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

[lostclause]

My apologies for the late reply.

The CEO either earned the money or stole it. Inheritance is earned from the parents, bailout money is a loan, and the rest is stealing. If someone decided to give him money, it's because he gave them reason to. If he took money he didn't earn, he stole it, and thus he has less ability than the researcher.

And yet these people come into money out of no personal merit. Out of the nine female billionaires (this number may be out dated), only two are self made (Oprah Winfrey and J K Rowling) which means that seven of them have it through the work of others. Is the lottery of birth sufficient reason for them to have the ability to earn this? Birth is no measure for kingship and I refuse to accept it for this as well.

Agreed with the bold print, but I hope you aren't suggesting that people aren't entitled to leave their money to their children as inheritance...

Entitlement and what I agree with are often different things but no, I'm not saying that people can't leave money to their children. It does seem that way at first glance but you get what I mean if you know a bit about Objectivism. Objectivists base who should succeed on ability, so in this case if the child wants his inheritance, they have to earn it. Inheritance is an example where this doesn't happen, where chance instead of ability has dictated the outcome.

 

[Uncompetative]

Communism is the idea that if everyone earned equal amounts of money, nobody would be poor/hungry/. There is one major problem. People don't do equal amounts of work. First of all, lets define work.

Work is the product of labour and effectiveness, meaning 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.

Thus communism is the idea that even though I am better than you, we are equal. That even though I can design factories, and you can work in them, your work is just as valuable as mine. Communism is unfair. It punishes those with ability, and promotes those with a lack of it. It forces the strong to carry the weak. That's not an act of good. You are taking power from those who deserve it, who earned it, and giving it to every incapable labourer.

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.

First, if everyone earned enough to live on nobody would be poor/hungry - except, maybe for some anorexic hobos.

Second, you don't really need money if you have Communism. Making money a finite resource just curtails greed (gluttony, etc.), but it also creates crime (mugging you for your fat wallet).

Thirdly, a doctor does not do more work than a janitor. They work similar unsociable hours, but whilst the janitor may be just getting by on minimum wage, the doctor is seriously overpaid. Sure, he had an expensive education and in some countries he may be paying off a student debt (a burden the janitor does not carry), but that is because his medical college are all motivated by money not the betterment of society.

Fourthly, if there were no money, but everyone had enough to live on, many people would still work because they wanted to. I don't get paid to write open source software, but I still do it because I enjoy it. I would be bored if I didn't.

Fifthly, I object to the notion that doctors are of more value to society than janitors. What about MRSA in hospitals? We need janitors and they need some damned respect from us. Doctors, on the other hand, need to be taken down a peg. They are full of themselves, arrogant, kill people with their mistakes and then close ranks to cover up their failings. Because we don't understand what they are doing we can't call them to account. The UK can kick a doctor out of the profession through the General Medical Council, but this organisation is staffed with... guess what? More doctors. As a result we get Harold Shipman, doctor/serial-killer.

Thus communism is the idea that even though I am better than you, we are equal.

That really is a stupid thing to say. No one is better than anyone else. We are not only all created equal, but are entitled to equal treatment and equal respect. The reasons that Communism failed were:

- unnecessary centralised bureaucracy
- high-level corruption
- the Cold War*
- morale

* this was started by the US even though Russia had been an ally in the Second World War, meaning that huge sums had to be pumped into building weapon systems, which this basically agrarian society could not afford.

You would argue that Communist builders created rubbish apartment blocks out of poorly-mixed concrete because they weren't financially rewarded if they did the job well, but these shoddy buildings (which were exposed as such when they collapsed due to mild earthquakes), were more the result of low morale at seeing how their public servants (the Communist Party), had become a corrupt self-serving elite. An inevitable eventuality of any stagnating power bureaucracy - e.g. George Bush Snr. & Jnr. or the circus around the Kennedys.

The economy does not need to be driven forward. Adam Smith is not an environmentalist, but a hack economist that lacked foresight. As a species we will consume all our fuel, food and oxygen-recycling rainforests because all our governments (except Communist China), let everyone have more than one child so that there are always more young people in employment to tax and spend that tax on the retired and geriatric. This is Adam Smith's demographic pyramid. It is stupid. Humanity will die out.

I'm not having any children, so zero environmental impact from generations of that lot. What are you doing besides flaming the underclass?

Why are rich Americans so threatened by Communism? Star Trek is Communist.

 

[internetzealot1]

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.

That's life.

No, it isn't. Your personal observations aside, nihilism and pessismism are not cool or edgy when when you get beyond 14, and frankly, as someone who may be falling in love, who's got a university place and a good career beyond it, I'm going to have to challenge you as to back up that rather silly statement.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that you'd gotten your way your way your entire life. Please, don't let me stop that now.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

Sorry going to add a quick statement on Capitalism. I think that in a way capitalism is probably one of the better systems we have going right now, although I will say it isn't perfect. Yes capitalism requires there be losers, and those losers get to eat shit. So the take home message is don't be a loser, do whatever the hell you can not to be a loser, and you won't have to eat shit. So ideally only the least capable would be stuck at the bottom rung, and while their suffering is tragic it is a neccessity, and we like to believe they can escape it if they work hard. Granted that isn't necessarily true and sometimes people who are quite capable are having a hard time of it due to no fault of their own. That is very sad, but at least evereyone is doing their best not to be the guy who eats shit, and they are working very very hard to achieve that goal.

Communism on the other hand says hey if you are on the bottom its okay we will take care of you, and so being a loser loses a hell of a lot of the stigma and negative traits associated with being a total and complete fuckup, hell you can even take care of a wife and kids if you are a total and complete fuckup. (Sorry I am a guy so I am kind of writing from a male pov, please excuse the misogyny) So really why try? You get rewarded for being a fuck up, you get taxed for being a success, the incentive is lost and I believe that deep down 95% of people are lazy fuckers who if they think they can do well while doing nothing they will. This would include a hell of a lot of capable people who just don't want to be taxed, and so humanity might lose some of its brightest minds and their ideas are now confined to the scribbling of notebooks, and that makes capitalisms tragedy seem relatively minor in comparrison.

I'd say capitalism's greatest strength is that we know from the get-go, and readily accept, that not everyone will grow up to be an astronaut.

 

[Dele]

Objectivists base who should succeed on ability, so in this case if the child wants his inheritance, they have to earn it. Inheritance is an example where this doesn't happen, where chance instead of ability has dictated the outcome.

This is a bit of a misunderstading of objectivism. According to objectivism, the parents earned the money, therefore they have full authority on what to do with it, even if it means burning the dough or giving it to somebody else.

 

[vampirekid.13]

Communism is the idea that if everyone earned equal amounts of money, nobody would be poor/hungry/. There is one major problem. People don't do equal amounts of work. First of all, lets define work.

Work is the product of labour and effectiveness, meaning 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.

Thus communism is the idea that even though I am better than you, we are equal. That even though I can design factories, and you can work in them, your work is just as valuable as mine. Communism is unfair. It punishes those with ability, and promotes those with a lack of it. It forces the strong to carry the weak. That's not an act of good. You are taking power from those who deserve it, who earned it, and giving it to every incapable labourer.

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.

if it wasnt for greedy people (you seem to exemplify one) communism would work just fine. in theory communism works, the issue is the theory doesnt take in account that people are greedy little bastards that will backstab eachother at the first sign of potential profit.

see the issue with communism (and this is why communism will never work) is that people somehow believe they are better than others because of their work. what they dont realize is that without that janitor working in that factory, the factory woudlnt meat cleanliness standards which would shut it down, and that factory happened to be a factory that created medical equipment, so now the doctor that lost his incision knife that he needs for the surgery he's doing tomorrow cant get a new one because the factory is closed.

no job makes you better than someone else.

in the end the difference between a senior head of surgery in some prestigious hospital and a guy mopping the floor at mcdonalds is nothing more than pure esthetics.

they both have a family they came from. they both have a job. and neither is better than the other. too bad both are complete pricks and cant stop thinking of themselves.

 

[lostclause]

Objectivists base who should succeed on ability, so in this case if the child wants his inheritance, they have to earn it. Inheritance is an example where this doesn't happen, where chance instead of ability has dictated the outcome.

This is a bit of a misunderstading of objectivism. According to objectivism, the parents earned the money, therefore they have full authority on what to do with it, even if it means burning the dough or giving it to somebody else.

Not really. They make it quite clear that simply being family holds little sway over their decisions, shown in Atlas Shrugged when Rearden turns his back on his family as he becomes more and more of an objectivist. Beforehand he is tolerant of his brother but afterwards he is totally dismissive of him as he becomes more and more of an objectivist. Yes, they may have the right to do what they wish but it is made clear that an objectivist doesn't waste the money on handouts. (Approximate quote) 'Here there is only one word which is forbidden: 'give'.' That pretty much sums it up. Having said that, I've only read Atlas Shrugged, so if Fountainhead or the others are more clear on that point, I don't know, so you may be right.

 

[Agema]

I have no idea why people repeatedly parrot this idea that greed defeats Communism. Historically, Communism failed economically for two reasons.

Probably the most severe problem was that the economy was managed from central planning often over a several-year period, ignoring a load of supply/demand economics. Consequently, production could not easily adapt to give people what they wanted - you've have to wait until a bureaucrat noticed someone wanted something, and then organised a factory to produce it. It also meant inefficiency in areas - a factory could produce 50,000 pairs of shoes even if only 10,000 were needed. There was a problem that some people with assured state jobs didn't need to work hard. If they got 200 roubles a day to cut hair and no-one was checking, why not cut one person's hair a day instead of 50? This caused a drop in productivity.

Nevertheless, Communism was more successful in areas than it is often portrayed. In 1917, Russia was - by Western standards - very backward and barely industrialised. Under Communist rule the USSR became a massive industrial power, and let's not forget it beat the USA into space, with the first satellite and man in orbit.

It's hard to judge Cuba, because Cuba has been stuck with a 40+ year long, pointlessly vindictive trade embargo by the USA. This not only denies it the world's largest trade partner and the largest regional trade partner, but the USA has also pushed a lot of other countries (including the EU) to not trade with Cuba, which will have caused Cuba enormous economic damage.

 

[Uncompetative]

Provided that the most powerful person in your community lives in walking distance, the basic threat of you punching him in the face provides enough accountability to stop most systems of government from becoming self-serving and corrupt. It is this weird idea that we must have an educated elite of lawmakers and decision-takers who reside in the capital city (or have second homes there) and are only accountable at rare elections, where they have to have personally done something pretty extreme to lose votes from an electorate who are being asked to vote one time to resolve two distinct questions:

- who do you want as your representative?
- what party do you want to lead your country?

It would be nice to be able to vote on:

- who do you want as your representative of country to the rest of the world?
- who do you want to lead the party in government?
- what manifesto pledges do you favour? (multiple choice on social issues, like abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment - not the economy)

Just break the country down to smaller regions, fiefdoms even, which trade with each other. Make local leaders listen to community forums, rather than propose their own ideas. They should be public servants except in cases of emergency when fast decisions need to be taken and no pre-determined strategies exist (and there is no time for democratic discussion), follow these exceptional cases with a public enquiry.

People are lazy though and want to get out of Jury Service, so something similar would have to be worked out. A rotating membership?

 

[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.

That's life.

No, it isn't. Your personal observations aside, nihilism and pessismism are not cool or edgy when when you get beyond 14, and frankly, as someone who may be falling in love, who's got a university place and a good career beyond it, I'm going to have to challenge you as to back up that rather silly statement.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that you'd gotten your way your way your entire life. Please, don't let me stop that now.

And may I present my apologies too, sir, I didn't realise you were a bad debater as well as a moral coward.

 

[Vuljatar]

no job makes you better than someone else.

in the end the difference between a senior head of surgery in some prestigious hospital and a guy mopping the floor at mcdonalds is nothing more than pure esthetics.

they both have a family they came from. they both have a job. and neither is better than the other.

Nobody said the janitor was a bad person or the surgeon a good one. Your paycheck isn't determined by your level of being a good human being, it's determined by what job you do and how well you do it.

 

[Trace2010]

Yeah I thought so. Problem with that is our current system doesn't really do that. Ability is not rewarded often. Researchers are the most able people but are not the richest by any stretch of the imagination.

Henry Ford created a cheap method of transportation for the average person and fed thousands of families. Google created a system which lets millions find what ever information they require. Pharmaceutical companies create medicines which cure millions. The researcher may make a discovery that creates a new generator, but who funds him? The CEO. Without the CEO, the researcher would not exist. Thus the CEO is more valuable than the researcher.

You also need to mention that the CEO (usually) has better foresight and vision for the potential uses and (commercial-remember, why work if there's no profit) applications of research than the researcher.

 

[Trace2010]

if it wasnt for greedy people (you seem to exemplify one) communism would work just fine. in theory communism works, the issue is the theory doesnt take in account that people are greedy little bastards that will backstab eachother at the first sign of potential profit.

see the issue with communism (and this is why communism will never work) is that people somehow believe they are better than others because of their work. what they dont realize is that without that janitor working in that factory, the factory woudlnt meat cleanliness standards which would shut it down, and that factory happened to be a factory that created medical equipment, so now the doctor that lost his incision knife that he needs for the surgery he's doing tomorrow cant get a new one because the factory is closed.

no job makes you better than someone else.

in the end the difference between a senior head of surgery in some prestigious hospital and a guy mopping the floor at mcdonalds is nothing more than pure esthetics.

they both have a family they came from. they both have a job. and neither is better than the other. too bad both are complete pricks and cant stop thinking of themselves.[/quote]

I think the word is "aesthetics"...

Your example would work, and does work for many people. However, "better and worse" don't necessarily apply to the "job" itself, but the "quality of life" and "lifestyle" terms. In the end, it isn't what you do or what you make...it's what you want to spend. I know people who work at McDonald's and live comfortably, while M.C. Hammer and Kim Basinger went broke. Go figure...

 

[Kuchinawa212]

You have two cows. Everyone puts their cows in a barn and the farmer and the farmer's wife and the farmer's childern give teh milk out equally. So that if your cow produced more milk it can cover for someone else's that falls short

sounds good

Farmer and his family decides to become greedy taking more and more milk for themselves rather then just letting everyone give out the milk equally on their own. After all he's the farmer. You have to do what he says.

That's the problem

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

Here you go, this is why communism wont work: Greed.

From the dawn of man we have been driven to best each other. It's hardwired into our instinct. Thats why things like colonization, alpha males, and capitalism exist. However, if we could be trained to value community over personal power, in theory a communism would work. But there will always be those people who say "WTF I'm a doctor I should be making more than this low life janitor" and because of this communism fails.

 

[laststandman]

"AMERICA WILL NEVER FALL TO COMMUNIST INVADERS!!!!"
-Liberty Prime

 

[internetzealot1]

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.

That's life.

No, it isn't. Your personal observations aside, nihilism and pessismism are not cool or edgy when when you get beyond 14, and frankly, as someone who may be falling in love, who's got a university place and a good career beyond it, I'm going to have to challenge you as to back up that rather silly statement.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that you'd gotten your way your way your entire life. Please, don't let me stop that now.

And may I present my apologies too, sir, I didn't realise you were a bad debater as well as a moral coward.

You want to argue about this? Fine, then. Why don't you go down to Africa, to those third world countries, and tell them that life isn't hard, that it's great, and that everything will end up all right. A person is doing well to be alive. Happiness, in comaprison, is just a triffle that a few can afford.

 

[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.

That's life.

No, it isn't. Your personal observations aside, nihilism and pessismism are not cool or edgy when when you get beyond 14, and frankly, as someone who may be falling in love, who's got a university place and a good career beyond it, I'm going to have to challenge you as to back up that rather silly statement.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that you'd gotten your way your way your entire life. Please, don't let me stop that now.

And may I present my apologies too, sir, I didn't realise you were a bad debater as well as a moral coward.

You want to argue about this? Fine, then. Why don't you go down to Africa, to those third world countries, and tell them that life isn't hard, that it's great, and that everything will end up all right. A person is doing well to be alive. Happiness, in comaprison, is just a triffle that a few can afford.

It's ironic that you mention Africa. I lived in South Africa for three years, and, believe me, most of that country is still in the third world. I saw settlements - massive settlements, built out of corrugated iron, and a sort of wattle-and-daub walls, insterspersed with a few brick houses, that weren't even on the map. I've seen a cow lying dead on the side of the road, being systematically dismembered by the locals because the meat would preserve them for a week. I've been to places where there wasn't electricity or running water. I've seen HIV kill someone in six months flat, and leave their kids starving.

And do you know what else I saw? "Humanity's genius for survival", to paraphrase the Prince of Wales. Drive through these townships, and you'll see kids playing football in the street, still laughing and smiling. You'll see hardship, true, but the simple fact is that hardship is universal, as is hope. And there's a lot of hope in the townships.

I can recall sitting down, and talking with a Zulu gentleman whom I met on a walk through the bush (got lost). After an hour's talk, I realised something. Yes, his life was hard, very hard compared to mine. But he still enjoyed it. He still had hope. He couldn't read or write, but he was sending his children to school, and he had great hopes for them growing up, and being successful. His job entailed him getting up at 5AM, walking to a farm, and working until about 6PM. Was it hard? Yes. But he was glad to be working, and while he didn't like his job, he was glad he could walk home to his wife and children, knowing the money in his pocket at the end of the week, his wife would save some, his children would get a little for sweets, a lot would go on the basic neccesities, but he probably would have enough for a few beers with his friends.

He knew he was getting old - soon, he'd be too old to work as he did. But, he hoped, he could keep working long enough to send his kids to college. They were bright kids, and he was very proud of them. After that, he'd try and work a little more - send them some more money if he could. After that, he assumed they'd look after him and his wife, and, personally, I think they would. Families tend to stick together in Africa.


So, yeah, there's hardship. But, please, remember, there is hope. There's always hope.

 

[internetzealot1]

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.

That's life.

No, it isn't. Your personal observations aside, nihilism and pessismism are not cool or edgy when when you get beyond 14, and frankly, as someone who may be falling in love, who's got a university place and a good career beyond it, I'm going to have to challenge you as to back up that rather silly statement.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that you'd gotten your way your way your entire life. Please, don't let me stop that now.

And may I present my apologies too, sir, I didn't realise you were a bad debater as well as a moral coward.

You want to argue about this? Fine, then. Why don't you go down to Africa, to those third world countries, and tell them that life isn't hard, that it's great, and that everything will end up all right. A person is doing well to be alive. Happiness, in comaprison, is just a triffle that a few can afford.

It's ironic that you mention Africa. I lived in South Africa for three years, and, believe me, most of that country is still in the third world. I saw settlements - massive settlements, built out of corrugated iron, and a sort of wattle-and-daub walls, insterspersed with a few brick houses, that weren't even on the map. I've seen a cow lying dead on the side of the road, being systematically dismembered by the locals because the meat would preserve them for a week. I've been to places where there wasn't electricity or running water. I've seen HIV kill someone in six months flat, and leave their kids starving.

And do you know what else I saw? "Humanity's genius for survival", to paraphrase the Prince of Wales. Drive through these townships, and you'll see kids playing football in the street, still laughing and smiling. You'll see hardship, true, but the simple fact is that hardship is universal, as is hope. And there's a lot of hope in the townships.

I can recall sitting down, and talking with a Zulu gentleman whom I met on a walk through the bush (got lost). After an hour's talk, I realised something. Yes, his life was hard, very hard compared to mine. But he still enjoyed it. He still had hope. He couldn't read or write, but he was sending his children to school, and he had great hopes for them growing up, and being successful. His job entailed him getting up at 5AM, walking to a farm, and working until about 6PM. Was it hard? Yes. But he was glad to be working, and while he didn't like his job, he was glad he could walk home to his wife and children, knowing the money in his pocket at the end of the week, his wife would save some, his children would get a little for sweets, a lot would go on the basic neccesities, but he probably would have enough for a few beers with his friends.

He knew he was getting old - soon, he'd be too old to work as he did. But, he hoped, he could keep working long enough to send his kids to college. They were bright kids, and he was very proud of them. After that, he'd try and work a little more - send them some more money if he could. After that, he assumed they'd look after him and his wife, and, personally, I think they would. Families tend to stick together in Africa.


So, yeah, there's hardship. But, please, remember, there is hope. There's always hope.

...There is. Hope has no price. At least we can agree on that.