The Fatal Flaw of Communism - by Frank Zappa

[Tero]

I can't see capitalism solving material problems, it is only set up to consume.

And socialism of the past was never voluntary.

We've come to a point where rhe past...other than Easter Island...is useless for predicting the future.

[John_fi_Skye]

I can't see capitalism solving material problems, it is only set up to consume.

And socialism of the past was never voluntary.

We've come to a point where rhe past...other than Easter Island...is useless for predicting the future.

[Seth]

It's not the climate, it's the the 20 billion people that will give you armageddon.

Nature will deal with human overpopulation in the same way it deals with overpopulation of any organism.

That might be unpleasant for individual human beings, but it's not "armageddon" for the planet.

Adapt or die.

[Seth]

I can't see capitalism solving material problems, it is only set up to consume.

And socialism of the past was never voluntary.

We've come to a point where rhe past...other than Easter Island...is useless for predicting the future.

Socialism (which is properly the Marxist evolution to Communism) can never be voluntary unless and until human beings evolve into hive-mind creatures like ants or bees where individual need, interest and instinct are all subordinated to the needs of the collective.

I don't ever see that happening...thank God.

Therefore, since collectivism is not a viable alternative, some form of ordered individualistic system is called for, and Capitalism is the system that keeps right on emerging every single time collectivism falls apart.

I see no reason to mess with success.

[apophenia]

It occurs to me that many of these questions revolve around concepts of what people require (to live, to be happy, to be fulfilled), what they deserve, why they deserve it, and what should be done if these expectations aren't being met. Answers range from socialism, which seems to assert that everyone has a right to roughly the same quality of life, to libertarians and anarchists who believe you only deserve what you can scratch out. I recently participated in a rationalist's walk and talk about the disparity between the 99% who have little, and the 1% who seem to have it all. I found myself talking with a gentleman who assured me that something had to be done about this disparity. He even went so far as to characterize it as a "dangerous disparity", at which I had to ask him what was dangerous about it? I won't bother with further details, but I think there are meta-questions beneath the ideals of individualism, property, the American dream and so forth, which, while core, never get elucidated. Take for example the idea of fairness and inheritance. Persons are generally born into a circumstance for which their range of potential futures for socio-economic status, education, mental ability, physical ability, attractiveness to potential mates and so forth is relatively fixed. If there's one thing nature isn't, it's fair. Yet we insist that people be treated as if they were all created equal. Why? And how do we reconcile the disparity between ideal and truth?

Anyway, I have no answers, but I thought these were some good questions. For what it's worth.

[John_fi_Skye]

That's very interesting, Apophenia, and so much more constructive than some of those balloons posting earlier on.

[PsychoSerenity]

I just wish some person much cleverer than me could come up with a new idea to run the world, because I object to capitalism both in theory and in practice.

I think there are plenty of alternatives which could improve things, ranging from minor adjustments to complete overhauls. The problem is that, to implement any of them, you need amongst the general population a) the knowledge that there is an alternative, and b) the political will to see it implemented.

Ultimately the best way to improve things is better education and communication, which hopefully the internet will provide.

[John_fi_Skye]

I just wish some person much cleverer than me could come up with a new idea to run the world, because I object to capitalism both in theory and in practice.

I think there are plenty of alternatives which could improve things, ranging from minor adjustments to complete overhauls. The problem is that, to implement any of them, you need amongst the general population a) the knowledge that there is an alternative, and b) the political will to see it implemented.

Ultimately the best way to improve things is better education and communication, which hopefully the internet will provide.

Yep - I can see that, and you may well be right, that with relatively minor changes the set-up we have now could be the best possible - given the limitations of our species.

But I'm sure that the genuine idealists in the early, heady days of socialism (as distinct from the political opportunists, who saw the potential for using socialism to their own totalitarian ends) must have seen the ideas they were embracing as a completely different way of running the world - shifting the motivation from selfishness to unselfishness. I just wish there were a way we could capture that same excitement, with a genuinely new way.

[Coito ergo sum]

Capitalism is durable, and works, because it so well matches motivations that are hard-wired into us. Communism doesn't work, because it's at variance with that hard-wiring. Wrong-headed totalitarians tried in various places in the world to make a perverted version of socialism work, but enforced altruism isn't altruism at all - especially when the alleged altruism the populace is required to show is actually used to prop up a despot. So I'm not arguing for a second that we should all become like North Korea.

I just wish some person much cleverer than me could come up with a new idea to run the world, because I object to capitalism both in theory and in practice.

I've asked a number of people this over the years...

What would a non-perverted version of socialism look like? (if there may be many such versions, can you give me one example? Just the basics - thumbnail sketch).

[Coito ergo sum]

I can't see capitalism solving material problems, it is only set up to consume.

And socialism of the past was never voluntary.

We've come to a point where rhe past...other than Easter Island...is useless for predicting the future.

Socialism (which is properly the Marxist evolution to Communism) can never be voluntary unless and until human beings evolve into hive-mind creatures like ants or bees where individual need, interest and instinct are all subordinated to the needs of the collective.

