The Fatal Flaw of Communism - by Frank Zappa

[apophenia]

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.

This is all well and good, and true — there are still many places on the globe where marrying for love is unheard of. Unfortunately it doesn't scale, likely as a result of evolutionary processes. It's a well known effect that if you appeal to someone for charity in terms of helping one, or perhaps two individuals, our likelihood of contributing is greater than if you appeal on behalf of a hundred, a thousand, or a million. The more dilute the effect of our efforts, the less motivated we are to make them. This likely ties in as an effect of kin selection effects played out in our psychology. Kin selection is the effect of contributing to the survival of individuals who are not in our direct germ line, but close to it — our kin — because their genetic similarity, if preserved, carries our genetic traits along with it. This varies depending on reproductive mechanics and closeness of kin; J.B.S. Haldane was once asked if he would give his life to save a drowning brother, to which he famously replied, "No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins." This exhibits the same drop off effect of charitable giving, and you can't hope to out evolve it, because out evolving it means being less successful in terms of gene transmission, and so alleles that are weak on this trait end up being "evolved out of the gene pool."

I don't know. This is one of the things I find disheartening about fields like politics and economics. Sure, there have been some incredible thinkers in these fields' histories, but for the most part the ideas and ideologues who dominate the field do so on largely conjectural, unscientific, and sometimes barely rational analysis.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Same here, and thanks.

I think the fundamental differences, however, are that marriage is voluntary, and that you really aren't required to give according to your ability, and you get more than you need. Marriage is more like "to each according to his or her needs, wants and desires, and from each according to his or her willingness to give." If someone is not getting what they "want" out of a marriage, they can leave, and if they are being asked to give more than they are willing, then they can likewise leave the marriage.

That's not true of what you describe, which is that if you are "able" to do X, then you MUST do X. It doesn't matter what you want, since your "selfish" interest is to subordinate to the "good of society." And, as far as "wants" - again, that's selfish interests - once you have what you "need" then that is that.

So, I don't think your marriage analogy is applicable in that sense.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

That appears to be an overly black-and-white view of it. There is greed and magnanimity on both sides of that spectrum. Any person can be greedy, and being of limited means, but demanding free stuff from other people can very well be greedy, particularly if abused. And, people advocating economic freedom may be, but aren't necessarily "greedy." That's like saying that someone who advocates liberty of thought and expression must be a pornographer or a purveyor of hate speech.

Moreover, advocating civil liberties in the economic arena in general, and not just in terms of speech, thought, religion, sexuality, etc., is not really even "right wing." It's liberal, for sure, and often "libertarian," but "right wing" in terms of conservative or toward the fascist end of the spectrum? Hardly. Hitler and other Nazis and fascists loathed capitalists as much as communists, for example. He wasn't in favor of liberty, and that included economic liberty.

So, in this area, the traditional labels of left and right are not very helpful.

[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.

Same here, and thanks.

I think the fundamental differences, however, are that marriage is voluntary, and that you really aren't required to give according to your ability, and you get more than you need. Marriage is more like "to each according to his or her needs, wants and desires, and from each according to his or her willingness to give." If someone is not getting what they "want" out of a marriage, they can leave, and if they are being asked to give more than they are willing, then they can likewise leave the marriage.

That's not true of what you describe, which is that if you are "able" to do X, then you MUST do X. It doesn't matter what you want, since your "selfish" interest is to subordinate to the "good of society." And, as far as "wants" - again, that's selfish interests - once you have what you "need" then that is that.

So, I don't think your marriage analogy is applicable in that sense.

Yep. When things are voluntary it certainly makes a difference.

But that's the whole point about what I'm proposing. It was yourself who added in the bit about "you MUST do X" - not me. Crucial to what I said is the fact that, as I believe, each individual will WANT to do what he/she can, to benefit society. If you don't buy my marriage analogy, that's fair enough (though I stand by it), but if you go back to what I said yesterday in my original answer, you'll see what I was meaning. And, as I've made clear all along, I think humanity's a long way from that sort of society. However, I do believe that sort of society would sort out all of the ills we currently have, whereas I don't see capitalism doing anything to address them at all.

And I believe that what we really need is for someone to come up with a new idea. That person isn't me, because I'm too old and not clever enough. But a new idea, the way the original socialist thinkers came up with something that really turned the established order on its head. I'd love something like that to come along, and I believe that the Big Idea that I'm longing for would move us closer to the sort of society I'm envisaging.

[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.

