The Fatal Flaw of Communism - by Frank Zappa

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's just the best system we've come up with so far. As long as we have humans in the loop we're going to have flawed systems.

[Drewish]

I seriously doubt the human race has been capitalist from the start.

Well the earliest gold and silver coins are from the seventh century BC. Evidence of wooden coins and bartering predate that be a few thousand years. If you're talking fine with living in a hut or cave with a tribe made up of your direct relatives, then no need for money

Homo Sap has been around much longer than that. 99% of our time on Earth we had no idea of what money was.

Then we did, and then we developed society. Communism can work when you're related to everyone involved. Getting strangers to cooperate, that takes commerce.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

It's just the best system we've come up with so far. As long as we have humans in the loop we're going to have flawed systems.

Best for whom? Surely not "best for all" when it's letting so many people down?

[Coito ergo sum]

It's just the best system we've come up with so far. As long as we have humans in the loop we're going to have flawed systems.

Best for whom? Surely not "best for all" when it's letting so many people down?

Well, socialism let's so many people down, too. And, communism promises to let most everyone down, since all it promises is that what you'll get is only what someone else determines you "need." Now, most people get more than they need, even those who are being "let down."

So, what's better? What system will not let people down?

[Horwood Beer-Master]

It's just the best system we've come up with so far. As long as we have humans in the loop we're going to have flawed systems.

Best for whom? Surely not "best for all" when it's letting so many people down?

Well, socialism let's so many people down, too. And, communism promises to let most everyone down, since all it promises is that what you'll get is only what someone else determines you "need"...

[Coito ergo sum]

It's just the best system we've come up with so far. As long as we have humans in the loop we're going to have flawed systems.

Best for whom? Surely not "best for all" when it's letting so many people down?

Well, socialism let's so many people down, too. And, communism promises to let most everyone down, since all it promises is that what you'll get is only what someone else determines you "need"...

How is that a straw man?

Does socialism not let so many people down?

And, communism? Does it promise more than "from each according to his ability, or to each according to his need?" Or, was Marx setting up a straw man?

[Tero]

Socialism would be OK in the startrecky future if we ever get there. But we are just going to get European style taxes and rationing.

[Coito ergo sum]

Socialism would be OK in the startrecky future if we ever get there. But we are just going to get European style taxes and rationing.

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.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...How is that a straw man?

Does socialism not let so many people down?

And, communism? Does it promise more than "from each according to his ability, or to each according to his need?" Or, was Marx setting up a straw man?

Is the only option to stick to a particular system (still less an existing one)? What's wrong with applying common-sense solutions towards any failure of the system to meet people's individual (and societies collective) needs, without certain people getting their underwear in a twist and wailing "But that's nasty gumbmint involvement that puts restrictions on the Free Market! Oh, blessed is our Lord the Free Market! Amen".

Economic growth (that thing towards which capitalism constantly, and blinkeredly strives) is only ultimately really worth what it gives to the citizens - People talk of the 'boom' years that proceeded the current crises, but for many people there was no 'boom', their wages and living standards remained the same throughout (until they got handed the shitty-end of the stick when things finally tanked). Similarly people now talk of the risk of a 'jobless recovery' - a what?!? Whatever it may mean to the high-and-mighties, or to economics nerds for many people this phrase is a simple contradiction in terms - when you're looking for work, or your current employment is precarious, a jobless recovery equals no kind of recovery at all. The numerical statistics of 'output' or 'productivity' ticking over are ultimately for the majority of purely academic interest - they do not in themselves pay the bills or put food on your fucking plate. They merely get used by those in power as 'proof' their policies are 'working' (to which a collective cry rises-up "not for me they bloody ain't").

At the end of the day, the economy must exist to serve the people - not the other way around. If achieving this requires the peoples representatives to grab the helm by force, then they mustn't feel constrained by capitalist dogma from doing so.

As for the Marx quote - I do indeed feel that both providing for peoples needs, and placing certain mandatory (on top of some non-mandatory) expectations upon those folk of means and ability to provide towards collective needs, is, although not the whole story in itself, nonetheless an absolutely essential key basic component of a properly functioning society - and one for which no special exemptions can ever be granted for any groups or individuals.

...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)

But how are we to decide which countries these are? By their own self-description? But don't many of these countries also describe themselves as 'democratic'? Would you say they are?

Or is 'socialist' to be defined as any country embodying those traits that you see as so negative about socialism - thus making your arguments true by definition?

