Why communism can't work... [Archive]

View Full Version : Why communism can't work...

thisguyisatotaljerk

13th October 2006, 07:18

It's because You guys have some tough criteria to fulfill...

*Firstly, everyone will all have to be a politically correct.

I really, really don't see that happening, do you? Let's give the chances of society becomming 'enlightened with politically correct wisdom' a one in two - just to be really generous.

*In conjunction with this, everyone will have to give up their material possessions to the community. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. Let's give that a one in one million - being generous of course.

*Thirdly, everyone will have to give up their aspirations and ambitions to the 'greater good'. No-body will be allowed to be better than anyone else. How does one accomplish this?
Well, as people aren't equal, it will be much easier for you to lop the heads off the tall poppies than to raise up the dregs.
Enlightened individuals however are more devious than the broad mass of the community and will always find ways to rise above the general masses. So equality is out. Let's give it one in a million across a time-frame of say a hundred years.

*Religion will disapear? Frankly this won't happen. People are, unfortunatly highly religious where knowledge fails to illuminate. Since people will never really have all knowledge they will rely upon superstition to fill in the gaps. Even when we do know everything, some people will still manifest a desire to 'beleive'. I'm being generous and giving you guys a one in one hundred that you can outlaw religion successfully.

Let's see now...

1/2*1/1000000*1/1000000*1/100

That's a grand total of a .000000000000005% chance of communism actually coming together, which explains why you don't see any successful communism in history.

Sorry to spoil the party... :cool:

Rollo

13th October 2006, 07:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 02:19 PM
It's because You guys have some tough criteria to fulfill...

*Firstly, everyone will all have to be a politically correct.

I really, really don't see that happening, do you? Let's give the chances of society becomming 'enlightened with politically correct wisdom' a one in two - just to be really generous.

*In conjunction with this, everyone will have to give up their material possessions to the community. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. Let's give that a one in one million - being generous of course.

*Thirdly, everyone will have to give up their aspirations and ambitions to the 'greater good'. No-body will be allowed to be better than anyone else. How does one accomplish this?
Well, as people aren't equal, it will be much easier for you to lop the heads off the tall poppies than to raise up the dregs.
Enlightened individuals however are more devious than the broad mass of the community and will always find ways to rise above the general masses. So equality is out. Let's give it one in a million across a time-frame of say a hundred years.

*Religion will disapear? Frankly this won't happen. People are, unfortunatly highly religious where knowledge fails to illuminate. Since people will never really have all knowledge they will rely upon superstition to fill in the gaps. Even when we do know everything, some people will still manifest a desire to 'beleive'. I'm being generous and giving you guys a one in one hundred that you can outlaw religion successfully.

Let's see now...

1/2*1/1000000*1/1000000*1/100

That's a grand total of a .000000000000005% chance of communism actually coming together, which explains why you don't see any successful communism in history.

Sorry to spoil the party... :cool:
Oh god. Where did you get these crappy defintions of communism from? Your pets?
To your first point, how is it not being able to happen make it not work?
Nobody will want to take other peoples sutff, they will have there own.
What good is being better than someone else if it makes people sink lower on the 'food chain'?
Religion won't dissapear, people will be free to worship whatever the hell they want.

Check your facts.

YSR

13th October 2006, 08:52

It's okay. When it comes, we'll make sure you're first on the firing line. :)

Revulero

13th October 2006, 09:26

A communist revolution will start in poor screwed up countries where there is no aspiration and ambitions to the 'greater good'.

R_P_A_S

13th October 2006, 09:31

R_P_A_S

13th October 2006, 09:34

*In conjunction with this, everyone will have to give up their material possessions to the community. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. Let's give that a one in one million - being generous of course

you are a moron! LOL obviously you don't eve KNOW what communism is you just probably heard something from others who DON'T KNOW what communism is either.

Why would i have to give up my shoes or my computer to the community? you fucking think that some soldiers are gonna come in my house and snatch this things so i can share them with my neighbors? no one has to share or want what others want because we all will have what we want.

Revulero

13th October 2006, 09:37

duh, im being sarcastic

i like fucking around with these people

R_P_A_S

13th October 2006, 09:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 06:38 AM
duh, im being sarcastic

i like fucking around with these people
hahaha yeah but they might take this shit and run with it. just how they post that garbage!

Rollo

13th October 2006, 09:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 04:35 PM

*In conjunction with this, everyone will have to give up their material possessions to the community. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. Let's give that a one in one million - being generous of course

you are a moron! LOL obviously you don't eve KNOW what communism is you just probably heard something from others who DON'T KNOW what communism is either.

Why would i have to give up my shoes or my computer to the community? you fucking think that some soldiers are gonna come in my house and snatch this things so i can share them with my neighbors? no one has to share or want what others want because we all will have what we want.
Yeah that's what I was saying. Why does everybody think that everybody just loses all there stuff? Why would anybody want to steal your shit if they can go and get there own brand new? Even if someone did you could just go and get it replaced.

Revulero

13th October 2006, 09:49

Comrade, there is no point on trying to prove our points because they wont change their minds for shit.

After this thread they will just find more excuses on 'why communism is bad' to throw at us. Just face the facts there are selfish right-wing FUCKS that just dont give a shit about the working class and the poor.

Herman

13th October 2006, 10:12

Janus

13th October 2006, 10:28

In conjunction with this, everyone will have to give up their material possessions to the community. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. Let's give that a one in one million - being generous of course.
That's called ascetism and no communists have not taken vows of poverty.

Well, as people aren't equal, it will be much easier for you to lop the heads off the tall poppies than to raise up the dregs.
There's a difference between being equal and being the same. The latter is impossible to achieve in just about any type of society.

Since people will never really have all knowledge they will rely upon superstition to fill in the gaps.
No, they can rely on reasoning and science rather than attributing everything to the great man in the sky. So you're not only a monarchist but would also like to go back to the Dark Ages?

Anyways, who was the person who argued this member hadn't reached ebeenezer yet? :lol:

Zero

13th October 2006, 10:33

Originally posted by "thisguyisatotaljerk"+--> ("thisguyisatotaljerk")*Firstly, everyone will all have to be a politically correct.[/b]
If by "politically correct" you mean civil and respectful to one-another then yes. I don't get why this is a bad thing. Transcending racism, sexism, and nationality only means we have less to kill each other for. The last time I checked not killing people was a good thing.

Originally posted by "thisguyisatotaljerk"+--> ("thisguyisatotaljerk")I really, really don't see that happening, do you?[/b]
Do you think that Galileo saw what the future would think when he released his findings to the public? He was told to doctor his findings when he was attempting to change the way his current society, as well as future societies would look upon the Earth, and the solar system.

Just because you gaze twards the stars doesn't mean that you won't ever reach them.

("thisguyisatotaljerk")Let's give the chances of society becomming 'enlightened with politically correct wisdom' a one in two - just to be really generous.[/b][/quote]
What would be "really generous" would be for you to shut up and read a bit on the topics you want to argue upon before you pretend to know what your talking about.

But then again, I suppose "I really, really don't see that happening, do you?"

("thisguyisatotaljerk")*In conjunction with this, everyone will have to give up their material possessions to the community. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. Let's give that a one in one million - being generous of course.[/b][/quote]
I don't know if you've ever walked into a bar, sat down, and shared a beer with a complete stranger before. But this usually takes people completely by suprise. Usually people will think "Oh, he's trying to sell me something." or "Oh, I think he wants to convert me." (when actually they're just about the same thing.) Why is the act of sharing something with a complete stranger a foriegn act in the "high speed" times we live in? Because this is not profitable.

Though I suppose it comes down to what you really believe in. If we can spread the love far enough so that people around the world realise their material situation, and the situation they're boss is in, they will realise that they don't need a boss to survive.

By the way, you should actually take some time out and read Wikipedia or something. There are many different takes on what 'communal living' really is.

("thisguyisatotaljerk")*Thirdly, everyone will have to give up their aspirations and ambitions to the 'greater good'. No-body will be allowed to be better than anyone else. How does one accomplish this?[/b][/quote]
How do these points relate to each other at all? Your saying that everyone aspires to be better than everyone? No. People aspire to learn, and to contribute to the greater good of society. Not to control or be better than others.

"thisguyisatotaljerk"@
Well, as people aren't equal, it will be much easier for you to lop the heads off the tall poppies than to raise up the dregs. Enlightened individuals however are more devious than the broad mass of the community and will always find ways to rise above the general masses. So equality is out. Let's give it one in a million across a time-frame of say a hundred years.
Ummm... wow. I really have nothing to say but please, if you want to argue, learn about the topic your going to argue on. It's only common sense.

"thisguyisatotaljerk"
*Religion will disapear? Frankly this won't happen. People are, unfortunatly highly religious where knowledge fails to illuminate. Since people will never really have all knowledge they will rely upon superstition to fill in the gaps. Even when we do know everything, some people will still manifest a desire to 'beleive'. I'm being generous and giving you guys a one in one hundred that you can outlaw religion successfully.
Religion has reduced greatly since Karl's time. It has reduced even more between the days of ancient civilizations and Karl's time. Fundamentalism has been giving way more and more to Liberal interpretations and metaphores of religions. Just because something is prevelent now, doesn't mean that in fifty, sixty, seventy, years it won't be used anymore.

Cars for example. I don't see cars (as we see them today) being used for very much longer if our oil supply is to run out in 50 or so years. Just because they are a huge part of life today doesn't mean that everything wont change under circumstances.

