Couple of questions on communism

[nekom]

Hi there. I'm a former conservative who has been on a leftward plunge in recent years. Why the change? Well, it's empathy. Me, I'm doing pretty well (for now) but I have a lot of friends and family who can't afford health coverage, who are gay and can not legally marry in my state, and a host of other issues. So I've turned my political views upside down and I've become quite interested in the far left. I guess where I stand now, I would consider myself a socialist, but I am a bit interested in communism, and I have a few questions about what is said are two inherit flaws in communism.

1. It is said that in a communist state, there is no incentive to work hard. Is this true, and if so how would a communist system get around this?

2. Every communist system so far in history has been a dictatorship. Why is this? Is it just the case that they all happened to be that way or does the system lend itself to abuse of power. I'm pretty sure North Korea, for instance, is NOT an ideal implementation of communist theory. What country comes the closest to the ideal implementation? Cuba perhaps? They are still technically a dictatorship, but from all I've heard the people are relatively free and there is ample food.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around what a successful democratic communist state would look like and if it could work in the world today. I know socialism works, Europe is proof of that. Sure they have their problems, but so do we here in the states.

I'd appreciate any input on this.

[Tablo]

1. It is said that in a communist state, there is no incentive to work hard. Is this true, and if so how would a communist system get around this?
Communism is stateless first of all. Incentive comes from the fact that your labor directly impacts yourself and the community. So your labor improves your living standards as well as those around you rather than those of some boss exploiting your labor.


2. Every communist system so far in history has been a dictatorship. Why is this? Is it just the case that they all happened to be that way or does the system lend itself to abuse of power. I'm pretty sure North Korea, for instance, is NOT an ideal implementation of communist theory. What country comes the closest to the ideal implementation? Cuba perhaps? They are still technically a dictatorship, but from all I've heard the people are relatively free and there is ample food.
None of those are communist and they never claimed to be. They claimed to be socialist, but in reality they maintained a state-capitalist economy and an authoritarian state.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

1. It is said that in a communist state, there is no incentive to work hard. Is this true, and if so how would a communist system get around this?
Most communists agree that at this point the incentives to work will be one, as part of one's duty to the community (though even as I type this it sounds suspiciously lame and voluntold-y) and two, because people will like their work. The amount of unnecessary - and boring - jobs that are created because of capitalism is astounding. Most of the ones that do remain could most likely just be replaced by technology in some way by the time the revolution rolls around (perhaps a bit of a cop-out, but I don't think anyone can say with conviction the revolution is just around the corner).


2. Every communist system so far in history has been a dictatorship. Why is this? Is it just the case that they all happened to be that way or does the system lend itself to abuse of power. I'm pretty sure North Korea, for instance, is NOT an ideal implementation of communist theory. What country comes the closest to the ideal implementation? Cuba perhaps? They are still technically a dictatorship, but from all I've heard the people are relatively free and there is ample food.
I'm not too sure how much you know about communist theory, but ideal communism is *supposed to* be stateless and classless. It's how we get there that people start disagreeing on. It could be argued that the Stalinist and Maoist systems lend themself to this kind of abuse, but I really don't want to bring sectarianism into Learning. What I will say is that there are a multitude of tendencies out there that don't lend themselves to abuse - you could check out Anarchism, for example. I'm sure that even the more authoritarian Marxists-Leninists have ways to combat this. In the end, it just comes down to correct implementation, and your opinion of what it should be. Most would argue that the ones you listed were not really (correct) working-class revolutions in the first place.


I know socialism works, Europe is proof of that.
Europe isn't really socialist. Just capitalism with perhaps a little more government involvement. Socialism is a system "in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively" (stolen from Wikipedia). That is not what happens in Europe.

[nekom]

Communism is stateless first of all. Incentive comes from the fact that your labor directly impacts yourself and the community. So your labor improves your living standards as well as those around you rather than those of some boss exploiting your labor.


Stateless? I must admit, I don't quite follow that. Surely a government would need to exist, right? I don't see how that would be structured. Are there no nations in a pure idealistic communist world? I do get that you would have incentive to work hard if you were building roads for your community or something like that, but what about other sorts of work? How would a communist world deal with those who are not pulling their weight?

Harsh prison terms or worse for merely being lazy don't seem right but I can hardly think of another way to enforce that effectively. The notion that you're working for EVERYONE would inspire some, I believe under such a system I would do my best, knowing that it was for the greater good, but some people are lazy by nature, surely that would be an issue.



None of those are communist and they never claimed to be. They claimed to be socialist, but in reality they maintained a state-capitalist economy and an authoritarian state.

Didn't they start out with the intention to become communist though? Wasn't that their stated goal? Is that how such dictatorships came to be, someone lusted for power and corrupted the original vision for the nation?

[gendoikari]

1. It is said that in a communist state, there is no incentive to work hard. Is this true, and if so how would a communist system get around this?

Under socialism the harder you work the more you get paid as opposed to capitalism where the more rare your skill set the more you get paid. There is also no capital class to hoard all wealth so everyone gets their fair share as long as they work.

under Communism after the robotization of the workforce there will be no need for incentives as the only jobs that would be need to be done by humans would still be happily done by people in a completely economically equal state.

[nekom]

Europe isn't really socialist. Just capitalism with perhaps a little more government involvement. Socialism is a system "in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively" (stolen from Wikipedia). That is not what happens in Europe.

I always thought that the state owning the means of production was the very definition of communism, not socialism. I guess the words get minced on the political stage. Here in the USA, the vast majority of people would say that Europe was Socialist.

I guess it's not surprising, politicians here don't get hung up on things like facts.

[Susurrus]

I know socialism works, Europe is proof of that. Sure they have their problems, but so do we here in the states.


Europe is not socialist in the least, it is still quite capitalist. The most one could call it is social-democratic, which still entails the capitalist mode of production.

[Nox]

1. It is said that in a communist state, there is no incentive to work hard. Is this true, and if so how would a communist system get around this?

The incentive to work hard is that you will be improving the lives of everyone, and if everyone is improving the lives of everyone then everyone benefits. It's kinda confusing but you get what I mean :D


2. Every communist system so far in history has been a dictatorship. Why is this? Is it just the case that they all happened to be that way or does the system lend itself to abuse of power. I'm pretty sure North Korea, for instance, is NOT an ideal implementation of communist theory. What country comes the closest to the ideal implementation? Cuba perhaps? They are still technically a dictatorship, but from all I've heard the people are relatively free and there is ample food.

In the Soviet Union, for example, there was a Vanguard party that led the revolution and controlled the development and expansion of Socialism, however this soon attracted many oppurtunists and led to a beaurecracy. I would disagree that authoritarianism is a bad thing, but many other Communists would disagree with me seeing as Communism ranges from Libertarianism (Anarchy) to Authoritarianism ('Stalinism').

Bottom line is that the Soviet Union post-1952, Yugoslavia, Cuba, China post-1978 and most other 'Communist' states are very unideal implementations that failed.

I think what you need to wrap your head around is that dictatorship is not always a bad thing. You've been brainwashed by the American/other Western governments to assume that Democracy = freedom. This certainly isn't the case.


I'm just trying to wrap my head around what a successful democratic communist state would look like and if it could work in the world today. I know socialism works, Europe is proof of that. Sure they have their problems, but so do we here in the states.

I'd appreciate any input on this.

Europe certainly isn't anywhere near Socialist.

[thesadmafioso]

Hi there. I'm a former conservative who has been on a leftward plunge in recent years. Why the change? Well, it's empathy. Me, I'm doing pretty well (for now) but I have a lot of friends and family who can't afford health coverage, who are gay and can not legally marry in my state, and a host of other issues. So I've turned my political views upside down and I've become quite interested in the far left. I guess where I stand now, I would consider myself a socialist, but I am a bit interested in communism, and I have a few questions about what is said are two inherit flaws in communism.

1. It is said that in a communist state, there is no incentive to work hard. Is this true, and if so how would a communist system get around this?

2. Every communist system so far in history has been a dictatorship. Why is this? Is it just the case that they all happened to be that way or does the system lend itself to abuse of power. I'm pretty sure North Korea, for instance, is NOT an ideal implementation of communist theory. What country comes the closest to the ideal implementation? Cuba perhaps? They are still technically a dictatorship, but from all I've heard the people are relatively free and there is ample food.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around what a successful democratic communist state would look like and if it could work in the world today. I know socialism works, Europe is proof of that. Sure they have their problems, but so do we here in the states.

I'd appreciate any input on this.

1. The incentive to work in a socialist society is still maintained in a limited sort of sense, as the defeat of capitalistic tendencies in thought is not something which can be achieved on a short term timeline. Things like slightly graduated wages, with the highest pay going to those who undertake the most demanding labor were common in the Soviet Union. In certain intellectual fields, minor improvements in housing and access to consumer goods were made available to those who preformed in an exceptional manner.

Though it should be noted that while this traditional form of economic incentive is maintained in the earlier stages of socialism, that it exited (or rather it should exist) in a well regulated environment. Economic incentive when mismanaged in a bureaucratic fashion can in some cases lead to the creation of pseudo classes of the bureaucracy (see Stalinism). Though presuming it is applied in a way designed to bolster and encourage the fostering of proper socialism along the lines of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, this issue shouldn't arise.

In a communist society though, the need for such measures evaporates entirely. The classic quote of Marx "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" serves as the guiding principle of this stage of historical development, and the desire to work stems from an absence of conflict between forces of antagonism such as labor and capital, proletariat and bourgeoisie, and the alienation of labor. Labor, as it exists in this stage of communism, directly benefits the whole of a equal society, and this is the leading factor which would encourage workers to put forth what effort they are capable of.

2. The world has yet to witness any revolutionary success beyond the stages of preliminary socialism.

Most of the worlds major socialist revolutions either fell victim to revolutionary Bonapartism and saw their gains squandered by nationalistic tendencies or simply outright fell into state capitalism maintained by a dictatorship of the party. In the former case, the Soviet Union post 1927 serves as a prime example, as it maintained central economic planning though it did so without retaining the revolutionary party. In the latter case, China would serve as the most prominent example.

Though this says nothing to the faults of socialism, as conditions have never been fulfilled to allow for its historical progress to unfold to its fullest intent. These examples to which you point are not indicators of any actual structural failings in socialism itself, they only show how the betrayal of such can have disastrous effects of regression. Think of the 20th century as the first act of a play where all of the major players and themes are merely introduced.The international socialist revolution still awaits us and the high tide of revolution still has yet to sweep across the globe.

[Tablo]

Stateless? I must admit, I don't quite follow that. Surely a government would need to exist, right? I don't see how that would be structured. Are there no nations in a pure idealistic communist world? I do get that you would have incentive to work hard if you were building roads for your community or something like that, but what about other sorts of work? How would a communist world deal with those who are not pulling their weight?
Government would exist, but not in the way it does now. Decision making would, ideally, be centered around a series of directly democratic communes. Then economic planning would be done on a larger scale with instantly recallable representatives in a regional federation. Of course, there are other ways communism could be organized as well.


Harsh prison terms or worse for merely being lazy don't seem right but I can hardly think of another way to enforce that effectively. The notion that you're working for EVERYONE would inspire some, I believe under such a system I would do my best, knowing that it was for the greater good, but some people are lazy by nature, surely that would be an issue.
Communism would come after an extended period of other socialist systems not centered on the socialist gift-economy communism maintains. Labor vouchers and other means of incentive would be used during transition until there is somewhat of a culture of community participation. There could be required labor(if you are capable of working) in order to receive your goods and services under communism as well, but it would not be based on wages of an kind. Harsh prison time would not come from not working. At most you would be denied goods and services for not working.




Didn't they start out with the intention to become communist though? Wasn't that their stated goal? Is that how such dictatorships came to be, someone lusted for power and corrupted the original vision for the nation?
They claimed that to be their original goals in some nations(like the USSR and PRC, but not Cuba), but never got close to it and ultimately abandoned the vision. North Korea doesn't even adhere to any communist theories and now upholds Juche ideology.

[Tommy4ever]

Hi there. I'm a former conservative who has been on a leftward plunge in recent years. Why the change? Well, it's empathy. Me, I'm doing pretty well (for now) but I have a lot of friends and family who can't afford health coverage, who are gay and can not legally marry in my state, and a host of other issues. So I've turned my political views upside down and I've become quite interested in the far left. I guess where I stand now, I would consider myself a socialist, but I am a bit interested in communism, and I have a few questions about what is said are two inherit flaws in communism.

1. It is said that in a communist state, there is no incentive to work hard. Is this true, and if so how would a communist system get around this?

2. Every communist system so far in history has been a dictatorship. Why is this? Is it just the case that they all happened to be that way or does the system lend itself to abuse of power. I'm pretty sure North Korea, for instance, is NOT an ideal implementation of communist theory. What country comes the closest to the ideal implementation? Cuba perhaps? They are still technically a dictatorship, but from all I've heard the people are relatively free and there is ample food.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around what a successful democratic communist state would look like and if it could work in the world today. I know socialism works, Europe is proof of that. Sure they have their problems, but so do we here in the states.

I'd appreciate any input on this.

1. This idea comes from the 'human nature argument'. In truth it is only really based on how people have functioned under capitalism - if we examine how humans have lived under previous economic systems we can see that humans don't always live the same way - this infers that they could behave in a different way in a different economic system.

2. Virtually all communists praise the Paris Commune of 1871 as a good example of a socialist society. But there is nothing else we can point to between 1871 and 1917.

In 1917 there were numerous major revolutionary leftist schools of thought - Anarchism (popular in Southern Europe and Latin America), Leninism (the Bolsheviks in Russia), Luxemburgism (the radical left of the SPD in Germany), and some Revolutionary Orthodox Marxists. After the October Revolution all other schools of thought were basically pushed aside and following the Spanish Civil War (basically the last hurrah of Anarchism as a mass movement in the 20th century) the only school of revolutionary leftist thought was Leninism.

Many of us disagree over whether the Soviet Union was ever truly socialist. Aside form Anarchists and some extreme Left Marxists most believe that it was at some point socialists. Some believe that this was abandoned in 1918 when the libertarian reforms of Lenin were retracted in the face of the Civil War, others point to the rise of Stalin, others to Khruschev, Brezhnev and some even think it was socialist as late as Gorbachev.

The Soviet model of socialist society was the dominant one throughout the 20th century. This model tended to create 'collective dictatorships' (basically a small group of high ranking party members in a committee runing the country).

However, before Leninism came to dominate the scene other leftist currents called for more democratic forms of revolutionary government. Many strands of Leninism also called for significant degrees of party democracy.

Europe isn't socialist. We just have some strong remnants of the welfrare state left over from the struggles of the 20th century. But these are under attack at the moment from the right wing.

[nekom]

Government would exist, but not in the way it does now. Decision making would, ideally, be centered around a series of directly democratic communes. Then economic planning would be done on a larger scale with instantly recallable representatives in a regional federation. Of course, there are other ways communism could be organized as well.


Sure there are any number of ways government can be organized, but doesn't someone always have to be on top? Of course that `someone' could be a committee or panel but in order to have a planned economy, it absolutely has to be a top-down hierarchy, doesn't it? I don't think some sort of decentralized system could get much accomplished.



Communism would come after an extended period of other socialist systems not centered on the socialist gift-economy communism maintains. Labor vouchers and other means of incentive would be used during transition until there is somewhat of a culture of community participation. There could be required labor(if you are capable of working) in order to receive your goods and services under communism as well, but it would not be based on wages of an kind. Harsh prison time would not come from not working. At most you would be denied goods and services for not working.


Indeed that would work great if it had always been that way and such a culture was already in place. How in the world would one get from where we are today to that though? Seems almost unthinkable, especially in the United States. Even the European model is like the boogie man to some here.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

Indeed that would work great if it had always been that way and such a culture was already in place. How in the world would one get from where we are today to that though? Seems almost unthinkable, especially in the United States. Even the European model is like the boogie man to some here.
And there you get to the crux of the matter. That is the revolution - the old system is torn down and replaced with something else. Of course, like I've said... it's a long way off.

[Thirsty Crow]

Sure there are any number of ways government can be organized, but doesn't someone always have to be on top? Of course that `someone' could be a committee or panel but in order to have a planned economy, it absolutely has to be a top-down hierarchy, doesn't it? I don't think some sort of decentralized system could get much accomplished.
As a communist (and do note that in my opinion, there is no difference between "communism" and "socialism" as terms; they both signify modes of production which transcend capitalism), yes, I think that it is not true that "always someone has to be on top".
The thing is, you are abstracting from the reality of social organization in contemporary society, mistakenly identifying these ways of organization for the absolute limit or horizon of possibilities of all kinds of possible organizations of production.

But why do you think that a command economy is the only possible way to organize production which does not conform to capitalism?

I'd advise you to google participatory economics, or maybe get a hold of the book by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel.




Indeed that would work great if it had always been that way and such a culture was already in place. How in the world would one get from where we are today to that though? Seems almost unthinkable, especially in the United States. Even the European model is like the boogie man to some here.
By constant struggle and a lot of practice. You cannot expect something to take root without being practiced regardless of possible problems (and I'd say that this kind of organization offers even better ways of dealing with possible trouble than our current one).

And yes, it does seem almost unthinkable, and maybe you should think about why does it seem so, what factors are at play here in forming the very opinion of "thinkability".

[Tim Cornelis]

If you want more information about socialism and its theory check out an Anarchist FAQ, specifically section I

http://www.anarchyfaq.org/

And Marxist FAQ:

http://www.newyouth.com/content/view/129/64/

It explains how a stateless society is governed by all people collectively in the absence of hierarchy, among other things. How work is organised and how distribution could be organised.

[Tablo]

Sure there are any number of ways government can be organized, but doesn't someone always have to be on top? Of course that `someone' could be a committee or panel but in order to have a planned economy, it absolutely has to be a top-down hierarchy, doesn't it? I don't think some sort of decentralized system could get much accomplished.
It could be centralized to, but I personally believe centralized planning of the economy or decision making is inefficient and does a poor job of meeting the individual needs of each community. There does not have to be a person on top. Part of the idea behind communism is that everyone is on top, everyone is equal.


Indeed that would work great if it had always been that way and such a culture was already in place. How in the world would one get from where we are today to that though? Seems almost unthinkable, especially in the United States. Even the European model is like the boogie man to some here.
Revolution would have to occur first, then a socialist transition phase, and then communism. Communism is an end goal to work toward over and extended period of time. It is quite unthinkable at the moment. Europe is not socialist and will not be able to even think of moving towards communism until the workers there have seized the means of production.

[syndicat]

the word "communism" has two meanings:

1. the meaning it acquired after the Russian revolution and the formation of the various Communist Parties. Marxism-Leninism, the Communist ideology, emphasizes the control being in the hands of a vanguard party. This can be considered the origin of the authoritarianism and dictatorship and bureaucratic class domination in Communism.

2. before the Russian revolution, "communism" and "socialism" were often used interchangeably and referred to a society where the working class was empowered, there was no longer a class system, of workers subordinate to bosses, and the old bureaucratic hierarchical state had been replaced by a more directly democratic form of popular governance.

if people are remunerated for each hour of work, then this becomes an incentive for work performed.

[piet11111]

Well there would be different levels of planning if you want to have a garage for your car you wont be putting that to the UN now would you ?

The netherlands face a problem with old cast iron gaspipes that would be a decision to replace them on a national level and the details to be filled in on a municipal level on where to put the new gaspipes and at what time (to prevent the work from hindering the people) along with the size of the pipes depending on the volume of gas that will flow through them.
While on a national level they would decide what kind of gaspipes to use how to acquire them and by what time frame the work would need to start and be finished.

Say that the people demand a low carbon emission energy network that would be a plan that would need to be drawn on a global level because we can not have the USA and China expanding their coal/oil energy production while Europe tries to go green/nuclear.

Through the internet we could reach most of the world population to put this to a vote.

[ckaihatsu]

Sure there are any number of ways government can be organized, but doesn't someone always have to be on top? Of course that `someone' could be a committee or panel but in order to have a planned economy, it absolutely has to be a top-down hierarchy, doesn't it? I don't think some sort of decentralized system could get much accomplished.








[A] planned (post-capitalist) political economy [can be] based on varying *weights* of importance for discrete goods and services. We only need to consider priority-ordered consumer-type "shopping lists", in the form of varying-strength *political demands*, to drive appropriate collectivized production.

Would we guarantee that every person's entire shopping list is fulfilled for every day of the year? Of course not, but what we *would* see is that people's top-priority demands would reinforce each other in the aggregate, effectively being true *political demands* on mass liberated labor for collectivized production. (This process could be updated and reiterated on a daily basis for all of society.)

I'll also note that once the compulsive need to use tit-for-tat linear exchanges is eliminated through the overthrow of capitalism, society could realize a *distribution*-based fluidity more akin to the circulatory system of the body where functions take place non-linearly, but nonetheless give rise to a greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts whole being.





The netherlands face a problem with old cast iron gaspipes




Say that the people demand a low carbon emission energy network that would be a plan that would need to be drawn on a global level because we can not have the USA and China expanding their coal/oil energy production while Europe tries to go green/nuclear.

Through the internet we could reach most of the world population to put this to a vote.


This is an excellent example and it brings to mind the libertarian small-scale ideal -- whether the nationalist anti-government kind or the leftist anarchist kind -- of having individual / household self-sufficiency for all material matters.

It just occurred to me that perhaps this ideal is what a post-capitalist society would direct itself towards, once it's past the oppression that's endemic to capitalism. Such aspirations *can't* be currently realized under current conditions since the profit motive gives certain corporate interests vast incentives to simply sit on what's theirs, wherein any kind of innovation would be "rocking the boat" and deemed "too risky" a departure from current profitable practices.

So the supply of energy resources, as with gas or electricity, could be accomplished physically on a large-scale basis, as with a gas piping network, or it could conceivably be accomplished on an individualized basis, through alternative energy resources like geothermal, solar, etc.

But *neither* can be accomplished on an *equitable* basis until there's a *political* revolution that can lay the basis for a mass-scale *decision* over this matter. Currently there's no *politics* at work that enables this.


Also, f.y.i.:


tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-diagrams-revleft


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://postimage.org/image/34mjeutk4/


Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms

http://postimage.org/image/35ru6ztic/