Can communism save us all?

[TheMask]

As I see it our world and not least our society is walking down a shady road. In fact I believe that society as we know it is slowly dying. We are facing many problems: Pollution, over-population, overproduction, hunger caused by inequality, wars, spreading disease, caused somewhat by overproduction and overpopulation, and poverty as well as rising inequality. Not even to mention the danger of running out of non-renewable resources. As I see it many of these problems are to some degree a direct cause of capitalism and economy-based struggle between nations. So what I've been thinking about is: Can a global communist revolution save the world from its problems? Here are my thoughts that go to support answering this question with a yes:

A global communist revolution would mean that the worlds global market would be controllable and main-branded meaning that we wouldn't have to produce more goods than we need. To some degree this also goes to solve world hunger as there is actually plenty of food on this planet for everyone to survive if only its distributed better. Therefore also pollution would be much easier to regulate. Without a market in economic anarchy and without overproduction much less pollution would be submitted into the environment as well. This will also go to somewhat reduce the danger of fast spreading diseases which is a rising problem in our society. With less overproduction it would also be easier to keep resources prioritized and distributed where most needed be. In addition to all this wars and military conflicts that are these days based a lot on economic situations would be heavily reduced.

These are obviously just thoughts that are inside my head so I'm wondering if any of you guys have made any similar reflections to how a communist society can deal better with the problems our world is facing than our current society.

[tuwix]

Can a global communist revolution save the world from its problems?

It depends on how it will be introduced and who will do it. However, I don't believe all those problems will disappear instantly whoever will do it. Only in higher phase of communism there will be possible solution to all those problem regardless market. But not many men and women here care very much how to do it. Many think it can be done somehow. And I see continuous attempts of doing it somehow (firstly in Russia, now in Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua) and it "somehow" seem to give pretty poor effects.

There is needed economic plan that isn't based on dogmas and prejudices.

[Bala Perdida]

We definitely need the population to cooperate. We need to show them the filth in which they live in and purge them of the lies they're told. We are emancipatory ideologies, and we must never forget that. So act like that, be kind to your fellow human. Offer a helping hand, get people on your side. Just keep ready to militantly fend off any opposition or counter revolutionary forces. We will make our best shot at teaching the people to liberate themselves, we will see both success and failure. Nonetheless, we will not give up. Take not one step back to the mistakes made by our predecessors, and bring forth a cleaner, egalitarian, and productive world.
That's my anarchist view of things. Worldwide, your view seems to be correct. Also don't refer to chaos as "anarchy" half of us are anarchists.

[Jimmie Higgins]

A global communist revolution would mean that the worlds global market would be controllable and main-branded meaning that we wouldn't have to produce more goods than we need. To some degree this also goes to solve world hunger as there is actually plenty of food on this planet for everyone to survive if only its distributed better. Therefore also pollution would be much easier to regulate. Without a market in economic anarchy and without overproduction much less pollution would be submitted into the environment as well. This will also go to somewhat reduce the danger of fast spreading diseases which is a rising problem in our society. With less overproduction it would also be easier to keep resources prioritized and distributed where most needed be. In addition to all this wars and military conflicts that are these days based a lot on economic situations would be heavily reduced.

Yeah, I agree. Starting from what we know exists now, in terms of the environment, a "sustainable world" is impossible on a world of competative unplanned and exploitative production. Revolution and working class rule across borders and regions could allow people to alter their relationship of production and therefore their relationship to the natural world.

[Red Economist]

As I see it our world and not least our society is walking down a shady road. In fact I believe that society as we know it is slowly dying. We are facing many problems: Pollution, over-population, overproduction, hunger caused by inequality, wars, spreading disease, caused somewhat by overproduction and overpopulation, and poverty as well as rising inequality. Not even to mention the danger of running out of non-renewable resources. As I see it many of these problems are to some degree a direct cause of capitalism and economy-based struggle between nations. So what I've been thinking about is:

Can a global communist revolution save the world from its problems?

No. Not on it's own. Communism represents a new system of production relations which entail new possibilities for social development. It is still up to 'us'/'the proletariat' to realize these possibilities.


A global communist revolution would mean that the worlds global market would be controllable and main-branded meaning that we wouldn't have to produce more goods than we need.

To a large extent the global economy must already be heavily controlled; economic planning already exists in large corporations and by bourgeois governments. However, it is limited by the forces of competition within the market which mean, by necessity, they act selfishly.
Communism gives people the opportunity to act more selflessly without the hindrance of competition as a result of market forces. it is not automatically the case that communism will solve the world's problems- as it is still up to us as human beings.


To some degree this also goes to solve world hunger as there is actually plenty of food on this planet for everyone to survive if only its distributed better.

Can't argue with that. would be nice to live in a world where I know people aren't starving. But it does depend if communism produces more equal societies or more bureaucratic hierarchical ones with unequal resource distribution.


Therefore also pollution would be much easier to regulate. Without a market in economic anarchy and without overproduction much less pollution would be submitted into the environment as well.

I strongly suspect regulation alone will not solve environmental problems; it is much more plausible that technological development will go much further to do this. In terms of technological development, our economy is still dependent on fossil fuels; which basically means we dig stuff out of the ground and burn it. so it's very primitive technologically speaking.

This is a more optimistic outlook, as many people would point out development is inherently unsustainable because of the threat of resource depletion. however, Most of our non-mineral resources, such as forests, soil qualitity and fisheries are sustainable resources that, if used less intensively, can replenish themselves. It is arguable that space exploration may help replace some of the mineral resources, but it could be hit and miss if you don't know what your going to find.


This will also go to somewhat reduce the danger of fast spreading diseases which is a rising problem in our society. With less overproduction it would also be easier to keep resources prioritized and distributed where most needed be. In addition to all this wars and military conflicts that are these days based a lot on economic situations would be heavily reduced.

Don't know enough to respond to these ones- but communism does not end the class struggle overnight, so wars between communist states (unless it is international from the outset) may be a possibility.

[TheMask]

Yeah, I agree. Starting from what we know exists now, in terms of the environment, a "sustainable world" is impossible on a world of competative unplanned and exploitative production. Revolution and working class rule across borders and regions could allow people to alter their relationship of production and therefore their relationship to the natural world.

Yes and this matches my point in many ways. Its also hard to cooperate when our global market is based on competition. This competition unfortunately increases overproduction and many resources go to waste. I agree on all accounts in what you're saying about its impossible to create a sustainable world in an unplanned and competitive-based global market. We need to work together in order to create a world where we can all co-exist with the natural world and as it is now the market is mostly based on who can competitively exploit nature the most.

[TheMask]

No. Not on it's own. Communism represents a new system of production relations which entail new possibilities for social development. It is still up to 'us'/'the proletariat' to realize these possibilities.

Given. I'm not saying problems wont be able to exist in a communist world only that we might be able to deal with them more easily. The whole point is that communism gives us possibilities. Not answers in itself. But many of these problems cant be solved effectively nor quickly in the world we live in now. Therefore my exact point is that communism opens the doors. We still have to walk through them.


To a large extent the global economy must already be heavily controlled; economic planning already exists in large corporations and by bourgeois governments. However, it is limited by the forces of competition within the market which mean, by necessity, they act selfishly.
Communism gives people the opportunity to act more selflessly without the hindrance of competition as a result of market forces. it is not automatically the case that communism will solve the world's problems- as it is still up to us as human beings.

Kind of the same deal here about opening the doors. I'm not going to write that again but I'd like to comment on something else you've written in this bit. About the market already being controlled. Imagine you're going down to buy, lets say, a new lamp. So you go down to the lamp store and there are hundreds of different brands of lamps for you that have all been put together from parts that have been transported around the world. But you only choose one and definitely a lot of the off-brand lamps go to waste. At least the lamps for which other brands have been able to produce a better or cheaper lamp. What I'm getting at is that your choice with all these lamps make a huge waste in lamp-production. What if there was only made one kind of lamp? It could still come in different shapes, sizes and colours but we would know that we weren't creating any more lamps than we need. Also it would be easier to control how many resources are spent as it has always been in all communist states that has existed. For example the Soviet Union was the first county ever to make regulations and laws to protect the environment.


Can't argue with that. would be nice to live in a world where I know people aren't starving. But it does depend if communism produces more equal societies or more bureaucratic hierarchical ones with unequal resource distribution.

Again.. My line of thought is that communism would open the doors and not automatically solve all our problems. But it is very common that communism creates more equal societies. Just look at Cuba where we saw a much less starving and more equally and more educated society after the communist revolution.


I strongly suspect regulation alone will not solve environmental problems; it is much more plausible that technological development will go much further to do this. In terms of technological development, our economy is still dependent on fossil fuels; which basically means we dig stuff out of the ground and burn it. so it's very primitive technologically speaking.

Yes you're exactly right but regulation would mean less over-production and waste caused by competitive market and therefore less burning of fossil fuels. Given.. not a long-term solution but at least it wouldn't look as bad as it is now.


