Why won't the nightmare dream of communism die?

[ProdglArchitect]

Yeah, reiterating it probably won’t convince anyone.

My personal belief is that the government exists to handle roads, foreign relations, and the military, and it is morally licit for them to tax people to support those ends. Anything beyond that, however, should be handled at a local level by charitable organizations and volunteers, and maybe local government, if necessary.

 

[Inisfallen]

Only roads, foreign relations and the military? How about courts? Even hardcore libertarians usually agree that courts are a natural function of government.

How about border and customs control?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I forgot the courts, sorry.

I would classify border and customs as a subset of foreign relations.

My point is that the government should not be generally be involved in charity concerns because they are the worst possible handler of such concerns.

 

[Brendan_64]

The difference between Communism and a form of government that taxes the people in order to pay for public services (and we each can have a view of how much public services ought to be provided, be that public roads or public healthcare) is that Communism does not seem to apply an intrinsic value to the individual as a human being.

Communism takes materialism to the extreme and views human beings as mere commodities who exist to serve the goals of the ideology. It is amoral, except for a warped materialistic form of ‘morality’ where revolution is viewed as a moral imperative and if individuals need to be sacrificed in order to meet that aim then so be it. Under such an ideology a Communist will be able to wipe out as many innocent people as necessary if this furthers the aims of the revolution. Under the Communist system this would be viewed as ‘moral’.

That is a very different from the view of society held by Western social democrats and Western democratic socialists. We should be careful not to drop them into the same bag as Communism.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The difference between Communism and a form of government that taxes the people in order to pay for public services (and we each can have a view of how much public services ought to be provided, be that public roads or public healthcare) is that Communism does not seem to apply an intrinsic value to the individual as a human being.

Communism takes materialism to the extreme and views human beings as mere commodities who exist to serve the goals of the ideology. It is amoral, except for a warped materialistic form of ‘morality’ where revolution is viewed as a moral imperative and if individuals need to be sacrificed in order to meet that aim then so be it. Under such an ideology a Communist will be able to wipe out as many innocent people as necessary if this furthers the aims of the revolution. Under the Communist system this would be viewed as ‘moral’.

That is a very different from the view of society held by Western social democrats and Western democratic socialists. We should be careful not to drop them into the same bag as Communism.

I agree with all this, but my issue with “Democratic Socialism” remain the same. It’s built upon the belief that the state has the right to take money from one group and give it to another. I also still believe that it is inevitably a stepping stone towards Communism. Once the state is given the right to regulate the flow of money, it will inevitably seek to maximize that flow of money, and begin viewing those who are incapable of producing as hindrances. We’re seeing the beginnings of this now with the widespread acceptance of euthanasia in many of the European “Socialist Democracies.”

 

[Brendan_64]

my issue with “Democratic Socialism” remain the same. It’s built upon the belief that the state has the right to take money from one group and give it to another. …
We’re seeing the beginnings of this now with the widespread acceptance of euthanasia in many of the European “Socialist Democracies.”

Your point about the state having a right to take money off an individual against their will could be applied to any form of taxation. Could a person opt out of using public roads and therefore decline to pay the taxation that funds them? It may be a matter of degree, but the principle is the same.

Your point about euthanasia is a reasonable point, but euthanasia also exists in the USA, whereas in the UK and many other European social democracies it does not.

But I feel this is straying off the topic of this thread a bit.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

We are straying quite a bit, so I don’t think I’ll respond to continue this discussion. Suffice it to say that it comes down to what you think the purpose of government is, and what sort of taxation is licit.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Communism is the abolition of commodities, including the abolition of the commodification of man. It is under capitalism that man’s social relations take the form of relations between commodities, where man is denied conscious control of his relations which instead take the form of relations between commodities. Communism is the reduction of the human world and relationships to man himself, a society of individual humans consciously and voluntarily establishing and shaping the way in which they associate with each other without it being externally dictated.

Despite what you say, it is under capitalism that the vast majority of people are reduced to commodities, people who own no capital and who only have value in society provided they can sell themselves to capital in exchange for the labour they perform.

 

[Lemuel]

what you think the purpose of government is

The purpose of government is to give a small group of thugs the right to control the actions of a larger group of mostly honest people, and to give those thugs the power to use violent force to pay for their work.

