A question to Communists:

[BasketCase]

If you knew the answer to that, you would have posted it in order to embarrass me.

Nice try.

Most of the time the new authority arises from within. There are cases such as the Allied powers conquering Japan at the end of World War II--but the external authority imposed by the Allies was eventually replaced by another authority created by the Japanese themselves.

When the L.A. Riots happened and local authority collapsed, endangered citizens picked up guns and formed their own little authorities. When the riots stopped--these independent groups put their guns away and welcomed the original authority back into power. They didn't revolt--they were glad to have the police back on the streets. They had a chance to claim true freedom for themselves, but they did not want it.

And in parts of the world which are currently in a state of flux and have no authority in power, what is happening? The residents are running away from those areas. In short: when authority is lacking, and external powers can't enforce a new one, and the local residents cannot create a new one "spontaneously", what do the citizens do? THEY RUN AWAY.


People need and want authority. Wriggle all you like, you're just getting more and more tangled up in the trap.

 

[greenpeace]

Those examples are chaos without any rule of law. Well, actually there is rule by the strongest/cleverest/most influencial/whatever. Either way its nothing at all like the society I described.

 

[BasketCase]

What does that have to do with the society being relativly stable or not?

I call shenanigans. This is the question you asked:

What you need to proove is that without an established authority (except the one I described), a new authority will very rapidly rise.

I answered that question with proof, straight from the history books. You never asked about stability. I accuse you of trying to sidestep.

tribute to the companion cube

Now that I've got the accusation (or maybe borderline troll?) on the record, I'll answer your quip about stability. No society is completely stable. Capitalism is more stable than all the others we've tried--but, come up with any system you like, I can tear it apart. Usually with guns. And I've played enough tactical and strategic wargames to be very good at this.

Counter-question: How many times has it been attempted, and when they fell, why and how long did it take?

In order from first to last: very few times, no idea why, and not long at all.

Suggesting two possibilities: that next to nobody wants your system, or that it can't sustain itself. Maybe both. I don't care "why" your system fails; we need to have a system that works, and yours cannot.

Unless I'm a baby or physically impaired, or for some reason can not provide such a thing, you are under no obligation to provide me with such a thing and are not harming me for not providing such things.

Yes I am. Nobody enjoys farming; I certainly don't, and I'm not gonna do it. If nobody farms the farms, everybody on the planet starves to death. And without ever knowing, I'm certain you're not a farmer either. Seriously: why don't you live in a log cabin in Montana and grow your own food?

We have to convince people to do farming somehow, in order to survive as a species. And you already said we have NO right to make people do it by force. Therefore only one option remains: entice people with goodies.

Hence, capitalism.

You still have yet to create any major contradictions

I already created plenty, but I'll post a very simple one that allows for no misunderstandings.

What if I need to kill you in order to survive......?

I'm a wolf. You're a moose. When I get hungry, what do you think is gonna happen? I don't give a crap about your rights, buddy. I'm gonna tear your throat out so I can eat for a week. Next time I get hungry, I will kill again.

That's what happens when no authority exists. We humans currently minimize the amount of bloody violence by preying on helpless plants. Human activity needs to be carefully controlled here, because the easiest way to get the stuff we want is to take it from somebody else. If everybody is trying to steal stuff, nothing actually gets produced.

In such a system, human rights are the first thing that goes out the window. One or the other of your two basic rights is toast.

 

[Princeps]

We have to convince people to do farming somehow, in order to survive as a species.

Well, survival as a species, and the well-being of our species is an incentive already.

And you already said we have to right to make people do it by force. Therefore only one option remains: entice people with goodies.

Hence, capitalism.

You mean coerce people to work for their private and state overlords with the threat of starvation and suffering instead of with direct violence?

yes, that's the basis of capitalism. Work or suffer (the lack of "goodies", such as food).

 

[GenMarshall]

What is Communism appeal towards young teenagers and young adults?

 

[BasketCase]

You mean coerce people to work for their private and state overlords with the threat of starvation and suffering instead of with direct violence?

Did I say "coerce people to work for their private and state overlords with the threat of starvation and suffering"? Nope. I said "entice people with goodies". You're REALLY stretching it here, man.

