The fatal flaw of communism. A discussion of economic theory.

[pantsoffdanceoff]

Part of the reason I'm only socialist. Whilst I believe in closing the gap between rich and poor, there does need to be some reward for ability and time investment.

Edit: Isnt the OP just talking objectivism? That doesn't work either.

If I may ask, why does the gap between the rich and the poor need to be closed if the rich person worked his way there and the poor person is unlucky/lazy/some other reason. Why should someone else's success be distributed to other when it is that singular persons success?

I'm all giving the destitute of one's country a second chance but whydoes it need to come at the price of a person who doesn't need that second chance?

Appealing to basic humanity here, each person deserves a chance to work and live, supporting themselves. I'm not suggesting that you support someone who doesn't work for their living, they can rot. All I'm saying is that people deserve a basic living standard, above that of sweat shops and labour camps, something is would be considered normal, or even below that, by our standards, not inhuman conditions. If that means CEO's can't take million dollar bonuses then I'm fine with that.

If what you meant by that was something along the lines of take from the highest extreme and give to the lowest extreme, than we are in agreement. I thought you meant more along the lines of "upper middle class" to just "upper lower class", which I really disagree with. Hopefully I got your message right.

 

[Kubanator]

Yeah I thought so. Problem with that is our current system doesn't really do that. Ability is not rewarded often. Researchers are the most able people but are not the richest by any stretch of the imagination.

Henry Ford created a cheap method of transportation for the average person and fed thousands of families. Google created a system which lets millions find what ever information they require. Pharmaceutical companies create medicines which cure millions. The researcher may make a discovery that creates a new generator, but who funds him? The CEO. Without the CEO, the researcher would not exist. Thus the CEO is more valuable than the researcher.

 

[JohnJacobJingle]

There are a couple of issues to address. One of them is that it is difficult to decide what jobs are important and what are not. It various from society to society and time period to time period. For example, in Germany teaching is seen as a valuable, middle-class education. In the US it is seen as either indoctrination or babysitting. I won't get into the debate as to what is valuable in a society, except to say that it is relative and hard to establish without grossly generalizing, and that there is no single utilitarian value that will always work across cultures and time periods. Also...how do you decide who is talented, and what is valuable? Einstein was a horrid postal clerk for a large portion of his life, an itinerant goof-off, any number of writers weren't recognized or valued in their own time and died in poverty. Yet being able to convincingly lie to someone and manipulate their thinking in a courtroom (either to free the guilty or imprison the innocent, both of which are not uncommon by the way) is seen as being a better good than curing disease! And the political power...

As for why communism doesn't work? It depends what you mean by "work." It works for the people at the top VERY well...you do have rich, talented people getting large fortunes....it is just that they are earned by corruption and graft. There IS room for advancement, it is just that it is in very limited sectors of society, and requires cunning and graft and connections.

The big issue is that in order to get people to work, you need to provide one of two things: Activities they want to engage in, or fear of starvation and social degredation. The former almost never happens. The latter does. And communism usually takes fear out of the equation in exchange for political quietism. The result is that people do little work, simply because there is no reason to, and instead they devote their time to corruption, graft and theft in order to feed themselves and their families.

There WAS capitalism in the USSR!!! It was illegal and dangerous, but it was tolerated by the state to keep things going, and people did get rich illicitly, it was just that they did so by Party connections and personal cunning.

In short, don't think of this as something about "values" or "right and wrong." The economy has relatively little to do with either. Most CEOs contribute pretty debatable goods compared to the design teams or engineering departments or factory workers, but are paid more because...well, because they can, and because it is a way of making the company look strong.

In short: Being paid well doesn't equate to doing a useful task, even if we could agree on what that was! It is usually tied in to culture, supply and demand! EMTs get the minimum wage in the US, and non-union teachers get amazingly little. Yet we expect the former to save our lives, and the latter to teach our children and teach them proper behaviour while we work 14 hours a day.

This isn't about morality. Morality wouldn't involve deciding who starves based on what they can do to benefit us. But that seems to be the way it works.

As to the initial poster? Don't worry...if the world goes Communist, you will be at the top of the pile. It was never fair, and it will never be fair. The strong, as you call them, always come out on top. Just strap on a general's uniform, and you will be the one on top, and the unworthy will slave in the Gulags on your behalf. And don't forget...every strong man needs slaves. What is a general without his troops? A messiah without his apostles?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Capitalism fails for almost the exact same reasons. The shirkers want paying us much as the workers.

 

[lostclause]

Henry Ford created a cheap method of transportation for the average person and fed thousands of families. Google created a system which lets millions find what ever information they require. Pharmaceutical companies create medicines which cure millions. The researcher may make a discovery that creates a new generator, but who funds him? The CEO. Without the CEO, the researcher would not exist. Thus the CEO is more valuable than the researcher.

In some cases yes. In others, no. Look at the men that have brought the banks to ruin. Is the success or failure of their businesses due to them? They're still taking bonuses. Ford should have failed in this recession but he didn't because of policies which violate the principles of capitalism. It's not due to his own ability. The bailout is against everything you stand for as well, yet would have certainly ruined the lives of thousands if not millions. Is extreme capitalism worth it? Not really in my view, though I accept others feel differently.

Also, surely the ability is what counts by your argument, not the funds. Thus the researcher is more valuable because the CEO could have come into that money any way without earning it, such as tax fraud, crime, bailout money or inheritance. My ability is negligable, whilst I profit from his simply by benefit of having money. That is not true objectivism, that is a monopoly, a monopoly which means that a man cannot be entitled to the full fruits of his labour. It's not merely a loan, it's demanding a share of his profits which are his by your philosophy. You are being a parasite to another man, not even temporarily but in perpetuity.

If what you meant by that was something along the lines of take from the highest extreme and give to the lowest extreme, than we are in agreement. I thought you meant more along the lines of "upper middle class" to just "upper lower class", which I really disagree with. Hopefully I got your message right.

Yes, you've got it right.

 

[Kubanator]

In some cases yes. In others, no. Look at the men that have brought the banks to ruin. Is the success or failure of their businesses due to them? They're still taking bonuses. Ford should have failed in this recession but he didn't because of policies which violate the principles of capitalism. It's not due to his own ability. The bailout is against everything you stand for as well, yet would have certainly ruined the lives of thousands if not millions. Is extreme capitalism worth it? Not really in my view, though I accept others feel differently.

They don't deserve the bonuses. If they do bad work, they deserve bad pay. As for the bailout, it simply means the government is become an economic entity. Yes it's communist, but it's necessary for the preservation of the economy.

Also, surely the ability is what counts by your argument, not the funds. Thus the researcher is more valuable because the CEO could have come into that money any way without earning it, such as tax fraud, crime, bailout money or inheritance.

The CEO either earned the money or stole it. Inheritance is earned from the parents, bailout money is a loan, and the rest is stealing. If someone decided to give him money, it's because he gave them reason to. If he took money he didn't earn, he stole it, and thus he has less ability than the researcher.

My ability is negligible, whilst I profit from his simply by benefit of having money. That is not true objectivism, that is a monopoly, a monopoly which means that a man cannot be entitled to the full fruits of his labour. It's not merely a loan, it's demanding a share of his profits which are his by your philosophy. You are being a parasite to another man, not even temporarily but in perpetuity.

The work that you do for a corporation are not yours. You are hired to research because you cannot do it alone. You cannot afford to rent a lab, hire researchers, and build prototypes. You need the money of a corporation. A loan. In exchange for this guaranteed money, you have to put effort towards creating something for the corporation. You are trading your future inventions for money now.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Communism can work incredibly well. Family distribution of labor on a farm is an example. On a large scale, it tends to be bad because of the lack of market price signals and poor incentive structure.

 

[lostclause]

My apologies for the late reply.

They don't deserve the bonuses. If they do bad work, they deserve bad pay. As for the bailout, it simply means the government is become an economic entity. Yes it's communist, but it's necessary for the preservation of the economy.

And herein lies the crux of the matter. They don't get bad pay, simply because they hold more shares. Even if the company takes a dive, by no standards can theirs be considered bad pay. Even if they end up just a figurehead, they are set for life. Thus ability doesn't equal reward in these cases.

That fact that you recognise the intervention by the government shows that Objectivist thinking has not totally swayed you. Their philosophy argues that all limits imposed should be released and, except in the cases of criminal activity, governmental interferences in the economy should be non-existent.

The work that you do for a corporation are not yours. You are hired to research because you cannot do it alone. You cannot afford to rent a lab, hire researchers, and build prototypes. You need the money of a corporation. A loan. In exchange for this guaranteed money, you have to put effort towards creating something for the corporation. You are trading your future inventions for money now.

Who can forget the opening scenes of Bioshock. 'Is not a man entitled to the sweat of his own brow?' The best way to make a profit of a popular invention is to take a percentage of it or the whole thing in exchange for your loans. This is totally against objectivist philosophy, as despite making a deal you are essentially asking a man to 'live for [your] sake' (I think that is the quote), mot merely making a trade. If this groundbreaking invention is then taken from you, what is to say you'll have another that the relatively little money you made will fund?

Furthermore, inventions that are not immediately profitable yet have the potential to aid humanity are often overlooked. Would we have the theories of Einstein if he had to continue working as a clerk? I doubt it, yet it is the charity of the government and the university of Zurich which allowed him to work in a manner which seem initially frivilous to those who wish to turn a profit, arguing over the existence of atoms. Pasteur would not have discovered germ theory which would turn out to be most profitable to mankind but which would have appeared wasteful in the industrial revolution. Neither man was rich despite their obviously incredible ability.

The CEO either earned the money or stole it. Inheritance is earned from the parents, bailout money is a loan, and the rest is stealing. If someone decided to give him money, it's because he gave them reason to. If he took money he didn't earn, he stole it, and thus he has less ability than the researcher.

And yet these people come into money out of no personal merit. Out of the nine female billionaires (this number may be out dated), only two are self made (Oprah Winfrey and J K Rowling) which means that seven of them have it through the work of others. Is the lottery of birth sufficient reason for them to have the ability to earn this? Birth is no measure for kingship and I refuse to accept it for this as well.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Communism is the idea that eltism should not exist, for me, anyway.

Also, doctors are overpaid and I would hardly call them "valuable to humanity".
The nurses and GPs do more work.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

If we're talking about fatally flawed systems, objectivist/Libertarian capitalism sure as fuck comes out on top. At least a command economy can hold itself together, and actual communism has that utopic tinge of hope. Pure capitalism is as bleak as the plains of hell and twice as unpleasant to live in.

 

[dantoddd]

I think communism will be necessary once all production becomes automated

 

[Kurokami]

Communism is the idea that if everyone earned equal amounts of money, nobody would be poor/hungry/. There is one major problem. People don't do equal amounts of work. First of all, lets define work.

Work is the product of labour and effectiveness, meaning that the amount of work you do depends on how much you work, and how much your work is valued. Meaning that a doctor does more work than a janitor. Not because a doctors job is harder than a janitors, or that the doctor works more hours, but a doctor is far more useful to humanity than a janitor, and thus he makes more money. This is fair. I am better than you at cooking, thus I become head chef and make more money. Work = Money. They are the same thing, except money is physical.

Thus communism is the idea that even though I am better than you, we are equal. That even though I can design factories, and you can work in them, your work is just as valuable as mine. Communism is unfair. It punishes those with ability, and promotes those with a lack of it. It forces the strong to carry the weak. That's not an act of good. You are taking power from those who deserve it, who earned it, and giving it to every incapable labourer.

The strong will not stand for this. When they realize that their labour doesn't correlate to their reward, they will cease to work. The strong drive the economy forward. It's their minds which keep it moving. If you decide punish them, the economy will cease to move, and the country will fall.

So what you're saying is what I think we all know, the problem with Communism is people. In my view capitalism is the best way to go for humanity, rich screw over the poor, the poor screw over the rich and the poor, they've both got a chance to trade shoes if their determined/lucky enough.

 

[Vuljatar]

If we're talking about fatally flawed systems, objectivist/Libertarian capitalism sure as fuck comes out on top. At least a command economy can hold itself together, and actual communism has that utopic tinge of hope. Pure capitalism is as bleak as the plains of hell and twice as unpleasant to live in.

How so?

 

[PieMaker]

I think communism will be necessary once all production becomes automated

For some reason Wall-E Came to my mind... Ideal Communism?

 

[Dusty Donuts]

People mention Communism is only good on paper, and yes, that has been proved. The problem with communism is that it doesn't encourage innovation. What's the point of creating new-fangled double drink hats when you're just gonna get paid the same for it. Without innovation, there isn't any growth and they stay the same for many years and, even though many other Governments also fail, this one isn't going anywhere fast.

 

[Dele]

If we're talking about fatally flawed systems, objectivist/Libertarian capitalism sure as fuck comes out on top. At least a command economy can hold itself together, and actual communism has that utopic tinge of hope. Pure capitalism is as bleak as the plains of hell and twice as unpleasant to live in.

Please go to Google and put some effort to learning the current situation and history of the command economies. Do people of North Korea have hope? Does Cuba have hope? Command economies cannot sustain themselves without foreign aid or windfall resources from the ground.

 

[SonicKoala]

LOL SOMEONE JUST READ ATLAS SHRUGGED.

First of all, your definition of communism is wrong. Communism is not an idea, it's a system of government, whereby the government allocates societies resources rather than the free market. The idea is that the common workman is less exploitable when there is no incentive to exploit them. The idea actually is "to each his need, from each his ability".

Now communism has been ineffective in reality. Not because the uber-leet philosopher-pirates strike from society and steal back their gold, but because the government isn't nearly as good at allocating resources as the free market is. However, pure (Randian) capitalism has flaws as well, namely because selfishness leads to both efficiency and exploitation, and you get things like destruction of the environment, and child labor. So you add in regulations, and people shout "SOCIALIST! COMMUNIST! WE WON'T STAND FOR IT!". But really, a reasonable balance has shown to be the most effective and I think it will stay that way.

LOL SOMEBODY DOESN'T KNOW WHAT COMMUNISM IS!!

Communism isn't a system of government - true Communism is an economic and social system in which there is NO system of government; no one person or group would allocate resources, it would be decided collectively, according to everyone's needs. People always have that misconception that Communism is a system of government, and it is my duty to slowly inform everybody about this.

 

[Smudge91]

People will work if you have a big repressive regime. Its impressive how it works. I thought we did the communist threads already but anywho my two cents. Communism is ace on paper like others have said. Also the fact that you have to consider the enviroment the communist manifesto was written in, industrial england in the 19th century where workers were pratically surfs again and under the command of the factory owners which could pay or treat their workers how they wished. Today's captialism isn't like that, (i'm taking the British situation as i live here) it is mixed in with ideas of socialism. People have to have a minimum wage(apology for my awful spelling). Don't forget, capitalism has its problems too, at the moment we're right in the middle of one if its biggest. What happens when greedy people get too greedy? The people at the bottom suffer. So regulation on the market wouldn't be a bad thing now would it if it avoided another monster recession. Regulation is partly a socialist idea. Its all whether you choose equality of outcome or equality of chance or something along those lines. Its easy for us to look at anothers economic structure and say well this is whats wrong then look at our own and say oh isn't it grand. Capitalism and communism tend to fail however a mixture of the two isn't a bad thing.
If you managed to understand anything that i wrote and got the jist of it heres a cookie. If you didn't i apologise again for i am incredibly tired and need to do some reading for uni.

 

[Seanchaidh]

If we're talking about fatally flawed systems, objectivist/Libertarian capitalism sure as fuck comes out on top. At least a command economy can hold itself together, and actual communism has that utopic tinge of hope. Pure capitalism is as bleak as the plains of hell and twice as unpleasant to live in.

Please go to Google and put some effort to learning the current situation and history of the command economies. Do people of North Korea have hope? Does Cuba have hope? Command economies cannot sustain themselves without foreign aid or windfall resources from the ground.

I'm pretty sure he's aware of the situation.

 

[Allan53]

Although this is more socialism, I found it a good (and amusing) explanation of why it tends not to work:

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a
single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had
insisted that socialism worked, and that no one would be poor and no one
would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have
an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same
grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first
test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied
hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the
second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even
less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so
they studied little.. The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all
resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone
else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that
socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the
effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away;
no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.
---------------------------------------

Thought it was worth sharing.