Refuting the Standard Arguments Against Communism and for Capitalism

Yes, this is indeed a fundamental, inbuilt, incurable glitch in the capitalist system.

 

Some capitalist apologists of course like to try the intellectual ploy of making an artificial distinction between pure capitalism and the current-day incarnation of capitalism which features large corporations. They then proceed to attribute all of the evils of capitalism to corporations, and to attempt to let capitalism per se off the hook. But in point of fact capitalism is an intrinsically flawed system; and a system featuring and dominated by large corporations and monopolies is an inherent, inexorable outworking of capitalism. This is actually one of capitalism's key inbuilt flaws, after all. Capitalism will always deviate from the utopian image of it entertained by its doctrinaire fans, into a system of powerful, sociopathic corporations visiting a host of crimes on workers, the poor, the Third World, and the ecosphere.

Well, capitalism in fact always produces devastating effects via elite capitalist individuals and firms. The idea that you can idealize capitalism into something that's beyond reproach, promote an image of capitalism that you fancifully distance from actually-existing capitalism, i.e. from what capitalism tends to lead to in the real world, from the bad behavior of supposedly bad apple moguls and companies which are actually quite representative of the internal dynamics of capitalism, is patently absurd. And, it's quite hypocritical since pro-capitalists are wont to call communism on the carpet for the appalling history of allegedly communist societies, and these societies weren't even authentic incarnations of the idea of communism! But when it comes to capitalism we're told by them that we can't judge it by its empirical examples! Yes, we seem to have a bit of a double standard here. At any rate, at least authentic communism doesn't have a track record in the real world of failure and the infliction of cruelty on billions of human beings.

Well, sorry pro-capitalists, but the unworkability of actually-existing capitalist systems, their many inwrought faults and inequities remain inescapably problematic for anyone who wishes to defend the idea of capitalism. Squirm as much as you like, you can't evade the congenitally problematic nature of capitalism and still have a lot of explaining to do if you wish to win people with a capacity for critical thinking over to your point of view. Mm-hmm, you've obligated yourselves to take on an arguably impossible intellectual task.

 

Which is why so many of us deplorables don't want to see it started. It's not that we hate people who need charity, but rather we know where you're going with the welfare state and an ever expanding state. Socialism might be coming next, but I highly doubt it. The state you need to create your socialism is 20 trillion in debt. You can't dig your way out of a hole.

 

You can argue that human nature is not hardwired, but you would lose that argument. At least if cognitive science is consulted. The nature vs. nurture debate has come down pretty hard on the side of nature. Human beings are malleable, but not infinitely so. And to try and force them into your Procrustean bed leads to unhappiness and social pathology.

Humans are indeed social animals and like all other social animals need a social hierarchy. One might as well be annoyed by gravity as be annoyed by the hierarchical nature of all human societies. And so one developed in the Soviet Union and the experience of that country (as well as the experiences of Eastern Europe and China) can also be used. Unfortunately, these hierarchies developed without the moderating features slowly and painfully developed over millennia. That's the problem with revolutions: they through the baby out with the bath water.

I am not skeptical of that idea at all. There are indeed more communal societies, notably China. But they too have a hierarchical design. And in such communal societies, the interest of the community does outweigh the interest of the individual.

Unfortunately, this fact makes nonsense of your claim that communist societies would promote "self-actualization." Even you have not purged yourself of the notion that human happiness derives from self-determination, i.e. freedom.

It is possible to argue that man is happier without such freedom, that being part of a collective, i.e. under the discipline of a collective, is preferable. It does have certain attractions.

But you can't argue both: that one can be part of a collective and yet retain freedom for self-actualization. They are contradictory notions.

 

Malarkey. We have plenty of datapoints of the abject, bloody failures of collectivism, with more and more pouring in yearly. The above oft seen unreason from collectivists is analogous to claiming that "if you eat enough feces, you'll live forever, we just haven't found anyone who could eat enough feces before dying to prove it."

I don't give a rat's ass what the raving, discredited, cad Marx had to say about anything, capitalism or other, because he is blessedly long dead and irrelevant even to the left. What I -do- care about are the idiotic things collectivists/statists (and it really is a sorry oatmeal mush of the two) -today- say about the "miserable failings of capitalism and markets" on this forum and elsewhere while typing in world-historical level safety and comfort on the inexpensive net on an inexpensive computer in their climate-controlled house enjoying 10 years of extra lifespan while their children and wives suffer little of the reproductive hazards of the past. The irony is rich beyond belief, and by attempting to quote Marx, you -failed- to dodge it.

Also, Marx did not foresee the transformation of the Industrial Revolution into the service economy revolution where workers today are pampered beyond belief in their idyllic jobs compared to the past. There is no "proletariat" in the West any more, just those who work easy and those who don't work.

What actually happens is that the next generation of irredeemably spoiled, spiritually dead parasites wants more free stuff without putting even a modicum of work in to earn it, and figures Uncle Karl and his progeny is their best chance. They are the first up against the wall by the way in yet another delicious irony, the revolution needs strong backs, not dreaming, effete minds. It's always funny to note what happens to the chattering classes when they get their collectivist fantasies made real. Just another way in which collectivism ends up inevitably eating itself.

The Koestler book I cited was written by a leftist ideologue who IIRC, like Orwell, never disavowed his collectivist bent even though the handwriting of total, repetitive failure was on the wall. I don't recall Koestler ever turning right.

If there's a single lesson we can learn from history, mob rule puts governments directly in the hands of those who control the military, and IMO this reality hasn't changed one iota throughout history. So hoary old assistant professor can sit and create utopian castles in the air from his corner office in the ivory tower all he likes, but it's just another form of glass bead game the unproductive engage in to salve their egos. When the world gets real, Enlightenment property and other rights seated in the individual and the Constitutional Republic granting the wherewithal to defend those rights in concrete ways 1. keeps the wolves at bay, and 2. keeps the innovations pouring out for all, better than any other system.

 

That is the reality. Millions of dead Ukrainians, 10's of millions of dead Chinese Millions of dead Russians. And if your dictatorship of the proletariat isn't supposed to do anything different why have it?

 

You shouldn't be referring to yourself or anyone as "deplorables".

But socialism has been falsely portrayed as a "welfare state" by capitalist propaganda that can't dare face it and deal with it honestly. Now you fell for that propaganda. It's total BS. And the only "ever-expanding state" is that of capitalism. Without expansion, capitalism collapses. Hence, it is not sustainable.

I'm confident it can be handled. Only capitalism can't deal with it. Solutions to the debt and overall economy exist but capitalism fights it because today, "capitalism" is less than 1% and all they want is you money and power.... -all power.

But you really should drop the BS propaganda and address reality, -if you can bring yourself to do so.

 

Your rant illustrates well the practicality of the principle of not bothering to engage one who shows himself to be irretrievable lost in propaganda and unable to discuss with civility.

 

Are you at all familiar with the British Socialist state and it's problems pre Thatcher? And please what is this magic wand socialist are going to wave to get rid of the debt. By 1980 the fromer Soviet Union was an economic basket case.

 

He turned plain wacky, and was also allegedly a serial rapist, therefore I would leave him out of your arguments for your point of view.

 

We don't mind. It comes with the territory of being a vocal conservative. I've been called every name in the book, but deplorables is particularly amusing.

Call it propaganda if you wish. That's just another amusing pejorative.

"capitalism" as in the free market certainly doesn't want to deal with government debt because government is inherently socialist. It's incapable of earning a profit, which is the heart of capitalism. As you wrote, capitalism requires an expansion of resources. Without that, there is nothing to invest your capital in.

It will put up with some, of course, but only that which assists trade. The state is now so bloated that many capitalists no longer desire to carry that particular burden, which is why you see outsourcing.

There is nothing more real than going to work and understanding that if you can't produce a profit, you're not going to be able to buy another pair of blue suede shoes. It's worked for me so far, and that's resulted in being able to go shoe shopping and walk out of the store with a pair of new shoes in exchange for money that I earned as a capitalist.

Now those are my blue suede shoes. They are not your shoes, nor Hillary's shoes, or Joe Stalin's shoes. They are mine. I own them. This is as real as it gets.

 

Actually, lots of what you have said to Kode and Charles is correct...even though I feel more disposed to the arguments Charles and Kode make.

However, there is an element of "I've got mine, screw you" that I hear throughout your presentation...and never quite so loudly as in this short excerpt. It is an element that ought to be considered as carefully as possible.

An inherent part of what you advocate (an essential part of what you advocate) is a devotion to, "I've got mine, screw you." And inherent/essential part of what you advocate is to ignore the differences of abilities of individuals to participate in the dog-eat-dog reality of the predominantly capitalistic system.

Bottom line is that the systems in place in Russia during the early 20th century and in France during the late 18the century bear a lot greater resemblance to the predominantly capitalistic systems of today in what we naively call "the free world."

That portends some possibilities that ought make everyone question whether the discussion being made here by Charles and Kode is not essential for our times.

"I've got my blue suede shoes...and I've got dozens of them...and the fact that you are bare-footed does not mean crap to me"...is not where we want to be!

Just a few random thoughts.

 

I didn't say "screw you". Just the "I've got mine" part is true.

What you're implying is that I have some moral obligation to people who don't have a pair of shoes. I understand the idea, but what can I do? Some kind of welfare, maybe? If so, then get serious and show how welfare has helped people. Not just "we sent a bazillion dollars last year to help starving children" but show the remedy. Pretend to be a doctor who is tasked with treating a vast group of suffering from poverty.

I want to know what good my taxes have done to help people in poverty. I want to know at what point does the medicine no longer need to be taken. So far, it's looking like you're subscribing heroin to combat heroin addiction. We aren't getting fewer poor people, but rather more poor people.

Is the justice system resulting in fewer criminals, or the prison system resulting in fewer prisoners? Is the war on terror creating fewer terrorists? Is the department of education resulting in more intelligent graduates, to the point that we have to keep raising standards so that at least a few people have to take summer school classes?

What the hell are those idiots in government doing with my money? I want results!!!!

what you are doing is saying that all I have to do is trust a completely inept group of people (politicians) to do something that might actually be considered good, despite a very long history of doing the exact opposite.

I certainly am NOT saying to hell with people having shoes. What I am saying is that if you've been trying to fix broken sinks with a hammer for a very long time, only to end up completely destroying the sink, then maybe it's time to call another damn plumber.

And no, you can keep your little red book in your pocket because that has an even worse track record.

 

What we can all do is do our part to help bring into existence a more compassionate and just, i.e. socialist post-capitalist form of society.

This is pretty simplistic.

 

Ah yes, the standard anti-communist historical ignorance and revisionism.

 

Yes, you have been extremely wordy.

You have 200,000,000 failures you did not address. That would be the people murdered by their own communist governments just in the 20th century. Communism has murdered far more than religion.

And you make the usual fundamental mistake of thinking that communism failed in the past because it was not implemented properly, it was the "wrong" type of communism. You think that if you tweak it in just the right way, it will work. That's foolish. It does not matter what you call it, call it communism or Stalinism or socialism or fascism or dictatorship or whatever, its all the same - a group of tyrants who want power and wealth force people to obey.

 

Someone has to govern...and a society has to be governed.

Since you seem to know the correct way to get that done...I have to ask you: Are you a part of the people doing the governing? IF not...why not? Why not make things right?

 

Yes for the average leftist reality is revisionism. Orwell had you boys and girls nailed six ways from Sunday. It's always never mind the dead bodies behind that really big iron or bamboo or whatever curtain, or it's the wrong people in charge. Apparently, it's always the wrong people in charge wrong in almost exactly the same way and pretty much on the same time table thus far the only thing that ever varies is the body count and they refusal to recognize neither they nor anyone else can truly control things the way they think they can.

 

In this debate, there's nothing new under the Sun. Even so, I'll state the obvious.

Humans, despite our flaws and our differences, and despite every imaginable disaster, as a species have managed to populate Earth at a remarkable pace, reaching and inhabiting every nook and cranny of the globe. Everywhere we've gone, we've organized ourselves in various ways, deciding either individually or collectively, peacefully or violently, what works best for our survival.

Our present culmination is a hodgepodge of both Marxist and capitalist mechanisms and principles, although we don't like to admit it. A pure form of either system isn't ideal. When I think of pure capitalism, I think of laizze faire, pre-progressive era capitalism, which had kids in textile factories for 12 hours a day. I think it's safe to say we didn't need to cede total control of the economy to government to improve those conditions. Likewise, China has adopted free market mechanisms into its economy.

 

It's very elegant writing, but it doesn't change a thing.

 

Yes indeed one can be quite elegant and still be dead wrong. The more interesting thing is that as a general rule the first to get shot when a communist regime takes over a country are the more verbose of their erstwhile supporters.

 

Communism in both Russia and China turned against it's citizens.

 

Mhmmm. Thought so. Stick a fork in this particular iteration of the collectivist fantasy. You got nothing.

 

If by "plain wacky" you mean having a penchant for the paranormal, how does this affect his observations in Russia of the failure of collectivism? It doesn't. No idea about the "serial rapist" thing.

But OK, since we are tossing out based strictly on ad hominem, Marx with all his monumental, horrendous personal flaws goes right out the window long before Koestler, so surefine. Nothing Koestler... or Marx... ever said or wrote is to be taken seriously due to their personal failings, fair enough?

 

For starters, what makes you believe that an economic system can cure "sociological ills" ? Those two concepts are wholly separate entities. You seem to be putting forth the notion that a collectivist economy somehow equates to a magical elixir in regards to sociological problems, while in truth, an economic system has no bearing on that issue. Just because society's collective production is put into a pot and shared evenly, has absolutely no bearing on how we interact with our fellow man. If I don't like my neighbor, there is nothing about our collective output being shared evenly that is going to make me see him in a different light.

You seem to be under the impression that you can address the notion of human nature by tying it to "sociological ills", and all of a sudden it is time to move on in the conversation as if that somehow adequately addresses the quintessential flaw in collectivism which IS human nature. The goal of an economic system is to maximize the standard of living within a society. The greater the GDP that emanates from a society, the higher the standard of living within that society. This correlation is blatantly obvious. When you factor in human nature, collectivism is necessarily going to result in less productivity because there is less incentive to produce.

To illustrate this concept, lets say that an average individual, working an average amount of hours, and working moderately hard can earn $100 day for their family. If that individual works 50% longer hours, he can earn $150 for his family. While that individual would obviously rather be home with his kids, that additional $50 for his family is incentive enough to forego that time and work harder. If he and the family next door split their incomes, the additional money he would get from working 50% longer would only be $25, which may in fact be enough to change his calculation of whether working those extra hours is worth foregoing spending more time with his kids. If 10 families split their incomes, putting in 50% more hours would only net his family an additional $5. When you split this between a million families, that extra work provides his family with literally nothing. At that point, there is no incentive whatsoever for that person to put in those extra hours. In a nutshell, this is why extreme collectivism across an entire society will never result in a prosperous society. It very well MAY result in an equal society, but unfortunately the result would be that everyone is equally poor. My example focused on hours worked, but it equally applies to how hard one works, the amount of time and effort put into education etc.

Which is precisely why you have never seen a successful Communist country. You may very well be able to achieve your goal of a non totalitarian Communist government, but you are never going to be able to create a Communist society that thrives economically. The lack of incentive to produce that comes from a highly collectivist arrangement is inescapable. You can eloquently argue all you want on every facet of collectivism that you can imagine, and you can even fantasize any type of "New Communism" that you desire, the reality is that it will never work because of the resulting lack of incentive to produce that comes from a highly collectivist society. The more collectivist your fantasy "New Communism" may be, the less output that will result. The less output that results, the lower the standard of living for your society as a whole. Why anyone would desire a poor society in a quest for equality is beyond logic.