A Moral Indictment of Communism

Note: I did not know whether to post this in politics or ethics. I chose politics in hopes it would get more response than from the Ethics section.

The essence of Communism is encapsulated in the statement: From each according to its abilities, to each according to his needs.

This statement is immoral.

For according to this statement, a man who produces might have the fruits of his labour taken from him, whereas a man with needs may have, without qualification, be given all things. Thus it is only rational for all men to have needs and none to produce, or if they must produce, to do so at the bare minimum, so that he might gain the maximum need to production ratio.

Why is this evil?

It isn't. It is double-evil, an ethical concept I have created in order to speak of events which not only are immoral themselves, but make morality impossible. Communism is at its core double-evil.

The first quality of Communism's evil - the evil itself and not the making evil the only possible option - is found in the fact that by placing need above merit, we rob from those who have produced to give those who refused to produce and therefore harm the producer. This is inevitably a harm to the producer on the simple foundation that his effort exceeded the effort of the non-productive but with no greater benefit. Thus if we say that if the produer and the non-producer start at 0 points and the producer spends 2000 points to gain 1000 points, and the non-producer spends 0 points to gain 1000 points, that the producer is left with a deficit of 1000 points, whereas the non-producer has a surplus of 1000.

The second quality of Communism's evil and what makes it the loathesome "double evil", is that owing to the harm that the producer suffers, the idea of production becomes impossible. Eventually, the deficit of benefit will get so much as to destroy any who produces, whereas the mooching non-producers will forever benefit. Thus to become a victimizer of the producers is the only result aside from death which can come about, and therefore the very idea of production is destroyed as a viable choice.

The above is an -inevitable consequence- of any system which places need over merit. Any system. That Communism in practice has not always worked on this principle purely proves nothing, for it is still based on it. So long as those who do not produce are given a foundational benefit for not producing, there is -no reason- to produce. And if we accept that the producers deserve something, then we automatically refute the principle in the infamous statement listed above.

A moral system, however, can arise from a reversal of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", and indeed, can come about by the same words! The only difference is their placement. Let us then change the statement to read "to each according to his abilities, from each according to his needs". Placing then merit above need, we allow all needs to be met by those who merit it, and all merit to be given according to it, which produces a system where not only is production the only means of survival, but that the producers are given every incentive to produce. Thus we have a double-good in direct contradiction to the double-evil of Communism.

In what systems does this double-good arise?

The natural order (where all things have a price of energy and non-producers quite litterally die), Capitalism, and meritocracy.

Your presentation of communist principles is nothing more than a grotesque caricature. Read up on it more, then try again.

Then present to me a counter to my argument that this is Communism. Tell us what Communism is, how it is moral, and all other pertinent information. Also show how this is not a superior system to Communism, if you might.

redarmy11, do you have any defense of communism other than to tell someone to look at it again, I think Prince_James hit it right on the head with his assessment, and you don't have to look twice to see that it is a immoral system.

I wish I had time, James. Just one clue as to where you're going so horribly wrong, though: do those with needs not have abilities also?

The image you present of a system where the hard-working masses are milked of all their worldly goods by a gang of lazy fat-cats is more representative of... go on, guess. No clues necessary on that, I feel.

Define communism first.

capitalism is evil.
blabla

Communism is only evil if imposed on a society. In small groups, participating voluntarily, I think it could work. But then again, it was concieved with industry and large populations in mind.

What if it isn't imposed?

I don't think that is possible. Hence the USSR's need for secret police and gulags.

The USSR didn't need them. Stalin did.

The USA doesn't need secret prisons either.

A Moral Indictment of Capatalism

Richard Branson has his own Island, what the fu*k does he need an Island for?

Dude, everyone needs an island.

Communism is only evil if imposed on a society. In small groups, participating voluntarily, I think it could work. But then again, it was concieved with industry and large populations in mind.

Familial groups operate communistically.

How are people who manage money actually producers? They just move money around to make more money. They don't produce anything, not like a manufacturer produces something.

redarmy11:

"I wish I had time, James. Just one clue as to where you're going so horribly wrong, though: do those with needs not have abilities also?"

They can, but if they have abilities, they will only be robbed of the fruit of their abilities and will seek, inevitably, the lowest optimal ratio of production to needs, never more, and if they can, always less production.

"The image you present of a system where the hard-working masses are milked of all their worldly goods by a gang of lazy fat-cats is more representative of... go on, guess. No clues necessary on that, I feel. "

Actually, the "fat cats" of Capitalism do many splendid things that the masses could not do and if the masses feel exploited, they can choose not to work or to form unions.

Roman:

"Familial groups operate communistically. "

Actually, they operate reciprocally. In ages past, it was also expected that the parents would be "paid back" by filial service. Note the Japanese custom of the wife of the son taking care of the mother in law.

"How are people who manage money actually producers? They just move money around to make more money. They don't produce anything, not like a manufacturer produces something. "

Moving money around is a service that is necessary to the economy, they are thus part of the productive process. One needn't be an actual maker of things in order to be "a producer". A lawyer makes nothing, but produces a service.

Actually, they operate reciprocally. In ages past, it was also expected that the parents would be "paid back" by filial service. Note the Japanese custom of the wife of the son taking care of the mother in law.

Families operate communally. When grandpa gets too old to work, they keep him around and feed and clothe and clean him. In return, he contributes what he can– knowledge and childcare services. To grandpa what he needs, from grandpa what he can give.

Moving money around is a service that is necessary to the economy, they are thus part of the productive process. One needn't be an actual maker of things in order to be "a producer". A lawyer makes nothing, but produces a service.

But they aren't actually doing anything. There's no production. They aren't making anything. They are effectively sitting around and taking 1000 dollars, have workers produce another 1000 dollars of goods, then keep 900 of those dollars produced.

Roman:

"Families operate communally. When grandpa gets too old to work, they keep him around and feed and clothe and clean him. In return, he contributes what he can– knowledge and childcare services. To grandpa what he needs, from grandpa what he can give."

Knowlege and childcare services are harldy "from each according to his needs, to each according to his abilities" but a trade like any other capitalistic system. If he could provide nothing whatsoever, people might afford him the charity of old age owing to past debts of care and that is all.

"But they aren't actually doing anything. There's no production. They aren't making anything. They are effectively sitting around and taking 1000 dollars, have workers produce another 1000 dollars of goods, then keep 900 of those dollars produced. "

These people would not exist if they were not remarkably valuable to the companies in question and which were not an indispensible part of said company. That they are paid for their service and are not told to take a hike or have their pay cut, proves as much.

Knowlege and childcare services are harldy "from each according to his needs, to each according to his abilities" but a trade like any other capitalistic system. If he could provide nothing whatsoever, people might afford him the charity of old age owing to past debts of care and that is all.

It's not a trade. It's not a stranger trading for a stranger. It's obligation. Or would the more moral thing be to turn grandpa out on his gimpy old ass?

What I'm saying is, neither party is contracted to take care of the other. There's no contract "you babysit X hours, we give you Y calories." Both parties contribute what they can and take what they need.
Functioning families aren't capitalist endeavours. Broken homes tend to be, though.

Roman:

"It's not a trade. It's not a stranger trading for a stranger. It's obligation. Or would the more moral thing be to turn grandpa out on his gimpy old ass?"

Even moral obligation can be a trade. The entire reason it is morally supported originally is likely because of this trade explicitly. Older people don't get away with doing nothing, but add what they can to a great deal, and what they offer can be of -intense- value.

"What I'm saying is, neither party is contracted to take care of the other. There's no contract "you babysit X hours, we give you Y calories." Both parties contribute what they can and take what they need."

It is not an explicit contract, no. But the foundation is reciprocity. Barring that, families don't exist.

Have you ever read "The Good Earth", Roman?

Well done, Toady James! You've just distorted a very simple concept.

The USSR didn't need them. Stalin did.

Lenin did, too, apparently...

Too bad Fanny Kaplan didn't get another round or 2 off !

;)

I would here by Re-define Communism..: ready?... ok....

Communism:
(1) "Pertaining to those who choose to, of their own accord,
form commune's.. designed for mutual support and security, and activily pursues the efforts to eleviate all suffering, as such are the directives of Love."

(2) "A point of view, or political opinion which dictates that is it better for
people to live and work together, organised as one big family, who shares and cares, rather than trades and profits off each other."

(3) A phylosophy which dictates : "We need not force the wealthy to become poor to help the poor... We need only organise the poor together in love, sharing and compassion, such that with large numbers and continued effort, there shall be no need for poverty any more, I.e... the reason people are poor and homeless, is because no one fucking cares about them, and of all people, the Communist does."

(4) Commune-ism is clearly founded in the ideals of forming Communes for mutual benefit, and in the establishment of, in this way, socialist pockets of paradise, and which functions to eliviate the suffering and drawback of the free/ fair markets world.

