The fatal flaw of communism. A discussion of economic theory.
- Thread starter Kubanator
- Start date
In General Response to what I have seen so far, I believe that yes, Communism could work without greed, but it is not only necessarily greed that is the problem. Try and find a communist country that didn't force its people to be communist. People don't like tyrannical governments.
To be honest, communism works just fine on a small scale. On a national or global scale it's a cool idea, but unfortunately no more than that.
Still, there are far worse economic models... Objectivism, anyone?
Still, there are far worse economic models... Objectivism, anyone?
What I find interesting is a lot of the people who support communism seem to acknowledge that greed screws it up. Interesting, and true, but (to my view) incompletely worked out.
Greed is a natural part of humanity, a logical outgrowth of the survival instinct. Yes, this doesn't make it good, and I suppose you could make an argument for attempting to remove it (for a very interesting view on this, read John Cottingham's article Impartiality). However, since it arises from who we are, it will never be removed completely. Therefore, wouldn't the most effective system be one that takes this into account?
When it comes to morality, people cannot be wrong. Any system that means we can must come from outside, eg God, aliens, whatever. Natural law vs utilitarianism.
Greed is a natural part of humanity, a logical outgrowth of the survival instinct. Yes, this doesn't make it good, and I suppose you could make an argument for attempting to remove it (for a very interesting view on this, read John Cottingham's article Impartiality). However, since it arises from who we are, it will never be removed completely. Therefore, wouldn't the most effective system be one that takes this into account?
When it comes to morality, people cannot be wrong. Any system that means we can must come from outside, eg God, aliens, whatever. Natural law vs utilitarianism.
One of its tenets is extreme capitalism as an economic model. But I agree it's more a philosophical view than anything else.crazyhaircut94 said:
Isn't Objectivism more based around the philosophy that the universe is as we perceive it, and not like those philosophies where they go on and on about alternate worlds and nothing mattering and all being futile cause this world isn't real?lostclause said:
Case of crossed wires I think. There is that and there is another types of objectivism by an author called Ayn Rand. This objectivism promotes extreme capitalism, extreme liberalism, a night watchmen state and the idea that ability, instead of need, should be the basis of reward (what the OP is putting forward).crazyhaircut94 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
Well, I do believe mostly in capitalism. Your ability, but mostly, what you produce in value, determines how much money you gain.lostclause said:
I do agree with that but I think that extreme capitalism is not good, leading to exploitation if not checked by the government. That is what objectivism advocates, cutting back the government and not allowing them to intervene in the economy.crazyhaircut94 said:
The strive for a Utopian society is implemented by change. Surely change is implemented by consumrism? So, therefore, communism cannot exist without consumerism. Which means that whilst the drive to get to a perfect world is good, healthy, in fact, for a modern society, the fact is we as a race cannot get along with each other for long enough to become a functional, non-warring collective. To get to a perfect world where everyone is equal (which is what communism preaches) we would have to get over Race, Religion and all the other myraid of differences that define us as people.
Basically, it works on paper but not in practice.
Basically, it works on paper but not in practice.
I'm not an extreme capitalist or anarcho-capitalist. The state is needed for some affairs, but only the things that are neccessary and should be available for everyone, regardless of wealth (such as police enforcement).lostclause said:
That is part of what Objectivism advocates, a night watchman state with only the bare essentials of police, military and courts. Personally I think that more is needed from the state. They intervene during times of crisis such as the New Deal, Marshall Aid Plan and, most recently, the bailout. But I do recommend you read Atlas Shrugged if you want to find out more about Objectivism.crazyhaircut94 said:
I've wanted to read that book, but people say it's long and slow. So I'll probably do it if I got enormous time on my hands and nothing to do.lostclause said:
Most Communist states had very little trouble providing enough doctors; there's little evidence to suggest people refused to become them, preferring to take "easier" jobs. Besides, Cuba pays its doctors 50% more than the national average wage, so clearly Communist states can and do pay certain jobs more. Likewise, most Communist states seemed to produce enough scientists, engineers, and so on. There was often poor training and education available and the centralised planning system also stifled innovation, but there doesn't seem to have been a shortage of people willing to do higher-skilled jobs.
Communist government collapsed for a number of reasons. Failing economies were no small part, and the way they reflected very poorly on the government. However, a lot of it comes down to people resenting repression, extensive secret police services, and a feeling that the state's leaders could neither be held accountable nor could people adequately make their preferences felt. People wanted shot of Communism mostly for political freedom, not to earn more.
The failure of Communist economies boils down to centralised planning more than anything else. Whilst useful for directing good attention in certain areas, it was weak in a more general way of reflecting what the country needed and wanted, leading to surpluses in some areas and deficits in others. Central planning can dampen innovation - a bureaucrat who just wants 10,000 washing machines made will naturally tend to be far less interested in thinking about better washing machines being made and providing resources to research them.
* * *
I don't accept this idea that "greed" is somehow Communism's unique weak point.
It is fair to say that if your salary is guaranteed just by meeting some set quota, there is little incentive to do better. However, these are not inherent problems: there is no reason Communism cannot offer bonuses. Indeed, a worker's earnings should reflect their production even under Marxist economics. In essence, they are problems with the way the centralised state implemented policies much more than an intrinsic flaw with Communism itself. Similarly (as mentioned above) Communist states did not seem to have a problem with the amount of skilled workers they could produce, which would suggest people were disinclined to do more difficult jobs even without a much superior wage.
Greed is equally a huge problem with capitalism. We only need look at the recent crash. Greed made workers want huge bonuses for short-term profits, which led to a drive to reduce government regulation and the dismantling of financial safety nets that would have saved the banks when things went downhill. It's greed that creates the Bernie Madoffs, and the credulity of the people who invested in him and his likes. It's greed that leads to the vast disparities in salary, where many struggle from day-to-day where others get more money than they can reasonably do anything with, and that is a major cause of social unrest and unhappiness.
Communist government collapsed for a number of reasons. Failing economies were no small part, and the way they reflected very poorly on the government. However, a lot of it comes down to people resenting repression, extensive secret police services, and a feeling that the state's leaders could neither be held accountable nor could people adequately make their preferences felt. People wanted shot of Communism mostly for political freedom, not to earn more.
The failure of Communist economies boils down to centralised planning more than anything else. Whilst useful for directing good attention in certain areas, it was weak in a more general way of reflecting what the country needed and wanted, leading to surpluses in some areas and deficits in others. Central planning can dampen innovation - a bureaucrat who just wants 10,000 washing machines made will naturally tend to be far less interested in thinking about better washing machines being made and providing resources to research them.
* * *
I don't accept this idea that "greed" is somehow Communism's unique weak point.
It is fair to say that if your salary is guaranteed just by meeting some set quota, there is little incentive to do better. However, these are not inherent problems: there is no reason Communism cannot offer bonuses. Indeed, a worker's earnings should reflect their production even under Marxist economics. In essence, they are problems with the way the centralised state implemented policies much more than an intrinsic flaw with Communism itself. Similarly (as mentioned above) Communist states did not seem to have a problem with the amount of skilled workers they could produce, which would suggest people were disinclined to do more difficult jobs even without a much superior wage.
Greed is equally a huge problem with capitalism. We only need look at the recent crash. Greed made workers want huge bonuses for short-term profits, which led to a drive to reduce government regulation and the dismantling of financial safety nets that would have saved the banks when things went downhill. It's greed that creates the Bernie Madoffs, and the credulity of the people who invested in him and his likes. It's greed that leads to the vast disparities in salary, where many struggle from day-to-day where others get more money than they can reasonably do anything with, and that is a major cause of social unrest and unhappiness.