Log in

View Full Version : Critique this.



Flying Purple People Eater
29th October 2012, 12:19
http://www.wayofthemind.org/2005/11/22/why-collectivism-doesnt-work/



Why collectivism doesn’t work

When I was younger, I used to believe that communism and socialism were, in general, good ideas that had simply been poorly implemented, or abused, or used as excuses for atrocities such as those in the Soviet Union. After all, who could argue with the idea of “brotherly love”? It seemed even “logical” that everything would be better if people just stopped being so “selfish”, and cooperated, everyone working for “the group”.
Many factors changed my way of thinking as I grew older, but the one thing that made me understand what communism really was – not what implementations of it were, but what it really was, and could never be anything else, despite all the seeminly good intentions – was Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”.
Especially one of my favorite sections, the one where Jeff Allen tells Dagny Taggart the sad story of the Twentieth Century Motor Company.
That story made such an impression on me that, even after I had only read the book once, I was able to tell it to people – it’s simply impossible to forget, as every part follows naturally, logically, from the one before.

So, there was a motor factory called the Twentieth Century Motor Company, which was highly successful, known as being synonymous with quality through the country. Then, the owner died, and the factory went to his three children (two men and a woman), who had big “progressive” (in that context, an euphemism for “socialist”) ideas – the main part of it being that well known communist ideal, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
The six thousand workers approved, of course – since they were made to feel that anyone who didn’t agree with such “brotherly love” was an evil, selfish monster. And so, that ideal went into practice – everyone worked, supposedly as much as he or she was able to, but wasn’t paid according to time, or results – instead, all of the profits from sales were put together in a common “pool”, then divided according to need.
However, they immediately had a problem: what is really “need”, and what is but a desire? What defines “need”? There’s no absolute standard for it, since what to some is just a pleasure, to others may be a vital need, and vice-versa. And so, they voted. Yes, every 6 months or so, they had huge meetings where they all voted on each one’s need – and how did you convince others? By begging, by pleading, by convincing everyone that they were worse off than others, that they had more health problems, had more children to feed, that they suffered more, and therefore had a greater “need”. In a little time, six thousand workers had turned into six thousand beggars – because no one had any “right” to the result of their work, that line of thought was dead, by then.
Naturally, since work wasn’t tied to earnings any more, no one had any incentive to work harder, and production dropped sharply in the first year. In a meeting, then, they decided that it had happened because some workers weren’t giving their all, they weren’t using all of their ability, and therefore would have to work extra hours at night – without pay, of course – to improve the situation. Who? The most able, of course – and again, they voted on who those were. Obviously, since that day, everyone would hide the slightest sign of ability – indeed, they would compete as to who would appear more incompetent. Being incompetent meant being “needier”, and was rewarded; being competent was a curse, since it meant you “needed” less – and had to work harder, to support the “needy” ones.
For some reason (!), production dropped even more.
It got worse. It was decided that no one could have any kind of luxury until everyone’s basic needs were met – and any kind of entertainment, cultural activity or amusement were the first to go. Books? That was a luxury. Music? The same. What right had anyone to a book when there were people starving? And the standard of living – for everyone just kept going down. Lots of people turned to alcohol.
Anything that made people “needier”, such as becoming ill, or having a baby, was a reason for everyone to hate that person – since he or she would be, supposedly, “taking” more from the pool. People also began to spy on their neighbours, so that they could report on anyone who was faking his or her “needs”.
In four years, the company was bankrupt. What a surprise.loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

I've got tears.

doesn't even make sense
29th October 2012, 12:38
For starters, the entire argument is based on a novel. It's nothing but a parable. Naturally the fictional 'experiment' in communism ends up exactly how its fanatically pro-capitalist author thought it would.

Tjis
29th October 2012, 14:23
The story makes the assumption that workers are greedy, lazy and selfish. The story doesn't give these properties to the owners though. After all, apparently the company was very well-managed under the original owner, and the three new owners, progressive as they were, freely gave up the company for this experiment. This fits Ayn Rand's usual writing, where there's a few great men (and women) who create, and lots of parasites taking advantage of what is created, destroying it in their greed if not stopped from doing so by before-mentioned great men.

The story makes the assumption that management can't be done better by a collective than it can be done by such a great individual. The story mentions that management is essentially done democratically, but that since the needs each worker reports are continuously rising, a struggle between these workers starts for a higher salary, rather than a cooperative effort in order to have a more productive company in the first place. Again, workers are portrayed as greedy and incapable of creation, something that should be left to great men.

Workers are then portrayed as sliding more and more in disability, as apparently this is the main decider for who gets what. A vague implication here is that the previous situation was that the more able were the ones rewarded more. This is simply not the case in capitalism though. Most workers (including, presumably, the workers in this story under old management) are being paid for their time rather than their work. So both a great and a mediocre work performance were rewarded the same in the original situation. But now the situation is such that when these workers work harder, there actually is more money to distribute. In actual revolutionary situations we clearly see that workers in fact do work harder once they feel that the means of production they work with are actually theirs, and that their work is to their own benefit. In Ayn Rand's mind though, workers are incapable of cooperation without being ordered to do so by a great man, regardless of what benefits it would bring them. Rather, according to Ayn Rand, workers, when left to themselves, are only capable of competing over what's already there.

In the end, the company goes bankrupt, having been completely devoured by lazy, selfish workers. The moral of the story: people are selfish and incapable of voluntary cooperation, so leave management to owners, who inherently have good qualities that make them fit for the task, and limit the influence of workers, because their selfishness makes decision-making for the collective good impossible.
I'll just end with a link to one of my favorite books, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html), by Peter Kropotkin. This book fights the notion that humans are only capable of competition by providing various examples where this is not the case, positing that cooperation has been crucial in our development.

The Garbage Disposal Unit
30th October 2012, 00:03
Conclusion of story: The practice of communism would bankrupt a capitalist enterprise.

It raises some questions - like, "Who cares?" and, "Given gobal warming, shouldn't we be abandoning large scale automobile production regardless?"