"It looks good on paper, but doesn't work in practice."

[GPDP]

Yes, this warranted its own thread.

This is quite possibly one of the most common arguments against communism in mainstream discourse, right alongside the whole human nature thing (not surprising, since it's what usually follows as the justification for the above statement). Yet let's forget about the communism bit for now, and just focus on the statement itself.

Quite frankly, it's a hell of a stupid thing to say. Sound ideas should produce sound results. If the results of the application of a particular theory are not sound, or do not match the predictions made by the theory, then either A) the theory was misapplied, or B) the theory is not as sound as originally thought, and must either be revised and improved, or rejected and thrown out altogether if upon further consideration, it just doesn't seem to work out, provided all the possible variables that could produce the failure in predicted results are accounted for.

If the problem was just due to the experiment not following the premises of the theory properly, then the experiment should not be regarded as a direct result of the premises of the theory proper, and another, more proper experiment should take place. If the theory was followed properly, but the error came from not accounting for a certain external variable, then a revision in the theory is needed to account for that variable. If it happened despite the accounting of errors, then the theory needs to be rejected and a new one drawn up.

So with all this in mind, it is absurd to claim that a theory is good in paper, but unworkable when put into practice. If something is inherently unworkable in practice, then it follows that the theory behind the actions taken should also be inherently unworkable. That is, a good theory cannot result in bad practice, else it would be a bad theory. Only a bad application of a theory or an inherently bad theory can produce bad results.

So, back to applying the statement in the context of the workability of communism. If indeed it cannot work in practice, why not? Because the USSR and other countries like it show this to be so? Alright, then how can this be if communism is a great thing in theory? Did the USSR turn out like it did because it didn't apply the theory correctly (a simplification of the anti-revisionist argument against Kruschevite revisionism)? Because in applying the theory, it didn't account for external variables that could mess up the application (the Leninist/Trotskyist argument in terms of the material conditions and isolation of the revolution and the resulting bureucratization, more or less)? Or is it a result of the inherent flaws in the theory (the anarchist argument against Marxist-Leninist theory, roughly)?

So, with that said, the statement is just nonsensical. I suspect it is made because many people, at heart, do desire a more equal and just society, so they don't want to completely blast the idea of communism, lest they sound like complete sociopathic elitists (like the Objectivists, Austrians, Fascists, and other extreme right-wingers tend to do, though they reject communism more on grounds that even if it worked, it's tyranny nonetheless and thus must be opposed on principle). At the same time, they either don't take the time to consider or are unfortunately ignorant of all the complex issues surrounding the shaping of so-called "Communism" in the USSR, Eastern Europe, China, etc., and just assume that the theory was applied properly, and it resulted in something bad, therefore communism doesn't work, period. Of course, they also fail to take into account the contradiction in having just said that the theory is good and saying it doesn't work in practice in the next breath.

So, like I did in the other topic, I invite all opponents of communism in this board that believe in the accuracy of this statement to take a stance. Was communism bad in practice because the good theory was misapplied, or if it wasn't, will you at least man up and straight-up condemn communism as a bad idea?

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

Hey man, Murphy's Law applies to a lot of things. Even Capitalism, Anarchism and Liberalism aren't perfect, nor do they work 100%.

[LOLseph Stalin]

With this argument I tend to get all technical and say stuff like "Communism has never been achieved in practice" and various other things like that. With things like this, I just like to believe that a theory is failing because somewhere along the way somebody did something wrong. Thus new ways to implement the theory are invented. This could be used to partially explain all the different groups among the left. They're just trying different methods to do the same thing as they see other ways have failed.

[GPDP]

Hey man, Murphy's Law applies to a lot of things. Even Capitalism, Anarchism and Liberalism aren't perfect, nor do they work 100%.

That's not my point. I know that in the real world, not everything is simple, and things can always go wrong when you least expect them. But the statement I'm talking about statement commits that flaw - it is not rooted in the real world. It heavily simplifies all manner of debate on the causes for the degenerate character of "real-world communism," and places it squarely on the idea itself, even while saying that the idea is good! It's paradoxical, and I wish people would do better than fall upon such cookie-cutter arguments designed to stifle debate.

In fact, I believe there is a fallacy that deals with this kind of argument. I forget the name, though.

And let's take capitalist ideology, particularly the most utopian version in ancapism. Not only do I not believe it could work in practice or ever come about through any kind of application of the theory, but I find the theory itself repulsive, and even if it could work and even if it could realistically come about, I think it would be a terrible society to live under. So on that ground, I do not consider ancapism either functional in theory OR practice.

[trivas7]

Was communism bad in practice because the good theory was misapplied, or if it wasn't, will you at least man up and straight-up condemn communism as a bad idea?
Marxist theory never looked good on paper; it was logically incoherent as a theory and therefore doomed to fail in practice.

Anarchist theory in practice is laissiezfaire capitalism.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Anarchist theory in practice is laissiezfaire capitalism.

Only if there's private ownership. Last time I checked that was Anarcho-Capitalism. Most other forms of Anarchism in practice are similar to Communism, only without the transition stage that Communism requires. You simply cannot call Laissez-Faire Capitalism the same as Anarchism.

[Robert]

Quite frankly, it's a hell of a stupid thing to say.

The real problem with the statement is that communism doesn't even "look good on paper." Not anymore, if it ever did. And I edit to acknowledge that Trivas the Great beat me to it.

About the only thing I wonder about is whether you should expend energy trying to convince people like me that it really does look good on paper, and I'm just too "stupid" (see more below) to understand it, or convince those on the fence, who do buy the theory, that it can really be made to work.

I've honestly tried, but ... no dice. One other thing I wonder is whether: a) communism is a great product, but its adherents are bad salesmen (calling the unconvinced "stupid" is a good example of bad salesmanship); or b) it's just a bad product.

I incline toward b.

[trivas7]

You simply cannot call Laissez-Faire Capitalism the same as Anarchism.
You can't perhaps; I can (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1475118&postcount=1).

[GPDP]

Only if there's private ownership. Last time I checked that was Anarcho-Capitalism. Most other forms of Anarchism in practice are similar to Communism, only without the transition stage that Communism requires. You simply cannot call Laissez-Faire Capitalism the same as Anarchism.

Don't bother explaining these things to trivias. He lives in another world separate to the rest of us, as evidenced by his bizarre tendency to promote, condemn, and twist ideologies around, and still somehow remain thoroughly apolitical.

At least he and Robert had the balls to outright deny communism as a good theory. That's really all I'm asking for. Now if only TomK would do the same...

[LOLseph Stalin]

Don't bother explaining these things to trivias. He lives in another world separate to the rest of us, as evidenced by his bizarre tendency to promote, condemn, and twist ideologies around, and still somehow remain thoroughly apolitical.

I think I'll take your advice.


About the only thing I wonder about is whether you should expend energy trying to convince people like me that it really does look good on paper, and I'm just too "stupid" (see more below) to understand it, or convince those on the fence, who do buy the theory, that it can really be made to work.

Yes we should try to convince others. Even if that doesn't work we don't have to waste our time and energy on Capitalists, but on Socialists who would already be leaning towards Communism. I have been realizing that one of the most common factors contributing to people not liking Communism is the fact that they misunderstand what it actually is. Of course explaining the theories doesn't work on everybody, but that's why you focus on the ones who'll actually listen and want to learn. It's how you form a vanguard.

[Robert]

Of course explaining the theories doesn't work on everybody, but that's why you focus on the ones who'll actually listen and want to learn. It's how you form a vanguard.

In other words, the only reason your explanations of the theory fail is because the unconverted don't actually listen and/or do not want to learn?

There's no other possibility?

[Robert]

At least he and Robert had the balls to outright deny communism as a good theory.

I THINK that's a compliment. Thanks! :lol:

[LOLseph Stalin]

In other words, the only reason your explanations of the theory fail is because the unconverted don't actually listen and/or do not want to learn?

Oftentimes I do see that as part of the problem. I know several people I have actually tried to explain the theories to but simply wouldn't listen.

[Robert]

Oh, no doubt. But I didn't ask that.

Not that you owe me an answer.

[Anarkiwi]

communisim has never been applied in practice.
ussr,china,etc=not communist!

[MarxSchmarx]

That's not my point. I know that in the real world, not everything is simple, and things can always go wrong when you least expect them. But the statement I'm talking about statement commits that flaw - it is not rooted in the real world. It heavily simplifies all manner of debate on the causes for the degenerate character of "real-world communism," and places it squarely on the idea itself, even while saying that the idea is good! It's paradoxical, and I wish people would do better than fall upon such cookie-cutter arguments designed to stifle debate.

In fact, I believe there is a fallacy that deals with this kind of argument. I forget the name, though.

And let's take capitalist ideology, particularly the most utopian version in ancapism. Not only do I not believe it could work in practice or ever come about through any kind of application of the theory, but I find the theory itself repulsive, and even if it could work and even if it could realistically come about, I think it would be a terrible society to live under. So on that ground, I do not consider ancapism either functional in theory OR practice.

Yeah the problem is, GPDP, what you're saying is that if we were omniscient we won't have this incongruence between "paper" and "reality".

I think the point is that those who make this criticism imply that we are not, in fact, "omniscient", and are willing to go so far as to say that anything that works in theory won't work as promised in the real world.

But they go further, in saying that this incongruence between theory and the real world is WORSE in communism than under capitalism.

Now, that is a debatable claim, but is rather distinct from the critique you raise in the OP.

Indeed, there is no epistemological contradiction with agreeing that a communist analysis is internally consistent, but somehow its premises are false. This, at least as I interpret the critique, is what it is an oblique way of saying, and, I would argue, is usually how the criticism is interpreted by most people in the developed world.

[Havet]

You can't perhaps; I can (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1475118&postcount=1).

i appreciate the advertising to my thread, but it was not about laissez faire capitalism and anarchism, but anarcho capitalism

capitalism as we know it requires a state and the state meddles mildly into some affairs it shouldn't mess with

laissez-faire capitalism requires a state but the state meddles a lot less than the current environment we have (less regulations, less taxes, less irrational *****ying)

anarcho-capitalism/market anarchism would simply not have a state

[Bud Struggle]

At least he and Robert had the balls to outright deny communism as a good theory. That's really all I'm asking for. Now if only TomK would do the same...

Let me explain my position. I think Communism is a wonderful idea. everyone getting along, pleanty of food and housing and free time for writing poetry. No one competing for things--everyone doing their best at what they enjoy for ther benefit of everyone.

Add God and that's a pretty good picture of heaven.

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that idea of a fantasy world could even come close to working. As a matter of fact I believe people tried some large scale prototypes of Communism in the last century and the experiments devolved into worker/slave states that fell apart when given a slight shove by an ageing actor and an ageing prelate.

But I like that idea of Communism. The problem is that making Communism work with a good sized populace is like herding cats--everyone wants things a bit better then his neighbor and people have different talents and sooner or later a Stalin or a Kim Il Jung shows up and the entire plan fall apart.

Only God can make Communism work. But the idea itself is lovely.

[Lynx]

This "argument" is a polite way of saying that communism is a load of pretentious bullshit.

Practice always trumps theory. What doesn't work in practice has to be either rectified or abandoned.

[Robert]

I think Communism is a wonderful idea. everyone getting along, pleanty of food and housing and free time for writing poetry. No one competing for things--everyone doing their best at what they enjoy for ther benefit of everyone.

Well, that sounds pretty good, but is that what communism is? Even the "real communism" fetishized here? I thought all those things you list were just features or by products of communism (To be clear, I don't believe that everyone will ever get along, not even within the limits of one's own family, never mind neighborhood, never-never mind all of society).

Communism itself, I think, is collective control over the means of production, and the revolution is wresting that control away from individuals and corporations and into the hands of -- what exactly the communists don't explain with any thing near unanimity. "Worker syndicates", someone claimed. Gack, I think.

But he's restricted, so what does he know? :lol:

Love you, Gack.;)

[Lynx]

Communism in practice boils down to economic policy. It also boils down to 'communism in one country', which has its own set of challenges.

[New Tet]

Yes, this warranted its own thread.

This is quite possibly one of the most common arguments against communism in mainstream discourse, right alongside the whole human nature thing (not surprising, since it's what usually follows as the justification for the above statement).

It's not an argument, it's an assertion. According to Michael Palin in "The Argument Clinic", "an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM