Are there any benefits from a communist society?

[bleeb]

What are some of the benefits of having a classless society?

 

[Harvey]

At its best, it's a rosey pipe dream that, by its nature, can only get screwed up by annoyances like human beings.

 

[bleeb]

Well there must be some benefits from it for some of the countries to resort to it right?? Otherwise what would be the point?

 

[Colt45]

no country has reached communism, so you can't really say that.


Edit:
well the advantage (or disadvantage, depends on how you feel)
in 'real communism'

everyone is equal
resources and wealth are distributed among all
no one starves
equal oppurtunity for all,
etc

If all resources and wealth in the US were spread across the general public, I think they'd still be pretty rich.

you have entire social freedom, but not so much financial freedom...
it is up to you to decide which is worth more to you.

 

[Dissipate]

Who ever told you that communism produced a "classless" society? That couldn't be further from the truth. Communism produces a society in which everything is run by the government, which becomes the upper class. Communism will always fail. Why? Because without a free market and freely floating prices no one knows how much anything is really worth or how to allocate anything. The great economist Ludwig von Mises demostrated this decades ago.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: bleeb
What are some of the benefits of having a classless society?

Topic Title: Are there any benefits from a communist society?

"What are some of the benefits of having a classless society?"

That's not correct, it's actually a two class society, the Elite and those not Elite.

We are finding out the answer to your question here.

 

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Who ever told you that communism produced a "classless" society? That couldn't be further from the truth. Communism produces a society in which everything is run by the government, which becomes the upper class. Communism will always fail. Why? Because without a free market and freely floating prices no one knows how much anything is really worth or how to allocate anything. The great economist Ludwig von Mises demostrated this decades ago.

That isn't communism.

there is no need for government once communism is achieved, in theory.

you are thinking of sort of socialist + tolitarian states, US likes to call this 'communism' for some reason..

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Colt45

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Who ever told you that communism produced a "classless" society? That couldn't be further from the truth. Communism produces a society in which everything is run by the government, which becomes the upper class. Communism will always fail. Why? Because without a free market and freely floating prices no one knows how much anything is really worth or how to allocate anything. The great economist Ludwig von Mises demostrated this decades ago.

That isn't communism.

there is no need for government once communism is achieved, in theory.

you are thinking of sort of socialist + tolitarian states, US likes to call this 'communism' for some reason..

Are you talking about anarcho-communism? Anarcho-communism is even sillier than plain old communism.

 

[villager]

Originally posted by: bleeb
What are some of the benefits of having a classless society?

Based on my visit to Berlin and Prague a year after the end of communism, alot of easy women and cheap beer. That has to count for something.

 

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Are you talking about anarcho-communism? Anarcho-communism is even sillier than plain old communism.

No, plain normal communism has no government.

Socialism is an intermediary(sp) between capitalism and communism, in which there is a state.



This concept is hard for people to get in north america, because people would always call SU, warsaw pact, china, vietnam, etc etc 'communist states' (which can't technically exist. it is sort of an oxymoron.)
proper term would be socialist state.. of which there can be great differences from one to another...

 

[her209]

Why does the driving force behind society have to be $$$ and wealth?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Who ever told you that communism produced a "classless" society? That couldn't be further from the truth. Communism produces a society in which everything is run by the government, which becomes the upper class. Communism will always fail. Why? Because without a free market and freely floating prices no one knows how much anything is really worth or how to allocate anything. The great economist Ludwig von Mises demostrated this decades ago.

I hardly think he was the first person to demonstrate that communism was unpracticable without creating a massive government superstructure.

The theoretical advantages of communism are nothing more than greater equality. Practically speaking though, there are no advantages.

 

[sandorski]

There are pockets of small Comunist-like Societies here and there. Most are composed of Religious groups who Migrated from Europe and/or Russia to North America approx 1 Century ago(before any attempts at Communism on a grand scale). These small Societies have been fairly successful acheiving good Prosperity working as a Unit. Many of these Societies have declined for other reasons, such as the Disparity of their Religious Practices in comparison to those around them, but despite this decline, the type of Communiism they practiced has been rather successful.

The problem with Communism, or Ideologic Capitalism for that matter, is that it requires the People to work together enthusiastically to maintain it. As soon as people quit living up to their end of the bargain(responsibilities) or Corruption creeps in, the system is doomed.

 

[Steeplerot]

Communism is in a book, never exsisted in the real world. Something to do with human nature being to full of itself to cooperate with their fellow brother. Oh well in theory it's a great idea.
EDIT: Yes you might find a few true communist societys in communes in the woods.
Rainbow Gatherings are still huge in USA and thats pretty communist if it's still like the way it was when I was at one for a few months 10 years ago.
Weird how these things go on under the noses of neocons and average suburbanites.
The media don't touch them with a ten foot pole. I wonder how many americans have dropped US society
totally and stay in the woods in their large groups. You never hear about that on fox. But at any time I am sure there must be 100k weirdos living out in the woods waiting for a more open minded america to come back.
You get one picture that everyone wants a house and a family in america but under the radar kids and fed-up individuals are moving off into the woods to live in communes, squatter punks migrating around america with the warm weather.
Strange how people who have no clue what they are seeing look right through those people in america nowdays.oh if the suburbanites in their nascar world really knew who were creeping around those abandoned houses. Sleeping on mcdonalds roofs and hopping trains everywhere.
I can think of lots of people with no interest in a job or a house or a in the "apple pie american culture" scam.
Only come out at night. Ignore "normies" live in the woods year round with their friends.
If sh1t ever went down in this country it would be pretty unsettling and quite surprising to the average american living in his daze.

 

[Zebo]

Lot's of purging. Makes O2 and wide open spaces more plenitful.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Who ever told you that communism produced a "classless" society? That couldn't be further from the truth. Communism produces a society in which everything is run by the government, which becomes the upper class. Communism will always fail. Why? Because without a free market and freely floating prices no one knows how much anything is really worth or how to allocate anything. The great economist Ludwig von Mises demostrated this decades ago.

I hardly think he was the first person to demonstrate that communism was unpracticable without creating a massive government superstructure.

The theoretical advantages of communism are nothing more than greater equality. Practically speaking though, there are no advantages.

HuH? No, he demostrated that it would completely fail with or without a massive government superstructure. In simple terms, under communism prices cannot form and without prices there cannot be an economy of any kind.

You can read his devastating critique here: Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth

 

[alent1234]

the closest success that can be remotely be described as communism is a kibbutz in israel. people work for the community.

in reality it will never work on anything like a national level. too much disagreement on what the right policy is. In the US a 55% ratio of the popular vote is considered a landslide. what if there was no government and 45% of the population did not agree with the majority?

thousands of years ago we had barter. today we have free markets to decide the best use of resources. there is no better way.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: alent1234
the closest success that can be remotely be described as communism is a kibbutz in israel. people work for the community.

in reality it will never work on anything like a national level. too much disagreement on what the right policy is. In the US a 55% ratio of the popular vote is considered a landslide. what if there was no government and 45% of the population did not agree with the majority?

Interesting never heard of it.
kibbutz everyone practices? Or just jews? Or just hasidic jews?

 

[alent1234]

i think it's only a jewish thing in israel. but even so, jews usually live in strong communities around the world.

it's not only hasidic jews, my brother liked the life on a kibbuts when he was there.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: alent1234
the closest success that can be remotely be described as communism is a kibbutz in israel. people work for the community.

in reality it will never work on anything like a national level. too much disagreement on what the right policy is. In the US a 55% ratio of the popular vote is considered a landslide. what if there was no government and 45% of the population did not agree with the majority?

thousands of years ago we had barter. today we have free markets to decide the best use of resources. there is no better way.

Governments have realized that the best way to maximize their wealth expropriation is to allow private property, but to simply expropriate a large portion of it, and that is what we face today.

Hence, Russian style socialism is pretty much dead, now social democractic socialism and conservative socialism are all the rage. Social democratic socialism and conservative socialism are what have swept Europe and the U.S.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Who ever told you that communism produced a "classless" society? That couldn't be further from the truth. Communism produces a society in which everything is run by the government, which becomes the upper class. Communism will always fail. Why? Because without a free market and freely floating prices no one knows how much anything is really worth or how to allocate anything. The great economist Ludwig von Mises demostrated this decades ago.

I hardly think he was the first person to demonstrate that communism was unpracticable without creating a massive government superstructure.

The theoretical advantages of communism are nothing more than greater equality. Practically speaking though, there are no advantages.

HuH? No, he demostrated that it would completely fail with or without a massive government superstructure. In simple terms, under communism prices cannot form and without prices there cannot be an economy of any kind.

You can read his devastating critique here: Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth

Unnecessary to prove that it always fails. So I stand by my statement that he wasn't the prime contributor to the topic by a long shot. And therefore doesn't deserve to be the first source that anyone looks at for 'why communism fails'.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Who ever told you that communism produced a "classless" society? That couldn't be further from the truth. Communism produces a society in which everything is run by the government, which becomes the upper class. Communism will always fail. Why? Because without a free market and freely floating prices no one knows how much anything is really worth or how to allocate anything. The great economist Ludwig von Mises demostrated this decades ago.

I hardly think he was the first person to demonstrate that communism was unpracticable without creating a massive government superstructure.

The theoretical advantages of communism are nothing more than greater equality. Practically speaking though, there are no advantages.

HuH? No, he demostrated that it would completely fail with or without a massive government superstructure. In simple terms, under communism prices cannot form and without prices there cannot be an economy of any kind.

You can read his devastating critique here: Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth

Unnecessary to prove that it always fails. So I stand by my statement that he wasn't the prime contributor to the topic by a long shot. And therefore doesn't deserve to be the first source that anyone looks at for 'why communism fails'.

You know not what you speak of. Mises was at the forefront of the calculation debate. Hayek followed up later with his information argument, but for some reason the Austrians today have denounced Hayek's argument as being irrelevant. More on that here.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
You know not what you speak of. Mises was at the forefront of the calculation debate. Hayek followed up later with his information argument, but for some reason the Austrians today have denounced Hayek's argument as being irrelevant. More on that here.

Sadly, Hayek's argument is better, but you missed it.

Prices are information. They are aggregate information about people's preferences, and are necessary only to the extent that preferences are to be arbitrated by a market system.

Collect complete information about people's preferences, with sufficient processing power, and you could create a centrally planned system that works just fine.

I'm not arguing that you can do that, but the argument from prices is less basic than the argument from information, which easily encompasses prices.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
You know not what you speak of. Mises was at the forefront of the calculation debate. Hayek followed up later with his information argument, but for some reason the Austrians today have denounced Hayek's argument as being irrelevant. More on that here.

Sadly, Hayek's argument is better, but you missed it.

Prices are information. They are aggregate information about people's preferences, and are necessary only to the extent that preferences are to be arbitrated by a market system.

Collect complete information about people's preferences, with sufficient processing power, and you could create a centrally planned system that works just fine.

I'm not arguing that you can do that, but the argument from prices is less basic than the argument from information, which easily encompasses prices.

I haven't studied this issue that much, as it is not very relevant today, therefore, I am not at liberty to say whose argument was better and why. All I know is that modern Austrians claim that Mises' argument was the real death nail for socialism (Russian style) and I suggest you read the article I linked to above on this topic.

Also, see my post above about how we no longer have Russian style socialism but social democratic and conservative socialism where calculation is definately possible, but the government merely switches property titles around i.e. takes your property and gives it to the airline industry, welfare recipients, the banks(via inflation) and of course the armies of "beloved" and "altruistic" bureaucrats.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

I haven't studied this issue that much, as it is not very relevant today, therefore, I am not at liberty to say whose argument was better and why. All I know is that modern Austrians claim that Mises' argument was the real death nail for socialism (Russian style) and I suggest you read the article I linked to above on this topic.

Also, see my post above about how we no longer have Russian style socialism but social democratic and conservative socialism where calculation is definately possible, but the government merely switches property titles around i.e. takes your property and gives it to the airline industry, welfare recipients, the banks(via inflation) and of course the armies of "beloved" and "altruistic" bureaucrats.

I read the article on why Hayek was wrong, and I'm not sure how interested you are in it, but I really wonder if the 'market' ideology motivated the author to make the arguments made there. It's one thing to claim that only the market can coordinate all economic behaviour, but quite another to argue that prices are somehow more real than 'information' at a basic level. I'm quite confused as to why they made such an effort when Hayek's argument clearly encompasses the original one, and is considerably more basic, since it doesn't rely on an 'artificial' construct such as prices (prices might be the *best* possible representation of preferences, but there were certainly preferences before there was trade; at their root, prices are nothing more than preferences and opportunity costs, neither of which require a market in order to exist, though arguably are difficult or impossible to calculate economy-wide without a market system).