Help unravel argument about Communism

[Marty McFly]

In a forum for Harry Potter fans (full of kids who will build the new generation) I am arguing with everyone about why Communism is bad, and my words are falling on deaf ears!!

Here are a few snippets of the conversation: (here I am copying and pasting so don't mind the bad spelling and such)

ME: The Ideal of communism is just not right.

THEM: I think it's quite the opposite! The ideal of communism is almost perfect. It's just impossible with human beings. Communism is just impracticable. Humans are too selfish.

ME: I strongly disagree. the IDEAL of communism is wrong. the whole idea of sharing everything, not having any sense of individual self, not being allowed to live each on his own terms, not being allowed to perue one's own happiness is WRONG!!! Every human being has a RIGHT be alive, to be free, and to be happy - in whichever way he sees fit.

You say Communism will not work because humans are too selfish. If we would not have some "selfishness", some sense of self, how can we understand others? how can one ever feel empathy towards another is he is not "selfish" to begin with?!

I remember when I was a little child and we were going to go on a class trip. Our teacher said to us in a warning speech before we leave: "...and dont be selfish! don't be mean to your classmates! if they cry on the trip, you should help them and not be selfish."

I remember standing up and telling my teacher: "I am very selfish!!! I will reallyb enjoy this trip and I will be nice to everyone and will make sure they are all having a good time, because I am selfish! I cannot enjoy this trip if a classmate of mine is crying. I want to enjoy this trip because i am selfish, and therefore I will not make anyone cry. it depresses ME when others cry."

I remember the teacher looking at me funny. but this is how I feel.

THEM: But look at the Amish. Their way of life is definitely die-hard Christian and socialist. And in my opinion, possibly exemplify what might be interpreted as Christian communist.

I know of no other Christian denomination that could possibly be better at practicing what they preach than the Amish.

Do they desire money? No.

Heck, they don't even desire electricity, telephones, or anything better than a horse and buggy as their primary transportation.

ME: And that, you think, is admireable?

THEM: In this case yes.

Rather than take the easy way and conform to society, they maintain their beliefs despite ridicule (They are famously mocked for their strict pacifism), despite criticism (It is surprising that many who promote capitalist ideals have similar Christian beliefs, but when presented the Amish who live their beliefs that is very similar to what Jesus spoke of, they will redefine the Bible so that it condemns the Amish while supporting their own greed.

Personally if I were a devout follower of the Bible, I would scrutinize the Amish as living examples of God's (and Jesus') Will in relation to Communist thought.

Looking at history, we have the Native Americans who for many tribes, the idea of money was foreign and strange. They had a socialist way of life that many today (in hindsight) view with admiration. Gold may have been pretty but ultimately was of little use. (The Arawaks were slaughtered by Columbus for the sake of that useless stuff for the sake of his greed.)

One must bear in mind that there is a difference between socialism and communism.

THEM: While alien to modern western society socialism (and in some cases what would be termed communism) has long existed in a communal non-ideological sense in "traditional societies" around the world.

Me: socialism is as bad as communism.

THEM: While there have been numerous countries that have been called communist or socialist, there hasn't been any that has actually practiced pure socialism or pure communism.

And among the richest nations, most are those that practice mixed economies with governing bodies that are considered democratic socialist.

more THEM: I pretty much agree. A perfect world would be essentially communist, in my opinion. But I don't particularly like communism because it is completely inapplicable to the real world. To see it through you need someone to be in charge of it, and there you lose the 'everyone is equal' aspect of the theory and leave yourself wide open to dictatorship. But I think many people that advocate communism just want to make the world a better place, and who can argue with that?

more THEM: I don't like the fact of communism, only because it takes away certain rights people deserve. I think it's unfortunate for those who had had this happen to them, because everyone deserves a chance to be different.

more THEM:

Originally Posted by potterposse

I don't like the fact of communism, only because it takes away certain rights people deserve.

Not necessarily

ME: very necessarily. anytime a government controles you rights are taken from you.

everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and persuit of happiness. do you know what this means?

