The fatal flaw of communism. A discussion of economic theory.

[Rolling Thunder]

If we're talking about fatally flawed systems, objectivist/Libertarian capitalism sure as fuck comes out on top. At least a command economy can hold itself together, and actual communism has that utopic tinge of hope. Pure capitalism is as bleak as the plains of hell and twice as unpleasant to live in.

Please go to Google and put some effort to learning the current situation and history of the command economies. Do people of North Korea have hope? Does Cuba have hope? Command economies cannot sustain themselves without foreign aid or windfall resources from the ground.

Cuba, I'd say, has hope. Mind you, it's not a proper command economy, in essence. But yes, I apologise, I should really have been more specific *cough*. Permit me to rephrase myself:

"At least a command economy can hold itself together on some vestigial level, instead of disintergrating into a squabbling, anarchic mess of a country while it's people starve, it's factories collapse and so on, as libertarian pure free-marketism promises. At least a command economy can facilitate a degree of economic growth, even if it is in armamanets and rocketry. At least, on a basic level, the command economy works, even if it is in the same manner as feudalism."

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

Part of the reason I'm only socialist. Whilst I believe in closing the gap between rich and poor, there does need to be some reward for ability and time investment.

I agree with you on that one. People deserve to make money for working hard.

 

[happysock]

That the amount of work you do depends on how much you work, and how much your work is valued. Meaning that a doctor does more work than a janitor. Not because a doctors job is harder than a janitors, or that the doctor works more hours, but a doctor is far more useful to humanity than a janitor, and thus he makes more money. This is fair. I am better than you at cooking, thus I become head chef and make more money. Work = Money. They are the same thing, except money is physical.

The strong will not stand for this. When they realize that their labour doesn't correlate to their reward, they will cease to work. The strong drive the economy forward. It's their minds which keep it moving. If you decide punish them, the economy will cease to move, and the country will fall.

The fatal flaw in communism is human greed /thread

In theory it is a brilliant idea but in practise it just doesn't work, I mean imagine earning the same wage as a premier league football player or a major league baseball player they don't necessarily work harder than a doctor, they don't work as many hours they don't have to study as hard go university or college yet they earn ridiculous amounts of money compared to the doctor.

Also the strong may realise it but there isn't anything they can do about it, take Russia for example during the reign of Stalin he had something called collective farming where farms that were close to each other were put in a farm to work together and given the equipment other rich to use, if they didn't join they were simply exterminated because they were richer and went against the government.

Your points are valid and are pretty good arguments but they are only small parts of communism.

 

[MiserableOldGit]

Part of the reason I'm only socialist. Whilst I believe in closing the gap between rich and poor, there does need to be some reward for ability and time investment.

Edit: Isnt the OP just talking objectivism? That doesn't work either.

If I may ask, why does the gap between the rich and the poor need to be closed if the rich person worked his way there and the poor person is unlucky/lazy/some other reason. Why should someone else's success be distributed to other when it is that singular persons success?

I'm all giving the destitute of one's country a second chance but whydoes it need to come at the price of a person who doesn't need that second chance?

Theres a very good reason the gap needs to be closed - for a start, you assume that people in possesion of power or resources got them through hard work, and that the most valuable or skilled individuals will somehow rise to the top- problem is, when these captains of industry die, it is up to them where their ammased wealth goes- usually to their offspring. This means that you have people in positions of wealth and influence through an accident of birth rather than any hard work, with no guarantee that they'll inherite their parents talents or work ethic (Which is why we have seen nepotism fall out of favour as a system of government). The other thing to bear in mind is that it is very childish and selfish to assume that all you own is entirely due to the sweat off your own brow - particularly in the kind of societies we live in today- someone whos amassed a fortune, or built a company up would not have been able to do so if they didnt live in a society which has the kind of utilities and technologies we have- transport systems, education, etc. In this we all stand on the shoulders of giants and must never forget the fact. You must also bear in mind that keeping hold of your wealth can only be comfortably done in a society where people respect property and observe a common set of laws- if they didnt, you'd end up having to spend all day sat on your pile of loot with a big gun to stop everyone else pinching it.
Lets also bear in mind that to ammass the kind of wealth and power you're talking about requires the cooperation and assistance of a lot of other people. Without workers to provide goods and services, and people to buy those goods and services, money doesnt really count for a whole lot.
It is true that those that organise and build should get the lions share of the goodies- that's the carrot that drives people to do it in the first place. The danger is that when you pay too much attention to whos name is on what bit of paper, rather than what they actually do, you end up with the exact opposite of what you wanted in the first place, making it vitally important to maintain a healthy class mobility (the highest paid job in the world should be toilet cleaner, and if that breaks your economy you've got too many people not cleaning their own shit up after themselves). Thats why there are certain areas private enterprise needs to keep the fuck out of- like schools, utilities, government, etc.

Or you can just decide that all this is too complicated and put your faith in the ineffable market, like some twenty first century equivalent of a religious goober that prays to the sky for solutions to life's trickier problems.

 

[MiserableOldGit]

Although this is more socialism, I found it a good (and amusing) explanation of why it tends not to work:

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a
single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had
insisted that socialism worked, and that no one would be poor and no one
would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have
an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same
grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first
test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied
hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the
second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even
less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so
they studied little.. The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all
resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone
else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that
socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the
effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away;
no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.
---------------------------------------

Thought it was worth sharing.

It's also full of crap.

Any economics professor who tried a scheme like that would find his own economics severely damaged after he was fired for the the wave upon wave of appeals and possibly even lawsuits his scheme generated hit the school.

Now, even if we were to assume the story is true, it has a couple flaws. First, marks are not food or survival. The key thing that a lot of objectivist/libertarian folks miss is that the poor and hungry don't conveniently disappear because they're not working, and there are two things that motivate people -- reward and fear. Your story completely ignores the fear aspect, which is supposedly the primary motivator of communism -- if we don't do enough work, we all starve. Your story suggests that the fear of failing was overrun by the desire to bicker. In a serious university class, especially one where the students were espousing socialism to begin with so understood that it requires a community effort, the desire to bicker would very likely be overrun by the fear of failure, and what you'd really get would be "enforced" study groups.. where those refusing to contribute to the overall group would wind up suffering nasty consequences imposed by the rest of the group.

That professor sounds like a moron - his test suggests that the only two models available are 'every man for themselves' or 'arbitrary averaging out'.
Those that can, do. Those that can't teach...

 

[Woodsey]

The problems with communism are:

a) It doesn't work

and

b) Everyone's equal, but some people are more equal than others.

 

[Fbuh]

One of the biggest problems with communism (as a functioning economic theory) is that it cannot be completely equal. Inevitably, there will be a class division, even if it is simply due to power holdings. 1984 is a good expression of this, even if it is fiction, since members of the Inner Party always tend to get the better food, housing, and equipment.

Generally speaking, communism works best in small groups, where everyone has a specific job to fulfill. However, even that has problems. Supposing a person wants to move to a new community, or they die without a replacement? In that case, you would need many people for it to work, so that another person can take over a job if need be. However, with more people, society becomes more difficult to manage. By just looking at that, communism can't work due to the contradictions prevalent within itself.

Another reason it can't work boils down to base human psychology, i.e. the ego. The ego is what keeps us functioning on an individual basis, so that our own wants and needs are fulfilled. The ego will almost always get in the way of society's view of "the bigger picture." Of course, psychology is a result of biological and situational stimuli, so in a way, we are not biologically ready to think on a communal level. We are getting there (think norms and deviations), but we are not to the point at which the complete degradation of our egos will allow us to function, and trying to force that on a populace is only going to fail.

 

[yrogerg]

People mention Communism is only good on paper, and yes, that has been proved. The problem with communism is that it doesn't encourage innovation. What's the point of creating new-fangled double drink hats when you're just gonna get paid the same for it. Without innovation, there isn't any growth and they stay the same for many years and, even though many other Governments also fail, this one isn't going anywhere fast.

Of course, not all innovation is created equal, something of which the present economic crisis should provide a poignant reminder. Those credit default swaps that precipitated everything? Innovation. In fact, plenty of people have complained about the "brain drain" that's been occurring over the past 20 years, where so many of our nation's greatest minds are going into finance, where they can make buckets of money by doing nothing that creates real value. And now, we're kinda reaping the consequences of that; it ends up, that regulation we used to have -statist abridgment of unfettered Capitalism, you'll note- stifled a lot of shitty, shitty innovation.

 

[Alex_P]

If we're talking about fatally flawed systems, objectivist/Libertarian capitalism sure as fuck comes out on top.

I think I love you.

-- Alex

 

[Dusty Donuts]

People mention Communism is only good on paper, and yes, that has been proved. The problem with communism is that it doesn't encourage innovation. What's the point of creating new-fangled double drink hats when you're just gonna get paid the same for it. Without innovation, there isn't any growth and they stay the same for many years and, even though many other Governments also fail, this one isn't going anywhere fast.

Of course, not all innovation is created equal, something of which the present economic crisis should provide a poignant reminder. Those credit default swaps that precipitated everything? Innovation. In fact, plenty of people have complained about the "brain drain" that's been occurring over the past 20 years, where so many of our nation's greatest minds are going into finance, where they can make buckets of money by doing nothing that creates real value. And now, we're kinda reaping the consequences of that; it ends up, that regulation we used to have -statist abridgment of unfettered Capitalism, you'll note- stifled a lot of shitty, shitty innovation.

As I said, all Governments have their faults, and something that affects a nation is going to have some disagreement.

 

[Zer_]

As our technology advances, the price on the necessities of life will go down. If there was an abundance of food all over the world, we'd be paying pennies for our filets. Once our technology reaches a point where everyone gets an abundant amount of food and health care, then the value of these products will go down so low that money will become obsolete as a necessary part of an economy.

At that point we will be viably capable of dropping currency altogether. You'd most likely be housed, fed and kept healthy by those you work for and working for something other then only money will take precedence.

 

[Allan53]

Although this is more socialism, I found it a good (and amusing) explanation of why it tends not to work:

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a
single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had
insisted that socialism worked, and that no one would be poor and no one
would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have
an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same
grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first
test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied
hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the
second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even
less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so
they studied little.. The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all
resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone
else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that
socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the
effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away;
no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.
---------------------------------------

Thought it was worth sharing.

It's also full of crap.

Any economics professor who tried a scheme like that would find his own economics severely damaged after he was fired for the the wave upon wave of appeals and possibly even lawsuits his scheme generated hit the school.

Now, even if we were to assume the story is true, it has a couple flaws. First, marks are not food or survival. The key thing that a lot of objectivist/libertarian folks miss is that the poor and hungry don't conveniently disappear because they're not working, and there are two things that motivate people -- reward and fear. Your story completely ignores the fear aspect, which is supposedly the primary motivator of communism -- if we don't do enough work, we all starve. Your story suggests that the fear of failing was overrun by the desire to bicker. In a serious university class, especially one where the students were espousing socialism to begin with so understood that it requires a community effort, the desire to bicker would very likely be overrun by the fear of failure, and what you'd really get would be "enforced" study groups.. where those refusing to contribute to the overall group would wind up suffering nasty consequences imposed by the rest of the group.

It's not a perfect metaphor, true. Also, it's a story, not meant to be taken as a historical account. But I think it does highlight a lot of the issues involved in communism/socialism.

As for the fear/reward thing, true. A slight oversimplification of behavioural theory, but true enough in essence. The point it was making was the students who were working hard gained no benefit (no "reward") for their effort. Simple logic states if you invest a large amount of effort to no gain, you are less likely to repeat such behavior (if you are interested in this kind of stuff, look up some works by Skinner or Thorndike).

But yes, it is not a perfect metaphor.

That professor sounds like a moron - his test suggests that the only two models available are 'every man for themselves' or 'arbitrary averaging out'.
Those that can, do. Those that can't teach...

If you try to blend those two perspectives, you tend to end up with a seperate set of issues. And not the point, either. He was (in the story) simply trying to demonstrate why a purely collective economic system would not work, or at the very least not work without major issues.

 

[Dele]

Cuba, I'd say, has hope. Mind you, it's not a proper command economy, in essence. But yes, I apologise, I should really have been more specific *cough*. Permit me to rephrase myself:

"At least a command economy can hold itself together on some vestigial level, instead of disintergrating into a squabbling, anarchic mess of a country while it's people starve, it's factories collapse and so on, as libertarian pure free-marketism promises. At least a command economy can facilitate a degree of economic growth, even if it is in armamanets and rocketry. At least, on a basic level, the command economy works, even if it is in the same manner as feudalism."

Cuba is a crappy third rate dictatorship running out of toilet paper (I'm serious) and full of beggars who find a cellphone to be the pinnacle of the modern technological progress. The best hope such people have is to get on a boat and sail to the United States and live like kings while working on McDonalds.

The thing is, youre taking political philosophies to account while talking about economics and thus linking anarchist government to libertarian economics and statist governments to authoritarian economics. We have experience of countries using more or less libertarian economics (think of Chile or Hong Kong) and working well economically mind you. I would like you to show me a command economy able to sustain itself without foreign aid when excluding gains from mining/drilling industry.

In fact, plenty of people have complained about the "brain drain" that's been occurring over the past 20 years, where so many of our nation's greatest minds are going into finance, where they can make buckets of money by doing nothing that creates real value.

Such sentence show a huge lack of understanding of financial markets and the definition of real value. The reason why you dont have a lot of quotes from people getting upset is because you chose a much hated field of economics, instead for example of claiming history as a brain drain and that historians get buckets of money for doing nothing that creates real value, a claim of equal ignorance.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

As I recall, this is because authoritarian economics are common to authoritarian states, and libertarian economics common to, well, few countries at all. Chile is an economic dustbowl dependant on it's wealtheir neighbours for survival, and Hong Kong has never been a country of it's own, either in the hands of Britian or China for it's history.


And 'anarchist government' wins the 'oxymoron of the year' award.

I won't comment on Cuba's economy, mainly because I don't know much about it, but it does seem to be fairly hammered. Then again, it is situated in a hurricane zone, but then again, so is Florida.

 

[yrogerg]

Such sentence show a huge lack of understanding of financial markets and the definition of real value. The reason why you dont have a lot of quotes from people getting upset is because you chose a much hated field of economics, instead for example of claiming history as a brain drain and that historians get buckets of money for doing nothing that creates real value, a claim of equal ignorance.

Well, the big obvious difference, ignoring for the moment that academia does actually create value insofar as eduction is the apparatus of human capital development, is that there aren't all that many extremely lucrative or popular jobs in History, as evidenced by the fact that you clearly don't have a firm understanding on what social scientists actually do, and even manage to conflate the field of economics with the industry of finance. Despite the fact that the former is similarly social science, and the latter -particularly when we're talking about "innovation" in the latter- largely consists of exploiting arbitrage.

 

[yrogerg]

I won't comment on Cuba's economy, mainly because I don't know much about it, but it does seem to be fairly hammered. Then again, it is situated in a hurricane zone, but then again, so is Florida.

There's also the small matter of the 50-year embargo by the US, which probably hasn't impacted Cuba's economy for the better. And at very least, makes any comparison with Florida fairly specious. Not only are Floridians protected from the largest measure of any hypothetical fuckwittery they might have by the federalist nature of our country, but there also aren't any meaningful barriers to interstate trade whatsoever- at least not comparatively so.

 

[A Weary Exile]

Part of the reason I'm only socialist. Whilst I believe in closing the gap between rich and poor, there does need to be some reward for ability and time investment.

Edit: Isnt the OP just talking objectivism? That doesn't work either.

Pure Objectivism doesn't work just like pure Communism doesn't work, they both have fatal flaws that prevent them from working realistically. I agree with Objectivism's main tenets, but a laissez-faire state would never work in reality.