Question: Why is Communism Bad?

[ace1914]

Now just a general question to everyone here because I tend to find this the most insightful board for politics. My question is a devil's advocate type:

If Communism is so bad why on God's green Earth, why did China just pass us as the premier global power?

[SackAttack]

Well, off the top of my head...

1) How are you defining "premier global power"?
2) Are you sure China's system is purely Communist these days? Seems to me there's a fair bit of capitalism over there.

[JediKooter]

Toilet paper lines...

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

China is just totalitarian at this point.

[DeToxRox]

YOU GOT ME BLACK LISTED FROM HOP SINGS?

[lungs]

Question: Why do you hate America?

[Big Fo]

USA's GDP is still more than double that of China and USA's military is still better as well. How in the heck would you say that China has passed us?

[molson]

Because "common ownership" really just means "government ownership".

[MikeVic]

I don't like political things, but for whatever reason I have an interest in Communism (don't like or hate it, just an interest for it).

With molson's comment, do you think the U.S. kind of did communistic things over the last few years? Bailouts, increased monitoring, etc...?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

To get to the original point, I do think there there is a lot of irrational hatred of socialism that is culturally based. I also think there is a lot of rational dislike of socialism that is factually based.

[Kodos]

I don't like political things, but for whatever reason I have an interest in Communism (don't like or hate it, just an interest for it).

With molson's comment, do you think the U.S. kind of did communistic things over the last few years? Bailouts, increased monitoring, etc...?

GET 'IM, BOYZ!

[cartman]

The theory of communism isn't bad in and of itself, but it hasn't been shown to be able to work in the myriad of implementations that have occurred. In every instance, the pendulum has swung harshly to the totalitarian side to try and enforce the communal idea.

[DeToxRox]

I don't like political things, but for whatever reason I have an interest in Communism (don't like or hate it, just an interest for it).

With molson's comment, do you think the U.S. kind of did communistic things over the last few years? Bailouts, increased monitoring, etc...?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IhnUgAaea4M&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IhnUgAaea4M&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Klinglerware]

Reminds me of the Zappa quote: "Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."

I don't think Communism is terrible from a theoretical standpoint, but from practical standpoint, human behavior typically precludes a pure implementation that works.

[bob]

In a perfect world, maybe communism is not bad. But we live in reality, where greed, envy, etc. exists. It can't work. And that doesn't even cover dealing with some people being lazy while others want to work hard so they have more.

[RomaGoth]

Now just a general question to everyone here because I tend to find this the most insightful board for politics. My question is a devil's advocate type:

If Communism is so bad why on God's green Earth, why did China just pass us as the premier global power?

They did?

[gstelmack]

In a perfect world, maybe communism is not bad. But we live in reality, where greed, envy, etc. exists. It can't work. And that doesn't even cover dealing with some people being lazy while others want to work hard so they have more.

Yup. Communism removes the incentive to work hard to improve your position, so people naturally gravitate to doing no work. Totalitarianism has to step in to MAKE some people work, and then it's not really Communism, is it?

[molson]

Communism works if you have say, 10 guys in a frat house.

At some point, the number of people gets too big, and you'll lose the necessary connection to the group.

[cartman]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5Xd_zkMEgkI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5Xd_zkMEgkI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

From each according to ability, to each according to need only works if you give a flying crap about other people.

I don't. I wouldn't be a very good communist. :)

[Dutch]

Communism/Socialism at it's highest peak in Europe...

Eastern Bloc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc)

Without exaggerating, it was an absolute economic disaster.

[Passacaglia]

I know the answer. How much is it worth to you?

[molson]

From each according to ability, to each according to need only works if you give a flying crap about other people.

I don't. I wouldn't be a very good communist. :)

It's even harder when its the government that decides who exactly you're required to give a flying crap about (at the expense of others), and to what degree.

[AlexB]

You mean like non-existent WMDs in Iraq?

[Nogram]

What is wrong with Communism?

Human Nature

[Schmidty]

From each according to ability, to each according to need only works if you give a flying crap about other people.

I don't. I wouldn't be a very good communist. :)

You don't care about me?

I'm sad now. I think I'm going to go lay down now. :( :(

[Karlifornia]

It hasn't worked in other places, and it assuredly wouldn't work here. I mean, do you realize how many assholes this country is filled with? Just driving to work, I encounter assholes cutting people off, giving each other the finger, weaving in and out of lanes.

When I get to work, there's a whole new round of assholes to deal with. The pushy customers that can never be satisfied, the lazy fellow employees that care only about showing up for a few minutes so they can tell their parents "See! I have a job!" and suckle at their teat for a few more years.

Then I get off work, and go out to the bar to have a drink or four. You've got the bartender that think he/she is God, and I should feel blessed to give them my money, and roll their eyes when you ask them do anything more than uncap a beer bottle. Then you have some jackass who can't handle his drunk being louder than everybody else combined, and knocking into you over and over again as you sit mortified on your stool.

You think that the people of this country could handle a system where everyone is treated equally, and is expected to do equal amounts of work?

Not on your fucking life, pal. That makes too much sense. This country needs a 4 bedroom house even though they only have one or two kids. This country needs a pickup truck or SUV despite not needing to haul anything. This country needs $100 tasting menus. The day we don't need all of that shit is the day communism ever has a chance of working.

Now, a Socialist Democracy could work, but a lot more people need to get a lot more pissed off before that ever happens.

[RomaGoth]

From each according to ability, to each according to need only works if you give a flying crap about other people.

I don't. I wouldn't be a very good communist. :)

That's probably a good thing. Not sure there is such a thing as a "good communist", is there?

[SportsDino]

I'm a fan of Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" as an answer to this question. Granted, the dude has his bias, but in my opinion the theme that socialism as a system fundamentally tends towards massive abuse of the populace is fairly correct. I'm of the group that thinks socialism beyond the limits of what a familial structure can maintain is pretty much impossible. It does boil down to 'human nature' in the end, not that people are incapable of living altruistically and communally, but that the system will always be corrupted by those that desire to exploit it, and corrupted quite badly.

Which is why I'm a big capitalism fanatic, although I am quite disgusted by the current state of it (as I've blathered on about numerous times before). As a system it offers the most mechanisms to defend against corruption, albeit seeming to do nothing specifically to prevent it. Whereas the entire appeal of communism is that the entire mechanism seems designed to fight corruption (maintain equality), but actually serves to hasten it and entrench the power once obtained.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

You don't care about me?

I'm sad now. I think I'm going to go lay down now. :( :(

It's not you Schmidty, it's me.

I have some things I have to work out. I just need this time to myself right now.

[RomaGoth]

I'm a fan of Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" as an answer to this question. Granted, the dude has his bias, but in my opinion the theme that socialism as a system fundamentally tends towards massive abuse of the populace is fairly correct. I'm of the group that thinks socialism beyond the limits of what a familial structure can maintain is pretty much impossible. It does boil down to 'human nature' in the end, not that people are incapable of living altruistically and communally, but that the system will always be corrupted by those that desire to exploit it, and corrupted quite badly.

Which is why I'm a big capitalism fanatic, although I am quite disgusted by the current state of it (as I've blathered on about numerous times before). As a system it offers the most mechanisms to defend against corruption, albeit seeming to do nothing specifically to prevent it. Whereas the entire appeal of communism is that the entire mechanism seems designed to fight corruption (maintain equality), but actually serves to hasten it and entrench the power once obtained.

Agree with everything here. I will also add that human nature is exactly why there is no perfect form of government, because human nature will take its course and greed, corruption, and immoral behavior will invariably win out.

[Autumn]

That's probably a good thing. Not sure there is such a thing as a "good communist", is there?

Sure, why not? This is the kind of thing i don't get. Maybe we all think communism is a poor choice for a system, but why do we treat them like they're "bad" inherently?

[Solecismic]

If you limit dreams, you limit achievement.

[gstelmack]

Which is why I'm a big capitalism fanatic, although I am quite disgusted by the current state of it (as I've blathered on about numerous times before). As a system it offers the most mechanisms to defend against corruption, albeit seeming to do nothing specifically to prevent it.

Yeah, the real problem with capitalism, as evidenced by the Robber Baron era (and some would say the modern corporate era), is when some folks gain enough power/wealth to turn into dictators in their own right and crush competition by non-economic means. Kind of like how the Dems and Repubs have made it so difficult for a third-party to arise in our "Democracy" by controlling access to appearing on ballots and in debates...

But at least here in the States it remains possible to found a successful small business and turn it into enough of a success for one of the giant conglomerates to buy you out and set you up for life. People that complain about our economy always seem to forget how much mobility both up and down occurs regularly.

[AlexB]

If everybody was a 'good communist', the system would work perfectly. But as others have stated, there will always be the freeloaders, the crooked and the greedy, so the system is destined to fail.

Which are also the reasons why, again as others have stated, no system is perfect as the human race is inherently imperfect.

And to say/hint communism = evil and only socialists/communists are told by the state what to think are equally absurb statements. Everyone is manipulated, fooled and lied to by their governments, leaders and media on a daily basis

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?

[JPhillips]

Why is communism bad?

