Arguments that Communism can never work because.....

[programminglinguist]

I'm a noob with communism and have only read the manifesto, I'm currently on the first few pages of an abridged version of Das Kapital and I really just CAN'T think of what to respond to "Communism is impossible. People are too greedy"

Or something near the lines of that. My dad told me that communism is based on taking only what you need and nothing more. My dad argued that it won't work because he'd (or a common person) would always end up taking more than they needed.

What would you say to that argument of why communism won't work? :confused:

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm not sure many say you can't have more than you need, you just have to earn it. The point is that everybody is gauranteed what they need, and value in excess of the labor required to produce something is not expropriated by someone merely because they have ownership of it (ownership no doubt somewhere along the lines was not rightfully sold).
It is barbaric to allow someone to recieve stolen property, rent it out for economic gain paying labor the least amount they will take, and pocket the rest.

EDIT: The problem, and one that I admit I had fallen for, is that many pop socialists have no actual knowledge of socialist theory, and more importantly, are very lacking in their understanding of capital/economics. They make the political arguments, but have no economic understanding as a foundation.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Or something near the lines of that. My dad told me that communism is based on taking only what you need and nothing more. My dad argued that it won't work because he'd (or a common person) would always end up taking more than they needed.Ha, I've had this one too. First of all, socialism is not just like we have our society as it is now but everything is just magically free. IMO, it's more about having control over our own lives and the decisions that effect it.

So when I get that criticism, I always just say: "yeah come here and scarf up some of this free air with me... try and breathe as much as you can because it's free. Then let's go to your house and drink more water than is humanly possible because it's all FREE!"

[Apoi_Viitor]

1. Hint: Whenever you are out-debated, just resort to the "*Insert Idea* can't work because it goes against human nature" argument. What is human nature? Anything you want it to be: be it greed, violence, selfishness, selflessness...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C28leo5E-oU

2. Well, I think pretty much all communists believe that in a Communist system, everyone should receive basic necessities (food, health care, shelter, etc.) As for luxuries, there are many differing opinions - vouchers, distribution based on use, 'gift economy', etc.

So it's not exactly, everyone takes what they need and nothing more. In fact, if that's what we believed in, I wouldn't be here - a revolution without Pokemon is not a revolution worth fighting for.

[mikelepore]

What would you say to that argument of why communism won't work?

I would say that it's true -- those who define their communism goal as a system where people would be permitted to take whatever products they want are recommending a system that wouldn't work. That's why I support a form of classless society where people would get paid by the hour to work and then spend their income to obtain products.

Actually the problem is much more serious than people taking more products than they need. The real problem is, if people didn't have to earn the ability to obtain products by getting paid by the hour to work, then most people wouldn't have any reason to show up at work at all, then then there wouldn't be any products.

[programminglinguist]

I would say that it's true -- those who define their communism goal as a system where people would be permitted to take whatever products they want are recommending a system that wouldn't work. That's why I support a form of classless society where people would get paid by the hour to work and then spend their income to obtain products.

Actually the problem is much more serious than people taking more products than they need. The real problem is, if people didn't have to earn the ability to obtain products by getting paid by the hour to work, then most people wouldn't have any reason to show up at work at all, then then there wouldn't be any products.

payed by the hour as opposed to what other option?

[Revolution starts with U]

eh, in this day and age we can automate half the economy, so that's a lot of jobs that we don't need to fill up. People generally like to do something. It's not like all work would stop.
Were that true, we never would have come out of the stone age.

[Public Domain]

I wouldn't be here - a revolution without Pokemon is not a revolution worth fighting for.
Lol PokeCentres are free...

To reiterate basically what you said because I spot on agree with it:

They are basically saying "Communism will always fall to x."
An easy equation, if x were defined and static.
But it's not. There is no basis for that assumption. If people appear to act a certain way, such as greedy, perhaps you should look at the environment around you, the system we grow up in, and how it's not human nature that affects our environment, but the environment that affects our human nature. People are greedy because it's popular, accepted, tolerated, glorified, and worshiped. The rich are treated like Kings as they step on a path made of the throats of workers.

Since x can't be defined AS x, it's just an opinion called x and not actually x at all.

So all you have is some guy claiming Communism won't work on purely nothing. Nothing.

The end equation is 'Communism won't work because of x.' and the sentence is worth nothing more. x is undefined.

Also, understand that if Communism truly were a 'natural' destined failure, then it'd be a failure of the human race, for not being the rational, intelligent, and honest species we think we are, and failing to accomplish a goal so thoroughly laid out and obvious for a 'successful humanity'. It'd be the great tragedy of humanity as they've discovered perfection, but ultimately were too awful, too immoral, too corrupt to make it. But it's hogwash. You know why? Because people aren't naturally greedy or lazy or anything.

Society right now though? Man this is dystopia.

[programminglinguist]

Lol PokeCentres are free...

To reiterate basically what you said because I spot on agree with it:

They are basically saying "Communism will always fall to x."
An easy equation, if x were defined and static.
But it's not. There is no basis for that assumption. If people appear to act a certain way, such as greedy, perhaps you should look at the environment around you, the system we grow up in, and how it's not human nature that affects our environment, but the environment that affects our human nature. People are greedy because it's popular, accepted, tolerated, glorified, and worshiped. The rich are treated like Kings as they step on a path made of the throats of workers.

Since x can't be defined AS x, it's just an opinion called x and not actually x at all.

So all you have is some guy claiming Communism won't work on purely nothing. Nothing.

The end equation is 'Communism won't work because of x.' and the sentence is worth nothing more. x is undefined.

Also, understand that if Communism truly were a 'natural' destined failure, then it'd be a failure of the human race, for not being the rational, intelligent, and honest species we think we are, and failing to accomplish a goal so thoroughly laid out and obvious for a 'successful humanity'. It'd be the great tragedy of humanity as they've discovered perfection, but ultimately were too awful, too immoral, too corrupt to make it. But it's hogwash. You know why? Because people aren't naturally greedy or lazy or anything.

Society right now though? Man this is dystopia.

soooo.... what would you say to a person saying "Communism won't work because people are too greedy?"

[ckaihatsu]

[It] won't work because he'd (or a common person) would always end up taking more than they needed.

What would you say to that argument of why communism won't work? :confused:


Okay, a few points here....

One, there is a vast difference between what society *produces* and what it *consumes*. The *difference* is called a material *surplus*, but here's the catch -- the term 'surplus' is a broad term and it doesn't specify who *gets* the surplus, or who's in charge of it. If we use food as an example we can look around and see people who have, uh, *partaken* of somewhat more than they would really need for their everyday continued existence, right? But does their *extra* food consumption have anything to do with the world's food *supply* -- ? Of course not -- we know that the productive capacity for growing, harvesting, packaging, and distributing food far outstrips the number of mouths to feed and bellies to fill. If some happen to like to eat somewhat more than they really need to, they can't by any stretch of the imagination be *blamed* for someone else *not eating*, because it's *not* a 'zero-sum' situation.

Rather, the reason there is still starvation in our modern world is because of how materials, including farming capacities and food itself, are *privatized* and *politicized*, so that the end goal is no longer about getting food to mouths, but is instead about holding it over people's heads for economic and political gain.

So this reality *destroys* the moralistic argument about people upsetting the "delicate balance" because of their enthusiastic consumption habits -- through the use of technology our contemporary society is able to produce massive surpluses of food and consumer items, far beyond what people could possibly give their lifetimes' attention to if they did nothing *but* consume on a 24/7 basis. And, with more people's attention being directed into the virtual worlds within the computer screen, that's even *less* time for consumption of tangible, material-object-oriented stuff.

Also, there's no good argument against consumption based on a claim of generating too much waste -- there are very good technologies for *that*, too, that can grind down materials and recycle or otherwise distribute the waste products of massive amounts of superfluous garbage.

And, if people want more and newer consumer *things* to be manufactured, there's no good argument against enabling *that*, either -- who's to say where the line should be drawn, really, especially under the current regime of capital-based valuations that have nothing to do with reflecting the actual amount of mental / emotional / physical efforts that went into producing them. If anything, the current regime of capital only disproportionately favors the *less* deserving, who have not made *any* efforts whatsoever that led to the manufacture of the items they're consuming.

Under a post-capitalist, self-liberated-workers political economy that issue would only become *less* arguable from a moralistic stance, since the full productive capacities of modern industry could go *full* throttle, and directed towards people's direct requests, independent of any artificial *monetary* valuations. As long as a few people wanted to invent, design, set up machinery, find the natural resources, and throw the switch, there'd be no valid political grounds to stop them -- I think more people would find *more* material options for enabling more diversely lived lives, in comparison to today.

The *real* mass crime in the present day is the automation of the *labor-sucking* process that allows the non-human market mechanism to determine how much people should work and where their resulting labor value goes. Really, it's like a swimming pool with no bottom -- people have to keep filling it up and hoping that it stays filled for awhile, long enough to enjoy for a little bit, before they have to then go back to work and find more water to fill it up again. As revolutionaries we ask where does that surplus labor value go, and why can't the laborers themselves benefit from the hands-off productivity of automated industrial production -- ?!

[Oswy]

I'm a noob with communism and have only read the manifesto, I'm currently on the first few pages of an abridged version of Das Kapital and I really just CAN'T think of what to respond to "Communism is impossible. People are too greedy"

Or something near the lines of that. My dad told me that communism is based on taking only what you need and nothing more. My dad argued that it won't work because he'd (or a common person) would always end up taking more than they needed.

What would you say to that argument of why communism won't work? :confused:

We know that communism can work because it is how all humans lived before technological and organisational changes generated subsequent modes of production. Even today a few pockets of 'hunter-gatherers' survive, corresponding to the Marxist notion of the so-called 'primitive communist'. Hunter-gathering societies are highly egalitarian socially, with all members developing skills and having access to their productive needs, gathering food, hunting, making clothes, shelter and so on. Hunter-gathering societies are characterised by the desire to have everyone's basic needs met and everyone contributing to meeting those needs as they are able to. So we can be confident that as far as economic and social relations are concerned there can be communism because there has been plenty of it in the past and it still survives today. The more interesting argument is whether we can return to such egalitarian societies while retaining the various technological and organisational advances which subsequent modes have developed. That's a big discussion but if anything the technological advances that we have seen make the idea of aranging our economy and social life to meet everyone's needs is probably easier for us than it is for hunter-gatherers as we have much more control over nature than they do. So, yeah, of course communism will work.

As for greed? The problem with this argument is that it is living in capitalism itself which generates and sustains the greed mentality, humans are no more 'naturally' greedy than they are 'sharing' or 'compassionate' or 'lustful' or whatever. Human traits are varied and any propensity towards greed can be structurally amplified or diminished according to the way we organise society. In short, in a society where your needs are met you won't be very greedy because greed is a response to (a) a society based upon greed and (b) a society which allows anxieties about poverty and need to increase greed orientation - i.e. capitalist society.

[Oswy]

soooo.... what would you say to a person saying "Communism won't work because people are too greedy?"

I'd say people are greedy in societies which reward greed and punish the ungreedy. I'd also say that people who have all their basic and real needs met will not care to have things they don't need.

Capitalism goes to huge efforts to make us believe that we need all the shit it wants us to buy, it thus cultivates greed. Greed is a response to a set of circumstances, not an instinctive attitude, take away the circumstances and you take away the greed.

[ed miliband]

The only basis for a communist society is greed.

But seriously, if working class people are "too greedy" then why does capitalism still exist? If greed is about demanding 'more than you deserve' or whatevs then how can working class people be greedy when they constantly get much, much less than they create.

As the C.M. says:


The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority.

A communist movement will be based on self-interest, not on sacrifice. Greed is not an obstacle that needs to be overcome by communists, it should be embraced.

[programminglinguist]

I'd say people are greedy in societies which reward greed and punish the ungreedy. I'd also say that people who have all their basic and real needs met will not care to have things they don't need.

Capitalism goes to huge efforts to make us believe that we need all the shit it wants us to buy, it thus cultivates greed. Greed is a response to a set of circumstances, not an instinctive attitude, take away the circumstances and you take away the greed.

... So communism is founded on the Locke's theories that all humans are born good? :P

I'm more of a cynic and do believe that people are naturally greedy. If you offer me cake, I will want more until I am full. If you offer me shiny things, I will want more to surround myself with them to make life more enjoyable. Offer me absolute comfort? I'll take it!

Greed derives its basis from "HOW CAN I MAKE MY LIFE BETTER?" and that is asked by all humans no matter their surroundings.

[Oswy]

... So communism is founded on the Locke's theories that all humans are born good? :P

I'm more of a cynic and do believe that people are naturally greedy. If you offer me cake, I will want more until I am full. If you offer me shiny things, I will want more to surround myself with them to make life more enjoyable. Offer me absolute comfort? I'll take it!

Greed derives its basis from "HOW CAN I MAKE MY LIFE BETTER?" and that is asked by all humans no matter their surroundings.

As a Marxist I'd say that all humans are born....human.

We live in a society that encourages us to be greedy, it 'normativises' greed, hence your interest in surrounding yourself in 'shiny things'. You should already be questioning the superficiality of your life being more 'enjoyable' because of 'shiny things'. We have needs and we have a propensity to seek comfort too, but these shouldn't be mistaken for greed. If you've already made your mind up before you've asked these questions (as you appear to have) then so be it, but I think it is an error to see greed as the driving force of human expression; greed is cultivated by the way capitalist society functions. Indeed, if anything the desire to make others happy is as powerful a force in human nature as the desire to satisfy ourselves, we've very much evolved as social beings; but that is being suppressed under capitalism.

[ckaihatsu]

I have to take on these "greed" and "laziness" arguments head-on here, because they're popping up on a couple of threads now.

I am absolutely *against* this moralistic stance of argument, because by using the terms 'greed' and 'lazy' it invites the creation of a self-appointed social moral authority that is then tasked with *defining* and *enforcing* these arbitrary definitions -- possibly in vigilante-like ways.

These moralistic arguments have *zero* real, material basis, since everything that is produced in *any* kind of economy is either a [1] good or a [2] service -- if it's a service then the person providing the service should have full, unobligated, duress-free self-determination over whether the compensation provided for that service is adequate enough, considering all factors regarding the providing of that service, whatever it may be.

And if the labor is for producing a good of some kind then we need to acknowledge that there is *no* objectively definable material standard for a ratio of mental / emotional / physical effort, to the production of one unit of that good. (This is because of mass industrial production methods that leverage and interleave various types of labor into processes that combine hydrocarbon fuels and machine efficiencies -- *very* complex!)





These liberated laborers may very well find that producing quality objects and consumables for their own usage -- without being exploited -- is *not* a linear, one-to-one relationship of work effort to productive output, especially once they've taken collective control of the means of mass production. Sure, some may continue to do handicraft-type work as self-selected artisans, but I'd say that the bulk of the population would *not* go in that direction with their lives and would be altogether comfortable using the outputs of *industrial* manufacturing processes -- and these are *not* dependent on increasing amounts of human mental / emotional / physical labor power.


So -- after easily dismissing the *capitalist* method of material valuation -- we're left with one implication of this fact of modern material production: That no one can draw a direct line from the *products* (goods and services) of mental / emotional / physical labor efforts, back to their solely existing *sources* of labor in any kind of definitive way. (For example, how many people, and which ones, exactly, should be credited for all of the knowledge contained in all of Wikipedia's pages, and for how many hours of their time, respectively? Or, how does a new owner of a used chair properly back-compensate the artisan who produced that chair 50 years ago that's still being used today?)

If even labor-conscious *Marxists* can't arrive at a definite system of quantification of material labor effort into finished goods and services, for the purpose of setting up a valid system of ratios, then we sure as hell know that the *capitalist* system of labor-*exploiting* valuations is even *further* from reflecting an accurate correlation of labor effort to abstract value.

Without an *objective* measure of quantified abstract values there's really no good way to say what goods and services are worth, *especially* by the yardstick of capital. So we have to conclude that there's no *standard* for saying how much *value* -- especially labor value -- one person is consuming versus another. Sure, there are some generalities, as with bigger items versus smaller items, but we *still* don't have a solid standard for definitively saying that 'x' person has contributed 'y' amount of effort into the common good, and therefore can receive 'z' amount of goods and services back without being "lazy" or "greedy"...(!)

[4 Leaf Clover]

I'm a noob with communism and have only read the manifesto, I'm currently on the first few pages of an abridged version of Das Kapital and I really just CAN'T think of what to respond to "Communism is impossible. People are too greedy"

Or something near the lines of that. My dad told me that communism is based on taking only what you need and nothing more. My dad argued that it won't work because he'd (or a common person) would always end up taking more than they needed.

What would you say to that argument of why communism won't work? :confused:
tell them they are uneducated and ignorant on the topic , and then ask for a proof that people are greedy by default.

then i suggest you to work through materialism and figure out that people consciousness is something relative and changing. it is shaped exactely by the material world around us , and therefore it is not the servant of the matter , but its master.

"take what you need , give what you can" is sometimes taken too much literally.


A communist movement will be based on self-interest, not on sacrifice. Greed is not an obstacle that needs to be overcome by communists, it should be embraced.

somewhat true. it is actually in material way of thinking natural for man to have and satisfy his need to improve his life. but it can't be called greediness. because new system is supposed to rely on fact that there are no privileged people in sharing community products

[PoliticalNightmare]

Or something near the lines of that. My dad told me that communism is based on taking only what you need and nothing more. My dad argued that it won't work because he'd (or a common person) would always end up taking more than they needed.

Tell your dad under communism, people are rewarded for labour. Under capitalism, people are rewarded for owning lots of land and shares in the stock market.

[jingle_bombs]

Human wants, needs and desires are a generally a product of the material conditions our society is founded on.

Therefore humans are not naturally greedy - they just think they are.

[Revolution starts with U]

Greed is not the same thing as self-interest. God damn Ayn Rand and her elitist slave system!
Greed is when your want of self-interest includes a damning of anyone elses wants. Greed is when you will do things you find unethical to obtain more for yourself.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm a noob with communism and have only read the manifesto, I'm currently on the first few pages of an abridged version of Das Kapital and I really just CAN'T think of what to respond to "Communism is impossible. People are too greedy"

Or something near the lines of that. My dad told me that communism is based on taking only what you need and nothing more. My dad argued that it won't work because he'd (or a common person) would always end up taking more than they needed.

What would you say to that argument of why communism won't work? :confused:

I would say the following:
- The idea that people are inherently greedy is a claim to human nature, which is by definition unjustified as there is little proof in human nature to begin with, let alone a set of standards.
- This argument is based on two problems: a misunderstanding of communism, and a misunderstanding of capitalism. The idea that communism is 'take what you need and nothing more' is oversimplified and silly. Basically, communism is an economic system whereby the working class controls the means of production and goods/services are distributed not according to price, but according to need and ability. The idea that capitalism 'deals' with greed in one way or another is likewise oversimplified and silly. Capitalism accommodates and encourages the appropriation of capital to one's own benefit and to the detriment and exploitation of others. This is justified through rhetoric of freedom, etc... but is materially incoherent.

I suggest you continue your reading, though Das Kapital is a heavy book and not one I recommend after reading the Manifesto.

- August

[PoliticalNightmare]

Greed is not the same thing as self-interest. God damn Ayn Rand and her elitist slave system!
Greed is when your want of self-interest includes a damning of anyone elses wants. Greed is when you will do things you find unethical to obtain more for yourself.

Agreed. Some right wingers seem to confuse selfishness with a desire to fulfill one's own basic needs. Selfishness is measured by how much one wishes to go beyond fulfilling their basic needs, with very selfish people going way beyond, and moderately selfish people only going a little bit beyond :)

Communists are against being selfish but not fulfilling one's own basic needs. If you have to kill someone else to eat it is not your fault, it is only self defense.

[ckaihatsu]

As everyone can see, I'm pretty much a "hard liner" when it comes to materialism.... There really is no good excuse for people to suppress *their own* needs and desires, much less for the system to do so....

Here's another principled response:





Selfishness is measured by how much one wishes to go beyond fulfilling their basic needs, with very selfish people going way beyond, and moderately selfish people only going a little bit beyond :)


50. Oscar Wilde - “Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. And unselfishness is letting other people's lives alone, not interfering with them. Selfishness always aims at uniformity of type. Unselfishness recognizes infinite variety of type as a delightful thing, accepts it, acquiesces in it, enjoys it.”

http://www.famousquotes.com/search.php?search=1&LastName=Wilde&FirstName=Oscar&field=FullName&paint=&cat=&first=

http://www.couchsurfing.org/people/ckaihatsu/

[mikelepore]

payed by the hour as opposed to what other option?

As opposed to the concept of socialism that is supported by the World Socialist movement at worldsocialism.org, founded in 1904, in which all work would be unpaid and all products would be free.

I believe that their concept is based on three errors: (1) an unsupportable 19th century assumption that establishing a classless society would transform all work into enjoyment, (2) an exaggerated expectation about how soon automation may become self-maintaining, and (3) overoptimism about what behaviors might be reliably expected from altruism.

I say no -- in a classless society there will continue to be some task called "working" that people must perform only because each individual finds it to be unavoidable, and it must be treated accordingly, that is, getting paid to do it, otherwise people wouldn't do it.

[ckaihatsu]

[In] a classless society there will continue to be some task called "working" that people must perform only because each individual finds it to be unavoidable, and it must be treated accordingly, that is, getting paid to do it, otherwise people wouldn't do it.


I agree with the *spirit* of this, with reservations, but my own approach to the *mechanics* of it are a little different:








Determination of material values

labor [supply] -- Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived




Infrastructure / overhead

labor [supply] -- All workers will be entirely liberated from all coercion and threats related to basic human living needs, regardless of work status -- any labor roles will be entirely self-selected and open to collective labor organizing efforts on the basis of accumulated labor credits




Propagation

labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?u=16162