Changes

:So "real" communism, or communism in practice (I don't see the difference) does not belong on the ash heap of history?  If not, why are we having this discussion?  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:05, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:So "real" communism, or communism in practice (I don't see the difference) does not belong on the ash heap of history?  If not, why are we having this discussion?  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:05, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

::No, I'd say exactly the opposite.  Both "real" communism and the various attempts to implement it very much belong on the ash heap of history, because the theory is just plain wrong.  Because the theory is wrong, no effort to implement it can ever work.  Consider an analogy to perpetual motion machines.  At some point, it makes sense to become suspicious of someone's claim to have made one, purely from the fact that everyone who's ever claimed to make one has turned out to be wrong.  However, by itself, no matter how many frauds and failures you see, that can never prove that no one will ever figure out how to make one.  (Maybe it's just like breaking the sound barrier--hard, but possible.)  But once you understand the underlying theoretical problem with them--they violate the Law of Conservation of Energy--then you can stop saying they're "probably" a fool's errand, and say "We know they're a fool's errand."  My point is that there is an underlying theory that explains why private property produces wealth, and why the absence of private property rights produces shorages and misery.  We don't have to settle for "communism is probably wrong"--it can be demonstrated to be wrong from first principles.  Therefore, any comprehensive article discussing communism should do so, in my opinion.  [[User:QBeam]]

::No, I'd say exactly the opposite.  Both "real" communism and the various attempts to implement it very much belong on the ash heap of history, because the theory is just plain wrong.  Because the theory is wrong, no effort to implement it can ever work.  Consider an analogy to perpetual motion machines.  At some point, it makes sense to become suspicious of someone's claim to have made one, purely from the fact that everyone who's ever claimed to make one has turned out to be wrong.  However, by itself, no matter how many frauds and failures you see, that can never prove that no one will ever figure out how to make one.  (Maybe it's just like breaking the sound barrier--hard, but possible.)  But once you understand the underlying theoretical problem with them--they violate the Law of Conservation of Energy--then you can stop saying they're "probably" a fool's errand, and say "We know they're a fool's errand."  My point is that there is an underlying theory that explains why private property produces wealth, and why the absence of private property rights produces shorages and misery.  We don't have to settle for "communism is probably wrong"--it can be demonstrated to be wrong from first principles.  Therefore, any comprehensive article discussing communism should do so, in my opinion.  [[User:QBeam]]

:::P.S. The distinction between "real" communism and "communism-in-practice," for want of a better term, is straitforward.  "Real" communism refers to to communist ideology, or theory.  "Real" is perhaps an in-apt term for something characterized by its existence only in some people's minds.  But why quibble?  "Communism-in-practice," on the other hand, is meant to refer to the systems that actually existed behind the Iron Curtain.  They differ from one another profoundly.  In "real" communism, there is no private property of any kind--it has been made obsolete, because, as a result of making the means of production publicly held, productivity has been increased to the point where the supply of everything exceeds the demand.  In a world where everything you might want is free (even in the strict economic sense), you don't need private property.  Obviously, no communist regime ever tried to completely abolish private property, though they took a variety of steps in that direction.  Even more obviously, no communist country ever managed to improve its productively beyond that of free market economies in which private property rights are respected.  The distinctions between "real" communism and communism-as-actually-practiced go on, but these are, in my opinion, the most crucial distinctions.

:::P.S. The distinction between "real" communism and "communism-in-practice," for want of a better term, is straitforward.  "Real" communism refers to to communist ideology, or theory.  "Real" is perhaps an inapt term for something characterized by its existence only in some people's minds.  But why quibble?  "Communism-in-practice," on the other hand, is meant to refer to the systems that actually existed behind the Iron Curtain.  They differ from one another profoundly.  In "real" communism, there is no private property of any kind--it has been made obsolete, because, as a result of making the means of production publicly held, productivity has been increased to the point where the supply of everything exceeds the demand.  In a world where everything you might want is free (even in the strict economic sense), you don't need private property.  Obviously, no communist regime ever tried to completely abolish private property, though they took a variety of steps in that direction.  Even more obviously, no communist country ever managed to improve its productively beyond that of free market economies in which private property rights are respected.  The distinctions between "real" communism and communism-as-actually-practiced go on, but these are, in my opinion, the most crucial distinctions. [[User:QBeam]]