LiamDawson27 wrote:Just testing the waters here, figured I should start with a topic I have given a lot of thought to. Why do people still support socialism and communism? Any student of basic history will know it is an inherently flawed system. What Marx failed to factor in was basic human nature. Man wants more. That's a basic instinct. That's why philosophy really started. Man wants knowledge. Let me put it this way: What would make people want to pick jobs like dentistry or law if they were going to get the same welfare/support/money as some dropout at the local market? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this
-Liam
It's probably been pointed out, but history has only shown communism is prone to failure. The People's republic of China was doing very well the last time I heard, so I don't think that socialism is inherently flawed. Of course it failed in Russia, Poland, and many other places - but I think you would have to admit that at least on the surface there are a lot of people who admire Marx for his political thoughts, and don't necessarily associate him with the failures of Lennon, Gorbachev, Trotsky, or the like. But what you say is true, however not damning of socialism and communism. Socialism may fail under the conditions of human greed and desire for more, but that only goes as far as to show how well Capitalism does under this condition. So, what is better? To curb the intrinsic greed of man for domination over other men, as if to make them slaves - and in attempting this through government fail in doing so, or encourage it to the fullest extent of our capacities for such greed and laziness - and in allowing it bring the vast majority of people under the yoke of an elite made up of wealthy, totally non-compassionate men?
Think of the economic system of America as a giant pyramid. The bottom layers represent the lowest, poorest classes of people. They support the upper layers. As the layers get higher, the overall area decreases - implying that the richest of people are being supported by the poorest of people. And indeed the higher the pyramid grows the more weight is placed on the basis of the poor and afflicted. So, that when you get to the top of the pyramid you have a very few wealthy, and powerful people on a structure that is apparently immovable. Those on the top feel no pressure. Those immediately below are similarly content with their wealth and position in the structure. But very quickly the total volume representing a decline in wealth and power with an increase in numbers begins to form - with a great deal of pressure building up on the already afflicted.
Think of the economic system of China as a giant rice bowl. As racist as that may sound (and believe me, after I explain why it is like a giant rice bowl you will see that I did not choose the analogy for the sake of racism), it is a fitting analogy. You have something of a sphere cut in half and hollowed out. The nature of the structure is such that when this bowl is filled with the products and labor resources available to the society the brunt of the pressure involved in maintaining survival is not left on the shoulders of just some class of society as it is in the Pyramid structure. In fact, the poorest still bear the greatest amount of pressure, in economical living terms. They work the hardest and they receive the worst rewards for their work. These are the farmers and labourers. Think of these people as the bottom of the rice bowl. Notice that on every side these people are supported by further structure. So you have every other sector of life - construction, small business, manufacturing, geological mining - and so forth forming the interior of the bowl. This rice bowl is finally capped off by the governmental elite and the intellectual elite. The form the perimeter of the rice bowl and represent the cut-off point for the amount of economic power which the economic system can handle. If more economic growth has to enter into the picture the size of the bowl simply has to grow in proportion. In contrast, if the economic system of the Pyramid has to adjust, you're trying to look at something like a giant lift of the Pyramid and then a large sweep of another layer right underneath it.
So, in America for example, where the next generation of people coming in to support the economy have to find our places in the structure, (us, you, me - God bless our souls) - it's virtually impossible to make any adjustments. You can't set the pyramid higher. you can build around it, but it doesn't make it any stronger.
The rice bowl simply grows in proportion. The people at the top, accordingly are the intellectual elite, the military elite, the financial, the royal, and the political elite. As long as those people don't go corrupt, the bowl stays open and the economy is allowed to flow. The perimeter folk have the least amount of pressure to bear and are at the top of the structure, but as they expand so too does the entire surface - and they cannot expand while maintaining the integrity of the structure unless the whole economy expands.
In the pyramid, there is no flow of the economy except near the top. Near the bottom everything is very much repressed and oppressed. So, there's no way of really deconstructing this economic structure except from the top down. In order to tear down a pyramid you have to start at the top. And how are the people at the bottom going to tear down the structure starting at the top? They don't even have access to any of the wealth or power. But likewise this pyramid is just going to continue being oppressive and if the Egyptians were anything more than great builders of pyramids they were great slave-drivers. The pyramid is an analogy for Capitalistic economics. You can think of other Capitalistic economics as pyramid tears, where the jump from one tear to the next is like a stack of pancakes. This kind of structure at least allows some relief to those at the bottom who live on the fringes and the flow of the economy is better under these circumstances. But in the bowl economy you have a very good structure. The reason it works better than a pyramid is that those on the higher levels of the bowl depend on those below them for their well being, so the desire to have at least some form of compassion to those at the bottom exists. Those at the very top have to realize their positions as perimeter folk and keep the economy swirling rather than trying to form a cap over it.
The existential ideal of an economic form follows the half sphere, but not as a rice-bowl, rather as a dome. So the upper half of the sphere encases the economy. The farmers are at the top of sphere, they have the least concern. The distribution of social and monetary pressure is greatest around the perimeter region of the dome. So those with the highest wages and appropriately the most responsibility are concerned with being very good at what they do. As politicians, financial masters, and intellectuals their responsibility is to organize. The main flow of the economy occurs near the top of the dome where the real wealth exists; in other words where the real commodities and the real work is being done; in other words where the land workers and market people are doing their job to create a sustainable society. Hence the flow of the economy is most rapid near the top of this dome. On the outskirts of this dome, the occupational positions of organizers and planners is essential and they are where they are such that there is a support for the main suppliers of 'what an economy really is'. Think about how different this dome is to the pyramid. At the bottom of the pyramid you have the hardest working people. And it is only at the top of the pyramid where the financial system flows; where the richest have the least amount of pressure and benefit the most from what the real economy is generating. This type of system is bound to stagnate.
In the dome, the system will flow and all will benefit from the structure of the economy as long as the farmers and manufacturers are kept in business, and the organizers, politicians, and government officials are doing their job - which has always been to maintain order. If they want their wealth and their status they have to earn it in this position. if they can't support their roles, they get thrown out and replaced. What type of country bears this type of economy? France has something like it. But at the top of the dome they've erected a flag pole, and I don't know why.
So having said all that there is good reason to believe that American Capitalism is more stable than Russian Communism. In communism, when the bottom falls out, when the commodities fail and labor fails, the whole thing comes crashing down and nobody survives the aftermath. In the Pyramid of Capitalism that structure won't fail. But it's stagnate. The American dynasty has reached its apex. It has set its foundation and those on the top will remain where they are. Hence, the so called 'stability' of the Capitalist regime. In contrast when communism falls, when the people at the bottom just don't have the will to keep going, or the faith in their leaders to keep going the bottom comes out. However at least in that case there is room for reconstruction. The economy breaks through and goes haywire, but at least it is is still a fluid economy. Why, however, as an example would an economy 'dry up' in a socialist rice bowl. When those at the top are perhaps drinking more than what those at the bottom can make the rice (let's call it soup) - the soup bowl drys up and the structure cracks or just goes empty and everyone suffers.
In the Pyramid, the oppressed are going to stay oppressed until those at the top have sucked every last inch of economic vitality out of that small portion of the pyramid near the top where the economy flows. By that time the people at the base of the pyramid have long since been suffering under the yoke of poverty and slavery. When the soup dries out at the top of the pyramid, like the mummified bodies pyramids are designed to hold, those at the top dry out and the thing stands for over 2000 years as a testimony to what heights are achieved on the backs of slaves. In other words, the American way of life will stand like a pyramid. It will not topple, for the structure is stable. But it will grow old and decay very slowly with the generations on the bottom suffering one after the other; the mummified wall street cronies at the top getting older and older as their grip turns to rigor mortis over those last drops of economic wealth. And then the plentiful valley turns into a dust land.
The dome...The dome fails if the economy becomes too strong. If the interior of the dome fills with too much pressure, the structure begins to crack. But what is the meaning of 'too much pressure'? Not enough economy and too many exhausted officials. To avoid the cracking of the dome a hole is punched in the top. The agricultural sectors are damaged, the structure falls into overall poverty and everyone shares in the pain of the recession. But, when the recession ends and the economy bounces back the dome is sealed and the wealth is accumulated again. Who can corrupt the dome economy? The middle class corrupts the dome economy.
Who corrupts the pyramid economy. The slave drivers of course. The ones who build it tear by tear on the backs of those who stay at the bottom. The thing is corrupted from the very start. The wealth of the economy is never appreciated from the very start and its bound to failure the minute it begins inception.
The soup bowl economy fails when those around the perimeter surge in and form a surrounding top over the bowl. This is as if to say that those in power exert too much power, demand too much from those at the bottom. And the whole thing implodes.
So economies implode by over exertion and the run dry when resources meet with failure. This is the soup bowl.
Economies stagnate when the basis they are built on can only support a certain load and the wealth only flows at the top. When the small few at the top have acquired all the wealth the economy stagnates and you have your recession. Recessions are marked by a major amount of poverty and joblessness in the lower classes, and a maintained level of wealth and happiness in the upper classes. Watch as those who live on the top of the Pyramid attempt to change the form of the Pyramid. They can only do this by committing social and occupational suicide. They would have to turn their own most elite against them to topple the structure. But imagine that anarchy ruled the pyramid structure. Imagine the tears coming down one by one. Imagine the pressure finally relieved from the hard working and poor. What would they do? They would create the communist structure. And that is why Marx saw communism as the next step after capitalism. And that is exactly what happened in parts of the world when the tyrannical governments were overthrown; the proletariat built a soup kitchen and a welfare state.
What happened to Hitler's socialist state? What type of structure was it? And why was the outcome of the economic growth war?
"Existentiam numen Dominus." - even twice a day a broken clock is right.
April 29th, 2012, 8:19 am
