Isn't communism too idealistic?

Do we not see the mantra from each according to ability to each according to need worked out every day in the factory floor? Every worker works as much as they can, and they receive exactly what they need to preform that work.

The model for socialism lies in the factory.

But instead of being controlled by the Capitalist, the worker's will form a free association that control their own work places and every other facet of society in this way.

The idea that "power corrupts" is the idealist one actually. When the working class comes into power, it is in the interests of the international proletariat to abolish class society, which is to say, remove its power over others since after that, it merely has power over itself, which is to say autonomy.

The commune.

Edit: Individuals would take what they feel is their need within reason.

No it wouldn't.

I agree power corrupts.

Yes, but this is minimized under a socialist economy and especially so under communism as it lacks currency.

Every worker doesn't work as much as they can. They work for a predetermined set of hours.

An autonomous group of 7 billion people is not idealistic, but the idea that power corrupts is idealistic?

So how does the commune assign what billions of people should be doing?

A commune doesn't decide what billions do. A commune decides what the commune does. Communes would, ideally, be localized while larger scale economic planning would be done by a regional federation. Also I don't think jobs will be so much 'assigned' by the time communism is achieved due to increased automation of production. No reason to force an individual into a specific occupation.

BTW, I actually had a brain fart when I read his post. The commune may decide the individual limits to need within the commune, but the idea is that on an individual basis people would only take what they feel is necessary for themselves.

I just read the Communist Theory FAQ, by Engels and affirmed my suspicions:

One could spend their entire life learning and not be familiar with the "entire system of production." At least not familiar enough to maintain, repair and optimize various areas of production.

Outdated Marxist works don't mean a lot to an Anarchist like myself(not to say Marxism isn't a major part of my own ideological views). Communism can be organized under various means.

With large scale economic planning comes power, and with power comes corruption and the attempt to consolidate power. Haven't you been paying attention to human history?

And I'm still confused on who assigns whom to do what. The automation brought to us by modern technology requires a huge level of specialization that people spend their entire lives studying. It isn't like one day you can be a nurse giving out vaccines for the flu, and the next day you are in a nuclear power plant control room ensuring that the reactors don't overheat, and the next day you are studying molecular biology to find a cure for AIDs.

Is it idealistic? Yes. Is that bad? No. Only with such ideals as our goals can we truly progress.

Which is why I said "too idealistic." As in, too idealistic for the theory to translate into reality.

Communism isn't idealistic. It is materialistic.

Communism, in my own opinion, would bring about localized direct democratic decision making. Larger scale decision making would be made by instantly re-callable reps from each commune within a federation of communes. Can't get much better than that. What point are you trying to make about human history because it sounds like you're full of shit.

The individual would, ideally, choose their own occupation in most cases. Though an uneducated individual can't randomly choose to be a doctor or electrical engineer. Education would still be a pre-requisite for some careers.

Automation of production typically refers to the mechanized production of goods like food, shoes, cars, building materials, and several other things. A person that wants to be a doctor or some other specialized career would need the necessary education. That goes without saying. This is all quite simple. Just because the economy is supposed to be democratic doesn't mean we get rid of educational standards. We do, however, get rid of education costs which afford a much larger number of people education opportunities.

Power corrupts and tries to consolidate power is bullshit? I thought the entire premise of communism was to disable the corrupt bourgeoisie who consolidates their power whenever possible?

People who design, maintain and optimize these systems have a specialized education. It takes tons of specialty for modern production industry to run, and automation only increases the required specialty, not decreases it.

So who decides to go to school for 12+ years to become a surgeon and does the high stress work of a surgeon, when they could opt to have a much easier life style? There will be some, but will it be enough to fill the needs of the many?

Power does corrupt. Now this isn't a case for the total dismemberment of it, but rather a redistribution of it. Direct Democracy, instantly re-callable officials, Committees of 5,7,10, 15+ people making important local decisions instead of one boss or a small gov. for the whole town. Each town would have multiple communes with their own committees. Next up the ladder would probably be the town committee and then a state sized one. Each commune in a federation with all other communes of its size and authority.


