A question to Communists:

[Phlegmak]

It's part of Chris Jordan's
Running the Numbers
An American Self-Portrait.

No location:
(emphasis mine)

I took it out of context because I'm cynical of CFC, and I didn't want a derailment about elective breast augmentation surgeries.

That's some good artwork.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

You think Rupert Murdoch or Bill Gates or Ratan Tata cares if you have food or shelter? No! That is why communism is superior.

"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."-Matthew 25:40.

 

[greenpeace]

That one boldfaced word is where your entire vision of human nature falls apart.

See? We do need to provide incentives to citizens. You write this whole post about how we don't, and then you shoot yourself in the ass with one word.

Can you please quote were I said that all incentives are completely uneeded (in fact I basically said its impossible for their to be no incentive)?

So, you agree that society needs to provide some kind of incentive to steer everybody in the right direction--since, as you said, compassion is neither reliable nor really necessary. And, as you also said (through some very well-written but kind of overly-long sarcasm ), shooting anybody who doesn't work hard enough is not an option.

Now, I have no objection to shooting anybody who tries to kidnap somebody's child, or commit rape, but in general, the incentive needs to take the form of a carrot--errrrr.....I kind of don't like vegetarians, so let's say "cake" instead. The incentive needs to be a cake instead of a stick, we agree there too.

Where I and you differ (in fact, where I and just about every Communist wing nut on the planet differ) is on what kind of cake to offer. I'll cut right to the chase: all the blabbing about non-material cake, working together because it makes sense to keep everybody around you happy so they'll help you, and just generally depending on the better nature of people, is bullcrap. Any group of wild animals proves that--they have a strong incentive to help each other in their own self-interest, yet for some strange reason, wild animals attack and kill each other all the time. Also, there are more than a few people out there who are simply not mentally wired the right way to make your work. The cake needs to be physical and solid so as to provide incentive to as many people as possible.

In other words, the cake must not be a lie. (Sorry, couldn't resist that one--Portal kicks ass)

And when the real and material cake is offered, what kind of system do you have?

Capitalism.

There is no real difference betwen a carrot (or cake) if you have to go against your will to get it (we disagree on the carrot part I guess). Also, I would agree that if you have a pack of wild animals (depending on the species) one of the organisms will attack a leader to gain position, or similar thing. However, if you set up a society that is equal at the begining with no positions were one can basically control others (directly as in a dictator or representative body), then you set up a completely different thing other than a stick or cake, you set up a want for nobody to people be able to offer cake or use a stick in the first place. Although, I will agree that if the majority of citizens are given the most amount of freedom and power over their own life as possible and reject this and let some other power rule over themselves, than it will collapse into some other form of government. I highly doubt that it will turn out that way because of the fact that the world isn't a complete totalitarian state. Also, you have to account for the fact that if you start out with a group of people willing to work for any cause it generally takes (as shown throughout history) a large blunder or catastrophe to change a societies structure.

In terms of the economy, I will agree that this society may not be as productive because nobody (practically) is going to want to work their entire life doing things against their will (unless robots take over all manual production, in which case it would be fairly equal in production) even though that tends to be more "productive" as in the case of Capitalism. However, it will be able to provide the basics because if it didn't people would be starving/dehydrated, etc. and people don't like that (we can call it "natural incentive" which would be your "material" carrot/cake/stick whatever). Everything else will come about because people want it to occur so much that their willing to do things they normally wouldn't do to accomplish it (so they have a "net will"). The difference between this and Capitalism is that the goal to be accomplished is something other than not starving to death (unless it is farming of course- nothing can prevent that). In other words things will only be done if it is in peoples natural net will (natural as opposed to artificial as in Capitalism).

But I have to say, speculating on whether something will work or not is kind of meaningless when you could put into practice.

