Why is Communism evil?

A person on Quora asked a more long-winded version of the question in the title, and this was my response:

Karl Marx's ideas were evil because they were based on hatred and antagonism (class struggle) rather than tolerance and diversity. In his proletarian utopia, only one kind of human could survive. Since that human did not exist in the real world, when the system was put in practice, existing humans had to be transformed into that type or be killed off. Luckily nobody was able to implement pure Communism as Marx had dreamed, but many were seduced by the dogma and tried it out on real people, causing untold amounts of suffering.

Let's look at the system when put in practice:

1) Political Failings:

Communism tried to solve existing social problems and inequities by concentrating power in the hands of a small elite unaccountable to anybody. Without a system of checks and balances, this system inevitably lead to large excesses by these ruling elites - more often than not leading to genocide and mass murder.

2) Economic Failings:

Communism concentrated economic decision-making into the hands of a small elite, unaccountable to anybody. Time and time again, this way of running an economy proved much less efficient than a free market for goods and services.

Think of an analogy: if google maps were updated by a centralized institution, would it be as efficient as the model it adopts now (open source, with millions of users updating the data in real time)?

With such an inefficient economy, most communist societies ended up in dire poverty; for the most case, the regimes which survived had to radically transition from the communist economic model to a freer market.

3) Foreign Policy Failings:

Communism was an aggressive dogma, and communist societies were required to spread the ideology by force around the world. That is why you had Cuban fighters in Angola or Russian soldiers in Afghanistan. Often the ideological need for conquest coincided with more practical needs - with such a poor economic model, the stronger communist countries (such as the USSR or China) needed resources from other countries in order to survive economically.

I never understood why people often say "it's a nice utopia, it just can't be put into practice". Communism has a bad reputation in the civilized world for very good reasons.

Education in Fairfax County

I was contacted by Fairfax County Public Schools to fill out a survey, and this is what I had to say in the comments section:

I understand the philosophy is to provide an education to each kind of child, and the goal is admirable, but with this philosophy you hurt the more gifted kids by not challenging them enough. The curriculum (especially math, sciences, foreign languages) is laughable in the US (although Fairfax County is better than most) compared to many poorer parts of the world (Eastern Europe comes to mind, where in villages with no running water they learn advanced algebra and trigonometry etc a few years before kids in the US even touch those subjects). There is no way American children will be able to compete with foreign kids as long as they are treated like half-wits who should not be challenged, lest the slower ones fall behind. By keeping the curriculum so simple, everyone will lose in the long run. I would suggest more school differentiation - like having magnet schools for the smartest kids, trade schools for the kids who are not capable of higher education, etc. And this differentiation among the children should be done strictly based on results, not on race, gender, and other such criteria, in order to ensure the best education tailored to each type of child.

Political advice for a neophyte

Most successful politicians are very charismatic people who generally make a great impression in person. However, that does not mean that they will actually advance your interests (unless you get to know them well enough to bribe them, most likely in an indirect way at this level). I would not worry so much about issues that affect a small part of the population (gay marriage, abortion, etc) since these are rather the "circus" in the "bread and circus" spectacle of politics. Economic policy is more important to our daily lives (but it is very similar for both parties despite the rhetoric); also foreign policy and monetary policy. In the last two aspects, the two parties are 99.9% identical. Like one party rule in China or Cuba. 

For economic policy, the Republicans favor lower taxes (in theory), and individual economic freedom (again in theory). The Democrats' philosophy is more collectivist (we need to spread the wealth around for everyone's good and for social harmony). Who decides how that wealth is spread around (in return for votes or corporate pampering) is another story. However, we must keep in mind that one (the Republican) can lower taxes in name, but at the same time make us poorer. How? An easy way is by printing money - so they finance their populist agenda, but at the same time make the money we hold less valuable. This is a hidden type of tax. Another is by increasing import tariffs (imported products become more expensive, but it is not technically a "tax" if we aren't aware of it). Democrats do the same things, but aren't so loud about "cutting taxes". 

