Communism spinoff from the EU topic

[Edric O]

This was originally part of the European Union topic, but since the flag I posted below changed the discussion subject from the EU to communism, I have split the topic in two.

No, you shouldn't, unless you want to help Britain and the New European states help create a better Europe rather than the current EU.

You mean an obedient little American lap dog, as Britain already is? I think I'll pass.

Having said that, however, I completely agree that the current Europe is horrible, and drastic changes are required. However, I suspect that the kind of changes I want to see are not the ones you were talking about... ;)

[Wolf]

Edric, wow.

[Dude_Doc]

A communist EU? No, it wouldn't work. I think communism should be adapted to smaller countries rather than big unions. What we'll see now is other continents uniting, and in the end, the whole world. How that world will look like, well, that's up to the people.

[Terror]

Communist EU? Neverr! I have no problem with communism as long as it isn't in my country. It just doesn't work. No matter how big your dream is. I'm having a blast living in a capitalist country and feel no need to change it.

If you want a communist Union. Don't expect the Netherlands to join anytime soon. Not until we've seen a good example of a communist country anyway.

[Dante]

Well it certainly won't happen any time soon. Too many disagreements, too much pride in individuality, too much British sycophancy (sp?) towards the USA...

That and Communism, while perfect on paper, is not working brilliantly despite the best intentions of its proponents...

[Caid Ivik]

A communist EU? No, it wouldn't work. I think communism should be adapted to smaller countries rather than big unions. What we'll see now is other continents uniting, and in the end, the whole world. How that world will look like, well, that's up to the people.

LLTI...

[Edric O]

Communist EU? Neverr! I have no problem with communism as long as it isn't in my country. It just doesn't work. No matter how big your dream is. I'm having a blast living in a capitalist country and feel no need to change it.

If you want a communist Union. Don't expect the Netherlands to join anytime soon. Not until we've seen a good example of a communist country anyway.

See, this is the kind of post that makes me feel like I've been talking to the intellectual equivalent of a brick wall. After a year and a half of discussing, re-discussing and over-discussing every aspect of communism, it seems that some people still don't get it.

Rene, if you've got serious objections to communism, then let's hear them. But "it just doesn't work" is not a serious objection. It's not an argument. It's more like a childish denial. It's an idiotic catchphrase with no real meaning that for some reason seems to have stuck with people.

"Communism doesn't work" is something that people say without thinking. It's incredibly vague and ambiguous. When you really look at it, you realize that it doesn't seem to have any clear meaning at all. What exactly do you mean by a certain system "working"? How is communism supposed to "work" and what makes you believe it "doesn't work"? What are your arguments to support this belief? Are they valid arguments? These are just some of the questions that you should ask yourself before jumping on the bandwagon and repeating a stupid catchphrase ad nauseaum.

PLEASE, for God's sake, people, THINK before you say something!

[Wolf]

Edric, is communism allocatively efficient?

*EDIT: Let me clarify; communism, by its nature that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (I hope I got that right), it stands to reason that communism is the most allocatively efficient system, because it ensures that society would produce the mix of goods it finds most desireable. I was just wondering if this was actually so... there are many things in life which are paradoxical.

[Edric O]

Edric, is communism allocatively efficient?

*EDIT: Let me clarify; communism, by its nature that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (I hope I got that right), it stands to reason that communism is the most allocatively efficient system, because it ensures that society would produce the mix of goods it finds most desireable. I was just wondering if this was actually so... there are many things in life which are paradoxical.

Well, it looks like you answered your own question. :) Communism isn't just allocatively efficient, it has the highest allocative efficiency of all economic systems. Certainly, it will never achieve 100% efficiency (which is theoretically possible in communism, but extremely unlikely), but it can get very close to that figure (perhaps 98-99% - in any case, it is far more efficient at using resources where they are needed than any other system).

A communist EU? No, it wouldn't work. I think communism should be adapted to smaller countries rather than big unions. What we'll see now is other continents uniting, and in the end, the whole world. How that world will look like, well, that's up to the people.

