Daylight Atheism > Why I Am Not a Communist

< Previous: New Post on Dangerous Intersection

Next: Little-Known Bible Verses IX: Better Miracles than Jesus >

Why I Am Not a Communist

Last summer, I wrote a three-part post series, "Why I Am Not a Libertarian", which explained my disagreement with this political philosophy. However, I've realized that despite writing an essay addressing the crimes of communist regimes as they reflect on atheists, I've never written a post on my differences with communism per se. This one will do that.

I have many objections to communism, not least of which is last year's news that, in Russia, the Communist party is now teaming up with the Russian Orthodox Church to outlaw homosexuality - a fitting illustration of the similar dogmatic, irrational attitudes that prevail in both ideologies. But my differences go deeper than that, and this post will outline three of the most serious.

Communism lacks a good mechanism to allocate resources to where they are most needed, resulting in waste, shortages and inefficiency. In a capitalist economy, price serves as both a vital signal of demand and also the means of meeting that demand. When a product or service is demanded in excess of current supply, the price rises, attracting people to produce that product or service in order to make a greater profit. Conversely, when supply outstrips demand, the price drops and people are naturally discouraged from producing more of the excess commodity until the imbalance resolves itself. This "invisible hand" of the market, an organizational force at the macro-level emerging from thousands of independent decisions, is often an extremely efficient way of balancing supply with demand and resulting in a society where there is neither wasteful excess nor shortage.

Communism, however, has no such balancing mechanism. In a communist society, the state sets the price of all commodities, and this decision can be completely arbitrary. In theory, if a shortage occurs, the state simply orders the appropriate entities to produce more, but this decision is insufficiently sensitive to price signals and has no necessary link to supply or demand. No group of centralized bureaucrats has the information or the intelligence to make such perfect decisions affecting the price of every transaction in society. This "top-down" approach will inevitably result in inefficiency and misallocation of resources, wasting commodities that are produced in excess of demand and causing shortages of commodities that are not produced in sufficient quantity to meet demand. The "bottom-up" approach of capitalism is a far superior means of dealing with this problem.

Communism discourages productive effort and innovation. In a communist society, no one is richer than anyone else; the state allocates goods to all people based only on need. This means that there are no material rewards for invention, innovation, or greater productivity. It also means that those who are less productive than the average have no incentive to work harder or increase their output.

What this inevitably leads to, in the real world, is a vicious spiral of decreased effort and decreased production, as people slacken their efforts so as to work no harder than the least hardworking member of society (whom they'll be paid the same as anyway, so why work any harder than them?). This is the classic Prisoner's Dilemma in action, and means that such a system cannot compete against a capitalist economy that tangibly rewards good ideas and hard work.

Communism necessarily denies the freedom of the individual. Of all the shortcomings of communism, I consider this one to be the most serious. A communist economy necessarily denies people the freedom to seek happiness in whatever career they choose. In such a system, decisions regarding what job a person will take must be made by the state. When the bureaucracy perceives a shortage, their only response is to order more people to join the effort of producing the desired commodity. Thus, a communist society is intrinsically a tyranny where people's lives must be controlled in minute and exacting detail by a faceless and distant central committee. This alone should make communism repugnant to all lovers of freedom and liberty, and bring us to the realization that no such system could ever succeed in reality without massive and widespread violations of the human right to choose our own destiny and pursue happiness as we see fit.

53 Comments

"Communism necessarily denies the freedom of the individual"

I usually start with that, and stop right there. Even if communism *were* the most efficient way to allocate resources it would still fail because at it's core communism actively prevents people from being happy.

Comment by: NoAstronomer | May 9, 2008, 8:07 am

Well to be honest then the liberty that communism denies the people is the negative conception of freedom - the absence of restricions. This negative liberty tradtision (rooted in Newton, founded by Hobbes, Locke etc. reaffirmed by Mill, Humboldt etc.) sees freeom defined by the lack of limits.

But on the other hand communism does an excellent job in making the people free when we look at the positive conception of freedom - the actualization or realization of the self. According to this tradition one is free when one is able to actualize some perfect form of oneself, meaning that if someone is unable to realize what would be the best thing to do, then it is obligatory for others (for example the state) to tell them what to do and how to live. This tradition is represented in the republican way of thinking (the Medeval city-states of Italy) and also in Rousseau, Hegel and others.

This distinction was famously explicated by Isaiah Berlin and he also critizised the positive conception for the reason that it would make way for dictatorship. But later, when the Cold War was over and the political situation had changed, he revised his position and said that positive conception of liberty is not all bad.

In sum: people are not free in a communist regime in the negative sense, but the most certainly are in the positive sense

ps. I, myself, prefer McCallum's view that liberty is always a triadic relation "x is/is not free from y to do/not to do or become/not become z" which incorporated both aspects of the two conceptions.

Comment by: mcv | May 9, 2008, 8:37 am

I wholeheartedly agree that the maxim, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," serves only to discourage ability and encourage need.

As for the "positive sense" of liberty, MCV, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. The positive sense of liberty, as you've described it, could only be actualized in the event that we had a benevolent and all-knowing authority with the power to enforce these decisions - God, in other words. Failing that, the only thing it will ever amount to is some holier-than-thou mothering laws being passed because the guys in charge say that they know better. And hey, what do you know, there's no god and so it makes sense this is exactly what we see.

You say, "if someone is unable to realize what would be the best thing to do, then it is obligatory for others ... to tell them what to do and how to live." The path of goodness is not something you can force upon people, though you can guide them to an extent. This is why every internally consistent system of government works fine on paper: with perfect citizenry, of course there will be no problems, because everyone is perfect (the root of all societal problems has been stipulated out of existence). But imperfect citizenry will cause whatever society they're in to have problems. The drives that cause problems when we get together in groups are the same drives that make us human and give us the motivation to survive as individuals, and no system of governance is capable of resolving this conflict Once And For All: it's something that each person has to struggle with every day. Capitalism makes the most of these drives, though, and rewards those who put their drives to good use. It doesn't work perfectly, just like instituting democratic rule doesn't guarantee that competent leaders will be elected - but it's the best we can manage as fallible, imperfect individuals trying to work together.

Comment by: D | May 9, 2008, 10:31 am

In a communist society, no one is richer than anyone else

Oh, which communist society would that be then? I believe there were one or two communist leaders who took that principle somewhat seriously (Erich Honecker perhaps). But most treated it with the same disdain as televangelists treat Jesus' statement about rich men, camels and needles.

Once one gets away from the small privileged elite at the centre of power, then the statement is more or less true, and in that context the rest of your argument is valid. I have heard of some egalitarian organisations that worked well, but they were all either very small or very selective about who they admitted - and usually both. In the context of society as a whole, egalitarianism is a non-starter.

Comment by: Stephen | May 9, 2008, 11:20 am

This "invisible hand" of the market, an organizational force at the macro-level emerging from thousands of independent decisions, is often an extremely efficient way of balancing supply with demand and resulting in a society where there is neither wasteful excess nor shortage.

True of course, but one of the most ironic examples of what happens when the market is circumvented comes from the capitalist U.S and E.U subsidising their own industries, or more specifically agriculture, thus denying fair competition from the third world and creating global imbalance in supply and demand.

Comment by: Steve Bowen | May 9, 2008, 11:21 am

I've heard communism talked about as if it were synonymous with atheism, perhaps a post on that? Obviously we need to set the record straight.

Comment by: superhappyjen | May 9, 2008, 11:51 am

I don't like pure communism either, but I don't think its distribution issues can be compared with capitalism's distribution issues. One is about efficiency and civil engineering, the other is about coverage and ethics. There's nothing within a pure capitalist economy that guarantees fresh water will reach the places where it is most needed because nothing guarantees that the people will be able to pay for the transportation costs. Personally, I'd rather have a system designed to be ethical first, efficient second. But there isn't an objective way to decide which is better.

And so far as the invisible hand preventing "wasteful excess", sure, market dynamics may slow the manufacturing of product that sits on the back shelf unsold, but have you been to a mall lately? There's a different sort of excess that's environmentally costly, and most consumers don't seem to be concerned about it, even if there was a way for that information to travel back in time and be reflected in the price.

Comment by: BH | May 9, 2008, 11:54 am

Superhappyjen

Communist regimes supress religion because they don't like the competition. Churches etc offer a reference point for group action outside state control and the illusion of a higher authority. Communism isn't an atheist philosophy per se.

Comment by: Steve Bowen | May 9, 2008, 12:22 pm

My parents are from a Communist country and I've heard plenty about it. While these are all good criticisms of Communism, I would have to say that the worst thing about it is that it fosters corruption. What Communism became in the real world was one giant, corrupt enterprise. Everything got done through bribes and affiliation with the Party. In fact, the reason why Russia and the Eastern European countries haven't bounced back -- the reason why capitalism hasn't saved them by increasing quality of life or human development -- is because the corruption is so endemic. It can arise anywhere, even in capitalist countries, but it arises easier where monetary decisions are made by fewer people. Capitalism spreads out those decisions.

Comment by: Martin | May 9, 2008, 1:41 pm

In such a system, decisions regarding what job a person will take must be made by the state. When the bureaucracy perceives a shortage, their only response is to order more people to join the effort of producing the desired commodity.

To be fair, to force the citizens to do a job chosen by the bureaucrats is neither in theory nor in practice a necessary aspect of a communist society. The bureaucrats can regulate the overall number of workers in particular field and let the applicants compete for the jobs (for example by testing their abilities to do it), which is in effect hardly distinguishable from what we encounter in capitalism. In communist regimes one had the choice of the job (I am not sure about extreme instances of communism such as North Korea), even if some jobs required sort of proof of loyalty to the communist party.

Otherwise, I agree with all the rest of the post.

Comment by: prase | May 9, 2008, 1:45 pm

I would agree that communism is not a practical political and economic system, but this post fails to address why. In communist theory the state isn't supposed to control everything, this should be done through worker's councils or direct democracy or something along those lines. Like I said, I don't personally think these could be put into practice effectively, but without explaining why you leave open the objection that communist countries have not implemented the system correctly. You have to explain why it couldn't be done and attempts will always turn out poorly.

