A question to Communists:

[BasketCase]

Firstly, you're assuming that the results of the Milgram experiment represent an inherent and irreversible aspect of human nature and not simply the effects of living in an ultimately authoritarian society where conformity and obedience are seen as virtues

Wrong. That counter was levelled at Milgram right after he completed his first round of tests. He performed successive rounds on other societal styles around the world, and every last one of them returned the same results.

I had already said that Milgram's results held true across ethnic, gender, and social lines. I guess you missed that part.

Don't get any illusions that your objections to Milgram's results are anything new. Milgram's experiments provoked worldwide cries of outrage. Nobody liked the rather dismal picture of humanity that his experiments painted. Many different objections were raised, including the one you raised; Milgram re-tested to examine every last one of them, and he proved all of them wrong.

Humans instinctively gravitate towards and desire authority. This is fact.

Secondly, that doesn't say anything more about socialism than it does about capitalism.

Wrong also. Capitalism naturally splits people into classes by degree of wealth; socialism and communism break completely with capitalism at this point because one of their hallmarks is the classless society. Well, there is the part with the "dictatorship by the proletariat" but that's just a temporary stage, after which the dictatorship evaporates and Classless Society becomes the norm.

Milgram says authority is natural to humans; therefore humans will always differentiate into at least two classes: those in authority and those not in authority. Therefore a classless society cannot exist.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Milgram says

And This is where you lost me...

Personally, I don't give a hoot what anyone says.

Not Milgram.

Not Lenin.

Not even Marx.

Do you know why? Because no matter how good what they say is it is never true beyond all doubt. I'm a communist but I believe that some things should be changed from their original design...

You and Milgram can present all the facts you wish but earlier you said he chrushed 90% of Socialist ideals, well that still leaves 10% that can work and even if only 10% work then that means it atleast work to a degree.

I'm probably rather off on the subje I've never been good at debate and I'm not as educated as most people but if it is expected that I give up on my Communist Ideals simply because Mr. Milgram brought out some statistics then I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed.

 

[A Viking Yeti]

The choice isn't necessarily that black and white (share or starve). What if people share as much as necessary, and then (for example) grow extra food in their garden for personal use, or spend their evenings weaving their own baskets (as a hobby) and trade them away for other goods? Just because you sweep away one society and replace it with another, doesn't mean you will change a person's behavior.

Which was never denied under a traditional communist system. Once again, you're overlooking a specific difference in definition outlined in communism. Private property is the ownership of the means of production (power plants, factories, refineries, et cetera), and should be run by the government for the good of the people (not for the good of the individual at the expense of others). Personal property could by my computer or my farm, and does not exploit others through your personal utilization of it.

And yes, changing society changes the behavior of the individual. It's a simple fact about any social species. The behavior of the individual MUST change with that of society or they would be incapable of cooperating in manners necessary for the survival; it's the main advantage of a social organism, versatility. Working together in order to survive; working together cannot happen if the behavior of the individual is static.

If someone grew extra food in their garden, and the country found itself with a shortage, that food would be very valuable, and easily tradeable for a lot of other goods (or perhaps kept, giving that citizen an advantage).

Yes, under a market economy. My problem with this lies in the inevitable distribution method of this system. Assuming a market economy, that individual's good then becomes more valuable, it's market value increases. Inversely, the demand for the good increases (hence the value, right?). Well, the food then goes to the highest bidder, to yield the greatest profit. This inherently implies the poorest section of society is the first to starve. However, as we all know, the lowest portion of society produces the majority of raw goods and materials. So why do we provide a disincentive to those producing the basic goods that society subsists upon? This system is merely an incentive to attain a position requiring the least amount of raw production for yourself and the greatest security. It doesn't encourage people to work hard; trust me, I know how hard the working-class works, and it's deserving of more than minimum wage.

In support of my previous statement, look at the social strata in our society... Farmers, teachers, construction workers, food service workers, even doctors barely break the middle-class line. But if you're managing any of these individuals, those actually producing society's subsistence, then you're fairly well off. Why? You're not being paid in proportion to your labor, you're being paid in proportion to you're product's implied value, minus your business' profit margin, minus your wage, minus taxes. Let me put it this way, when a farmer grows a bushel of wheat, how much does he get paid for that? Now how much does a single loaf of bread cost you? So why is the farmer not the one yielding the profit?

 

[A Viking Yeti]

Wrong. That ... classless society cannot exist.

