Why are all Atheists Stalin loving, pinkos??

[CapnAwesome]

When something "looks good on paper", it means that it makes reasonable sense when you think about it, but that it doesn't take into account one or more subtle facts which change the whole thing. A football play might look good on the chalkboard spelt out in Xs and Os, but it doesn't take into account things like the relative sizes and speed of opposing players, endurance, or desire to win at the moment the play is run.

I think it was Moltke the Elder who wrote that no plan survives contact with the enemy. This is a similar phenomenon.

I just think it doesn't really make that much sense though. I can say anything looks good on paper. If it's a bad plan that doesn't work, then it doesn't look good on paper or anywhere else. Communism isn't a good idea that is ruined by people, it's just a bad idea. The fact that it doesn't take something obvious, like human's wanting to own stuff, in account is part of it being a bad idea. The same applies to the football analogy. If you aren't taking something into account, then it's just a bad idea.

[*Deidre*]

Just kidding, made you look.

I was gonna say..............
well played

[JesusHChrist]

Planning is everything.

The plan is nothing.

Eisenhower?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I just think it doesn't really make that much sense though. I can say anything looks good on paper.

Not really. Some plans are obviously bad. If you planned to feed a growing population by raising crops in a desert, clearly a plan that doesn't account for irrigation doesn't look good on paper. On the other hand, a plan that does account for irrigation can come acropper for some random reason -- a locust invasion, say -- but still look good on paper, because locust invasions aren't known to happen in that part of the world.

The businessmen who built their hotels on the shores of the Indian Ocean, and made a mint before 26 Dec 2004 -- did their business plan look good on paper? I think so.

If it's a bad plan that doesn't work, then it doesn't look good on paper or anywhere else.

The trick is to see that before it comes to pass, right? Have you never made a plan that went awry, that looked good on paper but didn't survive its encounter with reality? I have. It happens. It's called failure, and all humans do it.

Communism isn't a good idea that is ruined by people, it's just a bad idea. The fact that it doesn't take something obvious, like human's wanting to own stuff, in account is part of it being a bad idea.

I think its bigger failure is the fact that extorting from the productive in order to support the unproductive generates resentment in people who don't like having the fruits of their labor expropriated. The real failure, in other words, is that it removes the incentive to excel.

And I agree, communism doesn't look good even on paper. I prefer to think of it as noble, but impractical.

The same applies to the football analogy. If you aren't taking something into account, then it's just a bad idea.

Well, the thing is, sometimes -- as in the football analogy -- the variables cannot be taken into account because they are strictly unknown until the time of the called play.

Put it this way: if everything were really so cut-and-dried, we wouldn't have so many plans fail. But no one can have command of all the pertinent facts of a situation as complex as a football play, or even more complex things like economies. A play might fail based on a patch of mud causing a slip, or a replacement linebacker being unable to perform a blitz as effectively.

[vorlon13]

Hell, the Pilgrims even tried it in their settlement at first. They didn't try hard enough though. And for some reason, they didn't associate all their first year mortality in their new colony with their being a bunch of liberal slackers, they prematurely decided to terminate the experiment before God could throw a blessing at them.

[Dystopia]

Communism isn't a good idea that is ruined by people, it's just a bad idea. The fact that it doesn't take something obvious, like human's wanting to own stuff, in account is part of it being a bad idea.

No idea is inherently bad, all political ideologies have some good points IMO, including both fascism and communism.

I think its bigger failure is the fact that extorting from the productive in order to support the unproductive generates resentment in people who don't like having the fruits of their labor expropriated. The real failure, in other words, is that it removes the incentive to excel.

I don't think this is the reason. The reason it doesn't work is because it creates a fantasy super egalitarian society forgetting that inequalities are unavoidable, natural and even desirable; social class exists and it has always existed.

I don't think we should criticize because of excellence - The phrase "To each according to his own needs, to each according to his ability" (Marx) means that everyone gets a minimum but then you are rewarded if you possess a good skill or ability - The difference is that there are no social classes.

I'm not defending communism, but people criticize it for the bad reasons. The communist manifesto from Marx isn't even an utopia, utopian socialism was BEFORE Marx, after that it's labelled literally as scientific socialism. The manifesto tries to basically produce a set of values and principles to lead a society into communism and dismantle capitalism within limitations, it doesn't predict a perfect society and it doesn't promise everything will be a bed of roses.

I criticize Communism for being surrealistic, anti-meritocratic and overwhelmingly egalitarian. The way I see it, equal opportunities are desirable but not equal outcomes or the erasure of social class. Some people are born better than others, some are born in rich families, others are born disabled, some are born with conditions or diseases, some have better genes. There is no arithmetical equality, only reasonable equal chances within reality.

Another major flaw is the workers controlling the means of production. Bad idea, very bad idea.

And I agree, communism doesn't look good even on paper. I prefer to think of it as noble, but impractical.

It looks as good as fascism - Fascinating to study our past but not recommended for the future. I have read both the communist manifesto and the doctrine of fascism. Interesting read

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't think this is the reason. The reason it doesn't work is because it creates a fantasy super egalitarian society forgetting that inequalities are unavoidable, natural and even desirable; social class exists and it has always existed.

I agree with the criticism, but I think that the taking of someone's labor is more galling, and more resented.

I don't think we should criticize because of excellence - The phrase "To each according to his own needs, to each according to his ability" (Marx) means that everyone gets a minimum but then you are rewarded if you possess a good skill or ability - The difference is that there are no social classes.

I think you have that quote wrong; it reads from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. This gives it, of course, an entirely different meaning, and is one of the points on which I base my opinion.

I'm not defending communism, but people criticize it for the bad reasons. The communist manifesto from Marx isn't even an utopia, utopian socialism was BEFORE Marx, after that it's labelled literally as scientific socialism. The manifesto tries to basically produce a set of values and principles to lead a society into communism and dismantle capitalism within limitations, it doesn't predict a perfect society and it doesn't promise everything will be a bed of roses.

My criticism of communism in the abstract, I have already laid out. My criticism of communism in the real world is based on the fact that it seems to require force to implement, and that makes me think that it has missed an important part of human psychology.

It looks as good as fascism -

Damned by faint praise, indeed.

[Dystopia]

I don't think it requires force, the only force you need is to overthrow capitalism and the bourgeoisie, but after that the working class is supposed to democratically organize society - In theory, since the labour class is about 95-99% of the population, if there was a consensus they wouldn't have a problem stripping wealth away from a few rich guys.

But in practice it ends up requiring force - Lenin made some exceptions and used too much authority, he violated the marxist doctrine and allowed a little capitalism. Stalin created a whole new political ideology, stalinism - I've met a person that holds the exact same core principles of stalinism, and my guess is that we're better of individualizing it because it differs from marxism on many points.

I think capitalism was implemented trough some force as well - The French revolution wasn't peaceful, and capitalism wasn't a happy system in the first 100-150 years (races to the bottom and corporate dictatorship) - Now we have a better system, but it wasn't always perfect. The ideals of the French revolution were beautiful, but in practice the unrestricted market at the time resulted in extreme levels of poverty and strong class inequality - That gave birth to the welfare state later after the second world war.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't think it requires force, the only force you need is to overthrow capitalism and the bourgeoisie, but after that the working class is supposed to democratically organize society - In theory, since the labour class is about 95-99% of the population, if there was a consensus they wouldn't have a problem stripping wealth away from a few rich guys.

Historically speaking, it has been the case. Has there been any country that went communist without guns being involved?

But in practice it ends up requiring force

Exactly, because people don't like the fruits of their labors being confiscated. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that sort of reaction, and the failure to anticipate it underscores the point that Marxism is inherently flawed.

I think capitalism was implemented trough some force as well - The French revolution wasn't peaceful [...]

The French revolution wasn't carried out for the sake of business enterprises, but rather, to overthrow a corrupt royalty that was milking the land and people.

I don't disagree that capitalism has used force, though. Obviously, American interventions in Central America on behalf of Dole and Del Monte throughout the 20th century are prime examples. But I'm not arguing that those efforts were just; we were discussing Marxism, not capitalism.

and capitalism wasn't a happy system in the first 100-150 years (races to the bottom and corporate dictatorship) - Now we have a better system, but it wasn't always perfect. The ideals of the French revolution were beautiful, but in practice the unrestricted market at the time resulted in extreme levels of poverty and strong class inequality - That gave birth to the welfare state later after the second world war.

The French revolution was not about capitalism, I don't think -- it came about as a result of general hunger arising from both a decline in the economy due to British gains in the textile markets, coupled with a poor harvest in 1788, which resulted in mass hunger in the lower classes. They didn't want a free market. They wanted food. It didn't help that taxes were high.

Also, it could be easily argued that capitalism even today imposes a race to the bottom (as in offshoring jobs) and corporate dictatorship (as in the government being bought by campaign donations).

[Mr Greene]

Stalin was a fool, Zhukov would have been my preference.