Socialism/Communism and Human Nature

[Haven]

As the events of the 20th century have shown, communism* and socialism*--while, in theory, "nice" ideas promoting equality and the eradication of poverty--have utterly failed in practice. They've resulted in dictatorship, starvation, repression, violence, and wholesale murder almost everywhere that they've been implemented (the USSR, China, Cambodia, Laos, the Eastern Bloc, and so on). One reason that some have offered for this is that communism and socialism simply aren't compatible with human nature: to work, they require altruism, selflessness, and delayed gratification, while people are inherently self-interested and short-sighted.

Debate question: Did socialism and communism fail because they are incompatible with human nature? Are socialism and communism compatible with human nature? Are people inherently self-interested?
_________________________
*For the purposes of this discussion, socialism and communism are defined as economic and social systems in which workers own and control the means of production and operate them for social, rather than individual, benefit.

[Goat]

As the events of the 20th century have shown, communism* and socialism*--while, in theory, "nice" ideas promoting equality and the eradication of poverty--have utterly failed in practice. They've resulted in dictatorship, starvation, repression, violence, and wholesale murder almost everywhere that they've been implemented (the USSR, China, Cambodia, Laos, the Eastern Bloc, and so on). One reason that some have offered for this is that communism and socialism simply aren't compatible with human nature: to work, they require altruism, selflessness, and delayed gratification, while people are inherently self-interested and short-sighted.

Debate question: Did socialism and communism fail because they are incompatible with human nature? Are socialism and communism compatible with human nature? Are people inherently self-interested?
_________________________
*For the purposes of this discussion, socialism and communism are defined as economic and social systems in which workers own and control the means of production and operate them for social, rather than individual, benefit.

Socialism is doing quite well in many places .. well, a mixed capitalistic/socialistic economy at least.

[Divine Insight]

I don't normally get into politics, but this particular question is one that I have very strong feelings about.

First let me address your initial definition of "socialism and communism".

*For the purposes of this discussion, socialism and communism are defined as economic and social systems in which workers own and control the means of production and operate them for social, rather than individual, benefit.

I don't think we have ever seen this type of actual socialism or communism on a large scale nationally. Especially not in the countries you have cited in the OP. Typically what we have called "Socialism" and "Communism" were actually dictatorships often run by greedy governments who didn't sincerely have the interest of the people as their main agenda.

So, IMHO, we simply don't have any decent examples of socialism or communism that weren't also corrupt by greedy regimes that have their own agenda.

So with this in mind I'll respond to your questions:

Did socialism and communism fail because they are incompatible with human nature?

No. I think the examples we have seen have failed because of greedy regimes that didn't truly have the welfare of the people as their main agenda.

I might also add that there is absolutely no reason why a socialistic or communistic culture can't also be a free democracy. They don't need to be a dictatorship, or a monarchy.

Are socialism and communism compatible with human nature?

I think they are to a large degree. But they aren't for everyone. Some people like the freedom to "get ahead" of the crowd. A strict socialism or communism can actually hold ambitious people back. Therefore it can be a real hell for people who are ambitious.

It's extremely frustrating to live in a society where you can be held back simply because everyone around you is lazy. In fact, this is why I personally hate to work for "union" companies. I refuse to work for them precisely because they can hold you back if you are actually far more skilled and more ambitious than your coworkers.

And the same thing would hold true for a strict socialism or communism.

Are people inherently self-interested?

I don't believe so. I think that some people are simply more ambitious than others. Wanting to have great things in life is not necessarily "self-interest". You can become a financial tycoon and still care very much about all the people around you. It's not your fault that they may not have the same level of ambition that you have.

~~~~~

Now, having said all of the above, my main political "gripe" on this particular issue is that it doesn't need to be a strict dichotomy. A society doesn't need to be either socialism, or capitalism. It can be BOTH simultaneously.

In fact, I'm pretty sure there have been books written on this topic but I confess to have never read them. I'm not in a position to do anything about it anyway, so politics in general is something I've never bothered with.

I think the ideal society would be one in which socialism and capitalism live happily side-by-side. If a person is happy with a fairly low income and a modest lifestyle they could live in a socialistic manner. Those who are ambitious and want to seek more than the "norm" could have capitalistic opportunities available to them as well.

Everyone could be happy doing what best suits their own personal desires.

And this could all be done in a free democracy as well. No need for a dictatorship or monarchy.

[Divine Insight]

Socialism is doing quite well in many places .. well, a mixed capitalistic/socialistic economy at least.

Doing both together provides the best of both worlds.

[Haven]

Socialism is doing quite well in many places .. well, a mixed capitalistic/socialistic economy at least.

This isn't really the case, unless you consider welfare capitalism* to be socialism (it really isn't, because the means of production are still owned privately and operated for profit). There really isn't much socialism in a system like that: sure, essential services like healthcare and education are socialized, but the economy is still fundamentally capitalist.

Venezuela--with large public ownership of some sectors of the economy--is closer to socialism, but still not fully socialist. Cuba is socialist. Neither of these places have high standards of living or much personal freedom.

______________
*a capitalist economy with a large welfare state, like in Sweden

[Haven]

I don't think we have ever seen this type of actual socialism or communism on a large scale nationally. Especially not in the countries you have cited in the OP. Typically what we have called "Socialism" and "Communism" were actually dictatorships often run by greedy governments who didn't sincerely have the interest of the people as their main agenda.

But these dictatorships were set up to implement socialism/communism. That's why they existed. They were Marxist-Leninist states and enforced policies that transformed capitalist societies into socialist ones. You can argue that the governments were greedy or corrupt (they certainly were), but that still doesn't change the fact that they implemented policies that were socialist (nationalizing industries, setting up collective farms, expropriating 'upper classes,' etc.). This directly led to the starvation of millions. These policies in and of themselves were disastrous; it wasn't just that they weren't implemented well.

I agree with the rest of your post about the benefits of capitalism for the ambitious and the wisdom of choosing a moderate position between pure socialism and pure capitalism. My only comment is that I think the good effects of socialism (taking care of the poor, and so on) can be accomplished through private means. Look at Utah: it has capitalistic policies and yet it has drastically reduced homelessness and absolute poverty because of private charity initiatives.

[Divine Insight]

But these dictatorships were set up to implement socialism/communism.

Dictatorships aren't "set up". Who sets them up? The dictator?

In the Biblical religion supposedly it was God who set Kings up in their monarchies. But that is no doubt a crock. These monarchies were set up by men who wanted to be in power. Their motivations are anyone's guess.

Same is true of other cultural dictatorships. Also, even if socialism or communism was given publicly as the "goal" doesn't mean that it was understood by the dictator. How a dictator views "socialism" and how the public masses might view "socialism" can be dramatically different things.

This directly led to the starvation of millions. These policies in and of themselves were disastrous; it wasn't just that they weren't implemented well.

The link you've provided suggests that the policies of the Communist Part of China contributed to the famine:

Drought, poor weather, and the policies of the Communist Party of China contributed to the famine

So what makes you say they that it wasn't just that they weren't implemented well?

Also, drought and poor weather could be devastating to a capitalistic society just as easily. Capitalism isn't immune to natural disasters.

I agree with the rest of your post about the benefits of capitalism for the ambitious and the wisdom of choosing a moderate position between pure socialism and pure capitalism. My only comment is that I think the good effects of socialism (taking care of the poor, and so on) can be accomplished through private means. Look at Utah: it has capitalistic policies and yet it has drastically reduced homelessness and absolute poverty because of private charity initiatives.

Sure it can. But the only problem with "private means" is that there's no guarantee that private affluent people will always be in a philanthropic mood.

A government that insures philanthropy would eliminate that insecurity.

~~~~

However, our current political systems (and this include almost all of humanity on earth) aren't good at Inspirational Leadership. And our political systems have created deep ruts where it's extremely hard to get out of those ruts and move toward and Inspirational Government.

And the "Religious Wars" don't help matters either. Because a government that tries to inspire through secularism is going to be bashed by religious fanatics. And a religious government that is going to try to inspire through religion could never work either because people aren't about to accept any one religion as the dictating force.

Christians would never accept being governed by Islam, and vice versa, as an example.

So, from my perspective, before a government could even be truly inspirational the "Religious Wars" must end. It's actually a big factor that has a very negative influence on governing people regardless of economic paradigms.

[Excubis]

Socialism is doing quite well in many places .. well, a mixed capitalistic/socialistic economy at least.

This isn't really the case, unless you consider welfare capitalism* to be socialism (it really isn't, because the means of production are still owned privately and operated for profit). There really isn't much socialism in a system like that: sure, essential services like healthcare and education are socialized, but the economy is still fundamentally capitalist.

Venezuela--with large public ownership of some sectors of the economy--is closer to socialism, but still not fully socialist. Cuba is socialist. Neither of these places have high standards of living or much personal freedom.

______________
*a capitalist economy with a large welfare state, like in Sweden

I have been in Venezuela often over last few years and no it is nothing like how our media portrays it. I was so surprised when I first went in 2006 and saw media campaigns within Venezuela calling Hugo "Hitler" made me laugh. The barrios became places of education and politics and their quality of living greatly increased in these area's. The financial hardships in Venezuela was due to Western privatization of natural resource and funds were allocated out of the country. The world bank and IMF lent them way too much money and then they had to sell infrastructure in an attempt to repay. Such thins as road, water ect were in private hands due to repayment of loan taken by corrupt officials. I met Hugo while working with Pilger on his documentary "War on Democracy" this was a short meeting but left felling inspired. I feel it is a great loss for people of Venezuela since Hugo died. The attempt to remove him from power throughout his years came and went and it was his people that rallied and kept him in power multiple times. This country the majority are poor and it was these voiceless people who supported Hugo not business like in Western politics. Since it was poor that supported him all we in Canada/USA heard was from those of wealth who lost interests in the country and whenever a social paradigm attempts to take back natural resources which is the wealth of a nation back to that nation, capitalists label such thins as communism, socialism, ect. even when the violence of these old regimes were in no way prevalent in Venezuela. There are no interment camps, death squads, no rich were linched and so on only a relocation of wealth back to the nation itself.

Did you know Hugo held a vote even on where he should live? At first he refused to live in the presidential palace but so many said he should that he held a vote and voters agreed he should reside in. This was by large due to the attempts on his life and the palace was way more secure. He was voted into power by one of the largest voter turn outs and by such a majority that it is one of the biggest margins ever in any democracy. Yes UN did find every election valid in Venezuela, Hugo also let the people vote on him staying in power as well and bypass presidential elections for a time to better make change lasting. Hmm weird for a dictator to hold a vote for such a thing with no soldiers forcing voters, Hugo was not a dictator as western media portrays at all. There were no secret police force making people disappear like other dictators do such as Castro had. I would highly suggest watching "War on Democracy" or reading literature produced by Venezuelans since. Education has grown leaps and bounds since Hugo, literacy rates, healthcare, and crime rates dropped. There were nearly weekly regional votes on were to allocate funds by the people not politicians telling the people how it was going to be allocated. Hmmm this is fact in point true and there are many resources to see how he upheld democracy under a socialist structure but allowed the people to vote for this change, it was not forced by rebellion or fear but chosen by the majority. Now is this not democracy and freedom, is freedom only the ability to consolidate as much wealth as one wants or is freedom much more than such. To me freedom isn't about wealth but quality of life and ability to choose want and desires, yet not at the expense of others freedoms, and sorry wealth consolation does this every time.

[WinePusher]

Debate question: Did socialism and communism fail because they are incompatible with human nature? Are socialism and communism compatible with human nature? Are people inherently self-interested?

Socialism has failed because it is not economically feasible for one single entity to control the means of production. Having a single entity, namely the government, control what is produced, how it's produced, how it's distributed, and the price of the product without any competition whatsoever violates nearly every single economic law on the books. Generally, when you have one firm controlling an entire market without any competition, you have a monopoly. Monopolies are bad, and monopolies are unsustainable in the long run. Socialism is merely an extension of the monopolistic market structure to an even larger scale.

Now, under communism the means of production are collectively owned, not necessarily by the government but rather by a community or the entire society. You do not get to keep what you create under such a system, you merely get to keep the necessary amount that sustains you and the surplus is taken from you and given to others in need. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. So, essentially, incomes would be equalized throughout the entire society and nobody would have more than his fellow man. The problem with this model doesn't really have anything to do with altruism, it has to do with motivation and incentives. If you generate 100 dollars and you only get to keep 50 of it, and the other 50 goes to some guy who hasn't worked a day in his life then you will lose the motivation to work. There will be no incentive for you to work and contribute beyond what is needed to sustain yourself, but any surpluses will be taken from you and given to someone else.

Capitalism has proven itself to be superior to these two socioeconomic systems because it starts from the self evident premise that humans are inherently self interested. Even though humans are self interested, the only way they will be able to fulfill their desires and wants (under capitalism) is to produce something for others. For example, Bill Gates has accumulated an enormous amount of money, but this was only possible because he enriched the lives of millions of other people with his product. This is consistent with Adam Smith's notion of the invisible hand, where people acting in their own self interest will produce optimal outcomes for the entire society.

[Goat]

Socialism is doing quite well in many places .. well, a mixed capitalistic/socialistic economy at least.

This isn't really the case, unless you consider welfare capitalism* to be socialism (it really isn't, because the means of production are still owned privately and operated for profit). There really isn't much socialism in a system like that: sure, essential services like healthcare and education are socialized, but the economy is still fundamentally capitalist.

Venezuela--with large public ownership of some sectors of the economy--is closer to socialism, but still not fully socialist. Cuba is socialist. Neither of these places have high standards of living or much personal freedom.

______________
*a capitalist economy with a large welfare state, like in Sweden

Veneszuela isn't very well mixed.


Personally, I would like to see healthcare and education to be more socialistic. I would like to see the profit motive being yanked from healthcare, and the ties to individual businesses be cut. If a business does not have to worry about supplying health care to it's employees, then individuals can choose what kind of health care they want. Then, the religious objections' of an employer won't violate the privacy of the employee if they want, for example to use birth control, or have an abortion.