Also, BTW, whenever I "say" stuff on the internet it always sounds very tense and derogitory for some reason (at least when I reread it). I don't mean any of this in a I-am-right-and-you're-a-******-for-disagreeing-with-me sort of way or agree with the "my cause is the just path for the human race and everyone who disagrees with me is an evil tyrant" mentality, its all just fun and games for me .

Capitalism.

 

[A Viking Yeti]

For reference, it is very rare for animals of the same species, especially a social species, to kill each other. They will contend, but merely to show genetic and phenotypic superiority.

Now, exactly where is the incentive to be a teacher when, with the same education, you can make 4 times as much? Then... Whence cometh teachers, eh? You completely ignore personal incentive, incentive that may not necessarily take a material form. For instance, the extremely rich; more money then you could ever spend. Where is the material reward for the continuation of labor on their part? Why would Bill Gates continue working if he receives no actual material profit from it, rather just a few more digits in an account? Maybe for the love of his work... And maybe none of that matters, because, given all the necessities and a reasonable standard of living, individuals posed with a system by which they will make the same amount for any particular career will choose the career they are most interested in. I couldn't see someone who's dream job is to be a neurologist choosing to work at McDonald's the rest of their life simply because it's 'easier'. Rather, I could see those fields of industry possibly disappearing.

And don't try to say farming wouldn't exist or anything either... Farmers, at least in the US, don't do it for the money, I guarantee you that. The average income for a farmer lies well below the poverty line (12k a year), so it obviously isn't money that drives them.

 

[A Viking Yeti]

Regularly. That was pretty much what he meant by "Communism".


It's actually pretty core to the whole idea of a Marxist Communist state.

Much as I disagree with Basket Case, you're still wrong on those points...

No... That was the end goal of communism, that the state would wither away. In this process, communist theory is more concerned with the transitional phases as opposed to the end goal. My point was communism and anarcho-syndicalism are not necessarily mutually inclusive in the immediate sense of the term. Probably should've phrased that better, but I was try to point out the fact that communist theory, even according to Marx, makes no mention of the immediate establishment of social, political, and economic equality whilst simultaneously dissolving any and all mechanisms of the state.

 

[A Viking Yeti]

What? Why...? What does this have to do with anything?

Hehe... You're question is a perfect example actually, but that would be digressing to far from the actual question. Hemp yields 5-20 times as much biomass oil per acre as corn does, can, with some minor modifications, put put right into a diesel engine, is totally renewable, doesn't harm the environment or pollute or cities, and is obviously available in large quantities pretty much now. So why aren't we using it? Well... Where would oil companies be if they allowed a patent for an engine that could run that to fall into the hands of an environmentalist or even just a competitive biomass industry? Textiles, pharmaceuticals, tobacco, oil/hydrocarbon fuel processors, the lumber industry, they would all have a huge new competitor that is, in many ways, better than they are in the economic sense if hemp and marijuana were legalized.

The most powerful form of control is the form you don't know you're under...

 

[greenpeace]

:A Question to Communists:

When Communists look around and see the great that Capitalism has done...

Answer:

Hemp yields 5-20 times as much...

, sorry I just had to do that.

 

[LightFang]

Hehe... You're question is a perfect example actually, but that would be digressing to far from the actual question. Hemp yields 5-20 times as much biomass oil per acre as corn does, can, with some minor modifications, put put right into a diesel engine, is totally renewable, doesn't harm the environment or pollute or cities, and is obviously available in large quantities pretty much now. So why aren't we using it? Well... Where would oil companies be if they allowed a patent for an engine that could run that to fall into the hands of an environmentalist or even just a competitive biomass industry? Textiles, pharmaceuticals, tobacco, oil/hydrocarbon fuel processors, the lumber industry, they would all have a huge new competitor that is, in many ways, better than they are in the economic sense if hemp and marijuana were legalized.

The most powerful form of control is the form you don't know you're under...

Hemp oil however is economically inefficient. How do we know this? People haven't switched over yet! Nobody's going to power a car with really expensive oil, that's just suicide for the business. When the price of oil increases though, eventually it'll surpass the price of the backstop resources. Then, using this mythical SUPER DUPER CLEAN hemp oil will actually make sense, because there will be an economic incentive to do so!

