The Fatal Flaw of Communism - by Frank Zappa

[Coito ergo sum]

Most wars in history have been
caused by and fought by men - most
crime in history has been perpetrated by
men as well so therefore claiming that both
sexes are equally sensible is a non starter far as
the actual evidence happens to be. However we can
not actually help it sometimes - since we produce far more
testosterone than women - which increase our natural levels of
aggression which unfortunately can then manifest itself in ways not
exactly conducive to The Golden Rule. Women too have a greater empathy
and compassion for others - most probably because of the maternal instinct - so
although it may be a generalisation to reference their greater sensibility the evidence
overall is actually in their favour. So not for nothing are they referred to as the gentler sex

Not to mention the fact that women are less likely to believe in spuriously invented innate gender
differences based on a random combination of pop psychology selective historical observation
and oversimplified misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. That makes them more
sensible - as for how I know they are like this I just made it up of course but it
must be true because you can read about it on the internet, and anyway
my mum was always kind and nurturing whereas dad was a bastard
Also girls like pink whereas boys like blue which is not very
sensible considering blue shows the bloodstains
from all their rough play a lot more

Well you could be right Beat baby but I would not
mind a world that was run by women -

You may be on to something. There already was a documentary about this, starring Maime Van Doren.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well you could be right Beat baby but I would not
mind a world that was run by women - I mean let s face
it - how much worse could it possibly be ? [ And apologies for
referencing innate gender differences - pop psychology - selective
historical observation - and what was that other one - a misunderstanding
of evolutionary theory ] - by the way you the one from Rat Skep who has that nice
avatar of our future Prime Minister ? I bet you can t wait to see him elected - not long now

How much worse ? You kidding ? In a world run by women we would all have to own at least
50 pairs of shoes watch crap romantic chick flicks all the time and spend a
quarter of every month ranting and rampaging like uncontrollable
psychopaths Not to mention the lavender bath salts and the
facts that every act of coitus would by law have to
preceeded by at least four hours of foreplay
Yes there is only one Beatsong ! However
the avatar is purely ironic

You walk into a bar and get
free drinks all night long - you
marry a rich man and never have
to work again - you can have multiple
orgasms at the drop of a hat - you can get
anything done anytime anywhere just by emphasising
your assets - if you have no assets a nice man in gloves and
scrubs will give you some - you want to be taken seriously you just
dye your hair brown and then back again to its natural colour when you
don t - you telling me that that lifestyle has no appeal then me no believe you

the problem is, that lifestyle requires interaction with men, which, well, sounds like a huge drawback to me...

[apophenia]

Not if they can do it faster, better and cheaper. That s why Japanese car makers now hold a dominant market share in the U S The Detroit car makers thought they were invincible, but they weren t

I won't swear on a stack of bibles that my math is correct but according to the table labeled Sales and Share of Total Market by Manufacturer here at the Wall street Journal online, Japanese share of the U S automotive sales market for December 2011 was 32 % while the share held by U S auto manufacturers is 47 %

Let me know if you find my math to be in error

American Share - 46. 77 % [ 581, 817 ] - Japanese Share - 42. 13 % [ 524, 095 ] - Total Market - [ 1, 243, 965 ]

My bad. I appear to have left out Mazda and Subaru in my calculation. (I was sure Subaru was Scandinavian!) However, I'm still not getting the 524,095 total for Japanese automakers that you are. Below is an abbreviated version of the table. Please tell me which companies you included in your total. For your convenience, I provide a link to an excel worksheet containing this table at WSJ auto sales table, simplified. However, if my figures are correct, it appears that Japanese market share between the two years went down, and U.S. shares went up. I'm not sure that's consonant with Seth's claim.

(ETA: I think I see your error. If you include Kia and Hyundai, the total for Japan is 542,095 — did you transpose the digits? However, Kia and Hyundai are Korean, not Japanese, so they don't count. Did you include them?)

Table at full size (clickable link).

[apophenia]

Addendum.

As Hyundai and other Asian automotive companies participated in the Chaebol and Zaibatsu systems, and often benefited from heavy governmental interference, it's not clear they are even fitting to be used in Seth's greater argument. But I'm too lazy to go there.

(For a specific example, in 1999, the Daewoo Group collapsed, with a total unsecured debt of $80 billion. Much of the motor vehicle division was sold to General Motors in 2001.)

[Coito ergo sum]

[PsychoSerenity]

Who is Adam Carolla and why should anyone care about his ignorant preaching?

[Coito ergo sum]

Who is Adam Carolla and why should anyone care about his ignorant preaching?

You're in favor of communism, then? Think it's a workable idea in the real world?

[PsychoSerenity]

Who is Adam Carolla and why should anyone care about his ignorant preaching?

You're in favor of communism, then? Think it's a workable idea in the real world?

Did I say anything even remotely close to that?

[Coito ergo sum]

Who is Adam Carolla and why should anyone care about his ignorant preaching?

You're in favor of communism, then? Think it's a workable idea in the real world?

Did I say anything even remotely close to that?

What of what Carolla said was "ignorant?"

[PsychoSerenity]

What of what Carolla said was "ignorant?"

Well right from the get go he confused communism with authoritarianism, which is a pretty major mistake, he then went on to explain that his philosophy of why communism couldn't work, apparently hasn't change since he was ten years old. I think I stopped listening shortly after he advocated assassinating Fidel Castro, because I figured I was wasting my time, hence the question I asked.

I would be very happy to see a proper philosophical discussion about communism, including a deep critical analysis, because I want to learn something. I don't even know much about communism other than from reading some brief summaries, - I've not yet got around to reading anything by Marx, because I'm still working through some more relevant modern philosophy.

But there are thousands of youtube videos with people ranting and raving about why they believe communism is evil and could never work, while demonstrating really basic misunderstandings of the philosophy, and I have no intention of wasting any more of my time on them.

[Coito ergo sum]

I've been looking for a proper discussion about communism for years. Most of the time, the proponents of it can't even explain what they think it is. All the time people say, "you're mischaracterizing communism! It's not that [insert negative description]!" But, they won't tell you what it really is in any degree of detail - they'll give you the broad strokes -- everyone equal -- to each according to need, from each according to ability to give (which is a horrid, abysmal basis for an economic system, and amounts to a prescription for slavery, IMHO) -- but, beyond that, they won't give any detail as to how society would actually function under their proposed system.

[Rum]

Four - all from Googling and all overlapping. There is no difficulty in defining communism. The difficulty is in the process of getting to it, if indeed one thinks it is desirable to struggle to get there.

A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, stateless and socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production

a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

[Coito ergo sum]

Four - all from Googling and all overlapping. There is no difficulty in defining communism. The difficulty is in the process of getting to it, if indeed one thinks it is desirable to struggle to get there.

A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, stateless and socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production

a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

I realize the overall aim, like defining capitalism as an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners, can be succinctly stated. However, that really doesn't tell us much in the way of how things would actually work.

Moreover, the fatal flaw, as I see it, is that while those blurbs often "sound" good, because they evoke imagery of peace, love, fairness and harmony, on just the barest scrutiny, the blurbs above reveal themselves to describe a slave society, where the populace is compelled to do as the community dictates, with no view toward improving their lot.

I say this because, starting with the last bit -- "each person contributes according to their ability...and receives according to their needs." Sounds nice, except that it removes "wants" from the equation. One's ability does not presuppose that one would like to do the things one is able to do. If one must contribute according to one's ability, and one does not have the choice to refuse, what would one call that?

How does "collective ownership of property" work? Does it mean that nobody can own their own house? If it's collective ownership, who determines what property can be lived on or used by one person, but not another? Is it by vote? Bureau?

What exactly is a "stateless" society? I've never understood what that means? Will there be laws? If so, who makes them? And, isn't a body that makes laws a "state" by any other name? I mean - does communism presuppose that there would be no need for a criminal law code, or municipal governments? Who coordinates things? Who determines what each person's "need" is? Who determines what their ability is? Isn't this a "fatal flaw" of communism? The whole idea of statelessness seems absurd, unless one posits that humans will know longer be human.

[PsychoSerenity]

I'm having flashbacks. I seem to remember not getting anywhere before so I won't bother getting involved again.

Coito, if you really want to learn about communism, drop all your hang-ups and study it yourself with an open mind. There's no point in asking people to explain it to you just so you can get your rocks off arguing with them.

[Rum]

I'm having flashbacks. I seem to remember not getting anywhere before so I won't bother getting involved again.

Coito, if you really want to learn about communism, drop all your hang-ups and study it yourself with an open mind. There's no point in asking people to explain it to you just so you can get your rocks off arguing with them.

I'm glad I read this before I jumped in!

So I don't think I will. Nobody wins and nobody much changes their minds. Plus I don't enjoy arguing on the net for fun any more.