Marxism Debate

[weemadando]

So we're supposed to believe that Marx's doctrine was right? Marxism requires a political stability and popular demand for it that will never exist. Furthermore, why should we hold beliefs intended to operate when considering 19th century industrial vices, and isn't nearly as applicable in anyway, shape, or form today.

Indeed, so why do people persist in utilising an out of date political philosophy like democracy that dates back to the Greek republics. Don't try and argue that the system is out of date. The context has merely changed. Instead of the workers within an nation revolting in todays world you could look at replacing the traditional industrial proletariat with the third worlders whom lack the rights etc of second and first worlders. Just an idea.

And this changes how Mike was right about how Communists respond to criticism how?

It was a joke. Should have been obvious. But I'm also referring to the greatness of McCarthy/Hooverism and the many prejudices that democracy creates and supports.

The idea that someone can convince themselves that pure theory con somehow be analyzed and treated as a practical alternative to at least non dysfunctional modern systems, is incredible.

Sure, its still theoretical, but if one is to look at the system it is far better for everyone involved.

Find a more dysfunctional system, please. The only known examples of an attempt to apply Marxism resulted in the building of fences to keep the workers in the "workers' paradise."

Marxist communism requires global revolution. A communist state must be completely self-contained. The moment you need to trade with an external entity there are problems. Which is one of the chief reasons behind the inevitable fall of the Soviet system and many of its dysfunctions.

[Darth Wong]

Indeed, so why do people persist in utilising an out of date political philosophy like democracy that dates back to the Greek republics. Don't try and argue that the system is out of date. The context has merely changed. Instead of the workers within an nation revolting in todays world you could look at replacing the traditional industrial proletariat with the third worlders whom lack the rights etc of second and first worlders. Just an idea.

I think what he was trying to say was that Marx's theory of communism was very heavily dependent upon certain assumptions regarding the nature of industrial labour which would change dramatically over the next 150 years, in directions he had not remotely anticipated. Democracy has no such technological dependencies built into its base concept or justification.

It was a joke. Should have been obvious. But I'm also referring to the greatness of McCarthy/Hooverism and the many prejudices that democracy creates and supports.

That's American democracy. Not all democracies do that.

Sure, its still theoretical, but if one is to look at the system it is far better for everyone involved.

The same can be said of a benevolent dictatorship.

Marxist communism requires global revolution. A communist state must be completely self-contained. The moment you need to trade with an external entity there are problems. Which is one of the chief reasons behind the inevitable fall of the Soviet system and many of its dysfunctions.

This fact is yet another problem with the basic concept. I don't understand why people like to separate implementation problems from judgements of the concept. As an engineer, if someone tries to sell an idea which works on paper but is impossible to implement, we call it a stupid idea. Why is this not also the case in socio-economics?

[lgot]

Except that Lenin and Mao (and Stalin) depended on Marx to justify their policies.

Marx still have nothing to do with them. He have no responsability over them or the fact they used some of his works to justify their political games. That is about the same things as saying Machiavelli is tied with Napoleon because the french used to justify his decisions with Machiavelli's teory.

Lenin actually deviated the most from Marx, but he did so with his NEP (New Economic Program), which re-introduced capitalism at the small-business level because the Marxist economy he tried to adopt was failing miserably. Philosophically, Lenin helped complete Marxism by recognizing that a communist state can't exist in a vacuum,

Vacuum ? Do you think that Marx hoped for Socialism to flourish out of nowhere ? it is Marx who mocked the "utopic socialists" calling them by that exactly because he thought they would not work and fight for changes. Marx actually object of study was Capitalism and his teory clearly states that there will be socialism only where Capitalism achived such level of 0rganization and production. What Lenin was doing was a reference to Marx that never would accept a rural, feudalist state to jump to Socialism without ever stepping in the other stages of the process (after all, Marx way of thinking was a evolutionist way). There is no such thing as vacuum...

Stalin took it to the next logical step by killing millions to protect the revolution

Lenin even tryied at least to keep up with the notion of Socialism. But Stalin only tryied to protect the Status Quo and comamnd he achived and made up a society that have a productive system under the control of only one source without the sharing with the public.
In the end Marx - Lenin - Stalin are similar in the relation to Rosseau - Robespierre - Napoleon.

Mao deviated from Marx in that he saw the peasants as a force for revolution, rather than the industrial working class, but he depended on Lenin and Stalin's developments of Marxism to justify his rule and his policies.

Mao used what he wanted to control the chinese population. He also was inspired in his politics by the first chinese emperor acts (Sorry, the name slipped right now).

(which would have horrified Marx undoubtedly, but then I don't think Marx completely understood the implications of his own theory, thanks largely to his complete misjudgement of human nature)

That is true. Marx in the end achived to wrong conclusions , specially about the revolution and the workers getting the power mainly because he seeemd to have great sympathy for this class...

In short, no matter how hard modern Marxists try to distance themselves from Lenin, Stalin, and Mao today, the three dictators WERE good Marxists, and their atrocities were in fact a logical result of applied Marxism, not aberrations.

You Dont have. Leninism is different of Marxism. Stalinism, Maoism then I would not even comment.
There have seeds ?
So What. It is the same mistake to blame Darwinism for the Social Darwimnis that did a lot of tragedies and was developed by a good Darwinist, H. Spencer...

Nick:

And humans are not, by nature, moral creatures. Moral reasoning is something which is laid over the top of instincts which were developed for a primitive hunter/gatherer society. And, if anyone hadn't noticed, we don't live in one of those anymore.

Off the topic, but not of some other topic...
I did not understood you here...
Humans are the only moral creatures actually...a social trait...
I am confused by this.

[Nova Andromeda]

--Well I for one support communism (in the general sense). It is painfully obvious that an alien species which evolved to be compatable with communism would be FAR superier (in terms of power) to our own species assumming all else is equal. However, the fact of the matter is our species has not evolved to be compatable with communism (in the general sense). Instead we have evolved to be primarily selfish. Sense of community, kindness, morality, etc. are secondary motivations especially once a person has a family to protect (this not true in every case/circumstance).
-In the end it seems to me that societal rules should be designed in such a manner so as to maximize the attainment individual goals. This means people should have to work to gain anything from society, but also that no individual should be inequitably compensated for their contribution to society (as is the case in everywhere currently).
-There is the additional problem that people are generally too stupid/ignorant to make informed decisions about specific laws. This is a real problem, but it can be addressed through education (which is currently dismal) and the creation of reliable sorces of information about society from the which an individual may draw. The information would have to be extensive enough to make informed decisions of course, but with todays technology it is simple. The barriers are not small though and include, national security, politics, special interests, religion, general idiocy etc.

[LordShaithis]

So if human beings were all perfectly moral and all decided to have a planet-wide revolution at the same time, communism would work? Pardon me if I don't hold my breath. Out here in the real world, humans are selfish and the only form of communism to have ACTUALLY EXISTED is dead and it's bones picked clean. Whoop dee doo.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Indeed, so why do people persist in utilising an out of date political philosophy like democracy that dates back to the Greek republics. Don't try and argue that the system is out of date. The context has merely changed. Instead of the workers within an nation revolting in todays world you could look at replacing the traditional industrial proletariat with the third worlders whom lack the rights etc of second and first worlders. Just an idea.

Frightening. History shows us, both with attempts to establish communism and with other orders that when you have a revolution by a previously oppressed group and put them in charge, they generally take it out on their oppressors (the freed workers usually began the executions of the "capitalists" and "land owners"). There were lots of slave revolts and insurgents throughout history. Usually your slaves just enslave their previous enslavers. Almost no institution based on helping all men and all men being equal has worked as promised, so why would a whole system of life based on such function?

[Nick]

Nick:

And humans are not, by nature, moral creatures. Moral reasoning is something which is laid over the top of instincts which were developed for a primitive hunter/gatherer society. And, if anyone hadn't noticed, we don't live in one of those anymore.

Off the topic, but not of some other topic...
I did not understood you here...
Humans are the only moral creatures actually...a social trait...
I am confused by this.

Sorry, my terminology wasn't too clear. You are quite right of course, that the capacity to be moral is also part of our nature.

My point was that, much of the time, moral reasoning is not our primary motivator. We do have certain moral instincts, which are what make human society possible in the first place.

Unfortunately, these instincts (and our conscious moral reasoning) often conflict with other instincts, such as:
1. The instinctive division of the world into 'us' and 'them', with morality only applying to other members of 'us'.
2. Violence & intimidation are extremely effective ways of getting what you want right now.
3. The world as a "zero-sum" game - i.e. if someone else has more, I necessarily have less.

In the modern world, many of our instincts misfire - most people would now judge giving in to the first two instincts as immoral, and the last concept is just plain false.

So, perhaps a more accurate version of my original comment is "Humans have moral instincts, but that will not necessarily translate into moral behaviour." Since this is the case, an effective society must have external levers (necessarily backed up by the use of physical force) to use on those individuals whose instincts misfire to the point where their behaviour cannot be safely tolerated.

The only alternative to removing those levers is to attempt to constrain human nature - and if anyone is tempted to considere that that might be a good idea, I strongly recommend reading Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World".

[Nick]

The idea that someone can convince themselves that pure theory con somehow be analyzed and treated as a practical alternative to at least non dysfunctional modern systems, is incredible.

Sure, its still theoretical, but if one is to look at the system it is far better for everyone involved.

As I recall, one of the tenets of communism is "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". Is this correct?

Assuming for the moment that it is, shall we look at some of the unanswered questions?

1. How do you determine someone's abilities?
Well, really, the only person who can know what their abilities are is the individual.

2. How do you determine someone's needs?
Well, really, the only person who can know what their needs are is the individual.

So, in other words, an individual should contribute their abilities to the extent which they find necessary to meet their needs. If they have minimal needs, they don't need to contribute much. If they have significant needs, they should contribute more.

Of course, in order to parley your abilities into satisfaction of your needs, there needs to be a medium for exchange. With the recognition of non-tangible abilities (such as persuading other people to work to a common goal, or devising solutions to complex problems), barter ceases to work as a medium for exchange, hence the natural progression to a capitalist economy.

At this point, of course, a wise sentient realises that too great a discrepancy creates resentment, and sows the seeds for revolution. Hence, avoiding ostentation, being charitable, and seeking to oppose injustice, aren't just morally sound. They're also sensible out of sheer self-interest.

Find a more dysfunctional system, please. The only known examples of an attempt to apply Marxism resulted in the building of fences to keep the workers in the "workers' paradise."

Marxist communism requires global revolution. A communist state must be completely self-contained. The moment you need to trade with an external entity there are problems. Which is one of the chief reasons behind the inevitable fall of the Soviet system and many of its dysfunctions.

So you are saying communism is brittle? Disturb the balance and the system falls apart?

Are you familiar with the concept of a dynamic equilibrium? That is, a situation where any change in a quantity results in pressures which act against that change?

Well, the level of 'cheating' in a human society is just such an equilibrium. For any given social structure there is an optimal level of cheating going on. When the level of cheating drops too low, people start to extend more trust. This increased trust also increases the perceived benefits of cheating - which will lead more people to cheat, bringing the number of cheaters back up. Similarly, if the number of cheaters becomes too high, people become more suspicious. This decreased trust decreases the perceived benefits of cheating - decreasing the motivation to cheat, and bringing the number of cheaters back towards the equilibrium.

The problem with communism is that it generally lacks the essential external levers necessary to drive up the cost of cheating. This means the equilibrium number of cheaters is likely to be high - generally high enough for the concept of communism to collapse in tatters.

The only way for it to work is if the individual temptations to cheat are extremely low - and we know for a fact that this simply isn't true for humans. Wonderful theory. Wrong species.

[lgot]

My point was that, much of the time, moral reasoning is not our primary motivator. We do have certain moral instincts, which are what make human society possible in the first place.

ah, ok. If I understand you mean how hard is to the man, society, group to preserve some ideal when facing with some adversaries elements...

Well, that is true. People usually wont stop to hold over because some leader hold some ideology. But there is some some mechanism of control, after all the societies stand still.

Now, I must point out that Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, etc are not in the their definitions "Moral" "immoral" anything, so they can fuction inside different societies and different moral codes.
The failure of communism is not related to moral because communism does not ask for a special moral to happen.

[Nick]

Now, I must point out that Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, etc are not in the their definitions "Moral" "immoral" anything, so they can fuction inside different societies and different moral codes.
The failure of communism is not related to moral because communism does not ask for a special moral to happen.

