Communism
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Communism
What I am hoping for here is a considered look at communism as a critique of some of the problems with capitalism, how likely it is that in the future (far flung as it may be) that “private property” will become less of a concern and/or limited due to mechanised labour freeing up human “lesuire time” in which people can pursue their personal interests without much worry about basic sustainance.
Rememeber some of the starry-eyed promised of the mid/late twentieth century. Of a world increasingly run by robots and computers. A society where humans were freed from monetary pursuits and instead the focus of “economy” became a matter of self-development, learning and exlporation.
The question I am posing here then is “communism” a purely misguided utopian idea or is there some use in the theory. Given that humanity has managed to lift itself out of poverty and suffering to such an amazing degree this past century or two should we perhaps thinking about the possibilty of greater equality of living, of the culture of capitalistic ideas slowly fading away into the background, and/or a political theory that moves with the natural progression from city state, nation and corporation to something that eases society at large toward a more far reaching alternative - the city state progressed and from it corporations and guilds sprouted due to personal interests and economic needs. If the future gives us more and more of what we “need” to survive then how will we move the pursuit of financial gain to a whole other frame of mind? Can we? Do we all possess the same basic drives? Or are we forever to remain in some state of beneficial conflict in which an optimal level of inequality will help us sustain a stable huma future beyond the breaking point of capitialistic ideals?
My personal view here is that whatever will be it seems to me that we’re moving more toward a more “socialist” view of how society should be structured. Essentially what I mean by this is that across the globe people are in a much better position to pursue their hopes and dreams than ever before. So when I say “socialism” what I mean is that more or less people are finding themselves on the same level and from here if mundane labour, which many don’t want to do, is take on by automation then the automation essentially becomes “free labour” and it is this that should perhaps be given over to “the state” to serve “the people” not to serve personal interests only.
I don’t know if any of you read sci-fi, but I am thinking about this in terms of The Culture (Iain Bainks futurstic vision of humanity essentially run by AI.) I am not really talking about AI on the level he was thinking but rather on a lesser path where larger and larger majorities of humans do not need to depend on pursuing careers to sustain their lives but are more and more freed up to paint, draw, pray, write, experiement, focus on family, educate themselves and generally explore what it is to be “human.”
This could go off in several directions so feel free to take the discussion where ever you see fit. Just note that my aim is not to talk about introducing some revolutionary ideal of communism or socialism, but to look at the useful elements of each (in term of the critiques they offer about the current political landscape and what sort of tools they may help us forge in order to better manage/progress/replace some, if not many, capitalistic ideas. The key point I’ve outlined above is more about a reappraisal of what “economics” is other than a mere “financial” issue - that is resources and items we wish to possess that fall outside of materialistic gain (money, property and control of material resources.)
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7991
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Communism
Firstly, words such as capitalism and communism exist in economic theory, yet actual countries have systems that have elements of both, to greater and lesser degrees.
In common conversation folks use the terms as strawmen, cherry picking outrageous flaws to criticize the opposite side and pointing out the exact same tactic when employed by their opponent.
Lastly, ir occurred to me that there are situations here and now where the concept of private property can disappear. For example on a liferaft adrift in the ocean.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Communism
My aim here is to steer away from “strawmaning” either capitalism or communism. Societies have obviously reaped the benefits of both and both offer up critiques of each other. Of course, the idea of no ownership at all is delusional. The communism proposition is more about taking personal responsibility rather than handing it over to others - and it is embedded within the capitalist view that this idea also holds a strong position. Both, seem to me, to be complementary criticisms of how to, and how not to, balance personal benefits with communal benefits (obviously, or perhaps not so “obviously,” selfless approaches require a degree of selfishness as selfish approaches necessarily end up flourishing when others benefit too.) The people left out of the game entirely are the ones who suffer in silence - those people are the ones we look to for hint of how to adjust the “economic game” and inclusion for all - for all to “own” a piece to place on the boardgame so to speak.
More than anything the term “economics” is far too easily equated with “money” rather than more abstracted features of human society such as health, well-being, intellect, art and numerous other less quantifiable attributes of the human “economy.” We all know the benefits of music and the strange “thrill” felt when we learn something new (be it god or bad.)