Comment by: Josh Spinks | May 9, 2008, 3:08 pm

Why you aren't a communist? Simple- it odesn't work because its assumptions about reality and human nature are false. Much like religion.

Comment by: Samuel Skinner | May 9, 2008, 3:26 pm

One point: You're not talking about communism. You're talking about socialism.

In communism, there is no state.

Make no mistake, the communist regimes that formed in the 20th century practices communism only by name.

Communism lacks a good mechanism to allocate resources to where they are most needed, resulting in waste, shortages and inefficiency

In a communist society, the same rules apply. People see where there are shortages and produce. See where there is waste and they stop. The only difference is that they do not do it out of greed but out of altruism.

Communism discourages productive effort and innovation

In a communist society, creativity and innovation is promoted because people who are creative do not have to worry if their art/creation is marketable.

Communism necessarily denies the freedom of the individual

Communism promotes positive freedom (I am able to do anything I want) while Capitalism promotes negative freedom (I am allowed to do anything I want). The first is clearly superior to the second.
Since in a communist society the state does not exist, people absolute freedom.

Comment by: dbo | May 9, 2008, 3:31 pm

I entirely agree with this post. I consider myself a libertarian-socialist (in as much as that's possible), and think that the best scocio-economic system is capitalism levened with enough socialism to make a good safety net to help people who fall between the craks, as well as to prevent some of the abuses laisez-faire capitalism is prone to.

Comment by: Chris Swanson | May 9, 2008, 4:52 pm

Building on what Chris Swanson says, we should make it clear that by "capitalism" we mean "free market," not the abject welfare-for-the-rich pandering the term is often used to describe today.

Comment by: Alex Weaver | May 9, 2008, 4:59 pm

Re: Martin's comment about Communism fostering corruption

Year ago I read Jane Jacob's book _Systems of Survival_ ( http://www.amazon.com/Systems-Survival-Dialogue-Foundations-Commerce/dp/0679748164 )

It's written as a sort of Socratic Dialog in which the speakers find that there are two systems of morality used in human societies, the 'commercial system' & the 'guardian system'. The argument is further developed that a well functioning society needs separate guardian & commercial organizations for different sorts of function with people working in each using the appropriate moral system.

If one has a organization that tries to do both guardian & commercial activities it turns into a Mafia style of organization. Communist states are an obvious example.

This implies that if an anarcho-capitalist society was set up, the private police & court systems would fall into this trap. (The minimal state variants of libertarianism might have other problems but not this one.)

Comment by: Jim Baerg | May 9, 2008, 5:43 pm

I agree with the previous two posters, and am happy you have written this post. My AP World History teacher claims that socialism and communism are the same thing and that countries that are not capitalist are "backward". It annoys me to no end, especially when other students take his word for it.

By the way, I don't really comment, but this is a great blog that I love to read. Keep it up. :)

Comment by: Helie L | May 9, 2008, 5:59 pm

mcv --

An unspoken premise of your argument is that "self-realization" or "-actualization" is only available in a Communist system. This is a double assumption, in that it may not be available at all in a Communist system, and it may well be available in a capitalist system. Being the most perfect form one can be would appear to be an internalized drive, to me, and would appear to be available in either system -- so long as one is undaunted by risk or change.

And though I realize that the human rights abuses history has witnessed in Communist states aren't a result of the application of Communist theory per se, the fact that those abuses have arisen in virtually every Communist state that has existed is a troubling fact crying out for explanation. It is my belief that it occurs because the state takes no notice of sweat equity, and in denying private ownership -- stealing from its citizens, some would say -- it immediately sets into play a criminal mindset when citizens hide or withhold what they feel to be their own.

In short, selfishness wins out, every time. If you doubt that, look at the dachas and special stores the Russian heirarchy maintained for themselves.

This, then, is the beauty of capitalism: it harnesses selfishness and greed to work for the good of society.

Comment by: Thumpalumpacus | May 9, 2008, 7:16 pm

Building on what Chris Swanson says, we should make it clear that by "capitalism" we mean "free market," not the abject welfare-for-the-rich pandering the term is often used to describe today.

I think the invisible hand stuff covered that already. Oligopoly and oligopsony (often aided by government regulation and/or subsidy) are the two most common ways to cripple the invisible hand. When the phenomena of the macro level don't emerge from thousands of independent decisions but from half a dozen corporate execs in a villa somewhere, the resource allocating benefits of the market are lost.

The butcher's, the brewer's and the baker's regard for their own interest only benefits my supper if I am *actually* free to get another supper if I don't like what the first 3 are offering. Food is a good example for the invisible hand because it's tangible, its quality is usually quickly apparent, and it is distributed among a large number of producers. Even a food giant like, well, Giant, would wither and die if its customers didn't like its wares and all started going across town to the Harris Teeter.

The invisible hand does seem to break down with less tangible industries, though. I don't see how the investment broker's regard for his own interest will lead to anything more than trading too often and reserving too little to cover your bets - and the insurance adjuster's regard for his own interest actively encourages him to screw me if I have a claim. Realtors' regard for their own interest contributed to the real estate bubble, too. People who make a percentage have a stronger interest in bargaining prices up than down, not to mention how much they benefit from fast turnover. The only person guaranteed to make a profit on "flipping" a house is the realtor who collects two commissions.

Oh, and if the doctor doesn't do a good job I'm dead and can't go elsewhere for my next open-heart surgery. So there may be some niches where government regulation is needed, despite the dangers. Poor quality "product" can do lots of damage in less time than it takes the consumer to recognize the low quality and find another provider.

Comment by: Chris | May 9, 2008, 9:00 pm

Incidentally, I think the notion that capitalism triumphed over communism is harmful. It seems clear to me that social democracy, as in, say, Norway, has proven to be the best system put into practice yet. Saying that capitalism is better is often a rhetorical trick. Capitalism is defined as any system that allows the market to operate, so that everyone will agree that it is better. Then, the definition is shifted to laissez-faire capitalism once you have agreed it is the better system.

Comment by: Josh Spinks | May 9, 2008, 9:58 pm

I have to say that this post would be better titled "Why I hate what people who haven't got a clue call "communism""

Certainly you seem to have a touching faith in the infallible laws of supply and demand given that the incentive to lie about what you are supplying is built in to the capitalist system. I suggest you read Marx and see what communism actually means rather than listen third-hand prejudiced accounts.

Comment by: malpollyon | May 9, 2008, 11:48 pm

Here's one, of many, of a simple situation under which communism fails:

-There's a market with an overproduction, so some people have to leave; let's say those who decide to leave don't quite cover it and there's still waste, so now no one left in the market wants to leave it, yet someone has to.

Who leaves and who decides?
More to the point, what if the decision makes some people leave who decide "to hell with what they think, I'm staying"; what happens to those people? Forcefully removed from their position? Jailed?

It's getting back to the point that communism doesn't work because it grinds against human nature. Any system that bets against greed and self-interest is simply bound to fail. A system like communism could work, hypothetically, in same groups of people who all know each other and want to help out, but then again, so could anything.

Imagine a group of people trying to organize and meet around the entire U.S. Let's just say 1,000,000 workers need to come together and reach a conclusion as to who has to go and who has to stay, as well as what to make, who makes it, how they make it, and how much to make. Now coordinate their requests for materials and space with another 1,000,000 workers facing similar problems who's business just happens to brush up against the first group. Eventually, groups may naturally form to prevent all this waste and impossible tangle and they may elect a representative (staying peaceful of course).

Kind of like the thread on anarchy; ideal communism is, as far as I can tell, no different from anarchy where everyone gets along with everyone and there are no problems. If anyone would like to point out the difference to me, I'd be happy to hear it.

Comment by: Mrnaglfar | May 10, 2008, 12:49 am

mcv:

According to this tradition one is free when one is able to actualize some perfect form of oneself, meaning that if someone is unable to realize what would be the best thing to do, then it is obligatory for others (for example the state) to tell them what to do and how to live.

Brrr! I feel a chill down my spine every time I read that paragraph. Do you have any notion at all of what you're suggesting? You're saying that if I am "unable to realize" what would be best for me (who makes that judgment?), then some other group of people can step in and direct my life, against my will if necessary, because they know better than I do (says who?).

In a free society, do people make bad decisions that in retrospect they regret? Absolutely. Does that mean it's better for other people to make those decisions for them? Absolutely not! Who are you going to entrust with that awesome power?

Humans are all fallible. There is no perfect authority you can count on to always make the right decisions. Anyone you choose for this job has the potential to make mistakes - and since these hypothetical state bureaucrats by definition know less about me than I do, are less well informed than me about what matters to me, they are even more likely to make bad choices than I am. And since they, unlike me, have no direct interest in how my life goes, they have far less incentive to study all my options carefully. There is simply no plausible way that anyone could ever be a better guardian of my destiny than I myself.

Allowing any person or group of people to control another's destiny is a terrible idea. The only exceptions I would make to such a core principle are in cases where the person's judgment and reason are clearly impaired, such as in the case of the mentally ill. But to allow the state to make decisions for a healthy, rational adult in sound mind, because they claim to know better? That is abhorrent tyranny, sir, and I will always stand against it.

To be fair, to force the citizens to do a job chosen by the bureaucrats is neither in theory nor in practice a necessary aspect of a communist society. The bureaucrats can regulate the overall number of workers in particular field...

Prase, I don't see how this is not a contradiction. What does it entail to "regulate the overall number of workers" in a particular industry if it does not involve mandating people to perform that job?

You mentioned competition to determine who's best suited for a job, but you've only dealt with the easy problem. The hard problem is, what do you do if there are fewer people interested in a job than there are slots to be filled?

Capitalism, imperfect as it is, has a solution to this. When a job is in demand but not enough people are willing to do it, the increased demand for that job leads to an increase in offered pay, making the job more attractive and encouraging more people to apply. This is not a solution available to communism. So what is the alternative, other than forcing people to perform that job regardless of whether they're willing? I really don't see how you've addressed this point at all.

dbo:

In a communist society, the same rules apply. People see where there are shortages and produce. See where there is waste and they stop. The only difference is that they do not do it out of greed but out of altruism.

That solution works well if everyone is altruistic. Now, how do you propose to apply it in the real world?

Comment by: Ebonmuse | May 10, 2008, 1:39 am

Make no mistake, the communist regimes that formed in the 20th century practices communism only by name.

I have to say that this post would be better titled "Why I hate what people who haven't got a clue call "communism""

Certainly you seem to have a touching faith in the infallible laws of supply and demand given that the incentive to lie about what you are supplying is built in to the capitalist system. I suggest you read Marx and see what communism actually means rather than listen third-hand prejudiced accounts.

I find it telling that neither of you seems to have even considered that there might be conclusions to be drawn from the fact that this has been what resulted every single time people attempted to set up a state according to Marxist principles. How do you account for this, and how do you propose it be avoided in the future?

Comment by: Alex Weaver | May 10, 2008, 4:01 am

That solution works well if everyone is altruistic. Now, how do you propose to apply it in the real world?

There is a word in greek that can roughly be translated as Education, but in the sense of what education was supposed to be: Critical Thinking, Knowledge and Scepticism.

Παιδεία

I truly believe that it leads to altruistic tendencies as is what I've experienced with people who have taken care to nurture these three aspects for themselves.
A form of altruism is what you will reach when you take an active interest in ethics.

I find it telling that neither of you seems to have even considered that there might be conclusions to be drawn from the fact that this has been what resulted every single time people attempted to set up a state according to Marxist principles. How do you account for this, and how do you propose it be avoided in the future?

1. Like most people who believe in capitalism, you seem to forget the situation in these countries before they became communistic.
Russia was led by God-kings, was mostly agrarian and the people liven in abject poverty and no political rights.
China was ruled by dynasties, engaged in civil wars which resulted mainly in the people suffering. Similar situation as above.
Cuba was a colony of US in everything except name. Rich plantation owners abused the population to their own ends. Abject poverty etc

You seem to expect that dirt-poor countries should suddenly morph into western country clones after starting on the trip to communism (and I repeat, none of them had or has communism at the moment. Only totalitarian socialism). Well that is not how it works but the result is much better then what would happen with a capitalist society. USSR became a superpower in 40 years. China Became a superpower within 50 years. Cuba's situation has improved dramatically even with an immoral and needless embargo by a Superpower.
The same thing has happened in almost every other country that attempted it.
The fact that many of them turned to totalitarianism is a result of the small education of it's citizens which allowed tyrants and dictators to assume power and form a personality cult.

On the other hand, take a similary poor country as Cuba and see how well they have managed under capitalism. You don't even have to look hard, just close your eyes and point somewhere in middle-Africa...

2. I also believe that if a sufficient critical mass of people became educated in the way I mentioned before, communism or anarchism is what will happen. It is already obvious from countries who have a high level of education, like the nordic ones, that are moving towards socialism and still retain a higher level of living that laisez-faire capilistic ones.
If socialism arrives without violent revolution, it will not be totalitarian.
Communism can only truly arrive once the vast majority of nations are already socialistic.

One last thing. Everyone seems to hold on to the belief that the human nature is unchangable and inherently greedy and self-interested. However that is not the case as far as I've seen. If anything, human nature is as molded by education and experiences as religion. The claim that people who are not greedy and/or self-interested (in a materialistic way) go against their nature is like claiming that people who are not religious go against their nature. Frankly, for people like me who are not greedy or self-interested, it's insulting.

Comment by: dbo | May 10, 2008, 7:12 am

-There's a market with an overproduction, so some people have to leave; let's say those who decide to leave don't quite cover it and there's still waste, so now no one left in the market wants to leave it, yet someone has to.

Who leaves and who decides?

People decide for themselves to leave for the good of everyone else.

Comment by: dbo | May 10, 2008, 7:26 am

Weaver:

I find it telling that neither of you seems to have even considered that there might be conclusions to be drawn from the fact that this has been what resulted every single time people attempted to set up a state according to Marxist principles. How do you account for this, and how do you propose it be avoided in the future?

This is what has happened single time people attempted to set up a state according to Russian Populist principles: anything more than a passing, preconceived, glance at 'communist' states will show the overwhelming influence of Lenin's background of Russian Populism, simply sprinkled with Marxist rhetoric. Rhetoric doesn't make reality, however, and while Americans have been culturally conditioned into seeing communism as the evil Other, Europeans can see its benefits as well as its faults.

Comment by: Brit-nontheist | May 10, 2008, 8:58 am

Superhappyjen- I agree with you. I would love to see a thread with ideas for combating the atheism caused communism accusation. One thing I have used to counter some of those arguments is Acts 4:32-36. If that is not a description of communism, I don't know what is. It is followed by the lovely story of what happens to members of Peter's disciple group when they try to keep any of their own property for themselves. I would like to hear other argument ideas, anyone?

Comment by: LindaJoy | May 10, 2008, 9:10 am

The fact that many of them turned to totalitarianism is a result of the small education of it's citizens which allowed tyrants and dictators to assume power and form a personality cult.

There's always an excuse, isn't there? It's not communism's fault, it's the fault of the people who lived under communism? If only they hadn't been so willing to accede to totalitarianism, the whole thing would have worked out - something like that? How frustrating it must be for a great reformer to repeatedly be stymied by the incompetence of everyone other than him.

And here I was thinking that communism was an idea that was meant to appeal to the working class, to the poor, struggling laborers who'd immediately be able to grasp how it would improve their situation. Now you're saying that communism is a doctrine whose merits can only be appreciated by the educated elite? By the bourgeoisie? Truth, Marx must be generating high torque in his grave to hear you say that.

Everyone seems to hold on to the belief that the human nature is unchangable and inherently greedy and self-interested.

I'm not saying that human nature is unchangeable, but anyone who intends to change it had better have a damn good plan. So far I haven't seen any communism advocate propose a way to do that, other than a vague hope that it will all work out for the best somehow. This sort of willful refusal to deal with reality is a good example of why actual communist states, in every case, have become miserable failures and violent despotisms. China is the example that proves the rule: its prosperity has grown as a direct function of the degree to which it's become a participant in the capitalist world economy.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | May 10, 2008, 11:25 am

I'm not saying that human nature is unchangeable, but anyone who intends to change it had better have a damn good plan.

Simple: Mind control. That's what religion's for. ;)

But seriously, back to communism. In a sense, one could consider communism to be the purest form of democracy; in theory, the people are supposed to make all the decisions. However, many of the great enlightened minds of the 17th and 18th centuries are on record as saying, "Democracy is tyranny waiting to happen." In my opinion, the same is true of communism. No political system can survive without some kind of figurehead or leader that fulfills certain duties and functions. In such a case, there is always the possibility of a demagogue arising to seize power (*cough* LENIN *cough*).

People can make arguments all they wish about what it would take to "make communism work" : greater education, altruism, etc. ad nauseam. None of that changes the fact that the system they create by such criteria only exists in their minds; communism sounds appealing to lots of people, but it has a stunningly poor track record in the real world. I think Ebon did a fine job highlighting that communism, in practice, actually suffocates freedom and ingenuity.

I had a literature professor who was an ardent communist back in the 60's, but had become so jaded with the movement - realizing that much of it was wishful thinking - that he verbally assaulted anyone who espoused communist ideals. Since we had several students in the class who had grown up under communist regimes, he had a field day. One of them made the argument that, while Stalin was in power in Russia, there was no crime in the streets. I'll never forget his response:

"That's the same argument as, 'When Hitler ran Germany, the trains were always on time'."

Comment by: Ingersoll's Revenge | May 10, 2008, 11:56 am

dbo,

People decide for themselves to leave for the good of everyone else.

It sure is easy to answer tough questions when you don't answer anything that comes before or after it. That answer is almost as good as "wishing it were so".

If everyone was alturistic as communism would require, then we wouldn't even be having this debate; turns out people are self-interested and greedy, who'd of thought? I know it's only been reflected in all of human history for all of human existence, but let's not get bogged down in details.

1. Like most people who believe in capitalism, you seem to forget the situation in these countries before they became communistic.
Russia was led by God-kings, was mostly agrarian and the people liven in abject poverty and no political rights.
China was ruled by dynasties, engaged in civil wars which resulted mainly in the people suffering. Similar situation as above.
Cuba was a colony of US in everything except name. Rich plantation owners abused the population to their own ends. Abject poverty etc

And once communism took over all the people changed and all those problems went away, right? I'm sure the people were happy and no one got killed.
And surely, the change only came from communism, and not from other technology and industrialization, right?

The fact that many of them turned to totalitarianism is a result of the small education of it's citizens which allowed tyrants and dictators to assume power and form a personality cult.

So your solution to this problem is.... what? Educate everyone? Now I'm all for education, but do you have any evidence that it would even work? Or that education might be able to stop say.... the dictor's military?

I also believe that if a sufficient critical mass of people became educated in the way I mentioned before, communism or anarchism is what will happen. It is already obvious from countries who have a high level of education, like the nordic ones, that are moving towards socialism and still retain a higher level of living that laisez-faire capilistic ones.
If socialism arrives without violent revolution, it will not be totalitarian.
Communism can only truly arrive once the vast majority of nations are already socialistic.

Mixtures of appropriate socialism and captialism are certainly benefically, but I would hardly say that such things naturally progress towards no government (in which cases all those socialist benefits would dry up because with no government to tax and use that tax money to implement those programs the benefits become those of relying on the generosity of others, which gets back to the point of how education overcomes self-interest)

Frankly, for people like me who are not greedy or self-interested, it's insulting.

That made me chuckle. Ok, if you're not greedy or self-interested, prove it; mail me all your money, or at least all the money you don't need to use to eat and live in the most basic of apartments. If you're not greedy and have no self-interest, that shouldn't be an unreasonable demand.

Comment by: Mrnaglfar | May 10, 2008, 1:29 pm

Oh so we're being sarcastic now? Fine, I can play this game but it becomes tiresome quickly. The fact that you decided to go that way shows just how prepared you are to discuss any positive aspect of communism.

@Ebonmuse

There's always an excuse, isn't there? It's not communism's fault, it's the fault of the people who lived under communism? If only they hadn't been so willing to accede to totalitarianism, the whole thing would have worked out - something like that? How frustrating it must be for a great reformer to repeatedly be stymied by the incompetence of everyone other than him.

Of course there is an "excuse". Fortunately, unlike a typical 'murican I can actually look at the complex situations that led to the USSR forming, becoming a superpower and it's eventual demise. I can also see Marx' theory and see where it differs from what was actually pracised.
I cannot simply go "Hurr, communism bad, capitalism good, hurr."

What USSR practiced was not communism as Marx described it. Many people have already said that in this thread but in true American fashion it seems to pass right through your ears.

And here I was thinking that communism was an idea that was meant to appeal to the working class, to the poor, struggling laborers who'd immediately be able to grasp how it would improve their situation. Now you're saying that communism is a doctrine whose merits can only be appreciated by the educated elite? By the bourgeoisie? Truth, Marx must be generating high torque in his grave to hear you say that.

If only bourgeoise meant educated elite, you might have made a point. Being part of the proletariat does not mean that you are an uneducated dunce. On the contrary, history has proven that an evolution not backed by the appropriate philosophy on the part of everyone who takes part is prone to corruption.

I don't care what Marx is doing in his grave. The man thought of a brilliant theory which is unfortunately not complete and also utopic. That does not mean it should be discarded but rather that the correct parts should be taken and the whole thing molded into something workable.

By discarding the whole thing outright because previous attempts failed is well...like judging all atheists because Stalin was an atheist.

I'm not saying that human nature is unchangeable, but anyone who intends to change it had better have a damn good plan. So far I haven't seen any communism advocate propose a way to do that, other than a vague hope that it will all work out for the best somehow

Communism is a socioeconomic theory not a philosophy of life. Marx thought of a system that he assumed would work. Unfortunately the world is not yet prepared for Communism and the change will happen whether people realize it is communism or not.

Capitalism went through similar failed attempts until it managed to take root and it mainly happened because the world was ready for it.

in every case, have become miserable failures and violent despotisms. China is the example that proves the rule: its prosperity has grown as a direct function of the degree to which it's become a participant in the capitalist world economy.

Ah I get it. When Communism fails, it's because of core communist ideas. When it succeeds it's because of capitalism. How simplistic of you...

@Mrnaglfar

It sure is easy to answer tough questions when you don't answer anything that comes before or after it. That answer is almost as good as "wishing it were so".

The article is a critique of communism not an essay on why communism can never come to be.

If everyone was alturistic as communism would require, then we wouldn't even be having this debate; turns out people are self-interested and greedy, who'd of thought? I know it's only been reflected in all of human history for all of human existence, but let's not get bogged down in details.

If everyone becomes as altruistic as communism requires then we would already have communism.
It seems that our disagreement then is not if communism is bad of good but rather if it's feasible.

And once communism took over all the people changed and all those problems went away, right? I'm sure the people were happy and no one got killed.

So your critique of communism (socialism actually) is that it's not somehow a magic situation that immediately makes a society a utopia once it arrives through violent revolution?
USSR was poor, agragarian and weak politically. Under socialism it was still poor (albeit that did not matter so much since money is not so important), industrial and a superpower. Yet you criticise communism because it did not help USSR become a US clone overnight.

And surely, the change only came from communism, and not from other technology and industrialization, right?

There we go again with blaming all the bad on communism and all the good on anything else. Can you people grasp complex situations?

So your solution to this problem is.... what? Educate everyone? Now I'm all for education, but do you have any evidence that it would even work? Or that education might be able to stop say.... the dictor's military?

Education has, is and always will be the enemy of totalitarianism. So to answer your question: Yes, it would stop a dictator's military as it has done many times now.
Just remember what is the first thing to go under a totalitarian regime.

in which cases all those socialist benefits would dry up because with no government to tax and use that tax money to implement those programs the benefits become those of relying on the generosity of others, which gets back to the point of how education overcomes self-interest)

Exactly.

That made me chuckle. Ok, if you're not greedy or self-interested, prove it; mail me all your money, or at least all the money you don't need to use to eat and live in the most basic of apartments. If you're not greedy and have no self-interest, that shouldn't be an unreasonable demand.

Not being greedy does not mean being stupid.

Comment by: dbo | May 10, 2008, 3:27 pm

dbo,

Not being greedy does not mean being stupid.

But I thought you weren't greedy or self-interested; if you're neither of those things, please, explain how my request is unreasonable.

The article is a critique of communism not an essay on why communism can never come to be.

What it is and why it can't be are in essence, both based on same assumption. What pure communism is just happens to be anarchy with a pretty new dress on; a perfect anarchy where everyone gets along and supports everyone else and there is no need for government. Of course, if those assumptions held, then any system would work just as well.

If everyone becomes as altruistic as communism requires then we would already have communism.
It seems that our disagreement then is not if communism is bad of good but rather if it's feasible.

I think it would be wonderful if everyone could get along for the betterment of everyone else, and everyone was perfectly informed and willing to make the choice that works out best for everyone.

But I'm not going to place that on any scale in the world outside of "dream" because, shocker, people aren't all well informed (many aren't even kind of informed), and people are self-interested (it's simply built into us, all of us). The mess and waste that a true communism produced would be better dealt with in just about any other form of government, provided all your idealized hopes about people were true.

So, on those grounds, not only do I feel it's not feasible, but I feel it doesn't work as well as other systems could and creates more waste than other systems, whether or not the people in the culture are perfect or not.

There we go again with blaming all the bad on communism and all the good on anything else. Can you people grasp complex situations?

So, pointing out other things that are against to your point (where you did the exact opposite, essentially claiming they become powerful because of the rise of totalitarian socialism, not true communism, as you so rightly pointed out) turns into me not being able to grasp a complex situation?

I understand there were many factors at play; I merely pointed out several of them, several large ones, you failed to mention. So who's misunderstanding the situation here?

Education has, is and always will be the enemy of totalitarianism. So to answer your question: Yes, it would stop a dictator's military as it has done many times now.
Just remember what is the first thing to go under a totalitarian regime.

Dissent is normally the first thing to go.

Of course, if everyone was wonderfully educated, which again, I feel would be a fine thing, then any system would work just as well, if not better, than communism. You've failed to convince me that from your starting premise communism is better than any other system, or even how your starting premise is true.

Exactly.

And if everyone gave everyone everything they needed to survive then we wouldn't need government - yet people don't. For all the flaws that capitalism with mixtures of socialism has, communism has and more.

Comment by: Mrnaglfar | May 10, 2008, 3:50 pm

But I thought you weren't greedy or self-interested; if you're neither of those things, please, explain how my request is unreasonable.

As greed denotes selfish desire of money, power etc, usually to the detriment of others, as I do not have this characteristic I am not greedy.
Materialistic self-interest is similar but usually does not include the "detriment to others" part.

To answer your question, I would not give my money to you for there is no reason. I do not have much excess money and the few I have I need in case of emergency. If I get money in excess of that I usually push them in areas where they might do some good, like donating to causes I wish to promote.

What it is and why it can't be are in essence, both based on same assumption. What pure communism is just happens to be anarchy with a pretty new dress on; a perfect anarchy where everyone gets along and supports everyone else and there is no need for government. Of course, if those assumptions held, then any system would work just as well.

I agree. I too believe that essentially communism and anarchy are talking about the same thing. I also agree that once we reach that level of altruism in society, communism/anarchy will have arrived, even without violent revolution.

But I'm not going to place that on any scale in the world outside of "dream" because, shocker, people aren't all well informed (many aren't even kind of informed), and people are self-interested (it's simply built into us, all of us)

Nonsense. It's been proven time and time again that people can be well informed and/or selfless. If you want a modern example just look at the Free Software movement.

The mess and waste that a true communism produced would be better dealt with in just about any other form of government, provided all your idealized hopes about people were true.

The wonderfully capitalistic third world countries would disagree with you.
The wonderfully capitalistic eastern european block would disagree with you.
Pre-Socialism Capitalistic Cuba would disagree with you.

So, pointing out other things that are against to your point (where you did the exact opposite, essentially claiming they become powerful because of the rise of totalitarian socialism, not true communism, as you so rightly pointed out) turns into me not being able to grasp a complex situation?

What I did is mention that countries of very low level which went into socialism (along with Industrialism and the like) have seemed to reach a better quality of life compared to similar countries that became capitalistic.
The problem is that a capitalistic third world country ends up horribly exploited by the first world until the point where they manage to progress to "developing nation" status (as is what is happening with India currently)
The problem is that a socialistic third world country is exploited by its own rulers until it manages to reach developing nation status.
The difference is that a third world country under a capitalistc dictatorship never seems to develop while a socialist dictatorship does.
Of course I agree that things are not black and white. There are many factors at play and it does indeed seem that attempts at communism have led to dictatorship. However I believe it is hard to avoid that when "Communism" is achieved through a military coup.

You've failed to convince me that from your starting premise communism is better than any other system, or even how your starting premise is true.

My premise is not that. My premise is that once this level of world-wide education and altruism is reached, the world will by default be communism or anarchism.

And if everyone gave everyone everything they needed to survive then we wouldn't need government - yet people don't.

People do. Just because you are not aware of it, does not mean it does not happen.

For all the flaws that capitalism with mixtures of socialism has, communism has and more.

Show them to me then. Do not start how it's not in the human nature and all that bollocks. Just assume that humanity has achieved the nature required for Communism. How is it then more problematic than capitalism?

Comment by: dbo | May 10, 2008, 4:51 pm

What USSR practiced was not communism as Marx described it.

dbo, you need to make up your mind about which argument you're trying to make here. First you say it's not fair to expect communism to immediately make the USSR into a superpower, although it did eventually become one. Then you say that the USSR's government wasn't really communist anyway. These are incompatible claims. Are you defending the USSR or are you not?

By discarding the whole thing outright because previous attempts failed is well...like judging all atheists because Stalin was an atheist.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, I grant your point that real communism has never yet been tried. If that's true, then how do you know communism is a good idea? After all, real communism has never been tried! It's an untested idea. How could you possibly know how, or whether, it would work out in practice? Or do you, like Marx, just speculate from your armchair and "assume" (your word) that it would work?

It seems that our disagreement then is not if communism is bad of good but rather if it's feasible.

No, it's not. I argued in this post that communism is bad because it's infeasible. Those are not separate contentions. However neat and simple it may look on paper, communism simply doesn't acknowledge the basic facts of human nature that would prevent it from ever working in the real world.

