Communism... opinions?

I oppose Marxism on various grounds:

1) Tall Poppy Syndrome: Some people are simply more talented at what they do than others. Communism would make them never be able to reap the rewards of their full potential.

2) Religion: As a Christian, I cannot support a system that believes that religion is the opium of the masses. I suppose this is a seperate issue from the economic aspect of Marxism, but still. I'm a little wary of Objectivism for a similar reason.

3) Abuse: A system where people are given money even if they don't work hard? People will work less in order to reap a larger benefit. It rewards people for doing less.

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"

That depends on the school of Marxist and Communist thought. See the page for Christian communism, which disagrees with that 'religion is the opium of the masses' cultural meme and idea, while agreeing with many of the economic and existential aspects of Marxist theory.

edited 30th Apr '15 5:10:32 PM by Quag15

There's also Titoism, which is basically the do-it-yourself version of communism.

Not a fan.

I don't care much for utopian ideologies that when attempted cause more problems than they're worth.

The world is inherently chaotic no amount of religion, conspiracy or wishful thinking will change that, accept it, and move on.

Obligatory "Communism Is a Red Herring" statement here.

Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...

Communism doesn't work. I say this as hard-left social democrat. Every attempt at creating a communist society has inevitably seen the system hijacked and turned into a Stalinist dystopia.

Some might say it's unfair to criticize the idea on that basis, but how much respect should we have for an idea that crashes and burns every time somebody tries to make it work?

A little wary of Objectivism? It's a godawful ideology, complete with the same utopian idealism that makes communism so exploitable and dangerous.

edited 30th Apr '15 7:57:01 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Communism: Everyone shares everything without coercion. Society is magically happy.

Objectivism: Everyone looks out for themselves only. Society sucks but that's how nature works, yo.

edited 30th Apr '15 7:59:48 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

FIFY.

Okay, if you want to be that way about it...

Communism: Everyone is coerced into sharing everything equally until they come to like it.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I disagree that people should live better or worse based on their natural talents, something they have no say over. It's Might Makes Right. Which is wierd coming from a supposed Christian.

That view (people should be rewarded in accordance with their talents) is known as meritocracy, and like many other idealized systems, it sounds great on paper while working terribly in practice.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

You all are missing the point. The question isnt whether or not Communism can work now. Of course it cant, and the OP was premised on that. The question is whether or not some form of transhumanism could make it work.

For example, could everyone be implanted with a radio in their brains which broadcast feelings of want and deprivation that each person feels to every other person in their community? That might provide sufficient incentive for the community to share resources much more equally. Would that turn out to resemble Communism?

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Hey, I was being halfway serious about Titoism in a transhumanist context. Many futuristic sci-fi stories are just thinly veiled hypothetical exercises in best-fit communes with bio-modified populations.

Oh yes, you can make Communism work by combining it with Transhumanism. Unfortunately, we'd then become the Borg.

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"

That's an oversimplification of what I meant.

For example, theories in human augmentation technology suggest that we can develop ways of reducing hunger and sleep by simply reducing our need for food and sleep. Of course, this doesn't mean that poverty and labor problems will magically disappear (you'll need the money for those augmentations), but it may have a positive effect on social mobility in the long run.

I cant really remember anymore, but dont the Borg have Queens?

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Yes. I don't know anything about Borgs or Star Trek, but "Borg Queen"^note along with "Lieutenant Commander Data" is credited as the source of a quote I happen to like, so I am pretty sure at last one Borg Queen exist.

Hah, yeah, there was a Borg Queen. And on Earth there are or were regimes where leaders were supposed to not exist, or they were supposed to be 'first amongst equals', or their role was supposedly just administrative. I don't know of any that really were though. The Chairman, Colonel, General Secretary, Brother No. 1 or whatever pretty much inevitably accrues vast personal and monetary power and lords it over everyone else from vast palaces. Their titles tend to become the only remaining pretense at modesty

edited 1st May '15 1:31:35 PM by betaalpha

There are valid concerns to be had regarding a technologically influenced Hive Mind, but we'll likely have been so drastically different from how we are now that we could hardly be said to be human at that point in the future.

Of course, some argue that we've already reached that point - Facebook and Twitter.

That's only if you assume that they don't have anything like labor vouchers.

That would probably help, but I don't think it would solve the problem enough.

Oh, one other problem Communism has: No competition. It's basically a monopoly run by the state.

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"

This is a somewhat rhetorical question, but in a post-scarcity transhuman society, why would that be a bad thing?

In a post-scarcity economy wouldn't make it as much of a problem, but non-post scarcity transhumans would probably still benefit from competition.

"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"

That goes without saying, which was why my question was somewhat rhetorical in nature.

I thought that, in Communism, there is no state.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."