You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Lumifer comments on Estimate the Cost of Immortality - Less Wrong Discussion

-4 Post author: Algernoq 13 December 2015 11:38AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (115)
Tags: poll immortality

Comments (115)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 16 December 2015 05:43:41AM 0 points [-]

I suppose you can, if you want, define "communism" so narrowly that nothing counts as communism unless it brings about an early paradise of perfect plenty.

This is the canonical, traditional, classic, orthodox, and correct definition of communism in Marxism.

Imagine that someone tells Karl Marx...

I feel we're veering into the If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle territory...

Comment author: gjm 16 December 2015 01:11:15PM 1 point [-]

correct definition of communism in Marxism

I am far from being an expert on Marxism. But my impression is that what you say is at best an oversimplification. For instance, in the Communist Manifesto I find no claim that nothing should be called communism unless it successfully offers limitless plenty to all. I do find things like this:

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

and this:

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

You will notice that nowhere in that second quotation does he add "3. Communists believe that they will successfully bring about an end to all forms of economic scarcity.". (So: Marx may perhaps have believed that an end to scarcity was inevitable, or something of the kind, but he doesn't appear to have thought that such a belief is a requirement for someone to be called a communist.)

I don't (of course) deny that an end to scarcity was a goal of communism. For that matter, it is (or should be) a goal of capitalism too. And Marx, fond as he was of the idea that his preferred system was a matter of historical inevitability, may well have believed -- or at least found it useful to say -- that when communism is fully implemented scarcity will be at an end. But none of that is the same as saying that if you abolish private property, social class, etc., and this regrettably fails to bring about a total end to scarcity, then what you did wasn't communism after all.

Comment author: Lumifer 16 December 2015 04:13:06PM *  1 point [-]

First, let me point out that there is a terminological mess here. I was careful to specify that I was talking in Marxist terms which do not match terms used in contemporary Western political discourse. Note, by the way, that we are not talking about theories (one of which is named "communism"), but about forms of society.

Marxists call "communism" a particular form of future society which has never (yet) been realized. It's an aspirational form, the carrot in front of the donkey, the light at the end of the tunnel, the heaven in which the worthy will find themselves. The realized, intermediate form is called "socialism". The USSR was a socialist country.

In Western political talk, "communism" and "communist" refers to real societies like Soviet Russia and Communist (!) China, while "socialism" means a capitalist state with a generous welfare system, e.g. Sweden.

In any case, a Google search will give you lots of Marxist definitions of communism. Let me quote you Wikipedia to start:

A communist economic system would be characterized by advanced productive technology that enables material abundance, which in turn would enable the free distribution of most or all economic output and the holding of the means of producing this output in common. In this respect communism is differentiated from socialism, which, out of economic necessity, restricts access to articles of consumption and services based on one's contribution.

-

if you abolish private property, social class, etc., and this regrettably fails to bring about a total end to scarcity, then what you did wasn't communism after all.

It wasn't. The Russians, for example, who abolished private property, etc. did not call their society "communist". They called it "socialist" and said that they are only building communism.

Comment author: gjm 16 December 2015 11:17:22PM 0 points [-]

Well, as I say, I am not a Marx expert, so let me stipulate that you're completely and perfectly correct in what you say about Marx's use of the word "communism". Then ... well, so what?

Looking back at the context in which the perfect-abundance-or-not question arose, it looks to me as if it was right when you said this:

The whole point of the communist paradise is freedom from need.

But up to that point, no one had been talking specifically about a Marxian end-stage perfected communist paradise. Xyrik's question was broader: what if there were no private property and everyone just did whatever was needed? Now, for sure, one implausible imaginary future in which that's the case is Marx's end-stage perfected communist paradise, but there was nothing in what Xyrik wrote to imply that particular implausible imaginary future.

And you brought in "the whole point of the communist paradise" in order to foist upon Xyrik an idea not -- so far as I can see -- either explicit or implicit in the original question, namely that our hypothetical communards would be engaged only in "meaningful conscious-expanding profound activities" to the exclusion of mundanities like growing food. I don't really see how you get there even with the assumption that Xyrik is talking about Marx's specific utopia, but without that assumption I think it's hopeless.

So, granting you literally everything you say about Marx and Marxism here, I don't see that it actually gets you near the conclusion you were trying to support.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit