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

[Hygro]

I'm saying that once the people knew the strengths and weaknesses of Marxian feudalism, and how to play that game, they had learned the skill set for a more complex game we call capitalism.

 

[jackelgull]

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".

Feudalism in the 12th century wasn't neccesarily better, it was only more feasible.

I'm not sure how to explain it other than say that the fundamental root causes of a capitalistic economy weren't present. There wasn't enough human capital, markets and other necessities to make capitalism work. These neccessary prerequisites and proto-capitalistic practices had to be developed in a feudal economy before capitalism could develop.

 

[Daw]

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

Why "now"? Any "better or not" comparison is and has always been nonsensical when it is unrelated to conditions. What species is better adopted: a dolphin or an elephant?

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

I don't know. Was capitalism concept around already to be tried in C12th? But it might be that capitalism wouldn't have worked splendidly in C12th because of logistics/production issues: no steam to put to work.

But production technologies and IT are drastically better now then they were 100 years ago. Logistics and healtcare, too. May be something else. All that together counts for an environmental change that will matter.

And the development has not stopped, as I guess, so more changes are ahead to see.

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

Neither do I, actually.

 

[aelf]

I don't believe that at all.

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.

If you're going to refer to it as "Protestant Ethic", then you're necessarily placing the burden of the causal relationship on Protestantism. And, dude, surely you don't need to read many books to know that that's just a silly stereotype - like stereotyping 'Mohammedans' (yes, it's that outdated) as militant and rugged survivalists or something. Weber obviously wrote in a time where stereotypes like that were still sociologically acceptable in scholarship (though if you get, say, an engineer writing about culture today, then maybe all bets are off).

If you're just saying that "the rise of individualism led to the rise in private enterprise", whether or not that was a specifically Protestant thing, then you're just getting into the usual space of speculation and conjecture about that sort of thing. There's probably no way to reliably demonstrate that that was the case rather than the rise of private enterprise leading to more individualism instead.

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.

Person A is alive and person B is dead. Would you conclude therefore that person A is better?

There are easily other metrics that could be described as measuring "intrinsic worth" (though obviously universalism is a tricky thing), and you go with present-day survival as your metric?

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

The American insistence on their crazy gun culture is an obvious example of an expression of liberty that damages society.

A few deaths a year don't damage a hundreds million society unless artificially made significant.

Gun ownership is one of many factors which lead to these deaths.

Deaths because of guns are easier and more obvious to notice than from other reasons (including those which may lead to a gun being used to kill).

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.

1. It is too straightfoward and honest, both in theory and practice, to fight capitalism or canny enemies.

2. Of course they are.

Let's imagine I want a super jacuzzi. I have to work hard for it and then install it to my place, and then to maintain it, all by myself. And then they will envy me or avoid me, because they are out of my league of super jacuzzi owners now, and they will be unhappy, because they have none or a <snip> jacuzzi.

Now, let's imagine everyone gets a super jacuzzi, it's a norm. Those who doesn't are sorry losers, avoid and banish them, this garbage! Are we all happy except them now? No. We need this new extra super something to own!

And what about Earth and nature? How will they endure if everyone gets and maintains a super jacuzzi? What are you, a green people hater to think of such things? Well-being is of utter importance!

Did I mention most of the time of its existence a personal super jaccuzi is not even used?

And now let's imagine a planned economy. Do you want a super jaccuzi? Okay, go to a local soviet, so that they decide on this issue. Enough people are in need or wish a super jaccuzi? Enough resources available? Okay, let's build a few super jaccuzi for the community via collective work/resource investement, so everyone could access them. The results are: noone has to work overly hard to get a super jaccuzi, but everyone just a bit; everyone can use a super jaccuzi; noone can usurp it (what an absurd wish it would be!); Earth and nature are not over-exploited to build private things which are not used most of the time and/or the main function of which is to help their owners' social position/image instead of straight utility.

3. Marxist economy describes economical relations nicely and to the point. So any definition of capitalism/communism should be looked for in there.

Another factor in the failure of socialism was the rise of the middle class.

If there were no socialist revolutioners, countries and super powers, this rise or anything related would never happen.

Moderator Action: Language.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[classical_hero]

"Eventually you run out of other people's money. - margaret Thatcher.

