# Ask the Commie Bastard! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 22, 2000, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190 "2000-06-22T14:53:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/81 "2000-06-23T19:45:24Z")
> [@](#): > > **People cooperate primarily because it increases their own benefits. The minute it stops benefiting them (e.g. the first famine, reduction in personal wealth, etc. ), cooperation stops.** This is my point. Socialism’s economic basis is the creation of a _permanent surplus_ of goods so that the material basis for famine and reduction in personal wealth, as you put it, is eliminated. Thus a permanent basis for cooperation and coordination worldwide. ---
**Author:** ![Tymp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Tymp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tymp)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/82 "2000-06-23T19:49:46Z")
Olentzaro, You are invited to join a panel of experts assembling [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=28528) in Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/83 "2000-06-23T19:50:43Z")
> [@](#): > > **Does anyone seriously think that the United States will become socialist during any of our lifetimes?** Yes, if there’s an organized political party arguing from a socialist viewpoint, serving as a pole of attraction for people disillusioned with the way things are now, and trying to get them active as well. Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky all said that crises in capitalism are inevitable, and the history of the last 150 years bears that out, often all too bloodily. It can and will happen again, and people are going to look for a way out. I plan on being out there with a damn good answer. ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/84 "2000-06-23T19:53:55Z")
> [@](#): > > From smillingjaws\*\* > I’m sorry but I had to laugh when I read this–People have been killing each other for the barest necessities ever since time began–not to mention murder over pride, arrogance, hurt feelings, boredom, thrill seeking, desire for control of others, etc. The way they got enough was often through conquest and murder. People cooperate primarily because it increases their own benefits. The minute it stops benefiting them (e.g. the first famine, reduction in personal wealth, etc. ), cooperation stops. Human nature is to be selfish–it’s only through socialization that we learn unselfishness and cooperation. \*\* And I had to chuckle when I saw this. The old against human nature argument. That’s been around forever, can’t you think of anything new? In classic Greece they complained that democracy is against human nature and would never work. The same was said during the French revolution. Human nature used to be though of as being in service to God, anything else would be unthinkable. Now, the vogue argument is that human nature is selfish. Why? Just look around you, everyone is selfish. However, the problem with this argument is that if I can point out one unselfish act, your whole argument falls apart. Because, if someone is unselfish at some point, then it is no longer human nature to be selfish. Or if it is, that person is no longer human. Of course people cooperate because it increases their own benefits. People aren’t going to do something deliberately detrimental to themselves. However, under socialism, it’s in people’s interest to cooperate. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Does anyone seriously think that the United States will become socialist during any of our lifetimes? \*\* Yes. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The people of the United States of America are by and large successfully socialized in the belief that capitalism, despite its flaws, is preferable to socialism/communism. The chance that American citizens will voluntarily choose to revolt, dispossess the upperclass and become socialist is virtually nil for a very long while. I expect to live at least another 50 - 60 years and I would be surprised, nay shocked, if millions of American citizens with wildly divergent views and opinions could come to a consensus on such an important issue. \*\* Well, no one said it would be easy. However, many people were also shocked by the mass protests of the 60’s, if you had asked them 10 years earlier if they would have thought it possible, many would say no. If you had asked people prior to the Gulf War if so many people would be protesting it? They would say no. If you asked people if they thought the Rodney King verdict would have such an explosive effect, they would say no. ---
