Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, communism can't work for much the same reason most communes don't work. You have a few people pulling the wagon, and too many people taking a free ride. Finally the pullers get tired, stop pulling and the wagon stops.
but in the communist system, won't the withholding of wages for the slackers prevent this?
I mean, there could be the 'factory' which has a foreman cracking the whip, capitalist style - those who don't work hard enough get fired.
and there can still be incentives for those that work well, ie: small pay increases and benefits etc.
Oh Sir, you are not at all a good communist! Incentives for workers is capital roading! Witholding wages!? Firing a comrade for lack of production!? Unthinkable.
Communism - much criticised by the Western countries but could it work given the right situation?
People say that if there is no incentive then no-one will work - but surely that is wrong.
Agreed, people may work less but they would still need to earn their pay check.
I imagine some kind of wage and price controls would be needed, and some limitations on freedom, but what are the main problems in stopping it from working?
All big industries could be nationalised and the smaller ones would have to abide by specific regulations - ie: laws against hoarding , speculating, and wages etc..
What will go wrong here?
any ideas, thanks
Could it work; for who? The state? The people? A select few people? You have to define who it could work for.
Communism; this word has been drug through the mud and back, so you need to clarify what definition of communism you are referring to. Marx? Soviet style? NK?
What is the difference between Capitalism and Oligarchy?
Its a transition. As soon as conditions arise where it is easier to profit from the manipulation of marginal utility over production. Again the neo liberals did not seem to fully know what they were saying when they discarded the labor theory of value. Their rather narrow point of view was merely to counter the labor movement and its justifications that they create value merely through labor. Indeed its true, value is based upon utility, not how much time is put into it. However then how can they deny a buck can be made with no work? That brings us back to old liberalism where they called that wealth shift that occurs with increasing marginal utility "economic rent".
People who live without working are the oligarchs. The pioneer state of capitalism has no such opportunities which is why capitalism seems to be so ideal at first.
The problem with Marx, as I see it, is he really thought capital would be king. A shrewd capitalist has a brief tactical advantage over a inept country gentleman, but they would not last long without the old strategic resources. Otherwise an advance in technology not under their umbrella will wipe them out. Wealth always has and always will have something to do with military/political power, land and money power. Those never go out of style. There is no Samsung over the shoulder of Apple. Old money will always need these strategic resources and Marx thought these guys were obsolete.
It used to be the military would take land. Not sure how Marx would view capital as being dominant in the face of an invasion. Yet, that's what happened. Finance has now taken over as the main tool to confiscate not only land, but all durable assets in strict supply. At least capital growth inherently employs people. To profit from strict supply, one often turns people out on the street.
Marx of course made undeniable observations that capital as he saw it couldn't last. I really wonder about people who scoff at him because he was in many ways doing a WTF at 16 hour work days and an early death. Anyone who isn't a critic of 19th century capitalism in Britain is either ignorant of what was going on or just plain evil.
jtur did a quick capsule, but it seems apparent that this isn't a real discussion, but a chance to recite (again and again, ad nauseum) popular ideas that are more based in political dogma than thought.
If you want to look at communism and socialism with any intent of studying it, there are a few examples that haven't had the overlay of political ambitions twisting words. The "Farm" was/is a social experiment, there is a similar one in Scotland, there are the Kibbutz of Israel, and there are the Scandinavian countries with much more closely managed economies and a heavy dose of socialism in certain areas.
The natural state of man in societies tends towards the development of an elite minority who come out of the chaos of revolution and rise to the top. As they gain power, the control they exert continues to grow exponentially, until they over-reach, or recognize the need to support their base. Neither pure communism nor pure capitalism are functional except when dealing with handfuls of people. With such small groups having shared values, the end "government" is neither communist nor capitalist, but a mixture closer to the New England town meetings. The historical Swiss Cantons come to mind.
Oh Sir, you are not at all a good communist! Incentives for workers is capital roading! Witholding wages!? Firing a comrade for lack of production!? Unthinkable.
When some people hear "there will be no money, bla bla bla..." they jump to some conclusions, such as the one above. But for some reason these same people, when hear that the Sun creates life, don't go laying under the sun all day long
Communism does not describe practicalities of life. It can't possibly do this, since anarchial system is based on self-governance (communal, of course), and things in different communes may and sure will be different. That's the main beauty of anarchy - self-governance screams efficiency.
If a commune finds its members refusing to work, they may very well force them. Stealing a pair of jeans today will put you in jail. Getting a pair of jeans under communism, and refusing to provide something to others, may very well put you in jail - since it will also be stealing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
