Mass professor asks Freepers for help

11/16/04 | Republicanprofessor

[cotton1706]

"Communism is what happens when, in the name of mind, man separates himself from God." - Whittaker Chambers

That is why Communism is evil.

[68skylark]

One of the funniest things I heard from a professor about communism was this. (It was back in the late 1980's when almost everyone -- even professors -- could see communism was bankrupt.) He said, "Communist prescriptions are dead, but communism is still a great tool for diagnosing the problems in society."

I think he was seriously trying to salvage something from the wreckage of Communism. But I just thought how absurd it would sound to say, "If you're feeling ill, don't go to see Doctor X for a prescription -- his cures will kill you. But his diagnoses are great!"

It just shows the stupid mental backflips that true believers will do to avoid the truth the liberty is better than tyranny.

[ProudVet77]

He's played you all like a fiddle.
We need a big Zot on this one.

[pikachu]

Frank Zappa had the best quote to summerize the failing of communism : "Comunisms doesn't work becuase people want to own sh!t".

[Lindykim]

snip...Which one gets the chance to be coached by the best? The one who has already reached his peak or the other who could improve much more after learning proper technique?


The underlying doctrine upon which this anology is based is the 'fairness doctrine." Socialists are like whiny kids who always compare what they have to what someone else has and then cry foul: "it's not 'fair' that he has that and I have only this." Based on the 'fairness doctrine" the real issue in the anology isn't really about what is right, or even about whether boy # 2 should get the training. What it's really about is the whiny, covetous kid who hates and resents the successes of other people.....successes that he can't attain because he's a loser.

[texan75010]

Who gets coached?

In a capitalistic society, both kids get coached. In America, if you have a reasonable economic goal, like paying for piano lessons because you want to play or buying a rock of crack because you want to get high, you can work hard, save and purchase the good or service you desire.

In a communist regime, there is no coach because he was executed for the poor results of the last track meet. You run track because the government tells you to run track and you run fast without the coaching because if you lose, you will watch your family raped and murdered and then be shot yourself.

The key difference is freedom. Freedom to run a race or smoke crack. Freedom to spend my income as I see fit and not have a government mandate what I do and give me a small allowance. Freedom to not have death hanging over my head if I stumble. Freedom to choose my own path, be it for good or evil. Freedom to have no one but myself to blame if I don't succeed. Freedom to go to school and pose apple vs orange, flawed logic questions to my instructor while thinking I am smarter than those hicks in the red states.

[Jack of all Trades]

On Communism:

"Class, can we see a show of hands of people who believe Communism to be good in principle?"

"Now, within that group can we see a show of hands of those who are currently working?"

"Great, everyone with their hand up right now, sign your next paycheck over to one of the non-working believers."

Lesson endeth.

[WildTurkey]

So one student gave me this analogy from another teacher as an argument for Affirmative Action. Two boys are running. One is doing his very best at 8 sec. per 200 yards. The other needs to learn proper form but is doing his best at 8 1/2 secs. Which one gets the chance to be coached by the best? The one who has already reached his peak or the other who could improve much more after learning proper technique?

Capitalism:Coaching would go to the one that would do better after the coaching.

Communism: Anything earned by the sprinter would belong to the state.

[RAY]

Try the below:

==========

The Failure of Communism in Vietnam

November 14, 2004 | Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh

It should be clear to any realistic observer of politics in Indochina that the Communist Party and the Socialist Republic have failed Vietnam and the Vietnamese people in a dramatic way. When Ho Chi Minh enticed the peasants to join his guerilla army he promised them a future in which the people would rule, where they would be free, living in uniform happiness in a communal paradise. What he delivered though was a nation ruled by the Party elite, with no freedoms, no civil rights and no personal liberty. Vietnam was robbed of its ancient heritage and forced to accept the culture of communism. Instead of a socialist paradise they have obtained only poverty, hunger and misery. These facts have become so clear and brutal that even many of the Communist Party's most ardent supporters are admitting that they have failed.

Only a short time after conquering the government in South Vietnam the communist regime in Hanoi fought a war against the People's Republic of China. They claimed to be defending Vietnam from Chinese invasion as so often happened in history. However, in recent years the Hanoi regime has given up Vietnamese territory in the north to China, freely handing over the sacred ground for which so many Vietnamese have died over the centuries. It was this outrage which caused the famous writer Nguyen Vu Binh to criticize the socialist government. What should be pointed out is that Nguyen Vu Binh was a former writer for the Communist Party Journal, but at last even he was forced to see the truth that the regime was selling out to China.

There have been many other such examples. In 1990, the leading Communist official Tran Bach Dang told the author Stanley Karnow, "Our belief in a Communist utopia had nothing to do with reality. We tried to build a new society on theories and dreams--on sand. Instead of stimulating production by giving people incentives, we collectivized them. Imagine! We even collectivized barbers. It was preposterous. We were also consumed by vanity. Because we crushed the Americans, we thought we could achieve anything. We should have heeded the old Chinese adage: 'You can conquer a country from horseback, but you cannot govern it from horseback.'" Finally the Communists must look their failure in the face and confess their mistakes.

In a similar confession the unrepentant but realistic Dr. Duong Quynh Hoa, a high leader in the VietMinh, told the same author, "I have been a Communist all my life, but now I've seen the realities of Communism, and it is a failure--mismanagement, corruption, privilege, repression. My ideals are gone." In a later meeting she voiced the same outrage saying, "Communism has been catastrophic. Party officials have never understood the need for rational development. They've been hypnotized by Marxist slogans that have lost validity--if they ever were valid. They are outrageous." Few people deny that if Dr. Hoa had not been such a famous figure from the war against America she would have been arrested for making such statements. Even the famous Colonel Bui Tin, deputy editor of the Communist Party newspaper was forced by his conscience to confess the failure of Communism and the Socialist Republican government in Hanoi.

Colonel Bui Tin in particular pointed out the most alarming problems for Vietnam in his "citizen's petition". He said, "There is an alarming deterioration of traditional ethical, moral and spiritual values (and) confusion among the youth on whom the country's future depends." Remember that this man once fought for the vision of Marxism and Ho Chi Minh, and even he was forced to see the error of his youthful judgment. The same government he fought to create he now attacked as, "Bureaucracy, irresponsibility, egotism, corruption and fraud are becoming entrenched under an insolent reign of privileges and prerogatives," It is those exact same traditional values, ethical, moral and spiritual, which the Nguyen Dynasty and the Vietnamese Constitutional Monarchist League are determined to see restored and defended, so that the youth of Vietnam might have a better understanding of their nation and its cultural roots.

Looking at the world at large, and the many crimes of the Vietnamese Communist Party, all free people must condemn a government that allows such things to happen. There should be no place in the modern world for such tyranny, oppression and disregard for human dignity. If even the awakened members of the Communist Party can see their mistakes and voice their protests, surely the other free Vietnamese of the world must take the same step and join with the voice of the Great Nguyen Dynasty in calling for the end of dictatorship and the establishment of a new democratic government, based on Vietnamese traditions, that will assure the rights of its people and hold government officials accountable to those who elected them.

"When we are not devoted to serve the People, we cannot have the right to ask for the favors from the nation."

[SpaceBar]

If you want to give students a modern, contemporary view of the flawed socio/political system called communism, be sure to include the present infusion of Soviet Kommithink into western universities, newsrooms, and government. Use the words of Marx to highlight the current western European brand of soft socialism, and the social agenda of the Democratic Party of the United States.

[Prime Choice]

One student noted that she had been taught that Communism is fine in theory but that it hasn't found the ideal environment yet in which it could succeed.

Classic Leftism. You may wish to point out that Communism omits the reality of human nature: that people will not put in gourmet effort if they're only going to get McDonald's quality in return. Moreover, Communism omits recognition of the fact that power vacuums are always created and filled by opportunists. This naturally begets totalitarianism under all Communist regimes, regardless of their location on the globe.

So I said that many believe Republicans are racist because it is repeated so often in the press. I noted that it may be because Republicans are against Affirmative Action and quotas.

If Republicans are racist and sexist, then one may want to ask why it was Republicans who chose a woman for the Supreme Court. You may also want to ask why Republicans chose Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. You may also want to ask why a Republican just nominated a black woman to the position of Secretary of State.

You may also wish to point out that the Democrats have a bigger penchant for associating with racists such as Robert Byrd, a former Grand Kleagle of the KKK who -- even to this day -- uses the word "nigger" in interviews.

Which one gets the chance to be coached by the best?

The one who has the most potential. Life isn't always fair. Either get used to it or work harder at succeeding. Handicapping the best only serves to bolster mediocrity rather than excellence.

[Nataku X]

What affirmative action (and communism) does is add weights to the well-coached student's ankles until he's performing at the same pace as the untrained student.

You could "reconcile" with your students by making it clear that you are against legacy admissions as well. Many people are more amenable to banishing affirmative action if other favoritism practices are abolished as well.

[bvw]

Under five acres. And then only between a few. Perosnalities have to mesh.

[twigs]

I will tell you one reason why I am against AA. Over the weekend, FNC had a story about a college in SC--Benedict College--a black college. College policy says that the first year, students are graded according to the formula: 60% effort, 40% achievement. Second year: 40% effort, 60% achievement. 3rd and 4th year: 100% achievement. Why doesn't this work? For one thing, if I were an employer, I would NEVER hire a student from this college because I would never know whether or not they could perform on the job. Just trying doesn't cut it. And it's very hard to get rid of bad employees, so I just wouldn't go through the risk of hiring them in the first place. And what of the good student that are there, that don't need the effort grade to help them? They will be tainted by the entire school.

I worked once for Xerox which hired several of its managers according to AA. How did I know that? The one manager was the only minority employee in that facility and was a very so-so manager in the midst of very sharp, top-achieving sales people. Another minority woman was also a manager and was one of the best managers with whom I've ever worked anywhere. Unfortunately, she was tainted by the lack of respect this other man got. Not fair, admittedly, but it is human nature. This woman didn't need any AA to get to the top, but was never given the credit she very much deserved by a lot of the other emplyees. In her case, AA didn't work. She was the best employee and best manager in her division. The best people in their field ought to get the promotions. Everyone wins.