(5) An ideal wherein people organise themselves for love, security, and long
term survivability. Such as, the basic Tribe mentality.

(6) An ideal that just so happens to be the way Jesus said to live, as well as
many other world religions in many different ways.

-MT

I've said it before, I'll say it again. How the fuck can anyone still seriously believe in communism? The last century was essentially a case controlled study of communism v/s capitalism. Take a country, cut it in half. Make one half capitalist. Make the other half communist. In which half are the people better off? Which half must built walls to keep the people in? Which half found that a simple wall was insufficient and had to add armed guards ordered to shoot to kill? In which half did the people live in absolute poverty while the enviroment was raped? In which half were millions murdered by sociopathic dictatorships?

This experiment was carried out in numerous countries all over the globe with the exact same results every time.

Give it up. Communism is a complete failure responsible for immense human suffering and death. Communism is, therefore, evil.

(4) Commune-ism is clearly founded in the ideals of forming Communes for mutual benefit, and in the establishment of, in this way, socialist pockets of paradise, and which functions to eliviate the suffering and drawback of the free/ fair markets world.-MT
If we're talking about communism in it's classic form as Marx envisaged it, this is wrong - or, at least, this is communism only in its earliest incarnation. Fully-fledged communism was always intended to be international in character. The organisers of the Russian revolution believed that theirs would be only the first in a series of worldwide revolutions, leading to the abolition of capitalism and its contingent classes, the establishment of a worldwide communist regime, the end of economic conflict, and the end of history. The fact that these other revolutions never materialised (although several other countries, most notably Germany and Hungary, saw unsuccessful attempts to instigate them) means that communism in its classic form never materialised either. The economic systems that developed in Russia and elsewhere are bastardised forms of the original idea.

From Wiki:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state

Communist states do not use the term "communist state" to describe themselves. Within Marxist theory, world communism is the final phase of history at which time the state would have withered away; therefore, the notion of a communist state is an oxymoron. Current states are either in the capitalist or socialist phase of history, and the role of the Communist Party is to pull a nation toward the communist phase of history.

Furthermore, many Marxists and Marxist-Leninists argue that most communist states do not actually adhere to Marxism-Leninism but rather to a perversion of it that is heavily influenced by Stalinism. This critique of communist states is particularly strong among social democrats and some critical theorists who hold that Marxism is correct as a social and historical theory, but that it can be implemented within a multiparty democracy. In addition, Trotskyists argue that the bureaucratic and repressive nature of communist states differs from Vladimir Lenin's vision of the socialist state.

i HAVE RE-DEFINED COMMUNISM.....

-MT

Mosheh Thezion:

Which statement do you find morally superior to the other?

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

"To each according to his abilities, from each according to his needs."

in your initial post you stated that the fruits of labour would be taken from the workers and given to those who refused to work. that is incorrect. they would be divided up among the workers and those who UNABLE to work, so that each has enough to get by on. those who refuse to work are lazy capitalist scum.

The essence of Communism is encapsulated in the statement: From each according to its abilities, to each according to his needs.
[....]
...According to this statement, a man who produces might have the fruits of his labour taken from him, whereas a man with needs may have, without qualification, be given all things. Thus it is only rational for all men to have needs and none to produce, or if they must produce, to do so at the bare minimum, so that he might gain the maximum need to production ratio.

You say it is evil as if it only occurs in communist societies and nowhere else. Parents give fruits of their labor to their children and their parents; they also give to charity; and they pay taxes. Taxes get re-distributed for various societal needs, including the army, the poor, other elderly, etc. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It'd be far more wrong if everyone worked only for himself, never caring for other members of his community, never giving anyone a chance.

The above is an -inevitable consequence- of any system which places need over merit. Any system. That Communism in practice has not always worked on this principle purely proves nothing, for it is still based on it. So long as those who do not produce are given a foundational benefit for not producing, there is -no reason- to produce. And if we accept that the producers deserve something, then we automatically refute the principle in the infamous statement listed above.

In Soviet Union, everyone was forced to go to school and work, even drunkards and children of drunkards. That was very good.

You cannot consider ideology apart from the way it is enforced. What you did was take a tiny statement out of a large theory and consider it out of its context.

A moral system, however, can arise from a reversal of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", and indeed, can come about by the same words! The only difference is their placement. Let us then change the statement to read "to each according to his abilities, from each according to his needs". Placing then merit above need, we allow all needs to be met by those who merit it, and all merit to be given according to it, which produces a system where not only is production the only means of survival, but that the producers are given every incentive to produce.

What you set up here is greed, arrogance, and workaholism. But, yet again, it all depends on the way the enactment of this ideology is set up.



Shortly, you have in no way identified any evil or good and you still have not come up with a perfect way for a society to function. :p

Mosheh Thezion:

Which statement do you find morally superior to the other?

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

"To each according to his abilities, from each according to his needs."

IT become a question of how you define NEEDS.

there is a big difference between.. needs... and wants...


i dont think this is a moral issue...
its a political / economic issue.


from each according to his abilities..... is simply reality.
each of us.. does what we are able...

to each according to his needs.... is how it should be.
but needs must be clearly defined.



"To each according to his abilities, from each according to his needs."

doesnt make any sense.... you cant give based on abilities... and take based on needs.... although... in a sense.. this line almost properly describes capatilism.

ie... each gets what he is able....
and society... takes from each... the maximum.. to the limits of that persons needs....

but that doesnt happen either... in capitalism.. they take it all.


-MT

I'll try to be brief, because it's been a while since I've seen someone as daring as you to take a stab at the heart of communist ideology. Thus I laud your guts. But it comes a little late - I've decided on a verdict on communism for 5 years already and since then I have not seen any argument which has overthrown my reasoning.

Which means: I've seen many of these arguments before, many of which had greater detail and tightly knotted places to seal loose ends of their arguments.

by placing need above merit, we rob from those who have produced to give those who refused to produce and therefore harm the producer.

The principal essence in this statement is where the feeling of being robbed comes from. Where? Logically, it's traced to the sentiment of the producers themselves, not by some holy arbiter as the sentence narratively suggests. Thus by appealling to those who are apparently "greedy" (the nature and origin of which, in turn, can be debated separately), the sentence fails to be objective.

The jurisdiction is really up to the producer. Everybody has the potential to do something purely from intellectual or social motivation - such as editing Wikipedia articles.

Communism makes a good samaritan, and an optimist.

Whitewolf:

"Parents give fruits of their labor to their children and their parents; they also give to charity; and they pay taxes."

The parents find the presence of the children an incentive to support them, as well as in most societies the idea has historically that the children will, in turn, reemburse the parents through labour and take care of them in old age. Though I am loathe to reduce the bonds of familiar love to a mere business arrangement, it is very similar to an investment.

Charities are, however, I'd argue a waste of time if they do not expect the people to, in return for being given charity, work and provide for themselves and provide back to the charity in proportion to what they received. Excluding this, the system is very much immoral, as it engrains laziness in the populace.

Taxes are the price of living in a society and needing certain communal services. A society could not properly work without a court system, nor a military.

"Taxes get re-distributed for various societal needs, including the army, the poor, other elderly, etc."

Giving taxes to other citizens specifically is a form of ludicrous social redestribution that, in so much as it robs the productive of their wealth and work, is immoral.

"It'd be far more wrong if everyone worked only for himself, never caring for other members of his community, never giving anyone a chance."

Upon what foundation should their value rest upon?

"In Soviet Union, everyone was forced to go to school and work, even drunkards and children of drunkards. That was very good. "

Forced to go to school and work for a society that was orchestrating its own collapse.

"You cannot consider ideology apart from the way it is enforced. What you did was take a tiny statement out of a large theory and consider it out of its context."

Of course one can! An idealogy's principle statement of belief and foundation is the distilled essence of that system. All other developments branch off from it. It is the stem from whence the petals emerge.

"What you set up here is greed, arrogance, and workaholism. But, yet again, it all depends on the way the enactment of this ideology is set up."

Greed? What is bad about wanting and getting? Arrogance? How is it arrogant to affirm that one should merit what one gains and gain what one merits? And I do not suggest we should work till death. I suggest we should simply work to get what we need.

Mosheh Thezion:

"from each according to his abilities..... is simply reality.
each of us.. does what we are able... "

And we should thus have our labours robbed?

"to each according to his needs.... is how it should be.
but needs must be clearly defined."

Why should anyone's needs be met?

"doesnt make any sense.... you cant give based on abilities... and take based on needs.... although... in a sense.. this line almost properly describes capatilism."

Of course you can. YOu can give to people a deserving share for their merit - to each according to his abilities - and take from people to satisfy the cost of their needs - from each according to his needs. Indeed, such is the only way that a just and moral system can develop, lest you fall into the ethical dilemma of the "double evil" of Communism.

"but that doesnt happen either... in capitalism.. they take it all."

Evidently not, as capitalist societies are the richest, most prosperous in the world, with the least amount of poor and greatest amount of rich. On the other hand, Communist countries are dystopias of profound grief.

