I realize this is intended for Putin, but as an ardent left-of-center, totally radically-conservatively-free-enterprise capitalist with liberal tints around the edges...



I philosophically--is there any other way with me?--cannot STAND communism or socialism as an ideal, for the same reason I can't stomach Fasces' dreams of a fascist "Philosopher King" state:

Unrealistic and can never be realized.

damian's two points, 1. Sense of community and 2. Equality, fall flat for me as appeals of communism, as #1 is not exclusive to Communist/Socialist states and #2 is a fallacy and a joke and a DANGEROUSLY-BAD ONE at that...

All men might be created equal--though even that gets mucked up, try telling a severely-mentally-retarded person they were created the same as Einstein or a child born with muscular distrophy that they were created the same as Peyton Manning, who's a good QB due to practice, sure, but genetics sure didn't hurt him--but the truth of the matter, which seemingly-all people today seem to want to skate around, for fear of being labeled "unsensitive" or even "fascist" is...

All people, as they stand when fully-grown, ARE NOT EQUAL.

I am not, via a mixture of genetics, perhaps--my father's very poor at it as well--as well as life choices, abgemacht's equal in mathematics.

I have a TERRIFIC friend who's an immigrant from Mexico, but I can speak English and write papers far better than she, not because she's bad or stupid, but simply because English is her second language, one she didn't get to until just before her teens when she moved here.

I AM pretty damn good with English and Literature--and feel free to point out grammatical issues, I don't care, haha--however, and that's again, a mix of genetics, as I come from "book-gobblers" on both sides of the genetic pool over generations, as well as my own life choices and reading for as far back as I can remember for long periods of time (ah, I remember, it was just yesterday, it seems, when I was prepared to give a Marxist interpretation for The Cat in the Hat...!) :p

That's the BEAUTY of pople, they're DIFFERENT, and as Aristotle suggested in "Politics," it's the product of that differentiation and variety that allows us all to form societies just as much as a "state of nature" reason Locke or Hobbes might give, as in a society we can emphasize our strong points while shoring up each other's weak points; I can think and think comfortably right now, maybe come up with some worthwhilem ideas in my lifetime, because there are people physically-stronger and, due to conditioning, probably mentally-stronger people overseas right now fighting as soldiers, and I don't have to worry about knowing just how the mathematics of this computer works, as someone over at BestBuy can fix or replace it if it breaks and someone such as abgemacht or one of our other math whizzes is strong mathematically and so can shore up that weakness of mine in society.

For this to occur, though, we CANNOT accept that all people are equal on their merits, ONLY that they should be treated equally legally, and even THAT can be logically challenged by someone like Fasces who might say that those of far superior conditioning a l a Philosopher King should have dominion over the rest as Democracy is a bundle-of-compromises political system, and he wouldn't necessarily be logically-wrong there, just as Plato wasn't necesarrily logically-wrong there, just realistically-wrong--as, again, I think the idea of a utopian Philosopher King State is as unrealistic as an Ideal Communist State--and potentially morally wrong, unless anyone here wants to really endorse Plato's Eugenics Plan...?

So Democracy, while certainly unpalatable, is the least-dangerous form of government, at least in theory, and while it leaves a poor taste in Plato's mouth and Nietzsche's and D.H. Lawrence's--WHY did I not read him earlier?!--it's still the best system available, even ewith all of it's failings...

And if Nietzsche's Ubermensch or George Bernard Shaw's Superman or Plato's Philosopher King one day appears from the mountaintop, THEN we can make the switch. ;)

But no sooner, and there will never be an Idyllic Communist State so long as humanity is humanity and people people, for the central reason of this whole passage...

All men may be created equal, may be legally equal, but in their merits are NOT equal...I and abgemacht have distinct strengths and weaknesses (and sorry if it seems as if I'm picking on you, abgemacht, you're just the only math-centric person I can think of at this hour to contrast with) but those differences highlight our strenghts and shore up our weaknesses in society, I have time to think and thanks to folks like abgemacht, no one has to worry about me being involved in the contemplation of physics or building planes or rockets or the like...

If abgemacht were involved with those, they'd probably work.
If I were involve, they'd probably crash...into a farm house...if they didn't explode in my face.

;)

<3

"What makes communism so great is it's focus on the value of each person, and more importantly the community they create as a whole."

I would say, actually, that it focuses so strongly on the value of the community that it completely annihilates any sense of the value of each person. That's exactly its problem. The person is valuable only vis-a-vis the community.

Of course, I realize this was intended for Putin. :-P

@Obi: "All men may be created equal, may be legally equal, but in their merits are NOT equal."


You'll find communism has a cute way of dealing with that problem. From each according to his ability to each according to his need.

There are no illusions about everyone having equal merit, each person is assigned a job in which they will be productive.

Your view of how Communists see equality is flawed, which sends most of your argument crashing down around you. The equality we are suggesting comes in as a sort of legal equality were each person has more rights than you are used to.

As for your first argument, sense of community not being exclusive to communism/socialism. Well of course not. Humans naturally build communities however no other economic and social governance system features so heavily the idea of a collective identity and community, except fascism, which is classified as an offshoot of socialism.

A socialist system is all about people being willing to work to help their community out. Be it lending equipment, helping pay for an operation or so forth, the dog eat dog nature of capitalism encourages selfish behavior and the idea that each man should stand on his own.

(Quick explanation of the difference between my beliefs and communism to follow so you can understand were I'm coming from.

I do not believe in trying to create a global commune, I'm strongly focused on a single nation, and the welfare of that nation.

Like communists I'm strongly anti-corporate, however I'm not anti-commerce I support the idea of small businesses owned by every member of the company, who each get an equal say in the running of the company.

I am pro-democracy, and to an extent pro-social liberty. )

"I would say, actually, that it focuses so strongly on the value of the community that it completely annihilates any sense of the value of each person. That's exactly its problem. The person is valuable only vis-a-vis the community."

A perfectly valid view point and concern. As I am not actually a communist perhaps I'm letting my own views seep in a bit into this. However while the person is valuable as a member of the community, the idea that the government and others will care for your wellbeing as you care for theirs does show a respect for your value as an individual part of the machine.

Additionally in Soviet Russia you did have some creative liberty, and freedom to be unique. Which also allows for the individuals to exist within the machine.

I'll be honest I don't really see the problem with people not having much value outside the community because it is people who work for their own self interest without regard for the community that have ruined the earth and are worth less then worthless.

"You'll find communism has a cute way of dealing with that problem. From each according to his ability to each according to his need."

And who, pray tell, is to decide who's need is greater if we're all equal?

That'd seem to require a sort of magistrate, or at least a Congress/Parliament of sorts to sort that out and decide who's fit for what and who gets what, but THAT elevates the Parliament/Congress in power, it'd seem...and that's just assuming they're elected democratically or having them, if we go further and say they or a single ruler or an oligarchy are "entitled" to their position because they're incredibly strong or "just deserve" the post...

Well, that sounds more like what Plato/Fasces would advocate for...

And we're waiting, Putin, everyone's answering before you! ;)

Well since you decided to take issue with that. I think the best system would be a form of democracy of sorts. For all things that are critical to life, food, medicine, basic shelter. They should be made available to everyone as everyone needs them, and for non critical needs the local community can address those concerns at a weekly council meeting.

It has worked in other small communities.


Before you have a chance to take issue with the other part, from each according to his ability refers to the seeds that are sown (ie. everything he produces is taken into a communal pool from which all are welcome to draw, based on their needs determined as by the earlier part of this post.)

Note: this isn't quite the marxist communist way of dealing with the problem, and may be slightly biased by my own opinions

Do people still read all the way through obi's posts? He has good points but do you really expect me to read ten ranting, mildly tangental paragraphs about communism when there's free porn about four clicks away?

Also, communism blows and commies are morons.

^State a reason, then call people morons. If you don't have any hint of reasoning, you don't have an opinion.