[Seth]

As usual, Seth, you redefine terms out of existence. Only you can try to make the argument that feudalism was actually capitalism.

Just because Joe Serf sold his cow to Sidney Peasant doesn't mean there was "capitalism." Capitalism isn't "buying stuff." Capitalism is an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production is held primarily or chiefly in private hands.

That wasn't the case in feudal Europe.

I didn't argue that feudalism was capitalism, I stated that capitalism and free trade naturally exist within literally every other economic/social system, to one degree or another, including socialism and communism. They exist because they are the only economic model that comports with natural human behavior. No matter how oppressive the regime and how much central control exists over the "means of production" people will create black markets for products that they produce with their own hands, from bracelets to clothes to lettuce, even if it's on a micro scale among neighbors and friends, that comprise primitive capitalism and free markets.

This is because of the natural human instinct to acquire MORE than just what someone else says you can have. Only the most brutal of regimes, like Pol Pot and Stalin and Mao are able to drive free trade deeply underground, and as soon as the brutal regime fails, which all centrally-planned economies do, capitalism and free trade quickly re-emerge as the natural economic model for human society because they work. They are the only economic system that does work. Everything else requires control, oppression, suppression and all manner of government-created evil to even give the appearance of working, but everything else inevitably fails when the control structures fail, and free trade bounces right back.

[Seth]

"Capitalism and free trade endure because it is the natural economic model that human beings follow from the beginning of time."

I agree with Gawdzilla here.

"Capitalism and free trade endure because it is the only functional economic model that human beings have found sense the beginning of time."



There we go.

Define "functioning" - and for who's benefit does it 'function'.


Economic systems, like money itself, are ultimately artificial constructs, and thus at-the-end-of-the-day are only worth what they provide for people in exchange for individually and collectively participating in them - If people are getting ever diminishing returns from modern capitalism in exchange for giving more-and-more, than why should they keep the capitalist 'faith'?

Well, because they are NOT getting "diminishing returns." As has been pointed out several times here by reference to federal statistics, the rich are getting richer, but so are the poor. Substantially richer. The middle class has improved economically by nearly 40 percent since the 70s, and the poor have improved by 18 percent in that same time frame.

This is the result of capitalism and free trade, and corporations, which are nothing more than highly socialistic business organizations made up of people (mostly ordinary working people) who pool their money together in order to make a profit.

People don't align with the anti-corporate Marxist-socialist class warfare argument of the "Occupy" movement because most people are PART OF the world corporate structure by being heavily invested in the success of corporations as part of their investment and retirement strategies. Corporations aren't the cause of the economic stresses we are under, GOVERNMENTS are. In particular, SOCIALIST governments and PROGRESSIVE governments that are bankrupting the economy by promising social welfare programs that they cannot hope to pay for long term as a way to garner votes from the dependent class, and by creating an ever-larger dependent class that will vote for the powermongers in government because their very lives depend on doing so.

[Seth]

It's just the best system we've come up with so far. As long as we have humans in the loop we're going to have flawed systems.

Best for whom? Surely not "best for all" when it's letting so many people down?

Yes, best for all because capitalism is not, in fact, letting most people down. It is in fact raising the standard of living and economic status of EVERYONE on the planet, and has been since the beginning. Capitalism is quite directly responsible for the technological society we have today that enhances and improves the lives of everyone but the most primitive jungle-dwellers.

The complaint of Marxists is simply a class-warfare redistributionist "fairness" canard that clings to the fallacious zero-sum argument that the rich only get richer by making the poor poorer. But the facts demonstrate that this is not the case, and that a rising economic tide raises all ships, small and large.

We are having this debate ONLY because capitalism and free markets have existed from the beginning and have managed to prevail despite repeated attempts by control-freaks and lazy, greedy sociopaths who think that they are entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor and want to take it by force to destroy them.

But they take a licking and keep on ticking despite the best efforts of Marxists and Progressives to destroy them because they are the ONLY rational and natural economic models that actually work.

[Coito ergo sum]

...How is that a straw man?

Does socialism not let so many people down?

And, communism? Does it promise more than "from each according to his ability, or to each according to his need?" Or, was Marx setting up a straw man?

Is the only option to stick to a particular system (still less an existing one)? What's wrong with applying common-sense solutions towards any failure of the system to meet people's individual (and societies collective) needs, without certain people getting their underwear in a twist and wailing "But that's nasty gumbmint involvement that puts restrictions on the Free Market! Oh, blessed is our Lord the Free Market! Amen".

I don't think anyone of consequence thinks that there should be no government. However, government involvement is not a panacea, and that the "common sense" solutions you suggest (and you haven't suggested any) ought not be supposed to be free of failure, problems and "letting people down" either. How many government programs have "let people down?" Answer: a fuckload.

Economic growth (that thing towards which capitalism constantly, and blinkeredly strives) is only ultimately really worth what it gives to the citizens - People talk of the 'boom' years that proceeded the current crises, but for many people there was no 'boom', their wages and living standards remained the same throughout (until they got handed the shitty-end of the stick when things finally tanked).

If your alternative is not an existing one, then what is it?

I can certainly make a good argument that socialism and communism, and fascism and feudalism, i.e. economic systems I'm familiar with, certainly don't provide better alternatives.

If your suggested alternative is: make common sense laws that fix things. Well, nobody, I think would disagree with that statement, as far as it goes. The trouble is, it doesn't go very far.

[

Similarly people now talk of the risk of a 'jobless recovery' - a what?!? Whatever it may mean to the high-and-mighties, or to economics nerds for many people this phrase is a simple contradiction in terms - when you're looking for work, or your current employment is precarious, a jobless recovery equals no kind of recovery at all.

And, none of the systems I'm aware of other than capitalism offers any better solution. Do you know of one? Besides "make some common sense solutions?"

The numerical statistics of 'output' or 'productivity' ticking over are ultimately for the majority of purely academic interest - they do not in themselves pay the bills or put food on your fucking plate. They merely get used by those in power as 'proof' their policies are 'working' (to which a collective cry rises-up "not for me they bloody ain't").

Economic indicators are just economic indicators.

However, when industry and business is doing well, they can hire more people. That's where people work, and find good paying jobs: business and industry. So, if business and industry succeed, then they can do more things and those things require people to do them. If business and industry doesn't produce, then there's no reason for people to be working there because production of goods and services is what people do for a living.

[

At the end of the day, the economy must exist to serve the people - not the other way around. If achieving this requires the peoples representatives to grab the helm by force, then they mustn't feel constrained by capitalist dogma from doing so.

Because there is evidence that bureaucrats running business and industry will make them succeed, thereby allowing them to add departments, factories, offices and other workspaces for people to work and engage in the production of goods and services?

As for the Marx quote - I do indeed feel that both providing for peoples needs, and placing certain mandatory (on top of some non-mandatory) expectations upon those folk of means and ability to provide towards collective needs, is, although not the whole story in itself, nonetheless an absolutely essential key basic component of a properly functioning society - and one for which no special exemptions can ever be granted for any groups or individuals.

Well, it depends what you mean by this. If you mean that the government justifiably levies taxes and fees and tarriffs on things to pay for stuff the government has to provide, then sure. If it means that it will be the government's job to determine what people's needs are, and that needs are doled out, and that people then have to work according to their ability (and the government will determine what people's abilities are), then I would say no. North Korea doesn't sound like a nice place to live.

[

...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)

No, that isn't what I said at all. I think Europe is still predominantly capitalist, because most of the means of production are in private hands.

I don't think western Europe's standard of living is higher than the US's. I've been all over Europe to see. Some aspects of Europe are better, and some aspects of the US are better. Ultimately, both places are nice. My caveat here is that I strongly oppose the myth being propagated by some that the US is some horrible wasteland akin to the third world. That's ignorant bupkus.

But how are we to decide which countries these are? By their own self-description? But don't many of these countries also describe themselves as 'democratic'? Would you say they are?

Venezuela? Not really. When the executive branch sends armed forces into newspaper and television stations that print the wrong things, I think that there is a problem with the democracy.

Or is 'socialist' to be defined as any country embodying those traits that you see as so negative about socialism - thus making your arguments true by definition?

No, socialism is an economic system wherein the means of production of goods and services are held predominantly by the State. It's a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

What some people do is make the incorrect assumption that government regulation = socialism. This is when we get ludicrous arguments like: "Oh, yeah!? You hate socialism so much? What about the police? I guess we'll just do away with them! And, what about libraries? And, what about safety regulations on food and toys? Yeah socialism sucks, huh?" How often have you heard arguments similar to that? And, of course, it's garbage, because such laws and regulations and things like public libraries are not "socialism," if one looks at the definition of "socialism."

[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.

[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.