That is pretty much the inherent problem with socialism and communism is that once you have taken as much money as you can out of those who are the most productive, eventually that money will run out to pay for things that keep socialism and communism running. Why don't you think eventually communism failed and we are seeing many socialistic countries failing, such as Venezuela.


Link to video.

 

[Zkribbler]

"Eventually you run out of other people's money. - margaret Thatcher.

Define "other people's money."

For example, a corporation produces gross profits due to the efforts of all those who work there. Should 99% of those profits go to the 1% who are upper management while 1% of the gross profits are divided up between 99% of the people who work there?

Then, if the employees suggest that maybe the division should be more equitable, upper management screams, "They're trying to take our money!"

Example 2: Employees go to work, earn salaries, and pay a percentage of their wages in taxes. Meanwhile, someone's Great Uncle Henry dies and leave his great nephew $1 billion dollars. When it is suggest that maybe the heir pay taxes at the same rate as the employees, the heir screams, "They're trying to take my money!"

...taken as much money as you can out of those who are the most productive...

I'm not sure how you can define "most productive" to include ancient heiresses who know nothing about business and silver-spooned morons who merely follow the instructions of their underpaid financial advisers. I believe that the Joe Six-Packs of the world, who get up in the dark, who go to Job 1 and then to Job 2, and who come home after dark, are also productive. Teachers are productive members of society, as a bus drivers, factory workers, desk clerks, shop girls, etc.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Legs, arms, brain, money. Strike what's falling out here.

The only reason money remained in socialist countries is that there was not enough time to abolish them. Socialist countries exist in a world dominated by hostile capitalism, they have to invest energy into defending themselves instead of fully investing into social engineering and evolution.

 

[BvBPL]

If you're going to refer to it as "Protestant Ethic", then you're necessarily placing the burden of the causal relationship on Protestantism. And, dude, surely you don't need to read many books to know that that's just a silly stereotype - like stereotyping 'Mohammedans' (yes, it's that outdated) as militant and rugged survivalists or something. Weber obviously wrote in a time where stereotypes like that were still sociologically acceptable in scholarship (though if you get, say, an engineer writing about culture today, then maybe all bets are off).

If you're just saying that "the rise of individualism led to the rise in private enterprise", whether or not that was a specifically Protestant thing, then you're just getting into the usual space of speculation and conjecture about that sort of thing. There's probably no way to reliably demonstrate that that was the case rather than the rise of private enterprise leading to more individualism instead.

That seems to speak to your perception of Weber's theses, rather than contemporary scholars' views of the theses. Do you want to speak to the scholarship?

 

[aelf]

Perhaps you would be better served by going to the library than discussing it here, then. There are some critiques in the Wikipedia article, but I trust you know how to find that yourself.

 

[sophie]

"Eventually you run out of other people's money. - margaret Thatcher.

That is pretty much the inherent problem with socialism and communism is that once you have taken as much money as you can out of those who are the most productive, eventually that money will run out to pay for things that keep socialism and communism running. Why don't you think eventually communism failed and we are seeing many socialistic countries failing, such as Venezuela.

Not if it's your own money. And all you have to do to get more is spend it.

 

[Gigaz]

I guess there are mostly two parameters which one should consider, which are work motivation and cost of supervision.

Communism does kind of work on a small scale, if it is practised by communities in relative isolation which do not number more than a few hundred persons. It is relatively hard then to get away with lazyness because everyone knows everything.
In the historical socialism, there was in many cases a comparably low risk involved when doing nothing at work.

So, when you want a communist society you have to make sure that people actually work. Because people will try to find ways to cheat the system. You have the supervise stuff, which is costly. And if it is very costly, Communism becomes comparably inefficient.

 

[BvBPL]

Perhaps you would be better served by going to the library than discussing it here, then. There are some critiques in the Wikipedia article, but I trust you know how to find that yourself.

Wikipedia does not discuss the perceived value of the theses within contemporary sociology. In your initial post, you suggested an absence of support for the theses from scholars. From your second post, I inferred that your dismissal of the theses was based on your perceived lack of face validity, rather than a survey of contemporary scholarship.

Which is it?

 

[Daw]

you have to make sure that people actually work

That doesn't come with communism though. It is also so under capitalism as well.

Eventually you run out of other people's money.

