My own little Communist FAQ :)

[n0l1m17z]

Soew, i've seen some people throw out some pretty different views on communism, and I'd love to inject my opinion on a few of the claims i seems to come across often. Not ordered what so ever. ^_^
Remember, i don't claim to hold the indefinite truth, this is my view on things.

Q: Communism didn't work in Russia, why should it be anything different anywhere else?

A: The way Lenin took on the ideology was impossible. He observed that it was necessary to "force" communism over a population by dictation. Since ultimate communism requires no administration what so ever, this is not a possible workaround. Instead of trying to force a bunch of capitalists to suddenly not be able to "make their own fortune" isn't possible. Instead, you need to make the people understand the worthlessness of material possessions and the vitality of true (not purely economical) equilibrium. The way Stalin further handled it (and misused it for personal gains) was just stupid.

Q: Human beings are flawed, and some will always be drawn towards exploiting the system, so how can you build a society without ultimate authorities?

A: I believe the first assumption is wrong. The main reason for the corruption of human kind today isn't a mystical biological crime-addiction, but rather a capitalistic illusion of a better life. Since the world is currently a pool of economical predators stuck in the escapist illusion that life will be better by having more money, we cannot directly implant the ideology, but the true way to implanting communism is through illumination.

Q: How do you reward hard-working people, and won't everyone just become lazy when everything is given to them?

A: Depends on the definition of reward. Since economy isn't really vital, an economical reward is obviously impossible. However, in a equal world, there are better opportunities of working with what you actually like. The "sucky" jobs will of course still be needed, but for the "enlightened" individual, the contribution to society is a reward, and in a communist world you will obviously have the same material condition as everyone else thus removing the shittyness of it. And the life outside your job is suddenly not defined by your level of education of choice of path in life since you could have the same conditions as a doctor or CEO.
I believe true happiness comes from the immaterial values (love, family, living without focus on how much you can achieve but rather what you achieve every day, and how nice everything really is), and when your life isn't all about getting a new TV that you don't really need you have a better shot at realizing the vitality of these immaterial objectives and conditions.

...there goes the bell. I expect to continue my faq when i have more time. Do ask questions if you like, I'll deal with them the best i can.

[Goatboy]

You have some really good ideas.

I'm not exactly for communism, or against democracy. I'm not really for or against anything politically right now. However, the reason I think communism would not work is because people are too greedy. There would not be enough "kind souls" to work as doctors. As far as CEOs go, they would become the new leaders. Ultimately, in any society, the person with the highest level of authority becomes the leader, regardless of what their political system dictates.

Just my thoughts.

[n0l1m17z]

However, the reason I think communism would not work is because people are too greedy.

But part of my point is that material greed is a consequence of a materialistic society. If you are raised with commercials telling you that you need all kinds of shit, the people around you bragging with all their expensive stuff, and everyone else who've of course been corrupted with the same commercials admiring it, sure, you become greedy. You long for the recognition, and you persuade by acquiring expensive stuff. However, once you learn to value the things that actually matter, the things that actually does make you happy, you stop longing for the bigger car that everyone stares at. And at the same time you start to recognize the same values in the people around you.

[Goatboy]

However, the reason I think communism would not work is because people are too greedy.

But part of my point is that material greed is a consequence of a materialistic society. If you are raised with commercials telling you that you need all kinds of shit, the people around you bragging with all their expensive stuff, and everyone else who've of course been corrupted with the same commercials admiring it, sure, you become greedy. You long for the recognition, and you persuade by acquiring expensive stuff. However, once you learn to value the things that actually matter, the things that actually does make you happy, you stop longing for the bigger car that everyone stares at. And at the same time you start to recognize the same values in the people around you.

Another good point, so I should revise what I said before:

People are greedy and STUPID.

The only way you are going to teach people to live without things is by taking them away. As it stands right now, people are so ingrained, as you said, to value material possessions that it would be nearly impossible to convince everyone to just let go.

In the same vein, the only way you could start a truly functional communist nation is by seeding it with infants less than a few months old, before they get a sense of possession and personal value. The simple truth is, as long as people are raised in a society that values material property, they cannot easily transition to a fully communist nation.

Aside from that, you make some good points. People really should learn to value what they have less, and who they are more. I have had conversations with homeless people that have taught me more about humanity than any Ethics professor could.

[qwertypoliku]

Your Q &A was combating that arguments for why communism could not work. My question is, why would you want communism? What part of the system appeals to you?

[raddy1313]

But part of my point is that material greed is a consequence of a materialistic society. If you are raised with commercials telling you that you need all kinds of shit, the people around you bragging with all their expensive stuff, and everyone else who've of course been corrupted with the same commercials admiring it, sure, you become greedy. You long for the recognition, and you persuade by acquiring expensive stuff. However, once you learn to value the things that actually matter, the things that actually does make you happy, you stop longing for the bigger car that everyone stares at. And at the same time you start to recognize the same values in the people around you.

I understand where you're coming from, but my argument is that if I'm willing to work hard enough to pay for and earn material things, why shouldn't I get them? If you create a society without material things, it makes sense that those raised in the society would never want these things, but how do you determine what is needed for a society to function? I would argue that the need for private transportation (i.e., cars) is necessary, particularly for people living in suburban and rural areas, and immediately the question is raised of what kind of car each person should get, because every person has a different requirement for their car. Computers certainly aren't a necessity and I would classify them as a material object, but I can't tell you how many relationships I've formed, fostered, and maintained because of my computer. Should that be taken away as well just because I want it and I don't need it?

I guess my argument is that as long as there is a surplus of anything, people will want beyond what they need. Since, ideally, you would want your culture to grow, you need a surplus to encourage growth. As your culture grows, you produce more, and your surplus increases. Eventually it's going to get to the point where dispersing your surplus evenly isn't going to cut it. For example, should a family with one child get the same food as a family with four children? The family with one child doesn't need the extra food, but the parents work just as hard as the parents of the family with four kids. If you give the family of six the additional food, how long before you start having families of nine and ten? It gets to the point where you need a way to ensure that a person does not consume more than they produce. The solution is money. As soon as you introduce money, you will ultimately introduce capitalism.

[Pieprophet]

I'm not exactly for communism, or against democracy.

Im going to take this opportunity to address what i feel is a common misconception of communism. While I am not exactly a supporter of communism, nor have I read every work relevant to communism (honestly Ive mostly just read Marx and Lenin), but I have never seen anything in the communist ideals that would make it and democracy mutually exclusive. There is, as far as I can tell, no reason you couldn't have a democratic communist society. There are many problems with communism (though I would argue that capitalism does little to addresses these issues), but incompatibility with democracy is not one of them.

Since, ideally, you would want your culture to grow, you need a surplus to encourage growth.

Growth based economic models are not the only ones out there. In fact, many have made the argument (to varying degrees of successes) that not only is it not the only one, it is in fact the most flawed. I'd say more research is necessary before we come to such a conclusion, but your assumption that we have to (or should) consider growth our ultimate goal, seems unfounded to me. I'd say that capitalism (as we practice it) has proven itself to be seriously flawed, and maybe its time for us to start looking at other ideas. I personally wouldn't go strait to communism, but it seems to me it is defiantly time to consider trying something new.

[DamegedSpy]

Communism would not work at this time.

Right now progress and economy is solely based on consumerism. If we suddenly stop consuming there would be a great crisis.

Technology and culture moves around consuming. One solution to this is the GPL and Creative Commons. We should really support(Donations, contributions, feedback, etc) projects using this licenses.

I will disagree on communism until we solve consumerism.

[Bren2010]

I understand where you're coming from, but my argument is that if I'm willing to work hard enough to pay for and earn material things, why shouldn't I get them? If you create a society without material things, it makes sense that those raised in the society would never want these things, but how do you determine what is needed for a society to function? I would argue that the need for private transportation (i.e., cars) is necessary, particularly for people living in suburban and rural areas, and immediately the question is raised of what kind of car each person should get, because every person has a different requirement for their car. Computers certainly aren't a necessity and I would classify them as a material object, but I can't tell you how many relationships I've formed, fostered, and maintained because of my computer. Should that be taken away as well just because I want it and I don't need it?

I guess my argument is that as long as there is a surplus of anything, people will want beyond what they need. Since, ideally, you would want your culture to grow, you need a surplus to encourage growth. As your culture grows, you produce more, and your surplus increases. Eventually it's going to get to the point where dispersing your surplus evenly isn't going to cut it. For example, should a family with one child get the same food as a family with four children? The family with one child doesn't need the extra food, but the parents work just as hard as the parents of the family with four kids. If you give the family of six the additional food, how long before you start having families of nine and ten? It gets to the point where you need a way to ensure that a person does not consume more than they produce. The solution is money. As soon as you introduce money, you will ultimately introduce capitalism.

By saying that, you demonstrate that you don't know the principle of communism: From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. That completely alleviates the need for currency. You can do whatever it is your good at until you pass out from exhaustion, then not worry about paying the hospital bill. That brings up another quote: Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.

In my situation, that would mean that I do what I love (computer programming for example) in order to get what I need (food, water, shelter, and a computer). Besides, it doesn't have to be just give you what you need, it could be give you enough currency to get you what you need, and if you are willing enough to pinch, buy something that you want. That is why I love communism, and hate capitalism. In capitalism, people get screwed everyday by big companies into buying ridiculously overpriced things until they don't have enough money to buy what they need.

And most of the rich people you can name off of the top of your head didn't have to work hard to get their millions/billions of dollars. They inherited it, or they sing a song every once in a while, or Bill Gates for example, he simply abused companies like Apple until he saw a business opportunity to sell knock-off computers cheaper than everyone else.

[raddy1313]

By saying that, you demonstrate that you don't know the principle of communism: From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. That completely alleviates the need for currency. You can do whatever it is your good at until you pass out from exhaustion, then not worry about paying the hospital bill. That brings up another quote: Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.

In my situation, that would mean that I do what I love (computer programming for example) in order to get what I need (food, water, shelter, and a computer). Besides, it doesn't have to be just give you what you need, it could be give you enough currency to get you what you need, and if you are willing enough to pinch, buy something that you want. That is why I love communism, and hate capitalism. In capitalism, people get screwed everyday by big companies into buying ridiculously overpriced things until they don't have enough money to buy what they need.

And most of the rich people you can name off of the top of your head didn't have to work hard to get their millions/billions of dollars. They inherited it, or they sing a song every once in a while, or Bill Gates for example, he simply abused companies like Apple until he saw a business opportunity to sell knock-off computers cheaper than everyone else.

I will never argue that capitalism is a perfect system, but one of the hallmarks of anti-capitalism is that faceless, evil "big businesses" somehow "force" people into buying things they don't need, over extending themselves, getting into debt, etc. I agree that a vast majority of people become too obsessed with material things and try to maintain a lifestyle that they can't afford. What bothers me is that personal responsibility is removed from these people, that they are somehow unable to control their own spending. People like to pontificate about all the sneaky advertisements that businesses put out there, but ultimately it is YOUR responsibility how you spend your money. No advertisement has ever forced me to do anything against my will.