Can Communism work?

[ingemann]

Communism as the ideological construction we know. No that couldn't exist. Could communism have been made workable? Yes quite likely and to some extent it was made workable in the short and medium term by USSR, through not in the long term.

So a better question would be; what policies could USSR have implemented which would have made them a long term viable state? And would such a state be truly communist?

Doesn't that term automatically exclude something from being communist?

If we go back to the original Marxist model yes, but not even Marx embraced that one. But I think it's more interesting to deal with Communism as Lenin shaped it, because that's what most of us think off, when we say Communism.

Here it's interesting to ask how much could we twist the Leninist model and still have something we would reasonable call communism. Poland kept private farming, GDR had in the first many decades semi-private light industry, in Yugoslavia it was legal to fire people. These aspects was important for why these three countries was relative well functioning, removal (or rather partly removal) of the planned economy would also have been positiove. But the question is when do Communism stop being Communism and just become a undemocratic version of Social Democratism?

[© tweed]

If we go back to the original Marxist model yes, but not even Marx embraced that one. But I think it's more interesting to deal with Communism as Lenin shaped it, because that's what most of us think off, when we say Communism.

Here it's interesting to ask how much could we twist the Leninist model and still have something we would reasonable call communism. Poland kept private farming, GDR had in the first many decades semi-private light industry, in Yugoslavia it was legal to fire people. These aspects was important for why these three countries was relative well functioning, removal (or rather partly removal) of the planned economy would also have been positiove. But the question is when do Communism stop being Communism and just become a undemocratic version of Social Democratism?

right, there was great diversity even within the "Communist bloc".  

I think the Yugoslav model would be closest to how a 21st century "communism" could arise, built on a network of cooperatives.  Mondragon employs about 70k people, Venezuela built an impressive network of cooperatives under Chavez, and even in the USA cooperatives employ a few hundred thousand people.

of course, the of-itself emancipatory power of co-ops is limited.  they are still subject to market discipline, sometimes dependent on finance capital, and must turn a profit to survive.

an interlocking of credit unions and public/state banks, and/or state lending policies that are favorable to co-operative enterprises would allow a degree of independence from finance capital, and a democratic economy-within-the economy.

so, the 20th Century, "Leninist" command economy will not rise again, but in order to take control of history away from un-regulatable capital, co-ops must develop a political consciousness and/or link up with explicitly political organizations, larger labor organizations, etc.

Gar Alperowitz is the main scholar-activist on this subject.
http://www.garalperovitz.com/what-then-can-i-do/

[politicus]

Trouble with Ingemanns approach is he is de facto discussing if Socialism can work - not Communism.

This is of course a more relevant topic, but not what the OP wanted to discuss.

Again, the Eastern European dictatorships did not claim they had implemented Communism, just that they were Socialist societies. If you moderate them towards a mixed economy, that is even further  from Communism.

[ingemann]

Trouble with Ingemanns approach is he is de facto discussing if Socialism can work - not Communism.

This is of course a more relevant topic, but not what the OP wanted to discuss.

Again, the Eastern European dictatorships did not claim they had implemented Communism, just that they were Socialist societies. If you moderate them towards a mixed economy, that is even further  from Communism.

I think it's meaningless to discuss a theorectical construction instead of what people mean when they're talking about Communism, the kind of institutions we saw in the east block.

Would what you mean with Communism function; of course not, neither would any other platonic ideal. So let's not discuss platonic ideals and deal with whether you could produce a functional real world example of the ideology.

[politicus]

Trouble with Ingemann's approach is he is de facto discussing if Socialism can work - not Communism.

This is of course a more relevant topic, but not what the OP wanted to discuss.

Again, the Eastern European dictatorships did not claim they had implemented Communism, just that they were Socialist societies. If you moderate them towards a mixed economy, that is even further  from Communism.

I think it's meaningless to discuss a theoretical construction instead of what people mean when they're talking about Communism, the kind of institutions we saw in the east block.

Would what you mean with Communism function; of course not, neither would any other platonic ideal. So let's not discuss platonic ideals and deal with whether you could produce a functional real world example of the ideology.

It is not about what I call Communism, but what Communists themselves called communism. They did not claim their societies were communist. It was the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, not the Union of Communist Soviet Republics.

It is not a given that a non-Leninist version of Communism closer to the ideals of Marx could not function (leave Platon out of this, he is not relevant). How close you could have gotten to the ideal is hard to access, but I think it is a given that you could have gotten much closer than the Leninist societies.

