Communism and human nature

[nemafakei]

Uh, since when did all leftists believe in anarchocommunism?

[Edric O]

My question over stateless communism is not whether or not people will accept and support the system as a whole, but whether or not they will try to exploit it on an individual scale... they'll agree that traffic lights are a good thing, but nevertheless jump them whenever they can get away with it. As far as I can see, there must be significant regulation, else the greedier element in society will push things far enough to get their own ends without going so far as to kill the proverbial golden goose.

Some people will undoubtebly try to exploit the system - or "ignore the traffic lights", as it were. This is unavoidable, and it happens in every system. There is no such thing as a perfect society. However, the number of such people will have to be small, and their influence will also have to be small enough for them to be able to hide it - because otherwise, the rest of society will notice, and take action.

So yes, of course there will be "cheaters". But since they will have to hide the fact that they cheat, they will never be able to cause any significant damage. If they "exploit the system" to the point where other people begin feeling the difference, they will be uncovered.

Ditto to what Nema said, and there's another thing. How will a stateless system with no hiearchy of power deal with emergency situations? If a substantial area is wrecked by flood, who will organise rescue operations, aid shipments and medical convoys? Definitely not a leaderless collection of fully equal individuals that has to gather and vote everytime something needs to be done.

They will deal with emergency situations by taking emergency measures, of course. Such as giving emergency powers to a temporary leader or council, for example. Just because the system is stateless, that doesn't mean they can't form a state-like body to deal with a crisis, and then dissolve it when the crisis is over.

Oh, and even in non-crisis situations, the people don't have to gather in order to vote. There are too many of them for that. Voting will be done through portable pager-like (or mobile phone-like) devices, complete with a personal ID system, of course.

"A leader is what seperates a mob from a people" - Stilgar, Dune

Many mobs have ring leaders, and many organized groups of people act in unison without an established leadership system.

[Edric O]

Also, there are a few older posts that I need to reply to:

Well i don't think it will work properly due to Human Nature, greed to be precise.

Haven't you read the first post of this topic?? It was precisely about the myth that "communism is against human nature", and I explained why that myth is wrong!

Allow me to re-iterate the most important point:

Communism does NOT rely on people sharing their possessions out of the kindness of their hearts. It relies on people sharing their possessions because they know that they will all benefit from it.

Since your chances of being better off in communism than in capitalism are 9/10, you would have every reason to support a communist system if you were born in one.

If you took all the people in the world, and in communism you would divide the wealth equally between them, some people would be a lot worse off as their initial wealth was greater than the average wealth therefore they stand to lose money.

Of course. However, as I have already shown (in another topic), those people are only 10% of the general population - they are the richest 10%. The other 90% of people would only gain from communism.

Some of these people, not all of course, would then refuse to take part in the communist idea, and with their capital out of the total sum of wealth, the average goes down. Again the same thing would happen with people whose initial wealth is above the average wealth, so more people would pull out and the average would go down again, and this would carry on, not infinitely, but for a while.

First of all, keep in mind that the average is a lot higher than you'd expect. The rich are very rich. That's why only the richest 10% have above average wealth. Take a look at the distribution of wealth in the USA, for example:

Second of all, we don't intend to kindly ask the rich to please donate some of their vast fortunes. I'm sorry to say this, but they will have to be forced to give up their wealth. Keep in mind, however, that even after that, they will still be richer than you and me are today. It's not as if we want to take the shirt off their backs. They will only be brought down to what is today the level of the upper middle class - and the rest of us will be brought up to that level, or close to it.

Every change of system involves forcing the rich and powerful of the day to give up their wealth and power. There was a time when kings and aristocrats owned practically all the land and nearly all the wealth in the world. In order to abolish feudalism and establish capitalism, the aristocrats had to be forced to give up their wealth, and surrender their power. You can't expect to abolish capitalism without taking similar measures against today's ruling class (the bourgeoisie).

That's why IMO those wealthy people should not be given the option of refusing the communist idea. Who are they to live such lives while others are struggling to survive?

They should be forced to give up their wealth and power, of course, but after that, they are free to do as they please. They can stay in the communist society, or they can leave. It doesn't matter. The only thing we need from them is to distribute their wealth and power to the people. Once that is accomplished, they have the same rights and freedoms as everyone else.

[Caid Ivik]

Uh, since when did all leftists believe in anarchocommunism?

I haven't said this...

[nemafakei]

Oh, you meant that inductive logic was typical for leftists? It was unclear whether both were going with the previous sentence, or the latter with the former.

How, then is this induction? (I am a little disturbed to learn that inductive actually exists - inducive (as per con~) sounds much more natural)

[Caid Ivik]

To be honest, my statement was fully inductive  ;D

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Only this bothers me, though. What if there's somekind of organized crime within the infrastructure of Communism or if some corrupt guy is bribing the other 'leaders' to do his bidding?

[Dunenewt]

They will deal with emergency situations by taking emergency measures, of course. Such as giving emergency powers to a temporary leader or council, for example. Just because the system is stateless, that doesn't mean they can't form a state-like body to deal with a crisis, and then dissolve it when the crisis is over.

Oh, and even in non-crisis situations, the people don't have to gather in order to vote. There are too many of them for that. Voting will be done through portable pager-like (or mobile phone-like) devices, complete with a personal ID system, of course.