Some people actually become doctors because they like helping people, shocking, I know. I'll give you a minute to let it sink in.

The all mighty dollar does not rule one's every decision (although it is very significant) and it would rule just a sliver of what it does if we had socialism. You would be free to chose your job. It would seem that health standards would increase ten or twenty fold world wide resulting in the need for less doctors, due to a drop in disease and injury.

The slogan you quote is to be taken to indicate free access to products and means to produce more products.
As such, this mode of production, characerized by the immediate appropriation of conditions of labour (getting rid of capital as a mediating instance) and the products of labour is a tendency of a socialist/communist society in so far as it rests upon the advance, the increase in labour productivity (meaning instead of 3 Xs per hour of labour, we get 6 Xs) which is enabled by technological gains and the reorganization of production.

There is still room for corruption here. Instantly re-callable officials still requires a majority, so if the majority are benefited by the decisions of the committee, will a committee member instantly be recalled?




Which I already mentioned. Shocking, I know. :rolleyes:

The question is, will there be enough people willing and able to put the effort into years and years of medical school, grueling training and a stressful job when they could choose an easier route and maintain the same standard of living?

If you are going to make up numbers, why not go bigger?

The means to produce more products includes individuals who sacrifice in order to learn things that may not be enjoyable to learn.

How long until you have a shortage of individuals willing to take years of math, science and engineering to maintain the means to produce more products?

共产主义是不能理想化。它是物质的。：wub：

I dislike the animosity in the responses.

Cuba has no high wages for doctors, yet it has the highest rate of doctors after San Marino in the world.

EDIT: A reply to similar arguments on another forum:

"Every good that can be produced in such a quantity that it is able to satisfy everyone's needs will be distributed according to needs, like food, clothing, most electronics presumably, transportation, communication, etc. Products that cannot be produced in such a quantity as to satisfy everyone's needs (e.g. yachts, sports cars, and other luxurious goods) will not be distributed according to needs.

More examples, in countries with 'free' healthcare, do people use health care excessively? No. When you eat Thanksgiving/Christmas dinner with your family, is food rationed equally? Do your family members pay? In all likeliness everyone takes according to needs. When there's free coffee at work, how much do you take? All because it's free? I hope not. Students and senior citizens who have free transportation, do they make excessive use of it? No. They use according to needs, without problems. Then we have public libraries, roads, free education (e.g. Sweden), etc. etc., all used according to needs (granted, they are not "free" as one pays through taxation, but USE is according to needs)."

And:
Bam! I stopped reading there. This is a gross misrepresentation of communism. No communist advocates this. There was a socialist movement that advocated it, the kibbutzem movement, but no communist advocates this. It. does. not. work.

Let's simplify, say we could categorize "needs" in numerical utils ranging from 1 to 10. Then there are some people who want to remunerate according to needs, that is, wages distributed according to needs.

So, my (self-determined) needs are 5, then my wage will be set to 5. It's useless isn't it? If my needs are 5, I will only consume 5 whether I get paid 5 needs in dollars or whether all goods are provided for free. My needs are unchanged. If I get paid 6 in wages, I will still only consume 5 as those are all I needed. If I get paid 4, I can no longer consume according to needs. REMUNERATION ACCORDING TO NEEDS IS EITHER IMPOSSIBLE OR USELESS. It's like setting minimum wage at equilibrium wage!

The abolition of money is a requisite for distribution according to needs on a economy-wide scale.

Then I Ctrl+F'd "needs" and saw something like "you cannot have people decide their own needs, then they would say they need a yacht". Another frequently cited argument against communism (though usually they use a Ferrari). One with little substance. The fallacy here is that she looks at the aggregate economy rather than individual consumer goods. Take water, it can be consumed according to needs. Why? Because of demand inelasticity. Tap water in many countries is 'free', does this mean excessive consumption? No. When you go into a public restroom and you wash your hand, do you use an excessive amount of water to wash your hands? No, because of demand inelasticity of water."