Would Communism Be Better Than Capitalism?

[Mise]

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

Erm, I don't know, but anyway I don't really want or need to get into this much detail to make my point. My point is that if you want a more equal society, you don't need communism for that. Good old social democracy does a pretty swell job, without taking away any freedoms, without taking away the market's impressive ability to allocate resources efficiently, and without taking away the profit motive from individuals.

(Another related point is that the type of "equality" typically demanded by communists is simply not what the vast majority of people would consider reasonable. But this is a matter of taste. I would not want to live in a society like that, but that's separate from my objections to communism in an objective sense.)

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.

There's no way that resources could be allocated efficiently without a pricing system - at least none that anyone has thus far thought of. There have been suggestions (and experiments IIRC in Chile) of using technology and stuff to figure out where resources are needed and where they are in surplus, but none of those things are ever going to be 100% efficient. And even if they were, the operator of such a technology would still need to know consumer preferences both at this very moment and also months and years ahead of time. You can think of a pricing system as a kind of "correction factor" for the inefficiencies of real-world resource allocation; the beauty of the system is that it's self-correcting.

If we didn't live in the real world, and everything could be calculated, manufactured, distributed and used in an instant, then a magic fairy that could calculate, manufacture and distribute goods in an instant would solve the resource allocation problems resulting from a lack of a pricing mechanism.

Also note that the incentive/profit motive is still a necessary component to all of this in the real world: even if we had a pricing mechanism, without the prospect of making a profit, there would be no incentive for anyone to actually use the pricing mechanism to address resource allocation imbalances.


EDIT: I just realised how bad this post is... Hmm......

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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.

First off, a market system is not "capitalist." Markets are not incompatible with socialism.

Second, means of production are things that produce objects of value to be sold or traded for other objects of value. Thus, all businesses except things like banks and investment firms utilize means of production. If it is a bakery, then all the tools required to bake and sell bread are the means of production. If it is a car factory, then all the machine tools, assembly lines, the building, et al are the means of production. Means of production = capital. Public ownership of the means of production can mean one of two things: either state ownership, or worker ownership. I prefer the latter, except in cases of universal requirement, like electricity or heating fuel.

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.

Because their mines are nationalized? I guess that makes Louis XIV and Augusto Pinochet socialists too.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I base my opinion on the reading of history.

And not a heavy investment in sociology, anthropology, and psychology?

All that you have studied is how people have behaved in different environments, different social-economic systems. I should think that your heavy reading in history would have yielded to you the knowledge that people in different times and different places have different sets of values and different motivations, which would in itself suggest that your theory is invalid.

 

[zjintz]

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.

Thank you Mr rocket scientist.

 

[Traitorfish]

@Mise: Fair dos.

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.

It could also be a Bevanite social democracy, or even a Proudhonist market-cooperativism. The idea that "capitalism" is some ultra-laissez faire core lurking beneath a distorting welfare state is pretty ridiculous, more a product of "libertarian" rhetoric than actual, y'know, thinking about things.

 

[galdre]

And not a heavy investment in sociology, anthropology, and psychology?

All that you have studied is how people have behaved in different environments, different social-economic systems. I should think that your heavy reading in history would have yielded to you the knowledge that people in different times and different places have different sets of values and different motivations, which would in itself suggest that your theory is invalid.

Actually, I started reading history with the assumption that people in different places and different times would have different values and motivations, but it is not really true, not the core values and motivations at least.

 

[amadeus]

To the machine tools factory, are the finished machine tools means of production? What about hammers? Hammers are both used to make other things and are a consumer good. If a bank does not have a means of production, what then are the bank's computers for?

 

[Crezth]

It could also be a Bevanite social democracy, or even a Proudhonist market-cooperativism. The idea that "capitalism" is some ultra-laissez faire core lurking beneath a distorting welfare state is pretty ridiculous, more a product of rhetoric than actual, y'know, thinking about things.

Well, yeah. The term has been co-opted by people who use it as a synonym for "good and happy things." Not many people know how to use the term capitalism properly.

"Capitalist utopia" is therefore a pretty vague term so I was trying to give some examples of anti-Marx societies.

 

[Traitorfish]

To the machine tools factory, are the finished machine tools means of production? What about hammers? Hammers are both used to make other things and are a consumer good.

So apparently the concept of "capital goods" doesn't appear in neoclassical economics?

Actually, I started reading history with the assumption that people in different places and different times would have different values and motivations, but it is not really true, not the core values and motivations at least.

Could you elaborate?

 

[Defiant47]

It is the next step in societal evolution. Of course it will be better. But there are many steps necessary until we get to that point.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

To the machine tools factory, are the finished machine tools means of production? What about hammers? Hammers are both used to make other things and are a consumer good.

Tell me what you think. Can it wear many hats or can't it.

 

[galdre]

Could you elaborate?

I'll give an example - can you tell what year this quote is from? "therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come... in which you may... cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty."

When I first read that quote, it struck me how modern it sounds. IMO people have wanted the same things throughout history. Yes, we live better and have more freedoms now (at least in certain countries), but I think that is a product of the greater wealth of the current time, not in a change in human nature. It's not that human nature can't change, or doesn't change at all, but it is a very slow process, and has not occurred to a measurable degree over our recorded history (which, granted, is a very small part of human history).

Spoiler :

the answer is 1381, it's the English priest John Ball

 

[Leonel]

Both have their goods and bads. I would rather a system that encompasses the good qualities of both.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Yes. Communism asks for an attitude and self-discipline, while capitalism is concerned with indulgences. The former made people better and stronger, as well as societies.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well, there's no price system so there's no way to efficiently allocate resources. That pretty much kills it—and save for the Khmer Rouge, I can't think of any society that has abolished money.

Korea.

 

[kochman]

Yes. Communism asks for an attitude and self-discipline, while capitalism is concerned with indulgences. The former made people better and stronger, as well as societies.

Which societies benefitted from communism?
Are they still around? If not, why not? Seeing as how they were making people and societies better and stronger...

 

[Tycho Brahe]

If Universal healthcare and guncontrol is communism, then yes.

Otherwise no.

 

[Defiant47]

Which societies benefitted from communism?
Are they still around? If not, why not? Seeing as how they were making people and societies better and stronger...

If by random chance, I am born into a family of guns, and shoot you even while you're getting stronger and benefiting everyone else... does that mean that you're not actually better and stronger?

EDIT: Ok, I didn't make that out coherently. What I mean to say is - luck plays a factor. Luck of where your nation starts out. Luck of what wars your nations has recently been involved in and lost millions of people to. That kind of stuff.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Which societies benefitted from communism?
Are they still around? If not, why not? Seeing as how they were making people and societies better and stronger...

Soviet, Cuban, Chinese.

 

[kochman]

Soviet, Cuban, Chinese.

Ummmm...
I don't know. I wouldn't put any of those on my most desired places to live list... but to each his/her own I suppose.

What are all those Cubans doing on rafts anyhow? They live in a great place!