This is all well and good, and true — there are still many places on the globe where marrying for love is unheard of. Unfortunately it doesn't scale, likely as a result of evolutionary processes. It's a well known effect that if you appeal to someone for charity in terms of helping one, or perhaps two individuals, our likelihood of contributing is greater than if you appeal on behalf of a hundred, a thousand, or a million. The more dilute the effect of our efforts, the less motivated we are to make them. This likely ties in as an effect of kin selection effects played out in our psychology. Kin selection is the effect of contributing to the survival of individuals who are not in our direct germ line, but close to it — our kin — because their genetic similarity, if preserved, carries our genetic traits along with it. This varies depending on reproductive mechanics and closeness of kin; J.B.S. Haldane was once asked if he would give his life to save a drowning brother, to which he famously replied, "No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins." This exhibits the same drop off effect of charitable giving, and you can't hope to out evolve it, because out evolving it means being less successful in terms of gene transmission, and so alleles that are weak on this trait end up being "evolved out of the gene pool."

I don't know. This is one of the things I find disheartening about fields like politics and economics. Sure, there have been some incredible thinkers in these fields' histories, but for the most part the ideas and ideologues who dominate the field do so on largely conjectural, unscientific, and sometimes barely rational analysis.

Thanks for your comments, Apophenia. I understand the stuff about acting selfishly in protecting one's genes in others. But my wife and I aren't close genetically. Maybe the sort of thing I'm thinking of could start with societies of 2, then move to societies of 4, then perhaps through various intervening steps to whole districts or villages, then perhaps again through intervening steps to countries or continents, and ultimately to the whole world. And at each stage, perhaps those who dissented could move to a different society, with no hard feelings, so that consensus always held sway.

Problems like which end of the egg to open, or how to get Catholics and Protestants to share power in Northern Ireland, or how to end apatheid or knock down the Berlin Wall or get rid of Ceausescu or Gaddafi can seem terribly intractable; but things can change - people can change - and I believe that if something seems difficult to achieve, that's a good reason for working harder at it - not giving up. That's....if it's worth doing, and as I've said, I think a world order based on altruism rather than on selfishness is indeed worth striving for.

"This is my opinion, which is mine (cough)" - Monty Python.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Same here, and thanks.

I think the fundamental differences, however, are that marriage is voluntary, and that you really aren't required to give according to your ability, and you get more than you need. Marriage is more like "to each according to his or her needs, wants and desires, and from each according to his or her willingness to give." If someone is not getting what they "want" out of a marriage, they can leave, and if they are being asked to give more than they are willing, then they can likewise leave the marriage.

That's not true of what you describe, which is that if you are "able" to do X, then you MUST do X. It doesn't matter what you want, since your "selfish" interest is to subordinate to the "good of society." And, as far as "wants" - again, that's selfish interests - once you have what you "need" then that is that.

So, I don't think your marriage analogy is applicable in that sense.

Yep. When things are voluntary it certainly makes a difference.

But that's the whole point about what I'm proposing. It was yourself who added in the bit about "you MUST do X" - not me. Crucial to what I said is the fact that, as I believe, each individual will WANT to do what he/she can, to benefit society.

That is true, I added the "must" part. The reason being is that if it's not "must" then logically it will not be be "from each according to his ability," and hence not communism. Making it voluntary turns it into "from each according to his willingness to give," which is fundamentally different. By saying that people's wants will automatically adjust to equate with what they are able (best able?) to do for the benefit of society creates a tautology where what people want is best for society because they always want what is best for society, or what people do is best for society because it is what they want.

Also an unstated premise in what you are saying must be that it is at all possible for there to be a "good for society." Is there? There isn't now, that much is obvious. Generally speaking, whole ranges of actions can be arguably "good for society" and very often one person's "good for society" is another person's "bad for society." Example: I think laws against holocaust denial are "bad for society." Many people sincerely believe such laws are "good for society." Which is it? What would a person who wants what is "good" for society be in favor of? And, what about wiring one's house for electricity? Is that "good for society?" Arguably, yes, because it could provide light and heat to millions of people. Arguably, no, because in the long run it increases demand for power and energy to an unsustainable level, and society would be better off with a low power usage, agrarian, "Amish style" society.

What is better? What is "good for society?" Exactly how will people "know" and won't you and I have radically different views about whether persons X, Y and Z are, in fact, behaving in a manner that is good for society?

Or, are you suggesting that "somehow" the world will change into something where such issues don't exist?

If you don't buy my marriage analogy, that's fair enough (though I stand by it), but if you go back to what I said yesterday in my original answer, you'll see what I was meaning. And, as I've made clear all along, I think humanity's a long way from that sort of society. However, I do believe that sort of society would sort out all of the ills we currently have, whereas I don't see capitalism doing anything to address them at all.

II don't think capitalism is "designed" at all and doesn't serve any particular purpose. It's not supposed to solve problems. To me, capitalism is just Sally buys lemons, sugar, water, and sets up a cardboard box in her front yard. She spends three cents, and some time and effort, to make a glass of lemonade. She sells it for 10 cents, and makes a 7 cent profit, and pays 2 cents in income tax, pays 1 cent in property taxes and business license fees, spends the 3 cents in operating costs, and pays herself 1 cent in salary or distribution to herself as the owner of Sally's Lemonade Stand.

That's capitalism.

