Community >> View Post
Post By
The Mandarin

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,102
In Reply To
Late Great Donald Blake 

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,518
Subj: Re: It depends on what you mean.
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2022 at 02:22:05 am EST (Viewed 265 times)
Reply Subj: It depends on what you mean.
Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2022 at 11:04:47 pm EST (Viewed 266 times)

    In communism, those bureaucrats in
    charge of distributing the wealth favor their families and golfing
    buddies. They then require ever more amounts of policing power to
    enforce this disparity, resulting in a constant seesaw where the
    goods given to the people get ever smaller, requiring ever more
    policing power to prevent a rebellion from resulting, resulting in
    even less money getting distributed to the people, requiring even
    more money be given to the policing needed to prevent rebellion,
    until the country is just a feudal system in which the Feudal Lords
    are called bureaucrats.

    LGDB: well communism by definition is a classless society, so if only government bureaucrats control the means of production that's a sharp class difference and thus not communism.  But besides the semantics if the idea is regardless of the situation things will always get worse or decay or there's always entropy, I'm not really sure that that's more than a quietism, politics will only get worse regardless of what we try.  I'm not sure how useful the political pessimism really is.
The abstract idea of communism is very different from those structures needed to implement it in practice. This degree of non-profit based societal behavior has proven so alien to human nature that only an authoritarian bureaucracy has been able to implement it. Authoritarian bureaucracies quickly fall prey to the human tendency to favor ones family and friends over society, leading to the results already discussed. Consequently, the abstraction idea of communism has proven about as relevant as saying we should all do good stuff and not do bad stuff.

    And more importantly there's a pretty strong differentiation right up top:  with communism, people are trying to achieve a classless society where no one class privately owns the levers of power.  And they might fail even most of the time, but capitalism just accepts as a positive good the unequal, private control of society.  So based on my values I don't see them as equivalent systems.
Which people? Most regular people are trying to help their families and friends and find some time to relax in comfort and safety. Most people in power are going to be careerists with a vested interest in increasing their power, and shutting the door behind them for competitors. Communism really requires that the majority of people be saints. All systems that require the majority of people to be saints are utopian and doomed to end in de facto feudalism.

    And I think tribalism is bad sure, but that's also a bit vague.   What is the answer?  Just surrendering to tribalism?  Accept that no politics can overcome tribalism?  That's not a problem for communism, it's a problem for any political project.
The Scandinavians seem to be doing a pretty good job. Their system is too complex to be summed up in a message post, but they have notably used a mix of capitalist and socialist design. Social democracy, in other words.

    Also, could you respond to the idea that the Iron Law of Oligarchy was coined by a literal fascist?  I don't think that's something we wanna gloss over.

 He made many insightful observations about the human tendency towards neofeudalism, but then decided to become part of the problem instead of working towards a solution.

Posted with Mozilla Firefox 95.0 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software