Identifying the Problem Itself

[space_ice_cream]

I know this might sound kinda funny at first but here are my takes on the whole communist dilemma.

I have taken some steps back and examine the ideas that sparked communism and considered them in new ways. Some of the ideas I have come up with are as follows, and are grossly simplified (this is a message board afterall)

1. This first idea is based off the idea that communism was originally designed to have an economy under the direct control of the people and not the government or 1% of the population. It is basically one which does not embrace a government controlled market. All shares would be private, but divided equally. All land would be sellable and marketable but limited at the higher end. All wages and salaries would be the same as in any other capitalist society.

A system of economics in which all citizens own equal untradable/unsellable percentages (shares) of all companies. The pressing aspect of shareholders would be more patriotic then for personal greed. The market would be moved by demand rather than supply adjustments (like cutting costs, advertising, etc...). Percentages of the total value of each company would fall on the workers in percentages equal to the type of work of each worker. So the society would be communist in the aspect that all people own the same shares of companies, but there would be levels upon which a person could earn more money within those confines through position changes or working longer hours or whatever. In otherwords, people could be able to make more money and simultaniously have equal shares of all companies.

Or maybe the system could be that of earned percentages of shares, like percentage points, with the ability to sell percentages back to society (society AS A WHOLE, no inidividuals) but not buy any without earning it. This could keep people from "wheeling and dealing" other people out of money and keeping the game fair so that they can get rewards for work but they can't play little capitalist games with thier money to accumulate money through means other then earning it one way or another.

Land ownership should be possible to high levels but limited (to a certain disgustingly large square footage per person)

2. This is another idea. One of resetting the wealth in generation gaps. A capitalist society which resets the wealth every generation by simply not allowing a transfer of any finances to any children. No private schools allowed, no inheritance. Wealth that would have gone to these children is redistributed toward the welfare of all children (like schools, afterschool programs, guidance councelors).

So this idea is one which is communist at early development stages but capitalist upon older development stages. It allows everyone to make something of themselves if they choose to, but has no pity for those who choose to make bad decisions. So few people are born into wealth or misery, they have to earn either one for themselves.

I'm sure my ideas seem childish, but they are just quick summaries of my ideas. I also don't have too many specifics, just general ideas. Anybody have anything to add or comment? :ph34r:

[KC]

Communism doesn't have money, and "companies" wouldn't really be owned by anyone.
Also, it sounds like you're trying to describe a way of reforming communism. As the system wont give itself up (people will fight to keep it), reform won't work. Revolution is the only option.

[anomaly]

This sounds like a rather odd idea of social democracy, not socialism or communism. In communism, we have no wages, certainly no unequal wages, so your theory is certainly not communist in the least.

You include 'companies' in your theory here, but as I reread your idea, you don't treat these companies as 'private' at all. this seems to be quite bad, however, since you say that there will be people who make 'more money', yet all people will own the same percent of the company. What warrants this hierarchy, and how does the existence of hierarchy not have any impact upon the rule of the company? How could any company be effective in the least if everyone owned it (on a national level)? Who plans production? Or is production not planned at all? And if everyone owns a company, does everyone work for that company? And won't the existence of more than one company create natural competition, which of course creates winning companies and losing companies, and thus the losing of jobs? Why would I simply want to own a piece of the company you work for if I receive no compensation and in fact I'm out of a job because the company I worked for went bankrupt? The fact that we 'all' 'own' every company seems to become rather irrelevant.

Your second idea of the lack of inheritance is actually one that Marx incorporated in his idea of post-capitalist society. I agree with this one.

I fear I may misunderstand your first idea there, so feel free to correct me.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by space_ice_cream
It allows everyone to make something of themselves if they choose to...

I think this sentence reveals your difficulties.

In capitalist society, when that phrase appears, it always means accumulate more wealth. No one ever uses it to mean anything else -- "I am going to learn more", "I am going to be a kinder person", "I am going to gain a new skill", etc.

It always means I am going to get richer.

This is entirely understandable; in capitalism, you are only "something" to the extent of your net worth.

If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?

But this is not a motive that makes any sense in a communist society. In such a society, the phrase "make something of oneself" would apply to non-financial concerns -- principally, I would expect, to the acquisition of new knowledge and skills.

