Is communism really bad?

Original post by borismor

Yes.

Well then at least we know where you stand. Perhaps you should just observe the discussion between myself and the user above. He seems to have actually read this stuff.

Reply 282

Original post by borismor

Most of them don't even have a clue what this is about!

So you advocate exceptionally simplistic solutions? A trait common to the most disturbing chapters of our history.

Reply 283

Original post by D.R.E

'
Maybe, but I question how far each's ethical standards can be applied to everyone. You can also comment on my musings about 'morals' up there, I'd like to know what you guys think, and how you create your own moral 'codes'.

I reject anything based upon property rights because property, wealth land, you name it has been forcibly established using means that directly contradict concepts such as self ownership etc..etc.. This history of capitalism is the history of the state and coercive force. Unless a libertarian advocates something which wipes the slate then the entire basis of their belief and society is somewhat disingenuous. The same conclusion goes for both scenarios. I was a libertarian, borderline anarcho capitalist because I felt it offered the best results for what I base my moral code on. Namely, the greatest pain and happiness. I like to think I am pragmatic and so, realistically do not currently advocate the obliteration of the market or the state. Merely that the two be balanced equally for the maximum good. It is not utilitarian however, utlimately I would like to see a communist society, but do not believe we have the means to establish one right now. Is this in line with the dialectic? Perhaps, in some abstract way.

Reply 284

D.R.E

13

Original post by Aeolus

I reject anything based upon property rights because property, wealth land, you name it has been forcibly established using means that directly contradict concepts such as self ownership etc..etc.. This history of capitalism is the history of the state and coercive force. Unless a libertarian advocates something which wipes the slate then the entire basis of their belief and society is somewhat disingenuous. The same conclusion goes for both scenarios. I was a libertarian, borderline anarcho capitalist because I felt it offered the best results for what I base my moral code on. Namely, the greatest pain and happiness. I like to think I am pragmatic and so, realistically do not currently advocate the obliteration of the market or the state. Merely that the two be balanced equally for the maximum good. It is not utilitarian however, utlimately I would like to see a communist society, but do not believe we have the means to establish one right now. Is this in line with the dialectic? Perhaps, in some abstract way.

Ah, I understand your view much better now.

It's true that, as you say, property, wealth and such have been established through actions which are obviously contrary to those axioms I mentioned. But as a pragmatist, you must also recognise that any sort of 're-start' of society is unrealistic at best. Opposing the market now is somewhat like God punishing humanity for eternity because of Adam's 'original sin'; yes, property was created through deplorable means, but as you also say, the market economy (with recognition of property) creates the best outcomes for most people.

History has shown numerous times that any attempts to restructure society (and the economy) would need extreme amounts of force, and would lead to multitudes dying.

I agree that the state and the market economy should be balanced equally, insofar as that involves it being involved in activities where it can be proved to as you say, bring about the 'maximum good'. Looking at it empirically, it seems to me that the only way government can achieve 'good' or at least outcomes which are beneficial to the economy and society (and it's individuals), is for it to act as little as possible - particularly with regards to legislation.

A low level of taxation, courts, armed forces, help for the poor - these things are, in my opinion, are the only actions the state can legitimately do to achieve the 'maximum good'.

Reply 285

Original post by D.R.E

Ah, I understand your view much better now.

It's true that, as you say, property, wealth and such have been established through actions which are obviously contrary to those axioms I mentioned. But as a pragmatist, you must also recognise that any sort of 're-start' of society is unrealistic at best. Opposing the market now is somewhat like God punishing humanity for eternity because of Adam's 'original sin'; yes, property was created through deplorable means, but as you also say, the market economy (with recognition of property) creates the best outcomes for most people.

Please don't use that original sin bull****. It is Lord Hysteria feacal matter and I have debunked the comparison at least wice. :p:

It is sensationalist and theatrical, and could be applied to the opposite scenario. That those who are not exceptionally wealthy via the foreceful distribution have to live in original sin :blah:

Trust me such a discussion is not productive at all. The real issue at hand is far more interesting. Could you really be comfortable with such a fundamental flaw in the building blocks of the society you advocate? It would, if anything open it up to exceptional criticism and unrest, especially given the polarising inequality such a system produces.

History has shown numerous times that any attempts to restructure society (and the economy) would need extreme amounts of force, and would lead to multitudes dying.

yet you advocate exactly that? Are you saying that your own restructure would not reslut in such things?