If human beings were perfectly altruistic and omniscient, then yes, communism would be a fantastic idea. If people were willing to work their hardest for no extra compensation, communism would work wonderfully. If people were always willing to subordinate their own interests for the good of society, communism would work wonderfully. If people had the infallible wisdom and insight needed to direct the course of others' lives, communism would work wonderfully. In reality, people are not like this. People are lazy, greedy, ignorant, and self-interested, and they will remain so for the foreseeable future. I'm open to hearing plans about how we can change this, but so far no one has proposed one (and your vague assertions about how someday, somehow, we'll just be "ready", are a case in point).

The genius of capitalism is that it can build a superior machine out of imperfect parts. Rather than trying to make people into unrealistically perfect automatons, it provides incentives that harness greed and self-interest for the collective good. It channels these negative impulses into productive avenues, rather than trying to suppress them altogether, which is your plan. To borrow a famous saying, capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others.

Your consistent dismissal of human nature itself as an irrelevant detail, combined with your near-religious faith that someday humanity will just be good enough to accommodate your grand, impractical dream, leads me to conclude that you really haven't devoted much thought to the practical side of the communist idea at all. Personally, I prefer utopias that can be implemented in the real world.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | May 10, 2008, 5:07 pm

dbo,

To answer your question, I would not give my money to you for there is no reason. I do not have much excess money and the few I have I need in case of emergency. If I get money in excess of that I usually push them in areas where they might do some good, like donating to causes I wish to promote.

So you're not self-interested, yet have money saved up that YOU might need in case something happens to YOU. You're also ok with giving money to causes YOU want to promote.

That does not equal alturism, or freedom from self-interest. After all, there are plenty of people in the world who need the money for immediate things now; some people are starving and could use that money to not die, some people need medicine they can't afford, many are homeless in our own country. Are you saying your future needs and considerations of yourself have outweighed their needs?

That's blatant self-interest, and there's nothing wrong with it.

I also agree that once we reach that level of altruism in society, communism/anarchy will have arrived, even without violent revolution.

So let's say, just for the sake of argument, that all people all well-informed, intelligent, hard-working, etc etc. Instead of anarchy or communism, these people might realize it's important to place small groups of representatives in charge of them who have their best interests in mind; of course, all these people are also well informed and well meaning, so there's no corruption and everything works perfectly. Just one of the ways that a capitalist/socialist democracy would be more efficient, given your starting assumptions (you no longer need millions of people to directly interact with every other person, now only a handful have to discuss the matter - saves a lot of waste).

Nonsense. It's been proven time and time again that people can be well informed and/or selfless. If you want a modern example just look at the Free Software movement.

Some people can be well informed and generous, but there are plenty of things that stop it from being selfless (reputation can certainly be a factor there). But even if there were, for the sake of argument, truly selfless, just because a handful of them can be (at least temporarily), doesn't mean everyone can be all the time.

The wonderfully capitalistic third world countries would disagree with you.
The wonderfully capitalistic eastern european block would disagree with you.
Pre-Socialism Capitalistic Cuba would disagree with you.

*in your words* There you go, blaming capitalism for all the bad and none of the good; Besides, those aren't REAL capitalists countries, those people aren't well informed enough to be capitalists.

I agree though, that capitalism is not the "cure-all" to make everything better immediately or forever, but it does work in many, many areas and communism does not. Of course, many dead people in soviet russia would probably agree that they were better off before communism/totalitarian socialism or whatever you're defending came to power there. As was mentioned, there never has been an *actual* communist country, same where there has never been an *actual* anarchist state. If they can work, why haven't they, and if they require people to be more alturistic as a function of who they are as people then you'll be in for a long, long wait; possibly an indefinite one.

My premise is not that. My premise is that once this level of world-wide education and altruism is reached, the world will by default be communism or anarchism.

I don't think you've shown that; you haven't named anyway that, provided all people are good and well meaning and well informed, that communism is more efficient than other forms of an economic/lifestyle system that exist, ala my example above.

People do. Just because you are not aware of it, does not mean it does not happen.

It does happen, just not consistently and not in a vast majority of people.

Just assume that humanity has achieved the nature required for Communism. How is it then more problematic than capitalism?

See my example above and my initial post on the subject. If governments all mean well and are all well-informed then a handful of people are far more capable of achieving a lot more than all 300,000,000 or so of Americans trying to communicate with all of the others in order to determine who needs what and how much and how to make it and what materials to use and how to decide who gets what when more than one area needs scarce resources etc etc.

And another one of your flaws is your assumption that humankind reaches some alturistic enlightenment. If everyone is at that level, why communism instead of capitalism? After all, just about any system of economics or government is perfect when you assume a perfect population; in the absence of that perfect population, how have attempts at anarchy and communism worked out?

Comment by: Mrnaglfar | May 10, 2008, 5:42 pm

This is what has happened single time people attempted to set up a state according to Russian Populist principles: anything more than a passing, preconceived, glance at 'communist' states will show the overwhelming influence of Lenin's background of Russian Populism, simply sprinkled with Marxist rhetoric.

You do realize that you can only move the goalposts so far before you run out of field.

Rhetoric doesn't make reality, however, and while Americans have been culturally conditioned into seeing communism as the evil Other, Europeans can see its benefits as well as its faults.

And I'm sure that's why every state in Europe that formerly embraced Communism has now rejected it.

Comment by: Alex Weaver | May 10, 2008, 5:45 pm

First you say it's not fair to expect communism to immediately make the USSR into a superpower, although it did eventually become one. Then you say that the USSR's government wasn't really communist anyway. These are incompatible claims. Are you defending the USSR or are you not?

USSR attempted communism. They had socialism. I am not defending USSR.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, I grant your point that real communism has never yet been tried. If that's true, then how do you know communism is a good idea? After all, real communism has never been tried! It's an untested idea. How could you possibly know how, or whether, it would work out in practice? Or do you, like Marx, just speculate from your armchair and "assume" (your word) that it would work?

Indeed.

No, it's not. I argued in this post that communism is bad because it's infeasible. Those are not separate contentions. However neat and simple it may look on paper, communism simply doesn't acknowledge the basic facts of human nature that would prevent it from ever working in the real world.

Nonsense. Your arguments were against strawmen of Communism. You point was not that it was unfeasible.
I also disagree that human nature is unchangeable.

People are lazy, greedy, ignorant, and self-interested, and they will remain so for the foreseeable future. I'm open to hearing plans about how we can change this, but so far no one has proposed one (and your vague assertions about how someday, somehow, we'll just be "ready", are a case in point).

This post was not about how we can make people not be lazy, greedy and ignorant (glad to see you have such a bright idea about the world) but rather the faults of communism.

Your consistent dismissal of human nature itself as an irrelevant detail, combined with your near-religious faith that someday humanity will just be good enough to accommodate your grand, impractical dream, leads me to conclude that you really haven't devoted much thought to the practical side of the communist idea at all. Personally, I prefer utopias that can be implemented in the real world.

Ad hominem much?

I do not dismiss the human nature. I just see the evidence that it is not necessarily "lazy, greedy, ignorant, and self-interested". You are otoh all too willing to accept that and deny evidence to the contrary so that you might praise capitalism.
My "near-religious" faith that humanity will eventually improve itself is called optimism in the non-insulting societies.

Whatever you might say, it appears that your argument is about the feasibility of communism and not if what it proposes is wrong. If not, stop attacking strawmen and argue your point.

Comment by: dbo | May 10, 2008, 5:56 pm

That does not equal alturism, or freedom from self-interest. After all, there are plenty of people in the world who need the money for immediate things now; some people are starving and could use that money to not die, some people need medicine they can't afford, many are homeless in our own country. Are you saying your future needs and considerations of yourself have outweighed their needs?

I am not willing to make this discussion into a defense of my personality. You are asserting that I am greedy and or materialistic self-interested because I will not send all my money to you. That is absurd. You do not know what or how I might be using my funds but yet you are certain that if I cannot prove it by sending all my money to you then must be lying.
I can only shake my head at this logic.

So let's say, just for the sake of argument, that all people all well-informed, intelligent, hard-working,[sic]

You simply cannot have a perfect society based on a vice (greed).

*in your words* There you go, blaming capitalism for all the bad and none of the good; Besides, those aren't REAL capitalists countries, those people aren't well informed enough to be capitalists.

I'm sorry, are you quote mining me?
You said that countries similar to communistic regimes can always be served best by capitalism. I give you examples where this is not true. What does your quote mine have to do with anything?

I agree though, that capitalism is not the "cure-all" to make everything better immediately or forever, but it does work in many, many areas and communism does not. Of course, many dead people in soviet russia would probably agree that they were better off before communism/totalitarian socialism or whatever you're defending came to power there

I'm not defending USSR or China. I'm simply pointing out that things are not black and white.

It does happen, just not consistently and not in a vast majority of people.

So you agree then that "human nature" is not absolute?

And another one of your flaws is your assumption that humankind reaches some alturistic enlightenment. If everyone is at that level, why communism instead of capitalism? After all, just about any system of economics or government is perfect when you assume a perfect population; in the absence of that perfect population, how have attempts at anarchy and communism worked out?

Once again. I did not come here to convince everyone that you should embrace communism or whatever you think I am defending. I came only to burn some strawmen.

Comment by: db0 | May 10, 2008, 6:13 pm

dbo

I am not willing to make this discussion into a defense of my personality. You are asserting that I am greedy and or materialistic self-interested because I will not send all my money to you. That is absurd. You do not know what or how I might be using my funds but yet you are certain that if I cannot prove it by sending all my money to you then must be lying.
I can only shake my head at this logic.

While I'm asserting that you are self-interested, you claimed to be free of self-interest; just because you can't back up what you said doesn't mean retreating into indignation will help your case somehow, as if feeling insulted made you right.

You simply cannot have a perfect society based on a vice (greed).

You can't have a perfect society, period. Such a thing does not exist.
Oh sure, communism sounds perfect when you assume perfection from the beginning, but then again, so does everything else.

There's only one way I can see to even define a 'perfect society' and that's if everyone in it agrees it's perfect, and everyone outside of it agrees it's perfect.

