"Communism would never work/ever be achieved

[autrefois]

"Communism will never work"
~A common discussion among my friends.

We all know that communism is a great idea, but that it is supposedly also unachievable, because it relies too readily on human goodness.

Here is the main arguement: Humans are inherently evil, so therefore will inevitably attempt to take advantage of a state of equality. Likewise, lazy people would also take advantage of such a state

1) How do you get rid of lazy people that would compromise the society?
2) How do you maintain a communist government without forsaking individual liberties?
3) Some jobs require harder work that other jobs. What is the reward of working harder?

If not, how so? How can a state ever reach true (Marxist) communism, realistically?
If it cannot, whats the closest in history that a country has gotten to true communism

Atm, Im leaning towards perhaps less extreme left branches of socialism, idk. Gimme a way or a party, or a philosophy, or a solution

By true communism I mean a state where people work for equal wages, have equal rights, and are basically worth the same. That means that there is no oppressive government, nor a strong governing body. Basically the stuff in the Manifesto

Im not asking for what I want to hear, Im asking for the truth.

[BrokenHeart]

Looking at things through moral eyes will get you no where.

Communism may or may not happen. States have means of distorting people's heads, both left and right oriented, economies can cause critical nationalism while others not, and some people just want change while others don't.

Whether or not communism happens doesn't really matter at this point, because it's propagation no matter which way you choose to look at it. If you think that Capitalism is fucked up then just act towards making change at your own pace.

Living in a "when will it happen" mind set is probably just going to make you depressed, because it isn't coming anytime soon, if not ever.

[autrefois]

That means that communism is basically like an impossible utopia?

Im not speaking on terms of when, where it will happen, merely on if it is even a possibility.

Where China, Russia, Cuba ever truly socialist at their "peak"?

[BrokenHeart]

(I think you edited your initial topic while I made my first reply, here's a secondary response)


Here is the main arguement: Humans are inherently evil, so therefore will inevitably attempt to take advantage of a state of equality. Likewise, lazy people would also take advantage of such a state
("Evil", as well as "Good", isn't a structured term and its use should be really limited, especially when dealing with sociological issues.)
People aren't "habitually" anything. Genetically humans can be lazy, or stubborn, but there is no omniscience that deems humans lazy or stubborn. What your talking about there is one of the most basic of reactionary arguments that have existed since any society structure has been.
People's whims are, to keep this reply short, based off two primary things; genetics, and material condition.
I'll skip genetics for now and jump to material conditions, just to elaborate a bit.
Children raised by abusive parents are, statistically, more prone to becoming cruel or abusive people. A child raised in poverty whom has to watch his parents struggle each and every day will statistically grow into a more stingy person, especially with money. In the US, girls are, statistically, more applicable to suicide now because of the amount of concentration put into beauty standards.
What i'm getting at is human habit is defined, loosely, by the structure and options amongst them. Assuming a communist society were to just form, and workers would be in both power and rationality, then the "habits" of humans common to us today would be heavily destroyed, if not all together removed.
Of course a communist society isn't going to simply form and if the process were to even begin it would be extremely violent and angst-ridden so that who knows what would happen to human thought once it was through and done.

Those questions can be more or less answered with what I wrote above, and i'd suggest you search around the forum if your looking for a different answer. Lots of people have asked similar questions to those you asked.

[Joby]

Repond to the "it'll nver work b/c people are bad" argument by pointing out that the people who run things today are bad, and that communism suggests to make sure that these people are not allowed to run society/govt like they do today.

[BrokenHeart]

That means that communism is basically like an impossible utopia?
Not at all. Communism is perhaps the most well thought out ideology and theory, with countless branches and revisions made into it all the time. The only problem is that capitalism is more of a dogma with upcoming markets forced into it. If socialist markets could start without being entirely bankrupt then perhaps communism could start, very slowly of course, but perhaps.
Of course this is a "perhaps" as well, and I, personally, don't really think much on anything through optimism.


Where China, Russia, Cuba ever truly socialist at their "peak"?
With that question your going to start a board war with all the convicted peoples, but i'll try and give a response anyway.
"Socialist" societies that have existed have all pertained bits of socialist theory in them, but usually retain forms of capital structure to manuever. Russia had the soviets; workers running the work place. China had unity and initiative for the theory as a whole. Obviously though these places weren't "socialist", they were forms of it though, even if they were critically and massively different from the source and ideology they originally dwelled on. The U.S.S.R. was a society of anxiety and market lies. Red China had a peasant genocide of sorts which was its method of moving forward.
A little bit of this and a little bit of that. The shoe was on the platform but unpolished.
Cuba, though, is a bit of a different situation. Cuba retains perhaps the most "socialist" of structures around. Free healthcare, religious freedom, citizens voice in politics, and a well held, positive society. "Money" still exists, but it isn't amongst an inflated market and is held in check and unabused by government. Statistically, people are much more happy there and though they may not have flat screen T.V.s and Ipod docks, society functions well.
Cuba is also an island, a very small island which has very few dealings with the world around it. It is remarkable indeed that Cuba hasn't tried to advance their market (which would inevitably result in some huge sociological crisis) but that may very well be because it can't. The initiative of Cuba is honourable, but their situation isn't entirely the best to represent socialism, especially for those of us living in 1st world markets/nations like US and Britain.

[BrokenHeart]

And no Joby, not at all.

[Joby]

And no Joby, not at all.

What are you talking about?

Everybody involved in capitalism is trying to exploit someone else for their own gain, making them 'bad.'

Would communism not get rid of this problem, in theory?

BTW, the fact that there are revisions made to communism proves it was a flawed theory, at least originally, and can't work in every situation properly. It doesn't prove how great of a theory it is.

[VukBZ2005]

By true communism I mean a state where people work for equal wages, have equal rights, and are basically worth the same. That means that there is no oppressive government, nor a strong governing body. Basically the stuff in the Manifesto

I must point out something to you, autrefois. A truly Communist society would not be a society in which there would be a state, nor, in which there would be a wage system. Instead, there would be an association of neighborhood and workplace assemblies and there would be a system that would allow for both the free availability of goods and services that are widely-available, and for the suitable allocation of goods and services that are not widely-available. The reason why the state, nor, the wage system, would not exist in a truly Communist society is because both the state and the wage system are institutions that both inhibit the development of socio-economic classes, and, protect whatever socio-economic classes that are currently in existence.

[kromando33]

Ignorant rightist: Communism didn't work.
Naive leftist: It has never been tried.

Oh how many times have I seen this conversation...

[Ismail]

Ignorant rightist: Communism didn't work.
Naive leftist: It has never been tried.

Oh how many times have I seen this conversation...Socialist and Communist societies are clearly distinct. There has never been a Communist society in recent history. There have been Socialist ones (USSR for most of its existence, Albania from 1944-1992) but Communism is the abolition of the state. Both of these nations (USSR until the mid 50's, Albania until 1986) have tried to move towards a Communist society, but during this move they both realized that capitalism must be in decline globally before this can take place.

[mikelepore]

If it were true that people were "evil", that would be all the more reason to place the "goodness" into a new kind of social system. If you say that people won't spontaneously do what you would like them to do, that's the same thing as saying that the thing you want them to do needs to be built into the formal institutions.

[mikelepore]

1) How do you get rid of lazy people that would compromise the society?

...

3) Some jobs require harder work that other jobs. What is the reward of working harder?


In my opinion, (1) and (3) have the same answer. Even in the most perfect system in the future, producers should receive incomes in direct proportion to each individual's choice of the total number of work hours, multiplied by a factor, its value set by society's elected representatives, that represents how strenuous or uncomfortable each type of work is. Then it's individual effort that gets rewarded. There's nothing wrong with being lazy when the amount that people take out of the inventory is equivalent to what they put into it.

[mikelepore]

2) How do you maintain a communist government without forsaking individual liberties?


The question "mixes apples and oranges."

Communism is a proposed type of industrial management.

Don't have government pass laws which infringe on individual liberties.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

1) How do you get rid of lazy people that would compromise the society?

