Is Communism Right?...

[Winner]

Communists have been saying capitalism is always just about to fall and then we will see. But thats just doomsaying.

If communism is SO good, then how come 99.9% of anyone that studies economics laughs at it?

Because the economists are evil capitalist pigs, it surprises me you didn't know that

 

[JerichoHill]

Oh yeah, forgot about that. In fact, I have my membership card in my pocket right here...

 

[JerichoHill]

btw, Winner, we bother because every so often, we can actually win this argument and let someone see the light.

I've helped 3 posters on CFC see the fallacy of the communist ideal, and while I haven't changed how they feel about issues, I;ve helped them find more coherent ways to argue for what they want

 

[willemvanoranje]

Well, economists like to think they're not a social science as well, so...and economics is all about capitalism anyway. Marx' communism doesn't have a capitalistic market system.

Now, I do understand if they laugh at the attempts at communism we've seen in the 20th century.

 

[Winner]

Well, economists like to think they're not a social science as well, so...and economics is all about capitalism anyway. Marx' communism doesn't have a capitalistic market system.

Now, I do understand if they laugh at the attempts at communism we've seen in the 20th century.

If they laugh at the millions, maybe billions of people ruined because of that nonsense, they should move to North Korea.

May I say, that Nacism was a good idea, only the Germans screwed it up? How stupid would it be?

 

[JerichoHill]

Marx was an economist, he correctly undersood capitalism's faults, but extrapolated too far.

Economics is not about capitalism. Economics is a study of markets under any economic system.

And just so you know, we are a social science, just one with more math. That's a little elitist attitude and horrible generalization. People who barely study economics like to think of themselves as above other social sciences. Those of us who study it alot, realize that its all intertwined.

Of course, I teach a course on that, so umm, I am biased.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Pfff, they don't care. Like I said, they like to think they're not a social science. Man is nothing more than a superrational economic being. Thank God Jericho doesn't agree.

Marx was an economist, he correctly undersood capitalism's faults, but extrapolated too far.

Economics is not about capitalism. Economics is a study of markets under any economic system.

I consider Marx not an economist. He didn't even like economics! When he started to write he just realized more and more that economics had a major part in all of it.. and before he knew it economics was taking up much more work than any other part of his ideas. But he didn't like that really.

And just so you know, we are a social science, just one with more math. That's a little elitist attitude and horrible generalization. People who barely study economics like to think of themselves as above other social sciences. Those of us who study it alot, realize that its all intertwined.

Of course, I teach a course on that, so umm, I am biased.

I'm all with you on that one though. Political economy all the way.

 

[JerichoHill]

Hey Willem, what about me being an economist did you not get? Please don't generalize. We aren't like that, and your generalization is wrong and insulting.

 

[Winner]

Pfff, they don't care. Like I said, they like to think they're not a social science. Man is nothing more than a superrational economic being.

Not all of them. There actually are some marxists among the economists, but they're just a tiny minority. Ask yourself why

 

[willemvanoranje]

Hey Willem, what about me being an economist did you not get? Please don't generalize. We aren't like that, and your generalization is wrong and insulting.

Stop posting so fast I can't keep up.. I edited by now.

And yes, I agree that my statement is an immense overgeneralization. My apologies I did not mean to offend you and should have chose my words more carefully.

 

[JerichoHill]

Thank you.

Most people who have a little knowledge are very arrogant and think like that. Once you gain alot more, in any field, you learn you don't know squat.

Though I do consider Marx an economist. Why we don't have alot of Marxist economists is that Marxist theory fails when put into an experiment.

I've run agent simulations that illustrated the difference between communist theory and capitalist theory. In a "duh" moment, the communist agents performed very well in small groups (these are computer models and programs and yadda yadda, very tedious and nerdy). However, they were outperformed by the more capitalist models as the group expanded...communist models tended to entropy.

Hence why we are all communists with our best friends, and capitalists with strangers.

 

[Swedishguy]

btw, Winner, we bother because every so often, we can actually win this argument and let someone see the light.

