Why is it considered "moral" to be communist?

[JonnyRingo84]

Why don't you answer it yourself?

See the thing with Marxism that it was made by one man (well 2 if you include engels) and he claimed moral superiority.

nah. communism was around long before those guys; it just wasnt called communism. the anabaptists being a great example.

every hardline political group feels moral superiority to others.

 

[brothir]

He wasn't talking about having them decide on the means of production. That's an absurdly stupid arrangement.

I know. Separately, you can say that it's stupid all you want, but I'll still be living in one of the most stable and prosperous countries on this planet. Maybe you and reality have a fundamental disagreement of some sort?

 

[Greoric]

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.

And the reasons extend even past an absence of an appropriate incentive structure.

We could assume that everyone in government were angels looking out for the best of society, but society would still collapse into despotism and poverty. There simply isn't the requisite information available to central planners for them to make appropriate decisions as to who, and what should go where and how without market signals that only markets provide.

 

[Greoric]

I know. Separately, you can say that it's stupid all you want, but I'll still be living in one of the most stable and prosperous countries on this planet. Maybe you and reality have a fundamental disagreement of some sort?

You can read above fundamentally for why. A majority making those blind decisions is an even worse arrangement than a small group of people, because at least their decisions are wrong consistently.

You mean a country that's the beneficiary of a free market for over a century?

 

[ultramanhyata]

I remember Stalin murdering 20 million. I don't remember anyone getting murdered in church on a Sunday. (well maybe by some Muslims)

This conversation is way over your head, buddeh.

 

[brothir]

A majority making those blind decisions is an even worse arrangement than a small group of people, because at least their decisions are wrong consistently

I think you're somewhat confused. If we use the Norwegian oil fund as an example: it was established in the 90s in anticipation of the same changes that have made UBI a hot(ter) topic today, the decision to do so was done by parliament and enjoyed bipartisan support. How was that decision not made by a small group of people, and why was it wrong in an either consistent or inconsistent way?

You mean a country that's the beneficiary of a free market for over a century?

Correct.

 

[EmpireShallFall]

Why? Because some people believe that oppression is wrong. Communism is the way we should all live. Happily and free of war and all oppression. How is that wrong?

 

[Greoric]

I think you're somewhat confused. If we use the Norwegian oil fund as an example: it was established in the 90s in anticipation of the same changes that have made UBI a hot(ter) topic, the decision to do so was done by parliament and enjoyed bipartisan support. How was that decision not made by a small group of people, and why was it wrong in an either consistent or inconsistent way?

Yeah that's the point. The parliament, a smaller group of people, are going to make horrendous decisions with the public oil industry. The only benefit is that they're going to be more consistently horrendous decisions than a direct democratic vote, though still less consistent that if they were just people that remained in power.

In either situation, it's still like choosing between an HIV positive injection or eating prion infused meat.

 

[brothir]

Yeah that's the point. The parliament, a smaller group of people, are going to make horrendous decisions. The only benefit is that they're going to be more consistently horrendous decisions than a direct democratic vote, though still less consistent that if they were just people that remained in power.

On what criteria do you qualify such decisions as horrible?

 

[EmpireShallFall]

 

[Greoric]

On what criteria do you qualify such decisions as horrible?

The efficient use of resources.... economics, or in their case its inefficient use.

 

[ultramanhyata]

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.

Wait... So which is it, then?

Is self-interest on display in the people who seek to benefit from the security and equality provided by a collectivist economic approach to society?

Or in the people who seek to benefit from the affluence and power provided by a rugged individualist economic approach to society?

Your mind operates in a one-dimensional cartoon universe. I'm afraid the complexity of humankind may be beyond your comprehension.

 

[brothir]

The efficient use of resources.... economics, or in their case its inefficient use.

Interesting. So, if we use the previously mentioned oil fund as an example again: it's currently valued at something like $0.8 trillion dollars. How much more would you estimate it to be valued at if it had been arrived at through entirely private means, rather than through the state?

 

[Greoric]

Interesting. So, if we use the previously mentioned oil fund as an example again: it's currently valued at something like $0.8 trillion dollars. How much more would you estimate it to be valued at if it had been arrived at through entirely private means, rather than through the state?

Who knows, maybe nothing actually.

 

[brothir]

Who knows, maybe nothing actually.

So, you're saying that public ownership of means of production is bad because it will be inefficient with resources, but you also think it's entirely possible that a wealth fund established doing just that has possibly been optimal, rather than horrible as you previously asserted would be the case?

 

[Hard To Tell]

Why? Because some people believe that oppression is wrong. Communism is the way we should all live. Happily and free of war and all oppression. How is that wrong?

Because people like things like money, wealth, individualism, personal freedom, choice, working on improving things for themselves and/or their families etc and don't want to live under Communist rule. So what then? Well you have to force them to live under Communist rule thus creating the very oppression you claim to oppose. This why Communism and blanket socialism always results in a bloodbath.

 

[Greoric]

So, you're saying that public ownership of means of production is bad because it will be inefficient with resources, but you also think it's entirely possible that a wealth fund established doing just that has possibly been optimal, rather than horrible as you previously asserted would be the case?

How do you know that's its been optimal? I think you need to appreciate what counter factuals are before we can go further here.

It's always easy to observe something the government has done. What you don't see is what wasn't accomplished with the same use of resources. Maybe the oil fund would have been $1.6 trillion. Maybe only $1.6 million. What we won't know is the amount of resources that would have been diverted to that purpose by the aggregate of voluntary value judgments. However, what we do know is that the government wasn't getting any of that information to make that approximation.

 

[brothir]

How do you know that's its been optimal? I think you need to appreciate what counter factuals are before we can go further here.

I don't know that it's optimal, and I never claimed such. I'm more inclined to assume it's not.

It's always easy to observe something the government has done. What you don't see is what wasn't accomplished with the same use of resources. Maybe the oil fund would have been $1.6 trillion. Maybe only $1.6 million. What we won't know is the amount of resources that would have been diverted to that purpose by the aggregate of voluntary value judgments. However, what we do know is that the government wasn't getting any of that information to make that approximation.

It is indeed easy, but that's neither here nor there. Ultimately, I'm not very educated about economics, so I could probably be fooled by some articulate, verbose, detailed but ultimately wrong argument regarding how we should generate maximum wealth, or achieve some other economic optimality. I'm also not very committed to any one economic model, and I can see myself jumping ships on some promise that I'll be wealthier for it.

But, here you only present vagaries. Maybe it could be this, maybe it could be that. But cutthroat economics is ultimately about numbers, right? So if you can't convincingly demonstrate that libertarian numbers are bigger than socialist numbers, why should I prefer libertarianism over what's already established?

 

[RubberGuard5]

Wait... So which is it, then?

Is self-interest on display in the people who seek to benefit from the security and equality provided by a collectivist economic approach to society?

Or in the people who seek to benefit from the affluence and power provided by a rugged individualist economic approach to society?

Your mind operates in a one-dimensional cartoon universe. I'm afraid the complexity of humankind may be beyond your comprehension.

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?

 

[Greoric]

I don't know that it's optimal, and I never claimed such. I'm more inclined to assume it's not.

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.

It is indeed easy, but that's neither here nor there. Ultimately, I'm not very educated about economics, so I could probably be fooled by some articulate, verbose, detailed but ultimately wrong argument regarding how we should generate maximum wealth, or achieve some other economic optimality. I'm also not very committed to any one economic model, and I can see myself jumping ships on some promise that I'll be wealthier for it.

But, here you only present vagaries. Maybe it could be this, maybe it could be that. But cutthroat economics is ultimately about numbers, right? So if you can't convincingly demonstrate that libertarian numbers are bigger than socialist numbers, why should I prefer libertarianism over what's already established?

Crawl walk run right?

But to your first point its easy to what? Determine where those resources would have been deployed if they weren't sent to the public oil fund? Excuse my crassness, but how the fuck would you know that? 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.