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.

[WinePusher]

I will aslo say nearly 20% of the GDP is healthcare, I believe it's roughly just over 17%, now this does not mean US have more healthcare nor better health care just mean as a business the healthcare system makes a profit. So how does a private healthcare make money? Hmmmm. To have this included into the GDP of a country to me doesn't make much sense, since high use of healthcare generally indicates unhealthiness in over all well being of said country.

?

GDP is just a measure of all final goods and services produced in an economy. It includes consumption, investment and government spending, so if healthcare were owned and operated by the government it would still be included in the GDP. And why is it bad that the healthcare industry is profit driven? You do realize that profits, just like all other prices, are just signals. A high profit industry indicates that that particular industry is satisfying the needs of its customers, if the industry were not making any profits then it would be forced to improve itself or shut down. Unlike for profit businesses, governments have a reliable source of revenue regardless of its performance, and this is why most government institutions are terribly ineffective and inefficient.

There is also the issue of debt level governments who are entirely free market that is now occurring. Since little is owned by the government(people) more needs to be borrowed. This is not conjecture but mathematical fact, taxes alone do not provide enough fund to support all of our social institutions and infrastructure.

Most of our social institutions do not need to be owned and operated by the federal government, and healthcare definitely needs to be left to the private sector.

Most do not know the founding fathers implemented tough laws on corporations in the past, a corporations license expired after so long or after so much profit was gained, it then had to be sold to others. Why, so no monopoly would form and competition would drive the economy. This is no longer the case, big business goes on without restraint by large. Now unrestrained power is always bad, doesn't matter what system of government/economy is followed.

Some of the founding fathers also advocated tariffs (import taxes) and they were dead wrong on this. And you do realize that monopolies can't sustain themselves in the long run without governmental barriers to entry, right? Sure, monopolistic firms can pop up in the short run, however, if there are no barriers to entry other firms will begin to invade the market and force prices down to competitive levels. And note that these barriers to entry I'm talking about are government regulations that make it more difficult for entrepreneurs to start up businesses.

I am also against fractional reserve banking practices which are in place now.

Right, and how would our banking system work? Would we have a full reserve system?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 21 by WinePusher]

A high profit industry indicates that that particular industry is satisfying the needs of its customers, if the industry were not making any profits then it would be forced to improve itself or shut down

Except the need of the customer cannot be shut off. This is not like choosing between having a laptop or smartphone. The need is persistent. The demand always exists people would rather live than die.

Our healthcare industry is demonstrably ineffective, in nearly every category. I don't think all aspects of it should not be profit driven. Pharmaceuticals and medical professionals have a strong incentive to do the hard work necessary to get where they are because of profit. Insurance to me is a dubious proposition at best and neither provides the innovation or motivation for best practices. The profit incentive for insurance is not to provide the best care or innovate new medical techniques. It is simply to minimize their costs related to the services they provide offsetting the initial cost of medical care. That is how they attain profit, it can only add cost not reduce cost.

This bears out in how much Americans pay for medical care with respect to every other nation.

[arian]

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.

I'm not into politics, nor did I read/respond to politics (as far as I remember?) but since the gay-marriage has been legalized, I thought I post it here to get a better idea of what others think about it, .. until your interesting post caught my eyes Haven.

I tasted Communism first hand, and I would compare it with the Christian Religion where; they talk Christ, but act like He never existed. I mean have you seen the pictures of Jesus that Religious Christians use to teach their children? The tall, (always sticking out of the crowd) blond, long haired blue eyed pretty boy Jew? Or their interpretation of His message of love where they send their young men off to whatever war is going on at the time for the sake of 'God and Country'?

Well the same with Communism, in public communist leaders/supporters talk all 'communist', as you described it: "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", but in reality, shared only with the closest friends and family they can't wait to get the hell out of there and escape to the United States (well that was then anyways), Canada or Australia.

Is Communism incompatible with human nature? I say ALL religions are incompatible with human nature, but because our inherent need for God our Creator, our Father, we put up with it (anything but our real Father), tolerate it, and even at their most debased states where everyone agrees it is bad (Catholic, Communist, Nazi persecutions). But not to be called a traitor to the cause you have supported for so long (which may include people you personally turned in, had tortured, imprisoned), they keep on putting up with it.

This is why God is not striking people with lightning bolts, instead He gently call us.

"Are people inherently self-interested?"
I'm self-interested, when I find truth that I know can benefit all mankind, .. I defend it, speak it, share it wherever and with whomever I possibly can. I could never enjoy myself being a millionaire and watch half the world starve. Neither can I stand by idly as laws are passed that I know will have horrible negative consequences on the whole nation and even the world as this new 'gay-marriage law' will.

