/sci/ - Science & Math

Because idealism is just another form of edgy teenager escapism. Grow the fuck up and accept that we are violent simians.

>>6228571
It doesn't work in theory. It assumes people would give up the idea of personal property. People won't.

>>6228576
we do though, as long as everybody else does. The only question is the threshold of that sacrifice

>>6228582
>we do though, as long as everybody else does.
That's the fucking issue. It assumes people are not violent, egotistical pricks.

ANYTHING will work "in theory" if you think about it from a sufficiently retarded and uncritical point of view.

>>6228597
This.

Even quantum mechanics works "in theory". Can you imagine how absurd it would be to have a cat dead and alive at the same time IRL?

>>6228571
because people measure their self worth by comparing their wealth to others

>>6228600
lets not get started with this, that was a thought experiment intending to explain the idea of quantum mechanics to people who (at the time) didn't have many decades for the idea of very small particles behaving very differently to larger conglomerates of particles together to sink in, it isn't LITERALLY about a half dead, half alive cat

>>6228571
that said, communism COULD work (at least better in my opinion) if control of the communist state was done by something non-human, say a conglomerate of artificial intellects who aren't shackled with the biological drives that make us such shitty, limited, violent animals

that is many many years away though, if indeed we can even survive long enough to create such intellects.

fleeting happiness is more preferable to eternal greatness since we're fleeting and not eternal.
if we ever discover immortality or something xlose let's give another shot to communism

>>6228586
I guess that's what the great debate comes down to.

Optimists would turn to things like anarchy because they believe that there is an inherent human goodness and that the violence and greed is a result of political control.

However, I am uncertain. History certainly shows us a dark picture.

What is the threshold of material wealth at which a human feels satisfied enough that he won't be envious of others?

I'd say it could only work in a post-scarcity economy.

>>6228571
Marx thought that the exploitation of the worker in capitalism would advance more and more until things get unbearable. Only after that the workers of all the world would unite and take down the capitalism system.

Can you see? Communism would be the natural consequence of a full developed capitalist world, not something that should be implanted in a country like what have been done.

What Marx didn't imagined is that the capitalist system could be softer with the worker. That a socialized capitalism is possible.

Currently instead of the patch imagined by Marx the advanced capitalist countries adopted some socialist traits like social security, health care, etc. in this system the exploitation never reaches the critical point so the revolution never happens.

>>6228637
Never. We will always compare ourselves to others. It's not a logical process of "I'll be done once I have x." Once you have x, you'll realize that you don't still don't have y, or z.

>>6228637
material wealth is an illusion, what your really talking about is the fulfillment of physical desires

if you look at it from that point of view: humans want to be well fed, want to be physically healthy, want have some purpose they can work toward (either a real purpose like doing a good job on a task or more abstract purposes like open ended learning or religious deliverance), physical safety for themselves and their perceived 'tribe' (this includes shelter), and access to mates to fulfill their sexual urges (can be filled and tricked with birth control and non-procreative sex)

the desire for some nebulous 'freedom' is just the desire of a sentient creature to keep it's options open, and not be constrained in future actions towards the above physical desires. If you could somehow guarantee that a human could fulfill those desires till the end of their life without threat, then you could have a perfect communist state.

how are you going to do that for any sizable population for any lengthy amount of time? it would be virtually impossible without some kind of elaborate workaround, like a perfect virtual reality (or virtual overlay) and start trek style replicators (or at least fast, versatile molecular assemblers)

>>6228641
honestly never heard that explained so clearly or concisely

thank you, anon

>>6228571
>Why does Communism work perfectly in theory even better than Capitalism

that's quite a statement.

this 2-panel comic isn't evidence it works in theory.

>>6228571
Because people have no incentive to work harder when that dick head over there who can't even do his job properly is getting paid the same as you.

You also have no rights, you're subjected to the needs of everyone, you're not seen as an individual, collectivism over individualism.

You're also working like a dog 5x a week in shitty conditions because everyone gets equal pay, and equal rights, equal etc..

There's other reasons, but communism can only work on a small scale, same applies to socialism as a whole, the entirety of it is wrong.