I rambled long enough and I need to come to a conclusion. My sincere advice is to burn your registration in either party. It is tough if you live in Washington DC, but try to keep pure in this corrupt world. If, like me, you don't mind being a clown, you can support a third party (e.g., Libertarian Party, which advocates lower taxes, lower regulation, less centralization, focus on defense rather than imperialist expansion, and a stop to wasting our resources on victimless crimes and other such populist whims). However, despite my fondness for this party, I still realize they are total wankers. For this reason, I rarely vote (and when I do, it is in local elections, which matter a lot more to me, since they affect property taxes, the building of a walkway over a highway, etc - things that affect me in the short run). 

Also, keep in mind that most political discussions are NOT based on logic, but rather on tribal sentiments and unleashed feelings. Politicians know that very well, and usually hire psychologists to help rally the masses behind various slogans. When you analyze it closer, they promote an "us versus them" mentality which gets people heated, and motivates them to go to the voting booth. Politicians, to be successful, cannot take the risk of following a principle and sticking to it.

The Monkeysphere

I found a really interesting view on society (very entertaining short read at the same time) and, without further ado, I am posting the link here:

http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html

Enjoy!

An argument against the concept of child support laws

Imagine I had a frail constitution, including a well-known predisposition for asthma attacks (for the record, I don’t), yet a friend invited me on a hiking trip. I couldn’t resist the temptation, and I accepted, without taking proper precautions or taking any preventive medication. Imagine that the hike made me sick with an asthma attack. Would it be fair to blame my friend, or would I be the one responsible for my body's response? If I asked him to pay for my expensive evacuation and asthma treatment, some members of society would find my request laughable, some would find my chutzpah offensive, but most would agree that I am being completely and utterly ridiculous. If I were to take my actions to court, no honest judge would award me any compensation.

Allow me to change the underlined words in the above paragraph.

Imagine I had a uterus, including a well-known predisposition for pregnancy (for the record, I don’t), yet a friend invited me to have sex. I couldn’t resist the temptation, and I accepted, without taking proper precautions or taking any preventive medication. Imagine that the sex made me pregnant with a child. Would it be fair to blame my friend, or would I be the one responsible for my body's response? If I asked him to pay for my expensive childbirth and child rearing costs, some members of society would find my request laughable, some would find my chutzpah highly offensive, but most would agree that I am being ridiculous.

Unfortunately (for the fans of logic), the last statement in the second paragraph is not accurate in our society, despite being completely on the mark in the first one. However, this basic argument makes it clear why I am opposed to child support laws as commonly applied in the Western world (where the man is forced to pay for a woman's pregnancy and child rearing costs).

Is the concept of personal responsibility dead in the West? Do we, as a society, allow the shift of responsibility or blame so easily due to sentimental or political reasons? If we are to survive, as a society, it’s time we re-calibrate our moral compass.

Capitalism: An Utopia

As much as I detest socialism and collectivism, as an ideology, I have arrived at the conclusion that capitalism is also an utopia, which, when put into practice, cannot exist in reality.

The problem with socialism, American-style liberalism, and related ideologies is very simple: the principle might be good (I disagree with that too, but let's not get too philosophical here) - the more advantaged provide for the rest. Goods and services produced are redistributed in a more equitable way. The problem is very simple: the redistribution is done by an elite, a small privileged group, and thus cannot be equitable no matter how you turn it. In addition to the incentives created ("why should I produce anything when I won't be able to enjoy it, because some douche will take it away from me on a whim?") it is also highly inefficient. People will no longer produce all they are capable of producing because of the lack of incentives, and humanity will suffer (basically it will be poorer than otherwise).

The apparent solution is capitalism. I will not rewrite economic theory here, why that system is more efficient, nor will I go into the moral arguments of why it is more equitable (people produce only things that are needed by others, with minimal waste, and uncoerced).

