Communism and National Socialism

If we simply folow what comes 'naturally' to humans, you end up with either anarchy (survival of the fittest) or totalitarianism (the fittest has won).

Communism is a utopian ideal in that it seeks to ensure that everybody has a basically good standard of living, and everybody helps everybody. It is (to my mind) remarkably like the Christian ideal, but with all traces of God removed...

However, people being people, Communism never works.

 

I disagree.
Anarchy has existed nowhere for any length of time. It is human nature for men to band together to ensure some kind of order thus the development of Law in virtually every society that has existed.

Totalitarianism exists when men overthrow the law either by force or by coercive persuasion when fear prompts men to surrender liberty thinking that they will thereby gain security.

Both cases are an aberration rather than the natural state of man.

 

Civilization is not natural, and this is what you're describing. The urge to control anarchy and totalitarianism is what results in civilized societies; however, these are not necessarily natural and took a long time and much energy to establish. In fact, the ideas of liberty and equality before the law that you describe are only about 300 years old.

 

No, anarchy never lasts. Why? Because the fittest step forward and rule the rest. How else do you get clan cheiftains, royalty, etc etc.
Laws were generally created (where they exist) to keep people in line(One of the first laws ever put in any law codes are 'don't overthrow your leader'). Laws are really only established when a group controlled by one man or one agency becomes too big & too complex for that man or agency to control single-handed.
Or occaisionally by religious leaders - that is a whole new kettle of fish.
Civilisation simply means 'living in cities'. This is why 'civilised' now equates to 'polite' or 'having laws' - becase that is what you need to exist peacefully in a city.

Totalitarianism is not about overthrowing the law, it is about choosing a different law. Generally, societies go through distinct stages.
1) anarchy (before peope begin settling & living in groups)
2) totalitarian (beginning with tribal cheifs, working up to monarchies)
3) then a gradual change to democracy, as the downtrodden plebs discover their 'political muscle' and use it to their advantage.

America was in a state of totalitarianism, then along came the European settlers who transplanted the then current political ideals of the established European order to the new country.

The natural state of man is essentially selfishness. This is the basis of Capitalism, which is why that works, and is the opposite of true Communism, which is why that does not.

 

Of course civilization is natural. It is the natural progression in every known case. Because it takes time to develop does not negate that idea and because I am describing it's highest evolution (liberty and equality before the law) does not change that fact. What will happen in the future is of course hypothetical however I think that the evolution of civilization always will eventually lead to the establishment of those principles. Anarchy does not exist anywhere for long and Totalitarian states are temporary.

 

It can be either. A Dictator can overthrow a Republic but note I included the coersive persuauion option..your "choosing a different law"

I generally agree with that progression except for your use of totalitarian to represent all forms of authoritarian rule. A Monarchy is seldom truly Totalitarian because there is some sharing of power through the nobility and through the Church (in Europe)

I wouldn't desribe the Tribalism of Native Americans as Totalitarian.

Totally agree with this statement. The state of selfishness you refer to is what I was referring to (in part) as Man's nature.

see: THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS by Ayn Rand

 

Like Ricky said, civilization emerges only where there is a direct need for distinct social relations, that is, where many people live closely together. Without cities there is no civilization, and either anarchy or local (often personal) rule by a single person. Very few agricultural areas have ever figured out an efficient system of electoral rule, which again is based on the social interrelationships of cities. Thus, the "natural" state of man is mostly determined by the agricultural production of his living space; if there is surplus there will be cities and trade and therefore some kind of overseeing government; if there is a shortage there will be anarchy and local rule. Either way the people will readily surrender freedoms for protection of their interests, which is much closer to the natural state of man that "liberty and equality before the law".

To state that this is a final stage is, IMO, to be focused too much on your own age and region; it is a development that by European world supremacy has spread over the globe, but no one knows what will happen to it. Future ideas of what is "natural" to man may be entirely different.

It seems that you are defending the natural state of man as described by the theories of the Enlightenment (organized beings operating by universal laws and values) whereas Ricky and I are defending the natural state of man as described by Darwinists.

 

Grieg, I agree - replace 'totalitarian' with 'authoritarian' in all my posts above.

No, but I would describe it as authoritarian.
My bad...

