Communism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Communism » Communism

Communism
Can it work but only in theory?

Page: 1 2 3

Communism

Mike H
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2007

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 158

Posted 10/12/09 - 11:47 AM:	#11
Imagine for a second that people truly were capable of being selfless. That they really were so morally pure that they wouldn't think of free-riding off the efforts of others. And that they really could be happy knowing that their work benefits society, even if it doesn't give them an edge over other people in terms of material well-being, competition for mates, or social status. Then I would see no reason why communism wouldn't be the ideal system for mankind. From each according to his ability (everyone voluntarily contributes because they just want to help others), and to each according to his need (no one who is in need is left out). Communism is a beautiful idea, and only someone who has been jaded by the world could fail to see that. Its beauty and idealism explains why so many people around the world have found it incredibly captivating - so much so that they were willing to risk their lives to bring it about. That it has failed in practice is less of an indictment of communist theory, and more of an indictment of people's greed and lust for power and domination.

Mike H
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2007

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 158

Posted 10/12/09 - 11:56 AM:	#12
Odin wrote: Communism's practical flaw is that it is a system devoid of justice and individual productivity. Its ethical flaw is that it enslaves everybody to everybody. If my 'duty' is to labor for the survival of someone else, I am a slave to that person. But what if it were you who needed someone's help to survive?

Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 208

Posted 10/12/09 - 12:21 PM:	#13
Mike H wrote: Odin wrote: Communism's practical flaw is that it is a system devoid of justice and individual productivity. Its ethical flaw is that it enslaves everybody to everybody. If my 'duty' is to labor for the survival of someone else, I am a slave to that person. But what if it were you who needed someone's help to survive? I don't. And even if I did I wouldn't demand a 'right' to it. I would never say "give it to me because I'm a needy, pathetic creature." It's destructive to humanity. I try to resolve my own inadequacies to become a better individual. And even so, where I needed someone else's help to survive, the good and just thing to do would be to reciprocate by providing them with something they need. That is the maxim that free market capitalism is based on. And your above assertion, that communism is beautiful if only it were adopted voluntarily, is imo putting the cart before the horse somewhat. If everyone were like that, communism would just naturally happen - there would be no need to impose it. I'm not an objectivist or egoist so I would welcome a system where everyone was altruistic, working for each other voluntarily. But to have that requires a capitalist economic system, not a socialist one, because only in capitalism is it an individual responsibility to be a generous, charitable, kind person. Socialism and communism take that responsibility from the individual and assign it to the collective - and in doing so deprives the individual of the freedom to develop his character. You're talking about people choosing to be generous, but in communism generosity is not a choice, its an imperative. And being forced to be generous deprives the virtue of everything that is good about it. Do you believe that force can coexist with goodness? But since people are not like that, and can never be like that until they freely make the choice to be, why try and cover human ugliness with the mask of communism? The society we get ought to be a reflection of our values. And the society can only reflect its own values when its lack of values is just as exposed. Its a kind of corny analogy, but when you attempt to fake the beauty of something, you may temporarily hide its ugliness, but you also hide its real beauty. What makes kindness, sympathy, generosity, and all the altruistic values beautiful is that a human being, an individual, voluntarily decided to forego his own pleasure and benefit for the good of someone else. So what makes these ideas valuable can only exist as long as they are voluntary.

psychotick
Dazed and confused

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 123

Posted 10/12/09 - 09:26 PM:	#14
Hi, Odin wrote: "Communism's practical flaw is that it is a system devoid of justice and individual productivity. Its ethical flaw is that it enslaves everybody to everybody. If my 'duty' is to labor for the survival of someone else, I am a slave to that person." Not sure I can agree with you in this, though I understand where your coming from. Communism in its ideal form enslaves nobody. It is based on the ideal society where every member of that society wants to work for all. Slavery implies force, and the moment you introduce force into communism you get Stalin and the rest. As for individual productivity, again I disagree. There are some in any society who will work tirelessly for others, running soup kitchens and the like for no financial reward. The problem is that for communism to operate it needs to be all of them. Communisms practical flaw is that it requires all the members of its society to have the same morals and beliefs, and human nature being what it is, that was never going to happen. From that point on things go down hill. A society can't operate with a large chunk of its population wanting to sit on their backsides and get fed for free. So to get around this you have to bring in some element of coercion, and suddenly the ideal state becomes a repressive hell. Also when there are some who crave power or status, who want to tell others what to do instead of participating in collective decision making, or who want a life of luxury above that of their comrades, you get tyranny. As for justice, I'm not sure communism, or capitalism for that matter, makes any claim as to it. True communism is a dream. What we have seen in this world that goes by the name thus far has been a nightmare. Until the twenty third century then and the United Federation of Planets! Cheers.