You really need to start having a bit more 'faith' (if thats the right word) in Humanity.

Darth Revan

13th October 2006, 13:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 04:19 AM
It's because You guys have some tough criteria to fulfill...

*Firstly, everyone will all have to be a politically correct.

I really, really don't see that happening, do you? Let's give the chances of society becomming 'enlightened with politically correct wisdom' a one in two - just to be really generous.

*In conjunction with this, everyone will have to give up their material possessions to the community. Sorry, ain't gonna happen. Let's give that a one in one million - being generous of course.

*Thirdly, everyone will have to give up their aspirations and ambitions to the 'greater good'. No-body will be allowed to be better than anyone else. How does one accomplish this?
Well, as people aren't equal, it will be much easier for you to lop the heads off the tall poppies than to raise up the dregs.
Enlightened individuals however are more devious than the broad mass of the community and will always find ways to rise above the general masses. So equality is out. Let's give it one in a million across a time-frame of say a hundred years.

*Religion will disapear? Frankly this won't happen. People are, unfortunatly highly religious where knowledge fails to illuminate. Since people will never really have all knowledge they will rely upon superstition to fill in the gaps. Even when we do know everything, some people will still manifest a desire to 'beleive'. I'm being generous and giving you guys a one in one hundred that you can outlaw religion successfully.

Let's see now...

1/2*1/1000000*1/1000000*1/100

That's a grand total of a .000000000000005% chance of communism actually coming together, which explains why you don't see any successful communism in history.

Sorry to spoil the party... :cool:
Religion will disappear if we make it illegal people aren't that stupid sure there will be some religious morons but you cant live in a perfect world
People aren't naturally corrupt living centuries under capitalism has taught them that and what ambitions are we talking about enslave the people and put them under slave wages ? if communism will work we wont have to worry about things such as money everybody will contribute somehow to the society everybody should be able to buy what they need without money
we are gonna make capitalist give up their possessions to the community we aren't gonna ask them for permison we will take it by force

ZX3

13th October 2006, 16:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 06:27 AM
A communist revolution will start in poor screwed up countries where there is no aspiration and ambitions to the 'greater good'.

Communist revolution DID start in "poor, screwed up countries." It failed.

I know. I know. USSR was never a communist society... communism has never been tried... blah blah blah.

ZX3

13th October 2006, 16:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 06:50 AM
Comrade, there is no point on trying to prove our points because they wont change their minds for shit.

After this thread they will just find more excuses on 'why communism is bad' to throw at us. Just face the facts there are selfish right-wing FUCKS that just dont give a shit about the working class and the poor.

However, us "right wing fucks" would like the communists to SHOW how communism will benefit the workers. The arguments in favor of communism o this site are usually just assertions (it will be better. Why? because I just wrote in another thread) of what a communist community will look like. Speculation of getting from now to then is almost non-existent, nor is speculation of how the community actually functions.

t_wolves_fan

13th October 2006, 16:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 06:43 AM
Why would anybody want to steal your shit if they can go and get there own brand new? Even if someone did you could just go and get it replaced.
But, production is at the will of the collective (workers).

So it does not follow that everyone will have everything they need or want because the necessary quantity may not be produced. Hence, the circumstance will still exist where some people want what others have, but they cannot get it themselves.

If property is abolished, what stops someone from simply walking into another person's home and taking what they want?

Rollo

13th October 2006, 16:23

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 13 2006, 11:22 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 13 2006, 11:22 PM)
[email protected] 13 2006, 06:43 AM
Why would anybody want to steal your shit if they can go and get there own brand new? Even if someone did you could just go and get it replaced.
But, production is at the will of the collective (workers).

So it does not follow that everyone will have everything they need or want because the necessary quantity may not be produced. Hence, the circumstance will still exist where some people want what others have, but they cannot get it themselves.

If property is abolished, what stops someone from simply walking into another person's home and taking what they want? [/b]
I suggest you actually read something by marx before calling me out as such.

BobKKKindle$

13th October 2006, 16:37

If property is abolished, what stops someone from simply walking into another person's home and taking what they want?

Firstly, it should be noted that when the anarchist writer Proudhon said 'Property is Theft" (A Frequently quoted description of Socialist attitudes towards propety ownership) he was referring to the private ownership of the means of the production, not personal belongings through which no one is employed (i.e., they are not being used as a means to accumulate capital) So the picture you protray may be innacurate to some Leftists in the sense that one would not be allowed to do what you describe.

