Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MaxTheFox]

What was the stance your misinformed Godwinsner just couldn't get past?

Not wanting communism. I just said that the best economic policy combines the best of socialism and capitalism. He/she flipped out and called me a reactionary.

Honestly the more I think about it the more they seem to be a troll, but who knows. There are many stupid people...

[Reelya]

They tend to do the "no true scotsman" fallacy a lot. By that, i mean if you bring up any examples that didn't work out they'll say "that's not true communism, nobody has done true communism before but it'll be sweet and perfect and there won't be any issues, and if you're skeptical you're a monster. Just take it on faith that this entirely untested thought-experiment system is going to go awesomely", despite them supposedly being materialists and evidence-based and opposing faith-based religions.

The real problem with pure communism is that it relies on everyone always acting on good faith. Game theory explains why it won't work that way. The Prisoner's Dilemma + the Nash Equilibrium basically disprove that both right-wing libetarianism and completely non-authoritarian communism can ever work. Even if everyone's better off working together, that is unstable, since using game theory + the Nash Equilibrium you can show that an individual always improves their own position by cheating (working outside the public ownership thing in communism for example, or ignoring regulations in the free market system).

The Nash Equilibrium stuff basically shows the flaw in the reasoning that "since everyone will be better off working together in communism then once we have communism, then people will realize they're better off and continue to work together". Yeah, even if the "better off working together" thing is true, the "people will continue working together" part isn't true. If it was true, people would already be working together. It's not like "cooperating" is a novel concept unique to communism. No, the problem is that cooperating is mathematically unstable, as John Nash had shown, even if it's the globally optimal solution. As long as people have a choice.

The reason that it won't work is that cooperating is only stable if you force people to cooperate and not do anything in their immediate self-interest. This prevents people from being allowed to make the choices that lead to the Nash Equilibrium. But removing choice is not the optimal way to ensure a good distribution of resources, and the reason for this is that it's failed to account for the value of having choice - so it's failed to account for an externality.

The problem with *everything being owned by the public is that you constantly have to police that at a very detailed level to ensure people don't make stuff by themselves, since that's a way around the restrictions. So sure, say that in this grand communist future we get it so we only have to work for the system for 8 hours a week, and that provides us enough of everything we need to live on. What are people going to do with the rest of their week then? Pure leisure? If they create *anything* of value in the rest of that time that's outside of the control of the collective, that becomes a threat to the basic tenets of the collective, that it controls the means of production. So it ends up inevitably at a form of police state where you're heavily regulated and monitored in what you can and cannot do. You'll be regulated *a bit* at work, but you'll be regulated even more when not at work, because it's what you're doing while not officially working that is the biggest threat to the system. That's why this is not a stable outcome.

[wierd]

In order to be True Communism, it must meet this simple requirement:

It must *NOT* have a government produced enforcement class, to assure the redistribution of goods, or to enforce the availability of work. 

If it has that, it is *NOT* Marxist communism, BY DEFINITION. If there are state police at work enforcing the rules, it is *NOT* Marxist Communism, because marxist communism is all about BEING THE STATE OF NO CLASS DIVISIONS AT ALL.   (Specifically, the addition of an enforcer class, which is protected by its own imposition of power-asymmetry necessary for it to perform its function as an enforcement class, it becomes a drop-in replacement for the bourgeoisie class-- The one mandating and controlling production, and using their dominant position to control the process. This is de-facto "exploitation of labor", which is EXACTLY what Marxism wants to *AVOID*.  This is exactly why an enforcement class *CANNOT* be incorporated into Marx's communism, and why any socialist government that tries to bolt one on, fails immediately.  It makes the "bourgeoisie" an intrinsic facet of the system, rather than complete extirpation, like is called for.)

That has NOT been the case with *ANY* form of socialist government to date.


And no- I don't think it will be amazing.  I think humans can't do it. (which is why we keep breaking with the idea completely, and throwing in an enforcement class, which then fucks the whole idea in the ass with broken glass and barbed wire, and people wonder why it dies of exsanguination later.)

[King Zultan]

Pounded in the butt by the enforcement class, and how it ruined my Marxist Communism

[KittyTac]

Pounded in the butt by the realities of human nature.

[Mathel]

I think that communism could work, at an extremely small scale with surpluss of all necessities. No larger than a village.

If the society is larger than a village and people don't know each other, requiring some kind of enforcement.

Lack of necessities results in trade, which results in division by wealth.

[Reelya]

All problems go away if you change the definitions. Communism can also mean a system where the basic unit of organization is the commune. So, communism in the sense you're talking about, and then you organize everything else as negotiation / trade between the communes. But trade would still have to happen in this scenario as I described it, since communes will naturally come to specialize in producing different things to trade, and there's no "correct" amount of loaves of bread that are worth 1 pair of shoes (and it depends on the bread and the shoes too). So even if you take the sensible route of localizing things to communes and give them autonomy at that level, a market system will HAVE to emerge, no matter what they call it.