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 633

Posted 10/12/09 - 11:35 PM:	#15
Has communism ever flourished in any country as it was meant to be? Or what was the closest political system to communism, ever? How do you get people to change, first in order for communism to work?
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 10/13/09 - 12:45 AM:	#16
Well, I hope I'm not revealing any state secrets, but I think the United States of America is an outstandingly successful communist country. (Wait for everyone to clean up the mess after they spit out their coffee/chai lattes). I feel like a bit of conspiracy theory Okay, start with one definition of communism, "a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership". Well, there is private ownership in the USA, right? Well, private ownership implies that there are no debts or liens against the property. I may get a loan from the bank, but I don't really "own" the house until the loan is paid off. The bank owns the house until then and reserves the right to remove me from the house if I fail to pay them installments toward eventual ownership. But a lot of people own their houses, properties, right? Well, the American economy is based on a fiat system supported by Treasury bonds. These bonds are purchased, (mostly by foreign countries), as IOU's on the amount owed to the holder when they decide to cash them in. The rest, including mostly interest, payments and some principle, is paid through taxes on the American people. So, taxes are loan payments, bonds are the loan, and well over $11 trillion is the amount of the loan, held as public property. In addition, you are required, by law, to pay for public services that are supplied to you, whether you use those services or not and without the ability to "shop around". Even if you manage to hold some private property, you can easily lose it as part of settlement for debts for these services. Communism can also be defined as "a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society". Americans are proud to have cast off class distinction through hereditary, but value people through their wealth -- which is considered "contribution to society" and measured in fiat system of debt to society anyway. Anyone calling for a return to a real commodity standard, rather than a standard based on debts is usually relegated to "crazy" or "radical" fringe. Another definition is, "a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people". In America, like many other "developed" nations, this is a pretty apt description of the large financial institutions which control economic development internationally and is often lauded as a force for benevolent globalization. It is easier to see their influence in poorer countries, which accept the aid of these financial institutions, only to find the resources of their country placed under lien to pay back this aid. I think the difference between successful communism and unsuccessful communism is that the former had a better propaganda campaign. If you convince the people that their service to the state deserves compensation for work, and that it is possible to earn more than your neighbors if you just work hard enough and attend the right schools, then people don't question what the true economic value is of their compensation -- until it starts to dip or collapse.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 429

Posted 10/14/09 - 10:41 AM:	#17
Willowz wrote: Has communism ever flourished in any country as it was meant to be? Or what was the closest political system to communism, ever? How do you get people to change, first in order for communism to work? I think it hasn't been allowed to floruish. Countries like the Soviet Union and China placed way too much influence on the 'dictatorship of the proliteriat' part of Marx's argument. No doubt, it was an important part, but I think they adopted it to cover their backs - its very easy to say to anyone that disagrees with you that you have a right to suppress them, as you are acting on the part of the 'progressive' class against them, the 'reactionary' class. It lets you put your ideas in place with great ease, but it means that the society becomes stagnant, as there are no new ideas coming in. In the beginning, I think the Bolsheviks saw no alternative to the Red Terror, as they could see the evolutionary socialists in Germany and England slipping back into the ranks of the liberals, and liberalism of course is THE ideology of capitalism. Personally, I think that the Paris Commune was pretty close to communism. It's often cited by Marxist writers, and it is true to say that it was the first successful attempt of rule by the workers. The problem was, because it didn't adapt a Soviet or Maoist style system of terror, allowing universal suffrage, not moving against Thiers, not seizing control of the banks, etc. it condemned itself to an early grave at the hand of capitalism. It does seem correct to agree with Lenin and Trotsky; communism will fail unless all other countries take it up to. And, they were proven to be right in the case of Russia. The planned economy element of communist theory is very much something which was added by the Russians, just cause Marx didn't set out his vision of what a commmunist society will look like. To sum up - I believe that Lenin's Russia under War Communism was the attempt most loyal to Marxism. The vanguard party was a pragmatic measure which was necessary; the Red Terror was seen as necessary at the time, and to be honest, I think it is a policy that Marx and Engels would have broadly agreed with. They disagreed so much with the social-democrats over their Enlightenment ideas of 'pure democracy,' that I think they would have agreed with a policy of Terror. As a semi-Marxist, it makes me sad to say that this may prove that the Marxist view of the state and even Communism in general are theories built on violence and repression. In short, it seems that you get people to change through force, as if you are a true Marxist, you cannot believe that Parliamentarianism can provide the road to real communism.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 633