However, I realized that this ideal is also an unattainable utopia. Capitalism relies on a fair and blind justice system, and an unbiased legal environment where the market can thrive and people can prosper. However, this environment must also be upkept and enforced by somebody, and again that is a small elite. And the probability of this elite being incorruptable, of upholding the law and never according special favors, is for all purposes 0.

Many point to the Russian ogligarchy as the failure of capitalism; I saw it as a system that was as far away from capitalistic as possible (there was no rule of law to protect the uncoerced transactions between individuals and firms; law enforcement was monopolized by an entity that formed winners and losers in the system, as opposed to allowing the market to determine them). Now that I look back at it, I see things more clearly: it is impossible to have an impartial entity protect the mentioned transactions and their fairness.

Because no elite in power or watchdog will ever protect or enforce the fair and unbiased system of property rights laws and other legal pillars of capitalism, I reached the conclusion that such a system is utopian in nature. Having reached this conclusion, I offer no alternative solution for a system best equiped to fostering human advancement. Perhaps a return to slavery, where I am the master and everyone else my slave, but even that wouldn't be too efficient, because I don't have dictatorial tendencies, or even desires, and I am prone to wasting time writing blogs instead of enforcing maximum production. The only solution I can think of now is anarchy, or the law of the jungle. But it's not popular, and the generations indoctrinated in the public school systems around the world are not likely to even listen to the arguments in its favor.

Human Perception of Technology in Time

I have an interesting view on technology: every new advancement is met with great enthusiasm, and the benefits are touted. Everyone jumps on the bandwagon (a common human behavior) and that new advancement becomes widespread. At some point, after the initial enthusiasm, all of a sudden everyone realizes that dangers and downsides to adopting this new technological advancements do exist , and they become afraid all of a sudden. Over time, the new technology becomes accepted with its pluses and flaws, until a new one comes along, going through the same process.

The newest craze is with cell phones: at the beginning, only the benefits were seen. People could communicate like never before, third world countries with poor telecommunications infrastructure only had to build a few towers and all of a sudden have the communications capabilities of the most developed countries, and so on. Now it seems all we hear about are the health risks of using cell phones, whether through cancer-causing radiation, the dangers of text messaging and talking while driving, and so on. The technology is here to stay, and has enough benefits (despite its cost) to continue existing, until something new is invented. It will eventually be accepted with all its flaws.

Perhaps this initial enthusiasm happens because the vast majority of people do not think in terms of “cost-benefit analysis” in most of their interactions (perhaps it is more efficient to think of “either good or bad” in most actions, saving the time otherwise wasted by thinking things out). Thus the reaction of the masses: “it is good” initially, then “it is bad”; then, once they think about what it would be like without the new technology, finally they accept the “good” and the “bad” associated with it.

I can think of so many new technologies that went through this process of enthusiastic adoption, repudiation, and then ambiguous acceptance (pesticides, agriculture, airplanes, landmines, etc.) They are used extensively at first, since their costs are minimized; then once their costs are becoming known, there is a massive campaign about the evil they cause. With pesticides, there was a campaign against DDT (although from what I learned, an unintended benefit was the eradication of malaria, at the cost of pollution, where it was applied). Agriculture was first considered by scholars the first major achievement of the human race, allowing humans enough surplus food and thus time to develop civilization, instead of foraging in the forest all day; then it was considered the greatest evil to human health (causing sedentarism, starchy diets lowering life expectancy, etc) and paving the way for full time armies, potent warfare, and empire-building. Now most people accept it as something that happened and cannot be turned back (despite the existence of fad diets advocating the consumption of raw food only). Landmines were once considered by armies an effective way to fight invasion. Afterwards, they realized that the costs were enormous after the war was over, since they killed and maimed the local population as well. The list of examples could go on.

I invite my readers to find an exception.