The Fatal Flaw of Communism - by Frank Zappa

[Rum]

I posted it fully aware of the consequences. Hades is only trying to be fair.

Edit: How long have you been a mod anyway? I don't recall it being announced.

[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.

Coito, your version of "from each according to his ability" is the most extreme understanding of it I've ever heard. You seem to presuppose that each member of a society would be forced to perform at 100% capacity at all times, like some machine. That's nothing like what Marx and Engles were talking about and nothing like what's been seen in practice when this kind of thing has actually occurred on smaller scales at various times in history (such as the anarchist period in Spain). Marx and Engles were saying that workers who owned the means of production and felt responsible for it would want and feel empowered to give their time and effort to the best of their ability (not much different to how workers who feel truly valued act today). The Spanish anarchist period is a really good example of how this can and has worked in practice. Social change empowered people and made them feel that their contribution genuinely mattered. People gave their time and effort willingly for the good of their society, all without the need for any kind of hierarchical or totalitarian authority to impose the behaviour by force or propaganda.

Wonderful. Music tae ma lugs.

The point I was making was not that everyone is to be driven to their outermost limit. The point I was making was that someone other than the individual must, out of necessity, decide what the "ability" is. It can't be left up to the individual, can it? If so, how?

Some mechanism within the community must decide what people need, and what they are able to do. That is the only way that the needs of the community as a whole can be met. Once that occurs, you have lost individual autonomy, and people must merely do what is assigned to them under a communal assessment of what is best that they do.

This sort of thing is what happens in every communist society that has been tried so far. The community enacts a plan for the future (5 year - 10 year - whatever) and then the individuals within the community must do assigned tasks designed to meet that goal. Dissent from that is not permitted, because everyone ought to be serving the common good, because the common good trumps individual choice.

That is PRECISELY what Marx and Engels were writing about. And that is PRECISELY the context in which they wrote.

They wrote in the context of societies of serfs - the proletariat. The "poor" in those days had zero choice, zero options, nothing. They worked almost - essentially effectively - as abject slaves. It is from that state of utter destitution that Marx and Engels wrote of bringing that underclass up. Destroy the petty bourgousie and the landed aristocracy, distribute the land communally, and the lot of those that were already slaves improves a bit overall. They were in no sense, however, writing from the context of a modern western capitalist democracy with vibrant middle classes and a population of "poor" who would have been considered quite well off by the "proletariat" referred to by Marx and Engels. They did not envision everyone living well. They envisioned everyone living, and living essentially equally, in more or less agrarian ways with the population spread out from cities more smoothly across the land. Remember, cities were contemplated as being emptied under Marx and Engels view of it, and people would live on communally owned land, getting what they need and doing what they are able.

Point 9 of Marx's "10 points": "The combination of agriculture and manufacturing industries with the gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by the more equable distribution of the population over the country." - so, right there you see what communism envisions.

Point 8 of Marx's "10 points": "The equal obligation of all to work and the establishment of an industrial and agricultural armies." - Think of that - the equal OBLIGATION of all to work. You only get what you need -- and you have an OBLIGATION to work -- and people will be part of "industrial and agricultural ARMIES." ARMIES. That is what Marx wrote himself. Autonomy? Do armies let their soldiers do as they like? Or, do they ASSIGN THEM DUTIES? Whither choice to do what one wills? Whither choice to follow one's dreams? What of the individual who could be a lumberjack but wants to try his hand at ballet? When the "general" of the "industrial and agricultural ARMY" decides you'll be a lumberjack -- that individual will do it, yes? For the good of the community....

So, I'm not, as you have said, identifying the problem as being that people will necessarily be taxed to their limit. What I'm identifying is that what is contemplated is that you - the individual - have no choice in the matter. You're a soldier in the agricultural or industrial army. To serve the communal good, you will do what is assigned to you.

