A thought experiment on True Communism...

[jmotivator]

I have seen numerous times over the years people argue in favor of "True" communism, to be differentiated from all of the failed Communist regimes over the course of modern history. So let's dispatch all of these prior "Communist" countries and focus on what true communism is, and how it would work in the real world.

I have often, and just today, made the assertion that the primary reason that "true" communism can work beyond very small subsistence scales is because of the power necessary to accomplish anything beyond the very small scale requires increasing levels of organization to accomplish, and that organization centralizes power, and the greater the task the further the worker is separated from decision making, and the more powerful the decision makers.

So here is my experiment:

Read the classic intro to economics essay "I, Pencil"

Now, by applying the power of "True Communism", explain the decentralized economy that could produce enough pencils such that anyone who needed a pencil could have one.

 

[noonereal]

why did you start this ridiculous thread?

 

[nitroexpress]

I have seen numerous times over the years people argue in favor of "True" communism, to be differentiated from all of the failed Communist regimes over the course of modern history. So let's dispatch all of these prior "Communist" countries and focus on what true communism is, and how it would work in the real world.

I have often, and just today, made the assertion that the primary reason that "true" communism can work beyond very small subsistence scales is because of the power necessary to accomplish anything beyond the very small scale requires increasing levels of organization to accomplish, and that organization centralizes power, and the greater the task the further the worker is separated from decision making, and the more powerful the decision makers.

So here is my experiment:

Read the classic intro to economics essay "I, Pencil"

Now, by applying the power of "True Communism", explain the decentralized economy that could produce enough pencils such that anyone who needed a pencil could have one.

Zzzzzzzzzzzz......

 

[Crabby0311]

Here is the truth about why "true communism" has not, will not and cannot work. It is a utopian society. Everyone works, everyone eats, everyone has a house, everyone has a car, you don't have money, you need something you just go get it because it's there etc, etc, etc. It would be a perfect society with no want and therefore no need and no drive. It would be an existence only. Humans first of all are not perfect and you know the thing about square pegs in round holes right? Second of all human nature itself is a driven nature. We have an built in desire for more. Whether it is more knowledge, more land, more trips, more money, more things, more love, more, more more. That is NOT a bad thing. We are participating on this board only because of humanities desire for more. If we lived in a utopian communist society we would not have internet forums. This is why the USA grew into the greatest place in history. We embrace the good in humanity including the desire for more and it is used to the world's benefit. So no 'true communism" will never work and all forms that have been implemented are/were in reality nothing more than dictators playing mind games with the sheep who bought into it. Strangely enough they bought into it because they wanted and were promised more for nothing. That does not work unless you are looking to control a population.

 

[d0gbreath]

I pen.

 

[eman623]

So "You didn't build that" started out as an argument from the right-wing against communism and for the "invisible hand". Interesting.

Somehow Obama flipped that notion into a socialistic, "nothing gets done without government making it possible" message.

 

[aociswundumho]

Now, by applying the power of "True Communism", explain the decentralized economy that could produce enough pencils such that anyone who needed a pencil could have one.

You mean a centrally planned economy. Capitalism is decentralized.

 

[Nickyjo]

So "You didn't build that" started out as an argument from the right-wing against communism and for the "invisible hand". Interesting.

Somehow Obama flipped that notion into a socialistic, "nothing gets done without government making it possible" message.

Indeed, nothing does get done without government making it possible. (Sex, maybe.)

But that’s not socialism, it’s capitalism: government makes incorporation possible, prosecutes theft, installs traffic lights. We all depend on government, but lots of us fail to admit it.

 

[Bum]

Communism works quite well for insect colonies......humans, not so much.

 

[jmotivator]

You mean a centrally planned economy. Capitalism is decentralized.

You need to read what the "that's not true communism" folks believe true communism is to understand the question. They see true communism as a dispersed group of independent communes.

 

[Greenbeard]

I have often, and just today, made the assertion that the primary reason that "true" communism can work beyond very small subsistence scales is because of the power necessary to accomplish anything beyond the very small scale requires increasing levels of organization to accomplish, and that organization centralizes power, and the greater the task the further the worker is separated from decision making, and the more powerful the decision makers.

So here is my experiment:

Read the classic intro to economics essay "I, Pencil"

Now, by applying the power of "True Communism", explain the decentralized economy that could produce enough pencils such that anyone who needed a pencil could have one.

You need to read what the "that's not true communism" folks believe true communism is to understand the question. They see true communism as a dispersed group of independent communes.

Wait a minute, your takeaway from that essay is that only centralization and "powerful decision makers" can create a pencil?

 

[jmotivator]

Wait a minute, your takeaway from that essay is that only centralization and "powerful decision makers" can create a pencil?

