5 ms·

The way people talk about socialism and communism in the west show the sad state of our education system. communism is already a big part of our lives. When yo

by mempko 13y ago

The way people talk about socialism and communism in the west show the sad state of our education system. communism is already a big part of our lives. When you sit at the dinner table and ask for the salt, you get it. When are at work and you ask for a code review and the person gives it to you. If the need is great enough, or the obstacles to ability are small enough, people do things. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Our economy is firmly based on communist actions and the capitalists exploit this. but the way that people talk about communism, as a centrally planned economy, shows great ignorance of both the literature and a blindedness to "already occurring communism"

tian2992 13y ago
I agree that the article went downhill, as he implied communism requires a centrally planned anything. It just proves the author has not read enough to understand the basic tenant of a communist-like economic system.
macspoofing 13y ago
>When you sit at the dinner table and ask for the salt, you get it. Actually, it's you who has a fundamental misunderstanding of communism, and yes, this probably shows the sad state of our education system. Communism is not cooperation. Sitting down to dinner with family, is not Communism. Working on a project with your friend is not Communism. Donating money, time or skills is not Communism. Communism is a particular way of allocating scare resources (which also implies a particular government structure). Capitalism is another. Communism has been shown in practice to be a devastating, corrupt and wasteful system. It doesn't work in theory either because it creates huge incentives to cheat and lie (because if you don't inflate your need, your neighbor will and he'll get more - after all you have to prove your need before you get yours). I have more, but I think I made my point.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > Communism is a particular way of allocating scare resources (which also implies a particular government structure). Such as salt at the table, or time spent at a company. You haven't actually explained what he got wrong about communism; you're just basely asserting a negation.
  - macspoofing 13y ago
    He defined Communsim as any positive interaction between people, and implicitly any negative interaction as capitlist subversion. Where does one even begin to explain why that's wrong? Communism is a socio-political theory. It's a way of defining a governing structure of our society Furthermore we live in a world of scarcity, so it also defines a way of distributing scarce resources amongst the population. As a counter-example, every example he gave, is perfectly allowable in a Capitalist society. Under Capitalism, people cooperate, and work together all the time. Sometimes there's a profit motive (e.g. a typical manufacturer may have hundreds of suppliers), and sometimes there isn't. With respect of the latter, Communists usually trot out Open-Source Software as a inherently Communist movement. Except that OSS exists comfortably in a Capitalist society, because Capitalism has no problem with people freely donating their time and skills towards any type of endeavour they choose. Your time belongs to you, do as you fit with it. Does that make sense?
    - saraid216 13y ago
      > He defined Communsim as any positive interaction between people, and implicitly any negative interaction as capitlist subversion. No, he didn't. > Communism is a socio-political theory. No, it isn't. It's an economic system where the means of production is commonly owned. This has socio-political consequences, and socio-political requirements, but is not itself a socio-political system. Democracy is a socio-political system. Capitalism is not. Monarchy is a socio-political system. Communism is not. Meritocracy is a socio-political system. Distributism is not. > As a counter-example, every example he gave, is perfectly allowable in a Capitalist society. He never said otherwise. That was his entire point. > Except that OSS exists comfortably in a Capitalist society, because Capitalism has no problem with people freely donating their time and skills towards any type of endeavour they choose. Or you could acknowledge his actual point, which is that communism and capitalism are able to, and do, coexist.
a-priori 13y ago
The similarities between how people act within a firm (where a 'firm' is basically any sort of corporation, partnership, or similar economic entity) and within an ideal communist society are not a coincidence: a communist society is essentially just one very large firm. (Aside: The core problem with communism is that a nation much larger than the optimal firm size. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_optimal_firm_size http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_optimal_firm_size) But I think it shows a gross misunderstanding of both capitalism and communism to say something like "Our economy is firmly based on communist actions and the capitalists exploit this". It's not. Both concepts are very modern inventions, and the psychology of how people act within a firm (regardless of its size) is based on how people act within family units and bands: based on working towards shared goals and loose sense of reciprocity. It's not a coincidence that money is not normally used between family members: people don't normally buy things off their family, but receive them as gifts/favours and then are expected to give similar value gifts/favours in the future (a gift economy). That's the psychology that the firm re-uses, and it predates both capitalism and communism.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > a communist society is essentially just one very large firm. This is my favorite discussion of the topic so far: http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/economics/why-valve-or-what-do-we-need-corporations-for-and-how-does-valves-management-structure-fit-into-todays-corporate-world/ http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/economics/why-valve-or-what-d...
- mempko 13y ago
  Communists are those that recognize this basic psychology and promote it. The term is new, but as you have stated, and I agree, the psychology isn't. Nothing wrong with using a modern term to describe past actions. Imagine using the term "mind" or "will" to describe actions used by ancient Egyptians. Or the term "incentive" to describe cave men hunting.

by mempko 13y ago

tian2992 13y ago

I agree that the article went downhill, as he implied communism requires a centrally planned anything. It just proves the author has not read enough to understand the basic tenant of a communist-like economic system.

macspoofing 13y ago

>When you sit at the dinner table and ask for the salt, you get it. Actually, it's you who has a fundamental misunderstanding of communism, and yes, this probably shows the sad state of our education system. Communism is not cooperation. Sitting down to dinner with family, is not Communism. Working on a project with your friend is not Communism. Donating money, time or skills is not Communism. Communism is a particular way of allocating scare resources (which also implies a particular government structure). Capitalism is another. Communism has been shown in practice to be a devastating, corrupt and wasteful system. It doesn't work in theory either because it creates huge incentives to cheat and lie (because if you don't inflate your need, your neighbor will and he'll get more - after all you have to prove your need before you get yours). I have more, but I think I made my point.

saraid216 13y ago
> Communism is a particular way of allocating scare resources (which also implies a particular government structure). Such as salt at the table, or time spent at a company. You haven't actually explained what he got wrong about communism; you're just basely asserting a negation.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  He defined Communsim as any positive interaction between people, and implicitly any negative interaction as capitlist subversion. Where does one even begin to explain why that's wrong? Communism is a socio-political theory. It's a way of defining a governing structure of our society Furthermore we live in a world of scarcity, so it also defines a way of distributing scarce resources amongst the population. As a counter-example, every example he gave, is perfectly allowable in a Capitalist society. Under Capitalism, people cooperate, and work together all the time. Sometimes there's a profit motive (e.g. a typical manufacturer may have hundreds of suppliers), and sometimes there isn't. With respect of the latter, Communists usually trot out Open-Source Software as a inherently Communist movement. Except that OSS exists comfortably in a Capitalist society, because Capitalism has no problem with people freely donating their time and skills towards any type of endeavour they choose. Your time belongs to you, do as you fit with it. Does that make sense?
  - saraid216 13y ago
    > He defined Communsim as any positive interaction between people, and implicitly any negative interaction as capitlist subversion. No, he didn't. > Communism is a socio-political theory. No, it isn't. It's an economic system where the means of production is commonly owned. This has socio-political consequences, and socio-political requirements, but is not itself a socio-political system. Democracy is a socio-political system. Capitalism is not. Monarchy is a socio-political system. Communism is not. Meritocracy is a socio-political system. Distributism is not. > As a counter-example, every example he gave, is perfectly allowable in a Capitalist society. He never said otherwise. That was his entire point. > Except that OSS exists comfortably in a Capitalist society, because Capitalism has no problem with people freely donating their time and skills towards any type of endeavour they choose. Or you could acknowledge his actual point, which is that communism and capitalism are able to, and do, coexist.

a-priori 13y ago

The similarities between how people act within a firm (where a 'firm' is basically any sort of corporation, partnership, or similar economic entity) and within an ideal communist society are not a coincidence: a communist society is essentially just one very large firm. (Aside: The core problem with communism is that a nation much larger than the optimal firm size. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_optimal_firm_size http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_optimal_firm_size) But I think it shows a gross misunderstanding of both capitalism and communism to say something like "Our economy is firmly based on communist actions and the capitalists exploit this". It's not. Both concepts are very modern inventions, and the psychology of how people act within a firm (regardless of its size) is based on how people act within family units and bands: based on working towards shared goals and loose sense of reciprocity. It's not a coincidence that money is not normally used between family members: people don't normally buy things off their family, but receive them as gifts/favours and then are expected to give similar value gifts/favours in the future (a gift economy). That's the psychology that the firm re-uses, and it predates both capitalism and communism.

saraid216 13y ago
> a communist society is essentially just one very large firm. This is my favorite discussion of the topic so far: http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/economics/why-valve-or-what-do-we-need-corporations-for-and-how-does-valves-management-structure-fit-into-todays-corporate-world/ http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/economics/why-valve-or-what-d...
mempko 13y ago
Communists are those that recognize this basic psychology and promote it. The term is new, but as you have stated, and I agree, the psychology isn't. Nothing wrong with using a modern term to describe past actions. Imagine using the term "mind" or "will" to describe actions used by ancient Egyptians. Or the term "incentive" to describe cave men hunting.