Replies

Here's something for the poor child about why "communism" is so bad:

In the broadest terms, is the end of society to be a state of knowledge in which the individual is able to understand the possible consequences of his behavior and is then free to choose according to his own desires and goals, the general state of society then an amalgam of informed individual choices? Or is the end to be a state of being in which the individual’s choices are limited by others to a range calculated by them most likely to result in that state of being, the general state of society then an expression of coerced individual actions?

The latter end is characteristic of family (both nuclear and extended), of tribalism (the mythologized extended family), of socialism (re-mythologized tribalism in a suit), and of totalitarianism (demythologized socialism with guns). All consist in the individual being forced by others using various means into behavior that will be
1) for his own good later in life (the family),

2) for society’s good (tribalism/socialism), or

3) for the good of the individuals in control of the society (totalitarianism).
While this is universally seen as appropriate within the child/family relationship for developmental reasons, its application to society at large by some group within that society, or by one society to another, has been the cause of most social ferment throughout history.

The track record of authoritarianism has been excellent in terms of its persistence throughout history and across cultures but has been abysmal in terms of knowledge (Lysenko and Soviet genetics, German anthropology and the Nazi state, environmentalism including the global warming hoax), in terms of human rights (the Inquisition, the Holocaust and other pogroms, China and family planning, most post-colonial African dictatorships) and in terms of technological inventiveness (the miserable record of Soviet-style five year plans, Mao’s fixation on steel production and its disruption of the flow of goods and services, the extreme environmental damage left behind in the former Eastern bloc as a direct result of centralized control of capital, labor, and resources).

The reason for this is that authoritarianism or statism doesn’t allow the freedom for the wide range of viewpoints necessary for generating and testing hypotheses, let alone the ad hoc experimentation and innovation by individuals for their own reasons that form the basis of a developing, knowledge-based, technological society. Discovery is not allowed to take one where it will--it must be restricted to the party line (witness the vitiating of the ideal of the university by notions of political correctness).

Given the complexity of life, the narrow range of understanding possessed by any particular group is guaranteed to fall short at some point. Given the concentration of power exercised under a centralized system, the failures are guaranteed to have widespread and crippling effects. By contrast, the multiplicity of successes and failures over a wide range of scale that appear so chaotic in a state of liberty have the benefit of limiting the damage and of spreading throughout society successes which can be emulated and modified to fit local conditions.