Posted 10/14/09 - 11:02 AM:	#18
Yes, but Russia was never ready for Communism. Russia was still in the "feudal" age when the revolt started. I don't think Soviet Russia is a good example. It was just to early. Now, America without individualism, that would be something interesting.
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 429

Posted 10/14/09 - 02:33 PM:	#19
Willowz wrote: Yes, but Russia was never ready for Communism. Russia was still in the "feudal" age when the revolt started. I don't think Soviet Russia is a good example. It was just to early. Yeah, Russia was way too backward according to dialectical materialism, though I'm not sure I agree with some socialists (Zizek comes to mind) using this as the sole reason for why Russia went so badly wrong. Willowz wrote: Now, America without individualism, that would be something interesting. If only this were possible now. Who knows, some day it may be - I think that most Americans who are not progressive liberals have inherited the traits of old fashioned conservatism from the British. Although, this is probably the case in most societies in the post Cold war world - you've got your liberals and your conservatives, your pragmatists and your radicals.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

Mike H
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 05, 2007

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 158

Posted 10/14/09 - 07:38 PM:	#20
Odin: Odin wrote: [quote=Mike H] I don't. And even if I did I wouldn't demand a 'right' to it. I would never say "give it to me because I'm a needy, pathetic creature." It's destructive to humanity. I try to resolve my own inadequacies to become a better individual. And even so, where I needed someone else's help to survive, the good and just thing to do would be to reciprocate by providing them with something they need. That is the maxim that free market capitalism is based on. And your above assertion, that communism is beautiful if only it were adopted voluntarily, is imo putting the cart before the horse somewhat. If everyone were like that, communism would just naturally happen - there would be no need to impose it. I'm not an objectivist or egoist so I would welcome a system where everyone was altruistic, working for each other voluntarily. But to have that requires a capitalist economic system, not a socialist one, because only in capitalism is it an individual responsibility to be a generous, charitable, kind person. Socialism and communism take that responsibility from the individual and assign it to the collective - and in doing so deprives the individual of the freedom to develop his character. You're talking about people choosing to be generous, but in communism generosity is not a choice, its an imperative. And being forced to be generous deprives the virtue of everything that is good about it. Do you believe that force can coexist with goodness? But since people are not like that, and can never be like that until they freely make the choice to be, why try and cover human ugliness with the mask of communism? The society we get ought to be a reflection of our values. And the society can only reflect its own values when its lack of values is just as exposed. Its a kind of corny analogy, but when you attempt to fake the beauty of something, you may temporarily hide its ugliness, but you also hide its real beauty. What makes kindness, sympathy, generosity, and all the altruistic values beautiful is that a human being, an individual, voluntarily decided to forego his own pleasure and benefit for the good of someone else. So what makes these ideas valuable can only exist as long as they are voluntary. What if you were disabled or sick and unable to support yourself (or pay for medical care for surgery/medicine), and your family/friends were unable to completely support you? Are you saying all disabled/sick people should kill themselves? What if people could be selfless, but our culture promotes greed to such a degree that it cancels out our natural tendency to empathize with other human beings? If that's the case, communism would not just "naturally happen." We'd have to make it happen by changing the system that by its nature causes people to be greedy and selfish (since that's the behavior that capitalism rewards). Your error is that society is composed of individuals. Just as society is a reflection of our values, we are a reflection of society's values. The causation runs both ways, in other words. If you really want to change our values, for example making us less selfish, you have to simultaneously change the system and the individuals. It won't do to just try to change the individuals and hope that the system will somehow change. Do you know about game theory by any chance? The situation is similar to the prisoner's dilemma in game theory. People will be selfless if they expect other people to be selfless. But they'll be selfish if they expect other people to be selfish. Right now we are stuck on that particular Nash equilibrium - but it may be possible to move to the other one if we change the institutions people operate in. Somehow, you don't think capitalism is "forced" on you. But it is. And you think you're working for yourself, but in general, people do not. Because wages in capitalism do not correspond to social productivity, effort, or fairness, in general people work to support someone higher up in the chain. This is why CEO pay has increased from around 25 times the average worker's pay in 1970 to over 100 times today (with one CEO making 3000x). Its why real wages for the bottom 80% of workers have stagnated in the same period. All that increased productivity in the past 40 years went to benefit the upper class. The whole purpose of work is to benefit society - in fact, it is the foundation of society. There's no such thing as a society where you have the option to not work. The only question is, do you want your work to disproportionally benefit the wealthy, or benefit everyone equally? Or if not equally, at least according to some measure of economic justice?

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.