How can it be about anyone's money when there's no money under communism? Any "cost" there is just man/hours.

 

[brennan]

Capitalism is doing so badly at employing the British people that the unemployed are 'encouraged'* to undertake voluntary work in order to improve their CVs. There is a million-plus strong workforce in the UK of people who are, as Ian Duncan Smith put it 'learning the value of their labour' - nothing.

*forced under threat of 'sanction'**.

**withdrawal of benefits, hunger and homelessness.

 

[Zkribbler]

That doesn't come with communism though. It is also so under capitalism as well.

Indeed. I have some difficulty distinguishing the functioning of a manufacturing plant being directed from the central planning of a distant communist commissar and a manufacturing plant being directed by a distant corporate board of directors.

 

[brennan]

The board of Directors are paid a lot more.

 

[Daw]

[...]

At the same time, globalization and increased productivity made comfortable living possible for many people who previously struggled to meet their basic needs. [...]

[...] 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.

These are pieces that I am strongly in agreement with. However, Marx is still right in the eventual inevitability of socialism (-> communism, apparently), either way.

As to the Protestant work ethics, I am actually unsure if it is at all contradictory to socialism or communism. At least nothing I know about it directly leads to any contradiction. But I admit I may lack knowledge or understanding there.

Spoiler :

In fact, I don't even understand how any one can be a Christian without simultaneously being a communist. (While I do understand how one can be a secular communist, an atheist communist, or even an anticlerical communist). This has been shown the best way by this post in the "Very interesting - or even awesome - plan by Finland" thread recently:

You see, we here in Finland have morals that have developed from our Christian history, and most people want to give their other jacket to the neighbour who has none. People can vote this to be law as much as they can vote their leaders to go through wars against people across the world. We just prefer the love and peace to war and suffering.

I understand perfectly well that people who follow Satanist egoistical teachings would rather keep the money for themselves, but you have to learn to respect our right to our Christian culture.

Would you please define/describe what the Protestant work ethics is [about]?

The board of Directors are paid a lot more.

Which just means they don't care for higher benefits.

 

[aelf]

Wikipedia does not discuss the perceived value of the theses within contemporary sociology. In your initial post, you suggested an absence of support for the theses from scholars. From your second post, I inferred that your dismissal of the theses was based on your perceived lack of face validity, rather than a survey of contemporary scholarship.

Which is it?

I think you're mixing up arguments here.

What I was suggesting is the absence of support for the thesis from contemporary scholars because of a lack of face validity. If you do think, contrary to my suggestion, that such support exists, then the burden ought to be on you to show that, since epistemologically it's not feasible to prove the absence of something.

What 'proof' I can offer is my own experience in the field, in which I have not found a single credible contemporary scholarship that uses Weber's thesis to explain social phenomena, other than perhaps as a passing mention. However, I cannot precisely cite my experience, since I am not a published scholar on this subject nor am I in the habit of keeping libraries and records of all that I have learned. I thought my explained opinion would be a reasonable enough offering in a discussion forum where people discuss things purely out of interest, as opposed to an academic conference or scholarly exchange. If it's the latter sort of experience you seek, as I said, you might be better served by going to the library.

A second type of proof I can offer is scholarly critiques of Weber's thesis to show its lack of face validity. However, some such critiques are found easily enough with a quick Google search, and I don't feel its productive to give you some links you can easily find in a few seconds yourself. Again, perhaps you would take it as a personal failing of mine, but I don't keep more extensive records of scholarship that criticises Weber's thesis. So if you want something more rigorous than I can and am prepared to offer in this medium, you might be better served by going to the library.

Have I made it clear enough why I don't think I am obliged to respond generously to your "citation needed" response?

 

[Borachio]

Capitalism is doing so badly at employing the British people that the unemployed are 'encouraged'* to undertake voluntary work in order to improve their CVs. There is a million-plus strong workforce in the UK of people who are, as Ian Duncan Smith put it 'learning the value of their labour' - nothing.

*forced under threat of 'sanction'**.

**withdrawal of benefits, hunger and homelessness.

Not only this.

But also a sizeable minority (~2.7 million families, I believe) of those in full-time employment have to have their wages subsidized by tax credits because their employers can't, or won't, pay them the necessary minimum living wage.