Any commies out there?

[Flubber]

I'm bored and at Toronto airport and wondered if we had any supporters of communism still out there? I am not talking socialists who believe in a welfare state or the lefty liberals who are in favor of more and more profgerssive taxation and wealth redistribution policies-- I am talking supporters of old-school comminism ( you can pick the flavor you like)

leaving bloody dictatorial history aside ( since capitalism has its share of that as well,) my problem with communism has always been about incentives to produce. State communal or centrally planned farms have always been less productive than when the state allowed people their individual plots, for example. generall productivity in most things are lower in communist states.

So my question is how do you incentivize the masses to work hard in a truly communist state (and I accept some idealistic or just generally hard workers will do so anyway) but how do you get the masses working harder? How do you incentivize me to do a job that is harder than other jobs or requires tougher training?Who decides who gets the job on the ski hill or golf course (which absent differences in income would be the ones I would seek). I have never understood how you equalize job difficulty---


So if there are any communists out there explain it to me.. Oh and go slow because if you start with some premise like "Rent is unfair exploitation" I want you to explain that too and not just take some communist premise as a complete given.



I'm getting on a plane in about 60 minutes but when I get home I would be interested to see any rational explanations-- I've been reading Alan Greenspan lately and he writes so utterly dismissively of communism that I am interested to see if there are any defenders still out there.

[Guaymiester Schwengel]

Pearson is getting to you.

[Flubber]

Pearson is getting to you.

So who's DL are you ?

[metalhead]

I think it mischaracterizes people to think they are incapable of working without individual monetary incentive. I mean, there certainly are people out there like that, but I'm not sold on the conclusion that it's human nature to be like that. You see a lot of selfless people out there as well. The *******s just get more attention.

That's not to say I support Communism, but I do think that the main argument against it, ie that it can't work because of the way people are, doesn't necessarily hold water.

[Guaymiester Schwengel]

So who's DL are you ?

I'm not a DL. I'm just making people so comfortable...they feel like they have knwon me for years.

[Mojotronica]

Marx's idea was that once the means of production were in the hands of the people, they would own them, and have the incentive of the owner of the means of production. Marx ultimately felt that capitalism's incentives were mis-aligned because sooner or later the majority of working class would figure out that they had no real stake in that system.

So from his POV, it is capitalism that has the weaker incentives, and communism is closer to working for your own real gain.

[Flubber]

I think it mischaracterizes people to think they are incapable of working without individual monetary incentive. I mean, there certainly are people out there like that, but I'm not sold on the conclusion that it's human nature to be like that. You see a lot of selfless people out there as well. The *******s just get more attention.

That's not to say I support Communism, but I do think that the main argument against it, ie that it can't work because of the way people are, doesn't necessarily hold water.

Well my very premise mentioned that SOME folks would be hard-working etc etc-- But there is the fact that communist economies were far less productive than corresponding capitalist ones.


I would also dispute you on the idea that most people will work their ass off. I have already seen it anecdotally with people in dead end or union jobs-- the effort is minimal in many many cases. Take a junior manager with hopes of advancement and the effort is much much higher

[loinburger]

So who's DL are you ?

"whose", the phrase "so who is DL are you" makes no sense.

[Flubber]

Marx's idea was that once the means of production were in the hands of the people, they would own them, and have the incentive of the owner of the means of production. Marx ultimately felt that capitalism's incentives were mis-aligned because sooner or later the majority of working class would figure out that they had no real stake in that system.

So from his POV, it is capitalism that has the weaker incentives, and communism is closer to working for your own real gain.

Blah blah blah-- theory that doesn't ever work in practice. At nation-state level the theoretical benefits of greater state production to the worker are just that- theoretical-- Offer a bonus to the highest producing worker on the shift and its very real

[Flubber]

"whose", the phrase "so who is DL are you" makes no sense.

spelling nazi-- I type badly and don't spell check-- so go tell someone that gives a flying f***

[metalhead]

That's true, but recognizing that when structuring your society is a crucial part of instituting Communism. Expecting lazy folks to contribute to something like farming is pointless. But that doesn't mean you can't expect them to contribute to something. I don't know much about exactly how Communist societies have historically been structured, but you can work around it. You could also institute a communist society that still provides some rewards for hard work and education. With, for example, a bigger house or a nicer car, or license to possess more things.

[Flubber]

Off to my plane and a refreshing shot of booze-- bye for now

[Mojotronica]

I'm not a Communist, but Marx would say that union labor is a poor example because the union workers are still not owners. They really are not properly incentivized to work any harder.

The refutation of the USSR and Communist China and old Communist bloc nations as failed "Communist" systems is that they were agricultural societies that went Communist without developing an industrial system. Marx' "revolution" is more accurately seen as an "evolution" from agriculture to industrial to communist. Without that interim step, the people aren't empowered enough to have a stake in the system, and it becomes just as dis-incentivized as any other. Those were essentially regime changes within the structure of the old Monarchist system.

Actually the developed Western World is closer to the what Marx had in mind, but we've managed to stave off the disproportion of weath that results in the revolution that leads to true Communism. Disproportionate distribution of wealth is key here.

[OzzyKP]

One question is why should productivity be the top social goal? I'd rather live in a society that was happy over one that was productive.

[metalhead]

It's not so much that productivity is the ultimate social goal, as it is that you need economic productivity to maintain social order and good standing in the global community.