Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

106055Re: Capitalism produces. Socialism distributes

Expand Messages
  • Donald W.
    Jul 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <stonjek@...> wrote:

      > The main failing of the Russian system was dictatorship in the early days and the failure to embrace change early enough. The North Korean system is both a dictatorship, which is exactly what the communist manifesto rallies against (so is that really a communist system?), ultra-nationalism and militarism. Indeed, regardless of the economic and welfare policies, dictatorship+nationalism+militarism has, in the past five centuries, always failed and at a huge cost to the people and the country. Blaming North Korea's problems on communism is somewhat mysterious in the light of the real excesses of that country. The only sin they are not guilty of committing is ultra-fanatical religiosity, unless you count worship of dead leaders as a religion...

      People are inclined to adopt an all-or-nothing point of view. Communism is all bad. Capitalism is all good. The free-market is all good or all bad. No child molester could possibly be truthful and honorable in any way. You are either with us or against us. That attitude is really no different from "Follow the Prophet's rules to the last detail or you are damned." You are either a Christian or not, etc.

      That unfortunate disposition of human thinkers itself is suitable for investigation by evolutionary psychology. A more thoroughgoing investigation would be a good use of research dollars, because black-and-white, all-or-none categories impede cognition and delay social progress. In order to discover why Communism fails, we need to know why the free-market goes haywire. We must understand that the Prophet made mistakes or we could make the same ones, etc. (At first, of course, many theorists would adopt all-or-none viewpoints; the explanation is either one thing or another, but not both, so the supposedly objective scientific method is not completely free from the disposition in question. The project would enhance science too.)

      Best regards,

      Donald W. Zimmerman
      Vancouver, BC, Canada
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic