Communism

[The Ninja]

I would like you to give a pro and con of communism. Then debate on what someone else thought was a pro of con. I'm kind of interested in what the results of this will be.

I suppose I should give my opinion as to give the next person something to argue with me about.
Pro: Everyone is treated relatively equally.
Con: The government owns pretty much everything.

[Amnesiac]

Communism doesn't work. I've explained this many times in previous threads on the subject, so here:

Exactly. Not only is the likelihood of this ever happening very small — it never occurred in Europe as Marx described (an alternate form of communism created by Lenin worked in Russia) — it's not even possible in modern times. As I said before, the "working class" (proletariat) isn't the same as it was. Working people have good standards of life and adequate pay. There's no motivation for them to overthrow the government, and they're too small of a group (service industry careers make up 70% of the United States' workforce) to hold a position of power anyway.

Exactly. Not only is the likelihood of this ever happening very small — it never occurred in Europe as Marx described (an alternate form of communism created by Lenin worked in Russia) — it's not even possible in modern times. As I said before, the "working class" (proletariat) isn't the same as it was. Working people have good standards of life and adequate pay. There's no motivation for them to overthrow the government, and they're too small of a group (service industry careers make up 70% of the United States' workforce) to hold a position of power anyway.

Marx was the one who started the communist movement in the first place. I'm attacking so-called "Marxism", what most people think of as the primary form of communism. There are different versions of communist ideology that have been succesful — Marxism-Leninism, for example — but pure Marxism as put forth in The Communist Manifesto is the original and primary form of communism.

The main difference between Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism is the implementation. However, in the end, the primary goal of communism is to have a stateless nation where classes (or wealth) no longer exist, therefore eliminating any possibility of oppression. This is, of course, impossible.

Most unemployed people have a valid reason to be unemployed.

Also, communism relies on the working class not wanting to work for the bourgeois (the higher classes, technically middle class). That's why the proletarians revolt, establish a dictatorship of the proletariat to redistribute wealth by force, and establish a classless society where everyone has an equal amount of wealth and rights. It's not about people wanting to work, everyone has to work and contribute to their communities — if they don't, the temporary dictatorship of the proletariat is designed to force them or remove them from society.

Yes, they do. In the West, thanks to minimum wage laws and government benefits, people are doing fine. The conditions of the working man today are immeasurably better than back in the 1840s, when Marx wrote the Manifesto. That was a time where people couldn't feed themselves. Nowadays, workers get good pay — they can afford a place to live, food and amenities like TV and the Internet. Some workers get paid just as well as people in the service industries. It's not an issue.

And yes, since they are small it makes it incredibly difficult for them to overthrow the government. Marx's theories relied on the fact that in the 19th century, the proletarians made up a majority of every country's population. Nowadays, they don't even come close.

[The Ninja]

Communism doesn't work. I've explained this many times in previous threads on the subject, so here:

I wasn't asking why communism doesn't work I was asking for pros and cons of it. While were on the subject though I don't understand why communism doesn't work. In my mind I have an idea that combines the idea of communism and the Inca "mita" system and from almost every aspect it seems like a good idea.

[Amnesiac]

I wasn't asking why communism doesn't work I was asking for pros and cons of it. While were on the subject though I don't understand why communism doesn't work. In my mind I have an idea that combines the idea of communism and the Inca "mita" system and from almost every aspect it seems like a good idea.

Well, communism not being a feasible economic system is the con to it. Sure, it would be nice to live in a world where everyone's "equal," but since that's impossible anyway, I don't see any pros to such a system. Besides, I explained exactly why it doesn't work in all of those quoted posts. Note that I'm talking about pure Marxism, following the principles of Karl Marx published in The Communist Manifesto, not some alternate form of the philosophy.

Besides, from my understanding, the Incan mita system was pretty much slavery. It wouldn't modify the original concept of communism in any way — under a communist government, a good example being Stalin ruling over the USSR in the 1950s, the populous is told exactly what to produce and build by the government (command economy). Combining this with the mita system would pretty much make no difference, since the mita system is effectively the same thing anyway.

[Perseus]

Besides, from my understanding, the Incan mita system was pretty much slavery. It wouldn't modify the original concept of communism in any way — under a communist government, a good example being Stalin ruling over the USSR in the 1950s, the populous is told exactly what to produce and build by the government (command economy). Combining this with the mita system would pretty much make no difference, since the mita system is effectively the same thing anyway.

If I remember correctly from 1491: New Revelations of America Before Columbus (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/1491/Charles-C-Mann/e/9780307278180/?itm=1&USRI=1491+new+revelations+of+the+americas+before+columbus), the Inca mita system was more or less they conquered a village, etc., and then they would produce one thing, like you said, but the Incas did not have a currency. Fuck, I can't remember. Goddamnit. I'll look it up, but you should read the book.