Roel, "Ricky and I are defending the natural state of man as described by Darwinists." - speak for yourself!
I'm describing the natural state of man as observed by history.
Basically, look out for number 1 (this will mostly include your offspring & your mate). Then your family group, on the basis that they have or will help you at some point. Then you worry about anybody else.

 

It's the same thing, because Darwinism does just that.

 

Getting back to the original point...

Grieg said:

We have agreed fully that human nature is basically one of selfishness, and that altruism is the exception not the norm (I shy away from the term 'un-natural').

However, does that make it wrong?

Is it right to have a society where 5% of the people have 90% of the wealth, and the rest of us grub about in poverty to maintain their status?
(these days, The 'developed' countries are either welfare states [Europe] or rich enough to largely avoid these types of statistics [USA])

Or is it right to have a society where all the people have a relatively equal share?

I know which one works better in practice, but I also know which one is preferable.

No, I'm not a Communist, btw. Anybody who is a Communist is an unrelistic dreamer, in my opinion (no offence to any Communists here, it is my opinion. Please feel free to convince me otherwise)

 

When you speak of the "natural" state of man perhaps you are referring to primitive man. There are few places in the world where cities did not as a matter of course develop and all are quite primitive.

The natural state that I'm referring to is not man's natural primitive state but that which is consistent with human nature.
I assume you are referring to Social Darwinism ala Herbert Spencer since Darwin's work didn't deal with this kind of political philosophy.

 

Wrong? Is it wrong to display altruism? To give charity?
Not at all.
A better question would be; is it wrong to attempt to force people to adopt your ideas of what altruism and charity requires. In other words to make it mandatory.

European welfare states are Capitalist states insofar as their economic systems. It is Capitalism that is paying the bills for the welfare state. If that is okay with the Capitalists that are doing the producing then it isn't "wrong". Is it wise? That is another question.
As far as 5% of the people holding 90% of the wealth..if those 5% provide the jobs and the wealth that all society benefits from..sure..why not? Wealth is created by those who produce..it is never created by the state.

Never has happened, nor will it, so a moot point.
Forced equality is a silly concept. How would you do it? If we stopped everything in palce right at this moment..and divided up the existing wealth equally..within a month some people would have squandered their "equal" share and some people would have invested theirs in production and doubled their previously "equal" share.
Then what? Take from the producer what they have earned with diligence, foresight and hard labor and give it to those who squandered their share?

Explain to me how the scenario I described above regarding the "equal" division is wealth is preferable. We all know that exactly what I described will happen. Some will work hard and produce and some will sit back and do nothing but consume.
Am I wrong?

Communist or Socialist...no significant difference insofar as divergence from reality is concerned IMO.

 

The big, huge, awful mistake all those who criticize socialism make is to distinguish only between those who work hard and invest and those who don't work at all. This is not reality and in fact it is further from reality than any ideals about the equal distribution of wealth.

In reality, in your interesting scenario, some people would indeed squander their share twiddling their fingers or sitting in a pub all day; some others would invest their money and start living off their profits. Note that this is not hard work, it involves insight, information and careful timing but not hard work. The vast majority of the people, however, will try to keep their share about equal or improve it as best they can; they will try to retain their level of consumer options. These are the real people, who do not twiddle fingers yet do not invest, and these are the "victims" of capitalism in that they are easily exploited by those who really do invest. Generally, nowadays, such regular working folk are protected in many ways, and thus there is no exploitation by any "bourgeois class" like Marx wished to imagine; but it shows the drift of the average person is not towards accumulating as much wealth as possible but rather to live as comfortable as possible with what he has. The minority of capitalist-minded investors are an exception to this as much as the lazy slobs are. And thus, in general, capitalism leads to the accumulation of wealth by a few; if unchecked, this accumulation will be enlarged by the impoverishment of the vast majority of the people (profits rise fastest when wages go down). The best system therefore is one that stimulates production, and capitalism, for that is the system which increases welfare in the best way known to man; but on the other hand it is a system that protects those who do not directly invest their money from being gradually shoved down the ladder of wealth. Should an economic system lead to the happiness of few at the expense of others, or should it lead to the happiness of many through capitalism checked by government protection against extreme poverty?

What I stand for is not a wholesale redistribution of all the wealth, because we both agree that this would never remain equally distributed; what I stand for is a check on poverty which is simply achieved by taking some of the money of the insanely rich who have used capitalism succesfully to give it to those who have not. Because capitalism may be the best image of "natural" human behaviour, that does not mean it comes natural to everyone.

 

Of course it is reality. Is it all of reality? No, but reality nonetheless.
Those two polar opposites being the extremes, as with most analogies, are used to make the point clear.

What I stand for is not a wholesale redistribution of all the wealth, because we both agree that this would never remain equally distributed; what I stand for is a check on poverty which is simply achieved by taking some of the money of the insanely rich who have used capitalism succesfully to give it to those who have not.

A rather provincial definition of what constitutes "hard work". Do you not consider an investment in intellectual property as work? Must you use your back to be working? In any case, the most common small investor has invested in his own small business. Such an entrepreneur generally (especially if successful) works harder and longer hours than most any wage earner.

How are these people "victims" "easily exploited " by investors?
You lost me there.

From each according to his ability and to each according to his need?
Who shall decide who has ability and thus is required by the state to work for the benefit of another and just who is "needy" enough to receive the benefits of anothers labor? Will the needy be required to work for the benefit of the more needy? Will the filthy rich receive benefits from the insanely rich (as you term them)?
At what point will people cross the magic line from becoming a producer (who is forced to produce for the benefit of others) to a consumer (who is entitled by the state) to take from the producer?
Sounds more like Hades to me than Utopia (or Republic)

 

But instead of making the point clear, it shows a working system as a system in which the lazy exploit the industrious while giving nothing back. This is simply not the case, and I wish people who oppose socialism would stop fooling themselves with such images that simply don't exist. In the Netherlands, 800,000 people live off of fees given by the government because they are considered (by the government) to be unfit for work because of whatever physical or psychological reasons. A lot of these, it must be said, are indeed recieving these fees unjustly; but still, is it evil to support people at least to a minimal level of subsistence if they can't work and thus support themselves?

Yes, you are right. Here I imagined working people as purely people executing tasks given to them and investors purely as stock exchange speculators. It is of course comparable to the mistake you make that I point out above. Kind of stupid of me to come back at it with a similar error!

Many people are simply not equiped to handle the changing world of investment and profit; thus they simply work for a wage. They are therefore dependent of their employers. This is where any state should at least ensure some security to its workers from random decisions made "above". Of course it is hard to draw a line between an unjustified management decision and the unjustified employing of too many employees, but such a line must be drawn and held on to if people are to have any prospects for the future while being wage-earners.

No, obviously that is not what I said. In fact socialism as employed nowadays in European politics was originally developed as an alternative to the socialist revolution proclaimed by semi-apocalyptic Marxists; after the founding of the Third International, there emerged a clear line between socialism and communism which was never again disputed. It seems that only Americans (I'm sorry to generalize it, but of all the people I know only some Americans make this mistake) fail to distinguish between the two.

In theory, no one in this system is doing nothing and still earning money while having perfectly good alternatives. In theory, only those who cannot work recieve money from the redistribution system. It does not mean that poor people get all the money rich people earn. It doesn't even mean that those who produce do so purely because others need it (actually this sounds a lot like the Marxist idea of capitalism: those who work do so to feed the rich, but vice versa). The "magic line" is in fact very clear: it means those who are too old to work or too sick to work or who cannot work for various other reasons. It does not involve those who do not want to work, or those who work but do not earn enough (with minimal wages this is impossible).

In practice there are those who manage to fool the system, and there are governments that don't control the system enough to keep its expenses under control; but in the end, and this is proven by many states in Europe, this system allows for many more people to consume many more goods, which means a rise in production and wealth. It merely means that those who have enough pay a little more of it to the government who spreads it among those who don't have enough. It's fair, it's humane; what's wrong with it?

 

I disagree. I maintain that they do exist in any system to some degree. I do not think that the power of the state should be used to aid the lazy in exploiting the industrious.

Your argument is puzzling to me. You admit that "a lot these...are..receiving these funds unjustly" and yet you then you characterize them as people who "can't work and thus support themselves"?
I find this contradictory and illogical.

