"It's good in theory ..."

[Durandal]

Time for a rant. What's with this idiotic "Well, it was a good idea in theory, but it just didn't work out" crap? This is really prevalent among college students talking about communism. Every damned person thinks that communism is a good idea "in theory." No, it's not a good idea in theory. It's not a good idea at all. There's no such thing as a "good theory" that just doesn't work out in reality.

Why? Because theories are supposed to model reality! How the hell can you have a good theory that fails to conform to reality? Communism made assumptions that weren't true, and of course, it didn't work! Some say, "But if those assumptions were true, it would have worked." So what?! The theory made assumptions which were false, and that makes it a bad theory!

Jesus Christ, come on. If I proposed a way to bring about world peace by sprinkling magic fairy dust on everybody, is my idea good "in theory"? No? But my theory assumes that magical fairy dust exists. Just because reality doesn't conform to that assumption doesn't mean it's a bad theory!

Okay, rant off.

[DPDarkPrimus]

The theory they refer to is different in definition than the scientific definition of theory.

As much as I agree with you, the phrase is so ingrained that I can't help but use it.

[Nova Andromeda]

How the hell can you have a good theory that fails to conform to reality?

--Theoretical physics is full of examples. A theory can be a good idea if it hasn't been fully tested, but conforms known reality. As for the specific issue of communism, I have no comment at this point in time....

[Durandal]

How the hell can you have a good theory that fails to conform to reality?

--Theoretical physics is full of examples. A theory can be a good idea if it hasn't been fully tested, but conforms known reality. As for the specific issue of communism, I have no comment at this point in time....

Even Newtonian physics falls under that limitation. However, Newtonian physics still works in certain conditions, and those conditions actually exist. Communism simply doesn't work under any conditions known to exist.

[Durandal]

Actually I take that back. Communism might work on very small scales, like a small village or something like that. But as a system of government for a nation, it doesn't.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Actually I take that back. Communism might work on very small scales, like a small village or something like that. But as a system of government for a nation, it doesn't.

There were actually several small Communist settlements somewhere in New York (or was it Philidelphia?) before and during the Industrial Revolution, but they dried up after their main sources of funding did the same.

[Tasoth]

Have you asked these people what Utopia means? By definition, anything referred to as a Utopia/Utopian is impractical and idealistic . So sayeth the Dictionary.

[Terr Fangbite]

I've always said communism was a good idea with bad track record. In my mind communism is a good system which promotes unity, and removes poor from society. However, its not practical in that its major fault is that the system doesn't replace greed with some other motivator. In Star Trek they try this "good for all humanity" bull which in the current situation is totally unpractical. Greed moves this society and it'll take something powerful to replace it as motivation to work hard. Thats why communism failed, because once greed was replaced as the motivator, no one cared to work hard.

[lgot]

Communism is not scientific theory, it is a political ideology...They should say "it is a good ideal" (good or bad as you may judge)...really you are right, the "good theory, just work out" is just meaningless...

[sketerpot]

I've always said communism was a good idea with bad track record. In my mind communism is a good system which promotes unity, and removes poor from society.

What kind of communism are you talking about? Are you talking about the Karl Marx, "Abolition of the family", "Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state", totalitarian paradise? Or are you talking about some milder version?

And I have another problem with communism that you didn't mention: a whole lot of cetralization. The potential for abuse of power is staggering. Do you really trust politicians?

[Rye]

I don't think they're saying it in a scientific sense somehow, to them it's good hypothetically which in the layman vernacular is a synonym at theoretically, like it's a good idea hypothetically to make everyone equal and make everyone get the same stuff (which, as I understand it, is the common perception of communism)but it just doesn't work out in reality, for a load of reasons.

On the other hand, they could just be quoting Home when he says "...which is a good idea, in theory. But communism works, in theory."

[Darth Wong]

The phrase "it's good in theory" means that the logic of the proposition is internally consistent and follows from its premises, not that it's a valid scientific theory.

The problem is that people confuse this colloquial definition of "theory" with "scientific theory", which causes a lot of problems (particularly due to the creationist behaviour of focusing on the word "theory" when they attack scientific theories).

[Admiral Valdemar]

Really, sort of the same way when someone has a plan. It'd work if, say, the enemy did what you expected, but reality can mess around with it since you can't compute every variable.

[Terr Fangbite]

The centralization of communism is one of the reasons it failed. No man is deserving enough to have that much power. That is another reason aside from motivation it failed. And it does promote unity. Everyone working for the greater good. Abolition of family does not mean abolition of unity.

[Symmetry]

Time for a rant. What's with this idiotic "Well, it was a good idea in theory, but it just didn't work out" crap?

From the quotes I've seen, Marx was very much against the idea that anything that doesn't work out in practice could be a good theory. From what I've read he was a pretty honest guy, and would probably admit he was wrong if he could be here today and see that his predictions turned out not to be true.

Communism is not scientific theory, it is a political ideology...They should say "it is a good ideal" (good or bad as you may judge)...really you are right, the "good theory, just work out" is just meaningless...

But Communism was intended to be a good theory in the scientific sense. In Das Capital Marx made a good many testable predictions about the ever lower standards of living of the lower class, ever increasing unemployment, the disapearence of the middle class, and the shrinking upper class. Marxism (as opposed to, say, Stalinism), just happens to be wrong.

[Darth Wong]

But Communism was intended to be a good theory in the scientific sense.

Did he base it upon quantified observations rather than subjective doctrinal statements? If not, then it was not a theory in the scientific sense.

In Das Capital Marx made a good many testable predictions about the ever lower standards of living of the lower class, ever increasing unemployment, the disapearence of the middle class, and the shrinking upper class. Marxism (as opposed to, say, Stalinism), just happens to be wrong.

Once again, did he produce figures to show that these trends were actually occuring and could be correlated in some fashion to the types of socio-economic policies he was talking about?

[Alyrium Denryle]

The centralization of communism is one of the reasons it failed. No man is deserving enough to have that much power. That is another reason aside from motivation it failed. And it does promote unity. Everyone working for the greater good. Abolition of family does not mean abolition of unity.

Greed is a motivator that is ingrained in our biology itself. we cant get rid of it any more than we can get rid of microbes.

[SyntaxVorlon]

Once you look at the way the world has turned out due to the new industries of the 20th century, you can see clearly that Marx's communism wouldn't have worked, theory or no.

[Neko_Oni]

It probably didn't help Communism's track record that Western nations actively sabotage any emerging Communist / Socialist nations. Couple that with the tendancy of Western societies to label failed nations as Communist (when they should be labeled as Fascist such as the Soviet Union). Simply to show their own populations that Communism doesn't work, so that everyone keeps being good little capitalists.

[Rogue 9]

Actually I take that back. Communism might work on very small scales, like a small village or something like that. But as a system of government for a nation, it doesn't.

There were actually several small Communist settlements somewhere in New York (or was it Philidelphia?) before and during the Industrial Revolution, but they dried up after their main sources of funding did the same.

New Harmony, Indiana is one of the most famous ones, actually. It was certainly one of the larger working ones; when it grew to over I think 150 people in the second generation it failed. Communism works on very small scales when everyone knows everyone else and is therefore willing to make sacrifices for them, but it's very rare to find a person who will sacrifice his wages for people he doesn't even know, which is what Communism on the national scale requires. That's largely why it doesn't work outside of close knit communities.

[Jalinth]

It probably didn't help Communism's track record that Western nations actively sabotage any emerging Communist / Socialist nations. Couple that with the tendancy of Western societies to label failed nations as Communist (when they should be labeled as Fascist such as the Soviet Union). Simply to show their own populations that Communism doesn't work, so that everyone keeps being good little capitalists.

?? Western nations didn't label the Soviets as being communists, the Soviet leaders did - starting with Lenin. When the leaders preach from Karl Marx, follow his writings (elimination of religion, suppression of the bourgesis (my spelling is off here)), and state out they are communists, it becomes a bit more than a nasty Western conspiracy in mislabelling.

The Western nations really didn't have that much to do with the Soviets after the White Russians were defeated before WWII started. So all the gulags, starvation, and all the other atrocities pretty much lay at the feet of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. During WWII they were allies and after that it became undeclared war - so sabotage was taking place on both sides. Its was war.

As to Communism not working, Western Nations really don't need to do the work - the Soviet Union did a good enough job by itself. The problem isn't greed, the problem is how do you motivate people. One old expression was "I'll pretend to work, you'll pretend to pay me". Fear can only do so much.

