Communism=bad, capitalism=good?

Great Debates
1

The negative points:

Is the fact that most communist countries are run by tin-pot governments, and have appalling human rights records, proof that communism is a bad idea all round?

It seems that communism as a philosophy is running out of steam. The old communist strongholds are coming in from the cold (e.g. U.S.S.R and the Eastern Bloc), and electing proper “western style” governments with democracy and capitalist ideals.

Is it universally true that communism is a bad idea, or is the way it is implemented the reason why it seems to fail the people whom it is designed to protect, more often than not?

OK, maybe I’m over looking the positive points:

Would you rather live in a country where the unelected state looks after you and takes care of you (albeit at the cost of assimiliation), or a country where the “elected” leader leads you to war with a country thousands of miles away (whether you like it or not)?

:confused:

2

I don’t see it as a matter of “bad / good” myself. I see it more as a “seems to work less often / seems to work more often” thing.

Putting it another way: the capitalist-oriented countries as a group seem to be doing better economically / socially than the communist-oriented countries as a group.

I’d also note that the capitalist-oriented countries as a group seem to be getting more socialistic than they used to be, so what we may be seeing is a merging of two idealogies towards a preferred combination.

(Though, being a died-in-the-wool capitalist, I personally wish they wouldn’t merge so damned quickly!)

3

I think the thread title sums it up pretty well. :slight_smile:

The reason you typically see evil dictators - the Stalins and Castros and Maos of the world - associated with communism is that communism lends itself so well to the iron-fist method of governance. Communism is neccessarily more restrictive of individual rights. When you start giving people the ability to control their own destinies - to live and die by their talents - they’re going to want to do crazy things like vote, and not get tortured for being a “political dissident”, and other such nonsense. Perhaps communism needn’t inevitably devolve into an oppressive dictatorship in theory, but it certainly seems that way in practice.

And to answer the obviously-loaded question at the end of the OP, I would choose the latter. Even assuming the situation as described is even remotely representative of reality here in the states, if you weren’t being ushered into a War For Oil by a heinous right-wing demon, you’d be sitting in a hovel, detesting the government, but afraid to say anything about it. At least in the capitalist situation you’re free to go on message boards and bitch to your heart’s content.
Jeff

4

Pretty much.

5

I would tend to say no, though I’m not above using it as a rhetorical tool. The problem with communism is analytical, for lack of a better word, in that it is just bad economics. One problem is that its basis stems to a large degree from a flawed conception of value.

Another is that it turns everything into a Tragedy of the Commons. Since resources have shared ownership, individuals don’t bear the full cost of their actions. That throws individual optimizming conditions out of whack compared to the social optimizing conditions. The result is sub-optimal use. That’s sub-optimal as in the results are less than optimal rather than use is less than what it would be under an optimum.

Another is that the gov’t. has to create prices and that task is simply impossible in a modern society. Everything from a pear to a screw used to hold a tiny thingamajig on your car must be priced by some central planner since the market isn’t there to do it. As a result production will be off to the extent that prices are off.

Another problem is that it is a dogma, which specifies how the world should proceed rather than letting the world proceed how it may. Anyone who disagrees with the dogma is now in the position of disagreeing with the accepted truth of how history must progress. You probably don’t want to be that guy.

You’re creating a false dichotomy. Since a communist system of economic orgainzation is so inherently flawed, you’re probably not going to end up with a world-wide communist system. It will most likely crumble under its own weight, especially if it is free to some extent, so that people can communicate and speak freely. When millions start comparing the productivity of state owned farms to the little herb gardens they keep on their window sills, somebody is going to say, “There’s got to be a better way.”

Since a world-wide communist state is unlikely, you now have a communist state whose leaders believe that their system is right and that imposing it on others will be to their benefit. If that’s not a recipie for war, I don’t know what is. While Marxism does predict a dictatorship of the proletariate, there is no reason to assume that it must last. So your communist state could conceviably have an elected leader. But there’s no reason to assume that said leader will be a dove. If the majority of people feel that communism is what the world needs, and feels that the dictatorship of the proletariate that they suffered was worth it, then it seems reasonable that they will say that a dictatorship over others is a reasonable price to pay.

Also note, just because the margin of victory was less than the margin of error, that doesn’t mean that Bush was “elected” as opposed to elected, as you seem to assert. You need to make that case. Also note that just because powerful lobbies and corrupt campaign finance laws muck up the political process, that doesn’t mean that who gets the office isn’t dependent on how the votes are cast. Nor is there any reason to assume that special interests wouldn’t have undue sway in a democratically communist state. Having one bureau decide where production should go is giving that bureau an incredible amount of political weight.

6

A bit of a false dilemna, wouldn’t you agree? Who says that an unelected state takes better care of it’s citizens than an elected leader - Isn’t this counterintuitive? Hasn’t history proven this to be false? Isn’t it very, very rare that a democratic country leads “you” into war “whether you like it or not”? I would sincerely hope that you aren’t making a veiled reference to Iraq - if you were, you would be very wrong indeed.

In any case, capitalism and communism aren’t so much political terms as they are economic. It’s perfectly reasonable to picture a capitalist despotism and a communist democracy - the communist party just has to convince the majority of the population that it has the better system.

7

No, but it certainly tends to prove that it’s not a cure-all for the world’s ills.

Personally, I don’t think that it’s strictly an either-or proposition. Somewhere thare must be a happy medium between the dynamics of capitalism and the (supposed) social responsibility of Communism.

You are comparing two entirely dissimilar things, but I’ll answer anyway. Firstly, I am able to take care of myself and do not personally need any greater State intervention (except perhaps in the realm of health care) than already exists. Furthermore, one system allows freedom of dissent, the other doesn’t. As I am not a member of the Borg, I would always choose the latter. I did not vote for the “elected” leader in the last election. I make it clear to anyone with whom I speak of politics that I disagree with many of his policies and will vote against him again at the next election. Despite my dissatisfaction with the current administration, I much prefer this situation to having no alternative at all to the governing power.

8

In the public school system, where I grew up, teachers were told that if they ever described communism or socialism in any positive light whatsoever in front of students, they’d be fired.

This was because comunism is evil, because it doesn’t allow stuff like… free speech… right?

So, considering the indoctrination I went through, I hesitate to accept that communism is instantly evil… I need to find some good NON-BIASED resources before I can be comfotable taking a stance.

9

I don’t think anyone here is calling communism evil. The point is that it pretty much doesn’t work economically, no matter good or evil.

10

Jeez where have you been for the last 10 years? And how many times has this topic been brought up over the last year? 50?

11

Well, keira, I’m too lazy to go dig up a good “non-biased” source, but I submit to you a mental exercise. There have been plenty of communist governments, correct? With a large number of communist governments to examine, it would seem only logical to conclude that, if communism isn’t inherently self-destructive, there must be an example out there of a good, prosperous, non-evil communist regime out there, right? Well, there you go. Try to find a happy communist nation. Have fun!

Jeff

12

Read my post. It’s not evil at heart. It means well, and I would say that most communists want to make the world a better place. It’s simply flawed–fatally so. I’ll see if I can find a good reference for you.

13

Pffft.

Communism is GREAT!

We use the system right here in my own house, and it works just fine. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Those of us family members who work put money into the checking account, and the combined funds are used to pay all our expenses. When that’s over with, the surplus is then spent according to group dictates, pretty much.

Hell, even the cats participate. They keep vermin out of the house, and in exchange are fed and housed. It works great, all the way around.

I understand, however, that when you get above the tribal level with this system, it tends to break down. It ain’t human nature to want to make sacrifices for someone who is not of your tribe or moiety.

True, some of us are hellaciously nice people who give money to the United Way, and everything.

Some of us are so saintly, we even give money to the United Way when we can’t really afford to.

…but would you want to base the Federal Budget on what people were WILLING to pay out?

If you’re going to have a society of more than a hundred people or so, you need a system where people can give and take without feeling screwed.

Communism does not work well in that model. Capitalism does. Hell, capitalism is based entirely on the idea that I can sell you something, and theoretically, I can make a profit, whereas you walk away feeling like you got a bargain. BOTH of us feel like we got the better end of the deal.