Perhaps I should mention that I was trying to show support for a socialist EU by posting that flag. Socialism is our immediate (short-term) goal; communism is the long-term goal. And as you pointed out, communism is better suited to smaller communities rather than larger ones.

Besides, the EU will always be a governmental or pseudo-governmental organization, and communism is a system with no government, so the idea of a "communist EU" doesn't make much sense anyway...

[Caid Ivik]

Well, we can't expect everyone to define all words we use before the speech...

Let's look on communism. According to Marx, it is scientifically advanced society, where initiative thinking of individual is replaced by analytic thinking of redistributive institutes, until it will be written into initiative of each person. Until those institutes are needed, we define this society as "socialism". However as they must control much more than in a normal state, they need more employees, larger bureaucracy. Large resources are then needed in tax collection system, controlling systems, ministeries, scientifical institutes and so on. This juggernaut also has to control whole market and production, what costs even much (economical politics, value balance, capital allocation etc). So if we define "efficiency" as rate of profitably used resources, then socialism is extremely ineffective, altough in 200-300 years of systematical brainwashing of whole civilization and thus reaching the state of communism may truly become effective.

[Dude_Doc]

Besides, the EU will always be a governmental or pseudo-governmental organization, and communism is a system with no government, so the idea of a "communist EU" doesn't make much sense anyway...

But as I said, each country will have to work for itself to "realize" what position it's people want.

[Dunenewt]

Why we wont have a Communist Union: because hardly anyone would want it.

[Terror]

Well i don't know what  you mean with our future goal, but communism certaintly isn't my goal, or of any of the people that i know. I find socialism to be much more effective. Communism makes everyone too much dependant on each other, and if it is autcarried well communism might actually be acceptible. But once there comes a corrupt leader again, one of communism's legs is unstable and the entire communism will fall.

I realy realy don't think that communism will ever work, and if the dutch decide to become a communist nation, i'll probably move out of here.

[Dante]

Technically communism doesn't have a leader. Just a few people to make sure the will of all the other people is implemented. Communism is Edric's eventual goal, and as far as I know it is a socialist system, in the same way as it is democratic.

I'd support communism if I thought it were workable with the human race. Edric has already countered these arguments but I'm not convinced (and he's not convinced by mine. We disagree at a very basic level  :) ).

[Leto le Juste]

It is the first time I read this topic. I began well, everybody spoke about EU. And someone began to speak about communist. So, Edric couldn't say a world about it and, as many time, the eternal debate about communism started.

It is always the same and I'm so tired... (  :P )

[Anathema]

I agree with that last statement. Anyone else annoyed by the fact that Edric has to defend communism in every single thread that catches his eye? ::)

[Edric O]

I agree with that last statement. Anyone else annoyed by the fact that Edric has to defend communism in every single thread that catches his eye? ::)

When communism is attacked, I defend it. Isn't that the normal thing to do? Believe me, if there was a web of myths and misconceptions built around your political ideas like there is a web of myths and misconceptions built around communism, you'd be doing the same thing.

Besides, I agree that your objection is a valid one, so I have split the original topic and put all the posts relating to communism in this spinoff topic. Is that better?

Now let's continue this discussion on communism.

Let's look on communism. According to Marx, it is scientifically advanced society, where initiative thinking of individual is replaced by analytic thinking of redistributive institutes, until it will be written into initiative of each person. Until those institutes are needed, we define this society as "socialism". However as they must control much more than in a normal state, they need more employees, larger bureaucracy. Large resources are then needed in tax collection system, controlling systems, ministeries, scientifical institutes and so on. This juggernaut also has to control whole market and production, what costs even much (economical politics, value balance, capital allocation etc). So if we define "efficiency" as rate of profitably used resources, then socialism is extremely ineffective...

Well, at least it seems you've finally understood what socialism and communism are, and what the difference between them is. That's encouraging. :)

You are mostly correct in your statement quoted above, except for your conclusion that socialism is somehow "inefficient". That is utterly incorrect, and here's why: Socialism does not create extra bureaucracy. Socialism only transfers the bureaucracy from the private sector into the public sector.

