The Fatal Flaw of Communism - by Frank Zappa

[Hermit]

...I think western Europe is not "socialism" per se, but mixed economies with greater regulation and greater governmental intervention than the US. But, they are still capitalist, which is the main reason they avoid the problems of real socialist countries, like Venezuela and others.

So 'capitalism' to you is a broad enough church that mixed economies can still be described as 'capitalist', but 'socialism' on the other hand must only be used to describe countries that are "True Socialist" (TM)

You seem to be confusing social democracy with socialism. The central component of socialism and communism is the prohibition of private ownership of the means of production, which is nowhere in evidence in any of the European social democratic nations. Until they nationalise the means of productions, which essentially means expropriating individuals by passing the relevant laws or as the consequence of a revolution, they are capitalist systems with a humanistic coat of paint.

[apophenia]

China failed? Since when? Certainly, a lot of people suffered and/or died along the way, but China is a major power in the modern world. What do you define as failing? Just things you don't like?

[Drewish]

China failed? Since when? Certainly, a lot of people suffered and/or died along the way, but China is a major power in the modern world. What do you define as failing? Just things you don't like?

Apparently the socialists aren't concerned with all the death and abuse that occurred under Communist China, but became upset only when China started going capitalist (and subsequently became a economic power house.) http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/354

[Coito ergo sum]

China failed? Since when? Certainly, a lot of people suffered and/or died along the way, but China is a major power in the modern world. What do you define as failing? Just things you don't like?

Apparently the socialists aren't concerned with all the death and abuse that occurred under Communist China, but became upset only when China started going capitalist (and subsequently became a economic power house.) http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/354

...and subsequently started improving the lot in life of a lot of its people....

[Seth]

...I think western Europe is not "socialism" per se, but mixed economies with greater regulation and greater governmental intervention than the US. But, they are still capitalist, which is the main reason they avoid the problems of real socialist countries, like Venezuela and others.

So 'capitalism' to you is a broad enough church that mixed economies can still be described as 'capitalist', but 'socialism' on the other hand must only be used to describe countries that are "True Socialist" (TM)

You seem to be confusing social democracy with socialism. The central component of socialism and communism is the prohibition of private ownership of the means of production, which is nowhere in evidence in any of the European social democratic nations. Until they nationalise the means of productions, which essentially means expropriating individuals by passing the relevant laws or as the consequence of a revolution, they are capitalist systems with a humanistic coat of paint.

Social democracy is Socialism Lite, nothing more. It's just another attempt to get to the same goal in a different and sneakier way. Social democracy doesn't use the radical rhetoric of Marxism, it has a softer, kinder message: "We're not going to simply kill the bourgeoisie and take what is theirs, we are going to use the Tyranny of the Majority to stealthily steal it from under their noses using the power of the government to regulate the ownership of the means of production into the hands of the workers by giving labor unions more and more power, until the title to the company in it's owners and investors is but a sham and a shell and it is functionally completely in the control of the workers."

That's EXACTLY what Barack Obama did with General Motors. First, the government regulates the industry or company so minutely and completely that those who own it cannot make any real effective decisions about how to be in business, then the government grants labor unions the power to unionize without the approval of a majority of the workers (by using "card check" and other legal manipulations) and then the government begins dictating how much profit the company can make and who is required to share in that profit, then the government declares the company "too big to fail," seizes actual control of it, defrauds the secured bondholders out of their investment, and turns the company over to the workers.

It's an insidious and slow death for Capitalism that Social Democracy has in mind, but it's not fundamentally any different from Marxism in its ultimate goals.

What Social Democracy ACTUALLY is is Liberal Fascism in action. It's exactly what Hitler did to Germany's industry and what Mussolini did to Italy's industry: They took power and then said to the corporations they needed "you will obey us and do whatever the government demands of you, because if you don't, we will shut you down using the regulatory power of government. So long as you do things OUR way, you will be allowed a certain amount of profit on your investment, but only by our permission and subject to revocation if you don't obey us."