What I posted recently (in reference to Geertz) was a definition of “religion” which Renfrew used to express the meaning of “money.” This observation by Renfrew allows us to see the benefit of money and also see it as a representation of something we cannot quite grasp:
Anyway, I see the basic lesson to be learned from looking at communism is hidden underneath it. It is not about material property it is about valued labour/work. If someone cannot find something to do that makes them feel useful then they are essentially “poor” in a much more human sense rather than in a mere monetary sense - that doesn’t mean I ignore the necessity of earning a basic living, but if that demand was lifted (by our possible future AI overlords, and/or fully automated production of free universal goods) then would we end up slovenly and vacuous? Assuming there is more to us I wonder what it is that makes us feel “useful” beyond the need to survive? If it is to “prosper” then what does it mean to “prosper” beyond mere monetary gain? How could a viable society function without the abstract system of valuation given to us by money? What is the primary non-fungible/fungible qualities of human existence? How do we unearth them if we’re not sure what they are? If they don’t exist then how do we establish something tangible enough from which to build society?(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.
The Interpretation of Cultures, Geertz (p.90)
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Communism
One obvious downside to everyone being absolutely free to do as they wish would be a lot of people who wish to do nothing?
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Communism
I think people constantly challenge themselves, and no matter what we have to deal with the challenges revealed - some look the other way and some constantly look for more and more challenges whilst already occupied with some. Whoever is observed by the greater extent of the population to be “flourishing” and “enjoying” will surely be admired. If someone is admired then people will seek to replicate their take on life.Eduk wrote: ↑October 29th, 2018, 4:23 am Do humans (or life in general) do well because they want to do well or because they are forced to do well. Or a combination? Or something else?
One obvious downside to everyone being absolutely free to do as they wish would be a lot of people who wish to do nothing?
Those who do nothing so nothing. So be it. It may well be that many striving find nothing but disappointment and “give up” and “do nothing.” I don’t personally see anything more innate in human nature than our drive to explore and investigate (regardless of suffering in the course of doing so.) That is our insanity and I cannot see how people having greater freedom to pursue their preferences would lead to the apathy of many other than by way of people being made to face up to their own personal meaning in life (I am not sure how many people really have the time or inclination, like myself, to sit around thinking about the kind of things I think about - I am in a position of some such “freedom.”) I don;t for a second imagine that other humans have the same personality as me though!
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Communism
Communism seems slightly different than socialism to me though. In communism you seem to do well if you can control the narrative and manipulate and play the game.
But then all communist societies so far havent had a resource surplus.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Communism
It might be more helpful to go back to root words.
Commune, community.
What if you consider the earliest known groups of hominids? Families, clans: people who lived and worked together, shared resources and skills, depended on one another for survival. Money hadn't been invented yet - wouldn't be, for another 100,000 years. So we know it was possible for a long time to manage without capital (or its ism). They did have the full complement of human emotions, needs and desires. How did they organize their communities? How did they cope with competition and conflict? How do the few surviving primitive cultures do it now?
A modern commune is a voluntary clan: people not related by blood who choose to live and work together, share resources and skills, depend on one another. How do they cope?
- Frewah
- Posts: 45
- Joined: September 30th, 2018, 3:30 pm
Re: Communism
I think marx thought that money and the pursuit of wealth out of the equation, then people would simply be nice to one another. It didn’t work and it never will, people found other ways to compete. There were haves and have nots in the socialist countries.
- Frewah
- Posts: 45
- Joined: September 30th, 2018, 3:30 pm
Re: Communism
One has to remember that money facilitates trading and also makes it easy to measure value. These people may not have had money but they did trade. You trade with what you have: gold silver, skin hives, food, beads, sex, and so on. Money makes everything easier and I think it matters that money is divisible. As long as we trade, we will need some kind of money. It’s when we have a really small group of tightly knit people, completely isolated that we don’t need to trade.Alias wrote: ↑October 30th, 2018, 9:57 pm What if you consider the earliest known groups of hominids? Families, clans: people who lived and worked together, shared resources and skills, depended on one another for survival. Money hadn't been invented yet - wouldn't be, for another 100,000 years. So we know it was possible for a long time to manage without capital (or its ism).
