How does a UBI relate to communism? I seem to recall most people had to work for a living in the USSR. :chin:

There’s a thread on UBI somewhere else. To my knowledge no one has mentioned UBI here.

Here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8210/universal-basic-income-ubi/p1

Respectfully, the very fact that the question posed has to delineate particular qualifications for the idea to be considered "an excellent form of government" should give rise to the suspicion that the answer to such a question is inevitably going to be a negative one. Unfortunately communism, like it's foundational father socialism, is grounded in covetousness and theft. Regardless of whether or not those in authority in this form of government were hypothetically not greedy or unable to er, the moral-ethical dilemma still remains. Theft. Nothing is free and the redistribution of wealth required by such a system to operate is just that, theft from the pocket of its citizens to support other citizens. The maxim "the laborer is worthy of his wages" finds itself bereft of any meaning if the laborer's wages are stripped from him and given to another. Not to mention that the incentive to work for one's wages in such a system dies when those who work far less are paid the same as those who put in far more effort. Once the disparity between the two is realized there is no reason for one or the other to put in equal effort. Quality of work declines and the production of goods and services with it. Economic downfall is the inevitable result, which gives way to a host of socio-political problems. There is good reason why history has been communism's greatest apologist.

Respectfully, the very fact that the question posed has to delineate particular qualifications for the idea to be considered "an excellent form of government" should give rise to the suspicion that the answer to such a question is inevitably going to be a negative one. — Contra Mundum

This has been pointed out. Also, the title says ‘perfect’ and the post says ‘good’. It is clearly a purposeful trap or just poorly thought out post.

communism, like it's foundational father socialism, is grounded in covetousness and theft. — Contra Mundum

And there's an economic system that isn't?

the incentive to work for one's wages in such a system dies when those who work far less are paid the same as those who put in far more effort. — Contra Mundum

Again, do you have a system in mind where wages are paid on the basis of effort?


I see your objection, but not your alternative.

I see your objection, but not your alternative. — Isaac

Probably a better thought out thread? :D

Anarchism is the natural human state. We are where we are due to our anarchistic nature. A political reset may lead to something better, but I doubt it as the path we’ve found most useful has led us here.

I would strongly argue that there is ALWAYS a better governmental system. The day we stop striving for something better will be the day the human race either branches off in different directions and/or ceases exist.

Human society had come a bloody long way. We’ve shifted out political perspectives radically over the past few centuries, and centuries prior to that too.

I cannit even begin to imagine what the next few decades have in store for us. I do have a suspicion that we’ll see the concept of nation begin to shift as communication technologies have only recently hit a point that has quite a phenomenal reach.

jgill
455
How does a UBI relate to communism? I seem to recall most people had to work for a living in the USSR. — jgill

Not only did they have to work...if they didn't, they'd often end up in a gulag.

communism, like it's foundational father socialism, is grounded in covetousness and theft. — Contra Mundum
And there's an economic system that isn't? — Isaac

The barter system.

↪jgill
There’s a thread on UBI somewhere else. To my knowledge no one has mentioned UBI here. — I like sushi

The UBI concept probably lies in a socialist agenda, which itself lies between capitalism and communism.

I was just saying that your inquiry seemed barely connected to the OP, or any other posts made, and pointing you to a thread where you may find more traction.

Anarchism is the natural human state. — I like sushi

A modern myth. Not even animals live without hierarchical structures.

That’s not the same thing at all. Before there was a governmental body there wasn’t a governmental body - hierarchy doesn’t necessarily mean ‘governmental hierarchy’ and I’m argue that small tribal groups don’t constitute a ‘government’.

Nor am I saying it is in anyway ‘ideal’ just a matter of fact about where we’ve come from. Children left unattended are quite anarchical, but eventually they will ‘organise’ themselves to some degree (not denying that for a second).

Maybe I should have said have clarified more by saying ‘initial state’ as well.

Before there was a governmental body there wasn’t a governmental body - hierarchy doesn’t necessarily mean ‘governmental hierarchy’ and I’m argue that small tribal groups don’t constitute a ‘government’. — I like sushi

So you draw the distinction at the absence of positive laws/rights?

I’m don’t draw a specific boundary between what is and isn’t classed as ‘anarchy’ any more than I do between what is and isn’t a democracy.

‘Rights’ and ‘laws’ are also something I’d avoid lumping together. In terms of general social groups there are undoubtedly behaviors that are more or less accepted (that’s going more into the idea of a ‘social contract’). Absence of positive laws? I wouldn’t say that, but clearly without firmly established positive laws we’re talking more about ‘anarchy’ than not.

Opposition to an authority and a hierarchy (mostly, if not exclusively, a specific to ‘governmental hierarchy/authority’) certainly central to what constitutes ‘anarchy’.

The use of my words was cast in a broad ethnological sense, which is admittedly misleading as this half-baked thread was aimed more at ‘hyperbolic’ (or more charitably put, ‘hypothetical’) representations of governmental structure.

The barter system. — A Seagull

So how did the seller get the item they're bartering?

The barter system. — A Seagull
So how did the seller get the item they're bartering? — Isaac

That's none of your business.

Communism — TheDarkElf

Communism was a political, and social philosophic theory of the 19th century that was tested, and went really, really, really, really bad. It can't work.

There's no perfect system, because humans are involved. And some humans will seek to be more equal than the others. It might be rich capitalists, but it could also be higher up communist party members with all the right connections. Under any system, there's always going to be scarcity of some kind that's desired. It could be land, social status, precious jewels, whatever. And there will always be people better able for whatever reason (moral or otherwise) to acquire those things.

There's no perfect system, because humans are involved. And some humans will seek to be more equal than the others. It might be rich capitalists, but it could also be higher up communist party members with all the right connections. Under any system, there's always going to be scarcity of some kind that's desired. It could be land, social status, precious jewels, whatever. And there will always be people better able for whatever reason (moral or otherwise) to acquire those things. — Marchesk

Communism doesn't solve the problem of work. It simply creates a larger overseer of the work that people will perform. According to some though, work provides some sort of dignity or some self-reinforcing slogans of that nature. So uh, I guess the State will allow us to let us carry on our services of "dignity" for the "greater good" of the State. My question is what does this really solve?

Also, as you stated, people with greater capacity will simply become the leaders, direct things, make the things happen. The ones who don't have the capacity will slowly become siphoned off from power, and there will simply be another form of hierarchy- the ones that produce and the ones that need the help of the producers. Then the producers themselves won't even want to produce anymore. The whole thing collapses on its own weight and its back to some people having more wealth accumulation than others.

Communism, really even in its most pure form where there is no corruption, error or greed should be viewed as a wrecking ball of a movement. It must forcibly rip wealth and property from the people for redistribution, conformity in areas of religion, speech, thought has to be enforced by a totalitarian regime. In capitalism, people point to how it covertly manipulates and keeps you down but communism and alternatives overtly control. There simply isn't communism without this control, if people are free to do what they want then communism will not function.

I think some people focus on the economic aspect (mostly economic redistribution) of communism without looking at how it controls how you live your life. Class dynamics, cultural dynamics, private property, freedom for individuals and so on need to be managed and it cannot be managed without a level of violence and coercion.

The notion of peaceful hippie communism is a fantasy, the truth of communism is that it is a form of totalitarianism, it strips you of your rights and freedoms. Their means of doing this will always involve violence, imprisonment, etc. There is no outcome for communism other than the outcome which has already happened and the problem isn't people, it's the ideology.

In this scenario human error and greed is removed. — TheDarkElf

Any human system from which the presumption of human error and greed (and more) are removed is ipso facto fantasy. I voted for communism being the perfect system (I'm a pinko commie), but no matter what system we have or wish for, it MUST account for real human nature. Real human nature, in my book, is actually on balance somewhat positive, but we can't forget the stuff that (on balance) is pretty negative.

