| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > Communism is based on the premise that some central mechanism can determine
> > > the right quantities of everything for everyone, obviating the need for
> > > individual choices. It's based on the premise that people should work hard
> > > and not get the fruits of their labors, but rather suffer the consequences
> > > of the central mechanism's mistakes.
> > >
> > > Capitalism is based on the premise that no central mechanism can do as well
> > > at determining the right quantities as well as individual choice. It's based
> > > on the premise that people should work hard or not, as they choose, and
> > > suffer the consequences individually.
> > >
> > > That makes capitalism moral and communism immoral. That's a good enough
> > > argument right there. Further, you can show from a utilitarian basis that
> > > central mechanisms fail (and markets work) to maximise utility. That's a
> > > good enough argument right there.
> >
> > I can't agree--it only makes the "moral call" that way if your
> > personal values are based on individualism instead of the common
> > good. Those values are nurtured in a capitalist system, so it's
> > a self-replicating system, IMHO.
>
> I would reword that as "if your personal values say that others do not have
> the right to dispose of you and your property as they see fit". Wouldn't you
> agree?
Not "as they see fit." That again imputes capitalist values and
a hierarchical structure to the actions of communist leadership.
"For the common good" is more accurate. Now, *in practice*,
it has often *been* "as they see fit," true...but that's the rough
part about theory versus practice. (See my point earlier about
human nature and communism.) The last part--the utilitarian
argument--is much stronger, but I can't buy the moral argument.
> > > Finally, communist states seem to have the nasty habit of territorial
> > > aggrandisement. That's a good enough argument right there.
> >
> > No more so than any other system of governance (and perhaps less,
> > given the "have-not" economics from which Communist movements
> > drew most of their early strength). The whole "exported world
> > revolution" spiel got quietly socked away in 1922, and aside from
> > the 1939-1940 USSR wars and Tibet I can't think of a single case of
> > "territorial aggrandizement" that doesn't involve a chunk that
> > tried to break away during the change in government (e.g., Taiwan,
> > Ukraine, etc). The "communist bloc" of the Cold War doesn't count
> > any more than the Marshall Plan and NATO count as examples of
> > "Capitalist territorial aggrandizement."
>
> Did you or someone you are closely related to live in a communist bloc
> country? If not, you have no basis for this statement. Further, while some
> other systems may also have territorial aggrandisement tendencies,
> libertarian and anarchocapitalist ones don't. (1) See, I get to use the "you
> aren't comparing to an actual instance of X" defense too.
So, let me get this straight:
If I or my parents or another relative did not live through
the experience, I have no basis--regardless of the data--to
make such a statement and challenge your characterization
of Communism? Have you forgotten what I do for a living?
If I took your view, which is essentially "It's a [Polish,
black, white, Jewish, Indian, Antarctican, anarcho-capitalist, etc]
thing, you wouldn't understand," then the door to understanding
beyond accepting the biased dictation of the principals as author-
itative would be slammed shut and history could never be written.
The historical profession goes through this every few years,
whenever a book on the Holocaust is written by someone who
didn't go through the camps (Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, for the
most recent and vitriolic example) or in the famous case of the
Enola Gay at the Smithsonian Institute a few years back.
Should I just pack it up, because as a (mostly) white American,
I can't possibly understand African societies or cosmologies?
I was really shocked at reading such an anti-intellectual
statement out of you but it indicates to me just how emotional
a point this is on your end.
However, my criticism stands. If you want to include purely
theoretical variants of communism and anarchocapitalism or
libertarianism, then sure, some systems *are* less apt to
"territorial aggrandizement"[1]--but we're talking praxis here
(in spite of your statement that I haven't done anything with it),
and I still don't believe that Libtertopia or anarchocapitalism
will work any more than I believe pure communism can work,
because of that pesky human nature. The projection of power
beyond one's territorial boundaries and the accumulation of
wealth in the form of land is part of that human nature.
The other thing I think you've missed is my implicit definition
of "territorial aggrandizement." That is, the actual physical
annexation of territory, a la 1919 Tanganyika, 1936 Austria,
1845 Texas, and 1940 Lithuania. I'm not sure any other valid
definiton could be made, as the term states "aggrandizement [of]
territory" and you gave as your basic unit the nation-state or
government. As for dictation to the Communist bloc from the
USSR, that's immaterial under this definition--it was very
clearly acceded to by the United States and the Allies at Yalta
(and again at Potsdam), and the USSR did not seek to append these
states to the actual USSR. We also did some pretty serious
dictation of our own, even if the system did render it transparent.
(The EU is, in large part, the offspring of the Marshall Plan's
rather dictatorial aid conditions--the same conditions that made
the USSR reject that aid within its sphere of influence, which
exacerbated its comparative poverty.)
In short (ha!), if you want to pooh-pooh my objection, show me that
Communist states engage in *actual territorial aggrandizement*
above and beyond that of any proven, functioning system in the
world. I'll even make it easier and restrict us to post-1917,
which would include all of Communism's [2] warts but not even half
of plutocratic pseudo-democracy's imperial accretions. We'll
make sure that analagous standards are applied, even if you *do*
want to consider Afghanistan (and, therefore, Vietnam) as a valid
case.
> I note that you didn't do anything with the practical/observation based and
> utilitarian legs of this multiphased assertion but just in case you hadn't
> gotten around to it yet, here's a bit on the utilitarian part
>
> http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter33.html
I never said I disagreed with the praxis or utility issues.
What I'm taking exception to is the essentialization of a system
based upon what amounts to one largely unsuccessful case and one,
in China, that I'd argue has been very successful in eliminating
imperialist influence and uniting a fractured country under a single
banner (we can talk Yugoslavia under Tito and Cuba if you wish, but
I would call those two cases temporary and limited successes).
Now the PRC in an adaptation phase, which will probably lead
them away from theoretical communism (and Maoism), but being
a Communist country served a purpose at the time.
Now, as for the 25-40 million people believed to have lost their
lives during the Great Leap Forward, that's the big counterfactual
of "was it worth the killing" and "would those lives have been lost
under the pro-Western Kuomintang/Chaing Kai-Shek dictatorship."
But the results are unmistakable. Ditto Castro--his people aren't
walking on gold-paved streets, but his rule does serve a purpose
(and again, Cubans *do* have a better lot than many if not all of
their analagous Caribbean island cousins on Haiti, Jamaica, etc).
Yes, I know I'm quibbling over details, but some of the general-
izations--especially the attempt to impugn my qualifications by
sheer dint of mnemonic position--are too sweeping to let pass.
best
LFB
[1] Which you implied but did not spell out in your footnote 1--
if including theoretical variants, communism isn't about
territorial aggrandizement either--in fact, it's specifically
and virulently *opposed* to imperialism, which it considers
"the higest stage of capitalism".
[2] Note the large and small C/c--large-C indicates "in practice",
small-c indicates theoretical.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) That appears to be exactly what I did say. Put that way it's untrue and flat out wrong for me to have said it and I admit it without any prevarication, denial, or hiding behind "bad wording" defense. I am heads down on something (you can tell (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) Actually, what *do* you do for a living? I thought you just built boats... Dave! FUT OT.FUN (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) I would reword that as "if your personal values say that others do not have the right to dispose of you and your property as they see fit". Wouldn't you agree? (...) Did you or someone you are closely related to live in a communist bloc (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
