I wouldn’t take that comment too seriously - the one about communist managers.

The educated bureaucratic class could be employed to resolve any dysfunction caused by local management.

Better question is: do you think the republic would function any more equally than in western governments? Would the government be writer of amends or regulations that end up opposing the ideology of a publicly run economy?

Qaddafi believed democracy-socialism could work with religion as a third column. It would probably sour eventually, but don't all social schemes?

For Russia, communism was a grand; but, failed experiment, according to Google. — Shawn

It was an aborted experiment. For starters, the Russian revolution had been brewing since 1905; what actually set it off was a bunch of women. All of that was erased in Stalin's revised history. He had no intention of attempting the Marxist vision: he was an emperor. The regime made some changes according to the (reasonably conceived but badly implemented) agenda: consolidating farms; nationalizing industries, and some social reforms like free education and health care. But the stratification continued, only with different players in the top three tiers of the hierarchy.

There was a thread on the previous philosophy forum, something to the matter stating that with central managers being coal workers or shoe salesmen, then it wouldn't seem hard to conclude that the whole endeavor would have failed. — Shawn

Nothing like that. The soviets ('governing council'; something like trade unions) already existed and had considerable political influence.
((Shoe salesmen?))

Regarding this, if one day a computer can do the same work central managers can, without any issue about competence, then would communism be not condemned to the ineptitude of Soviet styled central managers? — Shawn

Huh? If a computer can do the work of all the 'managers' of human societies, and that computer recognized humans as worth keeping, it would distribute goods and services far more equitably than any so-called communist regime. The operative word there being IF.

For Russia, communism was a grand; but, failed experiment, — Shawn

Grand? They killed tens, hundreds, of millions of people. There has never been a country ruled by communism that didn't end up being a tyranny. Why? Opinion - communism goes against human nature, so it can only be forced on people from above.

What I mean to say is that if the population of Russia’s working class proved to be inadequate for operating its industries, then I’m sure there were measures in place. I would assume more highly educated members of the party would be tasked to this. Contemporary Russia remains a descendant of these ideologies and it still has a lot of state owned enterprises.

What I mean to say is that if the population of Russia’s working class proved to be inadequate for operating its industries, then I’m sure there were measures in place. I would assume more highly educated members of the party would be tasked to this. — EdwardC

At the time of the revolution, their factories were mostly owned by the British and French, so there wasn't any native expertise. I wonder how they managed as well as they did tbh.

Opinion - communism goes against human nature, so it can only be forced on people from above. — T Clark

While I don't disagree with you in principle, I feel compelled to ask: doesn't law and order as well? Surely the two aren't so terribly dissimilar in sharing similar qualities of being a "manufactured" or inorganic state of affairs, despite both also having relatable qualities of natural social cohesion and the resulting "values", virtues, whatever you wish to call the things that make a society a pleasant thing to call one's own? If I, absent of modern upbringing in any civilized society, feel hungry, or even not, and I see one of lesser or smaller stature than me in possession of something I wish to make mine, would I not be inclined to do so, whether by means of deceit or perhaps a bit more forceful of an approach?

they probably developed a structure gradually in the aftermath of the fall of the bourgeoisie

They killed tens, hundreds, of millions of people. — T Clark

Hundreds of thousands killed one another. 'They' just conducted one side and took over when the carnage was done.

Opinion - communism goes against human nature, so it can only be forced on people from above. — T Clark

Of course it can't. But nobody's ever tried to. What passed for a communist regime was a top tier of pigs, a layer of Dobermans and millions of workhorses.

What I mean to say is that if the population of Russia’s working class proved to be inadequate for operating its industries, — EdwardC

They were never given a chance to try.

I would assume more highly educated members of the party would be tasked to this. — EdwardC

Educated? Maybe. The main requirement for managers was loyalty to the regime.

:up:

You do realize that nation functions differently to this day?

You do realize that nation functions differently to this day? — EdwardC

How so?

For Russia, communism was a grand; but, failed experiment, according to Google. — Shawn

Is democracy a grand but failed experiment?

Is democracy a grand but failed experiment? — Tom Storm

:up:

Democracy is just an outrageous collective despair...

Is democracy a grand but failed experiment? — Tom Storm

There is no reason a commune can't be governed democratically. I should imagine democracy would actually work very much better in a communist economic arrangement, where people are pretty much equal, than a capitalist one, where a few individuals wield immense political power through their wealth. Might go so far as to say that democracies are failing because of capitalism.

I feel compelled to ask: doesn't law and order as well? — Outlander

First of all, keep in mind that my opinion is based on "seems to me" rather than specific evidence. Given that, I don't think so. Revenge, security, behavioral control are all pretty human impulses.

relatable qualities of natural social cohesion and the resulting "values", virtues — Outlander

I agree that human's have a natural impulse to look out after each other and maybe in a small community where people live with their families and people they know, hat would hold sway. But when the group gets larger those sort of human connections are lost and generalized love of humanity won't get people to work when there is no specific benefit for themselves.

Hundreds of thousands killed one another. 'They' just conducted one side and took over when the carnage was done. — Vera Mont

I wasn't talking about the Russian revolution, I was talking about Communism in all it's governmental manifestations - the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia... Wikipedia says that a very uncertain estimate of deaths caused by Communist regimes is between 60 and 150 million.

9 million people die from starvation every year. Should we lay these deaths at the feet of capitalist corporatism? Because I surely do.

Wikipedia says that a very uncertain estimate of deaths caused by Communist regimes is between 60 and 150 million. — T Clark

Based on a examination of the records from the time, Hosking estimates 37 million Soviet citizens died unnatural deaths between 1917 and the 1950s. It appears the Communist plan was to bring about a better world through destruction of the old, which actually wasn't the Marxist vision. Marx believed capitalism was the precursor for communism. Russia never had a real capitalist era. They just had a few foreign factories in St. Petersburg. Trotsky had some explanation for why Russia was able to leapfrog Marx's prophecy, something about the character of the Russian culture, that it easily reflected foreign ways.

China is a different story and a much larger scale of destruction. China appears to have engineered a famine that killed about 40 million people. Communist China tops the list of the worst things the human species has ever done to itself.

Communist China tops the list of the worst things the human species has ever done to itself. — frank

Yes, although Wikipedia indicates the Mongol invasion killed between 40 and 65 million, so they're up there too.

Yes, although Wikipedia indicates the Mongol invasion killed between 40 and 65 million, so they're up there too. — T Clark

They were definitely badass.

9 million people die from starvation every year. Should we lay these deaths at the feet of capitalist corporatism? Because I surely do. — Pantagruel

Good point. According to Wikipedia, the lower end of the range of deaths, around 60 million, did not include non-intentional famines.

Wikipedia says that a very uncertain estimate of deaths caused by Communist regimes is between 60 and 150 million. — T Clark

Let me amend that:
deaths caused by self-styled Communist regimes is between 60 and 150 million. They're dictatorships that gained power under a red flag, on the blood of the working and peasant classes, then systematically eliminated the idealists, the trade unionists, the intellectual and communal leaders of the movement. On the large scale, all popular and populist movements are co-opted by demagogues who then become despots.
If the contents smell like rat droppings, though the label says Caviar, don't eat it!

There has never been a country ruled by communism that didn't end up being a tyranny. Why? Opinion - communism goes against human nature, so it can only be forced on people from above. — T Clark

In a system where "the people" (aka the state) owns everything, tyranny is inevitable.

Plus Russia had no experience with democracy. They had an absolute monarchy up to the 20th Century.

deaths caused by self-styled Communist regimes is between 60 and 150 million. — Vera Mont

It seems plausible to me that any large Communist regime will inevitably end up in tyranny. Again, that's my "seems to me" opinion, not a solid claim.

It seems plausible to me that any large Communist regime will inevitably end up in tyranny. Again, that's my "seems to me" opinion, not a solid claimi. — T Clark

I'm inclined to agree. I can't see communism on a large scale at all, unless it evolves naturally through the stages of democratic socialism. And that cannot happen in a monetized economy, because powerful vested interests will do anything to thwart it.

But then, other kinds of political system also fall prey to despotism of one kind or another. Right now, capitalism is blundering its way toward implosion, while democracies are failing at various rates.

In a system where "the people" (aka the state) owns everything, tyranny is inevitable. — hypericin

Yes, I think so.

I can't see communism on a large scale at all, unless it evolves naturally through the stages of democratic socialism. And that cannot happen in a monetized economy, because powerful vested interests will do anything to thwart it. — Vera Mont

Yes, I think you're right.

And that cannot happen in a monetized economy, because powerful vested interests will do anything to thwart it. — Vera Mont

Not just thwart it. They will coopt the system so that they are the true polity: the system's desires becomes their desires, which are at odds with any kind of communalism. I think there is truth in the Communist idea that it is incompatible with democracy. A strong party must always be in place to suppress these monied interests, not share power with them... And thereby securing its own controlling interest.