Equality Or Freedom?

[castille]

The main argument for Communism is that everyone can be equal, irregardless of the circumstance.

The main argument for capitalism is individual freedom, and the ability to do what you want (excluding dumb things like murder and bombing your school).


Psychologically, people who get rewards consistently will only exert minimum effort to get the reward. A child given $10 for mowing the lawn, irregardless of quality, will do a shabby job.

A worker paid $100 a day will do minimal work required to get that $100.


What controls are there under Communism to ensure everyone strives to do their best? What controls are there to prevent "mindless hard work" (ie a man working 100 hours a week without achieving anything), and encouraging "quality over quantity" (a man working 2 hours a day, but achieving a lot).

And if so, won't those controls ultimately compromise equality, and lead to yet another rise in capitalism?


This is one of the reasons for Soviet and Chinese inefficiency; because state controlled factories paid everyone the same irregardless of their productivity or efficiency, it simply means they will do a poor job (my parents did just that in the 70s).

[Geoff332]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The main argument for Communism is that everyone can be equal, irregardless of the circumstance.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>The main argument for communism -- at least the main one proposed by Marx (and most marxists) -- is that the capitalist labour process is inherently and unavoidably exploitative and this exploitation will lead to the eventual collapse of the capitalist system of production, replacing it with a system whereby people are fully involved in the productive system and receive the full value of their efforts.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The main argument for capitalism is individual freedom, and the ability to do what you want (excluding dumb things like murder and bombing your school).<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>The main argument for capitalism is that if everyone acts in accordance to their own self-interest, within the bounds of justice, then this will produce a pareto optimal position, which will optimise both wealth and the distribution of that wealth.

(Both communism and capitalism define wealth in terms of production of commodities)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Psychologically, people who get rewards consistently will only exert minimum effort to get the reward.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>The empirical evidence on the link between rewards and behaviour is far, far more complex and ambiguous. They tend to work well in simple situations where rewards are directly tied to output, but in more complex situations where ambiguity and uncertainty dominate (ie pretty much every situation in real life), the stimulus-reponse link is tenuous, at best.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
What controls are there to prevent "mindless hard work" (ie a man working 100 hours a week without achieving anything)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I can tell you from direct experience that these things happen under capitalist systems -- frequently. Very frequently. They're even rewarded more often than not -- largely because modern work is generally complex and ambiguous, with outputs being very difficult to measaure with enough precision to work in a reward/punishment model. Instead, effort (time) is often substituted as a measure of performance.

I would, therefore, propose that these are characteristics of human nature and no economic system will actually resolve them.

[castille]

So Communism will not solve any problems.

[castille]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332,)
The main argument for capitalism is that if everyone acts in accordance to their own self-interest, within the bounds of justice, then this will produce a pareto optimal position, which will optimise both wealth and the distribution of that wealth.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


Isn't that just the Communist perspective on capitalism? Its something that used to be echoed in China during the 60s.

Capitalism isn't argued on the basis of self-interest (only rarely). You'll find most pro-capitalist sites state their vision for capitalism as one of freedom with minimal controls. Only the pro-Marx or pro-anarchy sites attack capitalism as a selfish philosphy.

[Section 8]

Actually, Communism offers more equality and more freedom. Freedom from government, freedom from law, freedom from exploitation, freedom from wage slavery, freedom from indoctrination, freedom from religion, and the list goes on and on. I suggest educating yourself in communism. Also, in communism, the populace may vote some workers out if they aren't contributing to the web.

[Impenitent]

freedom from law?
then under your communism I can kill you without legal penalty...

oh no, the democratic mob will unite and extract vengance? kill me back? how civil and communal...

no freedom and equal misery and slavery

[Waychel]

Capitalism and free enterprise are as free you can get in any market. :P

Let's compare here: Capitalism as it stands now, promoting an international economy, and Communism, which is responsible for the deaths of some hundred million people and the oppression of billions others in history.

Yeah, I say we give Communism another chance.

[Section 8]

No, don't think that you're right on this one.

Capitalism: Stealing, slavery, murder, greed, unequality, and authoritariansm

Communism: Never been tried, freedom, equality, and libertarianism

Which would you rather have.

[Waychel]

Communism hasn't been tried? I think you're choosing to remain ignorant of the last... 100 years.

Want to see how well Communism works? Take a look at China or North Korea right now..

Communism works in theory, but it doesn't take human nature into account. There will always be some body governing the many, that is not only how human beings work but how the animal kingdom itself works. The best you can do is to regulate the powers of those who govern. I'd like to believe in fairytales too and think that Communism is possible and its nothing but puppy dogs and flowers and rainbows and Total Equality but history has proven it never works out that way.

[Section 8]

Communism has never been tried and here's proof.
Cuba=probably the closest thing ever to socialsim, but still pretty far away. Other than that it's a great nation.
USSR=Only called themselves communist in order to gain support. Communism believes in no government, and libertarianism. USSR was authoritarian.
North Korea=see above
China=see above

[Impenitent]

communism CANNOT happen

why? PEOPLE ARE GREEDY

end of your pipe dream... change people? LOL!

[Waychel]

Mind telling me how Communism can stay in place without a governing body of any kind?

This is just ignorant of the principles of sociology, for one. Let's assume for a minute that by some miracle that is outside the realm of possibility, a Communist way of life was put into place with absolutely no governing body, and "the people" ran everything.

Not everyone is as good a speaker as the next person, so you would inevitably have cliques of people hording around a select other group of people to have their views heard. Representatives. Then there would be order because nobody could ever fully agree on anything, or if they did, you would have the oppression or seclusion of some other group.. so eventually, some sort of counsel or governing body would be made to make decisions regarding the community. Then there would also be those who would slack off during work, would not go to work, would steal or commit crimes.. so you'd have to form some sort of militia or security control, an authoritative body. But then if you create a penalty system, you will need to create a judicial system to go along with it to prevent people from being made victim to false accusations and/or punished wrongly. And so on…

No matter what you start with, in the end people are going to seek order to a system of total anarchy and either appoint their own leaders, or in the end individual people will seize power.

Go back far enough in history, and try to find a single culture, a single civilization that either 1.) Didn’t appoint leaders or 2.) Wasn’t ravaged by warlords and the like, appointing themselves as leaders. You wont find one because it is impossible.

I’d recommend you read Animal Farm to get a better example of this. If we were saints, we wouldn't need any system to govern us and Communism would be possible, but unfortunately we are only human..

[Section 8]

No communism means the end of compulsiong, and communism is pure democracy for more explanation read:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...whatis_toc.html
Hopefully you find it informative

[Waychel]

As I said, to say it is possible is to ignore human nature.

For Communism to be possible as you invision, everyone on the planet would need to be brainwashed to remove all individual thought that makes us human. You would need to remove all feeling, because one would want a better life and more for their children if not themselves.

It is totally impossible. You might as well say its just as possible to acheive world peace overnight.

[Section 8]

Once again, you refuse to look at anything with open eyes. You don't know human nature, no one does. It if foolish to claim that you do. Also at the beginning I assume that you were trying to say impossible. Do communists want to achieve world peace overnight? No. What do you think the government will evolve into. History has proven that humans go from more government, to increasingly less government. Henceforth, as humans evolve, they will eventually become some sort of anarchy.

[Waychel]

I cannot open my eyes? I would say you cannot seem to wake up and face reality.

Considering one of my minors is anthropology, I do believe I know a little of human nature, being that I study it. Sociology and foreign culture/history have always been my prime interests.

History has not proven that humans go from more government to increasingly less government. If anything, history has proven that humans have become more and more wiser of how government should work for them, as we invision, while moving towards more equality and more freedom.

If you refuse to believe how human nature works, then look at how animals work - it is the same thing.

[Section 8]

We started out as despotism, and now we're at representative republic. Human's have one instinct, self-preservation. Greed and crime are just products of government. Anarchy and communism is life without cumpolsion, hence liberty and freedom.

[Waychel]

"Greed and crime are just products of government."

I'm sorry, but you're so far out there, I'm just not going to even waste my time with this anymore.

[Section 8]

Here you go:

IT might be possible," you say, "if we could do without government. But can we?"

Perhaps we can best answer your question by examining your own life.

What rôle does the government play in your existence? Does it help you live? Does it feed, clothe, and shelter you? Do you need it to help you work or play? If you are ill, do you call the physician or the policeman? Can the government give you greater ability than nature endowed you with? Can it save you from sickness, old age, or death?

Consider your daily life and you will find that in reality the government is no factor in it at all except when it begins to interfere in your affairs, when it compels you to do certain things or prohibits you from doing others. It forces you, for instance, to pay taxes and support it, whether you want to or not. It makes you don a uniform and join the army. It invades your personal life, orders you about, coerces you, prescribes your behavior, and generally treats you as it pleases. It tells you even what you must believe and punishes you for thinking and acting otherwise. It directs you what to eat and drink, and imprisons or shoots you for disobeying. It commands you and dominates every step of your life. It treats you as a bad boy or as an irresponsible child who needs the strong hand of a guardian, but if you disobey it holds you responsible, nevertheless.

We shall consider later the details of life under Anarchy and see what conditions and institutions will exist in that form of society, how they will function, and what effect they are likely to have upon man.

For the present we want to make sure first that such a condition is possible, that Anarchy is practicable.

What is the existence of the average man to-day? Almost all your time is given to earning your livelihood. You are so busy making a living that you hardly have time left to live, to enjoy life. Neither the time nor the money. You are lucky if you have some source of support, some job. Now and then comes slack-time: there is unemployment and thousands are thrown out of work, every year, in every country.

That time means no income, no wages. It results in worry and privation, in disease, desperation, and suicide. It spells poverty and crime. To alleviate that poverty we build homes of charity, poorhouses, free hospitals, all of which you support with your taxes. To prevent crime and to punish the criminals it is again you who have to support police, detectives, State forces, judges, lawyers, prisons, keepers. Can you imagine anything more senseless and impractical? The legislatures pass laws, the judges interpret them, the various officials execute them, the police track and arrest the criminal, and finally the prison warden gets him into custody. Numerous persons and institutions are busy keeping the jobless man from stealing and punish him if he tries to. Then he is provided with the means of existence, the lack of which had made him break the law in the first place. After a shorter or longer term he is turned loose. If he fails to get work he begins the same round of theft, arrest, trial, and imprisonment all over again.

This is a rough but typical illustration of the stupid character of our system; stupid and inefficient. Law and government support that system.

Is it not peculiar that most people imagine we could not do without government, when in fact our real life has no connection with it whatever, no need of it, and is only interfered with where law and government seep in?

"But security and public order," you object, "could we have that without law and government? Who will protect us against the criminal?"

The truth is that what is called "law and order" is really the worst disorder, as we have seen in previous chapters. What little order and peace we do have is due to the good common sense and joint efforts of the people, mostly in spite of the government. Do you need government to tell you not to step in front of a moving automobile? Do you need it to order you not to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge or from the Eiffel Tower?

Man is a social being: he cannot exist alone; he lives in communities or societies. Mutual need and common interests result in certain arrangements to afford us security and comfort. Such co-working is free, voluntary; it needs no compulsion by any government. You join a sporting club or a singing society because your inclinations lie that way, and you coöerate with the other members without any one coercing you. The man of science, the writer, the artist, and the inventor seek their own kind for inspiration and mutual work. Their impulses and needs are their best urge: the interference of any government or authority can only hinder their efforts.

All through life you will find that the needs and inclinations of people make for association, for mutual protection and help. That is the difference between managing things and governing men; between doing something from free choice and being compelled. It is the difference between liberty and constraint, between Anarchism and government, because Anarchism means voluntary coöeration instead of forced participation. It means harmony and order in place of interference and disorder.

"But who will protect us against crime and criminals?" you demand.

Rather ask yourself whether government really protects us against them. Does not government itself create and uphold conditions which make for crime? Does not the invasion and violence upon which all governments rest cultivate the spirit of intolerance and persecution, of hatred and more violence? Does not crime increase with the growth of poverty and injustice fostered by government? Is not government itself the greatest injustice and crime?

Crime is the result of economic conditions, of social inequality, of wrongs and evils of which government and monopoly are the parents. Government and law can only punish the criminal. They neither cure nor prevent crime. The only real cure for crime is to abolish its causes, and this the government can never do because it is there to preserve those very causes. Crime can be eliminated only by doing away with the conditions that create it. Government cannot do it.

Anarchism means to do away with those conditions. Crimes resulting from government, from its- oppression and injustice, from inequality and poverty, will disappear under Anarchy. These constitute by far the greatest percentage of crime.

Certain other crimes will persist for some time, such as those resulting from jealousy, passion, and from the spirit of coercion and violence which dominates the world to-day. But these, the offspring of authority and possession, will also gradually disappear under wholesome conditions with the passing away of the atmosphere that cultivated them.

Anarchy will therefore neither breed crime nor offer any soil for its thriving. Occasional anti-social acts will be looked upon as survivals of former diseased conditions and attitudes, and will be treated as an unhealthy state of mind rather than as crime.

Anarchy would begin by feeding the "criminal" and securing him work instead of first watching him, arresting, trying, and imprisoning him, and finally ending by feeding him and the many others who have to watch and feed him. Surely even this example shows how much more sensible and simpler life would be under Anarchism than now.

The truth is, present life is impractical, complex and confused, and not satisfactory from any point of view. That is why there is so much misery and discontent. The worker is not satisfied; nor is the master happy in his constant anxiety over "bad times" involving loss of property and power. The specter of fear for co-morrow dogs the steps of poor and rich alike.

Certainly the worker has nothing to lose by a change from government and capitalism to a condition of no government, of Anarchy.

The middle classes are almost as uncertain of their existence as the workers. They are dependent upon the good will of the manufacturer and wholesaler, of the large combines of industry and capital, and they are always in danger of bankruptcy and ruin.

Even the big capitalist has little to lose by the changing of the present-day system to one of Anarchy, for under the latter every one would be assured of 06 living and comfort; the fear of competition would be eliminated with the abolition of private ownership. Every one would have full and unhindered opportunity to live and enjoy his life to the utmost of his capacity.

Add to this the consciousness of peace and harmony; the feeling that comes with freedom from financial or material worries; the realization that you are in a friendly world with no envy or business rivalry to disturb your mind; in a world of brothers, in an atmosphere of liberty and general welfare.

It is almost impossible to conceive of the wonderful opportunities which would open up to man in a society of Communist Anarchism. The scientist could fully devote himself to his beloved pursuits, without being harassed about his daily bread. The inventor would find every facility at his disposal to benefit humanity by his discoveries and inventions. The writer, the poet, the artist-all would rise on the wings of liberty and social harmony to greater heights of attainment.

Only then would justice and right come into their own. Do not underestimate the rôle of these sentiments in the life of man or nation. We do not live by bread alone. True, existence is not possible without opportunity to satisfy our physical needs. But the gratification of these by no means constitutes all of life. Our present system of civilization has, by disinheriting millions, made the belly the center of the universe, so to speak. But in a sensible society, with plenty for all, the matter of mere existence, the security of a livelihood would be considered self-evident and free as the air is for all. The feelings of human sympathy, of justice and right would have a chance to develop, to be satisfied, to broaden and grow. Even to-day the sense of justice and fair play is still alive in the heart of man, in spite of centuries of repression and perversion. It has not been exterminated, it cannot be exterminated because it is inborn, innate in man, an instinct as strong as that of self-preservation, and just as vital to our happiness. For not all the misery we have in the world co-day comes from the lack of material welfare. Man can better stand starvation than the consciousness of injustice. The consciousness that you are treated unjustly will rouse you to protest and rebellion just as quickly as hunger, perhaps even quicker. Hunger may be the immediate cause of every rebellion or uprising, but beneath it is the slumbering antagonism and hatred of the masses against those at whose hands they are suffering injustice and wrong. The truth is that right and justice play a far more important rôle in our lives than most people are aware of. Those who would deny this know as little of human nature as of history. In every-day life you constantly see people grow indignant at what they consider to be an injustice. "That isn't right," is the instinctive protest of man when he feels wrong done. Of course, every one's conception of wrong and right depends on his traditions, environment and bringing up. But whatever his conception, his natural impulse is to resent what he thinks wrong and unjust.

Historically the same holds true. More rebellions and wars have been fought for ideas of right and wrong than because of material reasons. Marxists may object that our views of right and wrong are themselves formed by economic conditions, but that in no way alters the fact that the sense of justice and right has at all times inspired people to heroism and self-sacrifice in behalf of ideals.

The Christs and the Buddhas of all ages were not prompted by material considerations but by their devotion to justice and right. The pioneers in every human endeavor have suffered calumny, persecution, even death, not for motives of personal aggrandizement but because of their faith in the justice of their cause. The John Husses, the Luthers, Brunos, Savonarolas, Gallileos and numerous other religious and social idealists fought and died championing the cause of right as they saw it. Similarly in paths of science, philosophy, art, poetry, and education men from the time of Socrates to modern days have devoted their lives to the service of truth and justice. In the field of political and social advancement, beginning with Moses and Spartacus, the noblest of humanity have consecrated themselves to ideals. of liberty and equality. Nor is this compelling power of idealism limited only to exceptional individuals. The masses have always been inspired by it. The American War of Independence, for instance, began with popular resentment in the Colonies against the injustice of taxation without representation. The Crusades continued for two hundred years in an effort to secure the Holy Land for the Christians. This religious ideal inspired six millions of men, even armies of children, to face untold hardships, pestilence, and death in the name of right and justice. Even the late World War, capitalistic as it was in cause and result, was fought by millions of men in the fond belief that it was being waged for a just cause, for democracy and the termination of all wars.

So all through history, past and modern, the sense of right and justice has inspired man, individually and collectively, to deeds of self-sacrifice and devotion, and raised him far above the mean drabness of his every-day existence. It is tragic, of course, that this idealism expressed itself in acts of persecution, violence, and slaughter. It was the viciousness and self-seeking of king, priest, and master, ignorance and fanaticism which determined those forms. But the spirit that filled them was that of right and justice. All past experience proves that this spirit is ever alive and that it is a powerful and dominant factor in the whole scale of human life.

The conditions of our present-day existence weaken and vitiate this noblest trait of man, pervert its manifestation, and turn it into channels of intolerance, persecution, hatred, and strife. But once man is freed from the corrupting influences of material interests, lifted out of ignorance and class antagonism, his innate spirit of right and justice would find new forms of expression, forms that would tend toward greater brotherhood and good will, toward individual peace and social harmony.

Only under Anarchy could this spirit come into its full development. Liberated from the degrading and brutalizing struggle for our daily bread, all sharing in labor and well-being, the best qualities of man's heart and mind would have opportunity for growth and beneficial application. Man would indeed become the noble work of nature that he has till now visioned himself only in his dreams.

It is for these reasons that Anarchy is the ideal not only of some particular element or class, but of all humanity, because it would benefit, in the largest sense, all of us. For Anarchism is the formulation of a universal and perennial desire of mankind.

Every man and woman, therefore, should be vitally interested in helping to bring Anarchy about. They would surely do so if they but understood the beauty and justice of such a new life. Every human being who is not devoid of feeling and common sense is inclined to Anarchism. Every one who suffers from wrong and injustice, from the evil, corruption, and filth of our present-day life, is instinctively sympathetic to Anarchy. Every one whose heart is not dead to kindness, compassion, and fellow-sympathy must be interested in furthering it. Every one who has to endure poverty and misery, tyranny and oppression should welcome the coming of Anarchy. Every liberty and justice-loving man and woman should help realize it.

And foremost and most vitally of all the subjected and submerged of the world must be interested in it. Those who build palaces and live in travels; who set the cable of life but are not permitted to partake of the repast; who create the wealth of the world and are disinherited; who fill life with joy and sunshine, and themselves remain scorned in the depths of darkness; the Samson of life shorn of his strength by the hand of fear and ignorance; the helpless Giant of Labor, the prôletariat of brain and brawn, the industrial and agrarian masses-these should most gladly embrace Anarchy.

It is to them that Anarchism makes the strongest appeal; it is they who, first and foremost, must work for the new day that is to give them back their inheritance and bring liberty and well-being, joy and sunshine to the whole of mankind.

"A splendid thing," you remark; "but will it work? And how shall we attain it?"

[Waychel]

If you are going to argue a point, then please do me the courtesy of arguing it with your own words, writing your argument yourself. Copy and pasting me propogandist bullshit is just inconsiderate and rude. Thank you.