I agree that the state and the market economy should be balanced equally, insofar as that involves it being involved in activities where it can be proved to as you say, bring about the 'maximum good'.

But as we have agreed, morality, and therefore the maximum good are entirely subjective.

Looking at it empirically, it seems to me that the only way government can achieve 'good' or at least outcomes which are beneficial to the economy and society (and it's individuals), is for it to act as little as possible - particularly with regards to legislation.

I disagree, but am running out of time. There is a quote by Andre Gorz in my signature and it summarises why I feel that way. If you ever get the chance I would highly recommend anything by him. :smile:

Reply 286

v-zero

14

Communism is an awful thing. Communism is the exact opposite of what has brought humanity so far. From single-cell organisms to where we are now, it is the strife of every individual to better himself, to be the better man, or woman, that has driven our evolution, culturally and physically. Communism proposes to remove this, to make the peope of earth some homogenous mass, no one man looking beyond his, and his neighbour's basal needs. Communism proposes to turn the human race stale.

No two people should ever be equal.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 287

D.R.E

13

Original post by Aeolus

...

I apologise for using that reference then, I had no idea that was something that Lord Hysteria had mentioned before, but it is still applicable I believe. You are correct, that technically, the opposite scenario is also true, but I question how effective any kind of interventionist state could act to help them out of the generational 'sin' that they are subject to. I'm sure since you used to be libertarian, you know enough economics to realise that state action is usually ineffective and serves to create unintended consequences which, more often than not, affect the very people the original action was supposed to be helping.

I also feel that the notion that society, and by extension, human beings can be said to have flaws is highly questionable. 'Flaws' are comparative judgments, and there is nothing to compare society, and human beings to that is 'not-flawed' to reach such a judgement. I feel that the initial force that created society as we experience it, was morally unjustifiable (to me), but condemning that action is a bit like condemning the entirety of the human race over billions of years for eating meat, something that was entirely necessary for their survival, just because today's society has evolved methods that make that action pointless and arguably 'immoral'.

I'm not advocating any sort of remodeling of society or any type of ideal society. The state is not the same thing as 'civil society', all I'm saying is that the state has very few discernibly beneficial roles within society, and I believe it should be restricted to acting within the remit of those roles. Society existed, and 'functioned' relatively fine without state interventionist policies. If you look at English history for example, you notice that from 1066 onwards, there is gradual progression towards less intrusive government and less moralistic and authoritarian government - the Magna Carta, the Reformation, the English Civil Wars, the Glorious Revolution and the Liberal dominance of the 18th and 19th centuries. All through that, you can also see a trend - the less government, the more fluid society becomes, and as such, some of those problems 'original sin' rectify themselves without a need for state action.

'Good' is a subjective value, as you say, which is why I suggest a limited government which lets individuals try to meet their subjective ends, so long as they do not infringe upon another's self-ownership and property.

I'll look for Andre Gorz, is he an economist?

Reply 288

username133326

16

Original post by Installation

It gives gvts an excuse to take all your stuff, and frankly is usually used as an excuse for totalitarianism

Someone doesn't know the difference between personal property and collective property... :rolleyes:

Reply 289

Oswy

15

Original post by D.R.E

Perhaps, but capitalism was designed by someone before the 'creation' of humanity - it happened as consequence of natural human interaction, and recognition of self-ownership and personal property is a part of that.

...

So now you're invoking God? :tongue:

Facts wise, 'private property' is a relatively recent phenomenon. The scholarship concerned with how humans have lived, at least before before the neolithic revolution and in many instances beyond, tends to acknowledge that all our human ancestors lived as hunter-gathering communities in which there was no sense of private property (at least in terms of land and resources - the sense we're arguing about here). This 'non property' way of life accounts for 99 per cent of our history as a species, so you do yourself no favours by trying to invoke a naturalistic argument, flawed as such arguments are besides that of course. 'Self-ownership' likewise is a specific philosophical position of modern origins. No, recognition of the 'self' is not recognition of 'ownership' of the self, it's not even recognition of 'ownership' as a concept at all.

Reply 290

Barksy

The usual culprit Oswy can type his little essays, but you only have to compare Capitalist country's standards of living with that of Communist states. Need I say more?

As mentioned, the whole reason we have developed into such intellectual animals is because we have evolved thanks to our individual interests (of staying alive etc). Communism seems to ignore the principal of natural thinking and incentives.

Equality isn't always fair, you need to remember that.

Reply 291

Original post by Aeolus

But Rand's philosophy, has a fundamental flaw, like the fundamental flaw in all major capitalist philosophy that is how such a society would be applied. It's all well and goo advocating such noble axioms but the fact remains that the current distribution of wealth and property was established in direct opposition to such rights. So the answer lies either in a complete slate wiping, which would require the abuse of such rights. Or to maintain said distribution that was established in such way. Each outcome means that the basis for a society revolving around such concepts would be entirely disingenuous.

Well a slate wiping from present day to a true capitalist system would merely involve selling off state owned property to the highest bidder. Hardly the bloodbath you describe.

The question is how far do you want to go back in history? I suppose the last major slate wiping in England would have been the Norman conquest almost 1,000 years ago! You are very right in stating that originally someone's property would have been seized to allow a capitalist system to occur, but is this also not the case with a transformation to communism?

Aren't we better discussing how we would go from our present system to capitalism/communism, rather than what happened 100 or 1000 years ago? I think it would be far easier to create a true capitalist system rather than a communist one?

No she discouraged it. See Atlas shurgged for the plane crash episode.

Well as we discussed previously I believe her fiction works are more open to interpretation than her non fiction. Have a look at this and scroll down to the charity question. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=faq_index#obj_q7

Of course it can. She was applying her concepts to what she felt was reality.

Please let's not go into a discussion of what our own "reality" is, this discussion is becoming tiresome enough. :smile:

Reply 292

Original post by arabcnesbit

Well a slate wiping from present day to a true capitalist system would merely involve selling off state owned property to the highest bidder. Hardly the bloodbath you describe.

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. The entire distribution of substantial 'private' wealth and property has happened in collusion and with assistance of the state. So what would happen about that?

The question is how far do you want to go back in history? I suppose the last major slate wiping in England would have been the Norman conquest almost 1,000 years ago!

Urgh, and here was me thinking I was having an intellectual discussion. I think its time I just stopped visiting this site.

Aren't we better discussing how we would go from our present system to capitalism/communism, rather than what happened 100 or 1000 years ago? I think it would be far easier to create a true capitalist system rather than a communist one?

You don't get to advocate your faux-noble objectivist axioms without taking the past into account. Though the Orwellian elimination of a history that threatens and undermines your vision is not a surprising move from such a simplistic ideology,.

Well as we discussed previously I believe her fiction works are more open to interpretation than her non fiction. Have a look at this and scroll down to the charity question. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=faq_index#obj_q7

I didn't think you had read it. :biggrin:

I got the distinct impression you're knowledge of Rand's work was composed of internet soundbites.

Please let's not go into a discussion of what our own "reality" is, this discussion is becoming tiresome enough. :smile:

This doesn't apply to what I said at all. Perhaps we should end it here, you can observe the discussion I am having with Dre if you like? he actually knows what he, and what I am talking about. :sigh:

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 293

Original post by Aeolus

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. The entire distribution of substantial 'private' wealth and property has happened in collusion and with assistance of the state. So what would happen about that?

Why would anything need to happen about that? The state sets the laws by which property transactions occur and protects the rights to private ownership so obviously it's with the assistance of the state, so what's your point? The laws of ownership would not change, just a gradual selling off of state owned assets.

Urgh, and here was me thinking I was having an intellectual discussion. I think its time I just stopped visiting this site.

I know how you feel.

You don't get to advocate your faux-noble objectivist axioms without taking the past into account. Though the Orwellian elimination of a history that threatens and undermines your vision is not a surprising move from such a simplistic ideology,.

I never said they were my objectivist views, merely that your understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy is incorrect. I think you'll find that history is very kind to capitalism, not so sure that communism comes out very favourably. What part of history would you like to discuss? The simplest ideas are always the most powerful.

I didn't think you had read it. :biggrin:

I got the distinct impression you're knowledge of Rand's work was composed of internet soundbites.

I never said I had read Atlas Shrugged, I apologise if I gave this impression. I thought I was clear that I prefer non fiction as I said this twice? I have read "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". If you would like to discuss these, feel free? The link was to show you were incorrect about your assumption that Ayn Rand discouraged charity.

This doesn't apply to what I said at all. Perhaps we should end it here, you can observe the discussion I am having with Dre if you like? he actually knows what he, and what I am talking about. :sigh:

You said "She was applying her concepts to what she felt was reality."