More to the point, where do you get off even calling greed a 'vice', as if greed was inherently morally wrong? It's like calling a hammer wrong; greed is merely a tool that can be used for many things. In the proper context, greed can be good - it can inspire innovation, make people strive for lofty goals, and without greed, very little would have ever been accomplished. However, greed can also throw people in poverty and lead to acts of violence, among other things. To merely paint greed a wrong with one broad brush stroke is similar to denying human nature entails greed and that in a perfect society it would vanish, and that through merely teaching children we can somehow undo over a billion years of evolution.

Call my a cynic, but that's too ridiculous to ever consider basing a system of human behavior around.

You said that countries similar to communistic regimes can always be served best by capitalism. I give you examples where this is not true. What does your quote mine have to do with anything?

I guess you missed the rest of the sentence where I said there's nothing about capitalism that suddenly makes everything better immediately and forever. Like your original response, you're again only answering part of the question and forgetting about the rest.

Capitalism literally requires that some people be losers and others be winners, in the economic sense of the word, which alone excludes it from being perfect (unless the losers were perfectly happy with their lose and understood it, and if I assume that then capitalism is perfect. Let's see you argue with that iron-clad logic). However, with mixtures of socialism to curb the excesses of capitalism, in the world we ACTUALLY live in, which system do you propose would be better of the alternatives?

I'm not defending USSR or China. I'm simply pointing out that things are not black and white.

So then you're defending an ideal state of communism that has never existed, with people who's nature differs from ours, and saying that, without any evidence or reason to think so, it would be better than any other system, and in fact the default position, and because of that, capitalism isn't good?

Or are you defending anything at all? I can't tell anymore; why even raise the examples of china and the USSR rising to power if you're not defending them and if they weren't actually communist countries? What does either that, or your example of third world countries have to do with these points?

So you agree then that "human nature" is not absolute?

Human nature fluctuates within the bounds of what it can do in some sort of distribution with many people around the mid point and fewer and fewer out towards the endpoints (merely a statistical inevitability), so yes, it's capable of change. However, it being capable of change does not make it suddenly infinitely changable; human nature will never be "ant nature" or "bee nature" that communism would require.

Those bounds themselves are capable of change in small steps, and even redefinable given evolutionary time and selection for one behavior over another. This is why I told you that, while technically not impossible (as nothing really is), you're in for a long wait if you want those bounds to be redefined to your liking.

Once again. I did not come here to convince everyone that you should embrace communism or whatever you think I am defending. I came only to burn some strawmen.

Burning them by assuming every point raised against communism wouldn't exist if everyone is perfect? Well, you certainly got me there.

Comment by: Mrnaglfar | May 10, 2008, 6:58 pm

Just to clear up my first point about you not being altruistic, in the sense of being free from self-interest:

Altruism is supporting causes you don't agree with.
Altruism is always helping, despite the results, be them positive or negative, for you, provided it helps someone else, even a little.
Altruism is doing all that anonymously
Altruism is devoting your entire life to others at expense to yourself, and only taking in resources so far as your means is to help others more by extending the time you can serve them.

You know, those things you said would make you "stupid" to do.

By saving money for yourself, and only helping causes you happen to agree with, that places your motives in self-interest and reciprocal altruism, both of which are greedy things.

Comment by: Mrnaglfar | May 10, 2008, 7:11 pm

While I'm asserting that you are self-interested, you claimed to be free of self-interest; just because you can't back up what you said doesn't mean retreating into indignation will help your case somehow, as if feeling insulted made you right.

I am self-interested. I am not materialistic self-interested. Arguing for it (AKA defending myself) is beyond the scope of this article and my time constraints.

Oh sure, communism sounds perfect when you assume perfection from the beginning, but then again, so does everything else.

Well, this is part of the argument. I just said that you cannot have a vice in perfection.

More to the point, where do you get off even calling greed a 'vice', as if greed was inherently morally wrong?

I'd love to see the reasoning where greed could be considered a good value to have.

You said it yourself that capitalism is using flawed parts of human nature (i.e. greed) to build a better system. That does not mean that the flawed parts somehow become good.

Or do you want to argue that if everyone was more greedy we would be better off? Or do perhaps the end justify the means?

I guess you missed the rest of the sentence where I said there's nothing about capitalism that suddenly makes everything better immediately and forever. Like your original response, you're again only answering part of the question and forgetting about the rest.

Fine, you claim that capitalism on a flawed populace does a better job than socialism on a flawed populace when both societies start from an equal footing (say, as third world/undeveloped countries)

What is your evidence of this?

However, with mixtures of socialism to curb the excesses of capitalism, in the world we ACTUALLY live in, which system do you propose would be better of the alternatives?

Since you asked, I think a capitalist socialism if very fitting for the world we live in. The more socialistic the better.
For the current world we live in, I do not propose any alternatives.
What I do propose is to work in making the world better (raising education levels etc) and come what may.

So then you're defending an ideal state of communism that has never existed, with people who's nature differs from ours, and saying that, without any evidence or reason to think so, it would be better than any other system, and in fact the default position, and because of that, capitalism isn't good?

No. I am not arguing that capitalism is not good. I could argue that capitalism is not perfect but you already agree with that.
Like it or not, communism has never existed in practice and is still an ideology. Utopian? quite possibly. Unfeasible? Arguable.
However if you want to argue that this socioeconomic is inherently flawed, at least argue against what the system says. Not strawmen.

Or are you defending anything at all? I can't tell anymore; why even raise the examples of china and the USSR rising to power if you're not defending them and if they weren't actually communist countries? What does either that, or your example of third world countries have to do with these points?

I did not raise the examples of China and USSR as a defense of communism. Indeed, I did not raise them at all as they were implied by the article and a subsequent question to me.
In the end, I've already said what I am doing here. Pointing out strawmen.

Those bounds themselves are capable of change in small steps, and even redefinable given evolutionary time and selection for one behavior over another. This is why I told you that, while technically not impossible (as nothing really is), you're in for a long wait if you want those bounds to be redefined to your liking.

As unbelievable as it may sound. I am not in dissagreement with you. I will probably will not live to see communism.

Burning them by assuming every point raised against communism wouldn't exist if everyone is perfect? Well, you certainly got me there.

* By pointing out that communism has not yet appeared in any society (indeed it cannot unless everyone or the vast majority does it)
* By pointing out that some arguments are blatantly false (like being inherently against freedom)
* And finally yes, although many communists would disagree with me, I do believe that communism is unfeasible in the current world.

However either we argue against what communism proposes or not.

Comment by: db0 | May 10, 2008, 7:27 pm

Since db0 brought up the excuse that 'communism' was first tried in relatively backward countries, it would be unfair to just compare the US & USSR, I'm a bit surprised no one has mentioned the contrast between East & West Germany or North & South Korea.

Those look like excellent experimental cases in which one society is split into two with near equivalent starting points & different socioeconomic systems are tried. The results speak for themselves.

Comment by: Jim Baerg | May 10, 2008, 8:30 pm

I need to bookmark this thread for the next time someone tries to argue that Communism isn't a religion...

Comment by: Alex Weaver | May 10, 2008, 9:20 pm

You absolutely do, Alex. In fact, I would tell that to Britnontheist: in my experience (I live in Europe, and known people form several european countries) Europeans' understanding of the advanatges and disadvantages of communism is drawn mostly from socialist propaganda.

Comment by: Valhar2000 | May 11, 2008, 12:15 am

dbo,

I am self-interested. I am not materialistic self-interested.

Everyone is to some degree interested in both, we'd just be haggling over the exact price; the fact that you own a computer speaks to that.

I'd love to see the reasoning where greed could be considered a good value to have.

You said it yourself that capitalism is using flawed parts of human nature (i.e. greed) to build a better system. That does not mean that the flawed parts somehow become good.

Or do you want to argue that if everyone was more greedy we would be better off? Or do perhaps the end justify the means?

For an example, you could read the part of my point that came directly after that one you posted where I said:

It's like calling a hammer wrong; greed is merely a tool that can be used for many things. In the proper context, greed can be good - it can inspire innovation, make people strive for lofty goals, and without greed, very little would have ever been accomplished.

People being greedy on it's own does not accomplish anything; same way giving everyone a better hammer doesn't accomplish anything on it's own - it's what one chooses to do with that hammer. Sure, better tools and houses might be made with those hammers and lots of good would get done, but some people may use them as better clubs to kill other people. Before you label greed as 'vice', consider how many things in our lives would not exist if not for the greed of people who created in order to benefit themselves; the computer you're on, again, is a fine example.

Fine, you claim that capitalism on a flawed populace does a better job than socialism on a flawed populace when both societies start from an equal footing (say, as third world/undeveloped countries)

What is your evidence of this?

The death toll. I like the examples given above by Jim Baerg. Props to him for thinking them up, as I probably would have missed them.

What I do propose is to work in making the world better (raising education levels etc) and come what may.

I'm with you on that one.

However if you want to argue that this socioeconomic is inherently flawed, at least argue against what the system says. Not strawmen.

However either we argue against what communism proposes or not.

I'm arguing the assumptions of the system; any system currently imagined would work perfectly with perfect citizenry. It's impossible to argue with any system given that "perfect" assumption, because by definition, it's already perfect; it's similar to saying "argue about what hell and heaven are like, but don't address the question of whether god or those places exist in the first place"

So when I get responses that don't entirely differ from:
Q. how would communism deal with inefficiency?
A. People would leave out of the goodness of their heart to where they're needed

Q. how would communism deal with creating innovation?
A. People would innovate out of the goodness of their heart what's needed.

When every answer simply rephrases the question in the form of "people would just do it" doesn't really lead to any answers. It's the communist version of "goddidit"; why address the idea that millions of individual people need to keep in constant contact with each other with no middlemen (which is simply impossible given that we simply do not have that kind of time and the massive waste it would cause) when you can just say it will happen?

Comment by: Mrnaglfar | May 11, 2008, 1:01 am

As other people have said, the reasons Ebon gives for not being a communist are not examples of actual communism. The USSR, China, etc. are totalitarian command economies, not communist ones.

Communism says that the economy should be run democratically, with all the workers having a share of the ownership of the factories, workshops, etc. as well as a say in what gets produced and how much, as well as deciding on other management matters. It is merely an extension of the democratic principle from political matters into economic ones. That's why the USSR and China and the rest that claim to be 'communist' are not really communist. They go against the democratic principles of true communism. There can't be communism without democracy.

This in contrast to the capitalist system which most of the time boils down to exploitation of the disadvantaged by the advantaged. Business tycoons make millions or billions while most of their workers don't get paid a hundredth as much. If not for proto-communist organizations like workers' unions, workers would probably still be getting paid just enough to struggle on, while the owners raked in millions and took dumps in solid gold toilets. Hell, I bet a few of the rich still do buy outrageous things like golden toilets and sinks. And it's still difficult for workers to survive on a single minimum wage, and that's assuming employers give them a typical forty hour week. If, like is common, employers only give part-time hours to their grunt workers, those workers must get multiple jobs to survive. Most of the time all they ever do is work, and that's bound to wear on them.

This isn't due to a failing of the workers themselves. It's because of the economic system they are in, which is, quite clearly, based on exploitation. The highest goal of capitalism is profit, at whatever expense. But how long can such reckless economic growth be sustained? We live on a limited planet, and we are bound, sooner or later, to run into a limit of our resources. Capitalism, like a cancer, will continue sucking out resources until we run out of stuff to consume and things start tumbling down. There cannot be unlimited growth with only limited resources. And yet unlimited growth, continual growth, is what capitalism thrives on.

It seems to me that capitalism is more prone to waste, overproduction or underproduction, and inefficiency than communism. How many cars do we really need? How many cellphones? How many new MP3 players? Why do our companies have to outsource labor overseas and thereby promote chinese sweatshops? Clearly they want to further inflate their profit margins, rather than give more work to americans. This is exploitation. Use the workers as long as they make a profit, cut them loose at the first sign otherwise. For that matter, use the consumers just to make a profit.

Instead of producing according to needs, the gospel of consumption demands the production of NEW needs in order to sell the massive amount of production we are capable of. Why not instead actually produce according to useful needs beyond profit? Why not produce with the welfare of people as the most important goal, rather than enlarging the profit margin?

Ebon, if you haven't already perhaps you should write a post on why you ARE a capitalist. Why are you, despite it's massive flaws?

Comment by: kaltrosomos | May 11, 2008, 4:51 am

@ Jim Baerg

I'm a bit surprised no one has mentioned the contrast between East &
West Germany or North & South Korea.

Can I mention ridiculously high western backing? The examples of how the west attempted to discredit and defeat socialism with propaganda are numerous. Off the top of my head, I remember how when the berlin wall fell people were being paid to cross to the west so that a mass exodus would appear to happen.

I won't argue that these two situations did not start the same or end different only that the factors at play were different

@Alex Weaver

I need to bookmark this thread for the next time someone tries to argue that Communism isn't a religion...

Unfortunately that is correct for a number of people I know, but then so is belief in laisez-faire capitalism and the free market...

Valhar2000

You absolutely do, Alex. In fact, I would tell that to Britnontheist: in my experience (I live in Europe, and known people form several european countries) Europeans' understanding of the advanatges and disadvantages of communism is drawn mostly from socialist propaganda.

Pot, meet kettle...

@Mrnaglfar

Everyone is to some degree interested in both, we'd just be haggling over the exact price; the fact that you own a computer speaks to that.

If you're trying to argue that I am greedy because I own a computer then you've expanded the definition of self-interest so much so as to encompass anyone not suicidally altruistic. Inconsequential.

People being greedy on it's own does not accomplish anything; same way giving everyone a better hammer doesn't accomplish anything on it's own - it's what one chooses to do with that hammer.

I see. People being greedy by itself does not accomplish anything. I guess it does not affect their beliefs and values at all, not shape their personality and desires.
I guess, in a similar fashion, being envious is just a tool (another flaw capitalism exploits I might add)
One could easily be lazy and it's really a tool. It just depends how you use it... If I'm a lazy night security guard, it's just a virtue.

Unfortunately greed is a vice and has been recognised as a vice throughout the ages for good reasons. Greed leads to more greed. Greed+power is corrupting.
While greed might be harmless when someone is poor and powerless (although they still might turn to crime to satisfy it), when it is had by someone with power is always becomes damaging.I can accept that Capitalism exploits this vice for the better good but it does not mean it's not a vice anymore.

The death toll. I like the examples given above by Jim Baerg

So it's biggern than say, Congo (percentally)? Say, how many people are starving each day in Africa? Ah yes, the rate just increased when capitalism's invisible hand decided that food is better served as fuel to the rich instead as food to the starving.

So when I get responses that don't entirely differ from:
Q. how would communism deal with inefficiency?
A. People would leave out of the goodness of their heart to where they're needed

Q. how would communism deal with creating innovation?
A. People would innovate out of the goodness of their heart what's needed.

How the hell else do you want me to answer when this is what communism says?

It's the communist version of "goddidit"; why address the idea that millions of individual people need to keep in constant contact with each other with no middlemen (which is simply impossible given that we simply do not have that kind of time and the massive waste it would cause) when you can just say it will happen?

Supply and demand would still exist. The only difference is that money would not change hands. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

Comment by: db0 | May 11, 2008, 6:41 am

How the hell else do you want me to answer when this is what communism says?

PS: If you really want to see how communism deals with these issues go and read about the damn thing yourself instead of asking in a blog comments.

Comment by: db0 | May 11, 2008, 6:44 am

@ kaltrosomos

Communism says that the economy should be run democratically, with all the workers having a share of the ownership of the factories, workshops, etc. as well as a say in what gets produced and how much, as well as deciding on other management matters. It is merely an extension of the democratic principle from political matters into economic ones.

There ia a problem with scaling things up.

Most people have spent at least part of their lives in a commune consisting of an adult male an adult female & their minor children. Communes work tolerably well as long as they are not too large for everyone to know everyone else cf: Kibbutz & Hutterite colony. One problem when that size is exceeded is that it becomes hard for the members to know if another member who is doing less work is a slacker or just less able.

A similar problem arose with political democracy. It had to be reinvented at least twice to make it work on larger scales. Informal village democracy didn't work when societies grew larger than village scale & we got chiefs & god-kings until some Greeks figured out formal ways to make democracy work on the city-state scale. That in turn failed on the scale of a nation-state scale & we got emperors etc. until representative democracy was cobbled together in England. That has worked better than absolute monarchy, but still leaves room for improvement.

Maybe someone will come up with a way to make 'economic democracy' work, but the Marxist attempt has been an abject failure.

@ db0

Can I mention ridiculously high western backing? The examples of how the west attempted to discredit and defeat socialism with propaganda are numerous.

I suppose one can point to Stalin refusing Marshall plan aid to Soviet occupied Europe as part of the reason for the contrast. But to my mind only part.

Off the top of my head, I remember how when the berlin wall fell people were being paid to cross to the west so that a mass exodus would appear to happen.

Got a reference for that? It didn't come to my attention at the time.

It seems rather redundant. Curiosity alone would lead to hoards crossing the border to see what they had been forbidden to see for decades, without any financial incentive.

Comment by: Jim Baerg | May 11, 2008, 11:30 am

dbo,

If you're trying to argue that I am greedy because I own a computer then you've expanded the definition of self-interest so much so as to encompass anyone not suicidally altruistic. Inconsequential.

Like I said, we're just haggling over price. Everyone has lots of stuff they don't truly need, and the money and effort spent on creating and obtaining those things could have better supported those starving people in Africa. So no, it's not inconsequential, certainly not to the most needy of people in the world at least.

I see. People being greedy by itself does not accomplish anything. I guess it does not affect their beliefs and values at all, not shape their personality and desires.
I guess, in a similar fashion, being envious is just a tool (another flaw capitalism exploits I might add)

Envy, wanting what someone else has. Envy and greed are the driving forces in the economy, take those away all the sudden you're going to find almost everyone out of a job.
Of course these things shape people's personalities and desires, but you're still stuck in your little hole of calling these things always bad in every situation. Some people will use greed and envy to drive their creativity, to always strive to better themselves, to maintain their body figure, to provide us with all the wonderful medicines and technology we have today (I'm sure medicine was all developed out of the goodness of people's heart and greed had no place in funding or making the research possible). However, other people will use greed in an end that results in people being exploited or harmed; there's no getting around that. A knife can be a surgical scalpel, a meat cleaver, or a murder weapon; doesn't make the knife inherently evil.

One could easily be lazy and it's really a tool. It just depends how you use it... If I'm a lazy night security guard, it's just a virtue.

Capitalism does not leave much room for use by lazy behavior, unlike communism. In communism, without greed or envy, what incentive is there for me to work long hours of endless studying in a high stress job to be a doctor when I could just be a janitor instead; either way, I end up with just as much as anyone else. That's the kind of system that fosters people to strive for as little as possible. You can imagine up fake people all you want who would work long hours for no extra pay, but you can imagine up anything.

So it's biggern than say, Congo (percentally)? Say, how many people are starving each day in Africa? Ah yes, the rate just increased when capitalism's invisible hand decided that food is better served as fuel to the rich instead as food to the starving.

People aren't starving because there simply isn't enough food in the world; people are starving because they can't afford or find food. It's a downside of pure capitalism, which is also why I'm not a pure capitalist. Certain socialist policies like food stamps create a safety net that at least stops people from starving, but for now, let's go with the pure capitalism model.

So yes, some people are starving, which I'm sure never, ever happened in one of those fake communist countries; of course, the government was ordering mass killings of all it's opposition, so not only were the people dying, but there was specific intent for them to die. Sounds to me that one is the greater moral evil of the two.

How the hell else do you want me to answer when this is what communism says?

I know that's what it says; it doesn't actually say anything at all. All it does is assume that every problem would naturally be solved by everyone being perfect; that is communism in a nutshell. I might as well say "in a true capitalist system, even the most poor people would accept why they are poor and live happily with it; we just haven't found the perfect people yet". Your answers are circular.

Supply and demand would still exist. The only difference is that money would not change hands. Why is that so difficult to grasp?

How would there be demand without envy and greed (those terrible moral vices you mentioned)? What else, outside of them, drive people to want something enough to create it?

Or will people simply be so good they produce things they don't really want because they're perfect? Do they want it out of the goodness of their heart?

