Would Communism Be Better Than Capitalism?

[Traitorfish]

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.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Yes because its utopia.

 

[Leoreth]

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".

 

[GoodSarmatian]

If you mean realistically achievable 'communism', the answer is no.
If you mean the unattainable ideal of a communist society, the answe is yes.


Edit: If we're talking about 'ideal capitalism' with equal and easy market access, no or minimal information asymmetry, strong anti-trust regulations to prevent monopolies and price-fixing, no private ownership of natural monopolies, an efficient and impartial mechanism to deal with externalities, and any number of conditions and modifications I just forgot to mention, I'd prefer to live in the capitalist society.

 

[downtown]

I don't even think "ideal" communism is particularly attractive.

 

[aronnax]

Not at all. My biggest problem would be because if everyone was truly equal, if there existed no social classes between people, society would not be as diverse or as varied. Can people be different in a truly communist society? Social classes are more than just how much money you have. The Urban, the rural, the sub-urban, the intellect, the artist, the labourer, the traditional, the progressive. If you gave all of them the same home, same car, same education, the same everything, won't you end up with all the same people?

 

[Traitorfish]

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".

Fair point! OP adjusted as necessary.

Not at all. My biggest problem would be because if everyone was truly equal, if there existed no social classes between people, society would not be as diverse or as varied. Can people be different in a truly communist society? Social classes are more than just how much money you have. The Urban, the rural, the sub-urban, the intellect, the artist, the labourer, the traditional, the progressive. If you gave all of them the same home, same car, same education, the same everything, won't you end up with all the same people?

It seems that you're using "class" to encompass a sort of cultural genre, here, rather than simply referring to socioeconomic status. Take "classless" to mean that everyone enjoys relative material equality, rather than to mean that everyone has an identical way of life.

 

[Ajidica]

I have more sympathy for Communism then Capitalism, but I don't feel Communism is the best system for our society right now. Things must take their course.

 

[Cutlass]

No one has ever described a communism that I would want to live as a part of.

 

[Crezth]

Not at all. My biggest problem would be because if everyone was truly equal, if there existed no social classes between people, society would not be as diverse or as varied. Can people be different in a truly communist society? Social classes are more than just how much money you have. The Urban, the rural, the sub-urban, the intellect, the artist, the labourer, the traditional, the progressive. If you gave all of them the same home, same car, same education, the same everything, won't you end up with all the same people?

A question of nature versus nurture, although I should think "communism" in the ideal sense would be a society where no man is better off in terms of material wealth, and no man has power over another.

EDIT: Traitorfish beat me to it.

 

[mitsho]

What does Communism refer to in this text? Does it mean human ideals, living together as a community and caring for each other? Then yes, in general. What does Capitalism mean? Simply the fact that I'm free to do what I want? Self-fulfillment in the sense that I can travel, I can buy, I can etc. ... Then certainly the latter.

In the end, it comes back to the basic of that question where we have two values: Equality and Freedom. And we cannot have both at the same time (because the more equal we are, the less possible it is to rise above). So I think the question in the op should really be what do you value more: Equality (equal chances?) or Freedom (but private possesion and Rule of Law and wealth?)?

 

[Murky]

There are way too many human flaws for communism to work as a system. Every attempt at it so far as met with utter failure.

It remains to be seen how capitalism will work out in the long term. I know that the idea of continual economic growth is unsustainable. We may be able to have sustainable capitalism within a framework of tight regulations and transparent accountability. The main problem with it is that it creates a big gap between the wealthy people and the working class. Because increased wealth tends to mean increased influence there is less transparent accountability. If you can't hold people accountable for maintaining a sustainable system you can't rely on them to do so.

 

[aronnax]

It seems that you're using "class" to encompass a sort of cultural genre, here, rather than simply referring to socioeconomic status. Take "classless" to mean that everyone enjoys relative material equality, rather than to mean that everyone has an identical way of life.

A question of nature versus nurture, although I should think "communism" in the ideal sense would be a society where no man is better off in terms of material wealth, and no man has power over another.

But then the cracks start to appear don't they? How do you define equal relative material equality? Take food as an example. If everyone is equal in wealth, that means everyone eats the relative same thing every night. You can't have variation. How much Turkey is worth how much salmon? You can't have delicacies then. That brings up another thing. I bet Shark fin is worthless as food in Dubai but expensive in Shanghai. If we all get Shark fin, it seems unfair to the Dubaians.

 

[Mise]

No. Communism is utterly ******** on many, many levels, but since you're not interested in talking about them I won't either. Suffice to say: Anyone answering "yes" is objectively wrong.

 

[Virote_Considon]

I would not like to live in a communist society. Nor do I much like living in a liberalist capitalist society. But since the latter is currently so dominant, I'm more sympathetic to the former. "The enemy-of-my-enemy", etc.

It seems that you're using "class" to encompass a sort of cultural genre, here, rather than simply referring to socioeconomic status. Take "classless" to mean that everyone enjoys relative material equality, rather than to mean that everyone has an identical way of life.

My reading of his post was rather that the material disparity between the socioeconomic classes is what allows such a divers realm of culture to exist.

 

[Crezth]

No. Communism is utterly ******** on many, many levels, but since you're not interested in talking about them I won't either. Suffice to say: Anyone answering "yes" is objectively wrong.

And thus with one brilliant stroke, Mise eliminated communism from the minds of men forever. "Never again shalt thou readeth of the Marxists," said the Mise, "For it be quite retardedeth."

(I would love to hear about your opinions on why communism is ********, and what makes it an objectively bad system. Honest.)

 

[amadeus]

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.

 

[Traitorfish]

What does Communism refer to in this text? Does it mean human ideals, living together as a community and caring for each other? Then yes, in general. What does Capitalism mean? Simply the fact that I'm free to do what I want? Self-fulfillment in the sense that I can travel, I can buy, I can etc. ... Then certainly the latter.

In the end, it comes back to the basic of that question where we have two values: Equality and Freedom. And we cannot have both at the same time (because the more equal we are, the less possible it is to rise above). So I think the question in the op should really be what do you value more: Equality (equal chances?) or Freedom (but private possesion and Rule of Law and wealth?)?

Well, that's one interpretation, but I don't think that it's the only one possible. (The opposition of freedom and equality is certainly not, universally adhered to; most communists, for example, tend to see the two as different sides of the same coin.) The question I was asking was about forms of social organisation, and while yours is certainly one way of interpretation the choice, I don't think that the abstraction you propose is intrinsic to it.

My reading of his post was rather that the material disparity between the socioeconomic classes is what allows such a divers realm of culture to exist.

Well, I'd be interested in seeing how he reached that conclusion.

No. Communism is utterly ******** on many, many levels, but since you're not interested in talking about them I won't either. Suffice to say: Anyone answering "yes" is objectively wrong.

Did I say that I wasn't interested in talking about it? All I said in the OP was that I was trying to pose this as a question of abstractions, rather than concrete social-political realities, which is something else altogether.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

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.

I wouldn't say this kills it for eternity though. If you were to tell an assembly of lords, barons, and dukes that their land will some day be (allegedly) ran by men and women whom everyone in the land voted for, they'd laugh at you and see no system in place for such a thing to happen.

Not to say communism is our eventual end, but I wouldn't count a money-less society out at some point in the future.

Time has shown we're really bad at guessing where the human race will go.

 

[Mise]

And thus with one brilliant stroke, Mise eliminated communism from the minds of men forever. "Never again shalt thou readeth of the Marxists," said the Mise, "For it be quite retardedeth."

(I would love to hear about your opinions on why communism is ********, and what makes it an objectively bad system. Honest.)

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

Did I say that I wasn't interested in talking about it? All I said in the OP was that I was trying to pose this as a question of abstractions, rather than concrete social-political realities, which is something else altogether.

I thought that's what you meant by this:

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.

To be honest, I don't want to go into a whole big "thing" about it, because as you say it's been done to death already.