Can Communism be Modified to Work?

[Deleted]

I believe it can. I mean, there are already countries that do not implement full "democracy" system with capitalism. That's mostly EU though.

Yeah and almost no European agrees with what the EU is doing with the mass immigration, the undemocratic EU in Brussels is pretty much destroying Europe from inside out with the divide and conquer strategy. It's only a matter of time before it blows up. No need for enemies with the EU controlling your country.

[Daelak]

Communism is the pro-slavery argument. What makes you think you have the right to someone else's labor? Engage in free enterprise and determine a back and forth that benefits both parties instead of using the government to force the matter at point of gun. Capitalism is always the more ethical answer.

This is like saying the earth is the center of the universe. Adaptive AI will radically change every aspect of the way we perceive reality, economics, price function, and production included.

[nycnyc88]

Socialism works until you run out of other people's money.
As for communism, are you going to share your wife/girlfriend/house too? In communism everyone is equal in their misery.

[Spiffums]

Sure what's a few more 100 million dead when you're making the great Commie omelet! Less people who have to stand in the bread lines.

Anyone who thinks that magically because of "laws" or "rules" that everyone would magically equal is smoking something.

[Tico]

I think some base values upon what communism was built, should be taken into consideration and can be used to build some working system.
But I think it would differ a lot from communism.

[Deleted]

And we've had totalitarianism, not communism.

Communism has always led to totalitarianism. They go hand in hand.

Communism -- just like all other dogmatic ideologies that its supporters and other people with a similar mindset have come up with -- is founded entirely on lies, half-truths and misconceptions, and as such it can't handle criticism; thus it needs extreme censorship and a constant threat of brutal violence to hide the truth from people and keep them quiet.

[kamuimac]

I believe it can. I mean, there are already countries that do not implement full "democracy" system with capitalism. That's mostly EU though.

ye Wenesuela also belived that communism could work - look what is happening there now

[Zmaniac17]

You can't answer the OP's question because it and the entire thread is based on a major false assumption.

Communism is not something you can bring about. It is something that happens. It is a prediction, not a suggestion.

The Marxist concept is that wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. Naturally the rest of us get sick of three guys having all the money and rise up and murder them or legislate to remove their disproportionate wealth. There is a transitional period where power passes from a socialist party to worker councils and the state withers away-then you have communism.

Any kind of conscious interference in the basic process is likely to retard the process.

Right, but it's a thought experiment. You don't have to explain how you get there. Just explain what you want it to be when you do.

[Deleted]

Full fledged Communism cannot work as long as there is scarcity.

[Theodarzna]

The problem with Marx was that he was unwilling to glean much from the past, or was unable to, in order to solve his otherwise astute observations about the problems of Capitalism. Marx was essentially right to criticize what Capitalism was doing to us, and Capitalisms problems continue to mount for us collectively.

What Marx failed to do was resolve the problem nor ever really try to grapple with its origins beyond a Hegalian version of fate or destiny. Since he couldn't free himself from Hegalian Progressions, he could not really see with clear eyes what to do about Capitalism nor the origins of it in the first place. This made him woefully incompetent at the key factors necessary to solve the problem. He neither understood its origins nor understood enough about his subject (Humans) to resolve the issue.

Communism is stillborn and should probably not be attempted, but that does not close the door on resolving the initial problem. One should take to heart Marx's critique of the Capitalist world, but from that burn away any assumptions about time and history, or his presumptions about how it is to be resolved and work out a completely new solution that rejects everywhere that Marx went wrong which is pretty much everything outside his sociological description of life in a Capitalist world.

[Forogil]

Yes, its called democratic socialism, and its currently working all over europe

Wrong.

What is "working" in Europe is primarily social democracy - not democratic socialism.

[Zython]

You're gonna have to provide some proof for that. As far as I can find out, they were not.

Iran
Chile

- - - Updated - - -

Humans aren't altruistic by nature, so no. Absolute capitalism doesn't work either. There needs to be separation between business and government just like there is supposed to be separation between church and state. The US has failed spectacularly in both regards, and you can now see what it has wrought.

This is factually untrue. Infants are empathetic and have a sense of justice. Our society is designed to dull this sense as they reach adulthood.

