Understanding the Liberal Mindset

[Emily's Cat]

But I also recognize that capitalism runs an inevitable course. That it naturally becomes unbalanced to the point that it isn't good.

As evidenced by capitalism being the second-longest running stable form of economic structure after monarchial feudalism.

Marx hypothesized that capitalism will eat itself, and lots of people believe that (mostly because Marx said so, and Marx is the patron saint of angsty college kids who've tried nothing and are all out of ideas of their own). But it hasn't happened so far. It's pretty much up there with all of the religious nuts insisting that the apocalypse is just around the corner every 100 years or so. Or perhaps more on the nose... the people who absolutely insist that the human population is increasing too fast and we'll exceed the planet's carrying capacity in a decade, with the option to refresh the theory every decade when it doesn't pan out.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nonsense. You apparently never studied government and economics. That is exactly what I studied. It made me qualified to vote and teach. Thats why I went into sales.

Karl Marx himself said the Soviet government wasn't truly communist. And neither did its puppet states or China.

Of course they did. It didn't work the way Marx envisioned the magical utopia would work, because humans aren't automatons who all have identical desires and needs. Therefore, because it didn't work the way Marx wanted it to, it's obviously not "real communism".

"Real communism" cannot function in the modern world. I think it would work reasonably well for a small group of people (maybe a few hundred tops), where everyone knows everyone else, and where the survival of the group is entirely dependent on every single member of the group giving it their best all the time. In that sort of pre-industrial, season-to-season, tribal community, it would probably be the most effective way to organize. But it requires that everyone be able to identify the moochers and grifters quickly, and take significant action as a whole to stomp out that behavior.

Once a community gets prosperous enough that there's enough excess to start catering to individual wants and desires, communism isn't going to work. Nor will it work once the population gets large enough that any substantial number of people are anonymous strangers who can freeload on the goodwill of the community without being identified and punished quickly.

In short... communism would be a fantastic approach if only humans would stop being humans.

 

[jimbob]

Could you support that claim with evidence? Not just propaganda claims from anti-communist agencies.

Not sure how many countries are communist, but Cuba doesn't appear the most corrupt, and North Korea does even appear.

Corruption Rank by Country

The Corruption Perceptions Index Rank (CPI Ranking) is published annually by Transparency International, a non-governmental organisation. A country or territory's rank indicates its position relative to the other countries and territories in the index.

tradingeconomics.com

ETA I was surprised that denmark was top the corruption list.

That seems a somewhat eccentric ranking, even though Transparency International a reputable organisation.

I find it hard to believe that Saudi Arabia and Rwanda are less corrupt in any meaningful ways than Spain.

 

[acbytesla]

As evidenced by capitalism being the second-longest running stable form of economic structure after monarchial feudalism.

Marx hypothesized that capitalism will eat itself, and lots of people believe that (mostly because Marx said so, and Marx is the patron saint of angsty college kids who've tried nothing and are all out of ideas of their own). But it hasn't happened so far. It's pretty much up there with all of the religious nuts insisting that the apocalypse is just around the corner every 100 years or so. Or perhaps more on the nose... the people who absolutely insist that the human population is increasing too fast and we'll exceed the planet's carrying capacity in a decade, with the option to refresh the theory every decade when it doesn't pan out.

Apparently, you forgot Tulip bubble, the Gilded Age, the great stock scams of the Roaring Twenties, the Crash, followed by The Great Depression, WW2 which was a result of this period. Enron, Bernie Madoff, Arthur Anderson, Ponzi, etc. You're ignoring the many wars pushed on by the greed of capitalists. The banana republics. Sure Capitalism is still around. And it definitely has its upside. But let's not forget the boom and bust cycles, and it's many abuses of the masses.

 

[jimbob]

Has corruption isn't the same as being corrupt by nature. But either way, what I'm saying is that communism isn't an improvement over other systems of government, notably capitalism+democracy.

In general, revolutionary communist regimes perform much worse than their capitalist-democratic counterparts. In terms of economic activity, corruption, human rights, environmental conservation, etc

I would agree that Communism is inherently vulnerable to corruption. "From each according to their means. To each according to their needs" is going to require someone to determine what the needs and means is, and they are likely to be more favourable to themselves.

However that doesn't mean that socialist democracies are. Not does it mean that right wing autocracies are any less vulnerable than left wing autocracies. The problem is with the autocracy. And the inability for the people affected to change their rulers.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Me: Every sunflower I've ever seen has been yellow.
acbytesla: You're wrong! Dandelions are yellow too!
Me: I made no claims about dandelions.
acbytesla: Yellow sunflowers aren't real sunflowers, we've never seen a real sunflower, but I assure you that they're purple.

 

[jimbob]

Me: Every sunflower I've ever seen has been yellow.
acbytesla: You're wrong! Dandelions are yellow too!
Me: I made no claims about dandelions.
acbytesla: Yellow sunflowers aren't real sunflowers, we've never seen a real sunflower, but I assure you that they're purple.

But that's not a fair analogy.

Because the initial claim was conflating nominally left-wing authoritarianism (Communism) with left-wing systems in general, which includes a lot that's not authoritarian.

And it ignores the right wing authoritarianism, which is equally likely to promote corruption.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But that's not a fair analogy.

Because the initial claim was conflating nominally left-wing authoritarianism (Communism) with left-wing systems in general, which includes a lot that's not authoritarian.

Are you certain?

I mean... there's also the rather stark observation that over the last 100 years or so, the leftiest left-wing nations have been absolutely full to the brim of corruption and cronyism. There isn't a single country out there that has tried communism, or even communist-adjacent-heavy-socialism that hasn't ended up with a substantial amount of corruption. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others...

I certainly didn't include mixed capitalist-socialist systems in there, and I didn't extend it to generalized lefwing systems.

And it ignores the right wing authoritarianism, which is equally likely to promote corruption.

Dandelions are yellow too! You can't talk about sunflowers being yellow without also recognizing that dandelions are yellow!

 

[acbytesla]

Me: Every sunflower I've ever seen has been yellow.
acbytesla: You're wrong! Dandelions are yellow too!
Me: I made no claims about dandelions.
acbytesla: Yellow sunflowers aren't real sunflowers, we've never seen a real sunflower, but I assure you that they're purple.

What? What are you talking about? You're ignorance is showing.

 

[jimbob]

Are you certain?

I certainly didn't include mixed capitalist-socialist systems in there, and I didn't extend it to generalized lefwing systems.

Dandelions are yellow too! You can't talk about sunflowers being yellow without also recognizing that dandelions are yellow!

Yes but it's not that they are "leftist" it's that they are authoritarian or even totalitarian.

 

[acbytesla]

But that's not a fair analogy.

Because the initial claim was conflating nominally left-wing authoritarianism (Communism) with left-wing systems in general, which includes a lot that's not authoritarian.

And it ignores the right wing authoritarianism, which is equally likely to promote corruption.

Exactly. Her analogy about flowers deliberately ignores the point. All those communist countries were corrupt authoritarian regimes before they were communist. Every one. So clearly, the corruption is unrelated to the economic system.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Do you think that fines and legal action against a larger firm requires more actual government employees to create the fines or kick off legal action?

It doesn't take more escrow agents to buy a big expensive house than it does to buy a small one. It doesn't take more radiologists to read a wealthy person's PET scan than a poor person's PET scan. It doesn't take more DMV employees to register a rich person's car than it does to register a low income person's car.

Why do you think that more government employees is needed to do the exact same things with respect to a larger company than for a smaller company, or for a wealthier person than for a poorer person?

Are you expecting armed government thugs to show up like an army to enforce regulations at gunpoint? That's not how that works.

you are extremely naïve.

Companies commit crimes ALL THE TIME.
Almost all of the commit wage theft.
All producing pollution violate environmental regulations.
Literally always, companies have formed Cartels when convenient.
And you think that someone showing up with a piece of paper from the government will make them change their ways?

guess you think we should get rid of all Cops and Courts, too?

come on, no one is that clueless.
you just like the idea of companies and the rich exploiting everyone else.

 

[theprestige]

I would agree that Communism is inherently vulnerable to corruption. "From each according to their means. To each according to their needs" is going to require someone to determine what the needs and means is, and they are likely to be more favourable to themselves.

However that doesn't mean that socialist democracies are. Not does it mean that right wing autocracies are any less vulnerable than left wing autocracies. The problem is with the autocracy. And the inability for the people affected to change their rulers.

I'm not saying social democracies are prone to corruption the way totalitarian regimes are. No am I saying right-wing autocracies are any better. I'm saying Revolutionary Communism is necessarily an autocracy, a totalitarian dictatorship.

The main thing I don't understand about the liberal mindset - or at least the left-leaning/progressive mindset - is this constant knee-jerk impulse to defend Revolutionary Communism. For all their harping on conservatives and right-leaning folks to repudiate fascism, progressives never seem interested in likewise repudiating communism.

Even in a thread like this one, which is about the liberal mindset, people keep trying to change the topic to conservative mindsets and their failure modes. And even you can't come up with an argument for communism, you still can't just say it's bad, you have to try to redirect to other "right-wing" ideas that are arguably just as bad.

So explain it to me. Why can't liberals just repudiate Revolutionary Communism, as a horrific stain on human history, comparable to the Third Reich?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I don't think communism is inherently more vulnerable to corruption - it is just too subjective.
It's an information problem to provide what is needed and not more. And it is too human to want a bit more than necessary, just to be on the safe side.

 

[theprestige]

Yes but it's not that they are "leftist" it's that they are authoritarian or even totalitarian.

A lot of leftists seem to really like the idea of leftist totalitarianism.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think communism is inherently more vulnerable to corruption - it is just too subjective.
It's an information problem to provide what is needed and not more. And it is too human to want a bit more than necessary, just to be on the safe side.

Revolutionary Communism is necessarily dictatorial. Dictatorships are systemically corrupt in ways that liberal democracies are not.

Again, help me understand the blind spot in the liberal mindset, about revolutionary communism.

 

[jimbob]

Even in a thread like this one, which is about the liberal mindset, people keep trying to change the topic to conservative mindsets and their failure modes. And even you can't come up with an argument for communism, you still can't just say it's bad, you have to try to redirect to other "right-wing" ideas that are arguably just as bad.

I regard myself as a liberal and I despise communism and all authoritarian and antidemocratic ideologies. I have since I was a teenager.

So explain it to me. Why can't liberals just repudiate Revolutionary Communism, as a horrific stain on human history, comparable to the Third

Are you sure you are not conflating "liberal" and "far left"? Because many people in Europe at least who would regard themselves as liberal believe in liberal democracy.

 

[jimbob]

A lot of leftists seem to really like the idea of leftist totalitarianism.

The far left, tankies, yes. But they are illiberal

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Revolutionary Communism is necessarily dictatorial. Dictatorships are systemically corrupt in ways that liberal democracies are not.

Again, help me understand the blind spot in the liberal mindset, about revolutionary communism.

sure, as I said - any system that concentrates power will be very corrupt.
But Communist States are usually run by Committee, which is less corrupt in scope than just a dictatorship - the kind the US loves to support.
China has huge corruption problems, but it deals with them harshly, too.
The US has huge corruption problems, and does very little about it.

I was talking more about the fundamental problem that even in Perfect Communism, there would be a kind of corruption due to people by unable to accurately assess their own needs and err on the side of caution.

 

[arthwollipot]

A lot of leftists seem to really like the idea of leftist totalitarianism.

Not nearly as much as rightists do.