To ask how modern communism is supposed to work?

[CurrentBun1981]

I was randomly thinking about this today and realised that, whilst I understand the very basic principles (stereotypes?) of communism, I don't really understand much about how it really should work when implemented 'properly' (if this has ever happened).

Googling it seems to bring up a lot of heavy theory or alternatively just wishy washy Reddit discussions. I'm assuming that young intellectuals/students who advocate for it don't want a Chinese style 'democracy', so how would modern communism work in theory?

I've read that leaders are supposed to take up key (temporary) positions in running of the country during the transitional period but that in reality these leaders rarely relinquish their power and just become dictators as seen historically.

Aside from that, why would anybody want to do the really grim, dirty or backbreaking jobs if they didn't have to? Who would do the really high stress/high risk jobs without any financial compensation? I read a discussion on it where a poster explained that people work for three main reasons - job satisfaction, societal duty, and the need for provisions/sustenance. He said that with Communism it's never the third reason and loads of people upvoted him.

A few people questioned this and the general reply was something about community pressure making people fall in line. I think this sounds bonkers and would never work in reality, much like what I've read about anarchy and communities policing themselves.

Ah, I never really thought about it in relation to the patriarchy. Although, it seems odd to want to give up patriarchy for a non-democratic set up - especially when patriarchy largely seems to work.

@imtootired

Everything needs to be evaluated in context and before communists took power in Russia there was extreme poverty, social problems and famines.

Gee whiz. So the Ukrainian famine of the 1930s didn't happen. Or the purges and the gulag, the genocides and the slave labour.

The Bolsheviks actually managed to make Russia worse than it had been under the tsars. That's quite an achievement.

@IceCreamWaffles

It's just a borrowing from a particular bit of Marx - the idea that society brainwashes everyone with beliefs that suit the powerful. Agreeing with that doesn't imply giving up democracy, although it does challenge the idea that the voters are always right. Perhaps that's why Marxism and democracy don't mix well.

In every place it has been attempted, it has ended with a sea of blood and a new aristocracy of the communist membership. Those who say it 'wasn't done properly' are probably just closeted authoritarians who could quite easily justify murdering entire families if it will end in utopia. It's always just one more massacre away...

Those who say it 'wasn't done properly' are probably just closeted authoritarians who could quite easily justify murdering entire families if it will end in utopia. It's always just one more massacre away...

To be fair I have seen some pretty mind blowing threads in feminist section in the past few days - e.g. talking about reducing the male population to 10%.

@Icecream
Yes unfortunately if you view the world through any ideology, it is possible to split the world down a binary good and bad axis (though you'd really have to try to be genocidal with feminism ) and thus in and out groups.

This occurred in Pol Pot's Cambodia, where it is estimated the Khmer rouge murdered around a third of the entire population, mostly with shovels. Anyone who could read, owned glasses, knew someone who could read, or was just unlucky was tortured then hacked to death by teenagers, in order to return to a agrarian workers paradise.

In the Soviet Union 'kulaks' or peasants who perhaps were productive enough to have a cow were branded enemies of the revolution, and Lenin, the alleged good guy, signed the orders for thousands to be murdered, raped and sent to the gulag.

There is a common denominator here, and it is the utter contempt of success. It is the same trait I see coursing through the veins of many students I go to uni with who subscribe to Communism, believing that anyone who achieves greater than the average has somehow stolen from the rest to get this. It is not an abberation that countless murders have been committed all over the globe under the red banner, and it never fails to alarm me how allegedly civilised people could look at the 20th century and think it a good idea.

The term 'capitalism' is also essentially a Marxist construct, as if we currently live under one 'ism' it implies we can under a different kind. When people talk of capitalism, people are essentially describing concepts that will always occur in fields of production. The value of an item will increase in value if supply is cut in whatever system exists, to suggest otherwise is utopian. This is a viewpoint, but you should be upfront in saying you are a utopian, as communism ultimately.

However as utopia is so fantastic, it has the convenience of allowing pretty much anything to be carried out in its pursuit, allowing around 100 million to be sacrificed upon the alter in Maoist China and god knows how many in the Soviet union. The road to heaven is paved with blood, but the promised land is great enough to hide the inevitable pyramid of skulls its pursuit leaves behind...

There is a common denominator here, and it is the utter contempt of success.

This. While I'm sure a lot of people would be more than happy to see the "fat cats" fall and their wealth taken away, what they don't realise is that eventually it trickles down to normal population level. Alongside with distrust of intellectuals and education. You can be brilliant only if it's in the best interests of the state.

@PrincessConsueIaBananaHammock
That's the conclusion I've come to. Studied a lot of economic history at uni, and the only thing that allows most of the population to live vaguely pleasant lives is individual liberty and a state subservient to said liberty. Plenty of democracies can be tyrannical, but it's very unusual for fill citizens of states who follow the ideals of Jefferson and Locke to live in perpetual tyranny.

Srsly, people still believe in trickle down economics?

Also those annoying working classes who are too stupid to understand the true nature of their oppression and wont do as they're told and stage a bloody revolution. Its left to the middle class intelligensia to show them the correct thought process.