If that is not what it means, then where is the industrial "army"? If people have a choice where to live, how is are they "distributed" around the country "equably?" You see?

[Coito ergo sum]

"voluntary altruism" is an oxymoron

tautology

But we can all identify a moron when he posts.

I don't see why such attacks are necessary. To get personal about a philosophical or political debate belies an inability to discuss the issue rationally. Seth didn't attack anyone here. He made a point. Even if the point isn't sound, does that mean he deserves to be called names?

[Coito ergo sum]

Yep. I don't disagree much with that. And that's why the pragmatics of our species defeat communism. If it could work, though, it would be an awful lot better than a system in which people who already have lots of money use that money to make lots more for themselves, while two-thirds of the individuals who belong to the same species on the same world can't rely on being able to eat every day.

In the capitalist western democracies, this allegation of "2/3 of the population" not being able to eat every day does not apply. Such does seem to occur more in places like, Russia, China, South America, Africa and central Asia. I think even there, 2/3 of the population not being able to rely on eating every day is a bit of an overstatement, but your point is valid nonetheless. The problem with your point is connecting it to capitalism. It seems that in the more capitalist countries, these problems were solved much better than in the less capitalist countries.

This is an example of the sincerely-held views of mine that I mustn't get upset about any arsehole deliberately misunderstanding, and then trotting out anti-commie platitudes in response.

I'm anti-communist, but that's because after parsing through the major texts and reading up quite a bit on the subject, my opinion of it in its idealized state is that it would be miserable. For the reasons I have stated, I see nothing good or valuable in being assigned to an agricultural or industrial "army," stripped of my ability to own a piece of land and a home, being assigned by the community something I am "obligated" to do for what the community decides is for the common good irrespective of my own opinion on what I'd like to do with my life, and being told where to live in an "equably" distributed population. These are things that Marx wrote about, and I don't even have to mischaracterize his words in order for them to ring sour for me. It's a society I would least like to live in. It offers nothing for me. As Anthony Burgess might write, "Really 'orror show, me droogies."

I have a daughter who's doing a PhD in the application of neo-Gramscian theory to the plight of Brazilian peasants, and I'm so proud of her.

That sounds great. I have some familiarity in that area. I've been to favelas personally. What system created those favelas? The newly liberalized free market economy that is starting to bring some higher incomes to the people? Or, the long history of centralized economic control under brutal dictators? Since they existed for 100 years now or more, I have to say that it's not their new-found stable market capitalism under their relative new money, the Real, that caused it. Brazil has improved over the last 15 years due to privatization efforts by the Brazilian government in the 1990s. That privatization brought f investment from the United States and Europe, and that propelled Brazil's good economic growth.

Their poor are still very poor, by all means, and there are a lot of them there. The kind of poverty they have there is difficult for Americans to imagine. It's miserable, and whole cities worth of people live in conditions that we would think were inhuman.

But, the reality is that the economic growth coming with Brazil's liberalization is improving conditions from what they were, and more and more Brazilians are moving into the lower middle and middle class, which for Brazil is growing. And, that ain't because they've moved closer to communism.

[John_fi_Skye]

"voluntary altruism" is an oxymoron

tautology

But we can all identify a moron when he posts.

I don't see why such attacks are necessary. To get personal about a philosophical or political debate belies an inability to discuss the issue rationally. Seth didn't attack anyone here. He made a point. Even if the point isn't sound, does that mean he deserves to be called names?

Hi Coito. The following is the sentence directed towards me immediately before I put that one in:

"When it comes to truth and socialism, it's more a dog returning to his own vomit, to lap up the regurgitated lies of Marxism and spew them forth all over again to a new audience."

So, I'm just to accept that, am I?

[Coito ergo sum]

I think I have to say yes to that. Here is Seth's post: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1123210

It doesn't seem as if he's referring to you personally, but rather socialism in general, whereas you flat out directly called him, personally, a moron. So, that's a characteristic difference that I think is important under the rules.

But, In the end, it's all pretty tame and everyone here is a grown-up and can take it.

[Pappa]

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.

Coito, your version of "from each according to his ability" is the most extreme understanding of it I've ever heard. You seem to presuppose that each member of a society would be forced to perform at 100% capacity at all times, like some machine. That's nothing like what Marx and Engles were talking about and nothing like what's been seen in practice when this kind of thing has actually occurred on smaller scales at various times in history (such as the anarchist period in Spain). Marx and Engles were saying that workers who owned the means of production and felt responsible for it would want and feel empowered to give their time and effort to the best of their ability (not much different to how workers who feel truly valued act today). The Spanish anarchist period is a really good example of how this can and has worked in practice. Social change empowered people and made them feel that their contribution genuinely mattered. People gave their time and effort willingly for the good of their society, all without the need for any kind of hierarchical or totalitarian authority to impose the behaviour by force or propaganda.

Wonderful. Music tae ma lugs.

The point I was making was not that everyone is to be driven to their outermost limit. The point I was making was that someone other than the individual must, out of necessity, decide what the "ability" is. It can't be left up to the individual, can it? If so, how?

Some mechanism within the community must decide what people need, and what they are able to do. That is the only way that the needs of the community as a whole can be met. Once that occurs, you have lost individual autonomy, and people must merely do what is assigned to them under a communal assessment of what is best that they do.

This sort of thing is what happens in every communist society that has been tried so far. The community enacts a plan for the future (5 year - 10 year - whatever) and then the individuals within the community must do assigned tasks designed to meet that goal. Dissent from that is not permitted, because everyone ought to be serving the common good, because the common good trumps individual choice.

That is PRECISELY what Marx and Engels were writing about. And that is PRECISELY the context in which they wrote.

They wrote in the context of societies of serfs - the proletariat. The "poor" in those days had zero choice, zero options, nothing. They worked almost - essentially effectively - as abject slaves. It is from that state of utter destitution that Marx and Engels wrote of bringing that underclass up. Destroy the petty bourgousie and the landed aristocracy, distribute the land communally, and the lot of those that were already slaves improves a bit overall. They were in no sense, however, writing from the context of a modern western capitalist democracy with vibrant middle classes and a population of "poor" who would have been considered quite well off by the "proletariat" referred to by Marx and Engels. They did not envision everyone living well. They envisioned everyone living, and living essentially equally, in more or less agrarian ways with the population spread out from cities more smoothly across the land. Remember, cities were contemplated as being emptied under Marx and Engels view of it, and people would live on communally owned land, getting what they need and doing what they are able.

Point 9 of Marx's "10 points": "The combination of agriculture and manufacturing industries with the gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by the more equable distribution of the population over the country." - so, right there you see what communism envisions.

Point 8 of Marx's "10 points": "The equal obligation of all to work and the establishment of an industrial and agricultural armies." - Think of that - the equal OBLIGATION of all to work. You only get what you need -- and you have an OBLIGATION to work -- and people will be part of "industrial and agricultural ARMIES." ARMIES. That is what Marx wrote himself. Autonomy? Do armies let their soldiers do as they like? Or, do they ASSIGN THEM DUTIES? Whither choice to do what one wills? Whither choice to follow one's dreams? What of the individual who could be a lumberjack but wants to try his hand at ballet? When the "general" of the "industrial and agricultural ARMY" decides you'll be a lumberjack -- that individual will do it, yes? For the good of the community....

So, I'm not, as you have said, identifying the problem as being that people will necessarily be taxed to their limit. What I'm identifying is that what is contemplated is that you - the individual - have no choice in the matter. You're a soldier in the agricultural or industrial army. To serve the communal good, you will do what is assigned to you.

If that is not what it means, then where is the industrial "army"? If people have a choice where to live, how is are they "distributed" around the country "equably?" You see?

We're pretty much going over old ground here, but where exactly do Marx and Engles suggest people would have their job assigned to them? An obligation to work doesn't imply that work would be assigned without any free choice of career. Saying "wherever we've seen this in practice" is irrelevant because we've never seen a true communist societies on anything other than very small scales, just a bunch of failed attempts that were dragged into totalitarianism as soon as they were born.

[Seth]

"voluntary altruism" is an oxymoron

tautology

Ah, yes, thank you for the correction, that's what I meant.

[Coito ergo sum]

@Pappa

If a person is enlisted in an "army" do they have the right to choose their assignments? See Point 8 of Marx's 10 points.

Where is the choice?

It is also logically anathema to communism that individuals would have free choice. Marx's communism presupposes that people are obligated to work toward THE common good. If everyone got to choose what they wanted to do based on their own assessment of what the common good is, then we wouldn't be working toward the common good - masses of individuals would be working at cross purposes (since there are as many conceptions of what the common good entails as there are opinions). So, the necessity of communism is that there is a communal common good that applies irrespective of individual wants and opinions.

That is precisely why in another of Marx's 10 Points he says that emigrants and dissidents will have their property and money confiscated. A dissident is not with the program -- he's not working toward the "common good" as defined by "the community." If you're not with the program, then you're part of the problem. Again, more deprivation of choice on the part of the individual.

The whole POINT of communism is collectivist - it subordinates the individual to "the community." It's basic, and foundational, to communism.

[PsychoSerenity]

Point 9 of Marx's "10 points": "The combination of agriculture and manufacturing industries with the gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by the more equable distribution of the population over the country." - so, right there you see what communism envisions.

Point 8 of Marx's "10 points": "The equal obligation of all to work and the establishment of an industrial and agricultural armies." - Think of that - the equal OBLIGATION of all to work. You only get what you need -- and you have an OBLIGATION to work -- and people will be part of "industrial and agricultural ARMIES." ARMIES. That is what Marx wrote himself. Autonomy? Do armies let their soldiers do as they like? Or, do they ASSIGN THEM DUTIES? Whither choice to do what one wills? Whither choice to follow one's dreams? What of the individual who could be a lumberjack but wants to try his hand at ballet? When the "general" of the "industrial and agricultural ARMY" decides you'll be a lumberjack -- that individual will do it, yes? For the good of the community....

And again Coito, you are taking things out of context. I've just read through a good chunk of the Communist manifesto, and these 10 points are not a description of what a communist society would be like. They are short term measures that might have been needed, depending on the society, on the way towards communism. Seeing as our technology today has massively reduced the need for human labour in agriculture, the concept of agricultural armies is clearly irrelevant.

[hadespussercats]

I posted it fully aware of the consequences. Hades is only trying to be fair.

Edit: How long have you been a mod anyway? I don't recall it being announced.

Not very long at all! Just a few weeks. Ronja announced it, in the the general thread about mod news (I forget the thread title-- can look it up if you want.)

Anyway, thanks for being understanding, Rum.

[Pappa]

If a person is enlisted in an "army" do they have the right to choose their assignments?

Leaving aide the fact that the word "army" is being used metaphorically, yes most people who choose to join the army get to choose their career (assuming they have the required skills). They may go for engineering, comms, infantry, tanks... etc., etc.. They obviously don't get to choose their "assignment" once they're in a regiment as that's at the whim of fate, but they knew that when they signed up. But then, office workers don't get to choose their "assignment" either, they just have to do the work that lands on their desk.

Just so you know, I'm not a supporter of Communism, I just keep seeing these interpretations of yours that I feel are inaccurate and extreme.

[Pappa]

Point 9 of Marx's "10 points": "The combination of agriculture and manufacturing industries with the gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by the more equable distribution of the population over the country." - so, right there you see what communism envisions.

