Will Communism ever reassert itself?

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
It doesn’t though. People aren’t out there developing open source software for the Good of the People™ (as they would be doing in a real communist society) but for other reasons such as recognition (which is pretty much contrary to most communist ideals which are all about the collective and not about the individual). Open source software is only kinda sorta like communism, if you squint real hard and forget WHY people or companies decide to go that route.

-XT
[/QUOTE]

I was thinking more about things like Wikipedia and internet message boards (the ones that are free, anyway). Seems to me that a lot of people post information and answer questions simply for the satisfiaction of a job well done and helping other people.

[chowder]

Communism/Nazism/Fascism/Whateverism.

All these dead and dusted theories will at some point rear their ugly heads again.

They’ll also bite the dust same as last time, Capitalism may not be the most perfect system but it’s the best we have.

Remember, All animals are equal but some are more equal than others

[Renob]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Somebody made the phone calls to send goons to break heads. Carnegie, Fisk, whomever. Were they not capitalists? Were they quasi-capitalists, eager to filch the dignity of capitalism to cover their base agenda? They were faking it?

Did they not declare the value of their actions in direct relation to capitalism, that they need to preserve their ability to compete? Was it not done in the name of profit, and done with callous indifference? Was the sacred trust to stockholders invoked, or no? If these men weren’t capitalists, what, in the name of Og, were they?
[/QUOTE]

Well, if people are on their private property and they refuse to leave, people have a right to use force to make them leave, even if those people are workers. But if these people are not on their property, then it should certainly be illegal to use force against them. Your idea of “capitalism” is that it equals “whatever businessmen want.” That’s not a free market economy. Businessmen, as history clearly shows, will try and use the power of government to harm workers and end competition. Without government collaboration, though, they would not be able to do this. I’m always amazed that those who support more government intervention in our economy and attack the so-called “evils of capitalism” are actually attacking the evils of government intervention in the economy.

the more even distribution of money is economic justice.

Please explain to me how this is justice. I view justice as each person getting what he or she deserves. If you commit murder, for instance, it is justice if you are either executed or sent to prison for life. People don’t “deserve” money, though, just by being people. They deserve money by offering goods or services that other people want to buy. Some people work harder than others and some have more marketable abilities. How is an even distribution of money justice since people will be getting the same pay for unequal work or unequal abilities?

@Alexander Dubinsky

Holy crap, that is the most deluded laizes faire defence I’ve ever seen. You know what I think you don’t get? That it’s not just about efficiency or how cheap you can make the goods (what ‘natural monopoly’ technically means). Big companies have power. They have market power, and they have money power. They don’t need to be ‘natural mopolies’ the way economists define them, they’re ‘natural monpolies’ the way nature defines them. Worse, no company has to fight and grow its way to supremacy. The competitors simply say, “you know what, we’ll all make more money if we just join together.” And the fact that they’ll make more money is almost invariably true.

Again, let’s see some examples from history.

But anyway, yes, our laws have kept this at bay. Sort of. If we didn’t have our laws, I assure you, it’d be a whole lot worse.

As much as I value your assurances, I’d prefer to see the facts upon which you are basing your opinion.

[XT]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
I was thinking more about things like Wikipedia and internet message boards (the ones that are free, anyway). Seems to me that a lot of people post information and answer questions simply for the satisfiaction of a job well done and helping other people.
[/QUOTE]

Well, again, one has to ask WHY people post on Wiki or on message boards like this…WHY people post information or answer questions. Is it to help out their fellow man? Maybe. But I doubt that is their sole or even primary motivation. Certainly I don’t see such things as communism in action. YMMV.

-XT

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
They aren’t? Then, who is? The Little Sisters of St. Ayn?
[/QUOTE]

I’ve said this in many other threads on this subject and I’ll say it again. Labor is as much a part of “the market” as management is. If labor does not have the ability to organize and bargain against management, then you don’t have a free market. You have what is often referred to as something like crony capitalism. There is nothing “free market” about CEO BigBucks being able to call Senator InMyPockets or Governor BoughtAndPaidFor to quash a strike. Or to quash it himself with his own goons and have the police stand idly by.

Collective bargaining is every bit a part of the market as greedy investors are.

[XT]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Well, I’ve done a smattering of reading on the subject, nothing to measure against your oceanic depth of scholarship, of course. But this unworthy one yet begs to differ…
[/QUOTE]

I’m shocked…SHOCKED I SAY…that you beg to, um, differ. Of course your method of differing seems to rely less on blinding with brilliance and more on baffling with bullshit. Such is life.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Somebody made the phone calls to send goons to break heads. Carnegie, Fisk, whomever. Were they not capitalists? Were they quasi-capitalists, eager to filch the dignity of capitalism to cover their base agenda? They were faking it?
[/QUOTE]

Oh, I suppose they were capitalists in their day, though of an earlier and less savory sort (yeah, I know…you probably think that todays capitalists are a pretty unsavory lot as well). Of course, the incidents you allude to shows more how the government was screwing with the system and putting it’s thumbs in at that time than anything. You also didn’t read the Wiki article I linked to obviously…it does a fairly decent job of showing how Capitalism has progressed through history.

The key point that seems to escape you though is that while those folks were capitalists they weren’t the embodiment of Capitalism in the flesh…they were simply businessmen who were exploiting the system as it was at that time. It’s the system itself that has changed and been modified through history…not the people who use or exploit that system…that is important. And it’s that I was commenting on.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Did they not declare the value of their actions in direct relation to capitalism, that they need to preserve their ability to compete? Was it not done in the name of profit, and done with callous indifference? Was the sacred trust to stockholders invoked, or no? If these men weren’t capitalists, what, in the name of Og, were they?
[/QUOTE]

They were men. They were business men protecting their interests and exploiting the SYSTEM (i.e Capitalism) as it was at the time. It’s the system, not the men who has changed through history…and it’s the system I was talking about.

Perhaps an analogy would work. Were Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc communists…or were they Communism? Were they the embodiment of Communism in the flesh…or were they men exploiting the system as it was at their time? Be interested in your actual thoughts on that question as it’s not rhetorical and is key to understanding where you are coming from on this.

-XT

[Renob]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
I’ve said this in many other threads on this subject and I’ll say it again. Labor is as much a part of “the market” as management is. If labor does not have the ability to organize and bargain against management, then you don’t have a free market. You have what is often referred to as something like crony capitalism. There is nothing “free market” about CEO BigBucks being able to call Senator InMyPockets or Governor BoughtAndPaidFor to quash a strike. Or to quash it himself with his own goons and have the police stand idly by.

Collective bargaining is every bit a part of the market as greedy investors are.
[/QUOTE]

Of course it is. I don’t think you’d find any advocate for the free market saying that workers should not be able to organize and bargain. A person’s labor is a very important part of the system.

However, if labor wants special privileges, that’s a different story. Just as it is unjust for a businessman to call on the police to bust a strike (if the strike isn’t taking place on private property, that is), it is also wrong for the Big Labor to pay off Senator Corrupt to pass a law that prevents businessmen from firing workers for whatever reason. Labor can strike and businessmen can fire the striking laborers. That’s a free market.

[elucidator]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
… Be interested in your actual thoughts on that question as it’s not rhetorical and is key to understanding where you are coming from on this…
[/QUOTE]

An entirely reasonable question, but I hesitate. Will I be conversing with the author of this reasonable question, or with this fellow…

…Of course your method of differing seems to rely less on blinding with brilliance and more on baffling with bullshit. Such is life…

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Renob]
Of course it is. I don’t think you’d find any advocate for the free market saying that workers should not be able to organize and bargain. A person’s labor is a very important part of the system.
[/QUOTE]

My point was that you will find opponents of the free market who forget that there is nothing “free market” about greedy capitalists beating up on helpless workers as the government authorities stand by and do nothing. Or worse, when it’s the government authorities (cops) actually doing the beatings.

[Ludovic]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
My point was that you will find opponents of the free market who forget that there is nothing “free market” about greedy capitalists beating up on helpless workers as the government authorities stand by and do nothing. Or worse, when it’s the government authorities (cops) actually doing the beatings.
[/QUOTE]
Well, all sides have to remember that, like Communism, Capitalism is a good idea but never implemented. The great “Laissez Faire” era of the 19th Century was rife with organized government and non governmental violence against labor organizers. (Not to mention giveaways for the railroads.)

So there is almost as little data pointing to the success of Total Capitalism as there is to the failure of Total Communism.

I think that in certain ways the computer industry is a good example of the success of Capitalism, since its growth has been explosive for 50 years with a relatively small amount of government interference for good or ill. The Internet being one huge exception, of course. (But would we even have the Internet without government research? There are some anti-government types that would even have research entirely in private hands.)

[Renob]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
My point was that you will find opponents of the free market who forget that there is nothing “free market” about greedy capitalists beating up on helpless workers as the government authorities stand by and do nothing. Or worse, when it’s the government authorities (cops) actually doing the beatings.
[/QUOTE]

I think you mean “proponents,” but I get your point. I’d actually appreciate a cite on this. I’ve read Friedman, Hayek, von Mises, Rand, and other proponents of free market capitalism and I have yet to find one who thinks it’s proper for businessmen to use the coercive powers of the state to oppress workers or their competition.

Also, keep in mind it is a legitimate use of police to remove trespassers from your private property. If an employer wants workers off his property and they refuse to go, then it’s proper to call in the police.

[Renob]

[QUOTE=Ludovic]
Well, all sides have to remember that, like Communism, Capitalism is a good idea but never implemented. The great “Laissez Faire” era of the 19th Century was rife with organized government and non governmental violence against labor organizers. (Not to mention giveaways for the railroads.)
[/quote]

It also needs to be kept in mind that free market policies aren’t an ideology like communism, either. Communism is a theory about the past and about how history is progressing. And it certainly isn’t a “good idea,” either in theory or practice.

I think a better comparison would be between socialism and free market capitalism. Neither is an ideology like communism or fascism. Instead, they are descriptions on how certain economies work.

And it’s pretty clear that free market policies produce higher standards of living than socialist policies.

[Ludovic]

Communism and capitalism are not only economies they are also ideologies. And I agree that in most things, a mostly capitalist setup will produce higher standards of living. It’s just not true across the board and for all situations.

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=Renob]
And it’s pretty clear that free market policies produce higher standards of living than socialist policies.
[/QUOTE]

The direction immigration goes is another big tell. How many people tried to move to the USSR compared to the ones trying to leave?

Has there ever been a communist nation that didn’t imprison its citizens?

[Renob]

[QUOTE=Ludovic]
Communism and capitalism are not only economies they are also ideologies.
[/quote]

Well, they are both a system of beliefs, but free market capitalism is not the type of historicist theory of the world like communism. Marx thought he knew the historical processes that shaped the past and predicted the future. It’s a much grander notion than the thought that people are better off if the government gives them maximum freedom to buy and sell as they like.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Renob]
I think you mean “proponents,” but I get your point. I’d actually appreciate a cite on this. I’ve read Friedman, Hayek, von Mises, Rand, and other proponents of free market capitalism and I have yet to find one who thinks it’s proper for businessmen to use the coercive powers of the state to oppress workers or their competition.
[/quote]

No, I meant opponents, but it can apply to some proponents as well.

[Renob]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
No, I meant opponents, but it can apply to some proponents as well.
[/QUOTE]

Right. Somehow I was interpreting your remarks as coming from the perspective of “free market = whatever businessmen want.” My apologies.

[Ludovic]

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
The direction immigration goes is another big tell. How many people tried to move to the USSR compared to the ones trying to leave?

Has there ever been a communist nation that didn’t imprison its citizens?
[/QUOTE]

In Russia, we are YOUR overlords!

[XT]

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
The direction immigration goes is another big tell. How many people tried to move to the USSR compared to the ones trying to leave?
[/QUOTE]

And really that is the bottom line. If your citizens are kicking and screaming to get out then you pretty much have a problem. Even today with Bush in command we have folks trying to get IN to the US.

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Has there ever been a communist nation that didn’t imprison its citizens?
[/QUOTE]

I suppose that you don’t have a big movement of folks clamoring to get out of China these days (or Vietnam)…but then, they have done what the Euro’s did, which is bolt on enough free market and Capitalist concepts to make it work. Kinda sorta.

-XT

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I suppose that you don’t have a big movement of folks clamoring to get out of China these days (or Vietnam)…
[/QUOTE]

Yes, you do. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if more people are trying to get out China because more people can get out. Used to be, only those with enough political connections could afford to get out. And Vietnam is still a basket case, economically. Brain Drain is a big problem in China right now.

China is not the only victim of this international form of brain-picking, but it tops the list. More than 70% of the Chinese students who go abroad to study don’t return home, according to the study. Of the 1.06 million Chinese who have traveled overseas to study since 1978, CASS found that only 275,000 have returned.

And despite torrid economic growth of nearly 10% for the past three decades, the problem does not seem to be getting any better. In 2005, 118,500 students left China for study abroad. By 2010, 200,000 are expected to enroll in foreign universities.