**Author:** ![tradesilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/439d5e/32.png) [@tradesilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tradesilicon)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/85 "2000-06-23T20:19:45Z")
Olentzero > [@](#): > > Smotri, koxol, ia uzhe otvetil na eto vopros. V SSSR i Vostochnoi Evrope ne bylo ni sotsializma ni kommunizma. Ia nikak ne zaschituiu sistemu Stalina i ego naslednikov. A sistema Stalina nikak ne logicheskii rezul’tat Oktiabrskoi Revoliutsii. Ponial? > > Sorry, folks - just trying to explain myself to the Ukrainian in a language he might better understand me. I do understand English. I also noticed here you started callong me names, where I referred to ‘you guys’ as a group, trying not to get personal. But OK, I had that one coming. Then you said: > [@](#): > > Ty ne ukrainets, ne amerikanets, a kashei. And here is where you lost me. What the heck is a kashei? Just really curios now. To show respect, and try to attone from previous inappropriate behaviour in this thread, here is a nice polite question or two. > [@](#): > > As outlined in Lenin’s State and Revolution, socialism is the first step after the overthrow of capitalism, where the working class really gets into learning how to run society in the interest of all, and there still will be the need for active contribution of everyone in building it. Basically it can be summed up in two phrases, which were often repeated at the time: > > “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” Who determines ‘ability’, and who evaluates the work in ‘according to his work’ > [@](#): > > “He who doesn’t work, neither shall he eat.” a lucid thought, does not stay with you long though… > [@](#): > > Communism, on the other hand, comes about once the surplus of goods is so large that everyone gets what they want or need, and there is plenty left over for the future. Then the necessity of work lessens, and people will have infinitely more leisure time than they do now, especially as repetitive or more odious tasks (garbage disposal, to take an example from previous posts) become automated. Then the slogan > > “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” > > will truly come into effect. Again, who determines ‘ability’, and who determines ‘need’? > [@](#): > > No, I haven’t (spent any time in communist society), though I spent a year in St. Petersburg in 1995. Neither, I must emphasize, have you or Tradesilicon. Well, please don’t assume. Although, since you have defined communism/socialism as that which has never existed, it’s hard to argue with you. But I did spend time in a society which claimed to have communist and socialist beliefs, and that was a major downer, trust me (or don’t, I can give plenty of examples). I have also seen a very pure form of communism, on several Kibutz in Israel. That works great until one guy wants a TV set – then they all get them or no one does. Sucks big time when you can’t get BBC… Oldscratch: > [@](#): > > Are you one now? (a golf pro) I would say that although you might not be a golf pro, you have a far better chance of being one then you do now… Why? because there will be much more leisure time for everyone under socialism. Sure, not everyone will get to be an inventor. But, people will have far more options and choices then they do now. This is probably one I agree with, more free time under socialism/communism. Lots, in fact, rotting away in political prison. Sili ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/86 "2000-06-23T20:45:05Z")
I’m not even going to get into your and Olentzero’s foreign conversation. It’s crazy talk, crazy talk I tell you. > [@](#): > > From tradesilicon:\*\* > Well, please don’t assume. Although, since you have defined communism/socialism as that which has never existed, it’s hard to argue with you. But I did spend time in a society which claimed to have communist and socialist beliefs, and that was a major downer, trust me (or don’t, I can give plenty of examples). I have also seen a very pure form of communism, on several Kibutz in Israel. That works great until one guy wants a TV set – then they all get them or no one does. Sucks big time when you can’t get BBC… \*\* Let’s put it this way. China and Russia both claimed to be democratic. Where they? Can someone living in those societies criticize democracy based on their experiences? No, of course not. The problem with the Kibutz is two fold. One, you can not have communism on stolen land. Two, you can not have communism in isolation. The Kibutz can also not be looked at as how Communism would work, any more than hippie communes in the US would. > [@](#): > > \*\* > This is probably one I agree with, more free time under socialism/communism. Lots, in fact, rotting away in political prison. \*\* Not, if we shoot people first. 😉 Again, please refrain from making comments based on your experiences. This would be like someone in China decrying democracy. If you are interested in making arguments, one you could make would be. Socialism will always end up like it was in Russia. A revolution can never spread fast enough, it will always become isolated and devolve into dictatorship. That would be an appropriate comment, one that doesn’t rely on stupid jabs. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/87 "2000-06-23T20:52:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Human nature is entirely subjective and reflects the society in which humans find themselves. For most of human history (what Marx and Engels called _primitive communism_) society was cooperatively based. Primarily because there was no surplus of goods that could be saved for times of hardship and everyone had to pull their weight. Once there was a surplus and a need to direct its use, competition came to the fore as people vied to get a bigger portion of the surplus and more resources to enhance it. Nowadays it’s possible to create a surplus large enough to render competition unnecessary but the drive for profits is the single biggest obstacle to this happening. Carl and Mark were patently wrong when they made this assumption. Co-operation did take place but at the very primitive family/tribe level. Competition for resouces became more extreme as resources declined. You need look no further than at histories of North American or South American or African Native societies prior to industrialization of those continents. Similarly, surplus and over-abundance of commodities tends to drive the price down on the open market and therefore reduce competition because there is no opportunity for reasonable gain. > [@](#): > > Hell, the Declaration of Independence states “All men are created equal”. As a socialist I believe it’s possible to build a society genuinely founded on that principle, instead of just paying it lip service. Well, they are not. But they do have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness limited only by their own shortcommings or pesonal goals. > [@](#): > > What in God’s name made it the upper class’ property in the first place? That they found it and dug it up to use? It’s not as if they worked it out of the ground with their own two hands; they hired other people to do it for them. Everything the upper class has laid claim to was brought to them through the labor of others. We don’t need them to provide us jobs and resources; they need us to work and generate their profits. The sooner we’re rid of them and organize life in our own interests the better. Once upon a time a man had a cow. He took that cow to his neighbour who had a bull. They made a deal that if the two mated, they would share the milk or meat of the resultant offspring. Well that cow gave birth to several calves and the man had enough milk for himself and his neighbour. He sold a few calfs for some farm tools and seeds. He began to grow his own feed. Soon his sons and daughters were old enough to help so the farm prospered and as the calves grew to maturity they bore more milk and more offspring. The milk and meat supported the family because they were able to sell what they did not need at the village market. Several generations of this family continued to work on the farm and they saw it prosper. Finally, one grandson of the original farmer decided that he would invest some money in pasteurization equipment and develope a dairy. The dairy did well and soon they were producing not only milk but butter, cream, cheese and ice cream as well. Well by that time they business was so big that they had to hire some people from the village to help them. They paid them market wages and the people were happy to work near their home and near their families. They prospered as the business thrived. After another few years the business became so big that they not only had their own herd of cattle but they bought milk from dairy farmers in the surrounding countryside. And that’s how a guy with a cow developed a huge dairy business that rewarded him and his family for their innovation and hard work as well as enrich the lives of his neighbours. Who was taken advantage of pray tell? (Well, perhaps the cows. :)) > [@](#): > > They will increase in line with his efforts. With a society geared towards making life easier for all instead of mega-profits for the few, the rewards just keep on coming. In a society full of sheep, perhaps that’s possible. In our time with the current human characteristics, not the least bit likely… unless you are suggesting we cull the heard of the ambitious members who choose to be individuals rather than submit to herd mentality. > [@](#): > > Bosses smart and good, workers and peasants stupid and bad. Elitism, pure and simple. Who works the lands year after year? Who runs the machinery, day in and day out? Whose lives are intimately tied up with actual physical work and would know better what works and what doesn’t? Some bosses are smart and good. Others not so much - but ultimately these lose their workforce and their business. Some peasants are stupid and bad. But many are very good worker bees who are happy being payed equitably for their efforts and not have to worry about attending weekly _commitet_ meetings to vote on which types of pencils the administrative staff should order this month and from which supplier. I suggest that an average employee who works 8 hours a day can in good consience leave the office and forget about his work until the next day. I have yet to meet a competent and successfull business owner who can actually leave his business behind. If you are talking about the mid management/director types in large corporate environments then I will agree with you to a degree. As an independent IT consultant (read: worker bee) I have my own special brand of contempt for these jokers. However, I hardly consider restructuring an entire social structure to communism just to make these guys do a day’s work as a balanced and reasonable solution. > [@](#): > > And who sits up on the hill, or miles away in