I don't ever see that happening...thank God.

Therefore, since collectivism is not a viable alternative, some form of ordered individualistic system is called for, and Capitalism is the system that keeps right on emerging every single time collectivism falls apart.

I see no reason to mess with success.

One issue with the idea of how great it would be if only people could act not for their own good, but for the good of humanity in general, is that there are about as many opinions about what is good for humanity as their are people. So, what is "good for humanity?" How are disputes over what is good for humanity solved?

Is liberty of the individual good for humanity? How much of that is good? Is freedom of speech good for humanity?

We see in the way communism has been tried that the idea of liberty is subordinated because one a determination has been made as to what is "good for humanity", there can be no dissent. That is what is specifically called for in Marx's writings. You can't have people undermining or subverting what the communist society has determined to be the common good. To undermine and subvert that would be, well, not in the common good, right?

I don't see why people don't see that. It's what Marx wrote, and what every communist society ever tried has implemented.

[John_fi_Skye]

Capitalism is durable, and works, because it so well matches motivations that are hard-wired into us. Communism doesn't work, because it's at variance with that hard-wiring. Wrong-headed totalitarians tried in various places in the world to make a perverted version of socialism work, but enforced altruism isn't altruism at all - especially when the alleged altruism the populace is required to show is actually used to prop up a despot. So I'm not arguing for a second that we should all become like North Korea.

I just wish some person much cleverer than me could come up with a new idea to run the world, because I object to capitalism both in theory and in practice.

I've asked a number of people this over the years...

What would a non-perverted version of socialism look like? (if there may be many such versions, can you give me one example? Just the basics - thumbnail sketch).

To my mind, it would be a world in which every person understood that for the good of everybody (including him/herself), he/she needed to work to the best of his/her ability to do whichever job he/she was good at. So, people who were good at making things would make them. People who were good at driving would drive. People who liked helping young folk could teach. People who were good at making folk laugh could be the entertainers. Those who couldn't do anything more sophisticated than sweeping the streets could sweep the streets - though of course there would be much less litter because everybody would understand the need not to drop it, and because consumerist wrappers would no longer be necessary. Nobody would need to be induced by financial payment to give their best, because everyone would understand that that was the right thing to do, and no-one would ever try to subvert the system. There would be no need for police or armed forces, because everyone would understand how to get on together by pulling together for the good of all. There would be no need for all the apparatus we currently have for buying and selling, since consumerism would be a thing of the past. There would be no need for politics, because everyone would understand that it's fine to be different from one another, as long as everybody's working for the good of all.

And in return for his/her efforts, everyone would have all his/her needs met by society - enough food, warmth, shelter, sanitation, medical care - and nobody would try to take more than their share, or more than they needed, or more than anybody else.

That's it. I do think that as a species we've got some way to go, but I live in hope.

[Coito ergo sum]

Capitalism is durable, and works, because it so well matches motivations that are hard-wired into us. Communism doesn't work, because it's at variance with that hard-wiring. Wrong-headed totalitarians tried in various places in the world to make a perverted version of socialism work, but enforced altruism isn't altruism at all - especially when the alleged altruism the populace is required to show is actually used to prop up a despot. So I'm not arguing for a second that we should all become like North Korea.

I just wish some person much cleverer than me could come up with a new idea to run the world, because I object to capitalism both in theory and in practice.

I've asked a number of people this over the years...

What would a non-perverted version of socialism look like? (if there may be many such versions, can you give me one example? Just the basics - thumbnail sketch).

To my mind, it would be a world in which every person understood that for the good of everybody (including him/herself), he/she needed to work to the best of his/her ability to do whichever job he/she was good at. So, people who were good at making things would make them. People who were good at driving would drive. People who liked helping young folk could teach. People who were good at making folk laugh could be the entertainers. Those who couldn't do anything more sophisticated than sweeping the streets could sweep the streets - though of course there would be much less litter because everybody would understand the need not to drop it, and because consumerist wrappers would no longer be necessary. Nobody would need to be induced by financial payment to give their best, because everyone would understand that that was the right thing to do, and no-one would ever try to subvert the system. There would be no need for police or armed forces, because everyone would understand how to get on together by pulling together for the good of all. There would be no need for all the apparatus we currently have for buying and selling, since consumerism would be a thing of the past. There would be no need for politics, because everyone would understand that it's fine to be different from one another, as long as everybody's working for the good of all.

And in return for his/her efforts, everyone would have all his/her needs met by society - enough food, warmth, shelter, sanitation, medical care - and nobody would try to take more than their share, or more than they needed, or more than anybody else.

That's it. I do think that as a species we've got some way to go, but I live in hope.

I find it very, very, incredibly interesting that you "hope" for that. It's just not something I can get my head around. I'm puzzled, baffled and really trying to grasp this. What you described - you think that sounds like a good place to live? I mean. Maybe this just crystalizes where a lot of differences of opinion on politics fundamentally come from. I think we may have stumbled across something. What you long for, and what you live in hope for, I view as a wish for misery and servitude, drudgery and a desire to trample the dreams of a world of individuals.

Funny that what you see as hopeful, I see as the last line, or one of the last lines (can't remember) of Orwell's 1984. "Picture a boot stamping on a human face, forever." I will have to think on this for a while. But, I do appreciate your candid and direct answer to my question. You may be the first person to actually try to answer that question. Any other time I've posed it to someone advocating communism, I get evasions, statements that there are "many versions" it can come in (but a refusal to describe any), or flat out refusals to answer.

Some of the things that I can't understand about your description, though, are how it would actually work. Maybe you recognize this, but you're dreaming of a fundamental change in reality or something. For instance:

Is there such a thing as an objective "good for humanity" that people can instinctively know? Don't many people think many different things are good for humanity, and that is one of the main reasons for political processes in the first place? I mean - don't Democrats think they are advocating what is good for humanity, but so are Socialists, and Green Party folks? Yet, don't they advocate radically different things?

Is it even possible to just "know" what one is best able to do to contribute to society?j I mean, I didn't even know what I wanted to do when I was 21. What if an individual thinks he's a great poet, when he sucks. Is poetry even a "need?" I think it is, but many people don't.

What if what one is best at conflicts with what society needs? Who determines what contributions are made? There seems to be an unstated assumption that once it all shakes out, all of what is good for society will be done because people will just know what to do and organize themselves.

What about the human need of fulfilling or reaching for one's dreams? Is it "good for humanity" to subordinate one's dream to be a writer (even if other people at the time thinks there is no aptitude there), rather than press on and try to work for it?

Winston Churchill failed sixth grade. He was subsequently defeated in every election for public office until he became Prime Minister at the age of 62. What would have been "good for humanity" for Churchill to do? Sweep the streets? Or, was the fact that he could press on and never quit in doing what he wanted to do "Better for humanity."

I would hate for the world to be a place where people just "know" what they are supposed to do, and then just go and do that. And, for them to be rewarded with only what they "need" - your description of it is bland, uninteresting, uninspiring, and miserable. It reminds me of the "time to make the donuts" commercial that Dunkin Donuts used to use. A middle aged man wakes up at 3am, and goes to his calling of making donuts. "Time to make the donuts" is his mantra.

Thomas Edison's teachers said he was "too stupid to learn anything." He was fired from his first two jobs for being "non-productive." I'd hate to think what the communist society would have made of him. Moreover, what did he do that was "good for humanity" anyway? Wouldn't society have been better off if we just stayed in the 19th century, living mostly agrarian lifestyles, not burning so much energy, and living off the land?

Albert Einstein did not speak until he was 4-years-old and did not read until he was 7. His parents thought he was "sub-normal," and one of his teachers described him as "mentally slow, unsociable, and adrift forever in foolish dreams." He was expelled from school and was refused admittance to the Zurich Polytechnic School. He did eventually learn to speak and read. Even to do a little math.

Anyway - I appreciate, again, your answering the question directly. The above is just my 2 cents, and some inquiries for further explication on the topic. If you choose not to go further on the issue, fair enough. I'm not trying to start a fight. This is simply a topic I find very interesting.

[Seth]

I've asked a number of people this over the years...

What would a non-perverted version of socialism look like?

Libertarianism.

Remove the coercive elements of Socialism and allow people to live free and to give according to their ability based on altruism, charity and rational self-interest and you end up with a society in which people work together collectively, but voluntarily, to provide the benefits of civilization and community where those who participate can take according to their need.

And those who choose not to participate in the collective actions do not get to enjoy the benefit of the labor of others and are thus on their own and must provide for themselves, as is right and just, but at the same time they are not forced to participate in actions that they do not agree with.

[John_fi_Skye]

Yep. Me too. After writing mine earlier (which by the way was entirely off the top of my head, and not the manifesto under which I'm standing at the next general election), I was thinking that, in a very small way, I currently participate in a society which is highly analogous to the society I described earlier: it's called my marriage. Mrs fi_Skye and I don't need to pay each other for services; most of the time, we have little trouble agreeing what's right for our society; we're very different, and are pleased to see each other enjoying different things, but we both appreciate the need to work together for the well-being of our society; she gives to the society unstintingly all the things she's good at, and I hope she thinks I do the same; and from our society each of us takes what he/she needs.

I bet if you'd described a marriage like that to somebody who lived here 200 years ago, you might well have elicted a reaction like, "I find it very, very, incredibly interesting that you "hope" for that. It's just not something I can get my head around. I'm puzzled, baffled and really trying to grasp this. What you described - you think that sounds like a good place to live? " - except in language like that of Jane Austen.

Nice talking to you, Coito ergo sum. Great name, by the way. Descartes - was his libido such that he'd have appreciated the joke, I wonder.

[Rum]

To me left and right translates to societies organised around need or greed. I think which is which is pretty obvious. What we seem to have is somersetting sot of in the middle which swings back and forth between the two depending on prevailing conditions.