Communism--I just don't get it.

[BuckleberryFerry]

So we've been studying the Cold War in history recently and--I just don't get it. Why is Communism held as such a horrible thing? It's just another government, as far as I can see. This opposition to Communism seems about as rational to me as if democrats held the same view toward republicans--it just doesn't seem rational to me. Can someone explain it?

[Texican]

Communism is horrible because it precludes free will.

[Indefatigable]

As an insult ('pinko commie'), it probably stems from the cold war, when Americans and Soviets flaunted their hatred of each other, and were encouraged to look upon the other's politics and way of life as inferior.

As a system of government... it's a neat idea in theory, but doesn't work so well in practice, I guess. Everything that everyone produces and every bit of money they make goes to the government, who decides what to do with it and how to redistribute it. If the government isn't completely honest about it, they can line their own pockets instead of giving decent amounts back to the people and providing social services like health care and education, so you can end up with a few fat cats ruling a lot of poor, unhealthy, and uneducated people.

Another problem (although I don't know if this is an observed phenomenon, or just something made up for propaganda) is that there will always be people who decide not to work because they know they'll get the same amount back from the government anyways. So you have less productive people in the society, again reducing the total amount of money and resources available to each individual.

I wonder which communist countries have been the most successful (by capitalist standards, anyways, i.e. compared to the US or Canada or the UK, where we keep most of our money and pay a portion of it to the government) in terms of keeping the majority of their populations healthy and well-fed and literate.

[BuckleberryFerry]

How so? I apologize for my utter ignorance--I've never understood politics and we've only learned that communism is bad because the US said so.

[BuckleberryFerry]

My above post was directed at Texican, btw...I'm slow in the posting today

[Indefatigable]

I don't know how they choose their leaders, so it may lie in that. But they have no less free will in turning over all the money they make than we do in paying our taxes that are less than 100%.

[Zagadka]

Ugh, here comes some flamin'

The reason WE viewed communism as evil is kinda twofold

One, the Soviet communist movement had the goal of world revolution. We weren't to keen on that, staring over Germany at hordes of military forces.

Two, there was a strong backlash against socialist reform after FDR.

That is pretty much it. The brainwashing transformed Communism as a whole into this horribly evil thing, even though it is just a form of government. The fact that communist nations *tend* to be largely single-party dictatorships doesn't help. Communism as an economic/social system doesn't preclude anything, but like democracy and capitalism, it can be taken in many horrible ways.

[akennett]

The harshest opposition to communism in the US (and amongst our allies) came as a result of the governments that implemented it, not necessarily as a result of an ingrained opposition to the theory. Communism is sort of an end-game to socialism (this is not an exact definition, merely a simplification) - socialism in the extreme. Most people dislike extremist positions, even if they agree with the underlying principle involved.

In just about all nations there had been some sort of a socialist push, either a call for out-and-out socialism, or a move to incorporate some of their ideals into the existing governments; welfare programs, graduated income taxes, and universla health care are all examples of this push. Most (if not all) nations have accepted some of these programs.

However, the communist nations (at least the larger ones) have engaged in a sort of expansionistic tendency that the US and our allies found to be distasteful. This was accentuated by the most obvious example - that of the USSR directly after the second World War. This imperialist expansion was a terrifying reminder for much of Europe and the world of the Nazi expansionism. Couple this with the purges of intellectuals and opposition members by Stalin and you'll see why this was particularly disagreeable to the US and allies. It is with this in mind that the Cold War began - which, of course, would fuel hatred for other communist nations.

[Zagadka]

For a little insight that demonstrates it all very well, the Soviets never ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and America never ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, IIRC.

[Quartz]

Read Marx's Communist Manifesto; then read about the history of the Soviet Union.

[Xema]

The problem is basically with the results Communism has produced. For an interesting example (famous, but not to the degree it deserves), check out the book "Harvest of Sorrow" by Robert Conquest.

[barbitu8]

In the first place, the Communist regimes have been headed by ruthless dictators, for the most part. But the utopian concept of equality for all just doesn't work out in practice. There has to be private enterprise, with the survival of the fittest. If there's no incentive to work and do a good job, then people won't. If the government is to be the only owner and doler of jobs, and decide who is going to do what, the human spirit is somewhat diminished, along with free will.

If Kerenski had not lost the prime minister position to Lenin, Russia would not have been Communistic, but socialistic, which are two different concepts. But Kerenski and the "whites" did lose, and the Soviet of Peoples' Commissars prevailed. Lenin carried through a major distribution of land and nationalized property and the banks. His attempts to accomplish economic revolution while waging civil war led to famine and the virtual collapse of Russia's economy. In his dying days, he warned the country of Stalin, but was helpless to prevent Stalin's obtaining power after his death in 1924.

Stalin enforced his views of achieving "Socialism in One Country" through trials in 1935-8 in which many veterans and army leaders were charged with treason and condemned. Stalin had relied on indirect control until 1941 when he became Prime Minister. It was this Stalinistic Communism which took over European and Asian countries after WWII, setting up puppet governments, and which we tried, eventually, to stop, but was facilitated by the terms of the Yalta agreement.

Castro turned to the Stalin communism after he was, in his mind at least, spurned by us. Cuba turned from bad to worse after he took over, but he did have some noble ideas, such as ridding the country of all of our casinos, Mafia influence and our overwhelming presence, in general. But in doing so, he took over property owned by US persons and corporations without compensation.

So, socialism in and of itself, may not be so bad, but the Communistic version has no redeeming features.

[Zagadka]

hehe, lets not get into Cuba. That is a whole other barrel of monkeys.

[samarm]

You find the following discussions interesting:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=156212

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=119529

[Musicat]

BuckleberryFerry,It might be instructive to read Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. Although fictional, I think you can see the parallels between Rand's tale and the way Communism developed over the 20th Century.

Another good (and mercifully shorter) book would be Animal Farm, by George Orwell.

Formal economic & political treatises have their place, but I think such fiction can better reveal the psychology behind such government structures. The theory (Marxism, Dialectic Materialism) and the practice can be radically different.

To elaborate, Marx & Engels thought it was a waste for factory owners ("capitalists") to take a percentage of the profits from the workers who actually produced the goods. They theorized that, if the profit motive were removed, factories would continuously churn out and stockpile shoes, for example, and when someone needed a shoe, he would go to the pile and take what he needed. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Sounds good, eh? If only human nature could be removed from the equation, it might work. In reality, if there is no incentive (profit) for the factory to make shoes, they tend to turn out very few and of low quality. That's the supply side. On the demand side, if shoes are very cheap, many people would take as many as they could grab. Since the cost is not a disincentive and the supply is theoretically unlimited, why not?

Economists like to say the "market signals" are missing. Without the possibility of greater profit, the factory doesn't invest in new equipment and design better (or fancier) shoes or styles. And if the price is held artificially low, the consumer has no incentive to buy fewer shoes. Communist stores are typically in a boom/bust (mostly bust) cycle, and the supply rarely matches the demand.

Of course, this is an economic argument, and there are other aspects of Communism that fail, also. Don't get me started. :)

[mangeorge]

Originally posted by Zagadka
hehe, lets not get into Cuba. That is a whole other barrel of monkeys.
No, Zagadka, it's the same barrel. The OP asks about why communism is held in such low regard among capitlist countries. Cuba is a communist country.
Peace,
mangeorge

[mangeorge]

samarm is right. There's already a ton of info available.

[slipster]

Communism is offensive as it is a totalilarian system which suppresses freedom of speech, religion and association. It is, besides, a fundamentally flawed theory of economics in the abstract and, in actual practice, a grossly inefficient method for managing the affairs of a state.

While all of this is demonstrably true, none of it, really, accounts for the animus traditionally expressed towards Communism in the United States. These same objections can be made against numerous non-Communist states such as Iran under the Shah, the Philippines under Marcos, and any number of undemocratic or marginally democratic third world nations towards which the U. S. remains extremely friendly. Neither does it account for why Yugoslavia, a Communist dictatorship, was given extensive military aid by the United States throughout the Cold War, or why China has not held in the same disdain as the Soviet Union was since Nixon established trade relations with it.

Since the 19th Century Communism has served as a convenient boogie man for the reactionary elements in American society, with pretty much anything which is not in the immediate self-interest of the very rich being denounced as Communism.

In the 1880s when the 40 hour work week was first argued for by labor unions, both the 40 hour work week and labor unions in general were widely denounced as Communist plots.

Similarly, in the 1950s and 60s many conservatives insisted that the civil rights movement was, in the main, a Communist front operation. When he signed the bill making Martin Luther King Day a federal holiday, a reporter asked President Reagan if this meant he no longer believed that Dr. King was a Communist agent. He said that he wasn't sure, but he supposed that people would know the truth in a hundred years.

Following the end of World War II, the U. S. found itself in a unique position of economic strength. A view of the world was adopted by the Truman Administration and subsequent presidencies in which the world could be divided into the U.S. and its major industrial trading partners, the Soviet bloc with which we were in competition, and impoverished non-Communist nations, the so-called "third world". American policy was to do whatever it could to maintain "stability" (which often meant dictatorial repression) among nations which the U.S. found it lucrative to trade with, and in which U.S. corporations could take substantial control of natural resources. This was actually discussed openly in State Department documents in the Truman era, which disparaged the idea of supporting "abstractions" such as democracy.

While Americans in general care a great deal about democracy and justice, it has long been U.S. policy to aggressively pursue the immediate short-term economic interests of American and international corporations by influencing the internal affairs of underdeveloped countries. This has come ahead of any interest in promoting self-determination, respect for human rights or the economic well-being of the natives. During Woodrow Wilson's presidency the U.S. invaded and conquered Haiti, not because of any threat to the U.S. or any change in the Haitian government, but because it was feared that the failing economy there would force the government to default on its debts to the U.S. Major Smellie Butler (later Commandant of the U. S. Marine Corps) was appointed "administrator" of the country, and the U.S. remained in control of Haiti until early in the FDR adminsitration.

What was new after World War II was that such conduct became a worldwide policy, and opposition to Communism was continually used as an excuse.

America's relations with Chile serve as a striking example. During the 1964 presidential election in Chile the U.S. spent more money financing the conservative candidate who beat Salvadore Allende than the Democratic and Republican parties combined spent on the contest between Johnson and Goldwater.

Allende was elected in the next presidential election despite U.S. efforts. Although the country maintained free elections, freedom of the press, free labor unions, freedom of relgion and private property rights, Allende and his government were invariably referred to in the U. S. as "Marxist". Mostly this seemed to mean that his administration nationalized the copper industry and raised the cost of Chilean copper to market prices after a period of decades in which American companies bought copper there at bargain basement prices, an arrangement which was benifical to a wealthy elect American trade helped keep in power, but which was detrimental to Chile as a whole.

The U. S. government has since acknowledged that the CIA had "some" involvement in the military coup which ousted the democratically elected government in Chile and replaced it with a right wing dictatorship.

Another illustration of how ecomoic self-interest dominates and defines American foreign policy is the contrasting attitude of the U.S. towards China and China. China is seen as, among other things, a collossal future market for American cigarettes. Cuba is seen as, among other things, a future location for American-owned tobacco farms.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union America's policy of putting immediate economic self-interest first has remained largely the same, except that opposition to Communism cannot be used as readily as an excuse, and the nations of the former Soviet bloc are now also viewed as targets for economic exploitation.

In recent years the U.S. State Department has expressed
"surprise" that the approach it took after the break-up of the Soviet Union was not benificial to the great majority of people in the former Soviet bloc. This was the subject of an interesting PBS Frontline documentary a couple of years back, in which numerous State Department officials shed copious crocodile tears.

The U.S. encouraged the governments of Russia and other newly freed nations to distribute assets such as banks and oil companies quickly, thereby concentrating resources into a few hands, rather than taking time first to ensure the rule of law and sound economic policies. This has resulted in even greater poverty and the formation of wealthy oligarchies with which American businesses can deal to their advantage. In fact, the U.S. helped engineer precisely the kind of conditions from which American corporations already benefited throughout the third world.

A good introductory primer on these issues is a short book by Noam Chomsky entitled What Uncle Sam Really Wants. One can learn a great deal from his well-documented factual exposition even if you don't sympathize with his politics.

[BuckleberryFerry]

slipster, would you like to write my history paper? ::grin:: I wish I had the same grasp on history that all you people do!

[Wendell Wagner]

So, in other words, you started this thread so you could get us to do your homework.

Perhaps the reason we have a better grasp on history is that we lived through it.

[BuckleberryFerry]

Not at all, and I rather resent that, Wendell Wagner. True, I have a history paper with a VERY slight mention of the topic of Communism, but I inteded in NO WAY to use ANY information from this thread or any other in my assignment. The only connection between this thread and my assignment is that my assignment prompted me to PERSONALLY further investigate the feelings toward Communism. I posted this for my own information and not to cheat on my homework.

[cainxinth]

Wow slipster, that was incredible. Beautiful recounting of events and insightful interpretation.

::tips hat::

[Zagadka]

Originally posted by mangeorge
No, Zagadka, it's the same barrel. The OP asks about why communism is held in such low regard among capitlist countries. Cuba is a communist country.

No, it is a whole different barrel of monkeys, because there is national conflict beyond the Communist:Capitalist measure. Castro went to the Soviets beause we tried to screw him (like we tried to screw everyone else we put in power there). THAT is what I did not want to get into, because you can argue that for years. Not that you can't argue the rest of it for years, but why mix the two?

The U.S. encouraged the governments of Russia and other newly freed nations to distribute assets such as banks and oil companies quickly, thereby concentrating resources into a few hands, rather than taking time first to ensure the rule of law and sound economic policies. This has resulted in even greater poverty and the formation of wealthy oligarchies with which American businesses can deal to their advantage. In fact, the U.S. helped engineer precisely the kind of conditions from which American corporations already benefited throughout the third world.

That is certianly true, especially in Russia. Books like Sale of the Century by Chrystia Freeland document a lot of the transformations and background of Russian companies changing hands, the various factions, and the influences of foreign investment. It is worth checking out.

[owlofcreamcheese]

best way to understand it:

how much do you trust the governmet now?

answer that then think: would I want to have to depend on them 100% for absolutely everything and let them make some of the more major decisions of your life?

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Let's discard all theoretical considerations.

Let's go solely by historical events that occur frequently in many Communist or formerly-Communist nations, thus establishing a pattern.

1) Famine. Communism is basically focused on industrial economics. Little of it applies to farming.

So, millions of deaths from hunger occured in Russia under Stalin, China under Mao, Poland, Hungary (no jokes, please, millions dying ain't funny), & others. Ethiopia's famine was mostly due to drought, but bad agricultural policies helped it along. Collective farming is largely a failure, & it is no co-incidence that Gorbachov was the Deputy Minister of Agriculture during the worst wheat harvest in Russia's history.

2)Mass executions. How can I describe this? I can't even begin. During World War 2, Stalin executed as many of his own citizenns as Hitler did Jews. Or more. Mass slaughter was the rule under Mao, & the butchery of the so-called "Cultural Revolution" is insane, with children betraying parents, & parents children. What was done in Laos under the Khmyar Rouge resulted in the extermination of 50% of the population of their nation in 10 years.

Or, keep it simple---the Soviet Union called itself the "Workers' Paradise". They set up barbed wire, minefields, & machine-gun-equipped watchtowers to keep the workers from running away. To a place where Communist doctrine said they would be "exploited". You do the math, pal.

[Indefatigable]

Perhaps the reason we have a better grasp on history is that we lived through it.

Wendell: That's assuming that everyone here who's forty years old actually paid attention to the news for their whole life, and everyone who's a teenager or a college kid is oblivious to what's going on in the world. If one is old enough to be writing a paper on communism, one has lived through some history... and if one is interested enough in the subject to ask questions purely to satisfy one's own curiosity, one probably doesn't ignore the news either.

And how do you figure you're one of the 'we' that BuckleberryFerry was talking about? You hadn't even posted in the thread yet...

In the 1880s when the 40 hour work week was first argued for by labor unions, both the 40 hour work week and labor unions in general were widely denounced as Communist plots.

I know people who still think like that. All you have to do is mention the word 'union' and they start frothing at the mouth about commies.

[vasyachkin]

according to communists, communism is the inevitable conclusion ... that is eventually they think all of the world will live under communism.

now we all know that our country is run by rich people and corporations, who definitely dont want to live under communism ... so they brainwash the rest of the population, and tell them that communism is bad for everybody, not just the rich mobsters.

basically US wanted to exterminate communism before before the US citizens figure out that its actually not that bad for them. because if they did, and adopted the communism ( socialism whatever ) for the US, that would be BAD for those who are in power ( the rich guys ).

[BuckleberryFerry]

Indefatigable, I appreciate that. ::hugs::

[vasyachkin]

the funny part is, if communism was actually as bad as it was being made out to be, then there would not be any risk that american people will want to adopt it, and thus no reason to fight it.

thus the very fact that US was fighting communism proves that US believed communism to be superior to capitalism.

US won though.

[Crafter_Man]

The biggest problem I see with communism is that it flies in the face of human nature: humans are naturally competitive, and they want to own things.

[ProjectOmega]

The USSR and Nazi Germany were run very similarly. Both had leaders with absolute rule, both had limited personal freedoms, neither allowed public ownership. Both called themselves socialist. Neither was accurate in that description. China, Cuba, North Korea and others do the same thing, calling themselves "communist" when, in fact, they are socialist dictatorships. Why do they mislabel their governments? Because it keeps the people happy. It's easier to cow a population if they think they're working for the common good or some sort of utopian ideal instead of slaving under an iron fist. Some may start with genuine intentions, but it's all too easy to slip into a dictatorship.

Simply put, at its base level, communism requires a lack of government. Anything else is propaganda. Arguments like "Communism limits personal freedoms," "Communism is a dictatorship" and so on demonstrate you're either not sure what you're talking about, or you're going by the Western-Cold-War-Propaganda definition.

[Mandarax]

Originally posted by slipster
When he signed the bill making Martin Luther King Day a federal holiday, a reporter asked President Reagan if this meant he no longer believed that Dr. King was a Communist agent. He said that he wasn't sure, but he supposed that people would know the truth in a hundred years.
Nitpick: It was actually 35 years (http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1983/101983e.htm). I believe Reagan was referring to when the FBI file on MLK would be released, which should be only 15 years from now. IIRC, there was a report at the time that Reagan had made a similar quip in the press conference rehearsal, but his aides didn't think he'd be dumb enough to use it if the question came up in the actual press conference.

[Lobsang]

in Capitalism 5% of the people own 95% of the wealth. If that is true (and I would not be surprised if it is) then I choose (ideal)communism! (not the bad kind, which isn't actually communism, but calls it'self communism)


don't flame me - I admit to knowing fuck all. So I don't need telling.

[BuckleberryFerry]

No worries, Lobsang, the more I learn, the more I'm leaning towards your opinion.

[Xema]

Originally posted by ProjectOmega
Simply put, at its base level, communism requires a lack of government.
Some might disagree - Lenin, for example.

[Xema]

Originally posted by Lobsang
... then I choose (ideal)communism!
Can you tell us where we can find this?

[mangeorge]

Zagadka, I think we pretty much agree on Cuba. What I meant was that in the eyes of the US (until recently) Cuba was of the same cloth as the rest of the "Evil Empire".
BTW; much of agriculture and many companies are at least semi-communal.
The dairy industry and UPS come to mind.

[Zoe]

If the government isn't completely honest about it, they can line their own pockets instead of giving decent amounts back to the people and providing social services like health care and education, so you can end up with a few fat cats ruling a lot of poor, unhealthy, and uneducated people.

So what's the difference in Communism and Capitalism? ;)

After what happened in the Soviet Union, I don't see how any Communist government could be admired. But there are people in small groups within the USA that choose to live a Communist lifestyle and have been reasonably successful. Some seem to have been able to put the theory in action.

Calling someone a "Commie" has been the insult of choice against liberals. And liberals sometimes use "Facist" in the same way.

I can remember when there was a big debate about putting floride in the water to help prevent tooth decay. Right wing extremists said that it was a "Communist plot." What craziness!

I have been to one Socialist country that seems very successful to my limited knowledge. No poverty. No extreme wealth. Healthcare for all and five weeks vacation for everyone. There was also a noticeable PRIDE in the work ethic. I like to think that greed is not the only motivating factor.

(Actually, I think that this OP was posted by someone in the FBI trying to find out where are the Reds are...)

[BuckleberryFerry]

Originally posted by Zoe
(Actually, I think that this OP was posted by someone in the FBI trying to find out where are the Reds are...)

:rolleyes: Yeah, that's EXACTLY what I'm trying to do. I've not got homework at all. LoL

[Fear Itself]

Under communism, man oppresses his fellow man; under capitalism, it's the other way around.

[Indefatigable]

But there are people in small groups within the USA that choose to live a Communist lifestyle and have been reasonably successful. Some seem to have been able to put the theory in action.

Zoe: As in, living in a commune, where everyone shares everything? There's no reason why it shouldn't work on small scales... particularly when it's a group of people who all get to see each other's faces regularly... and who don't have a leader who acts as a central controller for all the goods. (If they do have a leader, it's still easy to smoke out corruption when the group is that small and everyone is that visible.) Aside from the most rudimentary concept of 'sharing', I don't think capital-C Communism and communal living are the same thing.

Lobsang: like I said in my first post, I'd be very interested in hearing some statistics comparing capitalist and communist nations. I think what I'd like to know is how many people are 'rich' (they have way more money than they need), how many are 'average' (they might wish they had more money, but they can keep themselves comfortable and fed and have access to information) and how many are 'poor' (they have to choose between feeding the family and heating the house, or maybe they don't even have a house).

[Laughing Lagomorph]

Originally posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

... What was done in Laos under the Khmyar Rouge resulted in the extermination of 50% of the population of their nation in 10 years.



Cambodia?

[Guinastasia]

Communism, at it's most basic form, is witnessed on small scale-families where everyone pitches in and helps out with the chores, for example, or in a monastery, where everyone does their share for the good of the community.

However, on a larger scale, as a form of government, it sucks.

[John Mace]

Communism is an ECONOMIC system, not a form of gov't. Most, if not all, communist nations have a totalitarian form of gov't for the simple reason that communism cannot survive in a free society. Guinastasia hit the nail on the head. It works great for families, but TERRIBLE for countries. Communism essentially makes all citizens slaves of the state. You cannot own anything, not even your own work. What incentive would there be to work hard if all your money essentially went into the communal pot?

And don't even start with the "it's a noble system, but people are too greedy" whine. That implies that human nature, itself, is the enemy, to be twisted and tortured in order to fit some abstract system.

On a practical level, though, communism fails because there is no price mechanism. Nobody knows the worth of anything. Capitalism thrives because everyone is free to choose what is of value to themselves.

Buck: Atlas Shrugged is a great book and you should read it. Be prepared for a VERY long read, though. For non fiction, try THE ROAD TO SERFDOM by F. von Hayek. Or FREE TO CHOOSE by Milton Friedman. Both of the last two books are pretty short, but the final one is probably the easiest to read.

[Cooper]

Its clear that Communism on a national scale is unworkable under every current system of Barbara we have yet invented. A lot of it does have to do with the profit motive. For example, how many people would seek MBA or Law degrees if you couldn't make any more money as a business manager or lawyer than you could as a short-order fry cook? How many people would put in unpaid overtime to see their project succeed on schedule if they knew that there would be no bonus at the end of the year, no raise in their next review and that any promotion they got would only mean more responsibility with no increase in salary? How many managers would face one of the most uncomfortable situations imaginable: firing an unproductive employee whom you get along with on a personal level?

However, suppose we had an economy that significantly overproduced, do to our continual application of automation technology. Also assume that there were computer models sophisticated enough to predict demand accurately and provide supply policies that would realistically met. The demand problem would probably not be an issue after a reasonably long time of people seeing the shelves continuously full of whatever they needed (and of course we would still need some sort of quota management system supplies that remained rare). I think it could work. I think a lot of people would apply themselves to their work, because many people want to feel productive and work provides a fulfillment of sorts. Other people can sit and watch television all day, I don't care.

But to get back to reality. I can't see how it can work right now. I can't even see how to get it started anywhere in the near future. In the 1950s is was even more ludicrous than it is today - and then there is everything else others have said. Also, although folks have said this in slightly different ways I don't think anyone has quite spelled it out: the people with all the money have the loudest voice in this country. It is hard to be heard without cash, because most people are really not interested in hearing anyone. And of course, the people with all the money have the most to lose.

[Cooper]

Good grief, I have to get a new spell check. I knew I had misspelled "bureaucracy" in my first sentence above, but I assumed it would pick the correct spelling and not "Barbara"!

[slipster]

This is getting off on a tangent but, despite the cite mandarax Mandarax provides, President Reagan really did say that people would know if Dr. King was a Communist agent in a hundred years.

Yes, he also said we would know in 35 years, and I am impressed that a citation for this was found. This statement about 35 years was made at a press conference in response to a question about remarks Senator Helms had recently made.

As stated above, the remark about one hundred years was made at the signing of the bill making Martin Luther King Day a federal holiday. I recall that there was a show on one of the broadcast networks at the time called The News Is The News. It was modeled after a British program called Not Necessarily The News. Both programs combined reports about absurd and surprising things which had happened in the past week with satirical stories about things which sounded more-or-less plausible but had never happened. One episode ended with a news reader quoting Reagan. I mistakenly supposed that this was one of the made- up stories, and then was astounded when, soon after, I saw a clip of Reagan making his remark on a regular week-in-review program. This is how the remark has stuck in my mind.

Then again, in a way Reagan's remark was not surprising. This was, after all, the same man who wrote to Richard Nixon during the 1960 presidential campaign and expressed confusion over why more people didn't realize that John F. Kennedy was a "Marxist". In short, Reagan was one of those people who used "Marxist" and "Communist" in the "general" sense--it included all of the socialists, and pretty much any capitalists they didn't like.

[slipster]

Another thought:

As discussed before, for most government leaders in the U. S., denunciation of Communism and public hand-wringing over an international Communist conspiracy during the Cold War was mostly a mask for furthering competition against the Soviet Union for economic influence in underdeveloped countries. At the same time, however, there was a minority of politicians who sincerely believed that the U.S. was in dire threat of conquest by the Soviet Union.

One such politican, evidently, was Ronald Reagan. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act have revealed that, particularly during his first administration, Reagan and his advisors believed that there was a strong possibility of a conventional ground war with the Soviet Union being fought on American soil in the near future.

One weird consequence of this paranoia was the growth of the numerous militia movements around the country. While it was little publicized at the time, and even less remembered today, the Reagan Administration undertook programs to arm and train volunteer militia groups. These efforts helped give birth to the largely anti-government militias which exist today.

Many members of such right-wing paramilitary groups believe that the U.S. is in eminent danger of its own government installing a dictatorial regime. Among the sources for this belief were the various more-or-less clandestine operations the Reagan Administration undertook to draw up plans and otherwise prepare U.S. troops for combat within the U.S., to plan for internment camps, etc. Oliver North even drafted a proposal to place dissidents in camps if opposition to government policy in Nicaragua and El Salvador became too great.

Our policy in Nicaragua and El Salvador during the 80s also serves as a good illustration of the largely bogus nature of the U.S.'s anti-Communist pose. It was claimed throughout the 80s that the Sandanista government in Nicaragua was a repressive Communist regime. While hardly an ideal model of democratic government, the Sandanistas permitted opposition newspapers and independent newspapers. The government in El Salvador, which we were shoring up at the same time, did not.

There was an incident in the mid-1980s where a newsprint shortage in Nicaragua effected the opposition newspapers in the country. The Reagan Amdinistration cited this as proof of the Communist nature of the government there, overlooking that the newsprint shortage was impacting pro-government newspapers as well, and that a Communist dictatorship would not have allowed opposition newspapers to operate openly in the first place. The fact that the El Salvador government forbade oppostion newspapers was, of course, also overlooked.

The Contra movement in Nicaragua which the Reagan Administration financed was composed in large part of people left over from the former Nicarguan government, which the Carter Administration had listed as a major abuser of human rights. In the end the Nicarguan people did not stick with the Sandanista government, but it did not go with the Contras either. Instead a broad coalition government succeeded the Sandanistas. There is a fine irony here, as that coalition included the actual Communist Party in Nicaragua. The U.S. was more comfortable with a coalition government from which it could extract favorable terms for doing business, even one with a minority Communist element, than it was with an agressively nationalist government which pursued the country's general economic self-interest.

This is purely a personal interpretation, but I suspect that some of this fear of the Soviets and of Communism generally amounted to the expression of an inferiority complex. Many people with deep seated feelings of inferiority make continual, inflated assertions about their importance and accomplishments. It seems to me that some--but by no means all--conservatives do the same thing in continually boasting about the greatness of the U.S. and its system, continually defending it even in the absence of detractors. It is as though they are eassuring themselves that they shouldn't have these feelings of inferiority about their nation which secretly plague them.

And there is plenty of reason for suspecting that Reagan and many of his closest advisors had a deep-rooted, unspoken fear that America and its system was actually inferior. Documents from the Reagan Administration have shown that the government had produced projections that the Soviet economy--which was actually about a sixth the size of the U.S. economy in terms of gross domestic product, and smaller than Japan's--was growing so rapidly that it would rank ahead of the U.S. by the end of the 1990s. Similarly, the CIA estimated that East Germany, which was roughly a third the size of West Germany, was outproducing West Germany. After the two nations consolidated, it was found that the grossly inefficient East German economy was only about a quarter the size of West Germany's.

The U.S. had a long history of making such inflated estimations of Communist nations and their accomplishments. In the years after World War II it was estimated by the U.S. government that the troops in East Germany outnumbered the ones in West Germany by two to one. In fact, they were about equal in number, and it was overlooked that the Western forces were vastly better equipped; the West German army was fully motorized at a time when roughly half of the East German army's vehicles were drawn by horses.

[furt]

Originally posted by Lobsang
[B]in Capitalism 5% of the people own 95% of the wealth. If that is true (and I would not be surprised if it is) then I choose (ideal)communism! (not the bad kind, which isn't actually communism, but calls it'self communism)

A faulty statistic, followed by a "no true scotsman." Nicely done.
:rolleyes:

[Derleth]

Cooper, your second graf essentially describes Postscarcity Economics. The whole theory is based around, as you said, relentless automation driving humans out of all jobs that can be accomplished without creativity: Cabbies lose their jobs but not writers, for example. This leads to completely efficient utilization of resources and a massive overproduction of not only everything needed for life, but most luxuries, as well. Filet mignon costs the same as Purina People Chow costs the same as a new Bentley costs the same as a Yugo costs the same as a shack in the woods costs the same as a mansion: Nothing, because production is self-sustaining and no longer profit-driven.

Of course, it hasn't happened yet, but it just might be the only functional form of Utopian Socialism that's even possible. Or it might, in some quasi-mystical way related to `the laws of nature' and a Lamarckian notion of `devolution', lead to humanity's downfall.

[SandyHook]

Originally posted by Lobsang
in Capitalism 5% of the people own 95% of the wealth. If that is true (and I would not be surprised if it is) then I choose (ideal)communism! (not the bad kind, which isn't actually communism, but calls it'self communism)

I agree with furt, Lobsang's argument is pretty lame.

Also, I'm nowhere near being included in the 5%. But in spite of this we live well. We have a new home in a nice area. We travel and generally have a very comfortable life.

Thanks, in large part, to capitalism even 5% of the American pie is still a butt-load of pie.

[Lobsang]

Originally posted by Indefatigable

Lobsang: like I said in my first post, I'd be very interested in hearing some statistics comparing capitalist and communist nations. I think what I'd like to know is how many people are 'rich' (they have way more money than they need), how many are 'average' (they might wish they had more money, but they can keep themselves comfortable and fed and have access to information) and how many are 'poor' (they have to choose between feeding the family and heating the house, or maybe they don't even have a house). [/B]


I did say the ideal kind, the kind that we haven't seen yet, not the kind that is evil and isn't actually communism.

I would imagine that in ideal communism (which doesn't exist anywhere) there would be a much more even share of the wealth.

[spione]

Mans ego is to big for communism to work!

[RiverRunner]

Originally posted by vasyachkin
the funny part is, if communism was actually as bad as it was being made out to be, then there would not be any risk that american people will want to adopt it, and thus no reason to fight it.

thus the very fact that US was fighting communism proves that US believed communism to be superior to capitalism.


If it were simply a matter of worrying about internal pressures causing a revolution and a switch to Communism you might have a point. (Actually, I'm not sure I would buy it even then -- the Western governments weren't the ones building walls and fences to keep their people from leaving.) The fact is, though, that there was a good deal of mutual animosity between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. It is hard to discount Kruschev's pouding on a podium with a shoe, yelling "We will bury you!"


ProjectOmega said "Simply put, at its base level, communism requires a lack of government." This is not true. At any rate, it hasn't been true of any communist government so far, that I'm aware of; they have all relied on central planning, which is necessarily a function of the government.

BuckleberryFerry, I echo some of the advice you have already received: check out the threads that samarm linked to. They have a ton of information.

RR

[Mandarax]

Originally posted by slipster
This is getting off on a tangent but, despite the cite mandarax Mandarax provides, President Reagan really did say that people would know if Dr. King was a Communist agent in a hundred years.

Yes, he also said we would know in 35 years, and I am impressed that a citation for this was found. This statement about 35 years was made at a press conference in response to a question about remarks Senator Helms had recently made.

As stated above, the remark about one hundred years was made at the signing of the bill making Martin Luther King Day a federal holiday.

<snip>

Then again, in a way Reagan's remark was not surprising. This was, after all, the same man who wrote to Richard Nixon during the 1960 presidential campaign and expressed confusion over why more people didn't realize that John F. Kennedy was a "Marxist". In short, Reagan was one of those people who used "Marxist" and "Communist" in the "general" sense--it included all of the socialists, and pretty much any capitalists they didn't like. I think you're mischaracterizing Reagan's remark. Helms (and others) had been saying that MLK was a communitst, and that the proof was in his FBI file, which had been sealed for 50 years. The National Archives web site (http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/summer_1997_equality_in_the_sixties.html) says:In 1978 NARA accessioned fifty-six linear feet of records relating to the FBI's surveillance of Dr. King as a result of a court order issued by Judge John Lewis Smith, Jr., of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on January 31, 1977. The order required the FBI to assemble all known copies of documents and tapes relating to the surveillance of Dr. King and to prepare an inventory of this material, all of which was to be transferred to the National Archives' custody and remain under seal for fifty years. When the seal is finally removed, these King surveillance records and the records of the Task Force to Review the FBI Martin Luther King, Jr., Security and Assassination Investigations will no doubt be used in conjunction with each other.My math says that the unsealing would've been 44 years from the time Reagan made the remark, but maybe he was assuming that the 50-year timer began running at the assassintation.

[John Mace]

Lobsang:

There might be a more "even" share of the wealth, but you have to create wealth first before you can share it. What is the wealth producing mechanism of communism??? What you end up sharing is poverty. Good luck.

And, BTW, are you sure that "real" capatalism has been tried? Funny how people are so willing to throw out that argument for communism, but not for capitalism.

[slipster]

The incident where Kruschev said "(w)e will bury you!" and the infamous scene where he pounded with his shoe were two different events.

Kruschev made his notorious remark about "burying" us at the so-called kitchen debate. Nixon was talking to Kruschev, Breshnev and a few other top Soviet officials at an exhibit on American consumer culture and Nixon, in a heavy-handed attempt to be friendly, talked about how the U.S. could learn about improving the thrust of rockets from the Soviets and the Soviets, in turn, could learn a lot about industrial development and consumer products from the U.S.

It was a reasonable observation, but it made the Soviet premier uncomfortable, and he appeared to find Nixon patronizing. He began huffing about how the Soviet Union didn't need any help from the U.S. and was doing fine on its own. The remark about "burying" us appears to have been taken out of context. He appeared to mean that the Soviet Union's economy was growing quite nicely, thank you, and would eventually outstrip the U.S. Saying they would "bury" us would seem to have been another way of saying they would "leave us in the dust" or "make us eat their dust".

During the same exchange he also told Nixon that he didn't know anything about Communism except that he was afraid of it. That zinger rarely gets reported.

The incident with the shoe--at least the one everyone cites--was when he was speaking at the U.N. He had come to urge nuclear disarmanent by his country and the U.S. The degree to which he could have been trusted on this is a separate issue, but the reason he was speaking there at all is a part of the story which tends to be overlooked.

As for the debate over whether Communism requires a lack of government, a semantic issue is complicating the discussion. In the parlance of dialectic materialism, "Communism" is an ideal communal condition to which human society is inevitably evolving. When Communism arrives there will be a land of milk and honey where no government is necessary. "Socialism" is the system which comes just before this eventual utopian state, and prepares the way for it. The Soviets claimed that they were practicing Socialism and that they were doing such a good job of it that eventually the state would "wither away".

Communists and Faschists both misused the word Socialism in describing themselves because the word has favorable connotations in Europe. In the U.S. the word Socialism is also widely misused, but that is because the word has unfavorable connotations here.

[Lemur866]

So, Communism is the best socioeconomic system, except that it has never existed, and will never exist? So how do you know it works? If every nation that has attempted to implement communism has devolved into a squalid totalitarian dictatorship, perhaps one might take that information into account when imagining how great communism might be. Of course, next time it will be different. The trouble all those other times was that the wrong people were running the show, like Stalin and Mao. If only we got the right dictators, communism would work. Except, every country that ever called itself communist was a dictatorship. And every dictator, for some reason, was a rat bastard. The reason that dictators tend to be rat bastards is left as an exercise for the student.

[Xema]

Originally posted by Lobsang
I did say the ideal kind, the kind that we haven't seen yet, not the kind that is evil and isn't actually communism.
I would imagine that in ideal communism (which doesn't exist anywhere) there would be a much more even share of the wealth.
You thus seem to be saying that true communism has never really existed, may be unattainable, and the system of government that's been called by that name is some sort of persistent delusion with a marked tendency to turn evil.

If this is a defense of communism, it's a strange one.

[Guinastasia]

I've been told that on both occassions, Khrushchev was drunk off his ass.

[even sven]

Originally posted by Xema
You thus seem to be saying that true communism has never really existed, may be unattainable, and the system of government that's been called by that name is some sort of persistent delusion with a marked tendency to turn evil.

If this is a defense of communism, it's a strange one.

Well, yeah, but that's how it works.

Communism is pretty much a religious concept. It is prophetic- Communism will replace Capitalism eventually, just as Capitalism inevitably replaced Feudalism. It requires a lot of faith. A true Communist state is just about incomprehensable to us. Once you are no longer alienated from your labor, your whole paradigm shifts until your way of percieving and living in the world is completely changed to something we can barely imagine right now. It will give us a kind of freedom we have never never known

[Olentzero]

Originally posted by even sven
Communism is pretty much a religious concept. It is prophetic- Communism will replace Capitalism eventually, just as Capitalism inevitably replaced Feudalism. It requires a lot of faith.Absolutely not. The replacement of capitalism by socialism (and its evolution into communism) is the outcome of the struggle between social forces. Same for the replacement of feudalism by capitalism. This requires organization, militancy, and solidarity - in other words, conscious effort on the part of those seeking change. Socialism won't just come about if we sit around and wait for it. The working class has to bring it about.

[cainxinth]

Interesting story about the failure of communism under authoritarian regimes:

A high school history teacher of mine used to tell a funny story about communal farms in China under Mao. Apparently, massive farms with industrial equipment supplied by the state were failing to meet or just making their quotas. Meanwhile each farmer was permitted a tiny plot of land in front of their home to cultivate after work, and any harvest went directly to their family. As you can imagine those tiny plots were being put to maximum use the pseudo-private farms were producing far more per capita than the communal farms.

Anyway, the funny part is that Mao didn’t think the problem was that the farmers were unmotivated to work for the good of the state; he thought birds were eating up all the crops! So he instructed farmers all over China to wake up at 4 am every morning for a few weeks, go outside, and bang drums and pots and pans together causing small birds (which have tiny, fragile hearts and high blood pressure) to drop dead from heart attacks. Without the birds the insect population boomed and crop yields dwindled to almost nothing prompting China to embarrassingly buy grain from the US.

This is the story as I recall it, I couldn’t find a definitive cite linking the bird extermination with the farming problem so take it with a grain of salt; funny nonetheless I think.

P.S. I always thought Star Trek style communism was cool. There’s no money, technology makes sure everyone eats and doesn’t go cold and whatnot, and everyone works for the good of humanity and for personal satisfaction and prestige. If we could do such a thing tomorrow I would be on board. Until then... every man for himself, and you first after me! ;)

[jb_farley]

wait wait wait-

This is a fascinating thread. In fact, one of the better 'serious' GQ threads I've read in a while. More informed discourse than one finds even on public radio.

That said, the was mention of a Major Smellie Butler and no one has batted an eye?

Major Smellie Butler?

jb

[Xema]

Originally posted by even sven
Communism is pretty much a religious concept.
And one with the interesting property that when it's tried on a moderate scale it tends to crash and burn, leaving hundreds of thousands dead, incarcerated, starved, etc. To work as the true believers hope apparently requires the arrival of some space ship or comet that will cause fundamental and essential changes in all humans.

[Xema]

Originally posted by Olentzero
The replacement of capitalism by socialism (and its evolution into communism) is the outcome of the struggle between social forces...The working class has to bring it about.
And yet each time they do so it metastasizes into something brutal and virulent that destroys those who are part of it, those who are trapped within it, and ultimately itself.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by jb_farley
Major Smellie Butler?

Actually, that's Smedley Butler...

[spinky]

Originally posted by vasyachkin
the funny part is, if communism was actually as bad as it was being made out to be, then there would not be any risk that american people will want to adopt it, and thus no reason to fight it.

thus the very fact that US was fighting communism proves that US believed communism to be superior to capitalism.Interesting what constitutes "proof" to some folks. The reason some people see it necessary to fight communism is that it has a definite appeal to people who haven't thought it through completely, or who wish to ignore human nature in favor of imagining how things could be if everyone would just cooperate. I don't like the "communism = evil" tactics used to fight it, but they sure as hell don't constitute proof that it's superior.

[Lobsang]

Originally posted by John Mace
Lobsang:

There might be a more "even" share of the wealth, but you have to create wealth first before you can share it. What is the wealth producing mechanism of communism??? What you end up sharing is poverty. Good luck.

And, BTW, are you sure that "real" capatalism has been tried? Funny how people are so willing to throw out that argument for communism, but not for capitalism.

From my limited understanding of communism - the wealth in ideal communism comes from the capitalism that came before.

The capitalism sets the stage for the communism.

[Jojo]

I thought no one was going to mention the One Crucial Fact but then slipster (finally) did. The One Crucial Fact is that Karl Marx's view was that the state would eventually wither away.

There is no theoretical reason why communism has to be a dictatorship, and it's a shame that all communist regimes have been. Once the state has withered away, we would be left with anarchism. Anarchism is the truest form of "government". People who consider themselves communists just haven't got the balls to go all the way and establish an anarchist framework.

An anarchist society would have to be divided into small groups of, say, 60 000 in each group as some people in this thread have noted that.

Those people who say communism doesn't work are right but that is because communism is just half-assed anarchism. Communism is only doing half a job, so of course it is bound to fail.

The full beauty of communism would only be realised once it flowers into anarchism. However, the communist stage of development is too dangerous because it temporarily places the reigns of power into the hands of the ruling committee.

This is why no communist regime has ever progressed into the kind of society envisaged by Marx - because, whatever happens, you cannot trust people to wield absolute authority even for a short time.

The only solution is to establish an anarchist framework immediately without the intervening "communist" stage. This is where Marx was wrong. There is no need for a "temporary" communist stage and we cannot risk it.

We have a couple of historical examples of situations where anarchism has been attempted and on each of these occasions it has worked perfectly well but on each occasion it has been put down by outside fascist forces. The two examples I'm thinking of are the Paris Commune in 1870 and Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War 1933-36.

So whilst communism has been shown to have failed, the only historical examples we have of anarchism show that it works but that it needs to be strong enough to defend itself.

Anarchism could never degenerate into a dictatorship because the dictatorship is the exact political opposite of anarchism. Anarchism is even further away from dictatorship than democracy is. Democracy gives you a choice of two or three different parties representing two or three different viewpoints, anarchism means there as many different viewpoints as there are people.

ps I also noticed Major Smellie Butler

[John Mace]

Lobsang:

So, capitalism provides the golden eggs and then communism comes in and kills the goose? What do all those happy little commimes do when the golden eggs run out? Go back to capitalsim again and hope the goose can be resuerected? Or maybe they live off golden eggs from those countries smart enough to stay capitalistic in the first place.

Don't be fooled by people who think human nature is maleable and you can create some sort of Homo communistensis by gov't mandate.

It's no accident that communism has only existed under a dictatorship. No democratic country would keep communists in power for any length of time.

[mangeorge]

Anarchism, communism, libertarianism. I always have trouble distinguishing between the three. All, in their purist forms, depend upon universal selflessness. (Testosterone just won't allow that. ;))

[Lobsang]

John Mace No, the capitalism establishes the money making systems (corporations and such) then communism takes over and channels the profits back into the collective pockets of the population.

(as opposed to the pockets of the few imorral corporate bosses)


The corporations stay in place, communism lasts in a kind of equilibrium.

(from my limited understanding, again)


And (I do not mean to suggest that this should be moved) but I am surprised that this has stayed, for so long, in GQ. I would have thought it would be moved to GD quite quickly.

[mangeorge]

Originally posted by John Mace
Lobsang:

So, capitalism provides the golden eggs and then communism comes in and kills the goose? What do all those happy little commimes do when the golden eggs run out? Go back to capitalsim again and hope the goose can be resuerected? Or maybe they live off golden eggs from those countries smart enough to stay capitalistic in the first place.

Don't be fooled by people who think human nature is maleable and you can create some sort of Homo communistensis by gov't mandate.

It's no accident that communism has only existed under a dictatorship. No democratic country would keep communists in power for any length of time.
Now that's just not fair, John Mace. :p
Communism, as defined here, is a very narrow concept. Capitalism isn't. To really compare the two you have to assume an ultra-capitalist government. No social programs, no bridges or roads without tolls, no free health care at all, a prison pretty much as we have now. You get my drift.
Peace,
mangeorge

[John Mace]

Yes, I'm surprised this is not in GD...

So, those "immoral" corporate bosses keep working so that wealth can get channeled back to the masses? I'm surprised you haven't seen the flaw in your logic yet. I guess you imagine some sort of stasis, where all the hard work is already done and we just sit back and reap the rewards. The problem is, you have to provide people with rewards to work even to maintain the status quo. Without insentive, people slack off. It's just human nature. It's a falacy to think that only progress requires hard work. You'd still have to work damn hard just to keep our society at it's present standard of living.

[cainxinth]

People keep throwing around the phrase "human nature." What exactly is that and can you prove it even exists?

[Lobsang]

John Mace

No, the " "Imorral" " bosses are replaced by people who are willing to do the job knowing that everyone is happy.


I'm surprised you haven't seen the flaw in your logic yet

That might have something to do with the fact that I am enjoying myself via the gift of alcohol. What is the flaw in my logic?

I do not imagine a situation where all the hard work is done. You are too quick to assume Joun Mace. I imagine a situation where people are happy to do the hard work, and to continue doing the hard work until they die.

I imagine a system where people are happy that everything is controlled because it means they get what they want, and everyone else gets what they want.

I value happiness higher than freedom. I value happiness higher than financial wealth (which is drastically overrated)

[cainxinth]

Also I think John Mace is failing to appreciate that in much of the so-called Non-Western World collectivism is of higher consequence than individualism. Too many Americans and Western Europeans assume there is a universal conception human nature when in fact it’s a hotly debated idea.

Take Weber’s theory of the Rational Actor: According to him we are all similar in that we seek to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Commonsensical to the point of stating the obvious to a Westerner, but not as cut and dry to someone from Japan or Indonesia where their pleasure and pain is inextricably intertwined (say that three times fast) with the pleasure and pain of their families, communities, and even nations.

[Derleth]

Humans are also as lazy as they can be. That is because humans are mammals, not insects: That is, humans can make a decision to work or to not work, and humans display a preference to not work as long as something else doesn't override that. That `something else' could be boredom or social pressures or ingrained traits related to early home life, but it must upset the individual enough to throw him off his genetically-programmed path of least work.

Communism falls flat on its face for neglecting the above fact.

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by Derleth
Humans are also as lazy as they can be. That is because humans are mammals, not insects: That is, humans can make a decision to work or to not work, and humans display a preference to not work as long as something else doesn't override that. That `something else' could be boredom or social pressures or ingrained traits related to early home life, but it must upset the individual enough to throw him off his genetically-programmed path of least work.

Communism falls flat on its face for neglecting the above fact.

Is laziness a universal human trait, or just an extremely common one? What about stupidity, fear, or short-sightedness? Every human probably posses them, but to different extents and with different cultural relevancy. IMHO, communism was simply ahead of it’s time. Give us another century or two and we’ll make it work.

[cainxinth]

I should have added:

...assuming we last that long.

[Jojo]

Just a quick question to all the "humans are intrinsically lazy" people.

If humans are intrisically lazy, why have we developed a society in which everyone has to work all of the time (and seems to like it that way)?

Does it not seem more likely that humans are instinctively workaholics (like ants) since we seem to have developed a society that is work-oriented?

If we look at other mammals related to humans we can see clues that may point to this conclusion. Mountain Gorillas, after all, just laze around picking leaves off the trees but chimps (the closest animal relative to humans) are constantly inquisitive and active.

The obvious conclusion to draw is that we are an advanced version of chimp, so humans will always keep themselves busy whatever else is going on.

[Xema]

Originally posted by cainxinth
IMHO, communism was simply ahead of it’s time. Give us another century or two and we’ll make it work.
50+ million dead in the 20th century. I'm sure we all wait eagerly to see what communism (or should I say, "the thing known by the name communism") can produce once it's warmed up.

[Derleth]

Jojo: That's scarcity economics. You work because food is scarce, and you must produce it directly or produce something else to trade with those who produce food directly. That's how economics has worked ever since the first caveman decided he had enough berries and that he could probably convince Og to trade his piece of meat for some of them.

For a look at how humans naturally live, look at nonagricultural societies: Hunter-gatherer populations in Africa have no reason to move to farming because they only work a few hours a day finding food and keeping their shelters from collapsing, spending the rest of the time sleeping or making art or making babies. Humans are no more than the brainiest of the Higher Apes, and, when placed in a situation where we can be as lazy as a gorilla or a chimp, we most certainly are.

Reminds me of that line from Office Space: "I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything I thought it could be." :D

[John Mace]

Lobsang:

You have just described the world envisioned in the novel "1984".

I wish you happiness in that world, if you ever find it.

[cainxinth]

First let's agree on a definition of communism. I'm using the term in it's broadest description. An economic system with collective rather than private ownership of property. I think you'll agree In that context it has nothing to do with democracy or autocracy. Next, communists don’t have a monopoly on murder. Millions die in wars and acts of genocide because of autocracies. People like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam, and Milosevic. They're not dead because Karl Marx took it upon himself to elaborate a Platonic ideal society that would evolve and should be strived for.

Ecclesiastical sources will tell you God made the world unequal and he intends for it to stay that way. I just don’t buy it. I think feudalism was unethical and flawed and doomed to be surpassed and the same can be said of capitalism. If maximization of profits for personal benefit and not sustainable and equal growth is our reason for being we’re doomed to a world of factionalized, antagonistic cutthroats. Most of Europe and Asia realize this already; the Asian culture is by definition characterized by collectivism, placing the success of the group above the individual.

Americans have the economic and military proof to verify the solvency of capitalism. What we don’t have is the moral authority we once did to complete the picture. Post WWII capitalism has led this nation amok. In pursuit of constant growth and superiority we have made enemies of a good chunk of the world. America played no holds barred politics and assassinated democratically elected leaders, influenced political affairs, aided or installed outright tyrants like the Shah and Saddam, and generally stepped on the backs of the third world to defeat the Soviets, the Islamists, and the Asians. Oil money, slave labor, and political influence have replaced geographic territory as the hot commodity for a growing hegemonist. Someone better bring “Risk” up to date.

Marx thought capitalism was either going to change gradually to be more socialistic and communistic or there was going to be a revolution. He might not have been wrong. Right now I don’t believe capitalism is sustainable indefinitely. The whole idea of it being less than perfect gets people up in arms, but I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts people weren’t thrilled at the prospect of feudalism being replaced, especially those not at the bottom of the pay scale. Is it any wonder that our reaction to the idea of communism has been so tumultuous?


p.s. it's late and I shouldn't even be up posting, so I apologize in advance for any typos

[John Mace]

Yes, as I said in my ver first post communism is an ECONOMIC system. So is capitalism.

Why do you suppose communism has NEVER existed in a democratic country? Why has it ALWAYS existed under dictatorial regimes? Do you really think that simple fact does not say something very disturbing about the very nature of communism?

Or are humans too imperfect for this wonderfully perfect system? Gee, if we just got rid of the people, then everything would be just great for communism.

[hammerbach]

What do we do with those who refuse to go along? What group of 60,000 (referring to the anarchist system described above) people need no law or law enforcement? How are disputes settled? What if someone does something damaging to the collective? What if someone does something someone else thinks is damaging to the collective?

Given the difficulty of maintaining a society with laws, I hate to imagine one without law.

Just a few questions to stir the pot.

[RiverRunner]

Originally posted by hammerbach
What do we do with those who refuse to go along?

Here you have asked one of the most important questions possible. Communism (and anarchy) work reasonably well as long as the participants are in it of their own free will. Of course, things just don't stay that way, do they?


RR

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by John Mace
Why do you suppose communism has NEVER existed in a democratic country? Why has it ALWAYS existed under dictatorial regimes? Do you really think that simple fact does not say something very disturbing about the very nature of communism?

Or are humans too imperfect for this wonderfully perfect system? Gee, if we just got rid of the people, then everything would be just great for communism.

Yes it's true, all communist nations have been authoritarian, but that seems purely circumstantial to me. It doesn't say a thing about the "nature" of communism. It was a noble goal sought after before its time by people desperate for a more equitable system. I hope we see it implemented under better conditions some time in the future, because free market capitalism just isn’t the panacea for economic performance it once was. It still brings in the bucks, but at the expense of geopolitical stability, notably in the third world.

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by hammerbach
What do we do with those who refuse to go along?

What did we do to the people in Waco or Ruby Ridge who refused to "go along" ? What does any government, regardless of its economic system, do when a group of its citizenry fails to adopt their norms, fails to buy into their propaganda lock stock and barrel? First they try and reason with them, then they send in the troops, that’s what.

[cainxinth]

It just occurred to me that African Americans in the Civil Rights movement and women in the Feminist movement would also qualify as those, "who refused to go along."

There is an example where an out-group managed to face down the guns and change society for the better. So there is a diversity of experiences encapsulated by that broad question.

[gazpacho]

Originally posted by cainxinth
Yes it's true, all communist nations have been authoritarian, but that seems purely circumstantial to me. It doesn't say a thing about the "nature" of communism. It was a noble goal sought after before its time by people desperate for a more equitable system. I hope we see it implemented under better conditions some time in the future, because free market capitalism just isn’t the panacea for economic performance it once was. It still brings in the bucks, but at the expense of geopolitical stability, notably in the third world. This time it will be different. This time we won't kill millions of people and set up a repressive regime that terrorizes the very people we are supposed to help. This time living standards for the average person will be better than under other systems.

[cainxinth]

I certainly hope so.

[John Mace]

Cain:

OK, let's assume that all the communist regimes being dictatorial was pure chance. How about no democractic country ever electing to implement communism. Is that pure chance, too? I'm sorry, but I don't think communism is simply "unlucky".

[cainxinth]

I didn't say chance John, I said circumstantial. As in it was a product of its own unique circumstances. If communism was “unlucky” in any way, it’s that those circumstances were premature. People hungry for equality tried to replace capitalism before it was time for it to go.

[gazpacho]

Originally posted by cainxinth
I didn't say chance John, I said circumstantial. As in it was a product of its own unique circumstances. If communism was “unlucky” in any way, it’s that those circumstances were premature. People hungry for equality tried to replace capitalism before it was time for it to go. Quite frankly it is somewhat disgusting to see you blow off the deaths of millions and millions of people as a small error in timing. Can you give any reason to think the communism would result in more equality? It has been tried several times and has resulted in a elite that controlled most/all of the resources while the common folk were repressed. I suppose they were equally repressed but that does not seem like progress to me.

[cainxinth]

What makes deaths as the result of communist dictators any more or less egregious than deaths as the result of any other dictator? What about my lumping all dictators together is so disgusting to you?

[gazpacho]

Originally posted by cainxinth
What makes deaths as the result of communist dictators any more or less egregious than deaths as the result of any other dictator? What about my lumping all dictators together is so disgusting to you? Nothing but unless I missed something were are not talking about non communist dictators.

[cainxinth]

Let's go back for a moment. You said, "Quite frankly it is somewhat disgusting to see you blow off the deaths of millions and millions of people as a small error in timing."

My reply was that I'm not downplaying those deaths, I'm just not differentiating them from deaths caused by other autocracies. Because unless I'm missing something every communist state has been rigidly authoritarian, which as I postulated was a consequence of circumstance and not an inherent feature of communism.

[John Mace]

This is what I mean by human nature. Let's do a thought experiment. We have two hunter gatherer clans. Let's call them Mountain Clan and Valley Clan. They meet up one day and notice that each clan has some unique items that the othe clan wants. Being peaceful, they don'f fight. Two scenarios can be envisioned:

Scenario 1: Mountain suggest to Valley that they trade some things. They talk and decide how many flint scrapers are worth how many leather satchels. It takes some time and there is a little haggling, but in the end they agree and go on their way.

Scenario 2: Mountain suggests to Valley that they trade some things. They decide the best way to do this is to put all their items in a big heap and elect two people (one from each clan) to distribute the items from the heap according to what the leader thinks the various people need.

Now, which scenario seems "natural" and which one seems "contrived". You made your decision based on what you think human nature is Bonus points: In which scenario do you think the various clan members went away happiest?

I use hunter gatherers here just to eliminate any huge societal issues. There are no "immoral capitalist bosses" and no "evil communist dictators".

[cainxinth]

Which clan is driving cars? Which is using a representative parliament? Which is vaccinating for polio? Those things seem terribly unnatural... contrived even. They must be outlawed!

[Olentzero]

The underlying assumption in this debate, and one that hasn't yet been adequately explored in any thread on the subject, is that the countries mentioned - primarily Russia before 1991, China, and Cuba - are either socialist or communist. Socialism and communism are two sequential phases of society linked by one common feature - total control of the means of production by the working class to produce for human need and not financial profit.

Marx and Engels, almost from the very beginning of their political careers, emphasized that the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself(see the preface (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1888) to the 1888 English edition of the Communist Manifesto). A serious, critical determination of whether these three countries were in fact either socialist or communist must rest on this question: To what extent was the working class involved in these countries' revolutions? To answer this, I'll be relying on three works: State Capitalism in Russia (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1955/statecap/index.htm) by Tony Cliff, Cuba, Castro, and Socialism (http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/binns/80-cucas.htm) by Peter Binns and Mike Gonzalez, and China: Whose Revolution? (http://www.marxists.de/china/hore/index.htm) by Charlie Hore.

First up - Cuba. (All quotes in this section, except where noted, are from Binns and Gonzalez.)

Fidel Castro, who returned from exile in Mexico in 1956 aboard the Granma, had established two guerrilla fronts in the Sierra Maestra mountains and Escambray by 1957.Both of these were distant from the working-class centres, and the working class had no place in the guerrilla's central strategy.There were two general strikes against the Bautista regime in 1957 and 1958 (oddly enough, Bautista had stood as a Communist Party candidate in the 1940 elections). The first strike was a spontaneous one and very successful. The second strike was a result of Castro's 26th July movement trying to build its struggle in the cities.The Communist Party refused to support the second strike, and it was terribly mismanaged by the Fidelistas. Outside Havana working class support for it was almost complete, but the overall effect was disastrous all the same. Instead of leading to increased opposition [the strike] dissipated it. From then on Castro ignored the working class, concentrating exclusively on the guerrilla struggle.Compare this with Marx' and Engels' statement in the Manifesto:Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.It quickly becomes obvious that Castro certainly wasn't socialist. However - was there a revolutionary Cuban working-class movement to support?Like almost every other section of Cuban society, the workers hated Batista and his boot boys. But they did not do so as workers, and so in general they did not connect this with any specific social goals beyond toppling the dictator. Batista emasculated the trade unions by declaring strikes illegal, but the workers failed to create organs of their own to fight back – either clandestine or legal.Toppling a dictator is a political revolution at best - moreover, the working class expended no effort in organizing to achieve it. The situation didn't change much after Castro walked into power after Bautista's fall:After the January 1959 coup there was a widespread strike wave, but the demands were purely economic, for reivindicaciones – more goods – not for any changes in the structure. And after they had been met, with large wage increases and a rapid decline of 36% in the rate of unemployment, they led not to further demands but to a complete dying away of the strike wave by the summer of 1959... In the countryside too, the 1959 land reform was not at all the result of spontaneous squatting by peasants that the government was only later forced to legitimate. On the contrary, there is virtual universal recognition that this again was instituted from above.Compare this with a similar situation in Chile, which had an organized and fighting working class, twelve years later:There the election of the Popular Unity government also led initially to large wage increases, a decline in unemployment, and a short-term boom fuelled by these measures that took up the slack in the economy in the traditional manner expounded by the liberal economist J.M. Keynes. But in Chile this led to subsequent pressure by both peasants and workers on the government. They occupied the land and many factories demanding land reform and nationalisation, going far beyond the moderate proposals put forward by the Allende government and forcing the regime to accept a good number of them.To sum up: there were no real working-class struggles, even around toppling Bautista, in 1959 and the organization that replaced him had no interest whatsoever in involving itself with the working class.

Now, what about China? (All quotes in this section from Hore.)

We have to look further back than 1949 - the year of the Chinese Revolution - to see how things evolved. There was a working-class struggle in China between 1925 and 1927:Workers’ militias patrolled the streets of Guangzhou (Canton) and blockaded Hong Kong. Strikes over wages, hours and conditions spread to workers employed by Chinese capitalists. The nationalist revolution was becoming a workers’ revolution. As the struggle spread north to the cities of Wuhan and Shanghai, the same pattern was repeated.

In the countryside, the focus of the struggle changed even quicker. Imperialism to the villagers was an abstraction: the enemy was the landlord. As one historian of the revolution put it: “The Guomindang said, ‘Down with the unequal treaties!’ But the only unequal treaties the Hunan peasants knew were the tenancy agreements ... To the Hunan peasant the ‘abolition of the unequal treaties’ meant abolition of thralldom on the land.”The rulers - both native and foreign - fought back quite viciously, and the Guomindang (or KMT), which had originally supported the struggles as long as they were against the imperialist powers, sided with the Chinese landlords and capitalists when the struggles turned in that direction. The KMT's entry into Shanghai offers a chilling illustration:As the Northern Expedition approached the city the trade unions had called an armed general strike, and for 12 days the workers held Shanghai. As the Guomindang armies entered the city, workers were told to lay down their arms and welcome them as liberators. The Guomindang was no sooner established in the city than it turned its guns on the workers. More than 50,000 were butchered, and all working-class organisations smashed.The Chinese Communist Party - under orders from Stalin, who believed the Chinese revolution could only be nationalist - had allied itself with the KMT and worked to stop the struggles against the native landlords. This drastically reduced their support as members and fellow-travelers became demoralized and left the party, which in turn made it easier for the KMT to increase its butchery. After Shanghai, however, Stalin ordered the CCP to engage in the "Autumn Harvest Uprisings" - a suicidal piece of lunacy which resulted in and army of less than 2,000 Communists, commanded by Mao Zedong, hiding out in the mountains between the Hunan and Jiangxi provinces. The only reason they survived was that they had disobeyed orders and fled.

It was at this point - late 1927, early 1928 - that Mao turned from trying to rebuild the CCP's influence among workers in the cities to building a guerilla army composed of peasants and led by intellectuals such as himself. Though they were harried by the KMT government as it re-asserted its strength in the rural provinces (ending in the horrific Long March of 1934-1935), they managed to build their base of support among the peasants by keeping the power of the landlords in check (where they were able to hold political power - the "Soviet areas") and organizing armed resistance to the Japanese occupation that began in 1931. A nationalist students' rebellion and the CCP's demand for a united front with the KMT against the occupation helped Mao's organization to stabilize.

It was this nationalism - and only this nationalism - which enabled the CCP to grow during World War II and to successfully challenge the KMT for political power in 1949. At no time during this period did the CCP seek to regain influence among the industrial working class in the cities, but continued to depend on its support from the peasants in the rural areas by presenting itself as a force opposed to the landlords.

This is not to say that the working class in China was as quiet as the Cubans had been in 1959. From the end of the war until 1949, workers had increased their struggle for a decent standard of living against the hyper-inflation plaguing the country. However:The cities went quiet on explicit instructions from the CCP. As the Red Armies neared the cities of south-east China in the summer of 1949, they sent ahead of them orders that “... workers and employees in all trades will continue to work and that business will operate as normal.” They further insisted that all those responsible for running the old state machine must stay in their posts, in order to ensure a smooth transition of power.The revolution in China, like the one in Cuba, was a political revolution only. It was not a social revolution - the prerequisite element for building a socialist society. The CCP did not seek to overthrow capitalism, but to createa strong and independent national economy. Armed revolution was required to overthrow the old ruling classes (who had proved incapable of defending China’s national interests) but it was to be strictly controlled from above.In other words, on behalf of the workers and peasants - not by them.

I'd like to end this section with a quote that sheds some light on the situation in Russia as well:The desire of Chinese nationalism for an independent national economy which could begin to compete with the world economy was realised – but the decisive agency of change would be the new state. Its leaders had come to power as a force in their own right, standing above all the classes of the old society. Yet they could not act simply as they wished. The existence of a competitive and hostile world economy had dictated the need for a strong national economy, and the necessity of competing with that world economy thus decided the new state’s economic priorities.Now, we need to examine Russia - of all the examples held up as socialist (beyond the three countries examined here), this one has the strongest claim to actually living up to the label. But, as we'll see, circumstances beyond the control of the Bolsheviks led to that revolution being deflected as well. (All quotes in this section are from Cliff.)

The two revolutions of 1917 had a mass working-class base under them - the February revolution that toppled the tsar had its starts in Moscow bread riots, and the revolution that overthrew the Provisional Government stemmed from general anger over their refusal to pull out of the First World War, which was ruining Russia socially and economically. The October revolution was led by a party that had sought for over twenty years to sink deep roots into the working class and had done so very successfully - October would not have been possible without it. In contrast to China and Cuba, the working class had fought for - and won - the position of ruling class, overthrowing the old political and economic systems. To help them achieve that goal, they had consciously chosen to place the Bolsheviks at the head of the movement and then elevated them to the positions of leaders of the new state.

Almost immediately, however, major problems set in. The revolutionary wave across Europe, in which the Bolsheviks placed their hopes for the success of establishing socialism in general, collapsed without any further successes. Additionally, the Russian Civil War and intervention by fourteen other countries (the US included) decimated both Russia and the working class that had made the revolution. The Bolsheviks became completely isolated from the class that had put them in power while at the same time becoming more and more responsible for directing the productive activities of the state - a role they had specifically acknowledged as that of the working class. The Communist Party had the role of ruling class thrust upon it through objective circumstances. This was fertile soil for the transition back from the first steps of socialism towards capitalism:But where the bureaucracy of a workers’ state is transformed into a ruling class, economic and political restoration (of capitalism -O.) are indissolubly interwoven. The state becomes gradually further divorced from the workers, the relations between it and the workers become more and more like the relations between a capitalist employer and his workers. In such a case the bureaucratic clique that first appears as a distortion, gradually transforms itself into a class which fulfils the tasks of the bourgeoisie in capitalist relations of production. The gradual evolutionary divorce of the bureaucracy from the control of the masses, which continued until 1928, reached the stage of a revolutionary qualitative change with the First Five-Year Plan.Was the Bolshevik Party really a class by 1928? A quote from Engels' Origin of Family, Private Property, and the State on the origins of the merchant class under capitalism sheds some light on the subject:A third division of labour was added by civilisation: it created a class that did not take part in production, but occupied itself merely with the exchange of products – the merchants... here a class appears for the first time that captures the control of production in general and subjugates the producers to its rule, without taking the least part in production... a class of parasites... that skim the cream of production at home and abroad as a reward for very insignificant services; that rapidly amass enormous wealth and gain social significance accordinglyA description that fits the Communist Parties under Stalin and Mao - and Castro's barbudo organization - to a T. Now, as I quoted earlier, the Soviet Union found itself by 1928 in a "hostile and competitive world economy", and its economic priorities were thus dictated by the need to hold its own in economic competition with the rest of the world. Therefore rapid and intensive industrial development, rather than producing consumer goods for need, became the priority, with all the results people rightly point out with horror. Let's not forget, though, that the same horrors were visited upon the working class in Europe and America during their phases of industrial development. (The works of Dickens and the existence of slavery in the US give more than ample evidence of that.)

To sum up - in all three cases examined here (as well as everyplace else that have either been labeled or called themselves communist) the party that made the revolution was a class that stood above society. This is in direct contrast to Marx' and Engels' own assertion that a communist party must be involved in the struggles of the working class, which in turn is the only class capable of building genuine socialism. In Russia the party was transformed from a class organization into a class in and of itself through objective circumstances that were inimical to the original project; in China and Cuba, this was the nature of the party from its very inception.

In short, the excesses that came from Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, and Castro's Cuba cannot be ascribed as the logical outcomes of implementing the theories and philosophy of communism. The revolutions were either not communist in the first place, or became deflected from that goal because of circumstances beyond the party's - or the working class' - control.

[Olentzero]

Feh...the party that made the revolution was a class that stood above societyshould read "...was or became..."

You work hours on a post and one small omission blows it all...

[John Mace]

Cain:

FYI, driving cars (ie, tool making) and vaccinating for diseases (ie, practicing medicine) are very natural behaviors for humans. But you know that. You just found it easier to make a silly comment than to actually engage in a real debate.

[cainxinth]

I also mentioned democracy. The first literate civilizations were monarchical, so according to your view monarchies, which are more "natural", are better than democracies. Is that right?

Also do you find it easier to quibble over minor details rather than address Olentzero rather conclusive elaboration on themes I've been trying to foward (with not as much success). Or would you prefer to stick to your guns and assume communism is intrinsically unnatural and evil and should be avoided like the plague?

[cainxinth]

To clarify, I am of course referring to myself as having less success than Olentzero, who did an amazing job.

[cainxinth]

Hey I hit 1000 and I didn't even notice it... happy 1000 post day to me? Please note my favorite cookie is oatmeal raisin, and my favorite medal is the Pulitzer.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by John Mace
This is what I mean by human nature. Let's do a thought experiment. We have two hunter gatherer clans. Let's call them Mountain Clan and Valley Clan.

It's interesting you mention hunter-gatherer bands, because a number of Communists, including most notably Engels, considered them to practice a sort of primitive communism. Hunter-gatherer bands are, for the most part, classless societies. There is a chief, but he is chief by the consent of the band, and doesn't have any special advantages over anyone else. He still has to do his share of the band's work. Everyone contributes to the collection of food, and food is shared equally by the band.

[slipster]

Whoops.

Yes: the name is, of course, Smedley Butler.

This is what I get for typing quickly and neglecting proofreading.
One summer during my undergraduate days I had a job at a federal records center which involved reading the names of thousands upon thousands of former servicemen. To help pass the time my fellow summer interns and I assembled a list of the more interesting names. Some of them, including "Smellie" have stuck in my memory ever since. I offer this as an explanation rather than as an excuse.

Like the proverbial stopped clock which is right twice a day, Communists have, from time-to-time, seem to have been dead-on in their claims about evil rich Capitalists and their conspiracies. An excellent example involves Butler.

In the 1930s Butler testified before Congress that members of the Dupont Family, the Chairman of General Motors and some of their friends had approached him with a proposal: they wanted to make him dictator of the U.S. via a bloodless coup, in exchange for his promise to put an end to the New Deal, return to the gold standard, and otherwise act to fatten the wallets of the very, very rich. He also testified that the head of the American Legion was on their list of prospective dictators/puppets, a claim which the head of the AL confirmed. The third man on the list, however, denied all knowledge of a conspiracy. He was Douglas MacArthur.

[Nomadic_One]

i think in the perfect world communism is a good form of foverment, but then you get that little thing called greed, and it becomes a not so perfect form of goverment.

[Derleth]

Greed is merely the desire to better your position in society. Without greed, you have cattle. With greed, you have intelligent omnivores capable of producing the Declaration of Independence and the Sistine Chapel. Social striving is a form of conflict, and conflict is evolution's engine of change.

Greed does not mean mindless consumption and acquisition any more than competition means violence and bloodshed. I am, to some extent, greedy for the attention of Dopers. So I compete with my fellows in consistently producing posts that are intelligent, insightful, and perhaps funny when I can't get anything else. :) That intellectual striving is greed's highest expression.

Greed can be suppressed. So can the natural reaction to pain and the urge to help one's fellow man. Certain religious groups that teach asceticism and austerity have succeeded in producing members who exhibit rather little greed. The monastic sects of Buddhism and, possibly, the Amish sects of the Mennonite Christians would fall under this rubric. They practice a successful, small-scale communism because they are filled with people who chose to be there. Pol Pot's attempt to enforce essentially what the Amish sects practice, communal farming arrangements and holy poverty, on a nation of unwilling people met with predictable violence and bloodshed.

No Communist nation has ever fully answered this question: How does the system work when most people aren't interested in asceticism or a renunciation of greed?

[cainxinth]

Cambodians under Pol Pot, Chinese under Mao, Russians under Stalin, or Cubans under Castro. What's the independent variable? It's not greed, which I agree is common in all cultures (again with differing relevancy). So was laziness, and so is happiness, and love and all the other things that motivate us. But there is no universal human nature. Every culture has its own makeup of motivating factors.

The common trait in those examples is autocracy, a single person forcibly determining the ideology of a nation. To answer your last question, there are levels of greed. Cambodians were greedy for political freedoms and food. Americans are greedy for excess and decadence. A middle ground simply must exist. Communism is still a good idea with horrible execution, and technology may be precisely the force that rectifies the problem by alleviating some of our greediness.

[hammerbach]

I'm still waiting to hear what should be done with those who refuse to go along...

[bibliophage]

Off to Great Debates.

bibliophage
moderator GQ

[cainxinth]

A brief sketch of Political Science Fiction

taken from the Jennifer Government model (http://www.nationstates.net)

Stage 1: 2009

The United States of Bob is a very large, progressive nation, notable for its punitive income tax rates. Its compassionate population of 105 million enjoy extensive civil rights and enjoy a level social equality free of the usual accompanying government corruption. They tend to view other, more capitalist countries as somewhat immoral and corrupt.

It is difficult to tell where the large, socially-minded government stops and the rest of society begins, but it juggles the competing demands of Education, Social Welfare, and Social Equality. The average income tax rate is 52%, but much higher for the wealthy.

Voting is voluntary, the government's religious works are headed by a New Age guru who views all major religions as extensions of basic spirituality, and political parties are banned from advertising on television and receiving corporate donations. Marijuana is legal in the privacy of your own home. Crime is almost totally unknown. Bob’s national animal is the bear, which frolics freely in the nation's many lush forests, and its currency is the dollar.

Stage 2: 2031

The United People of Bob is a very large nation, notable for its complete lack of any form of currency. Every citizen is supplied with basic necessities including food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and education. Individuals within the community can work for greater rewards by making themselves more valuable to the community. Training and a good reputation are the most valuable commodities in Bob. An extremely socially-progressive constitution protects the tenets of UPB, and law and order is backed by a police force and judiciary which is less and less necessary.

A growing upper class of scientists, scholars, entrepreneurs, and artists makes up 40 percent of the population, a shrinking middle class represents another 40 percent, and 20 percent of the population is voluntarily subsisting on the adequate but austere state minimum. In international trade the World Bank acts as proxy and brokers the compensation for all UPB exports. Foreign currency is channeled to a fund for the purchase of products or services from capitalist nations. Domestic trade in the traditional sense is non-existent. Individuals all have a profile tagged to their biometric data, those who have been deemed by the community to qualify for a three-story house pay with their name.

It is difficult to tell where the socially-minded government stops and the rest of society begins, but it juggles the competing demands of Education, Social Welfare, and Social Equality. Naturally, there is no taxation of any kind. Civil rights are strong upheld, voting is voluntary but strongly encouraged, and a New Age guru who views all major religions as extensions of basic spirituality heads the government’s religious works. Political parties are banned from advertising on television, and marijuana is legal in public but strongly regulated, tobacco is illegal. Bob’s national animal is the bear, which frolics freely in the nation's many lush forests.


Poli sci/fi right now, but it’s still floating around in the realm of possibility. Stalin was evil, Mao was evil, communism is not evil.

[hammerbach]

I don't even know where to start...

I'll pick one at random.

"Individuals all have a profile tagged to their biometric data, those who have been deemed by the community to qualify for a three-story house pay with their name. "

I'm guessing they would be more equal than other people.

[cainxinth]

Perfect equality is required, just a relinquishment of private property. The community owns everything and the community decides who gets what.

[cainxinth]

is = isn't

[Bryan Ekers]

You forget Stage 3: 2033. One group of individuals decide they can quietly manipulate the community for their own ends. It starts simple, with campaigns for better trash collection, but soon thugs are making midnight visits to the homes of citizens who, they claim, are not loyal citizens of Bob. A number of people are killed or forced into exile and the group, now calling itself "The Bob Association of STandardization And Nomalization Department (BASTARD)" slowly grows in power and influence and eventually takes control of the country "for the good of the citizens." Fifty years later, after many mass killings and general misery, the nation of Bob ceases to exist, abandoned to the dustbin of history.

Stage 4: 2120. High school students are told about Bob in their history class. Many of them tune the lecturer out, since it's not going to be on the test, anyway.

[cainxinth]

Hey, Bob is my country... go wreck your own!

[Olentzero]

cainxinth, the one thing none of the revolutionary Marxists ever thought it was wise to do was try to map out beforehand how the socialist society of the future was to take shape. (Look how well Owen and Fourier's "model communities" worked out.)

The best any of us this side of the revolution can say is that workers will have learned that they can run society in their own interests - borne out by the experience of Paris in 1871, Russia in 1905 and 1917, Seattle in 1919, and to a more limited extent Chile in 1973 and Iran in 1979 - before the revolution actually happens, and that how they organize production and distribution after the revolution is up to them. Working people are actually quite smart - once they get the confidence to take the world for themselves, they'll have more than enough confidence in themselves to run it.

[cainxinth]

Bob isn't a planned community. I intended it as an example of a capitalist cum socialist cum communist evolution that occurred naturally, voluntarily and bloodlessly.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by cainxinth
Hey, Bob is my country... go wreck your own!

I don't have to. Bob is self-defeating. The more creative and productive individuals in Bob will be stifled becuase they can't get rewards commensurate with their talents. Instead of selling their products for whatever buyers will pay, or negotiating with employers for better salaries, they only get what the "community" decides to give them. They become beggers. They produce less and Bob will fall apart as its infrastructure collapses, with thugs ruling instead of intellectuals.

You said "entrepreneurs" make up part of your growing upper class. What would they do in a society without private property? It must be some use of the word "entrepreneur" which has escaped all the dictionary writers of the world.

[cainxinth]

Entrepreneur: “A person who organizes, operates, and assumes the risk for a business venture.”

Take the examples of citizen Alex and his father Tim.

At a young age Alex, a child of modest background, decides that he wants the finer things in life made available to him. So he works hard in school and qualifies for Bob’s finest college, University of Bob. Thankfully, despite the meager lifestyle afforded by his shiftless lay about of a father, Tim, UB has no tuition so Alex is not precluded from an educational opportunity deserving of his intelligence and work ethic. Alex majors in business and after college teams up with an engineer friend who has an idea for a crazy new widget that he thinks is going to be a huge hit with Bobians.

Alex stakes his reputation on the widget and uses his social credit to seek material and human resources from the community. He finds willing investors and recruits and the new venture of Widgets Unlimited rolls out the first widgets to the public with massive fanfare. They are an instant hit and Alex’s social standing skyrockets, suddenly he can eat at the finest restaurants, drive the fanciest cars, and live in a swank new mansion. Meanwhile, Tim content to sit back and watch daytime TV on the state dole rots happily away in self-imposed limbo.

Years later Alex grows complacent with his lifestyle and stops contributing to the community of Bob. He’s built up a career profile befitting someone in the upper class, but his recent inactivity prevents him from reaching the highest echelons of social life. Satisfied to have achieved more for his family than his father did for his he settles into retired life.

[cainxinth]

Before anyone else mentions it, yes Bob is complete fantasy that I pulled directly out of my ass. But so was “1984” and yet here we are. ;)

[Olentzero]

Communism has never yet been successfully defended through creative writing.

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by Olentzero
Communism has never yet been successfully defended through creative writing.

Bolding mine :)

[cainxinth]

durn it, runined a perfectly good joke... must preview.

Originally posted by Olentzero
Communism has never yet been successfully defended through creative writing.

[cainxinth]

Seriously, I think you and slipster have already done a more than adequate job proving that communism is a viable economic system. I'm just trying to make a light hearted, quasi-realistic case for a functioning and prosperous communistic society.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by cainxinth
Seriously, I think you and slipster have already done a more than adequate job proving that communism is a viable economic system. I'm just trying to make a light hearted, quasi-realistic case for a functioning and prosperous communistic society.

Like your use of "entrepreneur", I can't reconcile "realistic" with anything else you're saying. Even jamming a "quasi-" in there doesn't help.

But nevertheless, I'd be happy to help you found the nation of Bob. Just give me a minute to pull a magic wand out of my ass.

[cainxinth]

Why isn't Alex an entrepreneur?

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by cainxinth
Why isn't Alex an entrepreneur?

He is, but I don't see how could live the successful life you describe in the people's republic of Bob. So he starts his factory using "social credit" ? Care to define that? It takes labour to build a factory; why would anyone haul wood and pour cement unless he was being rewarded?

If the factory fails, does he have to pay back his debt by selling himself into slavery?

In Bob, the rich are heavily taxed. How heavily? Can Alex even afford to go to these upscale restaurants? He's a successful businessman and can't get into the highest echelons of society? Exactly who is in those echelons, anyway?

So, Alex goes to Bob's "finest college". Who pays for this school? Why is there a "finest" school at all? Shouldn't all schools be set up with large resources?

Putting that aside, if there is a "finest" college, isn't it likely to attract more applicants then it can handle? Who decides who is accepted and rejected? Does it have to go to a national vote? Isn't a popularity contest anathema to the perfect equality of Bob?

Your ideallized Bob-state would have to be pretty rigidly controlled, especially if you anticipate no greed or crime. How does an individual like Alex succeed at all without being slapped down by community leaders who want to preserve the status quo?

[cainxinth]

Social credit is the currency of Bob, it's Alex's reputation. When he goes looking for the physical resources required to start his company he has only his reputation and training as well as his salesmanship to offer as proof of concept. If those in the community with established reputations are swayed by his pitch they authorize the use of communal resources. Blue collar laborers are among those resources. However, it is 2031 and one of the reasons I stipulated the middle class was shrinking was that technology and automation were rapidly replacing their positions and pushing them back into education for more skilled jobs.

If the Widgets flop Alex’s social credit line takes a hit and the next time he goes looking for investors he’s going to have a harder time of it. Slavery is obviously not a possibility, as the government will provide for his basic existence even if he does nothing. However, given that circumstance I think an ambitious and capable person like Alex would either further his education or begin rebuilding his credibility at a less risky and prestigious job than entrepreneur. Often you can’t make big gains without big risks, Alex knew that he and choose to try anyway.

The rich were only heavily taxed in Bob when it was a socialist capitalism, by 2031 all private property was relinquished. Alex can afford upscale restaurants because the success of his Widget venture upped his social credit and when he presses his thumb on the bill (a bill with no actual monetary figure attached to it) he is authorized by the community for goods and services above that of those who haven’t contributed as much to Bob. I mentioned Alex spends sometime of his career enjoying great success, but he grows complacent, stops working as hard for Bob, and lets his social cred slip, but he retires comfortably at the bottom of the upper-class.

The finest schools aren’t paid for. Teachers work there to benefit Bob which benefits themselves. The whole point behind Bob is constitutionally binding personal and communal benefits in a nation’s economy. All schools do have fine resources, as education is listed as a top priority of Bob, but UB is the finest because it has the most demanding academic requirements. Equality isn’t rigidly mandated, the system is setup to naturally encourage as much equality as possible without removing incentives for individuals to work harder for greater personal benefit.

Your last question, is a tough one. How does Alex fight against corrupt individuals who have achieved great social credibility and wish to maintain their hold on the top. Because social conditions are so dissimilar to say America where a tiny elite controls a disproportionate amount of the wealth I think this problem would be less pressing. In Bob you get rich by making Bob a more prosperous place and by being a person of esteem, not by stepping on the little guy and amassing power for you and yours.

Bob is a pipedream, but it's not totally devoid of plausibility.

[Sam Stone]

You know, each time these Communism threads come up, a number of us jump in to explain in excrutiating detail why it can't work. It has nothing to do with greed, or dictators, the evil within men.

Communism cannot work in a complex society because it cannot handle the information requirements. Capitalism is a distributive system - Communism requires central planning. Central planning does not, and CAN NOT work as efficiently.

No one in these threads has ever disproved this, or have they responded to numerous cites to scholarly explanations of this. These messages get ignored, the thread dies, and then a few months later the usual suspects start another communism=good thread, and we go around again.

The true believers will never change.

[mangeorge]

The "From each/To each" philosophy of communism has been pretty clearly stated, but I haven't been able to discern a philosophy from the capitalist camp. It's difficult to compare competing ideologies when a person doesn't know, really, what one of them is.
It's kinda like the commie's standing naked in the street yelling his/her ideas up at leaders on the 50th floor of an air conditioned office building. Or something like that. ;) Having your entire agenda out there and exposed can be a big disadvantage, when the opponents agenda is shrouded.
Peace,
mangeorge

[Olentzero]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
Communism cannot work in a complex society because it cannot handle the information requirements. Capitalism is a distributive system - Communism requires central planning. Central planning does not, and CAN NOT work as efficiently.You've quoted Hayek a number of times stating the same thing - communism can't handle the information requirements. But you've never come out and stated what those information requirements are. What are they?

[Sam Stone]

What are they? The information required to make optimal decisions under conditions of scarcity. Everything from how soft people like their pillows and how stiff their toothbrushes should be to whether we should allocate expensive titanium to better aircraft structures or lighter weight car frames.

Then there are the second and third order interactions. Order more pencils, and now you need to order more wood. But that means ordering more milling machines, which means more steel, which means more mining equipment, which means....

The complexity of a modern society is staggering. There is no way a central authority can manage it efficiently. Even the Soviet Union had to allow a large black market and some market reforms in order to prevent itself from collapsing, and even then it couldn't do very well.

Think about this - the best investors in the world, people who's job it is to try and predict where capital will go and which products and companies will be winners and losers, do little better than chance when predicting the market. A 15% annual return on investment is outstanding, even for the top investment houses who spend millions on market research.

[Duncan]

Originally posted by mangeorge
The "From each/To each" philosophy of communism has been pretty clearly stated, but I haven't been able to discern a philosophy from the capitalist camp. It's difficult to compare competing ideologies when a person doesn't know, really, what one of them is.
It's kinda like the commie's standing naked in the street yelling his/her ideas up at leaders on the 50th floor of an air conditioned office building. Or something like that. ;) Having your entire agenda out there and exposed can be a big disadvantage, when the opponents agenda is shrouded.
Peace,
mangeorge

I'd be more inclined to compare it to the commie wearing a hockey mask, holding a chainsaw, and standing on a pile of dead bodies. The capitalists stand a few feet away horrified, whilst the commie beckons to them saying, "Don't worry. It'll be different this time."

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need" is the creed of a slave. Who decides how much each person needs, and who decides how much each person is capable of giving?

When America needed railroads, were the railroad builders justified in using slaves who had the ability, then providing them with the bare minimum they needed to live on?

The capitalist philosophy is quite simply a recognition of private property rights. People own themselves, and their possessions and are free to act according to what they see as their own self interest. Moral actions are chosen, rather than being enforced by the State.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by cainxinth
Your last question, is a tough one. How does Alex fight against corrupt individuals who have achieved great social credibility and wish to maintain their hold on the top. Because social conditions are so dissimilar to say America where a tiny elite controls a disproportionate amount of the wealth I think this problem would be less pressing. In Bob you get rich by making Bob a more prosperous place and by being a person of esteem, not by stepping on the little guy and amassing power for you and yours.

Bob is a pipedream, but it's not totally devoid of plausibility.


Ironically, that's not the question I was asking, but that was a good attempt at spinning.

The barriers to Alex's rise won't be just the top of society. He'll run into resistance at every level as he tries to climb his way up. If Alex's widget idea tanks, it won't be just his "social credit" (satisfactory definition not yet provided) that takes a hit, but surely all the people who supported his idea. Picture a mid-level beaurocrat (call him Jim) at the Social Investments Committee. Jim's job is examine applications like Alex's and make recommendations on which ones have merit. Jim has climbed as high as he wants to and he has a comfortable life, though he'll never reach the upper-class echelons.

Now, Jim is confronted with Alex, who has a radical idea which could be a spectacular success or a spectacular failure. Jim has two big rubber stamps on his desk; "RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL" and "RECOMMENDED FOR REJECTION" and he faces them, thinking: "If I approve this and it works, my social credit might go up a little. But if I approve this and it fails, I'll lose what I have. I'd better play it safe." He reaches for the "REJECT" stamp and Alex disappears into obscurity. The projects that get approved by Jim will only be the mediocre, safe ones. Subsequently, the nation of Bob is eventually clobbered by the technologically advanced nation of Sam, because Sam didn't put beaurocrats like Jim in charge of approving ideas.

You can keep claiming that Bob is mildly plausible, but that doesn't make it so. Or, rather, it's a plausible model of a society that will inevitably collapse into a big bloody mess.

[cainxinth]

Bryan, in the Bob model no one bureaucrat like Jim makes a determination over community resources. It's the entire established community of businessmen that make business decisions, just like medical community makes medical decisions and so on. That way risk is shared and the process is somewhat democratic, although specialized. It’s true Bob doesn't work just because I say it does, but so far you haven't convinced me that it ends in a bloody mess just because you say it does.

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
The complexity of a modern society is staggering. There is no way a central authority can manage it efficiently.

The fundamental concept of communism does not require central planning. As has been abundantly pointed out Leninist governmental communism was centralized and failed, but communism strictly as an economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all citizens is still a feasible but unproven concept.

The debate here is are people only motivated by personal interest or can their personal interests be mated with the interests of the community in the economic and legal doctrine of a state. Not would USSR part deux fail, we don’t need to debate that.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by cainxinth
Bryan, in the Bob model no one bureaucrat like Jim makes a determination over community resources. It's the entire established community of businessmen that make business decisions, just like medical community makes medical decisions and so on. That way risk is shared and the process is somewhat democratic, although specialized. It’s true Bob doesn't work just because I say it does, but so far you haven't convinced me that it ends in a bloody mess just because you say it does.

So, no individual is ever responsible for any major economic decision? Talk about a recipe for inefficiency! The risk isn't really "shared" under such a system. What really happens is the system gradually fills up with beaurocrats who never take risks and who never let others rock the boat, because their own comfortable positions might be threatened. Eventually, a creative person like Alex will be smothered under layers of mediocre goo. He won't be able to sell his radical idea and he'll watch his less-able contemporaries get ahead because they're perceived as "safer".

As for medical decisions, I'd really hate for a surgeon to be operating on me and thinking "Should I cut here or should I cut there? I'd better take it to a vote!" Naturally, I'm sure you didn't mean that individual care decisions had taken to the community (at least, I hope you didn't) but your line of demarcation between individual discretion and community control is unclear.

As for the bloody mess, I have precedent on my side. All communist regimes have used murder and torture to preserve themselves, to varying degrees. Some of the former East Bloc nations like Poland and Czechoslovakia might have managed a peaceful "escape" from communism when the USSR collapsed, but prior to 1989, the secret police were always on the prowl and heaven help you if you offended the State.

As for Bob ending in a bloody mess, I should clarify: I don't think Bob will end in a bloody mess because I don't think Bob will ever exist in the first place. Rather, someone who tried to set up the nation of Bob along the lines you describe will run into a huge number of problems and historically, such problems are typically "solved" in communist regimes by killing people. There will be huge bloodshed long before any of the ideallized goals of Bob are attained, if they ever can be, which I doubt.

Personally, I can see a million capitalist individuals working for their own individual benefit as having a much better result than trying to take those decisions away from them and assigned to a central power. Rather then taking control away from the individuals, give them a legal framework to form temporary alliances (i.e. the corporation), a method to arbitrate disputes (the civil courts) and a law enforcement structure to address harm (the criminal courts) and I think those people will surprise you with how effective they can be. Then tax them just enough to keep your government structures running and to make sure no-one in your society has to starve.

I predict this model to be more effective than the zombified restricted citizens of the entirely implausible nation of Bob, who have no property and no control over their lives.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by cainxinth
The fundamental concept of communism does not require central planning. As has been abundantly pointed out Leninist governmental communism was centralized and failed, but communism strictly as an economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all citizens is still a feasible but unproven concept.

Actually, it's not unproven. Small-scale collective farming communities have been successfully run along the lines you describe, but once the number of people and the level of complexity gets beyond a certain point, it's no longer feasible to take every decision to the community. If a tractor breaks down and a new one needs to be obtained, are you going to assemble 1000 citizens and explain both sides of the decision and have a vote? Would you assemble 10,000 citizens? A million? At what point does the decision process become so cumbersome that community votes no longer work and a central authority has to be chosen, or else everybody starves becuase the damn tractor doesn't work?

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
So, no individual is ever responsible for any major economic decision? Talk about a recipe for inefficiency!

You say that centralization is an anathema, dooming a nation to inefficiency, and then you deem a completely decentralized and democratic decision-making process like the Bob model also as inefficient. So which is it? In Bob when you want to start a business you don’t have a hierarchical corporate system to climb, you have a decentralized community to convince.

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Actually, it's not unproven. Small-scale collective farming communities have been successfully run along the lines you describe, but once the number of people and the level of complexity gets beyond a certain point, it's no longer feasible to take every decision to the community. If a tractor breaks down and a new one needs to be obtained, are you going to assemble 1000 citizens and explain both sides of the decision and have a vote? Would you assemble 10,000 citizens? A million? At what point does the decision process become so cumbersome that community votes no longer work and a central authority has to be chosen, or else everybody starves becuase the damn tractor doesn't work?

Excuse me then, unproven on a nation-wide scale. Also, I don’t think it would go against the spirit of a communist economy to allow for the small emergency purchases of commercial equipment. Most decisions are made by the credible members of the community, aided I think by the near ubiquitous networking technologies sure to be in place 30 years from now, but some amount of personal discretions is prudent for individuals of sufficient social cred.

[Ludovic]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Eventually, a creative person like Alex will be smothered under layers of mediocre goo.

What part of the phrase "Clear Channel" do you not understand?

[Olentzero]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
What are they? The information required to make optimal decisions under conditions of scarcity.Ah, see, that's where your assertion falls apart. The goal of a socialist society is to create a permanent and general surplus of goods so that decisions under "conditions of scarcity" become impossible.

And besides, what is scarcity today but an artificially created phenomenon? Look at the AIDS situation in Africa. How come those infected aren't getting the drugs they need? Is it because pharmaceutical companies across the globe can't possibly make the amount of drugs needed to help these people, or is it because the companies that hold the patents actually sued in court to prevent the manufacture of generic versions in order to safeguard their profits?

It's also been shown that the system used by the Netherlands as regards food production and distribution, if adopted on a global scale, would be able to feed ten times the current world's population. So is scarcity of food a natural phenomenon, or the result of agricultural corporations sticking to the methods that reap them the most profits?

I could go on, but to me it's already abundantly clear that the decentralized market, in which each group of privately owned production, organized into a business entity, competes with every other organized business entity to further its own interests and only its own interests, is entirely incapable of any allocation of resources that could begin to meet the world's needs completely.

And unless you've got a definite rebuttal to my last large post, stop holding the Soviet Union up as an example of a communist economy. I've already spelled out in detail why it wasn't.

cainxinth, I don't know what you're defending, but it sure as hell isn't communism.

[Grim_Beaker]

Olentzero


The goal of a socialist society is to create a permanent and general surplus of goods so that decisions under "conditions of scarcity" become impossible.


Scarcity is a fact of life Olentzero. There is only so much iron ore, coal, wood, marble, salt (etc. etc.) and other natural resources being harvested on an ongoing basis. The amount harvested/mined/gathered is based on the current demand by the market. Thus, each of these commodities fluctuate in supply and volume based on the demand of said commodity. This means that there is a finite amount of a given resource in circulation at any given time. How is this resource allocated?

Do we decide that every household (however we define household) get's a motor vehicle? If so then that metal used to build all of these automobiles would, by necessity, need to be taken from the available pool leaving less to be used for aircraft, naval vessels, iron based tools, etc. etc.

Obviously everyone can't have a car without making some tradeoffs. Everyone won't need cars in the Communist Utopia you say? They'll use mass transportation? Find. That will likely reduce the amount of raw materials needed for everyday transportation purposes but it doesn't eliminate the fact that resources are scarce. As in finite. As in "we'll never have enough resources so that everyone can have whatever material goods they desire".

Even if we accepted full blown use of nanotechnology in some Science Fiction scenario like Star Trek replicators that still doesn't eliminate scarcity. Certain things are inherently finite and nothing can change that. Realestate is a prime example of inherent scarcity. There's a reason that living in San Francisco or New York is more expensive in general then say Boise. If more people wish to live in a particular area then that area has practical space for *presto* we have scarcity. What about antiques? A book from a limited edition print from a 100 years ago? A baseball signed by Babe Ruth?

Make you a deal Olentzero. When scarcity ceases to exist I'll become a communist.

Grim

[cainxinth]

Olentzero, I'm defending a hypothetical model. A communistic state that is decentralized. I don't see the conflict; I was under the impression that the defining characteristic of communism was the abolishment of private property, not centralization.

[Grim_Beaker]

cainxinth

As Bryan Ekers has pointed out you haven't yet given a satisfactory definition of "social credit". So, a few questions for you that will hopefully make your use of the term a little clearer.

How is social credit originally obtained? Is social credit simply accrued a little bit at a time based on the amount of time you're alive (sort of like sick days at most corporations)? Specifically, at what point on the continuum of life (from infancy to old age) does a person obtain social credit, how much, and how?

Can it be traded?

How is it measured? (In points? Degrees? Something else?) Or are there multiple different properties of credit each with their own measurement? A sort of multi-dimensional array to indicate a clearer picture of someone's standing?

If someone decides to travel to a country outside of Bob, how much of a foreign currency are they allowed to use while there? Is it based on social credit?

More questions as I think of them.

Grim

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Ludovic
What part of the phrase "Clear Channel" do you not understand?

Well, gee, give me a working definition of the term and I'll tell you if I understand it or not. The nation of Bob as described has quite a few social structures that are idealized but ill-defined. "Clear channel" is one. "Social credit" is another.

Hypothetical models are fine, but if you want to claim plausibility, there should be some credible basis. Ccainxinth is dangling an illusion and telling us that it can be solid if we believe in it hard enough.

Fat chance.

[cainxinth]

Just off the top of my head let's say social credit is measured in points. Every activity you do to better yourself and Bob earns you points. Getting a 4.0 in a premed program and working in an ER is worth more points than dropping out of college and becoming a custodian. Working at your job and getting good performance reviews is worth points. Receiving positive feedback from your peers and superiors in just about any task I think should be worth some small amount of points. Basically it’s a number, which describes how much you have given to Bob and thus determines how much you deserve to get back.

Social credit can’t be traded for goods and services inside Bob, its more like an authorization for goods and services. However, I think when Bobians leave the country they can receive stipends from the World Bank fund I mentioned commensurate with their social credit to purchase goods in foreign countries. I hadn’t thought of the multi-dimensional grading system you mention, but that seems to make sense, things like bettering yourself through training and bettering Bob through work could be distinguished, etc.

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Hypothetical models are fine, but if you want to claim plausibility, there should be some credible basis. Ccainxinth is dangling an illusion and telling us that it can be solid if we believe in it hard enough.

Fat chance.

Sure Bob is entirely idealized and hypothetical, but utopia or even societies with utopian features don’t actually exist and never have so if we can't use our imaginations to explore it's potential how are we supposed to investigate it? I've done my best to infuse some realism into the model, but you'll have to pardon me if I didn’t invent the city on a hill on my first try out.

I’ll grant you that there’s a fat chance Bob will exist, but may I ask if you think there’s an equally slim chance of any utopian-style society existing?

[Bryan Ekers]

Based on that model, I predict garbage collectors will go on strike, claiming that their job is critical to the continuing existence of Bob. They will demand that their job get more "credit" and their workers get more priveleges. If they succeed, other trades will do the same and Bob will suffer from a neverending and debilitating series of strikes.

This was the basis of the Anthony Burgess' dystopian novel 1985.

[cainxinth]

The GTUB (Garbageperson’s Trade Union of Bob) demands higher compensation. The community of Bob makes a determination and either settles or holds out and hires scabs until a fair deal is brokered. Fearing widespread cross-industry strikes the Bobians for Capitalism movement campaigns to hold out on GTUB’s demands. However they fail to mobilize public support and the garbagepersons receive a 4% annual increase in social credit points. Contrary to the capitalists warnings other industries do not follow suit and idyllic life in Bob resumes.

BTW Bryan, Clear Channel isn't a term I used in defining Bob. I believe Ludovic was referring to the Clear Channel corporation (http://www.clearchannel.com/). A media company accused of attempting to build a monpoly in the radio industry. As in, “Eventually, a creative person like Alex will be smothered under layers of mediocre goo [like Clear Channel].”

[Olentzero]

Originally posted by Grim_Beaker
Scarcity is a fact of life Olentzero. There is only so much iron ore, coal, wood, marble, salt (etc. etc.) and other natural resources being harvested on an ongoing basis. The amount harvested/mined/gathered is based on the current demand by the market.But that demand is met insofar as the corporation that produces the commodity can get an acceptable amount of financial profit from production.Thus, each of these commodities fluctuate in supply and volume based on the demand of said commodity.Well, no, not really. Does unsold coal suddenly disappear? How about unsold lumber, or unsold marble? It's still there, just not being used.This means that there is a finite amount of a given resource in circulation at any given time. How is this resource allocated?Under current conditions, it's allocated to the people who can best afford to pay the price asked for it. Which is why it's possible for people to have to choose between heating their house during the winter and keeping food in the fridge.Do we decide that every household (however we define household) get's a motor vehicle? If so then that metal used to build all of these automobiles would, by necessity, need to be taken from the available pool leaving less to be used for aircraft, naval vessels, iron based tools, etc. etc.Don't confuse the amount of a product currently being bought and sold for use with the entire supply of that product. Scarcity on the market (i.e. the availability of a given product at a certain price) is not the same thing as scarcity in general.As in finite. As in "we'll never have enough resources so that everyone can have whatever material goods they desire".Nonsense. Here's one recent example (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/02/international/asia/02FARM.html?pagewanted=all&position=top).Real estate is a prime example of inherent scarcity. There's a reason that living in San Francisco or New York is more expensive in general then say Boise. If more people wish to live in a particular area then that area has practical space for *presto* we have scarcity.So you're saying homelessness is a result of scarcity of real estate? Again, nonsense. The DC neighborhood I lived in before I moved to Arlington was chock full of abandoned and decaying houses. Some of them are now being renovated - but as luxury apartments and condos. Housing itself isn't scarce. Affordable housing, however, is.What about antiques? A book from a limited edition print from a 100 years ago? A baseball signed by Babe Ruth?And how are either of those necessary to ensure survival? Old books and autographed baseballs are scarce, yes. Housing, food, clothing, and education aren't.

cainxinth - allow me to quote from Marx' Principles of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm) (1847):What will this new social order have to be like?
Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole -- that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society.

It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association.

Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement -- in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods.

"According to a common plan." "Abolish competition and replace it with association." "The common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement." In other words, a centrally planned economy. The abolition of private property must be accompanied by the centralization of production and distribution.

looking at your last post "hires scabs"?! Now I know whatever it is you're defending isn't communism.

[Grim_Beaker]

More questions about the nature of "social credit".


Alex stakes his reputation on the widget and uses his social credit to seek material and human resources from the community.


Ok, I'm imagining a relatively small committee making the decision of whether or not to allocate resources and workhours (and by necessity remove them from some other less deserving project). I'm guessing that this committee was elected by the people who work in the industry locally. If for instance the widget was one based on a computer program I'm imagining a group of say 20 (scaled up or down to the size of the local population) software engineers, designers and programmers who have been elected to do a feasibility analysis, a second group to determine demand and perhaps a third program management group to prioritize and weigh the importance of projects. If the newly proposed project is determined (after analysis and research) to be more important via it's benefit to society and/or demand by the populace then another project then resources are allocated and work begins. These 3 groups (the technical group, demand analysis group and the project management group) would be elected from the much larger group of said professionals that live in the area and would represent the group as a whole. Their service in this capacity earns them some extra credits. Please correct me if you're envisioning this differently.


He finds willing investors and recruits and the new venture of Widgets Unlimited rolls out the first widgets to the public with massive fanfare. They are an instant hit and Alex’s social standing skyrockets, suddenly he can eat at the finest restaurants, drive the fanciest cars, and live in a swank new mansion.


Some more questions.

1. Once resources are allocated to Alex's widget making project who organizes, maintains and runs the widget producing factory?

2. If Alex is dissatisfied with the quality of some of his workers does he have the capability of "exchanging" them for workers more to his liking from other projects?

3. If Alex thinks that "Bill" (who was hired on as a night janitor) can do a better job designing the next version of the widget then one of his current engineers does Alex has the authority to promote the janitor to widget design? If so how does he fill the now vacant position of night janitor?

4. If widget demand exceeds factory capacity but the project management team has decided that no more resources can be allocated to widget making what recourse does Alex have to supply the widget demand?

5. Is it the benefit to society, the exhibited demand of the widget, or a combination of the two (or something else altogether?) that determines the amount of social credit Alex gains from the widget production? What if the widget was the "Pet Rock". Very popular during it's hay-day but pretty much useless from a practical standpoint. Is there a difference between the social credit gained by such a widget vs. if the widget was a new type of moderately more nutritious catfood (an obviously practical widget)?

6. Is the amount of credit Alex obtains affected by the efficient running of his factory? In other words if Alex produces X number of widgets from Y resources is he rewarded with more social credit if he is able to produce X + Z widgets from that same amount of Y resources? Conversely is he penalized, social credit wise, if the amount of resources he is using is producing a woefully low number of widgets?

Grim

[cainxinth]

Olentzero, I’m not arguing for Marxism, in fact I don’t believe classical Marxism is a viable form of government or economic system. What I’m advocating is more along the lines of decentralized, post-structuralist communism with personal as well as communal incentives. Marx and Engels invented communism in some sense, but it's still evolving.

[cainxinth]

No, I think the committee is a very large but it’s weighted. Alex sends out an e-application to a listserve of the entire business community ranked higher than him on the social scale. The committee members are weighted by their rank and the closeness of their industry to Alex’s project.

Originally posted by Grim_Beaker
If for instance the widget was one based on a computer program I'm imagining a group of say 20 (scaled up or down to the size of the local population) software engineers, designers and programmers who have been elected to do a feasibility analysis, a second group to determine demand and perhaps a third program management group to prioritize and weigh the importance of projects. If the newly proposed project is determined (after analysis and research) to be more important via it's benefit to society and/or demand by the populace then another project then resources are allocated and work begins. These 3 groups (the technical group, demand analysis group and the project management group) would be elected from the much larger group of said professionals that live in the area and would represent the group as a whole. Their service in this capacity earns them some extra credits. Please correct me if you're envisioning this differently.

You’re way ahead of my thoughts so far, but that sounds plenty reasonable to me.

1. Once resources are allocated to Alex's widget making project who organizes, maintains and runs the widget producing factory?

Alex and his engineer friend were the principles who risked their credibility on the project so I think they were be the CEO and CTO respectively. The different groups you mentioned or "boards” if you will, however I think should be made up of members of the business community of sufficient rank who apply and are accepted by the community. A staff drawn from the general employment pool runs the factory.

2. If Alex is dissatisfied with the quality of some of his workers does he have the capability of "exchanging" them for workers more to his liking from other projects?

Sure, poor performance reviews don’t net social cred points for a worker, if his colleagues considerably outpace him he would lose authorization for a job of the caliber he is currently in.

3. If Alex thinks that "Bill" (who was hired on as a night janitor) can do a better job designing the next version of the widget then one of his current engineers does Alex has the authority to promote the janitor to widget design? If so how does he fill the now vacant position of night janitor?

I think Alex has the power given his position and cred to make a strong recommendation for a break in protocol like that, but ultimately it would be up to the board members. The new janitor would come from the employment pool. But like I said, it’s 2031 and blue collar positions like janitors are being replaced by automation… yes robots. (if we’re talking about a pie in the sky it might as well have all the bells and whistles right?)

4. If widget demand exceeds factory capacity but the project management team has decided that no more resources can be allocated to widget making what recourse does Alex have to supply the widget demand?

None, if the board determines that Bob at large wouldn’t benefit from maximum saturation of widgets production proceeds at its current pace. I suppose he could try to appeal the decision thouhgh.

5. Is it the benefit to society, the exhibited demand of the widget, or a combination of the two (or something else altogether?) that determines the amount of social credit Alex gains from the widget production? What if the widget was the "Pet Rock". Very popular during it's hay-day but pretty much useless from a practical standpoint. Is there a difference between the social credit gained by such a widget vs. if the widget was a new type of moderately more nutritious catfood (an obviously practical widget)?

Very interesting question. I assume both the actual benefit of the product and its positive effect on the economy by creating jobs and such are factored into the analysis. Pet rocks create jobs but have little practical use and therefore would be less essential than the all-purpose widget.

6. Is the amount of credit Alex obtains affected by the efficient running of his factory? In other words if Alex produces X number of widgets from Y resources is he rewarded with more social credit if he is able to produce X + Z widgets from that same amount of Y resources? Conversely is he penalized, social credit wise, if the amount of resources he is using is producing a woefully low number of widgets?

Another novel idea… sounds logical. Maybe you should be writing Bob’s constitution. :)

[Grim_Beaker]

Well, no, not really. Does unsold coal suddenly disappear? How about unsold lumber, or unsold marble? It's still there, just not being used.


What percentage of these resources do you feel sit around unused? Corollary question: what, in your opinion, is the average time said commodities sit around before being used? Or don't they get used at all as a regular state of affairs?



This means that there is a finite amount of a given resource in circulation at any given time. How is this resource allocated?


Under current conditions, it's allocated to the people who can best afford to pay the price asked for it. Which is why it's possible for people to have to choose between heating their house during the winter and keeping food in the fridge.


Describing how it is currently doesn't answer how it will be allocated in a communist society.



Do we decide that every household (however we define household) get's a motor vehicle? If so then that metal used to build all of these automobiles would, by necessity, need to be taken from the available pool leaving less to be used for aircraft, naval vessels, iron based tools, etc. etc.


Don't confuse the amount of a product currently being bought and sold for use with the entire supply of that product. Scarcity on the market (i.e. the availability of a given product at a certain price) is not the same thing as scarcity in general.


Nor did I say it was. Even if I grant that some products are scarce due to artificial restrictions (say for instance a corporation making only a small amount of a commodity available in order to inflate the price) or because of political reasons (the India example you provided) or even due to incompetence (lousy manager...) I find it extremely hard to believe that all (or even a significant amount of) commodities are scarce for those reasons. Do you have any proof whatsoever that commodities in general (and I'm not just talking about subsistence level resources such as food, clothing and shelter) are sufficient to meet worldwide demand?


So you're saying homelessness is a result of scarcity of real estate? Again, nonsense. The DC neighborhood I lived in before I moved to Arlington was chock full of abandoned and decaying houses. Some of them are now being renovated - but as luxury apartments and condos. Housing itself isn't scarce. Affordable housing, however, is.


I'm not saying anything of the sort. What I *am* saying is that not all realestate is equal and that there is a greater demand for some parcels then for others. In other words, prime realestate is scarce. Everyone can't have it.

Essentially the sticking point here is standard of living. If we were so inclined could everyone in the world be provided with some form of shelter, food, and clothing? I believe so. If we were so inclined could everyone in the world be provided with a standard education and decent medical treatment? Not in the near term. Perhaps in a long while (I may be pessimistic here but even setting that as a goal 100 years hence seems recklessly optimistic). If we were so inclined could everyone be provided with Pentium 4 3Ghz personal computers, Ferraris and penthouse apartments on Long Island? Never.

So Olentzero, just what standard of living are you saying the communist society should maintain?

Grim

[Olentzero]

Originally posted by Grim_Beaker
What percentage of these resources do you feel sit around unused? Corollary question: what, in your opinion, is the average time said commodities sit around before being used? Or don't they get used at all as a regular state of affairs?I don't know. Researching those numbers would take more time than I have at the moment. The India article, however, does show that resources do go unused, more often than not because an acceptable price can't be gotten for them.Describing how it is currently doesn't answer how it will be allocated in a communist society.While it's true that some resources may be finite even in a communist society, that's no reason to assume that the amounts would be the same. The limit of, say, coal mined per year is limited by the fact that the mining companies don't want to mine too much - if they mine more than they can sell, they begin to lose money on the venture- through payment of wages and upkeep of machinery, for example. Communism, being based on meeting need rather than generating profit, doesn't seek to limit the amount of product available for consumption but to produce more than is needed and to set aside the rest for future use. Given that there are resources that will at some point run out, people might decide it's a good idea to divert technology and research into exploring the use of renewable resources and lessening dependence on non-renewable ones. They might even occur at the same time - mining coal to keep things running now, while others explore ways of fueling and heating that don't depend on coal so more of it doesn't need to be dug up in the future.I find it extremely hard to believe that all (or even a significant amount of) commodities are scarce for those reasons. Do you have any proof whatsoever that commodities in general (and I'm not just talking about subsistence level resources such as food, clothing and shelter) are sufficient to meet worldwide demand?No, again because such research would take more time than I have at present. A simple look around you ought to be more than sufficient, however - if we can build cities the size of Los Angeles, New York, Paris, London, Delhi, Beijing, and Tokyo and keep them running for the better part of a century (or more) without hearing so much as a peep about a worldwide shortage of stonemasonry, steel, glass, asphalt, cement, plastic, rubber, copper, or what have you (not to mention regular recurrences of mass starvation throughought the developed world) - then I'd consider it a safe bet there's more than enough of everything to go around.I'm not saying anything of the sort. What I *am* saying is that not all realestate is equal and that there is a greater demand for some parcels then for others. In other words, prime realestate is scarce. Everyone can't have it.Now you're falling back on equating the scarcity of a portion of a commodity with scarcity of the commodity in general. Just because everyone can't have "prime" real estate doesn't mean everyone can't have a warm, dry and safe home to live in.Essentially the sticking point here is standard of living. If we were so inclined could everyone in the world be provided with some form of shelter, food, and clothing? I believe so.Add the word "decent" in there and we're more or less in agreement.If we were so inclined could everyone in the world be provided with a standard education and decent medical treatment? Not in the near term. Perhaps in a long while (I may be pessimistic here but even setting that as a goal 100 years hence seems recklessly optimistic).Absolutely we could, and in much less time than that. If the US spent as much on primary and secondary education - and decent subsidies for post-secondary - as it did on the military, this country could have a top-notch education system. If we were so inclined could everyone be provided with Pentium 4 3Ghz personal computers, Ferraris and penthouse apartments on Long Island? Never.Well, not everyone wants all those things (although I'm quite sure we could do a decent job of furnishing the world population with really good computers.So Olentzero, just what standard of living are you saying the communist society should maintain?One in which people's needs are met to the fullest possible. A society geared to producing to meet human need is more likely to achieve that goal than a society geared towards meeting only the demand than can pay an acceptable price.