What I meant was: "if you do work, you can buy sunglasses and a neat car and a computer......and an Internet connection....."

Well, gee, take a gander at Princeps--he's got a PC and a Internet connection!!! You evil capitalist lackey!!!!!

yes, that's the basis of capitalism. Work or suffer (the lack of "goodies", such as food).

That's the basis of every system. Work is universal. Every government, every society. And also every part of the planet that has NO government at all. Work or suffer. That is just life.

Capitalism is merely the least cruel. It produces the most--and most of the incentives it offers are useless goodies such as that computer and Internet connection you're using. If you refuse to work, the only problem you're likely to have is that you have far fewer useless luxuries than everybody else.

Enjoy that nice computer, braw.

 

[BasketCase]

What is Communism appeal towards young teenagers and young adults?

Teens and yunguns are a very disadvantaged group in the world. They have very little that is truly theirs, and few freedoms.

The result is that they have very little to lose. Any system that deposes the upper classes and makes everybody equal will automatically boot them higher up on the ladder.

As people hit middle age and have more stuff, they have more to lose, and they want to keep it.

And as people retire and the Reaper begins breathing down their necks, and they realize they are about to lose all their stuff no matter what they do, they begin worrying about the only things they can hold onto. Less material things. Their soul, perhaps. How they will be judged in the afterlife, if they believe in one. Or maybe they want to be praised and remembered fondly after their death, by those who come after them. For various reasons, the elderly start turning altruistic and become liberals again.


It's been proven with statistics. Liberals are generally the young or the old; conservatives are the middle-aged (i.e. career age). At all age levels, the motive is generally good old basic self-interest. "How do I get the most goodies???"

 

[m4gill4]

Wow. A 14 year old who seems to be going through his Ayn Rand phase creates a commie-baiting thread, and now it's 23 pages long! HAH!

At all age levels, the motive is generally good old basic self-interest. "How do I get the most goodies???"

Hmm. In general I agree, but I'd like to point out that while I'm not a communist, somehow I doubt Lenin and Che were in it for "goodies".

Capitalism is more stable than all the others we've tried

Hmmm, stable for the victors, perhaps.

Has it ever seemed oddly coincidental that all of our capitalist success (i.e. wealth and abundance) seems mysteriously offset by abject poverty and political instability in 2/3 of the world? Not to mention (although I am about to) environmental decay...

I advocate an ethically-regulated, mixed economy.

 

[BasketCase]

Wow. A 14 year old who seems to be going through his Ayn Rand phase creates a commie-baiting thread, and now it's 23 pages long! HAH!

Wheeeeeee!

Hmm. In general I agree, but I'd like to point out that while I'm not a communist, somehow I doubt Lenin and Che were in it for "goodies".

There's exceptions to every rule, d00d.

Has it ever seemed oddly coincidental that all of our capitalist success (i.e. wealth and abundance) seems mysteriously offset by abject poverty and political instability in 2/3 of the world?

Coincidental? Yes. Odd? No.

I should point out, however, that as you roll the clock backwards, human poverty rates go DOWN, rather than up. Human welfare is improving. Keep that in mind.


Side note: Did you name yourself after the Magilla, in the Total Annihilation TAUCP expansion pack? If you did, good choice.

 

[m4gill4]

Actually It's short for Magilla Guerrilla, my full e-name.

I should point out, however, that as you roll the clock backwards, human poverty rates go UP, rather than down. Human welfare is improving. Keep that in mind.

I don't dispute that, but I would question whether it is per-capita, or total sum, or what.

And I would also posit that the new wealth that has been created (since any given point in history) has been distributed VERY unequally.

Basically, your statement could be true, but the 2/3 I mentioned could be and basically are still living in dark-ages style poverty and ignorance while the vast wealth and high standard of living in the west are skewing the numbers. Could be, who knows.

