Can communism ever work?

[braindead]

Simple enough, do you guys think a communist system will ever prosper in the modern world? China does not count - yes, technically they are still a socialist state, but their economics has shifted towards traditional capitalist markets to incentivise growth and trade, and it was worked tremendously well for them. Think back to the fifties and sixties, with the Great Leap Forwards, etcetera.. Mao's much more Communist ideals (communal agriculture, for instance) resulted in a catastrophic famine and regression of the economy. Capitalist ideals saved them.

I'm not just interested in economics though - socially, do you think Communism is superior to the more hierarchical Western capitalist model? There was (not sure if there still is) a lot of social unrest in Communist states, but I think it's safe to say this was mainly attributable to the poor economy at the times.

On ideals alone, ignoring practicality, Communism is a great idea. Will it work - and if not, why?

[Black Bird Lockheed]

Communism may benefit public but at the cost of their freedom. There are many disadvantages of communism. If govt controls all industries, don't you think that brilliant business people who have innovative ideas are discourage to invent new things because of government restrictions. Second thing is that capitalist economy will have fierce competition and hence the quality of goods and services will be excellent. So that is why I think that private manufactured goods are better than state owned goods. ( I don't know about China but Indian Government industries usually provides substandard goods and services.)

[Matsu]

Well, when I try to think logically about this, the only reason why I can think that kind of economy doesn't work is because most trade today is globalized, and most of the world is capitalist (minus a couple crazy dictators here and there). Thus, it doesn't prosper in a globalized world because countries would probably be less willing to trade with a country with a different economic structure or give you preferential treatment.

Personally though, I think human nature is just to be as greedy as possible. It's what's made us hunt any species we wish to excess (even to the point of extinction), it's what makes top political officials corrupt bastards who take advantage of people's money. Most importantly though, I think greed is what motivates us to not be losers. We work only because "I" will get rewarded in some way (whether it be things like MY family gets a new TV or I get to buy that nice car I've been looking at). Too few people are actually able to conquer this nature, that's why there's so little true altruists who are alive and well today. In a Communist system, you don't feel that sort of reward because the benefits of any economic activity you generate gets spread out over so many people, you feel almost none of it. If you don't have that sort of pay or property or whatever to motivate you, you'll never work hard. Applied to a larger scale, it's why the same levels of prosperity achieved with economic models that don't try to suppress, but rather, take advantage of our human nature such as the Capitalist model, will never be achieved through a Communist economic model. Maybe that's just the misanthrope in me coming out lol.

[Luka Petrovic]

I don't think we're in a position to judge. Yeah it really sucked when we tried it ( for lack of a better word), but as a collective group we've never given communism a shot. Basically after Lenin created the USSR any country with power did all it could to destroy communism. So it was never given a fair shot. You also cannot compare living standards between the USSR and the US, as the US was always more developed than that part of the world, so its really comparing apples to oranges and has little to do with capitalism vs communism. So all in all, it'll take a second try... but don't count me in, I want to have two cars!

[CkyBlue]

I think you've already summed it up OP; communism doesn't work in practise. There is no economic or governing system that uses a complete capitalistic or communistic approach; instead modern societies integrate aspects of both systems into how they run their countries. If communism was such a good idea people would be living under it already. Communism is based on ideal that everyone will be fine with complete government intervention of economics-that is, the consumption, allocation and distribution of resources. Furthermore, ideals assume the governing state will use resources if not most efficiently as possible, sufficiently well. Why doesn't communism exist in real life? Because citizens want freedom, and the personal feelings of a leader get in the way of running a state properly.

[Luka Petrovic]

I think you've already summed it up OP; communism doesn't work in practise. There is no economic or governing system that uses a complete capitalistic or communistic approach; instead modern societies integrate aspects of both systems into how they run their countries. If communism was such a good idea people would be living under it already. Communism is based on ideal that everyone will be fine with complete government intervention of economics-that is, the consumption, allocation and distribution of resources. Furthermore, ideals assume the governing state will use resources if not most efficiently as possible, sufficiently well. Why doesn't communism exist in real life? Because citizens want freedom, and the personal feelings of a leader get in the way of running a state properly.

