Was Communism/Marxism ever a sound alternative?

German guy said:

. At some point, people simple are not capable believing anymore that there is a work that's actually worth 100 or 500 more than the work of another person.

Click to expand...

Unless, of course, we are talking about Thomas Edison, or Nicola Tesla, or Hugo Junker, or Rudolf Diesel - or flipping Leonardo DiCaprio, for that matter.

In those cases, "people" have no problem with stratospheric incomes. Because they understand - or think that they understand - where this extraordinary "worth" is coming from.

German guy said:

. In East Germany, by the way, the material inequality was no larger than a 1 to 5 quota (the richest people had no more than 5 times the income than the poorest workers)... but of course, they were all unfree and even many who are "poor" by today's standards enjoy more material wealth in today's Germany than they did as wealthy people in the GDR.

Click to expand...

All true, but that's counting "inequality" on a wrong scale. I haven't been to the DDR, but I have spent much more time than I ever wanted in the confines of the Original.

Nominal differences between the elite and the plebs were minimal. My parents made 120 roubles a month, the First Secretary of the District Party Executive Committee made 500 or so. But money did not matter, not really. Having more money in a place where there's not much to buy - openly, officially - is not much of an advantage, is it? (In Moscow, the showcase capital city, it was not 100% the case, but as soon as you outside, into the Real Russia....)

What mattered was Access. I'm telling you, no super-duper multimillionaire in Munich or in Miami ever had or ever will have the same license to exclude and humiliate as your average Soviet hotel doorman or 'elevator lady'. It wasn't just about bribes - it was the game of power - pure, sweet, sadistic and utterly disgusting - played out on every corner of the supposedly "egalitarian" society.

Whether it is a valid goal or not, Communism did nothing to eliminate inequality: quite the opposite, it streamlined and paved the road to extreme inequality. You don't even have to get good education, or work hard, or invent anything, or be a lucky heir. Be loyal to abstractions, always ready to betray real people, ruthless and righteous at every turn and twist of the "party line" - and you have an excellent chance of "rising to the top" - i.e. of being able to hurt, humiliate, ruin your betters with total impunity.

The larger portion of root vegetables for dinner is not the point at all.

soccerboy22 said:

You bring up an interesting point in that with Communism dying out will worker protection die out as well and I honestly don't think so. One reason is because the way the American legal system is currently running where everything can be a lawsuit that a worker being hurt on the job is something most lawyers would jump at now a days. Furthermore, I think politically there would have to be a major shift in the pro-worker camp of each party that could allow worker protection laws to be overturned. I won't argue that the environment might not become more pro-employer, but I don't think the U.S. would get to a point like what we see in China or countries with little to no worker protection or child labor laws.

Click to expand...

Strangely enough China is moving the opposite way we are. Their workers are unionizing and striking for higher pay. When's the last time we had a strike for higher pay here?

German guy said:

I never said anything else. It's totally "natural" that humans accept the richest people having 15 times the resources of the poorest people. That's the inequality you're talking about.

Click to expand...

I know. I merely called that into question because I don't believe we're born with an innate sense of "fairness", or that we developed one for that matter. And if that is the case, the later part of your argument, which is based upon us having a sense of fairness, could lose some of its strength.

Mach and Cyrylek also brought up interesting points, so I have no need of going into that. I would just like to add that, though you say we cannot sustain such levels of inequality in the long run, we have indeed done just that.

I am not American--though, ffs, can't wait to move over there--but I believe there's a lot more equality nowadays than there was before. (Even if I'm wrong here, everything else I said above still holds.) The 1% of before, the kings, the chiefs of the tribes, the pharaohs, the tsars, etc., is no different than the 1% of now. The thing is, nowadays, at least in the US, anyone has got a chance to fight their way up to that 1%. That alone makes all of this inequality a lot more tolerable. People complain, sure, but when have they not?

This is a very interesting question, though, so if you have something to add, please go ahead.

