Why do you Want communism?

People have a tendency to think of things as black or white but the best system will be a pick 'n' mix of all types of governance.

The democratically elected government forms the framework with which capitalism works in. Companies abide by the rule set. It's great for the government to help steer commerce and industry in a direction that's beneficial to society. It's not Communism and neither is it a free for all.

I'd like to think that the government concerns it's self with Transport, Education, Healthcare and Justice. The backbone of a country.

"

faerwin wrote:

Also, look at Cuba, communism is working well over there.

Being from Florida, living here for 26 years... knowing Cubans (One who I stole a pokemon card from in 5th grade). Why is it that every Cuban I've met who has fled Cuba does not speak as kindly of the economic system and the government there as you do?

Why does my close friend, who's father fled Cuba, and who's girlfriend fled Cuba have even more friends who flee the country each year?

Why do thousands of people try to bear the sea for 93 miles in crappy homemade dingy boats risking their lives to live under a terrible Capitalist system?

Why do people who immigrate from Cuba and become citizens vote more right leaning?

"

faerwin wrote:

I'd say capitalism mostly go to the worse part because it empower two things that are awful:
- Money as the most important thing

Economic specialization is the most important thing. Because of this, a system of exchange of the value of human labor for the value of human labor is a very important thing. That's what money is, and it's foolish not to consider it absolutely essential.

Note that economic specialization depends on the exchange of value for value. This is why socialism (aka "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work") can sometimes perform half-assed well if the central planners do an abnormally competent job, but communism (aka "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need") never works — when you erode economic specialization to non-existence, society crumbles back to mono-occuptaional agrarianism... that is, once the looters run out of things to steal.

"

faerwin wrote:

- Gives rights and power to corporations (corporations having rights that preceed human rights is fucked up)

You have my full agreement here. Corporations are a microcosm of the "2+2=5" collectivist ethics I oppose. However, without a government to recognize special privileges for corporations and enforce them upon people against their will, corporations don't exist. I'm not a huge fan of getting into the semantic "capitalism vs corporatism" argument, but I think we can agree corporations aren't laissez-faire.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

CanHasPants wrote:

-People are inherently bad at governing anything
-As such, self governance is preferable when possible, because
—the consequences of failure are mostly internalized, and
—that which is externalized is limited in proximity.
-People become better at governing more complex systems as more people participate; however,
—we are still natural selection’s bitches, and
—any attempt to replace natural selection with central planning increases the magnitude and proximity in which failure is externalized.
-It is important to note that natural selection is foundational to the concepts of individual sovereignty and the free market.

There must be some methodology to the way humans interact, and the most preferable is the one that mitigates the most risk.

Most of us are shitty plumbers. That's why we invented economic specialization, so the few of us who actually have expertise in plumbing can focus on plumbing instead of being dragged down by having to farm. Your argument is absurd once it get to the point of internalizing negative consequences; do we say everyone should snake their own drains just so the raw sewage is their fault, not someone else's? Are you really making this all about blame instead of about results?

Given the existence of economic specialization, it's silly to assume most people would self-govern. Instead, it's natural to assume that experts in the field would provide the service. That's the point, it is indeed a valuable service — if you respect your own property rights, you want rules against their violation enforced by the credible threat of retaliation sufficient to discourage said violation — and because the service is valuable it should be assumed that property owners who are not themselves experts would voluntarily pay the businessmen (and businesswomen) who are. Thus, there should be no need for government to involuntarily tax anyone — if they won't pay, simply don't provide services.

A righteous government has the full and continuous consent of the governed. However, by "governed" it should be understood to mean those whose property is being protected by that government, and not those who violate the right to property of those individuals.

I totally forgot about this. My bad!

I do not disagree with you; however, I do not view the two thoughts as mutually exclusive. Governance and economic specialization are evolutionarily necessitated. People gather together, cooperate and compete, pool resources, protect one another, because it is reproductive to do so. They develop ever more complicated rules as the nature of their interactions increases in complexity. Rules become regionally codified and borders are established; the needs of here are different than the needs of there, and some physical manifestation becomes necessary for a particular ideology to flourish.

[You’ve already covered economic specialization]

All of this is great, so long as the varied systems still compete; competition is natural selection, and natural selection is the God of efficacy. The risk is when any authority attempts to prematurely overthrow natural selection—we’ll do it one day, maybe, but it has to be earned, not declared. No human, no matter how eurodite in their field, has access to perfect information. The greater the authority you assume over another, the greater the risk of externalization of mistakes and consequences. Economic specialization mitigates, but does not eliminate, this. When you possess the authority to make all final determinations for all resources, then you simultaneously possess the greatest amount of externalized risk and the least amount of efficacy—it is impossible for you to express the nuanced needs as effectively as needs-driven competition (capitalism and localization of governance).