You have to define lazy based on social conditions. A reference can be made to mothers who stay at home and take care of their children instead of working. Obviously one would object to identifying such women as lazy, especially Leftists who see childrearing as a very natural responsibility, but nowadays unless such mothers are part of the top ~20% they're required to forgo motherhood to supplement the family with a second paycheck. This can also be applied to situations where the mother wants to work and the father stay at home.

Since the consensus is that the average time one would have to work would be 2-4 hours a day, depending on whichever task you do [factory workers would likely work less than teachers], I suppose a lazy individual would be someone who consumes without being a part of productivity. The broader definition would mean those who don't put forward their best efforts, but this is widespread under capitalism despite popular misconceptions -- corporations lose billions of dollars each year simply because workers use their time to make personal phone calls and browse the internet. This broader definition would be less likely to occur since most paper-pushing jobs would be eliminated and people would be able to pursue their interests without having to take into consideration money and market variables.

As for the few who do not take part in the production process, they would be viewed by the outside world in distaste. Instances where individuals are sick and do not want to work may pop up and that's to be expected in any society -- but for individuals to simply devote their entire life to consumption is unthinkable when 1.) they have practically every option available to them 2.) work places have replaced the menial tasks to the best of technology's abilities and 3.) the expected time required is less than 4 hours a day. Indeed such people could expect harsh criticism from their immediate friends and family.

[Tower of Bebel]

Communism is not a society of over 7 billion individuals. It is a society with a collective production relationship and therefor is has a collective superstructure. Even if you see people as evil (or immoral like many liberals do) this arguement will not mean the failure of communism because (1) there is no support for this arguement (Where does it come from? What is this evilness? In short: it is an idea, it has no material basis) and (2) there is, as I said, a superstructure, which means people still regualte society; yet without the exploiting minority we always had since 10.000 BC.

[VukBZ2005]

Cuba, though, is a bit of a different situation. Cuba retains perhaps the most "socialist" of structures around. Free healthcare, religious freedom, citizens voice in politics, and a well held, positive society. "Money" still exists, but it isn't amongst an inflated market and is held in check and unabused by government. Statistically, people are much more happy there and though they may not have flat screen T.V.s and Ipod docks, society functions well. Cuba is also an island, a very small island which has very few dealings with the world around it. It is remarkable indeed that Cuba hasn't tried to advance their market (which would inevitably result in some huge sociological crisis) but that may very well be because it can't. The initiative of Cuba is honourable, but their situation isn't entirely the best to represent socialism, especially for those of us living in 1st world markets/nations like US and Britain.I must point out something to you as well, BrokenHeart.

Firstly, to say, or, to imply, that Cuba has been isolated from the rest of the world since 1 January 1959, is just psychologically re-enforcing the propaganda that emanates from Miami. The only part of the world that Cuba has been totally isolated from, since 1 January 1959, is the United States of America, due to the blockade. However, between 1959 and 1991, Cuba had both communicated and traded extensively with both the U.S.S.R and the Eastern Block, and, some Capitalist nations, such as Austria, for example. Now, after the collapse of both the U.S.S.R and the Eastern Block, the type of communication and trading that Cuba engaged in, was reduced, but, it was not reduced to the extent that one would say is evident of North Korea. If that was the case, then, why would Cuba be running a yearly average economic growth rate of 10%/9%, in the three years that came before 2008?

And secondly, when we speak of Cuba's economy, we have to take into account the development that the Cuban economy underwent between 1959 and 1991, and, the development that the Cuban economy underwent between 1991 and the present moment. And when this is done, we can see that, between 1959 and 1991, the share of manufacturing industries in the Cuban economy went up from 23% to 40% (in GDP terms), and from 23% to 45.3% (in GNP terms). This is impressive, because it demonstrates that even though, during this point in time, most of Cuba's exports were coming from the sugar sector of the economy, the development of the manufacturing industries of the country reached a point that made Cuba the second most industrialized country in Latin America and the Caribbean. By this statement, I am, of course, going off of the growth of Cuba's manufacturing industries during this period, as industrialization is equal to the growth in a country's manufacturing industries to the point that it becomes the most important sector of the economy. I also estimate that if the U.S.S.R and/or the Eastern Block did not fall apart, the share of Cuba's manufacturing industries would have increased from 40% to 55% by 2000, effectively making it an industrialized country. We also can see that, between 1991 and the present moment, the share of manufacturing industries in the Cuban economy fell from 40% to at least 24%. This is due to the 50% decline in both Cuban GDP and GNP, by way of the collapse of both the U.S.S.R, and, the Eastern Block, countries that Cuba mainly traded with.

The reason why I am outlining this all out for you is because I want you to have a correct understanding of Cuba's actual situation, both socially and economically.

[BrokenHeart]

Awesome, and thanks for the clarity there CFF.
Just to clear something up; I knew some of what you said there already (Not all of that, but some) and it wasn't that I meant their economy was stagnant, but I was just trying to keep on point of the topic without overloading it with market rise and fall. I was just trying to keep it fact but abbreviated a bit.

Again, thank you.

[mikelepore]

Naive leftist: It has never been tried.

It's a fact that none of the self-proclaimed forms of socialism have ever permitted the workers to assemble and debate and write freely, or to have public views measured accurately through contested elections. The so-called "socialism" of the past has had the workers living in constant fear, because simply saying "Hello, I have a suggestion for improvement" can get someone sent to prison or shot by a firing squad. Phony socialist regimes have constructed physical walls to make their entire nations into prisons, and workers run in the darkness through machine gun fire in attempts to escape. These patterns tell us immediately that the "party central committee" is a parasitic ruling class that exploits a wage-slave class.

Socialism, if anyone ever actually implements it someday, will be the most advanced realization of freedom and democracy that the world has ever known.

A socialist system will have fairly elected and easily revocable delegates to administer offices, but no leaders.

[Dimentio]

It's a fact that none of the self-proclaimed forms of socialism have ever permitted the workers to assemble and debate and write freely, or to have public views measured accurately through contested elections. The so-called "socialism" of the past has had the workers living in constant fear, because simply saying "Hello, I have a suggestion for improvement" can get someone sent to prison or shot by a firing squad. Phony socialist regimes have constructed physical walls to make their entire nations into prisons, and workers run in the darkness through machine gun fire in attempts to escape. These patterns tell us immediately that the "party central committee" is a parasitic ruling class that exploits a wage-slave class.

Socialism, if anyone ever actually implements it someday, will be the most advanced realization of freedom and democracy that the world has ever known.

A socialist system will have fairly elected and easily revocable delegates to administer offices, but no leaders.

Is not the entire Vanguard theory quite obvious?

I mean, Leninism ABC seems to be something like this:

1. The working class must raise their fists, throw of their shackles and take over the means of the production.

2. The working class does not have the class conciousness to undertake it.

3. Therefore, an intellectual vanguard must do it for them, and then realise socialism for them.

The whole premise is something like: "A revolution must happen in the way we intellectual revolutionaries perceive it should be (barricades, gendarmies, angry workers taking their hammers and sickles and running to the winter palace), and the working class do not understand what it should do."

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The most troubling aspect of Leftist theory is not whether or not communism can be achieved, but whether or not there can be a successful revolution. Assuming there is one I don't see any reason why communism would fail.

However, unless the reformists are right and the revolutionaries wrong, the transition will only begin after the overthrow of the capitalist system. This means a real possibility exists where the living standards of almost everyone will decline for a few years. Looting would take over to the point that production is not meeting consumption -- the question then turns to: how will Westerners react when they no longer have the abundance in front of them? Obviously rioting, but where does the source of frustration put us? If class conscious exists it's less of a problem, but if not fascists have a solution that is easier to digest. Supposing the state apparatus is overthrown, it then falls on the local workers and comrades to prevent a dictator/oligarchy from taking power.

The alternative viewpoint of a revolutionary could be something like the 60s, only more wide scale, where radical philosophy prospers without economic instability.

However in both circumstances class consciousness is the only means of preventing horrible terror. Otherwise you have factions of "middle class workers" protecting the establishment.