Why Aren't Socialism and/or Communism better than Capitalism and/or Liberalism?

Gary Childress · Dec 12, 2015

Please read as much of the below as you are able and NOT only the thread title before posting:

The "Ask a Red" Thread is great, however, there are constraints as far as only being allowed to post questions and who is allowed to post answers to them. So this will be more of a thread for everyone to contribute to. And I certainly encourage panelists from the "Ask a Red" thread to chip in to the discussion since this thread will hopefully involve thoughtful consideration of their views.

NOTE: I was going to make this a RD thread, however, I decided not to because I don't think (hope) stricter moderation is necessary. Of course this is NOT an invitation to be abusive or to spam nonsense or some other diversionary tactic. The basic guidelines of netiquette covered in the forum rules should be sufficient.

This thread basically picks up on a very thought provoking post by Brennan in the "Ask a Red" thread, which has gotten me thinking about the terms "liberalism", "socialism", "communism" and "capitalism".

Here is the part of Brennan's post relevant to this discussion [please note also that this was in response to my positing that a core value of liberalism is liberty]:

Spoiler :

Add to this a definition of communism I Googled just now:

Spoiler :

This seems like a pretty good and well worded definition/summation of Communism from what limited knowledge I admittedly possess on the subject.

A couple other terms to define are liberalism and capitalism:

Spoiler :

So to kick off the discussion, given the posts above:

1. What is truthfully wrong with communism and/or socialism?

2. Are they superior political systems to capitalism and/or liberalism?

3. Also feel free to comment on the definitions posted above.

For all THREE of the questions above,

1. Please respond with some degree of depth and detail as much as possible.

2. Please respond in your OWN words. If you find it necessary to refer others to an article or YouTube video, please INCLUDE some form of your own summary of what you believe the article or video is saying.

Thank you for responding.

Daw · Dec 12, 2015

I have to say I am not quite happy with the definition of Communism in the OP. My understanding of it is better represented by the Business Dictionary:

Economic and social system in which all (or nearly all) property and resources are collectively owned by a classless society and not by individual citizens. [...] it envisaged common ownership of all land and capital and withering away of the coercive power of the state. In such a society, social relations were to be regulated on the fairest of all principles: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Differences between manual and intellectual labor and between rural and urban life were to disappear, opening up the way for unlimited development of human potential. In view of the above, there has never been a truly communist state [...] (c)

This definition/description contradicts the OP's one in quite a few major points:

1. Class war advocacy. My stance about any war, including class war, is negative. However and although classes are to be leveled in their quality of life under communism, there is an understanding (which I share) that class war (in its literal violent meaning) is a way rather than the way for that.

So, I suggest that class war itself is defined before its advocacy gets discussed.

2. Public property ownership and its degree. In fact, it's not so about ownership as it is about usage demand and limitations. Anyone wants to use my underwear? No? Then it is actually irrelevant whether it is my property or public property, right?

So, it is discussable, first, if all or some property property is publicly owned, and second if private property makes any sense at all.

3. Each person works. I strongly believe it is not a must, simply because there are medical conditions, for instance. Secondly, the work here should also be defined before it is discussed. My guess is that that this has to be the broadest definition of work possible (like, children work to grow up and mature into adults while parents work ensuring and directing that; students work to become more knowledgeable; etc.), or the "each person works" is a false statement.

4. Each person is paid. That would not be so. When there's no private property, there's no use for money and there's also no sense in payment. Because what would you spend it for? It is about getting access to the commodities you need.

5. Each person ~~is paid~~ gets access to the commodities according to their abilities and needs. In fact, it contradicts the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." That principle clearly detaches access to commodities from abilities. It is needs what is associated with that.

OTOH, where there is some scarcity of any commodity, abilities (and merits arising from applying those abilities) might be a (not the) measure of how much one is prioritized in getting their access to that commodity. The necessity would still be the primary measure for that.

______________

At least the above follows from my readings on Communism.

Tahuti · Dec 12, 2015

Gary Childress said:
1. What is truthfully wrong with communism and/or socialism?

2. Are they superior political systems to capitalism and/or liberalism?

3. Also feel free to comment on the definitions posted above.

Ok, I've been lurking on CFC occassionally and this thread is too interesting to not respond.

1. The goal of relative economic equality (i.e. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need") is theoretically achievable. The only problem standing in the way is human failure. People are of variable levels of political intelligence/Machiavellianism, the ability to amass and sustain political power.

Essentially, for Capitalism to be replaced by Socialism, it is required that participants in Capitalist relations are trained in Machiavellianism and to be sufficiently ruthless and scheming towards those who leverage power through capital, since Socialism subordinates economic interest to political interest. In Capitalism, the two are intertwined with none clearly dominant over the other and effectively parts of the same thing.

2. No. Every ideology implicitly extols certain character traits and fits to different character types. Capitalism favours people who are frugal and greedy. Socialism favours people who are cunning and charismatic.

3. Socialism is essentially what its name suggests: Capital relations are replaced by Social relations. In some ways, we can see Socialism already at work: A High School class is a Socialist environment to a significant degree; you have jocks, nerds and everything in between. None can leverage on their economic status or that of their parents since school regulations prevent such and pupils from each school likely come from similar economic background anyway. Thus, a pupil's cunning and charisma becomes the leverage he or she has over others.

In capitalism, a socially awkward rich guy may still become powerful by using his capital prowess as a leverage. Capital is gained through frugality and greed for more capital. Cunning and charisma in a capitalist society to some degree subverts capitalism, for both are the tools of politicians and violators of private property.

BvBPL · Dec 12, 2015

The problem with socialism is that it presumes individual actors would understand how cooperation ultimately benefits them more than self-interest. Although Marx predated game theory, his philosophy was predictive of that dialectic. Marx assumed that capitalism would eventually result in such inequality that the proletariat working class would rise up and demand control of the means of production. Key to this sea change in behavior would be the development of class consciousness, the knowledge that one is not merely an individual, but also a part of a collective of persons situated similarly.

Basically, this communal awareness and call to action never materialized to the extent that Marx predicted. There are several reasons for this. The Protestant work ethic, as described by Weber, explains how the values of the West shifted from the communal to the individual. With the rise of the Protestant work ethic, people became less focused upon what was perceived as being best for their community in favor of what was best for themselves as individuals. Because Marx’s development of socialism relied upon communal action, the shift towards individualism frustrated the development of socialism.

Another factor in the failure of socialism was the rise of the middle class. Marx thought that the middle class would be a narrow band of people aligned with the existing unequal system of capitalism. In fact, the middle class developed into a very broad segment of the population, a segment that had a vested interest in maintaining the existing system. The rise of the middle class enabled aspirational members of the proletariat to achieve superior economic standing without having to crack the barrier to being a captain of industry. These aspirational proletariats were among the most motivated and intelligent of the class, exactly the kind of people who Marx assumed would be standard barriers.

At the same time, globalization and increased productivity made comfortable living possible for many people who previously struggled to meet their basic needs. Cheap goods salved a lot of the class woes that Marx believed would encourage the development of a socialist system.

Generally speaking, education and wealth have a positive correlation. The more well-educated you are, the more likely you are to have individual wealth. This is relevant because the concept of class consciousness is not intuitive; it is sort of a complicated thing to explain to people. More so to explain to people of poor education. To wit, the poor who would be most interested in developing a socialist system do not have sufficient education to comprehend the value of socialism.

Of course, there have been some reforms with a socialist bent. The social security and the safety net have their roots in socialism. These incremental reforms probably stymied the rise of a socialist system by showing that Marx might have been wrong: socialism might not require a sea change but can be rolled out in an incremental and piecemeal fashion.

Zack · Dec 12, 2015

What does better mean in this context? They accomplish different things.

Borachio · Dec 12, 2015

Perhaps by "better" is meant promoting human well-being? Globally, and in the sustainable long-term.

Narz · Dec 12, 2015

When people can agree what the common good is I think higher socialistic communities can work great.

There are some intentional communities in Virginia that are income sharing & highly socialist & the people there live a decent life (organic food 3x a day, vacation time, varied work, health care, etc.) for around $5,000 a year which is unheard of in US (very few other places besides in mommy's house can you earn that little & lead a reasonable life).

I don't think it is going to work in a very large heterogeneous community that fetishizes freedom above all else (including the freedom to pollute, be anti-social, dominate your neighbors with money, etc.)