So I don't buy peak oil, fyi, and all that. Okay, sure, obviously these kinds of things hurt the environment and have negative externalities, but pollution markets are putting a dent in that.

 

[Mr_Fusty]

That is not the only reason. Everything is innefficiant when the business starts. The dedicated technology had to be delevoped, infrasructure needs to be built, businesses and consumers alike need to be convinced that this product is the future. Every new business enterpise, from railroads to the mobile phone had it's sucess and failures.

You also need to remember that the term called 'Path dependence' comes into play. Let us take the history of Microsoft for example.

Back in 1981 Microsoft, then a small niche company producing progamming for Altair 8800. IBM (then the computing industry leader) contacted Microsoft with an request - an operating system for their new idea - the IBM 8088 'personal computer'. This gave Microsoft the opening they had been looking for.

The IBM PC was a roaring sucess, and every one of these was shipped with DOS in it. Soon, IBM contacted Microsoft again with another offer - collaboration on a new graphical interface for DOS - what we know as Windows 1.00.

I'm not saying the Windows was better than Workbench, Mac OS ,SymbOS or all the others - Windows directly benifited with their partnership with IBM.
The advent of a graphical interface combined with the compatability of DOS and IBM's market share meant Windows soon became a market leader.

Soon, other companies such as Compaq started building 'IBM Compatible' PCs which ran DOS and Windows. Other OS systems started to suffer, and by 1990 most were looking at a declining market share aginst Microsoft.

This is were path dependence comes in. By now, many large offices used Windows, so when it came to picking a new system, they picked Windows again because that meant that people didn't need new training. More people would pick Windows for their home computer because they used it at work. As sales of Microsoft were high, more and more 3rd-party developers were producing programs for Windows, and not for other systems. Computer shops started stocking Windows-compatible software and accesories more than any other OS. That caused even more people to buy Windows than any other OS.

The advance of Windows became a complete rout of the competition by the launch of Windows 95. There was no longer any question of compatablity - everything was now compatible with Windows - or gone the way of the BBC Micro. They had conquered all. From office to home, campus to store, warehouse to lab. There were a few hold-outs, but who cared? The path dependence is complete. XP was a massive sucess. Of course it was! They stopped selling the older versions of Windows so any new PC purchace would have it on it! Vista is the same, and so will be the next one.

This is the problem with industry norms. It means that new, more efficiant methods by new entriants are often quashed by the 'industry norms'. Take green cars. Many people will think of buying them when enough petrol stations sell their fuel, but petrol stations will only sell said fuel when there is enough demand for it. This thinking could go on forever....

 

[Phlegmak]

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

You think Rupert Murdoch or Bill Gates or Ratan Tata cares if you have food or shelter? No! That is why communism is superior.

Whatever you're trying to prove, you've done it poorly.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Whatever you're trying to prove, you've done it poorly.

I am a poor prove-er

 

[BasketCase]

However, if you set up a society that is equal at the begining with no positions were one can basically control others (directly as in a dictator or representative body), then you set up a completely different thing other than a stick or cake, you set up a want for nobody to people be able to offer cake or use a stick in the first place.

Wrong. People will always have their fists.

The hardcore Commies in this thread keep chanting a very basic myth about human nature: that, given true equality and freedom, people will be inclined to help each other for their own benefit, and that a true socialist society will therefore evolve naturally.

You guys could only be more brain-explodingly wrong if you went "2 + 2 = 6,137,285". Actually, I can't even be sure of that, because it's almost statistically certain that somewhere in the universe exists a sentient race whose written language uses symbols that look exactly like "6,137,285" to represent the number four, so how about if I just say you're brain-explodingly wrong and leave it at that.

