The Great Fallacy of Marxism

[emprworm]

That is why it is the wealth gap that is so often definitive of our society's

"you are lucky.

[nemafakei]

I am not defining luck as the average. The expected value is the average. Have you never done simple probability statistics?

"The average roll will be a "non-1".  These people will be the average."

The modal average, yes, but the mean average will be

Expected = Σnp = 1/1,000,000

[emprworm]

I never buy a lottery ticket.

[nemafakei]

"I never buy a lottery ticket.  Fred buys one at time A.  Fred wins at time B."

In which case, you're outside of the lottery system. Fred has chosen a gamble. He and 999,999 others have paid their pound, and only he has won the million. For their system,

Expected = Σnp = 1/1,000,000

[emprworm]

"I never buy a lottery ticket.

[nemafakei]

The question of media is, in of itself a very different question under a non-capitalist system.

It very much depends on what the rules were, but in the sort of world I envisage, wherein all media is freely available, with a direct cost of solely the media they're conveyed upon, and particularly popular artists, authors, and musicians will be paid to paint, write, or play, the probabilities are more dependant on actual talent rather than what agent you have backing you, etc.

[emprworm]

The question of media is, in of itself a very different question under a non-capitalist system.

It very much depends on what the rules were, but in the sort of world I envisage, wherein all media is freely available, with a direct cost of solely the media they're conveyed upon, and particularly popular artists, authors, and musicians will be paid to paint, write, or play, the probabilities are more dependant on actual talent rather than what agent you have backing you, etc.

of course talent cannot be judged by a government beaurocracy.  no one in their right mind would pay the same amount for a Picasso painting as a painting by Joe Schmuck.  You cannot regulate what people want.  Another fallacy of communism.  People might not want what the government "decides" is good talent.  They will not buy tickets nor will they even want to go see Commie Musicians live in concert.  They want to go see Emprworm live in concert.  THey sell out the statiums to watch Emprworm.  Commie Musicians can't freaking pay someone to have a ticket, let alone sell one.  So, no one wants to watch the crap Commie Musicians.  NO one wants their albums, and no one wants to listen to them.  yet, the commie government pays them the same, and forces Emprworm to tour with them, and syphons Emprworms revenues, and emprworms popularity to "force" Commie Musicians down the throat of the general public.

[nemafakei]

No need for the histrionics... I wasn't suggesting a bureaucratic decision on all talent! Things would have to be done part by popularity, part by qualification (i.e. you'll be better paid to actually learn how to spell before becoming an author).

[danielsh]

People might not want what the government "decides" is good talent.

[Wolf]

First of all, fine. Second of all, communism is dependent upon all people having unconditional positive regard for all others consistently in every case of human interaction.

Can that even be achieved?

[emprworm]

First of all, fine. Second of all, communism is dependent upon all people having unconditional positive regard for all others consistently in every case of human interaction.

Can that even be achieved?

i have a lot of respect for you, Wolfwiz.  but unfortunately, my answer to that question is no.

[Dante]

Oh dear, we agree on something. I knew this day would come...

*Aims pistol at head*

[Wolf]

So, are we going to agree that such a thing can never be achieved, or that such a thing will not be achieved in any forseeable future?

[Dante]

In any forseeable future. Everything is possible, but not from this perspective.

[Wolf]

How do you mean that?

*EDIT: I've just been informed that Edric will be returning soon. I'm sure he's going to explain to us the unconditional positive regard problem.

[Dante]

And say we're all wrong for denying that humans will ever be friendly towards each other.

[GUNWOUNDS]

*Aims pistol at head*

[Dante]

Who said I pulled the trigger?  :P  Still, it's depressing enough that I just might do...

[Edric O]

The discussion doesn't seem to have advanced much since the last time I was here. I'll begin by answering some of the newer questions:

First of all, fine. Second of all, communism is dependent upon all people having unconditional positive regard for all others consistently in every case of human interaction.

No, it's not. It's not even dependent on some people having positive regard for others. It would be perfectly possible to have a communist society made up entirely of selfish bastards - so long as they are rational selfish bastards with some knowledge of statistics.

Statistically speaking, communism gives you the best odds at gaining any personal benefit. Or, in other words, if your personal benefits (I won't use the word "wealth" because it's technically incorrect) in communism are X, then in any non-communist system you are most likely to gain less than X.

In capitalism, for example, only the top 10% of people are better off than they would be in communism, while the bottom 90% of people are worse off than they would be in communism (these are real numbers: if all wealth was distributed evenly, the top 10% richest people would be the only ones losing anything - they really are THAT rich). So for any given person, the odds of doing better in communism than in capitalism are 9 in 10.

Given those odds, even the most selfish man should choose communism.

Communism is dependent on people knowing that they have more to gain by putting all property in common and co-operating than by not doing so.

[emprworm]

The discussion doesn't seem to have advanced much since the last time I was here. I'll begin by answering some of the newer questions:

No, it's not. It's not even dependent on some people having positive regard for others. It would be perfectly possible to have a communist society made up entirely of selfish bastards - so long as they are rational selfish bastards with some knowledge of statistics.

Statistically speaking, communism gives you the best odds at gaining any personal benefit. Or, in other words, if your personal benefits (I won't use the word "wealth" because it's technically incorrect) in communism are X, then in any non-communist system you are most likely to gain less than X.

