I’d say that communism owes more to bad science than bad religion. Marx looked at capitalism and saw that it had problems (and really, it’s not perfect). But rather than try to fix the problems in capitalism he tried to invent an alternative form of economics which was capitalism without the bad parts. The problem was that the economic system he invented had no basis in reality - he had a theory without any evidence to support it.
I’d say it’s unlikely. Human intelligence doesn’t work that way.
I’d qualify what I said above. Individuals in a small community may be willing to accept an individual material disadvantage for the sake of the community. But they do receive rewards for their input. As Chris Rock put it, Daddy always gets the good piece of chicken. Or as Sage Rat pointed out, those members of an Amish community who contribute more have a higher status than those who freeload.
But past a certain size, status disappears for most people. You know longer know who’s who and can’t tell who the good people and the bad people are. So there’s no social reward for being a good person and no stigma for being a bad person within the general community.
This makes the essential point. As Jared Diamond lays out in Guns, Germs and Steel, as the population of a group increases there is a move from egalitarianism to hierarchical/centralized government. When everybody in a population is within 1 degree of separation, say up to 1000, social pressure is sufficient to keep things running smoothly and everyone pulls their weight. With larger populations, specialization and social stratification emerge which requires a central authority to coordinate and coerce. Inevitably, what emerges is some form of Kleptocracy, whether it’s in the form of tribute or taxation. The few do well at the expense of the many.
Communism is no more possible on a large scale than is Democracy. On a small scale, they are essentially the same.
That’s not really a good example. The members of a typical family unit are not equal which is the whole point of communism. Mom and Dad have absolute say. They own the means of production (their salaries). They establish the rules and don’t require the consent of the children.
A better example would be a fraternity house. A typical fraternity house like mine has roughly 30-40 members. While we have elected house officers like Rush Chairman, Social Chairman, President, Kitchen Steward and whatnot (with varying degrees of actual responsibility) and there is an implied seniority by class year, everyone is, for all intents and purposes, equal. Other than your required financial obligation (dues, room & board fees), you put into the house what you feel like and take out what you feel like.
No, there is nothing inherently wrong with personal selfishness as long as it is constrained to legal and (mostly) ethical activities. Greed is good, so to speak. However your greed does not give you license to lie, cheat and steal. That’s why we have laws and regulations, even in a free market economy.
Systematic inequities stem from market inefficiencies. Not everyone has access to the same resources and information. Take for example two geniuses, one growing up in an upper-middle class suburban home and the other growing up in a crime-filled housing project. While they both have similar ability, the poor genius may not have access to the support, education, training and experiences that would allow him to maximize those abilities.
In an ideal capitalist society, if you crave more than the other person, you have to contribute more. Your greed is constrained by what you are able to offer in exchange for your labor and ideas. And that labor and those ideas belong to you. No one can take them from you without your consent. So theoretically someone with extraordinary ability to match their greed would be able to invent or produce something valuable enough to enough people that they would be willing to engage in trade for it. Free market societies encourage those with ability and ambition to strive for more responsibility, more challenging and productive work because that tends to correspond to greater compensation.
The inherent problem in capitalism is that not everyone has the same ability, even given the same opportunities. Most people have something to offer, however there are always people at the bottom in terms of skills, education, charm, intelligence, creativity or whatever other attributes one car parley into a career. And so ultimately the quesion in a capitalist society is what happens to those people?
Communism says those people still should have the ability to take what they need from society. But then the issue becomes take from who? If you have a society of two people and one of them produces signigicantly more than the other, by what right does the other person take from him just because he “needs”? What happens when the producer decides he is tired of working for two?
Actually it IS possible; we already have computer programs that track the reliability/trustworthiness/productivity ( as defined by group interested in the data ) of huge numbers of people. However, it’s highly unlikely that we’d evolve some ability like that; I’d expect it to be a potential part of at computer enhanced human mind rather than a naturally evolved one.
I’ve often felt the same; Communism looks very like Christianity at it’s worst.
I see the main problem with communism, as a problem of information transmission. Markets transmit the information between buyer and seller, and in turn, to producers This flow of information is vital, as it determines what gets produced. If you suppress the information, you get the wrong stuff produced. Communism stresss “central planning”-which is usually the worst production system. Soviet Russia produced tons of oods that people did not want to buy-that was OK, as long as the producers fulfiled the latest “5 Year plan”.
So comrade, drink your poisonous vodka, wear your size 17 shoe, and drive your polluting Trabant car, and shut up!
That toothbrush belongs to the people! What are you, some kind of toothbrush kulak?
Enough is never enough!
Well a commune on a small scale can actually maximize wealth. The idea being that you aren’t using all of the communally owned stuff all at once. So say 20 people can own a shed full of power tools worth over a hundred grand. Or they can have several big screen TVs that cost around 200 per person instead of 1000 per person. Economies of scale work for communal ownership on the small scale.
Yes. additionally communal septic and cooking, easy car sharing.
But even that cannot allocate the , and fundamentally knowing anything in the abstract is not the same as having an emotional impulse towards doing it (the “giving a shit” limitation). It is just that limitation which, I think, is the ultimate source of all good and evil.
For once, we agree.
I would say that only corrupted people who rejected Christianity but aimed to keep all the “useful” bits could conceive or create something so ineffably evil. Even the Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean Communists were heavily influenced by Christianity, and the development of COmmunism there involved rejecting it but trying to turn aspects of it into a tool.
Communism doesn’t work because it doesn’t take human nature into account.
And capitalism does?
Yes. Assume that some people are greedy, and some people are selfless. Now you tell everyone that if they make something which people want, they’ll personally get rewarded for it. The people who are selfless will go working on things that improve the lot of man, simply because they’re selfless. The people who are greedy will go working on things that improve the lot of man, simply because they’re greedy.
Done deal.
In Communist Russia, people belong to toothbrush.
Well there are certainly examples of free markets that have been subject to irrational exuberance / pessimism resulting in booms and crashes. However the key point of capitalism is “ownership”. Fundamentally you own your labor and intellectual property. No one can force it from you. Thus you can exchange that labor and IP for goods and services.
A communist society basically says “you are able to produce more, so we will take from you and give it to someone who is in greater ‘need’.” Why should I produce more than if it will just be taken away?
Or maybe just buy a gun or get a law degree.
How many iPods have you purchased for street bums? This image isn’t happenstance.
Capitalism doesn’t take human nature into account any more that Communism does; it’s just that in it’s case human nature works to make up for it’s weaknesses than into making them worse. Most people are bad capitalists, who do all sorts of things without charging for them or charging less than they really could.
Not really. The greedy people are generally taking the money and the credit without doing much if any of the work. The people who actually are “working on things that improve the lot of man” seldom see much of a return. Like I said above; our capitalist society is built on people not being good capitalists. The scientist who invents something that creates a billion dollar industry is lucky if he gets a small bonus. The people who actually work in that industry get less than that.
It happens to be the same the same with capitalism esp Wall Street. The insiders have the info and everybody else picks up the tab. Check this out.
One could argue that so-called “communism” as it was exemplified in the USSR was worse. At least our commissars dress better.
Quote from Sage Rat:
This image isn’t happenstance.
No one will argue (I hope) that conglomerations of capital have not produced worthwhile things including medical science and technology with extended life span among them. On the other hand, while greed and its positive? and negative effects have been discussed here at length THE OTHER problem at the core of ALL the problems we face, global warming, world hunger, etc. is OVERPOPULATION.