[Rafoel]

Iran
Chile

- - - Updated - - -



This is factually untrue. Infants are empathetic and have a sense of justice. Our society is designed to dull this sense as they reach adulthood.

Infants? Really? That's your argument? Baby lions are friendly to humans too. I guess lion society makes them agressive as they reach adulthood.

[Sevyvia]

First of all, the answer is irrefutably, unequivocally NO. How much someone ignorant enough of the immensity of the attrocities carried out in the name of communism to have a hammer and sickle avatar is going to listen to that is, of course, doubtful, but there you go.

...runs contrary to the capitalistic vices greed, individualism, and hierarchies. It is impossible to have an increasing population while wealth and resources becoming concentrated on fewer and fewer. Doing so risks political division, race war, class war, civil war, and potentially world war.

Greed is a human vice, not a capitalist vice. Individualism and hierarchical structures are, again, a part of nature, not some evil capitalist invention. In fact, without hierarchies, we would be almost completely paralyzed. Hierarchical structures are not inherently evil in any way. Hierarchies of competence are integral to progress, and integral to rewarding the very competent so they will continue to make cool stuff and be really useful for everyone else. Hierarchies can also be used for less benign things, such as arbitrarily assigning more value to one type of human vs. another, but this does not make hierarchies bad, it makes the people who create and use those specific kinds of hierarchies bad.

You're right, though, poverty (specifically: Relative poverty) is a strong conflict driver, and this is a problem. Again, though, it's not something special about capitalism. Many things, such as wealth and human creative output in general, which is a decent indicator of whether someone is capable of generating real wealth, follow a pareto distribution. Whether operating under one type of system or another, 20% of people will generally have 80% of the wealth.

The idea that we are running out of resources is also largely a fallacy, even more so as we move towards really making use of our solar system. There really is a truly staggering amount of stuff out there, even if we don't go further than our cosmic doorstep. Basically, the building blocks of your argument are problematic, and I'd suggest you spend some time researching them in depth.

Although, the original Marx design of communism doesn't work, it is based on a better foundation, and that foundation is altruism. So, I ask, can communism be modified to work?

Communism and its adherents like to pretend that it's based on altruism, that much is true. In general a lot of left-leaning people are concerned with being "good," to the exclusion of all else in many cases. Including exclusion of research of whether what they advocate is actually good, which obviously means that it's a total crapshoot, and more often than not ends up being terrible. In any case: Can communism be modified to work? It depends on what you mean by modifying. If you mean simply tweaking a bit here and there, then the answer remains the same. Absolutely not. If you mean changing it entirely, then sure, but at that point you could ask the question of anything and the answer would be yes.

Fundamentally, communism is authoritarian, and that leads to genuinely terrible places. And while western, capitalist countries are by no means shining lights of purity and perfection, the sheer awfulness of other places in the world and its history make them appear to be those shining lights. Despite all the moaning and perceived misery, people are coming to western countries, not leaving them. People vote with their feet, it doesn't have to be harder than that.

[NecroVane]

Socialism/Communism will never work, for two reasons, and you can see these reflected in every failed example(which is to say all of them) of it's implementation that we have seen:

1) Human nature simply does not allow for communism to work. Living things are inherently greedy, and tend to look out for their own interests and the interests of their immediate biological family first, before anyone else. Communism, however, requires that you put aside your own good and the good of your family for the good of a wider society, sacrificing your own private property and income for the sake of raising the standards of living of people who you do not know, and will likely never know.
Humans also have a penchant for being lazy, if given the opportunity, and tend to take the path of least resistance.

Productivity tailspins in virtually every communist country for two reasons: One, you are punishing exceptionalism(as socialism is often the oppressors vs the oppressed, aka the bourgeoisie vs the proletariat) and the most intelligent/hardest working/most inventive people by refusing to proportionately reward their greater efforts and contributions, leading to them either not being able to or refusing to make the best use of their talents, and two, you are encouraging the lazy and the unproductive to continue to be as such, as the system simply takes care of them(permanent nanny state of life where someone is providing you all you need, thus reducing the likelyhood you will become self sufficient). Humans are also hierarchical creatures, and socialism/communism in theory attempts to do away with hierarchies despite this, however....