This is a more optimistic outlook, as many people would point out development is inherently unsustainable because of the threat of resource depletion. however, Most of our non-mineral resources, such as forests, soil qualitity and fisheries are sustainable resources that, if used less intensively, can replenish themselves. It is arguable that space exploration may help replace some of the mineral resources, but it could be hit and miss if you don't know what your going to find.

Well this is true but as I already said a regulated market would also be able to prioritize and distribute resources more easily so that we don't have to over-use these resources that can be sustainable if only used less intensively.


Don't know enough to respond to these ones- but communism does not end the class struggle overnight, so wars between communist states (unless it is international from the outset) may be a possibility.

Once again I'm mostly talking about creating possibilities which is why this thread was in titled ''CAN communism save us all'' and not ''WILL communism save us all. I'm just imagining that a lot of military conflicts could be avoided as they have to do with money changing hands.

[The Idler]

Communism is not a utopia, but we all believe it would be better otherwise why support it?

Also "wars between communist states" is implausible.

[TheMask]

Communism is not a utopia, but we all believe it would be better otherwise why support it?

Also "wars between communist states" is implausible.

Indeed you have a good point, we all believe it and otherwise why support it. I was merely trying to open some discussion on communisms capability to solve the worlds problems.

[AmilcarCabral]

TheMask: right now most poor people of the whole world hate communism, and love capitalist parties. We might have to wait for deeper economic crisis for people to be open minded to the taboo of socialism. Because right leftist ideology, communism is still a taboo in the minds of most people of the world. And that's why communism right now is not being able to save humans, because of the fact that humans are not supporting communism. That's like diets, diets can help people lose weight (provided that people do follow them religiously). And the same is for the leftist ideology, it can only save the planet if the great majority of humans are pro-actively supporting leftist radical parties

PD: Beware in this website people might label you as a troll if you are too smart and if you write things that are opposite to their worldview

.



As I see it our world and not least our society is walking down a shady road. In fact I believe that society as we know it is slowly dying. We are facing many problems: Pollution, over-population, overproduction, hunger caused by inequality, wars, spreading disease, caused somewhat by overproduction and overpopulation, and poverty as well as rising inequality. Not even to mention the danger of running out of non-renewable resources. As I see it many of these problems are to some degree a direct cause of capitalism and economy-based struggle between nations. So what I've been thinking about is: Can a global communist revolution save the world from its problems? Here are my thoughts that go to support answering this question with a yes:

A global communist revolution would mean that the worlds global market would be controllable and main-branded meaning that we wouldn't have to produce more goods than we need. To some degree this also goes to solve world hunger as there is actually plenty of food on this planet for everyone to survive if only its distributed better. Therefore also pollution would be much easier to regulate. Without a market in economic anarchy and without overproduction much less pollution would be submitted into the environment as well. This will also go to somewhat reduce the danger of fast spreading diseases which is a rising problem in our society. With less overproduction it would also be easier to keep resources prioritized and distributed where most needed be. In addition to all this wars and military conflicts that are these days based a lot on economic situations would be heavily reduced.

These are obviously just thoughts that are inside my head so I'm wondering if any of you guys have made any similar reflections to how a communist society can deal better with the problems our world is facing than our current society.

[Jimmie Higgins]

We might have to wait for deeper economic crisis for people to be open minded to the taboo of socialism.

I agree to an extent, but also if that was totally the case, then I think we'd always have to wait. Economic instability, war, increasing ecological problems that capitalism can't deal with in a way tolerable to workers or other non-ruling groups, can all create the possibility for a much broader radicalization, a much larger hearing for revolutionary ideas and willingness of people to take action themselves. But I think ideas and the marginalization of our ideas is only part of the equation.

If you are a worker, stuck in your position and being increasingly pressed by management, you look around at what are the possible solutions. The bougeois tell us: "find another job, support 'job creators' to create more positions, get some training or specialized skills, if you have equity or credit then use it, or just impose austeriy on your own life and learn to live with less". The socialist says: "unite with your co-workers and fight the bosses in the short term while trying to help build up your entire class's position in order for us to ready ourselves as a class to take over in the long term". One is immediate and a practical necissity (as a worker you don't need to support capitalism to also need to sell your labor to one which makes capitalism and capitalist logic a reality no matter what one thinks of it) and so it's default if you accept the logic or not - the other option, to fight, depends on if there is the concievable ability to do so (workers can get together and organize, existance of unions, revolutionaries and militants, and experience among workers in fighting. So the second option, to become seen as a widespread possibility, isn't defaut or always apparent - especailly in a time of low struggle, confidence, and experience.

