commune. Logically, if you do not have common interests you cannot be part of the commune. Live somewhere else. Perhaps you prefer a competitive existence–that is your right.
Inherent selfishness, shame, honor, envy, and resentment.
Communism barely gets out of the gate on the simple basis that “voluntary” communism presumes that everyone will work the same and share the same. The moment someone doesn’t - human nature kicking in - the other working hard will begin to question the justice of the system.
That is, unless you have a rigid authoritarian presence - the Amish father or clergy, in your clueless example - to crack the whip on those that stray.
[quote]kroby wrote:
So the only communistic economy that is viable is familial?
[/quote]
Communism and free trade can coexist. Free trade ensures that my produce is used to benefit the entire commune. The difference is the entire commune has rights to what is traded–common interest, common responsibility, common ownership.
I am saying that a commune is like a family and has to be engaged in that manner in order to be successful. I would not charge my mother to live under my roof, for example, (actually, in a commune there is no my) but I would expect that we share responsibilities in the upkeep–common interest, common responsibility, common ownership.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Is this a useful discussion to have as well, in theory?[/quote]
Yes. Nazism may be an accepted philosophy but it isn’t one I would want to live under.
Theoretical discussions are only useful if they lead to new knowledge and understanding. They can be entertaining, insightful, and lead to a differing perspective. If you don’t have perspective, you don’t have anything.
EDIT: I changed the word valid to accepted in my first sentence. I do not want people to think I think Nazism is valid. It is not.
Inherent selfishness, shame, honor, envy, and resentment.
Communism barely gets out of the gate on the simple basis that “voluntary” communism presumes that everyone will work the same and share the same. The moment someone doesn’t - human nature kicking in - the other working hard will begin to question the justice of the system.
That is, unless you have a rigid authoritarian presence - the Amish father or clergy, in your clueless example - to crack the whip on those that stray.
[/quote]
Or you just vote them off the island. I know, competition makes for much more interesting television.
I am not really willing to define human nature that rigidly. We do what we do. We are animals–unpredictable and given to whimsy. To say we have a particular nature seems limiting.
Theoretical discussions are only useful if they lead to new knowledge and understanding. They can be entertaining, insightful, and lead to a differing perspective. If you don’t have perspective, you don’t have anything.[/quote]
Yep, and we are all still waiting on that “usefulness” to appear. The philosophy of communism has been around - nothing novel is generated from reviewing its theoretical “wonders”.
Translated: there is no new knowledge and understanding to glean from the undertaking. So it is of little use, theoretically along with practically.
I am not really willing to define human nature that rigidly. We do what we do. We are animals–unpredictable and given to whimsy. To say we have a particular nature seems limiting.[/quote]
Plus, read what you wrote - the “given to whimsy” nature you suggest is exactly the kind of human nature I described that caused communism to fail in no time flat.
“Given to whimsy” means sometimes rational, sometimes irrational - human nature. Yep - exactly the same as I said.
You really haven’t thought about this much, have you?
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
What if you achived you did everything to achieve you PhD, but then everybody in your family, tribe, community, etc. got the PhD too, though they did not lift a finger to get it themselves. Do they deserve it because they picked up you trash? Or mowed your lawn? Or worked on your car so you could get to school? Or worked on the roads where you drive your car to get to school.
The PhD is yours alone, you deserve it, not everybody else to.
A Ph.D is a token of recognition by the academic community. It’s immaterial. You cannot compare that to cars, diamonds or clothes. It just ain’t the same.
[/quote]
It’s the result of hard work and achievement, just as earning the means to purchase cars, diamonds and clothes.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Translated: there is no new knowledge and understanding to glean from the undertaking. So it is of little use, theoretically along with practically.[/quote]
There is always new knowledge to glean because you and I are both incapable of conceiving every possible scenario in which something might work or not. Its a group effort here–thanks for participating, commie.