@BurneyFanny
Not at all, levels of redistributive taxation have nothing to do with communism, unless you count the USA as a workers paradise.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/29/bill-gates-davos-global-poverty-infographic-neoliberal

Back in the day (before giving up my PhD to become a carer for my DC), my research was based upon what it is to be human and the enablement of free-giving by 'new' technologies.

Despite economic determinism being academically overthrown by theories of hegemony, compounded by identity politics, I was fascinated by my lecturers (anyone remember the lovely David Lockwood) in tutorials in his office becoming passionate about the socialisation of capital (public sector pension funds) and discussions about the 'relocation of the social means of production' - ie sourcing cheap labour overseas.

At its best, this site is about free-giving based on experiential knowledge. Why do you share what you have learned when you are not paid to do so? (Not AIBU but other boards such as relationships or SN which can be life-saving not only life-changing).

Why do you care about the well-being of others and give your labour for free? (Not for financial gain, not for a notion of a selfish gene - there are bad biological parents and fantastic adoptive parents etc).

The idea that we (the 'best' humans) need financial reward in order to feel that life is worth living impoverishes us all.

Simply put, economic determinism related to the Marxist principle that every economic system (not just capitalism) contains the seeds of its own destruction. So the socialisation of capital is antithesis of the thesis of capitalism.

@KeepOnKeepingOnAgainandAgain
If it were the case that humans, as a species, required no incentive in order to offer their labour, our entire civilisation would look nothing like it does. Though it would be lovely if this were the case, we are not ants, and prioritise kin groups above all others. As I've said, this is why communism is utopian, as it requires a species, which is not human for it work. If it were to work, it would have done so by now.

So, simply put, the feudal economic system was not overthrown by a bloody peasant revolution, but withered due to the development of the bourgeoisie within the existing economic system.

Using a Marxist view of history, yes that would be the case. However capitalism is in itself a Marxist construct, so in order for capitalism to fold, marxist theory would have to be correct, which I see little evidence to suggest it is.

@Student133 on the contrary, the best of our human civilisation is based upon free-giving, not inherently exploitative capitalist exchange.

For example, consider the way in which software is released in beta format and then improved by free giving. It didn't used to be this way until the companies realised that an autistic 13 year old in their bedroom could run rings around their employed expert with their IT degree (disclaimer my 14 year old DS's freely given obsession could not be paid for).

In the current CV crisis, how do you account for the making in the community of face masks that are placed on trees? Should the makers be trying to make a profit and exploit a new market? To each according to their need, from each according to their ability. How do you explain free-giving in general?

It is true that certain wonderful aspects of society are based upon free giving, as seen currently, and are inherent in our species, along with all the horrible parts. However I simply disagree with the premise of the "exploitative capitalist exchange" aspect of marxist theory. Do you believe a surgeon is being exploited by the NHS when they work them? Am I exploiting the labour of a tradesman who fits my boiler? I dont think I am, and though a complete lack of regulation will lead to inequality, so will murdering 6 million Ukrainians because you justified they were enemies of the revolution. The fact atrocities like this occurred throughout communist states tells me that Marxist doctrine easily leads to this.

Out of interest @KeepOnKeepingOnAgainandAgain would you see the end stage Marxist utopia is actually achievable?

Free (willing) giving normally occurs for two reasons.
1.to scratch an itch/satisfy a passion or obsession - which tends to be limited to that specific passion/interests
2.the self satisfaction people get from doing "good"

One could argue both are still fairly selfish and self serving, except we overlook that because it benefits more the many rather than the individual.

Now imagine that 13 year old being forced to use his skills for something he has no interest or want to do,because that would benefit the state more.

The issue with communism is that eventually it stops being free giving unless it benefits the state. It becomes exploitative and forced. And if you keep doing it? Then you're an enemy of the state. A traitor. They can deal with you as they see fit.

The free giving is done in a capitalist society though by people who's needs have been met by the capitalist system on the whole. I'm renumerated for my work, I am working, am being paid so I have donated time, money and materials. Under the communist system people would be compelled to work on whatever the state felt necessary at the time. Have their basic needs been met? Evidence of communist societies would say no when you have people queuing for bread.Human nature would say they will be less inclined to help others if their children are starving.

@PrincessConsueIaBananaHammock
I think this is ultimately what happens. If people can name a country youd be happy to live in permanently that doesn't hold the rights of the individual above the rights of the collective (be it the collective economy, religion etc.) I think you're either naive or telling porkies.

'Utopia' is a loaded phrase.

I also see Marx's writings as being descriptive of a trend rather than being prescriptive of a political agenda. He didn't have foresight but just understood a dynamic and therefore could project. Of course in popular, black and white terms, the communist manifesto is most remembered, it is a call to arms because he understood that all economic systems are transient (even when they have lasted for hundreds of years) and as an expansion on the idea that it doesn't have to be this way.

In the same way, understanding exponential growth is just maths. But once you see it, the humanitarian response is to say it doesn't have to be this way.

That is different to saying that this way of organising economic life is inevitable or that any alternative way of organising society must be worse.