[Amnesiac]

If I remember correctly from 1491: New Revelations of America Before Columbus (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/1491/Charles-C-Mann/e/9780307278180/?itm=1&USRI=1491+new+revelations+of+the+americas+before+columbus), the Inca mita system was more or less they conquered a village, etc., and then they would produce one thing, like you said, but the Incas did not have a currency. Fuck, I can't remember. Goddamnit. I'll look it up, but you should the book.

Mit'a (Quechua) was mandatory public service in the society of the Inca Empire. Historians use the hispanicized term mita to distinguish the system as it was modified by the Spanish, under whom it became a form of slavery.

Mit'a was effectively a form of tribute to the Inca government, in the form of labor, i.e. a corvée. In the Inca Empire, public service was required in community-driven projects such as the building of their extensive road network[...]

This is what mita is, I guess. I haven't read that book, but I'll put it on my list.

In most communist governments, the citizens are required to do "community driven projects" anyway. Communism is strongly based on contributing to "the community" and, of course, spreading the wealth. Combining communism with mita wouldn't really change anything.

[Perseus]

This is what mita is, I guess. I haven't read that book, but I'll put it on my list.

In most communist governments, the citizens are required to do "community driven projects" anyway. Communism is strongly based on contributing to "the community" and, of course, spreading the wealth. Combining communism with mita wouldn't really change anything.

Yeah, I looked at, but I know this book details it better than Wikipedia. It's just gonna be hard to find it 'cause he doesn't specify a chapter about the Inca. It's somewhere in some chapter about something.

[Amnesiac]

Yeah, I looked at, but I know this book details it better than Wikipedia. It's just gonna be hard to find it 'cause he doesn't specify a chapter about the Inca. It's somewhere in some chapter about something.

I'm not surprised that it details the system better than Wiki, but overall we've got the definition down, right?

[Perseus]

I'm not surprised that it details the system better than Wiki, but overall we've got the definition down, right?

Yes, but I want to find it. :P

[The Ninja]

Well, communism not being a feasible economic system is the con to it. Sure, it would be nice to live in a world where everyone's "equal," but since that's impossible anyway, I don't see any pros to such a system. Besides, I explained exactly why it doesn't work in all of those quoted posts. Note that I'm talking about pure Marxism, following the principles of Karl Marx published in The Communist Manifesto, not some alternate form of the philosophy.

Besides, from my understanding, the Incan mita system was pretty much slavery. It wouldn't modify the original concept of communism in any way — under a communist government, a good example being Stalin ruling over the USSR in the 1950s, the populous is told exactly what to produce and build by the government (command economy). Combining this with the mita system would pretty much make no difference, since the mita system is effectively the same thing anyway.

Well ok then fuck the mita sytem. I suppose I should tell you what my idea for a alternate communist government is. Each person works to produce something(food, technology, etc). This production is then sold to the people of the country or another country. If they do their job correctly they will be payed. The government workers are simply their to make laws, enforce them, and watch over the extra money. The government workers are paid just as much as the citizens, thus everyone is treated equally financially. This I'm sure will leave quite a bit of extra money lying around. This is kept in case of disaster, welfare and funding public services. Those public services including police, fire fighters, health care (yep), military, and of course our space program :P. That's pretty much financially how it would work out.

[Amnesiac]

Well ok then fuck the mita sytem. I suppose I should tell you what my idea for a alternate communist government is. Each person works to produce something(food, technology, etc). This production is then sold to the people of the country or another country. If they do their job correctly they will be payed. The government workers are simply their to make laws, enforce them, and watch over the extra money. The government workers are paid just as much as the citizens, thus everyone is treated equally financially. This I'm sure will leave quite a bit of extra money lying around. This is kept in case of disaster, welfare and funding public services. Those public services including police, fire fighters, health care (yep), military, and of course our space program :P. That's pretty much financially how it would work out.

That's all nice and stuff, but the problem is that humans are inherently greedy. Those government workers who are given the power to create laws are going to abuse that power. That's what's happened in every communist government that's ever existed. I know you're trying to make it so that there would be less of a reason for them to abuse their power, but unfortunately they'll still do it.

Your new system is basically the same as communism. You have people doing various jobs and a select few chosen to enforce laws over those people, even though they're paid equally. No matter how equally you distribute the wealth, someone's going to want more. That's why communism doesn't work, no matter how it's executed.

[The Ninja]

That's all nice and stuff, but the problem is that humans are inherently greedy. Those government workers who are given the power to create laws are going to abuse that power. That's what's happened in every communist government that's ever existed. I know you're trying to make it so that there would be less of a reason for them to abuse their power, but unfortunately they'll still do it.

Your new system is basically the same as communism. You have people doing various jobs and a select few chosen to enforce laws over those people, even though they're paid equally. No matter how equally you distribute the wealth, someone's going to want more. That's why communism doesn't work, no matter how it's executed.

There would need to be someone who the law needed to pass through to be approved, someone who doesn't care about money, a mediator. What I'm about to suggest might be completely insane, but perhaps the president of another country?

[Amnesiac]

There would need to be someone who the law needed to pass through to be approved, someone who doesn't care about money, a mediator. What I'm about to suggest might be completely insane, but perhaps the president of another country?

Then they would abuse that power so they could make the communist state a satellite state of their own. Face it, human greed trumps everything. Capitalism is the only thing that takes that greed and turns it into something beneficial (for the most part).

[The Ninja]

Then they would abuse that power so they could make the communist state a satellite state of their own. Face it, human greed trumps everything. Capitalism is the only thing that takes that greed and turns it into something beneficial (for the most part).

Ok I was thinking about this while waiting for a reply: Everyone has a say in a law that is passed. Basically take the "We the people" in the constitution literally. A law must go through everyone, including the citizens. Laws that were established when the country was first founded would prevent someone from threating another person or changing the communist nation into for instance a capitalist nation. Don't just make it financially equal but also politically equal.

[Amnesiac]

Ok I was thinking about this while waiting for a reply: Everyone has a say in a law that is passed. Basically take the "We the people" in the constitution literally. A law must go through everyone, including the citizens.

That's what democracy is.

Laws that were established when the country was first founded would prevent someone from threating another person or changing the communist nation into for instance a capitalist nation. Don't just make it financially equal but also politically equal.

I don't see what you're trying to do here. Someone's still going to have to enforce those laws, and when they do, they'll abuse that power and change the system completely. The problem with communism is that, if you put someone in any position that's "special", they'll abuse that.

[Perseus]

I'm not surprised that it details the system better than Wiki, but overall we've got the definition down, right?

Not only did Pachakuti reconfigure the capital, he laid out the instituitons that characterized Tawantinsuyu istelf. For centuries, villagers had spent part of their time working in teams on community projects. Alternately bullying and cajoling, Pachakuti expanded the service obligation unrecognizably. In Tawantinsuyu, he decreed, all land and property belonged to the state (indeed, to the Inka himself). Peasants thus had to work periodically for the empire as farmers, spent months away from home. While they were on the road, the state fed, clothed, and housed them---all from goods supplied by other work crews. Conscripts built dams, terraces, and irrigation canals; they paved the highways and supplied the runners and llamas carrying messages and goods along them. Dictatorially extending Andean verticality, the imperium shuttled people and material in and out of every Andean crevice.

Not the least surprising feature of this economic system was that it functioned without money. True, the lack of currency did not surprise the Spanish invaders--much of Europe did without money until the eighteenth century. but the Inka did not even have markets. Economists would predict that this nonmarket economy---vertical socialism, it has been called---should produce gross inefficiencies. These surely occurred, but the Robers were of surplus, not want. The Spanish invaders were stunned to find warehouses overflowing with untouched cloth and supplies. But to the Inka the brimming coffers signified prestige and plenty; it was all part of the plan. Most important, Tawantinsuyu "managed to eradicate hunger," the Peruvian novelist Mario Varga Llosa noted. Though no fan of the Inka, he conceded that "only a very small number of empire throughout the whole world have succeeded in this feat."

When Tawantinsuyu swallowed a new area, the Inka forcibly imported settlers from other, faraway areas, often in large numbers, and gave them land. The newcomers were encouraged to keep their own dress and customs rather than integrate in to the host population. To communicate, both groups were forced to use Ruma Suni, the language of their conquerors. In the short run this practice created political tensions that the Inka manipulated to control both groups. In the long term it would have, if successful, eroded the distinctions among cultures and forged a homogeneous new nation in the imprint of that long ass T name (not verbatim :P). Five centuries later the wholesale reshuffling of populations became an infamous trademark of Stalin and Mao. But the scale on which the Inka moved the pieces around the ethnic checkerboard would have excited their admiration. Incredibly, foreigners came to outnumber natives in many places. It is possible that ethnic clashes would eventually have caused long ass T name to implode, Yugoslavia-style. But if Pizzaro had not interrupted, the Inka might have created a monolithic culture as enduring as China.
Mann, C.C. (2005). 1491: new revelations of the americas before columbus. New York, NY: Vintage. (80-82).

There's what I was trying to tell you earlier.

[The Ninja]

That's what democracy is.



I don't see what you're trying to do here. Someone's still going to have to enforce those laws, and when they do, they'll abuse that power and change the system completely. The problem with communism is that, if you put someone in any position that's "special", they'll abuse that.

Is it possible to have democracy in communism?

[Amnesiac]

Mann, C.C. (2005). 1491: new revelations of the americas before columbus. New York, NY: Vintage. (80-82).

There's what I was trying to tell you earlier.

Yeah, it's roughly the same thing as communism. The author even makes allusions to Stalin and Mao. Thanks for finding it, though.

Is it possible to have democracy in communism?

No, because communism is designed to be a stateless society. However, in real life it never ends up that way.

[The Ninja]

Well then, I give up. Theres obviously no solution .-.

[Amnesiac]

Well then, I give up. Theres obviously no solution .-.

If communism worked, it wouldn't fail so miserably every time a revolution happens. The USSR, Cuba, China and North Korea aren't pure communist nations. They're dictatorships under a guise of communism.

So yeah, communism is pretty much impossible.

Good debate, though :P