Would Communism Be Better Than Capitalism?

[warpus]

Communism is a political system while capitalism is an economic one.

Right?

I wouldn't mind democratic communism that allowed property rights, freedom of everything, and capitalism.

 

[Traitorfish]

I might make a more substantial post later, but for now a few points:

1) Communism will always suffer from resource allocation problems, as amaeus said (and, like him, this is the killer for me)
2) "Freedom" is sacrificed at the expense of "equality", as mitsho said, to an uncompromising degree
3) Incentives are so abstract and dispersed that they have a minimal effect, so there's always going to be a problem motivating individuals
4) It's not even any more "fair" than capitalism

I'm not going to address all of these points, because, like I said, I don't want to get into the nitty gritty, but I do wonder how robust the opposition of "equality/freedom" invoked by you and Mishto actually is. It should be apparent that there's no particular correlation between inequality and freedom, or between unfreedom and equality- Medieval society didn't have a great deal of either, to take the most obvious example- so why does some sort of sliding scale appear to be adopted in this case? Certainly, you could make a criticism of any program or proposition that would appear to prioritise one or the other to an unreasonable degree, but I'm not sure how this particular criticism is actually supposed to work.

 

[Mise]

I'm not going to address all of these apart, because, like I said, I don't want to get into the nitty gritty, but I do wonder how robust the opposition of "equality/freedom" invoked by you and Mishto actually is. It should be apparent that there's no particular correlation between inequality and freedom, or between unfreedom and equality- Medieval society didn't have a great deal of either, to take the most obvious example- so why does some sort of sliding scale appear to be adopted in this case? Certainly, you could make a criticism of any program or proposition that would appear to prioritise one or the other to an unreasonable degree, but I'm not sure how this particular criticism is actually supposed to work.

There doesn't need to be a "sliding scale", but in the case of Communism, freedom is in actuality being sacrificed for equality. For me, the fact that there is no dichotomy between the two is exactly the problem: you don't need to sacrifice freedom for equality. Sweden has plenty of both, just by way of example.

 

[luiz]

Nope, even "ideal" communism is quite a nightmarish concept to me. Even if it could work, which it can't, (that is, ignoring the unsolvable resource allocation issue), I would still oppose it.

 

[galdre]

If humans were not so screwed up, either system would work - it's not the system that creates crime, poverty, etc, it's the humans in it

 

[zjintz]

Clarification please: are we comparing communist utopia to capitalist utopia here? Or communist utopia to capitalism as practiced in X?

Because it's a little unfair to exclude actual attempts to create communism and compare its ideal to "actually existing capitalism".

Capitalist utopia? How would it be like? or could you recommend some reading material?.

 

[Crezth]

I might make a more substantial post later, but for now a few points:

1) Communism will always suffer from resource allocation problems, as amaeus said (and, like him, this is the killer for me)
2) "Freedom" is sacrificed at the expense of "equality", as mitsho said, to an uncompromising degree
3) Incentives are so abstract and dispersed that they have a minimal effect, so there's always going to be a problem motivating individuals
4) It's not even any more "fair" than capitalism

Actually I probably won't make a more substantial post later

Are you sure? I really do want to hear what you think, and the more substantial the post, the better.

What "freedom" is sacrificed, incidentally, and under what terms is it sacrificed?

EDIT: I'd also like if both sides tackled the "resource allocation" issue as that seems to be a big point of contention.

Sweden has plenty of both, just by way of example.

Sweden also has punitive tax rates and a robust welfare state. Many would say Sweden is a poor example of a nation with lots of freedom for its citizens.

 

[Murky]

Communism is a political system while capitalism is an economic one.

Right?

I wouldn't mind democratic communism that allowed property rights, freedom of everything, and capitalism.

It's a apples to oranges comparison. I suppose what they are really asking is should the economy be controlled by a central government or just let the Free Market run itself?

What is sustainable for the long term? If capitalism depletes the world's resources at a rate that exceeds it's ability to renew them, then it can't work forever. You eventually hit resource limits/shortages then you get violent revolution and probably long-term anarchy. We'll probably hit a water crisis first (probably within 25-50 years). That will be the truest test of if a Free Market system can work indefinitely.

 

[Traitorfish]

There doesn't need to be a "sliding scale", but in the case of Communism, freedom is in actuality being sacrificed for equality. For me, the fact that there is no dichotomy between the two is exactly the problem: you don't need to sacrifice freedom for equality. Sweden has plenty of both, just by way of example.

Well, what "communism" are we talking about here, then? There are anarchist and libertarian communists as well as the more orthodox Marxisms.

Also, on allocation problems, if there was a hypothetical utopian magic faerie communism that could perfectly resolve whatever allocation problems there are, would that then become acceptable? Or are the allocation problems so fundamental, in your opinion, as to be unresolvable? As I said, I'm trying to abstract this from concrete realities somewhat, and purely technical points, while valid, tend to imped that a bit.

