The Fatal Flaw of Communism - by Frank Zappa

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm glad I read this before I jumped in!

So I don't think I will. Nobody wins and nobody much changes their minds. Plus I don't enjoy arguing on the net for fun any more.

What mind are you looking to change? Are you in favor of communism? You think it's a good idea?

I think the idealised version of it as described by Marx and Engels is, yes. However it is a vision and not in all likelihood a realistic proposition. The countries which have taken on some of its principles have used the excuse that the ends justify the means as a transitional phrase prior to the establishment of this perfect society. This has resulted in the horrors inflicted on its people by the likes of Stalin and Mao.

I think they also confused Capitalism with power and of course they had no idea how universal and continent spanning the power base of what we loosely call capitalists would be in the end. The poor no longer necessarily have only their labour to sell, which was supposedly the seat of working class solidarity. A significant minority now have absolutely nothing.

We will probably always have revolutions and regime change, but frankly I don't ever see the communist ideal being established.

With parts of this, I am in agreement. I do think that the folks like Stalin and Mao committed horrors, and that those countries did not establish the idealized version of communism propounded by Marx.

The crux of my difficulty with communism, is that I'm unable to see the value in it even in its most idealized sense. I can't understand, and would ask you or someone else who does understand, how "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need" amounts to anything more than abject slavery. Seriously - I am not being hyperbolic or trying to make points for arguments sake. This is something I truly can't understand why anyone wants. The main reason I can't see why that, idealized, would be horrible is because there is no way to get around the fact that someone must decide what an individual's ability is, and someone must decide what his needs are. As soon as that happens, you have despotism. Once someone else, or a bureau, or a community, can tell you, an individual, that they think you are "able" to do X, Y and Z, and therefore you are duty-bound by the system to do X, Y and Z, and for that you get what they think you "need" - that is a horror unto itself, isn't it?

It has been advanced by some that the individual would get to decide for himself what he's able to give, and what his needs are. In that case, however, I think we can all see how that would collapse of its own weight. There isn't enough in the world for everyone to have everything they want, and to only do as much or as little as they please.

How can one make something good come of that basic premise? Help me.

PS You were not that arsehole, Descartes.

May I remind you of my earlier post to you, about which you were kind, in which I was placing the emphasis on voluntary altruism. That's what would be a prerequisite of proper communism.

And now, the rest is silence, because truth's a dog must to kennel, as Shakespeare said in two different tragedies.

To me, that leads to the question of what is meant by "voluntary altruism." I don't think it is even within the realm of possibility that people will just know what they should be doing and then going ahead out of altruism to do it. It's not because of any greed or evilness on their part -- it's just out of the basic reality that different people have different views on what is for the good of another person, or of society in general. The common good depends on what one thinks is good for society, to some people equality means almost everything - to others, liberty is important - and there are many other values that people can seek to maximize to get to the common good.

So, when it comes down to individual action, we can't really expect 300,000,000 individuals to each have the same concept of what is for the common good, and often what one perceives to be in the common good will quite often coincide with what is to the good of one's family, friends and loved ones, and oneself, rather than the overall common good. It is not only possible, but also inevitable, that as many people will think X is for the common good as will think the opposite of X is for the common good.

[John_fi_Skye]

Yep. I don't disagree much with that. And that's why the pragmatics of our species defeat communism. If it could work, though, it would be an awful lot better than a system in which people who already have lots of money use that money to make lots more for themselves, while two-thirds of the individuals who belong to the same species on the same world can't rely on being able to eat every day. This is an example of the sincerely-held views of mine that I mustn't get upset about any arsehole deliberately misunderstanding, and then trotting out anti-commie platitudes in response.

I have a daughter who's doing a PhD in the application of neo-Gramscian theory to the plight of Brazilian peasants, and I'm so proud of her.

[Seth]

The hungry exploited millions have often seen that impossible dream as their only hope ( insult deleted).

They're not exploited, and they're only hungry because they're lazy sods who think other people owe them something.

