In the 'Americans and Literature' thread discussion turned to communism and socialism, with objections raised that these political systems are impossible to implement. I thought it better to continue the discussion here than hijack that thread. I would very much like to hear and discuss peoples views about this as I am of the opinion that they could (and do) work. For starters, I think it would be better if you have read this - http://www.gutenberg.net/etext/61 (The Communist Manifesto by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx) - before commenting, although by no means am I suggesting you don't post if you haven't/won't read it. Most people objections rely on pointing to failed communist movements and saying 'there, look, it doesn't work'. This is not a logical argument against communism. It's like saying cars don't work because yours is broken. Here is my favourite bit from the above text :
Communism and Socialism will always fail. The idea of a 'true' communist state where everyone is equal and giving according to their ability can't work. Someone must always be in charge giving orders and directing the workers. I think socialism could work, but has never truly in the past. People are just too greedy, too religious, and too ambitious. The idea that we as a people can't have anything for ourselves is just wrong. We will always want that little garden plot just for ourselves, the apple tree, the rose bushes. If I grow something and someone else can demand that I turn it over to them because "they don't have it" that just isn't right. I know that this isn't a very good analogy, but it gets my point across.
I don't think having managers and overseers is against the tenets of communism, so I don't think that argument carries weight. Marx didn't say you cannot own produce from an apple tree, he said : When you start selling your apples to make a profit from people who don't have access to land on which they can grow their own apples, that is what communism is against... EDIT: This quote is also very relevant:
Perhaps it would help if we considered the fact that all communist states to date have been dictatorships- hardly the most conducive medium for humanism and cooperation. Through time, the importance of the soviets as a means of government was lost. It requires some form of reinforcing structure.
Quick question for any of the communists (not stirring, I actually am curious). Why do all communist states have a cult of personality around their leaders, when the very idea of hero worship seems to be the antithesis of communist culture? And I agree with many of the above posts - communism is a great idea but there will always be a greedy person who will take advantage in a situation where everyone starts equal. Also, many (most?) people are happy to follow and be led/controlled, rather than deal with the realities of an equal participation. The beginning of communism is revolution - a behaviour that brings lots of people together, but once the pressure is over, human culture naturally gravitates to a hierarchical system.
I don't know. I guess every movements needs it's charismatic spokesperson. Most dictators seem to have the personality cult thing going on, communist or otherwise... Communism is not about complete and utter equality. The only real equality required is that of the liability to labour. Policemen would still have authority over citizens, managers over workers etc. I don't think it right to dismiss on the grounds that greedy people might abuse it, otherwise you'd have to dismiss pretty much everything... It doesn't require 'equal participation', merely 'participation according to ability'. Hierarchy is not a problem unless the upper tiers own the means of production. Marx thought that the abolition of private property (by which he means that property used to control the means of production, rather than simple belongings) and the implementation of 'liability to labour' would destroy the class system thereby bringing about class equality, not enforcing it. (At least that's how I interpret it).
Real Communism has never happened. You may think I'm mad when I say that every single communist state in the past, be it Cuba, Soviet Union or China, has never been communist. Communism is a word many people throw about without really knowing what it means. Marx and Engels theorised that capitalism had the seeds of it's own destruction inherrantly sown into it, as the capitalists would exploit the proletariat to such a point that eventually they would rise in revolution. Once the capitalists were thown out the proletariat would need to establish a state that could withstand the threat of a capitalist counter revolution. Eventually this state would wither away as it would become unnecessary to the population, and all workers would feel fullfilled in the true communist environment. This true environment is in fact, Anarchy. In a true communist environment there is no compulsive political authority, everybody works because they enjoy it, not because they need to to survive. This draws on a heavily optimistic view of human nature, that believes it is society that has corrupted humanity into a violent, selfish individual rather than as part of a whole. Personally I believe that aside from Marx's brief and good contributions to economics, he was a total cretin. In the communist manifest you may notice that he always says Communism will happen; it is inevitable. At no point does he ever say why or how. And he did say when and where but he got those two wrong. I need to go now, but if anyone would like to destroy their faith in Communism utterly read up on David Hume, David Ricardo and Adam Smith. All predated Marx and all of their ideas are far more relevant.
I'm thinking of what will happen to Hong Kong in less than 50 years time when their way of life will be changed fully. Since the 1997 Handover, Hong Kong was given 50 years of 'Capitalism' left, during that period there will be slight changes now and again, would China decide at the end of those 50 years to leave it as it is (financially a powerful city, high technology, artistic) or would they change it more to fit in with cities like shanghai (which is more like Hong Kong than other China cities)? Hong Kong is a 'capitalist' city under 'communiist' rule, 1 City 2 systems. Granted 50 years is a long time away and most of us won't be here to see what will happen, but our kids will be there to live through it.
