NationStates Jolt Archive

Discuss...

People are altruistic (or not).

Economic systems are neither.

I'm not certain where you got the idea that communism wasn't voluntary or that it was altruistic. I suppose it could be altruistic, and possibly imposed involuntarily, though the latter is highly unlikely.

People are altruistic (or not).

Economic systems are neither.

Then this raises a problem for those who claim that communism should be implemented because it appeals to our altruistic nature.

I'm not certain where you got the idea that communism wasn't voluntary or that it was altruistic. I suppose it could be altruistic, and possibly imposed involuntarily, though the latter is highly unlikely.

Not everyone will suddenly agree to live and abide by the expectations of the commune.

Then this raises a problem for those who claim that communism should be implemented because it appeals to our altruistic nature.

How does that follow? If communism improves the welfare of others, an altruist would have a motive to support it.

I have the feeling I'm misunderstanding you... could you explain your argument in more detail, please?

How does that follow? If communism improves the welfare of others, an altruist would have a motive to support it.

I have the feeling I'm misunderstanding you... could you explain your argument in more detail, please?

You are saying that the altruist would have the motive to support it. But is that really his motive, or is his motive that he doesn't want to suffer the consequences if he doesn't serve his commune? Being altruistic means you will naturally help others unconditionally, but the help isn't unconditional under communism.

But is that really his motive, or is his motive that he doesn't want to suffer the consequences if he doesn't serve his commune?

If he believes that communism will improve the welfare of others, if he is an altruist one of his motives will be altruism.

If he is afraid of the consequences of non-support, that will also be one of his motives.

For what it's worth, in order to be punishable "non-support" would probably have to go beyond the stage of non-participation to outright property seizure, or something of the sort.

Being altruistic means you will naturally help others unconditionally, but the help isn't unconditional under communism.

This is the case today too. Altruists recognize a duty to not murder others, but murder is still punished by the law. Does that mean that refusing to murder cannot be an altruistic act? No--it just means that there's another motive for not murdering even if a person is not altruistic. It ensures that our security does not depend on the altruism of others.

"Capitalism is the exploitation of people by people, Communism is the opposite"

-Anon

If he believes that communism will improve the welfare of others, if he is an altruist one of his motives will be altruism.

If he is afraid of the consequences of non-support, that will also be one of his motives.

For what it's worth, in order to be punishable "non-support" would probably have to go beyond the stage of non-participation to outright property seizure, or something of the sort.

This is the case today too. Altruists recognize a duty to not murder others, but murder is still punished by the law. Does that mean that refusing to murder cannot be an altruistic act? No--it just means that there's another motive for not murdering even if a person is not altruistic. It ensures that our security does not depend on the altruism of others.

But then this would be no different from other economic systems, an altruist may have an opportunity to teach children under capitalism for instance, but another motive of his will be money. I don't see how communism is more altruistic then other economies, or at least I don't see how communism lets people be more altruistic then capitalism. Granted that if the person was to assume that communism would benefit the poor more, they may support the idea of it, but I don't make that assumption. The thing I have a problem with mainly is the idea that it appeals to the altruist's needs, giving off the impression that they can't be altruistic under other economies.

But...if communism wasn't altruistic...then what about Ayn?

Then this raises a problem for those who claim that communism should be implemented because it appeals to our altruistic nature.WHO makes this claim?

Objectivists seem to be obsessed with this straw man. Other than their own rants, where can you actually find it?

Being altruistic means you will naturally help others unconditionally...Since when?

Since when?

I assumed he meant "unconditioned by it being in line with one's self-interest."

giving off the impression that they can't be altruistic under other economies.

Well, not "can't."

But it's more difficult to be altruistic under conditions of economic insecurity... we tend to focus more on our own troubles. Under communist conditions, the idea is that, with one's basic economic welfare guaranteed, it would be easier for people to express their altruism.

Well, not "can't."