I already brought up the Milgram guy, who disproved this myth about human nature in his experiments. I shouldn't have even had to bring him up, because you can see a very clear picture of the ugly side of human nature just by picking up a damn newspaper. But it goes further than that. The thing all you Communist wingnuts are ignoring is that the incentive to work together and help each other already exists. Even here in this cruel and heartless capitalist world. Why the bleeding HELL do you think firemen were running INTO the World Trade Center towers WHILE THE GODDAMN TOWERS WERE ON FIRE???? Christ.

A just-starting-out doctor makes about as much as a waiter. Policemen risk their lives every day for paychecks a lot smaller than you would expect. A garbage collector makes more than a teacher. And here's a capper: Americans spend five to ten times as much money on charitable donations as they do on spectator sports.

There's a whole lot of human decency out there, but you knuckleheads can't see it. Or maybe you were just hoping I wouldn't point it out because it throws a monkey-wrench in your whole religion. The incentive to work together and help one's fellow man is already there, and countless people act on that incentive every day. Yet a socialist society is not developing.......

In terms of the economy, I will agree that this society may not be as productive

.....and that's the reason why. You just said it yourself--your ideal society is less productive. Humans want more, not less. In any of a billion other thread everywhere on the Web, you can always find millions of posters demading more. More government bennies, more work on protecting the environment, more work on eliminating AIDS, blah blah blah blah blah. So guess what, Einstein, those other people are going to make rude gestures at you, throw you out the door headfirst, and build themselves a society that does provide more.

Edit: Yeah, I know--you said "may not be as productive" rather than "is not as productive". Boo hoo.

 

[REDY]

I think that basis of communist thinking is not about large theories. Its more about practice, which is applied by many communists. What is more important for man? Sureness of food, home and income or very small chance for luxuries and wealth? All what capitalism got is contradicted by fact that there are still living people who havent home and work by not own decision. I dont know how its in single countries, maybe some exceptions are somewhere. But here average income rapidly raised, the average median of income raised smally and now you should even meet begging homeless people. The quality of food lowered and prices raised. Minorities who during communism were +- forced to work now have to pickpocket and steal to stay in standart living.
We see it from perspective of middle class, but there are also people who have not computer or internet to share their problems.

 

[Traitorfish]

What is more important for man? Sureness of food, home and income or very small chance for luxuries and wealth?

Says it all, really...

 

[EdwardTking]

Why the bleeding HELL do you think firemen were running INTO the World Trade Center towers WHILE THE GODDAMN TOWERS WERE ON FIRE????

Sense of duty, compassion, solidarity with fellow firemen maybe.

But it certainly wasn't for any capitalist incentive such as a monetary bonus.

 

[greenpeace]

Wrong. People will always have their fists.

The hardcore Commies in this thread keep chanting a very basic myth about human nature: that, given true equality and freedom, people will be inclined to help each other for their own benefit, and that a true socialist society will therefore evolve naturally.

What I said was that people generally won't work against their will if they aren't forced to.

I already brought up the Milgram guy, who disproved this myth about human nature in his experiments.

Actually the Milgram experiments proove what I already agree to, that people can be persuaded by authority to do wrong things. If it were to similate an actual society such as the one I described, the experiment would have to allow the 35% of the people who thought it was wrong to communicate with the 65% who don't and show them that what they are doing is not right. The experiment did not show this. If anything it prooves my point because with only a small proportion of society being allowed to make decisions, they are much more likely to be corrupt then the entire citizenry in a given self-governing segment.

But it goes further than that. The thing all you Communist wingnuts are ignoring is that the incentive to work together and help each other already exists. Even here in this cruel and heartless capitalist world. Why the bleeding HELL do you think firemen were running INTO the World Trade Center towers WHILE THE GODDAMN TOWERS WERE ON FIRE???? Christ. A just-starting-out doctor...

Can you please quote me where I said that everyone does everything they do against their will or that there is no incentive to help others in Capitalists societ. In fact, I even said one of my favorite institutions was the Grameen bank. The fact that happened even prooves my point firther, because it shows what people are willing to do with being forced (unless you think firefighters risked their lived in the trade towers for the money).

