The problem with communism.

The primary problem with communism is what is at the root of all human conflict - identity. How we identify ourselves and with each other is the vehicle through which all conflict arises. Communism doesn’t work and is a genuinely stupid philosophy because it ignores that fundamental aspect of human nature, that of identification. We’re social creatures, but we form cliques because we simply lack the ability to truly identify with people beyond a certain point. That’s why Amish clans and hunter-gatherer tribes can have a sort of egalitarian, communist-lite society, because they can easily identify with each other. However, to move beyond family and clan becomes more and more difficult for people and requires stronger and more forcible ideals to hold people together. This is why so much of human history involves tyranny, because it takes a strong individual or core group to create, broadcast and then control the ideal to hold people together.

The free market is a very good reflection of human nature, unfortunately human nature is as crappy as it is good. That’s why greed can’t go unregulated and why a pure free market is a bad thing. People can’t be trusted to care enough about those around them to not screw them over in an economy and society that is larger than their basic clan. It becomes easier to dehumanize others when you don’t identify with them. That’s why identity is the root of the issue. If we all identified as human beings first, and everything else second, then we’d probably be better off and have less disparate societies throughout the world. However, we by and large tend to identify with much, much smaller cadres or humanity, like our country, our state (or province), our ethnicity or language, or our family (and often all of them to some degree, plus others) before we identify as human beings. What I mean is that we identify with our groups in a way that creates an “other”, those humans who are outside our group and thus not “one of us”. That’s the root of it. Until we can, as a species, learn to identify as human first and everything else a distant second, communism and even pure free-market capitalism will never work in a way that doesn’t screw large chunks of people over, simply because we’re a pretty shitty species.

Unmitigated horseshit. Lots of it in here, from a lot of horses.

Nothing within this post is to be construed as an insulting or deragory equivocation between any member of the SDMB and any representative of the equestrian genus
First off, communism does not depend on an idealistic inclined-to-share attitude on the part of the individuals within the system. ANARCHY, yeah. But that’s not what this thread is about.

Communism has a state apparatus. Individuals are subject to the will of the state. The premise is not “From each according to each individual’s own assessment of his or her abilities, to each according to each individual’s own assessment of his or her needs”, but rather “From each according to the state’s assessment of his or her abilities, to each according to the state’s assessment of his or her needs.”

Communism is the practice, Marxism is the theory; and Marxist theory is a totalizing social deterministic perspective in which there are no “individuals” in the sense that conventional liberalism considers them to exist; it may have gaping holes in it but as asserted, all local (individual) consciousness is no more than a manifestation at the local level of CLASS consciousness. It’s a variant on the tabula rasa Durkheimian tradition: if an understanding is established for what is in the interests of the CLASS, that thing is in the interests of the individuals who are OF that class. For this reason there is no possible conflict of interests between the intentions or attitudes or perspectives or needs or etc of the STATE and the members of the proletariat CLASS on behalf of whom the state serves to exist. Hence, no concern about abuse of power, or the evils of totalitarianism.

Oh, and the “state will wither away” stuff that you’ll occasionally see a wave-of-hand reference to should not be interpreted as anything remotely akin to “We know we are starting off with a totalitarian police state but that will go away and THEN individuals will be free”. It is instead along the lines of “The purpose of the totalitarian police state is to be the organized arm of the proletariat and it shall act against remnants of the defeated ruling class and its values, thoughts, etc; therefore by definition when the state fails to find any remaining opposition, which (also by definition) could only come from such remnants insofar as the will of the people IS the will of the proletarian state, it will cease to have a purpose”.

There is ZERO, completely ZERO, acknowledgement of any possibility of conflict between an individual proletarian and the proletarian state and/or any manifestations thereof.

Asking what THE problem is with Communism is sort of like asking, “What is THE problem with being hit by a bus?”

Communism is an utter disaster for humanity, and it has nothing to do with whether people are good or bad, or whether greed is good or bad.

Communism is a disaster for many reasons. Sociological, mathematical, structural… It denies that humans respond to incentives. It confuses equality of opportunity with equality of outcomes, and therefore removes any incentive for the best and brightest to rise to the level of their ability. It is ignorant of the Pareto principle that 80% of productivity will come from 20% of the people. It rewards keeping your head down, and punishes risk-taking and innovation. To counteract these flaws, it introduces political incentives to replace economic incentives. It creates a privileged class not through money, but power and access to things controlled by the state that average people do not have access to.

Der Trihs says that the problem with markets is that only the connected people prosper. This is utter nonsense. But it IS true in Communist countries, or any country with strong central control. It’s true in the political class in any country. Look at the number of Kennedys, Bush’s, Rockefellers, and other dynastic families that have infused American politics for generations. In the Soviet Union, the son of a Politburo member had it made. If your dad was a local party official, you got things the other kids didn’t get, and you automatically got into the best schools.

But in the market, this isn’t true. I work in a large company, and I’ve seen many people rise and fall. I cannot think of a single person who got where they are due to connections, family background, or friends in high places. It’s a pure meritocracy. My own career has risen and fallen directly in proportion to my ability to do the job. No one has ever asked me who my parents are, or even what school I attended. And I’ve watched people I personally know very well rise to very high heights - million dollar salaries, control over a thousand people. In one case, the person was an immigrant who spoke with a thick accent and knew absolutely nobody. But man, he was good at his job. When I started working with him, he was just a technical lead of a small team. He now manages an entire division of the company.

I know a lot of the managers in this company, and to a person they work their asses off. One co-worker just went through a divorce because he was traveling so much for the company. Another has picked up his family and moved across the country twice to follow job opportunities as they were presented to him.

These are all good people. They are passionate about what they do, they work hard, they do their best to bring the value they were paid to bring. One of them expends great effort to motivate employees to be more charitable, and he has organized team outings for Habitat for Humanity and other causes he believes in. One of them is trying to champion environmental issues in the workplace.

Communism wouldn’t reward these people. The people who benefit the most are the drones who show up to work, do the absolute minimum, cut corners, keep their heads down, and go home as soon as the timeclock says they can go. Communist countries become dull, gray places with faceless bureaucracies and worker drones going through the motions. That’s one reason they can’t compete and why their standards of living eventually collapse.

But another big reason has nothing to do with people. It has to do with information. A modern economy is hellishly complex. A single simple product like a pencil can be the result of the coordinated efforts of dozens or even hundreds of companies and thousands of people. Millions of goods have to find their way to exactly the people who need them the most, at exactly the right time. There is simply no way a central authority can coordinate this. It is a problem of complexity, like trying to control the weather.

But it gets worse than that, because the information central planners need isn’t even available. It is created through the process of market transactions. You don’t know how much you value a hammer vs a screwdriver until you are forced to make a choice between them. The value of goods and services emerges through the process of millions of people bidding for them. Take away that process, and no one can know what society really needs. This is a core, fundamental flaw of any plan to eliminate market forces and substitute central control.

This is why the law of unintended consequences is so pervasive and so hard to thwart. Because the government is always making decisions with imperfect information, and once the decision is made, the people will respond rationally to it, and others will respond to their responses, and the cascading effects have consequences and are utterly unpredictable.

And we haven’t even started on the problems of corruption, regulatory capture, state monopoly and oligarchy, abuse of power, the co-opting of the apparatus of the state for partisan purposes, and other major flaws exhibited in all countries that attempt to implement Communist governments.

While I disagree with Sam Stone about the beneficient qualities of the free market, I have to ratify his take on communism.

In terms of the beneficient qualities of the free market, I’m talking about its general ability to efficiently allocate the resources of society and maximize overall economic growth and well-being.

I’m NOT saying it’s perfect, or that it doesn’t lead to bad outcomes for some people, or that it doesn’t need to be regulated in some cases.

Communist economics and totalitarian government are not the same thing but there is a correlation between them. As many have said here, communist economics don’t really work. So keeping a functioning society going with communist economics requires ongoing government intervention. A country with a communist economy and a libertarian government would simply grind to a halt. Communism needs to be propped up by a strong interventionist government. And then you have a country, already burdened by the problems of bad economics, also suffering from the problems of bad government.

And if I said that the poor were saints you’d have a point. Actually, if one had a “morality detector” I expect it’s the middle class that would come out ahead; the poor are more desperate and traumatized, which tends to produce irrational and predatory behavior. And the rich are at the pinnacle of a system that rewards ruthlessness, short sightedness, corruption, and destructive behavior in general.

The problem with our markets. America is rapidly becoming an aristocracy, despite our self congratulatory myths of social mobility. In modern America, there is little social mobility except downwards.

Serious question: do you think Warren Buffet is ruthless and corrupt?

How about Larry Page and Sergi Brin (founders of Google)? Or Oprah Winfrey?

For the record, do you believe there are any wealthy businessmen that are not ruthless and corrupt?

**Der Trihs **- In spite of all your usual rhetoric, you haven’t really addressed how communism is supposed to be a better system. What does the communist system reward? Are the poor better off or is everyone just poor?

I don’t think he’s saying it’s better. I think he’s just criticizing capitalism, especially as practiced in the US>

Where do you get this stuff? Even an occasional cite would be nice.

In any event, this is absolutely not true. In fact, for the middle class, the probably of moving upwards in income quintiles is almost exactly the same as the probability of moving downwards. Furthermore, the big predictive factors in social mobility are actually education and race.

It is true that social mobility in the U.S. is lower than it is in some other countries - a statistically highly skewed by the dreadful social mobility of the black community. 62% of blacks born in the bottom quintile in the 1960’s are still in the bottom quintile, and only 3.6% have made it to the top quintile. On the other hand, of white people born in the bottom quintile during the same period, only 32. 3% are still there, and 14.2% of them have made it all the way to the top quintile.

Here’s a cite from the Center for American Progress, which is far from being a right-wing organization. Not all the news in there is good by any means, but it flatly contradicts your notion that the only kind of mobility happening in America is downwards.

The real story of what’s happening to mobility is not that you need family connections and need to be rich - it’s the increasing gap between those with good educations and those without, and the continuing problems with mobility in the black community. The widening gap isn’t between the aristocracy and the poor - it’s the gap between the poor and the white collar class - the business and technical people. Making matters worse is the increasing pressure on lower class jobs and incomes from immigration, both legal and illegal, and from outsourcing of low-value manufacturing.

Of course, coming from a wealthy family helps, and if you look at the people in the upper quintile of income you’ll find that the biggest block are those whose families were also in the upper quintile. But it’s still only 22%. 78% of people born in the top quintile of income between 1950 and 1968 are no longer there. About 60% of the people born in the bottom quintile are no longer there, and 36% of them are making at least $50,000 per year.

You’d do your own arguments a lot of favors if you’d stop making such extreme, unsupported comments.

That’s the point. The thread isn’t “The problem with capitalism”. It’s “The problem with communism.” Pointing out the flaws with our current economy doesn’t validate a much worse economic system.

To expand on what **Sam Stone **has said, there are very real class barriers in this country. First of all just being able to obtain an education. And not all education is equal. According to this survey, while there isn’t a huge difference in earnings with recent grads, where you go to school has a significant impact on how much you make later on in your career. So if you aren’t making $125,000 a year by the time you are in your 30s, it may because you didn’t go to a college costing $100,000+ a year. Clearly a very real financial barrier for many people (especially people born to parents who didn’t go to one of those schools).

And that’s not even taking into account law, business or medical schools or other advanced degrees.

The danger with such a structure is that it can create a very real class system in this country where no matter how smart you are, you may not be able to afford the right sort of education to be a success.

Thank you.

Can we PLEASE not posit capitalism and communism as zero-sum opposites, like every argument against one is necessariy an argument in favor of the other and vice versa?

