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

[Whaleboy]

Whaleboy, then, is you level of consent such that a person who does not agree with a directive (permission in the words of Kid) can choose differently and/or can leave the commune?

Well what is that choice and directive? Surely it is simply a description of a given situation (a possible outcome) and a prescribed consequence for both positive and negative, i.e., do this and die, don't do this and live. The responsibility (and thus the freedom) of the individual is still there in making that choice, and that choice cannot be removed of them, it is simply the gravity of the consequences that distract our attention.

Which imo answers your next question.

[aneeshm]

@ che

In capitalism , there is no forcing of anything involved . In fact , the use of force is illegal in a capitalist society ( except in cases like self-defence , et cetera ) . If a bunch of commies choose to go and form a self-sufficient commune , no-one will stop them . You are free to do anything you want as long as all relationships ( of all natures ) do not involve the use of force .

[Berzerker]

Let me see, potato famine Ireland and 1980s India were capitalist systems?

[aneeshm]

In Ireland , land was granted by the government to the aristocrats . Very capitalist , no ? And it is only recently ( 1991 ) that India has become even semi-capitalist .

[techumseh]

Has anyone considered the arms race as a factor in the demise of the Communist system? The capitalist states outspent the socialist states on arms by a massive amount, especially from Reagan on, forcing a huge diversion of resources in an attempt to keep pace.

This prevented the socialist countries from developing their economies outside the military sector. Agriculture and production of consumer goods couldn't keep pace. Eventually, even areas like health care and education, long socialist success stories, began to suffer.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by aneeshm
In capitalism , there is no forcing of anything involved . In fact , the use of force is illegal in a capitalist society ( except in cases like self-defence , et cetera ).

You can always say that working for somebody is a choice, yet it is disingenuous when the other option is starvation.

[Whaleboy]

Yeh but life's a *****.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Yeh but life's a *****.

That's why communism is good - it makes life all right for the unfortunate and the downtrodden.

Besides, dictatorship and communism are not mutually exclusive.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I don't doubt that, but does that make them altruistic? One must ask the question "why do they share" and my answer is self-interest (egoism).

That's just a definition game. How do you define egoism?

Originally posted by Whaleboy
If you accept that the human brain, as a computer, operates on certain logical principles, then is it possible for it *not* to act in its own interest, or for its own whim?

Logical thinking is hard. Only the cerebral cortex (I think that's what it is called) is capable of it, and you need to learn how to think logically. When people act, particularly when doing so impulsively, the actions come from a more primitive part. When you dodge an incoming object, you don't think, "I better avoid this thing or I may get hurt" - you just do.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
As for us as subjectively conscious individuals, naturally we think of ourselves as altruistic, benevolent people, but that does not transfer categorically to a situation where humans as numbers matters, or a political equation were determinations of human nature are of the utmost importance.

You're claiming that greed is the dominant motive, but that's just as valid (or invalid) as my counterpoint.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Obvious suggestion would be instint (certain anecdotal cases I remember hearing about suggest instinct)... so the instinct to help a stranger, or shall we say an instinct to altruism. But is that not to the satisfaction and gratification of those instincts that one performs those actions? We might do something because of the endorphine rush that feels good, but that's shaky ground for the foundation of this argument, so I can ask the question above, is it possible for us "not" to act on a fundamentally egoistic level?

You certainly agree that survival is the fundamental instinct, thus attempting to save another person at great risk to oneself cannot be egoistical. Afterall, it's likely that one would not be there. Furthermore, is getting some kind of high a good return on getting yourself killed? Are you stoned?

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Naturally certain things have an altruistic appearance, even to us, but appearences can be deceptive, I am asking the question of the premise of subjective motivation, including the motivation of the "best of intentions".

There's a recent case that took place duing the South Asia tsumani disaster. A man risked his life saving a woman - who was later rescued - but he was found dead later. Where's the egoistic motivation in that?

[Whaleboy]

That's just a definition game. How do you define egoism?

I believe I did.

Logical thinking is hard. Only the cerebral cortex (I think that's what it is called) is capable of it, and you need to learn how to think logically. When people act, particularly when doing so impulsively, the actions come from a more primitive part. When you dodge an incoming object, you don't think, "I better avoid this thing or I may get hurt" - you just do.

