08-20-2005, 02:19 AM
Hi,
Welcome back.
The fundamental problem with communism is its basic underlying idea, often expressed as, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." That idealistic statement, just like Jefferson's, ". . . all men are created equal . . .", is impressive, even heart stirring. And totally wrong. No-one believes either statement, which is why we have leaders and followers. Which is why we have CEO's and NBA stars (the CEO's average more over a lifetime, the stars do better in any given year ;) ). And which is why communism must always be a failure for humanity.
I once heard, or read, the statement that, "Politics is the art of the possible. If the impossible is legislated, then a disastrous possible will occur instead."
Communism, as an economic model, could never exist except under a regime that forced it. The reason is simple. Those that are more talented, that have worked harder, that are more committed want rewards commensurate with their efforts. They want a 'prize', whether it be money, power, or a larger herd of cattle. But under communism, although they give more, they (theoretically) get the same as those they have outstripped. After all, their 'needs' are no greater than those without talent, without ambition, without commitment.
Since communism, as practiced, only leaves one form of power, and that is political, it funnels most of the motivated people into one field. This has two detrimental effects. First, other fields are being robbed of these motivated individuals. And, second, many of these people have no talent for leadership. The net result is failure at all levels. The political because it is dominated by political incompetents who must use force instead of persuasion to rule. And everything else because the people who could have run things were too busy being politicians. The end result? Gross inefficiency, lack of consumer goods, a large and corrupt bureaucracy (the result of no checks from the government), dissatisfaction that leads to a growing need for ever more severe restrictions and an ever more powerful state police to enforce them.
Mark and Engels evil? Maybe in a negligent fashion. More sophomoric than evil, I think. They were wise enough to see the extremes of unregulated capitalism around them. They were smart enough to deduce the opposite extreme from what they observed. But they were too stupid to see the lesson that history put before them time and time again: a social problem isn't solved by going to the opposite extreme. It is solved by finding some workable middle ground. Only when dealing with fanatics is that solution not immediately workable -- but if the fanatic is 'eliminated' (and any means *are* justified to do so (i.e., WW II) :) ), the middle ground solution becomes workable.
As an aside, although I used Occhi's post as a springboard, this post is actually a summary on my view on communism in general.
--Pete
Welcome back.
Occhidiangela,Aug 19 2005, 12:55 PM Wrote:As to your Communism is basically unable to free itself from autocratic, plutocratic, or oligarchic models . . . so far, so bad. Marx was wrong. So was Lenin.Actually, communism works fine. Just not for homo sapiens. But check out any bee colony or ant hill. ;)
[right][snapback]86710[/snapback][/right]
The fundamental problem with communism is its basic underlying idea, often expressed as, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." That idealistic statement, just like Jefferson's, ". . . all men are created equal . . .", is impressive, even heart stirring. And totally wrong. No-one believes either statement, which is why we have leaders and followers. Which is why we have CEO's and NBA stars (the CEO's average more over a lifetime, the stars do better in any given year ;) ). And which is why communism must always be a failure for humanity.
I once heard, or read, the statement that, "Politics is the art of the possible. If the impossible is legislated, then a disastrous possible will occur instead."
Communism, as an economic model, could never exist except under a regime that forced it. The reason is simple. Those that are more talented, that have worked harder, that are more committed want rewards commensurate with their efforts. They want a 'prize', whether it be money, power, or a larger herd of cattle. But under communism, although they give more, they (theoretically) get the same as those they have outstripped. After all, their 'needs' are no greater than those without talent, without ambition, without commitment.
Since communism, as practiced, only leaves one form of power, and that is political, it funnels most of the motivated people into one field. This has two detrimental effects. First, other fields are being robbed of these motivated individuals. And, second, many of these people have no talent for leadership. The net result is failure at all levels. The political because it is dominated by political incompetents who must use force instead of persuasion to rule. And everything else because the people who could have run things were too busy being politicians. The end result? Gross inefficiency, lack of consumer goods, a large and corrupt bureaucracy (the result of no checks from the government), dissatisfaction that leads to a growing need for ever more severe restrictions and an ever more powerful state police to enforce them.
Mark and Engels evil? Maybe in a negligent fashion. More sophomoric than evil, I think. They were wise enough to see the extremes of unregulated capitalism around them. They were smart enough to deduce the opposite extreme from what they observed. But they were too stupid to see the lesson that history put before them time and time again: a social problem isn't solved by going to the opposite extreme. It is solved by finding some workable middle ground. Only when dealing with fanatics is that solution not immediately workable -- but if the fanatic is 'eliminated' (and any means *are* justified to do so (i.e., WW II) :) ), the middle ground solution becomes workable.
As an aside, although I used Occhi's post as a springboard, this post is actually a summary on my view on communism in general.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?