>>6228657
The funny thing is that this is not something I'm interested in, I just had good history teachers and I never accepted shitty half assed answers (what got me in trouble with shitty teachers)

Another factor is that the communist-phobia in USA probably create a huge handicap in the knowledge about communism and socialism. I also think that communism will never work (at least not in the world as we know now) but I don't just say "It's shit" and sit in my ass without studying and forming my own opinions.

>>6228586
>Implying they are
Study your behavioral biology.

>>6228571
>Why does Communism work perfectly in theory even better than Capitalism, but every time the system is applied it fails miserably.(Usually some dictator comes to power and ruins everything)

Because it's always paired with Atheism

>>6228706
You can do that with any country...

>Every single time someone ever brings up communism
>"Well it works on paper but not in real life" without ever explaining further
I am not a communist but come the fuck on. If you can't think of a real reason then don't even try.

>>6228706
Fraction of atheists and agnostics in different countries. The values for China, Cuba, and North Korea must be viewed with skepticism as comparatively little data is available in these countries.

>>6228706
Someone seems a little butthurt.

>>6228716
Why think when you can just repeat what they told you?

Luckly there were one serious answer >>6228641

>>6228720
>Japan
>60-70%

confirmed for bullshit

>>6228732
But that's true.
They are pretty superstitious but very few of them actually believe in a god.
>But my wonderful japan is filled with Christian values!

>>6228732
Do they go to harvest god festivals? Yes!
Do they enjoy new year in the shrine? Yes!
Do they really believe in all those gods and spirits? Some do but most don't.

>>6228617
Sweet, so now utopia means bowing to the overlord. Go watch Logan's Run plebe.

doesnt work with scarce resources.
capitalism works perfectly in a system that assumes the bad parts of humanity actually exist (unlike communism)...
but it does not work perfectly in a system with changeable rules, which leads to corruption

>>6228600
> i am a faggot

you have absolutely no idea how quantum mechanics works.

>>6229015
Actually Government lobbying, resources allocating to very limited areas (e.g. 90% of wealth in 10% hands) are parts of capitalism in the long wrong, which is very focused on the short term effects of everything.
That's how everything gets fucked up overtime:
See history for america for the past 100 or so years.

Then with Communism it expects everyone to work and be equal, but then the effects of lack of resources and the Government screwing up fuck people over bigtime, and then some people don't do anything and get paid/food/etc for it because muh socialism.

Both ideas are shit, capitalism is a more comfortable one because we can ignore poor people better with money.

>>6228617
> that said, communism COULD work

doubtful. economic systems where corporate ownership isn't driven by profit-seeking investment completely fail dynamic efficiency, as predicted by a Schumpeterian model.

naturally, centrally-planned systems perform just as well as capitalist systems in static efficiency.

>>6228571
>Why does Communism work perfectly in theory even better than Capitalism, but every time the system is applied it fails miserably.
>but every time the system is applied it fails miserably.
>but every time
> the system is applied it fails miserably.
>applied

We dont know

because communism has never actually been applied.

Any form of 'communism" weve seen in the past was actually totalitarianism

communism only works if an utterly impartial system controls resource flow
i.e; president commutron-6000

Were 1800's/1900's style monopolies doomed to fail, or if certain historical events were changed could've reasonably survived and thrived into the 21st century?

>>6229070
was that show any good?
I have it downloaded; haven't started it yet

>>6228571
>communism works perfectly in theory
No it doesn't. Fuck you and fuck your religion. Fuck your poisonous irrational bullshit.

>>6229074
It's pretty good actually. Historically accurate (especially considering HC) and certainly enjoyable to watch.

>why does communism work perfectly in theory but fail miserably compared to capitalism

because people are greedy dicks. And capitalism works and thrives because people are greedy dicks.

