# Communism=bad, capitalism=good? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 13, 2003, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394 "2003-01-13T22:31:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394/61 "2003-01-15T01:34:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dal\_timgar \* > \*\*a minor detail is that Adam Smith, the godfather of capitalism, disapproved of what he called joint-stock companies. a joint-stock company is what we now call a corporation. in 1886 the US Supreme Court declared that a corporation is a “person.” Marx died in 1883, Smith died in 1790, neither of them knew about corporations being persons. > > the 1st gasoline powered cars weren’t built until 1885. the concept of GNP wasn’t developed until the 1930’s because of the Depression. the term planned obsolescence wasn’t coined until 1940. > > therefore the concepts of capitalism and communism were obsolete before most of us were born.\*\* Non sequiturs will accomplish nothing, except convincing fools. Failure to use the shift key when appropriate doesn’t help either. Since Smith disapproved of joint-stock companies and died in 1790, automobiles weren’t made until 1885, GNP wasn’t codified until the 1930s, and the phrase “planned obsolescence” wasn’t coined until the 1940s, it follows that capitalism is obsolete? :dubious: You’ve got some work to do there. Merriam-Webster defines capitalism thusly: > [@](#): > > Date: 1877 > : an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market That seems fair, no? It’s close enough for our purposes. How does the existence of the automobile, planned obsolescence, corporations, and GNP, coupled with the non-existence of Smith, make capitalism obsolete? Seriously. You’re like one of these creationists who argue that since Darwin is dead and since evolutionary theory has matured, it follows that evolution is dead. > [@](#): > > **long live Sun Tzu antisocialism.** What is that? Google turned up nothing except an incoherent rant by some guy named Val Kilmer…or Hal Tiger… I can’t recall. I find it interesting that you hail Sun Tzu antisocialism, whatever that means, when your “Economic Wargames” book reference list suggests that Sun Tzu is over your head. If you want more detail you might refer to Sun Bin rather than another translation of Sun Tzu. > [@](#): > > **do a search on “Economic Wargames” if you don’t know what i’m talking about.** I did. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Your very first premise is faulty: “The global economy is a giant multilevel, multiplayer chess game.” That’s simply not true, not even analogous. Chess is a zero sum game whereas the global economy is not. Smith and Ricardo established that a few centuries ago. You can read a little about it here. Your one interesting observation is completely lost by your failure to comprehend its significance. It may be a good idea to provide the proper tax breaks for consumer good depreciation (if that isn’t done already). You state, “In classical economics it is common to assume that consumers are rational, possibly for simplicity’s sake. But how can rational decisions be made with incomplete information?” Duh. Study some economics, imperfect information has a rich literature in economics. That’s why we have lemon laws. You complain that people don’t know the Mean Time Between Failure. Fair enough. So write a letter to your Senator. A legal hole like that should be plugged. You fall into the tired old cliche of “if they can put a man on the moon, why can’t they make a telephone cord that doesn’t tangle”. The only difference is that you use military aircraft and automobiles. Duh. Cars don’t cost millions of dollars. You want a car that can perform like a Blackbird? Buy a Ferrari. Of course you’ll have to maintain it and pay the high price–but so does the gov’t. with the Blackbird. You tell us that, “A $100,000 mortgage over 30 years at 8% will ultimately cost $264,153.60, that’s $164,153 in interest alone.” Then show us that you have no concept of present value. Then there’s this gem: “There is no limit to how dumb consumers are expected to be, some company named Providian keeps sending me an application for a Visa “Classic”. It has a $500 limit, 23.99% interest, a $49 application fee, a $59 annual fee and they have the NERVE to say it’s a limited time offer.” Yep, that’s a high interest rate. But people pay it. That’s what they’re willing to give up to consume now rather than later. Duh. You don’t even understand the concept of interest. I’m so impressed. :rolleyes: Not to mention that if one pays one’s credit card debts promptly, one gets a free loan. Then you seem appalled that credit card companies and banks are profit maximizers. Whatever… The you bring in game theory and assert, without proof or argument, that a loan is a zero sum game. How is that so? The borrower gets current consumption, the bank gets a profit. For the marginal consumer of present consumption, and for that consumer only, the trade-off is equal. For all others, they enjoy consumer surplus. The same is true for the bank–it enjoys producer surplus. Those are gains that society enjoys which stem solely from the act of trading in the market for current consumption. Since the game produces surplus for all players (except on the marginal loan), it is not zero sum. Then you quote a proverb. Great. If someone doesn’t want to be strapped with debt, it can be avoided. The person must forfeit current consumption to do so. Deciding to smooth consumption is hardly making a slave of oneself. You must make the case. You end by telling us that according to a show you once saw, a college degree is worthless. Brilliant. You’re a rhetorical genius. Your attempt to take on economic merely demonstrates the extent to which you are out of your league. No offense. ---
**Author:** ![LostOne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/6bbea6/32.png) [@LostOne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LostOne)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394/62 "2003-01-15T05:09:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Olentzero \* > **Neither socialism nor communism can be built in one country. Both are based on international cooperation and coordination of production on a global scale.