For me, however, it is innacurate for other reasons. Firstly, the vision of a socialist society which I have does not involve dwelling based on the nuclear family, but rather communal living based on free association. Secondly, there would be no incentive to deprive others of their belongings without their permission because the institutions and mode of production of such a society would not give rise to the selfish individualism and greed that results from the material conditions of Capitalism. It would be a society based on respect for the entire community and serivcing the collective. Even in maoist china, which was by no means a socialist society, there were frequent stories by western visitors of the most destitute peasants hurrying after western visitors to return valuables they had unwittingly left somewhere, despite the fact that the value of the objects would secure their welfare for years. Of course, one could speculate that these stories were either fabricated or based on state coercion, but it is undeniable (and I speak as a resident for Hk here) that crime in china has risen massively following deng's market transition.

If you are reading this and getting ready to give a 'rebuttal' based on something about Human Nature, please offer evidence to show that a static human nature exists and that it is greedy and individualist in nature.

t_wolves_fan

13th October 2006, 17:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:24 PM

I suggest you actually read something by marx before calling me out as such.
I presume you have read Marx so in the interest of time, how about you explain it for me.

t_wolves_fan

13th October 2006, 17:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:38 PM
If you are reading this and getting ready to give a 'rebuttal' based on something about Human Nature, please offer evidence to show that a static human nature exists and that it is greedy and individualist in nature.
Well, a few thousand years of human history ought to do the trick.

The problem is, you are going to claim that history is irrelevant because you're instituting a system that has not existed. Anytime I bring up any study of human decision-making or examples of communes failing, you will respond that those people were brought up in fedual, mercantilist or capitalist systems and so their responses to these studies are irrelevant. The basis of your argument is a theoretical belief that if you change the system enough, human behavior will change. Of course I cannot disprove your hypothetical about how people will act once Candy Land is implemented, but before you mistakenly use that as a claim to victory remember that you also cannot prove that Candy Land will have the effect you hope it will.

Another poster in a similar discussion brought up Native American tribes as an example of communal living that worked. In a pure, value-neutral sense that is true: Native American tribes worked and were communal. In an anthropological sense, and depending on your opinion, maybe the Native Americans had it better. By all accounts they worked less and had life fairly easy. Instead of chasing the dollar and material possessions, they were happy to live off the land.

There are two problems with this argument. The first is that Native Americans still warred with one another over land and resources. This shows that consensus is not a given even among collective societies.

The second argument is that communism, depending on who I talk to, relies on a science-fiction level of technological advancement. That begs the question, which form of society led to increased technological advancement: the communal or the individualistic? The answer should be obvious: the individualistic. White American settlers used advanced technology to obliterate the communal Native Americans.

Now, the counter to that is presumably that capitalism will create the technology necessary for communism to come into being and that communism is evolutionary. The problem with that is that even a communist society is going to need continued technological advancement to improve its standard of living and to account for presumed population growth. This is where communism/collectivism really fails, in my humble opinion. If every decision is to be made for the common good, resources will be allocated to meet immediate needs instead of future needs. This is what Hayek spoke about. Someone with a crazy idea for a cool new machine likely would not get the chance to pursue his idea because A>his labor may be needed in another sector to meet immediate needs, hence his time will be allocated away from his pursuit and/or B>the resources necessary to pursue the advancement may be voted away from his endeavor by the collective, who may be convinced that the resources would be better utilized to meet present requirements.

The problem, in a nutshell, is groupthink.

JazzRemington

13th October 2006, 20:14

Well, a few thousand years of human history ought to do the trick.

Desipite the fact that modern human beings have lived on the earth for about 10-30,000 years? I highly doubt people have been acting the same way for all that time. I'm even surprised that someone who claims to use our modern knowledge history as proof of anything does NOT know that.

The problem is, you are going to claim that history is irrelevant because you're instituting a system that has not existed. Anytime I bring up any study of human decision-making or examples of communes failing, you will respond that those people were brought up in fedual, mercantilist or capitalist systems and so their responses to these studies are irrelevant.

It's more complicated than that. What you are probably critiqueing are examples of so-called "utopian communes," where they were operating isolated and on some ideal, usually religious or moral. It is a proven fact that people generally respond to their environment more than anything else (reading any good book on Social Psychology demonstrates this). If an individual is raised to believe that personal wealth acquisition, private property ownership, and Individualism is good they will most likely believe that until they either die or are proved anything else.

One little commune in a large Capitalist society will likely die out from lack of support, especially if it tries to remain faithful completely to its principles and especially so if it does not try to spread its ideas and chooses to remain isolated.

In fact, there was a study done in the 1930s by Muzafir Sherif that demonstrated even though people may be raised to behave individually as in an Individualist society, they still operate sometimes together in groups as if they were living in a Collectivist society.

The basis of your argument is a theoretical belief that if you change the system enough, human behavior will change.

Changes in the material world produce changes in individual behavior. But a surprising statement from someone who claims to know history.

There are two problems with this argument. The first is that Native Americans still warred with one another over land and resources. This shows that consensus is not a given even among collective societies.

Of course, but even then when compared to the more technologically advanced societies at the time it was no where near the same level.

