Communism, nazism, and fasicm?

[maximus]

i am conducting personal research about different economic theories and i'd like to post a question: in your OPINION what went wrong with communism, nazism, and facicm? what were their various streangths? please, i realize this question is extremely broad, so please answer this objectively and remember short and sweet. thank you.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Communism had a false view of human beings; that they were formed and motivated entirely by their economic class. Actually people have much more complex motivations than that, and the communist thought that they could motivate the working class to overthrow the capitalists turned out to be wrong. Failing that, the communist regimes where established just drifted into dictatorship.

Naziism was an extreme form of fascism, and was too aggressive. They just had to invade the "lesser" countries and conquer them, and this eventually raised the Allies to conquer the nazis and overthrow them. If Hitler had been content to just rule Germany, that would not have happened.

Fascism is a political theory that emphasises three things: Race, Leadership, and Power. Race is used instead of religion, Leadership means that the country is led by a party which itself is led by a Leader (Italian: Duce, German: Fuehrer) in a harsh dictatorship. And power means the fascist country does what it likes with its neighbors because it is stronger. Power eventually results in wars and wars have been unkind to fascist regimes.

The Baathist party that ruled Iraq, and still rules Syria, is a fascist party. The Race angle is pan-Arabism, originally replacing Islam. The leadership is the Baathist party, led by Hussain in Iraq and Assad in Syria. And the Power aspect was overdone by Hussain and led to three unsuccssful wars and his eventual downfall.

 

[GreyBeaver]

Let me guess, you voted for Bush?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Nope, Gore. Watch out for the false assumptions. I would be a marxist if the marxists didn't stick so lovingly to all the mistakes that Marx and Lenin made. It is true that justice, philosophy and all are expressions of the "relations of production". But it isn't true that those relations are as simple minded as 19th century thinkers believed.

 

[PRodQuanta]

Well, first off, nobody really acheived pure communism. The closest was probably the Soviet, until that ended. It would have worked, but, like selfAdjoint said, it wrongly assumed human behavior. In a society without social class and (eventually) a government, greed takes over. It becomes a power stuggle, due to human behavior. That's where communism broke down.

That's all I got.

Paden Roder

 

[Adam]

USSR was Socialist, not Communist. USSR was NEVER Communist. Even the name - USSR - clearly shows what the place was. The ONLY reason people ever connect USSR with Communism is all that ridiculous propaganda from McCarthy.

 

[ShawnD]

You're basing that on the name of the country? Next you're going to try to tell us that North Korea is actually a democracy.

 

[Njorl]

Nope, Gore. Watch out for the false assumptions. I would be a marxist if the marxists didn't stick so lovingly to all the mistakes that Marx and Lenin made. It is true that justice, philosophy and all are expressions of the "relations of production". But it isn't true that those relations are as simple minded as 19th century thinkers believed.

I remember posting a while back about Marxist stubborness. Capitalists have made so many changes since Adam Smith that he wouldn't recognize our economic system. Marxists however, seem to think Marx is the one true God and Lenin is his only prophet.

I suppose that isn't true anymore. It was true in the USSR, and is still true in Cuba, but it hasn't been the case for China since Mao's death. China has pragmatic communism. China is still as much a communist country as the US is a capitalist one, but we know Bill Gates is not operating in the same marketplace that Andrew Carnegie did.

Njorl

 

[Nachtwolf]

I remember posting a while back about Marxist stubborness. Capitalists have made so many changes since Adam Smith that he wouldn't recognize our economic system. Marxists however, seem to think Marx is the one true God and Lenin is his only prophet.

Hey, what an insightful thing to say! You seem much more sensible when you aren't talking about Jews. (Then again Marx and Lenny were both Jews, and Jews more or less dominated the Bolshevik revolution, but only an evil "antisemite" would dare point that out, wooooooo!)

The main trouble I see with all three systems brought up in the initial post is that they moderate the flow of capital and the regulate business too strongly. This isn't a question of theory or principle so much as one of actual fact; if you look around the world at countries which should be doing well, but aren't, they're almost always under a system which inhibits the flow of capital. The United States has no business being the wealthiest country in the world, but modestly high IQ, good natural resources, and a strongly capitalistic society ensure our economic power.

The danger of capitalism, however, is that it can result in large income disparities. The average wealth generated throughout society is huge, but it's mostly concentrated in the upper 10%. The middle class enjoys a high standard of living as well, but the poor really struggle because they don't fit into the rich society in which they're living, and it's easy for the http://www.theonion.com/onion3121/billgates.html is to increase the average IQ with eugenics, thus allowing more people to qualify for higher level jobs which would by standard economic principles of supply and demand lower wages for the rich and raise them for the poor, but as we all know the only thing worse than an "antisemite" is an evil eugenist.)


--Mark

 

[Evo]

(So a better solution to economic problems is to increase the average IQ with eugenics, thus allowing more people to qualify for higher level jobs which would by standard economic principles of supply and demand lower wages for the rich and raise them for the poor, but as we all know the only thing worse than an "antisemite" is an evil eugenist.)


--Mark

What you seem to be unable to understand is that a high IQ is not synonymous with success or motivation. Right now there is a glut of highly qualified people applying for higher level jobs. Are you aware that in recent years there has been a steady decline in these "high level" jobs?

You live in a dream world where high IQ is the "cure all" for everything wrong in society.

 

[Les Sleeth]

In my opinion, this clip from the statement by selfAdjoint, ". . . a false view of human beings" is closest to why any human social system fails.

In my former professional life, I worked in a specialized area of a field known as organizational development (OD). OD is applied only to business, but the insights are actually relevant to any human system where people must work together for success.

To understand why OD has been so successful, one needs to see a couple of things. First, all human systems are designed for humans and managed by humans. So, thinking analogously, if one wants to give instructions to a team of deaf persons on how to assemble a computer, does one use a loudspeaker? If one wants to give instructions to a team of blind persons, does one use a video tape? No. One understands the strengths and limitations of the group one is designing a system for, and then designs accordingly.

The great thing about OD is the understanding that human systems work best when they adapt to human psychological needs. People cannot be forced to adapt to just any working conditions and still be expected to thrive psychologically. True, people can be made to work 16 hour days, give up family life, deny themselves fun and socializing, work a numbing job on an assembly line or as virtual slave labor in a farming coop . . . but at what cost? Study after study has shown that when basic human psychological needs are not met in human interaction systems, then dysfunctional behavior results. Even in the smallest of companies this is true, things can get quite dysfunctional on a societal scale.

Considering the specific question of this thread. Marx's idea of self denial for the greater good, for instance, is contrary to what we know motivates a human being. In short term or desperate situations it can work, say when a terrorist suicide plane needs the selfless cooperation of passengers to save it. But for day to day operations, people are not willing to sacrifice unless they see it is going to result in an overall change for the better, and soon. After Chairman Mao's appeal for personal sacrifice from peasants resulted in their mass starvation while he equipped his army and cities, he made a error in judgement about human psychological needs that (IMO) seriously undermined his culture's faith in the ideals of communism. Nazi and fascist ideals? They are so far from a satisfying psychological experience (except for those in power) they haven't a chance of ever succeeding over the long haul as economic systems.

As simplistic as it seems, Abraham Maslow's model of hierarchical needs really does reflect basic human psychology. Healthy human beings long for self actualization; and if someone isn't healthy psychologically, often encouraging them to self actualize helps them become so. Self actualization is good for all social situations whether it is economic, political, or within a family. Yet all the examples Maximus cited -- communism, fascism and nazism -- have principles built into them which repress self actualization. That is why they ultimately must fail . . . because they are human systems which humans cannot thrive within; if the humans do not thrive, then the system doesn't either.

By the way, I wouldn't say capitalism fits human psychology perfectly either. It does encourage self actualization however, which is why economically it does so well. Whether we will be able to link all that money-making power to improving social and environmental conditions remains to be seen. I'm a bit of a socialist myself.

 

[Nachtwolf]

What you seem to be unable to understand is that a high IQ is not synonymous with success or motivation.

What you don't seem to be able to understand is that I understand even better than you that a high IQ is not synonymous with success or motivation. Certainly IQ correlates with SES, but the correlation is far from perfect, and to the best of my knowledge IQ actually correlates very slightly inversely with motivation (as defined by psychometric "Conscientiousness"). Intelligence is virtually a necessary condition for success, though it is not a sufficient one. But (correct me if I'm wrong) you blithely assumed without any data whatsoever that these things are unrelated.

Right now there is a glut of highly qualified people applying for higher level jobs. Are you aware that in recent years there has been a steady decline in these "high level" jobs?

Interesting. Where? For how long has this been going on? How pronounced is the trend? Is it only going on for "high level" jobs? Why is this happening? Are these "high level" (which we're putting in quotes for reasons unbeknownst to me) jobs isolated to certain areas, or are CEOs becoming as redundant as physicists from Canada to Singapore?


--Mark

 

[selfAdjoint]

LW Sleeth, I couldn't agree with you more. The human race is longing for an integrated social system that will have for its goal not efficient markets or some fictional future state of perfection, but the day to day realization of Maslow's levels.

 

[Evo]

What you don't seem to be able to understand is that I understand even better than you that a high IQ is not synonymous with success or motivation. Certainly IQ correlates with SES, but the correlation is far from perfect, and to the best of my knowledge IQ actually correlates very slightly inversely with motivation (as defined by psychometric "Conscientiousness"). Intelligence is virtually a necessary condition for success, though it is not a sufficient one. But (correct me if I'm wrong) you blithely assumed without any data whatsoever that these things are unrelated.

You understand only what you want to understand. Typical of the closed minded. Oh, and I posted data a couple of months ago that supported this, so yes, you're wrong.

Interesting. Where? For how long has this been going on? How pronounced is the trend? Is it only going on for "high level" jobs? Why is this happening? Are these "high level" (which we're putting in quotes for reasons unbeknownst to me) jobs isolated to certain areas, or are CEOs becoming as redundant as physicists from Canada to Singapore?


--Mark

Are you serious? You really did not know this? Do you read? Are you employed? Are you not familiar with the fact that for years large corporations have been trimming their top heavy layers of upper management? You aren't aware of the impact that mergers and acquisitions have been having on top level management jobs?

 

[Les Sleeth]

What you don't seem to be able to understand is that I understand even better than you . . .

The idea that we give the "best" human beings the most attention is not a new idea . . . it was the concept behind very first cultures in Mesopotamia and lasted mostly unchallenged all the way until the French and American revolutions. Yet it did not produce healthy situations, even for the favored.

If you are correct, then how do you explain the success of democracy? A system which at least strives to include rather than singling out the most talented for privilige. Further, just a practical point . . . how will you deal with those we decide we'd rather eliminate than propogate? If you were in that group, would you just lay down for it? Or would you fight to change things? Already most of the problems society has is due to neglecting segments which we don't think are going to pay off. That is needless because everyone can contribute in some way, which is a lot better than being a drain or downright destructive.

In spite of what you think of as a revolutionary idea, in reality it is an old, well-tested formula for social failure merely dressed in a new suit.

 

[Nachtwolf]

You understand only what you want to understand. Typical of the closed minded. Oh, and I posted data a couple of months ago that supported this, so yes, you're wrong.

I can't help but wonder why I generate so much venom from you; if I am so closed minded, unable to understand anything important, and so forth, it's surprising that you bother to address me at all. Still, if you wish to correct me, I'm not averse to the idea that I was wrong - just give the link. I already posted such information myself, as I am quite ready to show:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=11910&page=1&pp=15

In 1915, one of Spearman's doctoral students, E. Webb, published a factor analysis of a matrix of correlations including a number of highly g-loaded tests and a number of ratings of character and personality. The particular personality traits chosen for study and obtained from ratings by students' teachers and associates were actually selected because they were expected to be related to g, and hence to show significant loadings on the g factor. This expectation, however, was completely contradicted by Webb's analysis, which yielded two wholly distinct factors - g and a general "character" factor, which Webb labeled w and characterized as "will" and "persistence of motives." The types of items most highly loaded on the w factor were described as: perseverance, as opposed to willful changeability; perseverance in the face of obstacles; kindness on principle; trustworthiness; and conscientiousness.

So, look, you were wrong - I understand very well that motivation is not the same as intelligence, and your assumption that I didn't was totally unfounded. Rather than admit this or question that I was serious when I told you I knew that intelligence and motrivation were different, you've just made personal attacks. Perhaps this demonstrates how open minded you are, but I'm clearly too lacking in intellect to understand why.

Are you serious?

I was, but it's become clear that I was mistaken when I thought you had the ability to teach me anything, Evo. I withdraw my questions.

The idea that we give the "best" human beings the most attention is not a new idea

Nor is it my idea, LW. I wish people would take the time to get a grasp on what I stand for before rendering judgment or forming an opinion. Fortunately, this has the side effect of rendering the foolish and deranged immune to my suggestions that they should have more children.

(Hey you! LW! Smart people should have more children! That means you! You should get married and make babies! Lots and lots of babies! Are you listening, LW? Are you paying attention? If so, that's great! If not, then it's for the best. But either way, I win, and I like that!)

It's worth noting that I do think we should give different kinds of attention to different people, however. For instance, I am in favor of tracked schools; what good is it for an 80 IQ ten-year-old and a 130 IQ ten-year-old child to sit in the same classroom? The 80 IQ child, with a mental age of approximately 8, will likely become frustrated; the 130 IQ child, with a mental age of approximately 13, will just as likely become bored. Can either learn up to his full potential?

how will you deal with those we decide we'd rather eliminate than propogate

Yes, that's exactly what I stand for, just eliminating those dummies, along with the manic depressive and the really ugly, that's it. Just line them up and shoot them in the head, that'll show em! 'Cause everybody knows that this is what eugenics is about, being as mean as possible to as many people as you can get away with. Ooh ooh and then just to prove that we're really evil, let's arrange for their corpses to be defiled by mad dogs. Serves 'em right! I'm not sure how we could manage it, but where there's the doubleyou factor, there's a way. I nominate Evo to figure out the details; she seems to have some restless aggression to go around.


--Mark

 

[Les Sleeth]

Nor is it my idea, LW. I wish people would take the time to get a grasp on what I stand for before rendering judgment or forming an opinion. Fortunately, this has the side effect of rendering the foolish and deranged immune to my suggestions that they should have more children.

(Hey you! LW! Smart people should have more children! That means you! You should get married and make babies! Lots and lots of babies! Are you listening, LW? Are you paying attention? If so, that's great! If not, then it's for the best. But either way, I win, and I like that!)

The problem for me is, your emphasis on getting smart people to breed more children over emphasizing what we can do to make everyone smarter. If you and others are really smart, why not work on a plan for that?

By the way, a preference for winning over discovering the truth isn't all that trustworthy. Blind stupid force can win when the trusting aren't worrying about it. When blind stupid force wins, it's not like society is benefitted from that.

It's worth noting that I do think we should give different kinds of attention to different people, however. For instance, I am in favor of tracked schools; what good is it for an 80 IQ ten-year-old and a 130 IQ ten-year-old child to sit in the same classroom? The 80 IQ child, with a mental age of approximately 8, will likely become frustrated; the 130 IQ child, with a mental age of approximately 13, will just as likely become bored. Can either learn up to his full potential?

I saw a special recently on an experimental teaching approach where the faster kids helped the slower kids learn. The results were remarkable. It helped everyone learn, teach, and care about others' welfare; scores were up for all the kids. And just maybe it taught a few smart people how to be more humble and helpful instead growing arrogant and/or condescending as some do.

Yes, that's exactly what I stand for, just eliminating those dummies, along with the manic depressive and the really ugly, that's it. Just line them up and shoot them in the head, that'll show em! 'Cause everybody knows that this is what eugenics is about, being as mean as possible to as many people as you can get away with. Ooh ooh and then just to prove that we're really evil, let's arrange for their corpses to be defiled by mad dogs. Serves 'em right! I'm not sure how we could manage it, but where there's the doubleyou factor, there's a way. I nominate Evo to figure out the details; she seems to have some restless aggression to go around.

Well Mark, I wasn't talking about that. I am talking about just ordinary circumstances in society when those who are not among the "chosen" start noticing (which would be the vast majority at first). Resistance comes in many forms, from boycotts to violence. You can't stop the dummies from breeding can you? And since they make up the majority, they are going to keep out-multiplying the smarties. The dummies vote too, and maybe to combat the smarty plan, they will decide only to vote low IQ people into office so we get lots of dumb laws passed. Once dumbness is the standard for humanity, then it will be the smarties who get bred out of existence.

Ok, I am being about as sarcastic as you. However, I notice you didn't respond to my completely serious counterpoint about the demonstrated success of inclusive social plans over exclusive ones. I can't say for certain what angers Evo, but I know you are going to run into a lot of anger in general because your idea is exclusive. Humanity has spent centuries fighting for inclusiveness -- the U.S.A was/is an experiment in just that. So most of us who value inclusiveness recognize pretty fast when someone has come up with yet another clever reason to interfer with that.

The thing is, you think your idea is practical, but I say overall it isn't. It is like when a domineering father decides his son has to eat every bite of his canned spinach (ewwwwww, slimy . . . fresh, quick-cooked can be made so tasty!). He is thinking spinach is good for his son, so he is justified in forcing. But what is the psychological effect of force on a child's developing individuality? Is the gain of eating spinach greater than the loss to one's psychological development?

Similarly, I say your plan (even if "smart" people are most desirable, which I am not sure of . . . I appreciate far more the good-hearted) would undermine what makes humanity most powerful -- unity.

 

[Dayle Record]

I had a friend who was taking his PHD in economics. He was discussing communism, and I told him that it is a temporary step between, feudal systems, and modern democracies. He asked me how that could be. I just told him, you will see. It takes about three generations of well feed new haves, who rise out of the feudal system, and the establisment of well cared for families, that brings about the end of communism. Those middle class families, bring democratic principles on. The problem is though, if you want the world to stay vital, with survival of the fittest working, but somewhat at civilized bay, then some strong social format has to exist, that takes the desperation out of the equation.

