Communism--I just don't get it.

Great Debates
201

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.

202

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.

203

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.

204

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.

205

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.

206

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

207

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.

208

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. **
[/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

209

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.

210

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.

211

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.

212

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.

213

Bosda, may I direct your attention to this post 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.

214

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.

215

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.

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.

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.

216

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…

217

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.

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 this ad hominem is a reference to what?

[quote]
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.

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.

218

BWA-HA-HA-HA! :smiley:

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.

219

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.

220

corrections to my last post: formatting messed up

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.

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.