3 ms·

> 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

> 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

> 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.