News Economic Systems: Probing the Debate of Communism vs. Socialism

[Joel]

Interesting posts Les Sleeth, thank you.

Further, the fact that communism requires the individual to set aside his primary psychological drive seems to justify the oppression of individual expression and therefore more easily leads to the totalitarian state. Add to that the blandness that develops from squelched self actualization and you get the freedomless mediocre hue of communism.

I'd like to add that I understand that Marx was quite vague about what he meant with the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', but it could easily be understood that one institution (the proletariat) would enjoy supreme power after the revolution, which per definition is a totalitarian state. Regardless of what ideology, the total domination of a single ideology cannot but be destructive for the ongoing democratic project, as (you and) Popper put it.

 

[alexandra]

I apologize if anything I said seemed directed at you (except responding to your expectation that I cite studies about something so well published). If I feel any sort of impatience it's with Marx. I don't consider myself an expert on Marx, but I've read McClellan's biography, Das Kapital, the manifesto of course, and several papers. I think I have a grasp of Marx's complaints about capitalism, and the alternative communist system he proposed. So it's not from ignorance that I say I don't think his theory is a good one.

I didn't take anything you said personally, Les – I was just defending my views/beliefs in general (as well as the thinkers and historical actors I have much admiration for). My interpretations of Marx's writings are very different to yours, and I was defending these interpretations. Perhaps Marx was, as a person, 'arrogant' and ‘argumentative’ (I don’t know whether or not he was, but I believe a lot of famous people are 'guilty' of this - as are many not-so-famous academics ) Here’s an excerpt from a biography of Newton, for example:

Adjectives that have been used to describe facets of his personality include "remote", "lonely", "secretive", "introverted", "melancholic", "humorless", "puritanical", "cruel", "vindictive" and, perhaps worst of all, "unforgiving". http://www.icpress.co.uk/books/histsci/p299.html

But even if Marx was arrogant as a person, this does not detract from his academic work any more than Newton’s personality detracted from his academic work.

I could break it down to details, but really there is one particular point where he goes wrong which creates the main problems for his theory. I don't think he knew much about human motivation, and that made him base his socioeconomic theory on a false assumption about human psychology.

Marx underestimated the human need for self actualization. I mean this in the general sense of developing, expressing, and achieving as an individual. He seemed to think people would be motivated by working for some invisible, nondescript whole. But that has never proven as motivating as when people act out of self interest. Self interested is what we psychologically are first and foremost.

I disagree with you that Marx thought people would be motivated by working for some invisible nondescript whole – I believe Marx’s theory of alienation in capitalist societies is the key to understanding what his critique of this aspect of capitalism was. I think we are interpreting Marx’s writings differently, Les. Here’s a lengthy quote from McLellan’s “The Thought of Karl Marx: An Introduction” (1971, McMillan Press, London, p.25):

[In his notes on James Mill, Marx]…outlined, in philosophical and almost lyrical tones, his conception of the truly human society:
Supposing that we had produced in a human manner; each of us would in his production have doubly affirmed himself and his fellow men. I would have: (1) objectified in my production my individuality and its peculiarity and thus both in my activity enjoyed an individual expression of my life and also in looking at the object have had the individual pleasure of realising that my personality was objective, visible to the senses and thus a power raised beyond all doubt. (2) In your enjoyment or use of my product I would have had the direct enjoyment of realising that I had both satisfied a human need by my work and also objectified the human essence and therefore fashioned for another human being the object that met his need. (3) I would have been for you the mediator between you and the species and thus been acknowledged and felt by you as a completion of your own essence and a necessary part of yourself and have thus realized that I am confirmed both in your thought and in your love. (4) In my expression of my life I would have fashioned your expression of your life, and thus in my own activity have realized my own essence, my human, my communal essence”

I read this as self-actualisation of a very deep and meaningful sort.

As I said earlier, there are varieties of self interest. I used to think only of my little selfish needs when I was younger, but now I find it’s in my own best interest to share more, to love more, etc. It’s practical because not only am I happier, I build better relationships with people. But it takes time for people to learn what things are really good for them.

I agree with what you write here – but I believe that this is exactly what Marx was getting at as well. When I apply this thinking on a global level, it seems obvious to me that in order for our planet to remain habitable (environmentally), and if we are not to descend into some chaotic ‘Mad Max’-type of world, we will have to adopt a less self-interested approach to life: to secure our existence as individuals, we will have to care about more than just ourselves. This seems to me the most important lesson that Marx’s writings has taught me.

In the meantime people are driven to find self satisfaction. It’s true that while looking for it a great many people do things that are harmful to others and the environment. Unenlightened self interest, like greed for example, hurts humanity overall (which seems to be one of your big complaints about capitalism). But if we devise a system to eliminate greed which requires one to reject self interest, we have taken away the main motivational force of a human being. If we were all selfless saints, maybe it might work, but that isn’t where humanity is right now.

Ok, but what if our enlightened self-interest were precisely to think of the good of our communities (and even of the global community)? I think this is perhaps where I differ with many people I engage in discussions with on these boards: I do not believe we have infinite time to sort out our priorities – the environment isn’t going to wait, and the casualties of capitalism are dying right now – it is a system that is extinguishing lives needlessly; lives that can never be recovered (sigh, yes – I know this sounds all ‘softy-liberal’, but I can’t turn a blind eye to what’s happening to the millions of poor and powerless people around the world right now). I see it as a matter of urgency that people realize that they cannot afford to promote greed any longer – precisely because it is not in their self-interest to have this attitude. The problem with capitalism is that it is focused completely on the short-term: “How much profit can I make now? What must I do to make it?” This short-term view is built into the capitalist system – companies are ‘responsible’ only to their shareholders, and the shareholders want a return on their investments right now - and, frankly, most of them (the investors) don’t care what the cost of their profits are to either the environment or to human (employees’) lives.

Further, the fact that communism requires the individual to set aside his primary psychological drive seems to justify the oppression of individual expression and therefore more easily leads to the totalitarian state. Add to that the blandness that develops from squelched self actualization and you get the freedomless mediocre hue of communism.

Les, I can really understand why you have this view of communism. Stalin did the concept a great deal of damage – but anyone who understood Marxism could see that Stalinism and communism were incompatible. I see that in another of your posts you suggest that there may be something about communism itself that will always (inevitably) result in the kind of totalitarian society that developed under Stalin. I don’t understand what it is about the concept of a socialist or communist society that leads you to this conclusion. On the other hand, I can quite clearly describe why capitalism is by its nature (by definition) destructive: the very fact that capitalism is built on (absolutely depends on) a philosophy of greed, individualism and self-interest (of the unenlightened selfish variety) means that it cannot be reformed and cannot ever be ‘benevolent’.

Despite the pitfalls of capitalism, it has the top human motivating force in the primary spot where it belongs. Because selfishness still prevails in the human race, it’s taking time for us to learn selfishness is shortsighted and can cause great loss in the long term. As we learn enlightened self interest is far more practical to our existence, we are trying to reform the selfish aspects little by little.

If capitalism is based on self-interest and if the sole aim of the most powerful citizens (ie, the transnational corporations – who do not even have a ‘face’ or body) is to maximize profits, then how can it ever operate other than on the basis of shortsighted self-interest? What do ‘corporations’ care about the planet, or about people? How could 'corporations' ever be 'taught' to care about such things. Although they are legally defined as people, corporations are not people and never can be.

But Marx wanted to eliminate selfishness all at once with a system! That was Popper’s main point in his book The Open Society and it Enemies. “[Marx is a threat to open society] because his theories of historical inevitability lead one to believe that piece-meal reform of institutions for the benefit of the public (and it is this which is the ongoing democratic project), is pointless; perhaps even harmful if it were to prolong the ‘birth-pangs of communism’.”

Marx, like many big thinkers, didn’t understand the inner workings of a human being. A “system” is an outer thing, but the change he was trying to base his system on is an inner thing. You can’t force inner psychological growth (not on the scale of entire society anyway) with an outer system; you can’t devise a system which humans, once part of it, feel like fish out of water. Human systems have to be designed around how humans are now, and what they have to work with (psychologically) now. Then once grounded solidly in what humans can relate to, one gradually works toward more enlightened social practices.

I know that one cannot effect change unless the prevailing objective material and subjective psychological conditions favour it. Perhaps you’re right – perhaps humanity is just not ‘there’ yet - will never get there. One thing, though, that Marx wrote and that makes total sense to me: the system cannot be ‘reformed’ from within (so I totally disagree with Popper's critique on this issue). Those who have power and benefit hugely from a system (eg. the aristocracy in Europe before the French Revolution) never willingly give it up. How do you get people who have immense power to give it up without a fight? Has this ever happened before?

BTW, thanks for this challenging discussion. It's good to have a specific point to argue against

 

[Curious6]

Alexandra, I find your comments very interesting. It makes me view communism from a different perspective. However, there is one point I think you have not really addressed: If people by their nature are more apt than others to carry out certain jobs and perform well at them because of various reasons (e.g. innate differences in IQ) what solution does communism (or, considering the theoretical ideal, Marxism) propose for this?

 

[loseyourname]

If capitalism is based on self-interest and if the sole aim of the most powerful citizens (ie, the transnational corporations – who do not even have a ‘face’ or body) is to maximize profits, then how can it ever operate other than on the basis of shortsighted self-interest? What do ‘corporations’ care about the planet, or about people? How could 'corporations' ever be 'taught' to care about such things. Although they are legally defined as people, corporations are not people and never can be.

This can happen when corporations consider their long-term self-interest. It is in their best interest to maintain the environment and human population because these are the planet's primary resources. No resources, no corporations. It's a radical suggestion and I make it tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps lifetime appointments for CEO's would help alleviate some problems. As it stands today, CEO's are held accountable to stockholders that are only concerned with quarterly reports and not with projections 20 years down the line. As such, it is often in the best interest of a given executive to implement short-term solutions that end up screwing over the next CEO of that corporation, and that results in the scandals we see dramatized in the headlines. This investor/stockholder mentality of making the quick buck was nowhere better exemplified that in the dot.com boom. These were people with the best of intentions, who talked about (and seemed to honestly believe in) changing the world for the better by creating a global community where everyone had cheap internet access and could buy whatever they wanted from wherever they wanted at whatever price they wanted. They just didn't have the discipline to realize that the best way to implement their dream was through sound long-term business strategies. They opted to make the quick buck (partly because they were young and this excited them, partly because the venture capitalists funding them were more likely to fund a company that showed short-term profit). You can hardly call these young idealists coming out of Stanford 'greedy.' They were just short-sighted. What Les said about humanity is true of individuals. One acquires perspective as one ages. If only businessmen waited until their 50's to begin their careers.

Anyway, that was a little long-winded and I probably said nothing of substance. I'm really dazing over watching my roommate play video-games here and my allergy/asthma medication is making me high.

 

[alexandra]

It's a radical suggestion and I make it tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps lifetime appointments for CEO's would help alleviate some problems.

Good joke, loseyourname - excellent lateral thinking
(Thanks for the light relief - that really did make me laugh out loud!).

This investor/stockholder mentality of making the quick buck was nowhere better exemplified that in the dot.com boom. These were people with the best of intentions, who talked about (and seemed to honestly believe in) changing the world for the better by creating a global community where everyone had cheap internet access and could buy whatever they wanted from wherever they wanted at whatever price they wanted. They just didn't have the discipline to realize that the best way to implement their dream was through sound long-term business strategies. They opted to make the quick buck (partly because they were young and this excited them, partly because the venture capitalists funding them were more likely to fund a company that showed short-term profit). You can hardly call these young idealists coming out of Stanford 'greedy.' They were just short-sighted. What Les said about humanity is true of individuals. One acquires perspective as one ages. If only businessmen waited until their 50's to begin their careers.

Hmm, I don't think it makes sense to blame greed on youth - many of the richest and most powerful people in the world are over 50, and their business dealings don't necessarily take a long-term perspective either (though perhaps George Soros - founder and chairman of the Open Society Institute - http://www.soros.org/, could be considered as a model of the type of businessman you are talking about?)

Anyway, that was a little long-winded and I probably said nothing of substance. I'm really dazing over watching my roommate play video-games here and my allergy/asthma medication is making me high.

I've subjected myself to watching a friend play video-games before, so I know exactly what you mean by feeling 'dazed over' :zzz: - don't do it, loseyourname; it's bad for your brain neurons!

 

[alexandra]

Alexandra, I find your comments very interesting. It makes me view communism from a different perspective. However, there is one point I think you have not really addressed: If people by their nature are more apt than others to carry out certain jobs and perform well at them because of various reasons (e.g. innate differences in IQ) what solution does communism (or, considering the theoretical ideal, Marxism) propose for this?

Hi Curious6

I am not convinced that IQ is necessarily an innate quality - there are many studies that question the extent to which genetics determine IQ, eg. http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq03.htm. Many of the limitations now perceived in individuals are, in my opinion, attributable to unequal life opportunities. The inequalities begin way before children start formal schooling – a child who is brought up in an intellectually ‘poor’ environment is much less likely to develop an interest in intellectual pursuits than is a child brought up in a home environment enriched by books and where caring adults (role models) have a variety of interests and value studying and developing their intellectual abilities.

With its primary focus on consumerism and materialism, capitalism provides a generally poor cultural environment for the young – think of the many wasted hours of mindless TV-viewing and electronic game-playing, and of all the advertising that promotes defining oneself in terms of what one owns and consumes instead of in terms of what one knows… To me, one of the greatest attractions of communism is that all that appalling lack of culture will disappear (there will be no more need for advertising – yay!) and the general social environment will promote human development instead of consumerism. More specifically, I believe that with the educational opportunities available in a more egalitarian society such as communism, a new ‘calibre’ of human being will develop, and humans will at last be free to focus on important questions such as the preservation of the environment, space exploration, medical advancements, etc. At the moment, the biggest obstacle to advances in all such fields is the profit motive: instead of spending money on saving human lives, governments spend money on ‘defence’ (actually, it’s not defence – it’s killing); the environment is put at risk because companies refuse to cut into their profit margins to put into place technologies that would minimise pollution – and unless space programs are somehow linked to military or ‘defence’ programs, their funding is minimal.

I believe that a developed communist society would nurture highly developed human beings who would be very capable as well as very versatile. Here is how Marx and Engels put it in ‘The German Ideology’:

"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. Reference: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm

I suppose the question would then arise: who would do the menial jobs? Many of the most menial jobs have either already been mechanised/automated, or the technology enabling this to occur could be developed if resources were allocated to developing such technology.

I’m not sure if I’ve answered your question, Curious6. If I missed the mark completely, let me know and I’ll try again. By the way, if you are interested in reading about some of the more ‘practical’ ideas regarding the implementation of communism, one text you could refer to is ‘The ABC of Communism’, written by Bukharin and Preobrazhensky (1920) and available online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/index.htm . Nikolai Bukharin was one of the members of the Left Opposition (a supporter of Trotsky’s opposition to Stalin’s rule) who was tried in the infamous Moscow Trials in 1938 and then executed (more: http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/b/u.htm#bukharin-nikolai )

 

[Curious6]

Thank you for a quick and witty reply. You made some thoughtful points, however, I would just like to point out the points in your response where I think you were inaccurate. (This is in no way intended to sound like a personal attack, more like a contribution.)

First, intelligence is a trait that is partly inherited and parly environmental. Estimates of the heritability of the trait range from 0.4 to 0.8, so we have to acknowledge inevitable differences in intelligence which are present at birth and are due to genetic differences. If you then consider other traits, both physical and psychological ones, you will find that all are due to a combination of genetics and environment (with some traits more defined by genetic contributions and others more defined by environmental ones). This is the traditional, pervasive debate of nature versus nurture. The divergences in abilities present at birth might then be accentuated by environmental conditions, leading to a scenario (our world) where people can use their respective aptitudes or other capabilities to their advantage.

One of the major virtues of the capitalist system is in my opinion that people get adequate compensation for their abilities and work. It only seems natural and logical. This actually leads to what I believe is the principal mistake present in all communist theories: It doesn't properly represent human nature. I was wondering if you could elaborate on how people with innate talents should be rewarded the same as other people lacking these innate talents. What is the motivation for the talented people then? How do you foment innovation, advancement and amelioration if there is no apparent incentive?

This is actually the central question which I would like to have your opinion on!

 

[loseyourname]

Good joke, loseyourname - excellent lateral thinking
(Thanks for the light relief - that really did make me laugh out loud!).

It actually occurred to me when I was listening to the NPR business report (whatever it's called). They were discussing the United Airlines bankruptcy plea, wherein the company didn't have the money to pay out its pensions and so they were going to court to attempt a government order for an insurance company to pay part of the pensions for them, otherwise they would go bankrupt and nobody would receive anything. One of the men on the show knew the CEO of United and said that the man is only doing what he has to do. The company really will go bankrupt from the pensions (commercial pilots make a great pension) and it's mostly because of the actions of the former CEO. As he was held accountable on a quarterly basis, he needed to show quick results. That's the way it works for many boards of directors - you either have a good short-term plan to make some money or expand or downsize or whatever you can to be profitable, or you're gone. In this case, he spend money earmarked for pensions and now it is no longer there. He had to do this because it was the only way to show any positive progress at the time and he would have been fired otherwise. He could do it because he knew he would no longer be the CEO by the time it came to pay out the pensions - it would be somebody else's problem. So it occurred to me that a lifetime appointment of a CEO could solve this problem. Both the incentive (being fired if you don't show a short-term profit) and the opportunity (not being around when the problems arise) would be eliminated for actions like this that result in loyal employees not receiving the money they earned and deserve.

Of course, I make the suggestion tongue-in-cheek because I realize full well that a host of other problems could easily arise when a man is given dictatorial lifetime power. You'd almost have to install a Republic-like system whereby enlightened philosopher-kings ran these corporations.

Hmm, I don't think it makes sense to blame greed on youth - many of the richest and most powerful people in the world are over 50, and their business dealings don't necessarily take a long-term perspective either (though perhaps George Soros - founder and chairman of the Open Society Institute - http://www.soros.org/, could be considered as a model of the type of businessman you are talking about?)

Oh, that's not what I mean. What I meant was that it might be ideal if people didn't get into business at all until they had reached the stage of life that Sleeth is at, wherein you finally gain perspective and an appreciation for helping your fellow man. These richest and most powerful men over 50 generally got their start in their 20's and the corruption likely began way back then.

 

[loseyourname]

In response to your George Soros, I kind of like these guys:

http://www.benjaminrbarber.com/agora.html

 

[Art]

I am not convinced that IQ is necessarily an innate quality - there are many studies that question the extent to which genetics determine IQ, eg. http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq03.htm. Many of the limitations now perceived in individuals are, in my opinion, attributable to unequal life opportunities. The inequalities begin way before children start formal schooling – a child who is brought up in an intellectually ‘poor’ environment is much less likely to develop an interest in intellectual pursuits than is a child brought up in a home environment enriched by books and where caring adults (role models) have a variety of interests and value studying and developing their intellectual abilities.

Hi Alexandra,

I read the article you linked to and IMO there are serious flaws in the experimental procedure they followed. For example it is quite simply impossible to measure with any degree of accuracy the IQ of a child aged only 19 months so all subsequent measurements measuring deviation from the flawed baseline is also going to be inaccurate.

Here's a relevant reference re hereditary intelligence. Also British Mensa the high IQ society are about to start the biggest research program yet into the study of hereditary intelligence genes which should help settle the nature vs nurture debate. Results are expected in several months.

"Idealists love to believe that all people are born equally able and that inequality results only from unjust privilege. But mother nature is no egalitarian," explains Linda S. Gottfredson, CO-director of the Delaware-John Hopkins project for the study of intelligence and society in the magazine The Scientific American. "People are born unequal in intellectual potential. Although subsequent experience shapes this potential, no amount of social engineering can make people intellectual equals." Even genetic research indicates that people are born with different hereditary potentials for intelligence. In fact, a team of scientists, headed by Robert Plomin of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, recently announced the discovery of the first gene linked to intelligence. Not to mention the Darwin, Curie and Huxley families where genius, or intelligence, seems to pan generations.

http://www.lifepositive.com/mind/evolution/iq-genius/iq.asp

 

[alexandra]

First, intelligence is a trait that is partly inherited and parly environmental. Estimates of the heritability of the trait range from 0.4 to 0.8, so we have to acknowledge inevitable differences in intelligence which are present at birth and are due to genetic differences. If you then consider other traits, both physical and psychological ones, you will find that all are due to a combination of genetics and environment (with some traits more defined by genetic contributions and others more defined by environmental ones). This is the traditional, pervasive debate of nature versus nurture. The divergences in abilities present at birth might then be accentuated by environmental conditions, leading to a scenario (our world) where people can use their respective aptitudes or other capabilities to their advantage.

Yes, I agree with this - IQ couldn't possibly be determined entirely genetically, though - and we can't yet say how much of it is attributable to the different factors. Art posted something about a current research project on this issue.

One of the major virtues of the capitalist system is in my opinion that people get adequate compensation for their abilities and work. It only seems natural and logical.

I disagree with you on this point, Curious6. As far as I am concerned, the compensation does not have to be financial (the primary form 'compensation' takes in capitalist societies), and I will present my argument below with reference to the lives of some people we would all probably hold in high esteem.

This actually leads to what I believe is the principal mistake present in all communist theories: It doesn't properly represent human nature. I was wondering if you could elaborate on how people with innate talents should be rewarded the same as other people lacking these innate talents. What is the motivation for the talented people then? How do you foment innovation, advancement and amelioration if there is no apparent incentive? This is actually the central question which I would like to have your opinion on!

