Why has Communism failed everywhere ? A chance for commies to explain

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Capitalism IS fundamentally a free market system. However, you can put a certain number of restraints on the free market and still have the essence of capitalism - private ownership of capital and production for exchange-value.

And that's where you differ with Libbies. To Libbies, a system isn't properly capitalistic if the market is disrupted. To you, a system is properly capitalistic even if there are these restraints on the free market, because the essence of capitalism is the PPotMoP and exchange-value, not the freedom of the market.
A notable un-free market that was capitalistic was nazi Germany. The holders of capital (the owners of the Konzerne) produced items that they sold for their exchange-value. The job market was barely free, wages were fixed, and the capitalists did earn huge profits in the operation.
Yet, the economy was extremely interventionistic, was full of favoritism (it's not like the German markets were open to the competition). This is the antithesis of capitalism per Berz's definition. This does correspond to a particular brand of capitalism by yours.

But what is the essence of communism besides not capitalism? State ownership? Worker ownership? No ownership? State mandated prices and production? Still a free market driving demand? Equal wages? Wage disparity based on task complexity? Effort? Performance? What?

For Communism, ask Che. He's a Communist, and I'm not (I don't think Odin and Azazel are Commies either).

For Socialism, the primary idea is the collective management of the means of production, even if the particulars may vary (be it done through public ownership, worker ownership, no ownership, or heck, a Socialist could even come up with the idea that the private owner is still here, only that he has no power nor share of the profits whatsoever ).
The concept is often called "public ownership of the means of production", but the people who use that phrase may do it out of simplicity, and not necessarily envision a system where the worker has shares in their company.

The State-interventionism in a Socialist economy doesn't belong to its fundamentals, just like it isn't a central aspect to define capitalism: if Sweden can be a capitalist country (and it is), pretty much every country could be capitalist.

The amount of wages / welfare is again not a central aspect to define Socialism, although it had been historically used to rally supporters. Just like under capitalism, where you'll see some societies striving to reduce income unequality, while others encourage income disparity.

The nature of the market is no central point in the definition either. Some will support a free or free-ish market, some others will support a planned or planned-ish economy. Just like some Capitalists have supported planification in the past (France in the 1950's had plans that actually meant something), and now many capitalists support a grade of free-market that would have passed as insane decades ago.

In short, we Socialists vary on the particulars, which are also open to debate in a capitalist system. We are however united on the one firm principle that the means of production should be publicly managed, rather than managed by the owner. I don't think you could find a Socialist or Commie that disagrees with that. You may find some people in the CPA who disagree with that statement, however, but I don't see their belonging to the CPA as caused by the willingness to have a Socialist or Communist economy.

[Kontiki]

Ok, this is where the problem lies.

But what is the essence of communism besides not capitalism?

Social ownership of the means of production.

What consititutes social ownership? Government ownership? Worker ownership (distinct as in the workers in a particular factory own that particular factory, not everyone else in society owns it)?

Distribution based on need.

Sounds great. Who decides on needs? I can see making sure everyone has enough to eat, a roof over their head, basic education and health care, but where do you go from there?

The abolition of class society.

Leaving aside the questions that arise from the rather loader term "class", this isn't a feature of a system but rather an (possible) outcome.

Rational allocation of the resources of society.

A completely meaningless platitude.

Communal/social decision making in more spheres of life (work, school, etc.)

As is this.

Is there nothing actually concrete?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kontiki

What consititutes social ownership? Government ownership? Worker ownership (distinct as in the workers in a particular factory own that particular factory, not everyone else in society owns it)?

In my form of Socialism, the vital industries are controled by the government, each vital industry is controled by a council of economists and experts in that field, appointed by Congress/Parliment. The nonvital industries (entertainment, luxury goods, some food, soft drinks, computer games, etc.) are owned by worker-run corporations, basically co-ops or syndicates, in a regulated free market enviroment.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kontiki

But what is the essence of communism besides not capitalism?

Social ownership of the means of production.

What consititutes social ownership? Government ownership? Worker ownership (distinct as in the workers in a particular factory own that particular factory, not everyone else in society owns it)?

I think that's a question for each society to decide, rather than have some theoretcian on high give a pronouncement. I personally favor state ownership, with democratic worker-managed workplaces, responding to the requests of a regional / national / industrial sector planning body.

For example, a planning board might say, "we anticpate we're going to need half a million new houses this year." Various worker-run contruction co-ops would then submit proposals on how best to meet this need. The planning body would look at each of the proposals, make suggestions, changes, etc. then allocate work and resources.