Until I see the figures you refer to, I can't say for sure, and I'm not the kind of arse that demands cited figures from every random dude on the internet, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[LightFang]

Well. The new wealth created in the USA is upsetting the Lorenz curve. Reagan's trickle-down economics (yay for supply-siders; shifting that AS curve outwards solves everything!) so far hasn't really been working. Sure, the economy's been chuggin' along, but that's perhaps because of the business cycle. Very little wealth has trickled down. This concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich is a terrible idea and has been knocked down throughout history. Hamilton had a similar plan and that failed too.

 

[Integral]

Well. The new wealth created in the USA is upsetting the Lorenz curve. Reagan's trickle-down economics (yay for supply-siders; shifting that AS curve outwards solves everything!) so far hasn't really been working. Sure, the economy's been chuggin' along, but that's perhaps because of the business cycle. Very little wealth has trickled down.

Lightfang, you just gave me an idea for a paper. Thank you.

"Real Per-Capita Income Growth in the United States by Quintile: Trends in the postwar Lorenz Curve"

It is true that the highest quintile has seen more real growth in income over the past sixty years than the lower four quintiles. However, I suspect that all quintiles have seen sustained per-capita growth since WWII. It's just a hunch, but the data should bear it out.

So while income inequality has grown since WWII, everyone is still better off than they were five, ten, twenty, or sixty years ago. It's just that the rich are a lot better off, but the poor are only a little better off.

Off to the BEA, BLS, and CEA tables...



EDIT: Well, looks like the Census Bureau has already done that. Meh. Well, that makes data collection that much easier.

 

[BasketCase]

Found a gigantic typo in my previous post.

human poverty rates go UP, rather than down

Oops. Meant it the other way.

Human poverty rates have been going DOWN rather than UP, was what I was aiming for. However, it seems everybody understood what I was trying to say.

 

[EdwardTking]

I believe that because of the threat of communism, most developed countries improve social welfare in the 20th century.

Quite so. Unfortunately now that communism is dead, the wealthy elite
think they can now pocket nearly all the profits and damm the others.

 

[Traitorfish]

If you knew the answer to that, you would have posted it in order to embarrass me.

Well, yes and no. My best guess would be "zero times", but if you actually know any examples, I'd be happy to hear them. Because, unfortunately, these don't really work...

Most of the time the new authority arises from within. There are cases such as the Allied powers conquering Japan at the end of World War II--but the external authority imposed by the Allies was eventually replaced by another authority created by the Japanese themselves.

That was the remanents of the old authority combining with elements of the Japanese middle class to form a new authority under American supervision. In short, internal authority supported by external authority, not a spontaneous emergence of authority at all.

When the L.A. Riots happened and local authority collapsed, endangered citizens picked up guns and formed their own little authorities. When the riots stopped--these independent groups put their guns away and welcomed the original authority back into power. They didn't revolt--they were glad to have the police back on the streets. They had a chance to claim true freedom for themselves, but they did not want it.

Even at the height of the riots, authority never collapsed on anything more than a local level and, as you said, was quick to reassert itself. The police spent the entirety of the six-day duration clashing with the rioters, and all of these "little authorities" were little more than citizens banding together for self-protection, largely in support of the existing authorities. There was never a collapse of authority on the scale that you implied.

And in parts of the world which are currently in a state of flux and have no authority in power, what is happening? The residents are running away from those areas. In short: when authority is lacking, and external powers can't enforce a new one, and the local residents cannot create a new one "spontaneously", what do the citizens do? THEY RUN AWAY.

But those areas very, very rarely lacking authority. In fact, they often have far too much of it altogether, and it is the clashes between rival authorities- in the forms of political parties, religous groups, tribal militias, etc.- that drives people from their home in the first place. Look at Somali- it's problem is not a lack of authority, it is the fact that many different groups- both from within Somalia and from elsewhere- are all actively attempting to assert authority.

 

[BasketCase]

Well, yes and no. My best guess would be "zero times"

Your guess. Splendid. How about you get back to me when you've actually got something?

That was the remanents of the old authority combining with elements of the Japanese middle class to form a new authority under American supervision.

Ummm, no. The old authority was military. The new one that came out of the whole mess (well, the final one, anyway) was civilian. I know the old leadership could not have had a hand in the new authority. How do I know?

BECAUSE JAPAN'S OLD LEADERSHIP COMMITTED SUICIDE.