So, a good society is made up of heathy people, the vast majority of whom have learned to keep their destructive urges in check and execute their benevolent urges intelligently. Quite a few societies, using various governmental forms, have managed to do that. Probably most societies have.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is a most excellent idea, but it has to be fleshed out in law, policy, institutions, and so forth. It doesn't just "happen".

What I said in my last post.

Sorry; I didn't read any responses to the OP.

I just said this earlier:

Communism doesn't solve the problem of work. It simply creates a larger overseer of the work that people will perform. According to some though, work provides some sort of dignity or some self-reinforcing slogans of that nature. So uh, I guess the State will allow us to let us carry on our services of "dignity" for the "greater good" of the State. My question is what does this really solve?

Also, as you stated, people with greater capacity will simply become the leaders, direct things, make the things happen. The ones who don't have the capacity will slowly become siphoned off from power, and there will simply be another form of hierarchy- the ones that produce and the ones that need the help of the producers. Then the producers themselves won't even want to produce anymore. The whole thing collapses on its own weight and its back to some people having more wealth accumulation than others. — schopenhauer1

I voted NO. Government is problematic as a form of government, but not necessarily as a way of life. My impression is that medieval monastic orders (like the Cistercians) were successful commune-istic societies. To make this work, the participants needed strong commitments to the society's ideals. A government can't impose such ideals.

What an awful lot of commentary on poor old "communism". I'm sure everyone is aware this is an umbrella term, which covers an awful lot of ideological ground.

List of communist ideologies

From where I sit, democratic-capitalism is far more of a failed experiment. Marx's theory of surplus value sheds some pretty clear light on why capitalism literally can't ever work.

Haha with regard to this, I’m not sure what you mean human error, but I agree that greed will be removed. But look at it this way, greed is the extreme motivation, so there is one flaw of communism which is it stifles work incentive, why will you work more if you reap the same results. During Soviet Russia, there was a brief period where Stalin slightly incorporated capitalism in his 4 year plans which resulted in more growth. So even the most communist state had to shift out of communism just to advance further.

Communism contradicts itself by implementing its regime through a hierarchy. Capitalism works effectively because its ethos is in line with hierarchical order and the fact that some are permitted be more wealthy and powerful than others. Hierarchy of responsibilities, power and authority naturally lead to a sense of "elite", social classes and corruption as well as blame and inequal appropriation of guilt and fault.

Communism would only work if there is no leader but rather a co-operative where everyone fulfills the same basic duties. Or at the very least a leader that a). Does not want to be a leader. b). Has no neccesity or desire for material wealth power or possessions. c) has the intellectual capacity to understand the gravity of such a position and appreciates truly the responsibility of providing for all. d). Is so humble, self aware and contemplative that they willingly accept their inevitable shortcomings e). Sharp enough to outwit anyone who is driven to overthrow them.

But as you can see these qualities are on the borderline of contradicting eachother and to find someone with such a unique set of skills is much less likely than finding someone driven by ego and the endless pursuit of power over others.

Of course there have been many terrible communist systems in the past and some that continue into he present. But if we can try to ignore those for a moment, is communism not an excellent form of government — TheDarkElf

If you would say the same thing about national socialism, you would be banned.

In this scenario human error and greed is removed. — TheDarkElf

Oh, so take out humans out of the picture? For whom are you making this thought experiment? If we talk about other species, there are a lot of obstacles there in portraying politics into their behavior.

Communism doesn't work. Theoretically and in reality. It genuinely isn't just a mere coincidence that all the various communist revolutions have ended in violence and despotism. The authoritarianism and violence is inherent to communism. The lack of safety valves in power is the obvious problem. That makes it so evil, if a political ideology is evil.

Socialism is different. Even if I'm not a great fan of socialism either, at least socialism can be debated.