But it's more difficult to be altruistic under conditions of economic insecurity... we tend to focus more on our own troubles. Under communist conditions, the idea is that, with one's basic economic welfare guaranteed, it would be easier for people to express their altruism.

Doesn't communism more remove the need of altruism. Since everyone's needs have been met, then what are you going to do to help other people, they have everything they need already.

To me capitalism insures security much more so than communism does and therefore is more altruistic since people will have an abundance with which to help others who may be down on their luck.

Since everyone's needs have been met, then what are you going to do to help other people,

Well, to the extent that increased economic equality takes away the financial incentive to maximize production, altruism would play a role in replacing it.

they have everything they need already.

Doubtful. Communism would not secure everyone's happiness just because it managed to secure everyone's economic welfare.

I assumed he meant "unconditioned by it being in line with one's self-interest."Even so, since when has altruism required of us that we be wholly unconcerned with our own interest? That is a mentality appropriate to victims and slaves, not to a free people.

Well, to the extent that increased economic equality takes away the financial incentive to maximize production, altruism would play a role in replacing it.


Doubtful. Communism would not secure everyone's happiness just because it managed to secure everyone's economic welfare.

So we would all work harder for the greater good, instead of for our own wellbeing? sounds a little (ha ha) too idealistic. So, how would altruistic people work to make others happy who they are equals to economically speaking?

So we would all work harder for the greater good, instead of for our own wellbeing?

No.

But we would most likely be more inclined to work for the "greater good" when much of our well-being is already secured.

So, how would altruistic people work to make others happy who they are equals to economically speaking?

By working to help them secure the countless non-material goods essential to a happy and free existence.

Even so, since when has altruism required of us that we be wholly unconcerned with our own interest?

I don't think that's what he meant either.

In the context of his argument, he seems to be referring to the notion that altruism demands we take into account the interests of others regardless of (unconditioned by) whether or not doing so benefits us.

The degree to which we must take into account those interests is a separate question.

No.

But we would most likely be more inclined to work for the "greater good" when much of our well-being is already secured.



By working to help them secure the countless non-material goods essential to a happy and free existence.

I guess, I will agree with you in as much as communism may in a way be more altruistic, in that it assumes people will continue to work despite having all their needs taken care of. I personally don't think this would be the case, most people would rather sit around and do nothing, or watch TV after their needs have been met (in the same way that the majority of welfare recipients don't decide to go do voluntary work, just because they don't have to work at all, and all their needs are met, quite sufficiently).

I guess, we could have everyone out trying to find people new friends and spouses etc. Though I would think that'd only backfire. I guess I'm having a hard time thinking of non-material goods that would fulfill someone besides friendship.

I personally don't think this would be the case, most people would rather sit around and do nothing,

And be bored to death? No, people like activity... though they tend to like it a whole lot less when they are compelled to do it by economic circumstances, especially when that means it need not be in any way intrinsically attractive.

(in the same way that the majority of welfare recipients don't decide to go do voluntary work, just because they don't have to work at all, and all their needs are met, quite sufficiently).

If this is the case, why does anyone in a society with welfare work at all?

And be bored to death? No, people like activity... though they tend to like it a whole lot less when they are compelled to do it by economic circumstances, especially when that means it need not be in any way intrinsically attractive.

hmm, that must be the cause of the current obesity epidemic, people are much more inclined to do alot of activities than sit around doing nothing. I doubt it very much. I agree that doing activities can make many people (myself included) very happy, however someone's inclination to actually perform such activities doesn't seem to correlate to how happy it might make them.

If this were the case, why does anyone in a society with welfare work at all?

Because not everyone is so shameful. Also, because they know they have the possibility to gain economically from working, which would be absent in a completely communist economy. Some people love their work, but without an economic incentive I don't think they'd be as inclined to work as hard.

hmm, that must be the cause of the current obesity epidemic,

Who said anything about physical activity?

I agree that doing activities can make many people (myself included) very happy, however someone's inclination to actually perform such activities doesn't seem to correlate to how happy it might make them.

No. But then, compelled activity takes up such a large portion of most people's time and energy (and confines them to such rigid schedules) that this break is not unexpected... within a society like ours, anyway.

Within a communist society, would the same tendencies prevail? I don't know... it's quite possible that even more radical social changes must prevail to overcome this problem. But at least a rather plausible case could be made that it would help.

Because not everyone is so shameful.

Well, there's one motive to work in a communist society right there.

Some people love their work, but without an economic incentive I don't think they'd be as inclined to work as hard.

Why should they be? And why do you suppose that the non-monetary incentives of a communist culture would so closely match the non-monetary incentives of a capitalist one?

Indeed, a primary reason economic gain is so attractive is because non-monetary motives--pride, shame, competitiveness--are attached to it. In a communist society, such connections would be be severed.

Does this carry with it the implication that Capitalism is voluntary, or the myth that the choices people make in a Capitalist economy are truly free? Because if we're knocking over sweeping notions about economic systems...

Communism isn't voluntary for everyone, therefore communism isn't really altruistic

that is why i cannot support communism until human nature changes more towards altruism, much as i like the theory. and this is why "communist" states have tended towards totalitarianism.

but the thing is forcing any ideology on anybody who does not voluntarily want it isn't fair either. but is it just? ah who knows....

Does this carry with it the implication that Capitalism is voluntary, or the myth that the choices people make in a Capitalist economy are truly free? Because if we're knocking over sweeping notions about economic systems...

i like the way you think :)

Who said anything about physical activity?



No. But then, compelled activity takes up such a large portion of most people's time and energy (and confines them to such rigid schedules) that this break is not unexpected... within a society like ours, anyway.

Within a communist society, would the same tendencies prevail? I don't know... it's quite possible that even more radical social changes must prevail to overcome this problem. But at least a rather plausible case could be made that it would help.



Well, there's one motive to work in a communist society right there.



Why should they be? And why do you suppose that the non-monetary incentives of a communist culture would so closely match the non-monetary incentives of a capitalist one?
what new non-monetary incentives would be created, that don't already exist? If people have the monetary incentive removed they will work only as much as is necessary for them to be fulfilled, this will directly result in a loss in the amount of work done (though increasing productivity for the hours worked).

Indeed, a primary reason economic gain is so attractive is because non-monetary motives--pride, shame, competitiveness--are attached to it. In a communist society, such connections would be be severed.

This is true, jobs are a source of pride and outlet for competitiveness for many, but economics also play a huge role on their own. I very much doubt anyone could count on jobs that are not enjoyable to be done under this system. I just don't see how you can claim removing an incentive to work will cause no problems. If everyone just does the job they want to who will do the crappy jobs, what if no one with the unnecessary skills and knowledge and feels like doing anything about an emergency at that particular moment?

If people have the monetary incentive removed they will work only as much as is necessary for them to be fulfilled

People will always work "only as much" as they have motives to do so. This applies as much to monetary motives as to non-monetary ones.

I very much doubt anyone could count on jobs that are not enjoyable to be done under this system.

Jobs that are so "objectively" awful that no one wants to do them could be improved, shared, or simply not done at all.

I just don't see how you can claim removing an incentive to work will cause no problems.

I didn't say it would cause "no" problems, and I never advocated removing every incentive to work.

what if no one with the unnecessary skills and knowledge and feels like doing anything about an emergency at that particular moment?

I don't see how you avoid this problem in any society without outright slavery.

We trust that our incentives are sufficient that people will deal with the emergency... and if it turns out they aren't, we increase them.

In the context of his argument, he seems to be referring to the notion that altruism demands we take into account the interests of others regardless of (unconditioned by) whether or not doing so benefits us.

The degree to which we must take into account those interests is a separate question.In what sense is it a separate question?

If you need a place to stay, being the altruistic sort I'll be inclined to help you whether or not I get anything out of it, now or in the future.

If you still need a place to stay next week, being the altruistic sort I'll be inclined to help you whether or not I get anything out of it, now or in the future.

If you still need a place to stay next month, being the altruistic sort I'll be inclined to help you whether or not I get anything out of it, now or in the future... BUT I will also be pressing you on your plans: will you get a job? will you find somewhere else to stay? how long will you be a burden upon me?

If you still need a place to stay in six months, I'm going to start charging rent.

I'm extremely altruistic, but that doesn't mean you can simply take advantage of me.

Being altruistic does NOT mean we should take into account the interests of others "unconditionally" or "regardless" of the cost/benefit to us.

whether or not I get anything out of it

Right. And that is the point. You are making more of this than there is.

Obviously the degree of help may be limited--especially if it comes at great cost to you for the sake of benefits to me that I could attain on my own.

But you are still willing to help me whether or not you get anything out of it. You getting something out of it is not a condition on you helping me... just as, in Hydesland's example, an altruist is willing to help others even if he is not punished for failing to do so.

You will act selflessly or you will die, hows that for self-interest, survival and all.

But we would most likely be more inclined to work for the "greater good" when much of our well-being is already secured.
Assuming we care at all about the greater good.

Some of us don't.

This is true, jobs are a source of pride and outlet for competitiveness for many, but economics also play a huge role on their own. I very much doubt anyone could count on jobs that are not enjoyable to be done under this system. I just don't see how you can claim removing an incentive to work will cause no problems. If everyone just does the job they want to who will do the crappy jobs, what if no one with the unnecessary skills and knowledge and feels like doing anything about an emergency at that particular moment?

Let me assume you don't have a maid or cleaning service for the purpose of this hypothetical question.
How do you manage to clean the bathroom in your home? Surely, you don't enjoy it?

And if you do, please clean mine too. I am an altruist and willing to help you out.

Any economic system is voluntary so long as its participants are free to cease participation at any time. This rules out broad-scale implementations of communism because planned economies require the government to outlaw competition and subversion. It also rules out modern capitalism because capitalism relies on government enforcement of contracts to provide its structural framework. You can't get away if you're in debt. Additionally, most capitalist governments have practically outlawed any possibility to experiment with alternative economies. Land property must be owned and taxed, or is heavily restricted in its use. Monetary fees exist for every necessary official action, from drivers licenses to public school registration to going to court. In today's world, it's meaningless to ask which economic system is freer, because governments have seen to it that none are.

But you are still willing to help me whether or not you get anything out of it. You getting something out of it is not a condition on you helping me... Yes, but you're making self-interest too one-sided.

When calculating self-interest, costs count. Mathematically, costs and benefits are the same thing, since either can be represented as the negative of the other: costs are just benefits with a "minus" sign.

To help others regardless of self-interest or unconditionally would be to ignore costs. Altruism doesn't demand that much.

This is an important realization for another reason: too often, people assume that if I benefit at all it must be assumed that I did not act altruistically. But the fact is that in many cases I may benefit through helping others, though I might benefit more if I didn't.

In other words, the degree of altruism needs to be measured against the maximization of my self-interest. If I help you and we both benefit, but I would benefit more by caring only about myself, I am still an altruist.

In other words, the degree of altruism needs to be measured against the maximization of my self-interest. If I help you and we both benefit, but I would benefit more by caring only about myself, I am still an altruist.

Not only that, but if you do maximize your self-interest but did it because it helped me, you are still an altruist.

I don't think we disagree here.

Some of us don't.

But most of us do... at least in some sense.

And the thread's question is specifically about communism's implications for altruists, who by definition do.

And the thread's question is specifically about communism's implications for altruists, who by definition do.
Though to varying degrees. Most people are probably altruistic in that it makes them unhappy to see others suffer.

But what precisely "others", "seeing" and "suffer" means varies from person to person. I'd say that most people would take a starving three-year old into their home for a while, call a doctor and otherwise do what's necessary to help it. But evidently seeing the same child starving in Africa on the news isn't cause for nearly as much effort.

So there'll be many people who are altruistic to some degree (like me, for example), but who wouldn't take it as far as giving others the right to decide over what is right now my earned property. I might only plan to go and help people in the third world after I have done very well for myself, that is after I have a mansion and a bunch of fast cars and a racetrack which I can manage in my retirement. Obviously that clashes with a communist organisation of society quite a bit.

Ultimately that's not really a problem though, as long as the communist society has open borders and allows people to join and leave as they please, and it can control the hotheads who can't tolerate the fact that outside its geographic area there are capitalist societies existing.

But what precisely "others", "seeing" and "suffer" means varies from person to person. I'd say that most people would take a starving three-year old into their home for a while, call a doctor and otherwise do what's necessary to help it. But evidently seeing the same child starving in Africa on the news isn't cause for nearly as much effort.

Yeah, that's true, and is an important (though not always controlling) reason to keep the effects of decision-making local.

But most of us do... at least in some sense.

And the thread's question is specifically about communism's implications for altruists, who by definition do.
But their altruism is subverted by forcing non-voluntary participants to live under communism.

But their altruism is subverted by forcing non-voluntary participants to live under communism.

That depends on what you mean by "forcing non-voluntary participants to live under communism."

Edit: "I don't agree" is not likely to be an accepted reason for avoiding property expropriation, but I fail to see how that is inconsistent with altruism.

But their altruism is subverted by forcing non-voluntary participants to live under communism.

Communism doesn't force people to volunteer.

Communism is brought about by the masses through revolution, therefore they wanted social change. Essentially the people run the country and through workers councils roles may well be assigned.

Some people may volunteer to do more to help the community they live in, just so it can benefit the community. I would call that an altruistic action.

Communism doesn't force people to volunteer.

Communism is brought about by the masses through revolution, therefore they wanted social change.
You're ignoring the possibility of dissenters. The masses aren't a unit. The people are individuals, and they can disagree.

"I don't agree" is not likely to be an accepted reason for avoiding property expropriation
That's the problem. If they don't consent then you're causing them harm by forcing them to participate.

That's the problem. If they don't consent then you're causing them harm by forcing them to participate.

Yes. The same is true of anything else they don't consent to, including such things as laws against murder.

Not only that, but if you do maximize your self-interest but did it because it helped me, you are still an altruist.Right, I'm just offering an externalized operational definition.

My point is simply that including altruistic motives in a decision-calculus does NOT mean renouncing self-interested motives. They can, certainly do, and should co-exist.

A "pure" altruist is worthy of sainthood, perhaps, but not citizenship.

Discuss...

Communism assumes society is a upstanding bunch that cares for one another.

Capitalism assumes that humans are a lot of selfish pigs.

Which is going to come closer to reality?

Communism assumes society is a upstanding bunch that cares for one another.

Capitalism assumes that humans are a lot of selfish pigs.

Which is going to come closer to reality?

In the short term force and the fear of pain and death will suffice to ensure conformist altruism, over the long term the nature of society can be changed, especially when the generation who lived through a liberal period of the society are dead.

Communism assumes society is a upstanding bunch that cares for one another.

Capitalism assumes that humans are a lot of selfish pigs.

Which is going to come closer to reality?

Doesn't really matter, now does it? Seeing as those are both pretty bad descriptions.

Communism assumes that the people will work without seeing direct benefits, and instead giving their goods to the society and in turn receiving what they need from society.

Capitalism assumes that people will guide the economy through shrewd purchasing and investing decisions, creating relatively fair wages for jobs and prices for goods.

Now, if I had to choose which of those came closer to reality? Hmm...

Though to varying degrees. Most people are probably altruistic in that it makes them unhappy to see others suffer.

But what precisely "others", "seeing" and "suffer" means varies from person to person. I'd say that most people would take a starving three-year old into their home for a while, call a doctor and otherwise do what's necessary to help it. But evidently seeing the same child starving in Africa on the news isn't cause for nearly as much effort.

True. The problem in the case of... what's the term... I forget, 'compassion fatigue' or something like that, is that unfortunately for those of us who do give a damn about other people (which deep down, I think is everyone who cannot be considered a 'staunch and unmoving $ideology$-ist), and moreover are disposed and have the means to help, it requires an almost saintly devotion to the cause. This means few people express their altruism because for a European with a family and economic/personal/etc responsibilties to, say, two or three people, it is difficult to justify going away for long periods of time to do something altruistic but in doing so leaving them in the s***. This is part of the problem of finding a solution. The bigger part is that the North continues to play economic games with the South - talk of which is a battle that capitalists can never win because under more communal (not necessarily communist global conditions, this would not be possible.

Ultimately that's not really a problem though, as long as the communist society has open borders and allows people to join and leave as they please, and it can control the hotheads who can't tolerate the fact that outside its geographic area there are capitalist societies existing.

This is also true of capitalist, or any form of socio-economic organisation. As long as there is a way out of the society without the consequences being dictated by said society, it is voluntary. The problem with there being more than one economic system in the world is that those who subscribe to one will always have the nagging fear that they will - in the communist/capitalist case - lose their workers or consumers to the other, and the two become like vicious animals each fighting for what they see as a fight for survival. If, because all are free to come and go as they please, we lose 10% of our workers, we won't be able to feed the people, for example or, if we lose 10% of our market and production capacity, the economy will slide and it'll all be bad and maybe (for both) we'll lose 100%. Hence the cold war and curtains of Bamboo and Iron.

But...if communism wasn't altruistic...then what about Ayn?
Christ, you're trying to fight communism with objectivism?

Indri - fighting stupid with... extra stupid since 2007!

In the short term force and the fear of pain and death will suffice to ensure conformist altruism, over the long term the nature of society can be changed, especially when the generation who lived through a liberal period of the society are dead.
"It's altruistic because we'll threaten those not interested with death".

Nice one there...

Communism assumes society is a upstanding bunch that cares for one another.

Capitalism assumes that humans are a lot of selfish pigs.

Which is going to come closer to reality?

I'd take communism any day of the week. I also believe that communism is the future for the world's population. Or, at least, for those nations whose population have a social conscience ;-)

You're ignoring the possibility of dissenters. The masses aren't a unit. The people are individuals, and they can disagree.

I didn't assume that those who would want a communist society are a bunch of brainwashed drones. Of course some people will leave, if a revolution occured. But revolutions only happen if the people agree on what they want and conscious of how they achieve it.

However, the proletariat of the world have no state.

I'd take communism any day of the week. I also believe that communism is the future for the world's population. Or, at least, for those nations whose population have a social conscience ;-)

Definitely. Consciousness will grow when living standards go into recession. I do believe that if everyone was aware of the true horrors of poverty in the world caused by cash-rich businesses we'd see more progression.

that is why i cannot support communism until human nature changes more towards altruism, much as i like the theory. and this is why "communist" states have tended towards totalitarianism.

Human nature is already very altruistic on the family and community level, it just breaks down after that (with people being altruistic even to animals). You can very obviously support a system of decentralized communism without having to worry about totalitarian states imposing it.

I'd take communism any day of the week. I also believe that communism is the future for the world's population. Or, at least, for those nations whose population have a social conscience ;-)

I think there is a very good chance that communism will one day be the universal government. But if you want it today, I question your reasoning. Compare, if you will, China to America.

Looks like someone has a paper to write, either in poitics, history, or philosophy.

I think there is a very good chance that communism will one day be the universal government. But if you want it today, I question your reasoning. Compare, if you will, China to America.

Now, why would we want to compare capitalism to capitalism?

Not everyone will suddenly agree to live and abide by the expectations of the commune.Then they can live outside of the commune and subsistence farm. Perhaps there will be enough subsistence farmers that they can form their own community.

So there'll be many people who are altruistic to some degree (like me, for example), but who wouldn't take it as far as giving others the right to decide over what is right now my earned property.The changing of rights wouldn't mean that everyone has to agree. This doesn't mean that creating or removing a right is or isn't altruistic.

In the short term force and the fear of pain and death will suffice to ensure conformist altruism, over the long term the nature of society can be changed, especially when the generation who lived through a liberal period of the society are dead.Considering that violence, especially on this scale, is almost certainly counterproductive...uh...no.

This is part of the problem of finding a solution. The bigger part is that the North continues to play economic games with the South - talk of which is a battle that capitalists can never win because under more communal (not necessarily communist global conditions, this would not be possible.
Or indeed under completely free trade. Because then there wouldn't be a north to "play games" with a south, there'd just be individuals and companies doing mutually beneficial deals with each other.

The problem with there being more than one economic system in the world is that those who subscribe to one will always have the nagging fear that they will - in the communist/capitalist case - lose their workers or consumers to the other, and the two become like vicious animals each fighting for what they see as a fight for survival.
I know, I'm just quite confident that capitalism would totally pwn communism in an open match. ;)

The changing of rights wouldn't mean that everyone has to agree. This doesn't mean that creating or removing a right is or isn't altruistic.
Well, I'm talking about personal actions concerning yourself and the person you're helping.

Say there was similar controversy about a right to life as about a right to property (eg because oxygen is running out or something), would that make murdering someone else an altruistic action because it might benefit a third party? Why do we consider the person who's being helped, not the person who's being killed?

That's where I see the problem when talking about altruism by hurting others. So imposing communism by whatever means would involve hurting some people, and I consider it questionable whether the act of imposing it could be called altruistic. The act of complying with it might be, but not the imposition.

Not that I like talking of altruism anyways. I think a voluntary but unselfish action is a contradiction.

Well, I'm talking about personal actions concerning yourself and the person you're helping.Do you mean the property you would have after communism has been imposed?

Not that I like talking of altruism anyways. I think a voluntary but unselfish action is a contradiction.There's a case to be made that all actions are selfish ones, yes.

Do you mean the property you would have after communism has been imposed?
Well, yes. To me, accepting communism is akin to giving up the right to one's product. The only reason you'd do that is to help others (barring some sort of extraordinary situation), so in that case accepting communism is an altruistic action.

Imposing communism on the other hand doesn't involve your own stuff (or only does so to a very small extent) but that of others. So I'd be less ready to call you helping others not by making sacrifices yourself but by demanding sacrifices from others a truly altruistic act.

Well, yes. To me, accepting communism is akin to giving up the right to one's product. The only reason you'd do that is to help others (barring some sort of extraordinary situation), so in that case accepting communism is an altruistic action.

Imposing communism on the other hand doesn't involve your own stuff (or only does so to a very small extent) but that of others. So I'd be less ready to call you helping others not by making sacrifices yourself but by demanding sacrifices from others a truly altruistic act.Well, that's the thing, that it wouldn't involve the stuff of others, since the others wouldn't have the right to that stuff.
When the slaves were freed, should the slaveowners have been compensated?

I agree with the notion that economic systems are not altruistic, instead people and thier philosophies are/can be.

Furthermore, why are we debating this trite issue?! History provides those who use their intellects logically and rationally,enough evidence to conclude that collectivism doesn't work and certainly is not part of any kind of innate nature we may posses. Human individuals are innately selfish and this is indeed a good thing. Selfishness or self intrest,is an individual's basic tool for survival.

Commnunism cannot be voluntary because it enslaves the mind of the individual, and subordinates him/her to 'the state' or 'the people'. Rights are only supposed to subordiante society to morality ( rights as absolutes).

An intresting article on the psychology of socialism:
www.fff.org/freedom/fd0306f.asp

To me, accepting communism is akin to giving up the right to one's product.Ironically, that's exactly what capitalism is to a communist.

See: Estranged Labour (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm), Karl Marx, 1844.