3 ms·

There is a difference between the economic systems of capitalism/communism and the democratic state of freedom/tyranny

gojomo 17y ago
Sure, there are many axes of the possibility space, at least theoretically. But you don't find many, if any, societies in the Communism + freedom quadrant. The other three quadrants have many examples. And those tyrannies that have become more free over time have usually needed a dose of capitalism as the first step (ending collective enterprises, especially farms, and trading with capitalist markets, for example).
- krschultz 17y ago
  True, but I can't think of a country that tried Communism in good faith. And in this country when people tried the system in a microcosm like a commune, it works. So maybe it doesn't scale or maybe it requires different roots than the founding of most communist countries.
  - gojomo 17y ago
    Everywhere Communism has been tried, the perpetrators really believed in it, really wanted it to do better -- for its predictions to come true, and for capitalism to be swept away by something better. Even if there was cyncism among those who grabbed power, they then elevated Communism's texts and ideals in all official communication, celebration, and education. So generations were given every chance to try "Communism in good faith". But it still didn't work. It turned out more corrupt, more polluting, more poor, and even in many respects less egalitarian than capitalism. To claim all those proud earnest efforts weren't "in good faith" is at best a form of the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
    - prodigal_erik 17y ago
      > So generations were given every chance to try "Communism in good faith". They weren't stupid. They knew the party line was an obvious load of crap, a fig leaf over a ruthless power grab. They went through the motions only out of fear of the secret police (in itself an acknowledgment the rulers didn't expect any loyalty). In particular, Russian cynicism about propaganda became legendary. You don't judge actual democracy by looking at totalitarian hellholes and their blatant lies about how "democratic" they are, do you?
      - gojomo 17y ago
        How come every Communist regime comes so quickly and easily to the 'secret police' rule-by-fear? Was every Communist movement that took power -- Lenin, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh -- dominated by ruthless power-grabbers with no allegiance to Communist ideas except as a cynical route to power from the beginning? (If in fact these ideas are so useful to ruthless power-grabbers, and so hard to implement 'in good faith', might that alone not discredit them? Attractive, in theory; but when you try to build a popular movement around them, nastier people than ever wind up on top.) Why, when cracks in the secret police's power finally emerge, do the people embrace property, markets, and profits rather than a chance to finally implement 'Communism in good faith'?

Sure, there are many axes of the possibility space, at least theoretically. But you don't find many, if any, societies in the Communism + freedom quadrant. The other three quadrants have many examples. And those tyrannies that have become more free over time have usually needed a dose of capitalism as the first step (ending collective enterprises, especially farms, and trading with capitalist markets, for example).

krschultz 17y ago
True, but I can't think of a country that tried Communism in good faith. And in this country when people tried the system in a microcosm like a commune, it works. So maybe it doesn't scale or maybe it requires different roots than the founding of most communist countries.
- gojomo 17y ago
  Everywhere Communism has been tried, the perpetrators really believed in it, really wanted it to do better -- for its predictions to come true, and for capitalism to be swept away by something better. Even if there was cyncism among those who grabbed power, they then elevated Communism's texts and ideals in all official communication, celebration, and education. So generations were given every chance to try "Communism in good faith". But it still didn't work. It turned out more corrupt, more polluting, more poor, and even in many respects less egalitarian than capitalism. To claim all those proud earnest efforts weren't "in good faith" is at best a form of the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
  - prodigal_erik 17y ago
    > So generations were given every chance to try "Communism in good faith". They weren't stupid. They knew the party line was an obvious load of crap, a fig leaf over a ruthless power grab. They went through the motions only out of fear of the secret police (in itself an acknowledgment the rulers didn't expect any loyalty). In particular, Russian cynicism about propaganda became legendary. You don't judge actual democracy by looking at totalitarian hellholes and their blatant lies about how "democratic" they are, do you?
    - gojomo 17y ago
      How come every Communist regime comes so quickly and easily to the 'secret police' rule-by-fear? Was every Communist movement that took power -- Lenin, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh -- dominated by ruthless power-grabbers with no allegiance to Communist ideas except as a cynical route to power from the beginning? (If in fact these ideas are so useful to ruthless power-grabbers, and so hard to implement 'in good faith', might that alone not discredit them? Attractive, in theory; but when you try to build a popular movement around them, nastier people than ever wind up on top.) Why, when cracks in the secret police's power finally emerge, do the people embrace property, markets, and profits rather than a chance to finally implement 'Communism in good faith'?