Anyway, why not just brainwash everybody so they all enjoy communism and live happily ever after? It's the obvious solution. Freedom is very overrated. Everybody knows that freedom cannot co-exist with peace and happiness. If we simply condition everybody's mind at birth to love society and put in their best efforts to keep it running, what more would you want? Nothing, because you're brainwashed to be 100% satisfied by that.

Problem solved.

I read all the way through his posts. Most of the time they're pretty interesting and enjoyable. This latest one was kinda derailed by example after example on a point that is based on a misconception of the communist system. Namely the idea of equality. That post is mostly a long rant on the unique nature of people and individuality. Which wasn't half a relevant to communism as it's detractors would like.

Funny, points you arrive at there LJ, because free market capitalism also blows, and it's proponents are either morons or rich exploitative scumbags.


I'll be honest. dD, I find the idea of brainwashing repulsive. I love the idea of being free to question, think and advance as a species. Conflict isn't unnatural nor should alternate ideas be squashed. Communism is by no means a perfect solution we need a model that can evolve as the people within can question it. After all we currently have a good 90% happy with the free market.. and thinking it's their best friend.

Oh, btw, this is a serious suggestion. While it may sound all evil in today's world, if you were living in proposed society I'm sure you would extremely happy with it. And whilst it may not be out of your own free will that you feel that happiness, would you really care?

To me your proposal sounds distinctly like A Brave New World. There is societal and philosophical stagnation present if we free the human mind of discontent and the ability to question which not an acceptable trade off for unquestioning happiness.

They say ignorance is bliss, well I'd rather be in agony ;).

Additionally you start to get scientific stagnation as well as you can't encourage people to question the natural world without them also beginning to question the social construct around them.

If you want humanity to continue to progress you need free minds, that have to deal with struggles and question the world around them. Which means either you brainwash everyone and allow it to stagnate or you create an upper class who aren't brainwashed which to me is the epitome of inequality.

Would I care... well if the brainwashing was successful I suppose not. However I have trouble picturing myself living in such a society, I personally am always questioning the world and resisting ideas I consider unjust. So while this hypothetical person sharing the same DNA as me might not object or care being brainwashed. He would not be me, he would be a very different person.

The short answer is 1-Socialism is superior at developing the means of production; 2-Socialism is superior at distribution for social needs and as a result, performs much better in terms of human development indicators (distribution for social needs are always under attack by Capital); 3-Socialism avoids the crises of overproduction (boom and bust) associated with capitalism which lead to recessions and all the social effects recessions entail; 4-Socialism is the only method by which we can avoid the complete depletion of resources through the rapacious pursuit of profits (which relates to point 1); 5- Socialism is the only method by which we can avoid endless war which is inevitable in capitalism due to the problem of crises as described in point 3.

I assume by communism you mean socialism as it was practiced by the socialist countries (and still is by a few). It's important to understand that communism is an end or higher stage, while socialism is a transition stage. No Communist-led country ever said they had achieved communism. As Marx said "Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other". This transition is called the dictatorship of the proletariat (socialism). The next stage - communism, can only take place once there are no more capitalists and classes. This obviously never occurred.

The idea is that during the transition there is an expropriation of the means of production and these productive forces become the common property of the entire society. During this time, the vestiges of the old system still remain, opposing classes still remain, and capitalist encirclement still remains, but the common ownership of the means of production results in a great increase in the development of the productive forces. The theory is that communism will be achieved when production becomes so great and labor so productive that workers will voluntarily work according to ability while the state will no longer be needed for distribution and regulate the quantity received so workers will take what they need.

Now, socialist countries never predicted when this higher stage would take place, but they knew it would take a considerable amount of time. So, if your question is what is so great about socialist countries under this period of transition, or why the socialist countries were superior to their capitalist counterparts - there are several reasons.

