Satisfaction of desire

[Andrew]

GDP does not cause happiness directly. People in small tribes in Africa and some islands in pacific ocean were very content before western civilization destroyed their culture.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

"The happiness scale is different because  it is not solely determined by how much value (resources/effort) is in the system but also how it is allocated ( a loaf of bread has more effect for a poor man who eats it that with a rich man who throws it away to be devoured by (for the purposes of this thread) non-sentient bacteria and/or insects)."-sneakgab

So, kommunism is justified primarily by the "happiness scale"........I wonder how happy the Tibetans are right now.......

I don't follow.

Are you aware of the past past history between China and Tibet and the current situation? :O  I was trying to hint at the irony of the fact that we (mostly I) arrived at the conclusion that kommunism is more justifiable/more concerned with the "happiness" scale than GDP, yet Tibetan culture is being corrupted and destroyed, not to mention their highest religious figure is in exile, along with what many people believe to be the rightful government of Tibet. 

(sorry, long sentence  :-)

[nemafakei]

"Are you aware of the past past history between China and Tibet and the current situation?"

OK, as I read it, you're saying that...

1. The Chinese state is entirely repsonsible for the situation in Tibet

2. The Chinese state is Communist

I'd have to disagree on both points, first, the local feudal and other ruling classes are no better, and second, China is economically a horrendous mix of state-capitalism, plain old liberal-capitalism, odd regional subsistence economies, and more. Given also that trade unions are banned, that the CPC is an unaccountable ganglion of power, and that freedom of expression is very socially restricted, I'm finding it pretty hard to see how china can be called communist.

[Nyarlathotep]

I'm not sure what the intent was Edric had with the start of this thread.

Reading the comments and Edrico's question, I think you should split the discussion up:

1) Is GDP a good way to measure economy ?

2) Desire, good or bad ?

At least, I am convinced people's happieness can't be determined by figures, such as economy,

as happieness is to much of a personal thing and influenced by too many factors. I also don't believe GDP is a way to determine people's quality of life (define quality ?).

Wanting a game (as in Edrico's example), I'm positive there will be people who will be dissapointed/unhappy if they can't get the game, yet I am also convinced that there may be people who do not care if they get it or not.

In regards to GDP and it being a good way to measure things, here's a nice read on the the criticisms & limitations...

[Caid Ivik]

Nyar, his intentions would become a topic only if he would reply in that way  ;)

unless he doesn't, we have to admit that an adequate political input and economical output is of a major importance in consideration of (individual? social?) happiness; altough I fully agree with you, that personal happiness is determined by many, mostly subjective factors

[Kokiri-Mentat]

I'd have to disagree on both points, first, the local feudal and other ruling classes are no better, and second, China is economically a horrendous mix of state-capitalism, plain old liberal-capitalism, odd regional subsistence economies, and more. Given also that trade unions are banned, that the CPC is an unaccountable ganglion of power, and that freedom of expression is very socially restricted, I'm finding it pretty hard to see how china can be called kommunist

Keep in mind Nema Fakei that this state-capitalism is VERY new. It is strictly Post Tianament Square which was...'91, or was it 89...?  Don't have time to look it up right now...anyway....Before Tianament square there was no state capitalism, and Tibet was still very much an issue.  Keep in mind that people still worship Chairman Mao Tse Tung (spelling?).  I say worship most literally.  The few mainland Chinese that spoke english that I talked to while I was there were borderline brainwashed into maoism.  (educated med students even were buying into this.)  Read the book of mao.  He is VERY much a kommunist.  (His body is still preserved in Tianament Square.  Normally you could go check him out, but their "sprucing" him up for the olympics ;D)Also as far as freedom of expression, if you considered the Soviet state to be a kommunist government, since when was anybody allowed freedom of speech in that country? (just read about Dmitry Schostakowitsch, if you know about him)  I think you're restricting the definition of kommunism to how Marx envisioned it.  Well, that vision never became a reality.

"the local rulers are no better.  [paraphrased]" 

Um, I really don't know much about the Tibetan feudal system, is that what most people considered it?  and by rulers do you mean the religious figures (ie lamas) before China annexation?  I am just having trouble understanding why you are attempting to defend the Chinese government.  Perhaps you could elaborate.  I lack anymore time now, but I will be back later today or tomorrow with some links to news reports of activity in China/Tibet.

[Tatar Khan]

Tianament Square was 89. And the new more liberal reforms started in China in 1970s. Right after Mao's death, when cultural revolution was abandoned. At first reforms were mostly in agricultural sector with allowances to sell the excess product on the market, formation of small cooperative firms for building. However in 1980s government felt it was getting out of control and slammed down on those things thus decreasing the number of the farmers who participated in these programs. After that the industrialisation of China has started.

