Communism!A Dream or a Ideology?

[Trotskylvania]

Going to be incredibly pedantic for a minute.

Communism, ipso facto, cannot be an ideology, as ideology is the superstructure of a class society. Communism, as a stateless, classless society, can have no ideology, as there is neither a dominant class nor a superstructure imposed upon society.

It is incorrect to refer to political philosophies as ideologies unless they form the basis of the superstructure of society. Hence, in the Soviet Union, the ideology of the state can accurately be called some form of Marxism-Leninism. But a western Marxist-Leninist, if you ignore for the moment how they were cynically used to support the Soviet state's interests, is not an agent of an ideology. Not yet at least. His group would need to take power, and impose their philosophy as the social superstructure on society, in order for it to become ideology.

/pedant

You are wrong.

Political ideologies have two dimensions:
Goals: how society should work (or be arranged).
and
Methods: the most appropriate ways to achieve the ideal arrangement.

Political philosophies have two dimensions: goals and methods. They only become ideologies when they institute themselves as the superstructure of society.

[Concordeia]

But in a communist society, if everyone is paid within a rough range of $100,000 - $500,000 (or it's equivalent worth in goods and services) for the jobs that they do, then that means that people who are doing the dirty work are getting paid many times more than they would be in a capitalist system. That seems like a pretty sweet motivator to me.

The problem being that the people doing the highly specialized work, ala doctors, get paid little to nothing more than the people doing the "dirty work". That seems like it would cause a lack of motivation to me, and if no one is making any sort of investment in becoming a doctor, researcher, etc. well, everyone is worse off.

But it's already been said that money isn't the sole motivator for becoming a doctor. There's also the passion for such work, the desire for challenges, the humanitarian aspect, the social prestige and personal pride of one who has special medical skills that most other people lack.

[Mercator Terra]

You are wrong.

Political ideologies have two dimensions:
Goals: how society should work (or be arranged).
and
Methods: the most appropriate ways to achieve the ideal arrangement.

Political philosophies have two dimensions: goals and methods. They only become ideologies when they institute themselves as the superstructure of society.

Says who?

[Mercator Terra]

You valued not getting yelled at by your parents over not raking the leaves. You get pleasure from not getting yelled at.

Pleasure isn't a lack of sadness, fear, anger or any other non-happy emotions. Pleasure has to involve actually obtaining happiness or fulfillment.

He's avoiding pain. So it is motivated by self interest.

[Concordeia]

Pleasure isn't a lack of sadness, fear, anger or any other non-happy emotions. Pleasure has to involve actually obtaining happiness or fulfillment.

He's avoiding pain. So it is motivated by self interest.

And altruism is performing an action which puts the interests of others before one's self.

[Mercator Terra]

He's avoiding pain. So it is motivated by self interest.

And altruism is performing an action which puts the interests of other before one's self.

Which is false because everything you do is either for pleasure or to not feel pain.

[Concordeia]

And altruism is performing an action which puts the interests of other before one's self.

Which is false because everything you do is either for pleasure or to not feel pain.

Again, speak for yourself. Just because you may view your own motivations for doing things this way doesn't mean the same goes for everyone else, nor is it true just because you say it is.

[The Merchant Republics]

You misunderstand what I mean, people are willing to work hard for their dreams, doctors are in a well-regarded and desired profession, people will regardless of money want to become doctors, because everyone loves doctors, they have prestige and power over life and death, prestige and power are very real motivators for hard work, people do not need to know that doctors pay well to become doctors, they will become so because they will enjoy the work. Indeed what I am saying is that a communist society would not work in any generation, because if you suddenly released everyone from working for a living (or at the very least to work according to the demands of the market), no one would want to work in the dirty and thankless jobs which no society can do without, they would either take the challenging but rewarding or the easy and quiet, no one will take an unrewarding career.
It doesn't matter that someone would make the same money as a cleaner, because they would genuinely prefer to be a doctor. The reward of joining those prestigious and "altruistic" careers like medicine, art, politics, military and teaching is apart from the material market demand for them, teaching and military jobs are not rewarding in terms of pay. Yet more then enough people want to do them, because they are "paid" in self-fulfilment and the prestige for their profession. A similar example to medicine is art, art is not a profitable career unless you are exceptionally talented, art takes years of practice and training to become good at, yet the world is filled with trained artists, who work other jobs to pay the bills. Even parenthood for example, people have children despite the sheer amount of work involved and no potential monetary reward, the reason is that they derive emotional profit from it.

