Communism. Good or bad. What do you really know about Communism?

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

I quit. You communist lovers win in this thread. I ask a serious question and just get frigging sophistry back.

I am out of this thread. I can't reason with the unreasonable.

You just don't want to theorize on early history of humanity?

The origin of over-arching power, which made states and empires possible despite all individuals remained egoistic, is an unsolved dilemma. How could one say why people go to become such leaders? Unexplained gigantic authority is ascribed to political office. Those who hold it bear it almost like a burden. Money is not the stimulus, people can't use the office for private purpose.

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by Enrico32

You just don't want to theorize on early history of humanity?

Because it is irrelevant to the subject of this thread - communism

If you and xye want to play marxist dungeons and dragons creating imaginary lands were communism exists and everyone lives in total harmony then knock yourselves out.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Palo I call bullshit on not understanding consumerism. Even tribes that use the barter system understand the rudiments of it

Hehehe! You misunderstand me a little, but maybe I didn't explain it well. Let me put it this way: there were few consumer goods, because there was little consumer industry. There was almost almost no advertizing. You could get necessary products, like food, clothing & furniture etc, maybe even a car with luck after a long wait, but anything that had to be imported was petty much unavailable to normal citizens

If people needed stuff, very often they improvized, especially with building material & clothing. People also helped each other much more. I've seen TV shows about remote Alaska. If you know that community spirit, then you'll "get it"

There was a black market of course, but it wasn't everywhere, and you could only use it with trusted people. However, it could get you unwanted attention from law enforcement, especially if you were using foreign currency. In any case, even with trusted people you were taking a risk

Anyway, do you see typical consumerism there, compared to what you have? Credit cards were unknown, so were consumer loans. Believe me, it absolutely wasn't the same, nor was the mentality

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by palo5

Anyway, do you see typical consumerism there, compared to what you have? Credit cards were unknown, so were consumer loans. Believe me, it absolutely wasn't the same, nor was the mentality

So, without the financial tools available to the western consumer, the Soviet poor man was limited to the kopecks and rubles he could squirrel away from his wages to spend.

Which meant there was no way for all of the consumer services to arise that depend on debt, especially for big ticket items.

This would certainly cut down on the "waste" generated by making consumer goods, as xyz sees it, I suppose.

But too much lack of consumer goods is bad. Soviet school children were probably crippled towards the end of the USSR by not having computers widely available for education purposes, for example. By the mid 80s our school had a big computer lab, and more units scattered here and there for children to use learning about business software, CAD-CAM, and such.

What is a necessary consumer good and what is not?

Around where I live, you basically need a car. Depending on any sort of public or communal transportation would lead to massive inefficiencies in the economy, in the matter of people getting to their jobs.

A computer - I say this is basically a necessary tool in the 21st century world. Or at least you need a connected smart phone.

A microwave oven - hmm, I use this more than my stove, since it saves time. Is it a capitalist frippery? It probably saves energy.

Lawn mower - I have to have one to mow my lawn, lest the grass turn to high meadows and disease bearing bugs move in. Could I get by with a communal lawn mower shared with several neighbors? Dicey setting up times to use it. Also, when it breaks, who pays for repairs? What if one neighbor is more abusive of the communal lawn mower than the rest of us? Do we blame him, and order him to make repairs, and let our lawns go to seed when he doesn't take responsibility for his actions and fix it?

Soviet communists probably never had to consider this particular problem since almost none of them had lawns.

Women probably suffered much more under communism than men, since they LOVE to spend money on consumer goods, particularly the more useless kinds, if you hand them the checkbook.

[crinolynne]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Lawn mower - I have to have one to mow my lawn, lest the grass turn to high meadows and disease bearing bugs move in. Could I get by with a communal lawn mower shared with several neighbors? Dicey setting up times to use it. Also, when it breaks, who pays for repairs? What if one neighbor is more abusive of the communal lawn mower than the rest of us? Do we blame him, and order him to make repairs, and let our lawns go to seed when he doesn't take responsibility for his actions and fix it?

And you curiously identify the crux of the debate: communists assume people will generally act in the general interest of the group - a sociological fact as proven by numerous experiments; whereas, the capitalist assume people will act out of their own self-interest. In your lawn mower example, you are missing the essential element that the group knows the klutz who doesn't take care of the machine and will automagically make allowances for that. Your example inserts the capitalist view into the communist paradigm in order to prove that it is naive based on your own pessimistic bias.