However, the real problem is that most of people who actually call themselves communists are WAY too individualistic to actually subsume their personal autonomy to something as restrictive as ... a commune. If you look at the results when most of that specific type of people form a commune, the end result is that it's dysfunctional to the point of barely being above subsistence farming ... no scratch that, they're actually below subsistence farming in terms of total productivity, and it's only even a viable way of life because they get to scavenge stuff from the fringe of the actual productive industrial society. It's like saying becoming well-organized beggars is a viable alternative to having industry. So, wow, you managed to scavenge some car parts from the rubbish tip and now your commune has wheels. Wow such self sufficiency. Even with the ample scavenging opportunities almost all communes collapse because people get sick of starving and realize just getting a job is way easier and puts more food on the table for less effort.

Nigerian subsistence farmers probably produce more real value than Western commune-kiddies ever did. So the people who actually say they want communism are more or less expecting everyone else to just fall in line with the idea and make it work for them. None of them could set up a successful commune as an example if they had to do so to save their life.

[Loud Whispers]

Not wanting communism. I just said that the best economic policy combines the best of socialism and capitalism. He/she flipped out and called me a reactionary.

Honestly the more I think about it the more they seem to be a troll, but who knows. There are many stupid people...

Not stupid, just a tankie

[MaxTheFox]

Not wanting communism. I just said that the best economic policy combines the best of socialism and capitalism. He/she flipped out and called me a reactionary.

Honestly the more I think about it the more they seem to be a troll, but who knows. There are many stupid people...

Not stupid, just a tankie

There's a difference?

[ChairmanPoo]

The real question is whether you're willing to sacrifice so that our leader can have a solid gold chamberpot, or you're traitors.

[Loud Whispers]

There's a difference?

Yeah, stupidity can't organise a genocide

[Frumple]

It. It totally can, though.

[Loud Whispers]

It. It totally can, though.

Correction; stupidity can't run a well-organised genocide

[LordBaal]

Sure, taking up the flag of communism has killed millions of people by hunger, forced dissapearances, work-to-death camps and death squads, its still happening today, both in a organized or not fashion, yet many people still love the idea.

Capitaiism is not the golden chalice but is a million times better.

A free maket with good antimonopoly laws and good and sensible social spending, specially on the best education that can be provided and fairly paid public workers is the better way I think. Of course theres more to it but I dont have the patience or battery to fully unwind myself rigth now, and guess what, theres not power rigth now thanks to our glorious commrades.

[Mathel]

All problems go away if you change the definitions. Communism can also mean a system where the basic unit of organization is the commune. So, communism in the sense you're talking about, and then you organize everything else as negotiation / trade between the communes. But trade would still have to happen in this scenario as I described it, since communes will naturally come to specialize in producing different things to trade, and there's no "correct" amount of loaves of bread that are worth 1 pair of shoes (and it depends on the bread and the shoes too). So even if you take the sensible route of localizing things to communes and give them autonomy at that level, a market system will HAVE to emerge, no matter what they call it.

However, the real problem is that most of people who actually call themselves communists are WAY too individualistic to actually subsume their personal autonomy to something as restrictive as ... a commune. If you look at the results when most of that specific type of people form a commune, the end result is that it's dysfunctional to the point of barely being above subsistence farming ... no scratch that, they're actually below subsistence farming in terms of total productivity, and it's only even a viable way of life because they get to scavenge stuff from the fringe of the actual productive industrial society. It's like saying becoming well-organized beggars is a viable alternative to having industry. So, wow, you managed to scavenge some car parts from the rubbish tip and now your commune has wheels. Wow such self sufficiency. Even with the ample scavenging opportunities almost all communes collapse because people get sick of starving and realize just getting a job is way easier and puts more food on the table for less effort.

Nigerian subsistence farmers probably produce more real value than Western commune-kiddies ever did. So the people who actually say they want communism are more or less expecting everyone else to just fall in line with the idea and make it work for them. None of them could set up a successful commune as an example if they had to do so to save their life.

And then I would argue that it does not in fact work.
Not within the commune, because they do not have their needs fulfilled.
Not on the higher scale, because it gives rise to a trader caste, which facilitates the trade.

What I meant would be a situation where shoemakers are able to produce enough good shoes for everybody, bakers able to produce enough good bread for everybody, etc..
Basicaly, every village would have to be self sufficient and far enough from others for there to be little to no contact. Which is pretty much impossible at this point level of technology and population density.

It may have been used before Earth was populated by humans enough for there to be contact sustained contact between groups of humans.