** I just wanted to repeat this because I think it’s something we forget quite often. It’s easy to look at economically ruined communist/ex-communist countires and say 'well bam… thats proof communism will fail. It overlooks other variables. One could suggest the Iron Curtain had as much or more to do with Russian (Russian… not Soviet) expansionism and the dictators who ran the Soviet Union. Let me put it another way. What happened was a big thick line… two clear and opposing sides. I would suggest that this had a lot more to do with the people and policies involved then ‘they are capitalists they are communists’ (or at the very least, I would suggest this is a factor and it’s silly to assume had nothing to do with it). I don’t believe this necessarliy has to be the case… and I wonder how things might have went if there wasn’t such an ‘us vs. communist’ approach to foreign policy. Also… I’d like to repose this question… Why the assumption that communism MUST lead to lack of free speech/voting. I maintain both are absolutly crucial for a properly running communism. It’s been a while since I’ve read the texts involved but I don’t remember reading quotes that hint at that. If you have a cite for the ‘communism leads to lack of freedom’ idea please share it, otherwise please refrain from making such comments. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394/63 "2003-01-15T06:00:12Z")
Arg. Well, Lost One, it is true that perhaps a perfected communism would be, well, perfect. So what we have here is a choice. We have a world economic system that provides lots of people with the goods and services they desire, at some sort of acceptable price. Yes, it isn’t perfect, it is messy, anarchic, chaotic, and no one is in charge of it. But it kind of works some of the time, or even most of the time. I mean, every day food, clothing and shelter is available for most people. So capitalism has the advantage that we are living with and in that system. We know that it works, whatever it’s limitations. And then we have a radically different economic system, that claims that the system that we are living in is horrible slavery. Some people have claimed to have implemented this system, except every country that has tried has devolved into a nightmarish poverty-stricken dictatorship. Well, maybe that’s only because every country that has tried to implement communism was ALREADY a poverty-stricken dictatorship. Well, perhaps the next country to try it will make it work. Except that you can’t help but understand why people might be more inclined to stick with what we KNOW works (to the extent that it does work), rather than embrace a revolution that has always failed in the past, always with some excuses about how it wasn’t “really” Marxism. Do you want to take another kick at that football? I promise I won’t pull it away this time, just because I’ve pulled it away every other time doesn’t mean that I’ll pull it away next time. ---
**Author:** ![andres](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a4c791/32.png) [@andres](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andres)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394/64 "2003-01-15T06:33:19Z")
“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.” NO me ! As a Latin American when I think about dictators the ones that first come to mind are usually right-wing ones. Usually sponsored and armed by the US. Pinochett, Somoza, Stroessner, Videla, Trujillo, etc, and even beyond occident: Hussein, Hitler, Ariel Scharon, the Apartheid, Pervez Musharaf, etc ---
**Author:** ![andres](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a4c791/32.png) [@andres](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andres)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394/65 "2003-01-15T06:33:54Z")
“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.” Not me ! As a Latin American when I think about dictators the ones that first come to mind are usually right-wing ones. Usually sponsored and armed by the US. Pinochett, Somoza, Stroessner, Videla, Trujillo, etc, and even beyond occident: Hussein, Hitler, Ariel Scharon, the Apartheid, Pervez Musharaf, etc ---
**Author:** ![LostOne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/6bbea6/32.png) [@LostOne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LostOne)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394/66 "2003-01-15T07:21:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lemur866 \* > **Arg. Well, Lost One, it is true that perhaps a perfected communism would be, well, perfect.** And along those same lines perhaps a recently constructed (read: freedom) communism would be well… reasonable. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lemur866 \* > **Some people have claimed to have implemented this system, except every country that has tried has devolved into a nightmarish poverty-stricken dictatorship. Well, maybe that’s only because every country that has tried to implement communism was ALREADY a poverty-stricken dictatorship. Well, perhaps the next country to try it will make it work.** And IMHO it is only a claim… as I’ve stated certain things like freedom of speech and the vote are critical. I do think for a time it was in style for dictators to say they were really communist and in it for the people as an explanation for their behaviors. Perhaps that is because humans are too flawed for the ideal communism… maybe the next country won’t get it right either. But I do think it’s important to remember that by and large they really did start out as poverty-stricken dictatorships. I do tend to agree with your post, I’m certainly not trying to say communism is better or even realistic. I do think it is severely misunderstood. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394/67 "2003-01-15T11:05:53Z")
\>\> Perhaps that is because humans are too flawed for the ideal communism You may not realize it but this is horrendous. People are not made to serve governments but governments are made to serve people. This is like trying to sell me a suit which does not fit me and telling me the suit is good and I am the one who is poorly made. Furthermore, the idea that communism would work if people were “better” is very false and misleading. The essential aspect of communism is that you would have a centrally planned economy and the essentail aspect of capitalism is that the people are free to buy and sell in the free market. It has been shown time and again that planned economies cannot be as efficient, no matter how well intentioned the people are. The free market is a better way of allocating limited resources. Hayek has explained this in his works which I mention in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2769958#post2769958%22). Communism is a bad system because it is economically inefficient and because it inevitable entails loss of personal freedom. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394/68 "2003-01-15T11:07:25Z")
\>\> Perhaps that is because humans are too flawed for the ideal communism You may not realize it but this is horrendous. People are not made to serve governments but governments are made to serve people. This is like trying to sell me a suit which does not fit me and telling me the suit is good and I am the one who is poorly made. Furthermore, the idea that communism would work if people were “better” is very false and misleading. The essential aspect of communism is that you would have a centrally planned economy and the essentail aspect of capitalism is that the people are free to buy and sell in the free market. It has been shown time and again that planned economies cannot be as efficient, no matter how well intentioned the people are. The free market is a better way of allocating limited resources. Hayek has explained this in his works which I mention in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2769958#post2769958). Communism is a bad system because it is economically inefficient and because it inevitable entails loss of personal freedom. ---
**Author:** ![bayonet1976](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/77aa72/32.png) [@bayonet1976](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bayonet1976)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394/69 "2003-01-15T13:29:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Olentzero \* > **…Cuba’s and China’s revolutions were staged by a handful of guerrillas with little to no working-class involvement…** This, the part about Cuba, is just not true. Although castro, by virtue of having more guns and being more ruthless than others, hijacked the Cuban revolution, the revolution itself was _primarily_ a working class revolt. Almost every significant event against batista’s regime was undertaken by middle and working class groups, from general strikes to election boycotting to acts of terrorism. Additionally the Cuban revolution was _not_ ever a communist revolution, the Cuban communist party supported batista during both his incursions to power. It was only later, when castro needed a non-US sponsor that the revolution went from green to red. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394/70 "2003-01-15T14:02:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by WillGolfForFood \* > \*\*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!) \*\* The Hegelian Dialectic strikes again! 😉 Btw, “Communism=bad, capitalism=good” sounds about right to me. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394/71 "2003-01-15T14:40:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by js\_africanus \* > Sounds like an idea for an interesting paper. “Wealth Accumulation, Second Mover Advantage, and Optimal Timing of the Workers Revolution: A Game Theoretic Analysis”. Need a co-author? I’m afraid I lack the skills for that. If you want to write it, just mention the Doctissumus Maeglin in the acknowledgements. 😉 I am impressed by your post with reference to **dal\_timgar** , though in the future, I would suggest that you not waste your time. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Olentzero_ > The question “Do communist countries provide positive proof of the ultimate implausibility of communism” begs the question “Are those countries in fact communist?”. A negative answer (the correct one, IMO) and an analysis of why they aren’t leaves the greater debate on an abstract and theoretical foundation, at least until a working-class revolution in one of the more economically developed countries provides a real-world example to discuss. Ok, fair enough. But in my opinion, there are no truly capitalist nations that exist in the world today. There are still trade barriers, monopolistic price fixing practices, government market distortions that do not result in Pareto improvements, hideously inflexible wages, and a host of other imperfections. So once again, we return to a theoretical debate between pure communism and pure capitalism. I don’t think this represents progress. Do you think it is possible to have meaningful debate in the real world, as it were? ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394/72 "2003-01-15T16:58:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > **in my opinion, there are no truly capitalist nations that exist in the world today. There are still trade barriers, monopolistic price fixing practices, government market distortions that do not result in Pareto improvements, hideously inflexible wages, and a host of other imperfections. So once again, we return to a theoretical debate between pure communism and pure capitalism. I don’t think this represents progress.