[Ludovic]

Posted by me:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Eventually, a creative person like Alex will be smothered under layers of mediocre goo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What part of the phrase "Clear Channel" do you not understand?


Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Well, gee, give me a working definition of the term and I'll tell you if I understand it or not. The nation of Bob as described has quite a few social structures that are idealized but ill-defined. "Clear channel" is one. "Social credit" is another.


are you being intentionally obtuse? You argued that "eventually, a creative person like Alex will be smothered under layers of mediocre goo". I gave you a counterexample in the real world. In the entertainment industry, at least, this happens all the time to creative people.

[Grim_Beaker]

Bolding mine...


I don't know. Researching those numbers would take more time than I have at the moment. The India article, however, does show that resources do go unused, more often than not because an acceptable price can't be gotten for them.


The bolded portion is conjecture. You state that you don't know the amount of resources that go unused yet you seem to take it as a matter of course that the amount will be enough to fulfill degree of current demand. If your stance is that unused resources are a proximate cause of scarcity then it would behoove you (or another communist sympathizer) to research that information. This would be of especial importance if this were a fundamental consideration as to the availability of goods when planning a communist society.


Communism, being based on meeting need rather than generating profit, doesn't seek to limit the amount of product available for consumption but to produce more than is needed and to set aside the rest for future use.


This still says nothing about allocation. Yeah, communism attempts to create a surplus, but when shortages occur (and they inevitably will) how are the resources allocated?


No, again because such research would take more time than I have at present. A simple look around you ought to be more than sufficient, however - if we can build cities the size of Los Angeles, New York, Paris, London, Delhi, Beijing, and Tokyo and keep them running for the better part of a century (or more) without hearing so much as a peep about a worldwide shortage of stonemasonry, steel, glass, asphalt, cement, plastic, rubber, copper, or what have you (not to mention regular recurrences of mass starvation throughought the developed world) - then I'd consider it a safe bet there's more than enough of everything to go around.


This seems to be saying "Since there seems to be plenty of stuff around me there must be enough for everyone". Your subjective evaluation of the amount of "stuff" around doesn't have any relevance when determining the scarcity of a given commodity.


Now you're falling back on equating the scarcity of a portion of a commodity with scarcity of the commodity in general. Just because everyone can't have "prime" real estate doesn't mean everyone can't have a warm, dry and safe home to live in.


This goes directly back to my question about allocation. Who gets the "prime" realestate? How do you allocate it?


Well, not everyone wants all those things (although I'm quite sure we could do a decent job of furnishing the world population with really good computers.


Even though everyone may not want these things they would certainly be in a higher demand then the available supply. The ol' allocation question again.


Absolutely we could, and in much less time than that. If the US spent as much on primary and secondary education - and decent subsidies for post-secondary - as it did on the military, this country could have a top-notch education system.


Sure. And if the US spent it's entire military budget on researching ice cream flavors we'd have some pretty damn tasty ice cream. In either case allocating the military budget towards ice cream or the educational system would not be feasible. I can't imagine a likely scenario where a strong and well trained military would not be necessary.


One in which people's needs are met to the fullest possible. A society geared to producing to meet human need is more likely to achieve that goal than a society geared towards meeting only the demand than can pay an acceptable price.


This has as much detail as the statement: "Capitalism, being more efficient, is more likely to provide the world's needs then a society based on a command economy." In other words, it's pretty empty. Hypothetical: What if, by a magic wave of my wand, I could create a communist society. Furthermore what if it was determined that the best standard of living possible under this form of government was very much substandard to that of current day industrialized nations. However, everyone was "equal" in the sense that they all had the same (poor) housing, food, clothing, education and health care (all substandard). If this was the fullest extent to which communism could provide for the masses would it still be the form of government you would advocate and if so why?

Off the top of my head there are two broad categories that most of my objections fall under. Social and economic. Leaving the social aside for the moment some of communism's greatest flaws are it's efficiency, resource allocation, and commodity distribution. Currently we're tackling allocation and in particular the question of scarcity but that's only because the conversation has led in this direction. Fundamentally the question of scarcity relies on efficiency. The more efficient the production and allocation process the less scarcity is an issue. The question therefore is "Has communism shown itself to be at least as if not more efficient then capitalism with regard to the utilization of resources (both material and personnel) and creation of wealth?". It is up to the proponents of communism to prove that is so and to date it simply has not been done.

Grim

[Grim_Beaker]

No, I think the committee is a very large but it’s weighted. Alex sends out an e-application to a listserve of the entire business community ranked higher than him on the social scale. The committee members are weighted by their rank and the closeness of their industry to Alex’s project.


I think this would be a mistake. The larger the organization the more inefficient and the slower it is to come to a consensus (depending on the question a consensus may never develop thus deadlocking the issue). However, I'll use your vision of the structure for the purposes of framing my questions.


Alex and his engineer friend were the principles who risked their credibility on the project so I think they were be the CEO and CTO respectively. The different groups you mentioned or "boards" if you will, however I think should be made up of members of the business community of sufficient rank who apply and are accepted by the community. A staff drawn from the general employment pool runs the factory.


I'm assuming that his factory will have workers and departments which are specialized towards their given task just like current day companies are (i.e. Shipping, Marketing, Design, etc.) and that Alex & Friend run the day to day operations as well as organizing work between said departments. Based on this:


I think Alex has the power given his position and cred to make a strong recommendation for a break in protocol like that, but ultimately it would be up to the board members. The new janitor would come from the employment pool. But like I said, it’s 2031 and blue collar positions like janitors are being replaced by automation yes robots. (if we’re talking about a pie in the sky it might as well have all the bells and whistles right?)


however it sounds as though the "board" does have a fairly significant role in the day to day running of the factory.

Just exactly where is the line drawn regarding who (Alex or the board) has the authority to make a given decision?

A few more questions.

In the society of Bob would it permissible for the tourist to return with foreign goods (purchased with the foreign currency allocated to him/her while they were abroad) and then to trade those goods with his fellow citizens?

Does private property exist? Or is it only companies and "means of production" that are considered to be collectively owned by society (i.e. your home is in fact yours, as well as "your" clothes, books, etc.)?

If there is no private property is there such a thing as theft? Can I simply walk away with someone's favorite scarf and say "Hey, it's my scarf too!"

Is bartering allowed? Let's say I despise chocolate but have a sizeable store due to a well meaning but uninformed aunt. Can I trade that for a product more to my liking and at a rate that I and the other person in the transaction agree on?

Grim

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Ludovic
are you being intentionally obtuse? You argued that "eventually, a creative person like Alex will be smothered under layers of mediocre goo". I gave you a counterexample in the real world. In the entertainment industry, at least, this happens all the time to creative people.

No, you're being a lousy debater. What happened was:
[list=1]
cainxinth described "Bob", using the phrase "social credit."
I challenged "social credit" as an undefined term
You asked if the phrase "Clear channel" meant anything to me
"Clear channel" in fact doesn't mean anything to me. I assumed it was a phrase that had appeared somewhere in the description of "Bob", though I didn't feel like searching for it.
On the assumption that both "Social Credit" and "Clear channel" were undefined Bob-isms, I asked for definitions of both.
[/list=1]

You introduced the term "Clear channel" without providing a link or even a description which was, frankly, kinda dumb of you. I'd never heard of "Clear Channel" before today (I hardly need point out that I am not American, as my location field indicates), and from little I can glean from reading their webpage as well as www.clearchannelsucks.org, I can't see how they're relevant to this thread. There is HUGE difference between blocking one person (or company) from monopolizing an industry and setting up a society where nobody owns anything (i.e. the oppressed, mind-numbed and vodka-addicted citizens of Bob).

The main complaint about Clear Channel that you (wrongly) think is relevant here is that CC programs mediocre music and talk shows in order to maximize market appeal. This is entirely different than having a governmental agency programming mediocrity in order to stifle dissent. If the market demanded a massive amount of radical listening material, CC would have to provide it or risk going out of business. You're blaming the shepherd for the complacency of the sheep.

If you want to bitch about Clear Channel, you may as well start a new thread just on that.

In conclusion, I'm not obtuse, but your posting skills could be improved. I could follow your example and introduce counterexamples by name only, and then accuse you of being obtuse because you didn't know what I was talking about, but that would pointless. In future, if you want to introduce a fact into an argument, at the very least, write a sentence or two explaining what the fact means and how it is relevant.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Grim_Beaker
Is bartering allowed? Let's say I despise chocolate but have a sizeable store due to a well meaning but uninformed aunt. Can I trade that for a product more to my liking and at a rate that I and the other person in the transaction agree on?

In Bob, all gifts have to be approved by a neighborhood Gift Committee, and you will have to show a "need" certificate (issued by your municipal Needs Committee) before you can be alocated your chocolate. After all, you can't be allowed to have a luxury like chocolate until the national Food Allocation Committee is satisfied that all basic food needs have been met.

So, to get the chocolate you didn't want in the first place requires a three-year waiting period and multiple documents filed in triplicate with various worker-run agencies.

After that, you can barter to yourt heart's content, but don't get caught, as Black Marketeering is a capital offence in the Worker's Paradise of Bob.

Big Bobby Is Watching You!

[cainxinth]

True larger committees are slower to consensus, but I think ubiquitous networking as well as predetermined tie-breakers (e.g. business persons with top 10% social cred who work in Alex’s industry) would expedite the process. The board plays a strong role in that they have final say as to what company policies are best for Bob, but Alex and his management team are responsible for day to day operation. Ordering new parts within the project budget doesn’t require special authorization, but big problems do. For example say assembly line 4 is producing an abundance of defective widgets, Alex wants it investigated, but first he dispatches a memo to the board members electronically with a deadline for a decision to authorize new resources for the study.

I’m not sure exactly where the demarcation between the authority of a CEO like Alex who is trying to produce a product and his board which is looking out for Bob is, but I think it makes the most sense that Alex be given just enough leeway that he can run the company efficiently without putting overly extensive resources of Bob at his sole discretion.

In Bob there is no private property, but there is what I’m going to call limited personal property. If you want a cashmere scarf and you have the social cred authorizing you for one, you can go out and pick one up, and while you are authorized for it no one can take it from you. However, you don’t own the scarf, it belongs to Bob, you can’t heir it to your children, or trade it to someone for something else.

As for foreign goods, they also ultimately belong to Bob because you paid for them with money from the World Bank fund built with Bob exports. But, like the scarf it is your limited personal possession so long as you keep your cred up. Given your chocolate example I think bartering makes sense, however to prevent a black market from forming I think Bob should act as an intermediary. You can bring your chocolate to Bob and exchange it for something else.

[Grim_Beaker]

When Bob acts as an intermediary between 2 citizens who wish to trade does Bob only do so in order to facilitate the transaction and to prevent a black market? In other words, does Bob let the 2 citizens set the exchange rate (12 oz of chocolate for 2 pairs of socks, one pillow for a pair of beach towels, etc.) ? Or does Bob determine how much chocolate a pair of wool socks is worth?

Grim

[cainxinth]

Bryan, nothing personal but you're being a little overly defensive here. All sides of this debate, Marxists, capitalists, and utopian nutjobs like me are talking civilly, but you make repeated condescending remarks at anyone even slightly opposed to you. I’m not trying to cramp your style, I’ve read some of your other posts and I can see you have a naturally biting sense of humor, which I like, but Ludovic didn’t do anything wrong. You choose to make a comment based on a poor assumption. We all do it from time to time, lord knows I get called on it weekly. Suck it up and move on. We’re all friends here.

[cainxinth]

[B]Grim_Beaker[B]:

No, the ranking citizens of Bob determine the social cred worth of all goods and services based on demand, its usefulness to Bob (a garden rake keeps Bob clean so its cheaper than a tennis racket which is used for personal enjoyment), and I suppose it’s relative worth in capitalist nations could be a factor as well.

[mangeorge]

Capitalists are horrified by piles of dead bodies?
American railroads were built by (for) communists, using slave labor?
Wow, Duncan, your grasp of history is worse than mine.
I'm trying to put some sense to these arguements, and you throw me a curve like that.
Thanks, bud. :D

[Grim_Beaker]

Well.... that doesn't quite answer my question cainxinth. Let me try again. I realize that the ranking citizens are going to put a social credit price on commodities. What I'm asking is if I want to trade chocolate (an item I "own") to another person for socks (an item they "own") am I only allowed to trade if the social credit amount of the chocolate is equal to the social credit amount of the socks (or whatever it is I'm wishing to trade for) as measured by the ranking citizens?

If for instance, I *really* wanted the socks, would it be ok if I offered more chocolate then the ranking citizens said the socks were worth? (i.e. Bob says the socks are worth 10 credits and I want to offer 12 credits worth of chocolate since I want them so badly... brrr! My feet are cold!)

Grim

[cainxinth]

Bob has no secret police so I think if you and your friend worked out a mutually satisfactory deal the state would overlook such a minor transaction. However for bigger things, like a car that was given as a graduation present from your stinking rich grandfather Alex, inventor of the all-purpose widget, you have to return it to the state to exchange it.

This also brings up the question of how to deal with rare or unique items, like a signed baseball card. I think all the individuals with a cred line to afford it should bid on it with community services. If a rich old coot wants that card he has to bid 40 hours reading to sick kids at the children’s hospital, etc.

Your questions keep fleshing out Bob in greater detail. I think at this point we can say Bob is a mostly decentralized, communistic democracy without private property, where personal prestige and wealth is accrued by pursing collectivist goals, creating an unusual form of meritocracy, and where policies are in place to encourage social responsibility.

[Sam Stone]

Bob has no secret police so I think if you and your friend worked out a mutually satisfactory deal the state would overlook such a minor transaction. However for bigger things, like a car that was given as a graduation present from your stinking rich grandfather Alex, inventor of the all-purpose widget, you have to return it to the state to exchange it.


If the state doesn't have secret police, how is it going to know?

I can't remember where I heard this, but it seems appropriate to this discussion: The people who advocate a communist state always seem to be the ones who think that, come the revolution they will be the ones with the clipboards telling everyone else what to do.

Olentzero: Economics in general has as its whole purpose the allocation of scarce resources. If we all had everything we want, we wouldn't need organization at all. There isn't just scarcity of raw materials - there is scarcity of labor, scarcity of intelligence and education, scarcity of finished goods, scarcity of talent, etc. Not everyone is a genius, and not everyone works as hard as others. These qualities are therefore scarce, and need to be allocated.

Without a price system, the only way to do to it in the end is at the point of a gun. And not only is that despicable, it's horribly inefficient.

[hammerbach]

I would think labor would be the commodity of the highest scarcity. Particularly for unpleasant jobs, as we can't all be writers, poets, artists, social theorists, etc. For that matter, where would these folks be in the social credit scale, and why?

Labor is what makes raw materials finished products, and has an intimate relationship with wealth. But it requires a motivation. It doesn't seem realistic to me to expect people to perform less-than-pleasant tasks without a personal reward. I'm afraid Sam Stone's "at the point of a gun" comment may have to apply here...

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by cainxinth
Bryan, nothing personal but you're being a little overly defensive here. All sides of this debate, Marxists, capitalists, and utopian nutjobs like me are talking civilly, but you make repeated condescending remarks at anyone even slightly opposed to you. I’m not trying to cramp your style, I’ve read some of your other posts and I can see you have a naturally biting sense of humor, which I like, but Ludovic didn’t do anything wrong. You choose to make a comment based on a poor assumption. We all do it from time to time, lord knows I get called on it weekly. Suck it up and move on. We’re all friends here.

Poppycock. I'm not being defensive because I'm not actually defending anything: I'm merely picking apart the many flaws in your hypothetical model of Bob, as well as your claims that it was quasi-plausible. Not that it matters, really, since whenever confronted with a design flaw in Bob, you seem happy to make up new and equalliy implausible solutions. You response the striking garbage collectors is a case in point: the garbage collectors get their four percent, and everyone is happy and no-one else goes on strike. Ridiculous.

As for Lodovic, the bad assumption was initially his; namely his assumtpion that I would be familiar with "Clear Channel", and then implying I was obtuse because I wasn't. We are not all friends here, because I accept such bullshit from no-one.

And you and I are certainly not friends, because I can't accept as a friend someone who would seriously argue in favour of slavery while calling it social justice. Communism on a national scale is demonstrably unworkable and all attempts to implement it have been nightmares. Arguing otherwise will always invite attack from me.

Nothing personal.

[cainxinth]

Bryan, this isn’t deserving of anymore bandwidth in this thread, but if you still feel the need to defend yourself the pit is always available. The last thing I’ll say is, you didn’t take the time to look up a term you were unfamiliar with, incorrectly assumed it was something I wrote, and then you snapped at Lodovic for calling you on it. Granted, he could have been more tactful, but you’re not exactly mister tact yourself.

And frankly, I’m not terribly concerned with what you think of a hypothetical society I was toying around with on a debate message board. It started as a what if and I thought it would be interesting to see how it panned out. I’m somewhat pleased with it actually, the idea of connecting personal and communal incentives is a concept I haven’t explored. If that’s a reason for you to count me as your enemy or some melodramatic blather so be it, and good riddance.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by cainxinth
Bryan, this isn’t deserving of anymore bandwidth in this thread, but if you still feel the need to defend yourself the pit is always available.

You've said nothing that would compel me to defend myself. I have some interest, however, in challenging communist ideas (or any other extreme philosophy with a proven bloody record)whenever they are presented in a rosey-eyed unrealistic fashion. At heart of such ideas is the notion that all citizens' control over their own lives should be taken away from them for their own good, and that's something I will challenge... well, pretty much as long as I live, actually. Accusing me (wrongly) of being defensive does not increase the amount of evidence for your position.

If that’s a reason for you to count me as your enemy or some melodramatic blather so be it, and good riddance.

Don't flatter yourself. I'm challenging your stated views, not your personality. If you ever got into a position to implement those views in a manner that started to dimish my freedom, then you'd become my enemy.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by cainxinth
Just off the top of my head let's say social credit is measured in points. Every activity you do to better yourself and Bob earns you points.


We should give this social credit a name. One unit of social credit could be called a dollar. 1/4 of a social unit can be called a quarter, 1/10 of a social unit can be a dime, 1/20 of a social unit can be a nickle, and 1/100 of a social unit can be a penny.


Getting a 4.0 in a premed program and working in an ER is worth more points than dropping out of college and becoming a custodian.


Why is it worth more and who makes that determination?


Basically it’s a number, which describes how much you have given to Bob and thus determines how much you deserve to get back.


So basically I'm not free to toil for myself. I am put on this earth to give unto Bob. Bob determines how much of my own labor I get to keep.


Social credit can’t be traded for goods and services inside Bob, its more like an authorization for goods and services.


So I can't just take a big bundle of social credits and stick some in the g-string of some stripper? What good does social credit do me if I can't use it for goods or services?

Marc

[Grim_Beaker]

Ahh... but you see MGibson, you *can* make trades. So I can imagine a strip club wherein the patrons are putting toasters, socks, bars of chocolate, blankets, etc. in the stripper's g-strings.

"Shake it baby! I've got a spatula for you!"

BTW, you stole my thunder Marc! I was just about to suggest we call social credit "money". Damn you!

Grim

[cainxinth]

Strippers in Bob strip for the good of Bob, and if they make a few toasters on the side, no harm no foul. ;)

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by MGibson
Why is it worth more and who makes that determination?

It's worth more because it takes more effort and skill, and because it is crucial to the functioning of Bob. Robots are replacing janitors, remember. ;) It's determined by anyone in Bob who is old enought to vote.


So basically I'm not free to toil for myself. I am put on this earth to give unto Bob. Bob determines how much of my own labor I get to keep.


You've missed the point entirely. When you toil for Bob you are toiling for yourself. The social credit, the authorization for state purchases (although unlike money in that it never get's subtracted and isn't used to purchase private property) is an indicator of how much you have given to Bob, which is directly purportional to how much Bob owes back to you.


Personal and communal goals are intertwined. That's what Bryan doesn't seem to get either.

[hammerbach]

What if I have a personal goal that is NOT intertwined with communal goals? In other words, what if I want to do something that Bob doesn't like? (For instance, to produce art that insults Bob... would I be unable to get materials?)
I'd STILL like to know what happens to people who don't want to operaate within the Bob lifestyle!

I don't mean to shout, but this is the third version of this question, and so far as I can se it has gone unanswered.

[hammerbach]

Another social credit question: If I don't like the decisions of upper echelon social credit holders, can I campaign to reduce their social credit, and how would I prevent dirty tricks on their part to prevent or obstruct my campaign?

[cainxinth]

If you want to make art that a majority of Bob doesn't like it's no problem, you can use your social cred for whatever you want. But if no one in Bob's art council thinks you're doing a worthy project you get no further cred for the work. However Bob dearly upholds civil liberties and I think even intentionally shocking work would find some support for its free speech message.

People who don't want to live the Bob lifestyle are free to immigrate to capitalist nations or lobby to the community for changes they feel necessary. Also, The upper echelon got there not because they only bettered themselves, but because they worked hard to improve Bob with quantifiable results. However, if corruption did take root at the top and a news organization or lobby group exposed them, their cred lines would immediately start stagnating, meaning they won’t be at the top much longer.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by cainxinth
Personal and communal goals are intertwined. That's what Bryan doesn't seem to get either.

I have the same basic objections as hammerbach does; namely, shouldn't it be up to the individual to determine his own goals, and not the community? You're operating on the assumption that a million men can always make a better decision than one man. When it comes to making my decisions about what education to pursue, what jobs to try for and how many children to have (is THAT controlled in Bob? Surely the community has a compelling interest at stake) I'm not going to allow anyone other than myself to make the final call. If society benefits because of my choice... good, but my primary goal will always be to make my limited time on Earth as pleasant as possible.

No matter how much you try to dress it up, you're still advocating slavery and putting every individual at the service of the State. Among other reasons, I find this offensive from a strictly evolutionary point of view. Why did homo sapiens bother developing individual intelligence just to toss it away? Let the ants work all day for the good of their colony; I'd rather watch DVDs in the privacy of my own home.