The pair of them do not constitute the only economic alternatives, and as such they are not opposites, merely competing models.

It’s not like communist states are immune to cronyism either. There are about 75,000,000 Communist Party members in the People’s Republic of China. With their population of approximately 1,338,000,000, that means less than six percent of the people in China are party members.

But I read an interesting statistic last week. They did a survey of all of the millionaires in China. And they found that 91% of them were either a party member or the spouse or child of a party member.

You have to be careful with that statistic. There are generally two kinds of people in the elite schools - the children of rich people, and the very, very exceptional and gifted students who are there on scholarship.

So the fact that people from the elite schools make more money does not necessarily mean that anyone would make more money if only they could be sent to an elite school. It may just be that these schools are magnets for people who would have been successful no matter where they went.

The other factor here is that going to an elite school is a significant factor on a resume, but only because it is a strong indicator that you’re really smart. If you increased educational funding so that everyone could go to ‘elite’ schools, you’d rapidly find that the elite schools aren’t so elite any more. The very fact of letting anyone go there destroys the informational value of the degree to prospective employers.

The flipside of that is that there IS a class system, but it’s one based on aptitude. The elite school is just a mechanism that society can use to figure out who they are.

You could set up an empty building, and if you could figure out a way to get the top 1% of the country to go through it and no one else, having been through that empty building would be a very good indicator of future income, even though the building didn’t do a damned thing.

Our previous President is a perfect example.

While it’s clear that it’s easier for the children of the wealthy to be wealthy themselves, this isn’t necessarily a bad state of affairs so long as social mobility is still possible to a very reasonable degree.

If I work hard all of my life, I want to be able to give my children the best health care and the best education. Those are probably the largest motives for most people to outperform their peers that there is, and ultimately the goal of Capitalism is to encourage people to come up with ways to increase the productivity of mankind. Removing the two largest ways to encourage a person is most certainly going to have an effect.

On the other hand, by limiting access to the best education to those who have no personal skills, just a relative with a deep pocket, you’re shrinking the end skill-level of the workforce.

So on the one side, you’ve got more skilled laborers with less motive to succeed, and on the other side you have fewer skilled laborers with more motive to succeed. It’s really a question of where the ideal ratio of those two lies.

Now, one thing I’ve noted, is that Sweden has the highest number of patents per person of any country on the planet. That value, patents per person, is probably the closest indicator that you’ll get of the rate at which a society is working to boost the productivity of mankind–which is the end-goal. There, higher education is more or less entirely free. I don’t know how long this has been the case, however, so it is entirely possible that we’re at a peak point where the work motive remains and the number of highly trained laborers is high, but that this number could contract as dependency on social programs rises. I would need an overview of the timelines of their various laws to feel comfortable stating with certainty that we’re better off to offer totally free higher education.

So the owners of production can reduce their labor force?

Well, somebody’s got to flip burgers and clean the pool.

Even better, let’s turn the question over to a Congressional committee for further study.

Yes!

I can pop in an audio CD and listen to music anytime I want very cheaply. I don’t have to employ a staff of house musicians and keep them fed. The technology of audio recording was made possible by a string of business motivations: Thomas Edison phonograph, RCA, Philips cassette tapes, Sony compact disc, Apple iPod, etc.

I can pick up the phone and call a friend to tell him about important news. I don’t have to “hire” a messenger riding a horse.

Am I evil because I take advantage of the productivity progress made possible by commercial companies? Would it be better ethically if I were to employ someone to constantly wave a fan back and forth to keep me cool instead of using the air conditioner? Why?

Businesses and individuals all take advantage of productivity improvements and “reduce their labor force.”

All I am saying is that that amassing capital is the ultimate goal of Capitalism. That’s why it’s called Capitalism. Technology is nice and necessary if just finding enough to eat is not to be a 24/7 enterprise. However, the history of Capitalism has been largely one of predatory exploitation and technology has been its byproduct rather than its goal. How did I ever manage without a cell phone?