A private corporations needs a certain bureaucracy (aka "administrative personnel") to run. When socialism is established and that corporation is transferred under the joint control of its workers and the state, why would it need to hire new administrative personnel? The same bureaucracy that used to work for the private capitalists is made to work for the workers and society at large.

The only extra bureaucracy might come in the form of economic planners, but whatever "inefficiency" they cause is compensated by the increased efficiency resulted from the elimination of capitalist spending on advertising.

...altough in 200-300 years of systematical brainwashing of whole civilization and thus reaching the state of communism may truly become effective.

How exactly can a democratic government (any socialist government must be democratic) brainwash anyone? That would be a gross violation of human rights. Brainwashing isn't the only way to change society, you know... Did cavemen need to be "brainwashed" in order to stop being hunter-gatherers and start practicing agriculture? Did feudal serfs need to be "brainwashed" in order to stop accepting feudal tyranny and start demanding democracy? People are perfectly capable of changing society by themselves. You are right that communism will most likely be reached in 200-300 years after the establishment of socialism, and that it will be a highly effective system, but keep in mind that the drive towards communism will have to come from the people themselves, not from above.

Reaching communism might seem like a radical change in society to you, but Humanity has gone through even MORE radical changes in the past.

[Edric O]

Why we wont have a Communist Union: because hardly anyone would want it.

Yeah, given the fact that hardly anyone knows what communism IS...

Well i don't know what  you mean with our future goal, but communism certaintly isn't my goal, or of any of the people that i know. I find socialism to be much more effective. Communism makes everyone too much dependant on each other, and if it is autcarried well communism might actually be acceptible. But once there comes a corrupt leader again, one of communism's legs is unstable and the entire communism will fall.

I meant "us" as in we, the communists. I was speaking only for myself and my comrades, obviously.

And as Dust Scout pointed out, communism is a system with direct democracy, in which there are no leaders - or at least no leaders with political power. The people rule themselves. And if some sort of governing body absolutely MUST be established, it is kept strictly democratic and given as little power as possible.

But hey, just hearing you support socialism is good enough for me. *gives Rene a big hug* :)

I realy realy don't think that communism will ever work, and if the dutch decide to become a communist nation, i'll probably move out of here.

Heh, don't worry, that's not very likely to happen any time soon...

[Dunenewt]

And I don't want to know what it is and I don't think a lot of people on this forum do so maybe we should stop all these stupid little arguements.

[Anathema]

Actually I want to know what it is, I'm just annoyed by the fact that so many topics end up being about communism. The obvious solution would be a sticky communist topic in PRP.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, at least it seems you've finally understood what socialism and communism are, and what the difference between them is. That's encouraging. :)

You are mostly correct in your statement quoted above, except for your conclusion that socialism is somehow "inefficient". That is utterly incorrect, and here's why: Socialism does not create extra bureaucracy. Socialism only transfers the bureaucracy from the private sector into the public sector.

A private corporations needs a certain bureaucracy (aka "administrative personnel") to run. When socialism is established and that corporation is transferred under the joint control of its workers and the state, why would it need to hire new administrative personnel? The same bureaucracy that used to work for the private capitalists is made to work for the workers and society at large.

The only extra bureaucracy might come in the form of economic planners, but whatever "inefficiency" they cause is compensated by the increased efficiency resulted from the elimination of capitalist spending on advertising.

I have some kind of hidden will to counter your sarcasm, but I won't waste time. You say that "only extra bureaucracy might come in the form of economic planners", like it was some kind of natural thing. Average firm uses about a percent of production for advertising. But here, I can't even imagine it. A good economist won't fall from heaven, he must be fully educated in economic engineering, what takes about 4-5 years, depending on educational system. Of course state pays it. Also to be educated doesn't mean everything, so other millions would be spend for fach-training (not everyone thinks ultimately for everything, then it would look like few years ago, when resource management system is same in agriculture and industry...). Also we aren't talking about a small shop, and even village-size kolchoz can't be driven by one man. You'll have planning bureaus in the facility itself, then on town council, district, of course central planning... With each sphere, number of planners is larger. With larger concerns, it wouldn't be problem, but for smaller firms you would have to take some new blood elsewhere. And this is no theory, it's already once practized sacrifice.