Eh , yeah totally it was a realistic response. I hate communism but anyone denying it was the inevitable reaction to what was going on in the sea change of the industrial revolution is fundamentally ignorant of history.

Henrin said:

Great in theory, but an absolute failure at understanding human nature. The ruling body will first take the land they desire for themselves. They will next decide on land for those in favor of the ruling class and finally they will decide to give land to individuals for the purposes of the state. Anyone that is left over is just out of luck and can never even hope to acquire land. Think of it like zoning laws but about 1000 times worse.

Click to expand...

lotta appeals to human nature as if its some monolithic thing

instagramsci said:

lotta appeals to human nature as if its some monolithic thing

Click to expand...

I didn't say human nature is good or bad, but simply is. I man will look towards himself first, his friends second, and his neighbor last. Is there exceptions to the rule? Of course. However, hoping you will find a man with a heart as pure as gold and continue to find men with hearts as pure as gold for generations to come should be left for the dreamers, not for the men of reason.

No one person (or small body of people) is able to weigh all of the factors present to make all the decisions for an economy. The only way an economy works is by each and every participant making choices out of self interest, which leads to those with the ability and capacity to provide the choices for the self interests of others (which is a choice in their own self interest). No Five Year Plan can ever work, short of slavery.

Henrin said:

I didn't say human nature is good or bad, but simply is. I man will look towards himself first, his friends second, and his neighbor last. Is there exceptions to the rule? Of course. However, hoping you will find a man with a heart as pure as gold and continue to find men with hearts as pure as gold for generations to come should be left for the dreamers, not for the men of reason.

Click to expand...

I didn't say you did either

But you're wrong

I don't think ~rational self-interest~ is anywhere near the reason people do the things they do, it's much more complicated than that

Also I love these appeals to the Soviet Union or China as the End All Be All of socialism/communism

Marx didn't think these countries could progress from Feudalism to Socialism

instagramsci said:

Also I love these appeals to the Soviet Union or China as the End All Be All of socialism/communism

Marx didn't think these countries could progress from Feudalism to Socialism

Click to expand...

I think instead of responding to the post directed to me this post of your offers me a better chance to provide insight.

I never found that Marxism required much thought to imagine or required any understanding of history to ponder. The idea that we go from needing to be controlled by harsh overlords to living in peace beside each other without even a hint of desire of personal gain is the dreams I imagine of many of a child even before they even are aware of government. They walk into school and find the conditions and challenges offered to them undesirable and perhaps unfit for what they deem fitting for desirable life. I must admit it was many of hour I spent pondering the idea of a world where the people didn't challenge each other for power or might and without doubt if such a world is possible is it not then desirable to have? What if all people didn't desire personal possessions? What if all people didn't desire property? What if all people didn't desire to have more than their neighbor? What if all people didn't desire to be stronger, smarter, faster, bigger, and well, better than everyone else in every way. What if all people were equal? All wonderful thoughts when you are young and perhaps for many when they are old, but still the prospect of such a world leaves so much to be desired and so few problems resolved. Sure hunger is solved and sure everyone is employed, but is anyone happy? When all you have to look forward to is the prospect of similarity is life not boredom? If there is no prospect of betterment, is life not without purpose? If all you can ever hope to do is work for the group is personal worth not lowered?

There is many reasons why shared owned property is an abysmal idea, but perhaps the most important one to take note of is that what drives people is not the idea of community, but of personal worth and betterment. It is what in fact gave birth to this very idea that he promotes and yet he never realized it. It's idea crafted from the cold breath of weakness and one that has no chance to live on the wings of strength. The reason that individually owned property systems are superior is that the idea of gaining something and bettering your condition above your competitors is the driving force behind advancement. Countries compete, rulers compete, people compete, animals compete, everything competes to be better. It not simply good enough to be happy with being equal. In fact, no one is interested in being equal. The idea of fairness is counter to the very condition of the world itself and all the organisms that are on it. There never will be a time when shared property is treated in any sort of comparable way to that of individually owned property because when you own something that is all your own you care for it deeply and you want to see it strive, but when you share something no one in that group will care for it any sort of way comparable to that individually owned property that is not shared with anyone. It will never grow to the same greatness to that individually owned property. It just doesn't have the same potential of growth and it will never on average reach the same material value.