The second argument is that communism, depending on who I talk to, relies on a science-fiction level of technological advancement. That begs the question, which form of society led to increased technological advancement: the communal or the individualistic? The answer should be obvious: the individualistic. White American settlers used advanced technology to obliterate the communal Native Americans.

So? Do you even understand that all modes of production relied on foundations created by the previous mode? Feudalism was built upon the ruins of the Roman empire just as Capitalism was built upon the ruins of Feudalism. Communism would be built upon the ruins of Capitalism.

What type of culture has little to nothing to do with the level of technology. The Ancient Greeks, largely a Collectivist society, had developed the steam engine, which was very much ahead of their times. Remember: communual hunter-gatherers developed agriculture, which was the foundation of civilization itself. New technologys are invented as they are needed or believed to be needed. Ever hear of the old saying, "necessity is the mother of invention?"

The problem with that is that even a communist society is going to need continued technological advancement to improve its standard of living and to account for presumed population growth.

Why would development stop? If development is needed, it will happen.

This is where communism/collectivism really fails, in my humble opinion. If every decision is to be made for the common good, resources will be allocated to meet immediate needs instead of future needs.

And? You're assuming there wouldn't be a surplus to live off of until production levels out again after a new technology is introduced. Every economic system is capable of producing surplus. You're still assuming people won't plan for the future in some way.

Someone with a crazy idea for a cool new machine likely would not get the chance to pursue his idea because A>his labor may be needed in another sector to meet immediate needs, hence his time will be allocated away from his pursuit

You're assuming that technology would not be advanced to the point where little labor is required. There are machines being tested that require very little human interaction, leaving people with very large amounts of spare time. What do you think is so controversial about automation?

the resources necessary to pursue the advancement may be voted away from his endeavor by the collective, who may be convinced that the resources would be better utilized to meet present requirements.

Remember: they are the community's resources to. Everyone has a say in how they are to be utilized; however, this does not say that said individual could produce evidence for his proposition and create a balanced and well thought out proposal. Psychologically speaking, people are more easily convinced by someone when they see that he or she knows what he or she is talking about.

I'm sure there are examples of the same thing happening all the time in Capitalist workplaces: an employee has an idea for something and presents it to his or her boss and gets denied because resources are better used in other places.

Tungsten

13th October 2006, 20:20

bobkindles

Secondly, there would be no incentive to deprive others of their belongings without their permission because the institutions and mode of production of such a society would not give rise to the selfish individualism and greed that results from the material conditions of Capitalism. Material conditions don't give rise to greed. People have been greedy throughout history, regardless of how much or little they have. You're deluded if you think common ownership is going to prevent it. The system is open to abuse and if a system can be abused, sooner or later it will be abused. Why bother to make anything when it can be gotten from others for free?

It would be a society based on respect for the entire community and serivcing the collective.You can't enforce respect without removing freedom.
Revulero

After this thread they will just find more excuses on 'why communism is bad' to throw at us. Just face the facts there are selfish right-wing FUCKS that just dont give a shit about the working class and the poor. I don't give a shit about any class or any poor...and neither do you. You want communism because of what you personally think you're going to gain from it.

Who's going to advocate a system they wouldn't gain anything from?

t_wolves_fan

13th October 2006, 20:52

Desipite the fact that modern human beings have lived on the earth for about 10-30,000 years? I highly doubt people have been acting the same way for all that time. I'm even surprised that someone who claims to use our modern knowledge history as proof of anything does NOT know that.

Have they been living the same way for all those years? No, of course not. But you have to remember that it's a lot easier to be collective when you have no material possessions to fight over. Ancient, ancient man did not have the variety of products to hoard nor the opportunities for services that modern man has.

Since recorded history, the variety and number of material possessions has continually increased in advanced societies, and greed and envy have accompanied that advance. In communal societies, opportunities for material possession were rare. The difference is fundamental.

In fact, there was a study done in the 1930s by Muzafir Sherif that demonstrated even though people may be raised to behave individually as in an Individualist society, they still operate sometimes together in groups as if they were living in a Collectivist society.

And your theory rests on it not working vice-versa.

Of course, but even then when compared to the more technologically advanced societies at the time it was no where near the same level.

That's because they had less to fight over; the same conundrum I mentioned at the beginning.

And don't pretend that Native American wars were few and far between.

Ever hear of the old saying, "necessity is the mother of invention?"

Yes. And that's precisely the problem. Faced with directing scarce resources towards immediate needs or wants vs. making long-term investments, group behavior will choose the first almost every time.

Why would development stop? If development is needed, it will happen.

But because of the democratic control over resources, there will be less variety of experimentation.

You're assuming that technology would not be advanced to the point where little labor is required. There are machines being tested that require very little human interaction, leaving people with very large amounts of spare time. What do you think is so controversial about automation?