I've helped 3 posters on CFC see the fallacy of the communist ideal, and while I haven't changed how they feel about issues, I;ve helped them find more coherent ways to argue for what they want

What an coincidence that you're an economist, too.

OK, what's wrong with communism that ensures it can never be used properly? Help me 'see the light'!

 

[JerichoHill]

Communism works well in small groups, for the following reasons:

1) Implicit is that there is group trust and group identity/bonding.
2) Free-rider problems are mitigated because of #1

As the group grows larger, and thereby more impersonal, 1 and 2 are lost. That one can then be a free-rider destroys the collective incentives of comradery and brotherhood.

It is human nature to distrust outsiders, strangers. Therefore as our relationships and dealings grow more impersonal (or as our society gets larger and we know people less well as more are included), the mechanisms that allow communism to work are decayed.

That, notwithstanding the lack of equality among people genetically, and that man will always have wants and needs because of his imperfect nature (we hunger, we thirst, we crave sex), necessarily implies that some will get more (the more capable) and othes less (the less capable). I suppose its an survival of the fittest (it is a testament to today's society that so many who would not have lived to the age of 20 300 years ago now live to 70 and have productive lives, we've found ways for people to contribute who could not contribute before.

In small groups, we have an incentive to contribute. Our contributions are recognized and their effect on the health of the group is noticed and appreciated and reinforced. The larged the circle, the less these reciprocations necessarily are, and at some point, that system becomes untenable.

Why do we wave to strangers in our neighborhood but not when we're at the mall?

 

[willemvanoranje]

Thank you.

Most people who have a little knowledge are very arrogant and think like that. Once you gain alot more, in any field, you learn you don't know squat.

Though I do consider Marx an economist. Why we don't have alot of Marxist economists is that Marxist theory fails when put into an experiment.

Well, I guess Marx is the perfect example then that Economics and Politics can't really be seen as independent of each other.

I've run agent simulations that illustrated the difference between communist theory and capitalist theory. In a "duh" moment, the communist agents performed very well in small groups (these are computer models and programs and yadda yadda, very tedious and nerdy). However, they were outperformed by the more capitalist models as the group expanded...communist models tended to entropy.

Hence why we are all communists with our best friends, and capitalists with strangers.

I'd have to agree here. I have never done such tests obviously, but it would be the outcome I'd have expected as well. For communism to work on the level capitalism works on, we need to change human beings itself I guess.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

You can want it all you like, but to have it at the expense of a family starving to death is wrong.

So wait... buying a china set kills a family?

American soldiers have also died to uphold slavery, which, more than anything else, is why your country is where it is today.

Not my fault or problem, that happened many years ago. Nor does every country have a clean history devoid of any wrongdoings.

Okay, so at the moment, who is making more money off of your labor, you, or the guy who employs you but doesn't work?

The guy who employs me does work. He runs a corporation, he makes sure people like me aren't screwing it up for him.

Fighting over resources, so that you can live and everyone else dies is wrong. That isn't blatantly obvious to you? Why is your life more important than theirs? Or does might make right?

Becuase my life comes before anybody elses, period. I believe that you would say the ame thing if in a dire situation. Survival of the fittest.

Atheist then?

Yes.

So, two cultures can have two seperate sets of ethical truths and both are correct?

/shrug. I don't preted to want to fly over to Iran and tell them that everything they are doing is wrong, and that this is how you have to do it. They certainly have a different standard of morals, as much as I disagree with it.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm

You know it's not nearely that easy. How do you tell everybody to not buy perfume and instead donate it? Then what do you do with that money? If it was that easy, starvation would have been solved a long time ago.

You should be comfortable while others starve? Let's extend the same courtesy to you. Let's have you starve to death while we enjoy ourselves. Clearly human comfort is more important than human life, including yours.

I don't expect you to watch over me like an angel. I merely expect people to work to earn. It's that simple. You can't make me starve to death, that is my choice.

Guilty conscience?

No... I just feel sorry for kids who are born in those conditions.

No. Trade implies that there must be a fair exchange. This would be closer to insurance without fees.

Fair trades is not my responsibility. If you get jipped in a trade, that's your fault. What you are implying basically amounts to a trade of services.

