# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/101 "2000-06-26T17:58:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > 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. > \*\* How ridiculous you sound! Because someone has made an inaccurate assessment of some aspect of human nature it refutes any other assessment made by anyone else? It was once thought that light must propagate through the aether, yet when this was proven false, light didn’t simply vanish. To state that an instance of unselfish behavior refutes the argument _in toto_ at best reveals a total lack of what is meant by the term ‘human nature’ itself, or, at worst, poker-faced intellectual dishonesty. When people speak of human nature they are speaking of how the average person, or a significant segment of the populace, will act in a given situation, not how any particular individual will. It is a generalization formed by observation, whether by a layperson, a behavioral psychologist, a sociologist, or a biologist. All of these people have varying claims, some of them contesting one another, but that is not the same thing as saying that the beast does not exist. I can understand your desire to make the human nature argument go away with a wave of your hand, since competition, tribalism, and avarice are overwhelmingly accepted by most people describing human nature. However, declaring by fiat that it does not exist is hardly an argument. Off the top of my head, problems to communism stemming from the human nature side of things would be religious fanatacism, avarice, tribalism, territorialism, competition, and nepotism/cronyism. I submit as evidence…oh, say the vast bulk of recorded history. ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/102 "2000-06-26T19:50:24Z")
> [@](#): > > From tradesilicon:\*\* > “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”? \*\* Hmmmm. Good questions. I’ve never really thought about it. I just assumed that ability would be self determined as would need. But, there are problems with that. I suppose that ability would have to be determined based not on individuals but on groups. The ability of a certain group or factory or town to do something. That ability would be based on past performance and future projections. Need? Need would be determined the same way. Sort of like how people determine how much funding a certain project needs now. I hope that answers your question. Again, I haven’t really thought about it before so this is just my guess. Maybe Olentzero will have a different answer. > [@](#): > > From QuickSilver:\*\* > Once upon a time a man had a cow. He took that cow to his neighbor 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. ) \*\* If only it actually happened like this. You paint such a pretty picture of the development of Capitalism. Of course, it didn’t happen like this. The development of capitalism contained much death and suffering. You can read some good books on it from Carr or Hobswan. I don’t have much time to go into specifics, but what you saw with the development of capitalism was something like this. Public land was divvied up and privatized. People who once survived off the land by farming and hunting were no longer able to do so. They were forced into factories working 16 or 20-hour days. Their children were also forced to work. Most of the capitalists rose out of the landed gentry or town bankers, not from farmers. > [@](#): > > From Sailor:\*\* > 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? \*\* OK. My bad. I phrased that poorly. What I should have said is “please refrain from referring to your experience as a socialist experience and making generalizations about socialism from that. Feel free to claim that socialism will degenerate into the countries you have experience with” tradesilicon seemed to understand what I was getting at though. > [@](#): > > Also from Sailor:\*\* > Do you realize this is more or less what Fidel Castro have in mind when he started out? \*\* Actually no it wasn’t. When Castro started out he was simply a democrat; he had no aims of socialism. He only turned to it when the US wouldn’t support him and he had to turn to Russia. Also, as we’ve stated earlier he implemented it top down, That doesn’t work. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Anyone who thinks it can happen does not have a clue of the real world. \*\* Anyone who thinks it can’t hasn’t studied history and has their head in the sand. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/103 "2000-06-26T20:06:53Z")
I’m not actually here to respond to anything in the past day or two, mainly 'cos it’s turned into a Libertairan Backpatting and Self-Congratulation Society. Boy, you really demolished _my_ arguments! What was I thinking, being a Socialist? Gonna go start my own business now. Actually the forum list says there’s a response by **Ptahlis** in here somewhere but I can’t see it. I figure maybe sticking another post on here would shake it loose. Not that I expect anything different than what’s preceded. ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/104 "2000-06-26T20:52:58Z")
> [@](#): > > From Libertarian:\*\* > What is your response to Hayek’s charges in The Fatal Conceit? \*\* I’ll take a stab at this one. You fail to level any real charges that socialism, as Olentzero and myself have defined, can not work. I have no response. Although I must confess I have not read _The Fatal Conceit_ I did read the links you provided. I found arguments on why State capitalist governments and Social democratic governments can not work. But, that doesn’t really concern me, I agree with you that they cannot. I did not find any arguments against a socialist economy based not on price fixing and social programs but on workers control of production. > [@](#): > > From Gilligan:\*\* > 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.) \*\* Actually I’m fairly ambivalent about the Internet. While it’s great for spreading ideas. It does very little for actually prompting people into action. I’m more for going out and talking to real people. It does have its uses however. > [@](#): > > and also from Gilligan:\*\* > 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? \*\* There are several sides to this question. I don’t believe in that liberal ideal of absolute free speech. I don’t think that racists should be given free reign to propagate their ideas. Klansmen should not be allowed to have rallies. Why? Because these are people who have shown they will back up words with action. At the same time I don’t think the government should step in. Socialists are always against a strong state and the state increasing it’s power. On censorship of ideas, well you already see it everyday in the newspapers and TV. You have to be somewhat naïve to believe it doesn’t happen. As a socialist I think that a much wider array of views is a good positive thing. How about during a revolution though? Would censorship be applied? How much. First I ask you to look at how much censorship has existed in “democratic” countries during times of war. Usually quite a bit. Look at what happened to socialists during WW2. Currently it is illegal for people to call for the death or for harm to come to a specific person. Teachers in the state of CA are required to take a loyalty oath and proclaim that they are not socialist. So what would we do during a revolution. Actively calling for it’s downfall? I don’t know, it depends on who was doing it and if they were willing to back it up with action. Calling for the death of members of the party? I think we could advocate censorship in that case. The promotion of ideas that one would call “libertarian”? No, that kind of stuff would be freely printed. If you look at the Russian revolution, the Bolsheviks were quite liberal with censorship. They allowed the printing of white and other counterrevolutionary material. Some of it was even printed at Bolshevik presses. They only censored the SRs after assassination attempts were made on the life of Lenin and others. So yes, during a time of revolution there would be some slight censorship. This would fade away once danger had passed. Once a government was stable, there would be no problem with the call for overthrowing it or for distributing “capitalist manifestos” ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/105 "2000-06-26T21:57:25Z")
> [@](#): > > From Tretiak:\*\* > 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. \*\* Here’s a question for you. Under capitalism how do make sure enough food gets to those who are starving? Oh wait, you don’t. You just let them starve because they don’t have enough money to pay for food. The whole principle of socialism is that you don’t have one person making the decisions. If I was to answer this question I would be presuming that I know how to get milk to NY better than anyone who lives there, or produces milk, or who organizes the distribution of milk. That would be a pretty big presumption. > [@](#): > > From Sailor\*\* > And since we will all be so happy we will get laid more… \*\* Hey. Under socialism sexual activity increased a full 52% in the USSR, 39% in Spain. Just imagine what could happen here in the US. > [@](#): > > \*\* > 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. \*\* Are they born that way? I don’t think so. Society makes the man. Yes, those people will exist in the beginning. However, most people aren’t that way, and since power will be constructed to give power to the majority they can keep those people in check. As for people doing the minimum ammount of work. Hell, everyone will start doing the minimum ammount of work. There are a tremendous ammount of 1) extraneous jobs, 2) unemployed people who would like to work. We can reduce everyone’s work hours. If you’re required to work 3 hours a day 4 days a week, most people won’t complain. Of course in the beginning this won’t be the case. But, during socialist revolutions you do see people throwing themselves and their all into as much work as nesecary. Why? Because they are finally being given a chance to determine their own lives. > [@](#): > > From Pthalis\*\* > > How ridiculous you sound! Because someone has made an inaccurate assessment of some aspect of human nature it refutes any other assessment made by anyone else? It was once thought that light must propagate through the aether, yet when this was proven false, light didn’t simply vanish. \*\* How ridiculous you sound. I never said that human nature does not exist. I debated that it was inherently selfish. Once it’s proven that human nature is not selfish it won’t vanish. Just as light didn’t vanish. What will disappear is this ridiculous notion that just because we observe people around us being selfish that that is inherent in human nature. There are people around me that lust after 4-year-old boys. Does that mean it’s a component of human nature? The whole of recorded history is full of people lusting after young boys. Does that mean it’s part of human nature? NO! > [@](#): > > \*\* It is a generalization formed by observation, whether by a layperson, a behavioral psychologist, a sociologist, or a biologist. All of these people have varying claims, some of them contesting one another, but that is not the same thing as saying that the beast does not exist. \*\* I never said that selfishness doesn’t exist or that human nature doesn’t. I’ve said that human nature is extremely malleable. And those observations of selfishness currently are not a barrier to socialism. Just as observations of belief in God is not a barrier to atheism. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Off the top of my head, problems to communism stemming from the human nature side of things would be religious fanatacism, avarice, tribalism, territorialism, competition, and nepotism/cronyism. I submit as evidence…oh, say the vast bulk of recorded history. \*\* The vast bulk of human history contained no monotheistic organized religion. Looking at most of human history you could say that such a thing could never exist. Would you be wrong? Yes. And of course you are forgetting that most of human history was not recorded. Human history started becoming recording with the birth of class society. What else came with the birth of class society? Some of those problems you mentioned. Of course they will be recorded. ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/106 "2000-06-26T22:13:43Z")
> [@](#): > > From Olentzero:\*\* > I’m not actually here to respond to anything in the past day or two, mainly 'cos it’s turned into a Libertairan Backpatting and Self-Congratulation Society. Boy, you really demolished my arguments! What was I thinking, being a Socialist? Gonna go start my own business now. > > Actually the forum list says there’s a response by Ptahlis in here somewhere but I can’t see it. I figure maybe sticking another post on here would shake it loose. Not that I expect anything different than what’s preceded. \*\* I see where you are getting frustrated Olentzero. I was hoping this thread would be more about actual questions. Not, “WHY COMMUNISM ABSOLUTELY POSITEVLY WON’T WORK. Written by obscure 1930’s economist guy.” It might just degenerate into a yes it will, no it won’t kind of argument. But I have hope. Maybe more people will ask questions like Kimstu and gilligan. Questions like, how do you feel about gun control. Or the DP, or trade tariffs, or voting, or any other question that can be answered without getting bogged down in long lengthy arguments. Well? Any takers? ---
**Author:** ![Gilligan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Gilligan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gilligan)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/107 "2000-06-26T22:59:30Z")
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, oldscratch. I try to ask questions that I don’t know the answers to, and can’t determine from quick reads through web sites. This is why I haven’t asked about things like gun control and trade tariffs, etc. These aren’t too hard to find out on my own. Although, I do wonder on major issues like these if there is strong consensus, and if so, if this is due to the philosophy itself, or if it’s a case of people being attracted to the same ideas. I don’t know how to phrase that right. An example - socialists against the DP because it has something to do with socialism, or just because they just happen to be against it for some other reason. A correlation rather than a causation, that is. I’ve tried to ask in a way that isn’t critical of your ideas. I expand on them a bit so you can see where I’m coming from, and also why I don’t the answers. I think we both learn more that way. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/108 "2000-06-26T23:04:04Z")
**OldScracth** Fair enough. I’ll ask mine rephrased. How will a socialist government determine prices? ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/109 "2000-06-26T23:13:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > **OldScracth** > > Fair enough. I’ll ask mine rephrased. > > How will a socialist government determine prices? > \*\* Thanks for doing so Lib. I’ll have a comprehensive anwer for you in a day or two. Don’t think I’m ignoring you, this one will just take some work. ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/110 "2000-06-26T23:21:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > Thanks for your thoughtful reply, oldscratch. I try to ask questions that I don’t know the answers to, and can’t determine from quick reads through web sites. This is why I haven’t asked about things like gun control and trade tariffs, etc. These aren’t too hard to find out on my own. Although, I do wonder on major issues like these if there is strong consensus, and if so, if this is due to the philosophy itself, or if it’s a case of people being attracted to the same ideas. I don’t know how to phrase that right. An example - socialists against the DP because it has something to do with socialism, or just because they just happen to be against it for some other reason. A correlation rather than a causation, that is. > > I’ve tried to ask in a way that isn’t critical of your ideas. I expand on them a bit so you can see where I’m coming from, and also why I don’t the answers. I think we both learn more that way. > > \*\* Both examples exist. A good one is the environment. There is nothing environmental about socialism, yet many socialists have strong environmental concerns. There are also socialists I know who haven’t yet gotten around to being anti-death penalty. Now I’m no longer in the ISO, I’m a former member, but let me speak of my experience on it. People didn’t join because they were full fledged socialists. They joined because they were activists and the ISO seemed the best way to fight. Once in the ISO they had some ideas but were extremely confused about others. Through going to meetings and arguments with older members they clarified those ideas. People would realise that they can’t be a good socialist and support the Death Penalty, or that they can’ be a good socialist and oppose affirmative action. Does that mean they’re weren’t arguments? No. you should have seen some of the arguments on Ebonics or whether we should have opposed NAFTA. But, the thing that keeps the ISO together is unity in the major principles. All ideas flow from those, and you can debate the smaller issues without falling apart. There are other groups that disagree with the ISO on issues to. Some are minor some are major (the issues, not the groups). ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/111 "2000-06-26T23:38:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > How ridiculous you sound. I never said that human nature does not exist. I debated that it was inherently selfish. Once it’s proven that human nature is not selfish it won’t vanish. Just as light didn’t vanish. What will disappear is this ridiculous notion that just because we observe people around us being selfish that that is inherent in human nature. There are people around me that lust after 4-year-old boys. Does that mean it’s a component of human nature? The whole of recorded history is full of people lusting after young boys. Does that mean it’s part of human nature? NO! \*\* Actually yes. It does mean that in that it is human nature that a small segment of society will harbor these desires, just as it is a part of human nature that a certain minority will be homosexual. It is not the nature of the _vast majority_, and you don’t, as an individual, have to be either one, but it is no less human nature, as history would attest. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I never said that selfishness doesn’t exist or that human nature doesn’t. I’ve said that human nature is extremely malleable. And those observations of selfishness currently are not a barrier to socialism. Just as observations of belief in God is not a barrier to atheism. > > The vast bulk of human history contained no monotheistic organized religion. Looking at most of human history you could say that such a thing could never exist. Would you be wrong? Yes. And of course you are forgetting that most of human history was not recorded. Human history started becoming recording with the birth of class society. What else came with the birth of class society? Some of those problems you mentioned. Of course they will be recorded. > > \*\* Firstly, I don’t at all agree that the shift of one type of deity to another represents any sort of change in human nature, even a small one. The particular aspect of human nature involved there is whether or not people believe in the spiritual/metaphysical, not which unprovable being(s) they are. Over time, a very large segment of humanity has definitely demonstrated a propensity for these types of beliefs. Certainly the existence of selfishness (or any of the other things I mentioned) doesn’t preclude the existence of socialism, just that it will ever actually work in practice. Considering that social science, psychology, and biology all support the notion that it is a deeply rooted part of our nature, I can’t see how you are going to bring about this Communist Utopia. ---
**Author:** ![goaheadcaller](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@goaheadcaller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/goaheadcaller)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2000, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/112 "2000-06-27T08:03:14Z")
I’m an American living in Russia. I have travelled throughout the former Soviet Union and all I have seen are a people who have been crushed by the dictatorsip of the proletariat. In practice, communism has meant that the most talented and energetic are slaughtered in the name of creating a new equality. That new equality is in fact the equality of the masses to be miserable. Those who haven’t been slaughtered or starved to death are the ones least capable of doing for themselves. The people of Poland, the Baltics, Hungary, Czech Republic would for the most part disagree with your assumptions. I have three questions: 1. How do you reconcile yourself to the fact that throughout the world, the nations that have embraced communism from Slovakia to China (including Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea) are all trying to figure out how to extract themselves from the trap that is communism? and 1. What is your paradigm? That is what nation in history do you look to as a model for your communist state? finally 1. How do you reconcile yourself to the murderous rampages of Communist leadership? It’s all well and good to say that they were not true communist, but who are? Stalin, Lenin and Mao have all killed millions to reach the utopia you describe and all their people have inherited from their efforts is a world of woe. I realize my tone is perhaps hostile, but I have friends who risked their lives so that their children could live in a world without communism. While the liberal democracies have their faults, you are free to express your opposition. If we were in China or the old Soviet Union, you would not have that liberty. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2000, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/113 "2000-06-27T11:43:40Z")
**OldScratch** > [@](#): > > _I’ll have a comprehensive [amswer] for you in a day or two [explaining how a socialist government will set prices]. Don’t think I’m ignoring you, this one will just take some work._ Take all the time you need. But if you wish to head my rebuttals off at the pass, I strongly recommend that you read [**The Fatal Conceit**](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226320669/o/qid=962106045/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_3/104-8034833-1483955). As I’m sure you are aware, there is nothing wrong with reading the views of the opposition. I have even read [**The Manifesto of the Communist Party**](http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1848-CM/). ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2000, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/114 "2000-06-27T15:20:22Z")
OK… this is gonna take some reading up on here; towards the end of the week I’ll come back on the big issues that apparently haven’t been too well-answered by either **oldscratch** or myself. Towards the end of the week I’ll throw on a series of posts addressing these: On Human Nature On Determining Prices On Violence and Censorship I think that takes care of it for now. **goaheadcaller** , lest you think I’m ignoring your questions, I suggest you go through the whole thread thoroughly. I’ve clearly stated the answers to those questions already. ---
**Author:** ![goaheadcaller](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f9b8f/32.png) [@goaheadcaller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/goaheadcaller)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2000, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/115 "2000-06-27T16:36:56Z")
I have read through most of the posts, but what stikes me is that whenever a communist nation fails, communist claim that is not true communism. My question then is, well what is communism? If every time a nation embraces communism, the people starve, writers are shot, and millions are slaughtered, then that is communism. To argue that it was the international environment that prevented the success of communism is to argue that communism is unworkable. What nation exists in a vacume? Any nation that tries to adopt communism will have to do so in the international community and if it is not workable there, then it is simply not workable. Once again, I worry that my tone my be too harsh, but I equate communism with fascism. Any attempt at totalitarian utopianism will result in those in power keeping power and without the mechanisms to remove them from power, the butchers and the thugs will rule. ---
**Author:** ![tradesilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/439d5e/32.png) [@tradesilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tradesilicon)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2000, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/116 "2000-06-27T17:06:41Z")
goaheadcaller, Thank you for adding your experience. If we are truly to fight ignorance I think it is good for these romantics who embrace socialism to get a dose of reality. By the way, how long have you lived in Russia? If you just got there recently, you’re catching the recovery. You missed the real fun that was communism, Russian Style. Oldscratch and Olentzero, neither of you has answered a few simple questions I posted, although Oldscatch was kind enough to acknowledge them. There are no answers. The whole theory falls apart under scrutiny. Let me explain just a bit more about my thinking (not that you care too much). I am not stating that capitalism is a perfect system, all I am stating here is that people have far more success when they are allowed the ability to choose their own path. Socialism has presented ideas that are very nice on the surface, but ignore the very basic facts about human beings. Unless you are prepared to enslave every human being on the planet, you will fail. Saying that all the examples from the past are invalid for communism, but using all the examples from the past to argue against the systems you don’t like makes you seem a bit, how shall I say it, I better not… Thanks all the same. I still don’t know what ‘kashey’ means. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2000, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/117 "2000-06-27T20:14:16Z")
> [@](#): > > **Let me explain just a bit more about my thinking (not that you care too much).** Riiight. Like the bunch of you are any more interested in what we have to say. Listen, **oldscratch** - this is a bigger headache than I wanted it to be. We’re going around in circles with people who only showed up because they wanted to shout us down. There were a couple of people like **matt\_mcl** and **Eve** with a legitimate interest in debate, but that quickly got drowned out. So I’m all for tying a rock to this thing and letting it sink to the bottom. The world’s got enough demagoguery in it without providing another forum for it in the SDMB. Oh, **tradesilicon** - apparently I misremembered the phrase I’d heard a while ago - the word I’m looking for is _blesna_, which I honestly feel applies to the lot of you. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2000, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/118 "2000-06-27T20:19:30Z")
Um, okay. So, how will a socialist government set prices? ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2000, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/119 "2000-06-27T21:00:38Z")
> [@](#): > > From Pthalis:\*\* > Actually yes. It does mean that in that it is human nature that a small segment of society will harbor these desires, just as it is a part of human nature that a certain minority will be homosexual. It is not the nature of the vast majority, and you don’t, as an individual, have to be either one, but it is no less human nature, as history would attest. \*\* What? No it is not. It’s either in the nature of humans or it’s not. If a small segment practices it, that doesn’t make it part of human nature. Your arguments sound ridiculous. It’s like saying that it’s human nature for people to be blond. No it’s not. It’s genetics. It’s the nature of homosexuals to be attracted to the same sex. Not the nature of humans to have a certain segment of homosexuals in the population. It is perfectly possible to have a society with no homosexuals or even a society where the majority are homosexuals. Human nature refers to either the essential quality of being human. Or to the inherent tendencies of humans. Raping young boys does not fall into either of these. Neither does selfishness. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Firstly, I don’t at all agree that the shift of one type of deity to another represents any sort of change in human nature, even a small one. The particular aspect of human nature involved there is whether or not people believe in the spiritual/metaphysical, not which unprovable being(s) they are. Over time, a very large segment of humanity has definitely demonstrated a propensity for these types of beliefs. \*\* That has nothing to do with human nature. You seem to think that anything one person or groups of people do is part of human nature. No. Human nature is the essential quality of being human, and the inherent tendencies of humans. There are no inherent tendencies towards the spiritual or toward homosexuality or towards selfishness. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Considering that social science, psychology, and biology all support the notion that it is a deeply rooted part of our nature, I can’t see how you are going to bring about this Communist Utopia. \*\* At one time many of these sciences also supported the notion that certain people were inferior to us? Where they wrong? Yes. Are there many dissenting viewpoints from scientists saying that selfishness isn’t a part of human nature? Yes. In response to goaheadcaller > [@](#): > > \*\* > Any attempt at totalitarian utopianism will result in those in power keeping power and without the mechanisms to remove them from power, the butchers and the thugs will rule. \*\* Again, I side with Olentzero. Go back and read the posts, In fact read the information on the link Olentzero provided in the OP. If you had bothered reading you would see we are not talking about totalitarianism or utopianism. You would also see what we are talking about in regards to what is communism. ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2000, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190/120 "2000-06-27T21:31:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > Human nature refers to either the essential quality of being human. Or to the inherent tendencies of humans. \*\* If your definition of human nature is such that everything comprising it must be shared by every individual, then we have no ground on which to debate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-commie-bastard/23190.md?page=7)