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.

The point I am making is that free giving (that emerges under a capitalist system) is antithetical to capitalism as an economic system where worth is economised. Where you don't do anything (that makes you human) unless you are paid to do so.

It is not an argument for going backwards, of how state capitalist (communist) societies did things in the past.

Free giving in this way depended upon the conditions of possibility created by late capitalism. It is emergent. It provides a pathway to doing things differently in the future because this already exists.

So, for example, the early feminist call for wages for housework/childcare. This sought to economise women's/mother's work.

@PrincessConsueIaBananaHammock (aka Phoebe) I am not suggesting that free-giving could have emerged in old 'communist' states or in the absence of 'new' technologies.

But it has emerged in capitalist states with the spread of technology. It has also emerged in so-called communist states with the spread of technology.

Not you personally, but do you all really think you are selfish and self-serving? I know I am far from perfect as this is not possible but I strive to be kind and loving.

One of my issues with communism, especially of people who say Marx's theory still holds merit, is that it ignores economic change. People still talk about how the penultimate economic state before socialism is "late stage capitalism" after which the revolution may occur. According to people who claim this, late stage capitalism has apparently existed since the late 19th century. Surely the fact that marxist theory apparently purports that 19th century economics and today's is comparable shows this is a dead ideology? If it has been tried and failed all over the world, why do so many still think it's of any use?

@KeepOnKeepingOnAgainandAgain
I think where we differ is that I acknowledge altruism is a human trait that exists on a sliding scale in everyone, but I have yet to see any system that is capable of producing the necessary resources of life and in excess of, what our mixed economies produce, purely harnessing human altruism. Were this to exist, psychopaths and sociopaths (who make up a reasonable % of any population) would immediately exploit everyone else so they didn't have to do anything. Our system requires you offer something of worth, and through the price mechanism (which is amoral) gives returns of resources, which we quantify in monetary terms for ease, to determine how economically an individuals skill set is. Like end stage communism, a free giving based economic system sounds like a great idea, but not for humans.

Not you personally, but do you all really think you are selfish and self-serving?

Most people are to a certain degree. Given certain circumstances (primarily threat to basic wants,needs,safety etc) that degree increases. Add in all the other human foibles(pettiness,jealousy, envy)and personality types and that degree increases even more.

Have a look on the corona threads for example, even the posters that normally are sensible and nice and reasonable are baying for blood for what they perceive breaking of the rules. Just after a few weeks of reliance on the state for guidance,safety,money ,advice etc. Now imagine you relied on the state for EVERYTHING (your home,your water,electricity,income,job,life) would you risk it all to fight injustice, to defend enemies of the state, to protect the people breaking the rules and wanting to bring the "state" down? Would they? Would many people?

That's the main issue,once you rely on something/someone for everything, you are beholden to them.

I always envision Marx as the irritating stoner with a guitar. 😁

"Beautiful theories have a way of becoming ugly practices" Thurston Stellin (I think?).

Communism is a nice theory but leaves out human nature. There is a sensible middle way. As always.

@Theydressedmein all fairness, I think Marx's critique of society actually is quite a reasonable way of examining things, and despite being very anti marxist economics, I frequently use his methods in my academic work. Were he to foresee how his solutions were used to murder millions I think he would never have published. One of the biggest dangers about Marxism is that it appeals to our innate sense of fairness and wishing to help the oppressed, and I suspect this is why it appeals so much to young people. But the fact so much of it has been directly used to justify incalculable human suffering in all sorts of cultures should show how this is a deeply flawed system we shouldn't emulate.

@KeepOnKeepingOnAgainandAgain so how would altruism work in modern communism? Would the theory be that through free giving, people would voluntarily do jobs because they are good for society rather than because their skills matched the remuneration, and then the other jobs would be done on a unpaid basis, like a kind of national service? Why would people do dangerous or difficult jobs if they got paid the same as someone sitting in an office, unless they were made to do it by the state? What about actors or footballers? Could anyone just decide they want to be one, regardless of talent? In a capitalist society, if you're not good enough, you dont get paid enough so have to do something else. Or would the good ones be made to do it and the rest told to do something else? Because then we're back to the bad old days of the Soviet union and East Germany pumping young girls with testosterone for the glory of the state. There would be no space for altruism in a society devoid of free choice. Unbridled capitalism doesn't exist anywhere in the world. Even the US has some semblance of welfare. Altruism is a part of human nature and existed well before technology and before Marx. It forms a part of all major religions. It exists when people are given free will and have had their initial needs met. Fear, compulsion and just being provided with the basic requirements for life does not lead to altruism.

The irony is that Marx himself was hopeless at managing his own personal finances and depended on the capitalist fortunes of rich friend Engels then rich wife Jenny von Westphalen to keep bailing him out.

Altruism... exists when people are given free will

I think free will is what this is all about.

The opposite of Marxism, socialism and communism isn't capitalism. It's liberalism.

Liberalism assumes we have free will and that we know what is best for ourselves. It doesn't need to go into the reasons why.

Whereas Marxism is the opposite: we're under false consciousness, we're brainwashed, we're deluded unless we recognise the truth of Marxism. Because we must be protected from our own choices, democracy, the free market, and any sort of belief, religious or otherwise, is dangerous and therefore isn't allowed in societies ruled by Marxism. In short, free will is quite off the agenda.

We see echoes of this in 'no platforming' right now. The people doing it often explain themselves in Marxist terms.

@TomPinch
Exactly. A lot of this ceap happened after marxist academics figured out they weren't going to get their revolution, so instead they invented intersectionality, which has spread like a plague through the universities. Because this while ideology believes that the west is the route of all evil, many end up defending the likes of Hamas. It is also at the route of the current trans madness, as the more oppressed a person is, the more value their opinion supposedly has. It is completely anathema to the idea of judging on the content of ones character, and has resulted in a massive backlash in society, be that Brexit in Britain, trump in America, or the five star movement in Italy.

Ignore the typos

Reminded me of this thread

Communism is a nice theory but leaves out human nature.

In past months, I've become increasingly aware of the fact that any theory that relies upon a rejection of human nature and evolutionary traits is a no go. The more a system relies on such fallacies, the more inherently broken it is.

This thread has also reminded me of the fact that I essentially 'invented' Communism when I was ten, because I talked to my parents and thought it was stupid that there was enough of everything for everyone in the world but that people were starving.

I spent about a week designing my system before realising it didn't work. (It also had some stylistic personal choices, like everyone's right to have plenty of potatoes, my fave, and a pony).

But I couldn't square fashion and art and music into my system, however I tried - people creating would need to move around to share their work, they couldn't run their own farms and look after their ponies. Someone else would ave to do that for them. Plus how would people choose what fashions etc?

Even as a tomboyish ten year old who thought that everyone needed a pony and had little interest in clothes, I realised it wouldn't work and gave it up as a bad job.