THEM: It would work if people were educated in the appropriate ways first: Nobody learns to be greedy, jealous, etc...

Unfortunately it would seem that in the past only the gouvernements understood their concepts and so had to enforce it.

ME: how sad. enforcing it was very hypocritical of the enforcers. they claim they took away from greed. but then- what's the definition of greed? wanting something that's not yours or you dont deserve! those who originally had it, deserved it, as it was THEIRS. they EARNED it, they worked for it. comes the government, and takes it from them -- greed. the gov TAKES it from them. does the gov deserve it? did the gov WORK for it? no. they just took it. like any common burgler. as a result of greed. the gov's greed.

THEM: Again, you make the mistake of confusing government with economy. Communism is an economic theory. You consistently err with believing that past or current totalitarian regimes are truly communist. They aren't. Just because they call it such doesn't make it so.

"For the people, by the people" is a very socialist phrase.

And people are free to vote in what system they desire.

ME:

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

"For the people, by the people" is a very socialist phrase.

it is also a very capitalistic phrase. think about it. when I invent the refrigerator, for example, I invent it for the people to use. but with what means do I invent it? by the money I get from the people who like the idea and buy it. for the people, by the people.

when I think of a business endevor, I will consider what will be the best 'for the people' what will sell the best.

that means, the people are my dictators. the people. no one else.

but, if the "government" (and lets not get into what kind of 'people' are 'the government') is my boss, and only the gov will pay me for my products - no one else, I will have a much harder time producing what people (the REAL definition of 'people') like and will pay for.

all that I can do is preduce something that "the government" (which will include only a small amout of "people", but NOT every single human in my country) will buy,

not only do I lose out - well I might not really lose out alot, because I can preduce something that the gov will pay for - but who will lose the most?

THE PEOPLE!!

why?

because every person in the street is different from every other person in the street. so if the people in the street are the ones who will buy your product, you will try to cater to them

(which country invented the 30 year mortgage? which country invented the 30 day money bach garentee?) but if it will be the GOV who will pay you, you wouldn't give a dam about the common man in the street.

therefore, 'for the people, by the people' can only be a capitalistic phrase.

THEM:

Originally Posted by MartyMcFly

it is also a very capitalistic phrase. think about it. when I invent the refrigerator, for example, I invent it for the people to use. but with what means do I invent it? by the money I get from the people who like the idea and buy it. for the people, by the people.

Capitalists develop goods and services for one reason; profit. All other considerations are secondary.

ME:

Originally Posted by Wab

Capitalists develop goods and services for one reason; profit. All other considerations are secondary.

Exactly!! and WHO gives them profit? PEOPLE!!!!! ergo: for the people, by the people!

the secondary reasons = are the reasons the capitalistic products are so good; the reasons the capitalist products are so competitavely cheap; the reason the capitalist begs "the people" to buy his product by giving money-back garantees; all derive from that one reason: profit from the people

THEM: You're twisting the definition into a tangent.

Take the arts. In 1949 at the annual composer's meeting, Zhdanov condemns Shostakovich, amongst others, as a formalist (insufficiently wholehearted attitude towards soviet communism). All composers are to compose works with high ideological content, for the people (by the people). The decree was proposed to push the arts towards true communism, to condition a new type of cultural state where everyone was cultured, but of course, how the government wanted it. Anyway, I digress. My point is, the composers were the people, writing for the people. It's a element on communism which isn't focussed on profit, because believe me, the composers, if unfavoured, didn't get any money.

Whilst you may be right in the terms of produce, arguing the statement is capitalist is going onto shaky grounds.

I can paste more of the discussion if you're interested..

Edited November 23, 2006 by Marty McFly

[JMeganSnow]

So, what is your question?

It is always a mistake to try and justify capitalism (or selfishness) on altruist-collectivist grounds, which is essentially what you're doing here. You're agreeing, implicitly, that other people are of primary importance in morality/politics, the only point where you're differing is on what method helps other people the best. Basically, utilitarianism.