What an arsehole you are.

See what I mean? Another Marxist shows incapacity to rationally defend Marxism and resorts to classic Alinsky smears as a substitute for reason.

[Seth]

May I remind you of my earlier post to you, about which you were kind, in which I was placing the emphasis on voluntary altruism. That's what would be a prerequisite of proper communism.

Indeed, although "voluntary altruism" is an oxymoron because altruism is, by it's very definition, voluntary. If acts of "altruism" are not voluntary (as is always the case in both socialism and communism) then it's not altruism at all, it's enforced servitude to the collective.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with "proper" or utopian communism, which purports to be entirely voluntary. It even works on a small scale in many countries, where "communes" of "communists" agree to organize themselves on that social model. But such communes do not scale up because of fundamental human nature. Where individuals agree to live by "communistic" principles and rules, and where objectors to being bound by such rules are free to live their lives without being coerced by the collective, communism has no moral taint because it's a voluntary organization.

But that's never, ever how it happens in the real world, at a societal level. It should be obvious even to the half-witted that neither socialism (as a precursor/intermediary step on the path to communism) or communism can actually function on a national level without necessarily engaging in the behavior that makes the entire ideology fundamentally corrupt: physical and economic coercion of dissidents and "free riders."

There has never been a socialist or communist society that has hesitated for one instant in oppressing, imprisoning and murdering those who object to being enslaved to the collective against their will, and there never will be, because no large-scale iteration of either ideology can have durable existence if people are allowed to take according to their need without giving anything at all. Therefore, the labor of the proletariat must be forced (which is slavery) in order to prevent "free riders" and to keep the system functioning at all, for once others in the collective learn that they can take without laboring in return, they naturally labor less, or not at all, merely because they can.

This is the aspect of both socialism and communism that NO SOCIALIST OR COMMUNIST I've ever debated with has EVER had the moral courage or intellectual capacity to argue. Never, not once in more than 25 years of such debates has any socialist ever been able to address the issue of coercion under socialism/communism. They universally either ignore the issue or flee from the debate because they know full well that they cannot rationally and ethically defend enslaving people against their will to serve the collective while at the same time knowing full well that neither socialism nor communism can survive without doing so. (and neither can survive in the long run anyway, because of this phenomenon of human nature once the OPM runs out anyway, but that's a different argument...)

And now, the rest is silence, because truth's a dog must to kennel, as Shakespeare said in two different tragedies.

When it comes to truth and socialism, it's more a dog returning to his own vomit, to lap up the regurgitated lies of Marxism and spew them forth all over again to a new audience.

To me, that leads to the question of what is meant by "voluntary altruism." I don't think it is even within the realm of possibility that people will just know what they should be doing and then going ahead out of altruism to do it. It's not because of any greed or evilness on their part -- it's just out of the basic reality that different people have different views on what is for the good of another person, or of society in general. The common good depends on what one thinks is good for society, to some people equality means almost everything - to others, liberty is important - and there are many other values that people can seek to maximize to get to the common good.

So, when it comes down to individual action, we can't really expect 300,000,000 individuals to each have the same concept of what is for the common good, and often what one perceives to be in the common good will quite often coincide with what is to the good of one's family, friends and loved ones, and oneself, rather than the overall common good. It is not only possible, but also inevitable, that as many people will think X is for the common good as will think the opposite of X is for the common good.

[/quote]

And this is the fatal flaw of communism and socialism that Hayek points out in "The Road to Serfdom." Because there are 300 million definitions of "need" and "ability" and "altruism" and 300 million different views on what society "needs" or its members are "entitled to," it's impossible for a central authority, which is ALWAYS a feature of any government, including socialism and communism (because the non-state utopian version is unachievable and therefore non sequitur), to accurately predict such things and allocate resources in ways that keep everyone satisfied that they are being treated "fairly."

Most socialist governments make only the smallest pretext at trying to be "fair" to anyone, and they most often just brutally repress any dissent or argument over their allocation decisions. Some more brutally than others.

No central planner can hope to allocate resources even a fraction as fairly as the free market and capitalism, and the result of trying is always and universally bad for people, to a greater or lesser degree depending on how closely or loosely the central planners hew to Marxism.

[Hermit]

"voluntary altruism" is an oxymoron

tautology

[John_fi_Skye]

"voluntary altruism" is an oxymoron

tautology

But we can all identify a moron when he posts.

[Pappa]

I've been looking for a proper discussion about communism for years. Most of the time, the proponents of it can't even explain what they think it is. All the time people say, "you're mischaracterizing communism! It's not that [insert negative description]!" But, they won't tell you what it really is in any degree of detail - they'll give you the broad strokes -- everyone equal -- to each according to need, from each according to ability to give (which is a horrid, abysmal basis for an economic system, and amounts to a prescription for slavery, IMHO) -- but, beyond that, they won't give any detail as to how society would actually function under their proposed system.

Coito, your version of "from each according to his ability" is the most extreme understanding of it I've ever heard. You seem to presuppose that each member of a society would be forced to perform at 100% capacity at all times, like some machine. That's nothing like what Marx and Engles were talking about and nothing like what's been seen in practice when this kind of thing has actually occurred on smaller scales at various times in history (such as the anarchist period in Spain). Marx and Engles were saying that workers who owned the means of production and felt responsible for it would want and feel empowered to give their time and effort to the best of their ability (not much different to how workers who feel truly valued act today). The Spanish anarchist period is a really good example of how this can and has worked in practice. Social change empowered people and made them feel that their contribution genuinely mattered. People gave their time and effort willingly for the good of their society, all without the need for any kind of hierarchical or totalitarian authority to impose the behaviour by force or propaganda.

[John_fi_Skye]

I've been looking for a proper discussion about communism for years. Most of the time, the proponents of it can't even explain what they think it is. All the time people say, "you're mischaracterizing communism! It's not that [insert negative description]!" But, they won't tell you what it really is in any degree of detail - they'll give you the broad strokes -- everyone equal -- to each according to need, from each according to ability to give (which is a horrid, abysmal basis for an economic system, and amounts to a prescription for slavery, IMHO) -- but, beyond that, they won't give any detail as to how society would actually function under their proposed system.

Coito, your version of "from each according to his ability" is the most extreme understanding of it I've ever heard. You seem to presuppose that each member of a society would be forced to perform at 100% capacity at all times, like some machine. That's nothing like what Marx and Engles were talking about and nothing like what's been seen in practice when this kind of thing has actually occurred on smaller scales at various times in history (such as the anarchist period in Spain). Marx and Engles were saying that workers who owned the means of production and felt responsible for it would want and feel empowered to give their time and effort to the best of their ability (not much different to how workers who feel truly valued act today). The Spanish anarchist period is a really good example of how this can and has worked in practice. Social change empowered people and made them feel that their contribution genuinely mattered. People gave their time and effort willingly for the good of their society, all without the need for any kind of hierarchical or totalitarian authority to impose the behaviour by force or propaganda.

Wonderful. Music tae ma lugs.

[Hermit]

I've been looking for a proper discussion about communism for years. Most of the time, the proponents of it can't even explain what they think it is. All the time people say, "you're mischaracterizing communism! It's not that [insert negative description]!" But, they won't tell you what it really is in any degree of detail - they'll give you the broad strokes -- everyone equal -- to each according to need, from each according to ability to give (which is a horrid, abysmal basis for an economic system, and amounts to a prescription for slavery, IMHO) -- but, beyond that, they won't give any detail as to how society would actually function under their proposed system.

Coito, your version of "from each according to his ability" is the most extreme understanding of it I've ever heard. You seem to presuppose that each member of a society would be forced to perform at 100% capacity at all times, like some machine. That's nothing like what Marx and Engles were talking about and nothing like what's been seen in practice when this kind of thing has actually occurred on smaller scales at various times in history (such as the anarchist period in Spain). Marx and Engles were saying that workers who owned the means of production and felt responsible for it would want and feel empowered to give their time and effort to the best of their ability (not much different to how workers who feel truly valued act today). The Spanish anarchist period is a really good example of how this can and has worked in practice. Social change empowered people and made them feel that their contribution genuinely mattered. People gave their time and effort willingly for the good of their society, all without the need for any kind of hierarchical or totalitarian authority to impose the behaviour by force or propaganda.

It would also be more useful to see the sentence within the context that Marx and Engels placed it, instead of manufacturing one's own. An acknowledgement of it, and subsequent rejection, would make a critique more convincing.

[Pappa]

I've been looking for a proper discussion about communism for years. Most of the time, the proponents of it can't even explain what they think it is. All the time people say, "you're mischaracterizing communism! It's not that [insert negative description]!" But, they won't tell you what it really is in any degree of detail - they'll give you the broad strokes -- everyone equal -- to each according to need, from each according to ability to give (which is a horrid, abysmal basis for an economic system, and amounts to a prescription for slavery, IMHO) -- but, beyond that, they won't give any detail as to how society would actually function under their proposed system.

Coito, your version of "from each according to his ability" is the most extreme understanding of it I've ever heard. You seem to presuppose that each member of a society would be forced to perform at 100% capacity at all times, like some machine. That's nothing like what Marx and Engles were talking about and nothing like what's been seen in practice when this kind of thing has actually occurred on smaller scales at various times in history (such as the anarchist period in Spain). Marx and Engles were saying that workers who owned the means of production and felt responsible for it would want and feel empowered to give their time and effort to the best of their ability (not much different to how workers who feel truly valued act today). The Spanish anarchist period is a really good example of how this can and has worked in practice. Social change empowered people and made them feel that their contribution genuinely mattered. People gave their time and effort willingly for the good of their society, all without the need for any kind of hierarchical or totalitarian authority to impose the behaviour by force or propaganda.

It would also be more useful to see the sentence within the context that Marx and Engels placed it, instead of manufacturing one's own. An acknowledgement of it, and subsequent rejection, would make a critique more convincing.

It's been about 15 years since I read it, so my interpretation is much coloured by my understanding of the book in general.

[Hermit]

I've been looking for a proper discussion about communism for years. Most of the time, the proponents of it can't even explain what they think it is. All the time people say, "you're mischaracterizing communism! It's not that [insert negative description]!" But, they won't tell you what it really is in any degree of detail - they'll give you the broad strokes -- everyone equal -- to each according to need, from each according to ability to give (which is a horrid, abysmal basis for an economic system, and amounts to a prescription for slavery, IMHO) -- but, beyond that, they won't give any detail as to how society would actually function under their proposed system.

Coito, your version of "from each according to his ability" is the most extreme understanding of it I've ever heard. You seem to presuppose that each member of a society would be forced to perform at 100% capacity at all times, like some machine. That's nothing like what Marx and Engles were talking about and nothing like what's been seen in practice when this kind of thing has actually occurred on smaller scales at various times in history (such as the anarchist period in Spain). Marx and Engles were saying that workers who owned the means of production and felt responsible for it would want and feel empowered to give their time and effort to the best of their ability (not much different to how workers who feel truly valued act today). The Spanish anarchist period is a really good example of how this can and has worked in practice. Social change empowered people and made them feel that their contribution genuinely mattered. People gave their time and effort willingly for the good of their society, all without the need for any kind of hierarchical or totalitarian authority to impose the behaviour by force or propaganda.

It would also be more useful to see the sentence within the context that Marx and Engels placed it, instead of manufacturing one's own. An acknowledgement of it, and subsequent rejection, would make a critique more convincing.

It's been about 15 years since I read it, so my interpretation is much coloured by my understanding of the book in general.

I don't know if I need to clarify that my previous comment was aimed at Coito, but while I'm typing again, let me ask you this: What do you mean with "it"? The paragraph the sentence appeared in? The chapter of the book? The entirety of the Critique of the Gotha Program? The Marxian analysis of bourgeois property and bourgeois conceptions of human nature that the meaning of the sentence depends on?

[Pappa]

I've been looking for a proper discussion about communism for years. Most of the time, the proponents of it can't even explain what they think it is. All the time people say, "you're mischaracterizing communism! It's not that [insert negative description]!" But, they won't tell you what it really is in any degree of detail - they'll give you the broad strokes -- everyone equal -- to each according to need, from each according to ability to give (which is a horrid, abysmal basis for an economic system, and amounts to a prescription for slavery, IMHO) -- but, beyond that, they won't give any detail as to how society would actually function under their proposed system.

Coito, your version of "from each according to his ability" is the most extreme understanding of it I've ever heard. You seem to presuppose that each member of a society would be forced to perform at 100% capacity at all times, like some machine. That's nothing like what Marx and Engles were talking about and nothing like what's been seen in practice when this kind of thing has actually occurred on smaller scales at various times in history (such as the anarchist period in Spain). Marx and Engles were saying that workers who owned the means of production and felt responsible for it would want and feel empowered to give their time and effort to the best of their ability (not much different to how workers who feel truly valued act today). The Spanish anarchist period is a really good example of how this can and has worked in practice. Social change empowered people and made them feel that their contribution genuinely mattered. People gave their time and effort willingly for the good of their society, all without the need for any kind of hierarchical or totalitarian authority to impose the behaviour by force or propaganda.

It would also be more useful to see the sentence within the context that Marx and Engels placed it, instead of manufacturing one's own. An acknowledgement of it, and subsequent rejection, would make a critique more convincing.

It's been about 15 years since I read it, so my interpretation is much coloured by my understanding of the book in general.

I don't know if I need to clarify that my previous comment was aimed at Coito, but while I'm typing again, let me ask you this: What do you mean with "it"? The paragraph the sentence appeared in? The chapter of the book? The entirety of the Critique of the Gotha Program? The Marxian analysis of bourgeois property and bourgeois conceptions of human nature that the meaning of the sentence depends on?

To be honest, I was under the impression it appeared in The Communist Manifesto (and/or Das Kapital). As I said, it's been 15 years since I last read Marx and by now it's all blurred into one.

[hadespussercats]

I'm having flashbacks. I seem to remember not getting anywhere before so I won't bother getting involved again.

Coito, if you really want to learn about communism, drop all your hang-ups and study it yourself with an open mind. There's no point in asking people to explain it to you just so you can get your rocks off arguing with them.

If you can't explain how it's going to actually function with real people to make their lives better, the problem is YOUR learning, not ours. I've studied Marx and Communism and the entire spectrum of political thought is fatally flawed from the beginning because it ignores ordinary human nature and behavior, economic reality, and social reality.

It is, and has always been a utopian, unachievable fantasy that is used by evil people to enslave others and kill them for the self-aggrandizement and profit of the elite. It's evil in large part precisely because it promises things it has no intention of actually providing to the people it enslaves, even if it were physically possible for it to do so, which it's not.

There is no need for an "open mind" because what is meant by that is not "open mind" but "delusional, credulous mind." That's how (and only how) Marxist socialism and communism survive at all.

Only functionally illiterate and mind-numbingly stupid people are capable of believing the utopian nonsense of Marxist socialism or communism. Anyone with even half an actual brain can see that it's an impossible dream that Icannot be brought to reality without economic, social and political ruin and mass genocidal death.

The hungry exploited millions have often seen that impossible dream as their only hope ( insult deleted).

They're not exploited, and they're only hungry because they're lazy sods who think other people owe them something.

What an arsehole you are.

Rum, this is a reminder that personal attacks (see above, bolded) are against forum rules: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9#personal . Thank you.

[Tero]

Come on, it was Seth. He is thick skinned. And usually asking for it.

[hadespussercats]

Come on, it was Seth. He is thick skinned. And usually asking for it.

Fair's fair.