Let me just add an odd observation on the side.
For some reason, it seems that some (Western) communists and socialists have become apologists for Russia.
Doesn't make sense.
Putin's Russia at least, is a capitalist/opportunist, ruthless autocracy.
Are such apologists going by ulterior motives?

But, no matter, more importantly, what do you think? — jorndoe

That is the most important thing, yes. :razz:

I think Bronze Age economies were pretty close to communism. Farmers brought their produce into the temple where priests then distributed it to the people, taking their cut. There was no free enterprise, no free market. The people worked for the government and the government worked for the people.

It's a stagnant way of life. Time can roll on for millennia with nothing changing in that kind of world. That's how I imagine communism would be. The only way for communism to get off the ground now would be for the whole world to suddenly decide to do it. Unlikely.

Yaay, votes. :)
I'd be interested in why communism is or is not realistic/feasible.
Perhaps someone that wishes to remain anonymous could have someone else relay their thinking on the matter? :up:

I'd be interested in why communism is or is not realistic/feasible. — jorndoe

I think it's feasible because we've already done something similar in the Bronze Age. We could return to that way of life, maybe if climate change wrecks what we've got.

Feasible as what?

As a form of government to nation states?

We've ample examples where that didn't work - in fact, it created about as close to hell on Earth as we could ever be. And it wasn't a fluke either. It managed to produce that on multiple occasions.

If I had to make an educated guess as to why communism applied to nation states seems to end up that way, it's because of the amount of centralized power the state acquires upon abolishing private property. Since everything still has to be controlled, you end up with the same flawed individuals running the institutions, but this time with near-godlike power.

The problem is those flawed individuals running the show. It's the same folks everywhere. And the difference between hell and limbo seems to be how much power we give them.

As a form of government to nation states? — Tzeentch

Yep, of

large communities — opening post

For some reason, it seems that some (Western) communists and socialists have become apologists for Russia.
Doesn't make sense. — jorndoe

In the left-wing community these people are referred to as “tankies”. It is indeed quite perverse. There are a few things that feed into it. The main, obvious thing is that Western leftists may tend to be sympathetic to whoever is opposed to their own governments and opposed to Western foreign policy. This means that Russian anti-western talking points coincide with their own.

Another factor is the flipside of the popular Western misconception that Russia is still in some sense socialist or represents a continuation of the Soviet Union. There is a small kernel of truth here, in that Putin’s priority is always the strength of the centralized state and the extension of its power, and if he ever expresses admiration or approval for the Soviet Union it is just for the strength of its government and its success in securing its borders. There are probably other aspects to it as well, like the Stalinist-lite cult of Putin’s personality.

I'd be interested in why communism is or is not realistic/feasible. — jorndoe

In the present condition of our societies, no. There are too many of us and the wealth that has already been amassed by a few is not readily divisible among the many. Anyone who tried to distribute it would be up against enormous logistical obstacles. Not least of these is the forms in which modern wealth resides: digital data storage; luxury vehicles; useless bling... Simply consider the number of hours of labour performed by workers on the assembly lines and loading docks of the world that were subsumed in the purchase of a single picture. Or dress. Or wedding reception.
You can't convert it to currency - which one, anyway? - without buyers, and their money would, in turn, have to come from profit. You can't convert it to food or books or medications or anything the dispossessed can use, without a marketplace where those useful things are more abundant than the useless things you want to trade for them. The value system of our present society has been so badly skewed for so long, we wouldn't know where to start fixing it.
And that's before we even consider the resources and work-hours invested in the paraphernalia of death and destruction.

Then, there is the cultural climate. Competition, confidence, status; the ideals of success, leadership and winning prevail. What happens to the self-image of the person tasked with organizing a new regime? Does he do the best possible job and fade into the background, or puff himself up and try to take over? And all the people who have been powerless, marginal, insignificant and frustrated all this time? Do they behave sensibly and share, or squabble like feral children until they break this toy also, the way they broke democracy?

There are operating communes all over the world; all different, mostly functional. So, of course it's feasible. In fact, it's the most reasonable and efficient form of human organization. Unfortunately, it only works on a small scale. And since these communities are surrounded by oceans of dysfunctional monetary society, they have a high rate of death by drowning.

, fighting bad climate change more or less takes a global response, making it more difficult. :/

, yeah, thought about mentioning that as a motive, like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Didn't want to steer/push things tho'.

, apparently communism doesn't scale well. There are various kinds of extremes, say, Nazism, theocracy, anarchy, totalitarianism, ... Observations suggest communism goes (or perhaps started) that way. Democracy has a built-in feature of (sort of legitimately) potentially turning into any of those as well, just takes a majority.

Observations suggest communism goes (or perhaps started) that way. — jorndoe

What way is that?
More specifically, to distinguish between communal living and commun-ism. I'm pretty sure they didn't start the same way and have very little in common.

Is communism realistic/feasible? — jorndoe

Not for scarcity-exploiting nation-states. As you say "communism doesn't scale well". Why? I think because, simply put, material scarcity amplified by increasing population pressures – radical alienation – and all that this existential condition entails individually and collectively. Of course, in a post-scarcity world, "communism" would be unnecessary.

Be realistic, demand the impossible. — graffiti on buildings in Paris, May '68

:fire:

We often forget how Western communism is, how bourgeois Marx was, and so it would inevitably erect itself on the Roman, republican model. A written constitution, the rule of law, representative government—all of it is subject to the iron law of oligarchy, in communist states as it in is the “liberal democratic” ones. In that sense communist rights and freedoms are little different than republican rights and freedoms, insofar as the sphere of allowable activity is dictated by the republican state machinery, subject to be taken away as quickly as it is given.

I would say any form of organization is possible if it is free to do so from the ground up, through voluntary association, and not through the dictates of a man, a group of men, or a piece of paper.

I think political phlosophers are lazy shitheads who don't know how to do their job so we are left with outdated nonsense political systems. That's what I think. But here's a fun question. Do you think a new political system can be born from the minds of people beholden to the establishment?

When was the last time a "new" political system was born?
When were people not beholden to an establishment or an unproven alternative?

Our prime example of communism was begun in an only slightly industrialized country (Russia) with a very long history of despotic rule. Despotism was a handy model to follow, and people like Stalin had little compunction about exercising murderous power. Communism was started in the wrong place at the wrong time by the wrong people.

Whether a "socialist" system is viewed as the equivalent to "communism" is an important question, I prefer the term socialism,

Neither communism nor socialism has a snowball's chance in hell of getting anything other than a very hostile reception from the Establishment and us running dog lackeys. Whatever flag they fly under, the revolutionaries intend to take the wealth away from the bourgeoisie (all of it, pretty much). Not a popular idea in bourgeois circles! Distributing their wealth to the people is anathema to the rich, of course.

The USSR operated as State Capitalism. The State was the company for which everybody worked, and the company looked after its own interests. That wasn't what communism was supposed to be.

I think communism is opposed to individualism, not to capitalism. Capital does not mind who owns it, government, mafia, narcissist or philanthropist.

What we are suffering from is the cult of the individual masking itself under the guise of democracy. It's the fucking enlightenment again Sam. The individual cannot survive. Even Bear Grills cannot last a year without a camera crew, support vehicles, the global network of trade in survival equipment and a large audience to finance his exploits.

And yet, the very idea of collective action is considered treasonous. Until it's time for war. As soon as one takes off the blinkers of political rhetoric, it is obvious that individuals are powerless, and communities are powerful. Individualism does not work and cannot work and will never work. Communism is all there is to politics, and its just a question of who runs it.

I think you're confusing individualism and atomization - the latter signifying the disintegration of social bonds, individuals thus becoming atomized, isolated, 'groupless', etc. - a situation most individuals find highly disagreeable.

Atomization is made possible because the state takes over roles which were previously fulfilled by social networks, and exacerbated by things like digitalization and mass media.

As per usual, the state (the collective) is the problem, and not the cure.

As per usual, the state (the collective) is the problem, and not the cure. — Tzeentch

I think you're confusing the collective with the state. As per usual the individualist denies their responsibility for others and ignores their dependence on others. Social networks are the collective, as is "the market". The state is just the controlling interest of capital.

I think you're confusing the collective with the state. — unenlightened

Communism as a means to organize states or similar large communities is the topic of this thread, so I'm not sure why you believe this is the result of confusion.

As per usual the individualist denies their responsibility for others and ignores their dependence on others. — unenlightened

This has nothing to do with individualism, which is a theory pertaining to the relation between states and individuals, bringing us things like individual rights, etc.

Individualism, if anything, points towards the state's responsibility for its citizens. It doesn't deny the responsibility of citizens.