No, I am arguing that in a communist system a central planner is required because, when left to our own devices, and absent labor incentive, humans don't tend to mine or cut lumber more than is needed for their immediate needs, and the commune system breaks down as scale increases. My point is that you can't expect an industry that produces pencils from the raw materials to finished product to evolve organically from a "true" communist system as defined by various communists on this forum, there has to be a central authority that demands the pencils and then sufficient power to force people into the hard jobs needed to accomplish the task.

This was spun off of a side argument in another thread where I had argued that massive centralized power is inevitable in industrialized state communism.

 

[eman623]

Indeed, nothing does get done without government making it possible. (Sex, maybe.)

But that’s not socialism, it’s capitalism: government makes incorporation possible, prosecutes theft, installs traffic lights. We all depend on government, but lots of us fail to admit it.

These things are all necessary to be sure. A pure capitalistic system would look something like Somalia and would suck. But how do you figure things like you mentioned are capitalism? Are you saying government is a commodity like a pencil and since people like paved roads and traffic lights and firefighters and police to prosecute crimes there is a demand for government? And thus the invisible hand comes into play to meet these demands and people come together to create government?

And like the armies of pencil makers few of the thousands of people involved in government are doing so because they personally want the product. They get up and go to work in the morning because they get paid for their labor. So yes, government is like capitalism.

But let's be clear. Government is not like a pencil factory. Government is like a pencil factory that comes to your home and forces you to buy their product. Government is like a pencil factory that has an absolute monopoly on pencils. If you don't like your current government you can't switch to another one. So government is not entirely like capitalism.

And government sometimes tries to manage the economy and repeal the invisible hand. That usually fails badly.

 

[Nickyjo]

These things are all necessary to be sure. A pure capitalistic system would look something like Somalia and would suck. But how do you figure things like you mentioned are capitalism? Are you saying government is a commodity like a pencil and since people like paved roads and traffic lights and firefighters and police to prosecute crimes there is a demand for government? And thus the invisible hand comes into play to meet these demands and people come together to create government?

And like the armies of pencil makers few of the thousands of people involved in government are doing so because they personally want the product. They get up and go to work in the morning because they get paid for their labor. So yes, government is like capitalism.

But let's be clear. Government is not like a pencil factory. Government is like a pencil factory that comes to your home and forces you to buy their product. Government is like a pencil factory that has an absolute monopoly on pencils. If you don't like your current government you can't switch to another one. So government is not entirely like capitalism.

And government sometimes tries to manage the economy and repeal the invisible hand. That usually fails badly.

Sorry, my point, inelegantly stated, was that the government is active in the economy in capitalistic societies, even if only to enforce laws against theft. I also would argue, contrary to your assertion, that government’s repeal (modification) of the invisible hand through regulation does just fine. From child labor laws to the 40-hour week to environmental rules that gave us cleaner air it has done quite well. True, we have sacrificed some of the invisible hand’s productivity along the way, as most societies have accepted that the invisible hand is not a divine one to be worshipped, but one to be slapped (gently) when it causes harm.

 

[WillyPete]

Not to be pedantic, but the original pencils were hand made, generally by the people who used them, like how many great artists had to make their on brushes and mix their own paints. They weren't of consistent quality or massively produced, but there you go. So what you're saying is that true communism can't support large scale manufacturing, which is naturally true especially in your "distributed commune" concept.

Others have touched on the idea that human nature conflicts with the sort of "for the greater good" mentality that would be needed for communism to work at a large scale. Capitalism, on the other hand, matches us so well that it's barely a system at all, but is more just embracing human nature and letting it run its course, while actively serving those that come out on top, because those same people ultimately hold the levers of power.

This tells us more more about mankind's defects than communism's, though. It's not exactly to be celebrated that we haven't escaped our natures.

In the book "World War Z" (great read, awful film) there is a similar message, where the guy in charge of rebuilding the U.S. economy after the zombie apocalypse has a sign on his desk with the recipe/ingredients for root beer, which also come from all over the world.

 

[Helix]

I don't think that true communism can work in populations bigger than a tribe. Though a Native American tribe isn't a perfect example, it's close. The concept can only work when every member is immediately accountable to every other member. At the nation level, greed and power lust make the concept basically impossible.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I don't think that true communism can work in populations bigger than a tribe. Though a Native American tribe isn't a perfect example, it's close. The concept can only work when every member is immediately accountable to every other member. At the nation level, greed and power lust make the concept basically impossible.