If I were supreme leader I'd create some kind of eco-socialist paradise that emphasized the Earth & human welfare first & foremost but that's me, not everyone wants that.

You have to be able to convince people to give up a little to get a little & Americans hate that "Durr, hands off our guns, taxes, etc"

In answer to OP question, I think capitalism will always be superior in the short term but in the long term probably not.

What the world (humans in the world) really needs is beyond any ism that currently exist. Choosing among the idealized ramblings of long-dead European men for the answers to modern day problems seems rather dumb to me. Not to mention politics is like religion for most people (and equally as mindless). A new system would have the advantage of a new name, no prejudice.

aelf · Dec 12, 2015

Just because something is thriving and another isn't doesn't mean the former is better. Unless you're a Social Darwinist or something.

BvBPL said:
Basically, this communal awareness and call to action never materialized to the extent that Marx predicted. There are several reasons for this. The Protestant work ethic, as described by Weber, explains how the values of the West shifted from the communal to the individual. With the rise of the Protestant work ethic, people became less focused upon what was perceived as being best for their community in favor of what was best for themselves as individuals. Because Marxs development of socialism relied upon communal action, the shift towards individualism frustrated the development of socialism.

This is certifiably nonsense. I don't think there's any respectable modern scholarship that still takes the thesis of The Protestant Ethic seriously.

Archbob · Dec 12, 2015

Because humans aren't built to be completely equal or even close to.

You need a bit of inequality, but not a huge amount of it like we have today

BvBPL · Dec 12, 2015

aelf said:
This is certifiably nonsense. I don't think there's any respectable modern scholarship that still takes the thesis of The Protestant Ethic seriously.

I don't believe that at all.

Gerth & Mills said:
The prestige of Max Weber among European social scientists would be difficult to over-estimate. He is widely considered the greatest of German sociologists and ... has become a leading influence in European and American thought.

Edit: Some specificity might be appreciated here, because there's really two interlaced theses proffered by Weber. The first being that Protestantism lead to a emphasis in individualism from communalism in the West. The other being that the rise of individualism led to the rise in private enterprise. The second follows from the first, but is not necessarily reliant upon it.

Gary Childress · Dec 12, 2015

Archbob said:
Because humans aren't built to be completely equal or even close to.

You need a bit of inequality, but not a huge amount of it like we have today

Is communism entirely about equality, though? "From each according to their ability and to each according to their need" doesn't sound like it presumes everyone to be equal. In fact it sort of implies that people ARE different and DO have different capabilities and needs.

Borachio · Dec 12, 2015

aelf said:
Just because something is thriving and another isn't doesn't mean the former is better. Unless you're a Social Darwinist or something.

Then I'm at a bit of a loss how one might determine whether something is better than something else or not.

Is there some measure of intrinsic worth in a political and economic system that I'm missing then?

Of course, I could envisage a system that temporarily might be performing less well than another but which in the long run would prove to be better. But I'm still left with the thriving metric.

Zkribbler · Dec 12, 2015

Gary Childress said:
1. What is truthfully wrong with communism and/or socialism?

The problem with Communism is that it doesn't work. [I capitalized "Communism" to emphasis that I'm referring to Marxist-Leninism.] It's central-planning aspect removes the agile innovation of the free enterprise system.

The most recent example I can think of it what is happening in Raul Castro's agricultural sector. For decades, Cuban agriculture was run from Havana. A few years back, he allowed family farmers to take over the most undesirable "farmland" in Cuba. Within a few years, these independent farmers were producing 1/3 of Cuba's crops.

He's now experimenting with family-owned-and-operated businesses in the cities. I have not yet heard how these are doing, but an economy without corporations is something I'd like to take a look at.

The many manifestations of socialism makes them hard to analyze. A Marxist-Leninist will tell you there has never been a communist country because "the people" have never taken over any economy. What we saw in the USSR was the Party running things on behalf of the people, i.e. socialism. On the other end of the spectrum, you see the U.S. government running the military and the post office, making them socialist institutions.

Scandinavian socialism is something I'm becoming more interested in. As I understand it, it's a blend of free enterprise and classic socialism. Polls are showing these countries have the "happiest" people and the most upward-economic mobility, both very desirable goals.

Daw · Dec 12, 2015

Borachio said:
Then I'm at a bit of a loss how one might determine whether something is better than something else or not.

Is there some measure of intrinsic worth in a political and economic system that I'm missing then?

No, but you seem to miss conditions/circumstances/environment, whichever is the best word. There are conditions under which some system does greatly better than another, then conditions change and the difference is not so huge, then something changes in the environment and the difference is hardly noticeable, then it might happen that it's high time to change the system.

I don't know a lot about economy, but in developmental psychology a situation where the old system of "person<->world" interactions does not work already and a better one to replace it has not been implemented yet is often referred to as "crisis". I am not sure if economical crises I heard of recently have any similar nature...

The environmental parameter that has been changing along the same vector for quite some time now is production technology / automation. Maybe there are more parameters I don't know about.

Borachio said:
Of course, I could envisage a system that temporarily might be performing less well than another but which in the long run would prove to be better. But I'm still left with the thriving metric.

Yep. And also there is inertness of mentality. People hate changes. They will keep clutching to the old they know until it really gets unbearable and fight changes to death.

bhavv · Dec 12, 2015

I think that communism with a strong economy has the potential to work splendidly.

The main problem with capitalism and private property is the ever increasing cost of living skyrocketing beyond what a working wage can afford.

Borachio · Dec 12, 2015

No, but you seem to miss conditions/circumstances/environment, whichever is the best word. There are conditions under which some system does greatly better than another, then conditions change and the difference is not so huge, then something changes in the environment and the difference is hardly noticeable, then it might happen that it's high time to change the system.

So what are you saying? It's really not clear to me what you mean.

That a better system isn't, or is, one that's thriving most in the long run?

Daw · Dec 12, 2015

Daw said:
Maybe there are more parameters I don't know about.

Zkribbler said:
It's central-planning aspect removes the agile innovation of the free enterprise system.

Ah, certainly, IT! Thanks for reminding :thumbsup:

Daw · Dec 12, 2015

Borachio said:
So what are you saying? It's really not clear to me what you mean.

That a better system isn't, or is, one that's thriving most in the long run?

If it was addressed to me, I was saying that one system can be best at ensuring thriving under some conditions, but then conditions change and another system might outperform the old system. But before something new is tried, the thriving would likely diminish by far.

Like:
Condition set A - System A ensures thriving, System B sucks.
Condition set B - System A sucks but still is used because it's common practice, System B could ensure thriving already, but is not tried yet because everybody remembers it sucked.

Hygro · Dec 12, 2015

of course communism is better. but the entire discussion is 19th century and the popular ways of pushing communists by the most ardent supporters are only helpful to diversify our opinion portfolio—their techniques don't produce the end results they want, let alone the end results the rest of us want.

Basically we'll be ready for it when we've learned all the big lessons of the current epoch. So learning how to be a responsible individual in a capitalist context is a necessary interim. Make your money, vote for equality.

But seriously, ideal communism as defined by pro-capitalism economics is hilariously awesomely utopian I don't understand why my professors didn't see it. If we magically transformed right now, every household worldwide pulling minimum $55,000/year lifestyle, upward lets say $80,000, with rapid, accelerating growth rates such that we'd be all living $150,000 by the mid 2020s and ludicrously more by the 2030s.

Doesn't matter. Life is not civ, the real complexities of life as humans are way more complex than capitalism or communism can describe, and the actual super system—the system that people try to use capitalism to explain—is another magnitude more elaborate and yet simpler.

Borachio · Dec 12, 2015

Ah right.

So now you're saying that whether a system is better or not depends on the conditions at the time?

Feudalism in the C20th isn't better than capitalism. But Feudalism in the C12th century is better than capitalism?

No, no. That can't be right. There's got to be something amiss, here.

I still don't see that thriving isn't the only measure of "better".

Why Aren't Socialism and/or Communism better than Capitalism and/or Liberalism?

Student for and of life

Emperor

Writing Deity

Pour Decision Maker

99% hot gas

Way past lunacy

keeping it real

Ashen One

Ancient CFC Guardian

Pour Decision Maker

Student for and of life

Way past lunacy

Deity

Emperor

Glorious World Dictator

Way past lunacy

Emperor

Emperor

soundcloud.com/hygro/

Way past lunacy

Similar threads