If you were not suggesting that her reality wasn't the "true reality" that you see, then please tell me what you meant?

Strangely enough, very little of what you say seems to relate to reality.

Good day.

Reply 294

Astonix

14

For something to be bad, there would have to be a good. Considering there is no such thing as good or bad, just man-made morals heavily dependent on that specific culture, communism can't be bad just like capitalism can't be good, and vice versa.

It totally depends on the society of the given country as to whether which political ideology is good, or bad. This will be based upon the needs and desires of this society.

Reply 295

Original post by arabcnesbit

Why would anything need to happen about that? The state sets the laws by which property transactions occur and protects the rights to private ownership so obviously it's with the assistance of the state, so what's your point? The laws of ownership would not change, just a gradual selling off of state owned assets.

Are you seriously suggesting that the distribution of private property has been done in accordance with the type of axioms a libertarian would agree with.

(I can't believe I am having to simplify this point for you to understand)

I never said they were my objectivist views, merely that your understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy is incorrect. I think you'll find that history is very kind to capitalism, not so sure that communism comes out very favourably. What part of history would you like to discuss? The simplest ideas are always the most powerful.

Let's discuss the emergence of liberal capitalism in Europe. I would like to know how you think it happened, and then we can link it to my above point about how the state, capitalism and the market have always been one and the same. (Unfortunately for you this is not a discussion you can fuel with blog snippets)

I never said I had read Atlas Shrugged, I apologise if I gave this impression. I thought I was clear that I prefer non fiction as I said this twice? I have read "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". If you would like to discuss these, feel free? The link was to show you were incorrect about your assumption that Ayn Rand discouraged charity.

Well then I suggest you actually read a bit more Rand before entering a discussion about concepts you are evidently not familiar with. Atlas Shrugged is a central tenet in Objectivist philosophy and provides Rands opinions of how the concepts she believed in would be applied. For you to enter a thread and start accusing others of not knowing what Rand was talking about without actually reading her work says alot about you, and why this little exchange is so frustrating.

You said "She was applying her concepts to what she felt was reality."

If you were not suggesting that her reality wasn't the "true reality" that you see, then please tell me what you meant?
.

You are just embarrasing yourself now. This wasn't any prompt to discuss what reality is. But then again, given you rather dim replies so far, I am hardly surprised you lack the capability to comprehend these pretty simple things I am talking about.

Reply 296

Original post by Aeolus

Are you seriously suggesting that the distribution of private property has been done in accordance with the type of axioms a libertarian would agree with.

(I can't believe I am having to simplify this point for you to understand)

You are really starting to bore me now. You really need to start taking the time to READ, UNDERSTAND and then either AGREE or DISAGREE with the point made by another post. THEN you present your argument for why you AGREE or DISAGREE with the point made. You simply do not ignore the previous point or points made and then go off on a random tangent in order to avoid the questions posted. You also don't throw silly insults to try and disguise the fact that you can't or won't address the previous points made.

This is how sensible people have discussions, the fact that I have to explain this to you makes me cringe in embarrassment for you.

This in short is PATHETIC.

Never once did I state that the distribution of property has been done in a libertarian way. Not once. In fact if you READ my previous posts where I said the complete opposite of this, you may not have humiliated yourself once again.

The point I made VERY SIMPLY, in order for you to understand, is that where we are heading is far more important than where we have been. You don't have to have a slate wiping in order for a capitalist system to appear. You don't have to "undo" past crimes.

Let's discuss the emergence of liberal capitalism in Europe. I would like to know how you think it happened, and then we can link it to my above point about how the state, capitalism and the market have always been one and the same. (Unfortunately for you this is not a discussion you can fuel with blog snippets)

This is the point, you can't discuss anything with you because you don't listen. At least Oswy listens to your viewpoint, understands it, then counteracts it. Like most intelligent, sensible people do.

How far would you like to go back? Countries have been trading with each other in Europe since the middle ages. I suppose you can say Holland was the first "mostly" capitalist country in Europe but It wasn't some overnight occurrence. It was a gradual process from feudalism into what has come to be known as capitalism.

Another point you failed to understand of mine was that we haven't had a Capitalist nation. A fundamentally capitalist state in which there has been no forced taxation and no state spending, other than to protect individual's rights has never existed.

P.s. The internet blog, or whatever it was, showed a quote from an interview with Rand herself saying exactly what her view on charity was, that is why I included it. Usually primary evidence is considered more valuable than the ramblings of a Pseudo- Communist troll, but in your world, perhaps this isn't the case?