And that's what communism in China is trying to do now that hard-line communism has failed.

[John_fi_Skye]

Two-thirds of humanity can't rely on having enough to eat, despite the fact that there is enough to go round.

And that happens to be, universally, the fault of governments, not of capitalism or the free markets.

You see, capitalism and free markets depend for their very existence on the ability of consumers to buy the things that are on offer. Capitalism as an economic model absolutely depends on customers being wealthy enough to purchase products and invest their capital, so it's a false claim to say that capitalism is responsible for the economic plight of the poor.

The poor are created by and for the use of government, usually as political tools or pawns. And the poor are KEPT poor by government because keeping them dependent on government for their very lives enhances government power and control over everyone. This is often as true of governments in capitalist countries as it is in other types of regimes. But government is not capitalism and capitalism is not government. They are two entirely separate and different things that work both for and against each other depending on the circumstances.

Capitalism is not a political or social model, it's an economic model that is used by virtually every government everywhere to one degree or another, even hard-line communist governments, which depend for their power upon capitalism. Even communist governments, you see, cannot exist in the modern world without trading outside their boundaries, and they must perforce trade with capitalists and utilize free markets in order to survive.

The Soviet Union tried the experiment of a closed state socialism economic and political system and it failed miserably. Cuba tried it...failed. Venezuela is trying it...and failing. China tried it...and failed.

Capitalism exists among states just as it does among individuals. The Saudis are monarchists internally, but they are capitalists externally. The Chinese are Communists internally, or were, but they are capitalists externally and now capitalism is "infecting" Chinese communism like a virus and will eventually destroy it, just as it is doing in Cuba and does everywhere else collectivism is put up against free markets and capitalism.

Pish.

[Seth]

Two-thirds of humanity can't rely on having enough to eat, despite the fact that there is enough to go round.

And that happens to be, universally, the fault of governments, not of capitalism or the free markets.

You see, capitalism and free markets depend for their very existence on the ability of consumers to buy the things that are on offer. Capitalism as an economic model absolutely depends on customers being wealthy enough to purchase products and invest their capital, so it's a false claim to say that capitalism is responsible for the economic plight of the poor.

The poor are created by and for the use of government, usually as political tools or pawns. And the poor are KEPT poor by government because keeping them dependent on government for their very lives enhances government power and control over everyone. This is often as true of governments in capitalist countries as it is in other types of regimes. But government is not capitalism and capitalism is not government. They are two entirely separate and different things that work both for and against each other depending on the circumstances.

Capitalism is not a political or social model, it's an economic model that is used by virtually every government everywhere to one degree or another, even hard-line communist governments, which depend for their power upon capitalism. Even communist governments, you see, cannot exist in the modern world without trading outside their boundaries, and they must perforce trade with capitalists and utilize free markets in order to survive.

The Soviet Union tried the experiment of a closed state socialism economic and political system and it failed miserably. Cuba tried it...failed. Venezuela is trying it...and failing. China tried it...and failed.

Capitalism exists among states just as it does among individuals. The Saudis are monarchists internally, but they are capitalists externally. The Chinese are Communists internally, or were, but they are capitalists externally and now capitalism is "infecting" Chinese communism like a virus and will eventually destroy it, just as it is doing in Cuba and does everywhere else collectivism is put up against free markets and capitalism.

Pish.

Tosh to your pish!

[John_fi_Skye]

Two-thirds of humanity can't rely on having enough to eat, despite the fact that there is enough to go round.

And that happens to be, universally, the fault of governments, not of capitalism or the free markets.

You see, capitalism and free markets depend for their very existence on the ability of consumers to buy the things that are on offer. Capitalism as an economic model absolutely depends on customers being wealthy enough to purchase products and invest their capital, so it's a false claim to say that capitalism is responsible for the economic plight of the poor.