1 - The economic system is no longer predicated on the exploitation of man by man. It is no longer organized according to greed, rapaciousness, and profits. Quite frankly, our species cannot survive if we continue organizing our activities according to the profit-motive. We will overproduce and overconsume our resources to the point of extinction. Socialist economies are planned, organized according to human need. Nobody is allowed to profit off the labor of other people. From the social labor of society a reserve fund is invested in the needs of the people. Socialist economies are much better equipped to take care of the social needs of people - hospitals, schools, etc. Under a capitalist society, Capital always sees investment in social needs as something that undermines their profits. As such, it is no surprise that the welfare states built in Europe are under full assault. It is clear from the human development ratings of socialist countries in Europe, countries that developmentally were far behind their capitalist counterparts, they performed at an equal or higher level on many indicators. It is also clear from very poor countries that were under socialist rule (like Mozambique) human development was infinitely higher than countries of equal development. We continually see cases like in Ecuador where when the people want to use their resources for themselves and want their government to protect them from the recklessness of the bourgeoisie, Capital wages a relentless attack. Capital is not afraid of using unrestricted violence to murder anyone who gets in the path of profits. We see paramilitaries being hired to protect the plantations of Chiquita banana, Coca-Cola using thugs to assassinate labor leaders, or Monsanto using thugs (and round up) to evict poor peasants.

2 - Crisis is inherent in capitalism - the so-called "business cycle" - boom and bust. Capitalism inevitably overproduces which leads to a recession. People are laid off, they lose their homes and other social benefits during these "natural" business cycles. Inevitably during crises only the workers suffer while the capitalists profit. Recessions are never bad for Capital. They simply cut the "excess" and pocket the difference. As the forces of production develop the intensity of crisis intensifies. Eventually under capitalism, the crises will become so severe it will be unsustainable. The contradiction between the need to centralize the control of profits, and need for the proletariat to make enough money to sustain these profits by consuming what is produced. As capitalists continue to slash wages and the social benefits of workers, workers will become antagonized and resist.

Boom and bust doesn't exist under socialism. Of course, due to the fact that the vestiges of the old order aren't completely eliminated, socialism can still be vulnerable to problems in the global economy. But the norm under socialism is full employment or close to it - as well as stable economic growth thanks to planning.

3 - The development of the forces of production is inferior under capitalism, and inevitably declines. The development of productive forces intensifies greatly under socialism. Because the Anarchy of Production under capitalism is completely unplanned, development is completely ad hoc and determined by the market. So certain sectors could develop very slowly, while less useful sectors develop rapidly. Great needs that are unprofitable will not be provided by the state. For example, capitalism cannot develop nuclear power through the market alone. It needs massive investment from the state in order to complete such projects. During the last 30-35 years the productive forces of the West have declined greatly, with the system being propped up by credit. Essentially the West is limping along, living off the backs of future generations in order to continue its lifestyle.

4 - The competition for resources under capitalism leads to endless war. I said before that there is a contradiction between the need to centralize wealth and the need to provide a certain standard of living for the people being exploited within a country. A way Capital has been able to escape revolutionary crises is through imperialism. Fighting wars with other capitalist powers for control over resources allows Capital within a country to buy off its workers and increase its profits simultaneously. As the crises of capital intensify, the likelihood of war greatly increases.

Well, saying you put freedom high up on priorities and saying you're happy with society is 'doublespeak' at best. I came to the conclusion that society is inadvertently brainwashing its population without even realising. It's obvious (and proven) that humans try and 'fit in' with the other humans in their immediate environment. So we can assume humans try to fit in with society. Which is why advertisements try to make people think they won't fit in with the rest of society if they don't buy "product X".

At the moment, humans perceive 'normal' as being a self-interested person who wants to climb the corporate ladder so he can have lots of money. Also, this person should get a spouse at some point. (Recently, we've been shifting 'normal' towards males being someone who sleeps with everyone they can, and females are people who have to be sexually stunning. Sickening really.)

Now, if we merely control what humans perceive as normal to be a loving, caring person who helps everybody else, wouldn't everyone be happier? Sure, that might not be enough to get a utopia as I explained earlier, but its a start.

Why not just tell people they're free too, even though they aren't? They'll believe it, just like we believe we're free now. (Society says we can do what we want, but if we don't do things that work with society then we either don't get any food, because we don't get payed, or we end up in jail)

Ask yourself this: If you think your life is perfect, what more could you want?

""All men may be created equal, may be legally equal, but in their merits are NOT equal."

Neither Marx nor Lenin nor anyone else ever argued otherwise.

"Every Leninist knows, if he is a real Leninist, that equalization in the sphere of requirements and personal, everyday life is a reactionary petty-bourgeois absurdity worthy of some primitive sect of ascetics, but not of a socialist society organized on Marxist lines; for we cannot expect all people to have the same requirements and tastes, and all people to mould their personal, everyday life on the same model. And, finally, are not differences in requirements and in personal, everyday life still preserved among the workers? Does that mean that workers are more remote from socialism than members of agricultural communes?

These people evidently think that socialism calls for equalization, for levelling the requirements and personal, everyday life of the members of society. Needless to say, such an assumption has nothing in common with Marxism, with Leninism. By equality Marxism means, not equalization of personal requirements and everyday life, but the abolition of classes, i.e., a) the equal emancipation of all working people from exploitation after the capitalists have been overthrown and expropriated; b) the equal abolition for all of private property in the means of production after they have been converted into the property of the whole of society; c) the equal duty of all to work according to their ability, and the equal right of all working people to receive in return for this according to the work performed (socialist society); d) the equal duty of all to work according

page 742

to their ability, and the equal right of all working people to receive in return for this according to their needs (communist society). Moreover, Marxism proceeds from the assumption that people's tastes and requirements are not, and cannot be, identical and equal in regard to quality or quantity, whether in the period of socialism or in the period of communism.

There you have the Marxist conception of equality.

Marxism has never recognized, and does not recognize, any other equality.

To draw from this the conclusion that socialism calls for equalization, for the levelling of the requirements of the members of society, for the levelling of their tastes and of their personal, everyday life -- that according to the Marxist plan all should wear the same clothes and eat the same dishes in the same quantity -- is to utter vulgarities and to slander Marxism."

Now see, you've altered the wording.. which I guess in my mind alters the message. I pictured Brave New World style brain washing, while your just talking shifting societal norms, which I am in fact an advocate of.

Yes you will often find humans who make an effort to fit in with other humans, that is a fact, however there are also a significant section of the population that purposely flaunts societal norms.

However I think shifting social norms back a good number of hears to when people saw helping their neighbours as a good thing, and you had community farm co-ops all over would be a vast improvement. At this point I'd say I generally support your proposal.

However again I must take issue with the last idea. It is the wanting of stuff that drives human kind forward, so removing want will result in stagnation technologically, and socially.


Back on topic.. whoa. Well put Putin! You captured pretty much all the best parts of socialism there way more eloquently than my attempt. It also provided me with some nice backing for some of the gut feelings I have about socialism.

This passage is perhaps more to the point, as it directs Obi's charge head on.

"The means of production are no longer the private property of individuals. The means of production belong to the whole of society. Every member of society, performing a certain part of the socially-necessary work, receives a certificate from society to the effect that he has done a certain amount of work. And with this certificate he receives from the public store of consumer goods a corresponding quantity of products. After a deduction is made of the amount of labor which goes to the public fund, every worker, therefore, receives from society as much as he has given to it.

“Equality” apparently reigns supreme.

But when Lassalle, having in view such a social order (usually called socialism, but termed by Marx the first phase of communism), says that this is "equitable distribution", that this is "the equal right of all to an equal product of labor", Lassalle is mistaken and Marx exposes the mistake.

"Hence, the equal right," says Marx, in this case still certainly conforms to "bourgeois law", which,like all law, implies inequality. All law is an application of an equal measure to different people who in fact are not alike, are not equal to one another. That is why the "equal right" is violation of equality and an injustice. In fact, everyone, having performed as much social labor as another, receives an equal share of the social product (after the above-mentioned deductions).

But people are not alike: one is strong, another is weak; one is married, another is not; one has more children, another has less, and so on. And the conclusion Marx draws is:

"... With an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, the right instead of being equal would have to be unequal."

The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production--the factories, machines, land, etc.--and make them private property. In smashing Lassalle's petty-bourgeois, vague phrases about “equality” and “justice” in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is compelled to abolish at first only the “injustice” of the means of production seized by individuals, and which is unable at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not according to needs).

The vulgar economists, including the bourgeois professors and “our” Tugan, constantly reproach the socialists with forgetting the inequality of people and with “dreaming” of eliminating this inequality. Such a reproach, as we see, only proves the extreme ignorance of the bourgeois ideologists.

Marx not only most scrupulously takes account of the inevitable inequality of men, but he also takes into account the fact that the mere conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole society (commonly called “socialism”) does not remove the defects of distribution and the inequality of "bourgeois laws" which continues to prevail so long as products are divided "according to the amount of labor performed". Continuing, Marx says:

"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."

And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears.

However, it persists as far as its other part is concerned; it persists in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labor among the members of society. The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products.

damian,

A reasonable response.

"I'll be honest I don't really see the problem with people not having much value outside the community because it is people who work for their own self interest without regard for the community that have ruined the earth and are worth less then worthless. "

Well, two points here. First, the cheap shot. It is communist countries that truly perfected the art of human destruction. You may argue that Stalin et al were acting more like capitalists, or, heck, I don't know what you'd argue. The fact remains, nothing vaguely like Stalin or Mao or Hitler ever happened within a major capitalist country.

More important, though, and less of a cheap shot: I suppose this just begs the question (and perhaps we both have to). If you define ill by people harming the community/organism, you may like communism, but then you probably already did, because of your definition of good. If I define it by the ability of humans to live as individuals, I probably liked freedom already, and this will confirm it. I do think that a point in my favor is that human nature actually favors my point of view, by and large. People want to be individuals, not part of a borg, and systems that ignore this do so at their peril.

Of course, your historical claim, interpreted literally, is absurd. Perhaps SOME who have pursued their own ends have harmed society, but this also describes most of society's great benefactors. I will therefore generously assume that you intended only to argue that one was a (small) subset of the other, not that the two sets are equal.

Needs and abilities are all fine, but desire drives innovation and man's inherent nature is selfish desire, not selfless. Eliminate selfish motivation and you stifle progress. I'm a software geek. I make a great living developing code that most people would look at and think it was gibberish because they aren't the code head I and a few others on this site are. As a result, I get more compensation than a burger flipper and should own a bigger part of your communal company than the lunch lady as the software firm I work for could do without lunch ladies but not without software developers. So if you take away my motivation, why would I feel the need to contribute my best? And while I agree everyone's basic human needs should be met, this communal pool of goods eliminates luxuries entirely. Of course, with no motivation to produce, there would be no innovation so there would be no luxuries to be had.

If you doubt this, look at who innovated and who copies in the global society. Japan and the US are innovators. Capitalism rules in both countries. But China and Russia, the "Communist" countries are good at copying and mass producing. But if you eliminate the capitalist advancements, there is nothing to copy and mass produce, effectively turning all of society into a great big ant farm and ant society is a gatherer society in which no one thinks for or of themselves. Personally, I don't want to be an ant. So, as much fun as the concepts of Star Trek are, man hasn't progressed to the point of selfless motivation and probably never will. And unless he does, true communism is just a pipe dream.

"The fact remains, nothing vaguely like Stalin or Mao or Hitler ever happened within a major capitalist country."

I like the qualifier "major". Since of course Indonesia's US-backed generals killed over a million in a couple of years, and that doesn't even include its campaign to wipe out the East Timorese.

@Smeck

Perhaps not, however I have trouble associating Stalin, Mao or Hitler's policies so much with socialism but instead the failure of humanity when presented with absolute power. Socialist is not naturally a system based around the lone authority of a single individual. This is instead a flaw inherent in a authoritarian regime. In many third world countries atrocities are made in the name of profit margins, and the government turns a blind eye because they advocate free markets and leaving it alone. Suggesting that there is in inherent greed factor which I consider a flaw in the capitalist system.

I suppose you make a fair point there. I associate harming society as a whole or leeching off of it for your own gain at the expense of others to be and inherently bad action. You may consider it a good action as it shows initiative and individual drive to succeed and persevere at any cost.

Now don't get me wrong I'm an advocate of freedom for the individual however I think it should follow a policy of you are free to do as you will so long as you harm no other. Which in the name of profits most big wig capitalists ignore. If you can name a single big company where the wage gap between bottom and the CEO is 1:20 I'll consider taking it back however that is exploitation of others just to make more money for yourself.

I also think you are on the wrong track about human nature. People do not want to be individuals they want to be accepted, which is why societal norms catch on so easily, it is why we have trends. People act in their own self interest however people crave acceptance and human contact, which can be achieved through community and following norms.

Yes it is absurd I suppose.. it is a hyperbole. However as soon as a person steps from worrying about their self interest into not having a concern for the well being of others they start to harm the planet as a whole.

@Draug

Well I suppose that is a way to look at it. One that I certainly agree with people need motivation to innovate, they need to be able to question ad explore, and they need to want something.

That said innovations in the past have primarily been hey you know what would be really helpful to me?... _____ after which point they design and build it. Now sure they wouldn't have the added benefit of capital gain they would still have solved their problem by inventing a product to create a solution. So innovation doesn't die out altogether in a society with no profit motivation. Perhaps it occurs at a less rate. However I'd say a better reward for innovation would simply be renown instead of profit, after all working to earn respect is a good motivator for a lot of people... especially if they think it increases their chances of getting laid.

"1-Socialism is superior at developing the means of production;
2-Socialism is superior at distribution for social needs and as a result, performs much better in terms of human development indicators (distribution for social needs are always under attack by Capital);
3-Socialism avoids the crises of overproduction (boom and bust) associated with capitalism which lead to recessions and all the social effects recessions entail;
4-Socialism is the only method by which we can avoid the complete depletion of resources through the rapacious pursuit of profits (which relates to point 1);
5- Socialism is the only method by which we can avoid endless war which is inevitable in capitalism due to the problem of crises as described in point 3."

@#1: Superior how? Why? And for whom?
@#2: To beg the same question I did of damian...WHO decides who needs what? "According to need" sounds wonderful at first, but it's in the end a HUMAN BEING who decides what those needs are and who has them, and lest I restate my Hobbesian view of humanity here, human beings are, to once again use my favorite Hobbes quote, "desire-pursuing machines," and are ultimately self-interested, in my view--do you agree? If so, how can self-interested, biased individuals make unbiased choices with the degree of consistency and impartiality you seem to envision, and if you DON'T agree we're self-interested beings...well, please give your views and reasoning as to why there, as I could not disagree more...what's more, I'd say for the record I prefer "according to merit" over "according to need," and don't see the two as analogous--I think I MERITED the financial aid-funded semester in London to study English Lit. more than the non-English majors who got it instead of other English majors and I, as we are, well, actually majoring in the field taught and I have a flawless, all-As record for English in college as well as other Lit.-based noteriety bits, more than those who got the trip funded via their financial aid package for the non-English majors can claim...I didn't NEED to go to London, obviously, but in terms of getting the free ride that was gifted to those individuals, as I had the better record and was actually studying the field that was being emphasized in the trip, I certainly had more merit...
#3: I'll ask how "how," but only because, again, I feel we're self-interested beings, and while I cna see in theory where your point here might ring true, in practice...not so much
#4: As I asked for #1 and #4 is, by your own admission, a followup to #1, the same questions of "how?", "why?" and "to what degree?" apply here for me once more
#5: I COMPLETELY DISAGREE, to say communism or socialism or any other form of government will end war or lessen it is, in my view, impossible, war is an inevitable outcome of human existence and is NOT caused merely by economic factors, but by ideological, political, territorial, religious, and other such factors as well; even if I take it that you only mean here to adress the case of economically-fueled warfare, which admittedly is a large portion and cause of war, I still would argue that since human beings are self-interested, the drive to possess more wealth or, at the very least, greater security--or at least the feeling or illusion of greater security--through the acqusition of land and wealth and power will not be stoppered by restraining corporate power or capitalist tendencies to produce for war because it's profitable, because in the end, war IS profitable, is always profitable...for someone, somehow, even if that gain is NOT monetarily-based...your solution seeks to end one of the means of propogating war, but not the END REASON for war, which cannot be extinguished as it's intrinsic--again, the Hobbesian view of self-interest I mentioned, and NO, I am NOT tying this into Rand's views on the subject not do I care to, to adress that little matter of hpilosophical disgust before it pops up, as it seems to do when I menion my "self-interest" ideas that are bprn from Hobbes and Nietzsche and now, sadly, have become more popularly-known to an increasing amount of people in the context of Rand's philosophy, which I despise thoroughly, to the extent I actually might be allowed to participate in a professor-run lecture/seminar next year and give a lecture on the failings of her philosiophy and how it's warped Nietzsche and Hobbes' ideals poorly...! And now, after that tangent, back to the actual discussion--and is, ultimately, a desire for security and power and control and elevation of life, all of which go together, in short...

The Will to Life, if you like Schopenhauer, or Power, if you haven't had enough Obi-Nietzsche references so far, or to a far lesser degree, Maslow's Pyramid of Needs, Personal Security being his base (I disagree with the higher levels of the pyramid and the idea that it's as rigid as he makes it out to be, but that base idea I agree with.)

"to their ability, and the equal right of all working people to receive in return for this according to their needs"

Again, "ability" does NOT necessitate a matching-up with "needs"...

"Need" and "Merit" are not synonymous.

Obi,

I can respond to these repeated questions, but I answered some if not most of them above and you evidently didn't read my answers. I explained precisely why crisis occurs in capitalism, and I don't see how you can deny it, especially considering the fact we're in a huge financial crisis and are trying to recover from a severe recession. Do you deny the existence of the so-called 'business cycle'? If so you're alone among capitalist apologists who do. Do you deny the existence of repeated recessions of increasing intensity? What explains the Great Depression? Why did a huge war follow the Great Depression?

Furthermore, you in one breath assert the self-interested nature of humans, but then seem to deny the fact that capitalism leads to the centralization of wealth and overproduction, which in turn leads to recession and crisis.

""Need" and "Merit" are not synonymous."

No kidding. Try reading. My god this point was laid out in clear black and white for you. You're constructing a straw man, as is typical.

Hence, the equal right," says Marx, in this case still certainly conforms to "bourgeois law", which,like all law, implies inequality. All law is an application of an equal measure to different people who in fact are not alike, are not equal to one another. That is why the "equal right" is violation of equality and an injustice. In fact, everyone, having performed as much social labor as another, receives an equal share of the social product (after the above-mentioned deductions).

But people are not alike: one is strong, another is weak; one is married, another is not; one has more children, another has less, and so on. And the conclusion Marx draws is:

"... With an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, the right instead of being equal would have to be unequal."

The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production--the factories, machines, land, etc.--and make them private property. In smashing Lassalle's petty-bourgeois, vague phrases about “equality” and “justice” in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is compelled to abolish at first only the “injustice” of the means of production seized by individuals, and which is unable at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not according to needs).

Marx clearly says that people are not to be paid according to need, but according to labor performed, and since people are not equal, these payments will necessarily not be equal.

As I've tried to say over and over, in the first phase of communism (commonly called socialism, which is what the socialist countries were) - productive forces have not been developed to such a degree that people can take as they need. There will be inequality, as people will receive goods according to work performed. This will change in the second stage of capitalism, which I explained at length already.

*second stage of communism, rather.

Sort of a bad joke, blatantly stolen from Shrek. However it seems fitting.

Obi, Socialism has stages!

Socialism is like an onion.
It smells bad It makes people cry?
No Obi it's got layers; socialism has layers onions have layers.
How about cakes, cakes have layers.
No donkey socialism is like an onion
how about parfait everyone likes parfait.
No Obi socialism is like an onion!