It takes people to build those machines. But beyond that, faith in technology needs to be tempered. You should read Governing Magainze or The Wall Street Journal instead of theory books on this topic. If you did, you'd understand that governments and corporations have spent the last 10 years investing enormous sums of money in technology with the expectation of incredible productivity gains. In most cases, those gains do not pan out. Technology often doesn't work as it was meant to, it takes more effort to maintain and it becomes obsolete relatively quickly (though it wouldn't in a communist society :lol:).

Remember: they are the community's resources to. Everyone has a say in how they are to be utilized; however, this does not say that said individual could produce evidence for his proposition and create a balanced and well thought out proposal. Psychologically speaking, people are more easily convinced by someone when they see that he or she knows what he or she is talking about.

Everyone having a say is precisely the problem. If the group can be convinced for whatever reason to oppose providing the resources to the researcher, the advancement will not be pursued. Psychologically speaking, people also develop mistrust of experts over time (http://www.google.com/search?q=mistrust+of+experts&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N) when projects inevitably fail.

I'm sure there are examples of the same thing happening all the time in Capitalist workplaces: an employee has an idea for something and presents it to his or her boss and gets denied because resources are better used in other places.

Then he quits and finds his own capital, an opportunity lost in your system.

JazzRemington

13th October 2006, 21:20

Have they been living the same way for all those years? No, of course not. But you have to remember that it's a lot easier to be collective when you have no material possessions to fight over. Ancient, ancient man did not have the variety of products to hoard nor the opportunities for services that modern man has.

Since recorded history, the variety and number of material possessions has continually increased in advanced societies, and greed and envy have accompanied that advance. In communal societies, opportunities for material possession were rare. The difference is fundamental.

So, material conditions DO change behavior?

And your theory rests on it not working vice-versa.

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that my theory rests on people NOT acting collectively?

That's because they had less to fight over; the same conundrum I mentioned at the beginning.

The unequal development of the forces of production (some developed agriculture while others stayed in hunter-gatherer) lead to fighting because of the surplus generated through advances in production. Thus, as groups grew who were still in the hunter-gatherer phase, they could not have their needs met becasue they did not have access to the proper forces of production. Failure to have one's needs met is what caused fighting. There was generally nothing to fight over because it was possible, within the appropriate population levels of course, for EVERYONE'S needs to be met with the hunter-gatherer mode of production.

Yes. And that's precisely the problem. Faced with directing scarce resources towards immediate needs or wants vs. making long-term investments, group behavior will choose the first almost every time.

Well, who said we would be mainly focused only with immediate needs?

But because of the democratic control over resources, there will be less variety of experimentation.

There would still experimentation, when it is required of course. That does not mean there would be NO experimentation. It's just that you would be using something that belongs to other people, as well as yourself. But that does not prevent someone from attempting to persuade others by making a strong case for the experiment.

Technology often doesn't work as it was meant to, it takes more effort to maintain and it becomes obsolete relatively quickly (though it wouldn't in a communist society :lol:).

Technology becomes obsolete when it no longer meets the requirements it was designed for. When that happens, it would either be modified or, failing that, be replaced outright. But you miss the point. The point is that an automated process generally requires less labor and produces more.

Everyone having a say is precisely the problem. If the group can be convinced for whatever reason to oppose providing the resources to the researcher, the advancement will not be pursued.

But the same thing happens with investors and research grants. If you cannot convince them to give you money for your project, you would not get it. I fail to see the difference.

sychologically speaking, people also develop mistrust of experts over time (http://www.google.com/search?q=mistrust+of+experts&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N) when projects inevitably fail.

If they fail, yes. But how would one know if would fail unless the experimet were conducted, which wouldn't happen according to you. Also, if failure affects people's positive judgements about an individual, it would become less likely they would allow this person to conduct experiments, which would lead to drops in experimentation. So either way, it seems apparently that experimentation is affected.

Then he quits and finds his own capital, an opportunity lost in your system.

You're free to do this. It's just that you'll run into a hard time when you want to use someone else's resources.

t_wolves_fan

13th October 2006, 21:54

So, material conditions DO change behavior?

They have an effect, which I've said all along.

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that my theory rests on people NOT acting collectively?

You said that there is some evidence that even when people are taught to behave purely individualistically, they will still behave communally some of the time. Your theory of communism rests on people acting communally almost all of the time. But if people behave vice-versa to what you say, they will behave individualistically some of the time. Can your version of communism account for that>

Well, who said we would be mainly focused only with immediate needs?

Groups will tend to focus on immediate needs, especially when their life is at stake. Put it to a vote: a little more gruel this winter or a little less gruel in favor of some experimentation that may or may not work and the effects of which may not be felt for 5 years?

More gruel now, please.

As far as planning for the future, how will Candy Land reach consensus through democracy on how resources should be directed towards long-term improvements? When it comes to the long term there is going to be a high degree of subjectivity as to which needs should take priority.