There's a whole lot of human decency out there, but you knuckleheads can't see it. Or maybe you were just hoping I wouldn't point it out because it throws a monkey-wrench in your whole religion. The incentive to work together and help one's fellow man is already there, and countless people act on that incentive every day. Yet a socialist society is not developing.......

I'm sory but I can't wemember teling that ther no is gud pepol in Capitiliwism, al I wemember teling was sum peple do work even doe dey don wanna. Perhaps I can't remember cause I'm such a knucklehead.

In terms of the economy, I will agree that this society may not be as productive

.....and that's the reason why. You just said it yourself--your ideal society is less productive. Humans want more, not less. In any of a billion other thread everywhere on the Web, you can always find millions of posters demading more. More government bennies, more work on protecting the environment, more work on eliminating AIDS, blah blah blah blah blah. So guess what, Einstein, those other people are going to make rude gestures at you, throw you out the door headfirst, and build themselves a society that does provide more.
Edit: Yeah, I know--you said "may not be as productive" rather than "is not as productive". Boo hoo.

The only way people could be more productive is if they forced/bribed others into working against their will which is not the right of any human. So yes, those who value the ability to harm others to pursue their goals more than they value the fact that they (or anyone else) will never be forced to work against their will just because they want more objects may leave. I don't think that is such a bad thing.

 

[Elrohir]

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."

You think Rupert Murdoch or Bill Gates or Ratan Tata cares if you have food or shelter? No! That is why communism is superior.

I don't think they're quite as heartless as you make them out to be. But you know what? It doesn't matter. It's not like there weren't rich, powerful people in every communist state who lived well while the common people starved, and in greater numbers than in our capitalist society. Your argument is utterly bereft of any logic at all.

"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."-Matthew 25:40.

This doesn't support communism per se. This supports charity. Saying that it's good to help the poor does not necessarily translate to "the government should help the poor". Indeed, I would say that this is a personal command (The "YOU" gives it away) and that any spiritual benefit you get from helping others is negated if you decide to do so by pawning the responsibility off on the government. Doing something yourself to help others is a charitable act which morally helps you, as well as materially helps them - having the government do the same does not help you, even if it does help the poor.

If you want to help the poor using government services anyway, then that's fine. But don't try to use Christian theology to justify it.

 

[GenMarshall]

What does Communism say about Social Darwinism?

 

[greenpeace]

What does Communism say about Social Darwinism?

Its sounds like you think that all Communists think alike. This is certaintly not true, for example, my beliefs and the USSR's both may be considered to be Communist, but the USSR is the antithesis of my beliefs. Also, the answer to that question depends on what aspect of Social Darwinism your talking about.
Assuming your refering to the belief that some people deserve more power because they are more "fit" to posses it is wrong. Simply put, nobody should be forced against their will to support decisions they have no direct way to affect. Furthermore, democratic non-majoritarian communal decisions are the hardest to corrupt with the pursuit of power especially compared to oligarchial decisions. Wow, I just reread that and even I don't think it makes sense. Alright, what I meant was if you have community and it makes a decision in a democratic process called comprisal democracy where the vast majority (the actual percentage I will admit I don't know) agree to a decision by compromising until it is agreed is much harder to corrupt that having an extremely small minority making decision on the behalf of everyone else (as in the American republic, where the government is basically an elected oligarchy).

 

[Traitorfish]

What does Communism say about Social Darwinism?

"Communism" isn't a book, it's a broad term describing a wide variety of different, often incompatible, collectivist ideologies. Unless you're talking about specific ideologies such as Marx-Leninism, no definite statements can be made (and even then, certain issues are debated, particularly between variant forms.)
However, in this particular case, communists, socialists and other leftists- who tend to favour egalitarian beliefs- largely oppose Social Darwinism, an ideology given, as it is, to rationalise social and economic inequalities and to favour anti-solidaritarian policies.