The main flaw of communism - Please, no cappie opinions.

[Charred Phoenix]

In my opinion, the main flaw of communism is that it provides no incentive to work harder than necessary to keep the job, after all you get paid the same amount, can anyone think of a way around this without reintroducing the class system? Please, don't get the idea that I am pro-capitalism from this, even with this fault I believe communism to be superior to capitalism, I was just wondering if anyone had ideas.


(Edited by Charred Phoenix at 8:24 am on April 1, 2003)

[Charred Phoenix]

I've just realised that this probably would have fitted better into the theory forum, sorry...

[sc4r]

Its not a flaw as such. Its pretty well established that the friving motivation behind most people is not money or material reward but status. Status within a capitalist framework and today has been represented by money and it cerainly would not be an overnight thing to purge this idea from peoples consciousness.

But this is well known, neither Marx not anyone supporting communism thought or thinks that communism could work without a significant re-adjustment period.

Communism could not work today because the 'flaw' would exist in the sense of communism requiring an attitude (a more natural one) which we have been taught not to have. But communism could work in the future and the flaw simply would not be relevant.

[Charred Phoenix]

Its not a flaw as such. Its pretty well established that the friving motivation behind most people is not money or material reward but status. Status within a capitalist framework and today has been represented by money and it cerainly would not be an overnight thing to purge this idea from peoples consciousness.


I don't really agree with this, if the aim of communism is /only/ to avoid a class system based on money (and it probably is, sorry I don't know much about socialism, i'm new to all this) then the problem is easily beaten through a class based on working achievement (this could be created through medals and the like), sorry, I'm probably aiming for something too Utopian, but Lenin and Marx both say that communism is not the ultimate system of government, but rather a bridge to a better system.

[kylie]

the motivation would be that its needed. just like how when people were much more isolated and money not so important, you would have people live off their land and not engage in trade. why did they bother when they werent getting paid?
'whereas people used to work to live, they now live to work' i think thats the correct quote from Marx, though its not exact.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Charred Phoenix on 9:55 am on April 1, 2003


Its not a flaw as such. Its pretty well established that the friving motivation behind most people is not money or material reward but status. Status within a capitalist framework and today has been represented by money and it cerainly would not be an overnight thing to purge this idea from peoples consciousness.


I don't really agree with this, if the aim of communism is /only/ to avoid a class system based on money (and it probably is, sorry I don't know much about socialism, i'm new to all this) then the problem is easily beaten through a class based on working achievement (this could be created through medals and the like), sorry, I'm probably aiming for something too Utopian, but Lenin and Marx both say that communism is not the ultimate system of government, but rather a bridge to a better system.



I think you are confusing the communist movement with communism. What is usually termed communism is the position reached after the state has withered away , which is the end goal of the communist movement.

Marx uses the term in both senses in his writings and it's easily confused.

Socialism is considered by marx as an interim state on route to communism and in socialism there is a reward motive (depending on the version of socialism this can involve quite large or very small differential incentives for peoples work).

Status does not even have to involve medals and suchlike; status can be achieved just through knowing that others appreciate you applying your talents.

Best wishes

[US Shockrule2000]

tht's just one of many flaws of communism.. it's EVIL.
you're sick trying to reach utopia... IT DOESN'T WORK.

DEMOCRACY WILL ALWAYS BE NEEDED AND TAUGHT BY OUR BRAVE HEROS OF WAR

GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS

[Xvall]

OMG. What the hell is up with you people. I'm sorry; but we are really sick of it. You know what? I bet you've never even read the damn manifesto. It annoys to crap out of us when people just come and post something like:

COMMUNISM WILL NEVER WORK! IT SUX! PEOPLE WILL BECOM LAZEE!!! DEMOCRACY IS DA BEST AND AMERICA = DEMOCRACY SO AMERICA= GRATE! GOD BLESS AMERIKA!

Seriously. We didn't think it was funny the first ten times you did it; we sure as hell don't think it's funny now.

[mentalbunny]

In Theory there's a thread on just this topic, read it (sorry I don't have the link, it's not hard to find).

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from US Shockrule2000 on 1:56 pm on April 1, 2003
tht's just one of many flaws of communism.. it's EVIL.
you're sick trying to reach utopia... IT DOESN'T WORK.

DEMOCRACY WILL ALWAYS BE NEEDED AND TAUGHT BY OUR BRAVE HEROS OF WAR

GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS


Of course they ain't read the manifesto, or even a brief of it, obviously clever enough to refute the argument of a board of left wingers without actually knowing a thing about them ;). (DEMOCRATIC communism anyone?)

Random question anyone read any capitalist theory? I did and I must say that no one theory can do it alone...then again I only read a little Hayeck and Smith, Wealth of Nations....

Anyway original point, yes a bit shit in the short term, people need to reprioritise. Incentives my good man, hard work benifits the people you care about indirectly, and why must everyone be the same? Equal oppurtunities, but those that can do better will.

You could have quotas, you have to do so much work..the rest is free time, everyone works the same, and earns themselves breaks.

You could have an award scheme, extra work = extras

The main thing is to stop others gaining from someone else's work. If a child is given an unfair advantage because of their parent's success that is not right, it is no longer equal oppurtunities.The next generation should not suffer for the actions of the previous.

By maintaining an equal start in life people fall better into roles. Today a homeless man or woman could be the perfect president, but had an unfortunate start. Bush could be a mediocre roadsweeper, but is a shit president because of his advantage.

Yes people should progress, but because of their own hardwork, just as it SHOULD be in capitalism.

[Charred Phoenix]

tht's just one of many flaws of communism.. it's EVIL.
you're sick trying to reach utopia... IT DOESN'T WORK.

DEMOCRACY WILL ALWAYS BE NEEDED AND TAUGHT BY OUR BRAVE HEROS OF WAR

GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS


Yes well "tht" may be true, but you're not going to convince me of the inferiority of communism by yelling at me about your wonderful warmongers. Not to mention that you dumb fucks don't even know what communism means:

Communism Com"mu*nism, n. F. communisme, fr. commun common.
A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life;
specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of
inequalities in the possession of property, as by
distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all
wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.

You see that??? NOTHING ABOUT DICTATORSHIP AND LACK OF DEMOCRACY, NOW CAN YOU PLEASE GO DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE, LIKE SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE HEAD.

Grrrr, sorry, i'll continue the discussion on theory when I calm down.

[hazard]

first off, since when is communism a "scheme"? reminds me of the movie Malcolm X when Malcom is shown the dictionary heading for "black"

as for incentive, I'm not sure I get what you mean. the ideal would be stop the overproduction within capitalism that forces the fifty hour work week. the work requirements would fade as the need to produce massive amounts of excess also fades.

maybe you think that every family would still need two cars, four thousand square feet of housing, a swimming pool, a snow thrower, five televisions, three bathrooms and a hundred fast food outlets. under communism, all of this excess would be eliminated as there is absolutely no need for any of it. communism would return humanity to its more natural state that exists to subsist and not to exploit.

I don't know what you really mean though. Until all countries are communist, though, even communist countries must over produce in order to compete with the pig nations of the world. Incentive here would be, as far as I would be concerned, battling the greed and corruption of the capitalist slave drivers through unification with my proletariate brothers and sisters.

Let me know if I answered any of the ways that you intended your question.

[Charred Phoenix]

Well, clearly until one communist country sets an exemplary example the whole world never will be communist.

As for those needs, are you saying that under a communist system noone would ever have things like that? Doesn't that mean if we aim for communism, we're not aiming for a short period of depravation and then eventually everyone living at a good standard, or are we aiming for a permanent life of mediocrity? (gah I think I put that badly, i'll correct myself later)

[mentalbunny]

As discussed in the other thread in Theory, I think that job satisfaction is a key point:

High job satisfaction=less need for material rewards

[Saint-Just]

A quote from Che's 'Man and Socialism':

'the Marxist concept that man truly achieves his full human condition when he produces without being compelled by the physical necessity of selling himself as a commodity.'

Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Che, Mao and many others have all answered this question in much detail before. All socialists have thought of this and the answer does exists in socialism.

[Anonymous]

*sigh*
this is the 100000000000000000 time i read this suposed flaw...
"communism gives no incentive for workers"....
its stupid, becuase communism is the proletarian control of the means of production...
how for Marxs sake is that a "low" incentive for work if it is a workers revolution and a workers effort to produce more with less sacrifice and without exploitation..

[hazard]

yeah, incentive was covered in the COmmunist MAnifesto some one hundred and seventy five years ago

I believe Marx said that "universal laziness" was a non sequiter since the Capitalist, or bourgeois, class themselves are the laziest in the entire history of covilization, and yet they persist

[Charred Phoenix]

I believe Marx said that "universal laziness" was a non sequiter since the Capitalist, or bourgeois, class themselves are the laziest in the entire history of covilization, and yet they persist


What does that mean??? They persist with what?



As discussed in the other thread in Theory, I think that job satisfaction is a key point:

High job satisfaction=less need for material rewards


I dunno, I really always thought of communism not as a lack of need but just as equalizing suffering and benefits, hence in a successful communist country everyone would be able to afford what they wanted, rather than just being satisfied with their jobs. :-/




Guerrillero A quote from Che's 'Man and Socialism':

'the Marxist concept that man truly achieves his full human condition when he produces without being compelled by the physical necessity of selling himself as a commodity.'

Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Che, Mao and many others have all answered this question in much detail before. All socialists have thought of this and the answer does exists in socialism.


Thanks, I'll go read a bit more before I start another theory thread, sorry.


(Edited by Charred Phoenix at 8:47 am on April 3, 2003)

[hazard]

persist?

I guess that means they haven't succombed to whatever fear those that charge communism with laziness are afraid of

I think his point was those that claim communism inspires laziness, the capitalists, are idiotic for claiming communism is lazy when they themselves are so bloody lazy

besides, the truth is that there really isn't any need for so much production anyway. laziness really is a relative term

[Charred Phoenix]

Well, yes, but the point is they already have money, they don't need to work, that is a flaw of capitalism and completely irrelevant. The point is if you have a job to earn money, and you know nothing you do can make you earn more money, why put in more effort than is necessary?

[kelvin90701]

Just a cute story:


"Ex-communist fighters adjust to a life with cash

We joined the communist party because we thought we needed to build a new society where justice counts,'' says Foong Tuck Woh, who left home in the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur and went to the jungles at the age of 17. ''But the situation has changed, society has changed, there is no need to think about the old things,'' he explains. ''All we want is to start over and make sure our kids have a good future.''

http://www.atimes.com/se-asia/AK03Ae02.html

[Organic Revolution]

it is not a real flaw because true socialist work to better the community and help the people

[Blibblob]

Dude, you're a little late.

[Organic Revolution]

my bad i just looked at the first page and typed a response

[Charred Phoenix]

Wouldn't that mean that every member of the community had to be socialist?

Anyway yes, too late :P

Please, leave this thread alone, i'm ashamed of it, I should have read more before I posted it :(

[hazard]

the amin flaw is its susceptibility to being undermined by capitalist principles.

this is due to the fact that capitalism relies on base level appeals while communism relies on higher level appeals. capitalism is all about greed and sex and material filth. this speaks, above all else , to the desires of the individual. as such, communism often is undermined by the sneaky attractant of capitalist's appetites.

even on this board, many people who claim to be communist are only waiting to be sold on the modern day auction blck. communism is something fashionable to them, something they don't really believe in. they'll wear their doc martins and carry ar9ound a copy of the manifesto and then trade it in for a suit and tie at the first oppurtunity. they are lured by their individual greed and irresponsibility.

as such, communism's inability to retain the individual in the face of outright material corruption is a major flaw. although I can restrain my primal urges, the same cannot be said for many of the movement. half assed, poser, punk communists.

[Charred Phoenix]

So basically... I was right? -_^

Anyway, there is no point in giving up your material wealth while living under a capitalist system, and don't even think of calling me uncommited because one this point Che, Marx and Lening ALL agree with me.

[hazard]

basically, maybe

I still don't really, honestly, truthfully, see it as a flaw of communism. its more of a flaw with the individual. communism can't help it if it is a system opposed to exploitation, while its nme is a system OF exploitation.

its like the good guys and the bad guys. communism don't bribe and corrupt people because its bad to do it. if anything, such a flaw is also its strength.

in ref. to yor original post, incentive as a process of reward for labour isn't really what I'm on about. I see such incentive as an illusion, as all labour in capitalism is forced. I'm really on about how quickly a communist can and is turned into a capitalist. just slip 'em some material. a candy bar, a car and a wife. instant capitalist.

[Charred Phoenix]

Yes, but something that would stop it working would be a flaw, now, the question that remains is, how can we solve this?

[hazard]

and what a grand question that is!

sometimes people don't have any idea what is really good for them. they behave like children who don't realize that they canot live off of candy. unfortunately, still like children, you can't simply tell these people the truth. all they know is that they LIKE their material rewards. they LIKE their cars and swimming pools, and thats that.

all that the enlightened few of us can really do is undercut these people in the same way that capitalism undercuts communism. that is, go right after the source and force the public to deal with the results. take out the capitalists, destroy the toys and wake everybody up. as to how this can be done, I haven't a clue.

prior to my becoming a communist I was a fan of the left jab. really into environmentalism and social issues. just throwin the occassional jab at the capitalists. then I realized that the jab was inneffective. the only way to ever knock my opponent out was to throw a left hook, and become a communist. I still throw an occasional jab, but only so can land a hook.

[HankMorgan]

Quote: from the anarchist on 6:35 pm on April 2, 2003
*sigh*
this is the 100000000000000000 time i read this suposed flaw...
"communism gives no incentive for workers"....
its stupid, becuase communism is the proletarian control of the means of production...
how for Marxs sake is that a "low" incentive for work if it is a workers revolution and a workers effort to produce more with less sacrifice and without exploitation..


Old Marx didn't speed the long march to the worker's paradise with his "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" line. The way I read that is no matter how much effort the worker exerts, all he will receive is what he needs.

I read some of the threads in other areas of che-lives (where left is right and right is wrong) and one idea of one post sticks with me. The author wrote several dozen very short ideas on how to harness the best of Capitalism without letting the worst of Capitalism out of the box. The idea that sticks with me had to do with the amount of pay a worker should receive. The author said something to the effect that everyone at the factory should get paid the same no matter if they created the factory or were the last worker hired. What incentive is there to risk everything for a new idea if the reward is the same as being the last person to shuffle through the factory door?

The reason the flaw has been mentioned 10e17 times is that's what Communists, great and small, write. If you don't want to read about the "supposed" flaw, then stop writing about it.

[redstar2000]

"What incentive is there to risk everything for a new idea if the reward is the same as being the last person to shuffle through the factory door"? -- Hank Morgan

Shuffle? You mean the way it is sometimes said that persons who "suffer" an "excess" of melanin are reputed to walk? Said, of course, by those who really do suffer...from insufficient intelligent to "risk" crossing the street without a keeper.

"Risk everything for a new idea?" Are you under the impression, Hank, that capitalists do that?

What they generally "risk" is other people's money. I'd be quite a regular at my neighborhood casino...if only I could get others to put up their money to test my new system. :biggrin:

From what creative people have written on the subject, the real reward of a new idea is its success...and the recognition that comes with it. Most genuine innovators have no time to concern themselves with money -- and are thoroughly cheated by the capitalist class as a result -- because innovators are caught up in enthusiasm for their creative field.

Ask any scientist or engineer...would s/he rather win a Nobel Prize or be as rich as Bill Gates? It is, in fact, the parasites like Mr. Gates that need to be eliminated from the social order...by making it impossible for them to exist.

I suspect the best way at the present time to become rich through "innovation" is to think up a new "investment" scam. I admire those folks out in Arizona (I think) who convinced hordes of suckers to invest in a scheme that was backed by the "Lord Jesus Himself"...thousands of stupid christians lost their asses!

Go ye and do likewise.

:cool:

[HankMorgan]

redstar2000,

"Shuffle" - I was looking for another synonym for walk. It had nothing to do with melanin. Someday PC will be gone and we won't have to worry about what we say or write. In the meantime, I apologize to anyone who may have been offended by my poor choice of a synonym for walk.

"Risk everything for a new idea" - Hell yes. That's what Capitalist do. They risk everything up to and including the mortgage on the house. The borrow money from everyone including friends and family. Just read the history of almost any business.

It's the Bill Gates of the world that drive the world. There are the first order jobs he created like the programmers that work for Microsoft, the second order jobs manufacturing personal computers, third order jobs in sales and tech support and on and on it goes. Gates isn't a parasite, he's a host.

The system that allows a Bill Gates to exist also let's my friend open a restaurant. My friend and his staff are able to buy food, clothing and shelter for their families. In exactly the same way as Bill Gates, my friend is CREATING wealth (By wealth, I don't mean riches, just the where with all to live).

Redstar2000, you look at Bill Gates and see something wrong. You thing Bill Gates stole that vast wealth. You think we must create a system where billions can't be stolen.

I look at Bill Gates and I see something beautifully right. Bill Gates didn't steal his fortune. HE CREATED IT along with the incomes of thousands of people who don't even work for Microsoft.

If you eliminate the likes of Bill Gates (and my friend with the family restaurant) you will be killing the goose that is the only source of golden eggs.

I liked your post. It had style and it wasn't full of crap. We disagree but that's the fun of che-lives.

[synthesis]

If an economic system can't "work" without material incentives... then how on earth did feudalism "work"?

I admire those folks out in Arizona (I think) who convinced hordes of suckers to invest in a scheme that was backed by the "Lord Jesus Himself"...thousands of stupid christians lost their asses!

That's a pretty capitalist thing to say, dude.

[redstar2000]

Hank, I've heard that phrase "creating wealth" and "wealth creators" many times in the last few decades but, like transubstantiation, I just can't seem to grasp its real material meaning.

That is, anyone who takes the raw materials of the world, provides an input of labor power, and creates something useful has "created wealth".

Your friend does this in a more complicated way with his restaurant--and perhaps is risking a great deal of his personal net worth...though if, like most small restaurants, he goes bust, I somehow don't think he's really likely to end up living on the sidewalk and eating out of dumpsters.

What "wealth" did Bill Gates create? A CD containing a Windows system costs less than a penny to manufacture. The total amount paid to the programmers was certainly a substantial sum...but far less than 50 billion dollars. There are other real costs to factor in...but you know as well as I that the vast bulk of Gates' personal fortune could only have been accumulated in a system rigged in favor of the rich and against everyone else.

To even suggest that there would have been no operating system without Gates is, I'm sure you will agree, nonsense. Indeed, Linus Tolvald is a flat refutation of the whole thesis of this thread...that brilliant innovators can only exist if they have the incentive of great wealth.

The USSR, with all its many faults, actually did quite well in the field of basic and applied research...winning quite a few Nobel Prizes, for example.

And even a small country like Cuba has innovated successfully more than most people are aware of...particularly in the area of medical research and genetics.

Innovation, Hank, I think is a human characteristic...and the only real debate between us is which system provides a superior climate for innovation.

My sarcastic response (drawing the mis-placed wrath of DyerMaker) is that innovation under late capitalism is increasingly the innovation of fraud. Forget about a new, superior product; if you want to get rich now, figure out a new and improved way to steal. Crack those lawbooks and root out those loopholes. Call it the "Cast Your Bread Upon the Waters Fund" and never accept personal checks. :biggrin:

:cool:

[synthesis]

My sarcastic response (drawing the mis-placed wrath of DyerMaker)

Nah, I figured you weren't serious. It was, after all, a very capitalist thing to say... and I don't have many doubts as to your views on capitalism :biggrin: