3 ms·

> Brings to mind a related observation that the USSR and most 20th century nominal communisms were fascism in communism's skin in practice They were totalitari

> Brings to mind a related observation that the USSR and most 20th century nominal communisms were fascism in communism's skin in practice They were totalitarian, a property shared with fascism. Also, China and the Soviet Union both claimed to be socialist revolutions on the way to communism, not actual communists, and along the way the dictatorship of the proletariat/vanguard party became "corrupted". Real communism (which is inconsistently defined between different theories anyway) does not and never has existed, and seems like it won't be possible before we reach post-scarcity anyway.

nine_k 8y ago
Both Soviet (and Chinese) parties in power were (and are) nominally "Communist", not "Socialist". My favorite example of communism implemented in real life is a hermit / monastic retreat, a skete. People devote themselves to voluntarily living an ascetic life, aspiring to the absolute, caring about the common good, and eschewing things like money from daily life. From the amount of hermits in a society you can estimate how popular this mindset might be, and how realistic is it to involve an entire population into it. Post-scarcity won't solve it, because it's not going to make people automatically care about the common good as a way of self-actualization. This is why the idealist Communist leaders of early Soviets spoke so much about "raising a new man", basically hoping to change the nature of humans.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  > Both Soviet (and Chinese) parties in power were (and are) nominally "Communist", not "Socialist". I have to disagree with this, especially given that the CPC claims that China is in the "primary stage" of socialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_stage_of_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_stage_of_socialism. Communism in its original Marxist form is classless and stateless, which the PRC and the USSR certainly are/were not. Both countries were/are run by communist parties, but said communists recognise/d that a conversion from an agrarian, nominally capitalist society to a communist one would take a long time and require transition through a socialist state, as Marx originally laid out. > My favorite example of communism implemented in real life is a hermit / monastic retreat, a skete. The benefit to small communities is that it is easier to police for attitude and morality. Even more so if it's a religious community, though I'm sure Marx is rolling in his grave that you would call a religious community communist given communism's materialist philosophy. > From the amount of hermits in a society you can estimate how popular this mindset might be, and how realistic is it to involve an entire population into it. That's putting the cart before the horse somewhat. I know of many people who retreat from society in a hermit-like fashion for reasons other than asceticism or self-actualisation. > Post-scarcity won't solve it, because it's not going to make people automatically care about the common good as a way of self-actualization. But it will remove the primary need for an economy: effective distribution of scarce resources. It would also reduce the need for political hierarchy because property rights would become largely unnecessary to enforce. > This is why the idealist Communist leaders of early Soviets spoke so much about "raising a new man", basically hoping to change the nature of humans. They spoke about a lot of things that are purely based in ideology and do not gel with how the world works. Lysenkoism and the Four Pests Campaign strike me as good examples.
  - badosu 8y ago
    > The benefit to small communities is that it is easier to police for attitude and morality. Even more so if it's a religious community, though I'm sure Marx is rolling in his grave that you would call a religious community communist given communism's materialist philosophy. See my comment above on how monasteries came from epicurean communes. See the title or Marx's PhD thesis: The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature Not so far-fetched. It's true that communism as envisioned by Karl Marx had a materialistic sense, but so did Epicurus philosophy. Communism is Karl Marx's scaling attempt at Epicurean communes. Not a very good idea IMO.
    - beaconstudios 8y ago
      that's an interesting piece of philosophical history I didn't know about, thanks for sharing that. I always thought there were strong parallels between ancient Greek philosophy and the primary strands of modern politics. > Communism is Karl Marx's scaling attempt at Epicurean communes. Not a very good idea IMO. I tend to think that the idea wasn't bad, but people trying to force it to occur faster than the natural societal evolution end up killing a lot of people. The debates we're seeing now about how to deal with automation of large swathes of the job market are similar to Marx's theory that socialism would automate production to the point of creating a post-scarcity society. Of course, that doesn't account for the environment, but then global warming wasn't on the menu in the mid 1800s. The ironic thing is that it's capitalism that is doing the automating.
      - badosu 8y ago
        > I tend to think that the idea wasn't bad, but people trying to force it to occur faster than the natural societal evolution end up killing a lot of people. Exactly, although I don't believe we can infer to which point the society would naturally evolve. If possible, the probable transition would be from scattered communes to a commune federation. The drawback being that it would be difficult to have political cohesion (not that this is bad, but easily corruptible by neighboring states). > The ironic thing is that it's capitalism that is doing the automating. Interesting insight.
- badosu 8y ago
  > My favorite example of communism implemented in real life is a hermit / monastic retreat, a skete There were allegedly lots of epicurean communities in the antiquities, many of those in Europe, which became monasteries. Epicurean communes were, for all effects and purposes, communism.
0x445442 8y ago
Post scarcity wouldn't matter anyway. You'd still have the problems of who watches the watchers and the idea that some of us are more equal than others... There is no Star Trek utopia.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  > You'd still have the problems of who watches the watchers Could you expand on what you mean by this? If you remove the concept of material wealth (as a distinction between individuals), the cause for conflict is greatly reduced. > the idea that some of us are more equal than others I don't see how this would continue to cause conflicts once people's material needs and wants are all met. People tend to hate on exceptional people because they have access to more things. > There is no Star Trek utopia. Certainly not now, but it's a good goal to aim for.
  - a_tractor 8y ago
    >If you remove the concept of material wealth How does communism really plan to do that when it is fundamentally a materialist philosophy? You need a philosophy founded on idealism to do that. >I don't see how this would continue to cause conflicts once people's material needs and wants are all met. Because Humans are not domesticated animals? Just give him some fresh newspaper and keep his food and water fresh and he'll be fine? No. >People tend to hate on exceptional people because they have access to more things. This is basically an unsupportable explanation ("just-so") that is woefully limited, over-simplified, and inadequate. This ignores or dismisses so many other aspects of the human spirit and human nature that I don't know where to begin. If you stop limiting humans and their "needs and wants" to materialistic terms, your entire concept falls apart, which is ironic. You are also engaging in doublespeak, when you state "once people's material needs and wants are all met" you actually mean "once people's material needs and wants are all equal," because that is the only result you actually could force into reality, but you could never force the satisfaction of human desire. Human desire is illimitable.

nine_k 8y ago

Both Soviet (and Chinese) parties in power were (and are) nominally "Communist", not "Socialist". My favorite example of communism implemented in real life is a hermit / monastic retreat, a skete. People devote themselves to voluntarily living an ascetic life, aspiring to the absolute, caring about the common good, and eschewing things like money from daily life. From the amount of hermits in a society you can estimate how popular this mindset might be, and how realistic is it to involve an entire population into it. Post-scarcity won't solve it, because it's not going to make people automatically care about the common good as a way of self-actualization. This is why the idealist Communist leaders of early Soviets spoke so much about "raising a new man", basically hoping to change the nature of humans.

beaconstudios 8y ago
> Both Soviet (and Chinese) parties in power were (and are) nominally "Communist", not "Socialist". I have to disagree with this, especially given that the CPC claims that China is in the "primary stage" of socialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_stage_of_socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_stage_of_socialism. Communism in its original Marxist form is classless and stateless, which the PRC and the USSR certainly are/were not. Both countries were/are run by communist parties, but said communists recognise/d that a conversion from an agrarian, nominally capitalist society to a communist one would take a long time and require transition through a socialist state, as Marx originally laid out. > My favorite example of communism implemented in real life is a hermit / monastic retreat, a skete. The benefit to small communities is that it is easier to police for attitude and morality. Even more so if it's a religious community, though I'm sure Marx is rolling in his grave that you would call a religious community communist given communism's materialist philosophy. > From the amount of hermits in a society you can estimate how popular this mindset might be, and how realistic is it to involve an entire population into it. That's putting the cart before the horse somewhat. I know of many people who retreat from society in a hermit-like fashion for reasons other than asceticism or self-actualisation. > Post-scarcity won't solve it, because it's not going to make people automatically care about the common good as a way of self-actualization. But it will remove the primary need for an economy: effective distribution of scarce resources. It would also reduce the need for political hierarchy because property rights would become largely unnecessary to enforce. > This is why the idealist Communist leaders of early Soviets spoke so much about "raising a new man", basically hoping to change the nature of humans. They spoke about a lot of things that are purely based in ideology and do not gel with how the world works. Lysenkoism and the Four Pests Campaign strike me as good examples.
- badosu 8y ago
  > The benefit to small communities is that it is easier to police for attitude and morality. Even more so if it's a religious community, though I'm sure Marx is rolling in his grave that you would call a religious community communist given communism's materialist philosophy. See my comment above on how monasteries came from epicurean communes. See the title or Marx's PhD thesis: The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature Not so far-fetched. It's true that communism as envisioned by Karl Marx had a materialistic sense, but so did Epicurus philosophy. Communism is Karl Marx's scaling attempt at Epicurean communes. Not a very good idea IMO.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    that's an interesting piece of philosophical history I didn't know about, thanks for sharing that. I always thought there were strong parallels between ancient Greek philosophy and the primary strands of modern politics. > Communism is Karl Marx's scaling attempt at Epicurean communes. Not a very good idea IMO. I tend to think that the idea wasn't bad, but people trying to force it to occur faster than the natural societal evolution end up killing a lot of people. The debates we're seeing now about how to deal with automation of large swathes of the job market are similar to Marx's theory that socialism would automate production to the point of creating a post-scarcity society. Of course, that doesn't account for the environment, but then global warming wasn't on the menu in the mid 1800s. The ironic thing is that it's capitalism that is doing the automating.
    - badosu 8y ago
      > I tend to think that the idea wasn't bad, but people trying to force it to occur faster than the natural societal evolution end up killing a lot of people. Exactly, although I don't believe we can infer to which point the society would naturally evolve. If possible, the probable transition would be from scattered communes to a commune federation. The drawback being that it would be difficult to have political cohesion (not that this is bad, but easily corruptible by neighboring states). > The ironic thing is that it's capitalism that is doing the automating. Interesting insight.
badosu 8y ago
> My favorite example of communism implemented in real life is a hermit / monastic retreat, a skete There were allegedly lots of epicurean communities in the antiquities, many of those in Europe, which became monasteries. Epicurean communes were, for all effects and purposes, communism.

0x445442 8y ago

Post scarcity wouldn't matter anyway. You'd still have the problems of who watches the watchers and the idea that some of us are more equal than others... There is no Star Trek utopia.

beaconstudios 8y ago
> You'd still have the problems of who watches the watchers Could you expand on what you mean by this? If you remove the concept of material wealth (as a distinction between individuals), the cause for conflict is greatly reduced. > the idea that some of us are more equal than others I don't see how this would continue to cause conflicts once people's material needs and wants are all met. People tend to hate on exceptional people because they have access to more things. > There is no Star Trek utopia. Certainly not now, but it's a good goal to aim for.
- a_tractor 8y ago
  >If you remove the concept of material wealth How does communism really plan to do that when it is fundamentally a materialist philosophy? You need a philosophy founded on idealism to do that. >I don't see how this would continue to cause conflicts once people's material needs and wants are all met. Because Humans are not domesticated animals? Just give him some fresh newspaper and keep his food and water fresh and he'll be fine? No. >People tend to hate on exceptional people because they have access to more things. This is basically an unsupportable explanation ("just-so") that is woefully limited, over-simplified, and inadequate. This ignores or dismisses so many other aspects of the human spirit and human nature that I don't know where to begin. If you stop limiting humans and their "needs and wants" to materialistic terms, your entire concept falls apart, which is ironic. You are also engaging in doublespeak, when you state "once people's material needs and wants are all met" you actually mean "once people's material needs and wants are all equal," because that is the only result you actually could force into reality, but you could never force the satisfaction of human desire. Human desire is illimitable.