>Why does Communism work perfectly in theory
Why does homeopathy work perfectly in theory

>>6228571
Because Marx's labour theory of value- that is; the theory that a commodities value is ONLY a measure of the labour it took to produce and transport- is utterly ridiculous and thoroughly discredited

>>6228571
It works in theory because in theory people don't think for themselves and get only what they need and they are happy with that

>>6228571
Communism doesn't work perfectly in theory. It works better than Capitalism, in theory. We likely haven't even conceived of an adequately near-perfect system or mixture of systems.
Capitalism works because the person in power has a limited amount of control. The corrupt and idiotic leaders can't easily fuck the system completely in a single term. It would instead require a steady fucking, from a multitude of political leaders.
Communism, can easily become unstable or even volatile. It requires the leader to be running it the way it's meant to be. Putting the wrong person in power, will turn it into a dictatorship. Or damage the system beyond repair, leading to a collapse of government.
Both systems are flawed and naturally bound to collapse.

Communism assumes everyone will contribute to the greater good.

Capitalism assumes everybody is a rational operator who will only work to their own interests.

Both are fundamentally flawed theories.

>>6228571
Because nobody ever seems to take into account a couple of important constants that apply to the human race: Greed, and lust for power.

Any questions? Didn't think so.

/thread

>>6228618

This. Absolutely this.

>>6228571
>mfw reading this thread
The schools of communism and capitalism are very diverse and complex. To say that each system "assumes" something specifically is wrong due to the conceptual parameters of the assumption presented. i.e. Saying that capitalism assumes individuals are rational is not completely true. The way rationality is defined is hard to do in an economic sense, especially if one assumes that the individual is acting towards a rational goal, which is subjective and generalizing is very ambiguous.
Communism is pants on head retarded, with its fundamental premise that socio-economic equality is somehow sustainable and not prone to cohesion or conflict to opposition.

>>6228641
>Can you see? Communism would be the natural consequence of a full developed capitalist world, not something that should be implanted in a country like what have been done.

Yeah, that's why Leninism (the vanguard approach) is it's own ism, distinct from Marxism.

>>6229214
This. Marx was overly optimistic about humans. He believed that we were good people who would work together in an equal society - which is retarded because obviously people are all assholes and looking out for their own best interest.

Communism will never work because the idea of it was built on this fallacy.

>>6228571
tl;dr communism was useful for authoritarian types who could claim they represent the commune

Right answers.
>>6228672
>>6228676
>>6229079
>>6229113
>>6229199
These people redefine communism in more practical terms and point out assumptions made like the belief that "the people" can be perfectly represented by some kind of bureaucracy or that economic autonomy is the root of all evil. This is like taking new experimental evidence and comparing it with phlogiston theory.

Wrong answers.
>>6228576
>>6228612
>>6228617
>>6228641
>>6228706
>>6229049
>>6229148
>>6229214
Using their rhetoric or fixating on largely irrelevant issues that they have inflated in importance is like trying to disprove phlogiston theory only with the evidence provided by proponents of phlogiston theory.

Every politician wants people to believe their failures are due to them being idealistic dreamers who were reaching too far rather than corruption or incompetence, confusing the normative with the positive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_statement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_statement

Comparing theoretical communism with capitalism in practice is another fallacy, if you say "herp communism doesn't work because people are bad" you might as well also say "derp there are poor people in capitalism because people are bad", it is a nonsensical statement.

The best way to approach any problem is to build up your understanding from your own thoroughly proven principles and methods of validation. If you start picking up someone's assumptions you will fall prey to a confirmation bias in their favor.

>>6228571
It assumes that people care about the welfare of others just as much as themselves. From your experience, do you honestly think that is the case?

>>6229327
>Every politician wants people to believe their failures are due to them being idealistic dreamers who were reaching too far rather than corruption or incompetence, confusing the normative with the positive.

>Comparing theoretical communism with capitalism in practice is another fallacy, if you say "herp communism doesn't work because people are bad" you might as well also say "derp there are poor people in capitalism because people are bad", it is a nonsensical statement.

None of the countries that put full on communism into practice had enough infrastructure/industry to make it work (at least on an economic level, forget ideologically). If you're going to equally distribute wealth and resources for an entire nation of people, you better be a step up from a third-world hellhole. If your country is poor before communism, changing the government to a communist one isn't going to change that.

Marx was a Hegelian. He partly used Hegel's ideas on history in coming up with his own theory. Namely that history has stages, and that communism was the end stage of a society who had already gone through the stages up to and including industrial capitalism. Shitty countries trying communism then would never work out because it would basically be like skipping three steps in a recipe and expecting everything to come out right, to use a childish analogy.

In the end it doesn't really matter though since like capitalism, communism is another infinite growth paradigm that isn't sustainable.

Communism doesn't even work well in theory. It's been criticised to death by economists and philosophers. If you want to learn about some of the criticism then start with these:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/comman.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ttbj6LAu0A

>>6229319
Why exactly you think >>6228641 was a wrong answer? It doesn't relate with any of the others or your post. It just point out what Marx failed to foresee.

>>6229074
i liked it a great deal
the theme song is awesome
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7sj-CqKRcE

>>6228571

The powerful rule the weak in any human society, capitalist or otherwise. Communist ideologies assume that it is possible for everyone to share power equally, but it's obvious from the start that power is something that cannot be controlled except through power.

>>6230002
which is why ideal capitalism is great, you get the powerful with fight among themselves and throw money at the weak to bolster their combat

every billionaire needs to be in a gladiator ring, with rusty spoons as weapons and a single dollar in the center, last man standing wins, no cooperation
THEN things improve

>>6228637
scandinavian cultural preconditions and social democracy (+ the marshall plan deus ex machina, in all fairness) allowed for a relatively low initial threshold, which in turn allowed for greater general wealth later on. basically, an already egalitarian culture with a thing for redistribution was able to ensure a high standard of living for all precisely because no-one necessarily wanted it strictly themselves, purely out of greed.

>>6230002
communsim = a hierarchy based on merit within the production structure
capitalism = a hierarchy based on privilege/random chance of birth

>polisci
>/sci/
You already fucked up OP.

To answer your question. First, capitalism is insidious. The way in which human beings conduct labor or the relations of production (which will have to be a social process) will come to define the overall structure and nature of human society. This is the base superstructure relation. The base determines the superstructure but the superstructure also determines the base.

Because our current relations of production are capitalist, it frames our entire perception of reality. Ideology is at its purest when you don't notice it, when you think something is a constant when in reality it isn't. So trying to actually break from capitalism is much harder than stupid tumblr revolutionaries make it seem.

At the same time, communism itself is a big word, there are a large variety of forms communism can take. One form is different from the other and the failure of one does not indicate a failure in the other. This is not to say that the USSR wasn't true communism and doesn't reflect badly on the theory. It does.

While I don't consider myself knowledgable about things like politics, economics, or social theory, I think the following is a decent explanation.

Communism requires the mass mobilization of the working class. There's more to it than that but that is enough to explain why most attempts failed. Also, the nature of human society dictates that large state structures like those that rule over whole continents, have inadequate relations between those on the bottom and those on top and opportunities to engage in political discourse is very limited for the majority of people. So large state structures are much more prone to corruption than small ones. This is not to say that corruption is a given or that those in power will always misuse it as most people don't seem to understand (ideology at its purest).

>>6230210
What it means is that for a system that exists based off the cooperative, sympathetic, and conscious (by conscious I mean aware of their identity in space and time and in relation to others) a much smaller level of organization has to be the stage, such as the city-state. Rousseau, who technically can be considered the first communist, held this view about the city-state.

>>6230141
Don't you think that Scandinavian cultures are the perfect example of how envy still exists even when the standard of living is high?

>>6228600
wow, 2 people actually took the bait

It doesn't work better in theory. It has never been proven to work better in theory, it just sounds good, that's it.

>>6230141
>>6230257
We're relatively economically free, especially in the private sector. The good economy here can't be attributed to socialistic policies. The good wealth distribution is something the socialism here has created.

Compare the political state of the country to its economic wellbeing from ~1890 to now and it will be quite clear how the Scandinavian model came about and how it is not a good idea to just copy it.

>>6228573
>Accept my shitty paradigm so it can perpetuate itself.

>Have a self fulfilling prophecy while we're at it.

>>6228720
you know why i hate these map of statistic, because they are not well done for colorblind people!

>>6229209

Capitalism assumes nothing of the sort.