communism - how it went wrong

LaVidaLoca

It starts with a decent idea: An attempt to deal with the fundamental problem which still dogs us today: There is poverty, alienation, and exploitation, and rather a lot of it.

It then proposes a solution which is hare-brained at best. It doesnt work in practice because it makes the assumption that a political system can exist which requires that all individuals in it, care as much about all the other people in their society as much as they do about themselves and their family.

Capitalism makes the opposite assumption: Most people care about themselves and their family far more than they do about other people.

Therefore Capitalism has won out as it doesnt even require you to beleive in it, it's just there.

Its kind of like, if I were to try and market a pop star. I could look for a person with a very special talent who writes wonderful songs and can touch people's hearts with her beautiful voice. Or I could find a 17 year old blonde idiot with nice tits. Which do you think will sell more?

Does this mean that Capitalism is the best we can hope for? **** no. But if we're going to find alternatives they must be based on human beings as they are, not as we would wish them to be.

Stev_o

Communism is great on paper so much so that if it was a maths formula Maxx would have been hailed as a hero a genius.

But in reality it fails because we are human are primal instincts are to get one better on the man beside us. Communism would work if everyone including the leaders had the exact standard of life but they dont and thats where greed comes in. Since its easier to have the population in flats there are always going to people in powerful positions who would rather living in a nice house stacked with food and wine rather then living in a flat queuing for bread and meeting quota's all your life.

gurramok

Question, what if everyone was a millionaire?

Capitalism itself has failed in it's present form. Only benefit is that most have jobs but most are not on well paying jobs.
Just look at USA, the majority of the workforce has seen their wages fallen in last several years while the tiny minority of the rich has seen their wealth increase alot(Bush has somethin to do with this hence Obama is getting support for reform)

Same can be said for Ireland, the poor have gotten poorer(much larger numbers, 40% pay no tax, all on low wages) and the rich has got richer.
What's needed is something between socialism and captialism to counteract excessive greed with a social responibility.

turgon

Stev_o is right

Some communists make the argument that communism is great AND that all systems previously created (ex Soviet U, Cuba) werent communist.

My point is that for communism to be installed, someone has to take control, set up the system and just let go and become a coal miner or something. But thats obviously NOT going to happen, cas very few wouldnt (you might say no now, but given the opportunity....) So although some parts of communism seem good, it is impossible to install it

Another thing - a lot of the things that we take fro granted - mp3 player, camcorders - were made by inventive capitalists. These would not be in a communist system because no one would have to opportunity to invent something and actually make it

Stev_o

turgon wrote: »

Another thing - a lot of the things that we take fro granted - mp3 player, camcorders - were made by inventive capitalists. These would not be in a communist system because no one would have to opportunity to invent something and actually make it

Exactly and then things get worse as illustrated by the bread famine.If your a farmer working crazy hours to meet a quota with secret police hanging by your neck you cant be bothered to go that extra mile.Remember now that the Soviets relied heavily on imports from the USA of grain and wheat.

Communism promotes lazyness because whats the point of doing anything if its not going achieve YOU anything

Fabio

I'd love to write a long post but just havent the time right now. However I will say that I think a Communist society could indeed work but ti would be almost impossible, but not actually impossible, to implement. It's construction would be quite difficult.

I think that Communism, brought in through Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika guidelines could indeed work and yet foster personal ambition at the same time.

--amadeus--

With the greatest of respect Steve_o and Turgon you are totally missing the point.

The "secret police hanging off you / working crazy hours" was the USSR which was an implementation of a flavour of Marxism. The OP asked the question of how it went wrong - how an idea ended up in the situation you are describing. To use a simplistic example it's like arguing that Taylors tackle on Eduardo proves that football is evil, or that the abuse of democracy in countries like Russia or Zimbabwe mean that democracy is fatally flawed.

And the argument about MP3 players and camcorders is a bit daft. With an estimated 2.4 billion people living without access to clean water and approx 2 million a year dying from water related diarrhoeal illnesses the idea that you cannot live without a few electronic trinkets in exchange for a fairer distribution of wealth cannot stack up. I'm sure that the estimated 842 million people worldwide suffering from malnutrition don't take the ability to digitally record themselves or listen to put thier entire CD collection in thier pocket particullarly for granted.

Socialism cannot work on a country by country basis but I'll repeat that you do not need to lavish cash on people to motivate them, that's simply our western conditioning. People are more motivated by recognition and self worth than money, even in a capitalist society so the claim that naked greed makes socialism unworkable doesn't stand up.