Hair styles.

[Autumn]

I think someone above probably hit it on the head. Communist style systems probably work best at the small scale, and quickly began to work poorly as you get beyond a cohesive social group. At the small scale though there's a lot we could learn about how to work cooperatively and egalitarian decision making.

[Autumn]

Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?

It's why I wrap my sink in tinfoil. I will not be compromised!

[DanGarion]

Maybe the question you should ask first is... Why is Communism Good? Because I can't think of a single reason why it is.

[Lathum]

Sure, why not? This is the kind of thing i don't get. Maybe we all think communism is a poor choice for a system, but why do we treat them like they're "bad" inherently?

IMO that's a cultural thing. Most of us grew up in the 80's when Russia was a power and we feared them commies.

[RomaGoth]

I think the problem with communism, and socialism for that matter, is that people confuse equality with ability. While everyone deserves the basic rights (i.e., food, shelter, clothing, etc.), not everyone has the same abilities to maintain those rights. Capitalism is not perfect by any means, but I think it offers a better opportunity to separate the leaders from the followers. No matter what type of system you have, there will be greed and corruption. At least with capitalism, people have a chance at success and failure that does largely depend upon their abilities.

[Autumn]

IMO that's a cultural thing. Most of us grew up in the 80's when Russia was a power and we feared them commies.

Well yes, I get that. I guess I mean, why do we still do that, given that we've had plenty of time to think critically about it by now.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

It's an American litmus test, making us feel as we are all on the same side against something.

[Lathum]

Well yes, I get that. I guess I mean, why do we still do that, given that we've had plenty of time to think critically about it by now.

I dunno. I guess it is just programmed.

[Arles]

To build on what Jim said, when you reduce incentive - you reduce output. There needs to be some reason to work 60 hours while others only work 20. If you take away that incentive, why would anyone work over 40 hours?

[spleen1015]

Rocky showed you!

[Autumn]

I think the problem with communism, and socialism for that matter, is that people confuse equality with ability. While everyone deserves the basic rights (i.e., food, shelter, clothing, etc.), not everyone has the same abilities to maintain those rights. Capitalism is not perfect by any means, but I think it offers a better opportunity to separate the leaders from the followers. No matter what type of system you have, there will be greed and corruption. At least with capitalism, people have a chance at success and failure that does largely depend upon their abilities.

Not that I'm disagreeing that the system has problems, but it seems to me that's where communism gets it right. The fact that not everyone has the ability to obtain the things they need shouldn't mean they don't get it, with the right definition of need. I think we as a society believe that too, that's why we have things like disability for people incapable of providing for themselves.

[RainMaker]

Any system that pushes to an extreme has its flaws. Communism is one of them, just as a democracy and free market capitalism has it's flaws at an extreme.

Communisms biggest flaw is that it kills innovation and motivation. If there is no chance of you being able to raise to a higher social status, you don't care about your work. It gives the laziest people the same benefits as the hardest working.

It is funny how the word socialism has turned into some boogeyman. The country has always been part-socialist and wouldn't be where it is today without it. I guess it's no surprise that those who don't seem to know what socialism is are the same people who come from states with the poorest performing schools.

[Autumn]

To build on what Jim said, when you reduce incentive - you reduce output. There needs to be some reason to work 60 hours while others only work 20. If you take away that incentive, why would anyone work over 40 hours?

I agree that there's a lot of power behind incentive, and clearly on a society-wide scale, the capitalist incentive has worked better. But there are plenty of reasons to work over 40 hours beyond pay. People often work for the enjoyment, for the satisfaction of helping out or producing something. Much of the Internet is based on people doing things for no pay, but for other rewards.

[RainMaker]

It's an American litmus test, making us feel as we are all on the same side against something.
Pretty much hit the nail on the head. It's just what governments do to keep their people supportive. Creating a common enemy has gone on forever. Whether it's blacks, commies, Muslims, Mormons, Mexicans, gays, etc, groups will use differences to wedge a gap and create a common supportive theme.

Just look at political parties today. Democrats try to paint anyone who was succesful and made a lot of money as evil. Just as Republicans turn their venom toward gays, blacks, or Mexicans.

[CamEdwards]

Sure, why not? This is the kind of thing i don't get. Maybe we all think communism is a poor choice for a system, but why do we treat them like they're "bad" inherently?

There are people who can fit in very well within a communist system. I'm not sure that makes them "good" communists.

Take this testimony from Fizza Aliyeva, an Azerbaijani woman who lived through Stalin's purges. Her husband was executed for something he believed was "good communism".

In 1937, my husband Charkaz Aliyev was working as head of the Barda Executive Committee. On April 22, 1937, the NKVD came and arrested him at home at 2 o'clock in the morning. (The NKVD, in Russian, stands for "Narodniy Komitet Vnutrennix Del" which means National Committee for Internal Affairs, which was the forerunner of KGB). At the time, I was at my mother-in-law's house. I didn't know anything had happened. When I returned home in the morning I found an official stamp had been posted on our house. It was a brown piece of paper with an official stamp on it. Though I was only 20 years old, I already had two daughters at the time. Tamilla was three years old and Hafiza, six months. The NKVD confiscated everything we had in our house. Everything had been taken.

I tried to find out what had happened. They told me that my husband was an "Enemy of the People" and had been arrested as a Trotskyist. So I took my two daughters and headed to Baku because my brother Jabbar (1901- ?) was working there in the prosecutor's office. But after my husband was arrested, they arrested my brother, too, simply because they were related to each other. They took my brother from his home on Husi Hajiyev Street and accused him of conspiring together with my husband. Then the NKVD started following me.

It seems that the reason why my husband Charkaz was arrested was that he had confronted Mir Jafar Baghirov, the First Secretary of the Communist Party in Azerbaijan and Stalin's "right hand man". They were at a meeting together. Baghirov insulted Soltan Majid Afandiyev who was the Head of the Supreme Council. My husband could not stand it, and he stood up and said that Baghirov should not insult someone in front of so many people. Baghirov asked if he was acting on behalf of Soltan as his lawyer. He replied that he was not a lawyer, but a true communist. Baghirov told Charkaz that he would take care of him later.


There were literally millions of people under the Soviet regime who were shot in the back of the head because they no longer fit Stalin's description of a "good communist". Millions more were sent to the gulag for years on end for "crimes against the state", even if that crime was as minor as making a veiled joke about Stalin.

It's hard to say there's such a thing as a "good communist" because the very definition changes based on who is at the top of the Party structure. Most of us would view the differences between Lenin and Trotsky as relatively minor. Stalin thought the differences were worth a bullet to the brainpan. Similar horror stories exist for virtually every other communist regime out there, including China.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Now Cam, is that because of the economic part of communism (socialism) or is it more of a trait of all totalitarian regimes?

[DanGarion]

Um, I was thinking a good communist, is just a person that is a communist that is a good person... Not that they were in fact a good communist.

[RomaGoth]

Not that I'm disagreeing that the system has problems, but it seems to me that's where communism gets it right. The fact that not everyone has the ability to obtain the things they need shouldn't mean they don't get it, with the right definition of need. I think we as a society believe that too, that's why we have things like disability for people incapable of providing for themselves.

The problem with this is that it then lowers the entire gene pool, so to speak. I totally believe in the things that allow those less fortunate to succeed (i.e., handicapped parking, wheelchair ramps, etc..), those things are all fine. The problem with communism and socialism is that they treat everyone exactly the same, regardless of their true abilities, needs, and ambitions.

As Rainmaker said, It gives the laziest people the same benefits as the hardest working. Innovate, success driven people are treated the same as those with less ambition. Essentially, society is only as strong as its weakest link.

[Autumn]

I'm not sure that's what RomaGoth was referring to when he made the comment, but point taken. It's interesting that communist governments tend towards totalitarianism of sorts. It seems to me most of what we hate about communism has to do with totalitarianism, it seems the combination of communist structure and a large society leads that way.

[RomaGoth]

There are people who can fit in very well within a communist system. I'm not sure that makes them "good" communists.

Take this testimony from Fizza Aliyeva, an Azerbaijani woman who lived through Stalin's purges. Her husband was executed for something he believed was "good communism".


There were literally millions of people under the Soviet regime who were shot in the back of the head because they no longer fit Stalin's description of a "good communist". Millions more were sent to the gulag for years on end for "crimes against the state", even if that crime was as minor as making a veiled joke about Stalin.

It's hard to say there's such a thing as a "good communist" because the very definition changes based on who is at the top of the Party structure. Most of us would view the differences between Lenin and Trotsky as relatively minor. Stalin thought the differences were worth a bullet to the brainpan. Similar horror stories exist for virtually every other communist regime out there, including China.

Good article Cam, thanks. Reminds me of how good we really have things here.

[CamEdwards]

Any system that pushes to an extreme has its flaws. Communism is one of them, just as a democracy and free market capitalism has it's flaws at an extreme.

Communisms biggest flaw is that it kills innovation and motivation. If there is no chance of you being able to raise to a higher social status, you don't care about your work. It gives the laziest people the same benefits as the hardest working.