I think historically, mass radicalization seems to combine both "spontanious" anger when periods of crisis hit (and therefore in a practical sense "get another job" becomes just about as realistic an option as "fight your boss") and existing levels of organized, consious, and independant radical groups and general tradditions among workers.

[Red Economist]

Kind of the same deal here about opening the doors. I'm not going to write that again but I'd like to comment on something else you've written in this bit. About the market already being controlled. Imagine you're going down to buy, lets say, a new lamp. So you go down to the lamp store and there are hundreds of different brands of lamps for you that have all been put together from parts that have been transported around the world. But you only choose one and definitely a lot of the off-brand lamps go to waste. At least the lamps for which other brands have been able to produce a better or cheaper lamp. What I'm getting at is that your choice with all these lamps make a huge waste in lamp-production. What if there was only made one kind of lamp? It could still come in different shapes, sizes and colours but we would know that we weren't creating any more lamps than we need. Also it would be easier to control how many resources are spent as it has always been in all communist states that has existed. For example the Soviet Union was the first county ever to make regulations and laws to protect the environment.

I suspect making one kind of lamp may be contrary to the need for creative destruction of technologies, not simply under capitalism, but under communism as well.

Whilst the reduction of the number of lamps "simplifies" things from the point of view of the consumer, it is deeply restrictive on the ability of a producer (capitalist or not) to innovate. There are obviously things such as shape, size and color, which personalize it from the consumer's perspective; but if a producer wants to reduce costs (in a non-monetary economy this would still be inputs) standardization of this kind would mean you have to come out with a new lamp every time you change it.

For example, My mum has an Iphone 5. And every time Apple releases an upgrade, it usually has glitches. In innovating you are putting all your eggs into one basket and limiting the creativity of the producer to find ways to produce more or better products with the same number of inputs.

In economic terms, "waste" is a surplus in the market (i.e. goods not being sold). If it sells and is bought- it is not wasted. I think what your talking about is more a prioritization of needs within an economy; why have several kinds of lamp when you can have "one" standard lamp?

There is of course the question of economies of scale (producing more, means greater efficiency/reduce costs) in production. By Mass producing a single lamp (possibly) in a single factory, you can do so more efficiently than in several factories as less output.
[you also get dis-economies of scale, when you're producing so much the costs go up because of bureaucracy or degradation of the machinery etc]

As I remember, in the USSR the central planners deliberately incorporated shortages into the planning system so that they wouldn't have to change things, at the cost of consumers who had to wait in ques. So "control" is relative even in a planned economy (and arguably an illusion as the plans were made up ad-hoc and then tried to fit into a national plan). There are factors beyond the control of the planners (e.g. Soviet agriculture was economically appalling and NEVER met planning targets because of the volatility of weather conditions, variations in soil quality, and the limit to mechanization).

The advantages of Economic Planning as a system of control in relation to a 'pure' capitalism based on a free market is the reduction of economic instability and uncertainty (and reduced insecurity for the working class as a result) and- if you want to push the boundaries- the abolition of money so you can distribute according to need.
Their is nothing that makes markets/capitalism inherently more efficient (The "efficient market hypothesis" rests on the assumption that human nature is selfish and because markets readily reflect this behavior they will produce better results) but-unless you assert Marxism and it's conception of man and his/her economic motivations as scientific facts- this applies to communism as well.

The major factor limiting capitalism is the sense that capitalists are 'trapped' by the anarchy of competition and commodity production necessitates selfish behavior (which would make monopolies/large corporations socially destructive). Marxian Communism is an argument that if monopolies were publicly owned/socially controlled they would not be so destructive. So the differences between Capitalist Monopolies and Communist Monopolies are minimal- except which class is in control and doing the planning and what their class interests are.

'Communism' can mean a variety of economic systems and arrangements. There is rightist 'market socialism' and leftist 'moneyless economies', 'centralized'/bureaucratic, 'de-centralised' and 'participatory' structures of economic planning. Communism- as has happened under NEP in Russia and to some extent in China, can represent 'mixed-economies' with both private and public ownership (with the state/public ownership in 'charge'). The USSR, even in it's Stalinist days had a 'market' and money but the market was relatively passive in determining economic activity, whereas the plan took priority. Each of these would define and limits the scope of possibilities under a planning system.

[Economically, I'd be in Market Socialist/Mixed-Economy territory as my 'confidence' in economic planning isn't great- but this is not an informed judgement. Plus I did economics for a while, so I'm still shaking off the ideological bias.]