[philiphos]

As I said on the topic name I'm going to present you an Example that I've been told a time ago and it shows a possible cause for the failure of Communism...
Get this picture, from now on your college grades are going to be based on "communist style" everybody gets the same, such thing is achieved by doing aritmetics and calculating the average grade; and so after the first try the college average grade is 15, not that bad, however people react differently the ones who would get 17 with a regular system start to think that they will have to work hard otherwise they will be drown back due to their fellows, on the other hand you have people who didn't study that much and got an 15 quite remarkable for them, they enjoy that 15 and think that things will be okay because their grades will always be better then they would be with the regular system. At the second try the best students study harder and the worst students relaxed a little bit, the average grade just went down to 13, it is still a good grade for the "average" and "bad student" but way far from the expectancy from those who studied harder and so the ones who started to relax just don't care that much and stop studying and the ones who pushed the average up got frustrated and aknowledge that whatever their effort their future grades would never reasemble their true effort, as a result at the third try the average grade went down to 8.....
Remember that this is just a reflection of an example that I've been told and do not intend to disregard your beliefs only talk about the veracity of this Example or arguments against it....

[Andrea_Chenier]

The example is invalid because it has nothing to do with communism's conception of euqality.

"Engels was a thousand times right when he wrote that to conceive equality as meaning anything beyond the abolition of classes is a very stupid and absurd prejudice. Bourgeois professors have tried to make use of the concept of equality to accuse us of wanting to make all men equal to one another. They have tried to accuse the socialists of this absurdity, which they themselves invented. But in their ignorance they did not know that the socialists — and precisely the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels — said: Equality is an empty phrase unless equality is understood to mean the abolition of classes. We want to abolish classes, and in this respect we stand for equality. But the claim that we want to make all men equal to one another is an empty phrase and a stupid invention of intellectuals." — V.I. Lenin, On Deceiving the People with Slogans About Liberty and Equality

[philiphos]

I get your point about that classless society in order to achieve a free and fair society but what I'm talking about is more about the Economic system and not the social system or the social proposal from Marxists

[noemon]

Philiphe, this example is tragic and I am not even a communist.

15,17,13?

15 out of what?

You mean 20 but not everybody assumes the same.

Similarly not everybody assumes the assumption you have made and which we do not actually know.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

based on "communist style" everybody gets the same, such thing is achieved by doing aritmetics and calculating the average grade

People don't necessarily get the same. You should read the quote Andrea provided.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

[Andrea_Chenier]

I get your point about that classless society in order to achieve a free and fair society but what I'm talking about is more about the Economic system and not the social system or the social proposal from Marxists

Again, marxism's long term goal is not to make everyone literally equal, both socially and economically speaking.

It is this communist society, which has just emerged into the light of day out of the womb of capitalism and which is in every respect stamped with the birthmarks of the old society, that Marx terms the “first”, or lower, phase of communist society.

The means of production are no longer the private property of individuals. The means of production belong to the whole of society. Every member of society, performing a certain part of the socially-necessary work, receives a certificate from society to the effect that he has done a certain amount of work. And with this certificate he receives from the public store of consumer goods a corresponding quantity of products. After a deduction is made of the amount of labor which goes to the public fund, every worker, therefore, receives from society as much as he has given to it.

“Equality” apparently reigns supreme.

But when Lassalle, having in view such a social order (usually called socialism, but termed by Marx the first phase of communism), says that this is "equitable distribution", that this is "the equal right of all to an equal product of labor", Lassalle is mistaken and Marx exposes the mistake.

"Hence, the equal right," says Marx, in this case still certainly conforms to "bourgeois law", which,like all law, implies inequality. All law is an application of an equal measure to different people who in fact are not alike, are not equal to one another. That is why the "equal right" is violation of equality and an injustice. In fact, everyone, having performed as much social labor as another, receives an equal share of the social product (after the above-mentioned deductions).

But people are not alike: one is strong, another is weak; one is married, another is not; one has more children, another has less, and so on. And the conclusion Marx draws is:

"... With an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, the right instead of being equal would have to be unequal."

[...]

This is a “defect”, says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change.

[...] Marx continues:

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and with it also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished, after labor has become not only a livelihood but life's prime want, after the productive forces have increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly--only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois law be left behind in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" - V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution

[philiphos]

Philiphe, this example is tragic and I am not even a communist.

15,17,13?

15 out of what?

You mean 20 but not everybody assumes the same.

Similarly not everybody assumes the assumption you have made and which we do not actually know.

Yepp out of 20 sorry about that

[philiphos]

]

based on "communist style" everybody gets the same, such thing is achieved by doing aritmetics and calculating the average grade

People don't necessarily get the same. You should read the quote Andrea provided.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

I'm familiar with that quote I've read a couple books from Trotsky, Lenin and Marx but by doing such thing aren't you promoting laziness for some part of the workforce in my example the bad students, and demotivating the best students in which real life would be the entrepreneurs. I just can't see how you have an entrepreneur spirit in a Communist knowing that your efforts and resilience won't known the full reward which would mean less innovation...

[Andrea_Chenier]

I'm familiar with that quote I've read a couple books from Trotsky, Lenin and Marx but by doing such thing aren't you promoting laziness for some part of the workforce in my example the bad students, and demotivating the best students in which real life would be the entrepreneurs. I just can't see how you have an entrepreneur spirit in a Communist knowing that your efforts and resilience won't known the full reward which would mean less innovation...

At the risk of appearing like a fanatical apostle of Leninism, I'd like to respond to this with yet another pretty famous Lenin quote - which in reality is a biblical aphorism taken from II Thessalonians 3:10 - He who does not work, neither shall he eat. This principle was even included in the soviet constitution from 1936, in article twelve to be precise. Laziness has no place in socialism.

[The Immortal Goon]

The state will be able to wither away completely when society adopts the rule: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", i.e., when people have become so accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse and when their labor has become so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their ability.

Attempting to build a technocratic and democratic society is not the same as foolishly demanding that everyone make-believe that there is no problem in pretending that everyone is equal in arbitrary assessment tests.

The kind of specious utopianism you're attempting to strawman onto communism was refuted long before Lenin.

---

It may help to start from the beginning here.

Marxists hold that the material world is what is true. The reason you think the way that you do is because of your relationship to the material world.

So a peasant sees nothing wrong with getting on his knees and grovelling for the lord because his relationship to the world is based on feudalism and the relations that exist in the real world to keep feudalism together.

You, however, would not fall to your knees and grovel to someone that had "Sir," in front of his name because you're interaction with the physical world is based upon your interaction with it which tends to be capitalist. You will, for instance, be more likely to be impressed by a successful businessman than a Chinese peasant of the Han would be. The peasant would have had the right to spit in the successful business man's face, in fact.

The way these things change is something we can observe. Because we can observe them, we can predict them--in the broadest possible sense. The majority of people are eventually going to demand more, and it's going to be increasingly obvious (as it already has been) that things could be more efficient.

This is, of course, in counter to the idea that capitalism will always be the thing that everyone does forever because we have it now. To me, that's a more unbelievable statement.

[philiphos]

[Lenin"]The state will be able to wither away completely when society adopts the rule: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", i.e., when people have become so accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse and when their labor has become so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their ability. [/quote]

Attempting to build a technocratic and democratic society is not the same as foolishly demanding that everyone make-believe that there is no problem in pretending that everyone is equal in arbitrary assessment tests.

The kind of specious utopianism you're attempting to strawman onto communism was refuted long before Lenin.

---

It may help to start from the beginning here.

Marxists hold that the material world is what is true. The reason you think the way that you do is because of your relationship to the material world.

So a peasant sees nothing wrong with getting on his knees and grovelling for the lord because his relationship to the world is based on feudalism and the relations that exist in the real world to keep feudalism together.

You, however, would not fall to your knees and grovel to someone that had "Sir," in front of his name because you're interaction with the physical world is based upon your interaction with it which tends to be capitalist. You will, for instance, be more likely to be impressed by a successful businessman than a Chinese peasant of the Han would be. The peasant would have had the right to spit in the successful business man's face, in fact.

The way these things change is something we can observe. Because we can observe them, we can predict them--in the broadest possible sense. The majority of people are eventually going to demand more, and it's going to be increasingly obvious (as it already has been) that things could be more efficient.

This is, of course, in counter to the idea that capitalism will always be the thing that everyone does forever because we have it now. To me, that's a more unbelievable statement.

Valid argument I must say and did get your point, but get this now I have a business idea, a product that it will be useful and make a certain task, let's say cooking, way easier and faster...
Won't communism make that entrepreneur spirit to vanish and avoid brilliant ideas to appear?

[The Immortal Goon]

Won't communism make that entrepreneur spirit to vanish and avoid brilliant ideas to appear?

Feudalism certainly didn't have the, "entrepreneur spirit," and it still made innovations. Further, if you look at some things—people making computer programs because they're needed, even people uploading movies and whatnot to be downloaded by people for free, cooking for fun, and whatnot—people already do labor for free.

Also, just in general, think about how much productive potential we already have. Compared to the caveman, what labor you can put into producing virtually anything today is amazing. The fact that you're probably a specialist—just some guy that doesn't need to produce food right now—should have long since wiped out hunger from the world.

But it has not. People still live and die in poverty all the time. That's all wasted work, wasted potential that the capitalist market sends generally up to the top. We are all working to accumulate money on up the system.

Isn't it worth considering a system where our production goes to everyone? Not a capitalist system that's somehow modified, but a system that really does mean you work for yourself and your peers. I think, at some level at least, that's incentive enough.

[philiphos]

Won't communism make that entrepreneur spirit to vanish and avoid brilliant ideas to appear?

Feudalism certainly didn't have the, "entrepreneur spirit," and it still made innovations. Further, if you look at some things—people making computer programs because they're needed, even people uploading movies and whatnot to be downloaded by people for free, cooking for fun, and whatnot—people already do labor for free.

Also, just in general, think about how much productive potential we already have. Compared to the caveman, what labor you can put into producing virtually anything today is amazing. The fact that you're probably a specialist—just some guy that doesn't need to produce food right now—should have long since wiped out hunger from the world.

But it has not. People still live and die in poverty all the time. That's all wasted work, wasted potential that the capitalist market sends generally up to the top. We are all working to accumulate money on up the system.

Isn't it worth considering a system where our production goes to everyone? Not a capitalist system that's somehow modified, but a system that really does mean you work for yourself and your peers. I think, at some level at least, that's incentive enough.

Well you made your point when you talked about accumulated money and the tendency of monopoly in the capitalist system due to the continuous competition where some companies just "get behind" which increases that money accumulation and with a more concentrated wealth and power then ever, however
Communism has failed because it was not a flawless system, the same with capitalism, However my Social-Democrat thinking lead to believe that a true reform will be the key to eradicate these same problems you mentioned on today's Capitalism...
Even though I'm actually quite interested in Libertarian Socialism....

[Decky]

It is a massive straw man. Communists don't believe everyone should get the same wage so your whole opening post is garbage. Do you think the Soviet Union put the first man in space by paying its rocket scientists the same as its milkmen?

0/10 read some books.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

It is a massive straw man. Communists don't believe everyone should get the same wage so your whole opening post is garbage. Do you think the Soviet Union put the first man in space by paying its rocket scientists the same as its milkmen?

0/10 read some books.

There was a quote by Stalin someone posted a while back that I've been trying to find but can't, where he discusses how a person driving trucks through Moscow (trucks carrying something, like lumber, etc) would naturally be paid a bit more if they work harder/drive more trucks than a guy driving less.

I wish I had the original quote.

[Decky]

Yea I know the one you mean. Where he says naturally people doing heavy work get more than light work, people who work outdoors should get more than indoors etc.

Bizarrely enough the OPs criticism is one of the most common criticisms of Marxism you will hear and it hasn't been supported my any Marxist government that has ever existed in history. Ignorance of history and politics at its finest.

[fuser]

Yeah, "everyone will be equal" is one of the most stupid and most common strawman against Marxism

[RedPillAger]

TIG, you say in capitalism, the rewards from production go "up", and in communism that the rewards for production go to everyone. what's wrong with a person's rewards from his work going to himself?

[Decky]

Nothing's wrong with that. It's what we want. The working class getting the rewards from their own work rather than it going to the idle rich.

[fuser]

what's wrong with a person's rewards from his work going to himself?

Nothing. That's why communism should be supported unlike capitalism where most of the rewards go to some rich bastard who does nothing.

Edit : Dammit, Decky beat me to it.