As I said earlier, you need to get away from this notion of conscious thought. I am dealing with a more basic side, of course consciously we dress things up and dilude ourselves... love, altruism and the rest of it but to consistently bring it into your argument is to fudge the question.

You certainly agree that survival is the fundamental instinct, thus attempting to save another person at great risk to oneself cannot be egoistical. Afterall, it's likely that one would not be there. Furthermore, is getting some kind of high a good return on getting yourself killed?

Further to your confusion of conscious and subconscious is your confusion of individual instincts and evolutionary instincts. To what end are they respectively performed? Does it make sense for an individual to have a sex drive except in the context of evolutionary instinct? Consider this piece: http://salmonriver.com/commentary/ca...nourgenes.html and what I said earlier about us having evolved for social behaviour, but it is still in our self-interest as a species, even though (again as I said earlier) there may not be any discernable material gain to the subject (rushing into the burning car to save a stranger). Draw the line between the individuals behaviour and that to propagate the species. Can't be done imo.

I do not agree that survival is a fundamental instinct, I agree that egoism is the fundamental "instinct", or at least a consequential function of the fact that our brains obey the laws of physics, upon which instincts are premised relative to the appropriate context, i.e. survival can be put on the shelf WRT the burning car.

There's a recent case that took place duing the South Asia tsumani disaster. A man risked his life saving a woman - who was later rescued - but he was found dead later. Where's the egoistic motivation in that?

Logical behaviour for the propagation of the species. Needless to say the human factor, and that our nurture can sometimes distort our psychological nature means that such actions are performed arbitrarily... i.e. it's conceivable that someone could give his life to save a stranger who is a post-menopausal woman (IOW someone of limited evolutionary value). The same logic applies throughout.

Egoism is here simply the premise for all of our actions because we can only perceive through a given set of senses that feed into our brains, it is our minds that think and our individual subconscious' that process information and act instinctively, so there is something always rooted in us whenever we take what may appear as the most selfless action. How can that ever *not* be the case in human action? Everything we do therefore is simply a manifestation of that fundamental egoism. Look at the etymology and dictionary definition of the word...

(From Websters)
Main Entry: ego·ism
Pronunciation: 'E-g&-"wi-z&m also 'e-
Function: noun
1 a : a doctrine that individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action b : a doctrine that individual self-interest is the valid end of all actions
2 : excessive concern for oneself with or without exaggerated feelings of self-importance -- compare EGOTISM 2

Ego of course coming from the latin for "I", and it is that notion which is key. Our perception is egocentric and "other people", either in the rationalist or the empiricalist sense, are still "knowledge" to us, in other words simply a function in our brains. They exist -> They exist to I.

(I should draw the distinction between this as a descriptive notion and an interpretation of my argument of prescriptive in the ethical sense, which is obviously not the case)

[Whaleboy]

That's why communism is good - it makes life all right for the unfortunate and the downtrodden.

But has to sacrifice logical consistency to do it, as well as go against human nature which adds instability. I assume we mean Communism in the applied political sense.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Well what is that choice and directive? Surely it is simply a description of a given situation (a possible outcome) and a prescribed consequence for both positive and negative, i.e., do this and die, don't do this and live. The responsibility (and thus the freedom) of the individual is still there in making that choice, and that choice cannot be removed of them, it is simply the gravity of the consequences that distract our attention.

Which imo answers your next question.

Well, let's assume that a person just graduated medical school and is offered a job as a doctor in the communist parardise as salary X, which is the same as that of a nurse whose hours are far less. In a nearby non communist hell-hole, she can make 10 X. Is she free to move to the non communist hell-hole and make 10 X? Is she free to choose to work as a nurse instead?

[Whaleboy]

Of course not, but am I "free" to walk on the moon? Do I have a right to go to the moon? Of course not, it's not a right, it's a choice one has by virtue of owning a Saturn V and some cool plastic flags. Same logic applies here.

[Ned]

Whaleboy, then she is a slave.

[Whaleboy]

Hardly... a free market ideally has an equilibrium between the labour market and the supply market, slavery simply doesn't work. Quite simply, supply and demand prevents a situation from occuring whereby the only alternative to a given employ is death, and where that situation occurs it is indicative of a non-free market, a communist system (either by revolution or capitalism) that shouldn't be there (I speak of the condition of free market as opposed to the symptoms, i.e. the slavery of which you speak).