The poor are created by and for the use of government, usually as political tools or pawns. And the poor are KEPT poor by government because keeping them dependent on government for their very lives enhances government power and control over everyone. This is often as true of governments in capitalist countries as it is in other types of regimes. But government is not capitalism and capitalism is not government. They are two entirely separate and different things that work both for and against each other depending on the circumstances.

Capitalism is not a political or social model, it's an economic model that is used by virtually every government everywhere to one degree or another, even hard-line communist governments, which depend for their power upon capitalism. Even communist governments, you see, cannot exist in the modern world without trading outside their boundaries, and they must perforce trade with capitalists and utilize free markets in order to survive.

The Soviet Union tried the experiment of a closed state socialism economic and political system and it failed miserably. Cuba tried it...failed. Venezuela is trying it...and failing. China tried it...and failed.

Capitalism exists among states just as it does among individuals. The Saudis are monarchists internally, but they are capitalists externally. The Chinese are Communists internally, or were, but they are capitalists externally and now capitalism is "infecting" Chinese communism like a virus and will eventually destroy it, just as it is doing in Cuba and does everywhere else collectivism is put up against free markets and capitalism.

Pish.

Tosh to your pish!

Pish-tush to your tosh to my pish.

It's great that you've come up to a much more sensible level of discourse, Seth. You make so much more sense now.

[mistermack]

Pointing out the bleeding obvious, that people like to own things, doesn't invalidate socialism, or validate capitalism.
Children have an instinct to say "mine", but wise parents teach them to share.
You can worship the selfish instinct if you like. Run society by pandering to selfishness, and you end up with a great life for the few, and misery for the many.

Pure capitalism ends up with everybody working for the few.
That's why a compromise is best, between capitalism and socialism.

And that's where we were all heading. But it needs a tweak. The super-rich are getting too super-rich.
They need taxing properly, which means international cooperation on taxation of the super-wealthy.

[Seth]

Pointing out the bleeding obvious, that people like to own things, doesn't invalidate socialism, or validate capitalism.

It does exactly that because socialism is all about collectivism and the common ownership of the "means of production," as a step towards the ultimate goal of socialism, which is communism, in which nobody owns anything individually.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That's the mantra of Marxism.

Children have an instinct to say "mine", but wise parents teach them to share.

And yet parents also teach their children, as they grow older, that they are not always required to share what belongs to them, particularly that which the child has labored for (like the money from a lemonade stand) with others, and they may keep and enjoy the fruits of their labor for themselves.

You can worship the selfish instinct if you like. Run society by pandering to selfishness, and you end up with a great life for the few, and misery for the many.

Completely and utterly wrong. It is the very ability in a capitalist free market society of anyone to prosper economically that drives hard work, innovation and progress. In socialist societies, as we see in Greece and other EU nations, socialism fosters dependence on government and quashes individualism and individual achievement, and thus is the greediest and most selfish system that exists. Socialists are not about others, they are about themselves and what they can get from government in greater measure than those that they compete with for government largess and favor.

Socialist societies are about the least possible amount of labor in return for the largest amount of government largess possible, which is seized through naked force by government from others unwillingly.

Capitalist societies are about the least amount of labor in return for the largest amount of profit, which is drawn not from the coercive power of government but from the voluntary associations and agreements of free-market commerce.

Pure capitalism ends up with everybody working for the few.

First, that's utter nonsense, since 70 percent of business in the US are small businesses.

Second, so what? Most people don't want to take the risks of being in business, they would rather work for someone and get a steady paycheck rather than face the enormous risks of trying to start a business, some 90 percent of which fail in the first five years.

Third, in order to serve the complex needs of a complex technological society, the economies of scale demand that large companies exist in order to make the products in sufficient supply. This means that someone has to risk their own money to build such a company. In the case of most corporations, the investors are mostly just average people who buy stocks on the stock market, thereby financing the companies involved. These investors are themselves workers in other businesses who invest some of their disposable income in such investments.

Only capitalism can hope to serve the needs of society because capitalism and free market economics have the necessary built-in control mechanisms (supply and demand) to ensure that consumer needs are met.

That's why a compromise is best, between capitalism and socialism.

There is nothing good about socialism at all. It depends on coercive force, exercised by government, to extract wealth from one group and give it to another group for abstract reasons of "fairness," but in trying to be "fair" to one group, it must inherently be unfair to another. Usually egregiously so, as your next sentence proves. The fruits of the labor of the very rich are still their fruits, and they are entitled to enjoy them, just as the worker is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his labor.

No socialist I have ever met has even tried to rationally defend socialism...ever. The only argument ever put forward is some vague form of the claim "it's just not fair that they are rich and I am not." That's it. There is never, ever an attempt to address the immorality of seizing what belongs to one person through his labor in order to give it to someone who has not performed any labor. It's all about Alinsky-style tactics of evasion, deflection and diversion away from the critical analysis of socialism's claims and into class-warfare rhetoric.

And that's where we were all heading. But it needs a tweak. The super-rich are getting too super-rich.

Pure, unadulterated socialist class-warfare rhetoric based in jealousy, greed, and disrespect for the rights of others.

They need taxing properly, which means international cooperation on taxation of the super-wealthy.

The top one percent of the "super-rich" already pay about 40 percent of the taxes collected in the US.

The bottom 50 percent of the population pay but three percent of the taxes, and are supported by plenty of government entitlement programs at the expense of the top 50 percent, who pay 97 percent.

How much then, exactly, do you consider to be the "fair share" of the tax burden the "super rich" should pay, exactly, and why?

If 40 percent isn't enough, how about 60 percent, or 80 percent, or 99 percent, or would you just prefer to go directly to 100 percent confiscation of their income merely because they happen to be very good at building companies (that employ the other 99 percent) and making money, which they then spread right back around in the economy through consumption and capitalist investment?

Like all socialists, you argue that the rich have "too much" money simply because you don't have as much as they do. Quintessential class-warfare rhetoric and socialist greed and jealousy, without a doubt.

[mistermack]

First, that's utter nonsense, since 70 percent of business in the US are small businesses.

That's possibly your most stupid post ever.
Just think about it for a minute. Surely that's all it needs.

[apophenia]

Well, all this polyticks is too much for my pretty little head. I'm just glad we have a socialized police force — I saw what happens when you privatize that in that Robocop documentary and it ain't pretty.

[Seth]

Well, all this polyticks is too much for my pretty little head. I'm just glad we have a socialized police force — I saw what happens when you privatize that in that Robocop documentary and it ain't pretty.

Er...um...apophenia, I hate to tell you this, but that was a movie...and not a very good one at that. It's not remotely related to reality.

There's nothing wrong with private police forces so long as they are regulated and monitored. Public police forces are far more subject to corruption and abuse because they aren't accountable to a board of directors or investors who stand to lose their entire investment if the corporation is found guilty of malfeasance or fraud.

[Seth]

First, that's utter nonsense, since 70 percent of business in the US are small businesses.

That's possibly your most stupid post ever.
Just think about it for a minute. Surely that's all it needs.

Oh, I know what you mean, I'm just disregarding the idiocy of it all. You implicitly conflate the typical socialist anti-capitalist anti-corporation mantra into this asinine notion that there's something inherently wrong with working for someone else, which is in fact capitalism in action as the worker invests the capital of his skill set in order to generate profits for himself providing work that someone else is willing to pay to have performed.

That most people end up working for someone else rather than themselves is unremarkable and perfectly natural.

After all, in socialism EVERYONE works for the state and not for themselves, and NOBODY gets to enjoy the full fruits of their labor, so what's your complaint?

[Hermit]

Well, all this polyticks is too much for my pretty little head. I'm just glad we have a socialized police force — I saw what happens when you privatize that in that Robocop documentary and it ain't pretty.

Er...um...apophenia, I hate to tell you this, but that was a movie... It's not remotely related to reality.

London to a brick Apophenia was totally unaware of that until you alerted her to the fact. She'll be ever so grateful to you for it.