The list I outlined is a rubric of sorts, observations made while looking for fundamental truths, to evaluate various institutional standards against. Are property rights good? Well, is ensuring a baseline of cooperation within our competition worth the risk of externalization? With 10 people, maybe not, with 100,000,000 people, better alternative to the Yakuza so definitely yes. Check. Is unrestrained individualism and capitalism a good thing? Probably too much volatility, so probably not. Check. (Deeper than that, but w/e).

I’m sick AF, and I’m already typically bad at maintaining a train of thought for as long as it takes to type it. There’s always more to the idea than I possess the capacity to express (I’m working on that). Pretty sure I’m like autistic or something, so hopefully that was all cohesive and on point ^-^ I feel like I brushed over something important and am going to come back in a day or two all, “damn it,” and stuff. <—(Edit: Figured it out. Will get back to it later)

"

faerwin wrote:

It wasn't so long ago that people worked an insane amount of time in factories under capitalism in extremely bad conditions (often life threatening) for a misery salary. It wasn't that long ago that capitalism used slaves. It got better, so could communism.

It wasn’t that long ago that everything sucked a lot more for everybody, so I don’t know what constant you’re evaluating this against.

"

faerwin wrote:

Do you really think that capitalism would work in China or Russia? no. The rich would just do whatever they want and corrupt politicians and officials to gain a complete monopoly with the exception that the money would all go into their pockets instead of some going to the government.

Capitalism isn’t a system of the rich. What do you think goes down in Russia and China? Every system is of the rich. Old money runs the world, best you can do is support a system that keeps you from getting deaded too quick.

"

faerwin wrote:

Capitalism is even worse because even if you overthrow a corrupt government (either through elections or revolution), the assets belongs to individuals rather than the state and that can't be fixed. Communism at least has a much easier way to having a clean state.

And you are wrong, communism totally has the capacity to get better or worse, just like capitalism. Albeit I'd say capitalism mostly go to the worse part because it empower two things that are awful:

- Money as the most important thing
- Gives rights and power to corporations (corporations having rights that preceed human rights is fucked up)

Communism is supposed to work for the people rather than having people work for it.


Keep in mind that I am NOT defending the joke that was russian or chinese communism, those two were awful and killed millions of their own people through starvation and forced labor.


Also, look at Cuba, communism is working well over there. If it wasn't from the US embargo, it would be a prosperous country.

I can’t even. I just can’t. Everything you say is predicated from observing the chaff floating at the top, zero stirring the pot to see what else comes up. It’s like having a conversation with Buzzfeed headlines given form. Stir the fucking pot. Ask why do we do things the way we do them, observe the nuances and the problems and their solutions. Identify where things don’t work and understand why they don’t work. Wishing starvation, stagnation, and despair upon everybody because you failed to do your due diligence is the most irresponsible thing one could do. You can’t make a better world by getting somebody else to do it, you have to make it yourself. If you cannot, you have no right to demand others do it for you.

Appreciate the sentiment of what communism is supposedly aiming to achieve, sure, but this is the fundamental failure of the ideology. Its implementation eschews individual responsibility. Want to create a real utopia? Accept that there is no such thing as wiping the slate clean and it coming out pretty on the other end. Work with what you’ve got and make your immediate surroundings a better place. Build from there. Think of all the things you could have achieved by now if not for wasting time lamenting over a failed ideology. I am confident in asserting that you have not contributed yet, else you wouldn’t be lamenting.

"

Manocean wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

Also, look at Cuba, communism is working well over there.

Being from Florida, living here for 26 years... knowing Cubans (One who I stole a pokemon card from in 5th grade). Why is it that every Cuban I've met who has fled Cuba does not speak as kindly of the economic system and the government there as you do?

Why does my close friend, who's father fled Cuba, and who's girlfriend fled Cuba have even more friends who flee the country each year?

Why do thousands of people try to bear the sea for 93 miles in crappy homemade dingy boats risking their lives to live under a terrible Capitalist system?

Why do people who immigrate from Cuba and become citizens vote more right leaning?

Because Cuba is a poor country due to the embargo while the US is a rich country. Of course the individual wants to have a better life if possible so it's not rare for them to leave for the US. Look at the distance between Cuba and any country that isn't the US. Look at the population size. Any shipment done cost a fortune and berates the US in case of allied countries.

Still, it's better than when it was essentially a colony of the US and almost all of their resources were being plundered.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

I'd say capitalism mostly go to the worse part because it empower two things that are awful:
- Money as the most important thing

Economic specialization is the most important thing. Because of this, a system of exchange of the value of human labor for the value of human labor is a very important thing. That's what money is, and it's foolish not to consider it absolutely essential.

Note that economic specialization depends on the exchange of value for value. This is why socialism (aka "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work") can sometimes perform half-assed well if the central planners do an abnormally competent job, but communism (aka "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need") never works — when you erode economic specialization to non-existence, society crumbles back to mono-occuptaional agrarianism... that is, once the looters run out of things to steal.

"

faerwin wrote:

- Gives rights and power to corporations (corporations having rights that preceed human rights is fucked up)

You have my full agreement here. Corporations are a microcosm of the "2+2=5" collectivist ethics I oppose. However, without a government to recognize special privileges for corporations and enforce them upon people against their will, corporations don't exist. I'm not a huge fan of getting into the semantic "capitalism vs corporatism" argument, but I think we can agree corporations aren't laissez-faire.

I don't disagree that work specialization (not economic) is extremely valuable for the advancement of technologies and all, and it is true that some form of exchange unit need exist for it to work (aka, money). That wasn't the point I was arguing about.

What I meant is that money become so important that a lot of people are willing to sacrifice others to get more. Just look at all the employers that employs illegal workers knowingly, those that try to maximize profit at the detriment of their employees or their consumers. Look at how fucked up insurances are, medicine, banking, housing and just about everything when it comes to the population that can't truly defend itself against big corporations. These behaviors are made acceptable under capitalism because it's the essence of it. Capitalism empower the individual to the point that only you count. Of course, it's not everyone that think like this, but in business, it's very often the case because ruthless people are the ones that are the most likely to make it to the top because they lack morals and are willing to employ whatever they can to do so.


I really don't see why communism couldn't have a specialized workforce.

"

faerwin wrote:

Spoiler

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

I'd say capitalism mostly go to the worse part because it empower two things that are awful:
- Money as the most important thing

Economic specialization is the most important thing. Because of this, a system of exchange of the value of human labor for the value of human labor is a very important thing. That's what money is, and it's foolish not to consider it absolutely essential.

Note that economic specialization depends on the exchange of value for value. This is why socialism (aka "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work") can sometimes perform half-assed well if the central planners do an abnormally competent job, but communism (aka "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need") never works — when you erode economic specialization to non-existence, society crumbles back to mono-occuptaional agrarianism... that is, once the looters run out of things to steal.

"

faerwin wrote:

- Gives rights and power to corporations (corporations having rights that preceed human rights is fucked up)

You have my full agreement here. Corporations are a microcosm of the "2+2=5" collectivist ethics I oppose. However, without a government to recognize special privileges for corporations and enforce them upon people against their will, corporations don't exist. I'm not a huge fan of getting into the semantic "capitalism vs corporatism" argument, but I think we can agree corporations aren't laissez-faire.

I don't disagree that work specialization (not economic) is extremely valuable

I was going to ask you if you even know what economics means, but I was shocked to discover after googling that the meaning has apparently changed since I was born.

Just a little before I was in high school, there used to be a class called "home economics," often abbreviated home ec. The subject matter of this class (which I didn't take) seemed to be tricks on how to be a more efficient housewife — cooking, cleaning, and parenting more efficiently. I know by the time I was actually old enough to take such a class, it no longer existed; I imagine it was seen as institutional sexism for assuming the adult with the ability to breastfeed would stay sheltered with the young children while the man ventured out to acquire resources for the family. But I digress.

The "ec" in "home ec" was understood then not to refer to finances. Instead, it had to do with the self-assignment of tasks to maximize value. Indeed, in the economics class I actually took in high school, one of the first concepts learned was opportunity cost — for instance, the cost of an individual spending an hour watching television could be framed by what other things could be done with that hour — reading a book, working out, or talking to someone. The outcomes of these tasks all have different values, but because they are not traded on the market they don't have prices.

I come from a scholarly (and linguistic) tradition of understanding money to not be a definitive attribute of economics, but a solution to one of its most fundamental problems. So it surprised me to look up a definition of economics and see "The science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities." To me, economics meant, and means, the science of assigning human time to tasks so as to maximize value. As such, my first reaction to your differentiation between "economic specialization" and "work specialization" was "they're the same thing, goddamn it."