Not only is the idea of shared property worse in growth, but it is worse in conflict. It turns from the individual controlling the destiny of property and his life, to dealing with other peoples desires towards the property and so it turns into a struggle of might inside the ownership picture. Take marriage for example. The entire time the arrangement exists they both compromise on their desires towards property and what they will personally have in their home. When you spend less of your time to compete, there is more time to conquer and with it more time to strive. Less ideas conflict the more ideas that will get through and the more that get through the more you will gain and the more that you gain the more you are worth and the more of course you added to society itself.

As for the idea of no money or property in it's entirely, well, there is an idea that is impossible, because as long as there is people there is property, and as long as there is property there is private property, so its not a matter of if property exists, but who has control over it. Communism is a dream built on the backbone of stupidity and perhaps best left to the children to ponder.

A few thoughts.

First, there is nothing "natural" about any society with, say, more than 100,000 individuals. Early humans simply did not live in societies that large. They certainly didn't have cell phones, televisions or currency. Neither capitalism nor socialism, democracy or autocracy, are "natural."

"Human nature" is fixed in some respects, but very flexible in others -- including ways that affect social conduct. An obvious example is the gulf between the Spanish and English colonists, and the indigenous populations of the New World. They did not share the same ideas about property, land, agriculture, justice, trade, religion and so forth. A valid motivation for an English colonist could be an insult to an Algonquin, and vice versa.

In addition, many capitalist assumptions about motives are downright wrong. The concept of homo economicus in particular is deeply flawed, as we are finding via studies conducted by psychologists and behavioral economists. Similarly, the myth of the barter society as a forerunner to currency-based capitalism has no basis in history or anthropology.

We can discuss what motivations work well given our current social structures, but relying on "human nature" to justify a model is highly questionable.


We should also keep in mind that Marxism, Socialism and Communism are related, but definitely not the same.

Marxism is not a type of government, it's a political and economic philosophy. Marx believed that capitalism would produce the conditions of its own demise, and that the proletariat would rise up and form a new type of government that would fix the problems produced by capitalism. Almost everything he wrote focused on an analysis of the structure of capitalism. He intentionally refused to describe how the post-capitalist society would operate. To him, understanding that new world would require a new consciousness that could only be produced by the demise of capitalism, and as such was beyond our imaginations.

The problem with this ludicrous claim is that it opened the door for various harmful types of socialism. E.g. the Soviets took part of Marx's theories as a basis for revolution, and then consolidated all political and economic power into a very small number of hands. Nothing in Marxism proposes such a system.

As far as I know, Soviet-style Communism did seem to be viable for a brief time -- e.g. Russia transformed into an industrial society very quickly, and experienced huge growth for a brief time in the early 20th century. However, it didn't take long for Stalin to take advantage of the extensive and unchecked powers of government, and there was no real accountability put into place. Some Communists use this early period to declare it to be valid, but they ignore how those same structures easily (and so frequently) became totalitarian regimes.

It should also be noted that the abject failures of Communism do not relieve capitalist democracies from their own flaws. Nationalizing industries is obviously not the answer to economic inequality -- but apparently, neither is sitting back and doing absolutely nothing.

shlunka said:

I adore communism. I don't believe people should own land, perhaps rent it, but never own it. Land shouldn't be a commodity, but a basic privilege provided by the government. Egalitarianism, equality of opportunity, limited to no poverty, I love it. However, I also can't think of a single way that communism could work, asides from humanity's insatiable appetite for power and excessive greed being systematically removed.

Click to expand...

