Roger's Got a Brand New Bag

[Epimetheus]

1.  Communism promised equality, a moneyless and classless society, etc.  They failed.  They tried to rely on threats, and they did so for about 70 years.  Then the threats stopped working, and the system stopped functioning.

Because the Soviets and Chinese Communists failed, communism can not possibly succeed? I want to point out the difference between "did" and "can".

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The thing about being an anarchist, Dimo, is that you may try to cover it up by claiming to be a "Libertarian",

Didn't we just do this? Now, I know for a fact I've never claimed to be a libertarian. You guys...

Sure you did.  Twice.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

1.  Communism promised equality, a moneyless and classless society, etc.  They failed.  They tried to rely on threats, and they did so for about 70 years.  Then the threats stopped working, and the system stopped functioning.

Because the Soviets and Chinese Communists failed, communism can not possibly succeed? I want to point out the difference between "did" and "can".

Communism fails because people are not ants.

That's really all there is to it, unless you want to claim that North Korea is what Marx was talking about.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Or the "the best interests of the individual = the best interests for society, therefore letting people do whatever they want will lead to a perfect society"

which is PATENTLY FALSE and pretty much the same as believing in fairy tales. First of all, you have to believe that people always act in their own best interest.  

Alan Greenspan:
"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief."

I mean. Really? I mean, if the choice is between racking up a mighty bonus on risky schemes which aren't likely to fail before the payout at which point you can jump ship or otherwise ride it out.. and "doing the right thing" - what do we expect these hyper-charged titans of capitalism to do? Why should they care for the shareholders/dupes? Why should they care about the greater economy?

You breed sharks for aggression and greed and express surprise when they bite off your arm?

See, up until that point I always believed in intelligent hypocrites.. I never for a second thought that they believed their own bullshit.

Hypocrites are waaay less scary funny.

Fixed.

[Epimetheus]

1.  Communism promised equality, a moneyless and classless society, etc.  They failed.  They tried to rely on threats, and they did so for about 70 years.  Then the threats stopped working, and the system stopped functioning.

Because the Soviets and Chinese Communists failed, communism can not possibly succeed? I want to point out the difference between "did" and "can".

Communism fails because people are not ants.

That's really all there is to it, unless you want to claim that North Korea is what Marx was talking about.

Are you claiming that people are absolutely incapable of creating a government that follows Marx's plan properly, with the proof of your claim being a couple failed attempts?

[fomenter]

name the successful attempts..

[Epimetheus]

name the successful attempts..

Doesn't matter. I would accept the statement "Communism has never worked." But I would not accept the statement "Communism cannot possibly work, because it has never worked."

[Captain Utopia]

name the successful attempts..

Doesn't matter. I would accept the statement "Communism has never worked." But I would not accept the statement "Communism cannot possibly work, because it has never worked."

I think a form of Communism could be made to work, but that form would look so different from the failed experiments which have carried the label so far, that a new label would be given to it.

To carry your argument forward - you could never say that any form of governance had failed, because it could potentially be made to work in some unpredictable/unforeseeable future scenario. Is that where you are going?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Are you claiming that people are absolutely incapable of creating a government that follows Marx's plan properly, with the proof of your claim being a couple failed attempts?

Yes, I am.

Because people are primates, not ants.

[Epimetheus]

I'm seeing your side, because communists do have the burden of proof. But I don't think "X cannot possibly happen" can be derived from "X has never happened," unless X is literally impossible (which seems to be where we disagree - you believe working human communism is impossible).

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm seeing your side, because communists do have the burden of proof. But I don't think "X cannot possibly happen" can be derived from "X has never happened," unless X is literally impossible (which seems to be where we disagree - you believe working human communism is impossible).

But that isn't what I said. 

I said it doesn't work because humans are primates, not ants.  Not because "it hasn't worked".

So tell me, Epimetheus, where are you going to find people 'pure" enough to achieve a working communist state?

PROTIP:  If your system relies on cooperation and ideological purity, it won't work.  Ever.

[Cainad (dec.)]

PROTIP:  If your system relies on cooperation and ideological purity, it won't work.  Ever.

Give the man a cigar.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The thing about being an anarchist, Dimo, is that you may try to cover it up by claiming to be a "Libertarian",

Didn't we just do this? Now, I know for a fact I've never claimed to be a libertarian. You guys...

You don't have to say it outright for it to be easily gleaned from earlier comments. I'm just saying it's an immaturely idealistic ideology, and very naive. It's essentially a weakened Anarchist ideology.

[LMNO]

Or the "the best interests of the individual = the best interests for society, therefore letting people do whatever they want will lead to a perfect society"

which is PATENTLY FALSE and pretty much the same as believing in fairy tales. First of all, you have to believe that people always act in their own best interest.  

Alan Greenspan:
"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief."

I mean. Really? I mean, if the choice is between racking up a mighty bonus on risky schemes which aren't likely to fail before the payout at which point you can jump ship or otherwise ride it out.. and "doing the right thing" - what do we expect these hyper-charged titans of capitalism to do? Why should they care for the shareholders/dupes? Why should they care about the greater economy?

You breed sharks for aggression and greed and express surprise when they bite off your arm?

See, up until that point I always believed in intelligent hypocrites.. I never for a second thought that they believed their own bullshit.

Hypocrites are waaay less scary.

There was a piece in the NYT Magazine about the financial schools and why their economic theories failed.

The subtext, never said outright, was:  Economics is not about Numbers.  It is not Math.  Economics is how Humans react to numbers.  It is psychology.

[MMIX]

the subtext was wrong - economics is not about how people react to numbers its about how people react to economists - and that is not psychology its pseudo-religion