The secondary purpose of government is to feed itself.

 

[chieft]

Socialism/Communism is coming to a first world country near you. It creeps like all other modern evils. SLOWLY. Step by step. Inch by inch. Slowly, slowly darkening our conscious to NOT hate it. The young in particular have embraced it. The mas media promotes it. God help us.

 

[Brendan_64]

Is it morally acceptable then for millions of innocent civilians to die if their deaths further the aims of the Communist revolution?

 

[abucs]

Communism isn’t an ideal society, but a movement that destroys the present world. Communism is based on a radical critique of the current world, and does not waste time trying to imagine a perfect one.

Communism was destructive so that it could build a society based on authoritarian state power. It had to destroy religion, capitalist business classes and the freedom of the individual.

We all know now after 100 years that a society based on such principles is horrific.

What is intellectually left now of communism is the destructive mentality which is dangerous.

In Christian terms it is satanic lie about history, full of narcissistic resentment of the world and an evil desire to control your fellow man in a pseudo God like manner.

 

[abucs]

Despite what you say, it is under capitalism that the vast majority of people are reduced to commodities, people who own no capital and who only have value in society provided they can sell themselves to capital in exchange for the labour they perform.

and again a company doesn’t have a police force or army, does not take wealth off people, does not make laws on how they can live and what they are generally allowed to do in their own personal lives.

An economic business creates and invites others to join in the creation of desired products so that the wealth that is created can be shared through selling to other creators of wealth.

It is only when this is done on a massive scale do we have the presence of so much wealth that it takes us away from poverty.

Communism in wanting to destroy this because of an allegiance to manufactured morals (having departed from God) actually destroys wealth and creates poverty and suppresses the human capacity to look after each other.

Communism was a movement of largely atheists who having rejected God then decided they wanted to be God and create their perfect society based on their own narcissism, ignorance and resentment. They got everything terribly wrong and the horrors of history are testament to that.

 

[DarkLight]

and again a company doesn’t have a police force or army, does not take wealth off people, does not make laws on how they can live and what they are generally allowed to do in their own personal lives.

Just FYI, that has actually totally happened historically where a company has hired its own police force to try to force workers to do what the company wants. Economic manipulation is more common - for example, predatory pricing, where a rich company uses its financial reserves to temporarily sell at a loss so as to prevent a competitor with less money from breaking into the market. Or just using money to get the government to enact laws that favor them.

 

[abucs]

Just FYI, that has actually totally happened historically where a company has hired its own police force to try to force workers to do what the company wants. Economic manipulation is more common - for example, predatory pricing, where a rich company uses its financial reserves to temporarily sell at a loss so as to prevent a competitor with less money from breaking into the market. Or just using money to get the government to enact laws that favor them.

Hello Darknight,

that is obviously the exception which proves the rule. Companies do not have their own police force as a rule, government does. Companies are in the business of creating products.

The two cases you quote of temporarily selling at a loss and buying off government favours are problems to be discussed and worked out if you like. They do not in any way negate the powerful force of capitalism that has improved the lives of billions of people tremendously like no other process.

 

[Annie]

How do you think the people we call primitive ordered their affairs. If I had a cow and gave the shoemaker milk every day and he gave me shoes only once a year…? There’s a reason we have the type of economy we have. It has roots and was developed to meet certain need a.

Can a system like this go off in the wrong direction? Sure, and I think in some areas that it has. But do workers choose communism instead? Nope. Think of how many physical laborers we had I n the middle of the 20th Century, did they try to dismantle their “chains”? Not really.

The government is like an umpire when it comes to economic activity: it makes sure all the players follow the same rules so that the good guys are not left behind by those who are willing to overlook the safety of their employees, for example.

 

[DarkLight]

that is obviously the exception which proves the rule. Companies do not have their own police force as a rule, government does. Companies are in the business of creating products.

Companies don’t have their own police force as a rule because the government says that they can’t. I’m sure if creating a mini company town with your own police force and currency that’s only good with the company were still legal, companies would do it.

My point is, most of these things don’t happen because government introduced regulation that’s beyond just providing for the basics.

Am I advocating for full communism? No. But I’m saying the libertarian idea of just having the government do the very basics tends to end up with big corporations becoming your effective government.

 

[abucs]

Companies don’t have their own police force as a rule because the government says that they can’t. I’m sure if creating a mini company town with your own police force and currency that’s only good with the company were still legal, companies would do it.

My point is, most of these things don’t happen because government introduced regulation that’s beyond just providing for the basics.

Am I advocating for full communism? No. But I’m saying the libertarian idea of just having the government do the very basics tends to end up with big corporations becoming your effective government.

Hello Darknight,

I would say that having government provide policing is part of the basics. Of course the better a society is the less need for policing. That is the carnard for those (not you) advocating big government. The better the society the less need for government so that for those who want big government or who have their wages dependent on them there is the incentive to not have a good society, but that opens up another issue.

If you look at some remote Australian mining operations (or remote oil rigs) they do provide basically the local police force. These companies are interested in making money though by creating wealth. There are accessing billions of dollars of raw produce and the workers are very well paid. Businessmen are not interested in ‘ruling’ people there. They want to keep them happy and productive so that they can create wealth.

On the other hand there are many places in the Philippines where local political families own the police force and are intent on suppressing rival business competition. They ‘own’ the governments there a bit like some Middle eastern sheiks own the government in their neck of the woods. Both pay people to keep them in power. The thing that will eventually break up those arrangements will be the empowerment of large numbers of people through diverse successful businesses. It won’t primarily be through government. Better government will then follow of course. The presence of successful businesses will encompass more and more people and this will put pressure on government to change which will also then make policing less reliant on political sponsors.

 

[abucs]

With regard to the example above about a businessman bribing a politician I would ask you to consider that this is not a problem with capitalism but an attack on it and actually shows a problem with government. If a businessman wishes government interference to help gain an advantage over another business then that is an indication that the government has too much power and a system where capitalistic completion is being thwarted. I have read studies that argue / show that where the power of the government increases, so does corruption which makes sense. So the less power of government, the less corruption. Of course some government is always necessary and we will have it whether we like it or not. But government is not the solution to the big problems but can stop the solutions. it should more be a facilitator and neutral arbiter of communal law.

The other example of a company temporarily selling at a loss to keep other business out is actually not a major problem. Government ruling that other businesses cannot compete is by far the bigger problem. If a company sells at a loss then the consumer is getting very low prices. Of course the company cannot do this for very long (without government help) and they will have to face the music of the competition at some stage. They may have built up advantages which can keep away competition for the short term but if the new business can do the same thing for cheaper they will invariably win out in the end which makes products cheaper and increases general wealth.

An example of this is in Australia with supermarkets. Coles and Woolworths had the ‘virtual’ duopoly in the supermarket business and gradually they were buying out the private family supermarkets. As they gained the bulk of the market they could start to raise prices, especially in areas where they were then the only ones operating. They could squeeze producers also because they had the control of the market square where growers/manufacturers etc have to eventually sell their product.

Of course this practise encourages alternatives as the prices increase and others see opportunity. Online selling became more popular where manufacturers could deal with customers directly and this also encourages not just web developers and I.T. business applications but transport and packaging companies. Then Aldi from Europe entered the market to compete with Coles and Woolworths directly because the prices had increased to allow them to come in and do things cheaper. Coles and Woolworths did what you mentioned, they temporarily cut prices to keep Aldi out. They also had deals with Westfield who build and run the big shopping centres which prevented Aldi from setting up in these premises. But because the profit margin was there and they also were backed by sufficient capital, Aldi’s could also sell temporarily at a loss. They could deal with producers and growers who were ‘screwed’ by Coles and Woolworths. Eventually they won out. This is the power of capitalism. It creates more goods at a cheaper price and as long as capitalistic completion principles are respected and upheld, it is better for society.

 

[DarkLight]

One thing I’d point out is that this worked because Aldi’s already had a large amount of money to come in and do that. I’m more concerned about the person who doesn’t have all that. It doesn’t help much if you need another big business to compete with a big business. The question is whether 18 year old Joe Blow who doesn’t have anything other than a high school degree can make a life for himself without either putting himself deep into debt or staying working at a dead-end job. From what I’ve seen, the answer in libertarian capitalism is that he can’t, because the people who already have money can do it better and it benefits them to keep his wages down.