Maybe not anymore. Which makes me sincerely curious how they're teaching "economics" to the kids these days.

"

faerwin wrote:

it is true that some form of exchange unit need exist for [specialization] to work (aka, money). That wasn't the point I was arguing about.

Oh, okay.

"

faerwin wrote:

Capitalism empowers the individual…

Indeed.

"

faerwin wrote:

…to the point that only you count.

Nonsense. You can't maintain "only I count" and economic specialization at the same time. If only I count, then what use have I for the goods and services produced by others? None. Depending on another is tacit admission that the other is valuable to you; she who doesn't properly respect the web of people she's dependant upon risks being cut off from them and forced to endure greater hardship. Sexual reproduction may be the ancient concept that bonds the family, but economic specialization is the concept that bonds community by encouraging even the most self-interested to provide value to others. Which brings us to...

"

faerwin wrote:

I really don't see why communism couldn't have a specialized workforce.

Capitalism works because it starts of by assuming a particular individual is wholely self-interested, then attempts to guide that person to provide value to others. Communism fails, because it assumes precisely the opposite — that the individual is wholely selfless.

It's critical to understand that selflessness and selfishness exist on a spectrum with self-esteem in the middle. A selfish person is willing to accept the sacrifice others; both the wholely selfless and those with self-esteem are not. A selfless person is willing to sacrifice themselves for others; both the wholely selfish and those of self-esteem are not. Now really think about this one: if the wholely selfless and those of self-esteem will not scoop up the rewards of the sacrifice of the selfless, who invariably does? Process of elimination, faerwin. Anyone who tells you selflessness is a virtue, and actually comprehends the totality of their words, wouldn't even flinch if you gave them everything you had and demanded nothing in return. Selflessness is selfishness enabling; the man of self-esteem has no interest in either.

Who the fuck wants communism I'm an arch capitalist meaning no taxes aka no redistribution at all.


Even if you want a road to drive on you pay a toll. Your kids or other pet projects will not be financed by tax payers.

If you need help seek charity.

Economics to me means money management. From taxes, to the operation of business (the money part) and pretty much everything involving money. That's the way I was taught so if you have a different meaning due to different time period/localization (I'm from Quebec), then I can see why there would be some issues here.

"

Nonsense. You can't maintain "only I count" and economic specialization at the same time. If only I count, then what use have I for the goods and services produced by others? None. Depending on another is tacit admission that the other is valuable to you; she who doesn't properly respect the web of people she's dependant upon risks being cut off from them and forced to endure greater hardship. Sexual reproduction may be the ancient concept that bonds the family, but economic specialization is the concept that bonds community by encouraging even the most self-interested to provide value to others. Which brings us to...

Except that it's not how it works. Capitalism is not the search of equitable exchange. It's the search of leverage and "winning" the exchange. The other isn't valuable to you, it's what they do that is valuable, otherwise it's just a cog in a machine that you can take out and replace at any time. This way of seeing others is extremely inhuman and is essentially referring everyone as simple numbers. I'm fairly sure that, as someone that backed Trump, that you didn't like deportation of jobs to China/India at the cost of jobs of americans. Yet, this is something that's hardcore capitalism. The truth is that with industrialization, there's less and less needs for specialized labor because machines can do the same work for cheaper and at a much higher efficiency. The result is the deportation of jobs to wherever cost less. I don't see how you can argue for capitalism if you aren't ok with this side of it. And unless you are in an extremely tight group that have to (as in, no other option) rely on each other for your productions (honestly, I'm not sure such a group still exist today) then no, you can always go find another business/
person that will accept your terms. The advent of the medias and mostly, Internet changed completely the ways an industry could find labor and trade partners. With everyone connected and most barriers gone, the local industry is a thing of the past.

Capitalism used to work because two parties could find a middle ground in which they'd agree at wages. This worked because you'd have a relatively small workforce to pick from and relatively low competition in most things because shipping costs, publicity and other costs associated to long distance sales were cost prohibitive. This isn't the case anymore. Everything can be shipped everywhere. Ads can be seen from (almost) anywhere in the world thanks to the internet and currencies are accepted everywhere. Capitalism, in this situation, is failing horribly. You can see it in the US where more and more of the middle class are dripping into the poor class and less and less of the poor class manage to reach middle class. There's a good reason why the speech of Trump about bringing jobs back was so popular (despite being impossible).

Capitalism isn't working for the middle class in a world market.