You've never seen the lineups for concert tickets we used to have before online ordering was a thing. And even then, the lineups exist - they're just virtual bow, and bots man them.
Iowa is quite correct though. On the imperfect people and realization of socialism. Communism though, it can be done. And it's actually realized. Just couldn't last that well.
Iowa is quite correct though. On the imperfect people and realization of socialism. Communism though, it can be done. And it's actually realized. Just couldn't last that well.
Has it ever actually been done and not just used as a quickly-discarded revolution rallying cry? IIRC, it's about the people collectively owning the means of production, but in practice what you get is a despot who immediately gives control- and the profits- to his or her cronies instead.
Ever been at Aldi in the 70s (We're talking about the West-German discounter)? My mother, directly after entering the store, put me into the check out lineup and then started shopping. This way, when I reached the cash register, she had all items together.
You've never seen the lineups for concert tickets we used to have before online ordering was a thing. And even then, the lineups exist - they're just virtual bow, and bots man them.
Technically, if you were a pure free-market capitalist, you would just say that's because the concert tickets are underpriced.
The people lining up are often scalpers. Especially for things like Nintendo consoles the first time they come out, demand is much higher than supply, so scalpers will go out of their way to buy it all up and then sell them to people on e-Bay for prices that are inflated to match the supply and demand. I've seen the argument in some of the more cut-throat capitalist circles that scalping is just a natural consequence of the Invisible Hand of the Market correcting for goods undervalued according to their optimal point according to supply and demand.
For things like concert tickets, the tickets are often deliberately underpriced, so that they can offer tickets to the likes of poorer college students or something. The people running the concert are also often trying to get people in the door, as it were, selling cheap tickets, but then overcharging for everything else when they're inside to make up for it, selling overpriced drinks or t-shirts.
Iowa is quite correct though. On the imperfect people and realization of socialism. Communism though, it can be done. And it's actually realized. Just couldn't last that well.
You have it backwards.
As I said a few strips ago, the problem isn't that "Communism = Sharing", because that's pretty much literally its definition. The mistake people make is that Communism ISN'T automatically Soviet and vice versa.
Socialism not only can be done, basically every nation on the planet does it to some extent or another. Have public schools in your nation? Well, guess what, that's socialism! It's merely a matter of how much of the economy has been socialized, and to what degree. Essentially every real nation has a mixed economy that is partially socialist and partially capitalist, because neither extreme really works.
Communism is a more extreme form of socialism, but even it works, has worked for millennia, and is actually pretty much the default form of government when no more advanced form has been put together. "Primitive Communism" (as the Marxists call it to differentiate it from their own, supposedly superior version) is simply the lack of a monetary system, common in nearly all hunter-gatherer societies that don't have a system of trading luxury goods beyond bartering, and which share basic necessities like food simply because it's imperative to their survival that they work as a community. Its main failing is that it stops working as soon as a community gets too large for everyone to be part of an extended family that knows and trusts each other. "Marxist Communism" was an attempt at making a post-industrial version of that "Primitive Communism" that could be applied to a global scale rather than a tribal one, and that is what utterly failed.
NWSiaCB said: Communism is a more extreme form of socialism, but even it works, has worked for millennia, and is actually pretty much the default form of government when no more advanced form has been put together.
Yes... according to Marxists, but not any actual anthropologists.
"Primitive Communism" (as the Marxists call it to differentiate it from their own, supposedly superior version) is simply the lack of a monetary system,
This is incorrect, that is not what it meant by the term at all. Even Marx was aware that money wasn't needed to support hierarchical inequality, in reality he fixed this mythical period as being defined largely by the absence of agriculture which would allow sufficient surpluses to support production and resource inequality, or so he thought, but actual evidence gathered by people that simply wanted to understand how primitive society worked rather then try to use to prop up their political arguments have largely disproved this.
The reality is that long before agriculture numerous HG groups had become fairly sedentary existing off of stable and well understood localized resources that provided them with stable surpluses. This can be seen for instance in some groups inventing pottery and such before agriculture, imply a need to store excess production. This unsurprisingly led these groups to quickly tend toward more hierarchical modes of operation where some members were clearly 'more equal' then others.
common in nearly all hunter-gatherer societies that don't have a system of trading luxury goods beyond bartering,
Actually credit probably existed as well, it wasn't systematized as money, but "I owe yous" or "I'll give you this now, you give me that later" were likely an extremely important part of primitives man trading practices.
and which share basic necessities like food simply because it's imperative to their survival that they work as a community.
This depends entirely on the local situation, one thing actual study found was that HGs were anything BUT uniform in their social and economic structures. This sort of highly idealized egalitarianism might be true in some instances, but it definitely ISN'T in many others. There is if anything a considerable tug of war between innate human selfishness and egalitarianism driven largely by practicality strongly at play in these groups. At the end of the day humans are rather selfish and want to maximize their own standing and resources (to maximize their offspring and the spread of their genes), but groups also have value in tending to make everyone better off they would be alone, but the drive to try and maximize that benefit for yourself even at others expense is always their.
It's harder to do at smaller scales though since it's allot easier to build the support for a 'revolution' because the guy in charge is acting like a tyrant among 20 people then it is 20 million. So the guy trying to get ahead normally has to settle for less, or end up dead or exiled, so the inequality does tend to be lower, but this was not some egalitarian utopia by any means because by the same token it's ALSO way easier to isolate and oppresses one person in a small group.
Its main failing is that it stops working as soon as a community gets too large for everyone to be part of an extended family that knows and trusts each other.
It's main failing is that it never existed to begin with and was spawned entirely from the minds of Marxists to support their chosen ideology as the 'natural state' of humans, even though it's endless failure has shown it to be anything but.
"Marxist Communism" was an attempt at making a post-industrial version of that "Primitive Communism" that could be applied to a global scale rather than a tribal one, and that is what utterly failed.
Except it's not because even in very primitive tribes the idea everyone shared things equally and there was no hierarchy or inequality in 'production' is farcical. All this actually shows is that like modern Society Marx also had no idea how primitive ones worked either. This entire concept is considered thoroughly discredited by modern anthropologists.
Yes... according to Marxists, but not any actual anthropologists.
Well, I got that one from an anthropology book, so only if you go "No True Scotsman" with the "actual anthropologists". Besides which, many intellectual Marxists were also anthropologists, so you're already treading into "No True Scotsman" territory.
In any event, as described in said anthropology book, communism existed among whole tribes and for all things but luxury goods (which often became their form of money - I.E. perfume, metals like gold used to make jewelry, high-quality fabrics, etc.), but gradually shrank to more basic things or more intimate units as society became more stratified. He goes out of his way to specifically note families are still communist - what's yours is your family's, and you don't even consider it an exchange to let your own child take or just borrow something of 'yours'. (And uses the bizarre counterexample of a man who actually handed his son an itemized bill for every expense he ever incurred raising his son... to which the son eventually repayed his debt and then promptly severed all ties with his 'father' because making a family relation into a financial transaction meant to him, and most people, that it wasn't really a family relation any longer.)
Tk3997 said:
This is incorrect, that is not what it meant by the term at all. Even Marx was aware that money wasn't needed to support hierarchical inequality, in reality he fixed this mythical period as being defined largely by the absence of agriculture which would allow sufficient surpluses to support resource inequality, or so he thought, but actual evidence gathered by people that simply wanted to understand how primitive society worked rather then try to use to prop up their political arguments have largely disproved this.
The reality is that long before agriculture numerous HG groups had become fairly sedentary existing off of stable and well understood localized resources that provided them with stable surpluses. This can be seen for instance in some groups inventing pottery and such before agriculture, imply a need to store excess production. This unsurprisingly led these groups to quickly tend toward more hierarchical modes of operation where some members were clearly 'more equal' then others.
Actually credit probably existed as well, it wasn't systematized as money, but "I owe yous" or "I'll give you this now, you give me that later" were likely an extremely important part of primitives man trading practices.
It's harder to do at smaller scales though since it's allot easier to build the support for a 'revolution' because the guy in charge is acting like a tyrant among 20 people then it is 20 million.
It's main failing is that it never existed to begin with and was spawned entirely from the minds of Marxists to support their chosen ideology as the 'natural state' of humans, even though it's endless failure has shown it to be anything but.
Except it's not because even in very primitive tribes the idea everyone shared things equally and there was no hierarchy or inequality in 'production' is farcical. All this actually shows is that like modern Society Marx also had no idea how primitive ones worked either. This entire concept is considered thoroughly discredited by modern anthropologists.
I'm fully aware of, and was not arguing against that, except maybe how narrowly you define "communism". However, as I said, I'm just speaking "basically", and simplifying it so I don't have to throw out a couple pages of nuance that would only bring about cries of "TL;DR". While it may provide a fuller picture, not all of it was strictly relevant to what I was responding to.
As I said a few strips ago, the problem isn't that "Communism = Sharing", because that's pretty much literally its definition. The mistake people make is that Communism ISN'T automatically Soviet and vice versa.
Socialism not only can be done, basically every nation on the planet does it to some extent or another. Have public schools in your nation? Well, guess what, that's socialism! It's merely a matter of how much of the economy has been socialized, and to what degree. Essentially every real nation has a mixed economy that is partially socialist and partially capitalist, because neither extreme really works.
Communism is a more extreme form of socialism, but even it works, has worked for millennia, and is actually pretty much the default form of government when no more advanced form has been put together. "Primitive Communism" (as the Marxists call it to differentiate it from their own, supposedly superior version) is simply the lack of a monetary system, common in nearly all hunter-gatherer societies that don't have a system of trading luxury goods beyond bartering, and which share basic necessities like food simply because it's imperative to their survival that they work as a community. Its main failing is that it stops working as soon as a community gets too large for everyone to be part of an extended family that knows and trusts each other. "Marxist Communism" was an attempt at making a post-industrial version of that "Primitive Communism" that could be applied to a global scale rather than a tribal one, and that is what utterly failed.
Sorry then. As I was taught, socialism is pretty much impossible and communism is what we are having. Of course, they don't say Marxist so I do mistake it. Really need a better read then...
Iowa should just let Saratoga take Tashkent under her wing. Sara Sis would put Comrade Medium One through extreme makeover to turn Admiral heels over head, and perhaps the Blue Cruiser may be converted through soft power. Also watch Dallas.
What is Danbooru without intellectual debate or discussion?
Gelbooru with less porn?
Oh, wait, was that rhetorical?
Hiii, Comraaade!My ration ticket!After all, Communism can't really be realised with imperfect peop-... blfgh!Capitalism is good! You don't even have to line up for things you want, you can just buy as much as you want!!March
VODKA