When I was a kid, I decided to make something of myself...and studied advanced carpentry for 10 years. Now, I am one of the best and maybe the best carpenter in this city. I am indeed something.

Whenever we speculate on the shape of communist society, the first thing we have to watch out for is the unconscious inclusion of bourgeois assumptions in formulating our ideas.

It's an easy mistake to make...but fortunately one that's also easy to correct.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[space_ice_cream]

First of all let me say thank you to all who responded and I feel like it is a great thing that people even discuss these topics.

In response to Lazar & Geurrillero: I'm not trying to figure out a way to worm a market into communism. I do not trust big government control of the economy (the concept is just too open to corruption) and I do not trust 1% of the population in control of the economy (it is crystal clear that capitalism is not sustainable).

I'm trying to figure out creative ways in which you can bypass governments direct control and instead use government law to create the framework for a society "for the people" which could maintain itself in a communist manor.

A system in which the people directly control the economy, not the government and not 1% of the society. There has to be a way to do it.

My ideas, lame as they are, were just brainstorming excersizes. I love the idea of communism, but it is defenseless against corruption and the main problem with capitalism is the unrestricuted exploitation of the market. The market itself, minus these exploitations may not be so evil to the working class.

[space_ice_cream]

in response to redstar2000:

you are partially correct, I did mean "more wealth", but I meant more wealth through becoming more educated, working harder, or developing a new skill. Not more wealth as in "daddy bought me a new mercedes" (paris hilton wealth). I was actually expressing how allowing everybody to start from the same level and giving everybody the same schooling could enable children who would not normally get the chance to get a good education, get a good education, kids who grew up in an environment that was bad have the ability to escape if they choose. In our soeciety today we see bad neighborhoods where kids just don't have the environment to do this in. It could be money or a skill or whatever...but at least everyone would have an opportunity to choose anything, if we can manage to make changes which would even the playing field.

So you were partially right in that I do have preconceptions of "making it" in financial terms, and I highly respect your ability to notice that and point it out in my character, but I honestly did mean that only as a portion. I was mainly speaking about making "it" (as in anything you want with yourself "it") through equal playing field in education. But usually the common denominator is money, since money is symbolic of power, it is the big "it" for those who don't even know themselves.

[anomaly]

"A system in which the people directly control the economy, not the government..."

...why do we need a government at all then? Why can't all the people of a particular commune simply get together to make decisions?

How is communism defenseless against corruption? Communism, I think, has the ultimate defense against corruption: if someone is stealing goods from others, they will be thrown out of the commune.

[coda]

I don't think communism can be corruptable if followed through and abolishing the market, wages, labor value, commodity values, and any kind of economic pretenses based on capitalism. Marx's idea of communism always stays true if people work of their ability, produce in the capacity of need, and distribute based on that need. Values of former commodities would only hold a value based and a different set of values based on the ratio of need to usage,-- if you don't have need to use it, it would not retain a value anyway. That's the production end of communism. the other end is people working in society for the benefit of the whole... in science, education, technology medicine without wage or labor value, just to their own ability. That was Marx's true vision of ecomomic equality-- a society based on free supply of needs--- not on want, hoarding or hedonism.

[space_ice_cream]

<"A system in which the people directly control the economy, not the government..."
...why do we need a government at all then?>

To enforce the law and for national defense.

<Why can&#39;t all the people of a particular commune simply get together to make decisions? How is communism defenseless against corruption?>

Because, at least so far, it throws complete financial control in the hands of small government.

<Communism, I think, has the ultimate defense against corruption: if someone is stealing goods from others, they will be thrown out of the commune.>

I guess the point I am trying to make is that communism is missing something: a clear outline for a government which would work with it without risk of corruption from the government leader(s).

I presented my ideas in a jumbled up disorganized fashion, but that is my aim. Anybody have any ideas?

[anomaly]

Communism doesn&#39;t include, nor does it need, government. Why can not the people of a commune simply get together to make decisions (laws, rules, etc.) democratically, or by consensus (you haven&#39;t really answered yet)? Are there simply some who can &#39;rule&#39; better than others? If you want a government, apparently you think so.