So arguing that there would be no doctors in a communist society is fruitless, of course there would be doctors, like there would be artists and soldiers, teachers and particularly politicians, the principle reason why the society falls isn't that there is no one to do the jobs which take dedication, lack of money won't make people less ambitious to reach their dreams. An equal and communist society would have no lack for such careers that are rewarding outside of the market, it's the jobs which are ugly, laborious and inglorious that would find no willing workers. That is the problem with communism, not no doctors, but no bed pan cleaners, not a lack of artists, but a lack of paint makers, nor a lack of teachers, but a lack lumberjacks for wood to make their books, not a lack of soldiers, a lack of farmers to feed them.

The Soviet Union did not send people to paint or heal in the gulags, they sent them to mine salt. The market is the only non-violent means to bring people to do the job that no one likes to do.

But in a communist society, if everyone is paid within a rough range of $100,000 - $500,000 (or it's equivalent worth in goods and services) for the jobs that they do, then that means that people who are doing the dirty work are getting paid many times more than they would be in a capitalist system. That seems like a pretty sweet motivator to me.

I disagree on all accounts.

1. I don't know where you came up with everyone being paid 100,000+ but I'd like to see your reasoning. It does not sound at all correct to me. If we are to go on experience wealth does not increase under communist environments.

2. You are mistaken in your assessment that offering more money relative what they receive now would act as incentive, since we are imagining a world of absolute income equality at the living wage, then every job as you said pays exactly 100,000, wealth is relative. A doctor then makes the same as janitor or a factory worker or an artist.That means that working to be a janitor is no more lucrative then any other easier and less dirty job. We take for granted that in such a world there would be people to work in these dirty jobs, but why, the only reason miners work today is to put food on the table, in the world where they could do anything for the same pay as mining, why in the world would they do such a dirty and awful job.
The reason why people do those jobs today is because of market pressure, if that pressure were removed there can be doubt that aspiring people will still become doctors but who will take the jobs that are not any more financially rewarding nor more socially rewarding. They only thing which can bring people to these awful but necessary jobs baring force is the pressure of the market and money.

[Mercator Terra]

Which is false because everything you do is either for pleasure or to not feel pain.

Again, speak for yourself. Just because you may view your own motivations for doing things this way doesn't mean the same goes for everyone else, nor is it true just because you say it is.

Give me an example when it is not like this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism

[The Merchant Republics]

Which is false because everything you do is either for pleasure or to not feel pain.

Again, speak for yourself. Just because you may view your own motivations for doing things this way doesn't mean the same goes for everyone else, nor is it true just because you say it is.

I don't subscribe to that particular behavioural methodology Mercator Terra, I would say that Maslow's Hierarchy is much more plausible explanation, people do not only do actions to for pleasure or avoiding pain, though I would say that people in general act in their own interest which is motivated essentially by pleasure/safety.

[Mercator Terra]

Again, speak for yourself. Just because you may view your own motivations for doing things this way doesn't mean the same goes for everyone else, nor is it true just because you say it is.

I don't subscribe to that particular behavioural methodology Mercator Terra, I would say that Maslow's Hierarchy is much more plausible explanation, people do not only do actions to for pleasure or avoiding pain, though I would say that people in general act in their own interest which is motivated essentially by pleasure/safety.

Pleasure is anything that the person likes. Well in the theory.

[Oceanarctica]

Ah, not that the psychology discussion isn't interesting, but isn't it a little bit off topic? We were discussing communism, ne?

[New Hampshyre]

Why? Because inequality is an intrinsic bad?

Yes, it's relative wealth that makes us happy.

*sigh* Maybe it makes YOU happy, but not all of us are so shallow as to only be happy when there is no one to be jealous of.

Even if it DID make us all happy, equality still wouldn't be an INTRINSIC good.

[New Hampshyre]

I know this sounds crazy to you but perhaps people want to become doctors for altruistic reasons.

IF we're expecting everyone to be angels then why do we need to change anything or have any sort of system at all? If all the people act as angles then any society will become a Utopian paradise.

Being lazy at work because of your pay would be frowned upon in socialist or communist society

Isn't being lazy at work already frowned upon? That by itself isn't enough motivation to get people to be productive, monetary incentives work much better in this task.

doctors are created because society encourages it and pressures individuals who are capable into doing it.

"pressures"? What does that mean? The free market already automatically gives incentives to people to take up careers doing things that society needs to get done. There is not such automatic mechanism in communism and so resources will be allocated much less efficiently.

[Volnotova]

Er, communism has just as much application as capitalism. They are in fact applied to the exact same thing. Communism essentially refers to common ownership of the means of production, rather than privately-controlled market-based corporations and such.


True, but it's still crazy.

Except that capitalism worked for a couple more millenniums then economic despotism/centrally planned economy.

I fix'd your post.

[New Hampshyre]

Political philosophies have two dimensions: goals and methods. They only become ideologies when they institute themselves as the superstructure of society.

I don't really know what you're trying to get at, but I've certainly never heard the word used like that and its not the normal meaning of the word either:

"An ideology is a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things"

Ideologies don't have to be currently instituted to be ideologies. Capitalism might be THE ideology of nation X, but that doesn't prevent person Y living in country X from having a communist ideology.

I don't really get what you're arguing about this though. Is it just because you don't want to associate Communism with the some-what infamous term "ideology"?

[New Hampshyre]

But it's already been said that money isn't the sole motivator for becoming a doctor. There's also the passion for such work, the desire for challenges, the humanitarian aspect, the social prestige and personal pride of one who has special medical skills that most other people lack.

Capitalism already takes all that into account. If jobs have side benefits/motivators for wanting to do them then more people will be willing to do those jobs for less pay and supply will rise and price will fall. Supply and demand takes ALL factors into account automatically.

[Vorograd]

Well, Communism can indeed have great failures.

[Communist phil]

Well, Communism can indeed have great failures.

(Image)

communism will never become successful.

[CTALNH]

Well, Communism can indeed have great failures.

(Image)

I don't know about you but what I see is traditional Russian dancing.I have to say it is pretty good.

[Vorograd]

Well, Communism can indeed have great failures.

(Image)

I don't know about you but what I see is traditional Russian dancing.I have to say it is pretty good.

Yes, but it's the irony behind it. Here are soldiers of the powerful soviet army, FEARED BY MANY...dancing.

[Trotskylvania]

Political philosophies have two dimensions: goals and methods. They only become ideologies when they institute themselves as the superstructure of society.

I don't really know what you're trying to get at, but I've certainly never heard the word used like that and its not the normal meaning of the word either:

"An ideology is a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things"

Ideologies don't have to be currently instituted to be ideologies. Capitalism might be THE ideology of nation X, but that doesn't prevent person Y living in country X from having a communist ideology.

I don't really get what you're arguing about this though. Is it just because you don't want to associate Communism with the some-what infamous term "ideology"?

No, I am applying a strictly Marxist interpretation of the term "ideology". I thought it was only natural, considering this thread was started by a communist who wished to examine the internal workings of communism as a philosophy.

As it is, the term ideology has been entirely denatured and rendered meaningless; a term of abuse and nothing more in discourse. I am attempting to return the understanding to how it was codified by Marx and Engels back in the 1840s.