We in this nation have moved into a situation of serious economic instability, when so much of our nations resources sit at the top. There are too many complacent haves, willing to hire out their security; and millions upon millions of have nots. It makes a very real danger, when the economic equation is so out of balance. Look at what Saddam Hussein had to do to hang onto his stuff?

Within months of that conversation about economics, the Soviet Union broke up and the Berlin Wall came down. Loyalty to ones economic and political milieu, should be the result of what it brings to everyone in the arena. We don't all have the same values, but as a species we have similar basic needs, when this is forgotten as various elements of a society rise to power, then the results can be devastating. If we could find a way to forge a world value, based on the good of the whole living world, perhaps we could prosper in a better fashion, than we do. I read an interesting about the Dutch, a while ago. They have such a stable economy, that the number one employer in Holland is temporary services. Even Doctors and Lawyers work as temps, the Dutch decided that with their resources as they are, what they all seemed to want was free time. That is an amazing cultural value. They didn't want the world, they just wanted their time in it.

 

[hitssquad]

Why is Conscientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence

and to the best of my knowledge IQ actually correlates very slightly inversely with motivation (as defined by psychometric "Conscientiousness").

• The aim of the present study was to investigate the nature of the negative relationship which has been observed between the trait of Conscientiousness and intelligence, using different measures of both variables ([Furnham et al., under review]; [Moutafi et al., 2003]; [Moutafi et al., under review]). A total of 201 participants completed the Fifteen Factor Questionnaire (15FQ) and the General Reasoning Test Battery (GRT1), which included both measures of fluid and crystallized intelligence. Conscientiousness (Control) was significantly negatively correlated with abstract reasoning (fluid intelligence), but not with verbal reasoning (crystallized intelligence). This was interpreted as indicating that the negative relationship between intelligence and Conscientiousness is due to fluid intelligence affecting the development of Conscientiousness, in an educated and need-achieving population.

Why is Conscientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence?

Personality and Individual Differences
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-4BHV8S0-3&_user=10&_handle=B-WA-A-A-AVD-MsSAYZW-UUW-AUYCBADUAE-AUYWYEDYAE-BDDVVAWWB-AVD-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=01%2F23%2F2004&_rdoc=39&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235897%239999%23999999999%2399999!&_cdi=5897&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a8bd13a503af790eca34e298624e70d5, Corrected Proof

 

[russ_watters]

We in this nation have moved into a situation of serious economic instability, when so much of our nations resources sit at the top. There are too many complacent haves, willing to hire out their security; and millions upon millions of have nots.

We in this nation have moved into a situation of serious economic prosperity unparalleled in the history of the world. It is a testament to our prosperity when the definition of "have nots" has been so perverted to have lost all meaning.

 

[maximus]

Nazi and fascist ideals? They are so far from a satisfying psychological experience (except for those in power) they haven't a chance of ever succeeding over the long haul as economic systems.

not to be arguementative or anything, but how then do you explain the success that, say, the Nazis had in GERMANY before Hitler moved his forces out? it is my understanding that the majority of the popluation was to an almost fanatical point of loyalty to the Nazis. could this be atributed only to propaganda or did hitler do something right in using the jews as a scapegoat (or was it economics?)?

 

[maximus]

LW Sleeth, I couldn't agree with you more. The human race is longing for an integrated social system that will have for its goal not efficient markets or some fictional future state of perfection, but the day to day realization of Maslow's levels.

i agree, in part, but can a society really survive without some fleeting hope of greatness? so many economic systems have been utterly dependant on hope alone. capitalism, for example, creates a population of middle to lower classes that live on the (usually false) hope of greatness. how many of us can really win the lottery, or become famous actors, or be filthy rich? for communism it was the hope of a society that eventually would not need governmental control they were so independant. with any dictatorship the promise is always security, better living condition/wages, etc.
i do see your point however. but i do not believe it is pragmatic to assume that we can have a society anytime in the near future in which the lower classes will be content without a hope (or at least a promise) of a better future. nor is it realistic that we can create a system where the people wouldn't need it (i.e. they are happy with the changes the government is doing for them). it is simply too difficult to make everybody happy.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I don't know. I just don't know. The problem is tthat there are always people who decide to become leaders. Whether by force or charisma or sucking up to existing leaders, they devote their lives to that. And they will not be denied. So what do you do with them? They want to run things, and most of them have no more talent for that except the desire.