Distribution based on need.

Sounds great. Who decides on needs? I can see making sure everyone has enough to eat, a roof over their head, basic education and health care, but where do you go from there?

Why not let the people decide that question for themselves, democratically?

The abolition of class society.

Leaving aside the questions that arise from the rather loader term "class", this isn't a feature of a system but rather an (possible) outcome.

It's both. Capitalists tend to be born into their class, but some people do rise from lower classes. By and large, your place in society is largely dependent on where you father was in society. Just because class in capitalism is more fluid, less rigid, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Rational allocation of the resources of society.

A completely meaningless platitude.

No, it's not. Right now, resources are allocated by each individual capitalist. On a societal level, resources are allocated chaotically, with the result that resources tend to be over-allocated in areas of high profit, which leads to overproduction, and the periodic crises to which capitalism is subject.

At the same time, areas which aren't profitable, say research into certain diseases, receive less attention, so called orphan diseases. Pharaseutical companies would rather research impotence cures rather than discover treatments for rare blood types.

Communal/social decision making in more spheres of life (work, school, etc.)

As is this.

What's a meaningless platitutde about saying that the workplace and school will be democratically run? How many democratic workerplaces do you know? How many schools are run democratically? In most spheres in our society, our lives are run in a hierarchical fashion. We aim to abolish all hierarchies.

Is there nothing actually concrete?

One doesn't write blueprints for the new society before you ge there. I know you want me to give you something, but such "plans" would be arbitrary, and have my personal stamp on them, rather than being determined democratically and rationally with people who have a lot more information than I have.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You forget that compared to us, you live in a communist country.

Nope-- just a prosperous free market society that is willing to pay a little more for a bit more protection for our people

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[At a certain level, it's all about capitalism. Why are the terrorists attacking us? Because we prevoiusly engaged in certain activities in order to ensure a steady and cheap supply of oil.

err umm Israel ? Palestinian issues etc??

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[Because we were (supposedly) afraid he'd be able to seize control of most of the ME's oil. Why'd we invade Panama? Because (supposedly) their dictator was engaged in the drug trade? The root causes of the fight in Afganistan hail back to the Cold War, which was definately about capitalism.

I think you are confusing capitalsim with security issues for nation states. As long as there are different nations, they will want to ensure adequate rsources for their populations.

Also afghanistan could be equally said to be "definitely about communism" since it was the communists that invaded.

Even if you accept that the cold war was about resources, does this necessarily make it about capitalism? You could have had the same competitio for resources and power between two competing dictatorial command economies

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I think that's a question for each society to decide, rather than have some theoretcian on high give a pronouncement. I personally favor state ownership, with democratic worker-managed workplaces, responding to the requests of a regional / national / industrial sector planning body.

For example, a planning board might say, "we anticpate we're going to need half a million new houses this year." Various worker-run contruction co-ops would then submit proposals on how best to meet this need. The planning body would look at each of the proposals, make suggestions, changes, etc. then allocate work and resources.

Interesting, and somewhat amusing. But at the heart of it, your answer is really "I don't know, whatever they decide". I'm a little curious who makes up these planning boards, though, and how this doesn't lead to either different classes and/or horrifically bad decisions.

Why not let the people decide that question for themselves, democratically?

Wait, so is it based on need or is it based on popular opinion? What if the vast majority of people who aren't alcoholics decide that you don't need to allocate any more resources to the treatment of alcoholism?

It's both. Capitalists tend to be born into their class, but some people do rise from lower classes. By and large, your place in society is largely dependent on where you father was in society. Just because class in capitalism is more fluid, less rigid, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It has nothing to do with whether it exists or not, you can't just waive your hand and say that classes don't exist anymore. It's an outcome of actual policies - income equalization, forceable extraction of wealth, or something like that. So what are the actual policies?

No, it's not. Right now, resources are allocated by each individual capitalist. On a societal level, resources are allocated chaotically, with the result that resources tend to be over-allocated in areas of high profit, which leads to overproduction, and the periodic crises to which capitalism is subject.

At the same time, areas which aren't profitable, say research into certain diseases, receive less attention, so called orphan diseases. Pharaseutical companies would rather research impotence cures rather than discover treatments for rare blood types.