Gobán Saor

brianthebard wrote: »

.....but if it were properly introduced communism wouldn't need coercion....

But there will always be a dissenting minority who want to practise some form of capitalism (eg setting up micro-businesses, doing nixers, cornering the market in some skill or product etc, etc.) You've got to either:
a) allow them - in which case it's not communism anymore

or

b) suppress them - in which case you've got coercion.

Therefore communism implicitly requires coercion to function effectively.

Rossibaby

so what people are basically saying...the perfect society would be a communist one yet with some room to achieve through work and talent at the same time. correct me if im wrong

Stev_o

Rossibaby wrote: »

so what people are basically saying...the perfect society would be a communist one yet with some room to achieve through work and talent at the same time. correct me if im wrong

But communism whole idea is that we are equal [this wasnt the case in the USSR nor China] that everyone was the same as the man who stood next to him. So how could talent and achievement come into the mix as that would be pushing yourself above the man next to you.

PHB

Gobán Saor wrote: »

But there will always be a dissenting minority who want to practise some form of capitalism (eg setting up micro-businesses, doing nixers, cornering the market in some skill or product etc, etc.) You've got to either:
a) allow them - in which case it's not communism anymore

or

b) suppress them - in which case you've got coercion.

Therefore communism implicitly requires coercion to function effectively.

So does every other form of government. To allow settling up any form of capitalism, you have to coerce people into accepting law

codewarrior

Stev_o wrote: »

But communism whole idea is that we are equal [this wasnt the case in the USSR nor China] that everyone was the same as the man who stood next to him. So how could talent and achievement come into the mix as that would be pushing yourself above the man next to you.

Communism does not in any way state that all men are of equal talent or achievement whatsoever, that idea is foolish and readily empirically disprovable. Communism merely states that all men should be given equal benefits and freedom to pursue the tasks that they would like, and that no man should be able to own anything. Need I quote the most foolish of all communist texts "The Communist Manifesto" . . . "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Certainly Marx here includes the idea that different men are of different ability.

--amadeus--

Gobán Saor wrote: »

But there will always be a dissenting minority who want to practise some form of capitalism (eg setting up micro-businesses, doing nixers, cornering the market in some skill or product etc, etc.) You've got to either:
a) allow them - in which case it's not communism anymore

or

b) suppress them - in which case you've got coercion.

Therefore communism implicitly requires coercion to function effectively.

As GHB said all societies require some form of regulation and coercion to function, even the "free" market isn't so free.

And the reason people do nixers is to get more money to buy more stuff. In the socialist utopia (because realistically it will not now ever happen) there is no benefit to doing a nixer on the side or off the books. Working harder in your regular job will mean that your collective will have more of it's product to trade so you would be encouraged to work as hard as you can ("from each according to ability") but your reward but be a lot more esoteric than an '08 BMW (respect from your peers and honour and standing in your community, kind of old fashioned and silly ideas these days)

codewarrior

The idea that an incentive is by necessity monetary merely shows how far capitalism is linked to your thinking. That is always the argument against communism . . . "There is no incentive" . . . true, with a qualifier: "There is no monetary incentive." One needs only to look at the Open Source Software movement to see how an incentive system might work without money. Programmers contribute to the software out of a need to use the software, out of a desire to be respected by their peers, and out of a love for the work. Now certainly some sort of incentive is required to get someone to do a job that nobody wants . . . ("scrubbing toilets" is the classic example). In the feudal system this incentive was that it was your place in the Universe, and what god had ordained you to do. Under the mercantile system it was once again similar, it was that this was the guild that you had chosen, and it gave you a purpose and meaning in your life. In the capitalist system, you do it because they pay you $5.50 an hour to do it.

The communist system requires there to be a state of technology, necessarily brought about by Capitalism, wherein the crappier jobs are mostly taken care of for us by machines. For an example of how this Utopian society would come about you should read Marshall Brain's Manna (http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm). Were we to attempt at a communist society prior to the establishment of this technology, we would find ourselves having to rotate through the crappier jobs.

On a bit of a side note, people often get confused about Communism. Karl Marx states very clearly in Wage Labor and Capital, that Communism is about freedom. It is about the freedom to create what one wants, with one's labor. The ultimate problem with capitalism is that you sell your intrinsic ability for labor, not the fruits of your labor. The real problem is the movement towards hourly labor, it's that you get paid by the hour, and not by the burger created, or by the car produced etc. The intoxicating beauty of Marxism is that a man may wake up one day and be a fisherman, and may wake up the next and be an artist, or programmer, or architect.