Facial:

"I'll try to be brief, because it's been a while since I've seen someone as daring as you to take a stab at the heart of communist ideology. Thus I laud your guts."

My thanks! I look forward to replying to the rest of your response.

"Which means: I've seen many of these arguments before, many of which had greater detail and tightly knotted places to seal loose ends of their arguments."

Understood. Hopefully, though, we shall have a fruitful discussion nonetheless.

"The principal essence in this statement is where the feeling of being robbed comes from. Where? Logically, it's traced to the sentiment of the producers themselves, not by some holy arbiter as the sentence narratively suggests. Thus by appealling to those who are apparently "greedy" (the nature and origin of which, in turn, can be debated separately), the sentence fails to be objective."

I would disagree. For even if we assume the person is altruistic to an extreme and self-debasing level, we can rightfully say that his altruism is harmful in a very real sense. For as shown later in the argument, the system is untenable. For every "round of redistribution", the mooching populace will benefit whilst the productive elements shall not and in fact, shall constantly loose. Similarly, the very idea of production becomes onerous to all, because it is shown as a path of annihilation even to the simpleton. It does not take much to recognize the fact that the producers are the least likely to benefit from their actions, whereas those who do the bare minimum, or nothing at all, gain the lion's share. It is tantamount to giving the gold metal to the person who never broke from the finish line.

In essence: One need not begin with the idea that "greed is good", merely show that if one places "need above merit" one inevitably produces conditions that rob and kill the productive off, whereas the moochers benefit and increase. Similarly, one need only demonstrate that the opposite is good by virtue of what it produces, namely, a system which both encourages and makes viable production and requires none to be robbed.

"The jurisdiction is really up to the producer. Everybody has the potential to do something purely from intellectual or social motivation - such as editing Wikipedia articles."

Technically something like Wikipedia is not an example of the above. For whereas technically moochers do get more than workers, those who work are compensated through the increased quality of Wikipedia and its continued accessibility in a high enough proportion to pay them back for their suffering. Though actually, I do believe that it would be better if Wikipedia demanded a certain degree of effort out of all users. But considering the system is working fine right now, it is okay to keep it as is.

Similarly, there is a certain difference in a strikingly limited system such as Wikipedia compared to the whole of society, specifically when one's daily bread and livelyhood are to be concerned, as well as the system losing the patronage of the majority of its most able and proficient.

Now if you might, do you have any specific objection to the alternative presented here? For I would rather like your critique of that system, as you apparently support that which is critiqued which would imply a hostility to the proposed alternative.

the essence.... of capitalism.... is the market.

and prices are set..... by the market..

i.e.. prices will go as high as is possible to stay in buisness.

rent is pushed to the max people can stand.

food is raised to the maximum people can stand.

in essense... they take it all.


people... the working class... are hard pressed to save any money.


and what you call.... wealthy and successful happy people... are in reality... all indebted up to their eyeballs....

and any economic fluctuations results in multitutdes not being able to make their payments.... and then they loose it all.


right now. in the usa.... foreclosures are going on left and right.
its now a buyers market....


because so many people got loans... loans which they could afford.... but any change in interest rates or other buisness factors results in that TAKING..... TO EXCEED what people can pay...

thus bankruptcy.


people in the usa... may have alot of stuff.

but they also loose that stuff alot... which then benefits smart shoppers.


its easy to say we in the usa are rich.

but we are also heartless pieces of shit.

1 out of every 100 people... lives in the streets... in the USA.

do you know a hundred people?

one of them.. will likely end up in the cold streets.

-MT

Mosheh Thezion:

The market also assures that any price on the market shall be just. There is no way a company can charge more than what people are willing to pay for an item, lest it does not sell at all.

That one in one-hundred people might find themselves on the street one day is a pity, yes. But really, it also reflects the fact that most of our homeless are mentally deranged, criminals, or disabled in one way or another. Very rarely do you have a normal person fall victim to living on the street. There are also many charities and churches to satisfy their needs.

REMMBER MY WORDS.... MOST PEOPLE.. are pieces of shit.

as you have clearly SHOWN....


you can rationalise suffering all you like. but it just makes you stink alittle more.

-MT

(in california.... 50 bilion... BILLION... is raised by charities in california alone......... alone. (not including churches)

and yet in california... there are 370,000 homeless people, and the number only grows....

dont you think that with 50 billion dollars they could solve it?

but.. they dont... why??? you know why. )
(also in california... there are 33,000 churches... and 370,000 homeless...
thats only 11 people per church......

do they try and help???? no... they have investments to worry about.)
(and the preacher... needs to water his lawn.)

It would seem that charities in California, as well as churches, are extremely ineffective. Either that or the homeless are not petitioning them for aid.

IN EFFECTIVE.... is a mild term.

how to you propose that the homeless petition for aid???


come on... be serious.


greed is the basis of capitalism...... and it doesnt make room for love.


i have started a new organization, dedicated to solving this problem.....


i could use help from people like you,,,, do you have the balls???

http://theempiricalchurch.blogspot.com/


-MT

Mosheh Thezion:

The homeless ought to go to the churches and charities and ask for food, shelter, and other such things. If 50 billion dollars are in that system, it stands to reason that it should produce something.

But it is quite nonsensical to say that capitalism does not make room for love. Capitalism is the only economic system where love can flourish. For what is love but an appreciation of value? And what system but capitalism allows one to sell value at its true worth?

Regarding your Empirical Church, why don't you make a thread and we can discuss the matter and you can offer more elaboration.

RE: Capitalism

There is not a level playing field. If we are going to be “capitalistic” – shouldn’t each member receive the same opportunity as the next – at least as a child and at least in regards to education and health?
Also, a family that becomes rich can propel their own little DNA embedded ass hole kid up above better and more intelligent and harder working members of society.
Maybe we should come up with a system to ensure that those kids have to start out like everyone else?

Really – is there any truly fair system? It seems like it’s all down to chance and good luck and above all else – who you know that can help you. That really is the key to success.

Oh yeah, my personal opinion is that history usually shows that someday, the rich own most of the land and are the landlords - the rest of society is forced to live as a tenant. So long as the rich do not sell their land they do not need to work and they, in a sense, own the tenant. This seems to have happened in all countries throughout all of time (and may well be one of the main reasons why the Chinese thought they'd remove ownership – they had serious history of Landlords and Revolutions).

It seems that there will, one day, be revolution.
Then - as everyone goes back to square one Capitalism can begin to work again and begin to be distorted by those who accumulate more and give it to their arse hole kids…..

note: I didn’t say bloody revolution – perhaps we’ll vote the rich into poverty? That is if we’re not a mindless mass of TV-deluded sludge by then … Ooo wait a second here … ET TV says Paris is on which pornsite? … sorry guys I gotta go :p

Facial:
I would disagree. For even if we assume the person is altruistic to an extreme and self-debasing level, we can rightfully say that his altruism is harmful in a very real sense. For as shown later in the argument, the system is untenable. For every "round of redistribution", the mooching populace will benefit whilst the productive elements shall not and in fact, shall constantly loose. Similarly, the very idea of production becomes onerous to all, because it is shown as a path of annihilation even to the simpleton. It does not take much to recognize the fact that the producers are the least likely to benefit from their actions, whereas those who do the bare minimum, or nothing at all, gain the lion's share. It is tantamount to giving the gold metal to the person who never broke from the finish line.


A good response.

But before I make any counterarguments, I shall ask what you specify by the "path to annihilation." Your first post seems seems to be a slightly expanded form of it, but I don't see how there is a concrete explanation for how the populace prognosticates the path to destruction given that the majority continue to receive benefits. I suppose what you mean by 'moochers' would be what I call 'leechers', the lazy people.

If those few generous and self-debasing people continue to generate goods for the rest of the populace, does their generosity remain constant? Or does it wither into pessimism?

And what is the "alternative"? Is this what you mean by the "alternative"?

In essence: One need not begin with the idea that "greed is good", merely show that if one places "need above merit" one inevitably produces conditions that rob and kill the productive off, whereas the moochers benefit and increase. Similarly, one need only demonstrate that the opposite is good by virtue of what it produces, namely, a system which both encourages and makes viable production and requires none to be robbed.


I see that you would support the idea of meritocracy. Then, how would you separate this from a communist perspective?
From each according to his ability...
It is the first part of the sentence, so it is arguably placed in equal position, if not above, the need.

Michael:

"There is not a level playing field. If we are going to be “capitalistic” – shouldn’t each member receive the same opportunity as the next – at least as a child and at least in regards to education and health? "

Each should have the same basic legal rights. But as regards education and health? No. Education and health are services which must be paid for. They cost money to produce and a system of privization can produce a greater system by virtue of the profit motive provoking people to one-up the competition.

