4 ms·

Do we have some corresponding examples of how communist societies treated those people who were not useful workers? I am willing to bet that those examples are

Do we have some corresponding examples of how communist societies treated those people who were not useful workers? I am willing to bet that those examples aren't exactly brimming with fellowship and charity towards those unfortunate comrades.

mindslight 5y ago
Yes yes, let's argue which is more abstractly authoritarian - "capitalism" xor "communism" - rather than focusing on the substance of the point OP was making. Or better yet, just get back to work.
- at_a_remove 5y ago
  Mostly, I am pretty tired of the "I got a really small serving of fries today; capitalism has failed." commentary. I see it everywhere: something negative happens, someone has to tie it into capitalism. Now, I am well aware of the fallacy of the excluded middle, but let's not kid ourselves that the "capitalism has failed" crew are anything but collectivists kvetching. I bring it up because a younger generation has little to no idea of various atrocities and grinding misery that also happened under various collectivist -isms, somewhere between ignorance and willful blindness. Maybe capitalism isn't great, but dang, some of the replacements turned out to be a lot worse. It'd be nice if that context were provided instead of just another jibe at capitalism, which is one field of attempted solutions to the vast and intricate problem of resource management.
  - grapescheesee 5y ago
    "Maybe capitalism isn't great, but dang, some of the replacements turned out to be a lot worse." Well in terms of history we have not had a very long time for this experiment to play out. It is very possible that the construction of a system which allows both the generation of several billions of dollars also causes far greater harm than some of the other systems which were too heavy on the gas so to speak. If history is a guide, all forms of a system fall due to avarice, vanity, or an external system which is operating 'better' at the current time.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    Is it not appropriate to say "capitalism has failed" when the central bank continually inflates the money supply so the finance industry can centrally plan the economy? Is it not appropriate to say "capitalism has failed" when most industries are dominated by two large market makers that move in lock step? Is it not appropriate to say "capitalism has failed" when the supply of essential goods necessary to have a distributed economy, like home ownership, has been priced out of reach of most people? Is it not appropriate to say "capitalism has failed" when it's easier to get investment money for outlandish throwaway subscription bets rather than long term development? Or topically, is it not appropriate to say "capitalism has failed" when it has paperclip-maximized its way to ignoring our human concerns? Communism deviated from its ideal model, precessed, and collapsed. Capitalism can, and is, failing similarly. If you're truly interested in preserving capitalism, then it behooves you to take criticism of it to heart, and examine how it is falling apart. Your failure to accept criticism as "anything but collectivists kvetching" will only further its demise.
    - at_a_remove 5y ago
      That sounds suspiciously like the "true communism has never been tried!" bit I have heard so often. I don't particularly care about capitalism, myself, but the endless shallow attempts to tie whatever woe is being discussed to it is terribly reminiscent of how I used to hear about problems being the inevitable result of our nation turning away from Christ or whatever.
      - mindslight 5y ago
        > That sounds suspiciously like the "true communism has never been tried!" bit I have heard so often. Then you need to read my comment more deeply. Yes, it's adjacent to that no-true-Scotsman. The difference is I'm pointing out the inevitably of such, cf Goodhart's law. Just like implementing communism inevitably results in a concrete model that differs from the ideal, which will then be optimized for, the same thing is happening to capitalism. The objective difference is that it has taken capitalism longer to precess, but that's not particularly exceptional given the lasting power of say monarchy. > I don't particularly care about capitalism By your comments, you effectively do. You can't make an argument and then feign nihilism. > the endless shallow attempts to tie whatever woe is being discussed to it is terribly reminiscent of how I used to hear about problems being the inevitable result of our nation turning away from Christ or whatever Sure, there is always much groupthink and false attribution. Still, specific arguments need to be judged on their own merits. Reflexively opposing the prevailing groupthink is just another type of following.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
asfdgdthawerh 5y ago
[dead]
siver_john 5y ago
Just as a point, your argument is a false dichotomy. The only two choices you allow are a ruthless capitalistic society or a communist society. The poster could have allowed for any colorful regions of societies in between. I would argue most societies throughout history have treated people with mental illness less than kindly. But if wish to treat them better we must stop thinking of people as factors of productivity, and therefore their worth is only as useful as the amount they add to the bottomline. (Though I'd presume, albeit with little evidence currently, that society would be benefited in probably cost and happiness if we were to take on the task of providing adequate mental care to all.)
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  I don't think it's meant as a dichotomy. It's just important to note that "thinking of people as factors of productivity" is a common problem that happens in all sorts of economic systems.
WaxProlix 5y ago
Let's see what Google says! > Despite its limited resources, Cuba has developed an integrated mental health system that emphasizes prevention and community care. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3610072/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3610072/ > ... We present background information and an interview with the President of the Cuban Society of Psychology to learn about current mental healthcare in today's Cuba. Mental and medical healthcare are free and fully integrated. Early diagnosis and intervention is standard as each patient is known by their community doctor/nurse team from infancy through old age and by yearly home visits. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ppc.12548 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ppc.12548 There are more, it seems they do a pretty good job of supporting community-based approaches given low funding. It'd be interesting to see some harder numbers on outcomes. Not surprising that supporting small, integrated communities has positive effects on mental health though.
- at_a_remove 5y ago
  Quick, now do Mao and Stalin.
  - WaxProlix 5y ago
    No really meaningful search results. Probably data wasn't taken very well at the time.
lawn 5y ago
The social welfare systems in the Nordic countries work very well, without them being communist.
- lazide 5y ago
  It is also supported by immense oil wealth, and managed by a culturally homogenous (relatively) society for it's own benefit. So being spent way better than, say, some random central African republic's mineral wealth, but not a model which is easy to duplicate much of anywhere else.
  - lawn 5y ago
    Norway is the only country with immense oil wealth.