My observation would be, if having a communal lawnmower is such a good idea, why don't we see enterprising capitalists provide such a service. The fact that they don't, at least I've never heard of it, proves something about the capitalist system (though exactly what, I'm not sure...)

[Enrico32]

Originally Posted by Wendigo

Because it is irrelevant to the subject of this thread - communism

If you and xye want to play marxist dungeons and dragons creating imaginary lands were communism exists and everyone lives in total harmony then knock yourselves out.

Who said communism is about "perfect harmony"?
Communism means all things are owned by one owner (state). Capitalism supposes many owners. So both are the same.

All the arguments and questions in this thread relate to human nature (esp. biology and psychology) in general. Like why people divide themselves into the rulers and the ruled? Why do they need a single "nation" government while each economic branch already has its own government?

[palo5]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Women probably suffered much more under communism than men, since they LOVE to spend money on consumer goods, particularly the more useless kinds, if you hand them the checkbook.

Except, they could only have what was available, and checkbooks didn't exist

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by crinolynne

And you curiously identify the crux of the debate: communists assume people will generally act in the general interest of the group - a sociological fact as proven by numerous experiments; whereas, the capitalist assume people will act out of their own self-interest. In your lawn mower example, you are missing the essential element that the group knows the klutz who doesn't take care of the machine and will automagically make allowances for that. Your example inserts the capitalist view into the communist paradigm in order to prove that it is naive based on your own pessimistic bias.

My observation would be, if having a communal lawnmower is such a good idea, why don't we see enterprising capitalists provide such a service. The fact that they don't, at least I've never heard of it, proves something about the capitalist system (though exactly what, I'm not sure...)

Well, capitalists do offer such a service, there are many lawn service companies you can hire to mow your lawn. However, they insist on retaining control of the means of production, i.e. they own the lawn mowers, and do not let you mow, but have their employees mow for wages, and retain a greater percentage of the fee.

To bypass some of the capitalism, you can rent a lawn mower from various agencies as well, prices vary, but it looks like for the cost of about 7 or 8 mowings you could plow that money into your own lawn mower and come out ahead for successive mowing seasons. So why not do that instead?

Returning to communal tool ownership, let me ask you - have you ever loaned out tools to anyone as a favor? I have. Sometimes you get your tools back in noticeably worse shape then they were when you loaned them out, and on more than one occasion I have not had a tool returned at all.

I don't loan tools out anymore except to people I know I can trust. Because it is a simple fact that some people are more careless with property they are not personally financially responsible for than things they actually own and have paid for. This alone kills communism, unless you have secret police to administer beatings to those who carelessly damage or destroy communal property.

[haroldeye]

Two friends of mine went to Moscow in the late 70's. One thought it marvellous, especially as she could swap her denims and biro pens for things she wanted but couldn't buy. The other thought it marvellous because he became sexually involved with two sisters. After two nights of passion the girls asked him a favour, 'Could he buy for them a stereo system from the tourist shop'. They would give him the dosh, they just wanted a decent stereo. Being a gentleman he bought the system they wanted and gave it to them as a leaving present. Communism sure sounded fun.

[crinolynne]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Well, capitalists do offer such a service, there are many lawn service companies you can hire to mow your lawn. However, they insist on retaining control of the means of production, i.e. they own the lawn mowers, and do not let you mow, but have their employees mow for wages, and retain a greater percentage of the fee.

To bypass some of the capitalism, you can rent a lawn mower from various agencies as well, prices vary, but it looks like for the cost of about 7 or 8 mowings you could plow that money into your own lawn mower and come out ahead for successive mowing seasons. So why not do that instead?

Returning to communal tool ownership, let me ask you - have you ever loaned out tools to anyone as a favor? I have. Sometimes you get your tools back in noticeably worse shape then they were when you loaned them out, and on more than one occasion I have not had a tool returned at all.

I don't loan tools out anymore except to people I know I can trust. Because it is a simple fact that some people are more careless with property they are not personally financially responsible for than things they actually own and have paid for. This alone kills communism, unless you have secret police to administer beatings to those who carelessly damage or destroy communal property.

I think you missed my point - there are of course companies that provide the service - but the local not for profit version doesn't exist. My point being that both the capitalist model is less than effective - cost, convenience etc. and the communal model have problems as you so eloquently describe for the latter.

Me, I'm thinking Uber-Grass, 'cept in these days people will think that's a marijuana delivery service... now that's an idea...