Communism and Socialism

[Duke]

Split off from the 'Church and State' thread...

Originally posted by infallible
I fail to see why communism, the government philosophy of everyone is equal, equal land owning of things etc etc, is a bad philosophy. The only reason it tanked, was because of the leaders and the human condition.

I don't mean to break this thread of Church and State, but I need to say a bit about this. Let's begin by defining communism, socialism, and all similar forms of society as collectivism.

The failure of collectivism is always blamed on the people who are forced or misled into following it. It is always said that humans are not 'good enough' to live up to this 'ideal'. This is a vicious lie, and the basis by which collectivists keep managing to dupe the world, time and again. The fault lies with the system itself, not with its victims.

The basic premise of collectivism is 'from each according to his ability; to each according to his need'. We're all taught from a young age that helping people who need it - charity - is defined as 'good'. We are all taught that is 'good' to give to others, and 'bad' to be selfish. Stealing from the rich is perfectly fine, so long as you are giving to the poor. What happens when this is instituionalized and made a way of life? Collectivism. Here's the part they don't want you to understand:

'From each according to his ability; to each according to his need'. These words set the standard of reward, and thus set the goal of those who must live under this system. Collectivism makes need into the only measure of a person's reward. It denies ability as the proper standard. Therefore, in order to be judged worthy of the largest reward, a person must have the largest need and the least ability to provide for it. The more need you have, the richer your reward. The more ability you have, the harsher your punishment, because you are on the From side of the equation, not the To side. This is a vicious circle that is doomed to failure. Why work if the rewarding is for needing, not creating? Under collectivism, you are chained to every other person on the planet, because they need you. Why struggle to drag them along, when you are punished for being able to do so, and they are rewarded for being harder to drag?

It is not the victims' fault for failing to live up to the ideal. The 'ideal' is purposely made an impossible standard and an unreachable goal. It is the system's fault for punishing what is truly ideal in humans and rewarding what is common and unworthy.

There is another example of true evil, and it is masquerading as the pinnacle of human goodness. No devil could ever hope to achieve as much.

 

[viperguy]

hold on i need the dictionary.

 

[viperguy]

uh...nevermind

 

[risingson77]

The basic problem with collectivism is that it assumes people are inherently good & selfless ( ) and will not mind working hard so their fellow man will have everything they do - regardless of their fellow man's contribution.

I'm not saying capitalism is perfect (far from it), but it does reward ambition rather than punish it.

 

[vat_man]

Given that I'm (well, according to the government, anyway - sure doesn't feel like it at the moment) affluent I like the current system.

I think these 'economic' systems (and that's what they are - at the end of the day these systems are about the allocation of resources for consumption) were founded on solid ideals (if not concepts), but ultimately have failed because of corruption at the higher levels, and when we're talking about managed or planned economies that is obviously disastrous. To place blame at the feet of the population living under these systems is both unfair and inaccurate.

That's not to say that the 'free market system' is without its fault - the astonishing gap between the rich and poor in the US is a great example, and the concentration of wealth into so few hands in so many 'market-based' economies shows that this allocation is not working on a fair basis - how on earth can you equate a CEO earning $20 million to a factory labourer earning $25000. Here in Sydney it's starting to get to the point that young people working in non-skilled jobs have no hope of ever buying a home - is that something we want in our economy? Another good example is the disaster befalling Wall Street at the moment, which whilst partly due to the prospect of war on Iraq, has much to do with the market being overinflated with poor reporting standards (Enron and Worldcom being prime examples). Again, it is corruption that has soured the deal, again not by those subject to the system, but by those 'running the show'.

 

[Talentless]

In a debate/discussion of this in a chat room, one guy was stating that he thought that, while the capitalist system may have its corruptions, it is at least open about them and confronts them. I think he said something to that effect?

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by risingson77
The basic problem with collectivism is that it assumes people are inherently good & selfless

THERE - right there - is exactly what I'm getting at.

Why do you equate the terms good and selfless? Why is not good equated with personal, self-fulfilled ambition and success? What is wrong with (to borrow a phrase) with rational self-interest?

Collectivism does not assume that people are good - that's irrelevant to the system - because Collectivism requires people to be selfless by denying their right to own what they have produced.

Vat_man: while I will not deny that there is room for abuse and misapplication of the free market system, you seem to be implying that there is something inherently wrong with inequity between the top and bottom levels of the scale.

A laborer in a factory earns his $25,000 because the motion of his muscles assembles that value of goods. But an industrial leader - a real one, the driving force behind a company and a product - earns his $25mil by creating the wealth to pay for 1000 laborer's jobs, as well as his own.

This is why I never understood when people say that employers exploit their employees. I fail to understand how offering somebody a job - even at a low wage - is worse than not offering them a job at all. Workers are free to earn as much as they can create. If they cannot create much wealth, they cannot earn much wealth.

 

[Talentless]

Duke, do you dream of Russian philosophers and sugar plum fairies dancing through your head?

 

[Klostrophobic]

Hell no. Capitalism all the way.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by vat_man

I think these 'economic' systems (and that's what they are - at the end of the day these systems are about the allocation of resources for consumption) .

Finally! Sense! No one understands this. I try to explain it to them, but they laugh.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by M5Power
Finally! Sense! No one understands this. I try to explain it to them, but they laugh.

Well, I don't understand what you mean.

Are you saying that economics is nothing more than the distribution of wealth, for the purpose of consumption?

If so, who produces the wealth?!

 

[risingson77]

Ah, I see what you're saying, Duke: the idea that you are a bad person if you want to keep what you earn. I agree with you, but I didn't realize that I had actually inferred the opposite in my statement.

Damned Commie brainwashers. :smilewink

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by neon_duke

Well, I don't understand what you mean.

Are you saying that economics is nothing more than the distribution of wealth, for the purpose of consumption?

If so, who produces the wealth?!

Yes. Consumption for the purpose of production is simply another form of consumption - it has its own priority along with other consumption needs.

Actually, economics is nothing more than a numeric form of social science, describing resource allocation, production and consumption behaviours.

I was unfortunate enough to inflict a degree in this discipline on myself.

 

[Klostrophobic]

Everyone collectively produces the wealth.

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Vat_man: while I will not deny that there is room for abuse and misapplication of the free market system, you seem to be implying that there is something inherently wrong with inequity between the top and bottom levels of the scale.

It was the level of inequity that I was drawing attention to.

Food and shelter are the two most basic human requirements - if the resource allocation system is such that anyone who works within that system can not get these requirements, then there is something very wrong with that system.

An example was Silicon Valley in the years leading up to the tech crash. They were having difficulty getting teachers, because teachers could not afford to rent anywhere near the area. Families were living in charity shelters, even though the head of the household was on a six figure salary, because they could not obtain housing - does that sound like a system that allocates resources fairly?

 

[risingson77]

Something like that is happening here in Maine. Rich folk are buying property along the coast and driving property taxes through the roof. As a consequence, many of the poorer families (fishermen, mostly) are being forced out of the area.

There is legislation in the works to prevent this happening. I don't remember the details, but the tax law is being changed to make it more equitable for the poorer residents.

 

[Talentless]

No doubt that some social assistance makes sense, but going over board makes no sense. Rarely do absolutes work out.

 

[vat_man]

Indeed - the devil, as always, is in the details, hence the reason the more prominent economies do feature a degree of government intervention.

One of the bigger concerns for me is the globalisation thing - I understand the benefits, but the cynic in me just sees menial unskilled tasks being shifted from high labour cost countries (like the US, Germany) to ultra-low cost countries (such as India, Vietnam and the like). I understand the cost-competitiveness motive, but this does to me seem to promote a disenfranchisement of those whose jobs are 'exported' - so you get high levels of unemployment with unskilled people, with the accompanying problems of high crime. It's all very well saying 'well, they should get skills', but that is a very long term solution to a matter that gives rise to issues that need to be dealt with now (like poverty and crime).

The other concern there is that not only are the jobs exported, but the pollution accompanying the production processes are exported, often to countries where pollution controls are 'lax'.

I don't pretend to have solutions to these issues - I'm just voicing them.

 

[rjensen11]

Isn't it true that the whole communism idea started with the story of Utopia? The perfect land? The perfect land which is nowhere? It was thought up in the 1400's-1500's. Sorry, I'm too lazy to dig out my AP Euro notes and find out the year it was made and who wrote it. I think it was Thomas something, he was a English dude...

 

[vat_man]

Thomas More. The book's actually on-line here:

http://www.d-holliday.com/tmore/utopia.htm

 

[Pako]

In concept in can work, in practice it has proven to work AND fail. Take Native American Indian tribes. Before western civilization became such an influence, they had this working for them. It worked because the efforts were for the good of the tribe, the good of the entire family. Once greed and jelously creeps into the minds of the "individual", the efforts and the success of the system fails.

( I believe I just wrote an entire thesis in one paragraph )

 

[infallible]

This is the first time I've seen this thread, and to my amazement I've inspired it.

I may be completely wrong, but personally Communism should work and it should be one of the best forms of government or you guys called it an economical system, what have you. It should be great. I'm not saying it would be as well off as capitalism, maybe in different areas it would, but I'm sure it would also lack in other areas.

Anyway here we go, Neon has explained it as collectivism, and he then said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Alright. If this philosophy would be initiated and be kept for some time, then you would have created a big group of equal people right? I mean, if you have person A that works, and his benefits go to Person B. Then Person B, would work, and his benefits would go to the Person A. I think that if communism, which proved it's worth shortly before its downfall, would have kept working then person a and b would be in this situation.

