Communism

Post Reply New Topic

I was a utilitarian who didn't consider the moral significance of redistribution. I didn't for many years after rejecting socialism too. I didn't reject socialism because it was based on theft, I rejected it because it can't work.

Ludwig von Mises, if not a utilitarian, at least made utilitarian arguments in his book, "Human Action".

These days I'm more of a deontologist, but I still make utilitarian arguments so as not to boil everything down to deontology vs utilitarianism.



I hardly have my snout in the trough. I live well below the poverty line.

This, however, has nothing to do with the possibility of communism ever working.

Boiling everything down to greed has blinded you. You have entangled how the economy works, the science, with how it should work. You think all the ills of society are due to greed because some people have everything and others nothing. However, please consider how wealth is created in the first place.

The very act of redistribution destroys wealth and the ability to know how to create it.



Well, again, I live well below the poverty line. My rent is $300 and some months I've been reduced to eating nothing but cheap bread and pasta. However, I'm rational enough to understand that my poverty is not caused by my rich neighbor.

I do agree there is a lot of thieving going on, by the state and its cronies. However, the problem is the state, not the market economy. You may be interested to know that the state does indeed steal from the poor to give to the rich. It is a major reason the working poor can't get ahead. The state punishes every attempt to save one's meager earnings.

All this being said, more money wouldn't make me much happier. Perhaps I could visit the doctor more, eat a little healthier, and buy a new bike. I've come to the realization that these things don't bring much happiness however. I'm content with my frugal lifestyle.

All the will in the world won't protect you from unintended consequences.

All the will in the world won't make Bush's democratic ideals work either.

LBJ started the war on poverty and only made things worse. FDR tried to end the recession and only made things worse. Reagan wages a war on drugs and only made things worse.

Beware of unintended consequences. For all your talk of the sin of greed, let's not forget pride.

You think that there is little resources in the world? The economic system is of human making, there is more than enough resources to go round for everyone to live comfortably iof there was a will to do so. The will under uber-capatilism however is just for everyone to get rich, climb that greasy poll and s**t on everyone on the way up, the truth is though that most rich people are rich by birth.

Any liberties the poor have, have been hard fought by social reformists. The major reason we have any freedoms and relative wealth is to stop the massive rise in crimes of neccesity and a revolution and cull of the rich. It makes sense for these governments to keep the people poor enough to join the army or do menial, low status jobs (yet a lot of these workers live under the poverty line).

You say you are under the poverty line. You really dont think youd be better off in Norway, Iceland or Denmark where even the unemployed live relatively comfortably compared to you. Even in Britain youd be guaranteed a free (paid for in taxes) health service and cheap accomodation for the unemployed.

The haves always want the have less'es to... well have less and play on the major human compulsion to be greedy to keep them in a position of priveledge and there is many that are running for that carrot but why not free the donkey to feed at the vegetable garden as is needed instead of waving the carrot and stick and allowing the few "lottery winners" to reach the carrot and so keep the status quo of most people doing all the donkey work so that the priveledged few fat-cats can continue to eat the cream.

I am not planning on helping them cement their position and call all fair-mided people to join me in a call to arms (figuratively speaking of course) in a democratic communist ( dont be scared of the word, think of what is right comrades)revolution.

To understand how to lift people out of poverty, you first have to understand how wealth is created in the first place. Merely pointing out that wealth exists in certain hands does not explain what, for example, will be the consequence of redistributing it.

If you really wish to understand how the state keeps the poor in a state of poverty, I highly recommend this non-technical book which explains, in part, how this is done:

http://www.mises.org/mysteryofbanking/m ... anking.pdf

It is by no means a refutation of socialism in general. For that I would have to recommend "Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises. It's also available online, but far too large to read online IMHO.

Are you taking the piss? I know how money is generated but the system is man-made and man can also say f**k money, inflation and all the other pigging inventions and fictions that are made up to keep the rich, rich and the ignorant poor just as they are. Stop posting links and use your collective information to form some ideas yourself if you have any. Otherwise you might just be an automated propaganda machine for all i know. Are you just trying to block anyone else with an idea from passing the bridge or something? Is that what it is?

We can produce enough of everything for everyone to live comfortably whether we have a million godamn Bill Gates or just the one. You are another sheep with spoon-fed information that keeps your mind from accepting that which is not in your comfortable little area which is your surrounding little life, maybe you are happy with this drudgery and are glad that you are american poor and not african poor but this system and your lack of will to change will keep you and your peers under the poverty line. Hopefully you'll meet a rich guy that isnt too "nice" for your tastes and the status-quo will work out for you but you're clearly not up for helping yourself.

OK, im sorry i disagreed with your stance on atheism. Im still right but i never realised you'd start irrelivent arguments just to try and get one back on me. It would never cross my mind to behave so immaturely as to act in such a way but now i know not to disagree with you in future or face your wrath. Next time i will stop and remember there is nothing like a woman scorned.

What system are you referring to?



The problem with communism is you don't know what to produce and how. Without the market economy you don't have prices. Prices are not the result of measurable quantities, but rather marginal utility which is wholly subjective. Without prices there is no way to know how scarce goods are or what combinations of higher order goods in production of first order goods will be economic. This is why the USSR set their commodity prices by looking them up in the WSJ. They had absolutely no clue what the prices ought to be, and absolutely no way to function without prices. Like I said before, for the first couple years they did indeed abolish prices, then quickly found out it was impossible to perform economic calculation without them.

I don't care how many rich people you plunder; Communism can't work. It's not a matter of will, it's a matter of causality. If you want the proof, read "Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises (preferably the first or scholar's edition, however the 4th edition is available online). He doesn't take any moral positions. Instead he explains in wertfrei (value-free) scientific reasoning why communism (even your idillic "democratic communism") CAN NOT WORK.

I was reffering to the monetary system.

Earywig Von Misery wouldnt be rich by any chance. If democratic communism doesnt work when tried i will be the first to admit it but it hasnt been tried. The closest iv'e seen to the way id have things is Norway where there is the highest living standard in the world. I dont believe a word you say though, you seem to be against any left-wing policies. Self-serving i can understand, but to have no moral regrets or will to combat this is unforivable.

If this is as good as it gets (as you seem to imply), Then humanity has failed and why should i care any more for someone who is killed via a bomb as opposed to a kid that never had a chance to live in the first place as happens readily in the third world and even to an extent in poor families in the west? I have little sympathy for those who have little sympathy for others. I am not anyone's inferior and will live comfortably and campaign for everyone to ba able to.

The bank-robber is no worse than the businessman in my book, just that their talents lay in different areas and the bankrobbers talent happens to be ilegal robbery as opposed to state-sponsored or 'legal' robbery.

Not by a long shot. In fact, he was effectively barred from teaching positions in Austria due to his views, and after he fled the Third Reich (Nazis didn't appreciate what he had to say, plus he was a jew) he had continual difficulty finding stable employment.

However, this isn't unusual for academics. I think he eventually got tenure at NYU.



Again, communism didn't fail for political reasons. It failed for economic reasons.

The fact that communism doesn't work is not established through political history. Ludwig von Mises published his famous article, "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth," in 1920 which he later expounded on in his book "Socialism" in 1922. Put this in context of the times and you will find his views to be very controversial. Socialism was in vogue and thought to be the way for humanity to move forward while von Mises was saying all forms of socialism including communism would eventually fail. He didn't need to see the USSR fall in the 80s to know it wasn't sustainable on a theoretical basis.

In fact, this is the only basis one can ever know communism can work or not. The reason for this is explained, again, in "Human Action" (which includes most of his prior theoretical work, including "Socialism").



You wish to combat the wrong monster. You don't even understand how wealth is created in the first place, and yet you see fit to redistribute it.



I never said I didn't want to change the world for the better. All I said was communism would change it for the worse.

Communism will make everybody poor. The wealth you seek to redistribute will dissipate and vanish before your eyes. Real productivity will plummet and people will starve.



You have yet to explain your theory as to how poor people are robbed. I can explain mine. Inflation is one method in particular.

It isn't enough to show that some are rich and others are poor. Robbery implies that the rich have become so at the expense of others. It doesn't effect me negatively if my neighbor creates a lo of wealth; quite the opposite.

Your right i dont understand how wealth is created and your poor in materials but rich in mind self clearly understands. BTW if you ever move to New York maybe my rich auntie or uncle could get you to do their gardens and hopefully lift you above the poverty line.

Can I just add that Mises provides an extremely laissez faire view of the economy that isn't accepted by all economists. The Austrian school of economics is an especially capitalist school.
Oh yeah, here is a test to see what your economic view is. http://www.mises.org/quiz.asp?QuizID=5
It has some very long questions but is sort of interesting.

I think that communism is doomed to failure under current systems because it fails to create incentive. Communism can only work under a system with a totalitarian government the likes of which the world has never known. People would have to be purged of many of their sins for a system like that to work. That being said a majority of the population would probably be found unusable due to their various moral weaknesses and individualistic tendencies.

I just don't think that the "invisible hand" of capitalism is perfect or anything. Capitalism will not always run like a well-oiled machine. It has imperfect parts and it sometimes needs a mechanic to bang things out "AKA, the government". Not that the government is perfect but if there is an issue then the government can often make a decision that will work to the benefit of the majority... so long as they aren't being incompetent idiots.

I think it would work, human's have a tendancy to want to learn and create things anyway. Possibly it would need to be guided by force at this stage as people seem to want everything this minute, for themselves without any care or thought for the bigger picture. Id ban capatilism, just long enough until human's learn a sense of moral obligation and to stop being so selfish. I would have free and democratic elections between different communist regimes, much like we have elections between different capatilist regimes in most western countries right now.

Indeed. The human drive to discover new things will not hinder society.

NB: The following is based on a society like the United States.

However, if Communism is ever forced on people without the consent of the majority, there could easily be a revolt against the Communist leadership before there would be any chance for a democratic election. Also, depriving the people a chance to choose their own government (even if it is capitalism) is but restricting political freedom, and will definitely encourage a rebellion.

Selfeshness comes with the culture. The culture will have to slowly change for it to ever work.

Yes your right Nickname, it would need to happen with the free will of the majority or it wont work. I will put my idea of force down to a late night. Of course the governments of the world are masters of spinning things to pretty much tell the majority what to think but the self-serving society we have now has led to major voter apathy so maybe change isnt as far away as conservatives would like to think.

bush is a fascist
id rather have a communist peresendent them him

Last edited by TheViking on 25 Dec 2005, 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't think that Bush is a fascist. However, he is possibly the worst president this country has ever had.