Is a Communist Utopia possible?

[nnmartin]

Given the nature of mankind is it really possible to have a viable communist state where everyone gets a reasonable standard of living?

Most anti-communists quickly point to the collapse of the Soviet Union as proof that this system cannot work as it goes against human nature. That is hardly a credible argument though.

Under the right circumstances could it work and what would be the major problems?

 

[Sunstone]

I doubt it could work for the sort of large scale societies we live in today, although some hunting/gathering societies seem have had something close to it.

 

[nnmartin]

Let's say a country of minimum 5 million population - could that work?

 

[Sunstone]

Let's say a country of minimum 5 million population - could that work?

I seriously doubt it. Perhaps a tribe of 5000 people. But I think even that size would be iffy.

 

[freethinker44]

Communism looks great on paper. I think it's biggest problem is that it is too easily corrupted. Communism makes it way too easy for a dictator or extremist group to take control. It just requires too much trust and good faith to be left in the hands of humans. I think it could possibly work if it were run by an artificial intelligence but then we run the risk of government becoming a cyberocracy, which would be an "I, robot" like state. I guess humanity just isn't mature enough for a communist government.

 

[Matthew78]

It depends on which type of communism one wants. If it's the anarcho-communism of people like Peter Kropotkin and Murray Bookchin, I suspect that it could work. In libertarian socialism, there is a debate over whether to have some kind of planning council or a market. Also, the issue of economic reward needs to be settled.

Some object to any kind of anticapitalist alternative on grounds that human nature is supposedly "too selfish". I seriously doubt this. Even the people who raise the objection that human nature is "too selfish" often have disdain for this selfishness but believe that it's either genetic or too ingrained in society to overcome. Interestingly enough, Kropotkin believed that mutual aid and cooperation were factors in biological evolution. He wrote a book on the subject called Mutual Aid.

I wish people would stop appealing to the Soviet Union as proof that "socialism" or "communism" cannot work. This betrays an astounding ignorance of socialist thought. Such very ignorant people don't even realize that in Marx's day, there was a debate between state socialists and libertarian socialists. Most anarchists that I know of believe that the Soviet Union was not an authentic form of socialism and that it is impossible for any state government to create a successful socialist economy. This ignorance can get quite irritating after a while.

 

[nnmartin]

I wish people would stop appealing to the Soviet Union as proof that "socialism" or "communism" cannot work. This betrays an astounding ignorance of socialist thought.

I agree - the amount of times people have used this as a justification for the flaws of communism is staggering. It seems to be the trump card for all the anti-communists. It would be interesting to hear from someone from the former Soviet Union to see how it was like actually living there.

What went wrong in the Soviet Union (not including Stalin)?

 

[Revoltingest]

Given the nature of mankind is it really possible to have a viable communist state where everyone gets a reasonable standard of living?
Most anti-communists quickly point to the collapse of the Soviet Union as proof that this system cannot work as it goes against human nature. That is hardly a credible argument though.
Under the right circumstances could it work and what would be the major problems?

Short answer: No.
Long answer: In large scale systems (ie, a country, as opposed to a commune) using communism, utopia has not been observed to be an emergent property.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

I agree - the amount of times people have used this as a justification for the flaws of communism is staggering. It seems to be the trump card for all the anti-communists. It would be interesting to hear from someone from the former Soviet Union to see how it was like actually living there.

What went wrong in the Soviet Union (not including Stalin)?

Nothing really went wrong, if you want the state to control all economics (aka Communism) you have to give the state all power, which is exactly what the USSR did.
I think people mistake true communism for ideal communism, USSR was true communism not ideal

Small Communist or Communalist societies have functioned well in the past, such as the early Christian Church and the Early Latter Day Saint's Church, however these people were bound in a way that can not be replicated by Marx's theory, as they were religious minorities under persecution which made them cling harder to their ethics

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Maybe, but highly doubt it'd work.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

A guy I met from Croatia said complete central planning of the economy cannot work, and has not worked. A committee of bureaucrats is going to be very inefficient at figuring out the optimum number of shoes that should be produced each year. Competition and market forces are best suited to figure out such details.

My guess is a free market modulated by some degree of central planning is the best system.

 

[swamplizard]

It depends on which type of communism one wants. If it's the anarcho-communism of people like Peter Kropotkin and Murray Bookchin, I suspect that it could work. In libertarian socialism, there is a debate over whether to have some kind of planning council or a market. Also, the issue of economic reward needs to be settled.

Some object to any kind of anticapitalist alternative on grounds that human nature is supposedly "too selfish". I seriously doubt this. Even the people who raise the objection that human nature is "too selfish" often have disdain for this selfishness but believe that it's either genetic or too ingrained in society to overcome. Interestingly enough, Kropotkin believed that mutual aid and cooperation were factors in biological evolution. He wrote a book on the subject called Mutual Aid.

I wish people would stop appealing to the Soviet Union as proof that "socialism" or "communism" cannot work. This betrays an astounding ignorance of socialist thought. Such very ignorant people don't even realize that in Marx's day, there was a debate between state socialists and libertarian socialists. Most anarchists that I know of believe that the Soviet Union was not an authentic form of socialism and that it is impossible for any state government to create a successful socialist economy. This ignorance can get quite irritating after a while.

Nice job Matthew. I think the key is the evolutionary process of the human species; this may be slow or it may become a biological necessity under duress.

best,
swampy

 

[Matthew78]

A guy I met from Croatia said complete central planning of the economy cannot work, and has not worked. A committee of bureaucrats is going to be very inefficient at figuring out the optimum number of shoes that should be produced each year. Competition and market forces are best suited to figure out such details.

My guess is a free market modulated by some degree of central planning is the best system.

I'm not surprised. A total command economy would suffer from the problem of economic calculation that was put forth by Ludwig Von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. A command economy is hierarchical and hierarchical command economies cannot work in theory or practice.

 

[nnmartin]

Ok , that seems to be Communism done away with.

Reminds me of when I was younger and the time in which I lived in a few 'Communes' - all was fine with small numbers (about 50 people) - after that things started to go wrong - freeloaders, druggies, capitalists etc.. started to take over. It was self-policed to an extent but obviously there was no real law as such.

Anyway, let's move on to Socialism as this seems more realistic.

How about a fairly strict Socialist regime to operate now in Europe or North America - could that work?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm not surprised. A total command economy would suffer from the problem of economic calculation that was put forth by Ludwig Von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. A command economy is hierarchical and hierarchical command economies cannot work in theory or practice.

Pardon my ignorance, but is a communist economy not necessarily a "total command economy"? And if so, what does communism look like without central planning?

 

[Matthew78]

Pardon my ignorance, but is a communist economy not necessarily a "total command economy"? And if so, what does communism look like without central planning?

No, if you have an anarcho-communist economy, it's not a command economy at all. In anarcho-communism and libertarian socialism (i.e. "Participatory Economics", "Economic Democracy", etc), there isn't any hierarchical command structure issuing planning orders. Everything is either carried out locally in the form of consumer and producer councils negotiating plans or through some kind of planned market system. The problem with economic calculations is that they become very difficult, if not impossible, once the planning system becomes hierarchical.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No, if you have an anarcho-communist economy, it's not a command economy at all. In anarcho-communism and libertarian socialism (i.e. "Participatory Economics", "Economic Democracy", etc), there isn't any hierarchical command structure issuing planning orders. Everything is either carried out locally in the form of consumer and producer councils negotiating plans or through some kind of planned market system. The problem with economic calculations is that they become very difficult, if not impossible, once the planning system becomes hierarchical.

So, is an anarcho-communist economy essentially a scaled-down version of a "command economy"? Instead of an elected body planning the economy of a nation of 300 million people, you have an elected body planning the economy of a community of 3,000 people?

 

[Matthew78]

So, is an anarcho-communist economy essentially a scaled-down version of a "command economy"? Instead of an elected body planning the economy of a nation of 300 million people, you have an elected body planning the economy of a community of 3,000 people?

No, it's not any form of command economy. Command economies are intrinsically hierarchical; that's where the "command" comes from. In some libertarian socialist economies, there are councils of both producers and consumers. They meet and work out a compromise for what will be produced. The producers tell the consumers what resources and materials are available and the consumers tell the producers what the people living in that particular locality want produced. They try to come to a reasonable compromise on what to produce; the producers might agree to produce so many commodities and consumers might agree that only certain plans can be agreed upon because of the availability of so many resources.

In another version, there might be a local democratic assembly for a given city precinct and that assembly votes on what will be produced and in what quantity and it's up to a worker's assembly to vote on who gets what job, how many hours each worker gets, and how many credits a given worker is entitled to in a given work period.

No one is elected nor does anyone run for any kind of political office. Having councils or assemblies reduces the chances of corruption and the councils vote either democratically or proportionally what to produce and who gets what job(s). What is more is that no one person accumulates any political or financial power. Everyone cooperates together and the only way to improve your own well-being is to work for the well-being of others.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Matthew78,

I sympathize with the idea, but it's hard for me to imagine an anarcho-communist economy working out in practice. Are there current or historical examples of this system in practice?

 

[doppelganger]

Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia