This is not the way communism works. This is a textbook version. People who do not hold up their end of the labor are omitted from the group, the commune and have no means of support at all.
Have you ever lived on a commune? It is from this, well oiled and working system, that individuals try to extend it to a system of government. Communism works extremely well… but not as a system of government.
I don’t think it has anything at all to do with human nature and a whole lot more to do with the division of labor. How does one value planting carrots to fixing toilets.? What’s equal? How many carrots must a person plant to how many toilets need to be repaired? On a communal level , it is very easy for everyone to work together and know what everyone else is doing. As an economic system perpetuated by a government, it is just way too complex to track. (I guess we are saying the same thing; however, you are attributing the problem with communism to Human Nature. ) I am attributing the problem with communism to “Communism”.
As an economic system it is ridiculous. It ends up in the government imposing, or attempting to impose, standards of production that make planting x number of carrots equal to fixing x number of toilets. This becomes pure insanity. "The NATURAL RESPONSE OF HUMANS is not the problem with this form of economic insanity. The system itself is insane. The human reaction is quite reasonable to a SYSTEM that does not work.
Communism is not a system of government it is an economic system.
Socialism is more ill-defined and includes governmental systems.
You wrote a lot and I agree with some and disagree with other but I don’t have the time right now to get into it. I started this thread to talk about lifespan extension and my own misinterpretation of what I thought the “circle of life” represented, but all of these are interconnected for sure.
I’m wary of the phrase ‘human nature’ because it’s imprecise. I’m unaware of a universally accepted definition of the phrase.
However, I think communism as practiced in Russia and China made some fundamental errors in assumptions about people en masse. Eg The concept of collectivism is based on the [naive] assumption that people en masse are willing to work for the common good at their own expense.
Collectivism has never worked. To the extent that there have been devastating famines in countries in which such a policy has been tried.
China’s economy has boomed under its communist dictatorship only since in people haven been given a measure of economic freedom. That has included the right to keep the results of one’s labour for oneself to the extent of becoming affluent, even wealthy.
Today the PRC has a middle class of around 200 million. They have become affluent on the backs of the rest of the population for whom things have changed little.
The Chinese have learned that their economic freedom does not mean more political freedom. This is especially glaring in Hong Kong right now.
My point? There are no perfect systems. I am especially wary of any system which makes assumptions or claims about ‘human nature’. I’m happy enough living in a well regulated capitalist system, even one with socialist features in areas of social justice.
It is my position that the redistribution of wealth is a fundamental role of government. Further, I think the goal of a just society should be equity. I consider the notion of equality to be nonsense, a naive pipe dream…
A few years ago, a pundit observed that Australia has a culture of envy. That we’re all worried that other bloke may get more than we.
Perhaps because another of life observation: That people tend to be self interested. I agree that altruistic acts occur, often and in great numbers. However, as far as I know, I’ve come across a completely altruistic person. Nor have I ever personally come across a completely evil person. ( But I’ve read about a lot who seemed to be without redeeming qualities)
I’m glad I live in a society where I can agree that politics are funny/odd/peculiar, rather than spend my time ruing our system.
Nope, I don’t believe this is correct.
Merriam Webster (which you can argue with if you want but it is a reasonable starting point)
says the definition of collectivism is:
Definition of collectivism
1**:** a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distributionalso : a system marked by such control
2**:** emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity
It does NOT say anything about “at their own expense.” That is your inference and it is incorrect as far as the definition goes. You may argue that it leads to working for the common good at their own expense but that is not how it is supposed to work.
Really??? You have strange views. You sound like a socialist but then you point out China also has upper and lower classes. If we accept that the PRC middle class is 200 million, then that is about 7.5-10% of the population. How does that compare to wealth distribution in the U.S.??? We claim we have a big middle class but when you take into account the huge debt built up and how many will have to fall onto or through the welfare safety net at the end of their lives? And have things really changed little in China? Are they lying about everything? Is that really even possible in today’s world? Look at literacy rates in China… “…the illiteracy rate of China, which stood at roughly 85-90% when it was first calculated at the turn of the 20th century, began to decrease significantly from the 1950s onward. By 1959, illiteracy rates among youth and adults (ages twelve to 40) had fallen from 80% to 43%, and they have been steadily decreasing since. China is now expected to reach near-universal youth literacy in 2015.”
And medical care??? Same thing. " In 2009, one year ahead of schedule, China attained its goal of offering health insurance to 90% of the population,
So yes you are right but you are also simplifying. China has made and continues to make huge strides. It would be really funny if they split the Communist Party into a Communist Party and a Socialist Party with one slightly more conservative than the other, held elections, and declared it a democracy. How different would that be from what we do?
By that I mean that the individual has less/no control over what he produces or of any surplus… The individual worker receives less, with bulk of his production going to the collective. In that sense collectivisms is at the expense of the individual worker.
LOL, you are right, they are not really very related, but many socialists and communists would support China and not point out that they have upper and lower classes “just like” capitalist societies do. I think what is really happening is societal evolution on a global scale, and we can see part of this happening because it is taking place so rapidly but there is so much more we cannot see because of our limited lifespans relative to the world. We have been around for thousands of generations and it is difficult to imagine what it might be like in another hundred or even ten generations. And this evolution only happens if we don’t screw everything up or have some pseudo-apocalyptic event like super covid, meteor shower, nuclear war…global warming and so on. Or maybe some advanced alien species that actually has their shit together will show up and wipe us out, LOL.
No not at all. There is a history of those in power and those supporting that power making hollow arguments in favor of their side, whatever side they are on.
Perhaps in small groups, where the economics make it very simple to share resources and labour, bout its ideals are simply unworkable on a national, let alone international scale.
That’s a fair point, perhaps a better way to phrase it is that certain types of behaviour are anathema to it, and the larger the group involved, the more likely it is these types of behaviour will become common. And as I said above once the economic systems become too complex to easily divide labour and resources it becomes an unworkable ideal. This is not to suggest it’s not a fairer idea, just that it becomes impractical if everyone doesn’t buy into it completely, and of course if its core principles of shared labour and resources are all but impossible to calculate fairly or practically in complex national and international economics.
Orwells seminal masterpiece on totalitarianism and exploitation, Animal Farm, is as good and cynical a takedown of the human failures that destroy communist ideals as your likely to read. And he (Orwell) remained a lifelong socialist.
Yes. That’s the point. But it does not work because of the utter and complete complexity of the system. Not “Human nature.” You have to weigh every imaginable type of labor with every other imaginable type of labor and then dictate what is fair and who gets what for how much. It’s impossible as an economic system but works great in small groups where everyone shares the work.
I have since modified my statement in follow up messages to say that communism does not work as a system of government, but to simply respond with “Have you ever tried it?” was not worthy of you.