It's not designed to do anything, but it does do something. It results in lemonade being available to people to drink, and it supports Sally, and it fulfill's Sally's dream to build a lemonade stand. Sally may then take 1/2 the 1 cent per glass left after operating costs and taxes, and put it back into the business. She can then open another lemonade stand, called Sally's 2, keeping her secret recipe proprietary, and hire her friend Timmy to run it. She can then give Timmy a percentage of the "profit" (1 cent above operating costs and taxes) for running the second stand, and then Timmy wins, she wins, and more people get lemonade.

There is, of course, room for the State to come in and make sure that Sally uses safe and potable water, etc., in her product. Nothing wrong with that.

But, I don't see as why the advocates of communism think it's better for the system to be - "Society somehow has determined that it needs lemonade. Sally has shown an aptitude for lemonade making. Sally somehow automatically "wants" to (or, in some cases "must") make lemonade, because society needs lemonade and that has been determined to be good for society. As such, Sally sets up the lemonade stand, does all the work, and sells the lemonade, at cost only (or, sometimes, turns over all profits to the State), and in return, she gets a roof over her head, a Nehru jacket, and comfortable shoes, as well as sufficient nutritional allotment." How is that better?

And I believe that what we really need is for someone to come up with a new idea. That person isn't me, because I'm too old and not clever enough. But a new idea, the way the original socialist thinkers came up with something that really turned the established order on its head. I'd love something like that to come along, and I believe that the Big Idea that I'm longing for would move us closer to the sort of society I'm envisaging.

I hope not. Since you've yet to convince me that the society you're envisaging would be anything other than oppressive. A society where people just somehow "want" to do what has somehow become a non-debatable societal need?

To me, part of what makes life interesting is the debate over what is good for society, and part of life's journey is to figure out not only what one "needs" but what one wants and what one dreams of, and then seeking to fulfill it. Taking chances, following one's heart. Your description is kind of like the Stepford Wives. A world of robots, programmed to do what they want, and want what they do.

[Tero]

Couple of scenarios:
1 what if we are in a startrecky future (Picard) where there is no money? How do we know to make lemonade or cranberry juice?
2 what do we do in case of overpopulation? We need rationing so we can decide to make hi C lemonade (for kids) instead of caviar and yachts. Adults will drink water and take vitamin pills.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Will we ever have Just-folks-getting-by-ism?

[Tero]

Absolutely not. Only on a few Pacific island nations.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Absolutely not. Only on a few Pacific island nations.

Humanity, I weep for thee.

[Tero]

I can clarify that last with some song lyrics:

"Attack you fools!" the captain bawls
"I have your heads upon my walls!"
Rows of heroes crouch to crawls, bomb
Bamboo huts and village halls, smash
Ping-pong bats with cannon balls, as
Ali-Baba's sheiks and sauls
Debag Goliath as he falls
While the Statue Of Liberty climbs and mauls everything

"Champagne for the heroe whore
And watch your step in all that gore
But not too much, he'll scream for more"
El pres. advices from the door
"For though he's filled from skin to core
It's not enough he'll whine for sure, so
Say it's we who keep the score, and
nail him back upon the floor, yeh"

So there he works, still at large
Behind his smiles and his camouflage
Of nice white coats and college grades that
Hide blue suits with golden braids
And though I hope the smell just fades
It does not go but leads to raids on
Bamboo huts in country glades
Where the people use the grass for blades, ain't that something.

Jim, who is a couple years older than you lives now in Kansas City. I interviewed him ten years ago.
http://wigwam.stc.cx/lyrics/grass_for_blades.htm

I'll send you the link to the Youtube.

[Drewish]

Communism? You expect me to care about the incompetent, the ideological nitwits denying their kids medication, and the lazy mooches who want a free ride? No thanks. I want a system where the losers starve, not where everyone but the military ends up starving.

[Coito ergo sum]

Couple of scenarios:
1 what if we are in a startrecky future (Picard) where there is no money? How do we know to make lemonade or cranberry juice?

I don't know. I don't know how that society would function without some means of exchange.

Star Trek had the advantage of having discovered relatively limitless energy and matter-energy conversion devices, and holodecks.

A relatively communist society can work if supply is unlimited, because then we can have "from each according to his hopes, dreams desires and whims, and to each according to his most freakish desires." If everybody gets everything they want, and people are free to do whatever it is their hearts desire, well, there's nothing really to fight over.

2 what do we do in case of overpopulation? We need rationing so we can decide to make hi C lemonade (for kids) instead of caviar and yachts. Adults will drink water and take vitamin pills.

It seems to take care of itself when we have the emancipation of women, and give women the control over birth control and pregnancy, and combine that with a good standard of living, and population levels off. The countries hurting the planet with crazy increases in population are third world countries, and the "Muslim World."

[Tero]

Good answer.

[Coito ergo sum]

Will we ever have Just-folks-getting-by-ism?

Aren't people free to be that now?