A Free Market in a Communist Society

Simply, what is it in a communist society (not a transitional "communist" state) that should prevent people from constructing a market economy? Whereas in a transitional state (from history's example, socialist and totalitarian) there is government muscle to discourage or shut down this sort of thing, no such force is supposed to exist in the final communist society, where the state has been removed. Is it proposed that the transitional state effectively recondition people so that the thought of the free market simply does not either occur or appeal to them? Has any communist society, even on a small scale, existed without such issues, in which the members were not voluntarily denouncing the free market and committing to communist interaction in the first place? Would there be a complaint with individuals reconstructing a market within communist society? Is the assumption simply that it wouldn't work, even if they tried? This is one thing that is simply elusive.

Free, unregulated grey markets typically exist in the midst of socialist societies: Either in the form of a black market or a favors market. It emerges naturally to fix the supply problems caused by central planning, where people get stuck with shit they don't want while other people get the shit they do want, so they barter around it.

In a truly communist society? It depends on whether it's a post-scarcity society or not yet. If it is, nope, there won't be a market. If it isn't, people will probably trade stuff.

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Well, not post-scarcity. Post-scarcity is always a separate can of worms... Realistic or not, is one question. Another is why a free market wouldn't do just as well as communism when there's more than enough to go around. But it doesn't pertain to the question at hand, since post-scarcity is divorced from what's being asked.

For clarity, this thread is asking with regards to a post-transitional, "true communist" society.

Communism: Great idea, wrong species.

Well, it would be much the same in that people would get used to it. But it would fulfill humans needs in a way that capitalism can't. That's the idea, anyway.

The idea is not necessarily to eradicate all markets of any kind no matter what. The purpose of communism is a self-managed society, communists think getting rid of markets is the best way to do that. But I think any communist should not have a problem with, say, mutualist societies. During the Spanish Revolution, dissenters were respected. Except fascists.

Some would, I'm sure. IMO it depends entirely on whether this market is libertarian.

This. In a True Communist society A) prestige no longer will be measured by money and B) you don't need to be greedy to survive. Greed isn't a part of human nature. It's a result of a culture where the importance of money is emphasized.

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

Well, to be fair, the supposed "invisible hand" of the market economy is pretty damn bullshit too. (Just about any social psychologist or behavioral economist will laugh in your face if you suggest there's credibility in the concept of rational self interest. Of course, they'll laugh in the face of most schools of economics too, but that's a different can of worms. Sorta) We're basically fucked either way.

edited 14th Nov '11 1:52:50 AM by Sparkysharps

"People will laugh" ain't really an argument.

Enjoy the Inferno...

The implication you're missing is that the evidence behind human irrationality in decision making is so strong (as in there's dozens of studies on the human perception of zero's value alone) that insisting that people are completely or even mostly rational to someone who studies decision making behavior is like insisting that 2 + 2 = 5.

So people have no natural instinct to try and obtain more of the things they enjoy? News to me.

What defenition of free market is used here? Because I don't really see how it and communism are mutually exclusive.

Are you saying all the billionares out there are using their money to buy stuff they enjoy instead of hoarding it in banks? Must be some expensive entertainment/hobbies/whatever.

People can get pleasure from releationships, Good Feels Good actions and other things I may not have thought of. Also you don't need to own stuff to enjoy it, otherwise libraries would be out of business.

edited 14th Nov '11 6:22:39 AM by Qeise

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

One of the things billionaires seem to enjoy is ownership of companies. It's where they tend to put most of their time and money.

Sex, Drugs, and Rationality

Not exactly, it's just overblown either way. To expect people to be super duper greedy is not correct and to expect people to be super altruist is also not correct. A lot of people, once they earn middle class income care more about time, family and friends than they do about earning more money. You also have to look at psychology of humans as well, where a lot of times, humans tend to try to have as many support pillars as possible for their emotional health (such as being good at your job AND having a good family to go back to AND having good friends to talk to etc). Once one thing is satisfied, people tend toward other things.

The theory of communism though focuses only on resources, assuming that once those are properly shared, all else follows. That doesn't really hold true, the least problem of which is actually trying to form a government to equally distribute goods in the first place.

As for capitalist free market, it's the overriding assumption that people are rational and perfectly greedy. What happens if a bunch of people work more than they should for what they are paid for? Companies start pocketing more profit which leads to monopolies. Or what happens about early market successes that create market entry barriers? What about people who give away large swathes of wealth to charity?

I don't even agree with the staement: "Communism is the best system on paper''.

So, let's see you've achieved socialist paradise.

Genius A is an inventor genius. He wants to develop, let's say, a new product. However, he needs money to innovate, and right now he doesn't have that.

Genius B is a scientific genius, complacent with research for the government. It doesn't matter who he is paid by, she's working!

Genius C is a dissident, advocating a freer market. Her voice has a strong sway with the people, but her arguments are backed by hard facts.

Genius D is an economic genius - he has brilliant busniess sense and is very willing to take a dare and invests in a bold new technology Genius A has developed. His plans involve lots of trained professionals, and he plan to treat his employees well to keep them on board.

You tell me how communism/socialism embraces all four of those geniuses like liberal democracy with social capitalism does.

edited 14th Nov '11 4:09:28 PM by Erock

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

@ Erock

Which type of communism? :P

Communism works on the presumption everybody is doing what they want and everyone will be happy to interact with one another based on that premise. How you could possibly reach that point without post-scarcity, I don't know.

All types. They're all to socialist for me to believe they would work economically.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

Well... as I understand it, the sociological definition of communism is "a hypothetical (that is to say, it has never been achieved in reality) system in which all members of the communist society are socially and economically equal."

So... I guess you could have a free market within a communist society, so long as everyone is still equal at the end of the transactions...

There's a reason we append "hypothetical" to this kind of thing, though. Communist and perfect free market societies (or harder still, communist free markets) cannot and will not work in the real world.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Well actually the marxist version of communism would technically be defined as a free market, except that you don't use money and everybody does what they want to and this somehow ALL WORKS OUT. It makes really bad assumptions on the availability of skills to the demand for such skills. For instance, if you wanted a house built, there would magically be all the people required to build your house and they would just do it because they like building houses. In return, you do whatever it is you are good at in your community and this would work because you provide just enough labour supply to meet the labour demand.

It's rather magical.

Most tax/welfare based socialist societies believe in limited regulated free markets, in that, it's just a scientific approach. You have three choices of state/crown run, heavily regulated, unregulated. Whichever works based is employed for that set of goods. People are taxed heavily in return for state-run social services. That one is employed right now and works fine, but suffers the usual government problems of inefficiency and corruption. That said, it's the nordic countries that do it and they are the best countries to live and work in, in the whole world. So take what you will of it (since that's not communism as most people think of it, and socialism/communism got separated as an ideology a while ago).

Genius A doesn't need money, because money does not exist. S/he however will need equipment and perhaps help. People can help him more freely than in market economy because they aren't tied to other projects out of fear of losing their homes or starving.

Don't see why Genius B couldn't work just as well in a communist/socialist society.

Genius C can advocate free market all she wants, but me thinks if the communist society really works shell have about as much sway as a marxist in todays USA. Depending on how long it has been since socialisation took place the idea of there being a connection between what you do and what you have may seem completly alien to the people.

People respect Genius D for his ability to see potential. When he says "I really think this is worth supporting." others who don't see it right away will support it anyway, and in time see that he was right. People often ask him for advice and if the project needs centralised leadership he could be your man.

Oh, and communism and democracy aren't mutually exclusive. And it probably wouldn't work as smoothly as described here, but are you saying capitalism would utilise their skills optimally?

edited 15th Nov '11 2:38:34 AM by Qeise

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

Well you can always do this...

• Communism

There's no such thing as money, he can just go ahead and do it. Money can't be a problem. If he needs materials/resources/skills the community will provide it. People do things because they like doing it. Supply/demand for labour is matched up due to good community planning and the even spreading of population over the land (or by really good freedom of mobility).

• Capitalism

If the product is appealing to venture capitalists or some partners who have money then they can fund the project. Otherwise the project will never go ahead. This typically means that the poor who have nothing to lose may just try to do it anyway despite their lack of resources (they have little to lose) but have a low chance of success OR someone rich can do it because they already have the resources (thus have a lot of disposable wealth) and have a higher chance of success.

• Communism

You can just do whatever you want. There's no need to fund it, the community provides the necessary resources for everyone to do what they wish and if it's not available they can move to a community to where the resources are provided as there is freedom of mobility.

• Capitalism

If we're talking pure capitalism, the government doesn't fund research, the private marketplace does. So this person is out of a job unless a business takes up her project.

• Communism

She's a dissident against what? There's no government. If she wants to re-introduce money, then she's advocating bringing back the problems of money. If sufficient number of people agree, then they would form a new capitalist government and overthrow the communist communities. There's nothing really stopping a dissident from doing so other than people balking at bringing back those problems.

• Capitalism

If a person is a dissident then it depends how much money is backing them to see how much political influence they exert.

• Communism

If Genius A developed a very enticing product then people will naturally work on it. Genius A is happy to have contributed to the community and the community reflects upon him with praise and now build his new better product.

• Capitalism

Depending on how Genius A developed his product, either he got a lump sum payment AND/OR royalties AND/OR runs the project under Genius D (and earns a salary for having developed a product that earns Genius D bajillions) AND/OR gets absolutely nothing for it because he was working a salary job while doing it. Genius D decides how to split the profits from the product (he could split the profits evenly, give more to the inventor, have the inventor as a partner/partial owner, cut out the inventor completely, give more to other employees he hired etc)

edited 15th Nov '11 6:50:57 AM by breadloaf

Did it better than me. Here, have some stars:

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

This. Only to further prove to me Capitalism doesn't work anymore and never has!

This is where I, the Vampire Mistress, proudly reside: http://liberal.nationstates.net/nation=nova_nacio

The problem is there isnt a single system that works. They all require some level of alteration to not descend into hilarious failure. Whether they be Capitalism, Communism, Anarchism, Socialism, etc. None of them work with nobody at the wheels.

edited 15th Nov '11 8:12:47 AM by Midgetsnowman

It's not a matter of "who's at the wheel", it's a matter of people deciding together what rules, written and unwritten, they all agree to follow and how they plan to make decisions. Whether it's a communist system or a capitalist system, getting things done hinges heavily on convincing people to help you do them. In the capitalist system, this is only a key group of individuals, and their delegates/counsellors, who decide what to do with the lifetime of everyone, since that's what money entitles you to: having part of the life of a fellow human being dedicated (retroactively or not) to help you achieve ends that are privy only to yourself. As an economic system, it's analogous to the dictatorship political system: it's very efficient when it wants to... but it's seldom in its interests to be so. The holders of the capital might help you improve everyone's general condition, but usually they'll favour the proposals that put them ahead of the race in a sort of zero-sum game where it's okay to be one-eyed as long as you're the king of the blind.

When it comes to communism, you basically have to convince everyone, every single individual you will need, that your proposal is worth their lifetime, their effort, their sweat, the stress it will put them through, the enjoyment they might derive from it, and the rewards that will come with its completion. THIS IS A LOT MORE COMPLICATED, at least at first glance.

As it turns out, for either system to function well, the societies involved have to be composed of individuals who are strongly committed to the rules. A Capitalist system whose capitalists aren't fettered by principles and rules, and which doesn't severely punish transgression, will fall to nepotism and corruption and breach of trust and crime of all sorts. If its workers aren't committed to obey and be happy with their pay (which, by definition, is inferior to their actual output, otherwise it wouldn't be profitable to hire them), they'll rebel, riot, sabotage, steal... or merely slack off.

A Communist system that doesn't have some very efficient communal decision systems, one that can stick with a project until it's completed regardless of transient political convenience, as well as a population committed to hard work for the sake of hard work, will fall to laziness, corruption, cliques and elitisms of all sorts...

Basically, regardless of the system you choose, you need the right sort of people for it to function: that means a culture, ethics, education, even outright propaganda and indoctrination. It means commitment on the level of a nation.

I am so weary.

A case of true love has the same redeeming power as a case of genuine curiosity: they are the same.