Excuse me all to hell for pointing out the completely obvious, but it's really difficult to form a new authority when you're DEAD.

Even at the height of the riots, authority never collapsed on anything more than a local level

That was my whole point. Authority DID collapse on the local level!!! When it did collapse, the citizens created a temporary authority of their own. I was talking about what happened when the local police lost control and before the local police were able to reassert it. The citizens had a brief period where they were free from the local police, and what did they do? During that period, they created a new authority. They preferred the peace of the gun over living happily together with no controls at all--because no controls at all meant looters coming their way to steal stuff.

But those areas very, very rarely lacking authority.

You're not looking hard enough. Try the Unabomber--he lived in a cabin in Montana, and no authority anywhere even knew he was there. There are lots of such places all over the planet, many of them right under your nose. Some of the obvious places are parts of Afghanistan, where the Afghan and Pakistani authorities are unable to assert themselves. Many parts of Africa; parts of Russia; the Far East; and some places right here in the United States.

Whenever there is no authority, the results are poverty, social isolation, intellectual stagnation, and extensive human rights violations.

it is the fact that many different groups- both from within Somalia and from elsewhere- are all actively attempting to assert authority.

One of Greenpeace's requirements was "an authority to make sure no other authority exists", was it not???

That's one of the contradictions in Greenpeace's idyllic little haven--in order to live free from the evils of authority, you need to prevent any authority from asserting itself over you--but that in itself requires an authority. Greenpeace said this first, not me. Yell at him about it and leave me the hell alone.

 

[BasketCase]

Those examples are chaos without any rule of law. Well, actually there is rule by the strongest/cleverest/most influencial/whatever. Either way its nothing at all like the society I described.

I'm very clear on the society you described. It had two main rules: (1) an authority to prevent people from harming each other, and (2) an authority to make sure no other authority exists.

I already showed you how these rules contradict themselves. If those who know how to farm refuse to farm any food, they are harming everybody else. This violates Rule #1. According to Rule #2, you can't force the farmers to farm, because that requires additional authority which Rule #2 does not allow. One or the other of your two precious rules must be broken. Not just broken occasionally--broken completely.

I came up with a solution. You don't want people to be coerced to work by force, so I came up with a better way. Tempt them to work with luxuries. Raise the price of food until a large number of people are tempted into farming and we have enough food.

Got a better system? <BORDERLINE TROLL APPROACHING> Post it. Anybody. I dare you. Come up with a method to produce and distribute goods fairly and sensibly, without a ruling class and without the threat of force. You will all fail. Or you will come up with something indistinguishable from capitalism. I've been doing this for a couple of years now, and every system people invent turns out to be capitalism. Sometimes cleverly concealed with long, catchy-sounding words with far too many syllables and massive over-use of the word "worker" (usually with an S at the end, too) but capitalism nevertheless.

A quick hint: you can't just divide up all of society's goods evenly--that's part of what I meant by "sensibly". I, BasketCase, have no children and therefore don't need any baby shoes. It doesn't make any sense to give every citizen the same share of baby shoes. How do you divvy everything up?

 

[Traitorfish]

Your guess. Splendid. How about you get back to me when you've actually got something?

If you'll return the favour.

Ummm, no. The old authority was military. The new one that came out of the whole mess (well, the final one, anyway) was civilian. I know the old leadership could not have had a hand in the new authority. How do I know?

BECAUSE JAPAN'S OLD LEADERSHIP COMMITTED SUICIDE.

Excuse me all to hell for pointing out the completely obvious, but it's really difficult to form a new authority when you're DEAD.

Erm, yeah, large writing doesn't make it true, just obnoxious.
True, Japan was, at the time, dominated by the military, but to say that this was the entirety of the Japanese ruling authority is absurd. There was a substantial business class which, for the most part, survived, as well as many politicians. And, of course, let's not forget that Japan had the same head of state in 1946 as it did in 1944, albeit without his former ceremonial military authority. A largely symbolic position, I'll grant you, but the very fact that it survived is evidence that authority did not truly collapse.