It is funny how the word socialism has turned into some boogeyman. The country has always been part-socialist and wouldn't be where it is today without it. I guess it's no surprise that those who don't seem to know what socialism is are the same people who come from states with the poorest performing schools.

So help me out here. Could you explain to me what socialism is, and could you also please provide me with one or two examples of how this country has always been "part-socialist"?

[RomaGoth]

I'm not sure that's what RomaGoth was referring to when he made the comment, but point taken. It's interesting that communist governments tend towards totalitarianism of sorts. It seems to me most of what we hate about communism has to do with totalitarianism, it seems the combination of communist structure and a large society leads that way.

Yes, I was referring to the character of the person, not how good they are at being a communist. It does seem that every communist regime tends to turn into a totalitarian government though. Without the ability to vote for their leaders, people generally have to accept the situation, and I would say that this inherently turns into a totalitarian type of government.

[Autumn]

That's probably a good thing. Not sure there is such a thing as a "good communist", is there?

So, you were suggesting that there's no such thing as a communist with good character?

[CamEdwards]

Good article Cam, thanks. Reminds me of how good we really have things here.

One of the best books I've read lately is called "The Forsaken" by Tim Tzouliadis. It's about the thousands of Americans who, in the depths of the Great Depression, went to the Soviet Union for that new and better life that communism promised.

It's not a happy book, but I can't recommend it enough.

[CamEdwards]

Now Cam, is that because of the economic part of communism (socialism) or is it more of a trait of all totalitarian regimes?

Can you have a non-totalitarian communist regime? History would suggest it's unlikely, if not impossible. Communism by its very nature cannot tolerate meaningful dissent, which means sooner or later it will become totalitarian in nature.

[SportsDino]

I do not fear communists, most Russians were no doubt very similar to you and me, just trying to do what they can for themselves and their families.

I fear FOR communists, for people similar to you and me, trying to do what the can for themselves and their families when the state decides otherwise. It is when someone like Stalin can order a million deaths to cement his own power, where such mad power itself is the only currency for ambition and therefore encourages the rise of such men, that is where the terror of communism should really spring from.

A tribe is something different, people have connections of family, they internalize each other's ambition/hope/pain/fears and so can organize themselves in a system for the common good. Sadly, those structures can be very fragile as well, the tribe of one generation, ten generations removed can be the blood feud of two colocated tribes. Despite having the same great grandfather (a few times removed) and being cousins of some X degree, they will be as apt to brutally murder each other as work together because only the cousins of some Y degree (where Y < X ) are of any importance. I do think that human nature makes it very hard for someone to care about too many people, life inevitably involves tradeoffs, and at some point the question will be will you favor your brother or favor a stranger (or a cousin so far removed to become a stranger). There is a breaking point where even men of good intentions must form factions, and where there are factions there is power and motives to seek power.

I don't think a tribe of a million can survive. And I think a tribe is the only pure socialist system that can survive.

Now if we want to discuss capitalist/communist hybrids that is a far more entertaining topic. In my opinion the more successful democratic socialisms are really nothing more than capitalism with a few layers of abstraction. If you can simplify a problem, such as road networks for transportation, filter out all the motivations for that problem in something easily computed as a public good, then there is no reason to bother with the creative destruction of capitalism, go ahead and abstract it out as a socialized variable in the economy and save the brainpower for something more difficult. Socialism considered purely as an efficient capitalism problem is a much better way to think about why some socialist experiments work and others fail.


Sorry to threadjack or drivel on, this is just a thread of thought I personally find fascinating. Its a much more difficult topic though than 'communism bad' or 'communism good', the topic 'where does socialism make sense?' is a lot more subtle. For instance, it is obvious that the U.S. has done some very socialist style things, particularly lately (in my opinion TOO MUCH, venturing into Stalin killing the masses territory). Transportation is in many ways a single buyer system, at least when it comes to highways, and subsidies are engrained into many of our industries so tightly that some might claim it unAmerican to eliminate them. Various social programs are pretty much exactly a socialist system, but are funded through taxes on a capitalist(?) machine.

Are we taking a back door route to the same disasters that beset the Soviet Union? Is China really taking a back door route to capitalism? Where are the lines drawn, where should they be drawn, and why? All questions that will become increasingly relevant as China's success(?) becomes more and more prominent in the news.

(?) = assumption that is doubtful to me

EDIT: I wrote this post before reading Cam's post, but that story is essentially what I'm referring to. It is a very very sad time in history, whatever your opinion's on socialism I suggest you study it. Hell most of the period from 1914-1950 has so many lessons that people should really try to learn so they can understand just how dangerous and marvelous modern times really are.

[RainMaker]

So help me out here. Could you explain to me what socialism is, and could you also please provide me with one or two examples of how this country has always been "part-socialist"?
Socialism in an extremely general term is public ownership of means of production so that it is administered in an equal way for everyone.

Our military is probably the most obvious example. Schools would be another. That's just from early times. Today, just about everything we do in our daily lives is done through the benefit of socialism.

[RomaGoth]

So, you were suggesting that there's no such thing as a communist with good character?

In a half-assed way, I suppose I was. It was really more of a joke I suppose. Now that I think about it some more, it seems like an assinine comment, eh? Although, I suppose I could blame it on the indoctrination we received in the 80's about communism, and the movie "Spies Like Us".

[RomaGoth]

I fear FOR communists, for people similar to you and me, trying to do what the can for themselves and their families when the state decides otherwise. It is when someone like Stalin can order a million deaths to cement his own power, where such mad power itself is the only currency for ambition and therefore encourages the rise of such men, that is where the terror of communism should really spring from.

There are many examples of people in history who did this exact same thing. Hitler is probably the biggest one, although he hid behind different reasons for his ambition and hunger for power, and I believe he was more for a socialist type of government (if my history is correct).

Sorry to threadjack or drivel on, this is just a thread of thought I personally find fascinating. Its a much more difficult topic though than 'communism bad' or 'communism good', the topic 'where does socialism make sense?' is a lot more subtle. For instance, it is obvious that the U.S. has done some very socialist style things, particularly lately (in my opinion TOO MUCH, venturing into Stalin killing the masses territory).

I have enjoyed reading your posts. Care to expound on the hightlighted sentence?
:popcorn:

[SportsDino]

I think plenty of commies had good character, I just fear that those are not the sort of men that get rewarded in a communist system. Just as in capitalism the most vicious tend to rise to the top, the same is true of most any system. Unfortunately, communism gives them too much power once they get in there.

I would disagree that everything in our daily lives is the benefit of socialism. The means of production is not exactly controlled by the government, for one, all it controls is a massive pool of money, that money is spent on companies that do control the means of production to get stuff that the government requires. Such a system of massed wealth but distributed and creative production is very capitalist in nature, and quiet different from a command economy.

Now, you could argue that as more of that mass comes under government control that you end up with a command economy, and I would agree with you, and that is a very bad thing (see economic collapse, circa right now)... but claiming our military is anything resembling pure socialism is absurd. Hell its called military-industrial complex for a reason!

I think the problem is the argument is at too broad a level. You need to get down to the level of really modeling reality before you can make any smart debates. If we leave it on socialism good/bad, or part socialism = socialism, and don't break down these overly absolute ways of thinking about it we will never really say anything that represents truth. The reality is too complex to describe in such broad strokes.

[Autumn]

In a half-assed way, I suppose I was. It was really more of a joke I suppose. Now that I think about it some more, it seems like an assinine comment, eh? Although, I suppose I could blame it on the indoctrination we received in the 80's about communism, and the movie "Spies Like Us".

:)

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

But there are plenty of reasons to work over 40 hours beyond pay.

And I really don't give a damn about any of them. You want my services, you pay for my services.

[RomaGoth]

Our military is probably the most obvious example.

Actually, our military is based upon many things, including private funding, government contracts, government funding, taxpayer dollars, and it is, of course, voluntary to sign up.

[Autumn]

And I really don't give a damn about any of them. You want my services, you pay for my services.

I"m not suggesting everybody is willing or interested in doing work for those reasons. But certainly a significant reason are, and do.

[SportsDino]

There are many examples of people in history who did this exact same thing. Hitler is probably the biggest one, although he hid behind different reasons for his ambition and hunger for power, and I believe he was more for a socialist type of government (if my history is correct).

I have enjoyed reading your posts. Care to expound on the hightlighted sentence? "For instance, it is obvious that the U.S. has done some very socialist style things, particularly lately (in my opinion TOO MUCH, venturing into Stalin killing the masses territory)."
:popcorn:


Hitler was a fascist totalitarian, I don't think he falls under the socialist spectrum exactly, but a lot of the same symptoms exist. Really such evil is a part of some men, and they can destroy a capitalist country as well (see many third world capitalist dictators as an example).

As it relates to communism though, it is the nature of such people to seek advancement and a willingness to do so through cruel means, in a communist system the only such path of advancement is through power over people. Since it is the only goal, and the only currency, it drives them towards mastering the art of manipulating and destroying men to build themselves up. Capitalism does not prevent it, and channeling those people into the art of making money, while neutralizing the harm of a few who become productive greedy men instead of murderers, for the most part they are still quite malignant. What capitalism does allow for is power and material of another form, and for that to be most efficiently distributed across many people. The distribution itself acts as a restraining force on the impact an evil man can make, it does not prevent evil, but it allows for some good (or neutral but self-interested) men to have the means to fight back.

In a communist country the distribution is concentrated, so one victory is pretty much total victory. You wouldn't want your internet to depend on one server, so why in hell would you want your civilization to? Failures happen, distributed control is merely safety.

Hayek chases the subject down a different path, its been a while but I think he makes a pretty good case from another angle. Essentially it boils down to the same thing, bad men are a threat, and a system with too many vulnerabilities inevitably breaks down if it depends on the assumption of men working towards the common good.

-----

Lately I feel the U.S. is proving that it is to beholden to the entrenched financial interests. Because it thinks of the mega-wealthy first, and the real and very large problems second, it has made and appears very eager to continue to make, big mistakes in economic and political policy.

Economics and politics are inevitably linked (again a plug for Hayek's book where he goes into more detail). If we refuse to solve disaster scenarios because doing so will make corrupted company ABC lose a billion dollars, we are in reality giving a great amount of power to ABC. They hold us hostage by us favoring them over favoring what must be done.

It is my opinion that inevitably economies and systems have corruption and inefficiency, regardless of whether they are capitalist, socialist, or whatnot. It is not inevitable that such corruption and inefficiency must grow, indeed most of human history has been the cycle of improving the strength of civilization, and the desparately sad declines when it fails. Often corruption and waste have grown so prevalent in a system that it collapses, and I fear this happening to us. Collapses are not fun, they are brutal periods.

The whole boom/bust model of the economy is flawed in my opinion. Just because we are deep in the bust, does not mean there will be a recovery. It is very possible for an economic system to have a negative feedback loop. The idea of 'natural recovery' depends on people not having too many assumptions, in a natural state when everything hits rock bottom there are then lots of opportunities for growth because people will always need something and whoever provides it has a chance for great wealth.

However, we have the assumption that the companies of today are pretty much the 'only companies', they are entrenched. That assumption can lead to a cycle of failure if those companies are rotted. If the assumption is that it must be GM and AIG that lead us out of depression, and those companies themselves have the condition, leadership, and motivations that lead to depression, then we will ride that horse far too long until we end up in depression.

How a capitalist system works is based on opportunity and most efficient producer wins. The more we tie a chain to failures the more we are pumping into the systems inefficiency and corruption. Too much and it will collapse, because the GM or AIG party has no real need to invest, they can spend the corrupt money on hookers and blackjack, why not, their financial security is guaranteed by government fiat. They have no motive to succeed, they only have a motive to get the government to tie more chains.

When all that money is spent on blackjack and hookers, people start to starve of resources... too much starvation and they turn to the only alternative they have, civil war.

Bah I'm rambling way off topic. In short my concern is that our government has gotten too entrenched to the point where they are willing to kill off our economy to maintain the funding of their 'party' (corporate sponsors). The rank and file may even believe they are saving us because they think helping their sponsors is the way to economic growth. And finally, I'm very paranoid, but I feel we are pouring money into the biggest losers and addicts in our country, and that the few companies/individuals that do have a clue are drowning in the red ink of the government funded junkies.


I feel that we may be killing off part of a generation in this economic crisis as well. There are a lot of people out of work, and when the recovery comes (if it does I guess I should qualify)... some portion of them are not gonna get back in business, and down the road when their retirement nest eggs that were cut short start to dry up, we'll have another shockwave of cost explosions. Unfortunately, it will hit about the same time the debt payments for our current excesses and bad ideas comes due, so we'll either choke on debt (we all know we won't do the responsible thing and start paying it down during the recovery, it will go towards new spending to make up for lost time)... or we'll consign one massive group of people or another to poverty. I find it sad because I know the larger number of them are good people who did everything expected of them, but had their lives changed by government decree (however indirectly).

EDIT: should have read, 'there are a lot of old people out of work', they won't get back into the game because we have to be honest, there is economics based age discrimination pretty much across the board. A hungry cheap worker out of college is natural competition to an older, nearing retirement (even if it is a dozen or more years away, companies think brutally on this), worker with higher salary expectations and needs.

I'll do fine, I'm one of the vicious people, you could lock me in a cage fight and I'll outfight/outsmart anyone I need to and survive. But I hate the idea that more petty vicious people are going to be laughing it up while a dozen if not a hundred other people pay for each of their sins.

[RainMaker]

Actually, our military is based upon many things, including private funding, government contracts, government funding, taxpayer dollars, and it is, of course, voluntary to sign up.
Because it pays for goods and services from private sources does not make it private. Volunteering vs forced enlistment has no merit in the discussion, although all salaries are paid for by the government. It is controlled by the government, funded by the government, and provides equal services to all individuals. That is in a nutshell textbook socialism.

[BrianD]

And I really don't give a damn about any of them. You want my services, you pay for my services.

Boy Farrah, you seem to be quite full of sarcasm and rough edges....I think you are my new favorite person. :)

[Mac Howard]

If you limit dreams, you limit achievement.

I saw that a first hand years ago when I visited Prague while it was still under communist rule. I was staying with the family of a student of IT from Prague university - he had spent a period of practical experience at Britain's ICL where I worked and had invited me for a holiday when he returned home (under instruction from the government to return - or else).

It was around 3 pm on a Wednesday afternoon and we were just returning from a trip into central Prague. As we jumped off the tram to walk the last half mile home we saw his father about a hundred yards ahead of us. We ran to catch him up and, because he didn't speak Englsih, I asked Jiri if his father was ill. He answered no but asked why I asked. "It's 3 o'clock", I said, "why's he coming home so early?".

Jiri answered that his father worked in an engineering company as a lathe operator and that each week he was set a quota of units to manufacture. In order that the weakest workers could achieve the quota it was set very low and the competetant workers had met it midway through the week. However, as Jiri put it, "They don't get paid any more if they make more units so they come home when they've met the quota. My father comes home Wednesday afternoon every week!

In the communist system, with its insistence on equality (including the lazy and incompetent), the only motive to work is a very far-sighted one - that the community would prosper by working harder - but few are that far-sighted. Most people's dreams need money to realise and if you don't reward hard work then many dreams are beyond realisation and the workers will simply do what they need to do to survive.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Boy Farrah, you seem to be quite full of sarcasm and rough edges....I think you are my new favorite person. :)

Um, thanks? :p

[JediKooter]

and the movie "Spies Like Us".

Soul Finger!!

[Greyroofoo]

Better dead than red

[SteveMax58]

In short my concern is that our government has gotten too entrenched to the point where they are willing to kill off our economy to maintain the funding of their 'party' (corporate sponsors). The rank and file may even believe they are saving us because they think helping their sponsors is the way to economic growth. And finally, I'm very paranoid, but I feel we are pouring money into the biggest losers and addicts in our country, and that the few companies/individuals that do have a clue are drowning in the red ink of the government funded junkies.
......
I'll do fine, I'm one of the vicious people, you could lock me in a cage fight and I'll outfight/outsmart anyone I need to and survive. But I hate the idea that more petty vicious people are going to be laughing it up while a dozen if not a hundred other people pay for each of their sins.

Great post SD...agree with almost everything you have in there.

The bolded parts are where I think we're at currently. I really think it's nuanced as to why...but in many cases we are not rewarding competency. Sure, it gets rewarded in some industries, and in some positions. But I am not an old man, and even I can see that it has become all too commonplace to disregard results and to create bureaucracies which cannot, by their nature, have discernable competencies displayed.


As for the OP and original question...I would say that SD captured most of it in his posts. Communism does not leave many outlets for those that wish for something more...or who strive to excellent. Those limited outlets have fierce (and eventually corrupting) battles for them, many times leaving excellent people & minds to be eliminated. Sort of like a king of the hill game...surrounded by lava.

[CraigSca]

Who is John Galt?

[CamEdwards]

Socialism in an extremely general term is public ownership of means of production so that it is administered in an equal way for everyone.

Our military is probably the most obvious example. Schools would be another. That's just from early times. Today, just about everything we do in our daily lives is done through the benefit of socialism.

Well, if socialism is public ownership of the means of production, then the military doesn't fit the bill. The vast majority of the means of production for the military (everything from clothes to the small arms to the airplanes) are privately owned companies.

Public school may come closer, but again the "means of production" isn't privately owned, and certainly we have plenty of private schools in this country.

I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced by your examples.

[flere-imsaho]

Coincidentally, in this week's Gregg Easterbrook column (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/090929&sportCat=nfl):

Twenty years ago, the trendy thing to believe was that Japan would replace the United States as the world's No. 1 economy, eventually demoting the United States to also-ran status. The turning point came when the Japanese themselves began to believe this obvious nonsense, and to express that belief by paying way too much for U.S. assets, such as buying up what were then the Exxon and Citigroup Center skyscrapers in New York City. Tokyo banks lived to regret these deals, while the Japanese economy has been sputtering pretty much ever since the moment Japan started to act like it was No. 1.

Right now the trendy thing to believe is that China will replace the United States as the world's No. 1 economy, eventually demoting the United States to also-ran status. Have the Chinese themselves begun to believe this obvious nonsense? A Chinese company, Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery, last week appeared close to a deal for General Motors' Hummer brand, and it may not be long until Chinese banks and policymakers regret that move. General Motors' Saturn division has value; in the hands of new owner Roger Penske, Saturn may well rebound. The Hummer brand, by contrast, has a core problem -- it sells Hummers. A telling sign of the old General Motors mismanagement was that company executives invested billions of dollars in creating the Hummer, then built a network of Hummer-only dealers. But the Hummer was always a gimmick. Once the market of people who wanted an obnoxious, wasteful vehicle that visually screams to the world, "Screw you!" was saturated, there was no realistic prospect of sustained demand. Hummer sales peaked at 71,000 in 2006, declined to 27,000 in 2008, and this year have fallen further. Probably this decline would have occurred regardless of gas prices or economic trends, because hardly anybody wants a Hummer now.

If a Chinese company will pay perfectly good renminbi to take over an American firm with plummeting sales and little chance of recovery -- great! Jingoists may cry doom if China uses its currency reserves and Treasury bills to start a spending spree in the United States. This is fine, so long as the Chinese pay too much for things we no longer want. Bear in mind, when the Japanese engaged in a U.S.-asset shopping spree in the 1980s, ultimately this hurt Japan and helped the United States. As for Russian plutocrat Mikhail Prokhorov buying the New Jersey Nets: This means he'll have to watch them, which surely is punishment enough.

[Groundhog]

Communism is fine. In theory. Kinda like Democracy!

[flere-imsaho]

Yup. Communism removes the incentive to work hard to improve your position, so people naturally gravitate to doing no work. Totalitarianism has to step in to MAKE some people work, and then it's not really Communism, is it?

Exactly.

Communism/Socialism at it's highest peak in Europe...

Communism and Socialism are not the same thing.

If you limit dreams, you limit achievement.

And yet the Communists put the first man into space.

Yeah, the real problem with capitalism, as evidenced by the Robber Baron era (and some would say the modern corporate era), is when some folks gain enough power/wealth to turn into dictators in their own right and crush competition by non-economic means.

Communism eventually turns into Totalitarianism. Capitalism eventually turns into Oligarchy.

Every economic model has its flaws which is why pretty much every modern country uses a hybrid model. To completely write off the value of all aspects of a particular economic model just because Stalin was a bad man, or you weren't able to get a job on Wall Street, is somewhat short-sighted.

[Neon_Chaos]

"Spies Like Us".

One of the greatest films of our time.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9Lge2_H_8IQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9Lge2_H_8IQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[DaddyTorgo]

let's separate communism (totalitarian socialism) from socialism itself. i'm late to this argument and haven't read the thread, and i've had a few glasses of wine tonight, but all too often people try to lump Marx and socialism in with Russian-style communism. Marxism as practiced in Sweden for example is totally different from Chinese-style communism.

[RomaGoth]

Communism and Socialism are not the same thing.

They are pretty damn close, almost interchangeable (I would argue that they are interchangeable).

See for yourself:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism

And yet the Communists put the first man into space.

And the Capitalists put the first man on the moon.

Every economic model has its flaws which is why pretty much every modern country uses a hybrid model. To completely write off the value of all aspects of a particular economic model just because Stalin was a bad man, or you weren't able to get a job on Wall Street, is somewhat short-sighted.

I do agree with this. There is no perfect form of government or economy, or it would already be in place somewhere.

[aran]

The problem with "communism" is that there are no "communists". There are numerous socioeconomic/sociopolitical theories based on Marxism that do not agree on just about anything, but all trace their origins back the works of Marx and Engels. How can you equate Soviet and Chinese communism? The two nations didn't even get along very well. Sun Yat-sen's vision was so different from Lenin's.

And there is no pure communist system in existence. They're all sets of compromises between communist principles and the realities of a capitalist world economy. So what are you guys talking about? I have no idea.

There are two kinds of "communism", in the broadest sense, and they are:

1. The actual dyed-in-the-wool Marixsts who believe that everything so far with the title "communism" has been an abortion because we haven't reached the tipping point of capitalism/imperialism yet. A true Marxist would tell you that we are still on the path toward global communism: we're still reaching the peak of capitalism, the stage that took over from imperialism and social darwinism. The liberal movements throughout the world are a reaction to the fall of the imperialist and the rise of the capitalist, but those socialist movements that compromise with capitalism aren't strong enough to reinvigorate the still-not-dead-completely European economy. When the bourgeois nations are finally bankrupted by their captialism, you will see communism truly rise. We still have another few decades left before this has a chance of happening. It's not going to happen over night, though--you might not even notice it when it happens because it'll be accomplished by inches--an evolutionary change. (though there are those that will tell you that we need Revolution...)

We are watching the prelude to global communism now, according to these people.

2. The Revolutionaries misjudged the fall of imperialism for the start of the era of world communism. This includes every communist nation so far. Revolutions are most often reactions to a really freaking oppressive local or imperalist power. The idea is that you break down the petty bonds that tie together those who unfairly have the power to abuse others. In breaking these bonds, you bring down the powerful to the level of everyone else. With no one powerful over anyone else, individuals can cooperate towards common goals and share in the rewards. Note that this is in a subsistence agrarian society! This is called Mutual Aid. There is a strong sense of democracy here, a strong sense of popular sovereignty. But soverignty brings with it the specter of nationalism among 20th century polities. Nationalism dooms this breed of communism. Nationalism is a 20th century fad (we're in the process of moving past it now) that basically has taken over for the paternalism of imperialism. Nationalism with communism necessitates the destruction of communism. In order to have a nation strong enough to resist the imperialists (or any opponents), the nation must have strict rules and must empower individuals beyond what makes sense in actual communism. The bereauocratic power structure that results compromises collectivization, cooperation, and encourages corruption and immoral behavior that ebbs away at the foundation of communism until nothing remains but naked grubbing for wealth and influence.

And when westerners see the naked grubbing for wealth and influence that has been the hallmark of 20th century communism on a wide scale, they assume that communism must result in this. In the puerile analysis that gets pushed down our throats these days, communism is bad because it is not what we use--communism is bad because PEOPLE are bad, and people need to have their greed and lust and hatred harnessed for some goal. This analysis refuses to see that communism isn't valuable as an end, but it is valuable as a means. It's a means towards social change--towards allowing oppressed peoples to try to make their own way in the world. Thanks to "communism", China has gone from a fractured, weak, sleeping dragon to a lurching monstrous dragon in 60 years. Russia went from serfdom to being the most feared nation in the world in 40 years.

Do not write off communism just because it doesn't make sense in the American or Western 20th century context. It's an important historical phenomenon that deserves deeper study. Please read about China from 1860 to 1949--it'll change the way that you look at communism.

[RomaGoth]

One of the greatest films of our time.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9Lge2_H_8IQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9Lge2_H_8IQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

So under-appreciated too!!!!! :thumbsup:

[Schmidty]

I'm just guessing, but is that the "doctor. doctor. doctor." etc. scene? Funny movie at times.

[RainMaker]

Well, if socialism is public ownership of the means of production, then the military doesn't fit the bill. The vast majority of the means of production for the military (everything from clothes to the small arms to the airplanes) are privately owned companies.

Public school may come closer, but again the "means of production" isn't privately owned, and certainly we have plenty of private schools in this country.

I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced by your examples.
My initial statement said "part-socialist" which those things are. I don't think there is any government or entity that is 100% socialist. Even a country like China still must by some raw materials from other countries.

In any event, much of the means of production is still controlled by the government in the case of the military for example. We may buy rocket launchers from a company, but we don't allow them to just sell those same rocket launchers on the open market. We don't allow nuclear material to be sold on the open market to the highest bidder. We in fact control the means of production on many products that are "sold" to the military. We then own those products, own the labor, and they are dealt out in a manner that is equal to all citizens.

You have used the word socialized to discuss health care in the past, so I'm not sure why you are now trying to state that it is something different.

[RomaGoth]

I'm just guessing, but is that the "doctor. doctor. doctor." etc. scene? Funny movie at times.

Yep.

[DaddyTorgo]

They are pretty damn close, almost interchangeable (I would argue that they are interchangeable).

See for yourself:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism



sorry, you're just wrong.

[cartman]

They are pretty damn close, almost interchangeable (I would argue that they are interchangeable).

See for yourself:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism


Not really interchangeable. Communism can't exist without socialism, but socialism can and does exist outside of communism. Communism is both a political and an economic construct, while socialism is solely an economic construct. Not to say politics doesn't have an impact on socialism, but at its core it is based on economics.

[CamEdwards]

And yet the Communists put the first man into space.


Because the State decided that was going to be a priority. They put the first man into space and they put millions of their own citizens into the ground.


To completely write off the value of all aspects of a particular economic model just because Stalin was a bad man, or you weren't able to get a job on Wall Street, is somewhat short-sighted.

And to call Stalin a "bad man" is to be numb or ignorant of a particular economic model. It isn't just that Stalin was a bad man, or that Pol Pot was a bad man, or that Mao was a bad man, or Ho Chi Minh was a bad man, or Che Guevara was a bad man, or Castro was a bad man... it's that communism REQUIRES the silencing of dissent and individual liberty. Modern communists, like those running China, may be willing to give certain economic freedoms to people, but only at the continued expense of their human rights.

[RomaGoth]

sorry, you're just wrong.

socialism

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

communism

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

Maybe interchangeable isn't the right choice, but they look quite similar in theory. I do realize that socialism relates to economic terms more so than communism. There is quite a blending of these two concepts, as stated in other posts.

[RainMaker]

Because the State decided that was going to be a priority. They put the first man into space and they put millions of their own citizens into the ground.
Unlike our mission to the Moon that was purely done by capitalism.

[RomaGoth]

Unlike our mission to the Moon that was purely done by capitalism.

Pretty sure we didn't oppress millions of our own citizens to make that moon landing possible. But that is just my own speculation.

[CamEdwards]

My initial statement said "part-socialist" which those things are. I don't think there is any government or entity that is 100% socialist. Even a country like China still must by some raw materials from other countries.

In any event, much of the means of production is still controlled by the government in the case of the military for example. We may buy rocket launchers from a company, but we don't allow them to just sell those same rocket launchers on the open market. We don't allow nuclear material to be sold on the open market to the highest bidder. We in fact control the means of production on many products that are "sold" to the military. We then own those products, own the labor, and they are dealt out in a manner that is equal to all citizens.

You have used the word socialized to discuss health care in the past, so I'm not sure why you are now trying to state that it is something different.

But you're not describing ownership or control of the means of production. You're describing a process by which the government buys a product from a private company, and ignoring the fact that the vast majority of companies which supply the U.S. military also have civilian products, and many of them indeed do sell to foreign countries as well.

Once the product has been purchased, the U.S. government does indeed own it, but it doesn't "own the labor". To quote DT... I'm sorry, you're just wrong. :D

[Arles]

And to call Stalin a "bad man" is to be numb or ignorant of a particular economic model. It isn't just that Stalin was a bad man, or that Pol Pot was a bad man, or that Mao was a bad man, or Ho Chi Minh was a bad man, or Che Guevara was a bad man, or Castro was a bad man... it's that communism REQUIRES the silencing of dissent and individual liberty. Modern communists, like those running China, may be willing to give certain economic freedoms to people, but only at the continued expense of their human rights.
This is really the key point. There's only so much altruism one can expect from a society before those working hard look at those lagging and say "Why are we all treated the same?". At that point, the big stick of totalitarianism is needed to keep those who question in line.

Saying that you can have a major country running a communist form of government without an authoritarian leader is as possible as winning the Super Bowl with no head coach. At some point in time, the people will fight the system because (ironically) it is inherently unfair.

[RomaGoth]

But you're not describing ownership or control of the means of production. You're describing a process by which the government buys a product from a private company, and ignoring the fact that the vast majority of companies which supply the U.S. military also have civilian products, and many of them indeed do sell to foreign countries as well.

Once the product has been purchased, the U.S. government does indeed own it, but it doesn't "own the labor". To quote DT... I'm sorry, you're just wrong. :D

Actually, he said sorry, you're just wrong. :lol: (yes I can make fun of myself, you have to in order to stay sane)

[RainMaker]

But you're not describing ownership or control of the means of production. You're describing a process by which the government buys a product from a private company, and ignoring the fact that the vast majority of companies which supply the U.S. military also have civilian products, and many of them indeed do sell to foreign countries as well.

Once the product has been purchased, the U.S. government does indeed own it, but it doesn't "own the labor". To quote DT... I'm sorry, you're just wrong. :D
That is control over the means of production. We tell these companies what they can and can't sell and to whom. You can't buy a fighter jet from Boeing because our government controls the means of production for it. You can't start enriching uranium in your basement. These companies can sometimes sell to other countries, but this only under the permission of the government. There are supplies that the military does purchase that are available to the public, which is why from the beginning I stated part-socialist.

The government owns the land and control the labor that work within the military. It controls how the resources are allocated.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Are you trying to say that our military is not part-socialized?

[ace1914]

They did?

We owe them like 4 trillion dollars.

[Neon_Chaos]

To reply to the original post.

Communism isn't bad.

It's just that Communism, in reality, doesn't work.

China is essentially Communist in name only.

It's government is a semi-totalitarian regime (One party system; the CPP's hold over the government is guaranteed by the constitution, although there are also other parties that run for elected seats), while having a mixed economy where the government still controls most of the pillars of industry, while allowing for privatization and growth in most sectors. Heck, even their agriculture industry is no longer a collective and is primarily private.

[RomaGoth]

We owe them like 4 trillion dollars.

And this makes them the new premier global power? Sorry, not buying it.

[Samdari]

If Communism is so bad why on God's green Earth, why did China just pass us as the premier global power?

There's never been a real communist state. Basically, every communist revolt has gone like this. Some people do not like who holds all the wealth/power. They get the support of the lower/middle class by telling them that these few people own everything and have all the power. Lets overthrow them and the we'll all own everything together. The overthrow occurs, and then the new leaders own and control everything. The only difference is, they now claim to do so in the name of "the people".

[Warhammer]

Lately I feel the U.S. is proving that it is to beholden to the entrenched financial interests. Because it thinks of the mega-wealthy first, and the real and very large problems second, it has made and appears very eager to continue to make, big mistakes in economic and political policy.

Economics and politics are inevitably linked (again a plug for Hayek's book where he goes into more detail). If we refuse to solve disaster scenarios because doing so will make corrupted company ABC lose a billion dollars, we are in reality giving a great amount of power to ABC. They hold us hostage by us favoring them over favoring what must be done.

It is my opinion that inevitably economies and systems have corruption and inefficiency, regardless of whether they are capitalist, socialist, or whatnot. It is not inevitable that such corruption and inefficiency must grow, indeed most of human history has been the cycle of improving the strength of civilization, and the desparately sad declines when it fails. Often corruption and waste have grown so prevalent in a system that it collapses, and I fear this happening to us. Collapses are not fun, they are brutal periods.

The whole boom/bust model of the economy is flawed in my opinion. Just because we are deep in the bust, does not mean there will be a recovery. It is very possible for an economic system to have a negative feedback loop. The idea of 'natural recovery' depends on people not having too many assumptions, in a natural state when everything hits rock bottom there are then lots of opportunities for growth because people will always need something and whoever provides it has a chance for great wealth.



I agree with a large portion of this. I have always wondered why the US has been so gung-ho on the post-industrial/manufacturing economy. Sure, information is wonderful and is a powerful tool, but information in and of itself, does not pay the bills.

Every major country must have a manufacturing base. It is the only way to keep dollars flowing into a country when a bust cycle hits. If my washer or dryer breaks, I am going to get it fixed, but where do the dollars go? They go to Mexico, eventually. If I buy exotic fruits, eventually the money goes to Tropico.

When things really go bust, what do I need information for? What I need is a good tangible item that allows me to do something more efficiently. Right now, we can't produce that tangible item.

[Warhammer]

There's never been a real communist state. Basically, every communist revolt has gone like this. Some people do not like who holds all the wealth/power. They get the support of the lower/middle class by telling them that these few people own everything and have all the power. Lets overthrow them and the we'll all own everything together. The overthrow occurs, and then the new leaders own and control everything. The only difference is, they now claim to do so in the name of "the people".

The reason why there has been no real communist state is that you need a ruling elite to keep everyone in line. When people realize that there are people that get the same benefit as they do for half the work, the system breaks down.

[ISiddiqui]

That's not entirely true. There have been some communes that have collapsed because outside forces (left and right) have taken them over. The probably with these commune like societies is that they can't defend themselves. Some sort of ruling leadership is needed for things like organizing defense and whatnot.

[Samdari]

The reason why there has been no real communist state is that you need a ruling elite to keep everyone in line.

I agree. A real implementation of communism would require everyone being able to work for the common good, not their own interests. If this were the case, everyone's commitment to the cause would obviate the need for keeping people in line. Clearly, that would never work.

But, I was really answering the original poster - don't confuse Russia, China, and Cuba with actual implementations of communism. What they are in actuality are another form of inequitable distribution of assets/resources very similar to all other forms of such since the first concept of 'owning' of a certain piece of ground popped into some biped's head.

The difference is the lies/promises told by the ones seeking a larger share to those whose support they needed to acquire their larger share.

[Samdari]

Some sort of ruling leadership is needed for things like organizing defense and whatnot.


And hence it ceases to be communism, which was my point in the first place.

[flere-imsaho]

They are pretty damn close, almost interchangeable (I would argue that they are interchangeable).

See for yourself:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism

Are you really declaring equivalency between two complex politico-economic systems based on basic dictionary definitions?

I mean, that's like saying Alex Rodriguez is a better baseball player than Derek Jeter because he has a better batting average (note: I don't know if this is actually true). :p

And the Capitalists put the first man on the moon.

Irrelevant in the context of the post to which I was responding.

Because the State decided that was going to be a priority. They put the first man into space and they put millions of their own citizens into the ground.

Are you suggesting there was a causal relationship between launching Yuri Gagarin into space and the millions killed by the Soviet regime?

Anyway, both of you are reading waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much into my throwaway response to Jim's very small post. I certainly didn't intend to claim that Gagarin's achievement proved the efficacy of the communist economic model. I mean, come on guys, is there really a need to go knee-jerk nuclear all the time?

And to call Stalin a "bad man" is to be numb or ignorant of a particular economic model.

...

it's that communism REQUIRES the silencing of dissent and individual liberty.

No, I'm separating the theoretical economic model of communism from the political realities of implementing that economic model. I've already agreed, in a response to Greg, that Communism begets Totalitarianism. I'm sorry I won't follow your lead and just say "oh communism: bad, bad bad". I just feel it's intellectually lazy to just label entire concepts as good or bad all the time and move on. That's the kind of thinking that devolves pretty much every political discussion in this country into a black-and-white fight over single issues.

You know, there are some days around here that I think if I made a comment like "you know, the color of the sky is powder blue" someone would respond with "so you really believe the Detroit Lions will win the Super Bowl?"

:D

This is really the key point. There's only so much altruism one can expect from a society before those working hard look at those lagging and say "Why are we all treated the same?". At that point, the big stick of totalitarianism is needed to keep those who question in line.

I agree, but let's not be blind to the fact that we have a similar response in capitalist societies. The best example being the cyclical arguments over taxation that inevitably have some people saying "Why are the rich paying so much in taxes to support the poor, a bunch of whom are just lazy?"

This is not a problem limited to the implementation of communism. Every economic system, when implemented in the real world, ends up creating "haves" and "have nots", and when this happens the "haves" do their best to protect and perpetuate their position in society. It just so happens that in totalitarian systems the "haves" tend to be a lot more brutally direct about it than in oligarchical systems.

That's not entirely true. There have been some communes that have collapsed because outside forces (left and right) have taken them over. The probably with these commune like societies is that they can't defend themselves. Some sort of ruling leadership is needed for things like organizing defense and whatnot.

A key problem with communism is that it's not scalable because it's not particularly flexible. This is a key contrast to socialism, which can be implemented in a variety of ways that are still consistent with the central concept, and so is more flexible and more scalable.

[SteveMax58]

I don't think most people are confusing the implementation of communism (or what has been called communism historically) with the theoretical version of it (at least not in this thread). Just as I don't think most are confusing pure capitalism/democracy (or democratic republic) with what we have in the US today. But you have to classify the most comparable implementations of it in some way.

I think it is also worth noting that while communism is known for limiting upwardly-inclined people...it also does not allow the liberty to achieve nothing in society. The ability to be left alone and not contribute anything to a society that one does not wish to be a part of, without penalty.

[SportsDino]

My argument is that large-scale communism depends on an assumption that is a fairy tale. The advocates state that every example we have had to date is 'flawed', and there is no denying it, but the refrain of "well next time we'll do it right, and everyone will play along properly" is foolish. To use aran's terminology, I would consider it a puerile fantasy.

I would argue, and Hayek has argued, and numerous others both in political and economic science have argued, that systems built on faulty assumptions will fail. This has been applied to communism, socialism, and capitalism. It is my opinion that of the three capitalism offers the least weakness because it makes the most assumptions, and that it can be adjusted much more smoothly than those other systems to work out other wrinkles (like socialized goods/defense, cooperation and acceptance of communal systems within capitalism, etc).

I actually fear a worldwide turn to communism after the excesses we are seeing and will continue to see. People will learn too late that socialism only looks good on paper, that the same criminals that corrupt capitalism will be getting even more power to oppress them in a socialist system. Hell, I think most of our existing problems with 'excess capitalism' lie in the increasingly fuedal or socialistic bureacracy that exists at the top layer of our industry, which has the motive and means to oppress the lower classes to maintain their own position and excess. The increased abuse by the state of communal powers is choking out the freedom and competition that capitalism depends on to succeed.

China also is a bad example, look at who OWNS the stuff in China. It is party connected individuals who because they were on the right side of the tanks in Tiananmen Square were rewarded with incredible wealth while the rest of China has been moving at a steady glacial pace. To be fair, that glacial pace is better than most of the third world can point to.

So China is not really a good example of capitalism or socialism. It rewards oppression, it just happens that their culture and a little bit of wisdom that they know incremental improvement for the lower classes is enough to keep most people happy. (This is mostly true, I would wager the psychology of the average man is more to just be a bit better off than yesterday, while it is the uncommon man that is determined to get as much out of life as they can)

China also owes massive influx of external wealth to its success as well, if it did not have the US perfectly willing to buy, then it would have had to struggle with building up with only internal resources. I don't deny China being smart in a number of ways, I could probably list out what they did right better than most people that support them... but it is not a system I would want to live in, and its not a system that will save the world.

In fact, since 2008 in a lot of ways China has backtracked on its capitalist-like economic success. Thousands of companies were essentially ordered to close down, and I bet if you look at the controllers at the ones that remain you would see the most politically connected 'capitalists' in China.

I'd argue China is the example of what the future of U.S. might look like, read this paper and tell me it doesn't sound like modern America's direction:
undefined - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19628#)

-----

As for what the U.S. should do, I do think you need to be self-sufficient in terms of goods. I'm not anti-trade at all, but I think the U.S. has gone a little stupid in the head with its insistence that it is above 'certain kinds of jobs' or that outsourcing everything makes sense for anything except to concentrate wealth in the top 1%. I'd argue the notion that 'cheap as possible' goods is a failed economic model that is dangerous for the world environment and economy, since it depends on political oppression to maintain itself (indirectly through outsourcing to the third world where they are not afraid to shoot people to keep wages down).

What we should do is cut waste, make goods of ever increasing quality at reduced amounts of input per good (efficiency over bean counting), and cut the unrealistic reward for being a corporate toady over being a productive worker or even risktaker. Encourage real risk taking which is inventing ideas, creating new business, and so on, discourage so called 'safe-risks' like financial derivatives [only safe if you don't do the math.... since all equations must balance dolts!] or only lending to established corrupt players [ahem GM/AIG/banks beyond mention/politicians..].... in general we should care about economic activity, not an indirect measure like 30 well established but for the most part dinosaur-like companies in a weighted imaginary financial instrument (we should probably just take the DOW away from the media until they eat their vegatables).

You don't need a socialist system to do any of that, you need to stop the influence of government and established financial players from choking off creative individuals from doing it.

[RomaGoth]

Are you really declaring equivalency between two complex politico-economic systems based on basic dictionary definitions?

I mean, that's like saying Alex Rodriguez is a better baseball player than Derek Jeter because he has a better batting average (note: I don't know if this is actually true). :p

Actually, Jeter has a better batting average than Rodriguez, but most people would rather have Rodriguez than Jeter. I wouldn't, but each to his own.

As for the dictionary definitions, I figure we have to start somewhere with a comparison, so why not at the simplest level? I realize that communism and socialism have some very large differences, but they are both based upon common property, at least in theory.

I mean, come on guys, is there really a need to go knee-jerk nuclear all the time?

FOFC, meet flere-imsaho. Flere-imsaho, meet FOFC. :D

You know, there are some days around here that I think if I made a comment like "you know, the color of the sky is powder blue" someone would respond with "so you really believe the Detroit Lions will win the Super Bowl?":D

Now you are just talking crazy. Everyone knows the sky is overcast silver, which means the Oakland Raiders will win the Super Bowl. :p

This is not a problem limited to the implementation of communism. Every economic system, when implemented in the real world, ends up creating "haves" and "have nots", and when this happens the "haves" do their best to protect and perpetuate their position in society. It just so happens that in totalitarian systems the "haves" tend to be a lot more brutally direct about it than in oligarchical systems.

This has been mentioned several times, at least once by me, albeit probably with different wording. Human nature dictates our behavior, and this usually results in those with the power holding down those without it. I guess from what I know about communism, socialism, and capitalism (which is probably not much it appears), the difference in the three is that at least capitalism allows the common citizen an opportunity to raise his status in life, both politically and economically, while communism and to a lesser extent, socialism, do not allow this in any type of the same manner (without violence, usually).

[CamEdwards]

That is control over the means of production. We tell these companies what they can and can't sell and to whom. You can't buy a fighter jet from Boeing because our government controls the means of production for it. You can't start enriching uranium in your basement. These companies can sometimes sell to other countries, but this only under the permission of the government. There are supplies that the military does purchase that are available to the public, which is why from the beginning I stated part-socialist.

The government owns the land and control the labor that work within the military. It controls how the resources are allocated.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Are you trying to say that our military is not part-socialized?

I am trying to state that laws and regulations do not equate to ownership or control of the means of production.

Control of the means of production is the Soviet Union buying what amounted to an entire Ford Motors factory in Michigan and moving it to the Soviet Union, forcing local workers to build the roads and infrastructure that the plant needed, telling local citizens that they were going to work at the factory, taking the passports of U.S. advisors and telling them that they are now Soviet citizens, putting government officials in charge of the plant, establishing quotas to be met and meting out government punishment when the the goals aren't reached, sending workers off to the Gulag (or worse) when necessary, etc.

If you really see no substantial difference between that and what happens in our society when the government places an order for 22 fighter jets or a billion rounds of ammunition, then I'm really sorry for you.

[Dutch]

Socialism in an extremely general term is public ownership of means of production so that it is administered in an equal way for everyone.

Our military is probably the most obvious example. Schools would be another. That's just from early times. Today, just about everything we do in our daily lives is done through the benefit of socialism.

2009 US Government Spending
($6.4 Trillion)

16% -- Healthcare
14% -- Education
14% -- Govt Pensions
13% -- Military
09% -- Welfare
34% -- Everything else

Let's add in socialism to more than just the 2 million serving in the military and the million or so receiving pensions...apply it to everybody and 100% of our taxes won't cover the costs!

By the way, there are only two places in America (that I know of) where it is called "getting out" when you leave...

...Prison (a pure socialistic endeavour) and the military (the runner-up). :)

"Getting out" was also something that people in the Eastern Bloc of Europe strived for on a daily basis...

[RainMaker]

I am trying to state that laws and regulations do not equate to ownership or control of the means of production.

Control of the means of production is the Soviet Union buying what amounted to an entire Ford Motors factory in Michigan and moving it to the Soviet Union, forcing local workers to build the roads and infrastructure that the plant needed, telling local citizens that they were going to work at the factory, taking the passports of U.S. advisors and telling them that they are now Soviet citizens, putting government officials in charge of the plant, establishing quotas to be met and meting out government punishment when the the goals aren't reached, sending workers off to the Gulag (or worse) when necessary, etc.

If you really see no substantial difference between that and what happens in our society when the government places an order for 22 fighter jets or a billion rounds of ammunition, then I'm really sorry for you.

There is a huge difference in how far the Soviet Union took it and how we take it. That was never the argument. I simply stated that we are part-socialist. If you disagree with that and believe that the military is a purely free-market capitalist entity with no government control or ownership, then lets discuss that.

I'm curious, how would you define our education system and military in economic terms? Since it is not socialized in any way in your mind, I'd be curious what you would call it.

[CamEdwards]

There is a huge difference in how far the Soviet Union took it and how we take it. That was never the argument. I simply stated that we are part-socialist. If you disagree with that and believe that the military is a purely free-market capitalist entity with no government control or ownership, then lets discuss that.

I'm curious, how would you define our education system and military in economic terms? Since it is not socialized in any way in your mind, I'd be curious what you would call it.

Move the goalposts much? You originally said that this country was "part-socialist". You then went on to say, "Socialism in an extremely general term is public ownership of means of production so that it is administered in an equal way for everyone.

Our military is probably the most obvious example. Schools would be another. That's just from early times. Today, just about everything we do in our daily lives is done through the benefit of socialism."

After I pointed out that the government does not own the means of production for our military, and instead relies on bidding and contracting for aquiring the goods that it needs, you continue to tell me that it's socialist because the government can place rules and restrictions on companies that make military items. By that definition, any society with laws is "socialist".

Now you seem to want to argue that if, at any level, government buys a product, it's "part-socialist". I suppose I could keep arguing with you, but what would the point be? You have no clue what you're talking about, and no amount of education on my behalf is going to convince you otherwise.

What would I call a system in which an entity decides it wants to have an item, and then goes out and buys it from a third party because it can't produce it on its own? If we're going to use simple terms, I'd call it capitalism.

[Galaril]

Becuz Glenn Beck says so.

[cartman]

Cam, you are correct in stating what the military consumes is produced by entities that are, for the most part, capitalistic. But the consumption is not what defines something as socialism, it is the output that defines it. The output of the branches of the military is national defense. So in that definition, it is most definitely socialism.

[Greyroofoo]

Becuz Glenn Beck says so.

Great, I have to rethink my position on Communism now :banghead:

[Warhammer]

I guess I would ask what makes the military socialist?

[Daimyo]

China, despite being ruled by the Communist Party of China (big C), hasn't really been communist (little c) for over 20 years, if ever. I guess if you have to label it now its more like Totalitarian Capitalism. The government pretty much sets the direction top down and owns a lot of the infrastructure, but it is then mostly up to free enterprise to make it happen. Today, there is probably nearly as much opportunity for individual financial advancement there as here... maybe even more for smart people born into poverty.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out going forward... there will be a lot of things their setup will allow them to do better that we possibly can because their political system doesn't always drive them toward the lowest common denominator (ranging from the Olympics to transitioning to clean energy technology).

On the flip side, there is significantly greater risk both for individuals (our system is pretty amazing at avoiding tyranny) and the government (their system doesn't really allow people to "blow off steam" in a safe way so they always have to be vigilant against it festering into open rebellion).

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Because he peed on the rug. Bad Communism. Bad dog.

[RainMaker]

Move the goalposts much? You originally said that this country was "part-socialist". You then went on to say, "Socialism in an extremely general term is public ownership of means of production so that it is administered in an equal way for everyone.

Our military is probably the most obvious example. Schools would be another. That's just from early times. Today, just about everything we do in our daily lives is done through the benefit of socialism."

After I pointed out that the government does not own the means of production for our military, and instead relies on bidding and contracting for aquiring the goods that it needs, you continue to tell me that it's socialist because the government can place rules and restrictions on companies that make military items. By that definition, any society with laws is "socialist".
I said our country was part-socialism. You asked for a definition of it. You asked for examples of socialism in this country which I provided. I never said they were 100% socialist and even stated there has never been a true socialist economy. If you truly believe our military is a free market capitalist economy, then great. I consider massive rules and regulations that force companies to only be able to sell to one buyer, a market created where no competition may enter, as well as allowing that buyer to control the labor of that company a nice bit of socialism.

Now you seem to want to argue that if, at any level, government buys a product, it's "part-socialist". I suppose I could keep arguing with you, but what would the point be? You have no clue what you're talking about, and no amount of education on my behalf is going to convince you otherwise.

What would I call a system in which an entity decides it wants to have an item, and then goes out and buys it from a third party because it can't produce it on its own? If we're going to use simple terms, I'd call it capitalism.[/quote]

Capitalism, eh? We work hand in hand with an arms dealer to create a weapon that only can be sold to the U.S. government. Isn't a market a mandatory requirement of capitalism? The U.S. Government is the only market. So if they are creating a product that is requested by the government that can only be sold to the government. When are they considered just an extension of the government?

And what about the labor market? I wasn't aware soldiers could find another higher paying job if they like to. That there was a market for these individuals.

[Dutch]

I guess I would ask what makes the military socialist?

Crimson Tide Preview says it all

Capt. Frank Ramsey (Gene Hackman) is the commanding officer of a nuclear submarine, the U.S.S. Alabama. Ramsey is a distinguished veteran near the end of his career, and he leads his men with an iron hand; as he puts it, "We're here to preserve democracy, not to practice it."

[Greyroofoo]

I said our country was part-socialism. You asked for a definition of it. You asked for examples of socialism in this country which I provided. I never said they were 100% socialist and even stated there has never been a true socialist economy. If you truly believe our military is a free market capitalist economy, then great. I consider massive rules and regulations that force companies to only be able to sell to one buyer, a market created where no competition may enter, as well as allowing that buyer to control the labor of that company a nice bit of socialism.

Now you seem to want to argue that if, at any level, government buys a product, it's "part-socialist". I suppose I could keep arguing with you, but what would the point be? You have no clue what you're talking about, and no amount of education on my behalf is going to convince you otherwise.

What would I call a system in which an entity decides it wants to have an item, and then goes out and buys it from a third party because it can't produce it on its own? If we're going to use simple terms, I'd call it capitalism.


I think its rather wonderful that your mom is socialistic. I mean that everyone in the nation takes part of her, if you get my drift.

[Dutch]

Capitalism, eh? We work hand in hand with an arms dealer to create a weapon that only can be sold to the U.S. government. Isn't a market a mandatory requirement of capitalism? The U.S. Government is the only market. So if they are creating a product that is requested by the government that can only be sold to the government. When are they considered just an extension of the government?

Multiple defense contractors bid on the right to produce weapons platforms and weapons and the competition is fierce. Many of these weapons platforms are sold abroad. F-16's fly over the skies of Israel, Turkey, Thailand, etc.

F-16's were first built by General Dynamics and outbid 4 competitors for the right to build it. Pretty good competition.

And what about the labor market? I wasn't aware soldiers could find another higher paying job if they like to. That there was a market for these individuals.

A soldier must fulfill his contract obligations for obvious reasons (hopefully) with few exceptions (if you can earn a vastly larger sum of money than the military can offer you, you can get out of your obligations...see military members that play professional sports).

But other than that...yeah, it's pretty damned close to pure socialism. A closer version is the Turkish military. Where you are conscripted (obligated) for a year or so...then if the leaders like you they will offer you a lifetime job as a military soldier...and when they say lifetime...they mean fo life!