Well then I suggest you actually read a bit more Rand before entering a discussion about concepts you are evidently not familiar with. Atlas Shrugged is a central tenet in Objectivist philosophy and provides Rands opinions of how the concepts she believed in would be applied. For you to enter a thread and start accusing others of not knowing what Rand was talking about without actually reading her work says alot about you, and why this little exchange is so frustrating.

So how much Rand should I have to read before you class me as worthy enough to have a discussion with? I have read the two books which most clearly and emphatically lay out her ideology/philosophy. Also the two books I read were published considerably later than Atlas shrugged, explaining exactly what her views are.

Another point I made, that you chose to ignore, was that non-fiction is far less open to interpretation than fiction and so is a far more reliable source of evidence to base your opinions on.

You are just embarrasing yourself now. This wasn't any prompt to discuss what reality is. But then again, given you rather dim replies so far, I am hardly surprised you lack the capability to comprehend these pretty simple things I am talking about.

Well done. Yet another example of refusing to answer a direct question and instead throwing in another lame insult. You really need to learn some new tricks for covering up your ignorance because your current techniques usually become obsolete in nursery.

No doubt you'll respond with another post about how stupid I am and how I am failing to grasp whatever ramblings you've spouted from "Communism For Dummies".

I'm a generous soul though, so I will try and give you some helpful advice.

Avoid pathetic insults. They always reflect worse on the provider.

Try to see things from the other person's point of view. This way you can present your arguments much more clearly to them and are more likely to convince them of your viewpoint.

Take the time to read what your partner/partners in the discussion have said and if you don't understand what they mean, either do some research or ask them.

Admit when you're wrong or mistaken otherwise you only humiliate yourself with your vague, pathetic responses.

If you feel you can keep to these guidelines then I look forward to further discussion with you. If, as I suspect you can't, well I feel very sorry for you and for the life you must have.

Have a good weekend.

Reply 297

Original post by arabcnesbit

Never once did I state that the distribution of property has been done in a libertarian way.

Ok, the rest of that unlettered rant was near enough incomprehensible but I managed to salvage something that takes us forward ever so slightly. :sigh:

My initial point was that Libertarians are screwed whether they do or whether they don't. If they don't wipe the slate clean then they still have a society in which the distribution of practically everything was done so via means directly in contrast with lib ideology making the entire project entirely disingenuous. Simply selling of state owned property does nothing for this, in fact it has little to no effect whatsoever (Which is a point I made numerous times and which you evidently lacked the capability to understand.). However, if they do wipe the slate clean it will be via the same means....

So, do you see my point? I think if I was to simplify any further I would have to put it in bullet points.

This is the point, you can't discuss anything with you because you don't listen. At least Oswy listens to your viewpoint, understands it, then counteracts it. Like most intelligent, sensible people do.

How far would you like to go back? Countries have been trading with each other in Europe since the middle ages. I suppose you can say Holland was the first "mostly" capitalist country in Europe but It wasn't some overnight occurrence. It was a gradual process from feudalism into what has come to be known as capitalism.

Ok... you're getting warmer. Do you know what the biggest enabling factor was in the emergence of liberal capitalism in Holland? Simon Schama covers it quite extensively if you want to read something substantial about it?

Another point you failed to understand of mine was that we haven't had a Capitalist nation. A fundamentally capitalist state in which there has been no forced taxation and no state spending, other than to protect individual's rights has never existed.

But we have had a communist one according to you? :laugh:

This just gets better and better.

more valuable than the ramblings of a Pseudo- Communist troll, but in your world, perhaps this isn't the case?

This from the guy who enters discussion threads pretending to be a well-read authority on something without even having read it. You epitomise what is wrong with internet discussion. Thousands of idiots who read a wikipedia page and then decide they are an expert. :rofl:

So how much Rand should I have to read before you class me as worthy enough to have a discussion with? I have read the two books which most clearly and emphatically lay out her ideology/philosophy. Also the two books I read were published considerably later than Atlas shrugged, explaining exactly what her views are.

I seriously doubt you have actually read those books. Make of that what you will.

Try to see things from the other person's point of view.

In your case that would require me banging my head very very hard against the wall. That is something I am not prepared to do.

Admit when you're wrong or mistaken otherwise you only humiliate yourself with your vague, pathetic responses.

This however is good advice.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 298