I don&#39;t know what &#39;financial&#39; control you&#39;re talking about (what finances?). It would &#39;throw&#39; complete control of goods to a small population, yes, but how is this bad? Do you want your corn treated with pesticides? If you live with a big government, you have no choice. If you are a memeber of such a small government that I have described, you make that choice (or &#39;help&#39; make it). Defense as well can be handled by the people themselves. If we allow a government to &#39;defend&#39; its people, how long until that government turns on its own people, in one way or another (sadly, this is the normal scenario)? Any group of people do not need rulers, they themselves can assume this rule, and in doing so, can experience freedom the likes of which hasn&#39;t been attained for a very long time (before the invention of &#39;the state&#39;).

[space_ice_cream]

<Communism doesn&#39;t include, nor does it need, government. Why can not the people of a commune simply get together to make decisions (laws, rules, etc.) democratically, or by consensus (you haven&#39;t really answered yet)? Are there simply some who can &#39;rule&#39; better than others? If you want a government, apparently you think so. >

If people get together to rule democratically then you have a democratic government. If you say people should have no government (anarchy) and in the same breath say why can&#39;t they make democratic decisions I will tell you why: If there is no government there can be no democratic decisions.

<I don&#39;t know what &#39;financial&#39; control you&#39;re talking about (what finances?). It would &#39;throw&#39; complete control of goods to a small population, yes, but how is this bad? Do you want your corn treated with pesticides? If you live with a big government, you have no choice. If you are a memeber of such a small government that I have described, you make that choice (or &#39;help&#39; make it). Defense as well can be handled by the people themselves.>

The people need a system of organization and management. That is what a government does. Whether this government takes the form of oppressive folks or it is totally democratic is entirely up to the person designing the form of government. However, Anarchy means that there is no orgnization or management. That type of country would not last because everything would be chaos, it would eventually be taken over by a more organized form of government that has it&#39;s shit together and isn&#39;t all idealistic thinking that throwing away 10,000 years of civilization and going back to "no government" is a good idea.

<If we allow a government to &#39;defend&#39; its people, how long until that government turns on its own people, in one way or another (sadly, this is the normal scenario)? Any group of people do not need rulers, they themselves can assume this rule, and in doing so, can experience freedom the likes of which hasn&#39;t been attained for a very long time (before the invention of &#39;the state&#39;). >

Government can be self ruling: Democracy. Democracy is very different from Anarchy. BTW, Democracy is not just one model. Democracy can be any model as long as it is a self ruling model (to my knowledge).

[LSD]

If people get together to rule democratically then you have a democratic government.

No, you have democratic governance, a "government" implies a group seperate from the people.


However, Anarchy means that there is no orgnization or management.

Not at all&#33;

It just means that the organization and management is done by the people themselves, without the need for personal "leadership".


Government can be self ruling: Democracy. Democracy is very different from Anarchy.

Again, no. Anarchism is direct democracy.

Anarchism FAQ (http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secIcon.html)

[space_ice_cream]

<No, you have democratic governance, a "government" implies a group seperate from the people.>

I don&#39;t think so, governing is just another word for managing in my opinion. I could bring up the dictionary definition, but i don&#39;t feel like arguing wording. Democracy in it&#39;s greek form means "people power".

<Not at all&#33;
It just means that the organization and management is done by the people themselves, without the need for personal "leadership".>

Sounds like you are talking about some sort of hybrid of both greek definitions: Demokratia Anarchia. Power of the people without any leaders.

<Again, no. Anarchism is direct democracy.>

I would say only the greek definition is: Anarchia politics (politics without a leader). The modern version of the word is one of no civil management at all: the will of the individual is stronger than the will of the majority (capitalism)

[anomaly]

So space ice cream, are you saying that anarchists on this board are &#39;capitalists&#39;? Why do you not accept what the anarchists say&#33; Don&#39;t you think they have slightly more knowledge on this particular subject than you do&#33;?

[space_ice_cream]

<So space ice cream, are you saying that anarchists on this board are &#39;capitalists&#39;? Why do you not accept what the anarchists say&#33; Don&#39;t you think they have slightly more knowledge on this particular subject than you do&#33;? >

No, I am saying they are using the greek source of the definition (the original source), not the English definition. This is one of the reasons some people may be confused.