Why is it considered "moral" to be communist?

[Greoric]

There was no contradiction in my post. Human nature isn't malleable. People are motivated by self-interest. Not sure which part do you disagree?

He has some sort of mental block. He likes to ignore obvious fundamental truths about even something like biology so he can put squares in round holes to confirm his perversions of reality.

 

[ultramanhyata]

There was no contradiction in my post. Human nature isn't malleable. People are motivated by self-interest. Not sure which part do you disagree?

So you think the self-interest that leads people to desire some form of collectivist society will provide sufficient motivation for that society to succeed?

 

[brothir]

It's very easy to assume they're not, because even leaving aside that their incentive structure cares little for efficiency as opposed to gaining political clout, we know that they don't get the market signals, via prices through the voluntary exchange of a customer base that a private company would. All they're going off of are what people want via a vote once in a term of years.

I agree that it's easy to assume it's not optimal, but not for the reasons stated. Ultimately, the oil we drill has to be sold on the market same as everything else, so surely the concerns for efficiency would be the same, considering that we don't actually allow Statoil (the company that does the oil drilling, owned 2/3 by the state) to run on a deficit. I mean, in theory operating on a loss could be allowed, but there's no immediate benefit for the state in doing so, considering it'll have to divert tax money towards that rather than spend it on infrastructure and such that people feel more directly than a pension fund that'll slowly be rolled out.

Crawl walk run right?

I guess, but I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here.

But to your first point its easy to what?

As you said, it's easy to observe something the government has done. No disagreement from me there.

That requires that you know the exact value judgments of millions of your fellow citizens before they would make them. That would make you a God, my friend.

That's definitely beyond my ability, so no godhood for me I guess. Thank heavens people can use their vote to elect a government based on their values, right? That makes my failed apotheosis a non-issue.

 

[ultramanhyata]

He has some sort of mental block. He likes to ignore obvious fundamental truths about even something like biology so he can put squares in round holes to confirm his perversions of reality.

It's as simple as one man's trash being another man's treasure. Your inability to grasp such a basic concept shows the degree to which your brain has been liquified by the fevered internet ramblings of libertarian ideologues.

 

[RubberGuard5]

So you think the self-interest that leads people to desire some form of collectivist society will provide sufficient motivation for that society to succeed?

No. Check out how people act when faced with prisoner's dilemma. It's good to give the best of your ability so everyone has their needs fulfilled, but it's even better to slack off and still try to reap all the benefits. That's just how we are as a species.

 

[ultramanhyata]

No. Check out how people act when faced with prisoner's dilemma. It's good to give the best of your ability so everyone has their needs fulfilled, but it's even better to slack off and still try to reap all the benefits. That's just how we are as a species.

So people are motivated by self-interest.

Unless their self-interest conflicts with your definition of self-interest.

Then it's not really self-interest, just a bad choice.

If I'm a turtle who flourishes in a marsh, and you're a tortoise who flourishes in the desert, is it in my self-interest to live in a desert with you? Is it in your self-interest to live in a marsh with me?

 

[RubberGuard5]

So people are motivated by self-interest.

Unless their self-interest conflicts with your definition of self-interest.

Then it's not really self-interest, just a bad choice.

If I'm a turtle who flourishes in a marsh, and you're a tortoise who flourishes in the desert, is it in my self-interest to live in a desert with you? Is it in your self-interest to live in a marsh with me?

Just check out prisoner's dilemma. There is choice which would benefit both participants (that is equivalent to your desired collectivist society), and people are not making that choice. They are not picking the option that would benefit all members of society equally, them included. They are picking the most selfish option.

 

[Greoric]

Just check out prisoner's dilemma. There is choice which would benefit both participants (that is equivalent to your desired collectivist society), and people are not making that choice. They are not picking the option that would benefit all members of society equally, them included. They are picking the most selfish option.

That same phenomenon in game theory explains why its impossible for businesses in competitive markets to "exploit" their workers in the sense of paying below their value marginal product.... or why collusions are also impossibly sustainable in the same environment.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Just check out prisoner's dilemma. There is choice which would benefit both participants (that is equivalent to your desired collectivist society), and people are not making that choice. They are not picking the option that would benefit all members of society equally, them included. They are picking the most selfish option.

PD. lol I'm glad we're focusing on the real world.

Instead of imaginary years in an imaginary prison, put two people in a room with the PD rules and place percentages of their actual life savings on the line. Then let's see what the majority decide.

So I take it you're not one of those conservatives who think liberal politicians try to buy votes from a certain demographic by supporting legislation that expands the welfare state, right?

Because, I mean, how could it possibly be in anyone's self-interest to expand the welfare state, right?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Perhaps.
But correlation does not necessarily mean = causality. Lot of different variables going on.

Yes, but it's mope than mere correlation. Communists said they would destroy the bourgeoisie and the nobility. Which they did with mass executions and imprisonment in a brutal slave system. When you make war with entire classes of people an then wipe them out a la the Maoists or the Khmer Rouge or the Soviets, it is hardly mere correlation.

What is the mental block leftists have with seeing that almost every communist regime that has ever existed was involved in mass murder because brutal coercion is an intrinsic part of their political philosophy? Just a few decades back liberals saw this quite clearly. Don't apologize for a murderous political ideology.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Yes, but it's mope than mere correlation. Communists said they would destroy the bourgeoisie and the nobility. Which they did with mass executions and imprisonment in a brutal slave system. When you make war with entire classes of people an then wipe them out a la the Maoists or the Khmer Rouge or the Soviets, it is hardly mere correlation.