But communism in theory can;t happen right away it takes generations of social, political and economics change. Believe it or not the whole "vanguard party" and dictorial leader is all part of the plan... the thing is though you are supposed to get passed it eventually. Its just that no one has really gotten passed that either because they gave up i.e China, fell apart (USSR) or haven't been able to develop quickly enough (Cuba).

[Ezak]

The main problem I see in communism is that it has no efficient way of allocating products. The information is nowhere as free to flow compared to in a capitalistic system where each individual is a tiny part in the machinery but that in the end a deciding factor in what needs to be produced and what we can live without and to what price. This however does not make it impossible, it simply mean that in order for communism or any command economy to work, the whole economy of communism will have to be revamped so that a utility unit can take moneys place, for without it there is no way to calculate the opportunity cost of each choice.

What I've been thinking about is that the whole problem should theoretically be solvable if enough computing power would be available so that each good could be given an exact utility value and that each individual in the world would have their part of the available units of utility units. Thison the other hand means that the people in this hypothetical world will have to make their own decisions, but they would have to alter their consumption in regards to how many utility units are available during the time span they are given out (say one month). Furthermore, this would mean that we would not be able to steer the economy directly but would have to give the super- computer the right information and parameters to make sane and optimal decisions. If people would work or not is hard to know, I guess it's possible in the future that the world will become completely automatized, but it will take long before this happens, in the mean time some other system would be needed to put each person on the right job so that recources would be used efficiently.

[Award Winning Boss]

I often hear that the main problem for the guaranteed failure of communism is that humans are 'greedy'. However, is it greed to want something you've worked for? Why is it suddenly morally correct to take good from people and distribute it to others?

Anyway, the only state that communism could work economically is America probably since they're the country with the super abundance of materials so equal distribution wouldn't reduce the quality of life of most Americans (those with ridiculous amounts of money will feel like their quality of life has reduced drastically).

Another thing to note is that communism, freedom, and democracy aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. The same way being in a democratic state means you'll feel the full force of capitalism. That'd probably require a minimalist state which is quite... bad imo.

[braindead]

Equally is it not morally correct to help others in need if you are able to? I think that's why Marxist ideals gained popularity in the first place - because of huge class stratification in feudalistic states. The rich are extremely rich, the poor are extremely poor, and Communism is an immediate solution, the redistribution of wealth bringing everyone closer to a median.

I don't think Communism will ever work again in our time - not necessarily because of greed or anything like that, since I believe if a Communist system were prosperous enough for everyone to have enough to live in comfort they would be content, but because of the bad press of previous Communist states, the failures that are linked with them. People are scared that history will repeat itself, just as the old cliché would predict.

[difiCa]

There are quite a few issues with full-on command economies, just as there are limitations to an entirely market-based economy. In market economies, an inequal distribution of wealth will eventually become bad enough to be problematic and mutually beneficial but to an extent non-excludable goods will not be produced in sufficient quantities (for example roads).

The greatest issue with a command economy is, in my view, that a command economy where people are employed entirely to governmental production units, innovation and entrepreneurship are severely restricted due to both limitations in the scope of operations as you either work for the government, sell your wares to those the government tells you to and/or have the government run your business by compulsory price-fixing, or the ability to benefit sufficiently from extra effort. The restriction of innovation and entrepreneurship will easily lead to a situation where people are allocated to employment and have few ways of progressing in society.

Given a random allocation, people will end up in places they feel they are either over- or underqualified for. Given a fixed allocation based on say, educational success or other "objective" measure will lead to too much of a focus on them and few methods of progression to those who differ from the norms set by the governing state. So, every time we restrict opportunities of economic and social progress, we also restrict social mobility or at the very least, make the most talented folks underperformers as they have fewer options of progression based on their ability to perform.