Odd. Individualism seems to have been turned into a caricature, to be kicked by radicals who seek to justify their disagreement with people's individual choices.

Why, is a matter of poor philosophy no doubt encouraged by powerful interests.

Oh wait, you mean why do I think differently? why do I question accepted dichotomies at the heart of the thread and the usual parameters of political discourse? I don't know, perhaps it's the influence of T.H.White, or George Orwell, or Aldous Huxley, I'm really not sure.

, it's easier for like-minded to come together to form a small commune (where people can come and go), than successfully imposing communism on a large (diverse) society. The former, as you mention, has many examples (though I'd watch for religious cults), whereas the latter (from observation) has led to

Less freedom, oppression, less transparency, less diversity, "enforced human streamlining", ... — opening post

..., authoritarianism, totalitarianism, or the like. Anyway, though kibbutzes were mentioned, the opening post wasn't so much about the former as about the latter.

:up: :cool:

, I definitely differentiate communism and socialism, but maybe my use of the verbiage is off. Communism is a wholesale, overall system, whereas socialism could be exemplified by public schools infrastructures hospitals etc, some number of shared responsibilities maintained via taxes, so there can be a degree of socialism. Well, something like that (though I'm not keen on getting too deep into the semantics). That's what I meant by

As it stands, it seems that reasonably civilized societies tend to include democracy, socialism, capitalism alike. — opening post

And what I had in mind about realistic/feasible.

Yaay, more votes, and a tie. :)

Communism demands no individual thinking. Individualism demands no collective thinking.

Psychology shows that there's no pure individual or pure collective thinking.

So how can either system work without eventually collapsing?

Individualistic cultures fragment into clusters of ideas formed by a few who promote their individualistic ideals and concepts to weaker individuals that follow. Communistic cultures cluster as a whole around a common ideal and concept, disregarding everything not in line with those.

In individualistic cultures, the individual is highly valued but this creates problems for collective movement and change. In communist cultures, the group is valued highly but this creates problems for questioning the decided movement and change.

It's probably why most functioning systems in the world feature a commonly accepted group culture built on individual rights, but also duties. Promoting individual thought with free speech, but a collective culture of societal rituals, behaviors, and dynamics.

Kind of like games with teams. Each individual has the freedom to think and act, but a common goal and team dynamic to reach it. Individual strengths when needed and collective ones when needed.

Any society that gravitates too much towards either side will collapse.

Communism demands no individual thinking. — Christoffer

How do you figure? Humans are still individuals, even if they don't fence off the commons or claim private ownership of natural resources. In a commune, each member is expected to contribute whatever they have a talent for, including intellectual endeavours, creative work, invention, etc.
There is no such thing as 'collective thinking'. People may echo and imitate other people, or simply agree on certain matters, but a thought that's eventually shared still has to originate in an individual mind. We don't have any other kind. We can pool knowledge and effort, but each contribution is still individual.

"Individualism" as an ideology is as illusory as "communism". There are no systems of either: all societies are collective, and to some degree dominated by a minority of privileged individuals, while the majority conforms to whatever norms are set for them.

t's the fucking enlightenment again Sam. — unenlightened

Or Renaissance. This thingy on top of St. Peter's is a symbol of the individual, standing between the heaven and earth:

Too much beating around the bush here. Communism is a well-defined system of governance, and one with an absolutely disastrous track record at that.

I understand that some people may sympathize with its ideals. I myself do too to some extent. Who wouldn't want a fair, idyllic, self-governed society that is the envisioned endgoal of communism?

Nirvana, however, is not for this world. And that has been made painfully clear throughout history.

"Not real communism", yada yada. We've heard it all before. Somehow the total centralization of power never seems to end in the state's abolishment, but instead, predictably, with totalitarianism.

If we want to discuss certain elements of communism, and how in a different setting they may benefit human societies, that's all fine and good. But right now we seem to be stuck in a state of cognitive dissonance between the pretty ideal and the ugly reality.

Lets answer the question: "is communism a feasible method of organizing states and large communities?" once and for all with a definitive 'no' (I mean, how many more corpses would it take to convince you?), so that we may move on to new, hopefully more constructive ideas, that may or may not contain aspects of communism.

Let's definitively decouple our ideas of a better, fairer society from what is tried and tested communism, and forever close the lid on that abomination, so humanity doesn't have to repeat its blackest chapters.