Gobán Saor

--amadeus-- wrote: »

And the reason people do nixers is to get more money to buy more stuff. In the socialist utopia (because realistically it will not now ever happen) there is no benefit to doing a nixer on the side or off the books.

Not so. Suppose I am a plumber. Lots of people (as in any society) will need various bits of work done. Even if there's no money or formal system of exchange I can barter my labour for useful stuff. Food, drink, services etc.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Working harder in your regular job will mean that your collective will have more of it's product to trade so you would be encouraged to work as hard as you can ("from each according to ability") but your reward but be a lot more esoteric than an '08 BMW (respect from your peers and honour and standing in your community, kind of old fashioned and silly ideas these days)

Or, I can work on my own behalf and benefit through barter.

codewarrior

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Even if there's no money or formal system of exchange I can barter my labour for useful stuff. Food, drink, services etc.

Why do people assume that communism would have no money and no trade system? Money pre-exists capitalism, and money will be around long after capitalism is no longer a viable economic system.

Capital is the means of production, not money.

--amadeus--

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Not so. Suppose I am a plumber. Lots of people (as in any society) will need various bits of work done. Even if there's no money or formal system of exchange I can barter my labour for useful stuff. Food, drink, services etc.

Congratulations, you've just figured out how it works!

I mentioned "Gang leader for a day" a few pages ago (excellent book, went through it cover to cover in a day). In it the author spends a lot of time with people in extremes of urban poverty, in teh projects in Chicago at the height of the crack epidemic of the late 80s early 90s. These are people who had been almost forcibly made to live outside the standard capitalist structure.

The basics that we all take for granted were unavailable to them so they formed micro communities (or communes, if you like). 4 - 10 households would band together to pool there resources. So maybe one is a good cook - they take on feeding duties for all of the households, getting the food and preparing it for all. Someone else may be (as in your example) a plumber. They would ensure that at least one flat had running hot and cold water and everyone would wash there. Someone else would take care of all the laundry, another (probably a sparks) would pirate electricity and cable so everyone had somewhere to watch the TV. A mechanic would maintain a clunker and do any driving that needed doing and so on.

These were spontaneous, money didn't change hands but the community pooled thier resources to the benefit of all. It would collapse if a member began to freeload or attempt exploitation. Going back to your example if teh plumber suddenly started to charge to maintain the water then the exchange fails and the community would break down, to the disadvantage of all.

Again this is not a piece of political theory, it is a documented occurance by a respected sociologist and shows one example of how an anarchist / socialist hybrid might evolve in a post capitalist word.

brianthebard

Gobán Saor wrote: »

But there will always be a dissenting minority who want to practise some form of capitalism (eg setting up micro-businesses, doing nixers, cornering the market in some skill or product etc, etc.) You've got to either:

Again this is simply not true. You don't have to shut down every single business to create a communist state. You don't even need the government to nationalise them. Thats clear to anyone who seems to understand communism on this thread, but not to you GS. Amadeus and codewarrior get it, why don't you?

Belfast

brianthebard wrote: »

What happened in the USSR, or indeed China or Cuba, is not communism, it is rule by dictator with wages controlled by the government. Thats about the height of it. Communism is not about forcing people to "follow the same drudgery". Communism is about just that-communities actively participating in the governing of themselves, working together and sharing equally in the gains.

that sounds like Anarchist communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

Kaiser_Sma

codewarrior wrote: »

The idea that an incentive is by necessity monetary merely shows how far capitalism is linked to your thinking. That is always the argument against communism . . . "There is no incentive" . . . true, with a qualifier: "There is no monetary incentive." One needs only to look at the Open Source Software movement to see how an incentive system might work without money. Programmers contribute to the software out of a need to use the software, out of a desire to be respected by their peers, and out of a love for the work. Now certainly some sort of incentive is required to get someone to do a job that nobody wants . . . ("scrubbing toilets" is the classic example). In the feudal system this incentive was that it was your place in the Universe, and what god had ordained you to do. Under the mercantile system it was once again similar, it was that this was the guild that you had chosen, and it gave you a purpose and meaning in your life. In the capitalist system, you do it because they pay you $5.50 an hour to do it.

Aquiring a semi state cult works on occasion but is undesirable to any free thinking individual (see george orwell). Also you may note as the feudal system of villianship etc. approached food and labour surpluses, it began to fall apart. People will inevitably seek to better there life if the oppertunity arises.

The communist system requires there to be a state of technology, necessarily brought about by Capitalism, wherein the crappier jobs are mostly taken care of for us by machines. For an example of how this Utopian society would come about you should read Marshall Brain's Manna (http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm). Were we to attempt at a communist society prior to the establishment of this technology, we would find ourselves having to rotate through the crappier jobs.

So we yo yo from one extreme to another, how convenient. Why would we need communism if there is no working class? What if anotehr problem thatrequired a technological solution occurs? would we crawl back to the free market?

On a bit of a side note, people often get confused about Communism. Karl Marx states very clearly in Wage Labor and Capital, that Communism is about freedom. It is about the freedom to create what one wants, with one's labor. The ultimate problem with capitalism is that you sell your intrinsic ability for labor, not the fruits of your labor.

This is incorrect, the fruits of your labour have a relative and realistic value based on more than pure functionality in real world centrist governments. Freedom is much greater in market economies because the '5.50' and hour you earn can be expended on anything you desire above your subsistance. From creativity, expression and indulgence. Depends on what your interests are.

The real problem is the movement towards hourly labor, it's that you get paid by the hour, and not by the burger created, or by the car produced etc.

if you look i think you'll find that where protectionism has damaged the free market, in the third world sweat shops, you are payed on commission, per unit. If you enjoy that kind of thoughtless pressure throughout your working life then you may like to return to the horrers of the industrial revolution.

The intoxicating beauty of Marxism is that a man may wake up one day and be a fisherman, and may wake up the next and be an artist, or programmer, or architect.

And be unspecialised at each? What if everyone wanted to be an artist? What if all you could do was fish? The chances are there would be far more factory workers then romantic self actualisationists. And how could you force an artist to be payed by the volume of work?

Your comments are very romantic but not even slightly practical. These arguments are so outdated, communism only ever counterd the most extreme ideas of the freemarket. Modern centrist economies use socialist ideas to improve equality, labour laws, reduce working hours etc. and capatalist ideas to improve standards of living, freedoms of information and free movement of capital and labour. You can be a fisherman oneday and an artist the next, or you can be both at the same time. It all depends on how good a fisherman you are. The onyl way communism can be enforced, is with force, more restraints, more laws and putting the blinkers on every man woman and child, so they can't see how good it could have been or how good it was.
Problems like poverty can be solved when protectionism and nationalist forces are reduced, but communism certainly is not the answer.

elpresdentde

thusspakeblixa wrote: »

I'm a believer in the Communist system (a Communist, if you will) and I think that discussing whether or not Communism has worked or not is irrelevant, because it has never been fully or properly implemented. Up to Stalin's takeover in 1924 Soviet Russia showed signs of ambition to become a true Communist state, but Lenin and Stalin both gave in and pandered to the whims of the Kulaks and Nepmen.
So yes, it could work, if implemented properly, it just hasn't been so far.

hat's an outrages claim The point about Communism is that in other to get anything done Communism needs a strong leader power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely etc. the only way Communism could work is if you could have a computer running the show completely unbiased an all knowing even then. your still talking a controlled state because whats best for the many rules and forget about the few and situations would arise like let say the corib oil field. its good for the many to have the oil its bad for the people who live by the oil lines

capitalism is not an ideological faith in the same way as hat's an outrages claim The point about Communism is that in other to get anything done Communism needs a strong leader power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely etc. the only way Communism could work is if you could have a computer running the show completely unbiased an all knowing even then. your still talking a controlled state because whats best for the many rules and forget about the few and situations would arise like let say the corib oil field. its good for the many to have the oil its bad for the people who live by the oil lines

capitalism is not an ideological in the same way as Communism. capitalism evolved over time from what the society was actually doing . Communism fascism anarchism are all completely based on theory and that's not how it works in real life.
capitalism evolved over time from what the society was actually doing . Communism fascism anarchism are all completely based on theory and that's not how it works in real life.

to say that you discount that Communism dident work because the people who implemented it dident stick to the dogma is insane because its a real world situation not a lab experiment

brianthebard

Belfast wrote: »

that sounds like Anarchist communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

Its more just my understanding of Marxism, although Anarchism is similar I admit.

Prufrock

Rossibaby wrote: »

do not presume i will go looking on google now lol....

Morlar wrote: »

In soviet russia google looks on you !

What a quote made me laugh while I was in my office.

That's not to say that some democracies have invasive laws. I mean check out the Orwell awards. Scary stuff.

There is a lot more freedom in democracy....normally but it's not uniform. What it does do is give you the chance to increase your own personal wealth. Very attractive to some people.