What are you reading right now?

[Marie Monday]

Well yeah thats true for all those communist leaders, that's what happens if your road towards an utopia involves a period of chaos and power vacuum

[SGR]

I finished the Stalin book and I stand on the perspective that Stalin was far more fascist than socialist.

It's been a while since I read the book and dug through Soviet / Communist history, but I believe there are some stark differences between Trotsky and Stalin, and that of course was a key part of their power struggle in Lenin's declining years. These are just some thoughts of mine, not specifically a contention of your belief that Stalin was far more fascist than socialist.

Trotsky believed in the idea of a 'permanent revolution', which shaped his ideas on foreign policy. Trotsky (like Lenin before him) believed that the USSR should support, vocally and financially, communist uprisings in other countries around the world writ large. Stalin believed in more of 'one nation' socialism - at least at first. He didn't believe the USSR was powerful enough in terms of its political influence or financial heft to effectively achieve what Trotsky wanted, so his focus was primarily on revolutionizing the USSR, in both industry and export, to achieve his ends, with little regard to the cost. Stalin was also, at least in his more early days, something of a political opportunist. His views and stated beliefs shifted, as he morphed himself and shifted positions to attempt to conform to what he thought would most greatly benefit his stranglehold on power, in light of the other political actors around him.

So out came the five year plans, and despite the human devastation of some of Stalin's policies (collectivization and the resulting famines come to mind), Stalin was able to fast-track a country that had just recently escaped the Tsardom and feudalism and turned it into something of an industrial powerhouse. If he hadn't, World War 2 might have gone quite a bit differently. Though the USSR bore the biggest brunt in human lives in their efforts against the Nazis, they greatly relied on munitions and vehicles provided by the USA through the lend-lease act. If, in an alternate reality, Trotsky rose to power and similarly aligned with the USA eventually against the Nazis, I'd be willing to wager the US would have incurred a much greater loss in lives of the military, as Trostsky's stated goals weren't so much focused on industrializing the USSR quickly, but supporting the spread of communism/socialism globally.

Which isn't to say that Stalin passes any 'socialism purity' tests. I'm sure he doesn't. But I've always found his story and his period in Soviet history (morbidly) fascinating.

In a political theory sense, communism/socialism and fascism are mutually exclusive things. But in practice, as we've seen throughout history, applying Marxian communism on a big scale (larger than local) often simply doesn't work without the threat (and inevitable execution) of state violence, persecution, and repression - and at that point, you've abandoned some of the important communist principles to achieve your ends. As soon as you have one man acting as dictator, you have no 'dictator of the proletariat'. But now you've got me curious - are there historical leaders of government that you think were strictly socialist or communist in a theoretical sense? If so, who?

[Lucem Ferre]

I've always understood socialism as an umbrella term and communism being a form of socialism with the USSR implementing state socialism with the belief that once they've perfected it class, money & the state would dissappear and thus they'd achieve communism.

I don't have an answer on who I'd consider more socialist because I don't know enough about these regimes which is why I'm interested in reading about them.
Trying to understand communism in practice is hard when both communists and anti-communists are equally dishonest when talking about it. Either you get people that say Stalin did nothing wrong or people that quote The Black Book of Communism. Did you know that in North Korea they are both starved and malnourished & strong enough to physically push trains?

[Lisnaholic]

Here's a political analogy to rival your one about the plumbing fixtures in a house, SGR !



Communism is the grass, and the trees are countries.
To organise a big group of people into a country, you need a system that is strong, which is the trunk of a tree. Given human nature, pure communism isn't strong enough to bind a huge group of people together, which is why you don't see trees that have trunks made of grass: communism has to abandon its grassy nature if it wants to support a tree, and that's why any attempts at running a country on communist principles ends up abandoning many of those principles.

To me, the fundamental communist principle is this: "to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities". This ideal does exist, but only on a small scale: in fact, it operates in most nuclear families around the world. A typical family is its own little communistic blade of grass, but grass doesn't grow very tall: it'll never reach the size of a tree. Same with communism: it's not strong or popular enough as a principle to sustain a country, although it can motivate groups larger than just a family: some small isolated tribes, some religious cults (including, perhaps medieval monastries), the original kibbutzes of Israel and of course, those small, struggling idealistic communist parties that were more common in the 1930s than they are today.

