I think best reply to those who think real communism would work but hasn't been tried is that person should try a prototype and start working out problems at small scale. Rent a house with 5 communist friends and pool ALL money for your group. If you get that to work try it with 10 people etc. When you've got it to work with a few thousand people I'll listen to your ideas.
Peter Singer (effective altruism guy among other bad ideas with seemingly good intentions) confessed to BBC's Bryan Magee that if one turned right with Hegel, one got Hitler, and if one turned left, one got Stalin. F.A. Hayek made a similar argument in "The Road to Serfdom." Both seek to socially engineer the correct society and only the "all knowing" all power hungry seem to get into command.
Yes, all attempts at finding the perfect society neglect to understand that the perfect system doesn't exist because the problem always comes down to the people. Or at least some of them. Selfishness means there is always someone looking to take advantage of the rules.
Hayek discusses this in a book which took me weeks to get through. That is was originally published in the Reader's Digest at a time when most Americans did not attend college, shows how dumb we've become. I absolutely include myself in that category.
I cheated and listened to it while commuting to work. I should add it to my reading list but there's probably already more on it then I'll ever get though as it stands..
I ran into a similar problem with Libertarianism. It's great on paper, but doesn't adequately deal with the all-too human desire for power and control.
Everything in moderation. Grouping all libertarians together fails to distinguish between strong and weak versions. The difference between strong and weak libertarianism is not unlike the difference between communism and social democracy.
At the time I was involved with them (1975) -- going door-to-door to gather signatures so they'd be officially recognized as a party -- it was a small, highly motivated group of people fed up with PET. I agreed with so much of what they proposed, but it struck me at the time that they were assuming that all people are good, honest, want to work, and want to achieve. It might have been that the group was still young and naive (not unlike young socialists). I left Canada not too long afterward, and didn't keep up with them.
Indeed: "Communism is a utopian dream that cannot survive in the real world". Young people, often kids who have not had a job yet, let alone run a business, want this concept of what they think will make their life easier.
Bryan Caplan's concept of rational irrationality posits that people may rationally choose to be irrational in certain contexts, particularly in politics and religion, because the perceived cost of being rational is too high for the potential benefits. It's not about inherent irrationality, but rather a calculated decision to prioritize other values, such as feeling good or maintaining a certain social identity, even if it means holding incorrect beliefs or engaging in irrational behavior. (Credit: The Myth of the Rational Voter)
My first thought was "isn't that just biting your tongue to not be ostracized?" However, it sounds like it's actually choosing to believe which isn't quite the same thing.
For anyone that knows better and still votes against their self interest, yeah, that’s being self-destructive, but Caplan’s point is really a simple one—most people spend more time researching their next laptop or lawnmower than they do in understanding the political candidates they vote for.
I'm working on an essay in which I argue that our culture is sentimentally unbalanced: culture-makers instinctively recoil from patriotism, nationalism, celebration of childbirth or marriage, borders, etc. These things are considered to be 'fascist' (despite being popular with nearly all humans on the planet to some extent). Meanwhile the excesses of the LEFT (utopianism, moral decay, ideological rigidity, the impulses to reform and erase and control) are automatically validated and celebrated. This tendency is so firmly rooted that it's probably invisible to those most affected.
Interesting idea. The thing about culture-makers as you call them is that they are almost invariably wealthy. Having more than you can ever use makes generosity, for lack of a better word, easy. This in turn makes these people think that everyone is in a position to be share what they have. Most people are just getting by and the thought of not prioritizing themselves and their families makes little sense to them.
The two groups may as well be aliens to each other.
Vote communist and you’ll never have to vote again!
Socialism is a bait-and-switch political con. You vote them in but you must shoot your way out.
It's simply mindboggling that there are people who still don't get this.
More here:
https://zephareth.substack.com/p/thoughts-about-socialism-and-communism
Great as always, Philip. ZL
The young are the biggest supporters and there's always a new batch of them coming along.
I think best reply to those who think real communism would work but hasn't been tried is that person should try a prototype and start working out problems at small scale. Rent a house with 5 communist friends and pool ALL money for your group. If you get that to work try it with 10 people etc. When you've got it to work with a few thousand people I'll listen to your ideas.