How do you figure? Humans are still individuals, even if they don't fence off the commons or claim private ownership of natural resources. In a commune, each member is expected to contribute whatever they have a talent for, including intellectual endeavours, creative work, invention, etc. — Vera Mont

And it sounds wonderful in theory until the community goes into deciding what contributions are acceptable and what are not. There's not much headroom for deviant thought within this system and this is why it historically, consistently has ended up in disaster.

This all works on smaller scale societies, but at large scale, how do you "contribute"? What if you aren't good at contributing? What if your contribution doesn't align with the rest?

In order for this system to work on a large scale it requires some kind of alignment with the rest of the group, otherwise, it's no longer communism. Where do leaders draw the line? Where do you draw the line? Who decides?

There is no such thing as 'collective thinking'. People may echo and imitate other people, or simply agree on certain matters, but a thought that's eventually shared still has to originate in an individual mind. We don't have any other kind. We can pool knowledge and effort, but each contribution is still individual. — Vera Mont

Yes, there is, it's called bias. It's called groupthink, which is a common trait historically within these systems. Which individuals are forming this society? It's no longer communism if you allow everyone's thoughts to be part of shaping the society since then you are talking about individualism instead. Communism is about aligning the people towards a common goal. If you allow individual thought to influence this, then it will slowly just collapse like the Berlin wall. It's exactly what happened.

This was precisely the reason why Orwell wrote about thought crimes in "1984".

"Individualism" as an ideology is as illusory as "communism". — Vera Mont

That's what I said, both are extremes that eventually lead to collapse. And we've also seen somewhat of a pure individualistic society through the neoliberalism movement in the 80s. Most of the Millennial generation has been formed as individualists and many of the problems today are the result of individualism, even though we've not seen a nation embracing it fully, since that would almost be anarchistic.

There are no systems of either: all societies are collective, and to some degree dominated by a minority of privileged individuals, while the majority conforms to whatever norms are set for them. — Vera Mont

Scandinavian social democracy has ended up being the most middle way possible on a large scale so far, and has proven to be very successful at creating a good place to live. There's less corruption, a focus on common goals, social safety nets that work, and free education and health care, while still featuring a lot of liberal values, individualism, and freedoms for the individual.

The goal would be to improve upon systems that are proven to work well, but that's not what the world does. Everyone instead debates about what is best between the extreme ends of Marxism, Capitalism, Communism, Individualism etc.

The problem today is that we need to change the best system in place to accommodate the eventual automation of society through AI. So we need a new paradigm in place, otherwise, we're going to see a collapse, regardless of system.

My guess is that the most progressively egalitarian and inclusive political-economic arrangement of a modern nation-state that is "realistic/feasible" is "free market"–compatible forms of libertarian socialism (i.e. economic democracy) because I think, more likely than not, such societal arrangements would lower the levels of scarcity-exploitation (and therefore social alienation) even more than the current 'Nordic Model' can achieve. And as a US citizen, this is the contrarian, or radical, prism through which I critically oppose the disastrous partisan agendas and governing policies of the current neoliberal American hegemon.

:up:

BTW, the more egalitarian and inclusive the US becomes the less it would be a nation-state. A nation is usually a group of people who have ethnicity in common. So nation-state is an entity in which community bonds are cemented by common language, history, heritage, etc. The largest minority in the US is now latinos, who (in some areas) don't speak English at all. Their presence, maybe more so than the black population, diminishes the US's chances of ever being a nation-state again (they were at one time).

This all works on smaller scale societies, but at large scale, how do you "contribute"? What if you aren't good at contributing? What if your contribution doesn't align with the rest? — Christoffer

I never said it works on large scale. Of course, nor does any other ideology; all political systems are more or less dysfunctional; all collapse sooner or later in their history.
I said all thought is individual.

Anyway, in a nation-state or tribe or empire, you have to contribute. In a monarchy, a theocracy, a military dictatorship or a democratic socialist republic, you have to contribute in order to receive a share, unless the polity or ruling elite exempt you for some reason (illness, injury, extreme age or youth are the standard exemptions) and the society has the wherewithal to carry you. There is some variation in the range of choices any individual has in deciding what, when and how much to contribute, but that's more a function of prosperity and technological advancement than style of social organization.

No economic arrangement is any harder to organize than any other. What's difficult is deliberate transition from one kind of economy to another.