In capitalism, for example, only the top 10% of people are better off than they would be in communism, while the bottom 90% of people are worse off than they would be in communism (these are real numbers: if all wealth was distributed evenly, the top 10% richest people would be the only ones losing anything - they really are THAT rich). So for any given person, the odds of doing better in communism than in capitalism are 9 in 10.

Given those odds, even the most selfish man should choose communism.

Communism is dependent on people knowing that they have more to gain by putting all property in common and co-operating than by not doing so.

coward.

Note: This post is spam, and it makes a reference to events taking place elsewhere. Now, there's nothing wrong with that in itself, but let's not take the thread off-topic because of it.

[Wolf]

Wait! Edric, I never thought of that before! In a utilitarian (and perhaps even an economic sense) communism doesn't just make sense, but is completely justified.

"10% of the people in capitalism would be worse off in communism while 90% of the people in capitalism would be better off in communism."

Now, in a utilitarian sense, the good is obvious. The greater good for the greater number.

In an economic sense, however, let's consider the added benefit and utility derived from the 90% over the 10%. Assuming that human happiness is more of an absolute that cannot be easily measured, does not the added happiness of 90% of the population outweigh the lost happiness of 10% of the population? Perhaps this is cruel to that 10%, and obviously this is not a perfect solution, since 10% of the population "loses", but, when put in this manner, I can see communism easily being justified as a valid system of economic management -- not so much in a profit-loss sense as in an economies of human benefit sense.

[Edric O]

Also, it's not like those 10% actually suffer in any way. They only lose their ridiculously vast amounts of wealth and start living like middle class people. I'd say that's pretty reasonable, especially considering the fact that the super-rich did not earn their immense wealth in the first place (see this topic, and also ask yourself whether anyone can work as hard as 50 million other people put together - because the personal fortunes of the super-rich routinely go above the combined wealth of more than 50 million ordinary people, which is impossible to justify even if you completely ignore the issue of capitalist exploitation).

Now, besides the utilitarian argument for communism, there is also the moral argument. But that's a discussion deserving its own separate topic (which I do plan to post as soon as I'm less busy in real life).

[Edric O]

Now, regarding some of Emprworm's posts on the previous page, it really seems like he didn't pay any attetion to my arguments - because he certainly hasn't refuted any of them.

He appears to re-iterate his old (and flawed) points ad nauseaum. See for example:

"In other words, it's impossible for everyone to be rich. If some people are rich, others are poor"

false. 

you admitted wealth can be created.

assuming everyone in society has identical wealth. 

then one person discovers new wealth.

now one person is rich, and no one is poor.

Emprworm, "rich" and "poor" are relative terms. If one person discovers new wealth and others don't, then he becomes rich and they become poor by comparison.

You don't think this matters? Then let's say there's a man called William, who lived in the 15th century and was filthy rich by 15th century standards. Now, for some reason, William didn't die and he's still alive today. Other people have discovered new wealth since the 15th century, but his wealth hasn't changed. By your logic, that would mean he's still rich, correct?

But William doesn't have a car, a computer, a TV or a telephone. He doesn't even have any sort of electrical appliances AT ALL. He doesn't have a kitchen, or a bathroom. He doesn't even have soap. He also doesn't have any modern medicine, and his hair is full of fleas and lice.

This man was extremely rich in the 15th century. But NOW, without having lost or gained any wealth, he is the poorest of the poor.

Do you finally understand how "rich" and "poor" are relative terms, and how the existence of a rich man necessarely requires the existence of poor men? You can become poor without actually losing anything, simply because those around you have gotten rich in comparison.

Next point:

trying to remove good fortune from a society using government is, in my opinion, completely rediculous.

What is so ridiculous about trying to remove the ability of some people to acquire wealth that they haven't earned? Having "good fortune" means getting rich without deserving it. If you let people's lives be decided by luck, then a lazy bum with a lucky streak could get richer than a man who worked hard all his life.

Furthermore, the possibility of "good fortune" is a driving and motivating force behind people to achieve.

No, it's a driving and motivating force behind people to scramble for "get rich quick" schemes instead of actually working to earn their wealth.

If some "get rich quick" schemes happened to have positive side effects (like the gold rush did), that still doesn't justify the immorality of allowing a lucky lazy guy to get richer than a hard working man who toiled all his life.

Next point:

of course talent cannot be judged by a government beaurocracy.  no one in their right mind would pay the same amount for a Picasso painting as a painting by Joe Schmuck.  You cannot regulate what people want.  Another fallacy of communism.  People might not want what the government "decides" is good talent.

The people decide what is "good talent", not the government. The "bureaucracy" doesn't judge anything. In fact, it asks the people what they want. In the case of art, the government will pay the most money to the artists that are the most popular.

So I'm afraid you've got things completely backwards. "Regulating what people want" is not only utterly absurd, but it's the complete reverse of what communism and socialism stand for. In socialism, the people regulate what the government does. They decide what they want, and the government's role is to provide it. In communism, there is no government, and the people run things themselves.

As Dan explained, the whole idea is that you can play whatever you want (as long as you do some work as well), no matter who likes you, and you'll still have the freedom to take what you need in exchange for what you can give.