[nemafakei]

I am not attempting to defend the Chinese government, in fact, I'm attacking it: I'm pointing out that China under any regime, Mao, post-Mao or pre-revolution, is not egalitarian, nor in any way communist, and that therefore that the situation of Tibet has no relevance. I mean, if you're going to call the USSR, the PRC, etc communist, that's one thing, but that means the word is pretty much valueless as far as it relates to this debate. On the other hand, if you take, say, Marx as the measuring-stick (which is not without its problems, but let's investigate), you're making a lot of assumptions. That Mao *claimed* to follow Marx does not mean he *did*, and even if *he* did does not mean *China* achieved any form of egalitarianism. And it the egalitarian - and objective - economic analysis which we're basing the thread on.

As to what I called point 1, as well as your query about Tibet's rule, it has never been even a liberal democracy; its local ruling classes have tended to be some combination of feudalism and priesthood, with varying degrees of brutality, and varying degrees of complicity with foreign (mostly either British or Chinese) occupations - the precise structures I'm not familiar with, so feel free to correct me. The present Dalai Lama, amongst others, has been making overtures to western ideology in order to try to elicit sympathy and/or assistance, as it rejects the present occupation of Tibet, but again, I'd be surprised if this were to turn out to be anything but authoritatian, if it came to fruition. The most recent PRC occupation more or less follows on from the previous indirect Chinese rule, but is more explicit in its dominion over the western part of Tibet.

But as I say, that's a bit of a digression.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

Ok, you're attacking Chinese government too.  That's cool....then what is it we were disagreeing about ???

Oh, yea.  This stuff. :P

"I'm pointing out that China under any regime, Mao, post-Mao or pre-revolution, is not egalitarian, nor in any way communist, and that therefore that the situation of Tibet has no relevance." -Nema Fakei

"if you're going to call the USSR, the PRC, etc communist, that's one thing, but that means the word is pretty much valueless as far as it relates to this debate."-Nema

Ah, I should have remembered how sticky this word "kommunist" is. Pedantics, Nema.  PRC is, more or less, run by the kommunist party of china.  The Soviets called themselves kommunists.  So, most people refer to them habitually as kommunists, despite whether the governments in question achieved the goals of Karl Marx.  The CPC's founding ideals (although I have never read a copy of their own personal manifestos) I logically assume were based on Marxism, especially since Mao pulled rhetoric directly from the Kommunist Manifesto.

Nema, I think we can at least agree that PRC is run by a political party who refers to themselves as kommunists.  I cannot think of any examples off the top of my head where the PRC has achieved egalitarianism of any variety.  Looks like we agree there.  Good.  In that case the situation in Tibet has all relevance. 

What I was trying to point out when I said...

I wonder how happy the Tibetans are right now.......

...was the irony of the fact that kommunism is concerned and primarily justified by the "happiness" scale, or at least more so than GDP (see previous posts for that thought logic. I'm not typing it again), yet the people who call themselves kommunists in China have been, and are running a country that is full of "unhappy" people--especially Tibet.  (I could have taken it further and said that they then should not be called kommunists, or at least are very poor at being kommunists.  Alas, I did not, thus the confusion.)

What I'm still quite confused about Nema is this big bad picture you are painting of the former Tibet government/way-of-life.  Yes I am well aware that they have never been a liberal democracy or any other kind of democracy.  Yet I do not think that satisfaction/content has to be exclusively bound and tied to Western concepts or Democracy.  If someone is a willing serf and are happy, why take that away blindly in the name of democracy, or kommunism, or liberalism, or anything?

Do you have links/sources you could post that describe these varying levels of brutality?

I'm not trying to be snob-ish  :-[.  It's just that this brutality that you keep bringing up is conflicting with the image I had of the peaceful monks whom I met while I was in the Qing Hai area.    Religious faith is very dear to the Tibetan people, and China is denying them control over their own religious practices.  Now with that new railway, Lassa is being industrialized and the Tibetan people are starting to become a minority in their own capital city.  I don't see how the Chinese government is not responsible for this or how it is any better than their former way of life.  Also, when was it that the Tibetans were complicit with the UK/Chinese?  As far as I remember they were invaded quite frequently...don't recall any illegal political relations going on with UK/China.

If you can direct me to sources, Nema, that would be much appreciated. ;D

(I was intending to post article links tonight......sorry...tired.....maybe tomorrow.)

[Caid Ivik]

stay on topic; yes, changes of borders may have an effect on desires and happiness, but then talk about that, not on how should we classify chinese government

[nemafakei]

Ok... the local Tibetan structures are a bit of a sidetrack, and I don't have anything vested in defending that at this point - I don't have time to find internet sources at the moment.

However, I'm not being pedantic about the word communist - you yourself identified communism with egalitarianism here:

"The happiness scale is different because  it is not solely determined by how much value (resources/effort) is in the system but also how it is allocated ( a loaf of bread has more effect for a poor man who eats it that with a rich man who throws it away to be devoured by (for the purposes of this thread) non-sentient bacteria and/or insects)."-sneakgab

So, kommunism is justified primarily by the "happiness scale", whereas capitalism is justified primarily by GDP.

Therefore, if you want to bash egalitarianism, you've got to use examples of egalitarianism breeding unhappiness. If you're going to start saying communism does not entail egalitarianism, then 'non-egalitarian communist' states cease to be a relevant part of the debate. You're welcome to start another thread bashing the CPC, and I'll join you, but at the moment, either what you're saying doesn't follow, or I've not understood what you're trying to show.

On another point, it's not just a question of egalitarianism, either. It's also the process of commodity fetishisation that goes with the capitalist mode of production (among others).

[Kokiri-Mentat]

  Hello Caid.  Thank you for the nudge.  This is a long post and for part of it I digress slightly in order to address/clarify some statements that Nema made as to what my opinions are on certain ideologies.  But the main point of the post culminates at the bottom which pertains to happiness/theoriginalpost ect....My apologies for the length, but there is a lot of clarifying to do.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you Nema for pointing out your views of Tibet's social/politiko structure.  I actually found an internet source in support of your previous statements of Tibet.  http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html It appears to have good reference sources and is actually a reference source on the wikipedia entry of Tibet.  Have not read it through yet.  Could be great or just internet trash.  Have no idea yet, but I am curious.

My apologies for accusing you of being pedantic towards the word "kommunism" Nema.  I should think twice before using words with overly negative connotations.  I do not think you're questions merited that accusation, especially in light of the apparent fact that the noun "kommunism" can bring to mind so many different schools of thought that all seem to stem from a common idea. 

Just so we are clear....

1.  I was not bashing egalitarianism. :-

2.  I was criticizing the CPC :D

3.  I did and still do associate textbook Kommunism with egalitarianism, as demonstrated by my quote that you inserted in your last post.

4.  I do not credit the CPC as having ever achieved egalitarianism.

5.  I do not claim that IRL application of textbook kommunism is mutually exclusive from the realization of Egalitarianism, nor do I claim textbook kommunism (of any variety) to be the exclusive key unlocking the doors of utopia.

6.  Just for the record, I do not know everything about every sub-faction of kommunism (there are several).  So feel free to set me straight on what brand of kommunism you are talking about (just in case I don't pick up on it or haven't heard of it.)

:-I must not be doing a good job explaining the following statement.....

"I wonder how happy the Tibetans are right now......." -Kokiri-Mentat

It was just supposed to be an attempt (albeit a poor one) at making light intellectual humor out of a situation that many westerners deem to be a serious travesty (including myself);D.  Nothing more nothing less.  What I found humorous in it.....well I guess what I had in my head was this cute little oxymoronic image, ya know, like jumbo-shrimp, or.... "anti-egalitarian kommunist dictatorship"....  lol, I love oxymoronic nomenclatures. 

Main point/implication of the humor being that either.......

1)a kommunist society is not happy, or

2)that the society under a single "republic" government run by a single "kommunist" party is unhappy. 

Either way you look at it, when taking into account the logical assumption I posed which stated that.... kommunism is justified primarily by the happiness of its' people, both view points 1 and 2 above contain a certain amount of irony. (However the quality of the irony--thus the quality of the humor--is in question. Ergo the happiness of those who are reading and processing this post are in question.  Concordantly if you desire better humor then I suggest going to the joke forum, but only if you find laughter to be a worthy pursuit.  Perhaps some of us are better off without the desire for laughter in the first place......  ;D)

 

[nemafakei]

OK, that told me! Sorry, I'd not got realised you were simply finding humour in it. I will refrain from further analysis.

As for what kind of communism I'd support, that's a big question (I'd much rather live under a Leninist regime than a capitalist one, for example), but I'd say that ideally, an egalitarian, libertarian and ground-up model in which all people were included as much as possible in the decisions which shaped their lives.

Why? Because (sneaky attempt to reassert the topic title) repression of any sort - cultural, economic, military, political, overt, hidden, implicit - frustrates us. Any sort of hierarchy will breed privilege, which breeds resentment.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

lol, the joys of miscommunication via internet ;D.  I remember a similar thing happening between myself and a professor at the conservatory.  Quite embarrassing/awkward at the time for both of us cause we didn't realize there had been a misunderstanding until we saw each other in person.  Oh, and at the time he was the assistant Dean of my respective studies.  He's fairly famous and is very well connected in his respective field and all that.  very awkward. :-[ 

Ground-Up models of government are important. (I also like ground-up meat  :D)

Any sort of hierarchy will breed privilege, which breeds resentment.

Hmmm, interesting never really thought of things like that.  I would elaborate my thoughts/inquiries but I would be going off topic once again.

Question for anybody who voted for the top option (having desire and satisfying it).

What about an alcoholic?  Is it better for him to get drunk to ease the addictive feelings or is it better not to desire alcohol?  (same could be argued for more bodily harmful drugs)

[gunner154]

If you could do a horizontal summation of all the satisfaction of desire and the pining for alcohol throughout a person's alcoholic timespan (say, beginning from the first drink), the result would depend on whether there is a net benefit to all that suffering and easing of addictive feelings (assume that marginal benefit of not touching alcohol is zero).

[Tatar Khan]

Depends on alcoholic, if drinking has higher Marginal Utility than not drinking that he would do it, if it is other wise he would not do it. Depends on the utility curve. The society would satisfy its desire to get rid of alcoholics and stop the guy from drinking and put him in AA program.