Communist

Local Definitions

Democracy vs Communism

What is Wrong with Communism?

Do we mean Capitalism or Democracy?

China and Russia as Examples

FreeMarket? Advocacy

So stripped of the 'clever' semantic game-playing, what you're saying is... exactly the same as any other pro-free-market economist?

Looks that way, yes.  Though the suggestion of direct spending a portion of taxes is a little more than trivial.  Economists would say 2They do that already with all their money" - but setting aside puts a psychological spin on it that might make an interesting difference.  --Vitenka (The difference would be, in the short term, funding for teachers and nurses and no funds for vital basic infrastructure)

Absolutely. My point is that the free market is more efficient than any other system which relies on human decision-making can be, as it strips out the human aspect by essentially making all the possible decisions simultaneously and then rapidly concentrating on the ones that were correct. I'm not arguing that the combination of representative democracy and free-market capitalism can produce a global utopia - merely that it will produce a higher overall standard of living than any other form of government and economics so far devised, given that the people who have to operate the system are humans with human levels of envy and greed. --SF

The argument that capitalism is a continual cycle of improvement is the best one for the system, probably.  There are two problems though.  The fitness selection function is 'has most money' - which isn't always best for society.

With careful choice of taxation, you can usually make the two point in similar directions, though.  And moreover, with capitalism, at least you have an obvious fitness selection which you can attempt to manipulate - with most other systems, you have a vague, nebulous, fitness selection that is harder to do things with.  For example, 'Rank in the Party', or 'People you know', or 'being born to the right family'. --Angoel

Agreed. Whilst I fully agree that there are better goals, unfortunately happiness is somewhat difficult to measure, and for a great many people (whom I personally would consider overly materialistic, but that's an opinion) it appears that you can, in fact, buy happiness. Optimising for a fitness selection increases efficiency and as a result the degree of provision. --SF

Secondly - it's only a hill climbing search - there may be better solutions that capitalism never reaches, simply due to its choice of starting circumstances.

Is it? I'm by no means an expert on anything, let alone CatastropheTheory?, but it seems to me that this is applicable here. It is possible for niches to dissapear or otherwise change rapidly, in response to political events or new technologies, or simply new ways of looking at old problems (I believe the jargonmeisters would at this point scream "paradigm shift"). Humans being, as they are, perpetually unsatisfied creatures, people are constantly attempting to fit the niches to them as well as the other way around, so I don't believe it is entirely a hill climbing search. Admittedly, you're probably still right, but I don't think it's as limited as you claim. --SF

But it's better than the alternatives.  The only alternative system being proposed - central control, tries to find the optimal solutions by guesses and hope.  The hill climbing search seems to work better.  (In particular, if central control could find a more optimal solution, then usually an entrepeneur can do the same, see a profit in it, and give it a go.  --Angoel

An entrepeneur does not typically have the leverage to apply a good widescale algorithm to the search for a good global solution.  while they can find good local patterns, even if they could somehow 'solve' the global situation, they could not test it out.  A central control could, but has lots of other innefficiences.  Still, there are solutions which could be imposed centrally that work better than raw hillclimbing.  Periodically kicking a simulation to get the actors out of local maxima and searching again as the simplest example.  While that is just minor twiddling, it's still providing the kind of benefit that pure market search can never locate.  --Vitenka (Sorry SecondFoundation?.  That there is no known statistically meaningful probability of them locating)

But a scientist, or a politician, is perfectly capable of hitting the reset switch in any given sector, and in general they do so fairly frequently. No, it isn't ideal. But central control, even if it has the foresight to introduce a correct global solution, will still produce inefficient local solutions can easily be improved upon, (or could be, if the attempts to do so weren't being stifled by central control) --SF

Still, it does reach pretty optimum efficiencies pretty quickly.  Problem is, it then overspecialises - meximum wealth is attained by deliberately crippling the system and preventing flow of goods and services, once you reach a certain level.  Co-operation becomes a bad thing instead of a good thing. 