The final and seemingly most popular method of allocation seems to be political influence, which obviously raises questions of equity and the opportunity of "Joe Average" to do anything worthwhile, which is a situation not very much different to the most capitalist economies in the world in terms of equity. However, political influence carries with it a higher risk of problematic autocracy, since even the largest corporations in the world can fire their CEO or anyone else directing the company with comparatively little to answer for compared to ousting political leaders, which may, in some cases, require a complete revolution. Such is also the case with state-run enterprises that belong to a very powerful state.

In terms of "being content", the entire problem of restricting innovation and entrepreneurship raises the question of what "being content" is. The problem is that even if financials were good enough for everyone to enjoy a middle-class or even higher lifestyle in terms of financial success, "being content" is also dependent on the perception of employment and to some folks, it is a lifestyle of having freer choice to do what they prefer to do, rather than enjoying moderate financial success through a "boring" nine-to-five.

In short, then, communism is a very difficult nut to crack as it by definition restricts the ways of life one can lead. Whether we call it greed or any other word signifying desire to succeed in their own right through self-selected methods, both financially and in terms of happiness, a hundred per cent of human beings cannot be content with a system that places severe restrictions on the majority's way of living. For example, I would not be content with communism myself, since I feel the will to dedicate more of my life to obtaining success in working life than the average, and feel that communism would restrict me from doing it. Similarly, I could not trade places with an artist who wishes to live in a naturalistic manner and live their life through art so that I would do their job.

[Luka Petrovic]

There are quite a few issues with full-on command economies, just as there are limitations to an entirely market-based economy. In market economies, an unequal distribution of wealth will eventually become bad enough to be problematic and mutually beneficial but to an extent non-excludable goods will not be produced in sufficient quantities (for example roads).

The greatest issue with a command economy is, in my view, that a command economy where people are employed entirely to governmental production units, innovation and entrepreneurship are severely restricted due to both limitations in the scope of operations as you either work for the government, sell your wares to those the government tells you to and/or have the government run your business by compulsory price-fixing, or the ability to benefit sufficiently from extra effort. The restriction of innovation and entrepreneurship will easily lead to a situation where people are allocated to employment and have few ways of progressing in society.

Given a random allocation, people will end up in places they feel they are either over-or underqualified for. Given a fixed allocation based on say, educational success or other "objective" measure will lead to too much of a focus on them and few methods of progression to those who differ from the norms set by the governing state. So, every time we restrict opportunities of economic and social progress, we also restrict social mobility or at the very least, make the most talented folks underperformers as they have fewer options of progression based on their ability to perform.

The final and seemingly most popular method of allocation seems to be political influence, which obviously raises questions of equity and the opportunity of "Joe Average" to do anything worthwhile, which is a situation not very much different to the most capitalist economies in the world in terms of equity. However, political influence carries with it a higher risk of problematic autocracy, since even the largest corporations in the world can fire their CEO or anyone else directing the company with comparatively little to answer for compared to ousting political leaders, which may, in some cases, require a complete revolution. Such is also the case with state-run enterprises that belong to a very powerful state.

In terms of "being content", the entire problem of restricting innovation and entrepreneurship raises the question of what "being content" is. The problem is that even if financials were good enough for everyone to enjoy a middle-class or even higher lifestyle in terms of financial success, "being content" is also dependent on the perception of employment and to some folks, it is a lifestyle of having freer choice to do what they prefer to do, rather than enjoying moderate financial success through a "boring" nine-to-five.

In short, then, communism is a very difficult nut to crack as it by definition restricts the ways of life one can lead. Whether we call it greed or any other word signifying desire to succeed in their own right through self-selected methods, both financially and in terms of happiness, a hundred per cent of human beings cannot be content with a system that places severe restrictions on the majority's way of living. For example, I would not be content with communism myself, since I feel the will to dedicate more of my life to obtaining success in working life than the average, and feel that communism would restrict me from doing it. Similarly, I could not trade places with an artist who wishes to live in a naturalistic manner and live their life through art so that I would do their job.

You are thinking about this through your personal lense of a free market. People don't have to worry about progressing through society, because you have nowhere to go. Everyone is equal.