The motivation for talented people is curiosity and a desire to understand - this is the way it should be and, as far as I can figure out, the only way it could possibly be. Here are my examples: none of the greatest thinkers of our civilisation - people like Euler, Newton, Einstein, Marx, Paul Erdos, etc (all my greatest heros - I include Marx, not to get up anyone's nose, but because he fits into this category as far as I am concerned) - were motivated by money. The only reward they ever sought was understanding. The way I see it, it was only and precisely because they were NOT working for external financial rewards that they achieved the great things they did achieve. Working for financial reward is a distraction. Am I being an idealist? Perhaps - but if I am, I seem to be in the best company

 

[alexandra]

Hi Alexandra,

I read the article you linked to and IMO there are serious flaws in the experimental procedure they followed. For example it is quite simply impossible to measure with any degree of accuracy the IQ of a child aged only 19 months so all subsequent measurements measuring deviation from the flawed baseline is also going to be inaccurate.

Good point, Art.

Here's a relevant reference re hereditary intelligence. Also British Mensa the high IQ society are about to start the biggest research program yet into the study of hereditary intelligence genes which should help settle the nature vs nurture debate. Results are expected in several months.
http://www.lifepositive.com/mind/evolution/iq-genius/iq.asp

Thanks for alerting me to this study - I'll look out for the results. It'll be good to have more data informing the nature versus nurture debate on at least this one issue (this debate pervades so many areas in the social sciences).

 

[Smurf]

This thread brings back memories of when I first joined this forum.

 

[vanesch]

There's something I've been wondering about already some time, and it is related (I think) to what is discussed here: how can any "ideal" economic system (be it communism or capitalism (*)) be compatible with democracy ? After all, democracy, by definition, would allow the people to CHANGE that ideal economic system according to their (rightly or wrongly) perceived ideas about it, which would then pervert it. Doesn't positing an ideal economic system per definition lead to a totalitarian state ?


(*) I make a distinction between capitalism as an ideology, and the free market. To me, the free market is a tool for organizing economic activity in certain branches of which there is ample empirical evidence that it yields often good results - this doesn't exclude that other systems can yield better results or that control mechanisms can be incorporated. Capitalism, on the other hand, is the ideology that the free market should be applied unconstrained to ALL problems, because it yields the BEST solution in ALL cases. I think that my definitions are quite generally accepted, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

 

[loseyourname]

The ideal capitalist world is actually one in which anarchy reigns, not totalitarianism. As such, there would be no possibility of controls or regulations on any market, because there would exist no governing body capable of implementing those. Pure socialism, on the other hand, seems to require totalitarianism. A governing body must exist that regulates and controls every market. As such, there can be no democracy, as democracy always poses the possibility that the people will not want these regulations and controls. Democracy seems compatible, as you say, only with a world in which capitalism and socialism are mixed, although it won't always be according to what empirical research shows is best, unfortunately. It will be according to who holds the most political power. Depending on where and when, this might be a certain industry, soccer moms, corporations, unions, or any number of other special interest groups.

 

[Evo]

In fact, a team of scientists, headed by Robert Plomin of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, recently announced the discovery of the first gene linked to intelligence.

That is misleading, Plomin thought he was on to something, could never prove it and has since given up looking for it and moved on to other areas.

 

[Art]

First do genes determine intelligence;
Although all of us possesses the same genes there are variations within the genes themselves known as polymorphisms which are largely responsible for our uniqueness as individuals. Dr Tony Payton and his team of the University of Manchester has been researching in this area for some years and he says

In many of the genes implicated in intelligence the associated polymorphism has been shown to alter the function of the gene. An example is a gene called catechol-o-methryltransferase (COMT), which codes for an enzyme responsible for the degradation of several neurotransmitters that are fundamental in memory and learning This particular genetic variation has been associated with intelligence by several independant groups.

It is thought that individual genes contribute only between 1 and 3% towards the total genetic contribution of cognitive ability which suggests that many genes of small effect ultimately determine the level of intelligence.

And the next question are they hereditary.
A study at the same Manchester university which has been underway for the last 20 years suggests that intelligence is a highly heritable trait which increases with age; estimates ranging from .20 in infancy to as high as .80 in adulthood. It is thought that this increase may represent a developmental stage whereby intelligent individuals create or select environments that foster their inherent abilities. Another interesting finding in this study is the high correlation of intelligence between couples (.40) which is much higher than other traits such as weight/height (.20) and personality (.10).

It is this same group who as I mentioned above are currently embarking on a new study involving 1000 Mensa members.

 

[Evo]

Recent studies have found that genetic influence on intelligence varies depending on SES. The results show that the lower the SES (socio economic status) the more important environment became in overall intelligence.

 

[Big Papa]

Read before you post !

The problem with posting this was the result of not researching the information. Karl Marx Stated that one day Capitalism and Communism would join together. Just as other political sysstems in the past have done. If you research the new world order on the web, you will find that communism was inventied by the Illuminati. May 1st may day is in fact the day the the Illuminati came into effect in 1776. (I know that I'm spelling Illuminati wrong, but bear with me.) If Leon Troskey was put in charge of the Soviet Union instead of Stalin everything would have been different. World War II wiould not have lasted so long, and true Communism would have been the norm after the war, instead of continued military build up. (Trotskey was head of the Military so he would have been prepared for the Nazi invasion and not have acted like a idiot like Stalin did.) As far as forcing people to work. Man may have a stronger will, but women have a stronger won't. You can not force people to work. If you do, the quality of work will be either inferor, or production will be slower. If you ganrentee someone a job, this is how it happens. If you force someone to produce high quality stuff at a fast rate, then inovation is slow. Now as far as having communism compared to capitalism, it's not that cut and dry. To improve a better economic system will take a hybred of non-violent anarchism, communism, facism, and capitalism.