So we can see lots of grass, some of it quite tall, but imo you'll never see a whole tree made of grass.   

[SGR]

Here's a political analogy to rival your one about the plumbing fixtures in a house, SGR !



Communism is the grass, and the trees are countries.
To organise a big group of people into a country, you need a system that is strong, which is the trunk of a tree. Given human nature, pure communism isn't strong enough to bind a huge group of people together, which is why you don't see trees that have trunks made of grass: communism has to abandon its grassy nature if it wants to support a tree, and that's why any attempts at running a country on communist principles ends up abandoning many of those principles.

To me, the fundamental communist principle is this: "to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities". This ideal does exist, but only on a small scale: in fact, it operates in most nuclear families around the world. A typical family is its own little communistic blade of grass, but grass doesn't grow very tall: it'll never reach the size of a tree. Same with communism: it's not strong or popular enough as a principle to sustain a country, although it can motivate groups larger than just a family: some small isolated tribes, some religious cults (including, perhaps medieval monastries), the original kibbutzes of Israel and of course, those small, struggling idealistic communist parties that were more common in the 1930s than they are today.

So we can see lots of grass, some of it quite tall, but imo you'll never see a whole tree made of grass.   

I think you do yourself a disservice comparing this analogy of yours, which is quite cogent and comprehensible, to my plumbing fixture analogy. 

But yes, it would appear I'm in complete agreement with you based on your analogy. Communist-systems can work quite well in a small scale, but when you scale it up, it just doesn't work very well - in large part due to something you mentioned: "human nature".

[Lucem Ferre]

1) What aspect of the human condition makes communism impossible?

2) A lot of what we deal with today goes against human nature. Working hours since the industrial revolution is legitimately unhealthy, the overly processed food we eat, the isolation of social media, the stress of paycheck to paycheck poverty. Etc. But we adapt. The huge thing that makes humans so different from most animals is the ability to overcome nature.

3) And to that point how much of the "human nature" that you think makes communism impossible is just conditioning from our material reality? The family unit that we claim is natural was far different before the development of private property. The idea of hoarding resources, something capitalists keep attributing to human nature, makes no sense to hunter gatherer tribes. If it goes against human nature that much then it shouldn't be able to exist on any scale at all.


Edit: if anything, communism goes against how we've been conditioned to exist which is why it can happen on a small scale easier than a larger one. People on a commune are already primed to adapt to that way of life. On a larger scale you have to find a way to condition people into the way of existing in a communist society, which is what the socialist stage is supposed to do, I guess, but it does a horrible job because a it's still a drastic and sudden change.

Which is why I'd rather learn more by reading about communist systems than hear opinions like this. Has any communist regime tried a more incremental and gradual shift towards socialism? Is that impossible? What are the specific reasons that cause failures or atrocities to happen in communist nations? What happens if you try a more democratic approach or copy the liberal form of control over the authoritarian one?

[Lisnaholic]

Which is why I'd rather learn more by reading about communist systems than hear opinions like this. Has any communist regime tried a more incremental and gradual shift towards socialism? Is that impossible? What are the specific reasons that cause failures or atrocities to happen in communist nations? What happens if you try a more democratic approach or copy the liberal form of control over the authoritarian one?

Absolutely, Lucem ! Keep reading and don't rely on my off-the-cuff opinions.
As to one of your questions, perhaps in post-Mao China you'll find a communist system that gradually shifted towards socialism.
"Failures and atrocities" happen to so many nations, I have no idea if there are some causes that are specific to communist ones.

1) What aspect of the human condition makes communism impossible?

2) A lot of what we deal with today goes against human nature. Working hours since the industrial revolution is legitimately unhealthy, the overly processed food we eat, the isolation of social media, the stress of paycheck to paycheck poverty. Etc. But we adapt. The huge thing that makes humans so different from most animals is the ability to overcome nature.

3) And to that point how much of the "human nature" that you think makes communism impossible is just conditioning from our material reality? The family unit that we claim is natural was far different before the development of private property. The idea of hoarding resources, something capitalists keep attributing to human nature, makes no sense to hunter gatherer tribes. If it goes against human nature that much then it shouldn't be able to exist on any scale at all.