Person A wants something Person B has
Person B wants something Person A has
Person A does a favor for Person B, gets what they want
Person B does a favor for Person A, get what they want

Basically a trade.

1% of the population owns 38% of the wealth. In other words, in our country that is supposedly based upon the equality of men, 1% of the population possesses 38 times their fair share, at the expense of the remaining 99%. 1% is 38 times more equal than you.

So now it's their fault that people are not as rich as them.

Everybody is equal, and just about everybody does have the oppotunity to be rich, they just don't work hard enough.

Why is anarchy bad? Is it not for the same reasons that capitalism is bad?

Because some rules are needed to keep people in line.

Amish.

Amish=communism? No way.

Oh, so you're not a slave. If you stop working, you die.

What, am I supposed to get food and goods for free now?

Wait, so you're saying that it's justified for you to die if you do nothing to help your common man? Hmm... I'm not that harsh, but it sounds like you're agreeing with me.

No... I am just saying that I am not adding much to society by not working. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but I would think that most people would appreciate that.

Will the law leave you alone? Or evict you?

It's left me alone so far.

 

[JerichoHill]

1% of the population owns 38% of the wealth. In other words, in our country that is supposedly based upon the equality of men, 1% of the population possesses 38 times their fair share, at the expense of the remaining 99%. 1% is 38 times more equal than you.
--if the 1% of the nation contributes to 38% of the productivity, then a 38% share is fair. Now we can quibble that, and why, and etc, but the point stands.

If I am a more productive of society, it is only fair that I obtain a larger share of the wealth.

 

[zenspiderz]

1% of the population owns 38% of the wealth. In other words, in our country that is supposedly based upon the equality of men, 1% of the population possesses 38 times their fair share, at the expense of the remaining 99%. 1% is 38 times more equal than you.
--if the 1% of the nation contributes to 38% of the productivity, then a 38% share is fair. Now we can quibble that, and why, and etc, but the point stands.

If I am a more productive of society, it is only fair that I obtain a larger share of the wealth.

Are this 1% really that productive? I suspect many of them inherited this wealth or started out in life with privilages that gave them opportunities beyond their native talent and applied effort. How many of the 99% could have achieved more if their parents had the excess wealth to give them the education and connections of the 1%.

I know many very stupid, lazy people who are rich because they profit from the talent and effort of poorer people. Likewise I know many 'have nots' who are intelligent, hard working and consciencious yet doomed to lifetime wage slavery and tenancy.

Forgive me if I am mistaken but are you not advocating aristocracy? Oh I know that the currency of power and privilage in 'ye olde' aristocracy is land titles and that the currency of power and privilage of modern bourgious capitalists is shares and stock options but beyond that isn't it still the tyranny of the propertied?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Are this 1% really that productive? I suspect many of them inherited this wealth or started out in life with privilages that gave them opportunities beyond their native talent and applied effort. How many of the 99% could have achieved more if their parents had the excess wealth to give them the education and connections of the 1%.

We do have public education through high school.

know many very stupid, lazy people who are rich because they profit from the talent and effort of poorer people.

Can't be that stupid if they're making more than you and I.

 

[JerichoHill]

@@zenspiderz

Are this 1% really that productive?
--I am willing to bet that they are, most of em (idle wealth excluded but that really isnt an American problem, more a European problem

I suspect many of them inherited this wealth or started out in life with privilages that gave them opportunities beyond their native talent and applied effort.
--No... I surely didn't inherit my wealth, but somehow got to be in a darn fine position. It is the truth that if you start rich you have a leg up on the rest, but I know plenty of those who squandered that, and plenty of previously poor folks that did not.

How many of the 99% could have achieved more if their parents had the excess wealth to give them the education and connections of the 1%.
--Wealth is an enabler but means nothing without drive and ambition and native talent. I was born and lived next to the ghetto (projects) in Atlanta. Plenty of us did well with nothing. Most didn't, but we did have that opportunity.

I know many very stupid, lazy people who are rich because they profit from the talent and effort of poorer people. Likewise I know many 'have nots' who are intelligent, hard working and consciencious yet doomed to lifetime wage slavery and tenancy.
--And I know many of the reverse in both. Sorry, either of our examples don't work.

Forgive me if I am mistaken but are you not advocating aristocracy?
--No, I am advocating, if anything, a meritocracy.

--Let's try to get off the subject of the rich and what-not, because it is very obvious in your language that you harbor some sort of resentment against them. I think that is clouding your judgement on many things.
--If you're wondering about the productivity argument, we can track productivity increases in industry, country and see that wage growth goes hand in hand with it. People like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, they possess an innate intelligence, or something else, that just makes capital and labor that much more productive than if they were handled by someone else, and that marginal value added based on their leadership is their own productivity, not anyone else's.

 

[zenspiderz]

@@zenspiderz

Are this 1% really that productive?
--I am willing to bet that they are, most of em (idle wealth excluded but that really isnt an American problem, more a European problem

Well it was a european problem fortunately socialism has made some enduring victories in europe so even very poor people can expect educational and medical opportunities that are denied to more purely capitalistic 'societies' like the US. Although the as yet unseated aristocratic elites still scheme to reverse equal opportunities even its limited form present in europe.
The US is a young country so the capitalist is still in the process of sealing up its monopoly on opportunity. However one can see aristocracy in the making even there as in the Ivy League preppys.

I suspect many of them inherited this wealth or started out in life with privilages that gave them opportunities beyond their native talent and applied effort.
--No... I surely didn't inherit my wealth, but somehow got to be in a darn fine position. It is the truth that if you start rich you have a leg up on the rest, but I know plenty of those who squandered that, and plenty of previously poor folks that did not.

Sure there is no doubt that happens. Even in feudal europe enterprising, gifted and/or ruthless individuals from modest beginnings could score high position for themselves and likewise privilaged individuals lost their status and wealth through misfortune or folly. That does not make feudalism an ideal socio-politico-economic model.

How many of the 99% could have achieved more if their parents had the excess wealth to give them the education and connections of the 1%.
--Wealth is an enabler but means nothing without drive and ambition and native talent. I was born and lived next to the ghetto (projects) in Atlanta. Plenty of us did well with nothing. Most didn't, but we did have that opportunity.

Level playing fields are better. Co-operation and mutual aid are better still over winner takes all competition even on a level playing field.

I know many very stupid, lazy people who are rich because they profit from the talent and effort of poorer people. Likewise I know many 'have nots' who are intelligent, hard working and consciencious yet doomed to lifetime wage slavery and tenancy.
--And I know many of the reverse in both. Sorry, either of our examples don't work.

See my last point.

Forgive me if I am mistaken but are you not advocating aristocracy?
--No, I am advocating, if anything, a meritocracy.

Then either I misunderstand you or you misunderstand meritocracy.

--Let's try to get off the subject of the rich and what-not, because it is very obvious in your language that you harbor some sort of resentment against them. I think that is clouding your judgement on many things.
--If you're wondering about the productivity argument, we can track productivity increases in industry, country and see that wage growth goes hand in hand with it. People like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, they possess an innate intelligence, or something else, that just makes capital and labor that much more productive than if they were handled by someone else, and that marginal value added based on their leadership is their own productivity, not anyone else's.

This is a thread on the merits or lack thereof of communism so how can we stay off the subject of those who own the work of the exploited? This is the very source of communism's attraction for so many people around the world.
Productivity increases with technology primarily. Technology is largely a product of the education of talent. The most effiecient way to develop talent is to provide the appropriate education for the individual according to his innate ability NOT according to the ability of the individuals parents to pay. Thus even the most aristocratic countries (like the US ) have seen the benefit of socialism and promoted limited public education. However it is often the result in such capitalist countries that the poor educated genius is merely enhancing the luxury of underserving monopolists with his talent, skill and effort as much as the less talented worker.
I have never heard of Steve Jobs but of course I have heard of Bill Gates and I am not sure he is good example of a poor boy made 'good'. Much of his wealth comes from scheming for the ownership rights of the efforts of other less acquisitive geniuses and that includes DOS.