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Communism
Yes, but it also facilitates theft (being more portable than oxen or refrigerators) and also makes it easy to manipulate/distort value.
What do trade for a case of hives? Never mind, it was just funny. Money makes everything easier if you have it and harder if you don't, (which is the story of civilization), so it's important to take as much of it as possible, by any means possible (which is the story of private property, crime and legal systems.)These people may not have had money but they did trade. You trade with what you have: gold silver, skin hives, food, beads, sex, and so on.
Money makes everything easier and I think it matters that money is divisible.
A medium of exchange, yes; not necessarily money.As long as we trade, we will need some kind of money.
Why? How does being loosely-knit make commercial trade necessary ?It’s when we have a really small group of tightly knit people, completely isolated that we don’t need to trade.
That's a start. You can analyze situations and organizations more deeply, though.
- Frewah
- Posts: 45
- Joined: September 30th, 2018, 3:30 pm
Re: Communism
1) yes, theft is facilitated. Anything that is small, high value and hard to identify facilitates theft. Things like diamonds or gold. This seems to be off topic.
2) It is harder if you don’t have money and the society is such that there’s no other way of life, if it’s ok to have a lifestyle where you are self dependent it means less if you have no money.
3) when the medium of exchange is standardized, it can be thought of as money. Pieces of silver, as long as they weigh the same, is money. It should be divisible. I find it difficult to think of something that has these qualities that can’t be tought of as money.
4) This one is trickier. If you have a community with many people it will be loosely-knit because you can’t know them all, there will be strangers. I can think of two big differences. There will be many more things that you can acquire as a member of this group than you can in the smaller one, things that you were not even aware of in the small group. Trade will be more complex since people will want a little bit of everything.
What I’m saying is that complex trade should be understood as ”commercial”. If you simply exchange one thing for another, it’s not commercial.
The other thing that changes is trust. In a very small group where people know each other, there’s social pressure, accounting isn’t necessary since everyne knows who owns what. In the large group, you have to trust some established process that people are supposed to follow.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Communism
No. It's very much on topic.
Currency is symbolic, rather than actual. It is the very abstractness of currency; the fact that the medium of exchange is entirely separate from and independent of the things being traded that makes it possible to 1. set arbitrary values, regardless of utility, 2. to manipulate both valuation and supply/demand, 3. to skim off such non-functional portions of any transaction as brokerage fees, tariffs and tithes and 4 - most significant: to transpose, again arbitrarily, the value of objects and the value of human time/effort. Not only does monetarism make such things as gold, tulip bulbs, old wine and diamonds valuable out of all proportion to their usefulness; it also puts, for the first time a graded - and arbitrary - market value on people.
A monaterised society leaves very little room for self-sufficient people. It tends to be organized in a strict caste system of bosses and workers, owners and renters, lenders and borrowers. The landless rural child must grow up to be a peon; the child of urban poor must grow up the be labourer.2) It is harder if you don’t have money and the society is such that there’s no other way of life, if it’s ok to have a lifestyle where you are self dependent it means less if you have no money.
Except for war (soldiers have always been socially as well as physically more mobile than other occupations), escape from such fore-ordained circumstances has only recently (last c.2 centuries) been available to large numbers through technology, general education, immigration and a breakdown of class divisions through socialist-leaning measures in some [western] nations and revolution in other parts of the world.
bitcoin... Sure, whatever is used for a portable, divisible, symbolic medium can be thought of as money and abused exactly like money. What most people do not take into account is the cost of money. There is a whole lot of overhead in making it, distributing it regulating it, counting it at every juncture, banking and storing it, substituting cheques or credit cards for it and back again, exchanging it for goods, transporting it, guarding it, collecting it for various purposes, even destroying it. All of that extra cost is "value added": ie - every transaction carries an invisible surcharge in human effort.3) when the medium of exchange is standardized, it can be thought of as money. Pieces of silver, as long as they weigh the same, is money. It should be divisible. I find it difficult to think of something that has these qualities that can’t be tought of as money.
Yes. You're not sure you can trust them to exchange fairly. But why does this necessarily mean that you have to trade through a neutral medium? After all, you do trust strangers with your money, every time you go to the bank or order something from amazon. You trust strangers with your life, whenever you drive on a highway, vote, visit a doctor or buy packaged food. We have social conventions and laws to deal with the stranger problem. Mostly they work, because it's to everyone's benefit to make them work, and we all know this.4) This one is trickier. If you have a community with many people it will be loosely-knit because you can’t know them all, there will be strangers.
This gets closer to the heart of the matter. The positive side of larger, heterogeneous societies (civilization) is the increased diversity of goods and services, the increased impetus for innovation and progress, the increased range of opportunities to pursue happiness.There will be many more things that you can acquire as a member of this group than you can in the smaller one, things that you were not even aware of in the small group. Trade will be more complex since people will want a little bit of everything.
There is a negative side, too. Several, in fact.
Why? Value for equal value sounds pretty good/fair. I suspect by "commercial" you mean a series of transactions (maker>distributor>transporter>retailer>end user would be the simplest example) which would involve profit at each step.What I’m saying is that complex trade should be understood as ”commercial”. If you simply exchange one thing for another, it’s not commercial.
What happens to standardized value in that chain? This one is really important!
Yes. When ownership is in dispute, you need arbitrators and regulators and inspectors and enforcers. Thus: a legal apparatus. Procedure and protocol. A hierarchy.The other thing that changes is trust. In a very small group where people know each other, there’s social pressure, accounting isn’t necessary since everyne knows who owns what. In the large group, you have to trust some established process that people are supposed to follow.
And that carries its own set of positive and negative aspects.
- Frewah
- Posts: 45
- Joined: September 30th, 2018, 3:30 pm
Re: Communism
I’m glad you mentioned bitcoin. Maybe I should satr a thread about it as there are aspects worth discussing.
I think a neutral medium is necessary when you have arbitrattors and regulators. It makes it easier to create rules. I can’t think of a good example right now so I’m not going to dwell on it.
And, yes, the series of transactions is what I mean by commercial. Let’ say you have ducks but want a cow. There is a cow for sale but the owner wants goats. And the goat owner wants something else until someone wants your ducks. A series of transactions have to be made until you can buy your cow. Much more complex than if you could get a cow in return for an agreed number of ducks.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Communism
Easier to write rules, certainly. Easier to legislate, usually. Not so easy to arbitrate fairly, since the disputes are hardly ever between two equal disputants. The social skewing that results from monetarism, especially as it continues over long periods of time, makes fair and functional regulating, fair and workable legal decisions very difficult indeed.
I see you ignored the profit aspect of such a series of transactions, and what that - repeated a hundred thousand times a minute - does to the society and the economy at large.And, yes, the series of transactions is what I mean by commercial.
That's a different series of transactions. But, okay. In today's system, the man who wants a cow buys it on credit and pays it off, one duck-sale at a time, minus the price of the last duck, which the bank keeps; the man who wants a couple of goats pays for them when he gets his 80% of the price of his cow; the bank keeps the rest; whoever buys ducks will pay 110% of their value; the bank takes some of his money and some of the duck-seller's.Let’ say you have ducks but want a cow. There is a cow for sale but the owner wants goats. And the goat owner wants something else until someone wants your ducks. A series of transactions have to be made until you can buy your cow. Much more complex than if you could get a cow in return for an agreed number of ducks.
There is another way to go about this without the extra expenditure to a participant who produces nothing.
My example involved a single item as it passes through many hands, each adding to its price, but not to its intrinsic value.
- Frewah
- Posts: 45
- Joined: September 30th, 2018, 3:30 pm
Re: Communism
These countries had a different set of serious issues which they couldn’t resolve. Very different but very real.
I think these problems were worse than the fact that everyone wants a piece of the action in our economy, the profit aspect. At least, there’s competition which makes the system more flexible. In Sweden, a cooperation was created so that food coul be sold to a lower price than what you had to pay for otherwise. Today, they are expensive. Lidl, a private company, is considerably cheaper.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023