But why people even consider turning to religion (Communism, Nazism, Big-bang Evolution, all the Christian and non-Christian Religions, Evolution, theism/atheism, gay rights, black rights, white rights lol ..) for help, when we have everything we need right there in the Bible?
Why?

Christ taught that giving is better than taking, that sharing is beneficial for everyone, .. like if I had a million dollars, we know it wouldn't go too far in alleviating hunger from the face of the world, but hey, if everyone pitched in with whatever extra they could afford (not necessarily just with money, nor do I mean support any religion with it), I say that within a year hunger and all the associated diseases, unwanted pregnancies, rapes that they believe will cure their diseases would slowly but surely vanish.

But oh no, let's take Christ's idea, but take Christ, God and even the Bible where the idea originated from out of it, and we'll call it 'Communism'. Or the 'Third Reich' or 'Agenda 21', and should anyone oppose our agenda, "off with their heads!" and yep, just as this Gay-marriage agenda, all in the name of love and tolerance.

The problem is that something and someone has corrupted our Godly-human nature, the someone was the serpent, the Devil, and the something was the breaking of a simple command, the actual taking of the fruit.

The Godly-human nature was when we were only satisfied when all our children, relatives, neighbors were enjoying themselves without burdening anyone.

The Lucifer acquired human-nature is when doctors/nurses can inject poison into their patients because of their different race, color or religion, and watch them die slowly.
And let us not forget history, and rubbing homosexuality into peoples faces will not be tolerated for long. There are powerful religions out there that even though they support the legal part of the "Same-Sex-Marriage" because it goes against God and nature, which suits them just fine for now, but that will end really quick, just as it did during the Nazi occupation WWII, and in the history of the past before that.

Yep, .. "here we go again, and again, and again, .." No religion will work as long as humans can walk and reason. But now with world-wide 'programming' (TV, Movies, Music videos, music, chem-trails, fluoride and other mind controlling chemicals in our food and water) the physical body/brain/mind has been thoroughly prepped for "Total Control", and "Total Recall" of all these programming's will trigger the "Final Solution" for mankind. Count me out!

What people just can't seem to see is that this includes everyone, every race, color and creed, the plan of Lucifer is clear just like the heavens Gate Cult; "kill yourselves before the earth recycles you. Remember the codes/symbols: Green, .. Recycle, .. love, .. peace, .. the sun, .. the Ying Yang, .. Ankh, .. colors of the rainbow .. (all so festive ain't they?) and thousands of others so when the time comes, you will obey!

So in conclusion, no religion of any kind, which includes Communism be compatible with human nature, unless it is forced on people, like this "Same Sex Marriage". ( I read somewhere that our children's school documents have to be re-written. So where it says
Parent signature -
Mothers signature ____________ X
Fathers signature ____________ X

will now be considered a 'hate crime' punishable by (Oh I don't know, I guess beheading, I heard it is getting really popular nowadays!)

To be replaced ASAP by
Parent #1 _____________ X
Parent #2 _____________ X

This leaves it open for parents #3, 4, 5, 6, .. etc. or if there are too many # of parents, a simple word like; "orgy" should sum it all up.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 21 by WinePusher]

GDP is just a measure of all final goods and services produced in an economy. It includes consumption, investment and government spending, so if healthcare were owned and operated by the government it would still be included in the GDP. And why is it bad that the healthcare industry is profit driven? You do realize that profits, just like all other prices, are just signals. A high profit industry indicates that that particular industry is satisfying the needs of its customers, if the industry were not making any profits then it would be forced to improve itself or shut down. Unlike for profit businesses, governments have a reliable source of revenue regardless of its performance, and this is why most government institutions are terribly ineffective and inefficient.

Exactly signals so why is it that the most capitalistic country has such low standing in worldwide infant mortality and longevity rates. Now some may argue this is from lifestyle choices not a poor healthcare system. Although this sounds logical it is not, government mandated healthcare spends much on the education of it's people for preventive measures. Why because in the big picture to a country sick people are not financially as viable as healthy people and since the government incurs healthcare costs it cuts cost on medical are by implementing preventive care. Private healthcare is profit driven not social driven healthy people are bad for business so preventive care and education are lacking since not being profitable.

Most of our social institutions do not need to be owned and operated by the federal government, and healthcare definitely needs to be left to the private sector

Think you need to look past wait times and customer satisfaction when we are talking about the health of a nation. Since the poor lifestyle choices leads to more bad health and consequently more medical visits and procedures the result is profit and therefore a a great business, but not the welfare of a countries citizens. I am for making money just not unrestrained consolidation.

Some of the founding fathers also advocated tariffs (import taxes) and they were dead wrong on this. And you do realize that monopolies can't sustain themselves in the long run without governmental barriers to entry, right? Sure, monopolistic firms can pop up in the short run, however, if there are no barriers to entry other firms will begin to invade the market and force prices down to competitive levels. And note that these barriers to entry I'm talking about are government regulations that make it more difficult for entrepreneurs to start up businesses.

Well yes they did yet contextually at the time it did make some sense and I do agree on tariffs if local industry is threatened. Why, jobs. Also yes monopolies don't but conglomerates do. Also in many main industries market shares have been strongly saturated by a few over new business for quite some time now. Mergers, sale, and acquisitions do not promote enough wealth transfer since these are generally transactions between only the wealthy already. Now many regulations are not a result of government against new business in my opinion but would say are from big business itself. Using the wealth it yields through lobbyists to limit small business ability to gain market shares.

In Canada this has already been felt in food industry since now food processing plants are self inspected and the requirements for this are very costly. It is nearly impossible to gain enough market share in beef processing to pay for all necessary requirements to be self inspecting since government no longer inspects these at a loss. This was done for preventive reasons but now Canada is being more and more Capitalistic and less and less is in public hands.

Right, and how would our banking system work? Would we have a full reserve system?

No fractional reserve can be off set by guess what nation owed business. What the current system cannot support is a economic structure that is expansion driven. This in my opinion applies to every facet of today's society, everything from having less kids, living in smaller homes, recycling, and implementation of smart up-gradable technologies to limit waste. Also the fraction of reserve needs to change to limit inflation in accordance with fluctuations of markets(good and services). I am for capitalism but restrained by social well being of all.

It is in my opinion Capitalism is almost become religious, to make such assertions it is the best, the only, ect.. to me is religious literalist type talk since I see no absolutes in civilized social order(except we need each other as a species for survival) and the only thing any historical record of all civilization show that change is necessary as complexity of social interactions(morals change,cross cultural habitation, ect...)rises. If our systems does not evolve to a changing environment in all fronts our longevity will be threatened. This is the underlying causal success of life on Earth adapt to change. Since we are biological there is to me no reason to view social structure, institutions, ect.. any different than the biological beings these arose from.

Yes capitalism works for many good and services but not as a means to guarantee a countries overall social well being. High crime and incarceration rates are indicators of a failing social structure if we look at all previous know systems before. This is by all means a comparable fact in Anthropology.

[WinePusher]

Exactly signals so why is it that the most capitalistic country has such low standing in worldwide infant mortality and longevity rates.

The regions of the world that experience high infant mortality rates and low life expectancy rates are Africa, Latin America and some parts of Asia. These underdeveloped regions and are not any in way considered 'capitalistic.' The one country in Latin America that is regarded as capitalistic is Chile, and that country has been experiencing high levels of economic prosperity. And if you want to make an accurate comparison of this then let's compare the Soviet Union (communist) with the United States (capitalist). And I'm not talking about the Soviet Union under Stalin, I'm talking about the Soviet Union post Stalin up until Gorbachev. Many academics, including influential economists like Paul Samuelson, praised the Soviet model and urged other countries to emulate it. Turns out they were dead wrong.

Most of our social institutions do not need to be owned and operated by the federal government, and healthcare definitely needs to be left to the private sector

Think you need to look past wait times and customer satisfaction when we are talking about the health of a nation.

So when it comes to evaluating a nation's healthcare system customer satisfaction and wait times are irrelevant? I'm sure everybody would disagree with this.

Since the poor lifestyle choices leads to more bad health and consequently more medical visits and procedures the result is profit and therefore a a great business, but not the welfare of a countries citizens. I am for making money just not unrestrained consolidation.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. You seem to be saying that the medical industry, since it's for profit, encourages people to be sick and live unhealthy lifestyles because this would ramp up their business?

]Some of the founding fathers also advocated tariffs (import taxes) and they were dead wrong on this. And you do realize that monopolies can't sustain themselves in the long run without governmental barriers to entry, right? Sure, monopolistic firms can pop up in the short run, however, if there are no barriers to entry other firms will begin to invade the market and force prices down to competitive levels. And note that these barriers to entry I'm talking about are government regulations that make it more difficult for entrepreneurs to start up businesses.

Well yes they did yet contextually at the time it did make some sense and I do agree on tariffs if local industry is threatened. Why, jobs.

Economists have taken the 'protect the jobs argument' into account and still hugely support free trade. Paul Krugman's rise to fame in the economics profession is due to his work on free trade, and he is himself a huge progressive.

It is in my opinion Capitalism is almost become religious.

It's not a religion. It just happens to be the best way to organize the economic affairs of a society.

Yes capitalism works for many good and services but not as a means to guarantee a countries overall social well being. High crime and incarceration rates are indicators of a failing social structure if we look at all previous know systems before. This is by all means a comparable fact in Anthropology.

What does high crime and incarceration have to do with capitalism?

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 25 by WinePusher]

The regions of the world that experience high infant mortality rates and low life expectancy rates are Africa, Latin America and some parts of Asia. These underdeveloped regions and are not any in way considered 'capitalistic.' The one country in Latin America that is regarded as capitalistic is Chile, and that country has been experiencing high levels of economic prosperity. And if you want to make an accurate comparison of this then let's compare the Soviet Union (communist) with the United States (capitalist). And I'm not talking about the Soviet Union under Stalin, I'm talking about the Soviet Union post Stalin up until Gorbachev. Many academics, including influential economists like Paul Samuelson, praised the Soviet model and urged other countries to emulate it. Turns out they were dead wrong.

Sorry should of been more specific, this is among developed countries. Infant mortality and longevity is low is the U.S. compared to many G8 countries.

http://www.livescience.com/47980-us-inf ... abies.html

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/detai ... tancy.aspx

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN

I am getting that you think I am making a stand for pure communism or socialism I am not at all. None of these systems work over the broad picture of society over the long term.

So when it comes to evaluating a nation's healthcare system customer satisfaction and wait times are irrelevant? I'm sure everybody would disagree with this.

Really, so having a bit longer to wait but not needing a second mortgage to get proper medical care is worse than waiting a bit longer. Ask those who have had to then see not just those who have proper medical insurance. Countries with universal healthcare are healthier in the developed world compared to the US. Hmmmmm. How can a country be truly financially viable with a unhealthy populace. This is not conjecture it is fact for over a decade now.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. You seem to be saying that the medical industry, since it's for profit, encourages people to be sick and live unhealthy lifestyles because this would ramp up their business?

Yes but not in some sinister, conspiracy type way. The profit driven medical industry does not support preventive care, this is not good business. One such example corningware that made pyrocream cookware, it was so good they stopped since it last nearly forever and switched to ceramic stoneware since sales tanked after majority of consumers already owned the good stuff. So why put money in to preventive healthcare programs when your business is treatment of many preventive conditions. It does make sense nor is it good business.

Economists have taken the 'protect the jobs argument' into account and still hugely support free trade. Paul Krugman's rise to fame in the economics profession is due to his work on free trade, and he is himself a huge progressive.

I agree with free trade just not over everything is all. We need to think globally yet since we do not share industries but compete for market shares wealth in a wholly capitalistic society will always promote regional wealth loss. I have seen so many mom and pop general stores close, due to large scale general stores such as Wal-Mart coming in. Now what free trade economist do not look at, is how many small business these small shops support. They will generally have locally produced goods which supports small local industries and jobs. Money earned or spent stays by large in the community, the economic windfall is far greater than many economist admit. This is not felt on wall street or global markets only regionaly, according to wall street these big box stores are great, sure are make shareholders more money but not the town where they open. Cheaper goods is not always better on a regional front.

It's not a religion. It just happens to be the best way to organize the economic affairs of a society.

Oh so we have tried everything, nothing left but capitalism. There is no way to say that with certitude at all.

What does high crime and incarceration have to do with capitalism?

Really so poverty has nothing to do with crime rates, have we learnt nothing from our past, high crime rates mean a unequal wealth gap with less middle class, fewer wealthy, and many more poor. This is the reality and in my opinion is not capitalism fault but unrestrained wealth acquisition in the working of our capitalistic system. When any system promote unrestrained wealth acquisition(power) it never works does not matter what we label it. Second it is all of our faults, there should be no separation of government and the people. The view the government is some outward entity to be feared is wrong, we the people in a nation are the government in a true democracy. This is why although Canadian have great respect for what the founding fathers of the US tried to build. For the people by the people, there is a problem when people fear or see their government as an outward entity.

It is unrestrained wealth acquisition and competitive expansion that society and our physical world will not support. Look back, whenever the wealth gap grows as it has been in the US one of two things occurs in the history of civilization, 1) Military State(dictatorship, ect..) or 2) Revolution by the people. Not saying this will happen tomorrow but nothing in last 30 years has brought this gap down only made it larger and seems all that is tried is more expansion. Our system is not sustainable at all, not sure why people think it's best heck Rome was around far longer than our society and it to was the best!!!