If you really want to see how communism deals with these issues go and read about the damn thing yourself instead of asking in a blog comments.

From the sound of things it doesn't seem communism offers a whole lot more than I already understand it to.

Kaltrosomos,

Capitalism, like a cancer, will continue sucking out resources until we run out of stuff to consume and things start tumbling down.

Not capitalism; people will do that.

It seems to me that capitalism is more prone to waste, overproduction or underproduction, and inefficiency than communism. How many cars do we really need? How many cellphones? How many new MP3 players? Why do our companies have to outsource labor overseas and thereby promote chinese sweatshops? Clearly they want to further inflate their profit margins, rather than give more work to americans. This is exploitation. Use the workers as long as they make a profit, cut them loose at the first sign otherwise. For that matter, use the consumers just to make a profit.

The simple way to stop this is to stop buying stuff. Do you really need the computer you're on? Couldn't you live in a smaller place then you currently do? Maybe eat a little less? Couldn't you live locally and not need transportation outside of a bike? Couldn't you go without heat in the winter?

Yes, there are excessive amounts of goods in the market, but only because people are demanding them; if people stopped buying them the supply would stop overnight. Of course, that would also put a lot of people out of work and everyone would slip further into poverty. Consumers are an active a part of capitalism as the producers; the two require the other to exist. Sweatshops are terrible, there's no doubt, but compared to what? If the jobs didn't pay enough and the conditions were so terrible, then no one would work there, yet they do. Most people are working there so they can afford to live, and you suggest taking those jobs away from them and giving them to americans so we don't exploit other countries and just let them die instead?

Instead of producing according to needs, the gospel of consumption demands the production of NEW needs in order to sell the massive amount of production we are capable of. Why not instead actually produce according to useful needs beyond profit? Why not produce with the welfare of people as the most important goal, rather than enlarging the profit margin?

On a basic level, most 'needs' can be broken down into: Housing, food, transportation, entertainment, comfort, and tools/weaponry. All that's created are new products that do one of those things in a different way.
However, the reason people produce to enlarge their profit margin is because if they do, they all the sudden they go out of business or are incapable of expanding and growing.
It's a nice idea that everyone could work together to help everyone else, and such things are certainly possible, but not on the level of population we currently live. There are simply too many people for such a system to work in.

Comment by: Mrnaglfar | May 11, 2008, 12:08 pm

Envy, wanting what someone else has. Envy and greed are the driving forces in the economy, take those away all the sudden you're going to find almost everyone out of a job.

Or they might be replaced with something better.

Of course these things shape people's personalities and desires, but you're still stuck in your little hole of calling these things always bad in every situation. Some people will use greed and envy to drive their creativity, to always strive to better themselves, to maintain their body figure, to provide us with all the wonderful medicines and technology we have today (I'm sure medicine was all developed out of the goodness of people's heart and greed had no place in funding or making the research possible). However, other people will use greed in an end that results in people being exploited or harmed; there's no getting around that. A knife can be a surgical scalpel, a meat cleaver, or a murder weapon; doesn't make the knife inherently evil.

Still others will use their innate will to create or help people to do the same thing. If only they didn't need to be marketable as well the world might have been so much better.
Greed is like a gun, not a surgical knife. Still a tool but a tool specifically designed for harm.

Capitalism does not leave much room for use by lazy behavior, unlike communism

So you're arguing that laziness is not inherently bad but it just not useful in capitalism?

In communism, without greed or envy, what incentive is there for me to work long hours of endless studying in a high stress job to be a doctor when I could just be a janitor instead; either way, I end up with just as much as anyone else. That's the kind of system that fosters people to strive for as little as possible.

The recognition of your peer and the will to do what you love most. Not eveyone wants to be a doctor and not everyone wants to be a janitor.

Tell me, since greed and envy are apparently neutral. Should the world become as greedy and envious as possible?

You can imagine up fake people all you want who would work long hours for no extra pay, but you can imagine up anything.

So tell me, I hear Honour was very big as far as incentives went in the not so far past (and also exists in various places in the world).
Were these fake people too?

People aren't starving because there simply isn't enough food in the world; people are starving because they can't afford or find food. It's a downside of pure capitalism, which is also why I'm not a pure capitalist. Certain socialist policies like food stamps create a safety net that at least stops people from starving, but for now, let's go with the pure capitalism model.

What a crock of shit. There is not enough food in the world. Period. Soon there will be not enough water as well. It is classic capitalistic wishful thinking to assume that the earth can handle any amount of humans.
People are starving because their food is taken away from them to feed (and lately to power the cars of) the rich. It's the supply and demand of the market that makes meat so wanted. Unfortunately, meat need a lot more food to be produced for the same nutritious value. This extra food could have saved the starving people who cannot afford it.
Here's something relevant

So yes, some people are starving, which I'm sure never, ever happened in one of those fake communist countries; of course, the government was ordering mass killings of all it's opposition, so not only were the people dying, but there was specific intent for them to die. Sounds to me that one is the greater moral evil of the two.

This is a red herring and also, once again, Communism does not necessarily equal dictatorship.
Or do you believe that dictatorships do not form under capitalism? Hitler would dissagree with that statement. If anything with the rampart croynism of capitalist dictatorships thing get even worse.

I know that's what it says; it doesn't actually say anything at all. All it does is assume that every problem would naturally be solved by everyone being perfect; that is communism in a nutshell.

How simplistic of you.

How would there be demand without envy and greed (those terrible moral vices you mentioned)? What else, outside of them, drive people to want something enough to create it?

People demand food. Places that distribute more food require raw materials etc.
Also
Creatity itself drives people to create (See creative commons and copylefts)
Forms of altruism drive people to help (see Missionaries, doctors without borders etc)

Or will people simply be so good they produce things they don't really want because they're perfect? Do they want it out of the goodness of their heart

Yes, people can be good enough to produce things that others might use, they in turn get something that they need back. They can want it out of "the goodness of their heart" because everyone will be doing the same.
You're so convinced that Greed and Envy are apparently unchangeable so there's no need to try to change them on your part.
I've shown you examples of the contrary and you've waved them away. Not certain what else to say about this.

Comment by: db0 | May 11, 2008, 2:06 pm

dbo,

Or they might be replaced with something better.

And pigs may evolve wings and fly; doesn't mean it's likely. At least the pig scenario is plausible as we know wings exist. What is this new thing you're suggesting?

Greed is like a gun, not a surgical knife. Still a tool but a tool specifically designed for harm.

Except for all the good that comes from greed; greed for money, greed for status, greed for anything can bring both good and evil. A knife is specially designed for harm as well, just a question of how that harm is done; is that harm done in violence or self-defense? Is it done to kill something and butcher it so people can eat, or was it used to kill a person? Is the cutting done with precision and care in surgery?

And when everyone has a series of knives for different situations, your solution is pretend they don't exist and get rid of them, despite losing the ability to do surgery, prepare and eat food, and create other tools and goods?

So you're arguing that laziness is not inherently bad but it just not useful in capitalism?

Something along those lines, yes. Capitalism punishes lazy behavior and encourages people to keep trying to do the best they can, provided of course they are greedy enough to do so. Calling anything good or bad is useless without further context.

The recognition of your peer and the will to do what you love most. Not eveyone wants to be a doctor and not everyone wants to be a janitor.

Tell me, since greed and envy are apparently neutral. Should the world become as greedy and envious as possible?

And I'm sure too many people want to be rockstars and actors. Many people would probably rather just sit around and read or draw all day; I know I certainly would.

As for if the people should become as greedy as possible, greed, as all things, needs to come in the proper amounts and contexts to be either a force for good or harm. I would say people are already as naturally greedy as it has paid to be greedy in our past, which is normally pretty greedy; Most every species is. As you said, you feel it's stupid (not in your interests) to give away resources you have to causes you don't support or people you don't know just for the hell of it. Altruism can certainly be good, but only when combine with the correct situation and correct amounts of greed and self-interest.

So tell me, I hear Honour was very big as far as incentives went in the not so far past (and also exists in various places in the world).
Were these fake people too?

Greed for social status, self-interest in how they appear to other people, and certainly anything but true altruists. The rules for what behavior became socially acceptable and rewarded have changed, but the fact that it is rewarded in one way or another and still driven by greed have not changed.

What a crock of shit. There is not enough food in the world. Period. Soon there will be not enough water as well. It is classic capitalistic wishful thinking to assume that the earth can handle any amount of humans.

Quite the contrary; I'm all for population caps and believe the world has far, far too many people; for me, quality of life is more important than quantity of it. A simple solution to fix that could work on greed; massive tax penalties for people who have more than one or two children. However, merely telling people the world has too many people and relying on their altruism and being informed to decide who gets to have children or not and how many simply will never work.

People are starving because their food is taken away from them to feed (and lately to power the cars of) the rich. It's the supply and demand of the market that makes meat so wanted. Unfortunately, meat need a lot more food to be produced for the same nutritious value. This extra food could have saved the starving people who cannot afford it.

And governments of the world also give money to farmers to either grow crops that don't sell well or to not grow crops to keep prices high. Meat takes more resources to create, so the price of meat is higher than the price of fruits and vegetables. And forgive my ignorance, but since when do rich people require more food than poor people, so much more, apparently, that a rich 1 to 5% of the world can starve the rest?
This is one of those complex situations you're so big on, yet seem to skim over in your quest to blame all the problems on capitalism. For instance, if food is in such a demand in Africa then surely it must pay for more food to be grown. Last I checked, Africa was not a huge exporter of ethanol or other biofuels for automotive consumption in the US, so there must be some other factors at play here. Perhaps lack of fertile soils? Technology? Poor rainfall? Any number of things can and are playing factors in this.

Neat article by the way. Between all the assertions thrown out there I almost didn't realize that they didn't back any of it up with links or data or really evidence of any kind. Did you consider that food prices simply aren't brining in enough revenue to make farming profitable? Or maybe unemployment is playing a role here, huh?

http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=61085

http://www.distill.com/world_ethanol_production.html
(wow, look at how much ethanol Africa is producing compared to other nations - sure must be a lot of starving people in the nations where the most fuel is produced, right?)

This is a red herring and also, once again, Communism does not necessarily equal dictatorship.
Or do you believe that dictatorships do not form