How would a new idea even be funded? Presumably if a commune votes to produce X amount of product Y this year but an inventor needs some of the resource that goes into making Y, does the Y-making commune get to invest in his effort or are they required to meet their quota for Y?

Technology becomes obsolete when it no longer meets the requirements it was designed for. When that happens, it would either be modified or, failing that, be replaced outright. But you miss the point. The point is that an automated process generally requires less labor and produces more.

You're not paying attention. Automation requires less labor to do what is being automated, but it requires as much or more labor to maintain the machine doing the automating. More advanced automation requires more advanced and technical methods and equipment which simply means you're shifting the labor towards maintaining your robots. In fact on a macro level there may well be no savings in actual labor.

But the same thing happens with investors and research grants. If you cannot convince them to give you money for your project, you would not get it. I fail to see the difference.

In a commune there is presumably one chance at the resources: if the commune votes it down, you wait until next year. In the present system if one investor or bank says no you move on to the next investor or bank.

If they fail, yes. But how would one know if would fail unless the experimet were conducted, which wouldn't happen according to you.

I'm not talking about inventors, I'm talking about your central communal planners. Either you or another poster claimed that in the case of a food shortage, the experts would figure it out. They fail and the commune starts to distrust them, you've got hoarding and black market on your hands.

Also, if failure affects people's positive judgements about an individual, it would become less likely they would allow this person to conduct experiments, which would lead to drops in experimentation. So either way, it seems apparently that experimentation is affected.

Again, in communism you have just one kick at the cat: convincing the entire commune to trust you. In the current system you can find other willing individuals for subsequent ventures.

JazzRemington

13th October 2006, 23:55

You said that there is some evidence that even when people are taught to behave purely individualistically, they will still behave communally some of the time. Your theory of communism rests on people acting communally almost all of the time. But if people behave vice-versa to what you say, they will behave individualistically some of the time. Can your version of communism account for that>

According to a study performed, in part, by Social Psychologist T.M. Singelis in 1995, 70% of the world operates within the Collectivist culture. Seems like a lot of people do behave in such a way already. But let's assume 100% of the world operates within the Individualist culture. There is substantial evidence that suggest people that are hostile to one another tend to cooperate if there is a significant reason for it. Self-interest does not negate cooperation. Even self-interest regulated by the market dictates some degree of cooperation.

Groups will tend to focus on immediate needs, especially when their life is at stake. Put it to a vote: a little more gruel this winter or a little less gruel in favor of some experimentation that may or may not work and the effects of which may not be felt for 5 years?

It all depends upon the certainty of the outcome of the experiment.

As far as planning for the future, how will Candy Land reach consensus through democracy on how resources should be directed towards long-term improvements? When it comes to the long term there is going to be a high degree of subjectivity as to which needs should take priority.

Most likely, the councils will examine data such as birth and death rates, production rates, etc. and discuss amongst themselves their options. Consensus is not likely to be met on what to do, and I never said anything about whether it would or would not, so the councils will probably use majority rule with some sort of system to break ties.

How would a new idea even be funded? Presumably if a commune votes to produce X amount of product Y this year but an inventor needs some of the resource that goes into making Y, does the Y-making commune get to invest in his effort or are they required to meet their quota for Y?

Anyoen wh wants to use another's resources, regardless of the economic system, probably would have to have a good reason for doing so. There would not be a quota system, aside from what the councils agree themselves to produce.

In a commune there is presumably one chance at the resources: if the commune votes it down, you wait until next year. In the present system if one investor or bank says no you move on to the next investor or bank.

So, there would only be one commune? And it would only meet once a year?

I'm not talking about inventors, I'm talking about your central communal planners. Either you or another poster claimed that in the case of a food shortage, the experts would figure it out. They fail and the commune starts to distrust them, you've got hoarding and black market on your hands.

Why would anyone besides the council members themselves plan production?

Again, in communism you have just one kick at the cat: convincing the entire commune to trust you. In the current system you can find other willing individuals for subsequent ventures.

You don't have to convince the ENTIRE commune to trust you. Plus, depending upon the circumstances, they may be actively looking for ways to deal with problems. If production is at adequate levels and they have everything working fine, they may not be open to problems. If they spy a problem in the now or near future, they may be open to hearing what you have to say. You claim material conditions affect behavior, but yet you keep ignoring them here.

t_wolves_fan

14th October 2006, 00:29

According to a study performed, in part, by Social Psychologist T.M. Singelis in 1995, 70% of the world operates within the Collectivist culture. Seems like a lot of people do behave in such a way already. But let's assume 100% of the world operates within the Individualist culture. There is substantial evidence that suggest people that are hostile to one another tend to cooperate if there is a significant reason for it. Self-interest does not negate cooperation. Even self-interest regulated by the market dictates some degree of cooperation.