The way it potentially could work is in specialized communes that have to trade with other communes. If one specialized in creating pencils, that one would trade the pencils with other communes for the items it does not produce. The commune is communist but the economic system of trade between them would be capitalist in nature. The various communes would have to adapt and change what they produce to become more efficient in order to improve living conditions. As other communes might produce pencils as well, they will compete with each other and drive efficiencies within them.

 

[Helix]

The way it potentially could work is in specialized communes that have to trade with other communes. If one specialized in creating pencils, that one would trade the pencils with other communes for the items it does not produce. The commune is communist but the economic system of trade between them would be capitalist in nature. The various communes would have to adapt and change what they produce to become more efficient in order to improve living conditions. As other communes might produce pencils as well, they will compete with each other and drive efficiencies within them.

i suppose it's possible, though a large system like that without significant centralization seems unlikely. communism goes wrong when the party itself with no competition becomes something as bad or worse than the capitalists / nobility that it attempted to replace. some sort of socialism (real socialism, not the misrepresentation that the right likes to piss and moan about) in which the workers own the means of production might last a little longer at the national level, but even that generally caves into to a dictatorship.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

i suppose it's possible, though a large system like that without significant centralization seems unlikely. communism goes wrong when the party itself with no competition becomes something as bad or worse than the capitalists / nobility that it attempted to replace. some sort of socialism (real socialism, not the misrepresentation that the right likes to piss and moan about) in which the workers own the means of production might last a little longer at the national level, but even that generally caves into to a dictatorship.

It is of course utopian in nature, as one group would eventually seek to use force to take over other groups because they had better toilets or land then the other groups

 

[aociswundumho]

The way it potentially could work is in specialized communes that have to trade with other communes. If one specialized in creating pencils, that one would trade the pencils with other communes for the items it does not produce.

That's not gonna work. Barter markets have extremely high transaction costs. You have to find other people who 1. want pencils, and 2. have something you want. Good luck with that. These communes wouldn't have time to make pencils anyway, they would need to farm or hunt just to survive.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

That's not gonna work. Barter markets have extremely high transaction costs. You have to find other people who 1. want pencils, and 2. have something you want. Good luck with that. These communes wouldn't have time to make pencils anyway, they would need to farm or hunt just to survive.

Does not need to be barter could use a crypto currency instead

 

[aociswundumho]

Not to be pedantic, but the original pencils were hand made,

They didn't mine graphite. And anyway, the claim is that no one knows how to make a number 2 pencil, which is painted, and has a ferrule and eraser.

 

[Dans La Lune]

So "You didn't build that" started out as an argument from the right-wing against communism and for the "invisible hand". Interesting.

Somehow Obama flipped that notion into a socialistic, "nothing gets done without government making it possible" message.

No, he didn't do that at all. You made that up.

But it's funny that Republicans are still obsessed with Obama making a fully correct statement, while their orange messiah can get away with the most egregious deceit and corruption in American history without any consequence whatsoever.

 

[eman623]

No, he didn't do that at all. You made that up.

But it's funny that Republicans are still obsessed with Obama making a fully correct statement, while their orange messiah can get away with the most egregious deceit and corruption in American history without any consequence whatsoever.

I'm not a Trump supporter and didn't vote for him, but your angry little TDS whine notwithstanding, what do you think Obama meant by his "you didn't build that" statement? If it wasn't that the people who are successful in business can't get there without government services what was it?

I just find it interesting that the same arguments can be used by both sides with subtly, yet important differences in meaning.

 

[eman623]

Sorry, my point, inelegantly stated, was that the government is active in the economy in capitalistic societies, even if only to enforce laws against theft. I also would argue, contrary to your assertion, that government’s repeal (modification) of the invisible hand through regulation does just fine. From child labor laws to the 40-hour week to environmental rules that gave us cleaner air it has done quite well. True, we have sacrificed some of the invisible hand’s productivity along the way, as most societies have accepted that the invisible hand is not a divine one to be worshipped, but one to be slapped (gently) when it causes harm.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Government has a critical role in capitalistic societies. Capitalism may be the best system for allocating resources, but it is also inherently unstable. In capitalism, wealth tends to accumulate in fewer and fewer hands over time and eventually one or a few persons ends up owning everything. And there are the things you mentioned like child labor laws which can only happen if everyone does it. Otherwise if everyone else is doing it and you stop, you'll be at a competitive disadvantage and be driven out of business.

And some things like building dams are also hard to implement in the private sector. You can charge for a private toll road, but how do you charge a city for not getting flooded because a new dam is holding back the monsoon rains and releasing it slowly to provide a steady flow of water for drinking and irrigation?

But I think it's inaccurate to call these things capitalistic. Slapping the invisible hand is the opposite of capitalism, not capitalism. Even if it needs a good slapping every once in a while.