What went wrong with communism?

[Pattern-chaser]

Not quite. I agree that this is how it is, but I'm not convinced that it is justified.

I am open to your ideas on what is a justified way of acknowledging the differences in hiring various positions and filling those open positions.

I wish I had some. I'm not happy with how it is, but I can't quite see a practical way to improve matters. Perhaps getting rid of Capitalism would help?

What about universal basic income? Say you give everyone $20,000 a year, and they can go out and earn whatever they want on top of it. I doubt this would much affect the wages of CEO's. However, the supply curves of labor for jobs that pretty much anyone can do would change quite drastically, I would think. If the job was fun, a lot of people would be willing to do it for a fairly low wage. If the job was miserable, then a lot of people would be relieved of having to do it to survive. So, the labor pool of people willing to be janitors might pretty well dry up, and wages for these jobs could go way up to attract enough workers. However, a lot of people might still enjoy being lifeguards, and wages for lifeguards might go down.

Yes, that would surely take us in the direction of social justice. But my original musing was more specific: does the CEO's job really benefit the company more than the janitor's? They are both necessary functions, but is one worth more $£€ than the other? I can't see it....

[mystery]

Not quite. I agree that this is how it is, but I'm not convinced that it is justified.

I am open to your ideas on what is a justified way of acknowledging the differences in hiring various positions and filling those open positions.

I wish I had some. I'm not happy with how it is, but I can't quite see a practical way to improve matters. Perhaps getting rid of Capitalism would help?

What about universal basic income? Say you give everyone $20,000 a year, and they can go out and earn whatever they want on top of it. I doubt this would much affect the wages of CEO's. However, the supply curves of labor for jobs that pretty much anyone can do would change quite drastically, I would think. If the job was fun, a lot of people would be willing to do it for a fairly low wage. If the job was miserable, then a lot of people would be relieved of having to do it to survive. So, the labor pool of people willing to be janitors might pretty well dry up, and wages for these jobs could go way up to attract enough workers. However, a lot of people might still enjoy being lifeguards, and wages for lifeguards might go down.

Yes, that would surely take us in the direction of social justice. But my original musing was more specific: does the CEO's job really benefit the company more than the janitor's? They are both necessary functions, but is one worth more $£€ than the other? I can't see it....

The CEO can probably do the function of janitor, most likely the janitor can not do the CEO function. supply and demand dictate the price, it has already been well discussed.

If we remove the CEO can the company function; yes. Can it function well, the theory is no. Can anyone else in the company step in and cover for the CEO, the theory is no.

If we remove the janitor, can the company function; yes. Can it function well, the theory is no. Can anyone else in the company step in and cover for the janitor, the theory is yes.

It is about risk, higher risk is always worth more return. Not having a qualified CEO is a very high risk, no qualified janitor not much risk.

In some cases, specialized engineers and technicians get very high compensation because of the risk to the company. We will always try to have engineers cross-train so that we can control the salary and lower the risk.

Unions are all about consolidating risk so that the risk is enough to create leverage.

[Pattern-chaser]

My original musing was more specific: does the CEO's job really benefit the company more than the janitor's? They are both necessary functions, but is one worth more $£€ than the other? I can't see it....

The CEO can probably do the function of janitor, most likely the janitor can not do the CEO function.

Is that so in RL, I wonder, or is it just a reflection of our perception (reflected in janitor's and CEO's wages) that a CEO is worth SO much more? And I also wonder about their contribution to the business, not how demanding their task(s) might be?

Can anyone else in the company step in and cover for the CEO, the theory is no.

And yet maybe this, as above, is merely a reflection of an opinion that might even be the invention of ... CEOs?

Can anyone else in the company step in and cover for the janitor, the theory is yes.

No-one can do a job unless they have the necessary skills and training. I think this applies to each and every job.

Not having a qualified CEO is a very high risk, no qualified janitor not much risk.

I have assumed in this example that both CEO and janitor are jobs that are essential to the business. This being the case (?), your supposition here would seem to be untrue, or at least unjustified.

Unions are all about consolidating risk so that the risk is enough to create leverage.

Some might say that unions are about protecting the rights of the employees who actually produce the product and thereby earn the money the business needs to make a profit.

[Neil Wallace]

What went wrong with communism that was supposed to distribute luxuries equally?

Sounds like a cue for a new topic.

It does indeed, and here it is.



The topic is all in the title. What went wrong with communism? My answer is that nothing went wrong with communism. The fault, if there is any fault, is in humanity. Yes, we are social animals, and we live, group, and act together in social groups of all sizes, from families to nations. But we also want stuff for ourselves, maybe stuff that others don't or can't have. The streak of greediness in us is as strong as the urge to socialise, and that is what went wrong with communism: human greed.

Morally, communism is far superior to Capitalism, but communism asks us to behave atypically, while Capitalism panders to our greed and baser nature, and so is more successful.

That's my take; what's yours? What went wrong with communism?

One problem with Communism was the theory itself. Marx was very big on critique of the existing Capitalist system, rather vague on practical implementation of Socialism. It was never particularly clear how to do "Communist Stuff". Being extremely charitable - Lenin and those who followed
had to experiment, and as with most experiments the end result was often failure with catastrophic results.

[UniversalAlien]

But I guess others with more knowledge of the circumstances of particular nominally communist regimes, or probably just the USSR, will probably have more to say.

I was always confused about the USSR and China, in the latter half of the 20th century. They called themselves "communists", but that seemed to me to be propaganda of the worst kind. They looked to me, from the outside, and at some distance, like state dictatorships. Communism is (in theory!) about the community, a thoroughly social thing.

The second observation I like to make about communism is that it can only work at its best if the individual is nurtured, within the communist community. If the individual is stifled, we end up with something little different from an ant-nest or bee-hive. And, for all that ants and bees are social animals, we are social animals who operate (socially and otherwise) quite differently. Mindless following of the hive-queen's commands is not for us. The individual is secondary to the community, if only through force of numbers, but nevertheless is necessary for any successful human civilisation. It's all about compromise, and finding the right balance. IMO, of course.

Just started reading this post and before I go any further and just becuase it may have not been asked:

What kind of government/country is China today

Communist, capitalist, hybrid synthetic

Technically China is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party correct ?

And yet people are supposedly getting rich in China.

Has China found the magic formula for mixing Socialism and Capitalism that will work

Will China end up dominating the economies of the World

[Pattern-chaser]

I think spotlighting China might be a mistake. True, China has long claimed to be a communist country, but (as I said earlier) they more resembled a state dictatorship. Communism does not stand or fall on the example offered by China.

Also, there is a lot of anti-Chinese propaganda in the USA at the moment, and this seems to influence discussion. So let's just focus on communism and/or socialism, rather than devolve into discussion of one poor example or another?


P.S. I'm no political expert, but I don't think "mixing Socialism and Capitalism" is even possible. One is based around generosity (giving others what they need) and the other on personal greed. I can't see how these two can be mixed.

[UniversalAlien]

Current events have caused me to take another look at Vladimir Putin - Just finished an interesting two part documentary:

Putin's Revenge: Part One (full film) | FRONTLINE
https://youtu.be/o2L8qINZD3Q

Putin's Revenge: Part Two (full film)
https://youtu.be/8Q_uKCEj2Xk

Fascinating documentary - What we find, at least from Putin's point {remember he was a KGB agent} is that the only thing that really went wrong with Communism is that it fell prey to the United States.

And watching the current situation in the Ukraine we see him trying to rectify the situation
- He wants the Soviet Union back We will soon see how far he is willing to go to set the World back to
his conception of the good old days

[Robert66]

On this question of mixing socialism with capitalism (or vice versa): it seems to be an idea becoming almost old-fashioned sounding, but such a mixture used to be normal - income taxes were higher, and universal, free health care and education were provided. Indeed it appears from today's perspective that governments were actually generous to the people they served! Governments today (I am thinking here especially of the current Australian government) appear to serve only the interests of a select few. Capitalism has been perverted by the greed, and by the expert lobbying, of the few, at great cost to the many.

Communism has also fallen prey to greed, and thus perverted. Consider the plight of Czechoslovakia - Dubcek in '68 promised the people "socialism with a human face", however the people of this nation, which was at the time highly advanced, industrially, were denied even the chance to try and achieve Dubcek's aim, as the Kremlin ordered such idealism be quashed, and Czechoslovakia was forced to become the Soviet arms manufacturer. All the while the hogs in the Kremlin were living as billionaires while across the USSR the people suffered.

Rather than ask what went wrong with communism, one could ask what goes wrong with people who reach positions of great power? Some may argue that the Chinese CP are somewhat justified in their tough, even brutal, treatment of citizens, as they aim to raise so many out of poverty. The truth is less straightforward - China's population falls into 2 groups, one (urban dwellers cum property owners and developers) with access to increasing wealth, while the other (rural workers) are forced to remain as poor farmers.

Or look at the PDR of Laos, where foreign investment and aid, aligned with an aggressive expansion of hydro power projects, sees the ethnically dominant Lao - Tai population advancing while many other ethnic populations live in extreme poverty. And the same hydro projects that improve Laos' economic situation also threaten the way of life of the millions relying for their protein and their livelihood on the Mekong.

It seems to me that the successful nations of the world are those that manage to supress the human tendencies toward greed and racial prejudice. In a world where some corporations are more powerful than many nations, and where incessant war creates growing millions of refugees, even nations such as those in Scandinavia, which have managed to ameliorate the excesses of capitalism with socialist generosity, are now straining to remain cohesive.

[Pattern-chaser]

On this question of mixing socialism with capitalism (or vice versa): it seems to be an idea becoming almost old-fashioned sounding, but such a mixture used to be normal - income taxes were higher, and universal, free health care and education were provided. Indeed it appears from today's perspective that governments were actually generous to the people they served! Governments today (I am thinking here especially of the current Australian government) appear to serve only the interests of a select few. Capitalism has been perverted by the greed, and by the expert lobbying, of the few, at great cost to the many.

I've always felt that "socialism" is a more moderate version of "communism", so (given the title of this topic), I'll refer to the latter.

I think the most fundamental division in politics, between the left wing and the right, is the balance and dynamic tension between the individual and the community. At the extremes, we see American Capitalism on the Right, and (North Korean?) Communism on the Left. Both are extreme, and neither represents a sensible compromise because of this. Both are also perverted, in practice, as you say. Men of power use any and all political means to achieve their own ends: the acquisition of personal wealth and power. Putin and Trump probably are excellent examples of such men.

But human failings do not reflect directly onto political theory, which (I think) is what this topic is attempting to investigate. The political systems that seem to have worked the best, in practice, are the ones that sit somewhere in the middle, as far away from the extremes as they can get. For myself, I favour a socialist system, but with important provisos.

If an individual ever comes into conflict with the community, the latter will win, due to force of numbers if nothing else. Such conflicts will occur, and probably can't be avoided. But they can be minimised, if we make the effort. And the important constraint that a socialist government must adopt is never to enforce community aims onto individuals if it can be avoided; to keep such enforced constraints to a minimum. The moral reason for this is that the community always wins, so it must use that superiority with scrupulous fairness, if the system is to work well for all.

Without this constraint, a left-oriented system will tend toward authoritarianism, human beings being what they are. And with this authoritarianism comes corruption and failure. Right wing systems are subject to the same need to avoid the extremes, but for different reasons reflecting their different political priorities.

So when you say that a mixture of capitalism and communism was at some time the norm, I wonder if you just refer to middle-ground political systems of the (moderate) Left and the (moderate) Right, both of whom will necessarily reflect aspects of the other?

[Gregory A]

What went wrong with communism that was supposed to distribute luxuries equally?

Sounds like a cue for a new topic.

It does indeed, and here it is.



The topic is all in the title. What went wrong with communism? My answer is that nothing went wrong with communism. The fault, if there is any fault, is in humanity. Yes, we are social animals, and we live, group, and act together in social groups of all sizes, from families to nations. But we also want stuff for ourselves, maybe stuff that others don't or can't have. The streak of greediness in us is as strong as the urge to socialise, and that is what went wrong with communism: human greed.

Morally, communism is far superior to Capitalism, but communism asks us to behave atypically, while Capitalism panders to our greed and baser nature, and so is more successful.

That's my take; what's yours? What went wrong with communism?

It's simple what went wrong in Russia. Lenin and his Bolsheviks were non-experts, implementing Marx's flawed economics. And that's it. Keeping capitalism down kept Russia poor. Why should Lenin, a lawyer nothing more, someone who by the chance execution of his brother took up the latter's stand, a revolutionary thrust into a position of power then should somehow know how to run a country. Capitalism produces in excess of what it needs this overflow making us wealthy. It's a cycle (unknowingly) geared to production, employment, income generation. The notion that as capitalism employs, and generates income, taxes, etc. it should be given a free rein is why we fail in so many other ways though. The Democratic Election Process in this instance letting once again non-experts do the governing. The swing vote, a percentage of which is (should be) representative of our rational side, allowing objectivity, resulting in a see-sawing effect that gives some socio-ecomomic balance back to democracy.

[Good_Egg]

the important constraint that a socialist government must adopt is never to enforce community aims onto individuals if it can be avoided; to keep such enforced constraints to a minimum. The moral reason for this is that the community always wins, so it must use that superiority with scrupulous fairness, if the system is to work well for all.

Without this constraint, a left-oriented system will tend toward authoritarianism...

The important choice is between centralised and decentralised decision-making.

The market is a form of decentralised decision-making. Nobody compels anyone to produce more widgets; if more widgets are demanded then the price goes up until someone chooses to supply more widgets.

Unless the left can come up with an alternative form of decentralised decision-making, they will always be drawn to centralised forms. To top-down command-and-control economies enforced by state power. To authoritarian government.

[Pattern-chaser]

The important choice is between centralised and decentralised decision-making.

Yes and no. Yes, this is an important choice. But it must be placed into context. For example, there are certain industries or services that should be managed and governed centrally. National transport networks, or national health services, are good examples; there are others too. But equally, there are industries and services that would not benefit from central control.

So I suggest that our choice is not between "centralised and decentralised decision-making". It's a more nuanced choice, where we determine what will benefit from central control, and what will benefit from a more distributed or local control ... or sometimes no control at all???

[Sy Borg]

The important choice is between centralised and decentralised decision-making.

Yes and no. 😉 Yes, this is an important choice. But it must be placed into context. For example, there are certain industries or services that should be managed and governed centrally.

Ideally policy-making pragmatic rather than adhering to ideological positions. As you say, it depends - and not only on the industry, also the region and the social conditions.

We see this ideological dance happen in the public service. The conservatives (who are now morphing into the radical right) would split up all the government functions into different small offices and the progressives (who are now morphing into conservatives) would bundle up the departments into "super departments". Each approach has its merits. Splitting up departments means greater autonomy and less administrative red tape/reports. Bundling departments up allows for reduction in duplication and waste, and savings from leveraging economies of scale and more accountability.

But that is a general notion. More specifically, some departments are natural to join up and there are some that are far more efficient with greater autonomy.

[Good_Egg]

....there are certain industries or services that should be managed and governed centrally. National transport networks, or national health services, are good examples; there are others too.

Some on this thread are suggesting that communism in the Soviet Union went bad by accident or because it was somehow perverted by bad men. And therefore we shouldn't judge communism by the Soviet experience.

I'm suggesting the opposite. The Soviet Union went authoritarian because it is in the nature of communism to want central control.

Why do you want centralised planning for healthcare ? Maybe because you have leftist convictions that place a high value on equality of outcome in healthcare ? And decentralised systems don't deliver that equality ?

[Sy Borg]

....there are certain industries or services that should be managed and governed centrally. National transport networks, or national health services, are good examples; there are others too.

Some on this thread are suggesting that communism in the Soviet Union went bad by accident or because it was somehow perverted by bad men. And therefore we shouldn't judge communism by the Soviet experience.

I'm suggesting the opposite. The Soviet Union went authoritarian because it is in the nature of communism to want central control.

Why do you want centralised planning for healthcare ? Maybe because you have leftist convictions that place a high value on equality of outcome in healthcare ? And decentralised systems don't deliver that equality ?

No, most of the west has a national health scheme. The US is an outlier. The US system, like so much in the US, is split. On one hand, private healthcare can achieve state-of-the-art treatments for the very wealthy. However, the ultimate cost per person of US welfare is vastly higher than in western nations with a national health system. There NOTHING communist about national health, not national telephone wires or whatever.

So, to make sure we are all on the same page, Australia, England, Germany have effective national health schemes and none of these nations are even remotely communist. I struggle to see how a nation trying to have an efficient way of looking after people's health has become caught up in what seems like a new McCarthyism.

Ironically, the problem of communism has always been extreme inequality, with a minority of super wealthy people and a huge body of poor. By contrast, western democracies tend to have a large middle class.

It will be interesting to see how Xi handles his growing middle class. The poor are much easier to control with simple propaganda. Still, given China's many structural vulnerabilities, their middle class may well soon diminish as wealth is sucked into the new Cold/Warm War, dealing with or trying to prevent air pollution, and fixing their many rickety capital works, where many shortcuts were made to give the impression of a booming society.