The Leninist models are not a good starting point for accessing whether it was possible to construct a functioning Communist society. Leninism was efficient in obtaining power, but it also ruined any real development towards Communism because it created enormous incentives for a bureaucratic elite to halt any development towards genuine communal ownership of the means of production by the people, workers influence and the demise (or even reduction) of the state.

Also, like I said, you move away from Communism towards Socialism if you take a mixed economy version of Yugoslavia as your starting point. A successful revolution in Germany in 1919 is a better starting point if you want a RL timeline.

Whether Socialism can work is more relevant than whether Communism can work, but it is a separate issue and not what the OP asked. If you want to debate that you should create a separate thread.

[AggregateDemand]

It doesn't even work on a micro level. Families are often governed by irrational preference for people who share much of their DNA with you, yet they can't achieve pure communism. Socialism is nearly impossible on a micro scale as well.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No is the correct answer

It doesn't even work on a micro level. Families are often governed by irrational preference for people who share much of their DNA with you, yet they can't achieve pure communism. Socialism is nearly impossible on a micro scale as well.

What about Denmark? They're Socialist and one of the best countries on earth.

[Murica!]

No is the correct answer

It doesn't even work on a micro level. Families are often governed by irrational preference for people who share much of their DNA with you, yet they can't achieve pure communism. Socialism is nearly impossible on a micro scale as well.

What about Denmark? They're Socialist and one of the best countries on earth.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Did something happen in Denmark?  Last I checked it was the least corrupt country on earth, and full of happy people.

[Murica!]

Did something happen in Denmark?  Last I checked it was the least corrupt country on earth, and full of happy people.

Tell me what you think socialism is.

[AggregateDemand]

What about Denmark? They're Socialist and one of the best countries on earth.

Denmark is happy.

Happiness begets socialism. Socialism does not beget happiness. Anyone who is confused need only observe normal human behavior. You're happy with someone, you marry them or your spend lots of time and share your resources with them, without worrying about contracts, profits, or other commercial benchmarks.

Why the average American liberal is incapable of making such simplistic observations is beyond me, but many of them are literally nonsensical psychopaths with a control fetish and very little education. They think running-up trillion dollar bills in counterproductive entitlement programs is a sign of progress.

[SWE]

Did something happen in Denmark?  Last I checked it was the least corrupt country on earth, and full of happy people.

No, nothing happened since I last checked that made it stop being capitalist

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

"Work" is undefined by the OP.

[ingemann]

Denmark is happy.

snip

What a bunch of bullsh**t.  I will ignore most of it except for that one comment.

Measuring happiness is hard, much harder than monolingual people think, happiness may not necessary mean the same between different people, and I would be surprised if any people who had dealt with Danes in reality would describe us as a happy people. A important aspect here is the difference in how Danes and as example Americans perceive the world.

Very simply said; (and it's very simple, because this is only trend, not something universal) Danes are pessimistic, while Americans are optimistic. This mean that for a Dane who don't expect much good, life is full of positive surprises, while for Americans who expect much, life is full of negative surprises. Of course if you expect the worst, you also make some long term plans, if things should go wrong, this mean that the consequences of failure is lower for a Dane. At last it's seen as bad taste for a Dane to show his wealth (unless it's done subtle), which mean the social consequences of poverty are also smaller for a Dane. That doesn't make Danes happy, but it make them less unhappy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No because you will always have classes form on some level or some basis and also, you will have people crave the restoration of stability and thus cause a dictatorship to form.

[AggregateDemand]

Denmark is happy.

snip

What a bunch of bullsh**t.  I will ignore most of it except for that one comment.

Measuring happiness is hard, much harder than monolingual people think, happiness may not necessary mean the same between different people, and I would be surprised if any people who had dealt with Danes in reality would describe us as a happy people. A important aspect here is the difference in how Danes and as example Americans perceive the world.

Very simply said; (and it's very simple, because this is only trend, not something universal) Danes are pessimistic, while Americans are optimistic. This mean that for a Dane who don't expect much good, life is full of positive surprises, while for Americans who expect much, life is full of negative surprises. Of course if you expect the worst, you also make some long term plans, if things should go wrong, this mean that the consequences of failure is lower for a Dane. At last it's seen as bad taste for a Dane to show his wealth (unless it's done subtle), which mean the social consequences of poverty are also smaller for a Dane. That doesn't make Danes happy, but it make them less unhappy.

I understand your Danish pessimism makes you believe I'm issuing a slanderous critique, but honestly I don't care. Do whatever you want.

I'm firing a shot across the bow of the worst socialists in the OECD, namely the Democratic Party. Democrats are so American they measure their political victories in "dollars wasted" and "jobs destroyed", which is amusing for a country as wealthy as ours, and Democrats never seem to get tired of it. China also has a good laugh at the Democratic Party, since China is the direct benefactor.

The rest of the world is not too impressed when the US economy sputters and stalls, which drags down the global economy and causes currency balancing issues.

[Murica!]

Denmark is happy.

snip

What a bunch of bullsh**t.  I will ignore most of it except for that one comment.

Measuring happiness is hard, much harder than monolingual people think, happiness may not necessary mean the same between different people, and I would be surprised if any people who had dealt with Danes in reality would describe us as a happy people. A important aspect here is the difference in how Danes and as example Americans perceive the world.

Very simply said; (and it's very simple, because this is only trend, not something universal) Danes are pessimistic, while Americans are optimistic. This mean that for a Dane who don't expect much good, life is full of positive surprises, while for Americans who expect much, life is full of negative surprises. Of course if you expect the worst, you also make some long term plans, if things should go wrong, this mean that the consequences of failure is lower for a Dane. At last it's seen as bad taste for a Dane to show his wealth (unless it's done subtle), which mean the social consequences of poverty are also smaller for a Dane. That doesn't make Danes happy, but it make them less unhappy.

I understand your Danish pessimism makes you believe I'm issuing a slanderous critique, but honestly I don't care. Do whatever you want.

I'm firing a shot across the bow of the worst socialists in the OECD, namely the Democratic Party. Democrats are so American they measure their political victories in "dollars wasted" and "jobs destroyed", which is amusing for a country as wealthy as ours, and Democrats never seem to get tired of it. China also has a good laugh at the Democratic Party, since China is the direct benefactor.

The rest of the world is not too impressed when the US economy sputters and stalls, which drags down the global economy and causes currency balancing issues.

Do you know what socialism even is?

[AggregateDemand]

Do you know what socialism even is?

I'm accusing them of not being socialist at all. I'm accusing them of being greedy little pigs who invoke terms like social justice ans shared responsibility to nickel and dime the American people, while delivering virtually nothing of value.

[Murica!]

Do you know what socialism even is?

I'm accusing them of not being socialist at all. I'm accusing them of being greedy little pigs who invoke terms like social justice ans shared responsibility to nickel and dime the American people, while delivering virtually nothing of value.

Politicians tend to do nothing of value to the people, but I still want you to define what socialism(at the very least in your opinion) is.

[Vega]

I think it can for really small countries. Things get authoritarian quick though for bigger countries.

[AggregateDemand]

Politicians tend to do nothing of value to the people, but I still want you to define what socialism(at the very least in your opinion) is.

Socialism is Kaldor-Hicks

[Murica!]

Politicians tend to do nothing of value to the people, but I still want you to define what socialism(at the very least in your opinion) is.

Socialism is Kaldor-Hicks

OK, lets try again, what is the definition of socialism?

[Redalgo]

OK, lets try again, what is the definition of socialism?

He gave an answer that socialism is an economic order under which efficiency is measured in terms of whether decisions make some people better off more so than they hurt others, and that in theory those who get hurt could be helped by those who gained making reparations for the trouble - though that compensation need not actually occur. It is close to saying, "Socialism is the economics of social utility." I do not agree but it does sound like a better answer than I've gotten from a lot of capitalist opponents.

[Murica!]

OK, lets try again, what is the definition of socialism?

He gave an answer that socialism is an economic order under which efficiency is measured in terms of whether decisions make some people better off more so than they hurt others, and that in theory those who get hurt could be helped by those who gained making reparations for the trouble - though that compensation need not actually occur. It is close to saying, "Socialism is the economics of social utility." I do not agree but it does sound like a better answer than I've gotten from a lot of capitalist opponents.

Yeah, I got that, but it's quite incorrect.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The tone of the discussion here is interesting. We're away with the faeries and enquiring about the number of Lenin's who can dance on the head of a requisitioned pin. Big truths, pub philosophy and dictionary definitions. The problem is that the word in question ('communism') has a generic and a specific meaning and people are confusing the two. And then further adding to the morass by throwing in a bunch of other terms (also, often, without settled meanings) as well. Hooray.