Forums → WEPR → Drace - Communism
| 65 | 10167 |
Drace wrote about his feelings concerning communism in another thread topic. It might make for an interesting discussion, so I broke it out and started this thread. Here's what he wrote:
Humans are to enjoy their life as they live, work is not to be done so restrictions to opportunity of pleasure are decreased, but to ensure that the opportunities are always available.
Work is bad because you are doing it so you can live your own life. You work to "buys" you your life. You are born with nothing, and you must work to provide yourself.
It should be done for something you love...thus, shouldn't be payed for it. I wonder how many doctors chose the profession just because of high pay, and how many of the poor would love to be doctors because they really love the job.
This is a reason why I adore communism. (Sorry had to say it)
Drace, I assume you are referring to communism professed by Karl Marx, not the Soviet-styled socialist-totalitarianism of the 20th Century.
The greatest point of criticism for Marxist theory has always been that it underestimates the nature of human greed, and this is why true Marxism has never been attempted at a national-governmental level. Granted, it can be made to work in smaller, relatively self-contained communities, but in a larger system, there is no means of preventing selfish and greedy people from taking advantage of the system.
How do you propose to address this?
- 65 Replies
Heh got scared seeing my name in a topic name ^^
Well Marxism is always given a thumbs down because its a Utopian idea and supposedly Utopian means "Too good to be true".
I'd start by saying that communism has once existed! We know it is primitive communism. This was back in the day of the hunters and gatherers. The men would hunt, the women would gather, and they would give each other their what they produced, according to need.
On the path to greed started when population grew, and technology developed and there were just more to do then hunters and gatherers. So I don't know how but classes were formed. The upper and lower class, and we always seen them throughout history. The class struggle has developed the political side. This is because the lower class would always rebel, take power, then the lower class takes power again, and so on.
it can be made to work in smaller, relatively self-contained communities
A nation is nothing but a bunch of those small communities
As of those few that abuse the system. Well, it wouldn't be a big deal. Its always said "Oh EVERYONE[b] has to cooperate or communism will fail"...wtf?
And of course there could always be systems put in to completely make it impossible to do so.
Assigning "Time vouchers" is one. Although that way, work would actually be work. Anarchists completely oppose the system, and some see it as a necessary evil.
Have you read Sir Thomas Moore's Utopia?
Agreed, barter is probably the fairest means of exchange over any other form of currency.
As to how classes came about, every major society that has ever existed has had some form of "caste system" at one point or another (India still has one), I suspect that class distinctions grew out of this tradition.
Here's a scenario that illustrates the unintentional consequences of mandating total equality. Say a worker demonstrates an exceptional talent, or skill. By Marxist doctrine, they must use this ability for the betterment of everyone. Suddenly "standing out" in any way means having to work harder and longer than others. Might this lead to people associate drawing attention to one's self as a punishement, rather than a reward? Without some form of meritocracy to reward exceptionality, there is no incentives for anyone to excel. Thus mediocrity becomes institutionalized.
You guys think that you have all the problems worked out, huh? Do you people have any idea how to run a government? You think that you have all the answers, you think that you can build a utopia, but I hate to tell you; you're going to run into more and more problems. I don't think that there ever will be a utopia, because people are always going to be crooked. It sounds silly, but the game Bioshock is a great example. Look it up.
thepyro, that is pretty obvious. I'm pretty sure they know that, but the gaol is probably to get the best of them all.
@Tan,
What is "working harder"? If we both work at a factory, how done one work harder then the other? If were united on producing something, I don't see that working harder.
Suddenly "standing out" in any way means having to work harder and longer than others.
Thats your choice if you want to. There are other ways to "stand out" of course. Inventions, ideas, suggestions...
Lets compare the situation to here now, by working harder, you get ehh...well if your in any kind of "factory" job you don't get payed more. You actually get payed the same as everyone else if you have the same job. Oh of course, there are promotions, and only because they need someone to do another harder job for them, and of course they have to pay a bit higher. Not to mention promotions are actually by how many years you work and not how well you did your job.
Men do not need to be herded like sheep.
I'm still reading on this part though, I'll try and give a better answer soon.
The problem with "According to performance" is that some are born more talented then others. This would create an unfair and unbalanced wealth among the people. If someone was born with a nice voice, they would never have to study, and could be richer then the rest. Why...just because she was born lucky?
This way, everyone benefits equally.
Also, even if people didn't kill themselves to work harder, it wouldn't be a mess at all. I think people would have a lot more productivity working for themselves as opposed to working for the capitalist.
If one wants to stand out, he can go write a book, or be a singer...>_>
I mean here, there are no ways to standing out either is there? To stand out you need something special.
When everyones a slave to their master, only the master is famous, but only for his evil.
The problem with "According to performance" is that some are born more talented then others. This would create an unfair and unbalanced wealth among the people. If someone was born with a nice voice, they would never have to study, and could be richer then the rest. Why...just because she was born lucky?
This way, everyone benefits equally.
Also, even if people didn't kill themselves to work harder, it wouldn't be a mess at all. I think people would have a lot more productivity working for themselves as opposed to working for the capitalist.
If one wants to stand out, he can go write a book, or be a singer...>_>
If people don't benifeit from their talent, then there would be no point in doing it, so they wouldn't want to stand out. Of course, that's not true for all people, but if people don't benifeit from a gift, then there is no point in trying to discover your gift. Besides that, singers, actors, and people are put under a lot more pressure than you think. Actors spend 6 months to a year trying to study the script/ role their playing, and usually, they have only have like 3-5 months to do it. The whole idea of people getting more pay than others is based on what they do, and how they do it. If Bob is a mediocre worker that's making $10 an hour making pencils, and then there is Tom next to him, doing the same job, but being almost twice as productive, he'll definitely be pretty pissed if he doesn't make more money than Bob, who is bad at the job. I know I would.
Sorry for the triple but heres a quote.
"Labor is the source of wealth and all culture, and since useful labor is possible only in society and through society, the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society."
-Karl Marx.
Society as a whole produces everything, and society as a whole should own it. An opposition to private private since the rich men own the land, get society to work for them and loot from their production. If one works harder, he contributes to this "ot" thats distributed. So if the other worker on the other side of the world works harder, you contribute from it too, because he added onto this "ot" and the pot is distributed equally. The hard working man ears not money, but goods. There would be more available for society as a whole as a result of working harder.
Btw, there actually isn't money in a communist society. There no need for it. Money is only used to purchase labor, and goods.
âIn communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.â
-Karl Marx
Btw, there actually isn't money in a communist society. There no need for it. Money is only used to purchase labor, and goods.
This is why your style will never work. Humans have a natural tendency to want to posses things. It makes us look better in the eyes of our peers. If you don't give people their due, then they will move out of the gov't and go to the place where everyone has an i- pod, a tv and computers. People want more than just your basic needs, we want entertainment, and communication. You can't just take that away.
Living in a communist society does not mean everyone is poor...
You would get the entertainment and communication for FREE! YES THAT RIGHT, FREeeEe!
And even under Soviet dictatorship, life was pretty good.
Humans have a natural tendency to want to posses things.
You can still posses things...
Then how do people get necessities like food, water, and shelter?
You must be logged in to post a reply!