question: whats so evil about communism?

[allan2]

Originally posted by Fez_Monk


Capitalism (and I am talking about our current system of welfare state capitalism, as no other form of capitalism has ever existed)

I understand as well as you do that our capitalism is less than ideal capitalism....

WAS forced upon us----capitalism evolved from feudalism, with the first capitalists using inherited family wealth derived from large land holdings to start factories. That "inherited family wealth" can be traced back originally to conquest and forcible seizure.

Those origins notwithstanding (every country on Earth could tell a similar story), my point was that people who want to make something of their idea of communism can still do so without using force--i.e. they can pool resources together to buy land and live out their dreams in peace, and their rights to administer that land as they see fit (so long as they commit no crimes on it) will be honored, as it is with any other landholding entity. Even here in the US it has been done.

And remember that word you emphasized with caps--"WAS". I.e. capitalism isn't necessarily forced on us NOW (although "breaking free" of it may require some above-ordinary effort, like what it would take to start a commune--but if the idea is worth enough to you, you will expend the required effort, right?). "Conquests and seizures" are a thing of the past (I'm not talking about unconstitutional RICO seizures by the government in drug-related cases, these are unfortunate but a different thing from what we're talking about here).

While we can usually pick which capitalist to work for (you have to work for someone), we cannot choose to work for ourselves (the self-employed sector of the economy is quite small, which indicates how much liberty there actually is under capitalism).

The only thing keeping the self-employed sector from growing is number of people willing to get into it--I see ads for various self-employment opportunities in the newspapers ALL THE TIME, "work from home" is a growing trend--but to really "be your own boss" requires a special kind of drive and effort that not too many people are willing to undertake, but it's not something that "can't be done". I think most people would rather show up at a job, do the work, and leave the hard decisions for people willing to make them--it takes less self-discipline to live this way, and the pay is steadier too (and you don't have to worry about shopping around for your own benefits).

But remember, economy isn't arbitrarily limited--we help CREATE the economy, we can expand it, and people like us do so every day. So just because a certain sector of the economy is small doesn't mean it can't get bigger. You just can't passively expect it to get bigger on its own....

Of course, the ability to leave employment and seek it elsewhere is an important freedom, however, having to choose between starvation, food stamps, or selling your labor to an employer isn't much of a choice, IMHO.

There'd be even less choice under socialism or communism, once enough people decide not to work (theoretically they don't HAVE to), or a brain-drain starts, and the government feels the need to keep people in the country and MAKE them work--because people need to work for a society to function.

Just out of curiosity though, what other choices SHOULD people have, in your opinion?

(Side note to the mods: how come when you edit a post a second or subsequent time, the editor doesn't "remember" your previous edits? This wastes a lot of time, making sure your previous edits stay in there.)

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Fez_Monk
Capitalism WAS forced upon us----capitalism evolved from feudalism, with the first capitalists using inherited family wealth derived from large land holdings to start factories. That "inherited family wealth" can be traced back originally to conquest and forcible seizure.

And my family can be traced back to France, but that doesn't make me French, does it?
Your implication would ring more true if you could make a direct link between those that are wealthy today, and their ancestors ancestors seized the 'property' of those that are poor today. Casual links are perhaps the best you could provide, and even then it would be more of a shame of our forefathers. That logic is essentially saying that the sins of our fathers dilute the value of what we produce today.

Originally posted by Fez_Monk
While we can usually pick which capitalist to work for (you have to work for someone), we cannot choose to work for ourselves (the self-employed sector of the economy is quite small, which indicates how much liberty there actually is under capitalism).

Actually, that is not true at all. In the United States, 80% of business is sole-proprietor or partnership. Only 20% are corporations.
Both of my parents worked for corporations for a long time, and both of them now started up their own businesses. Both of them made more and worked a whole lot less for corporations, but in their twilight years chose they'd rather be their own boss (some of it has to do with not having dependants any longer).

I'm not sure where you get your perceptions from.

Originally posted by Fez_Monk
Of course, the ability to leave employment and seek it elsewhere is an important freedom, however, having to choose between starvation, food stamps, or selling your labor to an employer isn't much of a choice, IMHO.

You're right. There is no free lunch.
There are plenty of people that aren't employed yet are well provided for. They are children and students, house-wife and the disabled, the aging and brother-in-law living in the spare bedroom.
In my opinion, these people who don't have to work for anyone are more constrained by the obligations they have to do those they depend on. They are free from employment, but not from work.

 

[Fez_Monk]

There'd be even less choice under socialism or communism, once enough people decide not to work (theoretically they don't HAVE to), or a brain-drain starts, and the government feels the need to keep people in the country and MAKE them work--because people need to work for a society to function.