THe other thing to consider when looking at past communist/socialist attempts is the fact that they had to exist in constant battle with the capitalist countries around them. Look at Cuba now, for instance; many could say "wow, Cuba is so bad, they can't get imported light bulbs", but this is because of trade embargoes imposed by the USA. Many socialist dictatorships in south/central america could possibly have worked out without the CIA's going in and staging coups, making these areas highly unstable--thereby giving the people a desire to change a government which, left to its own devices, may have worked. I return to Cuba as an example--Cuba has a higher life expectancy and higher rate of literacy than the USA. That's something to think about. What exactly are we measuring "Successful government" by? By how much economic good they have? Or by the happiness of the people. Speaking of which, take a look at Bhutan as an example. THey used to measure success by "gross national happiness", not "gross national product". In comes the influnce of the west in the past two decades, and in comes drug addiction, prostitution, murder, violence, and crime where none had previously existed. I'm rambling... sorry...
Because communism is usually instituted after a revolution, a movement which typically requires at least one strong leader. Why? it's not a particularly well-written book, it's full of fallacies and makes no real points.... So why automatically assume that the hierarchical system is the better one, especially when the communist one is used during the revolution- a time when it would be required to be efficient? Um, you might want to qualify that with some kind of valid argument. Marx was the first economic scientist, viewing society as a product of economics rather than relying on some twisted interpretation of morality, so of necessity he got certain things wrong. Freud, as the first psychologist, also made many well-documented mistakes- but that doesn't make his essential ideas any less relevant.
If everyone works only because they enjoy it what is 'equal liability to labour'? If there is no compulsive political authority how can rent on property be collected by the state and used for the benefit of the people? I don't think your description matches up very well with what is proposed in the manifesto...
I pretty much agree with what has already been said against Communism. I think it would be absolutely wonderful if we could all live in a world like Marx describes. However, Communism is impractical. I think it relies too heavily upon a goodness and fairness that isn't inherent in humans. We are greedy by nature. It all stems back to basic survival and mating instincts that have evolved over millions of years. In general, we need to have better toys, more property, and higher social status than the next guy, because it assures that we get to survive and mate while he may not. Naturally then, a system like Capitalism that accepts competition for wealth and property as a fundemental aspect of its structure will be the more widely used.
In what way does it rely on goodness and fairness? Communism is a form of government, not a friendly agreement. Nothing in it's ideals prevents enforcement of it's laws... Toys, property (rented) and social status are not prohibited by communism though. What is prohibited is capitalising on the labour of others and avoiding having to work oneself. I agree capitalism is more 'natural' and will therefore be more widespread, but I still see no good reason that it is impossible, or even more impractical than democracy, which puts the power straight into the hands of the greedy and manipulative. I don't wish to offend, but pretty much all of the arguments put forward against communism so far seem to stem from misunderstanding.
In my personal opinion, Communiusm will never work because of the inherrant nature of man, the inherrant greed and seeking of power over another. I like the idea of communism, the fairness and equality involved but I just can't see people voluntarily putting themselves in a situation like that. This is where the problem comes in. A government needs some sort of rules and rules enforcement arm to work. To create that you need to put people in charge, negating the equality for all. Afterall, if everyone is equal, why should one work if they don't feel like it. If they don't want to work, how can you force them too. And, they are a member of the commune, so can you cut them off from sharing the produce? As soon as you make laws, you need enforcement, and that creates a heirarchy of power and more chances of corruption in my opinion. I like socialism... where people pay taxes and the goverment uses those taxes to help people though necesaary things like health care, ediucation, social services and so on. I can deal with gov't control of key industries and regulation of certain parts of the economy. There's room for cporruption here too though. In my opinion (and backed by my historical study) there has never been a true "communist" state... lots of socialist ones and lots of dictatorships in the name of communism but never a real communist one. I doubt there ever will be. Then again, maybe my Cold War service brainwashing was extra good!
All men are created equal in the sense that we are all human beings, but no one is equal in terms of ability.
Communism is an economic system not a political system (communist/capitalist). Unforetunetly, it relies on the coopertation and common sense of the people involved to implement successfully. Perhaps, in a nation of philosophers... It is used successfully in small groups, but like any other system it runs into problems with larger groups since totalitarian rule must be used to enforce its policies (another case of the few bad apples spoiling everything). With totalitarian rule comes the opportunity for corruption and what was intended to stop the exploitation of the masses, becomes the vehicle to exploit the masses. True capitalism has never worked either, at the extreme end it degenerates into anarchy. The constant competition results in an escalating price war that erodes the value of everyones efforts to nothing. So at one extreme we have people exploited under oppressive rule; at the other, a market so free that everyone ends up exploiting themselves trying to one-up the competition. That said, the concept behind communisms philosophy of rule is sound i.e. Having people participate willingly rather then by force. You get much better results through motivation and cooperation then you will get through force (and you don't have to sleep with one eye open and have your food checked for poison ).