I don't believe anyone should own land either but only because it's wrong that anyone should be able to monopolize natural resources. Marx was right about how the rich exploit the poor but he failed to make any distinction between free-market capitalism and captive-market capitalism. The principle that all individuals have the equal right to profit from selling whatever we can produce with our own tools and materials and labor is the foundation of the free market. It only requires that governments limit ownership to tangible, transportable things. The captive market is founded on the principle that anything can be owned, even people.

German guy said:

In retrospect, it's easy to condemn communism. Hundreds of millions of dead people due to different communist dictatorships, four decades of tyranny in the East Bloc. Some will still say "real" communism has never actually been tried and still support the idea, which I don't want to debate here... I'm interested in a different question:

Was there a point in time when Communism indeed had to appear as a sound, attractive alternative? Before real communist regimes had showed their ugly faces, and when many capitalist countries had very severe social problems and discrimination?

So I wonder... if you were member of a racial minority, or a woman, or a poor worker with no prospect of ever climbing the social ladder in late 19th century -- was Marxism/Communism maybe really a better alternative for you? Would you have actually been better off in a socialist system? Keep in mind that it was not yet known what the Western countries would become decades later.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

The bottom line is that Communism was always a Utopian ideal with no basis in reality. Of course at the time it was developed it had great appeal to the down-trodden in every society, whether it was the serfs in Tsarist Russia, or the wage-slaves in Industrial America.

Presented with the economic idea that power elites were a drain on a nation, and that substituting a system where each person contributed his labor and drew only what was needed from the labor of others would sound wonderful to a person tied to the land or working in a mine or factory. The alternative would be to continue working under harsh conditions and rewarded with as little as possible by the lords or business owners in return.

However, “to each according to his needs from each according to his means” was a fantasy. Humans are not motivated by the same drives as communal worker ants. They need to feel a sense of achievement, and this is coupled with a basic selfishness translated into working as little as possible while gaining as much as possible in any endeavor. What motivation to become a doctor or engineer, expending time and effort only to get no more in return than a worker making shoes or digging ditches?

The pressure to succeed and get more from success inevitably breaks a communist society into social strata with "party bosses" at the top, "party enforcers/managers" in the middle, and the "workers" at the bottom.

What’s the old truism? Out with the old boss, in with the new boss, same as the old boss! Only now, the workers had no other options to develop wealth except by advancement up within the party hierarchy. A self-sustaining bureaucracy is created upon the backs of the masses.

The system totters along until it either collapses from its own weight (Soviet Russia) or modifies to adopt free market “social capitalism” (Peoples Republic of China).

Captain Adverse said:

However, “to each according to his needs from each according to his means” was a fantasy. Humans are not motivated by the same drives as communal worker ants. They need to feel a sense of achievement, and this is coupled with a basic selfishness translated into working as little as possible while gaining as much as possible in any endeavor. What motivation to become a doctor or engineer, expending time and effort only to get no more in return than a worker making shoes or digging ditches?

Click to expand...

To what "expending time and effort" are referring? Learning science or engineering instead of digging ditches?? That does not compute. Seems like reading and going to classes all day would be much easier than digging ditches, cleaning toilets, or mopping floors all day. But maybe that's just me? LOL!

There is no "loss" in that system to going to college. If anything I would think it would encourage people to go to college since their job when they're done would be much less physically demanding. Heinlein once wrote that the lazy man is the one that learns and makes any job he's given easier than when he got it. That is the very fundamental of 'efficiency'. Why do capitalists never see this?

Communism is a pipe dream.

Those who participated in the Russian revolution certainly thought it was great. The viciously oppressive and economically destroyed Tsarist Russia was not very pleasant. I can understand why those people revolted, but as we all know, it never really got much better.

The 20th century has been paramount in the affirmation of the greatness of democracy. Seeing all these alternative ideals, including but not restricted to Communism, rise to extreme heights and subsequently crash and burn leaving disaster in their wake has confirmed democracy as the superior ideal.

Communism has been instrumental in building a better world, principally by contrast, showing us all how good our democracy is and driving the world towards it.