If humans were not so screwed up, either system would work - it's not the system that creates crime, poverty, etc, it's the humans in it

What are the current poverty rates among hunter-gatherer peoples?

 

[kochman]

Absolutely communism would be better, if it were achievable.

However, it isn't.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Communism is a political system while capitalism is an economic one.

Right?

I wouldn't mind democratic communism that allowed property rights, freedom of everything, and capitalism.

Economic things are political. Both systems are both. One cannot exist simultaneously with the other, because they are complete antitheses.

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"

I think this would be a much better question to ask, really.

 

[galdre]

What are the current poverty rates among hunter-gatherer peoples?

I guess that would depend on how we define the poverty level - would likely be 100% by today's standards

The problems we have in society are caused by those who created the society (us). Yes, the members of a group of hunter-gatherers would be more equal to each other, but that is out of necessity, not out of human nature.

I love the idea of a classless, meritocratic society, I'm just too cynical about humans to think it would ever exist.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yes, the members of a group of hunter-gatherers would be more equal to each other, but that is out of necessity, not out of human nature.

What do you know about human nature? What do any of us know?

 

[Traitorfish]

The problems we have in society are caused by those who created the society (us). Yes, the members of a group of hunter-gatherers would be more equal to each other, but that is out of necessity, not out of human nature.

Well, if modern anthropology is anything to go by, the realities tend to be more complex than that. (Sahlins's discussion of the "Original Affluent Society" would be a good start when it comes to the question of "necessity" among hunter-gatherers.) Which is not to suggest that you can't continue to argue for the inevitability of certain relationships within the material terms allowed, but that the sort of Hobbesian conception of humanity which you seem to be appealing to doesn't really stand up on its own any more, and requires a bit of buttressing.

 

[warpus]

It's a apples to oranges comparison. I suppose what they are really asking is should the economy be controlled by a central government or just let the Free Market run itself?

What is sustainable for the long term? If capitalism depletes the world's resources at a rate that exceeds it's ability to renew them, then it can't work forever. You eventually hit resource limits/shortages then you get violent revolution and probably long-term anarchy. We'll probably hit a water crisis first (probably within 25-50 years). That will be the truest test of if a Free Market system can work indefinitely.

I like the way Chile does things, at least with their copper deposits. Those are nationalized, but the rest of the economy is a free market one.

I would support something like that with any sort of resource that the country controls.

Economic things are political. Both systems are both. One cannot exist simultaneously with the other, because they are complete antitheses.

What if you had the means of productions owned by the people, as well as all natural resources? But the rest of the economy is capitalist and the political state of the country is democratic?

 

[zjintz]

Capitalist utopia? How would it be like? or could you recommend some reading material?.

anyone?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I like the way Chile does things, at least with their copper deposits. Those are nationalized, but the rest of the economy is a free market one.

I would support something like that with any sort of resource that the country controls.



What if you had the means of productions owned by the people, as well as all natural resources? But the rest of the economy is capitalist and the political state of the country is democratic?

That is like saying "what if it were night and day at the same time?" If The People own the means of production, then the economy cannot be capitalist be definition, since capitalism is the private ownership of means of production.

As for the democratic bit, I don't see how that's supposedly a capitalist thing, or how that's at odds with communism.

 

[galdre]

What do you know about human nature? What do any of us know?

I base my opinion on the reading of history.

You should read more anthropology, because the realities tend to be more complex than that. (Sahlins's discussion of the "Original Affluent Society" would be a good start when it comes to the question of "necessity" among hunter-gatherers.) Which is not to suggest that you can't continue to argue for the inevitability of certain relationships within the material terms allowed, but that the sort of Hobbesian conception humanity which you seem to be appealing to doesn't really stand up on its own any more, and requires a bit of buttressing.

We can redefine what we consider affluent in a theoretical sense, but would many be willing to do that in reality? People show both an ability to work together for the common good, as well as a frightening propensity to harm others (and their environment) for personal gain. It's the interplay between the two that creates both the good and bad parts of our society.

 

[warpus]

That is like saying "what if it were night and day at the same time?" If The People own the means of production, then the economy cannot be capitalist be definition, since capitalism is the private ownership of means of production.

As for the democratic bit, I don't see how that's supposedly a capitalist thing, or how that's at odds with communism.

Separate the means of production from all other businesses. Leave the means of production in the hands of the people (in a democratic fashion), and leave all other types of businesses in a free market system.

Similar to Chile, like I said, except a bit more extreme. It works for them - it's one of the reasons why they are one of the leading economies down there.

 

[Crezth]

anyone?

If you hate your brain, you could always pick up any book by Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged includes a most optimistic depiction of a capitalist utopia).

If you want a more cynical treatise of ultra-capitalism, I really liked Jennifer Government.