"Also, a family that becomes rich can propel their own little DNA embedded ass hole kid up above better and more intelligent and harder working members of society. "

Actually, few can do this. A worthless child rarely comes to anything but ruin and companies and other systems in society have a vested interest in promotion through merit.

"Maybe we should come up with a system to ensure that those kids have to start out like everyone else?"

Impossible, as we're all ready born with differences within us.

"Really – is there any truly fair system? It seems like it’s all down to chance and good luck and above all else – who you know that can help you. That really is the key to success. "

What about skill and drive? What about connections that one makes oneself?

"It seems that there will, one day, be revolution.
Then - as everyone goes back to square one Capitalism can begin to work again and begin to be distorted by those who accumulate more and give it to their arse hole kids….."

Actually, that is more a result of Feudalistic systems which do not work on merit proper. In a Capitalist society, there is generally a large exchange of goods and services. In fact, that is why we have a market, where things constantly change hands.

Prince_James,

I suppose it’s because I personally know a number of “rich” kids with little merit and almost no clue. They did however inherit their families multimillion dollar real-estate empires and it’s of no consequence for them to hire a property manager to make continual land purchases further increasing their wealth.

They themselves will never work – they have never went to University (or if so only for a talking point). They can finance political campaigns and they move in the influential circles that make the rules that govern us. Some are real arse holes others are just spoilt. Regardless they will (at least in my mind) leach off the hard working families that rent the houses their forefathers purchased. The working families must rent a house, they need to live near work and many don’t make enough money or have a stable enough job to get the huge loan to buy a home of their own.

I seems reasonable that if these Landlord families continue to purchase and own property that over the course of 400-500 years there will not be any land for anyone else anywhere near the cities we need to live in to work.

Maybe our governments could pass a hellacious tax on anyone who owns more than 3 homes?

I think land ownership is a root cause of many a revolution.
- Chinese Revolution
- The Crusades
- The conquest of the New World
- The colonization of the World
- The Japanese invasion of China (incidentally post WWII the land was confiscated from the Landlords, some may say illegally, and spread across to the people of Japan).

Land Land Land ….. It certainly plays a role…

Facial:

"A good response."

Danke. I am sure I shall find yours the same.

"But before I make any counterarguments, I shall ask what you specify by the "path to annihilation." Your first post seems seems to be a slightly expanded form of it, but I don't see how there is a concrete explanation for how the populace prognosticates the path to destruction given that the majority continue to receive benefits. I suppose what you mean by 'moochers' would be what I call 'leechers', the lazy people."

Both moochers and leechers would be one in the same, yes.

As to societal prognostication of the inevitable collapse of the system, I would postulate that anyone need only examine the method (as I have) in order to determine the inevitable result. That is to say, the system speaks for itself in theory. That Communist systems have been (at least in part) enacted is mostly owing to the fact that the prior systems (Czarist and Chinese feudalism, for instance) were rotten and the most educated and willful members of society (Lenin, Mao) lead through promises of liberation and of wealth and prosperity. Few people would have probably applied as rigorous a philosophical analysis as I have and thus were convinced - as again, their situation was all ready rotten - that this was a way which would allow for them to improve their lot. In essence, the leaders convinced them.

"If those few generous and self-debasing people continue to generate goods for the rest of the populace, does their generosity remain constant? Or does it wither into pessimism?"

I find either situation possible. In the first case, we'd have a society where the producers litterally end up burning out (the loss v. gain ratio eventually becomes untenable) or if they realize their foolishness they stop and become moochers. So the blind (and there likely will be some blind) will continue until basically dead, whereas the moochers shall forever have their numbers increased by the disenchanted producers. Eventually then we have a society filled only with moochers and one which cannot handle its own burdens imposed upon that system of redistribution.

"And what is the "alternative"? Is this what you mean by the "alternative"?"

The alternative is the system of merit above need, as expressed in third-to-last paragraph in the indictment.

"I see that you would support the idea of meritocracy. Then, how would you separate this from a communist perspective?"

I am a meritocrat, you have pegged me correctly.

How would I separate this, though? Well, rather simply: I reject the idea that Communism is, at its core, a meritocratic system. As expressed in the indictment, I would affirm that only the contradictory principle of "to each according to his abilities, from each according to his needs" can produce a society where merit rules all. That is to say, a system which gives according to one's abilities (gives for services rendered) and takes according to one's needs (charges for services).

"From each according to his abilities...

It is the first part of the sentence, so it is arguably placed in equal position, if not above, the need."

My argument affirms that the primary of need is found in the fact that it is to it need that things are given, rather than from it that things are taken. That is, if one has a need (to each according to his needs) one is given from the production of another (from each according to his abilities). One is essentially given a right to the fruit without having to have tended to the tree. One is not guaranteed that one's labour will be rewarded (there is no 'to his abilities') and one is only guaranteed that one will have one's needs met without earning them (not "from each according to his needs").

To make it clear the difference:

Communism - "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
My system/Meritocracy - "To each according to his abilities, from each according to his needs."

Michael:

"I suppose it’s because I personally know a number of “rich” kids with little merit and almost no clue. They did however inherit their families multimillion dollar real-estate empires and it’s of no consequence for them to hire a property manager to make continual land purchases further increasing their wealth. "

Eventually they shall run into trouble, specifically as through not tending to things themselves and not increasing their fortune, their spending will eventually outweigh the growth inherent in their fortunes. However, they are also being productive in the sense that they are supporting likely a small army of businesses devoted to keeping them happy. Jaguar and Cartier have to make a living, too.

"They themselves will never work – they have never went to University (or if so only for a talking point). They can finance political campaigns and they move in the influential circles that make the rules that govern us. Some are real arse holes others are just spoilt. Regardless they will (at least in my mind) leach off the hard working families that rent the houses their forefathers purchased. The working families must rent a house, they need to live near work and many don’t make enough money or have a stable enough job to get the huge loan to buy a home of their own."

Perhaps then they should work harder and achieve success? Get more training and try to find time for university? The great thing about our society is the capacity for upwards development.

But let us also remember that these rich, as noted above, support entire industries, and usually when they do branch out into businseses of various sort, are the owners and financeers of the whole shebang. That is to say, they are not merely leechers, but provide the means whereby possibly even thousands work. Whereas Wal-mart is detested by many people, the man who owns it is providing a service of one million+ jobs to the community. No one but the wealthy can do that.

"I seems reasonable that if these Landlord families continue to purchase and own property that over the course of 400-500 years there will not be any land for anyone else anywhere near the cities we need to live in to work."

This doesn't seem to be the case, as most of the people who are "working class" eventually move up to middle class and from there slowyl rise to upper class. In the process, they too acquire land and money and eventually sell and exchange these things for others. The system retains a great deal of dynamism.

"Maybe our governments could pass a hellacious tax on anyone who owns more than 3 homes?"

That'd be both suicidal and anti-productive. What we would be met with then is little or no incentive to provide jobs or to attain anything in society. Similarly, it would be a direct connection with the "double-evil" of Communism, which discourages production.

"- The Crusades
- The conquest of the New World
- The colonization of the World"

I think it is more "country territory and political control" here. Essentially these things were done so different factions would have a leg up on the competition.

The USSR didn't need them. Stalin did.


What I always find funny is that Stalin was an improvement on Lenin. Just the change of times made Stalin's atrocities more visible than Lenin's.

Communisn in and of itself is not evil. However it is not a system made for reality. If mankind was perfect, not capable of deception and had no sense of greed, it would be the perfect system.

Prince_James,

Don't get me wrong - it seems that a somewhat Capitalistic approach works best to motivate enough people for society to not only maintain itself but also to move forward.

However, I just do not think there is anywhere near a level playing field. While it may not appear apparent – most people get where they are going because of who they know. It’s just a simple fact.

Anyway, I still have some questions – assuming that Capitalism is the way to go:

1.
Should Capitalistic societies legislate minimum wage or let the market forces determine minimum wage?

2.
How do Unions fit in with a Capitalistic society?

3.
Should society have to pay for schools? Why must my money go for someone else’s kid to get an education – especially if I have no kids!? Most states don’t allow for free Uni so why free K-12? In a Socialistic society yes - but a Capitalistic one?? Let the market determine societies educational level! Maybe the corporations can sponsor kids education – which they can pay back with labor?

4.
Should there be any form of welfare? Should there be free healthcare for the poor, the mentally destitute, the handicap or the elderly?

5.
Should farmers get tax breaks?

6.
What about tariffs? Get rid of them?

7.
What about work-place safety? Should we have it or let the market determine where people will work – if the places aren’t safe why then someone will make a safer one and the people will choose to work there?

8.
Why is it that in America, where Capitolism is probably best implemented, that even with 2 people incomes the standard of living is not at the same level as it was in the early 1970s when we had one income families? (I read that in Time or Newsweek or the Economist last weekend). So what? - Now we need to rear a couple kids, keep them at home and put them to work to make what a 1 working family income of the 1970s had? It just doesn’t seem to make sense?!?!? According to the article the only people to make big gains were the ultra wealthy – everyone else is falling behind.
Why?
Why are the rich getting richer while the poor getting poorer?
That’s the case in Communism, Feudalism, Theocratic Governments, ect…. It doesn’t seem that Capitolism is immune to this – which is sort of why I posted that rant about the rich snots I know.

9. Why does the Fed get to set interest rates? Why not let the market set those?

10.
Why does the US Gov get to print money? Why not let the market devise a lot of different dollars?


Anyway, those are some question I had.

Economy just doesn’t make any sense to me, the only few things that seem to be a certain factor 0 to me anyway are:
- land ownership is important and without the oppertunity to own land people will kill the landlords,
- time = money,
- the rich will get richer while the poor in general stay poor and
- it’s who you know as much as it is what you know

Thanks
Michael

PS: About the: It's who you know not what you know - I think GW Bush Jr is a great example of that principal.

Michael:

"Should Capitalistic societies legislate minimum wage or let the market forces determine minimum wage?"

Markets. For in the end, the same result follows. If you raise the minimum wage, prices go up, and all people pay more. This in turn mitigates any advantage those getting the higher wage gain.

"How do Unions fit in with a Capitalistic society?"

Unions are united bands of workers that use their bargaining power rooted in numbers to assure that their interests are met. They have a place in any capitalistic society, as they are merely an extension of the power of one group in order to legally bargain to their advantage.

"Should society have to pay for schools? Why must my money go for someone else’s kid to get an education – especially if I have no kids!? Most states don’t allow for free Uni so why free K-12? In a Socialistic society yes - but a Capitalistic one?? Let the market determine societies educational level! Maybe the corporations can sponsor kids education – which they can pay back with labor?"

Considering the majority of private and religious schools are considered superior to the state of public education in America today, it would seem that there is at least some reason to suggest that privization produces better schools. Considering unions could not have a strangle hold on the government and there would be a necessity of competition, everything points to a better system capable with private schools.

And yes, a system where corporations get paid back through service later is a perfectly equitable system.

"Should there be any form of welfare? Should there be free healthcare for the poor, the mentally destitute, the handicap or the elderly?

No. No. No. And no.

Unless, of course, this is a system that depends on the "free" really coming with a price tag where the price is paid back, with moderate interest, at a later date. In essence, a loan not a hand-out.

"Should farmers get tax breaks?"

No. Everyone should. Taxes ought to be at the bare minimum. If there are societal burdens, tariffs are better. Why tax one's own people - why not another's?

There is, however, justification for higher taxes in times of war. Even if in both World War I and World War II, Western nations went insane with taxes (95 percent in the top bracket in both the UK and US).

"What about tariffs? Get rid of them?"

Tariffs enstrengthen a nation via fostering internal growth. Considering the overall unsolvency of a globalist system (which will eventually reach a point where international trade's cost outweigh the profits via increasing wages industrialization and other matters) it is necessary that things will eventually settle back down to a national level.

Also, tariffs can pay for pretty much everything that needs to be paid for in peace.

"What about work-place safety? Should we have it or let the market determine where people will work – if the places aren’t safe why then someone will make a safer one and the people will choose to work there?"

Unions can make workplace safety an issue. But people ought to have the right, if they want to, to work in unsafe conditions.

"Why is it that in America, where Capitolism is probably best implemented, that even with 2 people incomes the standard of living is not at the same level as it was in the early 1970s when we had one income families? (I read that in Time or Newsweek or the Economist last weekend). So what? - Now we need to rear a couple kids, keep them at home and put them to work to make what a 1 working family income of the 1970s had? It just doesn’t seem to make sense?!?!? According to the article the only people to make big gains were the ultra wealthy – everyone else is falling behind. "

Inflation, I do believe. Also increases in the cost of certain thigns that effect everything else. Oil, for instance.

"Why does the Fed get to set interest rates? Why not let the market set those?"

I agree.

"Why does the US Gov get to print money? Why not let the market devise a lot of different dollars?"

The US government doesn't print money. The Federal reserve does. That is the problem. The reason for a common currency, however, is owing to the necessity of a nation to have a common method of exchange and a constant value to base things off. Competing dollars would fragment the market.

"- land ownership is important and without the oppertunity to own land people will kill the landlords, "

Not necessarily. There is also defacto ownership of land. But yes, I agree. Land needs to be exchanged in a system and it is precisely a market based system that allows for this. Only in Feudal systems do we find otherwise.

"the rich will get richer while the poor in general stay poor and"

Considering the Western world has the largest middle class in history....

"it’s who you know as much as it is what you know"

A circle which can be expanded.

Thanks!

We'll see, I suppose it's as good as we are likely to get. But I have to say, I am still not fully convinced that the system works as it should – simply because the rich have power and can manipulate the system to their advantage. And they do (ie see: Caligula or President GW Bush Jr.)


One more question:
In AU there is a massive amount of land around Sydney that houses can not be built upon. The rational goes that the land should not be opened up because then the housing prices in the city (for people who already own a home) will go down as people, who currently rent, will be able to buy cheap land and afford to build a house.
So the land remains locked away.
Is that fair in a Capitalistic system?

the only solution to the stress and conflict between those on the right, and those on the left.... is to have our cake and eat it too.

let the commies form communes... organised socialist paradises, within or without each city... where ever wanted.

and let all who dont want to live in a commune.. of any kind... to be free to do so as well.

we can have both.

and peace will reign on earth, for there will be no more poverty.

and freedom will still abound.. and hopefully more so.. not less.

-MT

Michael:

"And they do (ie see: Caligula or President GW Bush Jr.)"

Caligula wasn't exactly in a capialistic system. By then it was an Imperial system with massive government intervention (bread and circuses).

George W. Bush, on the other hand, got into his power partially through family ties, but also because he lived a relatively succesful life (including a C average at Yale) and managed to win a national election two times.

"So the land remains locked away.
Is that fair in a Capitalistic system?"

No. It is government intervention in the market. It is also anti-merit, as it gives a grossly unfair advantage to the land lords.

I find either situation possible. In the first case, we'd have a society where the producers litterally end up burning out (the loss v. gain ratio eventually becomes untenable) or if they realize their foolishness they stop and become moochers. So the blind (and there likely will be some blind) will continue until basically dead, whereas the moochers shall forever have their numbers increased by the disenchanted producers. Eventually then we have a society filled only with moochers and one which cannot handle its own burdens imposed upon that system of redistribution.

In other words, a society initially balanced with a healthy share of producers and moochers shall eventually turn into one with an overwhelming number of moochers for each producer, until it becomes unsustainable. The process occurs because producers feel uncompensated for their fair share of labor, and thus convert into moochers. Furthermore, once a moocher becomes a moocher he/she is unlikely to revert to being a producer. Am I correct?

Facial:

Unless conditions radically change for the producers which would make it better for moochers to become them, then yes, producers would be unlikely to switch back.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. How the fuck can anyone still seriously believe in communism? The last century was essentially a case controlled study of communism v/s capitalism. Take a country, cut it in half. Make one half capitalist. Make the other half communist. In which half are the people better off? Which half must built walls to keep the people in? Which half found that a simple wall was insufficient and had to add armed guards ordered to shoot to kill? In which half did the people live in absolute poverty while the enviroment was raped? In which half were millions murdered by sociopathic dictatorships?

This experiment was carried out in numerous countries all over the globe with the exact same results every time.

Give it up. Communism is a complete failure responsible for immense human suffering and death. Communism is, therefore, evil.

Quoted for truth.

Redarmy11:

I do not count a Socialist as innocent. ;)

Theres a difference between communist, and socialist. I'm for socialism, good for the people. But i'm against communism.

Free Matt 147:

Socialism = Marxism. Marxism = Communism. I fail to see where the two are not the same?

Unless you're talking about Robert Owen's Socialism?

Free Matt 147:

Socialism = Marxism. Marxism = Communism. I fail to see where the two are not the same?

Unless you're talking about Robert Owen's Socialism?

There is nothing wrong with communism, in fact its utopia. CCCP just labeled their rezime "communism".

There is nothing wrong with communism, in fact its utopia.

It is? Let's take an example of "true" communism, okay? From each according to his ability, to each according to their need, right? Okay, what if none of the people want to work at all? What happens? How can the society survive? Surely communism isn't going to force people to work, are they? And according to their doctrine, even if they don't work, they get what they need to live, right? So....? Is that utopia?

Baron Max

Baron:


Yep, and that's why we need people like Mountainhare to tell us what to do and how to think and what to eat and how to shit. Why, if it weren't for people like Mountainhare, I just don't know what I do.


You're welcome to think whatever you want. I never claimed otherwise.

However, if you're ignorant of an issue, I'd suggest that you keep your shouts of indignation to yourself, and stop meddling in the lives of others. Parents who are already in a difficult situation don't need ignorant assholes condemning them for carrying out a medical procedure which their own doctors recommended.