Communism, from what I have seen, has yet to master that trick. Furthermore, since it’s human nature to want to own and control what you create, I suspect it never will.

14

That’s an interesting point. Why isn’t it possible to marry the communist principles with freedom of speech? The oppressive and controlling nature of communist regimes is what made the ballet dancers and tennis players defect from the East in the 70’s, wasn’t it?

I agree that we are fairly privilaged to live in a country with the freedom of dissent and free speech. It’s difficult to know what it would really be like to live somewhere where your freedom was suppressed by those in power, and I think there is understandable ignorance about the pros and cons of communism and state control (especially on my part, which is partly why I posted in the first place).

I guess I’m fishing for opinions on the changing political makeup of the world, and whether things are changing for the better or worse. Example: Will China’s communist regime lead to revolution at some time in the future. Could this lead to a break up of the People’s Republic, and the creation of a few more dozen countries?

15

Er, I’d better go back and qualify my previous statement by changing it to “relative freedom of dissent”, lest it be jumped upon.

16

js_africanus, that was an interesting post. Just a few of points (questions really) I wanted to pick up on for now:

All originally posted by js_africanus

Is dogma is an integral part of communism, in the way you describe it? Would you say this equates to a assault on human rights?

I’m guessing the reason why a world wide communist state is so unliklely is more to do with the geographical layout of the countries, more than anything else? Do you see communism dying out in the 21st century?

Do you believe that the leaders of communist states really believe that they are running things in the best possible way? I feel there has to be people in power who are on a bit of a “power trip”. Ultimately it’s the dictatorial imposition of a belief system that leads to war - isn’t there more to it than that?

To what extent does Marxism dictate policy in communist countries?

17

I will. Unless there is a communist nation that allows the personal freedoms I enjoy in the states, I will most definitely call it evil. If you aren’t free to live your life as you see it, or free to pursue a life in another country, then you are just living in a cage.

Just marrying it with free speech won’t cut it. People deserve to be free period. And that’s what they’ll ultimately want. They’ll also want to reap what they sow. People who work their asses off deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labors.

18

Hm. Depends on whose brand of communism you’re talking about, I suppose. Marx never said anything about NOT having freedom of speech, at least not that I recall.

On the other hand, Trotsky in particular made some noise about how it was not physically possible to be both correct and in opposition to the Communist Party.

19

Here’s an oversimplification:

Everyone has two worlds- the personal & the overall. The personal includes things like your job, your house, your food, your car etc. The overall is your country, the law, the future etc.

In a democracy the govt handles the overall (or tries to) and leaves the personal (mostly) up to you (including letting you fail miserably at it).

In communism the govt handles the personal and (supposedly anyway) leaves the overall up to ‘the people’. That is, says that by handling the personal the overall is ultimately controlled by ‘the people’.

You can see how not only is this unworkable & inefficient, its completely ass-backwards and wrong!

The personal should and must be in the hands of the individual and not the govt and the overall should be controlled by some kind of collective entity and not by an individual (absolute power corrupts absolutely).

20

By that I mean, even in a so-called communist system the fundamental principles of capitalism still operate. Supply is still limited, demand is still unlimited. Market forces and costs set prices whether we like it or not. Or, the enterprise hemmorages money. People still work to provide goods to themselves and their family and friends. Nobody wants to do all the work while others goof off.

Given all of the preceding, a financial, humanitarian, or human rights crisis strikes every command economy eventually.

Personally, I don’t like capitalism so much as see it as a law of nature much like gravity. Pure capitalism (I see that as the law of the jungle) is a bad thing. In our so-called capitalist system we still have a safety net, legal system, public services and works projects, etc.

In a nutshell, I contend that market capitalism is necessary to encourage people to work hard, keep businesses productive, and to stimulate innovation. BUT, capitalism in the sense of the law of the jungle is a horrible idea.

Communism is an attempt, as I see it, to avoid the reality (not choice) of capitalism. Like efforts to thwart gravity, things eventually come crashing down.