[Olentzero]

Originally posted by Grim_Beaker
Hypothetical: What if, by a magic wave of my wand, I could create a communist society. Furthermore what if it was determined that the best standard of living possible under this form of government was very much substandard to that of current day industrialized nations. However, everyone was "equal" in the sense that they all had the same (poor) housing, food, clothing, education and health care (all substandard). If this was the fullest extent to which communism could provide for the masses would it still be the form of government you would advocate and if so why?Here, I think, is the crux of the matter. Is there a direct link between equitable distribution of resources and an immediate lowering of the standard of living? The answer, based on the data I've pulled off the Net, seems to indicate not.

The database I worked from is found here (http://apps.fao.org/), and the map I refer to at the end of this post can be found here (http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/ECONOMIC/ESS/chart/geografical/geografical.htm).

Having looked at the total world output for several food categories and distilled the results here (http://www.geocities.com/mylo_tennyson/various/FoodStats.txt) (my apologies if this doesn't work correctly - I'm hoping it will), the data shows that over the eleven years from 1992 to 2002, world food output increased alongside the world's population to continue to provide each one of the world's citizens with 4 pounds of food per day. I'm not sure whether this is actually enough; a quick calculation using the "food pyramid" as a measuring stick indicated that the average person needed 4.5 pounds of food a day to meet basic nutritional requirements, which seems awfully high to me.

So let's assume, as a worst-case scenario, that this figure in fact isn't enough - that though nobody will starve on four pounds of food a day, neither are they going to be the picture of well-fed health. This begs the question, however, of whether or not world food production is in fact operating at maximum capacity.

This map (http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/ECONOMIC/ESS/chart/templateimg.asp?immagine=geografical/img/mondo1.gif) at the UN Food and Agricultural Organization site I linked to earlier, shows that world food production levels vary widely. For instance, it shows that the whole of the Americas (both continents) have almost half again as much cropped area (here I believe they mean area with crops planted) as Europe, yet they lag behind Europe in yield per hectare. China has twice as much cropped area as Europe but roughly the same yield per hectare. Russia has five times as much cropped area as North Africa and yet only one-third the yield per hectare.

What does this mean? Well, either the world increases the amount of cropped area, or we find methods of organizing food production to increase the yield per hectare. The Dutch, for instance, are the third largest exporters of agro-food goods in the world with only 1.6% of its land devoted to agriculture (see here (http://museum.agropolis.fr/english/pages/expos/agriculteurs/agricultures/agri20.htm). It has a production value of US$4203 per hectare - one of the highest in Europe (see "Land potential yield" here (http://museum.agropolis.fr/english/pages/expos/agriculteurs/dico/dictionnaire20.htm)). One of the main features of Dutch agriculture is its high rate of collectivization - some 60% ("Economical organization and cooperation" on the same page). One can only wonder how similar organization, of equal or greater magnitude, might affect the yield per hectare of US agriculture, or that of Russia, or even Southeast Asia.

It's pretty clear, therefore, that current food production, while more or less able to provide the entire world's population with its daily food requirements, is nowhere near at maximum capacity. Collective efforts to increase yields per hectare and to better organize distribution across the globe can only result in the food shortage becoming a complete fiction. I daresay similar efforts in other areas of production would have the same results.

So - scarcity is thus shown not to be a fact of life, and the question of allocation under socialism - after meeting immediate needs - becomes how much to set aside for later in case of emergency and how much to put back into increasing technological efficiency and fueling further progress.

Sam - I'm not denying that there will be some compulsion present when socialism is being built, but generally it would be moral and ethical rather than physical - stressing the maxim "If you don't work, you don't eat". Since labor is the key element in producing the general surplus (the only way we wouldn't need organization is if this surplus were handed to us, Eden-like, from on high), work becomes a moral imperative. And again, if the workers as a whole make a social revolution, the only people compelling them to work are they themselves. Compulsion at gunpoint comes into play only if a party or organization makes a revolution instead of the working class.

Marx said - and I cannot stress this enough -the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itselfAnything else is courting disaster.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by cainxinth
It's worth more because it takes more effort and skill, and because it is crucial to the functioning of Bob. Robots are replacing janitors, remember. ;) It's determined by anyone in Bob who is old enought to vote.


Why would the people vote to allow someone with a 4.0 to have more social credit then they do? I just don't see it happening.


You've missed the point entirely. When you toil for Bob you are toiling for yourself.


No, I'm toiling for Bob. I could toil for Bob until I sweated blood but I still live at the whim of Bob.


The social credit, the authorization for state purchases (although unlike money in that it never get's subtracted and isn't used to purchase private property) is an indicator of how much you have given to Bob, which is directly purportional to how much Bob owes back to you.


There's got to be some limiting factor. Where do I get authorization to purchase a luxury like chocolates? Since my credit never gets subtracted how do I know when I'm reaching my limit for the month? Or can I order 1,000,000 chocolate bars each month?


Personal and communal goals are intertwined. That's what Bryan doesn't seem to get either.

My goals aren't always the same as everyone elses.

I'm just going to cut my losses and bow out of the conversation now. It is just going to end with me getting a headache as we go 'round and 'round this fantasy world we've created. Farewell and I'll see y'all in other threads.

Marc

[cainxinth]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
When it comes to making my decisions about what education to pursue, what jobs to try for and how many children to have (is THAT controlled in Bob? Surely the community has a compelling interest at stake) I'm not going to allow anyone other than myself to make the final call. If society benefits because of my choice... good, but my primary goal will always be to make my limited time on Earth as pleasant as possible.

No, Bob can’t determine what kind of education or job you choose for yourself. Bob can only make certain types of education and jobs more valuable than others. It’s no different under capitalism except the free market determines value, in Bob value is based on democracy and the pursuit of communal goals. In Bob your primary goal is also, “to make [your] limited time on Earth as pleasant as possible,” however the only way to do that is to pursue educational and work experiences that the community has deemed valuable.

No matter how much you try to dress it up, you're still advocating slavery and putting every individual at the service of the State. Among other reasons, I find this offensive from a strictly evolutionary point of view. Why did homo sapiens bother developing individual intelligence just to toss it away? Let the ants work all day for the good of their colony; I'd rather watch DVDs in the privacy of my own home.

In Eastern countries collectivism is of higher importance than individualism. Japanese workers give up some of their autonomy and subordinate personal interests to communal interests and harmony. But they do so voluntarily, it’s not slavery, it’s their culture. Interestingly, Japan does so within a global capitalistic system, which points to the flexibility of collectivism. America is quite the opposite end of the spectrum. Here individualism, independence, and autonomy are sacrosanct, that’s our culture. Bob is an effort to reconcile the differences of those cultures and mate the best parts of individualist and collectivist philosophies into a political and economic system.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Ho-Hum.

Buncha youngsters that don't remember the horror that was unleashed the last time folks thought Communism was a good idea.

Sounds like a horror movie plot. Red Dawn Of The Dead.


Foo. :p

This thread is full of dangerous rubbish uttered by people who just can't learn from history.

I quit. You blokes are hopeless.

[cainxinth]

correction... It’s no different under capitalism where the free market determines value, except in Bob value is based on democracy and the pursuit of communal goals.

[cainxinth]

Bosda, what I've learned from history is that autocrats like Stalin and Mao are to chiefly blame for the failure of communism. I've also learned that capitalism pushes questions of ethicality under the carpet when they start affecting the profit margin, and that all the crap we swept out of sight is coming back to haunt us.

[Sam Stone]

People who don't want to live the Bob lifestyle are free to immigrate to capitalist nations or lobby to the community for changes they feel necessary.


Repeat after me: Brain Drain. If you are going to set up a system where the best and brightest are forced to toil for the good of 'society', you had better lock the doors, or they'll be trampling over each other to escape your worker's paradise.

Or in other words, you don't think the Berlin Wall was put up to keep people out, do you?

You are just hopelessly naive about your utopia. In practice, such utopies rapidly devolve into bland, joyless, oppressive states ruled by bureaucrats. The worst of them turn into brutal tyrannies. The best of them just stagnate and lose their wealth until the people revolt.

[Sam Stone]

Bosda, what I've learned from history is that autocrats like Stalin and Mao are to chiefly blame for the failure of communism.


So you are laboring under the impression that Lenin was better? Or Pol Pot? Or Castro? Can you name a Communist leader you like? How about Hugo Chavez in Venezuela? He's just getting started, and already dissidents and oppositionists are starting to vanish or be found in alleys with bullets in their head.

[Duncan]

Originally posted by mangeorge
Capitalists are horrified by piles of dead bodies?
American railroads were built by (for) communists, using slave labor?
Wow, Duncan, your grasp of history is worse than mine.
I'm trying to put some sense to these arguements, and you throw me a curve like that.
Thanks, bud. :D

Somehow I doubt you honestly believe that was what I was saying. But nontheless, allow me to clarify.

My point was that your philosophy of "each shall give according to his ability, each shall receive according to his needs" is mere poetry, which falls apart on closer inspection. The example I gave is merely a demonstration of what your philosophy can be used to justify.

Bluntly, people "need" food, water and shelter to survive. Beyond that they "need" nothing. Anything they receive beyond that on grounds of need is given to them quite arbitarily at the behest of the government/worker's committee/whatever you choose to call it.

Now I agree slavery was indeed a great evil perpetrated by capitalists, and a demonstration of the need for laws to protect individual liberties. I'm sure we are both thankful slavery is now a shameful legacy, rather than a present day reality.

Where I suspect we differ is that I don't think doing the same thing again is justified just because the slavers are members of the government, waving red flags and copies of "Capital", and claim to be doing it for "the good of all".

As for the remark about capitalists not being bothered by blood - rest assured dehumanising those you have a grudge against is another trademark of oppressors throughout the ages.

Anyway, can't hang around - little babies don't eat themselves you know!

[Xema]

Originally posted by Olentzero
Ah, see, that's where your assertion falls apart. The goal of a socialist society is to create a permanent and general surplus of goods so that decisions under "conditions of scarcity" become impossible.
This is beautiful - a treasure, really. The goal is the reality? Does, say, the weather know about this, in order to avoid dumping snow except where there are just enough plows to deal with it?

[mangeorge]

You misunderstand me, Duncan. I'm not espousing communism, I can see their philosophy. I'm just looking for a capitalist philosophy to compare it to.
You had the commie bugaboo standing on a heap of bodies, horrifying the innocent capitalist. And, by implication, the commie machine using slave labor to build the railroads.
No, the capitalist system seems to work ok, as long as it's held in check by some sort of socialist controls.
:P

[cainxinth]

Sam for a smart guy you really miss the mark sometimes.

Originally posted by Sam Stone
Repeat after me: Brain Drain. If you are going to set up a system where the best and brightest are forced to toil for the good of 'society', you had better lock the doors, or they'll be trampling over each other to escape your worker's paradise.

As I’ve stated numerous times, this community isn’t one of perfect equality, it’s a meritocracy. Those who toil harder and smarter for Bob reap the good life. Just like those who toil harder and smarter for themselves in capitalisms reap the good life. The difference is in Bob nobody starves, is denied a good education, or fails to recieve the medical care they need just because they were born poor.

You are just hopelessly naive about your utopia. In practice, such utopies rapidly devolve into bland, joyless, oppressive states ruled by bureaucrats. The worst of them turn into brutal tyrannies. The best of them just stagnate and lose their wealth until the people revolt.

Precisely which utopias are you talking about? The USSR, China, Cuba? Those are/ were repressive, authoritarian Marxist communisms. There is no such thing as utopia, its an abstract idea, so how can you presume to say that a functional utopian society is doomed to failure? Which is worse: idealistic naiveté or cynical hubris?

And I'll say it again, collectivism, communism, and socialism are valid, real-world concept that aren't going anywhere, and frankly the US could stand to learn a thing or two about community because it's no-holds barred, outstandingly self-interested (and that’s the name of the game isn’t it – self interest, the premiere virtue of capitalism) approach to world politics post WWII have burned a lot of bridges. You students of history should recall that we weren't always hated by a sizable chunk of the world.

Whether we were killing commies in fear of a slippery slope of dominos, building influence in oil rich regions, or simply pursuing some passing economic opportunity for America and its corporations we played to win and to hell with our cherished values of freedom, liberty, and democracy, that’s for inside the borders exclusively. So we killed off democratically elected leaders like the Mossedeq in Iran and others mentioned by Olentzero, aided or installed monsters like the Shah, Saddam, bin Laden, Noreaga, and Pinochet, and outsourced our labor needs to third world children. In some cases we handed over massive “humanitarian” aid to our new dictator friends, and held the unsuspecting masses accountable for the massive debt that incured when their beloved dictator pissed the money away and while they starved. Then we cry foul when the most downtrodden of them plan unspeakable acts of revenge on us from their impoverished, rubble strewn homelands.

All in all pure, unfettered capitalism has been a smashing success in the last 50 years, if you live in America or another developed Western nation. All the little guys kind of got the short end of the stick, who would of thunk they'd decide to sharpen it and tell us where we can put it.

[Ludovic]

Brian, I'm sorry for assuming that you were deliberately misunderstanding my example of Clear Channel. I will try to make sure my references are more clear (no pun intended), in the future*

However, I still stand by the point that, in Capitalist as well as Communist societies, that resources can be misappropriated by bureaucratic incompetence. We can debate the extent of it, but we wont really have any clear data since the above example of communism has never been achieved.

I certainly think that bureaucratic waste be as bad or even worse than the current system, however, this wouldnt necessarily take the form of "resistance".

It could take the form of hyperdynamism if the system is set up to reward risk-taking. Lots of wasteful projects that dont produce much.

On the other hand, a greater equity acheived by this might make up for whatever lack of efficiency will be obtained.

My point was, though, that you certainly cant assume that capitalism does NOT stifle creativity!

Example one, clear channel, run by people who pride themselves in not being music fans, and are in a cabal with the record companies and research firms to provide sub-par music**. Example two, intellectual non-compete clauses (http://www.workindex.com/editorial/whar/whar0110-1.asp), wherein an employee's entire output is the property of their company.

arguably, this could be a defect of cainxinth's system too, if all the "social credit" devolved upon those approving the project rather than the creators, but I think it would be better adaptable to reward creators than managers.

Of course, the question is, would it be more efficient, even given that? Who knows.

*probably with hyperlinks, to avoid, by making intertextual comments to things people DO know, the possibility that people will think I'm condescending :(

** can it really be called a conspiracy when most participants' real crime is being lazy? you make the call.

[Bryan Ekers]

If anything, you'vre just proving the point that systems set up to serve the majority interest tend toward mediocrity, be it programming radio music or trying to serve the citizens of Bob.

If you think Clear Channel stands as an indictment of capitalism, try imagining a country where organizations like CC ran everything, from entertainment to food production to vehicle production etc. You'd have a nation filled with crappy music, crappy food, crappy cars, all of which are acceptable at a barely-minimal standard, but bland and boring.

It's good that personal marijuana use will be legal in Bob. I predict the citizens will need whatever chemical escapes they can get their hands on.

[cainxinth]

Bryan, what about the example of Japan? Companies are strongly collectivist, employees are constantly told to put the interests of the company before their own interests. At some companies they are even required to sing corporate anthems before work, and they produce some of the highest quality products in the world.

Also, CC is an example of corporate power run amok. On the strength of its lobby groups and capital backing Clear Channel is able to dominate an industry without providing the highest quality or most cost effective product. Microsoft is a similar example. Windows is a shoddy product, but because Microsoft stole the GUI from Apple who stole it from Xerox and got to market very early they built enough assets to buy up any subsequent competitors or bully them into obsolescence (like Netscape). In a collectivist state such activities would be impossible. Microsoft and Clear Channel are clearly putting their own interests before the interest of America and its consumers by stifling diversity and competition in the market place.

[Ludovic]

naw, I specifically mentioned that under caix's system of "social credit", it would be possible to be more dynamic than todays system, if the system of rewards was set up to encourage risk taking. You seem to think that it will automatically fill up with mediocre people riding out their career. If properly set up, it could make sure that some "risky" propsitions are approved, or else the directors will risk their credits.

This is not to say that this risk-taking would be more efficient than a capitalist-driven one, indeed, it would be less efficient IMO. Just that you cannot tell where the inefficiencies will be found.

Note, however, that this inefficiency would only be with regards to the value of final products achieved. It does not take into account distributions of the wealth created by these products!

I think that since the system would spread out the rewards more, it could lead to an increased economy, since given a certain amount of goods, it's my perception that a more equitable distribution is better for the economy. This is why, IMO, the increase in minimum wages has not hurt as much as was predicted. This is not a comment on the normative or moral state of affairs of even distribution but its effects on an economy.

In addition, there MIGHT be an increase in economic output due to a greater emphasis on personal rewards for output. But since monetary distribution is a zero-sum game, this MIGHT be made up for by the lack of incentive to manage well. Who knows.

[Sam Stone]

Bryan, what about the example of Japan? Companies are strongly collectivist, employees are constantly told to put the interests of the company before their own interests. At some companies they are even required to sing corporate anthems before work, and they produce some of the highest quality products in the world.


Are you sure you want to use Japan as an example? It's currently an economic basket case.

But it's a lousy example anyway, because, while Japan has cultural differences, it is still very much a capitalist market economy.

You didn't answer my question from before: Which communist leaders DO you like? Were there any communist countries that you thought were off to a good start until they were 'hijacked' by bad people? Please be specific.

[cainxinth]

From what I've read much of the reason Japan's economy is in the shitter is because they've embraced capitalism, but not venture capitalism. All the money they made in the 80's was thrown into low yield savings, not reinvested into new ventures and eventually that caught up with them as American venture capitalists started pumping money into dot coms. Of course we all know how that turned out as well, another triumph of capitalism. I find it amazing how much money can be made in the free markets just on the illusion of making money, of course when the illusion disappears so does the money.

Truthfully, it's not entirely Japan’s fault. America practically wrote their constitution and rebuilt their economy from the ground up after wwii. My point was though that despite the collectivist culture in Japanese companies, where individuals are encouraged to work for the good of the company, not for themselves, they still churn out a damn good car, which contradicts the idea that collectivism always nets lesser quality goods than self-interest.

Anyway, as I've said there is no example of a good communism. I still think communism was a great idea forced prematurely on unwilling people. Communism of some form I believe will eventually supplant capitalism or blend with it in some new hybrid economic system in the future. Capitalism for all its merits is not a perfect system. Despite Keynes and modern economists, cycles of growth and recession still range widely in magnitude, and are still about as predictable as the next month’s weather. Not to mention the unrest that inevitably arises in systems where social equality and ethicality are secondary to personal profit.

[Ryan_Liam]

For I agree, for example, we have seen socialist tendencies evident in scandinavia, which, in some sucesses, has virtually eliminated poverty in thier country.

[elfje]

Originally posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor
Let's discard all theoretical considerations.

Let's go solely by historical events that occur frequently in many Communist or formerly-Communist nations, thus establishing a pattern.

1) Famine. Communism is basically focused on industrial economics. Little of it applies to farming.

So, millions of deaths from hunger occured in Russia under Stalin, China under Mao, Poland, Hungary (no jokes, please, millions dying ain't funny), & others. Ethiopia's famine was mostly due to drought, but bad agricultural policies helped it along. Collective farming is largely a failure, & it is no co-incidence that Gorbachov was the Deputy Minister of Agriculture during the worst wheat harvest in Russia's history.

2)Mass executions. How can I describe this? I can't even begin. During World War 2, Stalin executed as many of his own citizenns as Hitler did Jews. Or more. Mass slaughter was the rule under Mao, & the butchery of the so-called "Cultural Revolution" is insane, with children betraying parents, & parents children. What was done in Laos under the Khmyar Rouge resulted in the extermination of 50% of the population of their nation in 10 years.

Or, keep it simple---the Soviet Union called itself the "Workers' Paradise". They set up barbed wire, minefields, & machine-gun-equipped watchtowers to keep the workers from running away. To a place where Communist doctrine said they would be "exploited". You do the math, pal.


boy oh boy.
You got some things wrong:
first of all: communism is/was not focused on industrial economics. On the contrary, under Stalin, the agriculture was streamlined and modernised and tractors were brought in to, yes, there's that word: "industrialize farming". That doesn't mean it was focused on industrial economics. Same in China: the uprising against the Guomindag was lead by farmers, the poorest of poor who had been oppressed for a few millennia. In fact, the Chinese took communism that far, that the first few governments contained a lot of "long March" veterans, most of them illiterate, and ex-farmers.
The reason why there was hunger, had nothing to do with the basic idea of communism itself, but because of mismanagement. Stalin was a bully, Mao was a manipulator, and both propogated a culture of Personality. Stalin was revered when he ruled (and feared) and so was Mao. The abuse of their own power led to massive hunger.

Mass executions: again, I'm not disputing that they happened, because they did. But again, this is not a communist ideal or goal or theory, this is what both Stalin and Mao did because they were hungry for power. They wanted to instill fear, and weed out any opposition before it was even heard. What better way to do that than with fear? The Cultural Revolution was nothing more than a tool in Mao's hands to eradicate any and all opposition to the Communist Party, of which he was the Chairman. Ofcourse he wanted to do that, just like any other dictator. He wanted to remain in power.
And i don't know if you know your history, but the US is largely responsible for the Khmer Rouge gaining power. Had the US not bombed Cambodia under the guise of the Vietnam War, the Khmer Rouge would never have gained public approval. They were the only ones standing up against "capitalist America", you see.

The reason why so many people view communism as bad, is because:
-there is little place for individualism, and we are in the Era of the Individual (also the Era of Me)
-the basic theory means that a lot of sacrifices have to be made: "each gives according to his ability and receives according to his need." This goes against the grain of a lot of people, as personal progress is very much hampered. The object of communism is to eradicate a governing body, ultimately.
But ofcourse people need to be willing to share, be very very tolerant, and put the group before their own individual needs.
Westerners are raised with completely different ideals.

[elfje]

You didn't answer my question from before: Which communist leaders DO you like? Were there any communist countries that you thought were off to a good start until they were 'hijacked' by bad people? Please be specific. [/B][/QUOTE]

Lenin wasn't that bad, too bad he ied before he could really do anything at all. And the world would look different today if the man that was supposed to fill his place wasn't bullied out of the way by Stalin.
Trotsky was an intellectual, and he had some very good ideas, but as I said, it was the "Worker" Joseph Stalin that took power.

Even Marx, although he wasn't a communist leader, just the author of a few books defending the principal, wasn't a bad guy.
The problem with communism is indeed that it is an ideal, but not a workable theory. Mankind is too greedy, too selfish, too intolerant to make it work.
it goes against our "fighting to survive" instinct, to care for the Group before one cares about oneself

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

ALL HAIL elfje, God of the Losse-Leaf Textbook School of History!

Look kid, Lenin massacred millions, Stalin massacred millions, all of Stalin's successors in the Soviet Union kept the Gulag Murder camps open, the Tiennemin Square protestors are mostly dead or unaccounted for, & Romania's cruelty to it's people is well documented.

The US did not create Pol Pot--he created himself. He is responsible for his own misdeeds, & no ammount of Revisionist History will change that.

You are ignoring a pattern of vile brutality & wanton evil that is blatantly obvious. Either you are extremely naive, or I must criticise the ethical standards that permit you to rationalise away the inherit violence & mass-murder that appears everywhere that Communism has been tried.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

ALL HAIL elfje, God of the Loose-Leaf Textbook School of History!

Look kid, Lenin massacred millions, Stalin massacred millions, all of Stalin's successors in the Soviet Union kept the Gulag Murder camps open, the Tiennemin Square protestors are mostly dead or unaccounted for, & Romania's cruelty to it's people is well documented.

The US did not create Pol Pot--he created himself. He is responsible for his own misdeeds, & no ammount of Revisionist History will change that.

You are ignoring a pattern of vile brutality & wanton evil that is blatantly obvious. Either you are extremely naive, or I must criticise the ethical standards that permit you to rationalise away the inherit violence & mass-murder that appears everywhere that Communism has been tried.

[Sam Stone]

You got some things wrong:
first of all: communism is/was not focused on industrial economics. On the contrary, under Stalin, the agriculture was streamlined and modernised and tractors were brought in to, yes, there's that word: "industrialize farming".


Yeah, the Communists 'streamlined' agriculture so well that there was a massive famine that killed millions during years when the weather was excellent.

They streamlined the Ukraine all the way from being the 'Breadbasket of Europe' to not being able to feed its own people.

Way to go, communists.

Oh, and Lenin was a murderous thug every bit as bad as Stalin. He just had the good fortune to die early, so his bodycount didn't reach the stratospheric heights of his equally monstrous successor.

[elfje]

Originally posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor
ALL HAIL elfje, God of the Loose-Leaf Textbook School of History!

Look kid, Lenin massacred millions, Stalin massacred millions, all of Stalin's successors in the Soviet Union kept the Gulag Murder camps open, the Tiennemin Square protestors are mostly dead or unaccounted for, & Romania's cruelty to it's people is well documented.

The US did not create Pol Pot--he created himself. He is responsible for his own misdeeds, & no ammount of Revisionist History will change that.

You are ignoring a pattern of vile brutality & wanton evil that is blatantly obvious. Either you are extremely naive, or I must criticise the ethical standards that permit you to rationalise away the inherit violence & mass-murder that appears everywhere that Communism has been tried.

as i said in my first posting: I'm not argueing the fact that millions died, and yes, they died in communist regimes. What I'm trying to argue is that communism in itself, the ideology, is not responsible for it, but the people who were in charge abused their power. May I point out to you that it's not just in communist regimes that are brutal and vile and "evil"?

Second, I never argued that Pol Phot was created by the US, what i said was that US was responsible foir the Khmer Rouge gaining support. Henry Kissinger had US pilots bomb Cambodia during the Vietnam War (mostly on the Cambodian/Vietnam border, but further inland, too). This aggressive move from the US destroyed any good will they had in South East Asia, and therefor drove civilians into the arms of the Khmer Rouge. I never said the US created the Khmer.

And last but not least: how many deaths is the US responsible for with their incessant warfare since WWII? And don't tell me there'd be more deaths if the US had not "intervened", cos there's simply no way of knowing that.

[Olentzero]

Originally posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor
You are ignoring a pattern of vile brutality & wanton evil that is blatantly obvious. Either you are extremely naive, or I must criticise the ethical standards that permit you to rationalise away the inherit violence & mass-murder that appears everywhere that Communism has been tried.Bosda, may I direct your attention to this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3048232#post3048232) which examines the claim that these regimes were Communist? I'm not downplaying the horrors of which you speak, nor am I defending them as somehow necessary. But linking them to communism is, quite simply, wrong.

[smiling bandit]

Well, this thread has really gone on too long (in my opinion anything over 3 pages is too long), but I digress.

The biggest problem of Communism is that it is, like any anarchic system, highly unstable. It has no balancing factors. To take a point from Steven DenBeste, imagine a pendulum. The view fro the top may be very nice, indeed, but its unstable. The slightest touch will bring it down, with all sorts of terrible gyrations.

Unless you create it fully formed and perfect and it NEVER experiences a severe shock, it simply cannot remain successful.

Capitalism, or at least a modern capitalist society with some socialized equalizers will, by contrastk, tend to be self-reinforcing.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Originally posted by elfje
as i said in my first posting: I'm not argueing the fact that millions died, and yes, they died in communist regimes. What I'm trying to argue is that communism in itself, the ideology, is not responsible for it, but the people who were in charge abused their power. May I point out to you that it's not just in communist regimes that are brutal and vile and "evil"?[/i]underlining added by Bosda
Nobody said that all brutal governments are Communist; I insist that All Communist governments are brutal.

There is plenty of historical evidence that my contention is true. Name one Communist state in modern times (the only period for which we have reliable data) that was not brutal. You can't.
There weren't any.

Second, I never argued that Pol Phot was created by the US, what i said was that US was responsible foir the Khmer Rouge gaining support. Henry Kissinger had US pilots bomb Cambodia during the Vietnam War (mostly on the Cambodian/Vietnam border, but further inland, too). This aggressive move from the US destroyed any good will they had in South East Asia, and therefor drove civilians into the arms of the Khmer Rouge. I never said the US created the Khmer.
And this absolves the Khmer Rouge in what manner? It caused the Khmer Rouge to be more violent in what way?

I love you, kid--your making my work easy here.

And last but not least: how many deaths is the US responsible for with their incessant warfare since WWII? And don't tell me there'd be more deaths if the US had not "intervened", cos there's simply no way of knowing that.

Incessant? 45 to 50. We didn't start the Korean War. 72 to 82, nothing. No warfare. We "gave peace a chance." This gave the Middle East a chance--to spit in the West's face, & murder our citizens, to seize our embassies, to make diplomacy a joke.

And what about the lives we have saved--by uncounted millions of tons of food aid, medicine, clothing, blankets, & loans & grants to disaster-blighted nations?

I recall that long ago, there was a place suffering from Famine. The Empire that ruled over it sent hypocritically scant help, mostly symbolic. I believe we sent ships full of maize. Now...what was the name of that counrty, again? I can't recall. And neither can they, apparently.

[elfje]

Bosda,

"The problem with communism is indeed that it is an ideal, but not a workable theory. Mankind is too greedy, too selfish, too intolerant to make it work.
it goes against our "fighting to survive" instinct, to care for the Group before one cares about oneself"
this from an earlier post. I am not defending Communist regimes, I am defending Communism as an IDEA.

Second: I never claimed that the Khmer Rouge should be absolved of any of their crimes. What I am saying is that there was a stable regime in Cambodia, during the Vietmand War. The Khmer had hardly any following, most people were content and happy. Then the Vietnam War spills over into their country, and the US starts carpet bombing them. As a civilian, would you stand with the government, who sits by idly, or would you applaud a movement that is anti-US and wants them out? The US bombing did make the Khmer more powerful, I'm afraid. And like that more violent, as more power also means more power to do wrong.

The Incessant warfare statment comes from a US source. And no, you may not have started the Korean War, but there wasn't a good reason why you should have participated, either. This goes for the Vietnam War, too. For supplying Suharto with weapons in 60's, so Indonesia could attack East Timor. For overthrowing Allende (a democratically elected president ) to replace him with Pinochet (a right wing General). I could go on and on. It would be nice if America owned up to it's violent history.
you gave the Middle East a chance, you say, what about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? The US is Israel's main supporter, in all kinds of ways. Weapons, mainly. And do not be mistaken: it it that conflict which is whipping up the Arab world against the US.

And 10 years of "giving peace a chance"? So first you go meddle in everyones business, and bulldozer over them, and then you are surprised there's a reaction? Don't make me laugh.

And the lives you saved: Just for the record, I may live in Ireland, but I'm not Irish, so your reference to the "tons of Maize" the Americans allegedly sent, does not wash with me.
The Irish had been sending the Native Americans potatoes, so when the NAtive Americans heard about the famine, yes they sent maize. Note the "Native" before "american"? i betcha that's not you.

And as for the sneer about us not being able to recall "who our saviours were" well that's just typically US: You would really like the rest of the world to Kow-tow to you guys, wouldn;t you? Well the US does not have the moral high ground, not on this subject, not on any other. The US is built with the blood and seat of African slaves, built on land that was forcefully stolen from the Native Americans.
you'd like the rest of the world to be grateful indefintely for an act you performed 130 years ago...
while you expect us to ignore all the atrocities you committed.

hmmmmm.....

[smiling bandit]

you gave the Middle East a chance, you say, what about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? The US is Israel's main supporter, in all kinds of ways. Weapons, mainly. And do not be mistaken: it it that conflict which is whipping up the Arab world against the US.

Right. And the US, of course, spent years upon years and much money to try and solve that problem. In the end, we won't abandon the Israelis to die. The Palestinians want them dead. See the problem? It isn't the US of A. And the Arabs don't hate us because we support Palestine. Their cause is decidedly to hate us because we're showing them up in every way.

You would really like the rest of the world to Kow-tow to you guys, wouldn;t you? Well the US does not have the moral high ground, not on this subject, not on any other.

We want no one to bow before us; the US dislikes power, and have tried not to excercise it. No other nation on the earth has ever been this powerful or as reluctant to us that power.

[/quote] The US is built with the blood and seat of African slaves, built on land that was forcefully stolen from the Native Americans.[/quote]

1) Only a small portion of the US used slave labor.
2) It is proven fact that slavery in the US had a shorter and less brutal history than in any other Western nation.
3) You keep bringing up non sequitur points.
4) The Native Americans were usually betrayed. But, just by way of explanation, the Americans then (and probably Americans now) did not consider them to be using the land in an appropriate manner. Anyway, this is irrelevant. They were largely killed by disease.

And 10 years of "giving peace a chance"? So first you go meddle in everyones business, and bulldozer over them, and then you are surprised there's a reaction? Don't make me laugh.

And this ad hominem is a reference to what?

The Incessant warfare statment comes from a US source. And no, you may not have started the Korean War, but there wasn't a good reason why you should have participated, either. This goes for the Vietnam War, too.[quote]

We had a darn good reason to go into Korea; that it doesn't please you is irrelevant. You are correct about Vietnam, but I remind you it was based off of American misconceptions, not malice. Moreover, we have been proven correct in Korea by the judges of history. Vietnam's leaders are itching to have the US trade with them.

The Khmer Rouge made their own choices. We may have accidentally created some conditions for their eventual power-seeking, but we did not create them, nor did we try to promote them. In fact, we were attempting to defeat their potential allies, the Viet Kong.

Regardless, all of this is irrelevant; you have made no arguments to the point of the OP.

[quote]I am defending Communism as an IDEA.

A very bad thing to do. merely because something sounds nice does not mean it is nice. Appearances, as they say, can be decieving. Many people have said this, and I laugh at them. Fascism sounded pretty nice, in theory, back in the 20's and 30's.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Originally posted by elfje


And the lives you saved: Just for the record, I may live in Ireland, but I'm not Irish, so your reference to the "tons of Maize" the Americans allegedly sent, does not wash with me.
The Irish had been sending the Native Americans potatoes, so when the NAtive Americans heard about the famine, yes they sent maize. Note the "Native" before "american"? i betcha that's not you.



BWA-HA-HA-HA! :D

The "Native Americans"? heeheeheehee!

Look, smart guy and I use the term loosely, the Indian Corn that was sent to Ireland didn't come from the Indians, or as you so P.C.-ly put it, the "Native Americans".

"Indian Corn" is a breed of maize, distinguished from regular maize by its multicolored kernels. The maize in question was not sent by Native Americans--it was purchased by public charitable subscription, much like the Ethiopian Famine collections of the 80's, and the US Navy stripped several of its warships of weapons so the Brits would permit them to enter "their" waters with the food aboard.


And the Irish never sent the Native Americans any potatos.

BTW--- I am partly Native American. Many of us are.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

I stand corrected. This link

http://www.uwm.edu/~michael/choctaw/retrace.html

refers to a link between the Chocktaw Indians & the Irish. During the famine, they raise $710 gold dollars to buy food.

Big of them, as the Chocktaw were poor themselves.

But, no potatos in return.

[smiling bandit]

corrections to my last post: formatting messed up

The Incessant warfare statment comes from a US source. And no, you may not have started the Korean War, but there wasn't a good reason why you should have participated, either. This goes for the Vietnam War, too.

We had a darn good reason to go into Korea; that it doesn't please you is irrelevant. You are correct about Vietnam, but I remind you it was based off of American misconceptions, not malice. Moreover, we have been proven correct in Korea by the judges of history. Vietnam's leaders are itching to have the US trade with them.

The Khmer Rouge made their own choices. We may have accidentally created some conditions for their eventual power-seeking, but we did not create them, nor did we try to promote them. In fact, we were attempting to defeat their potential allies, the Viet Kong.

Regardless, all of this is irrelevant; you have made no arguments to the point of the OP.

I am defending Communism as an IDEA.

A very bad thing to do. merely because something sounds nice does not mean it is nice. Appearances, as they say, can be decieving. Many people have said this, and I laugh at them. Fascism sounded pretty nice, in theory, back in the 20's and 30's.

[Beagle]

Why Communism Kills. (http://www.vietnamnew.org/english/comm_kill.html) This addresses the "Communism as theory" argument. For example, what Marx actually said:
.....A simple direct answer to the question, Why does communism kill? is -because the founder of Communism, Karl Marx, told them it was necessary to kill a large segment of the population in order to attain the basic objective of Communism.

Marx states in the "Manifesto of the Communist Party": "You must, therefore, confess that by 'individual' you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible." [bolding mine] (Published by Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1973 edition, page 66) The author discusses the "not to be taken literally" argument.

[The Calculus of Logic]

Originally posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor

Or, keep it simple---the Soviet Union called itself the "Workers' Paradise". They set up barbed wire, minefields, & machine-gun-equipped watchtowers to keep the workers from running away. To a place where Communist doctrine said they would be "exploited". You do the math, pal.

I can't remember where i read this, but its my understanding that when the Nazi's invaded the Ukraine in 1941 most of the peasants welcomed them as liberators and tried to join the Nazi party to help overthrow the USSR. The Nazis (probably because they were winning & didn't realize they needed help) put them in concentration camps instead of letting them in the army.

Pretty sad state of affairs when the Nazis are viewed as your liberators.

[The Calculus of Logic]

What i find kind of interesting (if that is the correct word to describe it) is that the countries that supported communism ended up doing the opposite of communism, while those that have opposed it for decades ended up being communistic.

In principle, communism is designed to protect the poor from the exploitation of the rich, and make sure everyone has enough food, medicine & shelter to survive.

In todays world, virtually every 1st world anti-communist country now does that. Labor unions, minimum wage laws, socialized medical care, food distribution programs, social security, free/subsidized education, subsidized housing. All make sure the disenfranchized are not exploited or forgotten, which was the main force behind Marxism's coming to power in the last 150 years.

I wonder what Karl Marx or Engels would say if he could see what the 'pro' communist countries turned into and what the 'anti' communist countries turned into. Would they support dictators like Stalin or Mao or would they support France, with its minimum wage laws, 35 hour workweek, free medical care & free education, etc?

[Olentzero]

Originally posted by Beagle
Why Communism Kills. (http://www.vietnamnew.org/english/comm_kill.html) This addresses the "Communism as theory" argument. For example, what Marx actually said: The author discusses the "not to be taken literally" argument. As with other sources cited in this thread, the author of this article holds up Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, &c. as examples of communism in action. Yet it's already been laid out quite plainly in this very thread (in this here post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3048232#post9048232), to which the other side of this debate seems unable to respond) why Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, &c. were not and are not communist, nor have they put communism into practice.

As for the quote, let's take a look at the whole paragraph, shall we?From the moment when labor can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes. You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.Marx here is not speaking directly to the physical, but the social removal of the bourgeoisie and its right to individually control large portions of production for the profit of the individual bourgeois. The working class seizes the means of production, thereby sweeping the bourgeois out of the way. They eliminate individual control of the means of production, thereby making the bourgeois impossible.

While none of this necessarily involves bloodletting, it would be foolish to deny that violence in defense of a workers' revolution would be somehow avoidable. The history of the Russian Civil War shows how arbitrarily violent the Whites were when they occupied territory in their attempts to crush the October Revolution. Should one also read the chapters entitled "The Executions" and "Balance Sheet of Bourgeois Vengeance" in Lissagaray's "History of the Paris Commune of 1871", one might actually come to realize that the working class ought to be forgiven for thinking there will most likely come a time when they'll have to fight like hell to keep the gains of the revolution they've made.

[smiling bandit]

one might actually come to realize that the working class ought to be forgiven for thinking there will most likely come a time when they'll have to fight like hell to keep the gains of the revolution they've made.

each other maybe. There is no "working class". There are a bunch of working stiffs who fall into many different categories and who, by and large, are not interested in revolting. In fact, the vast majority of them simply want to succeed. I remind you that even those who succeed too much must be killed acording to many branches of Communism.

Marx here is not speaking directly to the physical, but the social removal of the bourgeoisie and its right to individually control large portions of production for the profit of the individual bourgeois.

So. he wasn't. I remind you that Marx spent the remainder of his life after puclishing Das Kapital trying to educate the rowrkers of Germany so that when the revolution came (150 years and counting), only part of the ruling class would be slaughtered.

In any event, your argument that Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and Pol Pot were not Communist is disingenuous. Its been made before. They were not pure Marxists, but Marx is not the only communist. In any event, pure Marxism has been proven wrong so many times its not even funny anymore. He simply saw things that weren't there, and then tried to project a future course of events.

He was wrong several dozen times over.

[Olentzero]

Originally posted by smiling bandit
There is no "working class". There are a bunch of working stiffs who fall into many different categories and who, by and large, are not interested in revolting.Quite the contrary. The twentieth century is plastered with events that show just the opposite - some of the best examples are Russia in 1917, France in 1968, Chile in 1973, Iran in 1979, and Poland in 1981. All of them, in one form or another, put the issue of working class power (and the working class is nothing more than those of us to have to sell our ability to work to someone else in order to live - a "bunch of working stiffs", as you call them) on the table for discussion. When the old order goes into crisis, as happened in each of these situations, the working class becomes very interested in revolution.I remind you that even those who succeed too much must be killed acording to many branches of Communism.I'd love to see you back that up with something more substantive than "Look at China/Cuba/North Korea".I remind you that Marx spent the remainder of his life after puclishing Das Kapital trying to educate the rowrkers of Germany so that when the revolution came (150 years and counting), only part of the ruling class would be slaughtered.How did the workers of Germany all get over to England? That's where Marx spent most of his life, from the 1850s until his death in 1883. Secondly, Marx wasn't speaking just to the workers of Germany - take his writings on the Paris Commune, for instance. Here was an example of workers taking power that he greeted quite warmly, and held up as an example for other revolutionaries to study and learn from. Thirdly, please provide quotes from Marx stating that human slaughter is a necessary ingredient of communism.In any event, your argument that Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and Pol Pot were not Communist is disingenuous. Its been made before.Nowhere have I argued than Lenin wasn't communist. As a matter of fact, if you look at my first post on page 3 you'll find that I cite the Russian Revolution as an example of a communist revolution - which was, however, deflected by external circumstances beyond its control and then ruined by Stalin, who took advantage of the crisis caused by those circumstances. Having made the argument before doesn't make it disingenuous - trying to use it after it's been rebutted and disproven is disingenuous. That, I may add, hasn't happened yet.In any event, pure Marxism has been proven wrong so many times its not even funny anymore.Take my argument on page 3, dissect it, show me its weaknesses and inaccuracies. Prove it undeniably, irrefutably, and totally wrong. Then, and only then, will I cease forwarding it as an argument against the oft-repeated claim that Communism in practice is unworkable.He simply saw things that weren't there, and then tried to project a future course of events.Such as? Please provide not only your analysis of Marxism, but quotes from the works of Marx on which you base your analysis.He was wrong several dozen times over.Prove it to me. Prove me wrong. I want you to totally destroy my side of the argument so no one on that side of the debate ever has to hear me say "What you're pointing out isn't communism" ever again. They're tired of hearing me say it, but they haven't done anything to convince me I'm incorrect for saying it.

[Beagle]

I've learned that Communism is like a religion, I'm not going to convince you of anything - and you are not going to convert me into your faith-based system of non-reasoning.

[Beagle]

Joseph Schumpeter's classic Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0061330086/002-0752571-5966457?vi=glance)Marx The Prophet

It was not by a slip that an analogy from the world of religion was I permitted to intrude into the title of this chapter. There is more than analogy. In one important sense, Marxism is a religion. To the believer it presents, first, a system of ultimate ends that embody the meaning of life and are absolute standards by which to judge events and actions; and, secondly, a guide to those ends which implies a plan of salvation and the indication of the evil from which mankind, or a chosen section of mankind, is to be saved. We may specify still further: Marxist socialism also belongs to that subgroup which promises paradise on this side of the grave. I believe that a formulation of these characteristics by an hierologist would give opportunities for classification and comment which might possibly lead much deeper into the sociological essence of Marxism than anything a mere economist can say.....

Olentzero: Such as? Please provide not only your analysis of Marxism, but quotes from the works of Marx on which you base your analysis. See, it's like a religion. Olentzoro is a Fundamentalist Communist. Refer to the works of Marx (the sacred writings) - ONLY - for all arguments on Communism. Ignore reality, make the leap of faith.

[Beagle]

Mountain Clan versus Valley Clan

This is the typical Communist argument for forcibly taking over the world's economy, a small hunter-gatherer clan hypothetical. In an effort to describe it, the arguments for showing its illegitimacy are already readily apparent.

Do I have to explain, or are the italics good enough?

OK, fine. Passing out pelts or flints has but a passing relationship to all the finely tuned pricing mechanisms which allow the world's economy - in the capitalist nations - to produce goods and services in massive quantities. If you don't see how a small clan is a totally inapposite metaphor for the world's economy, pick up ANY microeconomics book check it out. But, let's go point-by-pointJohn Mace: This is what I mean by human nature. Let's do a thought experiment. We have two hunter gatherer clans. Let's call them Mountain Clan and Valley Clan. They meet up one day and notice that each clan has some unique items that the othe clan wants. Being peaceful, they don'f fight. Two scenarios can be envisioned:

Scenario 1: Mountain suggest to Valley that they trade some things. They talk and decide how many flint scrapers are worth how many leather satchels. It takes some time and there is a little haggling, but in the end they agree and go on their way.

Scenario 2: Mountain suggests to Valley that they trade some things. They decide the best way to do this is to put all their items in a big heap and elect two people (one from each clan) to distribute the items from the heap according to what the leader thinks the various people need.

Now, which scenario seems "natural" and which one seems "contrived". You made your decision based on what you think human nature is Bonus points: In which scenario do you think the various clan members went away happiest?

I use hunter gatherers here just to eliminate any huge societal issues. There are no "immoral capitalist bosses" and no "evil communist dictators". It just does not bear any rational relationship to a large complex economy or shed any light on why we should reject an advanced pricing system in the modern world.

If you want to actually answer the hypothetical literally, for me the answer would be "either." Of course, that only tells you what kind of hunter-gatherer I would have been. Moreover, the hypothetical speaks of these goods in a vacuum, without consideration of scarcity. That's what Communists always forget, Marx knew Communism could only work once there was a surplus of goods. You just assume things like supply and demand can be controlled. Then, you realize, "damn, we're going to have to kill some people to make this work."

[Olentzero]

Schumpeter's quote sounds like a definition that would fit any philosophy.

Beagle, if you'll look at the quote to which the comment you quote responds, you'll notice that smiling bandit was specifically talking about Marx. Therefore Marx' works is a logical starting point for continuing that particular debate.