[mikegi]

He's played you all like a fiddle. We need a big Zot on this one.

Yep, I was about to post the ubiquitous "Welcome to FR" message.

[tjwmason]

One student noted that she had been taught that Communism is fine in theory but that it hasn't found the ideal environment yet in which it could succeed. All the countries which tried it (Russia, China, etc.) were backward countries. She thought it might work in more working class countries. (To the credit of other students, they disagreed. And I countered this too, by saying that Communism depends on force to exist and that human nature resists being limited to being equal to others instead of striving to do better. But I'm interested in what you all have to say.)

It depends exactly what is being meant by Communism. Marx was an historical determinist, and thought that it was inevitable that the Capitalist state would fall and be replaced by a socialist one (this would compel redistribution), people would see the great benefit of this way of life, and gradually the state would wither away and utopia emerge (which is what Communism really means).

This faces a number of challenges. First, many theorists believe that property arises from natural law; the simplest explanation is that given by John Locke (whom I generally dislike, but he makes a good point here) a man owns himself, therefore he owns his labour, if he tends a field then he improves the field, the improved field is more valuable (in terms of its crop production), and this added value is due to his labour. His labour is now part of the field (in its improved state), and therefore one cannot give the field to somebody else (or to common ownership) without removing from him that which he owns (his labour), therefore he owns the field.

If property is natural, then communism collapses, because it is based on the absence of ownership (or in its coercive forms, which are the only ones we have ever seen, on communal or state ownership).

Perhaps the simplest objection is human nature. We are self-interested (cf. Adam Smith onwards), even if property is not natural, ownership is clearly within human nature. If a man produces something, he will always regard it as his own, communism requires that that feeling be utterly removed. All production is 'owned' by all. This is why communism has worked in small scale experiments (such as kibbutzim), it is voluntary therefore that small per centage of the world who can perceive what they produce as being communal can join, whilst the rest of us live normally. Communism needs only a small group to cheat, and the whole edifice starts to collapse. If goods are granted by need, then why should a person work? If a man does not need to work to be given food, shelter &c. then he will not do so; in one case this is not much of a problem, in a few thousand cases it is the Welfare State, in a national case (communism) it is zero production. What economists call the free-rider problem will always ensure that communism can only survive under cases of coercion.

[SilentServiceCPOWife]

I highly recommend "Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism" by Joshua Muravchik. It discusses many different communist/socialist societies, including a couple of attempts that were made in the US, and how they all failed and why. It's an excellent, informative book and it would give you great ammunition to use in that argument.

[nw_arizona_granny]

Can you help with info on communism?

[Feldkurat_Katz]

One student noted that she had been taught that Communism is fine in theory but that it hasn't found the ideal environment yet in which it could succeed. All the countries which tried it (Russia, China, etc.) were backward countries.

This is so plain false - I am surprised nobody pointed out two obvious counterexamples: East Germany and Czechoslovakia.

Prior to WWII Czechoslovakia was, in per capita terms, world's sixth wealthiest country. Without poorer Slovakia, it would be even higher! If they consider Czechoslovakia backward, where would they want to try Communism instead? Switzerland?

Poland and Hungary should not be considered backward either. Per capita, prewar Poland was wealthier than Italy and Finland.

By the way, at which Mass school are you teaching? I live in Mass too ... I feel your pain ...

[mikeus_maximus]

"One student noted that she had been taught that Communism is fine in theory but that it hasn't found the ideal environment yet in which it could succeed."

Economists were predicting in the 1920's that communism had to ultimately fail. It's inherently flawed because it ignores human nature. In a prefectly altruistic society, where eVERYONE is a complete altruist, it might work.

But the reality is somnething called The Prisoner's Dilemma. You might find more about it at Tech Central Station.

Think about the situation where 2 suspects are picked up by the police. They have enough evidence to convict for the maximum offenses, only if at least one of the suspects confesses. So the police make this offer (You can draw the following 4-square matrix): If neither prisoner A nor B confesses, they get each 4 years in jail. If A only confesses, he gets 2 years, B gets 10 years. If B only confesses, he gets 2 years and A gets the 10 years. If both confess, they each get 5 years.

What would A and B do? Add up the total jail terms for each scenario. As a collective group, the best outcome is for neither to confess (4 + 4= 8 years total). But INDIVIDUALLY, it is in each prisoner's best SELF interest to confess. In that scenario, the group suffers longer jail time (2 + 10= 12), but the individual comes out better.

And that is the problem with communism. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" is a bogus slogan. In a system where everyone gets the same, there is every incetive to be the "one in need" and let your co-worker produce. But if he sees you getting the benefits from slacking, so will he. So the total prodcutivity level falls for everybody; everybody is equally miserable.

Now, governments have tried to overcome the Prisoner's Dilemma by controlling workers under threat of violence. It's an inherently violent and opporessive system for that reason. But that doesn't work. It just leads, inevitably, to oppression and misery.