The non-violent anarchism would be aloowing the workers to own the products they produce from raw matterial. The Communism would come in from the government providing food and putting prisoners to work on farms, factoires and creating housing for reduced sentences. Even producing artic gear allowing people to work and walk to work in the winter. The facism would come into have people to see it as a patrotic duty to work hard and long hours for low pay. The Capitalism would come in for peopel to start their own independent small business operations. Granted they would not own most of the profits, but that's not the point. The point is by having a series of operations run by the workers, then by taking a small profit from each while the rest goes into reinvestment and into the owrkers pockets, then they can increase their standard of living.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Recent studies have found that genetic influence on intelligence varies depending on SES. The results show that the lower the SES (socio economic status) the more important environment became in overall intelligence.

I agree, and I also think that character development makes one more intelligent. It is quite stupid overall to be a self centered person, even if one can be brilliantly devious. It's like the guy who is so smart as to figure out how to sink an ocean liner by manipulating the electronics of his PDA to mess with the ship's controls, but then not realize he's on that ship. Yes, he was brilliant to figure it all out, but how smart was he in terms of his overall situation? Selfish drivers come to mind for some reason.

Well, I have to get back to playing Mercenaries on my PS2. (It's so much fun!)

 

[Big Papa]

Education and eviroment.

I'm sure Genes have a lot to do with people's intelligence, but so does their enviorment. Take a place like Maine, where a person doesn't have to be smart to get by as compared to Massachusetts. One of the reason's is the standard of living and the enviorment. Maine started out as a Penial Colony and after it became a state in 1820 a Mecca of Mental insitutions. All the decendents and interbreding and ect. over the years as produced quite a bred in which they inhertantly don't like to leave the state. Within the last few decades that has changed since out of state people have moved into maine and started having kids. In Massachusetts there are more hard core universities in one block of Boston than the
Whole state of Maine.

 

[vanesch]

The ideal capitalist world is actually one in which anarchy reigns, not totalitarianism.

But you need at least enough "state structure" to protect property, no ? I thought that that was the difference between capitalism and anarchy: property rights are enforced. You also need justice to deal with contract breaking...

 

[loseyourname]

But you need at least enough "state structure" to protect property, no ? I thought that that was the difference between capitalism and anarchy: property rights are enforced. You also need justice to deal with contract breaking...

Not necessarily. You can have security provided by private firms. If any government did exist, however, it would only have the power to enforce contracts.

 

[NEBRASKA NATURALIST]

My Goodness! This does Seem to Be Quite the Thread,
1) I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH ALEXANDRA AND DOOGA.
2) SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM ARE REALLY THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE ECONOMIC SYSTEMS BECAUSE THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY, THEORETICALLY BOTH EGALITARIAN AND HUMANE. Capitalism is neither of these two, and as such, unacceptable as a resource distribution system. Capitalism is pure barberism.
3) Relatively-speaking, capitalists are completely selfish, violent, unsocialized and will do anything and say anything to get anything and everything. IMO, the socialist is motivated completely differently and is EXACTLY what the world needs to achieve world peace, progress, equality and all good and progressive social goals.
4) I think Christ's message was essentially both socialist and communist. He just didn't have the names or knowledge to put that message in modern, secular terms.
5) IMO captitalism's like cancer. Yeah, you get all kinda breakneck development, but it's often at the expense of the environment, peoples, health and well-being as well as the public and social good.
5) I think capitalism brings out the worst in people. I want to only cooperate, hate the way competition is in our society. I don't want to be ripped off or exploited in the least, but only want to work, and all others to work too for the general public good. I think the world has tremendous possibilities if we do that and zero hope if we don't. I completely hate selfishness and wonder what in the world selfish people think they are so much more important or deserving for than everybody else - I think selfishness is a character flaw and a vice.

Power to the People,
NN

 

[vanesch]

3) Relatively-speaking, capitalists are completely selfish, violent, unsocialized and will do anything and say anything to get anything and everything.

Given the fact that many people are that way, it might explain the relative success of it

No, seriously, it's fun reading about communism, capitalism and such, as an intellectual exercise. However, what most of those "ideal" systems lack is experimental back-up. It's not because it sounds nice on paper that it also works out in reality, because human beings are complicated systems, and collections of human beings are even more complicated ; so any simplistic ideology will have overlooked some aspects. What needs to be done is building a society that can correct for observed unwanted dynamics and with some safety mechanisms against very stupid decisions. I don't think either distilled, pure capitalism nor communism provide such situations.

 

[alexandra]

You'd almost have to install a Republic-like system whereby enlightened philosopher-kings ran these corporations.

I guess theoretically, any system run by enlightened philosopher-kings would have to be preferable to what we have now. But what I think communism aims at is the development of all people to the extent that they are democratically able to make informed decisions in everyone’s collective long-term interests. So theoretically, communism aims for an enlightened ‘demos’ rather than a small select group of enlightened individuals, who can be corrupted.

Oh, that's not what I mean. What I meant was that it might be ideal if people didn't get into business at all until they had reached the stage of life that Sleeth is at, wherein you finally gain perspective and an appreciation for helping your fellow man. These richest and most powerful men over 50 generally got their start in their 20's and the corruption likely began way back then.

Ok, I see where you’re coming from. But I have a different view about corruption – I subscribe to Lord Acton’s thesis that ‘Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely’. This is the challenge any socio-political system must meet. Even though Stalin (and everyone else) called the USSR ‘socialist’, it was obvious to anyone who was aware of what socialism is that this was not a socialist system – Stalin and the official Communist Party had absolute power, and they were absolutely corrupt. The only way to avoid this situation is if the people themselves actually have power, as was the case right at the beginning of the Russian Revolution, when ordinary Russian people were organised into soviets:

Soviets

Meaning "council" in Russian, soviets were elected local, municipal, and regional councils in Russia and later the Soviet Union. Before the October Revolution of 1917, an estimated 900 soviets were in existence.
Soviets were representatives of workers, peasants and soldiers in a given locale (rural soviets were a mix of peasants and soldiers, while urban soviets were a mix of workers and soldiers). The Soviets were bodies whose members were volunteers; people who were involved did so to strengthen their class position in Russian politics. Soviets gained political power after the Bolshevik revolution, acting as the local executive bodies of government. Delegates were elected from Soviets to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, where the foundation of the Soviet government was intended to rest. Gradually, however, soviets began to lose their power because of the extremely harsh conditions brought on by the Civil War , and by the late 1920s became top-down extensions of the "Communist" party. Reference: http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/s/o.htm

The American journalist John Reed (author of ‘Ten Days that Shook the World’ about the Russian Revolution) wrote a more detailed historical article, Soviets in Action (1918) about how the Soviets actually worked in the beginning (when Lenin and Trotsky were still in control). Here is an extract that some may find interesting:

Elections of delegates are based on proportional representation, which means that the political parties are represented in exact proportion to the number of voters in the whole city. And it is political parties and programmes which are voted for — not candidates. The candidates are designated by the central committees of the political parties, which can replace them by other party members. Also the delegates are not elected for any particular term, but are subject to recall at any time.

No political body more sensitive and responsive to the popular will was ever invented. And this was necessary, for in time of revolution the popular will changes with great rapidity. For example, during the first week of December 1917, there were parades and demonstrations in favour of a Constituent Assembly —that is to say, against the Soviet power. One of these parades was fired on by some irresponsible Red Guards, and several people killed. The reaction to this stupid violence was immediate. Within twelve hours the complexion of the Petrograd Soviet changed. More than a dozen Bolshevik deputies were withdrawn, and replaced by Mensheviki. And it was three weeks before public sentiment subsided — before the Mensheviki were retired one by one and the Bolsheviki sent back.

The chief function of the Soviets is the defence and consolidation of the Revolution. They express the political will of the masses, not only in the All Russian Congresses, for the whole country, but also in their own localities, where their authority is practically supreme. This decentralisation exists because the local Soviets create the central government, and not the central government the local Soviets. In spite of local autonomy, however, the decrees of the Central Executive Committee, and the orders of the Commissars, are valid throughout all the country, because under the Soviet Republic there are no sectional or private interests to serve, and the cause of the Revolution is everywhere the same.

More… http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/works/1918/soviets.htm

The above link makes for a very interesting historical read about the early days of the revolution and exactly how things changed as a result.

 

[alexandra]

In response to your George Soros, I kind of like these guys:

http://www.benjaminrbarber.com/agora.html

This was an interesting read, loseyourname – thanks (I hadn’t heard of this group before). This extract seems to summarise the project:

The Agora Coalition is a marriage of idealism and real-world business practices. Under the guidance of its two founders, the renown democratic theorist and practitioner Benjamin Barber and the visionary developer Ron Sher, and under the direction of our President, Tracy Challenger, the coalition brings together the highest level of professional expertise around a vision of democratic public space that can transform how suburbia looks, lives and feels.

I would wish such ventures success, but because of my theoretical understanding of the basis of capitalism I think such efforts to ‘reform’ and ‘humanise’ it are pretty doomed. But I understand that not everyone believes this, and it is encouraging to see that there are groups that question the status quo and that are trying to reform and humanise a system that is so anti-people.

 

[alexandra]

There's something I've been wondering about already some time, and it is related (I think) to what is discussed here: how can any "ideal" economic system (be it communism or capitalism (*)) be compatible with democracy ? After all, democracy, by definition, would allow the people to CHANGE that ideal economic system according to their (rightly or wrongly) perceived ideas about it, which would then pervert it. Doesn't positing an ideal economic system per definition lead to a totalitarian state ?

This is a most excellent question, vanesh! That is precisely the challenge – how to work towards a system that does not lead to a totalitarian state. As you say, by definition “democracy…would allow the people to change that ideal economic system according to their (rightly or wrongly) perceived ideas about it, which would then pervert it”. It is for this reason that I admire the Left Opposition (the internal opposition to Stalin) – before his death, Lenin had the authority to ‘depose’ Stalin; Trotsky, too, could have taken direct steps to effect a coup. Why did they not do this? In his essay, How Did Stalin Defeat the Opposition?, Trotsky wrote:

There is no doubt that it would have been possible to carry out a military coup d'etat against the faction of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Stalin, etc., without any difficulty and without even the shedding of any blood; but the result of such a coup d'etat would have been to accelerate the rhythm of this very bureaucratization and Bonapartism against which the Left Opposition had engaged in struggle.

The task of the Bolshevik-Leninists was by its very essence not to rely on the military bureaucracy against that of the party but to rely on the proletarian vanguard and through it on the popular masses, and to master the bureaucracy in its entirety, to purge it of its alien elements, to ensure the vigilant control of the workers over it, and to set its policy back on the rails of revolutionary internationalism.
…
Power is not a prize which the most "skillful" win. Power is a relationship between individuals, in the last analysis between classes. Governmental leadership, as we have said, is a powerful lever for success. But that does not at all mean that the leadership can guarantee victory under all conditions.

What is decisive in the last analysis are the class struggle and the internal modifications produced inside the struggling masses.

It is impossible, to be sure, to reply with mathematical precision to the question: How would the struggle have developed had Lenin been alive? That Lenin would have been the implacable enemy of the greedy conservative bureaucracy and of Stalin's policy, which steadily bound to itself all of his own kind, is indisputably demonstrated in a whole series of letters, articles, and proposals by Lenin in the last period of his life, especially in his testament, in which he recommends that Stalin be removed from the post of general secretary, and finally from his last letter, in which he breaks off "all personal and comradely relations" with Stalin. More: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1935/1935-sta.htm

And again, in The Revolution Betrayed (1936), Trotsky writes:

The very center of Lenin’s attention and that of his colleagues was occupied by a continual concern to protect the Bolshevik ranks from the vices of those in power. However, the extraordinary closeness and at times actual merging of the party with the state apparatus had already in those first years done indubitable harm to the freedom and elasticity of the party regime.

Democracy had been narrowed in proportion as difficulties increased. In the beginning, the party had wished and hoped to preserve freedom of political struggle within the framework of the Soviets. The civil war introduced stern amendments into this calculation. The opposition parties were forbidden one after the other. This measure, obviously in conflict with the spirit of Soviet democracy, the leaders of Bolshevism regarded not as a principle, but as an episodic act of self-defense.

…

Demands for party democracy were through all this time the slogans of all the oppositional groups, as insistent as they were hopeless. The above-mentioned platform of the Left Opposition demanded in 1927 that a special law be written into the Criminal Code "punishing as a serious state crime every direct or indirect persecution of a worker for criticism.” Instead of this, there was introduced into the Criminal Code an article against the Left Opposition itself. More: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/ch05.htm#ch05-2

Regarding your next point...

(*) I make a distinction between capitalism as an ideology, and the free market. To me, the free market is a tool for organizing economic activity in certain branches of which there is ample empirical evidence that it yields often good results - this doesn't exclude that other systems can yield better results or that control mechanisms can be incorporated. Capitalism, on the other hand, is the ideology that the free market should be applied unconstrained to ALL problems, because it yields the BEST solution in ALL cases. I think that my definitions are quite generally accepted, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

I can’t see any grounds for disagreeing with your definitions, vanesh; they make sense if one accepts the meaning of the words used. There is just one problem for a Marxist, though, with the term ‘free market’ – this term describes an odd kind of freedom that a Marxist sees as not being beneficial for the working class (the great bulk of humanity). Marx’s statement on this is much more eloquent than anything I could say:

In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

The point is, workers surely do have the ‘freedom’ to sell their labour-power for a wage they are being offered, or they may choose to withhold their labour-power if the wage is not ‘fair’, or is not a ‘living wage’ – but this frequently amounts to the ‘freedom’ to starve or not! If we look at statistics about the working poor in the advanced capitalist countries (eg. in the US - http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2004-06-08-low-wage-working-poor_x.htm ), and at the abysmal ‘wages’ earned by the most exploited workers in the ‘developing’ countries ( http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTPA/0,,contentMDK:20040961~menuPK:435040~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:430367,00.html#trends ), Marx’s next statement in the Manifesto of the Communist Party seems, to me, very prophetic:

Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

 

[vanesch]

There is just one problem for a Marxist, though, with the term ‘free market’ – this term describes an odd kind of freedom that a Marxist sees as not being beneficial for the working class (the great bulk of humanity). Marx’s statement on this is much more eloquent than anything I could say:
The point is, workers surely do have the ‘freedom’ to sell their labour-power for a wage they are being offered, or they may choose to withhold their labour-power if the wage is not ‘fair’, or is not a ‘living wage’ – but this frequently amounts to the ‘freedom’ to starve or not!

The term "free market" doesn't imply some kind of gloriful freedom for which one should be ready to die, it is just a term which describes a mechanism in which one is free to decide, on both sides, to accept or to reject a proposed economic act: from the moment one allows individuals to make such a decision, automatically a free market is instored. If the term "free" bothers you as being unrightly abusing the positively sounding "free", call it the "lubricated market" for my part
The only way to AVOID the appearance of a lubricated market is by enforcing economic acts upon people/agents. That's usually done by instoring laws "regulating" the market.
I think that it has been amply proved that the lubricated market is a system which makes good coffee machines and hand drilling machines. One cannot deny that it works well there. Whether it should also be applied to the labor market is a matter of political taste. However, the price to pay is that one then denies the freedom to accept or reject the economic act in question to the agent in question.
So the "lubricated market" can be applied to any individual branch or not, and within boundaries of regulation or not. Capitalism simply says that it should be applied to all branches, without boundaries. Communism says that it should never be applied, and as such denies every individual freedom to an agent to accept or reject such an act.

 

[vanesch]

Not necessarily. You can have security provided by private firms.

But then property is not a guaranteed right by society, but a "right" obtained by the strongest (who have the strongest and best armed "private security firms" aka mercenaries). So what stops them then from "extending" their property right to someone else's property - who, not having the means to defend it, just has to give it up then. That means that one should make a big investment into the private military and ends up fighting all over the place.
This leads us straight to a collapse into a feudal system, no ? Which is about anything BUT what capitalists have in mind. So is pure capitalism as unstable as pure communism then ?
Now, if property rights are enforced by a state structure (and not by private initiative - say, mercenaries), then this has a cost, which has to be taken up by society, by taxes. And who says taxes, says politics (the way they are distributed over the agents) and says in fact also market regulation.