A thought experiment on True Communism...

eman623 said:

I'm not disagreeing with you. Government has a critical role in capitalistic societies. Capitalism may be the best system for allocating resources, but it is also inherently unstable. In capitalism, wealth tends to accumulate in fewer and fewer hands over time and eventually one or a few persons ends up owning everything. And there are the things you mentioned like child labor laws which can only happen if everyone does it. Otherwise if everyone else is doing it and you stop, you'll be at a competitive disadvantage and be driven out of business.

And some things like building dams are also hard to implement in the private sector. You can charge for a private toll road, but how do you charge a city for not getting flooded because a new dam is holding back the monsoon rains and releasing it slowly to provide a steady flow of water for drinking and irrigation?

But I think it's inaccurate to call these things capitalistic. Slapping the invisible hand is the opposite of capitalism, not capitalism. Even if it needs a good slapping every once in a while.

Click to expand...

Seems like we agree. Why can't other liberals and conservatives?

Nickyjo said:

Seems like we agree. Why can't other liberals and conservatives?

Click to expand...

I think the vast majority agree that pure communism does not work. Even Bernie Sanders. The leftover quibbling is just over how much of a bare bottom safety net government should provide and for whom.

jmotivator said:

I have seen numerous times over the years people argue in favor of "True" communism, to be differentiated from all of the failed Communist regimes over the course of modern history. So let's dispatch all of these prior "Communist" countries and focus on what true communism is, and how it would work in the real world.

I have often, and just today, made the assertion that the primary reason that "true" communism can work beyond very small subsistence scales is because of the power necessary to accomplish anything beyond the very small scale requires increasing levels of organization to accomplish, and that organization centralizes power, and the greater the task the further the worker is separated from decision making, and the more powerful the decision makers.

So here is my experiment:

Read the classic intro to economics essay "I, Pencil"

Now, by applying the power of "True Communism", explain the decentralized economy that could produce enough pencils such that anyone who needed a pencil could have one.

Click to expand...

It's true that organization is required to produce on a large scale. In the US, there is incentive to organize and companies like Amazon and Microsoft are naturally generated from that incentive.

Rickeroo said:

It's true that organization is required to produce on a large scale. In the US, there is incentive to organize and companies like Amazon and Microsoft are naturally generated from that incentive.

Click to expand...

Exactly. My argument is not that communism is impossible, necessarily, communes "work" on a small scale. Marxism proposed that the small scale commune system could be imposed on an industrial nation at scale, which is just naive and wrong. What communism can't account for is the corrupting nature of power, and the consolidating power inherent in industrial communism.

jmotivator said:

Exactly. My argument is not that communism is impossible, necessarily, communes "work" on a small scale. Marxism proposed that the small scale commune system could be imposed on an industrial nation at scale, which is just naive and wrong. What communism can't account for is the corrupting nature of power, and the consolidating power inherent in industrial communism.

Click to expand...

This is all very true, and I am pretty sure you would have a pretty tough time finding anyone in today's world who would disagree with you- not even Bernie Sanders. There are really only two countries left in the world today who are nominally communist: Cuba and N. Korea. And if you could have a candid discussion with their leaders, they would probably tell you that even they are pretty sure the system doesn't really work, but they keep saying it does so they can continue to maintain their personal power.

But this is all a very different issue than whether or not modern democratic capitalist governments should provide some bare bottom safety net protections for their citizens: protection of basic human rights as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 (which, ironically enough, the US spearheaded): things like the right to food, clean water, shelter, access to healthcare, and a basic education. Similar to the modern international consensus on the failure of communism, there are really NO modern economies in the world that do NOT believe that some basic safety nets for their citizens is not necessary, and that pure free market capitalism is enough to protect people from falling into desperate situations and indignities which no human being living in a modern developed economy should ever have to face.

Nickyjo said:

Seems like we agree. Why can't other liberals and conservatives?

Click to expand...

Because politics.

And too many conservatives think that capitalism works so well that it needs no regulation at all. And some liberals point to the inherent instability of capitalism as a reason to scrap it and move to a system to one where government allocates resources.

And even if liberals and conservatives agree on the broad consensus, there is room for differences of opinion. No one supports child labor anymore, but how about carbon taxes to fight climate change? How about tariffs to fight China's unfair trade practices? Are they good government distortions of the free market or bad ones? What does that even mean? Good or bad to whom?

ataraxia said:

This is all very true, and I am pretty sure you would have a pretty tough time finding anyone in today's world who would disagree with you- not even Bernie Sanders.

Click to expand...

Yes in today's world. But the political left is still responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people. Your grand experiment had a horrific human cost, which leftists like you simply shrug off. You didn't really learn anything either, you still want the state to provide private goods despite its track record of failure.

And btw, Bernie would not agree.

eman623 said:

And too many conservatives think that capitalism works so well that it needs no regulation at all.

Click to expand...

Regulated by whom? The regulator is just as self-interested as anybody else. Regulators very often go to work for the companies they regulated during their "public service" as consultants, and have a very strong financial incentive to play ball with huge corporations, and they do.

The liberal regulatory state is a giant corporations best friend, because they can use it to harm their competitors. Why do you think the major automakers are taking the side of California in the latest emissions battle? Why do you think Amazon supports a national $15 minimum wage?

aociswundumho said:

Yes in today's world. But the political left is still responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people. Your grand experiment had a horrific human cost, which leftists like you simply shrug off.

Click to expand...

Yes, the failed experiment was Soviet communism. The successful experiment has been just about every developed economy all over the world today, including our own.

The "left" today is just interested in having a government that can be held accountable for protecting the basic human rights of its citizens: like food, clean water, shelter, access to healthcare, and a basic education. Since you like the lessons taught by experiments, numerous experiments over the last century and a half all over the world have shown that the unregulated free market does not provide those things. The US gave up on those after the ever-increasing exploitation of child labor back in the 19th century when the free market was left completely free. Those safety nets and safety regulations on the free market now exist in all modern economies, from Europe and America to Japan and Singapore.

So it seems like it is just you who want to take all that away and go back to failed experiments.

aociswundumho said:

Regulated by whom? The regulator is just as self-interested as anybody else. Regulators very often go to work for the companies they regulated during their "public service" as consultants, and have a very strong financial incentive to play ball with huge corporations, and they do.

The liberal regulatory state is a giant corporations best friend, because they can use it to harm their competitors. Why do you think the major automakers are taking the side of California in the latest emissions battle? Why do you think Amazon supports a national $15 minimum wage?

Click to expand...

We have regulations on everything from food to cars. We have found things don't work very well when left completely free and up to the free market. Having regulations and laws does not mean you can't have a free market.

aociswundumho said:

Regulated by whom?

Click to expand...

The same folks who decide about regulation and inspection food and clean water for the public, or what medical drugs or devices should be allowed on the market, or what cars should be street legal, or building codes for buildings in earth.

I can go on and on. The free market without any regulation does not work.

ataraxia said:

The same folks

Click to expand...

The same folks who are just as self-interested and as greedy as everybody else. The same folks who work hand in hand with gigantic corporations to harm smaller competitors.

The bigger the firm, the easier it is to comply with burdensome regulations.

aociswundumho said:

The same folks who are just as self-interested and as greedy as everybody else. The same folks who work hand in hand with gigantic corporations to harm smaller competitors.

The bigger the firm, the easier it is to comply with burdensome regulations.

Click to expand...

Maybe so. Maybe not.

But whatever it is, it sure beats not having any regulations.

The right got rid of any regulations on over-the-counter drugs and vitamin supplements, with the argument that the free market alone would regulate itself and provide the best, highest quality products to consumers. Sound familiar?

How has it worked out? It's a mess. All those meds and vitamins and over-the-counter medicines you see on the grocery store aisles? There is as good a chance that they are filled with sawdust and talcum powder as any active ingredients. Many of them don't have the ingredients listed on the bottle, or even if they do, they don't have it in the amounts listed on the bottle. Private consumer groups have been doing the best they can to test the claims of many of these manufacturers. But the best they can do is just test some of the big brands. Most of the rest are just complete scams. It's a travesty.

Now that's fine for the over-the-counter meds. Who cares if you think you are buying St. John's Wort but you are just buying sawdust? The stakes are not that high. But can you imagine leaving the prescription medication market to such lack of regulation? Can you imagine the heart attack patient being rushed in to the ER at 3 am, and the doctors can't even be sure the medicines they are writing for them are the things the patient is actually getting, and not just IV sawdust? Would you like to leave it up to the patient having crushing chest pain to decide between the various brands of IV heparin they would like?

Come on, man. You KNOW the free market needs some regulation and oversight.

jmotivator said:

You need to read what the "that's not true communism" folks believe true communism is to understand the question. They see true communism as a dispersed group of independent communes.

Click to expand...

Most of the communists (before Marxism took hold) were indeed anarchists who wanted to return to a local-based independent communes. The anarchist-communists and the state-communists of the 19th century did not get along at all. As we all know, Marxism took hold in the 20th century and the anti-state communists fell out of favor. Now the mainstream thinking is all communists are Marxists. Simply not the case.

Helix said:

I don't think that true communism can work in populations bigger than a tribe.

Click to expand...

Agreed. In fact, the first self-identified communists were anarchists.

aociswundumho said:

That's not gonna work. Barter markets have extremely high transaction costs.

Click to expand...

Barter markets? While some communists/anarchist thinkers have come up with unusual currency systems, I do not recall one who called for return to 100% barter system.

These communes wouldn't have time to make pencils anyway, they would need to farm or hunt just to survive.

Click to expand...

Nothing under communism requires farmers to only farm just enough for their families/commune.

eman623 said:

what do you think Obama meant by his "you didn't build that" statement? If it wasn't that the people who are successful in business can't get there without government services what was it?

Click to expand...

The roads and other infrastructure provided by the taxpayers allow for businesses to be profitable. If I was stuck in Somalia it wouldn't matter how much entrepreneur drive I had, I just wouldn't have the opportunity to be as wealthy as I would in a developed nation.

Geoist said:

The roads and other infrastructure provided by the taxpayers allow for businesses to be profitable. If I was stuck in Somalia it wouldn't matter how much entrepreneur drive I had, I just wouldn't have the opportunity to be as wealthy as I would in a developed nation.

Click to expand...

This is true and there are some things that the private sector can't do as efficiently.

OTOH, who did build the roads? Roads don't just magically appear when government calls for them. Governments levy taxes on income and use the revenues to pay the contractors to build and maintain the roads. And who pays most of the income taxes under a progressive taxation system like our own? The wealthy. So even if they "didn't build that", they did pay for it. Or at least they paid a much higher share for it proportional to the rest of the population.

And even if they didn't pay more, aren't roads public property? In a sense, we all own the roads and we all built the roads.

So IMO the wealthy have no reason to feel like they owe a debt to the government for providing the roads and infrastructure they use. They always paid that debt. OTOH, they can take pride in their entrepreneurial accomplishments. They did build that and that's something that Obama, who never worked a private sector day in his life, definitely did not build.

Geoist said:

Most of the communists (before Marxism took hold) were indeed anarchists who wanted to return to a local-based independent communes. The anarchist-communists and the state-communists of the 19th century did not get along at all. As we all know, Marxism took hold in the 20th century and the anti-state communists fell out of favor. Now the mainstream thinking is all communists are Marxists. Simply not the case.

Click to expand...

Well, I never said all main stream communists are all Marxists, I am simply arguing that you can't attempt a modern industrialized economy without something at least closely resembling Marxism... and Marxism doesn't work because of the necessity of centralized power to achieve and maintain an industrialized economy which breeds abject corruption.

eman623 said:

This is true and there are some things that the private sector can't do as efficiently.

OTOH, who did build the roads? Roads don't just magically appear when government calls for them. Governments levy taxes on income and use the revenues to pay the contractors to build and maintain the roads. And who pays most of the income taxes under a progressive taxation system like our own? The wealthy. So even if they "didn't build that", they did pay for it. Or at least they paid a much higher share for it proportional to the rest of the population.

Click to expand...

But keep in mind, one of the arguments for a progressive income tax is that the wealthy were able to benefit the most from the advantages a functioning society provides.

Btw, this is not necessarily me promoting the income tax as a whole. Personally, I believe we should replace it with a land value tax. But if we are to have an income tax it makes sense for it to be a progressive tax over a flat tax (my state of Illinois is currently dealing with the consequences of a flat income tax).

And even if they didn't pay more, aren't roads public property? In a sense, we all own the roads and we all built the roads.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I think Obama’s point was that that single business owner, or whoever, did not pay for the road all on his own, so for anyone to think no one else helped them get there is failing to see the forest for the trees.

So IMO the wealthy have no reason to feel like they owe a debt to the government for providing the roads and infrastructure they use.

Click to expand...

Don’t think he said they owed a debt, only said it wasn’t done solely on their own. And, remember, the rich don’t get rich without their workers and consumers.

jmotivator said:

Well, I never said all main stream communists are all Marxists,

Click to expand...

I know. I wasn’t really disagreeing, just expanding.

I am simply arguing that you can't attempt a modern industrialized economy without something at least closely resembling Marxism... and Marxism doesn't work because of the necessity of centralized power to achieve and maintain an industrialized economy which breeds abject corruption.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The way I see it, humans have lived in, more or less, communist societies for 99% of their existence. Of course, those were tribal societies. If one wishes to return to a more communist living without the horrific side effects seen in Russia, China, Cambodia, etc then it must be a grassroots movement on a local scale.

Geoist said:

I know. I wasn’t really disagreeing, just expanding.

Agreed. The way I see it, humans have lived in, more or less, communist societies for 99% of their existence. Of course, those were tribal societies. If one wishes to return to a more communist living without the horrific side effects seen in Russia, China, Cambodia, etc then it must be a grassroots movement on a local scale.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And, really, it has to be self sufficient. I'm not sure there are many people enjoying the trappings of an industrial capitalist economy who would give it all up for the sake of true communal life. Those who do wouldn't be on an internet forum, at the very least...

jmotivator said:

Exactly. And, really, it has to be self sufficient. I'm not sure there are many people enjoying the trappings of an industrial capitalist economy who would give it all up for the sake of true communal life. Those who do wouldn't be on an internet forum, at the very least...

Click to expand...

I wouldn’t think abandoning a capitalist system really means giving up on all forms of advanced technology, including the internet. There are a group of anarchists (primitivists) who do oppose it, though.

If you are interested in reading some of the thoughts early anarchists and communists had about tech I recommend the following: Anarchism and the Politics of Technology | The Anarchist Library

Geoist said:

I wouldn’t think abandoning a capitalist system really means giving up on all forms of advanced technology, including the internet. There are a group of anarchists (primitivists) who do oppose it, though.

Click to expand...

Well, I would say PURE communism does oppose it. You can't really acquire any of that without accepting that capitalism provides something of value that communism can't.

If you are interested in reading some of the thoughts early anarchists and communists had about tech I recommend the following: Anarchism and the Politics of Technology | The Anarchist Library

Click to expand...

Thanks, I will read it in full when I have a chance, I do have a fascination for how contradictory it all is. I mean, none of those anarchists could create or maintain the tools that they are using... but then few of them seem capable of thinking very far ahead.

jmotivator said:

Well, I would say PURE communism does oppose it. You can't really acquire any of that without accepting that capitalism provides something of value that communism can't.

Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on how one defines capitalism. For example, would a co-op company where all workers share in the rewards be considered socialist or free market capitalism?

Thanks, I will read it in full when I have a chance, I do have a fascination for how contradictory it all is. I mean, none of those anarchists could create or maintain the tools that they are using... but then few of them seem capable of thinking very far ahead.

Click to expand...

When I first began reading anarchist writings I also thought a lot of it was contradictory (how could Proudhon call property both theft AND liberty?) but as I dived further into what he meant it began to make more sense.