What you say is true, this does happen in command economies. The problem with this statement however is that it forgets that we've only seen the early stages of communism. It has never been achieved to its full potential. What we saw was supposed to be a limbo period between capitalism and pure communism. Communism never really had the chance to do that.

Human beings cannot be 100% content with anything, thats why we speak different languages and look for alternatives to beliefs and idealologies we already have.

[Royster Zhang]

Communism to a lesser extent - Socialism itself - is already working fine for the North European countries. Socialistic governments, true, cannot give the people as much "freedom" as democratic governments can, but it can be as one to accomplish things (both good and bad), instead of split between two.

[JonR]

Communism to a lesser extent - Socialism itself - is already working fine for the North European countries. Socialistic governments, true, cannot give the people as much "freedom" as democratic governments can, but it can be as one to accomplish things (both good and bad), instead of split between two.

Hold on, are you claiming that Northern European countries are socialist, and thus undemocratic and don't provide people with much freedom? Because any global ranking of press freedom, democracy or similar will disprove that that

Also, I think calling the systems found in Northern Europe 'communism to a lesser extent' or 'socialism itself' is inaccurate. As previously mentioned in this thread, these are mixed economies, which contain elements from both capitalism and communism. However, I'd argue that the capitalist mindset is more present by far, as there's an open market, and the notion that you reap the fruits of your own labour is strong. As for the governmental structures, these are democracies, not dictatorships of the proletariat or dictatorships otherwise.

[Maks123456]

Communism to a lesser extent - Socialism itself - is already working fine for the North European countries. Socialistic governments, true, cannot give the people as much "freedom" as democratic governments can, but it can be as one to accomplish things (both good and bad), instead of split between two.

Hold on, are you claiming that Northern European countries are socialist, and thus undemocratic and don't provide people with much freedom? Because any global ranking of press freedom, democracy or similar will disprove that that

What Royster said may sound ridiculous but in a sense he is complete right. I understand you live in Norway and probably are Norwegian, which is a Northern European country. I myself have spent the last six years living and studying in Stockholm, Sweden, which is essentially your neighbor, and I can say that the citation by Royster you quoted is essentially right.

Communities in Sweden aim to create a society that is equal. There is no exceeding in terms of talent and intelligence in school. If somebody underperforms, the entire class is forced to go through what that particular someone is struggling with in a given subject until it can move on. Furthermore, if somebody does exceed his or her classmates in terms of knowledge and academical perfomance, teachers constantly attempt to bring him/her down to the level of the rest by assigning him extra tasks of the same content or by simply not letting him continue displaying his potential. They undermine him, they strive to bring the student down so as not to encourage competitiveness and most importantly individualism in the class. I myself have been witness to cases like this in 6th and 9th grade. Hell, even you would notice this if you ever spent 2 months in Sweden - everybody has the same hair styles, wears the same clothes and acts/behaves/talks/sees the way the rest of his friends do.

And this is what I have been a witness to on a basic level. I once met a Swedish person who had lived in the United States for the majority of his life. He told me how the system in Sweden is essentially socialist and not democratic at all. He compared it to the one during the times of USSR.

Press freedom? I had a friend who undermined the Swedish national tests at a high school level on his personal blog. He was criticized them constructively but was later asked to bring it down by Skolverket, whatever you call that in English - a collective organization of school and education management.

Northern European countries may indeed rank high in terms of content and "happiness", but what any person who is familiar with their system (Swedish one in particular) would never call it fully democratic. It may contain certain elements of democracy, yes, but it also contains an equal amount of socialism.

Anyways, these are just my two cents worth.

[Maks123456]

^F*ck. My post is full of grammar mistakes. Too lazy to edit them, please excuse me.

[JonR]

Communism to a lesser extent - Socialism itself - is already working fine for the North European countries. Socialistic governments, true, cannot give the people as much "freedom" as democratic governments can, but it can be as one to accomplish things (both good and bad), instead of split between two.

