Hell yeah, PB. This was a good read. Though I'm doubtful I'll ever live to see it, my ideal form of government is specifically anarchocommunist. I no longer call myself an anarchist as I have drifted pretty firmly into the reformist camp, but you make a valid point that the reformist position and revolutionary aren't mutually exclusive. I think the more important point, and part of the reason I'm less vocal about my ideal, is that sometimes an ideological goal can get in the way of the immediate structural reform that will get us there. It can also become a mirage that we're drawn to while wandering through the desert of late-capitalism. I've yet to see plans for a replacement that provides for all the disadvantaged who rely on the government to survive during the transition. So, by wandering towards the mirage, we're essentially neglecting the work of digging the well. I have more thoughts that I want to add in response to both your writing and the comment above and will return to contribute them when I can.
The way your think about "communism" is not that different from my radically "Neo -Social Democracy which I "define" as:
We demand more mutually beneficial market transactions between consenting adults that do not create any untaxed/unsubsidized negative/positive externalities (with some exceptions for transactions in addictive substances and services) and for some of the income generated from those mutually beneficial transactions taxed with a progressive consumption taxes and revenues used for redistribution and for purchase of public goods whose expenditures pass an NPV>0 test when inputs and outputs are valued at Pigou tax/subsidy inclusive marginal costs and revenues.
Depending on how much "some" income taxed and distributed (on the basis of need, what else) is, this would like your "communism." It is technologically contingent in that "externalities" (and "addictive" substances and services) are being created and destroyed by technological change as is the feasibility of levying Pigou taxes and subsidies.
The "calculation problem" appears in the modeling needed to set Pigou taxes.
In principle it can be achieved incrementally w/o evolution.
The real problem with communism is its anarchism and overemphasis on conflict, as if there were nothing between extreme inequality and radical egalitarianism. I believe that inequality should be limited rather than abolished and that business and state should be seperated. We also need a broader framework than just conflict theory and a broader array of values including, but not limited to, liberty and equality. The government might suppress revolutions at first, which is partially understandable because revolutions can easily go wrong, as in the case of the French and Russian revolutions, but, as in the case of slavery, it starts with reform and continues with a large-scale change in societal norms. Here are are some alternatives that I believe show more promise than both capitalism and socialism:
To discuss communism rationally you must first choose one version, and there are as many as there are people who have thought about it, each with its own attempt to overcome forseen difficulties in various ways.
2) There are some problems with communism (incentive and calculation problem) that could be enough to give up on communism.
3) These problems might be contingent on the current historical state.
4) Therefore communism might be a good aspiration as its desirable properties may be acheivable in the future without the current problems and we can take steps to try and approximate it.
You say “We don’t know whether communism will ever be possible but it may well be. Moreover, there are reasons to think it is desirable, and we can take steps to try and approximate it better in the present, so it is right to aspire to it.”
The problem here is taking steps to approximate it in the present is not supported by the argument.
At present there are the problems you listed. The fact that in the future they may be absent gives no reason to believe we should try to approximate communism now, as approximating communism now should come with the problems as they exist now, which you said may be enough to give up on communism.
The mere fact that in the future these problems may be absent doesn't provide any suppport for approximating communism in the present, as the problems <i>do<i/> exist in the present.
I don't think that's quite the right read. To me the argument includes that we should also continue making efforts to identify and address those problems; their absence in the future is not assumed, but the _possibility_ of their absence in the future is equivalent to saying that they are not unsolvable.
I consider myself a social democrat, but when I imagine Our Glorious Transhuman Future or something similar, I imagine a communist society much like the one you describe. The reasons I don't call myself a communist are:
1. I consider marxism to be wrong about many matters of fact
2. I think that the status of labor as a commodity (i.e. wage labor) cannot be abolished unless labor itself ceases to be valuable
3. I think that money serves a valuable purpose, and there is no reason to do away with it
4. I think that present-day political struggles or are more less completely unrelated to whether or not some future post-scarcity society will achieve communism
5. I am absolutely dead certain that there will never be a working class revolution in the developed world, not least because it is not in the working class's best interest, so the primary occupation of self-described communists (to agitate for a revolution) seems like a waste of time
I think of this in terms of whether you want a Star Trek future. Star Trek seems to be kind of "communist". Material needs are met -- there is abundant energy to the point that accounting for usage of it at the scale of individuals' everyday lives is kind of beside the point. People can meet their basic needs via replicators. There remains a capitalist economy on top of that, where you can buy things that are rare just to enjoy their rarity. (And evidently land is still held privately, given that Picard owns a chateau and vineyard. I feel like this issue is badly under-explored in any official Star Trek media.) But there is no reserve of immiserated proletarians, exile into which can be held as a threat by capital against labor, to keep workers from getting jumped-up ideas about deserving a larger slice of the pie.
There is a modern iteration of the Right (folks like Peter Thiel) that seems to actively want a dystopian future. They saw Blade Runner, and instead of recognizing it as terrifying, were like, "Yeah, that's cool!" (Hence the joke: "At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus, from visionary sci-fi novel Don't Create the Torment Nexus!")
Hell yeah, PB. This was a good read. Though I'm doubtful I'll ever live to see it, my ideal form of government is specifically anarchocommunist. I no longer call myself an anarchist as I have drifted pretty firmly into the reformist camp, but you make a valid point that the reformist position and revolutionary aren't mutually exclusive. I think the more important point, and part of the reason I'm less vocal about my ideal, is that sometimes an ideological goal can get in the way of the immediate structural reform that will get us there. It can also become a mirage that we're drawn to while wandering through the desert of late-capitalism. I've yet to see plans for a replacement that provides for all the disadvantaged who rely on the government to survive during the transition. So, by wandering towards the mirage, we're essentially neglecting the work of digging the well. I have more thoughts that I want to add in response to both your writing and the comment above and will return to contribute them when I can.
The way your think about "communism" is not that different from my radically "Neo -Social Democracy which I "define" as:
We demand more mutually beneficial market transactions between consenting adults that do not create any untaxed/unsubsidized negative/positive externalities (with some exceptions for transactions in addictive substances and services) and for some of the income generated from those mutually beneficial transactions taxed with a progressive consumption taxes and revenues used for redistribution and for purchase of public goods whose expenditures pass an NPV>0 test when inputs and outputs are valued at Pigou tax/subsidy inclusive marginal costs and revenues.
Depending on how much "some" income taxed and distributed (on the basis of need, what else) is, this would like your "communism." It is technologically contingent in that "externalities" (and "addictive" substances and services) are being created and destroyed by technological change as is the feasibility of levying Pigou taxes and subsidies.
The "calculation problem" appears in the modeling needed to set Pigou taxes.
In principle it can be achieved incrementally w/o evolution.
The real problem with communism is its anarchism and overemphasis on conflict, as if there were nothing between extreme inequality and radical egalitarianism. I believe that inequality should be limited rather than abolished and that business and state should be seperated. We also need a broader framework than just conflict theory and a broader array of values including, but not limited to, liberty and equality. The government might suppress revolutions at first, which is partially understandable because revolutions can easily go wrong, as in the case of the French and Russian revolutions, but, as in the case of slavery, it starts with reform and continues with a large-scale change in societal norms. Here are are some alternatives that I believe show more promise than both capitalism and socialism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_utilization_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralist_commonwealth
Bruce Schneier suggests that AI hacking of the legal code may be... disruptive... https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2023/03/how-ai-could-write-our-laws.html
Maybe not *everything*; just land? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
This is a close match for my views.
To discuss communism rationally you must first choose one version, and there are as many as there are people who have thought about it, each with its own attempt to overcome forseen difficulties in various ways.
Good thing the working definition for the article was clearly stated at the top, then?
This argument seems flawed.
As I understand it the argument goes:
1) Communism has some desirable properties.
2) There are some problems with communism (incentive and calculation problem) that could be enough to give up on communism.
3) These problems might be contingent on the current historical state.
4) Therefore communism might be a good aspiration as its desirable properties may be acheivable in the future without the current problems and we can take steps to try and approximate it.
You say “We don’t know whether communism will ever be possible but it may well be. Moreover, there are reasons to think it is desirable, and we can take steps to try and approximate it better in the present, so it is right to aspire to it.”
The problem here is taking steps to approximate it in the present is not supported by the argument.
At present there are the problems you listed. The fact that in the future they may be absent gives no reason to believe we should try to approximate communism now, as approximating communism now should come with the problems as they exist now, which you said may be enough to give up on communism.
The mere fact that in the future these problems may be absent doesn't provide any suppport for approximating communism in the present, as the problems <i>do<i/> exist in the present.
I don't think that's quite the right read. To me the argument includes that we should also continue making efforts to identify and address those problems; their absence in the future is not assumed, but the _possibility_ of their absence in the future is equivalent to saying that they are not unsolvable.
I consider myself a social democrat, but when I imagine Our Glorious Transhuman Future or something similar, I imagine a communist society much like the one you describe. The reasons I don't call myself a communist are:
1. I consider marxism to be wrong about many matters of fact
2. I think that the status of labor as a commodity (i.e. wage labor) cannot be abolished unless labor itself ceases to be valuable
3. I think that money serves a valuable purpose, and there is no reason to do away with it
4. I think that present-day political struggles or are more less completely unrelated to whether or not some future post-scarcity society will achieve communism
5. I am absolutely dead certain that there will never be a working class revolution in the developed world, not least because it is not in the working class's best interest, so the primary occupation of self-described communists (to agitate for a revolution) seems like a waste of time
I think of this in terms of whether you want a Star Trek future. Star Trek seems to be kind of "communist". Material needs are met -- there is abundant energy to the point that accounting for usage of it at the scale of individuals' everyday lives is kind of beside the point. People can meet their basic needs via replicators. There remains a capitalist economy on top of that, where you can buy things that are rare just to enjoy their rarity. (And evidently land is still held privately, given that Picard owns a chateau and vineyard. I feel like this issue is badly under-explored in any official Star Trek media.) But there is no reserve of immiserated proletarians, exile into which can be held as a threat by capital against labor, to keep workers from getting jumped-up ideas about deserving a larger slice of the pie.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Automated_Luxury_Communism
There is a modern iteration of the Right (folks like Peter Thiel) that seems to actively want a dystopian future. They saw Blade Runner, and instead of recognizing it as terrifying, were like, "Yeah, that's cool!" (Hence the joke: "At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus, from visionary sci-fi novel Don't Create the Torment Nexus!")