Point 8 of Marx's "10 points": "The equal obligation of all to work and the establishment of an industrial and agricultural armies." - Think of that - the equal OBLIGATION of all to work. You only get what you need -- and you have an OBLIGATION to work -- and people will be part of "industrial and agricultural ARMIES." ARMIES. That is what Marx wrote himself. Autonomy? Do armies let their soldiers do as they like? Or, do they ASSIGN THEM DUTIES? Whither choice to do what one wills? Whither choice to follow one's dreams? What of the individual who could be a lumberjack but wants to try his hand at ballet? When the "general" of the "industrial and agricultural ARMY" decides you'll be a lumberjack -- that individual will do it, yes? For the good of the community....

And again Coito, you are taking things out of context. I've just read through a good chunk of the Communist manifesto, and these 10 points are not a description of what a communist society would be like. They are short term measures that might have been needed, depending on the society, on the way towards communism. Seeing as our technology today has massively reduced the need for human labour in agriculture, the concept of agricultural armies is clearly irrelevant.

Do you think the ends would ever justify the means?

[Seth]

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.

Coito, your version of "from each according to his ability" is the most extreme understanding of it I've ever heard. You seem to presuppose that each member of a society would be forced to perform at 100% capacity at all times, like some machine.

Yes, that's pretty much it. Some 40 million "members" of the Soviet society were indeed forced to perform at 100 percent plus capacity, until they died and their bodies were buried in the Road of Bones in Siberia.

That's nothing like what Marx and Engles were talking about and nothing like what's been seen in practice when this kind of thing has actually occurred on smaller scales at various times in history (such as the anarchist period in Spain).

And yet that's what happens each and every time Marxism rears its ugly head.

Marx and Engles were saying that workers who owned the means of production and felt responsible for it would want and feel empowered to give their time and effort to the best of their ability (not much different to how workers who feel truly valued act today).

Which is why their ideology is idiocy, as history proves time and time again, each and EVERY time Marxism is attempted.

The Spanish anarchist period is a really good example of how this can and has worked in practice. Social change empowered people and made them feel that their contribution genuinely mattered. People gave their time and effort willingly for the good of their society, all without the need for any kind of hierarchical or totalitarian authority to impose the behaviour by force or propaganda.

I'm sorry, what? Spain's anarchist period was short, brutal and deadly, with people being killed on both sides (government and anarchists) and other people being dispossessed of their property by anarchists who were fixed on "collectivizing" certain areas. This is fine business for the peasants, but not so nice for anyone who spent generations acquiring property.

Spanish anarchism is still founded in militancy and terrorism, even today. I don't call that a "really good example" of a viable social model.

Such experiments can work to some extent, in limited areas, and only so long as there is OPM available to pay for the social welfare programs that are an inevitable part of socialism. Now, with Anarchists, they gave their time and effort willingly for themselves, and their local community, but only so long as they were allowed to expel "free riders" and otherwise punish those who failed to meet the labor input standards of the community.

Even the supposedly Libertarian Spanish anarchists were much closer to communists than to libertarianism in that they "collectivized" their communities, and not always voluntarily.

True Libertarians don't coerce others into participating in Libertarianism, nor do they expropriate the property of others in order to create the social community they favor.

[John_fi_Skye]

I think I have to say yes to that. Here is Seth's post: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1123210

It doesn't seem as if he's referring to you personally, but rather socialism in general, whereas you flat out directly called him, personally, a moron. So, that's a characteristic difference that I think is important under the rules.

But, In the end, it's all pretty tame and everyone here is a grown-up and can take it.

Nope. I can't agree with your interpretation. I post things on here about communism and altruism that I really mean. They're dearly-held beliefs that are fundamental to the way I live my life. For an individual deliberately to misunderstand these, wrench them round to a position that I explicitly said I wasn't holding, and then rubbish them in tabloid vocabulary (eg "dogs" and "vomit") is to me closer to a personal attack than for me to say - not directly at anyone - that one can see who the morons are.