My advice to people who love to talk drivel: Shut up and butt out.

pilpaX:

See my response in "A Moral Indictment of Communism" available here on Sciforums.

pilpaX:

See my response in "A Moral Indictment of Communism" available here on Sciforums.

to better serve our members and make their life and stay here at sciforums noteworthy. Let me provide you with a link PilpaX.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58965&highlight=Moral+Indictment+Communism%22

Like many issues the best solutions are centrist involving compromise. A social safety net prevents some crime and encourages innovation by reduction of the consequences of failure. It does have a breaking effect on productivity because of the reduction of reward to risk ratio. Pure capitalism has a tendency to disrupt the environment and have a tendency to reward conservatism and monopolies. No system is perfect but capitalism with the proper amount of socialism has produced astounding results. the amounts of each are subject to arguement but it appears that a mix is best see early American history for some examples of capitalist extremes.

Define "amount of Socialism"?

Are we speaking of Otto von Bismarck? Or are we talking about the modern hyper-welfare state?

Free Matt 147:

Socialism = Marxism. Marxism = Communism. I fail to see where the two are not the same?


Copy paste from wiki and dictionary since Prince fails to see where the two are not the same. The dictionary does seem to be able to see a difference.

Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.

Marxism, the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production. It can be classified as a branch of the broader socialist movement.

I think James sees the distinction thusly:

Socialists should be killed (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1251496&highlight=advocating#post1251496); whereas communists should be killed more.

prince j, it would have been in ethics if you wouldn't be so POLITICALLY motivated...

Arnt those Scandinavian countries Socialist? Sweden or Norway or so? They seem to have it working right?

What government does Canada have?

It doesn't matter if it works when you'll never be any higher in society than where you start out.

w1z4rd:

They are welfare states, not Socialist states.

Spuriousmonkey:

Whereas I shall admit the subtle differences, the consider this from dictionary.com, with specifics bolded:

Socialism

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Marxism:

the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.

Communism:

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
4. communalism.

Personally, I feel communism is morally superior in its "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" doctrine. However, it is ridiculous to believe that such a system wouldn't be exploited by a large number of people. Such a system is incapable of operating properly with moochers, so it would collapse. I feel that communism is morally superior in its ideals because of its emphasis on a hard work ethic and the idea that everyone deserves to be happy. But it'll never work on a large scale, so screw it.

PJ -
One of the definitions of Socialism from webster.com
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

It is rather similar to communism, but by Marx's own admission it is not the same.

From Wikipedia on Sweden

Current government

A coalition between the Labour Party, Socialist Left Party, and Centre Party, took over government from 17 October 2005 after the 2005 general election, where this so-called red-green alternative received a majority of 87 out of 169 seats in the Storting.

This is a historical coalition in several aspects; it is the first time the Socialist Left sits in government, the first time the Labour Party sits in a coalition government since the 1945 4-month post-war trans-party government (otherwise in government alone), and the first time the Centre Party sits in government along with socialist parties (otherwise in coalition with conservative and/or other centre parties).

Sweden isn't a Socialist nation. It is, as Prince James has stated, a welfare state. However, PJ has stated something to the effect that by working hard, anyone can move up a financial bracket. This welfare state actually has more social mobility than the US, which has a less regulated economy. suttontrust.com/reports/IntergenerationalMobility.pdf

I agree that government involvement should be minimized, but for some things it's rather necessary. For example, the education system. If left completely as a capitalistic entity, some schools will prosper, but at the cost of a vast majority of other schools. No, the poor should not be given slightly better schools at the cost of the wealthy people's education either, but that's why there are private schools.

I.D.:

One of the definitions of Socialism from webster.com
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

It is rather similar to communism, but by Marx's own admission it is not the same.

My definition offered seems to contradict this, although I could not tell you which one is true.

I think it is time to find quotes from Das Kapital or The Communist Manifesto.

Anyone have them off hand to discuss Marx's own words on whether or not Socialism and Communism are the same?

However, even if we shall admit that Socialism is not the same as Communism, it is pretty much extraneous to the main push of the argument: That a system whose foundational principle is "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is fundamentally a "double evil".

Sweden isn't a Socialist nation. It is, as Prince James has stated, a welfare state. However, PJ has stated something to the effect that by working hard, anyone can move up a financial bracket. This welfare state actually has more social mobility than the US, which has a less regulated economy. suttontrust.com/reports/IntergenerationalMobility.pdf

It depends on whether one accounts for taxation. Owing to the sharp gradient, one earning more often earns less than one who is earning less, because of the taxation one has on income. In that sense, social mobility is lower, in as much as one must accomplish much more in order to attain to much more, whereas such is not the case say, in the United Sttes, or otherwise less regulated economies.

However, Sweden is not entirely against merit and such, nor is it founded on "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" so my main Communist critique is not applicable to it.

I agree that government involvement should be minimized, but for some things it's rather necessary. For example, the education system. If left completely as a capitalistic entity, some schools will prosper, but at the cost of a vast majority of other schools. No, the poor should not be given slightly better schools at the cost of the wealthy people's education either, but that's why there are private schools.

The problem is that at public education can degenerate quickly. See the US' at the present time, for instance.

No problem on the hijacking. I just wanted to give us a better venue for that (also interesting) discussion. The mods will take care of it in a second.

I have read "Philosophy: Who Needs It?", but not "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal". I have been meaning to pick up "Capitalism..." though!

I've also read "Atlas Shrugged".

Good detective work on figuring out that I like Rand, though. She was, as I have said before, a pretty nifty lady. Although I wouldn't call myself a Randian on all levels, her heroic conception of man and anti-Communism are supremely appealing.
For a nice description of life under communism (semi-autobiographical) read We the Living. Also, you definately should read The Fountainhead.

Rand was the first person I know of to suggest a better argument for capitalism than, "It works". She was the first (practically the only) to suggest that capitalism not only works better, it's also morally superior. For this audacity, she is villified and not considered a "real" philosopher. She's not even mentioned in Women's Studies, or as a female philosopher.

Madanthonywayne:

It is downright SHAMEFUL what they have done to her. "The Oxford Companion to Philosophy", which has over a thousand philosophical entries, including on relatively small-time names, doesn't have her, Objectivism, Atlas Shrugged, Randian, or any other topic even remotely related to her, despite the fact that she, Simone de Beauvoir, Hypatia, and Diotima are the only female philosophers (worth mentioning) in history.

But yes, I rather find her thrillingly well done arguments for anti-Communism to be quite an intellectual treasure. They inspired me to write my own, such as this, to further trash this plague.

Also, thank you for the other suggestions. I've been meaning to, for quite some team, read the books you mentioned. I have simply forgotten to buy them!

You guys really need to look up "Communism" on google and find some sites teaching & promoting communism.

You guys really need to look up "Communism" on google and find some sites teaching & promoting communism.
I know it's your impression that all states that have described themselves as communist were not really communist so their horrid records should not reflect badly on the idea of communism.

But, shouldn't the record give you pause? Isn't it possible that there is a reason communism never works? Isn't it possible that it is incompatible with human nature?

It's been said that if men were angels, we would need no government. Communism might work if we were angels. But we're not.

Did you know that America started out as a kind of Christian Communist State? The Mayflower Compact established what was basically a commune:
The Mayflower Compact

We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.
So what happened?
The first winter was disasterous - nearly half of the Pilgrims died of starvation, pneumonia and tuberculosis.
During the first two years the colony lived under what could only be called Communism, enshrined in the Mayflower Compact. Each person was accorded a "share" of the totality of what was produced at the colony, and each person was expected to do their part in working toward the common good. The land, and that upon it, was owned by the colony as a collective.

It not only did not work out, it nearly killed them all.

William Bradford wrote in his diary "For in this instance, community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort. For the young men who were most able and fit for service objected to being forced to spend their time and strength in working for other men’s wives and children, without any recompense. The strong man or the resourceful man had no more share of food, clothes, etc., than the weak man who was not able to do a quarter the other could. This was thought injustice.”

After the second winter, realizing that the colony had survived only through the friendship and largesse of the native Americans, and would soon perish if changes were not made, Bradford tore up the Mayflower Compact. He instead assigned each family a plot of land to be their property, to be worked as the family saw fit, and with the fruits of that land to be their own. It was the beginning of private property rights in the New World.

The result? Again, from his diary: "It made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could devise, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better satisfaction.”

From the very day that Bradford tore up the Mayflower Compact, Plymouth began to prosper. Within a year the colonists found themselves with more food than they could eat. Flush with a bountiful harvest far in excess of their need for food and having bartered for all the goods they needed to get through the winter, they had a feast of thanks with their Indian trading partners.

Within a couple of years the colonists paid off their debt to the London Merchants and became, in fact, free men.
So here we have communism practiced not by despots, but by good Christian men with the best of intentions. Yet......it still didn't work!

Madanthonywayne:

EXCELLENT point.

China's growth explosion has been fueled by allowing people to 'own' land.

China's growth explosion has been fueled by allowing people to 'own' land.

...neverthless just as the bacteria dePletes the agar food in the Petri dish...so will the Chinese dePlete the resources.

...neverthless just as the bacteria dePletes the agar food in the Petri dish...so will the Chinese dePlete the resources.

Oh yeah, because communist countries have always been so into the environment... :rolleyes:

...neverthless just as the bacteria dePletes the agar food in the Petri dish...so will the Chinese dePlete the resources.
The greatest resource is the human mind. If unleashed of the bounds of communism and other forms or state control, it will produce a bounty sufficient to sustain growth for a long time to come.

The greatest resource is the human mind. If unleashed of the bounds of communism and other forms or state control, it will produce a bounty sufficient to sustain growth for a long time to come.

bounty like the Gulags?

w1z4rd:

They are welfare states, not Socialist states.

What is welfare? A socialist value.

Family, manners, deeds, and favors are communist values.

The problem with Capitalism is it relies on exploitation to survive, so it would be hard for me to morally say which ideology is more or less morally correct.

Spuriousmonkey:

Bismarck would disagree.

w1z4rd:

Exploitation? Of whom?

Facial:

Unless conditions radically change for the producers which would make it better for moochers to become them, then yes, producers would be unlikely to switch back.

Let us continue our argument.

What specifically are the "radical conditions" that you refer to as stated above, if I may ask?

Spuriousmonkey:

Bismarck would disagree.

w1z4rd:

Exploitation? Of whom?

We can start out with my country, then move onto the rest of Africa, then most of Asia and lets not forget the South Americans or those in the Middle East.

w1z4rd:

And how did capitalism "exploit" you?

Did anyone put a gun to your head and force your country into trade agreements? Into business?

Facial:

Be glad to!

What specifically are the "radical conditions" that you refer to as stated above, if I may ask?

In essence, a complete over throw of the system's "pro-moocher" policy of reward without merit. In essence, it would have to become more meritocratic and capitalist, where reward was proportioned to work done and its quality. I.E. The best producers got perks, significantly more pay, et cetera.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/m/pics/mccarthy-joseph.jpg <---james

You know, I might make that my icon. Joe was an awesome man. He rooted out a tremendous amount of Communist spies.

In essence, a complete over throw of the system's "pro-moocher" policy of reward without merit. In essence, it would have to become more meritocratic and capitalist, where reward was proportioned to work done and its quality. I.E. The best producers got perks, significantly more pay, et cetera.

Is this description of a meritocratic and capitalist system "radical" ?

I would here by Re-define Communism..: ready?... ok....

Communism:

(1) "Pertaining to those who choose to, of their own accord,
form commune's.. designed for mutual support and security, and activily pursues
the efforts to eleviate all suffering, as such are the directives of Love."

(2) "A point of view, or political opinion which dictates that is it better for
people to live and work together, organised as one big family, who shares and
cares, rather than trades and profits off each other."

(3) A phylosophy which dictates : "We need not force the wealthy to become poor
to help the poor... We need only organise the poor together in love, sharing
and compassion, such that with large numbers and continued effort, there shall
be no need for poverty any more, I.e... the reason people are poor and homeless,
is because no one fucking cares about them, and of all people, the Communist does."

(4) Commune-ism is clearly founded in the ideals of forming Communes for mutual
benefit, and in the establishment of, in this way, socialist pockets of paradise,
and which functions to eliviate the suffering and drawback of the free/ fair markets
world.

(5) An ideal wherein people organise themselves for love, security, and long
term survivability. Such as, the basic Tribe mentality.

(6) An ideal that just so happens to be the way Jesus said to live, as well as
many other world religions in many different ways.

-MT

Facial:

Yes. The shift towards a meritocratic/capitalist system would be radical. In as much as it would completely undo the notion of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

w1z4rd:

And how did capitalism "exploit" you?

Did anyone put a gun to your head and force your country into trade agreements? Into business?

Sure, where do you want to start? Blood diamonds that sponsored the genocide in Sierra Leone? Coffee growers in Ethiopia (thanks Starbucks!), Or the french sponsored Rwandan Genocide? Or should we have a closer look at the Chinese sweat shops?

I was born and live in Africa, even though I am of strong English European decent. Simply put, why does Daimler Chrysler have a massive factory in my city and not in say France or the UK? Could it be something to do with the cheap exploitable labour here or the moral consciousness of the Europeans?

In South Africa, I don't even get good fruit unless I pay international export prices for it, forget about eating crayfish at a restaurant unless you are a millionaire. Export prices all the way. What about government sponsored farm subsidies in developed nations?

Or what about the massive about of AK47 sales still to Africa? Bah! Its ALL about exploitation and self greed and interest. Im willing to bet, anyone in this forum who is from a third world country like me would be willing to say the same. I also have "needs" as you put it, however, the system I was born into has been designed to exploit me for your needs.

I prefer living in Ubuntu.

Yes. The shift towards a meritocratic/capitalist system would be radical. In as much as it would completely undo the notion of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Does this imply that the communist notion is somehow the norm?

Prince James, if you would like me to make an argument soon, I can do so. However, I would prefer the completion of greater information from your side for the sake of understanding.

Then, in consequence, I will offer my serial responses to your questions, without midway rebuke until the first counterargument, and so on. The Socratic style.

Facial:

Does this imply that the communist notion is somehow the norm?

In a communist society, communism would be the norm, yes.

Prince James, if you would like me to make an argument soon, I can do so. However, I would prefer the completion of greater information from your side for the sake of understanding.

Then, in consequence, I will offer my serial responses to your questions, without midway rebuke until the first counterargument, and so on. The Socratic style.

Sounds perfect.

Ask as many more questions as you need for perfect clarification.

w1z4rd:

And you think you would somehow be better off without any Western aid, business, and various other things?

And you think you would somehow be better off without any Western aid, business, and various other things?
A lot of Western "aid" goes into helping western businesses interests there.

"Other various things" are merely a means of making money, not about doing anything positve for the country. I used to live in a tourist area on the border near Zimbabwe and the hotels and parks there seem to be a good thing for the local economy - except the hotel is owned by foreign businessmen, the staff are all brought in, even he food is imported from abroad (despite local farmers producing perfectly good food). You can literally get off the plane, be driven to the hotel (right next to the game parks) and spend your whole time within a sort of "bubble", enjoying the wildlife etc. In fact very little actually trickles through to the local economy. Many places are essentially "off-limits" to the native population. Occaionally the tourists venture into town, but not often. Of course not all business are quite so extreme, but the long term effect is to take money out of the country.

Obviously at some point the politicians were "persuaded" to allow these hotels to be built and operate like this, but it really is a missed oppportunity.

In a communist society, communism would be the norm, yes.

I think I understand your scenario.

We must understand that the necessary requirements to the validity of your views are that 1. The inequality of productivity satisfies a certain proportion in order for those to be producing less to be labelled moochers and 2. That the producers, as opposed to the moochers, are led into believing that the better incentive for themselves, or even all of society, is that they drop the compassion for others beyond their immediate selves (the latter inclusive in the former) so that they can concentrate on individual development. A second ramification is that those producers who wish to radically defect into capitalism can better society as a whole by inspiring those moochers to become meritable via competition of incomes, which becomes more or less proportional to productivity in the ideal of capitalism.

In today's capitalist environment, the 'radical' notions are the norm. Rather, they cry out loud their obvious superiority. Or, dominance.

Here's part of my stance on capitalism:

Capitalism has its own flaws. The foundation of capitalism relies on the selfish nature of individualism, where 'selfish' does not imply any sense of good or bad, but just merely rests on the vision of the self. The predominant lines of thought in capitalism are to "keep your enemies closer" and to aspire to become rich. Now, as in my own culture, people would tend to think that you can become rich through good education (ie, doctor, engineer, lawyer, etc) and working hard. In most cases, this is still correct, but it leaves a robotic, mechanized human who does not necessarily work for his passions, but for whatever gets the most income. Capitalism dehumanizes people to a large degree, and I am no exception. The biggest example would be lawyers, who would easily argue cases that may go against their moral or ethical opinions for a buck. A surgeon wouldn't want to operate on someone clingling on to life in fear of malpractice suits (despite the fact that they're covered, and that people can sign oaths on paper as evidence for countersuit), as they wouldn't want to lose money. But that is not the only problem, since there are other ways around towards wealthy stature. Running a big business that pollutes, bombs, and outsources labor for the sake of 'streamlining' or keeping a 'competitive edge' sure keeps the cost of their products down and their profits high at the same time. So if these wretched CEOs make as much or more money than the slightly more respected doctor, lawyer, or engineer, will they garner the respect? By many people, you bet. People are well-fed and granted political freedoms in capitalism, but they are rotten on the inside.

Is capitalism any better? Then Communism isn't the problem, nor capitalism... something deeper is wrong.

Consider that.

Is capitalism any better?
Yes. A lot better. Perhaps you should review the history of the twentieth century. A period in which half the world was communist and half capitalist. Better yet, many countries were cut in half. One half communist, one half captitalist. In every case the capitalist half prospered while the communist half was a hell hole.

So yes, capitalism is better. Is it perfect? Of course not. Nothing on this earth is. But it beats the crap out of communism, or any other system yet devised.

Facial:

We must understand that the necessary requirements to the validity of your views are that 1. The inequality of productivity satisfies a certain proportion in order for those to be producing less to be labelled moochers and 2. That the producers, as opposed to the moochers, are led into believing that the better incentive for themselves, or even all of society, is that they drop the compassion for others beyond their immediate selves (the latter inclusive in the former) so that they can concentrate on individual development. A second ramification is that those producers who wish to radically defect into capitalism can better society as a whole by inspiring those moochers to become meritable via competition of incomes, which becomes more or less proportional to productivity in the ideal of capitalism.

I would agree that this the majority of my argument rests on these. So yes, I have no qualm with this statement.

Now let me ask you this regarding your beliefs about capitalism:

You say that men in capitalism do not work for their passions. Do you imply that one must always work for one's passions, in order that one may enjoy them? For certainly, money is the means for such enjoyment, rather than the end of such, no?

One does not have to work for one's passions, but having no passion for work whatsoever happens too often in capitalism.

In capitalism, yes, money does provide the means of such enjoyment. But I see it as some sort of superfluous activity - if you use money from this loathed profession to do this and that which you love to do, then why not just drop the loathed profession and develop just your passions for money precisely?

But back to the first question. The reason why I deny the 'always' condition is that people have varying preferences, with some activities of equal interest and passion. Meaning some people can like their work while pursuing another interest. Furthermore, there are those who, once pursuing a passion, may find it disgusting after a while, and those who are just the opposite and can do something in their interest for the rest of their life.

Facial:

In capitalism, yes, money does provide the means of such enjoyment. But I see it as some sort of superfluous activity - if you use money from this loathed profession to do this and that which you love to do, then why not just drop the loathed profession and develop just your passions for money precisely?

Surely, you realize that not all the time is this possible, yes? That it can be quite reasonable to spend one's time in another employment until one has gained the means whereby one can pursue one's desires more fully?

But back to the first question. The reason why I deny the 'always' condition is that people have varying preferences, with some activities of equal interest and passion. Meaning some people can like their work while pursuing another interest. Furthermore, there are those who, once pursuing a passion, may find it disgusting after a while, and those who are just the opposite and can do something in their interest for the rest of their life.

Surely, capitalism allows many people to do the latter if that is their choice, no? For instance, there are thousands upon thousands of artists, actors...

There's nothing wrong with "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" as evaluation criteria for an economic system.

Any human culture that wastes human abilities, rather than employing them, is inferior

Any human culture that fails to satisfy basic human needs is inferior.

The economic system of such inferior culture, to the extent it contributes to such waste and failure, is a bad one.

The problem with "communism" (and most dire examples of it are curiously short of actual communes) is not its goals, therefore, but its means. It attempts to command economic - i.e. physical - reality by political fiat. Tyranny, to the extent that people can be forced to pretend that reality has been so commanded. ("And if I say that / Solomon / shall be Minister/ of External Affairs/ , and you don't like it/ Get to hell out of here !" The Mighty Sparrow)

But we see tyrannies every bit as absurd, and failures every bit as miserable, in "capitalistic" economies - indentured servitude and serfdom, the slums of Rio or the Philippines or Calcutta. Denying the validity of evaluation criteria on the basis of some presumedly good system's failure to meet them is no argument for that system - yet so argue the neo-cons, the Straussians and their redneck Randian shock troops.

If capitalism unregulated fails to draw from each according to their abilities, or provide for each according to their needs, that waste and failure is to be considered a virtue !

Markets work much better than fiat, wherever markets can be set up; but that is not everywhere (health care, for example), and the setup requires very sophisticated governance. So the sophisticated governance necessary for good management of the vast areas of life in which markets don't work is not a handicap of such areas only, but is also a requirement of markets.

You have to govern well, if you want the life of the well-governed.

Iceaura:

If you are going to contradict my argument, please present to me reasons why "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" does not produce the "double-evil" "moocher-breeding-moocher" economy that I discuss?

Moreover, how is health-care beyond the market? It provides goods and services.

If you are going to contradict my argument, please present to me reasons why "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" does not produce the "double-evil" "moocher-breeding-moocher" economy that I discuss? Because it doesn't "produce" anything. It's an evaluation criterion, for what has already been produced.

Command economies evaluate poorly, by that criterion, because they fail to satisfy actual human needs and they fail to take advantage of individual abilities.

But communism does not have to be a command economy - we have agricultural coops all over, for example, working quite well. And the Amish and Mennonites are among the most successful farmers on the North American continent.

And laissez faire capitalism will often (always, according to Marx, who supplied reasons to which the world supplies no counterexamples) end up creating a command economy with monopoly control and no market.
Moreover, how is health-care beyond the market? It provides goods and services. Some markets are possible, within health care as a whole, btu in general 1) there is no informed consumer making choices among alternatives 2) the benefits are spread far wider than the immediate consumer. biasing the exchange decision 3) the greatest median benefit is acheived by supplying the goods and services to those least able to pay

and so forth. It's like a sewer system - the greatest benefits kick in when everyone has access, and not before.

The essence of Communism is encapsulated in the statement: From each according to its abilities, to each according to his needs.

This statement is immoral.

On that very count, so is the Bible.

Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. (Acts 4.32-35, RSV (http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvActs.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=4&division=div1))

Prince James, neither humanity nor the Universe we call home exist solely for your benefit, mine, or anybody else's.

We're all in this together.

Your indictment is immoral for elevating the individual as the reason the species, or even life itself, exists.

Let us then change the statement to read "to each according to his abilities, from each according to his needs". Placing then merit above need, we allow all needs to be met by those who merit it, and all merit to be given according to it, which produces a system where not only is production the only means of survival, but that the producers are given every incentive to produce.

Merit is subjective; production and consumption are a means, not a purpose; your new formulation of the statement is such as to institute and preserve unnatural advantages; lastly, you put the short-term ambition of the individual above the long-term progress of the human endeavor.

In all of these faults, and more, the result is a reduction of species and further adapted dependence on artifice for our continuance and evolution.

As long as one gets to think of oneself, however, as one of the "Supermen" or "Elect", well, that seems a compelling argument for many to jump on the bandwagon.

Take the bandwagon t'Clarksville,
And I'll meet you at the station.
You can be be there by four thirty,
'Cause I made your reservation.
Don't be slow, oh, no, no, no!
Oh, no, no, no!

(Adapted from Boyce/Hart (http://www.monkees.net/DOCS/LYRICS/CLARKS.htm))

Go! - Don't be tardy!
Fell asleep last night at a party!
Run! - Make the grade!
School's a job but you don't get paid!
Run at the head of the pack;
Be the leader in this race;
Stay up front
Just in case;
If you lose in life
It's because you lagged;
Keep up with the traffic
Or you'll get dragged ... down ...
Beneath the wheel!

(Dirty Rotten Imbeciles (http://www.musicsonglyrics.com/D/drilyrics/dribeneaththewheellyrics.htm))

And as that last one also notes, "Stop! You can't win! But you can always catch up in the end."

No matter what you aspire to, we will finally be equal when both of us are dead.

Surely, you realize that not all the time is this possible, yes? That it can be quite reasonable to spend one's time in another employment until one has gained the means whereby one can pursue one's desires more fully?


Yes, I realize such. Whether it is possible all the time, among all individuals, for sole pursuit of his/her own passion is highly unlikely. There are diverse circumstances unique to some individuals that may cause them to place their priorities out of line with their passion.


Surely, capitalism allows many people to do the latter if that is their choice, no? For instance, there are thousands upon thousands of artists, actors...

Yes. But some artists tire of art, and some actors tire of acting after a while. What I was trying to arrive at was that some people have indeterminate passion - just as a side note. Either that or I misinterpreted the second question.

Facial:

Yes. But some artists tire of art, and some actors tire of acting after a while. What I was trying to arrive at was that some people have indeterminate passion - just as a side note. Either that or I misinterpreted the second question.

All right.

But does not capitalism generally allow one to follow these indeterminate passions? There are people who enjoy a plethora of things and engage in them regularly in capitalist nations. For instance, I know of people who enjoy golf and the movies and play one and see the other often. They also hold down a job or go to school or whatever the case might be. Certainly, then, one cannot say that capitalism is inferior on this level?

IceAura:

But communism does not have to be a command economy - we have agricultural coops all over, for example, working quite well. And the Amish and Mennonites are among the most successful farmers on the North American continent.

Succesful farmers? In what sense? They are extremely poor a