And, even if you're correct, so what? The US dominated Japan for some time, and still maintains a substantial military presence. The new Japanese authority appeared under it's protection, it did not emerge spontaneously.

That was my whole point. Authority DID collapse on the local level!!! When it did collapse, the citizens created a temporary authority of their own. I was talking about what happened when the local police lost control and before the local police were able to reassert it. The citizens had a brief period where they were free from the local police, and what did they do? During that period, they created a new authority. They preferred the peace of the gun over living happily together with no controls at all--because no controls at all meant looters coming their way to steal stuff.

But authority never truly collapsed. It lost it's grip on a local level, but continued to fight to regain it for the full six days of the rights. The authority was always there, and always active, it was never fully toppled.
And, yet again, I'd dispute the fact the self-defense groups organised by some citizens constitutes a truly independent organisation; rather, they were an attempt to safeguard the status quo imposed by the existing authority, as evidence by their immediate and willing dissolution upon that authority's return.
At best, they were Clubmen, but they were never Diggers.

You're not looking hard enough. Try the Unabomber--he lived in a cabin in Montana, and no authority anywhere even knew he was there. There are lots of such places all over the planet, many of them right under your nose. Some of the obvious places are parts of Afghanistan, where the Afghan and Pakistani authorities are unable to assert themselves. Many parts of Africa; parts of Russia; the Far East; and some places right here in the United States.

Whenever there is no authority, the results are poverty, social isolation, intellectual stagnation, and extensive human rights violations.

But are those problems the result of the lack of authority, or is the lack of authority because of those problems? Because, honestly, all your examples seem to refer to barely inhabitable wilderness.
Of course, if there are humans in such areas, it would be interesting to see what authority they have- because, if you are correct, they should have some form of authority- what form it takes, and where it came from.

One of Greenpeace's requirements was "an authority to make sure no other authority exists", was it not???

That's one of the contradictions in Greenpeace's idyllic little haven--in order to live free from the evils of authority, you need to prevent any authority from asserting itself over you--but that in itself requires an authority. Greenpeace said this first, not me. Yell at him about it and leave me the hell alone.

Quite possibly, yes, but I never argued for or against his case. In fact, I disagree with substantial portions of what he said, I just haven't bothered arguing with him. All I'm doing is debating certain points that you have made. If you don't like that, argue with Greenpeace through PMs, don't put it on a public forum.

 

[greenpeace]

I answered that question with proof, straight from the history books. You never asked about stability. I accuse you of trying to sidestep.

I basically said that you need to proove that the society is instable (that a new authority will soon arise), thats the same as saying you have to proove society won't be stable. And you didn't, you said in times of chaos an authority will rise, it has nothing to do with the society I described.

Now that I've got the accusation (or maybe borderline troll?) on the record, I'll answer your quip about stability. No society is completely stable. Capitalism is more stable than all the others we've tried--but, come up with any system you like, I can tear it apart. Usually with guns. And I've played enough tactical and strategic wargames to be very good at this.

So your saying if this society were to be implemented, that the US or similar country would invade it and wipe out the citizens?

Counter-question: How many times has it been attempted, and when they fell, why and how long did it take?

In order from first to last: very few times, no idea why, and not long at all.

Suggesting two possibilities: that next to nobody wants your system, or that it can't sustain itself. Maybe both. I don't care "why" your system fails; we need to have a system that works, and yours cannot.

Can you give an example of when it was attempted? If not, then you aren't baseing your claim on history. Also, you haven't prooved that it cannot work.

Yes I am. Nobody enjoys farming; I certainly don't, and I'm not gonna do it. If nobody farms the farms, everybody on the planet starves to death. And without ever knowing, I'm certain you're not a farmer either. Seriously: why don't you live in a log cabin in Montana and grow your own food?

We have to convince people to do farming somehow, in order to survive as a species. And you already said we have NO right to make people do it by force. Therefore only one option remains: entice people with goodies.

Hence, capitalism.

You aren't harming Greenpeace for not being his servant, by definition. You aren't offering negative incentment unless you get him to a trade contract in which he becomes dependent on you for survival. But you can't form trade contracts. Also, you don't have to provide food for people who can provide food for themselves (that does not include people who you told you would provide food for and can provide food for, who also cannot not stave without you giving the food you promised).Your second argument is even more ridiculous. Do really think nobody has an incentive to farm in this society? Isn't not starving kind of an incentive?

I already created plenty, but I'll post a very simple one that allows for no misunderstandings.

What if I need to kill you in order to survive......?

Then the strongest will survive. If at any point people need to kill others for food, then any society will break down. I'll ask you, what happpens if everyone needs to kill each other to survive in Capitalism?

That's what happens when no authority exists.

Who cares about what happens when no authority exists? Certainly has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

edit:

I'm very clear on the society you described. It had two main rules: (1) an authority to prevent people from harming each other, and (2) an authority to make sure no other authority exists.

I already showed you how these rules contradict themselves. If those who know how to farm refuse to farm any food, they are harming everybody else. This violates Rule #1. According to Rule #2, you can't force the farmers to farm, because that requires additional authority which Rule #2 does not allow. One or the other of your two precious rules must be broken. Not just broken occasionally--broken completely.

I came up with a solution. You don't want people to be coerced to work by force, so I came up with a better way. Tempt them to work with luxuries. Raise the price of food until a large number of people are tempted into farming and we have enough food.

Got a better system? <BORDERLINE TROLL APPROACHING> Post it. Anybody. I dare you. Come up with a method to produce and distribute goods fairly and sensibly, without a ruling class and without the threat of force. You will all fail. Or you will come up with something indistinguishable from capitalism. I've been doing this for a couple of years now, and every system people invent turns out to be capitalism. Sometimes cleverly concealed with long, catchy-sounding words with far too many syllables and massive over-use of the word "worker" (usually with an S at the end, too) but capitalism nevertheless.

A quick hint: you can't just divide up all of society's goods evenly--that's part of what I meant by "sensibly". I, BasketCase, have no children and therefore don't need any baby shoes. It doesn't make any sense to give every citizen the same share of baby shoes. How do you divvy everything up?

If everybody refuses to farm then everybody starves to death, whats your point? I mean if you have a group of people who would rather starve to death than farm, I say let them be happy and starve themselves to death. Also, please don't try to say, "what if not everybody knows how to provide food for themselve," because in that case they are unable to provide food for themselves and have the same rights as babies and elderly and physically impaired (only in this case, giving them neccessary information will suffice).

edit: I just realized that I need to make a calrifcation. You never need to provide someone with basics if they already have basics (kind of obvious, but important).

edit: You probably were just try to save time, but in case not, its "you can't intentionally cause net harm" (not just harm).

 

[Princeps]

Did I say "coerce people to work for their private and state overlords with the threat of starvation and suffering"? Nope.

However, it would come to that.

I said "entice people with goodies". You're REALLY stretching it here, man.

Btw, the Stalinist totalitarianists had the exact same logic: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work"

Who entices? The private and state elites, which gives them a whole lot power over the working majority. And you mention reward, but you fail to mention the inevitable punishment for not working: starvation and/or suffering.

What I meant was: "if you do work, you can buy sunglasses and a neat car and a computer......and an Internet connection....."

Well, gee, take a gander at Princeps--he's got a PC and a Internet connection!!! You evil capitalist lackey!!!!!

Actually, the internet connection -- like computers -- have emerged from public sector development. Indeed, the business often depends on the dynamic and well-funded public sector for entrepreneurialism, basic sciences and technology, as well as protection and state granted monopolies (copy-rights, patents), and subsidies. Without them, the private sector would collapse, beginning with the banks.

That's the basis of every system. Work is universal. Every government, every society. And also every part of the planet that has NO government at all. Work or suffer. That is just life.

You must understand that this is abused beyond what is necessary. Of course we have to work in order to survive as a species, of course we have produce wealth in order to be wealthy, but in capitalism, the capitalist institutions will deliberately keep people unemployed and imporverished, so that they will work for nothing and compete for their jobs. This happens in all of the capitalist economies, including in the Pinochetian Chile, where unemployment rose from 4.3% to 22%. Real wages fell 40%. Thatcher adopted a watered down version of the same programme, which brought about a watered down version of the same results.