The answer is a communist party

[Kirran]

George Orwell summed up communism with this - Animal Farm - Wikipedia

In this book George Orwell addresses the Soviet Union specifically. Not for a moment does he disagree with the intention and motivations of the revolution of the farm animals against the farmer to begin with.

If someone's really interested in Orwell and what he thought, they should look to his views after joining in the Spanish Civil War, which made give up on Bolshevik communism and throw in his lot with the anarchists.

 

[Woberts]

George Orwell summed up communism with this - Animal Farm - Wikipedia

Just as he has done regarding the direction the West is heading today with this - Nineteen Eighty-Four - Wikipedia

"Somebody wrote a book on it that agrees with my views, so it must be true!"

 

[Anthem]

"Somebody wrote a book on it that agrees with my views, so it must be true!"

The truth is they wouldn't have published either of those poorly written books if they didn't agree with their views. The publishing industry is cruel.

 

[Stevicus]

Nah....communism is far more likely to be oppressive because
it requires economic coercion to prevent free association. To
have this power in the economic realm is to grant it in the social.

It wouldn't necessarily be like that. I can't see that it would be oppressive towards anyone other than those who try to get something from nothing as under the current system: Organized crime, dishonest bankers, insurance companies, stock brokers, and others who produce absolutely nothing for the economy - yet believe they deserve huge compensation just the same.

They might feel oppressed, but why should anyone worry about them or their skewed sense of entitlement? The average honest worker would have nothing to worry about.

Only those who are dishonest or trying to get a free ride on the gravy train - they're the ones who complain the loudest about communism.

Revolution isn't the big risk factor though.
The historical examples maintained coercion even as they matured.

I wasn't talking about revolution, as I don't think that's a big risk right now either. But general chaos is a different matter. Think about the number of mass shootings and people going ballistic at McDonald's over an order of Chicken McNuggets. There's a risk that stuff like that could increase and escalate, yet it's more apolitical than anything else.

 

[Notanumber]

"Somebody wrote a book on it that agrees with my views, so it must be true!"

That “somebody” was the best prophet that I have ever heard about.

 

[Woberts]

That “somebody” was the best prophet that I have ever heard about.

Orwell wasn't a prophet. He was an author.

 

[Revoltingest]

It wouldn't necessarily be like that.

When looking at a system's behavior one cannot depend
upon highly improbable events which might happen.
Nah, tis about what is likely to happen...a steady state.
Consider.....

Spoiler: Warning: It's about to get tedious & boring

If you mix a beaker of fluid A with a beaker of fluid B, it is possible that random motion the
molecules will cause them to separate.once again, resulting in no change in entropy. But the
probability of this occurring is so vanishingly small that the material world, entropy has increased.
(I remember not liking this argument as an undergrad. But the prof
insisted. And he was the man with the robe & tassaled mortarboard hat.)
Moreover, this system state would exist for an infinitesimal amount of time even if it did occur,
ie, it would be neither detectable nor useful.

So while it is possible that an entirely competent & honorable collection of communist
leaders would eschew oppression, it's just too improbable to be a stable system state.

I can't see that it would be oppressive towards anyone other than those who try to get something from nothing as under the current system: Organized crime, dishonest bankers, insurance companies, stock brokers, and others who produce absolutely nothing for the economy - yet believe they deserve huge compensation just the same.

They might feel oppressed, but why should anyone worry about them or their skewed sense of entitlement? The average honest worker would have nothing to worry about.

Only those who are dishonest or trying to get a free ride on the gravy train - they're the ones who complain the loudest about communism.



I wasn't talking about revolution, as I don't think that's a big risk right now either. But general chaos is a different matter. Think about the number of mass shootings and people going ballistic at McDonald's over an order of Chicken McNuggets. There's a risk that stuff like that could increase and escalate, yet it's more apolitical than anything else.

Whether the system comes about by either revolution or agreement matters not.
It's still unstable. Improved technology could eliminate the recurring famines,
but not the oppression, which is something leaders need to keep people in line.

 

[Stevicus]

When looking at a system's behavior one cannot depend
upon highly improbable events which might happen.
Nah, tis about what is likely to happen...a steady state.
Consider.....

Spoiler: Warning: It's about to get tedious & boring

If you mix a beaker of fluid A with a beaker of fluid B, it is possible that random motion the molecules will cause them to separate.once again, resulting in no change in entropy. But the probability of this occurring is so vanishingly small that the material world, entropy has increased. (I remember not liking this argument as an undergrad. But the prof insisted. And he was the man with the robe & tassaled mortarboard hat.) Moreover, this system state would exist for an infinitesimal amount of time even if it did occur, ie, it would be neither detectable nor useful.

So while it is possible that an entirely competent & honorable collection of communist leaders would eschew oppression, it's just too improbable to be a stable system state.

Whether the system comes about by either revolution or agreement matters not.
It's still unstable. Improved technology could eliminate the famine, but not the oppression.

The point is that it's better to promote a stabler system before it gets to revolution or some other upheaval.

 

[Revoltingest]

The point is that it's better to promote a stabler system before it gets to revolution or some other upheaval.

I don't disagree with that.
It's just that communism isn't the better choice.

 

[Sanzbir]

That argument is unpersuasive because those directly involved can't possibly rule out flawed leadership and not communist ideology as the cause of the corruption. And that's what you need to do.

If communist ideology whenever it has tried to been implemented leads to flawed leadership, then there's still a massive problem.

If every time you try to implement a system you fail to implement a "real" version of that system and instead end up with a horrible system and/or flawed leadership, then the system itself is flawed in that it cannot be implemented successfully.

 

[Sanzbir]

Value isn't subjective when there is general agreement on a standard by which to measure it. For example, supply and demand will determine the market value of products and services in a free market economy.

No, value is subjective. It must be subjective.

Otherwise trade cannot happen ever.

If I want to trade one thing for another, this will never happen unless I value the thing I intend to trade for more than the thing I want to trade away.

If value is magically objective, trade will thus never happen. Because no one would trade a more valuable thing for a less valuable thing, and even if two things to be traded are of perfectly equal value, then those two things still not be traded because the time invested in making the trade would cause both traders to suffer a loss.

Even in your example, "demand" is just an aggregate of many people's different subjective valuation.

 

[Sanzbir]

My family has experienced communism.
And as a communist myself, I likely understand communism better than anyone else in this thread.

Oh, was your family one of the few elites at the top of the stack, who murdered my great uncle and stole my family's small dairy farm and country??

Sure, communism works for the exploiters. It doesn't work for those you steal from and kill.

My family suffered the Soviets. My family suffered the Nazis. I give those fools like you the same respect I would afford to those fools who cling to fascist ideology. Both your systems are failed and oppressive.

 

[Revoltingest]

If communist ideology whenever it has tried to been implemented leads to flawed leadership, then there's still a massive problem.

If every time you try to implement a system you fail to implement a "real" version of that system and instead end up with a horrible system and/or flawed leadership, then the system itself is flawed in that it cannot be implemented successfully.

Let's consider that selection of leaders is always fraught with peril.
Every country using every system ever tried has failed to put a
succession of decent & competent leaders in power.
How would it be done?
Voting? That gave us Trump, Obama, Clinton, Bush, Nixon, etc.
A revolution letting the ambitious rise to the top?
A powerful elite? That's what China has.

Any suggestions to ensure we always have the best leaders?

 

[Sanzbir]

That's a peculiarly vague criticism. Surely if you have read Marx you can be more specific than that.

I have explained in another post his flaw with his idea of value being directly proportional to labor, in that his theory would assert that if I spend four hours a day digging a hole, and four hours filling it up, every day for a year, that I have created something of value in the process.

I have also mentioned the flaw in his idea of social class, which again posits the woman who runs my local Indian grocery store as a member of the oppressor class and posits that Tom Cruise is one of the exploited class. Even modern socialists are smart enough to re-evaluate how to judge class (in terms of wealth) rather than Marx's obviously false idea of class.

Do you need any other examples??

 

[Sanzbir]

Let's consider that selection of leaders is always fraught with peril.
Every country using every system ever tried has failed to put a
succession of decent & competent leaders in power.
How would it be done?
Voting? That gave us Trump, Obama, Clinton, Bush, Nixon, etc.
A revolution letting the ambitious rise to the top?
A powerful elite? That's what China has.

Any suggestions to ensure we always have the best leaders?

The leaders will always be terrible and incompetent. That should be assumed.

So if we're talking about systems of governance, we need a system that assumes incompetence and should try to mitigate this fact.

All the communists here should really be thinking in terms of "do I really want Donald Trump to have that much power over the economy??" and be examining their preferred system from there.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have explained in another post his flaw with his idea of value being directly proportional to labor, in that his theory would assert that if I spend four hours a day digging a hole, and four hours filling it up, every day for a year, that I have created something of value in the process.

Perhaps he had an unspoken premise that if
labor is performed, it is towards some useful end.

 

[Sanzbir]

Perhaps he had an unspoken premise that if
labor is performed, it is towards some useful end.

So if it is towards some "useful end", then that would be "an end that creates value".

If this is the case, then Marx's idea of value becomes tautological: "Value is created by labor that creates value".

 

[Revoltingest]

So if it is towards some "useful end", then that would be "an end that creates value".

If this is the case, then Marx's idea of value becomes tautological: "Value is created by labor that creates value".

I infer that Marx values grunt labor over intelligence & risk taking.

 

[Notanumber]

Orwell wasn't a prophet. He was an author.

Just as he has done regarding the direction the West is heading today with this - Nineteen Eighty-Four - Wikipedia

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I infer that Marx values grunt labor over intelligence & risk taking.

Nah. Marx pretty much echoes a passage from the Bible (Proverbs or Psalms, I think), about giving as you can and receiving as you need.

I have explained in another post his flaw with his idea of value being directly proportional to labor, in that his theory would assert that if I spend four hours a day digging a hole, and four hours filling it up, every day for a year, that I have created something of value in the process.

In Das Kapital, Marx is specific with labor that is exploited by the bourgeoisie class. He didn't say anything about if you spend time digging a hole and filling it up as something that will inherently generate value.

I have also mentioned the flaw in his idea of social class, which again posits the woman who runs my local Indian grocery store as a member of the oppressor class and posits that Tom Cruise is one of the exploited class.

No. Marx and Engels both would have agreed the woman is oppressed (she may run it, but it's unlikely she owns much, such as the building which is very likely owned by a bank or other firm above her) while Tom Cruise is a bourgeoisie puppet - that celebrity worship is the new "opium of the masses." Cruise is what would be considered "petty bourgeoisie" since he is neither laborer or owner.