However, as any sincere altruist-collectivist will inform you, that's inconsistent and hypocritical. Accepting altruism-collectivism leads logically, not to capitalism, but to communism.

If you're going to argue for capitalism, argue the point that the altruist-collectivist here has given you: people ARE selfish, so any system that doesn't take that into account is doomed to failure. It's at odds with reality. Do they really think the "best" system is one that will invariably disintegrate into bloodshed, starvation, and death?

As for the Amish, they are only able to maintain their lifestyle because the vast majority of the population has not adopted it. Even though they reject so-called "commercial goods", they are nevertheless supported by the enormous commercial society that they have supposedly rejected.

How? By the government that ensures that they have a right to choose their own lifestyle. The government that insures that they can own land and live on it as they choose. The government, that, by the way, is created and maintained by the immensely rich "capitalist" portion of society. Plunk these Amish down in Soviet Russia, which extends their supposed values, by force, over a much larger population, and see how they fare.

Is it, then, a moral ideal to be a hypocrit?

Besides, I think your idealistic friend needs to read some actual books about the Amish and their so-called "benevolent" lifestyle. Maybe then they'll see it for the oppressive/repressive horror that it is. The only saving grace is that they give their children the opportunity to leave when they attain adulthood, although said children are usually too mentally broken-down and emotionally cowed to take advantage of the opportunity.

P.S. When you start a thread, please try to make the title informative as to your intended topic. It makes it easier for everyone to know whether they want to read or reply.

Edited November 23, 2006 by JMeganSnow
Add P.S.

[Marty McFly]

yes, I know that I am using utilitarianism, but how else do I explain why capitalism works to those insufferable Communistic fools?

please don't tell me that these kids are hopeless! what will become of the world if they are?...!

Look, for example, at another argument:

Re: All about communism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wab

For profit from the people. Capitalism doesn't give a damn where the profits come from or how they are derived

that's right, that doesn't change the fact that it will only be the people who will give them the profit. no one else. so if it is the people giving you profit, you will work for them.

Quote:

as evidenced by its love of sweatshops. If it weren't for people reacting against capitalism there would still be kids down mines in Britain.

funnily enough, the capitalistic countries have the least workplaces that are dangerous or pay badly. wonder why? well, free people who have the freedom to choose, and who don't like their working conditions don't go to work! you cannot say that there arn't enough jobs to choose from, or else how do you explain the reason for people flocking to caitalis countries to "make money" and then return to their own socialist countries with their bulging pockets.

there are plenty of jobs one can get if one is willing to work.

the place I worked at had very fair working conditions. true, we had to work our -- off, but we got paid. very few sweatshop oners in the us dare to have hazardous working conditions because they don't want to be sued. and if someone offers me a job where I have to sign a weaver - I simply don't go there.

and guess what? I never agreed with the whole idea of labor unions. this whole union business is so corrupt! I personally never get a job in a unon controlled company. I go to work in places where I know I am getting paid for what I'm worth.

Quote:

Capitalism derives its name from capital, money. The only people it is for are the shareholders.

money is the civilised way of exchanging goods and services. it's the opposite of slave labour. money is for everyone who is willing to make it by working for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

No. You invented it for the sake of greed.

really? do you know the definition of greed?

Greed: n excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves

the need factor might be debateble, but desire for more than one DESERVES. the guy who invented the fridge deserves every penny he made for it. try living without one and you'll see why.

Quote:

The true context of the phrase is in the Gettyburg Address (Lincoln) which ends: and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. (I was a tad off) It had nothing to do with capitalism. (Lincoln was very pro-labor "Labor is prior to, and . . . superior to capital")

It doesn't matter by who it was said and when. as you saw, It can also be said by a very bad controle-freak communist. All I look at is the phrase itself "of the people, by the people" means anyone ANYONE who feels he is capable of running his country is free to run for government, and if the people (every person in the street) likes that government he will vote for him, and the last one "for the people" means that every single person in the country gets what he wants from himself, for himself.

Quote:

The whole idea of communism could never work, the same reason the opposing idea, that of libertarianism, could never work; the human factor.

actually, i did hear of libertarianism. it has something to do with Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, right? I read some of her books (the fiction, of course - Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, We the Living, Anthem [anthem was not the best]) you should also read these books, they are the best fiction I ever read right up there with HP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartyMcFly

funnily enough, the capitalistic countries have the least workplaces that are dangerous or pay badly. wonder why? well, free people who have the freedom to choose, and who don't like their working conditions don't go to work!

Many didn't have any choice in the past. (some still don't today)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartyMcFly

you cannot say that there arn't enough jobs to choose from, or else how do you explain the reason for people flocking to caitalis countries to "make money" and then return to their own socialist countries with their bulging pockets.

Show me where you are getting this info.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartyMcFly

there are plenty of jobs one can get if one is willing to work.

Plenty of minimum wage jobs (Poverty level incomes)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartyMcFly

the place I worked at had very fair working conditions. true, we had to work our -- off, but we got paid. very few sweatshop oners in the us dare to have hazardous working conditions because they don't want to be sued. and if someone offers me a job where I have to sign a weaver - I simply don't go there.

You are truly unlearned in history. Sweatshops don't really exist in the US anymore. (The reference used was from history when sweatshops existed and child labor laws nonexistant)

A lesson:

"I have visited sweatshops, factories, crowded slums. If I could not see it, I could smell it"

---Helen Keller (who converted to socialism upon realizing that most who suffered disabilities came from the poor working class who couldn't afford adequate medical care)

During the Roaring Twenties, corporate monopolies were allowed to flourish within a loosley regulated economy. Herbert Hoover believed firmly in the idea of a free market and the power of big business. "We shall soon with the help of God be within sight of the day when poverty will be banished from the nation."

Irving Fisher, leading US economist in that time, announced that the problem of the business cycle had been solved and that the country had settled on a high plateau of endless prosperity.

Yah...

Then came October 1929. (Stock market crash)

By the time FDR became president in 1933, business excesses, the depression, and the resulting problems of farmers, laborers, blacks (who were hurt most during the prior Wilson Admin, but that's for another thread), women, and others had produced a great uproar of radical idealism. Roosevelt was afraid that without some demonstrable action, this uproar might adversely affect the government. (In a USSR kind of way) To help preserve the system, he pushed through quite the epic of social and regulatory reforms. First came NIRA, the National Industrial Recovery Act gave the government a way to play a more active part in achieving an economic recovery that market forces alone were apparently unable to manage.

In 1935, the supreme Court voided the NIRA and ruled that states couldn't set minimum wage standards. (A continuation of a century old patern of the Supreme Court's defense of business rights over civil or human rights.) This infuriated FDR. Who set to, to break up business trusts, strengthen the regulation of business and financial markets and push through legislation giving stronger guarantees for workers' rights. Programs of public employment were started, and a social safety net installed. (FDR's programs helped create the juggernaut that the US economy is today.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartyMcFly

and guess what? I never agreed with the whole idea of labor unions.

But you are willing to steal his words to justify your own dubious belief.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartyMcFly

the need factor might be debateble, but desire for more than one DESERVES. the guy who invented the fridge deserves every penny he made for it. try living without one and you'll see why.

Incorrrect context. Your words were: when I invent the refrigerator, for example, I invent it for the people to use.

I suppose since you didn't invent...anything., your argument is meaningless.

Again, you argue only for selfishness and greed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartyMcFly

edit: actually, i did hear of libertarianism. it has something to do with Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, right? I read some of her books (the fiction, of course - Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, We the Living, Anthem [anthem was not the best]) you should also read these books, they are the best fiction I ever read right up there with HP

Fiction indeed.

__________________

Edited November 24, 2006 by Marty McFly

[y_feldblum]

Taking the time to study, integrate, and concretize Ayn Rand's philosophy for yourself, before (or, at least, while) trying to prove a very complex system which you only partially know to other people who will only try to trip you up every step of the way, might be productive. While it's fun to debate others over the internet, don't expect to change anybody's mind (because they're actually there to change yours); expect, instead, to learn the opposition's arguments, tactics, and weak points; and test, for your own edification, how well you can overcome them and where you're lacking. It is not your job singlehandedly to change the mind of every adolescent in the country. But it is your job to train your own mind as best you can.

