The Fatal Flaw of Communism - by Frank Zappa

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It won't matter if the population stabilises if it's consumption of resources doesn't.

And also I'm very wary of predictions regarding population growth slowing. Even if most people around the world start to have less kids, it only takes a few people still having large broods to eventually screw everything up - just as long as they culturally pass-on to at least a few of their offspring the tendency to have large broods themselves. Eventually 'big breeders' become the majority again.

...Like I said, read Mark Stevenson's book...

I tend not to read 'polemic' books by individuals on sociopolitical subjects ( particularly regarding "the future") - as they nearly always turn out to be a lot of highly subjective dross built on cherry-picked evidence.

Plus I can't think of a single such book from decades past that doesn't (at least in places or by it's omissions) look silly now that we've actually arrived at the "future".

Smacks of, "I already know what's going to be in the book, so there's no reason for me to read it to dismiss it!" C'mon, I thought you were better than that.

Although it passes itself off as a book about "teh futurz" - an admitted marketing ploy! - it is actually an account of the ways in which technology that exists right now is being developed to combat the major problems facing the planet, coupled with sourced data on social trends that show that, far from becoming a worse place to live, almost every aspect of life has improved alongside advances in technology.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...Smacks of, "I already know what's going to be in the book, so there's no reason for me to read it...

I don't know what's in the book. I don't know what's in any number of books. That doesn't mean I walk in to a bookshop and just buy the first 5 things I happen to lay my hands on.

I'm just rightly judicious about what I spend my time (and money!) on.

...coupled with sourced data on social trends...

'Trends' huh? Tricky things.

...far from becoming a worse place to live, almost every aspect of life has improved alongside advances in technology.

If that were true than it's been true for a while - and yet I can't help noticing things are generally a bit shitter right now than they where, say, a decade ago.

The problem at least partly lies with the words "every aspect". Life has far too many "aspects" for any one theorist or polemicist to possibly factor in.

[Pappa]

Oh, and those ancient, egalitarian societies that you speak of... Did they have no kings? Chieftains? Elders? Wise men? Shamen? High priests? Anointed ones? nobody at all that ruled the roost, made sure that they got theirs before anyone else and decided how much could be spared for the cesspit diggers and mammoth flayers?

Thought not...

Prior to agriculture even the specialists and elders wouldn't have amassed much more than everybody else. Nobody held enough power to "rule the roost" because it was so easy for people to vote with their feet and just go live somewhere else.

[John_fi_Skye]

Nonsense. Throughout the vast majority of our evolution we lived in mostly egalitarian communities. The rampant consumerism we have today is a very modern occurrence and is driven mainly by status anxiety from living in a system that promises us a fair share as long as we keep competing, yet rarely delivers. And there have been plenty of psychology studies that show that what makes people happy simply isn't having more stuff, even if they don't know it.

I really like your disclaimer. Likewise, I've been told many times in the past that I was talking nonsense. And sometimes I was, and sometimes I wasn't. And this time, I wasn't.

[John_fi_Skye]

Nonsense. Throughout the vast majority of our evolution we lived in mostly egalitarian communities. The rampant consumerism we have today is a very modern occurrence and is driven mainly by status anxiety from living in a system that promises us a fair share as long as we keep competing, yet rarely delivers. And there have been plenty of psychology studies that show that what makes people happy simply isn't having more stuff, even if they don't know it.

Nonsense. "Egalitarian communities"? Surely, you jest. People used to be legally allowed to own other people for Christ's sake.

The "rampant consumerism" we have today is made possible by increased efficiency in manufacturing, production, and transport processes which are in turn made possible by modern technology, specialization, advanced education.

People have always liked "stuff". Our love of stuff hasn't increased, our ability produce it and buy it has.

[John_fi_Skye]

It's human nature, isn't it? Acquisitiveness is so strongly hard-wired into us that communism sadly has no chance.

I wonder if you can explain something to me. Why "sadly?" What would be good about a communist society?

As a society, we may intellectualise about altruism being a Good Thing; but a species, we find it very hard to practise. If suddenly 6,999,999,999 of us became communists, the one capitalist who was left would have us all converted back in a year or two.

And, how is communism altruistic?

"To each according to his need" (ie not "to each as much as he can amass for himself by investing his capital to bring back the maximum possible dividend"; "from each according to his ability" (ie not "a fair day's wage for a fair day's work".) It's sad that we can't be motivated by the good of humanity, rather than by the impetus to feather our own respective nests. If we could, the world wouldn't be heading for environmental armageddon, there wouldn't be credit crunches or recessions, and if we also extirpated all religions while we were about it there wouldn't be any wars.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh, and those ancient, egalitarian societies that you speak of... Did they have no kings? Chieftains? Elders? Wise men? Shamen? High priests? Anointed ones? nobody at all that ruled the roost, made sure that they got theirs before anyone else and decided how much could be spared for the cesspit diggers and mammoth flayers?

Thought not...

Prior to agriculture even the specialists and elders wouldn't have amassed much more than everybody else. Nobody held enough power to "rule the roost" because it was so easy for people to vote with their feet and just go live somewhere else.

And then they invented religion.

[Seth]

Frank Zappa is in my top five favourite musician/composers - actually my top three. Make that my top #1 of all time.

But his politics were crude, ill thought through and really quite dumb. He didn't know what the fuck he was talking about most of the time in fact and embarrassed himself regularly.

People can and have organized themselves in all sorts of ways. Just because the prevailing model is about atomised individuals seeking and maximising wealth for themselves it does not mean other more utilitarian models won't inevitably replace it.

Correct. But biology, evolution and human nature guarantee that Communism will never replace capitalism and free markets except through the use of massive amounts of force and the perpetrating of death and destruction by Communist tyrants.

[Seth]

It's human nature, isn't it? Acquisitiveness is so strongly hard-wired into us that communism sadly has no chance.

I wonder if you can explain something to me. Why "sadly?" What would be good about a communist society?

As a society, we may intellectualise about altruism being a Good Thing; but a species, we find it very hard to practise. If suddenly 6,999,999,999 of us became communists, the one capitalist who was left would have us all converted back in a year or two.

And, how is communism altruistic?

"To each according to his need" (ie not "to each as much as he can amass for himself by investing his capital to bring back the maximum possible dividend"; "from each according to his ability" (ie not "a fair day's wage for a fair day's work".)

That's not "altruism," that's slavery and theft. It's a mendacious Marxist utopian argument that means pretty much the opposite of what people think it means. What it actually means is "The State shall demand from each all the labor he is capable of, on pain of liquidation, and shall give to each only as much as the State decides that individual is worth to the Collective."

It's sad that we can't be motivated by the good of humanity, rather than by the impetus to feather our own respective nests.

It's not sad, it's evolution. If we, as a species, had such evolutionary instincts, the species would have long ago ceased to exist. Altruism and charity are for AFTER one has passed on one's genes and is therefore of no particular further use to the species. Until then, "feathering our own respective nests" is necessary adaptive behavior that ensures the perpetuation of one's genes and therefore the perpetuation of the species.

If we could, the world wouldn't be heading for environmental armageddon,

Except it's not.

there wouldn't be credit crunches or recessions,

No, there would be mass starvation, war and privation on a scale that would beggar the imagination. Then the human species would cease to exist.

and if we also extirpated all religions while we were about it there wouldn't be any wars.

How strange that the most dangerous war ever was the Cold War, which threatened global thermonuclear destruction and had nothing whatever to do with religion, and everything to do with atheism. Indeed, one can say that it was religion that defeated the atheist Soviet Union, so in that regard, religion probably save humanity...and just about everything else.

[Tero]

"it's not " does not provide any information we have not seen. It's just a libertarian mantra.

[John_fi_Skye]

"it's not " does not provide any information we have not seen. It's just a libertarian mantra.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's human nature, isn't it? Acquisitiveness is so strongly hard-wired into us that communism sadly has no chance.

I wonder if you can explain something to me. Why "sadly?" What would be good about a communist society?

As a society, we may intellectualise about altruism being a Good Thing; but a species, we find it very hard to practise. If suddenly 6,999,999,999 of us became communists, the one capitalist who was left would have us all converted back in a year or two.

And, how is communism altruistic?

"To each according to his need" (ie not "to each as much as he can amass for himself by investing his capital to bring back the maximum possible dividend"; "from each according to his ability" (ie not "a fair day's wage for a fair day's work".) It's sad that we can't be motivated by the good of humanity, rather than by the impetus to feather our own respective nests. If we could, the world wouldn't be heading for environmental armageddon, there wouldn't be credit crunches or recessions, and if we also extirpated all religions while we were about it there wouldn't be any wars.

This is my point.

To each according to his need sounds about as horrible as you can get. Here in the US we have much more than we need (even most "poor" people). We don't "need" movie theaters, cable or satellite television, refrigerators, air conditioning units, and our average house size is far greater than we need (it's like, double what it was 30-40 years ago), so we are living high on the hog, according to communism. A good example of "to each according to his need" is Pyonyang - enough food to eat, a t.v. with one state-run channel that turns on whenever the State wants it to, and artwork consisting of images of the dear leader and the great leader. Travel is unnecessary, generally speaking, so you get permission and documents to go from one city to another, etc.

From each according to his ability seems to me a horrible state of affairs indeed. If it was "from each according to his willingness to give," that's one thing, but from each according to his ability, when combined with "to each according to his NEED" means slavery. Slaves are given what they "need" and they must work according to their ability. Their WANTS - their DESIRES -- their DREAMS - their wish to risk it all to be a rock star or a Hollywood actor, even though the local bureaucrats think a road worker is "needed" and that the person has that "ability" to do hard road work, doesn't mean shit in that system. You will do road work if you are able to, and if the road work is needed.

You say it's "sad" that we can't be motivated to do the good of humanity, rather than feather our respective nests. But, communism doesn't promise to do "the good of humanity." It promises that a human will get what he needs, and it REQUIRES that he give all that he can. It doesn't matter what that guy wants to do.

I find the whole concept that you suggest would be so awesome to be revolting and horrid in the extreme. Who will determine what I "need?" Who will determine what my ability to give is? It certainly isn't going to be the individual - if each individual determines his or her own need and ability, the system couldn't work. Communism doesn't posit that an individual could simply choose to be a poet, when the community needs a farmer and the person has farmer ability.

You ask, wouldn't it be great if that person whose dream is to be a poet would just think of humanity first, and know that he ought to be a farmer because that is what the community needs from him. I find it amazing anyone could even think that is "good." I find it distinctly the opposite of "sad" that we live in a society that doesn't operate on that principle. For all its faults, our present society is not, at least, as fundamentally oppressive as the one seem to think is so nice.

[Seth]

"it's not " does not provide any information we have not seen. It's just a libertarian mantra.

It's truth. The earth is not headed for "environmental armageddon" or anything like it. The earth's environment is changing all the time, and has done so constantly for billions of years. It's been hotter (much, much hotter) and colder (much, much colder) and yet earth abides and life goes on.

So far, none of the actual, recorded temperature "excursions" from "normal" (whatever the fuck that is) has exceeded previous excursions (according to scientists) seen over long periods of time. It's all within the "normal" range of temperatures, so it's no big deal.

I've been hearing the "global warming" "greenhouse planet" mantra from environmental alarmists for the last 35 years or so and they still haven't demonstrated with any credibility that we're in danger of any "abnormal" temperature excursions in the future.

Their graphs, particularly the "hockey stick" graph of infamy upon which the IPCC bases its politically-based environmental alarmism (which is about wealth redistribution, not climate change) are all so much bullshit. They cannot reliably predict the temperature 30 days from now, much less a year, or five years, or a century. The margins of error for the "predictions" of ever computer climate model known to man subsume the predicted mean temperature within one year, meaning that the predictions are utterly useless and worse, deliberately false and mendacious. The sole purpose of this climate alarmism is to push legislation and regulation that will make poor nations wealthy, and wealthy nations poor, as a part of a Marxist socialist plan for a new world order and global government that "takes down" successful nations because they had the temerity to be economically successful.

That's it. Nothing else.

And even if global temperatures are doomed to rise 6 degrees or so in the next century, so what? Better that than a 40 degree DROP in global temperatures, which means the end of civilization as we know it.

Humans can endure higher temperatures...substantially higher temperatures. We cannot survive another ice age as a civilization.

If the sea level is going to rise 20 meters total in the next two centuries, so what? Start moving populations and building polders and sea walls RIGHT NOW.

There's no "environmental armageddon" coming, there is simply more-of-the-same climate change that's been going on for 4.5 billion years. Things change. Get over it.

What it boils down to is "adapt or die."

[Tero]

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

[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.