Yes, it is a meaningless platitude because it's completely subjective. I may agree with you that resources aren't always allocated in the best way right now, but that doesn't mean I agree with you as to what you'd consider a "rational allocation". And I'm sure I could find some people that would say we have a "rational" allocation right now. It's no different than if you ask me what flavors there are at the Baskin Robbins down the street, and I reply "the best flavors".

What's a meaningless platitutde about saying that the workplace and school will be democratically run? How many democratic workerplaces do you know? How many schools are run democratically? In most spheres in our society, our lives are run in a hierarchical fashion. We aim to abolish all hierarchies.

It's meaningless for the same reason as the above statement - it's totally subjective, not to mention unrealistic. Are schoolboards in the US democratically run? Don't you elect schoolboard officials? Do the parents not have a say in education, or am I imagining all the teaching creationism in school threads? Or is this stuff mandated from another elected government body? And how many democratically run schools and workplaces do I know? Not many. How many would completely collapse if that was the way they were run? Probably a whole lot.

One doesn't write blueprints for the new society before you ge there. I know you want me to give you something, but such "plans" would be arbitrary, and have my personal stamp on them, rather than being determined democratically and rationally with people who have a lot more information than I have.

Then one is just throwing out pie-in-the-sky ideas that boil down to "it's whatever people want it to be, as long as it's not capitalism". But what if people want it to be capitalism? And if it's up to each society, how do you know that there aren't going to be numerous types which may lead to conflict between one another? Do you get back into the circular reasoning of "It's utopia because it's communism. Why is communism utopia? Because it's communism, and it's utopia".

[Xin Yu]

Just to clarify something from the above several posts. Pure fact, no opinion.

Communist society, at its final stage, has no capitals. In other words, no money, basically (hence no market). Private ownership maybe, but you cannot sell it for money.

The goal of eliminating money is right to the point -- because money is the source of all evil. How to live without money is an issue though

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Xin Yu


Agreed. However it is required for ANY ideal society that excessive greedy must be controlled. Let me repeat: you have to have it or your society is not an ideal one. I would like to loose the condition to 'nobody can be extremely greedy' (meaning anybody who is extremely greedy would not be able to survive in such a society). That should still work, provided that the other condition holds.

It does not require extreme greed for people to be dissatisfied with their condition. People will show dissatisfaction if they perceive others as being advantaged over them

Originally posted by Xin Yu


That will not be the issue if technology is very advanced. Computers can create 'virtue view's for a house, for example, to make every house attractive. It will be so nice that if you are not extremely greedy you should be satisfied.

You are kidding right . .. you must be. Do you think wanting to be on the ocean is only about the view?? Nope. Its about the swimming and surfing and other activities that go on there. Why cannot you accept the obvious fact that even if you standardize the homes, there will be locations that will be much more attractive then others to more people ( closer to work or on a park, not near the airport or the noisy nightclub)

Or does magic techology remove the commute, mask all noises and teleport people to the beach with a twitch of their nose.

Originally posted by Xin Yu


You can argue that these are not possible to achieve, and hence discard the idea.

Thats pretty much where I am at on this issue

Originally posted by Xin Yu



So, unless you believe that there will never be an ideal society (if so, why live?), you have to believe that communism is possible. That is why I'm not against communism -- I want to believe that there will be an ideal society in the future, but other than a communist one I cannot think of any other form for it.

While never is a long time, I do not see an ideal society occurring in my conceivable lifetime. So why live? Because life is fun . . you strive and attempt and succeed and fail and experience wonders and heartbreak .. . Thats why I live.

AS for your ideal society, it sounds so advanced that its probably irrelevant what economic system is used. Even if capitalist, the poorest would have a very high standard of living compared to today

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Why not let the people decide that question for themselves, democratically?

Isn't that what the capitalist democracies do? The US could have social programs like Sweden if enough people raised a fuss about it.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It's both. Capitalists tend to be born into their class, but some people do rise from lower classes. By and large, your place in society is largely dependent on where you father was in society. Just because class in capitalism is more fluid, less rigid, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It exists hmmmm-- so what class was/am I in? I grew up in a rural area. My grandparents were essentially laborers.... My parents a teacher and a nurse. Now I am a lawyer. Am I a worker or a capitalist? I and my parnets and grandparents all owned stock at some pointin their lives ( even if it was only through pension plans or retirement funds). I remember seeing that something like 70% of Canadians over age 35 own some stock in some form (I don't have a cite so this could be wrong). Assume this is true for the moment . .. Does this mean that 70% ofCanadians are the capitalists that are so offensively exploiting the workers??