mindslight 5y ago

Yes yes, let's argue which is more abstractly authoritarian - "capitalism" xor "communism" - rather than focusing on the substance of the point OP was making. Or better yet, just get back to work.

at_a_remove 5y ago
Mostly, I am pretty tired of the "I got a really small serving of fries today; capitalism has failed." commentary. I see it everywhere: something negative happens, someone has to tie it into capitalism. Now, I am well aware of the fallacy of the excluded middle, but let's not kid ourselves that the "capitalism has failed" crew are anything but collectivists kvetching. I bring it up because a younger generation has little to no idea of various atrocities and grinding misery that also happened under various collectivist -isms, somewhere between ignorance and willful blindness. Maybe capitalism isn't great, but dang, some of the replacements turned out to be a lot worse. It'd be nice if that context were provided instead of just another jibe at capitalism, which is one field of attempted solutions to the vast and intricate problem of resource management.
- grapescheesee 5y ago
  "Maybe capitalism isn't great, but dang, some of the replacements turned out to be a lot worse." Well in terms of history we have not had a very long time for this experiment to play out. It is very possible that the construction of a system which allows both the generation of several billions of dollars also causes far greater harm than some of the other systems which were too heavy on the gas so to speak. If history is a guide, all forms of a system fall due to avarice, vanity, or an external system which is operating 'better' at the current time.
- mindslight 5y ago
  Is it not appropriate to say "capitalism has failed" when the central bank continually inflates the money supply so the finance industry can centrally plan the economy? Is it not appropriate to say "capitalism has failed" when most industries are dominated by two large market makers that move in lock step? Is it not appropriate to say "capitalism has failed" when the supply of essential goods necessary to have a distributed economy, like home ownership, has been priced out of reach of most people? Is it not appropriate to say "capitalism has failed" when it's easier to get investment money for outlandish throwaway subscription bets rather than long term development? Or topically, is it not appropriate to say "capitalism has failed" when it has paperclip-maximized its way to ignoring our human concerns? Communism deviated from its ideal model, precessed, and collapsed. Capitalism can, and is, failing similarly. If you're truly interested in preserving capitalism, then it behooves you to take criticism of it to heart, and examine how it is falling apart. Your failure to accept criticism as "anything but collectivists kvetching" will only further its demise.
  - at_a_remove 5y ago
    That sounds suspiciously like the "true communism has never been tried!" bit I have heard so often. I don't particularly care about capitalism, myself, but the endless shallow attempts to tie whatever woe is being discussed to it is terribly reminiscent of how I used to hear about problems being the inevitable result of our nation turning away from Christ or whatever.
    - mindslight 5y ago
      > That sounds suspiciously like the "true communism has never been tried!" bit I have heard so often. Then you need to read my comment more deeply. Yes, it's adjacent to that no-true-Scotsman. The difference is I'm pointing out the inevitably of such, cf Goodhart's law. Just like implementing communism inevitably results in a concrete model that differs from the ideal, which will then be optimized for, the same thing is happening to capitalism. The objective difference is that it has taken capitalism longer to precess, but that's not particularly exceptional given the lasting power of say monarchy. > I don't particularly care about capitalism By your comments, you effectively do. You can't make an argument and then feign nihilism. > the endless shallow attempts to tie whatever woe is being discussed to it is terribly reminiscent of how I used to hear about problems being the inevitable result of our nation turning away from Christ or whatever Sure, there is always much groupthink and false attribution. Still, specific arguments need to be judged on their own merits. Reflexively opposing the prevailing groupthink is just another type of following.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

asfdgdthawerh 5y ago

[dead]

siver_john 5y ago

Just as a point, your argument is a false dichotomy. The only two choices you allow are a ruthless capitalistic society or a communist society. The poster could have allowed for any colorful regions of societies in between. I would argue most societies throughout history have treated people with mental illness less than kindly. But if wish to treat them better we must stop thinking of people as factors of productivity, and therefore their worth is only as useful as the amount they add to the bottomline. (Though I'd presume, albeit with little evidence currently, that society would be benefited in probably cost and happiness if we were to take on the task of providing adequate mental care to all.)

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
I don't think it's meant as a dichotomy. It's just important to note that "thinking of people as factors of productivity" is a common problem that happens in all sorts of economic systems.

WaxProlix 5y ago

Let's see what Google says! > Despite its limited resources, Cuba has developed an integrated mental health system that emphasizes prevention and community care. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3610072/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3610072/ > ... We present background information and an interview with the President of the Cuban Society of Psychology to learn about current mental healthcare in today's Cuba. Mental and medical healthcare are free and fully integrated. Early diagnosis and intervention is standard as each patient is known by their community doctor/nurse team from infancy through old age and by yearly home visits. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ppc.12548 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ppc.12548 There are more, it seems they do a pretty good job of supporting community-based approaches given low funding. It'd be interesting to see some harder numbers on outcomes. Not surprising that supporting small, integrated communities has positive effects on mental health though.

at_a_remove 5y ago
Quick, now do Mao and Stalin.
- WaxProlix 5y ago
  No really meaningful search results. Probably data wasn't taken very well at the time.

lawn 5y ago

The social welfare systems in the Nordic countries work very well, without them being communist.

lazide 5y ago
It is also supported by immense oil wealth, and managed by a culturally homogenous (relatively) society for it's own benefit. So being spent way better than, say, some random central African republic's mineral wealth, but not a model which is easy to duplicate much of anywhere else.
- lawn 5y ago
  Norway is the only country with immense oil wealth.