Why has Communism failed everywhere ? A chance for commies to explain

[Whaleboy]

You claim it's a delusion because the person who sacrifices gains some sort of emotional or intellectual gratification?

No, because it's logically predicated in themselves, which begs the question asked (repeatedly) earlier.

[Whaleboy]

Why are the commies so seemingly desperate to show that altruism is true?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
No, because it's logically predicated in themselves, which begs the question asked (repeatedly) earlier.

This disproves altruism how?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Why are the commies so seemingly desperate to show that altruism is true?

Because the supposition that alutrism doesn't exist is used as a proof that a society of sharing and rational planning can't exist either. Of course, this ignores the fact that choosing socialism is a self-interested act, as well as one for the benefit of others.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Capitalism is no advancement in the rule of law. It is legalized exploitation. It's defended by force, and disobedience is punished by death. Communism is rational, and is the only true advancement to civilization.

Lets take this bit by bit

Originally posted by Kidicious


Capitalism is no advancement in the rule of law. It is legalized exploitation.

Only in the kidaverse where I can be defined to be "exploiting" someone even if I pay them triple the pay they would get in a (presumably non-exploitive) state job. Labour standards and minimum wage legislation actually makes exploitation ILLEGAL.

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's defended by force,

Yes within a defined set of rules. If you break down my door and enter my home, the police will eject you by force. But this would result in any system with private property. Even in sysetems without private property I imagine that force would be used as necessary to maintain the system.

Originally posted by Kidicious


and disobedience is punished by death.

HUH--- Death ???? Uhh most capitalist democracies don't have the death penalty and even if you totally reject our system and decided to sit on your ass for the rest of your life, there would be a number of mechanisms and institutions that would kick in so that you need not die. Also, nothing prevents you from leaving a given nation-state or even forming a commune.

Originally posted by Kidicious


Communism is rational, .

It only seems rational if you assume things and define things in ways that are completely inconsistent with current reality. Aren't you one of the people saying communism REQUIRES world-wide implementation? Do you see this as likely given the various national, ethnic and religious divides?

Originally posted by Kidicious


and is the only true advancement to civilization.

I doubt this. In previous discussions you have indicated a level of state control over individuals that I would consider to be a regression in the area of personal rights and freedoms.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Because the supposition that alutrism doesn't exist is used as a proof that a society of sharing and rational planning can't exist either.

I think that altrusim exists but in insufficient quantities in enough people to make large scale "sharing" work. many people are willing to be altruistic and help out a person who has had misfortune.

But when government systems get involved, people can get a lot less "sharing". They see the fruits of their labors taken from them not only to help the unfortunate but also the lazy, the party animal, the dope addict etc etc. For many the question then becomes one of " why am I busting my ass??

AS for "rational planning", if this means central planning, it would need to be much more reactive than previous models.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Of course, this ignores the fact that choosing socialism is a self-interested act, as well as one for the benefit of others.

I can agree with this, but this does not apply to socialism only but even down to the level of support for social programs. I like that Canada has health care-- I feel better protected myself because of this.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Why are the commies so seemingly desperate to show that altruism is true?

The assumption that capitalists make is that natural selection takes place at the level of individual, hence the dispicable notion of "Social Darwinism" used by the libertarians. Natural selection actually takes place at the level of the genes. The selfish gene explains things that seem impossible with traditional organism-level selection, such as social insects and kin selection (an individual sacrificing itself for it's siblings, since siblings share at least 50% of thier genes, a individual sacrificing itself will be selected for if it can save more than 2 siblings).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
Only in the kidaverse where I can be defined to be "exploiting" someone even if I pay them triple the pay they would get in a (presumably non-exploitive) state job.

Exploitation, in the Marxist sense of the word, is when you do not get paid the full value of what you produce. In slavery or feudalism exploitation is much easier to recognize. In feudalism, after you spend five days working your own land, you are required to work a day on the Lord's land. That exploitation is very easy to see, and in slavery, you don't even get to work your own land, all the work you do is for the owner. In capitalism, exploitation is more difficult to see because you get paid for your time (except in the case of piece work, but the principle is the same). The same principle applies in capitalism, though. The laborer does not get paid the full amount of the value he produces, but instead a portion of that value is appropriated by the capitalist. That appropiration is what Marxists call exploitation.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
I think that altrusim exists but in insufficient quantities in enough people to make large scale "sharing" work. many people are willing to be altruistic and help out a person who has had misfortune.

Well, humans are not only altruistic beings. Any society which tries to model itself on only one facet of human nature is doomed to have problems.

I like that Canada has health care-- I feel better protected myself because of this.

Exactly!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Because rationality is not required for it to exist in your mind. Consider something like a belief in God, which exists in the mind of the believer even though it fails rationally. Similarly with our perceptions of ourselves, hence you can claim until the cows come home that you're not an egoistic being but it wont cut any ice, because you're not escaping the consciousness, whereas it is the unconscious that is being described. Surely it is obvious by now, I'm running out of ways I can articulate it.

I'm not talking about the unconsciousness. It exists in the consciousness. The idea that you are the only important thing in the universe is wrong. The truth is that they universe as a whole is important. So it's not delusional when a person realizes that. When they can not realize it, that's when they are delusional. The problem is that they can't see the forest from the trees.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Why are the commies so seemingly desperate to show that altruism is true?

It's not that at all. Whenever someone has such a warped view of the universe it will always draw attention. You're making a fool out of yourself.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Only in the kidaverse where I can be defined to be "exploiting" someone even if I pay them triple the pay they would get in a (presumably non-exploitive) state job. Labour standards and minimum wage legislation actually makes exploitation ILLEGAL.

Show me where the law even claims to make exploitation illegal. Minimum wage is a set wage. It's impossible to set a wage that is not exploitive unless it was so high that there would be no employment. Exploitation is the driving force of capitalism. It's necessary to it's survival.

Yes within a defined set of rules. If you break down my door and enter my home, the police will eject you by force. But this would result in any system with private property. Even in sysetems without private property I imagine that force would be used as necessary to maintain the system.

That's not really what I'm talking about. The system of exploitation is defended by force. I'm not talking about defending people's property, only their right to exploit people.

HUH--- Death ???? Uhh most capitalist democracies don't have the death penalty and even if you totally reject our system and decided to sit on your ass for the rest of your life, there would be a number of mechanisms and institutions that would kick in so that you need not die. Also, nothing prevents you from leaving a given nation-state or even forming a commune.

Lack of resources prevent me. Not to mention that I'm not the only concern. My concern is for the proletariate as a whole.

It only seems rational if you assume things and define things in ways that are completely inconsistent with current reality. Aren't you one of the people saying communism REQUIRES world-wide implementation? Do you see this as likely given the various national, ethnic and religious divides?

I see ethnic and other divisions much more of a problem for capitalism. War and nationalism makes sense in an irrational system like capitalism, not communism.

I doubt this. In previous discussions you have indicated a level of state control over individuals that I would consider to be a regression in the area of personal rights and freedoms.

Of course you do. You want to mainatian the right to exploit because it benefits you personally.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Of course you do. You want to mainatian the right to exploit because it benefits you personally.

Kid has just summed up the Libertarian philosophy.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Odin


Kid has just summed up the Libertarian philosophy.

From what I've read, he's also summed up your philosophy. It seems you guys not only aren't on the same page with respect to communism, you're not even reading the same book.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kontiki
From what I've read, he's also summed up your philosophy. It seems you guys not only aren't on the same page with respect to communism, you're not even reading the same book.

No. Neither one of us wants an exploitive system. We have other differenses.