Edit: if anything, communism goes against how we've been conditioned to exist which is why it can happen on a small scale easier than a larger one. People on a commune are already primed to adapt to that way of life. On a larger scale you have to find a way to condition people into the way of existing in a communist society, which is what the socialist stage is supposed to do, I guess, but it does a horrible job because a it's still a drastic and sudden change.

Regarding your point #2, I'm not quite sure what your point is, but I'd like to say this:
(a) it's human nature to make an effort to improve your personal circumstances. The factory worker on a long shift shares the same natural motivation as the caveman scraping an animal skin so he'll be warm at night.
(b) Yes, plenty of modern life demonstrates how we can overcome nature, with elec light, a/c, trains, etc. and how we can adapt to these things. But that's a different topic, isn't it ?

Point #3: "The idea of hoarding resources, something capitalists keep attributing to human nature, makes no sense to hunter gatherer tribes." IMO, this isn't really true: I bet hunter gatherers hoard resources, but it's at a very small scale: maybe they've got a favourite spear or a pouch-full of berries that they're not willing to share with complete strangers. In that sense, they're no different from plenty of animals who defend territory, or fight over and drag off a carcass. I think that that drive to hang on to stuff (for the benefit of yourself or for a small, select group) is a much deeper instinct than you appear to be suggesting. It predates Capitalism and that's why I think of it as part of "human nature".
In terms of larger communist societies, I consider that that instinct is going to remain a problem: you can have 99 sincere, committed communists, but I suspect that it only takes one person motivated by self-interest to threaten that ideal society from within. That's really the message of Animal Farm, which of course illustrated the corruption of communism under Stalin. I suppose my depressing argument is that if it hadn't been Joe Stalin, it would've been someone else.   

[Lucem Ferre]

Absolutely, Lucem ! Keep reading and don't rely on my off-the-cuff opinions.
As to one of your questions, perhaps in post-Mao China you'll find a communist system that gradually shifted towards socialism.
"Failures and atrocities" happen to so many nations, I have no idea if there are some causes that are specific to communist ones.

Sure, if we want to measure atrocities commit under capitalism vs communism, capitilsm is objectively worse and never gets the same stigma.

Regarding your point #2, I'm not quite sure what your point is, but I'd like to say this:
(a) it's human nature to make an effort to improve your personal circumstances. The factory worker on a long shift shares the same natural motivation as the caveman scraping an animal skin so he'll be warm at night.

The factory worker isn't improving their circumstance. They're improving somebody else's while staying stagnant. It's either work or starve.

My point is more about the working hours. The caveman didn't work that long or hard. The current day working hours is proven to be detrimental to our health, but early industrialization was even worse than now. It is not human nature to work 40 hour weeks.

(b) Yes, plenty of modern life demonstrates how we can overcome nature, with elec light, a/c, trains, etc. and how we can adapt to these things. But that's a different topic, isn't it ?

No, the point is that becoming civilized is the act of overcoming what was once considered human nature.

Point #3: "The idea of hoarding resources, something capitalists keep attributing to human nature, makes no sense to hunter gatherer tribes." IMO, this isn't really true: I bet hunter gatherers hoard resources, but it's at a very small scale: maybe they've got a favourite spear or a pouch-full of berries that they're not willing to share with complete strangers. In that sense, they're no different from plenty of animals who defend territory, or fight over and drag off a carcass. I think that that drive to hang on to stuff (for the benefit of yourself or for a small, select group) is a much deeper instinct than you appear to be suggesting. It predates Capitalism and that's why I think of it as part of "human nature".
In terms of larger communist societies, I consider that that instinct is going to remain a problem: you can have 99 sincere, committed communists, but I suspect that it only takes one person motivated by self-interest to threaten that ideal society from within. That's really the message of Animal Farm, which of course illustrated the corruption of communism under Stalin. I suppose my depressing argument is that if it hadn't been Joe Stalin, it would've been someone else.

Okay, but how much of your opinion is based on fact? Do you have any examples? Everything I've read about hunter gatherers is that they don't selfishly hoard resources which is why they are consistently brought up to debunk the idea that greed is just human nature. When you live in a system that rewards greed and exploitation with no experience of anything different it of course seems natural. I think it's conditioned human behavior and there are a few studies to back it up.

[Lisnaholic]

Thanks for the prompt response, Lucem

Sure, if we want to measure atrocities commit under capitalism vs communism, capitilsm is objectively worse and never gets the same stigma.

Historically, capitalism has been more widespread than communism, so I'd expect more atrocities to take place under capitalism. As for who gets more stigmatised, I suspect that depends on who you listen to or read. Today there's plenty of literature about how terrible slavery and colonialism were (= capitalists' fault), but then SGR is not alone in his interest in the spectacular disaster of Stalin's collectivisation/paranoia years (=communists' fault).

On one level I'd agree with you though: many people right of centre are ready to stigmatise communism as being some horrendous regime that must be erradicated, even when facts don't justify it. I'm thinking of McCathyism, Trump and Nikki Haley, who recently branded the Inflation Reduction Act "a Communist manifesto".
Here's what's in the Inflation Reduction Act:

 

So, yeah, communism is stigmatised for things that don't exist (McCathy's "reds under the beds") and for... er... using tax benefits to promote clean energy

The factory worker isn't improving their circumstance. They're improving somebody else's while staying stagnant. It's either work or starve.

My point is more about the working hours. The caveman didn't work that long or hard. The current day working hours is proven to be detrimental to our health, but early industrialization was even worse than now. It is not human nature to work 40 hour weeks.

I don't have facts and figures available, but I still question the bold, because I'm guessing that you don't have facts or figures either. How long does it take to find edible berries, or to track and kill a wild animal: it's my suspicion that the latter especially takes hours and hours with no guarrantee of success. In that case, the poor caveman has to go out again the next day and repeat his labours just in the hope of some reward. TBH I think a factory worker has an easier life: 40 hours a week during which he's "enjoying", but not paying for, a/c, heating and lighting, but more importantly, he's sure that his work will be paid for, as per his contract.

(Also, if I may make a flippant comment, isn't "not starving"  just a rock-bottom level of "improving your circumstances" ?) 

No, the point is that becoming civilized is the act of overcoming what was once considered human nature.

^ Yes, that's a good point !

Okay, but how much of your opinion is based on fact? Do you have any examples? Everything I've read about hunter gatherers is that they don't selfishly hoard resources which is why they are consistently brought up to debunk the idea that greed is just human nature. When you live in a system that rewards greed and exploitation with no experience of anything different it of course seems natural. I think it's conditioned human behavior and there are a few studies to back it up.

No, I don't have any facts or examples at my fingertips. To do that would require more effort than I'm prepared to put into our conversation, which I find quite agreeable at this kind of level of putting forward ideas without footnotes, sources, etc, etc.
Perhaps you feel the same, because although you refer to "everything I've read....consistently brought up......a few studies", I'm not seeing many facts or examples. That's not a criticism, Lucem, just saying that that's how a forum chat should go. I'm not here to write a dissertation, and I don't suppose you are either. 

[Lucem Ferre]

Thanks for the prompt response, Lucem

I don't have facts and figures available, but I still question the bold, because I'm guessing that you don't have facts or figures either. How long does it take to find edible berries, or to track and kill a wild animal: it's my suspicion that the latter especially takes hours and hours with no guarrantee of success. In that case, the poor caveman has to go out again the next day and repeat his labours just in the hope of some reward. TBH I think a factory worker has an easier life: 40 hours a week during which he's "enjoying", but not paying for, a/c, heating and lighting, but more importantly, he's sure that his work will be paid for, as per his contract.

(Also, if I may make a flippant comment, isn't "not starving"  just a rock-bottom level of "improving your circumstances" ?)

Just one thing to know is that most of the time when I have a strong opinion I do have information behind it.

Prior to the agricultural revolution, through out most of human history, we typically worked 15 hours a week. It wasn't until the agricultural revolution that we started working more. During Feudalism we worked roughly 40 hours a week, but work was more sparodic, they had a lot more days off and a lot more holidays, and many peasants could save up enough money to take months off at a time. When the industrial revolution happened capitalism had people working 14+ hours a day in some of the most inhumane conditions, which is the only time in history people on average worked harder.

https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/for-95-percent-of-human-history-people-worked-15-hours-a-week-could-we-do-it-again.html

Other than the study that said that people over 40 suffer mental decline if they work over 25 hours a week, I don't think there are studies on the health effects of working 40 hours a week. However, there are on working over 40 hours a week, they are not good, and as somebody that has worked a lot of factory and warehouse jobs I know that mandatory overtime, not to mention voluntary, is very very common.

No, I don't have any facts or examples at my fingertips. To do that would require more effort than I'm prepared to put into our conversation, which I find quite agreeable at this kind of level of putting forward ideas without footnotes, sources, etc, etc.
Perhaps you feel the same, because although you refer to "everything I've read....consistently brought up......a few studies", I'm not seeing many facts or examples. That's not a criticism, Lucem, just saying that that's how a forum chat should go. I'm not here to write a dissertation, and I don't suppose you are either. 

I won't go searching for links unless I think the person would be interested or if I feel like my perspective isn't trusted because I'm lazy and searching for things you've read at what ever point you read it is tedious.

But if want to just keep it casual, I'll keep it casual. And we'll just have to disagree.

[Lisnaholic]

Well, I owe you an apology, Lucem, as you have clearly done more investigating than I gave you credit for. Your earlier statement, that I doubted, about cavemen not working long and hard, has been completely vindicated. Thanks for that link you posted; it was quite an eye-opener for me, and I was particularly struck by this part:-

Suzman argues that looking at the long sweep of history is important because it reveals our obsession with hard work arose in a very specific context, namely the early days of agriculture. At that time, the land could barely support the population, and a single unlucky event, like a drought or a flood, could lead to mass starvation. Hard work was essential to survival.

So the birth of agriculture, so often lauded as the starting point for civilization, was a bit of a mixed blessing for the working man !

Work experience: I've had several jobs that required a 40-hour week, with various deals regarding overtime. As for factory work, I think I've only done that once in my life, and not for long enough for it to give me any health probs. Something I wouldn't do again for anyone is this: work an all-nighter, which I occasionally had to do to meet a deadline: go to work at 8 a.m., work right through to lunchtime of the following day, so about 29 hours with barely a break, except for a midnight pizza paid for by the company. Strange days indeed.

[Lucem Ferre]

I don't need an apology man, you had your doubts and spoke your mind honestly.

And I feel like what I said does sound preposterous.

And I'm not the most educated man around.



I think, over all, agriculture, industrialization and even capitalism were blessings in a lot of ways when it comes to improving a lot about society and our quality of life. I, of course, don't like the insane amount of exploitation that came with it, but the abolition of scarcity was awesome. We don't need to be working like this, though. Especially not now.

[SGR]

If the 'AI revolution' really comes to pass, with AI taking over many jobs currently done by people, and boosting corporate revenue while reducing corporate expenses, is UBI really that farfetched of an idea?

I'm not suggesting this as some kind of obvious in-road to communism or anything (which would take a lot more work), but Andrew Yang's 2020 campaign really did get me thinking about the idea. I wasn't sold on it back when he was running, but if, hypothetically, hundreds of thousands of workers get displaced by AI in rapid-fashion, before the market can progress and create new jobs for them, it would seem like something at least similar to the concept would become much more attractive.

[Shhon]

Time magazine unveils "THE END OF HUMANITY: How Real is the Risk? (A Special Report)" for June 12, 2023.

I'm about to host 5 events at The Center for Inquiry on the subject of Artificial Intelligence and its impacts on economics, society, and human ethics, so it's great to see major publications taking an active interest in the discussion. The events will be timely.

Now I just have to find a shop in my city that will have this on the news stand.

How did those events go?

[innerspaceboy]

How did those events go?

Thanks for asking! I'm pleased to report that they were some of the highest-attended events we've ever held, and each inspired vigorous conversation. The community response was overwhelmingly positive.

I've launched a subsequent new event series where we screen conspiracy theory themed films and debunk/debate their validity. It's just a little trickier because we have to secure screening rights for each film.