Totally missing the point... Social ascension is a biological desire for all humans, yes. Not economic superiority, but social superiority. This is, in fact, exactly why communism would work. Humans, in an effort to be more successful in the social unit, seek acceptance within said unit. As such, they adopt those trends present in their society, those purported as defining a successful human. Whether this is the total degradation of the species through war, or capitalism, or self-sacrifice, or whatever other usually darwinistically detrimental activities we're undertaking, it's always in an effort to ascend in the social unit.

An interesting side note I like to mention about capitalism is that it is mutually exclusive with democracy. If money is power, influence, which it obviously is in capitalism, then those within the government are naturally the primary source of influential focus from the elitist class. In other words, it is highly likely, if not inevitable, that, under capitalism, democracy is manipulated by the ruling class until it eventually becomes a plutocratic corporatism. Case in point, corporate lobbyist prevent the government from passing environmentally and economically beneficial bills because it threatens established business. Detrimental to the individual, the society, and the species, not to mention the planet, and simply in the effort to attain a few more cents for the super-wealthy (and, yes, that is an appropriate term).

 

[Traitorfish]

Wrong. That counter was levelled at Milgram right after he completed his first round of tests. He performed successive rounds on other societal styles around the world, and every last one of them returned the same results.

I had already said that Milgram's results held true across ethnic, gender, and social lines. I guess you missed that part.

Don't get any illusions that your objections to Milgram's results are anything new. Milgram's experiments provoked worldwide cries of outrage. Nobody liked the rather dismal picture of humanity that his experiments painted. Many different objections were raised, including the one you raised; Milgram re-tested to examine every last one of them, and he proved all of them wrong.

Well, I hate to disagree with the Lord God Milgram Christ, May His Name Be Thrice Blessed In All the Cities of the Earth, but that still doesn't prove anything other than the fact that all the societies that Milgram experiment in where authoritarian. True, it does reflect the fact that human society tends to be authoritarian, but indicates nothing of why this is so.

It's a chicken-egg argument, really. People want authority because society is authoritarian because people want authority because society is authoritarian... Just goes on like that, never really goes anywhere.

Besides, you're really over-estimating exactly what the results of the experiment where. It didn't show that every human being is an SS camp-guard waiting to happen, it showed that the majority of people tend to follow authority in most circumstances. Only 65% of people administered the final shock, and, while that is a high number, it still leaves plenty of people prepared to go against authority at some point. (Not to mention the fact that part of that 65% may have dissented at some later point.) Not to mention the fact that alterations to the experiment- a less respectable setting, instructions from scientists given impersonally, closer personal contact with the "learner", etc.- all gave significantly lower rates of total compliance, down to as low as 21% in some experiments.
In fact, what the experiments really showed was how group conformity effects human behaviour- in a variation of the experiment in which two actors portraying subjects were placed alongside a subject, the rate of compliance varied from 4/40 to 37/40 depending on whether neither, one or both of the actors defied the scientists commands.

Humans instinctively gravitate towards and desire authority. This is fact.

"Ducks are Presbyterians. This is a fact." Doesn't actually work that way, I'm afraid...

In my view, most people naturally look to others for inspiration, for advice, for leadership, that's true. But that's not the same thing as authority. They like to be shown what to do, but not told what to do. They want Ghandi, they don't want Hitler. (And they're fairly indifferent to Linda McCartney.[/obscure reference])
At least, that's what I think. I'm not going to start claiming that it's an absolute fact.

Wrong also. Capitalism naturally splits people into classes by degree of wealth; socialism and communism break completely with capitalism at this point because one of their hallmarks is the classless society.

Well, yes, that's completely true. However, my point was that the traditional (somewhat naive) concept of a laissez-faire capitalist state is a classless meritocracy. You see, "class" does not merely signify economic divisions, it signifies a certain structure, it signifies certain boundaries and continuation. The traditional laissez-faire view, social mobility is as much a key factor as social equality is within socialism.

Well, there is the part with the "dictatorship by the proletariat" but that's just a temporary stage, after which the dictatorship evaporates and Classless Society becomes the norm.

And that's a clear example of how you fail to understand the terminology, let alone logic, behind Marxism... The term "dictatorship" is used literally in this context, it does not merely represent some quasi-socialist Stalinesque "dictatorship for the people", it is the literal dictatorship of the people. In short, democracy.

Milgram says authority is natural to humans; therefore humans will always differentiate into at least two classes: those in authority and those not in authority. Therefore a classless society cannot exist.

Haves and have-nots, yeah? How very Orwellian. Also completely unproven, but let's not let that get in the way of our bleak, nihilistic world view, eh?

 

[A Viking Yeti]

Toward the authoritarian subject specifically... A study I read about in Scientific America showed that people were, on average, happier with their decisions when given fewer options. However, they were also statistically the least happy when told what option to take, even if the control group was happiest with that decision amongst few others. People are, generally speaking, happier when making their own decisions, but overall get confused when presented with too many options and tend to pick somewhat randomly, resulting in a less pleasing result. However, the test doesn't take into account the social context this tendency developed under, and, as a result, the entirety of the data collected may be simply a statistical representation of their limited options as a child, and, therefore, inability or ineptitude in making decisions for themselves (leading one to think that less forceful guidance and more leniency as a child may in fact improve one's chances of happiness later in life amongst the variety present in a modern society)

Also, oppositional defiance 'disorder' is estimated to affect anywhere between 5-25% of the American population, with the highest rates present in the young adult demographic. So, given that maybe 25% naturally gravitate toward authoritarianism, 60% merely want idols or people to look up to, one might assume that the remanding 20% are naturally predisposed against any form of authority (whether genetic or socio-contextual is anyone's guess).

To the dictatorship of the proletariat:

Democracy is indispensable to socialism. -Vladimir Lenin

Up until Stalin, communist leaders were heavily focused on democracy. Fascist communism is just state capitalism. One cannot have equal economic standards alongside and explicitly inequal political system. Most people love to confuse Stalinism and Maoism with Marxism, Leninism, and Trotskyism.

 

[Traitorfish]

Up until Stalin, communist leaders were heavily focused on democracy. Fascist communism is just state capitalism.

Technical point- "fascist" has particular implications of ultra-nationalism. Although these were present, to some extent, in many "socialist" dictatorships, "totalitarian" is usually a preferable term.

 

[Ondskan]

Stalin was a nationalist. He discarded the belife in a international revolution firmly stated in the Manifesto and by Trotsky. He used nationalism to forward his brutal methods and to strengthen Russia and its people.

He was imperialist and nationalist.

 

[A Viking Yeti]

Stalin was a nationalist. He discarded the belife in a international revolution firmly stated in the Manifesto and by Trotsky. He used nationalism to forward his brutal methods and to strengthen Russia and its people.

He was imperialist and nationalist.

And authoritarian to boot...

 

[A Viking Yeti]

Technical point- "fascist" has particular implications of ultra-nationalism. Although these were present, to some extent, in many "socialist" dictatorships, "totalitarian" is usually a preferable term.

I think Stalinist Russia was ultra-nationalist.

 

[m4gill4]

You don't have to be a communist to be sickened by capitalism.

The good (for you) that has been done by capitalism is at least balanced and more likely outweighed by the bad (for poor people/countries/environment). Most pro-capitalists are either ignorant of, or apathetic towards the fact that our wealth and prosperity has mostly been achieved by exploiting poor countries, and cutting the producers (farmers, manufacturers etc.) out of their own markets.

This is accomplished through the mechanism of the world bank/IMF, which stipulates to debtor nations that they abolish import tariffs, end all agricultural and industrial subsidies, and allow unrestricted access to their markets by foreign (read: U.S.) goods. Then, being unable to compete with highly industrialized and subsidized exports from the west (read: U.S.) local farmers and manufacturers find they can't sell their crops/products even in their own backyard because American products are so much cheaper. The farms/factories then close and go out of business, creating more unemployment, and reducing the tax income for the government, and adding to social unrest. Even worse, it undermines the capacity for these poor nations to produce their own food supply, essentially making them beholden to the U.S. for their food supply.

For those interested, here is a documentary which provides an excellent example of how we get so rich by keeping other countries poor:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5277094596195828118

Honestly I think communism is just as bad. The problem isn't necessarily with the economic system, the problem is with any system that allows the concentration of power among few powerful people who aren't accountable to the people whose lives they affect. In this case I refer to both communist oligarchs as well as wealthy capitalists/industrialists who clearly have no scruples about making fabulous wealth at the expense of a few foreigners or heathens.

 

[BasketCase]

Totally missing the point... Social ascension is a biological desire for all humans, yes. Not economic superiority, but social superiority. This is, in fact, exactly why communism would work. Humans, in an effort to be more successful in the social unit, seek acceptance within said unit. As such, they adopt those trends present in their society, those purported as defining a successful human. Whether this is the total degradation of the species through war, or capitalism, or self-sacrifice, or whatever other usually darwinistically detrimental activities we're undertaking, it's always in an effort to ascend in the social unit.

One method of ascending within the social unit is to attack the leader and force him to surrender to you.

This method is practiced in the wild all the time. Very few intelligent animals have truly egalitarian societies--groups are run by an alpha. How do the animals decide who gets to be the alpha? By fighting. Some animals, such as wolves, have a kind of game of "chicken" with little actual contact--but once in a while, contests for the throne get bloody.

Humans were the same way before we invented government. So it was really you who totally missed the point: that authority will either be enforced by a government, or will assert itself naturally.

An interesting side note I like to mention about capitalism is that it is mutually exclusive with democracy. If money is power, influence, which it obviously is in capitalism, then those within the government are naturally the primary source of influential focus from the elitist class.

In most U.S. elections, one political party generally earns more money from wealthy donors.

Which one?

No, you guessed wrong. It's not the Republicans. It's the Democrats!!!

Surprised? So was I. Quick side note, however: both parties generally make approximately the same amount of money when you tally up their final war chest totals in each election.


Further: take a look at all the policies the U.S. government has implemented against the will of rich people. Higher tax rates on rich people. Environmental laws. Laws against illegal immigration, thereby decreasing the pool of cheap labor for rich people to exploit. Large protests against both U.S. invasions of Iraq. In fact, large protests against lots of pro-rich-people policies, protests which seem immune to all rich-people efforts to squelch them.

Take a look at all the things in the world that go wrong for rich people, and you will see that rich people do not in fact control much of anything.

 

[LightFang]

Money doesn't buy elections, contrary to popular belief.

 

[Traitorfish]

Take a look at all the things in the world that go wrong for rich people, and you will see that rich people do not in fact control much of anything.

You're either a fool or a comedian. I've yet to decide which, but either way there's absolutely no point in bothering to argue with anything you say...

Money doesn't buy elections, contrary to popular belief.

No, just candidates.

 

[Mr_Fusty]

A couple of quick thoughts

-Perhaps we hear about the things that go bad for rich people more than normal people? 'Billionare loses his mansion, LearJet and priceless Ming porcilean collection' is seen as more newsworthy than 'Joe Average loses his apartment, 2000 Ford Mondeo and near-worthless comic book collection'.

-Traitorfish, that reminds me of the chapter in Micheal Moore's book 'Downsize This!' where he urges people to elect the lobbyists directly rather than their puppets, the polititians.

 

[Swedishguy]

Take a look at all the things in the world that go wrong for rich people, and you will see that rich people do not in fact control much of anything.

I haven't noticed much of anything, compared to poor people I mean.

 

[BasketCase]

You're either a fool or a comedian.

This is what people do when they've lost the argument.

 

[BasketCase]

I haven't noticed much of anything, compared to poor people I mean.

In a previous post, I listed a whole bunch of stuff that cannot have escaped your notice.

If rich people were really in control, we would not have environmental laws. All Greenpeace members would be under arrest--or dead. Middle East oil would be flowing freely into the West's gas pumps. The graduated tax system would not exist. Free health care in Europe would not exist.

The rich do not control. Plain and simple.

 

[BasketCase]

Case in point, from observations on other, 'lesser' primates, one would conclude that rape is an inherent part of our nature. Does this mean you legalize rape?

In general, this holds true. But with Communism, it doesn't apply.

Here's the problem: we want to stop rape from happening. Myself included--I think rape is one of the lowest and most disgusting crimes a living thing can commit. So, how do we stop it?

By force of law. If the rapist does not submit willingly, the police must subdue him. With pepper spray, with batons--or, if necessary, with guns.

And that's the problem with Communism. How do you protect Communism against those who would destroy it? By force of law--and by force of military arms. But Communism is all about a classless society. You cannot have authority in a Communist society. No society can survive without authority.

Therefore Communism is an exception to the general rule. It is impossible, and in trying to pursue it (this goes for you too, Behind_The_Mask), you are wasting your efforts and giving the Evil Capitalists free rein to run amok while you're off attacking windmills.

 

[Swedishguy]

In a previous post, I listed a whole bunch of stuff that cannot have escaped your notice.

If rich people were really in control, we would not have environmental laws. All Greenpeace members would be under arrest--or dead. Middle East oil would be flowing freely into the West's gas pumps. The graduated tax system would not exist. Free health care in Europe would not exist.

You are making the assumption that rich people are emotionless, greedy bastards, which far from all are. I guess you reached that flase assumption by looking in the mirror.

The rich do not control. Plain and simple.

You said the rich don't control much of anything, not the rich controls all. And, believe it or not, being rich actually gives you more power than if you were poor! Surprised?

I guess since you are a "greedy, emotionless bastard" you want to make us hardworking middle class believe that you are, in fact, just as powerless as we are. Which is wrong.