Hold on, are you claiming that Northern European countries are socialist, and thus undemocratic and don't provide people with much freedom? Because any global ranking of press freedom, democracy or similar will disprove that that

What Royster said may sound ridiculous but in a sense he is complete right. I understand you live in Norway and probably are Norwegian, which is a Northern European country. I myself have spent the last six years living and studying in Stockholm, Sweden, which is essentially your neighbor, and I can say that the citation by Royster you quoted is essentially right.

Communities in Sweden aim to create a society that is equal. There is no exceeding in terms of talent and intelligence in school. If somebody underperforms, the entire class is forced to go through what that particular someone is struggling with in a given subject until it can move on. Furthermore, if somebody does exceed his or her classmates in terms of knowledge and academical perfomance, teachers constantly attempt to bring him/her down to the level of the rest by assigning him extra tasks of the same content or by simply not letting him continue displaying his potential. They undermine him, they strive to bring the student down so as not to encourage competitiveness and most importantly individualism in the class. I myself have been witness to cases like this in 6th and 9th grade. Hell, even you would notice this if you ever spent 2 months in Sweden - everybody has the same hair styles, wears the same clothes and acts/behaves/talks/sees the way the rest of his friends do.

And this is what I have been a witness to on a basic level. I once met a Swedish person who had lived in the United States for the majority of his life. He told me how the system in Sweden is essentially socialist and not democratic at all. He compared it to the one during the times of USSR.

Press freedom? I had a friend who undermined the Swedish national tests at a high school level on his personal blog. He was criticized them constructively but was later asked to bring it down by Skolverket, whatever you call that in English - a collective organization of school and education management.

Northern European countries may indeed rank high in terms of content and "happiness", but what any person who is familiar with their system (Swedish one in particular) would never call it fully democratic. It may contain certain elements of democracy, yes, but it also contains an equal amount of socialism.

Anyways, these are just my two cents worth.

You are absolutely right about the school system. It's essentially the same in Norway, although I've had many good experiences which teachers who went away from it as well. You're right about individualism being discouraged too, heck, we even have a word for it "janteloven" (The Jante Law, google it, it's interesting stuff). Being more successful than those around you is looked down upon, especially if you dare to be proud of your achievements. That being said, this is culture, not systematic communism. One could probably argue that it forms good breeding grounds for socialism, but as of today Norway has a free (regulated) market economy, and a democratic government.

As for press freedom, you should check out the article below. Northern European countries (including Sweden) are among the strongest nations in the world when it comes

press freedom, and I don't think one personal experience on your behalf quite disproves that, even if Skolverket was out of line in that instance.

http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html

[Maks123456]

^I like your perspective. Hadn't thought about it before. But of course, one can argue to what extent it actually is culture and to what it depends on ideology. (not pointing at systematic communism).

And of course, one personal experience cannot disprove it but if one has occurred with me, is there no possibility that other similar cases have occurred before and continue to occur today?

[Maks123456]

Btw, just googled the Law of Jante. That's some really interesting stuff there. Especially loved the idea of their "Ten Commandments".

//one learns something new each day.

[JonR]

^I like your perspective. Hadn't thought about it before. But of course, one can argue to what extent it actually is culture and to what it depends on ideology. (not pointing at systematic communism).

And of course, one personal experience cannot disprove it but if one has occurred with me, is there no possibility that other similar cases have occurred before and continue to occur today?

Indeed, I suppose there are no clearcut lines between ideology and culture in this case. And admittedly, a good position on the press freedom ranking is no absolute guarantee against such events, though it does imply that censorship is rare overall, compared to other countries.

Glad you liked the Law of Jante, luckily it seems that kind of mentality has declined in popularity in the past few decades

[Royster Zhang]

I would think culture to be the most important factor in this problem. Different government systems really depend on its peoples. The situation in Northern Europe seems pretty scary to me, but I think for those who live there they feel it a very satisfying system. This would definitely not work for most other cultures and countries, however, the prime example being the individualistic USA, or for China - which is probably the most capitalistic country in the world to be honest - because most of the denizens will just go on welfare and abuse the benefits of socialism. This is not to say some cultures are worse than others, and even democracy in fact doesn't work for many countries in Asia.