What is the mental block leftists have with seeing that almost every communist regime that has ever existed was involved in mass murder because brutal coercion is an intrinsic part of their political philosophy? Just a few decades back liberals saw this quite clearly. Don't apologize for a murderous political ideology.

Sounds like you are putting out claims that people largely don't even make, and then debunk them like you're being insightful. The deaths in the Pol Pot, Stalin, or Mao eras are beyond well documented and articulated. Probably more so than they are generally understood.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Sounds like you are putting out claims that people largely don't even make, and then debunk them like you're being insightful. The deaths in the Pol Pot, Stalin, or Mao eras are beyond well documented and articulated. Probably more so than they are generally understood.

I'm not claiming any special insight. Quite the opposite really. I'm claiming that it is obvious that communism is an immoral, dictatorial, and murderous system. Doesn't take insight to recognize the obvious.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

I'm not claiming any special insight. Quite the opposite really. I'm claiming that it is obvious that communism is an immoral, dictatorial, and murderous system. Doesn't take insight to recognize the obvious.

I see. It's not alone in that regard.

 

[RubberGuard5]

PD. lol I'm glad we're focusing on the real world.

Instead of imaginary years in an imaginary prison, put two people in a room with the PD rules and place percentages of their actual life savings on the line. Then let's see what the majority decide.

So I take it you're not one of those conservatives who think liberal politicians try to buy votes from a certain demographic by supporting legislation that expands the welfare state, right?

Because, I mean, how could it possibly be in anyone's self-interest to expand the welfare state, right?

Ok, I think I see what's bothering you. So basically think I'm saying it's not in people's self interest to cooperate. I'm not saying that at all. Cooperation obviously brings benefits to all participants. If no athletes were using roids, it would be beneficial to every single one of them, right? That's your real life prisoner's dilemma. So why are they all using?

Well, it's true that it's beneficial that they all stop using PEDs. But on the individual level, what makes sense the most is to keep using while everyone else stops. That way you reap the benefits of cooperation while achieving more than the others. And people try that. Cause it's in our nature.

I mean this isn't some controversial stuff I'm talking about. Marxists acknowledge this human trait and understand it is a problem to their political model, they just think you can change people.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Ok, I think I see what's bothering you. So basically think I'm saying it's not in people's self interest to cooperate. I'm not saying that at all. Cooperation obviously brings benefits to all participants. If no athletes were using roids, it would be beneficial to every single one of them, right? That's your real life prisoner's dilemma. So why are they all using?

Well, it's true that it's beneficial that they all stop using PEDs. But on the individual level, what makes sense the most is to keep using while everyone else stops. That way you reap the benefits of cooperation while achieving more than the others. And people try that. Cause it's in our nature.

I mean this isn't some controversial stuff I'm talking about. Marxists acknowledge this human trait and understand it is a problem to their political model, they just think you can change people.

Do you think we would see an increase in shop-lifting if we repealed all the laws against it? Do you think any retail stores could remain in business if such a repeal occurred?

 

[Goonerview]

Funny, this video was released a few days ago

 

[Thurisaz]

Communism is base evil and so is everyone who advocates for it. It is very handy that many of them identify as such and are open about it enough to wear Che shirts and stuff like that.

The reason is that it was dubbed critical thinking and has been preached from universities for more than 50 years. It also never killed that many of (((the people))), instead it was their pet cause and guess who decides what's acceptable or not in public these days?

 

[PubliusVentidius]

Communism will never work because one of its fundamental assumptions is empirically shown false, that being the malleability of human nature.

People are motivated by self interest. Nothing will change that. Best we can do is create society where it will be in our self interest to provide the best goods and services possible. Adam Smith was a genius for understanding this. That's why capitalism won.

''Human nature'' is in large part a product of your environment. Hunter gatherer societies for instance were and are egalitarian and communist-like most of the time, they share what they hunt fairly between members and there's no ownership to speak of. I remember reading about an anthropologist studying a tribe (forgot the name, I think I read it in ''Sex at Dawn'') who was baffled by the fact that they could not even entertain the concepts of ownership and stealing, they were alien concepts to them.
That said, communism can never work on a large scale in a market based economy with a profit based monetary system.

 

[RubberGuard5]

''Human nature'' is in large part a product of your environment. Hunter gatherer societies for instance were and are egalitarian and communist-like most of the time, they share what they hunt fairly between members and there's no ownership to speak of. I remember reading about an anthropologist studying a tribe (forgot the name, I think I read it in ''Sex at Dawn'') who was baffled by the fact that they could not even entertain the concepts of ownership and stealing, they were alien concepts to them.
That said, communism can never work on a large scale in a market based economy with a profit based monetary system.

That's exactly what Marx thought! And it's a necessary condition for his theory to work. He thought when society changes, people will stop acting like, well, humans, and will stop being selfish. Only then can we have society as he envisioned it. Adam Smith went the other way, he assumed everything we do is out of self-interest.

I'm not really going to debate you on whether human nature is malleable or not, because, well, it's an endless topic. But ask yourself, how do you know it's in large part a product of your environment? Were you being scientific when you gathered data to reach that conclusion? That is, were you only looking for data that supports that conclusion, or were you trying to to falsify your hypothesis?

 

[HomerThompson]

Communism is base evil and so is everyone who advocates for it. It is very handy that many of them identify as such and are open about it enough to wear Che shirts and stuff like that.

The reason is that it was dubbed critical thinking and has been preached from universities for more than 50 years. It also never killed that many of (((the people))), instead it was their pet cause and guess who decides what's acceptable or not in public these days?

Stop being such an antisemetic pussy all the time. Just say what you really think instead of being coy about it.