Also, everything that was tried before was either smashed by state intervention backed by capitalist interest, e.g. the Pinochet coup in Chile in 1973, or Franco during the Spanish civil, or was a Stalinist dictatorship.
Of course many beliefs are created and imparted by society at large, but not all are. The belief that our planet is roughly a sphere is more accurate than the belief that it is flat, and the belief that the Earth orbits the sun is more accurate than the reverse. I'm fairly sure we've hit on something with the whole "People would rather be rich than poor," idea.
We possess the material means to provide for the needs of all people across the world many, many times over. One simply needs to look at the fact that industrialized U.S. agricultural production is so efficient it can be run by an extremely small pool of workers compared to the rest of the working populace, and yet produce such a glut of goods, that many times, the surplus (the very thing capitalism is compelled to produce over and over again) is destroyed in order to uphold food prices via enforcing an artificial scarcity of goods, e.g. in milk production.
The issue is not about being simply wanting to rich or poor (no one wants to be poor), it's about seeing the system for what it is and what its productive capabilities could potentially be harnessed for.
I'd agree with you if you'd said "comfortable rather than stressed", but there's a difference between the two. Everybody can be comfortable at once. Not everybody can be rich.
That's a poor criterion for deciding whether or not something is an intrinsic human desire. Whether or not something can be universally achieved is orthogonal to the question.
I don't doubt that we have a society that says rich is awesome, poor is terrible, but here's the thing: when we say that "society says foo", what we mean is that a large percentage of individuals are saying foo. Lots of individuals say "rich is awesome, poor is terrible" because they actually believe that they prefer the one to the other, not because some external "society" (I place it in scare quotes because any society does not have an existence independent from individuals) forces or tricks or brainwashes them into it.
(I'm finding it hard to track replies in this thread, so apologies if I stop my side of the discussion.)
I'd like to see a nation try to work itself using Dunbar's Constant. A government based on the idea that people can all relate to one another in small groups would be radical.
Some people are luckier than others and that stinks but I don't think the Government can fix that. But I have no problem with Government safety nets that stop people from falling completely down the rabbit hole either.
ALSO: Can we please stop downvoting based on who we agree and disagree with? I'm enjoying this conversation quite a lot and I hate seeing Tom and myself dipping into 0 and -1 while productive debate's going on.
However, at the moment, your only comment downvoted below 1 in this thread makes the claim "I was thinking Communism more in the idea of 'let's not let the market be entirely free'".
That's such an aggressive redefinition of Communism it borders on falsehood, so I understand the downvotes. There are many, many critiques of the free market and proposals for moderating market activity for the greater good. Very few of these deserve to be lumped under the heading 'Communism'.
The Communist critique of markets and capital/ownership is larger, and their program, in both theory and practice, different. 'Communism' means something, and that something is much more than the innocuous "let's not let the market be entirely free".
(For example, you could wholeheartededly agree "let's not let the market be entirely free" and still be shot as a counterrevolutionary by a dedicated Communist.)
I kind of misuse terms a lot. I say Communism when I mean socialism, and vice versa. In reality, I'm just anti-extremism. (I once discussed with some friends forming a political party on the concept of "extremist moderatism", or the idea that the only thing bad is extremist worldviews.) So in my view, neither capitalism nor communism is a be-all end-all, and the real solution is murkier and in the middle.
- there has been death and deprivation, which has only let up as societies turn back to more traditional organizing modes
- because of the clash between the high hopes and sad reality, those expressing preferences to live another way are often imprisoned, while under non-Communist regimes 'Communists' are free to write books, be professors, start communes and cooperative living/production units, etc.
But you don't find many, if any, societies in the Communism + freedom quadrant.
The other three quadrants have many examples. And those tyrannies that have become more free over time have usually needed a dose of capitalism as the first step (ending collective enterprises, especially farms, and trading with capitalist markets, for example).
Even if there was cyncism among those who grabbed power, they then elevated Communism's texts and ideals in all official communication, celebration, and education. So generations were given every chance to try "Communism in good faith".
But it still didn't work. It turned out more corrupt, more polluting, more poor, and even in many respects less egalitarian than capitalism.
To claim all those proud earnest efforts weren't "in good faith" is at best a form of the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
They weren't stupid. They knew the party line was an obvious load of crap, a fig leaf over a ruthless power grab. They went through the motions only out of fear of the secret police (in itself an acknowledgment the rulers didn't expect any loyalty). In particular, Russian cynicism about propaganda became legendary.
You don't judge actual democracy by looking at totalitarian hellholes and their blatant lies about how "democratic" they are, do you?
Was every Communist movement that took power -- Lenin, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh -- dominated by ruthless power-grabbers with no allegiance to Communist ideas except as a cynical route to power from the beginning?
(If in fact these ideas are so useful to ruthless power-grabbers, and so hard to implement 'in good faith', might that alone not discredit them? Attractive, in theory; but when you try to build a popular movement around them, nastier people than ever wind up on top.)
Why, when cracks in the secret police's power finally emerge, do the people embrace property, markets, and profits rather than a chance to finally implement 'Communism in good faith'?
Out of curiosity, why do you think communism is inherently bad? Do you take the angle of "Man is entitled to the fruits of his labor", or is there something else to it?