Some pretty vague terms there. Which part of the world makes up the 70%? What are the criteria for collectivist vs. individualist?

I'm not arguing that pure individualism is the way to go - I'm not a fan of laissez faire capitalism nor libertarianism nor anarchy. Hell economically I'm probably somewhat of a mainstream American Democrat. Of course a degree of cooperation and collectivism is necessary for an orderly society. I simply disagree that the level required for pure communism to work is attainable in the near future.

Groups will tend to focus on immediate needs, especially when their life is at stake. Put it to a vote: a little more gruel this winter or a little less gruel in favor of some experimentation that may or may not work and the effects of which may not be felt for 5 years?

It all depends upon the certainty of the outcome of the experiment.

:lol: If you know the outcome it's not an experiment. That's the problem, innovation is not borne out of certainty. You know how many different materials Edison used to make a light bulb work?

Most likely, the councils will examine data such as birth and death rates, production rates, etc. and discuss amongst themselves their options. Consensus is not likely to be met on what to do, and I never said anything about whether it would or would not, so the councils will probably use majority rule with some sort of system to break ties.

What if the voters vote for their short term interest or the experts turn out to be wrong? In your system, everyone is hosed. In capitalism, only those who bought into the product are hosed.

So, there would only be one commune? And it would only meet once a year?

How efficient would it be to continually change your production goal over time?

Why would anyone besides the council members themselves plan production?

Maybe because production of any given good does not occur in a vaccum.

Have a great weekend dreaming of Candy Land.

JazzRemington

14th October 2006, 04:50

Some pretty vague terms there. Which part of the world makes up the 70%? What are the criteria for collectivist vs. individualist?

In general, it's the US, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe making up the Individualist cultures, and Asian, Latin American, and African nations making up the Collectivist cultures. There obviously may be more within those two cultures, but I don't have access to a complete and exhaustive listing.

But according to the book Social Psychology by Steven L. Franzoi, Collectivist culture has the following values: Identity based on social system and given by one's group, peopel are socialized to be emotionally dependent upon organizations and institution, personal and group goals are generally consistent though group goals have priority if there is inconsistency, people explain others' social behavior as being more determined by social norms and roles than by personal attitutes, emphasis is on belonging to organizations and membership is ideal, and trust is placed in group decisions.

On the other end, Individualist culture consists of the exact opposite of the aforementioned Collectivist cultural attitudes, so for the sake of keeping things brief, I won't repeat them here.

:lol: If you know the outcome it's not an experiment. That's the problem, innovation is not borne out of certainty. You know how many different materials Edison used to make a light bulb work?

Was I arguing that? Certainly not. All I said was that depending on the perceived outcome of the experiment people may or may not support it. And Edison didn't invent the lightbulb all by his lonesome. Nor was he the absolute first. A British person developed the lightbulb at about the same time, though he didn't successfully market it (Edison did this).

What if the voters vote for their short term interest or the experts turn out to be wrong? In your system, everyone is hosed. In capitalism, only those who bought into the product are hosed.

Everyone is not hosed. The communes have a general level of autonomy from one another, so it's unlikely that everyone would suffer. But the same thing does, and has, happened in Capitalism. Need I remind you of the Great Depression? And what if a company invests in new technology, only to fail as a result. Only the heads of the company suffer? Even in Markets people aren't isolated and insulated from one another. What happens to someone within a market could, and usually does, have effects on other people.

How efficient would it be to continually change your production goal over time?

Who ever said they would be constantly changing their production goals? All I was getting at is that odds are, the councils will not meet only once a year.

Maybe because production of any given good does not occur in a vaccum.

Do even understand the concept of a worker's council? It consists of all the workers in a given business, it's not some independent group outside and above the working class, it is literally the working class.

Have a great weekend dreaming of Candy Land.

OK. If communism is like Candy Land, then Capitalism is like Monopoly.

red team

14th October 2006, 06:06

You're not paying attention. Automation requires less labor to do what is being automated, but it requires as much or more labor to maintain the machine doing the automating. More advanced automation requires more advanced and technical methods and equipment which simply means you're shifting the labor towards maintaining your robots. In fact on a macro level there may well be no savings in actual labor.

Automation requires less labor to do what is being automated, but it requires as much or more labor to maintain the machine doing the automating.

And your reasoning behind that?

Once the machine is built, the job maintaining it is going to be routine. Have you ever replaced a burnt fuse? Same concept.

More advanced automation requires more advanced and technical methods and equipment which simply means you're shifting the labor towards maintaining your robots

Interchangeable and modular parts.

In fact on a macro level there may well be no savings in actual labor

I'm sure that a automated factory churning out products 24 hours a day 365 days a year saves you a lot more labour than a factory that shuts down during lunch breaks and weekends.