It is certainly true that attempting to attain a monopoly on any one niche is definitely an optimal solution for whoever holds the monopoly and the worst solution for everyone else. This is, of course, why market economies need regulation, in order to prevent the system from being broken in this way (hello [Microsoft]). The problem then of course becomes one of regulation, and finding the optimum level thereof. This is almost exactly a second-order version of the resource management dilemma above, although it's somewhat less crucial to get right. The current solution is, of course, parliamentary democracy, which works reasonably well. --SF

Of course. The problem with applying Darwinian selection to anything is that it is rather nasty to those whom it doesn't select. But since as previously you were positing completely nonselfish good little socialist humans, I thought I would point out that, even in such a world, devolving as many resource management decisions to the individual as possible (in essence, creating a free market where the fitness selection really is happiness) probably produces at least as good as, if not a better, method of allocating resources that by a democratic party system or a committee of experts. --SF, almost wishing he had done PPE now

I think it fair to say uniform distribution is impossible - how about a constant flow distribution?  Everyone has more tomorrow than they had today.  The system would work by denying inheritance of any sort - everyone starts in poverty and ends in riches, then dies and passes it back around.  Is that sustainable?  --Vitenka

Removing inheritance would probably result in everyone starting in poverty, earning riches, then blowing it all and dying in poverty again.  Sounds pretty much like what we have at the moment, but with old people forced to be more selfish.  --Angoel

Presumably so - you increase the salary for a task commiserate with the amount of experience that the worker has. This would however have the unfortunate side effect of causing the veneration of experience and tradition, and thus having something of a negative effect on research and innovation, which *might* provoke stagnation and eventual collapse. My guess would be "sustainable, but not indefinitely". Unless, of course, you have another mechanism planned to redistribute the wealth.

The problem is that any system tolerates a certain amount of abuse, because killing it off costs more than tolerating it.  But people do not like to see such abuse, even though they delight in participating in it.  --Vitenka

Yes. And of course, in a liberal democracy with a free press, the people always get to see the abuse, or at least some of it, because it makes news. Likewise, of course, the prescence of a free press keeps the level of abuse that is tolerated to a minimum, but it's still there...

Bad or Just Different?

I don't think there could be a route to (Marxist) communism that is still democratic, because it requires a revolution. Also I have a feeling that Marx would say that 'democracy' is actually a bourgeois dictatorship, so as a matter of course must be swept away before the worker's paradise can come into being. But I'm not an expert in Marxism, so I probably shouldn't put words into his mouth. One thing I am fairly sure of though is that he doesn't see 'democracy' in the same way as we would see a 'liberal democracy' but in a more Rousseauian sense of the 'general will'. The difference being that in the Western world Democracy is upheld as a way to preserve Freedom, whereas in communist doctrine freedom is an illusion anyway so the only point of democracy is to decide on the 'correct' course of action and, once that has been found, anyone who was in the minority can be forced to follow the 'correct' course, using threats if necessary.

Uh - perhaps I am missing something, but surely if the minority forces the majority to follow the decided course, it's not democracy? Oh, perhaps that's what you mean by "liberal" democracy - something that isn't one? - MoonShadow

No, the point is that in a Rousseauian democracy the majority can force the minority to follow the 'correct' course, whereas a modern 'liberal' democracy would consider that unacceptable. The difference is between seeing democracy as a tool to ensure freedom (liberal democracy) and as a tool to find the right answer to problems.

No, I still don't get it. I was querying how such a system would function and what the right thing to call it might be; I wanted to know what you ultimately end up doing if you don't ultimately end up doing what the majority wants, and why a system which does things the majority doesn't want is called democracy. You replied (if I may summarise), "such a system ensures freedom", and said a few things about the purpose of such a system, which doesn't give answers on the subjects I wanted clarification on. - MoonShadow

Heh.  And right back around to TrueDemocracy arguments.  Communism and Democracy may not be inherently opposed, but arguments sure seem to encompass both ;)  The problem that is missed, I guess, is that people's opinions are subject to change - and influence.  A democracy provides a snapshot of opinion at a given time - it doesn't cope well with people deliberately setting out to change people's opinions, using methods outside of the system.  Such as, on a simple level, bribes - and on a more advanced level, newspapers.  Should we call a democracy that allows such manipulation democracy?  Arguable.  Does that directly impact an argument about why democracies don't like communism?  Not obviously.  --Vitenka

That's useful, Vitenka - thanks.  As for confusing socialism with communism: you might be right. I don't know if I mean Marxism or not.  I'm broadly using "communism" to mean "society where everyone shares production and shares produce" - an oversimplification, but you get the general idea.  Vitenka's quote of "society of equals sharing all wealth and burdens" is a good way of putting it.  --AC

Uhhh - wha?  You're making an inherent assumption that only the minority want communism.  Obviously a democratic route would presume that the majority want it.  Which is also the assumption Marxism makes, of course.  The 'have a rebellion of the general populous' phase wouldn't work without it.  Separate argument is valid here - where does 'legitimate discussion' end and 'persuading the populous' begin? (in a democracy - the calls on the government to, for example, make the case for joining the euro seem to me to cross this line)  --Vitenka

Uhh... Wha?  Starting with you're confusing democracy with a party system again.  Continuing with your blind assumption that a committee of experts is 'better' than a consensus.  Next is the setting of priorities.  Everyone has an equal share, yes - but an equal share of what?  Should the society grow more cotton, or sheep?  Should they mine bauxite or concentrate on building a new factory?  Presumably, in such a 'perfect communism' the role of political parties would be taken by expert committees - after all, there are multiple 'apparently correct' solutions to most complex problems.  surely it would be up to the population to decide which to follow on each issue?  --Vitenka

I don't see that "everyone holds the principle that everyone should share stuff and work for the good of the state" implies "everyone agrees on what is good for the state" or even "everyone holds all the same principles on other matters". Even permitting the confusion of democracy with a party system: we resolve differences of opinion in, e.g. tax rate and where public funding should go (and non-economic issues, like WarDeclared) by voting for different parties; you still have not convinced me that communism cannot coexist with this practice - "the resources don't come from taxes" does not imply "decisions don't need to be made about how to spend resources", or even "the resources are not a result of the work of the population, therefore the population has a say in how they are spent". - MoonShadow (Should that last sentence be "has no say"?)

So which is it you are talking about - communism in general or the implementation of communism as it was observed in Russia? We seem to keep switching between the two. If it's the latter, I agree with you - that system would have had trouble remaining as it was under a British-style party system. I maintain the point, however, that that is more to do with the fact that the people in power wanted to stay in power than that they were communists. - MoonShadow

Well - I guess in Russia? the initial attempts were pretty democratic.  But in actuality there was a large backflow - people did not dare to vote (at a given level) for those who did not support the views of those at the next level up.  But simply because that system of democracy homogenised into a single corrupt lump and ours has congealed into a set of two or three rotating lumps doesn't mean that those are required features of capitalism and communism.  Chinese communism is actually (slowly) moving closer to what we equate democracy too - that of everyone having their own opinion, freely expressing it and voting it up.  As previously practiced, due to the nature of the people who had run the 'kill off the old upper class' bit of the plan, everyone voted for the people the guy at the top wanted.  And when they didn't, they (or the people they voted for) got executed.  So yeah - democracy in name but not in practice.  Kinda like the 99% turnout 99% approval in Iraq, where misvoting (allegedly, according to the people newly conquering) got your hands cut off?

So what happens when they vote to throw out communism?

That's what they choose to do.  What do they replace it with?  It'd be interesting to see.  The assumption is that the majority support it, so they won't.  But if they do, then if that's what the majority want then that's what they do.  No one ever said communism was neccesarily an end.  (Well, Marx did, but then he wrote a lot of bull about historical inevitability)  As well to ask 'what happens if we vote out democracy'.  We vote it out and do something else.  What's the problem?  Is a wall any less white because it can be painted blue?  --Vitenka

If that is true, why do we have three major parties in Britain and lots of fuss over voting for what are basically resource management decisions? Budget, tax rate, spending on education, taxes on tobacco and petrol, spending on police force - that sort of thing forms the bulk of a typical British political party's prospectus! Are you saying you think the British democratic system is unnecessary? If it is necessary, it would be necessary under communism for precisely the same reasons! - MoonShadow

Heh - frankly I'd agree.  A lot of it is garbage.  Big things only come up every so often, and they have to justify their existence somehow.  The major parties typically fight over most small points and then come to some sensible middle ground.  Only on the big things do they really fight tooth and nail.  --Vitenka

No, I'm sorry, I just don't see "You can't have a party who says 'we stand for public transport!' because everyone stands for public transport." Either that's true here too, or it's not true under Communism. - MoonShadow

Why?? Why does that follow? The two seem totally unrelated to me. Why does holding a higher priority than public transport for spending resources need to imply one is against communism? - MoonShadow

This is a StrawMan.  Your assumption is that "Everyone in the society supports the same basic things" followed by "What happens if they argue against that thing" - your assumption is that it can't happen, and upon this Russia was refounded.  The assumption is bad, of course - but your argument is still silly.  MoonShadow has missed that PublicTransport? is an essential feature of your communism, and thus counters that either the majority want public transport, in which case it would be shared in both communism and democracy, or they don't in which case it would be shared in neither.  Replace PublicTransport? with 'WaffleIrons?' in the argument to see how MoonShadow's argument would work there.  But this bit of argument is still tangential at best.  The point that there are still things which not everyone believes in,, even though they all believe in communism, which can be voted upon.  --Vitenka (Ok, they seem trivial to us - but tax levels seem trivial to true communists, I guess.  Silly example - official colour of the national flag.  That can easily be voted on.)

Oh, additionally - I guess in a way we do.  Not a very strict one, but the principle of "those with share to those without" exists in our society.  Certainly not a total, or enforced communism though.  So nothing close to Marxism.  --Vitenka

Inherent problems

• Competition and linking of reward to effort give incentive to work. Removal of competition (as under Communism everyone is working to a common plan for a common purpose) leads to incompetence and apathy. In theory, people should feel good about being useful, and that should be enough; in practice, this does not happen.
  

The profit drive is not the only drive.  Nor even the main one for many people.  However, most other drives are orientated towards the happily being creative and making exciting stuff side of things, as opposed to the cleaning out the sewers side of things.  Of course - it is unwise to rule out using a drive which works without providing an alternative.

BraveNewWorld is an example of a place in which the profit drive has been successfully replaced in this sort of way, by (effectively) using biological robots.  A nice, happy society. --Angoel

That sounds very much like BraveNewWorld, actually.  Conditioning people into states in which they're happy to do tasks they wouldn't want to do, and reward them with something they're conditioned to want.  I know!  To ease administration, I'd use a token to represent cuddles, which are paid when people have a cuddle.  I'll call the tokens 'money', and the paying 'taxes'.  --Angoel

Heh.  That sounds like a legit bit of SciFi to me, actually.  What if money were founded not upon distribution of scarce resource (gold) but upon the production of nearly free resource (cuddles).  Would society be very different?  There'd certainly be a lot more fuss when the banks decide to stop allowing conversion to the thing they represent.  --Vitenka (And wouldn't an inflationary economy be fun)

• There's not enough stuff around to make everyone filthy rich. Some people aren't happy being equal, and others aren't happy not being filthy rich. Some of these will go to great effort to acquire more stuff than people around them. If a legitimate way is not available, a black market will inevitably form. This meme inexorably spreads, as people see that others have more stuff than them and think to themselves, "shouldn't we all be equal";? ...until the whole system is basically corrupt.
  

That's two seperate points.  The first one, that's there's not enough for everyone is untrue.

You misunderstand. There's enough for everyone to be comfortable. There's not enough for everyone to be filthy rich and/or not have to do much work. Some people aren't happy unless they can be filthy rich. - MoonShadow

The second one is a lot more valid - everyone wants at least as much as everyone else, and some people want more - leading to inflation and break down.  The trick to getting it to work, I presume, would be to channel this desire into less tangible products, of which there is an infinite supply.  For example, a fierce competition into who can recite the most poetry by heart.  Finding a way to do that (without imposing it from above, which doesn't work) is, of course, the trick.  --Vitenka

How about replacing the profit drive with a drive for cuddles instead?  Everyone runs around desperate to do stuff for society in order ot impress the people near to them into cuddling them.  (Yeah, ok, so I toned down the more obvious drive-driver)  Oh heck.  I just wrote a new clone story ;)  --Vitenka

Refactoring with a BigStick? InProgress?.  --Vitenka