That situation is a very dangerous one for humans. Because, we do not like to add work to our day. Everyone wants a shorter day. So when the commy govern set up the quotas for factories to meet, the workers would work until their quota was met, and then would stop regardless of what time it was. If they would have kept working, shown what the factories were capable of, then the governement would have raised the quotas. Thus providing surplus of whatever the factory was producing. For an example, lets say that the factory was a car shop. They made cars, well the government figures that only people that need to commute over far distances need cars, so they set the quota. The quota is smaller then what the factory can do, but the factory mass produces from open to close, then tells the govern how many they can make. The government would then be able to give cars to people that travel shorter distances. Thus, giving almost everyone a car. Not to mention that this would increase the need for more oil. Creating more jobs. Increasing the economy. See the trend?

But no, the factory workers in real life only met their quotas and went home. When people are in equalibrium they tend to want to stay there, they don't have the intiative to step it up. They can't say, "Hey let's put standards higher to increase conviences in our lifes". And that's why I said the bit about the human condition, because it is what I thought and think until someone tells me different, was the downfall of communism and collectivism.

I just read that over and I'm sure you guys are going to have some questions so go ahead and ask.

 

[Duke]

Infallible: I don't really have time to rebut what you're saying here, although I heartily disagree with it.

On a more important topic, at the moment: In the middle of the Church & State thread, you asked me to describe my life as an atheist, which I did. Please take a few minutes to find that post , read it, and reply if you would.

I'm extremely interested in a number of common misperceptions about who and what atheists are, and I'd like your thoughts on the subject.

Thanks.

 

[Klostrophobic]

How could communism work? Who determines what everyone needs? Besides having someone tell me what I need and what i don't need, I'm not that keen on sharing everything equally. I'd like to see everyone given a fair shot, but someone who performs brain surgery should be entitiled to more than a garbage collector. But with marxism, everyone has the same amount of wealth.

 

[Carl.]

Taken to the extreme, I think both communism and capitalism are flawed. I agree with Klos on the fact that not every professions are equally demanding and should be rewarded accordingly, but how on earth should a teacher or a nurse should earn 50 times less than a professionnal sport player, while struggling to keep up with basic needs for their family?

Look at JK Rowling for example, she writes books that a lot of people read, good for her... now tell me, does she really deserve and need the one billion dollars she made out of it? There has to be a common sense keeping the gap beetween two poles of the food chain from being too far away. Over time, the ones that are at the top are getting bigger and bigger, in a better position to defend their interests... how far will it go before it crashes?

sorry for crappy english btw...

 

[Klostrophobic]

Originally posted by jpmontoya
Taken to the extreme, I think both communism and capitalism are flawed. I agree with Klos on the fact that not every professions are equally demanding and should be rewarded accordingly, but how on earth should a teacher or a nurse should earn 50 times less than a professionnal sport player, while struggling to keep up with basic needs for their family?

Look at JK Rowling for example, she writes books that a lot of people read, good for her... now tell me, does she really deserve and need the one billion dollars she made out of it? There has to be a common sense keeping the gap beetween two poles of the food chain from being too far away. Over time, the ones that are at the top are getting bigger and bigger, in a better position to defend their interests... how far will it go before it crashes?

sorry for crappy english btw...

If a teacher or nurse doesn't make enough money, maybe he picked the wrong profession. Teachers only work 180-190 days out of the year anyway. The average full-time worker goes to work an extra 70-80 days per year. I hate the argument that teachers aren't paid enough. I hate the argument that anyone isn't paid enough, actually. It's your own god damned fault if you don't make enough money to support yourself.

Yes, JK Rowling deserves the money she has. She earned it. If she didn't deserve it, she wouldn't have it. It's a very simple concept. I don't have billions of dollars because I haven't done anything to warrant it. She has.

There is no need to force a closure of the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots." If you have something, you deserve it. If you're at the top, you did something right. If you're at the bottom, you either don't want to be at the top, or you didn't do something right.

I don't understand the point of view of some people who want to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. You want to punish the very people who make the world great by chopping them down, while you want to reward the people at the bottom who, by comparison, haven't done anything worthwhile for society? If it weren't for the rich, you wouldn't be able to search the internet, if it weren't for the rich, you wouldn't have a car. If it weren't for the rich, you would be missing a great deal of the inventions you use every single day.

In a communist society, what would motivate Thomas Edison to invent anything?

If you want to get to the top, you can. If you want to stay at the bottom, you can. No one determines where you go but you.

 

[Carl.]

Originally posted by Klostrophobic
If a teacher or nurse doesn't make enough money, maybe he picked the wrong profession. Teachers only work 180-190 days out of the year anyway. The average full-time worker goes to work an extra 70-80 days per year. I hate the argument that teachers aren't paid enough. I hate the argument that anyone isn't paid enough, actually. It's your own god damned fault if you don't make enough money to support yourself.

I know teachers that work their asses way more than the average 35-40 hours a week, so I Think the days off are well deserved in this case...(about 50 days difference here), and some begin to work with a 10-20 grand debt that they have to pay with a poor income. I'd like to see Tiger Woods explaining to a teacher: "hey, bad choice, should have trained more at putting a ball in a hole..."

I was lucky and choose a profession that I enjoy and which pays enough, but many useful jobs requiring at least 5 years of college and university are way undepaid while other gets tons of money just for being entertainment for the mass.

Yes, if you're at the top, that's - I hope - because you did something right. From there you'll probably want to go for more and more... you'll also have a lot of advantages, for example an army of fiscalist to help you paying almost no income tax, have a nanny for your childs, premium medical services. Once the first million is earned, everything gets much easier... while the other have to struggle.

There will always be people at the top and at the bottom, but do we really want to cut the middle class? ...end up with a small elite having 95% of the global wealth? I think we're just heading that way.

I'm not for communism either, just think there should be something inbetween.

 

[Danoff]

Actually, I believe it is the critics of those collectivist philosophies whom most often cite that people cannot live up to the ideals in the systems, though that claim may have originated with the systems advocates.

It’s not so much about people not living up to the ideals, it’s that people aren’t made in a manner consistent with the image. I don’t think it’s people who are flawed. Some of our best attributes are our competitive nature. Communism is designed for beings with no emotions, no sense of competition, worker drones who all produce the same and don’t care about fairness. I don’t think that means that humans can’t live up to communism, I think it means communism doesn’t live up to humans.

Another good example is the disaster befalling Wall Street at the moment, which whilst partly due to the prospect of war on Iraq, has much to do with the market being overinflated with poor reporting standards (Enron and Worldcom being prime examples). Again, it is corruption that has soured the deal, again not by those subject to the system, but by those 'running the show'.

Wall Street is totally voluntary. If you invest you know damn well that you could lose everything in stock. You don’t have to play with stocks to make money and you can’t complain if Wall Street tanks. It’s a strange place where people make some strange decisions. If you’re careful, it can be good, but most people aren’t careful. Anyway this has no bearing on the conversation.

Yes. Consumption for the purpose of production is simply another form of consumption - it has its own priority along with other consumption needs.

Actually, economics is nothing more than a numeric form of social science, describing resource allocation, production and consumption behaviours.

Consumption for the purpose of production… how about production for the purpose of consumption? Wealth must be produced before it is consumed, not the other way around. Resource allocation should be directly linked with production.

Everyone collectively produces the wealth.

Nope! I can think of a few people who produce no wealth and some who produce waaaay more than I do. Some people produce wealth individually and some produce none.

Food and shelter are the two most basic human requirements - if the resource allocation system is such that anyone who works within that system can not get these requirements, then there is something very wrong with that system.

Nope. I’ve known highschoolers who take 10 hour a week jobs who can’t, shouldn’t and don’t need to provide for their basic human needs. It’s not required of the economic system.

An example was Silicon Valley in the years leading up to the tech crash. They were having difficulty getting teachers, because teachers could not afford to rent anywhere near the area. Families were living in charity shelters, even though the head of the household was on a six figure salary, because they could not obtain housing - does that sound like a system that allocates resources fairly?

Sure. It could be. It depends on where they want to live. I want to live in Bel Air but I can’t afford it. So I don’t.

In concept in can work, in practice it has proven to work AND fail. Take Native American Indian tribes. Before western civilization became such an influence, they had this working for them. It worked because the efforts were for the good of the tribe, the good of the entire family. Once greed and jelously creeps into the minds of the "individual", the efforts and the success of the system fails.

In concept it cannot work with people. It goes against our basic fundamental traits. Greed is good. It is what has kept us alive all these years. Jealousy is a form of greed. The concept of the “individual” arises from our physical environment. Western civilization is not to blame, I would say evolution is to blame but evolution has done nothing wrong. Communism just doesn’t make sense for human beings.

professions are equally demanding and should be rewarded accordingly, but how on earth should a teacher or a nurse should earn 50 times less than a professionnal sport player, while struggling to keep up with basic needs for their family?

Simple, a teacher or nurse provides services to 50,000 times fewer people than professional sports players.

 

[Duke]

Under capitalism, salaries are a direct reflection of the value placed on that job by society.

Entertainment (be it sports, music, or movies) is far more valued by society than education is. If there is a flaw, that's where it lies, not within the system that determines salaries.

 

[Danoff]

Simple, a teacher or nurse provides services to 50,000 times fewer people than professional sports players.

I realized that, although this is correct, I should have said it differently.

Professional sports players produce 50,000 times more wealth for their managing companies than do teachers or nurses.