What would we lose in a properly executed communist society?

Question

Properly executed meaning not China, not the USSR, so on. If communism worked, what would we LOSE from giving up capitalism?

I'm thinking mostly productivity and maybe a bit of a drop in the quality of life, and a lot of work falling to the shoulders of a few. Let's say we live in X, and we have a farm. We all own the farm, we all eat the bread made using the wheat from the farm, but I don't know how many people would want to go and actually work the farm just out of the goodness of their hearts.

I think that for communism to work, we need to have it surivive for one or two generations so we can change our collective mindset from 'I, me, mine," to "Everyone, us, ours."

I know my username is misleading but I'm delving deeper in to communism and can't find a straightforward answer.

Answer 1

We would lose the incentive to be productive.

Capitalist societies produce more than communist societies because there is an incentive to be ultra-productive. People that manage to be especially productive are richly rewarded. (think of Henry Ford)

In a communist society, people all share the fruits of what is produced. Therefore, you don't get much extra by finding new ways to fill people's needs.

The idea that people can change their mindset to "ours" is a nice idea, but is it also a fallacy of composition. What I mean by this is that it doesn't work well, because what works for society does not work for the individual. If society adopted an "ours" attitude, any individual could still decide to freeride, and therefore, many would freeride.

Another benefit of capitalism is that it gives people a way to get rich, legitimately, and in a way that adds value to the rest of society. With communism, the only ways to get rich are through corruption or other unfair ways of politicking. So, give people a way to get rich that benefits other people.

I'm not touting capitalism as perfect, or saying that communism can't work. I think the benefits of capitalism are good. A better way, in my opinion, would be capitalism, but where people must pay for the external costs they create. (Make companies pay for the pollution, traffic, heart disease etc. that they cause to give them an incentive to reduce these things)

If you foresee a more involved government, rather than changing the way property is owned (to communal ownership), I suggest there are benefits to the existence of property rights and that charging people for external costs would be a more valuable intervention.

As for ownership itself, there are benefits to it. If people own something, they tend to take care of it. If all of society owns something, there is an attitude that someone else can take care of it. Even if many people subscribe to your "ours" view, you can't force people to join, nor can you quash the drive of human greed.

In summary, capitalism allows people to satisfy their greed in a way that benefits society. It gives people incentive to be productive and to take better care of the things we produce.

Answer 2

Liberty is the first casuality. Using your scenario, how would you ensure that the work gets done? We may have an equal share in the ownership of the farm but this would allow some people to slack off and just claim their loaf of bread without putting in any effort. This would lead to discontent and resentment toward the system. Humans have a natural prediliction toward fairness so unless you brainwash people and convince them that such values are useless and pointless in a society where everything is shared you will always have a need to employ someone in order to crush resentment and ensure that the work is done.

Answer 3

There is no way to implement it. That is why China and The USSR ended up as they did. Man is an animal, easily corrupted by the slightest impression of power. You can see that from the local cop to the president of the country. As Orwell stated so magnificently, "some are more equal than others."

Answer 4

1 - Individual creativity
2 - Reward for effort and innovation
3 - Any sense of order - pure communism = no government


We'd have total defiance of human nature. There are always going to be conflicts. There will always be natural leaders. As such, it's impossible for such a system to work.

Answer 5

Ambition. When there is no room for progress, no upward movement, people will fall into lethargy. That is why all tries have failed thus far. Without advancement, or at least the illusion thereof, humans will not strive to progress. That's why capitalism works and communism doesn't.

Answer 6

America is too populous for communism. Then you have to consider the foundation of this country. the ideals and mentality simply can not support such a stringent system.

Answer 7

Man is not rational, and, as such, depends upon his own survival and benefit to inspire him to work, create, procreate, and live a life of ambition, and, decency. Without this, man would become something he is not, a worker bee, a worker ant, toiling away selflessly for the survival of its species, and, for the queen. It would never work, my friend.

Answer 8

just like a lefty always looking for a free ride. Sounds like a good way to see the USA go down in flames.

Answer 9

man, that is so perverse. we would lose free thought, individualism, creativity, and everything that makes us human. i certainly hope you are being sarcastic in asking this. the idea of a collective mindset sends tremors down my ******* spine. the very internet you are utilizing would never even have been invented.

Answer 10

The right to free enterprise. We'd have to share everything with everyone else. I don't agree with that at all.