Just out of curiosity though, what other choices SHOULD people have, in your opinion?

Oh, they certainly would have less choices under communism---but what I'm advocating is neither communism nor capitalism. What I'm aiming for here is an authentic free market made up of worker-owned and operated industries, partnerships, cooperatives, a mass of small businesses, modestly sized private companies and self-employed persons, with minimal regulation.

And my family can be traced back to France, but that doesn't make me French, does it?
Your implication would ring more true if you could make a direct link between those that are wealthy today, and their ancestors ancestors seized the 'property' of those that are poor today. Casual links are perhaps the best you could provide, and even then it would be more of a shame of our forefathers. That logic is essentially saying that the sins of our fathers dilute the value of what we produce today.

What I was trying to point out is that there never was an ''age of laissez faire'', and capitalism was created through conquest and destruction. I think allan posted something similar somewhere else, but I felt I should state it again.

Actually, that is not true at all. In the United States, 80% of business is sole-proprietor or partnership. Only 20% are corporations.

Heck, I'm using 1990 stats. It was something like 7.6% in the UK, 8% in the USA and Canada - however, this figure includes employers as well, meaning that the number of self-employed workers is even smaller. I will admit that some areas of the economy are moving in a freer direction, but we've got a lot of work to do.

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by Fez_Monk


Oh, they certainly would have less choices under communism---but what I'm advocating is neither communism nor capitalism. What I'm aiming for here is an authentic free market made up of worker-owned and operated industries, partnerships, cooperatives, a mass of small businesses, modestly sized private companies and self-employed persons, with minimal regulation.

While I'm not concerned with the ends as such (it is the means I'm always concerned about), I would say a solution to the problems of capitalism in the US would be to limit the government back to its constitutionally-authorized functions. We both know that large corporations get various "favors" by the US government that aren't granted equally--be they subsidies, unequal taxation (tax breaks for some, but not for all), exemption from regulation (while regulation is applied to their competitors), even economic policies that protect obsolete industries at the expense of innovation and progress. In a word, we are doing a lot to hinder many of the GOOD effects of capitalism, and creating bad side-effects that wouldn't necessarily be there otherwise.

Now if congress were truly constrained by the Constitution (which it isn't entirely now, in fact, lip-service notwithstanding), there would be NO FAVORS TO GRANT, and businesses (be they coops, worker-owned, individually owned, or corporate) would truly be forced to compete and make themselves better.

When I acknowledged your point in the other thread, I was also acknowledging this system of favoritism generated by the expansion of government power. Even WITH this favoritism, things go fine though--and capitalism still isn't FORCED on us per se. But I do know we can do better--which is why I'm a libertarian!

What I was trying to point out is that there never was an ''age of laissez faire'', and capitalism was created through conquest and destruction. I think allan posted something similar somewhere else, but I felt I should state it again.

Yes, but read my signature. We can't rectify past wrongs by doing more wrong (i.e. any forced redistribution). We can only decide to do right from here on out. So while I'll acknowledge the sometimes atrocious past that went into the formation of capitalism (as it also did with communism!), I still see the theory behind it as a sound advancement, and advocate the even greater advancement of it by the means given above. We CAN have a truly laissez-faire economy--and theoretically that would neither be communism or capitalism, but "may the best-run companies win". If those prove to be coops, then no problem! I may then be convinced to join one....
[/B]

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Fez_Monk
What I'm aiming for here is an authentic free market made up of worker-owned and operated industries, partnerships, cooperatives, a mass of small businesses, modestly sized private companies and self-employed persons, with minimal regulation.

The truth is large corporations are more efficient at utilizing capital, drawing investment, and achieving economies of scale. Granted, they're not as flexible or quick to adapt, but those disadvantages to small business are still no where near enough to make up for their advantages.
In an environment where all your business models are legally allowed and do exist, plus large corporations, the corporations have come to dominate the market.
I'm sure you can attribute many sources of blame for that discontinuity with your 'vision', but the strongest one is that they're just economically more effective.
And, short of outlawing them, I don't see why the same wouldn't happen in your 'authentic free market'.

Originally posted by Fez_Monk
Heck, I'm using 1990 stats. It was something like 7.6% in the UK, 8% in the USA and Canada - however, this figure includes employers as well, meaning that the number of self-employed workers is even smaller. I will admit that some areas of the economy are moving in a freer direction, but we've got a lot of work to do.

Employed people or workplaces? I don't see any point in comparing Joe Worker to Jim Entrepeneur, they're really not setting out to do the same things in life. Granted, not everyone can start a business successfully, it takes a decent idea, some managerial skills, a lot of patience and hard-work, and a little bit of luck. However, the oppertunity exists for everyone to do it. The vast majority of people choose not to. If you find a flaw in people's choices, that is your problem, not theirs.

 

[Sanaz]

Originally posted by Fez_Monk
What I'm aiming for here is an authentic free market made up of worker-owned and operated industries, partnerships, cooperatives, a mass of small businesses, modestly sized private companies and self-employed persons, with minimal regulation.

So why can't these be had under Capitalism? I've personally worked for myself, for family, in partnerships, in small businesses, in schools, for non-profits, for large government organizations, and for large public corporations. They all have their strengths, and their weaknesses. Some will work better for some things than for others. I guess I don't see exactly what the new, better world would look like. People now have choice in proportion to their skills, and what they have to offer the society. That seems like a free market to me. It's only NOT free to the lazy or unskilled, or to those who don't have anything to offer.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by allan2
So are you saying that any FORCED communism, by definition, isn't communism?

Not quite, I'm saying that the instances that we've seen occur of forced communism weren't really communism. I would say that we haven't really seen communism implemented, so I'm saying the things we've seen, while calling themselves communism, really weren't.

Also - to the rest of your post(s) living in a commune like a hippy is not what I'm talking about. It's like under communism, if you got a group together and applied capitalist ideals.... it's just not the same, is it?

There'd be even less choice under socialism or communism, once enough people decide not to work

This is my point about how communism won't happen anytime soon. By the time we go to communism, people won't want to not work. Laziness will not be a factor. As you can see, that is NOT going to happen in the forseeable future. I'm hoping it will happen eventually, but then again, I'm being very idealistic here

(Side note to the mods: how come when you edit a post a second or subsequent time, the editor doesn't "remember" your previous edits? This wastes a lot of time, making sure your previous edits stay in there.)

Mine does now, but didn't used to. I remember editing a post like 6 times and having to copy it to notepad to do so. (I use notepad anyway to make posts with multiple quotes). Recently the problem seems to be fixed.

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by bobgote

Not quite, I'm saying that the instances that we've seen occur of forced communism weren't really communism. I would say that we haven't really seen communism implemented, so I'm saying the things we've seen, while calling themselves communism, really weren't.

I can also say that we haven't really seen capitalism implemented (i.e., the ideal kind), just as you say we haven't seen communism implemented (i.e., the ideal kind). We just have the two realities to go on and compare, for now. And the capitalism reality has been overall better than the communism reality. And the capitalism reality ALLOWS you to form a commune and test your theory, while the communism reality has not allowed a person to go off on his own and build an enterprise and get wealthy (except for China perhaps, a sort of hybrid, but the state still has power to shut these people down anytime it wants to--and the state pretty much chooses who gets to be "entrepreneurs" and who doesn't either).

Also - to the rest of your post(s) living in a commune like a hippy is not what I'm talking about.

You don't need to "live like a hippy". You can all wear pinstripes if you like. Obviously you're going to live in a manner that satisfies the needs of the commune, though. But the key word is VOLUNTARY. However you voluntarily choose to live within this commune (probably a collective decision, but with whatever individual freedom you decide to allow yourselves as members) is how you will live there, right?

It's like under communism, if you got a group together and applied capitalist ideals.... it's just not the same, is it?

You mean, this would be ALLOWED in your vision of a communist state? COULD it be allowed?

See, even in our corrupted (non-ideal) capitalist society (the US), people are still free to share and "work for their fellow man" in a variety of ways, even to the point of setting up a voluntary communistic community. I.e. our system is INCLUSIVE. State communism, in all the versions I've read about or heard of, is EXCLUSIONARY--perhaps it doesn't dare allow an entrepreneur to flower, for fear of others following the same example. Capitalism doesn't have such a fear of people voluntarily "going the other way."

This is my point about how communism won't happen anytime soon. By the time we go to communism, people won't want to not work. Laziness will not be a factor. As you can see, that is NOT going to happen in the forseeable future. I'm hoping it will happen eventually, but then again, I'm being very idealistic here

I envision a society where individuals can choose how they will allocate their resources--i.e. if communism is their thing, they can live it among their fellows of similar mindset; if capitalism is their thing, then likewise. I am highly skeptical of a system that wants to (or MUST) completely abolish alternative options. THAT is the main problem I have with state communism--which is why I have absolutely NO PROBLEM AT ALL with voluntary communism.

Remember too, that while laziness is one thing, resisting being forced to work at gunpoint is not the same thing as laziness.

The trick is getting people to WANT to work--and capitalism seems to do a better job than communism does/did at this sometimes difficult trick (remember I'm comparing the two systems as they've occurred in REALITY, not the corresponding ideals).

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by allan2
I can also say that we haven't really seen capitalism implemented (i.e., the ideal kind), just as you say we haven't seen communism implemented (i.e., the ideal kind). We just have the two realities to go on and compare, for now. And the capitalism reality has been overall better than the communism reality.

And the capitalism reality ALLOWS you to form a commune and test your theory, while the communism reality has not allowed a person to go off on his own and build an enterprise and get wealthy (except for China perhaps, a sort of hybrid, but the state still has power to shut these people down anytime it wants to--and the state pretty much chooses who gets to be "entrepreneurs" and who doesn't either).

I guess I'd have to agree with the first part (in bold), but I really don't think some capitalist countries are socially responsible enough.

As to the second half, i still maintain what i said previously. We'll have to differ on that one.

You don't need to "live like a hippy". You can all wear pinstripes if you like. Obviously you're going to live in a manner that satisfies the needs of the commune, though. But the key word is VOLUNTARY. However you voluntarily choose to live within this commune (probably a collective decision, but with whatever individual freedom you decide to allow yourselves as members) is how you will live there, right?

I mean hippy as in on a small scale. I'd like to see communism as like a full nation system, otherwise we don't really get to see it working. Again, communism will not work until human nature is improved a fair bit. Communism isn't about loss of freedom either.

You mean, this would be ALLOWED in your vision of a communist state? COULD it be allowed?

Ideally yes, you would allow it, you would know that communism had succeeded when people have no desire for capitalism. Once successfully established, i think there'd be no looking back.

I agree with most the rest of the stuff you've said, as it applies to forced capitalism. This is just wrong, people shouldn't be forced into anything. In the end (according to my reckoning) the decision to switch to communism would be entirely volunatary.

 

[Fez_Monk]

I envision a society where individuals can choose how they will allocate their resources--i.e. if communism is their thing, they can live it among their fellows of similar mindset; if capitalism is their thing, then likewise.

Cool. Thats exactly what I've been saying in the anarchy thread.

 

[Dynamic Cow]

dont stop now... :jump:

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by bobgote

I mean hippy as in on a small scale. I'd like to see communism as like a full nation system, otherwise we don't really get to see it working. Again, communism will not work until human nature is improved a fair bit. Communism isn't about loss of freedom either.

Well, it can rise to that status slowly, by people forming communes and others, little by little, seeing their merits. If the merits outweigh the downsides in the minds of people, these communes will grow in people (and the resources they bring in), and who knows? If they prove superior to capitalist enterprises, they can buy these up and expand.

How else will it arise to "national" status? You can either do it that way, or force it. I assume that since your communism isn't about loss of freedom, that you'll prefer the former way--right?

So get cracking, because it WON'T be done for you.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by allan2
Well, it can rise to that status slowly, by people forming communes and others, little by little, seeing their merits. If the merits outweigh the downsides in the minds of people, these communes will grow in people (and the resources they bring in), and who knows? If they prove superior to capitalist enterprises, they can buy these up and expand.

How else will it arise to "national" status? You can either do it that way, or force it. I assume that since your communism isn't about loss of freedom, that you'll prefer the former way--right?

So get cracking, because it WON'T be done for you.

I think I've already said that communism won't happen anytime soon. I don't see it happening like you've said. It will be the whole nation doing it, but gradually changing to fit a communist-style system.

 

[allan2]

Originally posted by bobgote

I think I've already said that communism won't happen anytime soon. I don't see it happening like you've said. It will be the whole nation doing it, but gradually changing to fit a communist-style system.

You mean by INCREMENTAL uses of force? I, vigilant as I am about my liberty, will not see a difference between slow use of force, and the quicker variety (and there is none really, is there?). And people like me WILL notice the slow application of force, you can rest assured that.

If I am wrong in my interpretation, then please describe how this "gradual changing" will come about.

 

[bobgote]

Force is entirely unnecessary. Our current government will evolve so it is more socially responsible. Then bit by bit they will improve sevices to the people, which i think will involve the buying back/ creation of essential services. It is a gradual move to communism. There is no less liberty and no force. People still work, people still have their own time. Its just that in communism, everyone benefits rather than a few.

I'm sorry but I don't see any situation in which a genuine conversion to communism (over time, you can't rush this) will require any force whatsover.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I don't see any situation in which any attempt at spiking people's freedom with communism won't result in either a regime change via elections to get rid of the wannabe commies, or a military dictatorship ramming the communist life down the citizens' throats.