Hmm. . . I'm not sure I agree with that. Communism, like any social model, involves certain expectations on the behaviours of the individuals within that society. It is my understanding that the particular expectations which allow communism to work in practice are those that are seen as being "moral" by most people.

This match up between the expectations of the model and common perceptions of morality is why comments like "Communism doesn't work because it requires everyone to be moral" make sense.

(The other place where communism fails is in its inadequate mechanisms for information flow to accurately balance supply and demand - but this is unrelated to the moral question)

[Nick]

My point was that, much of the time, moral reasoning is not our primary motivator. We do have certain moral instincts, which are what make human society possible in the first place.

ah, ok. If I understand you mean how hard is to the man, society, group to preserve some ideal when facing with some adversaries elements...

Well, that is true. People usually wont stop to hold over because some leader hold some ideology. But there is some some mechanism of control, after all the societies stand still.

I think we're almost on the same page here. . .

My basic point is that an effective model for human society has to incorporate mechanisms for controlling or removing cheaters.

For most people, guilt, shame, embarrassment & empathy do the trick, but for others, these inbuilt mechanisms aren't effective enough. This is when social structures need to be in place to provide external factors which limit cheating.

Why do we invest so much time & money in legislation & law enforcement? Not just, or even primarily, to catch criminals - but to persuade rational people that crime just isn't worth the hassle.

[Peregrin Toker]

If anyone hasn't grasped this yet:

Humans are, by nature, and on average, selfish.

Humans are also, by nature, sociable - that is, we instinctively recognise that working with others can allow us to achieve things we could not otherwise achieve.

I disagree with your point about human selfishness. If we use natural behaviour as an excuse for elitarianism because some animals have hierarchial pack systems, one could as well claim that communism is natural because ants are communists.

The institutions of liberal democracy and capitalism are tailored towards channeling these instincts in ways which are collectively beneficial.[/

Capitalism is tailored towards giving the individual human enough possibilities to become richer than other people by any means necessary, and encourages a "success at all costs mentality."

Other models, such as communism, ultimately failed because they attempted to bend human nature out of shape, or because they failed to scale effectively to larger groups of people.

Communism has indeed failed because it tried to bend human social norms out of shape, but this is not the sole reason. Another reason is the Cold War, which forced the USSR to spend ridiculous amounts of money on military funding - resulting in low living standards for civilians because all the good stuff went to the military. The NATO did practically anything to stop communism - in Chile, the CIA even overthrew a democratically elected communist government in favour of a militaristic dictator!!

If somebody helps a dictator to power in the name of democracy, what is this else than hypocrisy??

Those who find the collectivism of Marxism appealing should, instead of railing against the "entrenched inequity of the system", seek ways to provide constructive suggestions without wandering off into "Wouldn't it be nice if humans were something completely different from what they actually are?" pipe dreams.

It is because of this I usually stay out of political discussions. I am somewhat discontent with the modern social system, but I haven't found a non-hierarchial alternative other than blasting society back to the neolithic. (I must mention that I am not a communist in the defined sense of the word - I am somewhat repulsed by the amount of violence necessary to keep a socialist society collectivistic)

If your ideas of social constructivism require changes to human nature, construct your time plans on the scale of hundreds of thousands of years. If, on the other hand, you make your goals a little more modest, and aim simply to improve the balance between society, human nature and morality, then you can make your plans on the scale of generations

Perhaps it shall take such time. A collectivist revolution often takes A LOT longer than expected, after all.

[Darth Servo]

I disagree with your point about human selfishness. If we use natural behaviour as an excuse for elitarianism because some animals have hierarchial pack systems, one could as well claim that communism is natural because ants are communists.

The problem with your reasoning is that humans are pack animals. Mammals tend to be pack animals. Furthermore, we have very little in common with ants.

Capitalism is tailored towards giving the individual human enough possibilities to become richer than other people by any means necessary, and encourages a "success at all costs mentality."

Not "by any means necessary". There are many ways of getting rich that are strictly outlawed in capatilist societies: stealing, drug dealing, insider stock trading, etc. And most people follow those laws.

Communism has indeed failed because it tried to bend human social norms out of shape, but this is not the sole reason. Another reason is the Cold War, which forced the USSR to spend ridiculous amounts of money on military funding - resulting in low living standards for civilians because all the good stuff went to the military.

The U.S. was also wasting vast amounts of money on military spending during the cold war, yet its economy did NOT collapse. That fact alone speaks volumes of the strength of the capitolist system over the communist one.
This issue has already been addressed on Mike's communism page. One of the principles of Communism is to only produce enough for what the government thinks is needed at the moment and has no mechanism to handle shortages. Just because the U.S. was able to exploit this problem with communism, that does NOT excuse communism for incorporating what is clearly a stupid and easily forseeable problem in the first place.

The NATO did practically anything to stop communism - in Chile, the CIA even overthrew a democratically elected communist government in favour of a militaristic dictator!!

If the government was elected democratically, then it wasn't "true communism" as outlined by Marx.

If somebody helps a dictator to power in the name of democracy, what is this else than hypocrisy??

1) It wasn't done in the name of democracy It was done in the name of capitalism.
2) No one ever said capitalism was perfect or that its leaders cannot be corrupted.
3) This example still does NOT prove that communism is superior to capitalism.

Those who find the collectivism of Marxism appealing should, instead of railing against the "entrenched inequity of the system", seek ways to provide constructive suggestions without wandering off into "Wouldn't it be nice if humans were something completely different from what they actually are?" pipe dreams.

It is because of this I usually stay out of political discussions. I am somewhat discontent with the modern social system, but I haven't found a non-hierarchial alternative other than blasting society back to the neolithic. (I must mention that I am not a communist in the defined sense of the word - I am somewhat repulsed by the amount of violence necessary to keep a socialist society collectivistic)

You don't seem to see the self-contradictory point of your statement. If violence and military force are required for communism to work, then that society is by definition NOT collectivistic.

If your ideas of social constructivism require changes to human nature, construct your time plans on the scale of hundreds of thousands of years. If, on the other hand, you make your goals a little more modest, and aim simply to improve the balance between society, human nature and morality, then you can make your plans on the scale of generations

Perhaps it shall take such time. A collectivist revolution often takes A LOT longer than expected, after all.

We're talking evolutionary timescales, not revolutionary ones.

[Tosho]

Indeed, so why do people persist in utilising an out of date political philosophy like democracy that dates back to the Greek republics. Don't try and argue that the system is out of date. The context has merely changed. Instead of the workers within an nation revolting in todays world you could look at replacing the traditional industrial proletariat with the third worlders whom lack the rights etc of second and first worlders. Just an idea.

There's a difference. Communism has to do with economics, democracy with politics here's the difference:

Communism: a economic theory designed for 19th century industry. (ask yourself "What would be the effect of an economic theory designed for ancient Greece do to the region, say during the 1800s?")

Democracy: a political theory.

Why Communism dosen't work but Democracy does

Greed and possesivness are basic human drives. Instead of confronting them Communism avoids them, leading one to assume that they have no solution for said human drives which goes against the stated goals of Communism.

Democracy on the other hand, instead of going against basic human behavior actually provides an outlet for the human drive of being in control of their own fate.

What about greed and possesivness you ask? where is their outlet? We're still thinking of one I'll tell you what it is when I think of one ::cough::capitalism::cough::.

[lgot]

Nick:

Hmm. . . I'm not sure I agree with that. Communism, like any social model, involves certain expectations on the behaviours of the individuals within that society. It is my understanding that the particular expectations which allow communism to work in practice are those that are seen as being "moral" by most people.

There is one basic thing, Socialism, Communism, Capitalism are Economic Systems. In their definition they only deal with the productive system, they do demand any or you will find any "Moral" definition inside those.
They are not "bad" or "evil" and Economic systems are by definition "amoral" since they have to define and ask what is needed by that kind of production regarless of good of the individual.

Many people do this mistake to mix up Socialism or Communism with another vallues other than their own.
btw, I have no need to tell that I think as well that Communism is impossible (not Socialism) because it asks for a level of equality impossible. But not a moral level, but a level of demand - production - consume - possession that is just stuff out of nowhere. But by then, Neither Did Marx.

Darth Servo:

If the government was elected democratically, then it wasn't "true communism" as outlined by Marx.

Many people made the confusion that Socialism is only possible by dictarial systems or governament intervention. But that is not true. Marx's socialism needed Governament intervention even because Marx is 19th century person and that is exactly the century that the liberalism started to receive crititics and very few trusted in the private iniciative. But it is possible to see Socialism under democratic system , even because Socialism by definition does not say which political system he will be used, but the economic system.

[Peregrin Toker]

Not "by any means necessary". There are many ways of getting rich that are strictly outlawed in capatilist societies: stealing, drug dealing, insider stock trading, etc. And most people follow those laws.

OK, I exaggerated a bit. But some corporations (such as Coca-Cola) tend to exploit loopholes in the law to avoid taxation and maximize profits.

And most of those laws were established BEFORE the capitalist system came into being.

The U.S. was also wasting vast amounts of money on military spending during the cold war, yet its economy did NOT collapse. That fact alone speaks volumes of the strength of the capitolist system over the communist one.

When the USSR was established, it was a poor country, but at that time the USA was a rich country - so the americans had a starting advantage.
If it was the other way around - that the USSR had existed for 200 years and the USA, only 20 years old, started an arms race against the USSR, I think the USSR would have an advantage.

If the government was elected democratically, then it wasn't "true communism" as outlined by Marx.

It wasn't communism at the time it was elected, of course, but it had the possibility to turn it into a socialist society - although it would require an amount of violence

1) It wasn't done in the name of democracy It was done in the name of capitalism.

Really?? the USA actually used the vindication of democracy as an excuse for trying to stop communism with any means necessary, be they assassinations, despotism or napalm and Agent Orange.

We're talking evolutionary timescales, not revolutionary ones.

I meant that comment to be humoristic. Can't you take a joke??

[Nick]

If anyone hasn't grasped this yet:

Humans are, by nature, and on average, selfish.

Humans are also, by nature, sociable - that is, we instinctively recognise that working with others can allow us to achieve things we could not otherwise achieve.

I disagree with your point about human selfishness. If we use natural behaviour as an excuse for elitarianism because some animals have hierarchial pack systems, one could as well claim that communism is natural because ants are communists.

Why do you automatically equate "natural" with "good"? I simply said that humans are instinctively selfish - that is our starting point.

It is then necessary to get from that starting point to a workable social model, because, left completely unrestrained, human nature generally leads to "might makes right" like most pack animals.

The institutions of liberal democracy and capitalism are tailored towards channeling these instincts in ways which are collectively beneficial.

Capitalism is tailored towards giving the individual human enough possibilities to become richer than other people by any means necessary, and encourages a "success at all costs mentality."

Then why do most modern economies have anti-trust laws?

Why is there government regulation of so many markets?

Why does the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission exist?

How about the Telecommunications Ombudsman?

Or the Australian Securities & Investments Commission?

The answer to all of these questions is that modern liberal democracies are not into unfettered selfishness, because they realise it is self-defeating.

As I said, the idea of capitalism is not to give selfishness free rein - such a state is anarchy, not a stable capitalist economy.

Sure, you get right-wing nutters saying the government should butt out, and let the market control everything - but the problem with that theory is that, without the governments, many markets cease to exist, and we end up collapsing back into anarchy where "might makes right".

Think about it - why are we able to spend so much of our time worrying about the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of our actions? Because the necessities of life (food, water, shelter) just happen.

Are Western nations really only wealthy because they are ripping off the third world countries? Or is there something in their economies & systems of government that drives corruption and embezzlement down low enough that, most of the time, the system "just works"?

::snip irrelevant stuff pointing out a few US foreign policy debacles, and how the USSR's fall was accelerated by the Cold War. Don't you find it odd that the other party to that war didn't seem to suffer economically at all?::

[Nick]

The U.S. was also wasting vast amounts of money on military spending during the cold war, yet its economy did NOT collapse. That fact alone speaks volumes of the strength of the capitolist system over the communist one.

When the USSR was established, it was a poor country, but at that time the USA was a rich country - so the americans had a starting advantage.
If it was the other way around - that the USSR had existed for 200 years and the USA, only 20 years old, started an arms race against the USSR, I think the USSR would have an advantage.

Bollocks. The USSR had all the wealth of the tsars, not to mention all of the natural resources of Russia itself.

What they lacked was the means to make efficient and effective use of those resources - i.e. a viable social, political & economic system.

That was the advantage the US had, and that is the reason the US won the Cold War.

[Nick]

Hmm. . . it seems that getting a "Document Contained No Data" dialog box in Mozilla after hitting submit may be a reasonable indicator of a double post in the making. . .

[Nick]

Many people do this mistake to mix up Socialism or Communism with another vallues other than their own.

I don't think we actually disagree - in a strict sense, you are right that communism doesn't actually say anything about morality, because it is just an economic model.

In a wider sense, the reason people like to bring morality into it, is that communism could possibly work in theory, provided the members of the society were sufficiently enlightened and/or altruistic. And, on small scales, this can be exactly what happens amongst groups of humans with strong sense of morality.

And this is fine - these people gravitate together, and the mechanism of exclusion is available to deal with those who aren't willing to go along with the cooperative atmosphere. The preconditions are met, and the system works efficiently and effectively.

But it is these parallels which explain why the comment "communism only works if everyone is moral" is made so often - the preconditions to make communism work as an economic system are what many people would describe as moral behaviour on the part of each individual citizen.

If we go by strict definitions, the comment may not be quite accurate - but I suspect you will find that most don't know strict definitions for socialism & communism (I know I don't)

[Nick]

Not "by any means necessary". There are many ways of getting rich that are strictly outlawed in capatilist societies: stealing, drug dealing, insider stock trading, etc. And most people follow those laws.

OK, I exaggerated a bit. But some corporations (such as Coca-Cola) tend to exploit loopholes in the law to avoid taxation and maximize profits.

And most of those laws were established BEFORE the capitalist system came into being.

Umm. . . capitalism wasn't a new system. It was just giving a name to a system which is as old as humanity itself.

All it takes for capitalism to start is for person A to go to person B and say "I'll give you resource X if you give me resource Y". This basic barter economy makes perfect sense to most people.

To get to a more modern capitalist economy you need at least two more things:
1. the ability to move resources in space
2. the ability to move resources in time

The first is the role of distributors and wholesalers and their ilk - they establish a link between person A & person B, when there is some geographic or communication barrier, and charge a bit extra for their effort. After all, an apple in the orchard doesn't do me much good, but one at the supermarket is of great benefit - I'm willing to pay a bit extra for the convenience.

The second is the role of banks and the stock market. With banks, the borrower can acquire additional resources now, and pay them back later (with a little extra thrown in to pay the bank for the service it is providing). The stock market is similar, but in reverse - investors provide resources to the company for the company to make use of. The investors then make a profit as the shares (theoretically) increase in value or pay dividends.

These two categories are the ones where people can sometimes feel like they're being "ripped off", because the service the distributors and financial institutions provides can be so intangible. However, the following example might help:

Person A knows how to create item X, but wants to be given Y before creating it
Person B wants item X, but can't give A anything he wants

Impasse - without some personal connection with A, B has no way to get the item they want. Neither A nor B gets anywhere until B has had the time to earn the necessary money to pay A. Slow, at best, and frequently impossible. Enter the finance sector:

Bank: We'll give you Y now, but you have to give us 2Y later.
Person B gets Y from the Bank, gives it to Person A and receives item X in return. Over time, B earns 2Y and pays the loan back

Before the loan:
Bank has Y
B has nothing
A has nothing

After B pays back the loan:
Bank has 2 * Y
B has item X
A has Y

Sure, the item ended up costing B twice as much - but B has also had it for twice as long (or possibly, without the loan, B would never have acquired item X at all). Perhaps item X was even something which helped B earn back the money they owed the bank (for example, an investment loan for property, or a start-up loan for a small company).

Hell, misunderstanding the role of moneylenders is older than the Bible (chalk another piece of stupidity up for the Bible - all of the injunctions against usury, simply because the authors didn't have a clue about economics)

[lgot]

I don't think we actually disagree - in a strict sense, you are right that communism doesn't actually say anything about morality, because it is just an economic model.

Well, Perhaps it is just a matter of the popular, mundane view of comunism and the matter of what Marx really meant. This popular view is more idealist, often mixed with a anarchist view (there is a lack of central governament), and people really need to act like that because they want to be.
Which have little to do with anything that Marx would speculate about, since he always believed in govern, intervention and mechanism of control. And of course, the main line of Marx teories are that the economics development is what produce the society, before any cultural trait.
but like we said, ever again, we have little space to argue *again* but for semantics