2) Communism attempts to do away with hierarchies, despite itself requiring a hyper-exaggerated hierarchy in order to function. The core concept of socialism is that everything should be communally owned and distributed, wages, property, the means of production, etc. However, outside of a small village or family where everyone can actually speak their mind on every issue, who facilitates these things? In a society of millions of people spread over hundreds or thousands of physical miles, this is simply not possible. Thus, the government becomes the ones who truly own the means of production, and simply distribute it down to the rest of the populace. The government, IE a group of people who have been given POWER and AUTHORITY over others. And this government, possessing virtually limitless power, as it owns and facilitates the distribution of virtually every aspect of society in a socialist/communist country, is basically just another form of dictatorship. This is why you see "presidents" of socialist countries staying in power forever, they are essentially dictators who own everything under the pretext of "distributing" it to the populace.

We've been giving socialism the old college try for close to 100 years now, and it has failed spectacularly every single time and has resuled in more death and violence than any other economic or political system in history. It's time to admit that the system itself is just too impractical for a large society, and we just aren't altruistic enough creatures to exist in a system where the best and brightest don't ask for anything more for their labor than the average burger flipper.

[Zython]

Infants? Really? That's your argument? Baby lions are friendly to humans too. I guess lion society makes them agressive as they reach adulthood.

If his argument is saying that this is a natural part of humans, then yes, looking at humans in their most natural state is useful information.

First of all, the answer is irrefutably, unequivocally NO. How much someone ignorant enough of the immensity of the attrocities carried out in the name of capitalism to have a Gadsden flag avatar is going to listen to that is, of course, doubtful, but there you go.

FTFY

- - - Updated - - -

Socialism/Communism will never work, for two reasons, and you can see these reflected in every failed example(which is to say all of them) of it's implementation that we have seen:

1) Human nature simply does not allow for communism to work. Living things are inherently greedy, and tend to look out for their own interests and the interests of their immediate biological family first, before anyone else. Communism, however, requires that you put aside your own good and the good of your family for the good of a wider society, sacrificing your own private property and income for the sake of raising the standards of living of people who you do not know, and will likely never know.
Humans also have a penchant for being lazy, if given the opportunity, and tend to take the path of least resistance.

I already provided evidence that this isn't the case. Please provide evidence that what you're saying is true. Thank you.

Productivity tailspins in virtually every communist country for two reasons: One, you are punishing exceptionalism(as socialism is often the oppressors vs the oppressed, aka the bourgeoisie vs the proletariat) and the most intelligent/hardest working/most inventive people by refusing to proportionately reward their greater efforts and contributions, leading to them either not being able to or refusing to make the best use of their talents, and two, you are encouraging the lazy and the unproductive to continue to be as such, as the system simply takes care of them(permanent nanny state of life where someone is providing you all you need, thus reducing the likelyhood you will become self sufficient). Humans are also hierarchical creatures, and socialism/communism in theory attempts to do away with hierarchies despite this, however....

If the bourgeois were so exceptional, why do they need laborers? Why doesn't Jeff Bezos hand-deliver every Amazon package if he's so damned great.

2) Communism attempts to do away with hierarchies, despite itself requiring a hyper-exaggerated hierarchy in order to function. The core concept of socialism is that everything should be communally owned and distributed, wages, property, the means of production, etc. However, outside of a small village or family where everyone can actually speak their mind on every issue, who facilitates these things? In a society of millions of people spread over hundreds or thousands of physical miles, this is simply not possible. Thus, the government becomes the ones who truly own the means of production, and simply distribute it down to the rest of the populace. The government, IE a group of people who have been given POWER and AUTHORITY over others. And this government, possessing virtually limitless power, as it owns and facilitates the distribution of virtually every aspect of society in a socialist/communist country, is basically just another form of dictatorship. This is why you see "presidents" of socialist countries staying in power forever, they are essentially dictators who own everything under the pretext of "distributing" it to the populace.

Sounds like you're looking for anarcho-communism.

We've been giving socialism the old college try for close to 100 years now, and it has failed spectacularly every single time and has resuled in more death and violence than any other economic or political system in history. It's time to admit that the system itself is just too impractical for a large society, and we just aren't altruistic enough creatures to exist in a system where the best and brightest don't ask for anything more for their labor than the average burger flipper.

[citation needed]

[Deleted]

1) Human nature simply does not allow for communism to work. Living things are inherently greedy, and tend to look out for their own interests and the interests of their immediate biological family first, before anyone else. Communism, however, requires that you put aside your own good and the good of your family for the good of a wider society, sacrificing your own private property and income for the sake of raising the standards of living of people who you do not know, and will likely never know.

You know nothing about Marxism. You know nothing about socialism. You know nothing about communism.

It is not that I disagree with your opinion. It is simply that you have so many misconceptions about what you are talking about that your opinion is completely worthless. Like about a hundred other posts in this thread.

Communism in the Marxist is not some vague notion. It is very specific thing.

Ditto with capitalism. I doubt there are ten people in this thread who could describe it.

Why are people writing long essays on something they clearly don't understand? It is really weird.

[Popko]

Although, the original Marx design of communism doesn't work, it is based on a better foundation, and that foundation is altruism. So, I ask, can communism be modified to work?

This is almost hilariously wrong. Marxist communism has never been tried(in fact no country that has attempted to be communist has ever fit Marx's requirements to become a communist state). Can communist work? Probably but we don't know, what we do know is has never once been tried.

- - - Updated - - -

Socialism/Communism will never work, for two reasons, and you can see these reflected in every failed example(which is to say all of them) of it's implementation that we have seen:

1) Human nature simply does not allow for communism to work. Living things are inherently greedy, and tend to look out for their own interests and the interests of their immediate biological family first, before anyone else. Communism, however, requires that you put aside your own good and the good of your family for the good of a wider society, sacrificing your own private property and income for the sake of raising the standards of living of people who you do not know, and will likely never know.
Humans also have a penchant for being lazy, if given the opportunity, and tend to take the path of least resistance.

Productivity tailspins in virtually every communist country for two reasons: One, you are punishing exceptionalism(as socialism is often the oppressors vs the oppressed, aka the bourgeoisie vs the proletariat) and the most intelligent/hardest working/most inventive people by refusing to proportionately reward their greater efforts and contributions, leading to them either not being able to or refusing to make the best use of their talents, and two, you are encouraging the lazy and the unproductive to continue to be as such, as the system simply takes care of them(permanent nanny state of life where someone is providing you all you need, thus reducing the likelyhood you will become self sufficient). Humans are also hierarchical creatures, and socialism/communism in theory attempts to do away with hierarchies despite this, however....

2) Communism attempts to do away with hierarchies, despite itself requiring a hyper-exaggerated hierarchy in order to function. The core concept of socialism is that everything should be communally owned and distributed, wages, property, the means of production, etc. However, outside of a small village or family where everyone can actually speak their mind on every issue, who facilitates these things? In a society of millions of people spread over hundreds or thousands of physical miles, this is simply not possible. Thus, the government becomes the ones who truly own the means of production, and simply distribute it down to the rest of the populace. The government, IE a group of people who have been given POWER and AUTHORITY over others. And this government, possessing virtually limitless power, as it owns and facilitates the distribution of virtually every aspect of society in a socialist/communist country, is basically just another form of dictatorship. This is why you see "presidents" of socialist countries staying in power forever, they are essentially dictators who own everything under the pretext of "distributing" it to the populace.

We've been giving socialism the old college try for close to 100 years now, and it has failed spectacularly every single time and has resuled in more death and violence than any other economic or political system in history. It's time to admit that the system itself is just too impractical for a large society, and we just aren't altruistic enough creatures to exist in a system where the best and brightest don't ask for anything more for their labor than the average burger flipper.

This is a lot of words for someone that doesn't even have a highschool level understanding of what communism is vs what the USSR etc. were.

[THE Bigzoman]

I don't know man.

Modify it, try it out, gloat about it when things are peachy, and come back and remind us that it wasn't really communism when shit hits the fan.

[Deleted]

The red scare is still very real so it seems, the amount of people who are completely clueless on what socialism is, is scary.