Communism can never work because it violates unalienable rights that everyone is born with.

Those rights would be...?
Freedom? Under communism, you are very free. Free from wanting, free from slavery of the tyranny of big business.

greatone99, I'd say that America, I'm assuming that's the nation you're referring to, is not even that close to a true democracy. You are a republic, ruled not by the will of the majority but by the law as set forth by the Constitution and judicial precedent. You elect presidents but they are not above the law. In many ways, a republic is better than a democracy because a democracy often leads to the oppression of minorities by the majority will, whereas in a republic, the rule of law can be expected to protect minorities to a degree.

I would say that most of the world's problems come simply from conflicting selfish desires and limited resources. Capitalism is the most efficient system under these circumstances... but as we see technology and productivity increasing, the resources become less limited for developed countries and they can adopt socialism.

I see communism working if you can 'cure' selfish desires, most likely through some biochemical tinkering a la Brave New World, in which people would truly be altruistic to each other. This would only be sustainable as long as it isn't exploitable by selfish individuals.

I can see communism working if the problem of limited resources were solved, whether by drastically reducing population without reducing technology through mass slaughter or natural pandemic. This would be sustainable as long as people were not very fertile, had powerful incentives against having children, or agreed not to have children, which might require a suspension of selfish desires... The same effect is achieved in small communes, but they are only sustainable as long as they can avoid conflict with other communes, especially more selfish ones.

Another way to solve limited resources is if technological growth and productivity increases outstrip population growth, most likely coupled with some sort of population control mechanism in such a way that manual labour is delegated to robots or something of the sort, and humanity becomes essentially irrelevant. This would be sustainable as long as humans did not become obsolete, say if computers became far smarter than we are, and there was no technological uprising of some sort.

All of these situations are pretty morally repulsive in my mind, though who's to say that they will be in the future? I wouldn't count on the second one ever being realized, but the first and third remain scary possibilities. We can already see this somewhat in anti-depressant medication and in the increasing trend toward socialism in the more technologically advanced nations.

I think Brave New World is much more likely than 1984.

People forget that communism is "technically" an economic theory only, and not a political theory. It is an alternative to capitalism. I will say that in practice economic and political theory are very much linked, and so far communism has been paired with authoritarian dictatorships, but there's no real reason it can't be paired with democracy or less authoritarian government other than practicality. Communist regimes thus far have come too early, before we've had enough technology to justify them.

Hell, capitalism is often paired with authoritarian government. Just look at the Bush regime... not exactly constitutionalist or small government... It's like diplomat's idea that small government is good, but so is ridiculous amounts of military spending and international intervention... not exactly reconcilable concepts.

Chrispmini: that's why a lot of people who care about laissez-faire capitalism hated bush, the iraq war and excessive military spending. An expression of that was the relative popularity of Ron Paul during the primaries in '08 (which I found very sympathetic, although I hate his stance on abortion).

I don't believe that communism can ever be reconciled with small government or liberal democracy. This is because capitalism is what people do when you don't exert force on them! If you buy a bread from a baker for a dollar, you value the bread more than the dollar, while the baker values the dollar more than the bread, otherwise you wouldn't have traded. Trades are win-win (bad investments are the exception to this, of course, but no system can get rid of human error). To allow a society to be communist, you must start forbidding all kinds of voluntary trades (especially those on a larger scale) because they make some people richer than others. Hence communism can't exist without some institution exerting force on people who are not harming anyone, and this is the main reason (but far from the only reason) why laissez-faire capitalists find communism morally reprehensible.

The only scenario where I can see a communist-like system based on sharing working is indeed in a post-scarcity environment, and surprisingly enough, we already have one of those: the economy of information! Although it does without a central government and is probably more comparable to an anarchic society, things like open source software production and even online music sharing are examples of sharing-based economies, where you can get anything others have as long as you promise to share it too. Made possible by the fact that you don't lose anything by sharing because information is freely copyable.

"Under communism, you are very free. Free from wanting, free from slavery of the tyranny of big business."

Is this intentional irony? I cannot wrap my mind around the willful ignorance in this statement.

Everywhere communism has been attempted the exact opposite of this has happened. Ask someone for North Korea or rural Red China or Cuba or who lived in the Soviet Union if they experience freedom from want under communism. Trading "slavery" from big business to actual slavery and tyranny from the state doesn't seem like a good deal to me.

Whatever its merits in theory, communism cannot work as long as people act like they always have for thousands of years. We should stop trying so less people have to live under such a monstrous system in practice.

Praqctice and theory.... so long as these two are dfferent, communism can't feasibly work, can it?

I hope I live to see the day where the entire world becomes a true democracy, where everyone over a certain age can vote, not just corrupt elected politicians.

And I look forward to the day when candy-coated strippers rain from the sky, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

@ Dee Eff:
>If you buy a bread from a baker for a dollar, you value the bread more than the dollar, while the baker values the dollar more than the bread, otherwise you wouldn't have traded. … To allow a society to be communist, you must start forbidding all kinds of voluntary trades ….

But from a communist perspective, it's private property that has restrictions. Here's some bread, I want to eat it, so I take it and eat it. But no, that is forbidden! That bread is the property of the baker, and I must give them a dollar first.

I agree that, in practice, society must have restrictions on taking and eating bread. But private property is a restriction too.

Onar, my dream is more realistic, weather you like it or not. Also, I didn't say it would come true.

Communism is just a criticism of the idea of private property vs public property.

From that viewpoint, many societies have made it work. Native Americans simply did not have the concept of private property that Westerners have.

Strict Marxist communism, though, goes straight against human nature. But as far as making our system less like capitalism and more like communism, that isn't impossible.

And Invictus... with regard to the freedom under communism statement, I don't believe that communism INVARIABLY leads to authoritarian corrupt government, if a communist country had a stronger constitution and democratic tradition than the ones that have tried it, the rule of the people would be better preserved, and thus, so would freedoms.

I think the economy would collapse for different reasons than a totalitarian government taking over, because if communism were tried in America I don't think totalitarians would take over. It would fail because people's productivity would go down because there is a lack of motivation. There could still be human right and elected officials and rule of law.

In another country, known for its work ethic, and democratic tendancies, communism could work fabulously... Anyone know a country like that, so I can come a step closer to living the ideal?

"Native Americans simply did not have the concept of private property that Westerners have."

Really? Can you point me to the relevant and respectable literature?

Onar, perhaps India? It's democratic and I think they work hard there. It doesn't seem like it would tend toward communism though...

Dee Eff, I absolutely agree. I consider myself a fiscal conservative, and I think that Republican policies have definitely fallen pretty far from the small-government laissez faire ideals with which they started.

I think you're trapped in the trade mindset. The idea behind communism is you'd simply give someone what they wanted and take what you wanted. I'm saying this is only possible when there's no scarcity or when people will happily do this despite the fact that some people will obviously be giving more than they take and others will take more than they give. You don't strictly need authoritarian government, though yes, it's true, that communism usually places authority in some central distributing authority.

I would say communism is a nice idea in theory, but in practice it can only be ephemeral unless you abolish selfishness or scarcity, and even then it might be, because it's just not very sustainable, especially if it's competing with another capitalist society.

My US History textbook, but that was last year and I turned it back in to the school, though I could try to get a look at one so I can cite it.

The idea behind it, since you seem so skeptical, is that Native Americans allowed the white men to come in because they didn't see the land as "theirs," it was just land. Then the whites began to exploit and take everything, and tell the Native Americans where to go; that they could not be on "our land." This confused the natives, who thought that they were sharing the land, so they refused. War ensued. Now... as far as like, personal objects as property, well yes, that concept exists everywhere, but simultaneously juxtaposed with a tribe-first culture that compelled the Native Americans to share with tribe members when needed... no one would steal from fellow tribesmen because they could just ask.

And in case you've got me pegged wrong... I'm no proponent of the noble savage, not in the least. Human nature is human nature, and that nature is evil selfishness.

But if that is human nature, then what of these "noble savages"? They are human, too, no? But they evade this nature. That said, how can you consign this greed as something we are born with?

No... they are not noble, it suits them. Were their society broken down.. as it was, they would abandon those ideals.

The same goes for us. The way I can consign this greed to our nature is by evidence. Spend just a moment examining the world from the perspective that all people are fundamentally bad and you will be convinced forever. People do what they must, for themselves. If they do something for someone else, it is for themselves also. Bad acts outnumber good acts. This is the way it is. Whether that is because human nature is to defy morals, and the morals are arbitrary, or whether humans are by nature immoral to this particular set of morals, is not important. Humans are immoral without fail.

Immoral or moral? I don't believe that for a second. You hit the nail on the head with the true nature of man, but you then turned it around. It's not about good or evil, those are subjective terms, of which there is no absolute. What is good for you is bad for someone else. And the reverse, as well.
In truth, the true nature of mankind is selfishness.

Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff.
- Frank Zappa

So, then, you are of the school that humans will always defy morality, and that morality is one we made up ourselves arbitrarily. That's fine as long as you acknowledge the nature nonetheless.

>It [India] doesn't seem like it would tend toward communism though

Actually, India has the most successful Marxist-Leninist political parties in a democratic-republican framework. They regularly win elections at the State level (States in India are about like those in the USA). However, I don't think that, even with control of a State government, they've ever tried to impose things like land collectivisation and so forth.

@ Thucydides:

>a tribe-first culture that compelled the Native Americans to share with tribe members when needed

>they are not noble, it suits them

>Human nature is human nature, and that nature is evil selfishness.

I don't get it. If human nature is unremediably selfish, then how did societies exist in which people shared with others when needed?

Sure, I agree that they're not individuals with strong moral character (‘noble’, I guess) but simply people that grew up in a society where sharing was expected.

But if growing up in such a society is enough to overcome our ‘evil selfishness’, then how strongly ingrained can that be as a part of human nature?

>If they do something for someone else, it is for themselves also.

If you mean that they do it ‘for themselves’ because they expect something in return, then that's simply not always true. If they do it ‘for themselves’ to feel good about themselves, because they expect it to come back through karma or just through a more pleasant society to live in, or even to impress the people who are watching … well, what difference does that make?

If they do it ‘for themselves’ to feel good about themselves, because they expect it to come back through karma or just through a more pleasant society to live in, or even to impress the people who are watching … well, what difference does that make?

It doesn't. It's just important to realize that because they are in fact doing it for themselves that people can only be relied on to do things for themselves and no one else. It is jsut lucky that the circumstances they are in make it such that they outwardly help others.

Also, I would argue that things are only ever done because a reward is expected in return. The people share because they realized that this is the best way for them to survive, that if they struck out alone and did not share they would die, or at least have a lower standard of living.

Whether they all explicity thought that out or not is irrelevant, it is the reason they did what they did.

I wonder which 'noble savages' some of you are referring to. I've seen the term 'Native Americans' thrown around, but which ones? Across the Americas there were thousands of different cultures before Europeans arrived. Similarly, the peoples of the the Pacific and the Australasia ought not to be lumped together as if they are all the same.

If it's egalitarian societies to which many of you are referring, then you need not look to these 'tribal' cultures, as there have been many examples throughout human history. And almost invariably, as many anthropological theorists have shown, their degree of equality is relative and never absolute. So-called egalitarian societies ALWAYS have an alpha-(normally) male who leads the group, and very often it is that chief/big-man who decides who gets what food, commodities, prizes, etc. This sense of 'sharing' to which many of you are making reference is also very relative across traditional (i.e. non-Capitalist/Industrialist "civilized") cultures. Slavery is common among these same 'egalitarian' societies.

I recommend reading the works of such anthropologists as Marvin Harris (now a bit dated) and Brian Hayden.

>It is just lucky that the circumstances they are in make it such that they outwardly help others.

It's more than lucky. You say that humans are naturally selfish, and that's true, at least in a way. (I'd rather say that humans are naturally *greedy*, which is not quite the same.)

But humans ALSO naturally feel helpful towards people that they identify with. Yes, they make this compatible with their greediness making up theories about karma, instituting authoritarian structures, thinking about enlightened self-interest, and so on. And sure, it's important to understand how this happens, especially if you're a communist theorist that wants to put forward a workable proposal.

But however we reconcile them, this tendency towards helpfulness is just as much a part of human nature as our tendency towards greed.

No, because the helpful tendency is explained by the greed, and not the other way around. Selfish greed does not stem from the alruistic tendencies we have, if any. Therefore the root is the selfishness. You say people naturally feel helpful toward those with whom they identify. This is usually true, and the reason is because the people identify with them precisely because they have ID'd them as someone they can help and ingratiate themselves to so that they can now have friends who will mutually protect them resulting in a better standard of living for them. It is still selfish. Yes, it can result in good things being done. So selfishness is not ALL bad. But it is still selfishness and this is important to recognize.

>the helpful tendency is explained by the greed, and not the other way around

I don't think that's true at all. For the extreme case, take a mother's natural love for her child. She's not thinking about how that child will support her in her old age (at least not most of the time), she just naturally loves it and cares for it, even (perhaps especially!) if it's an unhealthy child that probably will never be able to help her. (Heck, perfect strangers are attracted to the baby and want to give it affection, because that's an instinctive reaction that humans have to cuteness.) Ties of kinship and friendship, while less extreme, can also develop without any conscious expectation of return.

You may say that all of this is still caused by selfish GENES. OK, fine; but that doesn't matter. (After all, selfish genes can produce altruistic communism in bees, apparently.) I don't care whether the genes are selfish (and of course they are, to the extent that this concept makes any sense at all); I care whether the people are selfish.

>people identify with them precisely because they have ID'd them as someone they can help and ingratiate themselves to so that they can now have friends who will mutually protect them

That is certainly not what *I* think about when I make friends. (Although I do think that way when making allies in Diplomacy!) I do know that friendship is usually materially valuable, but I made friends in about the same way when I was a kid and didn't understand this stuff. In any case, I also make friendships that I don't expect to be materially valuable (and aren't), and I don't mind either.

Of course, even materially unvaluable friendships can be valuable spiritually (not in the sense of an afterlife —which we should really count as a material expectation by those who believe in one— but in the sense of how one sees one's own nature). I'm not thinking about that either when I make friends, but (as I mentioned before) it wouldn't matter if that were the reason. So if you want to say that I'm subconsciously calculating whether a friendship will make me feel good about myself (make me think that I'm a good person, give me a positive self-image), then I'll concede it, since that doesn't have any affect on whether people ACT selfishly. (In fact, if we have a genetic predisposition to feel good about having friends and helping them, then this is only good news for communism!)

Toby, I do agree, because I know that in my personal life I certainly don't feel like I'm only friends with people because I want to exploit their services or anything of that sort. It's just important to know from where the tendency to co-operate arises. In the end, co-operation arose from selfishness. Our genes greased the axles for co-operation and make us inherently social animals with extensive social memory and a natural sense of morality.

It may be that the rapid cultural changes we've seen happen far faster than genetic changes so there are a lot of side effects and unforeseen consequences of this genetic greasing for socializing that are not particularly beneficial for the selfish genes themselves. Maybe we are actually pretty altruistic to non-kin, but that's an unintentional effect and will ultimately be penalized by natural selection. It's like the tortoise who's foster-parenting that baby hippo. It's incredibly adorable but at it's heart it represents a misfiring of selfish genes and will be penalized because foster parent tortoises just can't form a sustainable population.

In the end, you can't depend on a person's altruism in general. Their selfishness is far more dependable, and I think that makes capitalism far more dependable than communism. Even in my situation outlined where there was no scarcity, would you even call that communism? Or just a complete absence of economy since it has been rendered obsolete in the face of such abundance.

I don't mean to undermine human kindness or generosity or kin altruism because they are truly wonderful things, but I don't think they can be depended upon to produce a sustainable society.