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[
At the same time, areas which aren't profitable, say research into certain diseases, receive less attention, so called orphan diseases. Pharaseutical companies would rather research impotence cures rather than discover treatments for rare blood types.

And would this necessarily differ if the communal board determined research goals. Unless you assume unlimited resources, choices must be made and the result may not be any more funding for a rare disease than you see now. IN fact such research would not even register as a major communal interest. Do you think a communal board with a number of middle-aged men on it will suddenly lose interest in curing impotence.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
One doesn't write blueprints for the new society before you ge there. I know you want me to give you something, but such "plans" would be arbitrary, and have my personal stamp on them, rather than being determined democratically and rationally with people who have a lot more information than I have.

I agree as to details but no one is expecting you to implement your preferred society-- But a number of communists on here rail against the current system. I can see and acknowledge those complaints, in some instances I share them. But communists generally talk about replacing the current system with something else. I think its fair ball to ask what that something else happens to be. In some case, the communist is what I would term a "utopiaist"-- all of the worlds problems magically dissolve in a communist system with no comment as to how that happens. Others, including yourself, seem more realistic and thats why I personally like to hear how you would see things working. Because frankly, every time I look at the range of communist ideas, I conclude that the vast majority of them simply would not work.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber



hmmm

THE ACT OF EMPLOYING TO THE GREATEST POSSIBLE ADVANTAGE. I like it.

See I thought you were trying to use it like this:

an act that exploits or victimizes someone (treats them unfairly); "capitalistic exploitation of the working class";

You will admit that "exploitation"seems to be a loaded term with connotations of unfairness. But if you mean that a capitalist exploits workers in the same way the miner exploits copper, in that both are employed as efficiently as possible, that seems acceptable.

But kid, you keep saying that exploitation is bad, so I assume you mean to incorporate some unfairness in the meaning of the word as you use it. It is this that I reject. I do not accept that capitalism necessarily "exploits" workers in that I do not accept that they are victimized or treated unfairly.

Exploitation is unfair. If someone else does the work and you exploit their work (pay them less than it is worth), then that's unfair. Exploitaiton, as it is defined, is something that is necessary for capitalism, and it is unfair.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


That about sums up the rationality of your views

That fact that you don't understand how competition for resources causes conflict really shows how reasonable you are about what we are talking about.

[Xin Yu]

Originally posted by Flubber
Do you think wanting to be on the ocean is only about the view?? Nope. Its about the swimming and surfing and other activities that go on there.

But these can be achieved as well by advanced technology. You can have a swimming pool that gives a virtue beach feeling.

Originally posted by Flubber
Why cannot you accept the obvious fact that even if you standardize the homes, there will be locations that will be much more attractive then others to more people ( closer to work or on a park, not near the airport or the noisy nightclub)

People can work from home and do shopping from home. Park is everywhere since office buildings and retail stores can be made like parks. Airports may not exist since people have private flying saucers. Nightclubs may have high standard sound proof mechanisms to prevent it from being noisy.

Originally posted by Flubber
AS for your ideal society, it sounds so advanced that its probably irrelevant what economic system is used. Even if capitalist, the poorest would have a very high standard of living compared to today

In communism there is no riches and poors, because money is eliminated.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Exploitation is unfair. If someone else does the work and you exploit their work (pay them less than it is worth), then that's unfair. Exploitaiton, as it is defined, is something that is necessary for capitalism, and it is unfair.

There you are right on cue.

I reject that assertion.

I find it hilarious that a worker could be fairly paid at$30 per hour if that was the total value of their production but unfairly paid at $ 300 per hour if that wasn't the complete value of what they produced.

I also don't see workers giving back their paychecks if what they produce is of no value

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


That fact that you don't understand how competition for resources causes conflict really shows how reasonable you are about what we are talking about.

Since your quote was about capitalists eating babies and since my views align pretty much with a democratic system supported by the vast majority of the 30 million people here, I am quite comfortable in the reasonableness of my views.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Xin Yu

But these can be achieved as well by advanced technology. You can have a swimming pool that gives a virtue beach feeling.



People can work from home and do shopping from home. Park is everywhere since office buildings and retail stores can be made like parks. Airports may not exist since people have private flying saucers. Nightclubs may have high standard sound proof mechanisms to prevent it from being noisy.




In communism there is no riches and poors, because money is eliminated.

So thats it -- technology solves everything-- Tell you what-- I'll support your theory the dau I pick up my free private flying saucer ( BTW what a waste of resources to give one to everybody )