Communes have been tried. There may still be some around. You're right, they don't scale.
Peter Singer (effective altruism guy among other bad ideas with seemingly good intentions) confessed to BBC's Bryan Magee that if one turned right with Hegel, one got Hitler, and if one turned left, one got Stalin. F.A. Hayek made a similar argument in "The Road to Serfdom." Both seek to socially engineer the correct society and only the "all knowing" all power hungry seem to get into command.
Yes, all attempts at finding the perfect society neglect to understand that the perfect system doesn't exist because the problem always comes down to the people. Or at least some of them. Selfishness means there is always someone looking to take advantage of the rules.
Hayek discusses this in a book which took me weeks to get through. That is was originally published in the Reader's Digest at a time when most Americans did not attend college, shows how dumb we've become. I absolutely include myself in that category.
I cheated and listened to it while commuting to work. I should add it to my reading list but there's probably already more on it then I'll ever get though as it stands..
I should do that too. Probably get a lot more out of it a second time
I ran into a similar problem with Libertarianism. It's great on paper, but doesn't adequately deal with the all-too human desire for power and control.
Everything in moderation. Grouping all libertarians together fails to distinguish between strong and weak versions. The difference between strong and weak libertarianism is not unlike the difference between communism and social democracy.
At the time I was involved with them (1975) -- going door-to-door to gather signatures so they'd be officially recognized as a party -- it was a small, highly motivated group of people fed up with PET. I agreed with so much of what they proposed, but it struck me at the time that they were assuming that all people are good, honest, want to work, and want to achieve. It might have been that the group was still young and naive (not unlike young socialists). I left Canada not too long afterward, and didn't keep up with them.
Yes, it takes many of us a long time (a very long time in my case) to understand that not everyone is good, honest, and hard working.
Anyone who seeks power under the banner of libertarianism is the furthest thing from a libertarian.
Indeed: "Communism is a utopian dream that cannot survive in the real world". Young people, often kids who have not had a job yet, let alone run a business, want this concept of what they think will make their life easier.
Too many of them get it from their university professors too.
Absolutely!
Vote communist 🤡
Now I’m thinking about a flyer or pamphlet I can carry around to give them… Utopians = authoritarians
Better to be free in a dysfunctional world than beholden to top down government.
How about a flier that says real fascism has never been tried.
The downside would be it would probably get you in a lot of trouble.
Bryan Caplan's concept of rational irrationality posits that people may rationally choose to be irrational in certain contexts, particularly in politics and religion, because the perceived cost of being rational is too high for the potential benefits. It's not about inherent irrationality, but rather a calculated decision to prioritize other values, such as feeling good or maintaining a certain social identity, even if it means holding incorrect beliefs or engaging in irrational behavior. (Credit: The Myth of the Rational Voter)
My first thought was "isn't that just biting your tongue to not be ostracized?" However, it sounds like it's actually choosing to believe which isn't quite the same thing.
For anyone that knows better and still votes against their self interest, yeah, that’s being self-destructive, but Caplan’s point is really a simple one—most people spend more time researching their next laptop or lawnmower than they do in understanding the political candidates they vote for.
Ya, that is definitely true.
I'm working on an essay in which I argue that our culture is sentimentally unbalanced: culture-makers instinctively recoil from patriotism, nationalism, celebration of childbirth or marriage, borders, etc. These things are considered to be 'fascist' (despite being popular with nearly all humans on the planet to some extent). Meanwhile the excesses of the LEFT (utopianism, moral decay, ideological rigidity, the impulses to reform and erase and control) are automatically validated and celebrated. This tendency is so firmly rooted that it's probably invisible to those most affected.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/the-poverty-of-transgressive-allegiance
Interesting idea. The thing about culture-makers as you call them is that they are almost invariably wealthy. Having more than you can ever use makes generosity, for lack of a better word, easy. This in turn makes these people think that everyone is in a position to be share what they have. Most people are just getting by and the thought of not prioritizing themselves and their families makes little sense to them.
The two groups may as well be aliens to each other.