Isn't communism too idealistic?

[Nox]

Why is Communism "idealistic", from an economic perspective there is no reason why it can't be achieved and sustained.

[spens]

Why is Communism "idealistic", from an economic perspective there is no reason why it can't be achieved and sustained.

"It" just seems to be a generic list of catch phrases and groupthink talking points. Not sure how you can determine if it would succeed or fail based on that.

[#FF0000]

"It" just seems to be a generic list of catch phrases and groupthink talking points. Not sure how you can determine if it would succeed or fail based on that.

so have you actually read any sort of communist philosophy or theory or...?

it's also because you pretty much just said you refused to look at how communist and proto-socialist groups actually, you know, did things.

And you seemed to ignore my suggestion of looking into Parecon.

[Nox]

"It" just seems to be a generic list of catch phrases and groupthink talking points.

Yeah ok lol, read Marx then come back, bro.

Also, I wasn't basing my whole opinion whether it would succeed or not based on the economic side of it, I was just pointing out that, economically, it is perfectly achievable. Don't get me wrong though, it is perfectly socially achievable too, so I don't have any idea as to why you don't think it's achievable

[spens]

so have you actually read any sort of communist philosophy or theory or...?

it's also because you pretty much just said you refused to look at how communist and proto-socialist groups actually, you know, did things.

And you seemed to ignore my suggestion of looking into Parecon.

I don't refuse to look at them. I said that is not why I made this thread. I made this thread because I was wondering about member's feelings on whether communism is too idealistic, and how the details work out in the reality.

I've partially addressed what seems to be the job aspects of participatory economics. Jobs within a certain workplace (or possibly larger) are rotated so everyone does everything. But at a single workplace you could have multiple jobs where you need years of specialization and training to do the job proficiently, putting an impossible burden on workers to form an equal rotation.

It is a nice idea that everyone at a specific job site is equally specialized in all the tasks required, but that just seems horribly inefficient and impossible depending on the complexity of that job site.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE]

Except that isn't near as catchy, defeating the purpose of a slogan.

And how to ensure jobs are filled by qualified people isn't some we can answer in any useful way. We could sit here all day and put together a basic blueprint for how a community would run under communism, by it'd be entirely hypothetical and thus entirely useless./QUOTE]

That fellow isn't asking for a blueprint; he or she is asking for an explanation a little more deeper than 'people will figure it out.'

[spens]

Yeah ok lol, read Marx then come back, bro.

Also, I wasn't basing my whole opinion whether it would succeed or not based on the economic side of it, I was just pointing out that, economically, it is perfectly achievable. Don't get me wrong though, it is perfectly socially achievable too, so I don't have any idea as to why you don't think it's achievable

I've been focusing on whether or not it is sustainable, giving communism the benefit of the doubt in that aspect.

I suppose theoretically world wide communism achievable at some time in the future. The most obvious and difficult barriers that I see are the various religions, and I have a feeling religion is going to stick around for awhile. I think everyone on this message board will die well before religion does.

[Rafiq]

Communism isn't idealistic, you are.

Religions and thoughts are just reflections of society. If you abolish the core of that, the ideas will parish as well.

It's basic materialism.

[Nox]

I've been focusing on whether or not it is sustainable, giving communism the benefit of the doubt in that aspect.

I suppose theoretically world wide communism achievable at some time in the future. The most obvious and difficult barriers that I see are the various religions, and I have a feeling religion is going to stick around for awhile. I think everyone on this message board will die well before religion does.

Religion isn't really much of a barrier imo. People can still have their own personal beliefs in a Communist world.

[spens]

Religions and thoughts are just reflections of society. If you abolish the core of that, the ideas will parish as well.

Abolishing the core of society seems pretty difficult to me, especially when so many people are emotionally connected to it.

[spens]

Religion isn't really much of a barrier imo. People can still have their own personal beliefs in a Communist world.

Religion is far more than personal beliefs. Do you consider conservative Islam as compatible with Communism?

[Nox]

Religion is far more than personal beliefs. Do you consider conservative Islam as compatible with Communism?

No religion is truly compatible with Communism, but that doesn't mean they can't co-exist. I'm no expert on Islam, but people can practice their faith as much as they want in their own home, pray 5 times a day in their own home, eat no pork, fast during ramadan... Communism doesn't stop any of this.

[Nox]

Anyway, religion will eventually cease to exist under Communism as children in school are educated in the ways of Science, not religion.

[Nox]

I suppose theoretically world wide communism achievable at some time in the future.

The most obvious and difficult barriers that I see are the various religions, and I have a feeling religion is going to stick around for awhile. I think everyone on this message board will die well before religion does.

Ok, so you've acknowledged that Communism can be achieved, and we have discussed that the 'most obvious and difficult barriers' to Communism (Religions) aren't really much of a barrier at all.

So, from this we have gathered that Communism can be achieved in the future and there aren't any difficult barriers to achieving it.

[spens]

Ok, so you've acknowledged that Communism can be achieved, and we have discussed that the 'most obvious and difficult barriers' to Communism (Religions) aren't really much of a barrier at all.

So, from this we have gathered that Communism can be achieved in the future and there aren't any difficult barriers to achieving it.

That is quite a jump there. And I don't agree that religions aren't really much of a barrier.

Good luck getting all the Muslims to agree that women serve an equal role in society...

[#FF0000]

Good luck getting all the Muslims to agree that women serve an equal role in society...

as an aside, You are stupid

[#FF0000]

[QUOTE=Baseball;2198679]

That fellow isn't asking for a blueprint; he or she is asking for an explanation a little more deeper than 'people will figure it out.'

Then maybe he should read a book or two? Not just of leftist theory but of history?

I've partially addressed what seems to be the job aspects of participatory economics. Jobs within a certain workplace (or possibly larger) are rotated so everyone does everything. But at a single workplace you could have multiple jobs where you need years of specialization and training to do the job proficiently, putting an impossible burden on workers to form an equal rotation.

Then clearly we would have to do something different for those kinds of jobs, wouldn't we? If there's a need for people with certain highly specialized skills, then there would be training available for the job (for any job), and people who were stuck with that kind of job would get some kind of extra benefit if it was even desired.

Look at that. I solved this abstract problem in less than a minute.

[spens]

as an aside, You are stupid

I guess we are almost half way there in some countries. Thanks for the link.

[#FF0000]

I guess we are almost half way there in some countries. Thanks for the link.

You realize that this religious fundamentalism and conservatism that's so common in the middle-east is a rather new development, right?

I hate to de-rail but it's like every time someone says a thing about the middle east, it's wrong.

[spens]

Then clearly we would have to do something different for those kinds of jobs, wouldn't we? If there's a need for people with certain highly specialized skills, then there would be training available for the job (for any job), and people who were stuck with that kind of job would get some kind of extra benefit if it was even desired.

Look at that. I solved this abstract problem in less than a minute.

The problem with your solution is that it defeats one purpose of balanced job participation: limiting or eliminating knowledge monopolization.