Haven't you watched Star Wars: Phantom Menace and Attack Of The Clones. (Bad example I know!)  When you give someone powers in an emergency situation, they can exploit them, people are devious and even the less suspected person could be  capable of doing something unexpected.

[Edric O]

Haven't you watched Star Wars: Phantom Menace and Attack Of The Clones. (Bad example I know!)  When you give someone powers in an emergency situation, they can exploit them, people are devious and even the less suspected person could be capable of doing something unexpected.

Well of course, but keep in mind that the "emergency powers" under communism are equal to the normal, everyday powers that our leaders have today. Communism is such an egalitarian society that the powers we consider normal today for our leaders would be considered extraordinary by the people living in communism.

No one would get anywhere near to the "emergency powers" granted to Palpatine in Star Wars.

Only this bothers me, though. What if there's somekind of organized crime within the infrastructure of Communism or if some corrupt guy is bribing the other 'leaders' to do his bidding?

First of all, the citizens have the right to bear arms, so they can defend themselves. Second of all, there will probably also be a specialized police force, serving the community.

As for bribing... how can you bribe someone if there is no money and no private property? :)

[Caid Ivik]

Haven't you watched Star Wars: Phantom Menace and Attack Of The Clones. (Bad example I know!)  When you give someone powers in an emergency situation, they can exploit them, people are devious and even the less suspected person could be  capable of doing something unexpected.

Nearly all conspirative theories are based on creating such "emergency situations". This was for example an excuse used by most totalitarian reigns.

[Edric O]

Nearly all conspirative theories are based on creating such "emergency situations". This was for example an excuse used by most totalitarian reigns.

Honestly, Caid, are you blind? I answered that objection in the post right above yours! Here's my explanation again:

Keep in mind that the "emergency powers" under communism are equal to the normal, everyday powers that our leaders have today. Communism is such an egalitarian society that the powers we consider normal today for our leaders would be considered extraordinary by the people living in communism.

No one would get anywhere near to the "emergency powers" granted to Palpatine in Star Wars.

And I draw your attention to the insane inconsistency in your side's arguments: First Anathema said communism is bad because it DOESN'T give emergency powers to certain leaders in order to deal with crisis situations efficiently, now you come and say that communism is bad because it DOES give emergency powers to certain leaders in order to deal with crisis situations efficiently.

Will you make up your damn mind? Do you need leaders to deal with an emergency or not?

Communism is flexible; it follows the wishes of the people. So I suggest you stop flip-flopping for the sake of contradicting me and make your wishes clear. Do you want leaders in a crisis or not?

[Caid Ivik]

So, terrorism, natural catastrophes, power plant failures and other misfortunes will be taken stoically as nothing special? But that wasn't point. I don't think it would be some specialty of communism, if people will elect from themselves someone, who has a special experience with occured problem, I see also nothing bad on it. Just I am aware of possible consequences. Actually, I had on my mind no link to communism, it was a sole comment of Dunenewt. Excluding fact, that some revolutionaries declared wars because they thought to take control in the "last second" and such...

[Edric O]

Good! You've finally made your position clear. So you do want a temporary leadership in the communist system during emergency situations. I agree that such a leadership is necessary, although it would be perfectly possible for some communes to experiment dealing with emergencies without any leaders. If they manage to pull it off, that's all for the better - and then maybe they could teach the rest of us, too.

[Dunenewt]

But who's to say one person is better than another to be part of the leadership in Communism?

[Caid Ivik]

My personal opinion is irelevant, EdricO. I talk about what can we both witness.

[Edric O]

But who's to say one person is better than another to be part of the leadership in Communism?

The people themselves, obviously. All leaders are elected democratically (the would-be emergency leaders could be elected beforehand, and kept "on reserve", without any actual powers, until an emergency actually arises; alternatively, they could be elected on the spot through a quick electronic vote).

[Caid Ivik]

I want to elect my teachers!

[Dude_Doc]

But in catastrophies, people do the best they can. They don't wait for a leader to be elected democratically while other people are dying in ruins and floods. For examle, when there is a fire in a house, people who know they can save other people will do it, without waiting for the fire department to give them clearance or something like that. Just like 9/11 - people helped to search for survivors in the ruins without anyone giving them orders or anyone giving them money to do so.

So, basically, after saving themselves, they try to save other people, or save other people at the same time.

Though, I like the Deus Ex: Inisible War idea of equal society. All people are integrated with an all powerful artificial intelligence. People don't have to vote. Their will (what they are thinking about society) are read by this AI, which makes the wishes come true. So yes, I think that in such society (an equal one), every person can get an implant and vote wherever he or she is, without any trouble (the mobile-phone idea isn't bad either, a choice for the non-implanting people :) ).

Also, going a little bit into the future, imagine if a building was built with nanotech. The building could repair itself, reconstruct "old parts" and all, you wouldn't even have to build it, only press a button (or, buttons) and the house will be built by itself. Also, by making some research, the nano-molecules could be programmed to tolerate fire, or even exhaust it, in an emergency. Earthquakes wouldn't be a problem either, because the base of the building would adapt to it's environment. Just a funny thought...