Would Communism Be Better Than Capitalism?

[Yeekim]

No, gogf doesn't even believe that. In his mind, economics has nothing to do with people at all, and operates and exists completely independent of social forces.

Does he really? How someone could believe something like this about an economic system and continue to take himself seriously is beyond me.

I guess we need to hear the truth from the man himself.

 

[Cutlass]

It would?
(And I'm going to keep doing this until somebody actually bothers to substantiate their claims. )

What would you take as substantiation?

You have systems built upon the idea that people are acting in cooperation with one another absent any form of coercion in anarcho-communism, and in laissez-faire capitalism you have the assumption that no one will try to defraud others or place others at risk just for a bit more gain. There's just nothing in human history that I see that would let be buy either assumption as valid. People act in their own self interest. They act in community interest to the extent that they believe that it is also in their personal interests. Of course, not all people see their interests the same. There are always some people with a broader, and some a narrower, view of self interest.

A wage and property based economy, no matter what other weaknesses you care to enumerate in it, does have an advantage that motivates people quite strongly.

 

[Gogf]

I can't take myself seriously because I'm convinced anarcho-communism and laissez-faire capitalism cannot work(or at least aren't sustainable) because they both rely on individuals operating in a certain ideal manner?

Why do you think the problem is with the people in the system, and not with the system itself?

 

[galdre]

Why do you think the problem is with the people in the system, and not with the system itself?

I tend to think it's the people and not the system because it is people who have created the systems (can't answer for Taniciusfox though...)

 

[Leoreth]

Why do you think the problem is with the people in the system, and not with the system itself?

A "system" is meaningless without the people in the system because they are a necessary part of it.

 

[timtofly]

A "system" is meaningless without the people in the system because they are a necessary part of it.

I am sure that any system would run fantastically swell if there were no humans involved.

We can have a perfect system or a human system. We cannot have both together though.

 

[Crezth]

No, gogf doesn't even believe that. In his mind, economics has nothing to do with people at all, and operates and exists completely independent of social forces.

How does that make any sense?

 

[Rashiminos]

How does that make any sense?

I don't think Cheezy intended for that to seem sensical.

 

[Leoreth]

I am sure that any system would run fantastically swell if there were no humans involved.

We can have a perfect system or a human system. We cannot have both together though.

Okay, to be more precise: a political system needs people. Their point is to handle people and their goals and ambitions. "The system itself" as a phrase excluding the people is completely meaningless.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

How does that make any sense?

Your intuition is correct: it doesn't. It's completely divorced from reality.

 

[Agent327]

Would communism be better than capitalism? By this I don't mean "do you think we should pursue communism", or "do you think that 'actually existing socialism' is/was better than capitalism", but simply whether you think that living in a hypothetical communist society- a stateless, classless, post-market society- however utopian, unrealistic, or downright silly that may seem, would be better than living in a capitalist society. It's a question about the "Idea of communism" than how this idea connects to political and social reality.

I'm not really interested out in hashing out any real political points here- there's plenty of that elsewhere!- but more in seeing how people orientate themselves on a more ethical or philosophical level, when removed a few steps from immediate reality.

Edit: As pointed out by Leoreth, "capitalism" is left unhelpfully vague, here, so let's just say that you compare it your own idealised capitalism, whatever form that may take. The point is really to compare the fundamental aspects of each, rather than to ask "would you like utopia?", which really isn't a very useful question to ask.

Watch Star Trek.

 

[Leoreth]

Watch Star Trek.

Oh my, huge can of worms.

 

[Tani Coyote]

It would?

Why do you think the problem is with the people in the system, and not with the system itself?

I don't think laissez-faire capitalism or anarcho-communism are inherently doomed to failure. Therefore, it may be semantics, but I don't believe the SYSTEM itself is the issue.

Both systems will work, but require ideal actors - laissez-faire capitalism requires contentness with inequality as well as those at the top not screwing over those on the bottom. Anarcho-communism requires contentment with everyone else having a say in how much you make and thus contentment with limits on your potential.

Based on what I know of people past and present, until the populace fits either of these shoes, neither system is practical for the time being.

For the present, I think a government that adjusts its role in society based on the needs and desires of the population is the most feasible, as it is the most flexible. If the people don't want services, cut them. If they want them, give them.

I believe Gogf wanted to say that since economics is essentially a study of human relationships and behaviour, the manner of your comment sounds... foolish.
You can't view "the system" and "the people within it" separately.

Au contraire.

A weapon generally works well. However, it works best with certain kinds of ammunition put in it.

In the same way, nearly any economic setup can work. But, for it to last and be sustainable, it requires ideal actors.

This is why a system that adjusts itself will outlast all others, as it can change with the times. It is why anarcho-communism, laissez-faire capitalism, strict constitutionalism, and many other systems all end up failing, as they do not adjust.

That which does not evolve, which does not adapt, dies.

What would you take as substantiation?

You have systems built upon the idea that people are acting in cooperation with one another absent any form of coercion in anarcho-communism, and in laissez-faire capitalism you have the assumption that no one will try to defraud others or place others at risk just for a bit more gain. There's just nothing in human history that I see that would let be buy either assumption as valid. People act in their own self interest. They act in community interest to the extent that they believe that it is also in their personal interests. Of course, not all people see their interests the same. There are always some people with a broader, and some a narrower, view of self interest.

A wage and property based economy, no matter what other weaknesses you care to enumerate in it, does have an advantage that motivates people quite strongly.

I concur entirely. I find a society without need for a government, bureaucracy and regulation a good idea in principle, but it falls flat on its face in practice, regardless of whether you aim for capitalism or communism.

Not to say people couldn't change(as they have before), but I don't think that will be for some time.