Why do you assume that it is the role of the state to act as a go between for employers and employees? What are 'random decisions"? Employers tend to make rational business decisions if they are successful businesses. You don't become successful ( thus a major employer) by making random and arbitrary decisions. What qualifies the state to make business decisions anyway? Do you seriously think that the state can operate a business more efficiently than private enterprise?

Now admittedly I am only an American but I am unable to distinguish this "clear line" (in reality not rhetoric) perhaps you can enlighten me?

What you are decribing is a Capitalist economic system with a welfare state, not Socialism. The Netherlands is not a Socialist state nor is Sweden.

A rise in production and wealth? Compared to what? Do you maintain that a strong welfare state is responsible for a rise in production and wealth?
On what basis do you make this claim. Can you compare a Netherlands or Sweden both with and without a welfare state, all other things being equal? I cannot imagine how.

 

Well how would you define Socialism?

In 1945 a Socialist Government came into power in Britain. Since then, we have essentially (or occaisionally literally) been socialist since, as we have not really deviated from their basic framework.
Yes, it is basically a Welfare State, with a lot of political clout resting with the Trade Unions (although this was changed in the 1980s by Thatcher).

To my mind, it is really the best compromise in terms of economics & politics that is reachable.
A Capitalist system, but with provision made so that those who inevitably get pushed (or just fall) to the bottom of the pile are kept at a basic standard of living.

However, Capitalism (like democracy & the 2-party system) has a fundamental problem. The monopoly. The whole point of Capitalism is that a business grows, and takes over its rivals, and completely dominates or 'corners' a particular product or service. Think Microsoft, or WalMart. The logical conclusion of this is a world dominated by big businesses who are free to hire whom they like at what wages they like, and to sell what they like at what prices they like. Recently, European governments have been trying to stop this (things like the 'Monopoly Commission')...

Haven't we got a topic on 'capitalism' in the Member's lounge somewhere?

btw- yes, I know that the point of Communism is that the government hold the monopoly...

(Edit - cleaning up typos!)

 

Well, if it is, then the world at the moment is all wrong.
Governments collect our taxes in order to distribute it to those in need.
Try not paying your tax, claiming that it is wrong for the government to decide where your money goes...

If we simply allow people to do what they like with money, we get Ultimate Capitalism, which means simply economic life as it was in the Victorian age (Anglo-Centric viewpoint, I know), where the elite few own more money (relatively) that Bill Gates does now. With no minimum wage & no trade unions, the majority of workers live on or below the poverty line.
Read up on the '7 estates' (I think this is it - the 7 categories of economic class in Victorian times). Scary stuff.

 

Good luck on trying to find a so-called Socialist who can answer that one clearly. No moatter who's definition you use I think one must break it down along these lines
Socialism: ownership of all capital and means of production is in the hands of the state.
Capitalismwnership of means of production and capital in the hands of individuals or groups of individuals (corporations)

I wouldn't say that monopoly is "the whole point of Capitalism".
Neither Wal-Mart nor Microsoft possess a monopoly though one could argue that they both have a dominant market share. How did they achieve this? By providing value. Consumers have made their choice to patronize these businesses because of the value they receive.
No business AFAIK can "hire whom they like, at what wages they like and sell at what prices they like" unless they have a state enforced monopoly.

 

Because governments have taken this power (from the people) does not mean that it is desirable or efficient. The state takes our taxes to use as they see fit not "to distribute it to those in need". If you think that social spending for the needy is the only use of your tax money then you haven't been looking very closely at how they spend it.

Who is this 'we" that is the ultimate arbiter of how it is fit and proper for individuals to dispose of what they earned with their own labor?
As to the majority of workers living below the "poverty line"; the poverty line is merely what the state decides it is. In reality there is no such "line".
In the states you can live below that line and own a luxury automobile, wear 200 dollars sneakers and 2000 dollar gold chains.

What I find scary is that so much of the industrialized, capitalist west is willing to discard what has made them rich and given them the luxury to be so self absorbed and to embrace a failed system of soft -headed fantasy that is being promoted by academia and so called intelligencia who have benefitted greatly from the system.

Do you think I should stop pulling my punches and say how i really feel?