[Marty McFly]

Taking the time to study, integrate, and concretize Ayn Rand's philosophy for yourself, before (or, at least, while) trying to prove a very complex system which you only partially know to other people who will only try to trip you up every step of the way, might be productive. While it's fun to debate others over the internet, don't expect to change anybody's mind (because they're actually there to change yours); expect, instead, to learn the opposition's arguments, tactics, and weak points; and test, for your own edification, how well you can overcome them and where you're lacking. It is not your job singlehandedly to change the mind of every adolescent in the country. But it is your job to train your own mind as best you can.

It worries me tremendously, though. Doesn't it worry you? don't you see what it's doing to sanity? don't you see how the media, and the UN lets the poor miserable, suffering terrorists to attack, but the able countries (the truely free ones) suffer all the blame? doesn't it scare you? it all starts from this!

[KendallJ]

It worries me tremendously, though. Doesn't it worry you? don't you see what it's doing to sanity? don't you see how the media, and the UN lets the poor miserable, suffering terrorists to attack, but the able countries (the truely free ones) suffer all the blame? doesn't it scare you? it all starts from this!

Marty,

I share your concern, and I remember when I first discovered Objectivism. As I started to understand that the state of the world in a lot of ways was as bad as Rand indicated, it got me angry, and got me worried, and got me upset. I've since found a way to deal with it. Not to repress the anger, but to understand cause and effect and my role in the process. A couple of questions.

Take a look at history. How does change in philosophy occur? Slowly, and over the course of decades or centuries. (although I argue in another thread that there is reason to think that this process is accelerating).

Judge the importance and relevance of your actions by their impact. What is the net impact of debating with someone who is not listening to you, or who is so far from your position that he can hardly see where you are coming from? Other than the benefit of clarifying your ideas for yourself, little. Treat it as such.

If you want to make a difference, then think in the long term. Clarify your ideas, and study history a bit to understand how change really happens. My conclusion is that I can be far more effective in spreading ideas if I support ARI, in their mission to get Objectivist philosophers into all the major centers of learning. One Objectivist philosopher at a key school can disseminate ideas much more effectively than you or I ever could debating individuals. Value your time and the advantages of a division of labor society enough to spend it where it counts.

Beyond that think selfishly. I am out here because I love debate and I want to clarify Rands philosophy for myself. If I help someone else in the process then it a bonus.

Yes, it worries me. But I understand cause and effect enough to know the impact I've having with each action I take, and I put that into perspective. As such, I don't "fret" daily. Theres a thread around here on patience where I posit that patience comes from understanding cause and effect, knowing what your actions can do, and what they can't.

[Marty McFly]

Thank you! you clarified many things to me.

first: yes I am just a starter. I've only just discovered Ayn Rand myself and am trying to understand the significence of her "bad" charachters. at first I didn't even believe that they existed, you know? in that way, I was as naive as Roark. I never understood where evil came from. I heard the news, once in a while, I was horrified at the media's concern for the bad guys, but I didn't understand the root of it. now, debating it with (not one, but hundreds of) Harry Potter fans, I see the root!

second: yes, it worries and scares me because I've only now realized it. debating it on the thread with them is for myself. I am trying to alleviate my fears, trying to find SOMEONE, ANYONE who would agree with me that the IDEAL of communism is wrong and evil. the more I argue, the scareder I get, and the more I want to argue. unfortunately, as I am starting to get more and more emotional about it, the less rational I think. I will stop to worry, and start to think. maybe slowly,some day I'll understand why

[KendallJ]

When I first finished Atlas, I thought to myself, "Well, I loved that book, but there's no way the people like the villians really exist." Spent the next five years being shocked at how much worse it really was. Great motivation!

Don't worry, you've found a few of us who believe in the right sorts of ideas...