Second problem is economic - how does your population signal they want or need more bread and less vodka (or vice versa). The Communist system essentially eliminates market forces as a signal, but doesn't provide any useful replacement. They relied upon bureaucrats - who had to be all-knowing, all-competent and all-benign to succeed without market forces as signals.

Small communities can work (see a number of religious groups) - simply because peer pressure and common expectations can hold together small groups of people. But this control mechanism doesn't scale that well - what works for hundreds fails to work for millions.

[PrinceofLowLight]

It probably didn't help Communism's track record that Western nations actively sabotage any emerging Communist / Socialist nations. Couple that with the tendancy of Western societies to label failed nations as Communist (when they should be labeled as Fascist such as the Soviet Union). Simply to show their own populations that Communism doesn't work, so that everyone keeps being good little capitalists.

I would say you have it backwards. Fascism and communism are simply close enough that the main difference really is mostly cosmetic. Just because they have a lot in common doesn't mean that it ain't communism, though.
Let's run through a little checklist for our buddies the Soviets:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Check

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Check

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

Check

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Check

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Check

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

Check

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Check. Not sure how successful the wasteland and soil improvement things were, but I'm pretty sure they were attempted.

8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Check.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

Check.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

Check

It would appear that the USSR did, indeed, have the defining characteristics of communism. And as for the west sabotaging emerging communist nations, it's not as if the communists weren't trying to do the same to budding capitalist nations. The sides survived and died on the strengths of their systems, not any sort of conspiracy.

[lgot]

From the quotes I've seen, Marx was very much against the idea that anything that doesn't work out in practice could be a good theory. From what I've read he was a pretty honest guy, and would probably admit he was wrong if he could be here today and see that his predictions turned out not to be true.

I do not think many people just call Karl Marx a liar. But that did not mean he believe or not in false ideas. He had a strong notion of of things working in pratice to be valid yes. No wonder he did found and worked out things that still valid. But he was a idealistic person. Such as he sometimes allowed his ideology and even some good will (he strongly against the abuse of the workers) and when doing his political views, his own economic knowledge was used (and his status also) to back up the political ideal. And when working out the predictions of future of society he allowed this idealism to guide his predictions.

But Communism was intended to be a good theory in the scientific sense. In Das Capital Marx made a good many testable predictions about the ever lower standards of living of the lower class, ever increasing unemployment, the disapearence of the middle class, and the shrinking upper class. Marxism (as opposed to, say, Stalinism), just happens to be wrong.

Communism was not the theory, but the result. The societies would end like this by Marx view. That was the result of the aplication of his theories (all the materialisms) with the taint of his idealistic view (those in this specific case of what society would come).
It is not bad to see that some stuff failed (marx did not trusted liberal iniciative to be ever able to have the capacity to develop a capacity to be more "human" in the worker exploration) and some stuff worked out (Marx believed that the mobilization of the class would give it more power and the pressure would reduce the exploration of workers)...of course he failed and get some stuff right (there is the problem however of the extremes of marxists to never believe in his capacity to fail or the other side, those who would say he was always wrong) but much of his ideas when applied with more information or another vision worked well enough to make valid to study him but not make his "predictions" be a dogma and correct it when needed...

[Terr Fangbite]

I think the problem which people don't understand is that Russia, China, Cuba etc are not communist. They are socialist. Communism is the economic state in which the countries wealth is divided evenly to every member. Russia was not like this, nor China, nor Cuba. Socialism is the economic state in which all indudustries were controlled by the government and everything became state dependent. Russia was socialist trying to become Communist. Thats what Lenin said. They never said they were a communist state, capitalists just made a general statement not to confuse the stupid masses.

[Neko_Oni]

It would appear that the USSR did, indeed, have the defining characteristics of communism. And as for the west sabotaging emerging communist nations, it's not as if the communists weren't trying to do the same to budding capitalist nations. The sides survived and died on the strengths of their systems, not any sort of conspiracy.

Good point, well made.
With the sabotaging thing, I never said Communist states weren't doing the same thing back. It's just Western nations do have a history of 'intervening' in developing countries which may be leaning towards something other than capitalism.