another town or city, has nothing to do with the work in the fields and the factories, and makes changes only to increase his own profits regardless of the effects it will have on the quality of the job or the workers’ lives? CAUTION: Huge sweeping generalization above. > [@](#): > > I am not advocating mass slaughter of the bosses or managers or what have you. Yes, they possess training and skills that many don’t, and they should be pressed into service for the betterment of society as a whole when it re-establishes itself. But at the same time there will be members of the old rulers who will do anything in their power to drown us in our own blood if the workers take power, and it is they who should be fought against and killed. Forgive me but I just got a wonderfully funny mental picture of Bill Gates choking the life out of his IE team because they became card carrying communists. > [@](#): > > At one point, the Whites (_the counter-revolutionary forces_ -O.) took the Kremlin and proceeded to massacre the revolutionary forces they had captured - no trial, no protocol for prisoners of war; just line 'em up and mow 'em down with couple of machine guns. Note this is 1917, when the Bolsheviks were just making the move for power. When the Whites were later captured the leaders were made to sign a pledge they wouldn’t take up arms and were _set free_. Of course they headed South and East to stir up civil war. War is an unpleasant business. I’ve got one for you. My grandmother remebers vividly when the heroic revolutionary forces came to her father’s farm. He had some land, some cows and chickens to support his wife and 9 kids. They did not have servants and did all the work themselves. It was enough to live on for them. They confiscated the land and animals and gave them an hour to gather their belongings and get off the property. They were told that they should consider themselves lucky to be left alive because they did not feel like killing any jews that day. > [@](#): > > It is those people I would have no compunction about shooting on the spot. They showed our side no mercy, they should expect none. That’s the real dividing line here - I don’t advocate killing any- and everyone that opposes us, but if you take up arms or otherwise actively attempt to sabotage the revolution and the building of a new society, don’t expect a conciliatory pat on the shoulder and a “Get Out of Jail Free” card. Spoken like a true revolutionary thug. You’d make Lenin proud. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Beaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Grim\_Beaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Beaker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/88 "2000-06-23T21:40:12Z")
Yes, the US economy and culture has had its ups and downs in the last 150 years, but nothing so far that would come close to making the drastic change of culture, economy and government that you two (Olent and Oldscratch) are suggesting. So while each of you do indeed seem to believe that socialism will come to dominate the United States within our lifetimes, I personally won’t hold my breath. ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/89 "2000-06-23T22:07:37Z")
I’m not holding my breath either. Personally, I can only hold it for several minutes. I don’t think socialism will come in the next several minutes. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/90 "2000-06-23T22:10:07Z")
"When Earth’s last picture is painted and the tubes are twisted and dried, When the oldest colours have faded, and the youngest critic has died, We shall rest, and, faith, we shall need it – lie down for an aeon or two, Till the Master of All Good Workmen shall put us to work anew… “And only the Master shall praise us, and only the Master shall blame; And no one shall work for money, and no one shall work for fame, But each for the joy of working, and each, in his separate star, Shall draw the Thing as he sees It for the God of Things as They are!” Rudyard Kipling, 1892 ---
**Author:** ![tradesilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/439d5e/32.png) [@tradesilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tradesilicon)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/91 "2000-06-23T22:30:59Z")
Oldscratch > [@](#): > > Again, please refrain from making comments based on your experiences. This would be like someone in China decrying democracy. If you are interested in making arguments, one you could make would be. Socialism will always end up like it was in Russia. A revolution can never spread fast enough, it will always become isolated and devolve into dictatorship. That would be an appropriate comment, one that doesn’t rely on stupid jabs. Allright, Oldscratch. I’ll avoid stupid jabs, just as long as you avoid the need to kill all those who oppose. But seriously, here are a few questions from my previous posts: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” Who determines ‘ability’, and who evaluates the work in ‘according to his work’ Who determines ‘ability’ and ‘need’ in the phrases “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2000, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/92 "2000-06-23T23:42:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Again, please refrain from making comments based on your experiences. Yes, please, we would not want to contaminate this lofty discussion with any kind of facts as we are dealing with pure theory, totally unrelated to the real world. And those who think there’s any chance of the American people rising to demand this kind of thing… please, tell me you are not serious. I mean, come on! You must be talking about a different country. Is there _anybody_ running on this kind of platform? What percentage of the vote is she getting? Do you realize this is more or less what Fidel Castro have in mind when he started out? We take all the “means of production from the American bastards” and they become the property of the people who will be good and benevolent etc. Of course, when things do not go according to plan and the people start to complain, then you label them antirevolutionary and execute them. A few years ago these ideas might have sounded scary. Today they are just amusing as there is not a chance in hell this will come to happen. Anyone who thinks it can happen does not have a clue of the real world. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2000, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/93 "2000-06-24T02:16:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Olentzero simply wants his party to act as the vangaurd, to be able to provide leadership when nesecary during the revolution. Here we see the fundamental flaw. The Party sees itself as being the Defender of the Revolution much the same way as Louis XIV was Defender of the Faith: As it suits them, and as it increases their power. Humans are humans, and powerful humans are corrupt ones. The Revolution becomes a power play as the various groups, united in the beginning but now power-drunk, feud as to which interpretation of the Manifesto shall rule. The government that wins wins by the worst methods, making for a very bad government. Don’t say ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ when Marx gave no hints as to how such a government would be implemented. Soviets work on a small scale simply because they are small. Communism, however, demands a global uprising as the workers of the world demand their rights. Marx assumed that nobody would dare give proles the ballot. Now that most can vote in the rich nations, where is that uprising? Channeled into voting liberal? Communism was never meant to be a government, just a transition from feudalism (nobody votes but the rich) to socialism (in theory, there is no government to vote for). Now that feudalism is gone, where is communism? States don’t like ‘withering away’. Power begets power. Communism begets totalitarianism. ---
**Author:** ![Tretiak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a88e57/32.png) [@Tretiak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tretiak)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2000, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/94 "2000-06-24T02:24:05Z")
tradesilicon, You’ll get nothing but hand waving and hocus pocus answers to their fairy tale. Ask them this question, Under Socialism how will you make sure there is enough milk in New York City everyday? Maybe folks thing this is kind of a pithy question when we are talking about such a broad topic as socialism. But it is the absolute crux of the matter. If socialism can answer this problem then you might have something. If you haven’t noticed, by the way, capitalism answers very effectively. That is probably why many people wouldn’t even think it is an issue. BTW, you don’t have to answer Commie Bastard, I know that some magic committee will figure it all out. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2000, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/95 "2000-06-24T03:05:54Z")
\>\> Under Socialism how will you make sure there is enough milk in New York City everyday? You keep trying to contaminate this highly intellectual discussion with facts and trivialities 😉 Who cares if we don’t have milk since we will all be happy in our brotherhood and the glorious party has decided milk is not good for you anyway. And since we will all be so happy we will get laid more… ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2000, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/96 "2000-06-24T12:57:43Z")
Socialism, of course, was summarily debunked by Nobel Laureate Friedrich A. von Hayek, primarily in two of his books, [**The Fatal Conceit : The Errors of Socialism (The Collected Works of F.A. Hayek, Vol 1)**](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226320669/ref=sim_books/102-2096264-3980134) and [**The Road to Serfdom**](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0226320618/reasonmagazineA/102-2096264-3980134). The [The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences](http://www.kva.se/) states in its October 9, 1974 [press release](http://www.nobel.se/laureates/economy-1974-press.html) that “He presented new ideas with regard to basic difficulties in “socialistic calculating”, and investigated the possibilities of achieving effective results by decentralized “market socialism” in various forms. His guiding principle when comparing various systems is to study how efficiently all the knowledge and all the information dispersed among individuals and enterprises is utilized. His conclusion is that only by far-reaching decentralization in a market system with competition and free price-fixing is it possible to make full use of knowledge and information.” The re-discovery of Hayek’s work marked the beginning of the end for socialism worldwide. He had been ignored for decades as the world experimented with Keynesian macro-economic models, until the inescapable induction became too obvious to ignore: socialism cannot deal with prices. Virginia Postrel, in a November, 1999 [Reason Magazine article](http://www.reason.com/9911/fe.vp.after.html) gives a bit of context to the various kinds of socialism (like North Korea’s “hot socialism” versus Sweden’s softer gentler variety) and their shortcomings. A good source of books by and about Hayek, as well as other Austrian School economists is [The Scholars Bookstore](http://www.hayekcenter.org/bookstore/scholars_books.html), an associate of the Hayek Center for Interdisciplinary Research . See also the following essays by Hayek: [Economics and Knowledge](http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Economics/HayekEconomicsAndKnowledge.html), November 10, 1936 — the drawbacks of failing incorporate time into equilibrium analysis, and the difficulties of framing an economic praxis from subjective criteria. [The Use of Knowledge in Society](http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Economics/HayekUseOfKnowledge.html), September 4, 1945 — the vast insoluble difficulties of centralizing decision making with respect to economic data, and the tautological nature of static equilibrium analysis. * * * I suppose at this point I should ask the Commie Bastard a question. What is your response to Hayek’s charges in _The Fatal Conceit_? ---
**Author:** ![Gilligan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Gilligan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gilligan)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2000, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/97 "2000-06-24T14:17:52Z")
**Olentzero and oldscratch:** A central point seems to be that socialism can’t be imposed on the world, but that it must come from the people themselves. Olentzero stated it in this thread as: “Socialism cannot be forced on the majority of society from above. It has to be built from below, not in one country but worldwide.” and also later: “Activism, activism, and more activism.” Part of the “building from below” requires the education and enlightenment of the people in order for them to realize what needs to be done. I find it interesting that many libertarians say the same thing about their own philosophy; that liberty (in their definition) can’t be forced on people, but that educating and enlightening them would enable them to demand it for themselves. Libertarians see the internet as a great means toward this end, as I’m sure socialists do as well. (You’re here, after all.) Libertarians are strongly against the censorship of ideas, on the internet as well as other media such as newspapers and books. Against the censorship of _any_ ideas, including ones they disagree with. I would think that socialists agree, but I’m not sure. Olentzero says: “…but if you take up arms or otherwise actively attempt to sabotage the revolution and the building of a new society, don’t expect a conciliatory pat on the shoulder and a “Get Out of Jail Free” card.” Without “taking up arms”, can the promotion and distribution of ideas and literature that are contrary to socialism be considered an “attempt to sabotage the revolution”, and therefore something to be punished? **Lib:** Since you brought it up, did Hayek expand on ideas already put forth by Mises in _Socialism_, or did he come up with new and different objections? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2000, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/98 "2000-06-24T16:01:13Z")
**Gilligan** Both. As Mises’ student, Hayek was thoroughly influenced by Mises’ interpretation of the praxeological economic theory of the Austrian School. Many even consider Mises’ _Socialism_ to have been the original refutation of socialism, but Hayek brought home the point of price fixing as being not just the lack of a sufficient calculation methodology, but in fact futile by the very nature of the beast. In other words, it isn’t just that you can’t gather all the facts; it’s that once they are gathered, they are already old and useless! A sort of Uncertainty Principle. That line of thinking no doubt inspired Hayek’s Theory of Spontaneous Order. In any case, the simplicity of the Austrian model, once derided by Keynesians as simplistic, is now Ockhamly chic. Just as it is easy to infer corollaries into a political context from the Noncoercion Principle of libertarianism, so it is easy to extrapolate economic implications from a basic comprehension of the simple economic praxis. ---
**Author:** ![SarumanRex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@SarumanRex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SarumanRex)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/99 "2000-06-26T06:16:44Z")
In another thread on whether you had to be evil to become really wealthy (I believe the consensus was: no, but it helps) I made a very controversial statement. I said that the world is an evil place and the super-rich (i.e. billionaires NOT mid-level managers) are just the best adapted to the world we live in. I made the point that the super-rich are very selfish and undeserving of praise but that does not mean that the poor working man is any less selfish, only less successful. There are selfish, ruthless, unscrupulous, greedy, cruel people in every society. Do you really think these people will magically disappear under socialism? I think that they will they pay lip service to socialist ideals while accumulating as much power and influence and wealth as their wicked little minds can think up ways to cheat their fellow man. I am a cynic but I don’t doubt the sincerity or the motives of American socialists. It doesn’t make you very popular (and it certainly doesn’t make you rich) being a socialist. However, I am 100% convinced that socialism could never work (not anywhere, not ever, not on a small scale (i.e. one nation), not on a global scale). It has failed completely everywhere it has ever been mandatory (i.e. having a bunch of people get together voluntarily and form a commune says nothing about how communism would work in a nation where it was not voluntary). People who are forced to work for the benefit of society and not for their own enrichment will soon determine the absolute minimum work required to stay out of trouble. It was mentioned in a previous post that a slacker would be dealt with by fellow employees who are doing all the work. I knew a guy from Yugoslavia and he told me that the reality of socialism is the exact opposite. The one guy who is working real hard and producing more than anyone else (i.e. making them look bad) gets “dealt” with when nobody is looking. Everyone learns that to avoid a beating you just pretend to work and the system will pretend to pay you. Does anyone here disagree with my Yugoslavian pal about how socialism really works? Would YOU do any more than the bare minimum in a socialist society? Do you think that such a system could ever produce an excess of all human necessities, or just the bare minimum? Rather than just attack socialism, though, I thought I’d give you a chance to attack my ideas. Accepting the fact that SOME people are highly ambitous, greedy, and selfish shouldn’t we, as a democratic society, try and use these people for all they’re worth? For starters we could stop making it so easy to ship jobs overseas by erecting large tariff and non-tariff trade barriers (the way every other nation on earth has already done). We are running a gigantic trade deficit so don’t tell me that tariff barriers would have a net effect of destroying jobs. If we need more cheap labor we should import the labor not export the jobs. I just don’t see the logic of our current administration’s policy of letting China have such a good trade deal with us, could someone explain it to me. Sorry for the thread hijack, I just thought you might like to take a few digs at me and my capitalist ideas. ---
**Author:** ![tradesilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/439d5e/32.png) [@tradesilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tradesilicon)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/100 "2000-06-26T16:14:28Z")
Tretiak, > [@](#): > > You’ll get nothing but hand waving and hocus pocus answers to their fairy tale. I will give them the benefit of the doubt, since I did make a very rood entrance here. But to your point, I have not heard an answer to those questions that did not, in some way, involve force against those who disagreed. I cannot understand why Socialists do not see that it is better to allow people to have self-determination rather than a Nanny-Government. Simple, but elusive concept for some. SarumanRex > [@](#): > > There are selfish, ruthless, unscrupulous, greedy, cruel people in every society. Do you really think these people will magically disappear under socialism? I think that they will they pay lip service to socialist ideals while accumulating as much power and influence and wealth as their wicked little minds can think up ways to cheat their fellow man. > …I am 100% convinced that socialism could never work (not anywhere, not ever, not on a small scale (i.e. one nation), not on a global scale). It has failed completely everywhere it has ever been mandatory Excellent point. But not all people who are willing to work hard for a corresponding reward are bad, simply motivated to succeed. Those who are the brightest among us would be silenced first. Human nature defeats socialism. > [@](#): > > …People who are forced to work for the benefit of society and not for their own enrichment will soon determine the absolute minimum work required to stay out of trouble. Absolutely correct. They also find other ways to cheat the system. Black market, bribery, theft, murder, and other creative (illegal) ways. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190.md?page=6)