** **Maeglin** , the world around you represents the logical outcome of capitalism. Competition between countries and between the classes in each country cannot result in international cooperation. Each country seeks to claim what it feels is the slice of the market it deserves and strives to exclude the competition from it. The state, embodied by the government, is a tool used by capitalism to make things smoother for one group of capitalists rather than the capitalist class in general. It can be expressed in things like trade barriers or “economic unions” or far more destructive actions, like war. The drive to maximize profits also causes conflict between the capitalists and the workers, since profits are partially determined by how long and how hard the employees work, and how much they are paid for their labor. In short, each capitalist pursues measures that will benefit the capitalist (or group thereof) **individually** , rather than the capitalist class as a whole. This _is_ capitalism. We could turn back the clock two hundred years and try to keep it within Adam Smith’s original framework, but it would be an impossible task - the dynamic of privately-owned means of production leads us along the path we’ve already followed. Even if we here today were to succeed in turning back the clock, by 2203 there’d be the same problems we’re having today. > [@](#): > > **Do you think it is possible to have meaningful debate in the real world, as it were?** Absolutely. As I said, what we’re looking at now is capitalism, not some socioeconomic form so perverted that it cannot be called as such. On that basis we can argue what the dynamics of present society are, how that dynamic gives rise to the problems we’re experiencing, and provide the basic outlines for an alternative. It’s a tradition which, in its scientific form at least, dates back to 1848 and the publication of a nifty little pamphlet by two German political emigrés. ---
**Author:** ![LostOne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/6bbea6/32.png) [@LostOne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LostOne)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394/73 "2003-01-15T17:45:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > **\>\> Perhaps that is because humans are too flawed for the ideal communism > You may not realize it but this is horrendous. …** Erm… ok… I think a small misunderstanding on this one… I don’t really believe this. I was offering it as an oft given example people give as to why 50s era communisms were really dictatorships. As stated my belief runs more along the lines of ‘it hasn’t been tried’ and ‘they only said they were communists as cover’. As i understand the phrase however it isn’t so much horrendous as it is misleading. In effect what it is saying is that communism is a poorly developed theory because it isn’t properly suited to human nature. This is a valid enough comment. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > **The free market is a better way of allocating limited resources.** For the record I’m not contending communism is a better approach, only vastly misunderstood. If this was thread ended up as an economic discussion I’d side with capitalism… but then the preconceived notions start flying in and well… I’m just not sure everyone’s talking about the same thing. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\*Communism is a bad system because it is economically inefficient and because it inevitable entails loss of personal freedoms. \*\* Cite please. Really. This is my main contention in this thread… if you ignore everything cite this one for me. Where in the theory of communism is this ‘loss of personal freedom’? I don’t want to read US economic opinions (biased)… if everyone is so sure communism = lack of freedom I’m sure SOMEONE has a good Marx quote for it lying around? Give me that and I’ll shutup… I could never even vaguely consider a system that didn’t include free speech and proper voting. I still maintain both make perfectly good sense in a people’s party to me. And if nobody can show where in the communist theory it argues against those two things it seems only fair to leave it out of the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394/74 "2003-01-15T17:48:14Z")
Voluminous, magnificent post lost in unexplainable accident. Will make another attempt after lunch. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394/75 "2003-01-15T18:06:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Cite please. Really. This is my main contention in this thread… if you ignore everything cite this one for me. Where in the theory of communism is this ‘loss of personal freedom’? I don’t want to read US economic opinions (biased)… if everyone is so sure communism = lack of freedom I’m sure SOMEONE has a good Marx quote for it lying around? There are several posts on page 1, this being page 2 according to my browser, which do an excellent job of explaining why communism always devolves. If you can disprove, heck, even come up with counterarguments to those I’m sure someone would be happy to respond. Why would Marx criticize his own system? And, if he did, why would he be a good source? Don’t dozens of examples of failed communist systems count for something? I know, “let us take over the whole world then communism will really kick ass, trust us.” ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394/76 "2003-01-15T18:55:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\*Communism is a bad system because it is economically inefficient and because it inevitable entails loss of personal freedoms. \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by LostOne \* > **Cite please. Really. This is my main contention in this thread… if you ignore everything cite this one for me. Where in the theory of communism is this ‘loss of personal freedom’? I don’t want to read US economic opinions (biased)… if everyone is so sure communism = lack of freedom I’m sure SOMEONE has a good Marx quote for it lying around?** The fact that Marx did not foresee it does not mean it is not an inevitable result of a centrally planned economy. To me it is quite obvious that right away I lose power and freedom to the planners of the economy. Then, as the economy deteriorates, either they aloow a return to a free market, or they have to repress dissent. Hayek explains it fairly well. And then of coourse, we have the historical experience which shows that is _exactly_ what happened in communist countries. I do not know what more convincing you may need. ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394/77 "2003-01-15T18:59:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > **To me it is quite obvious that right away I lose power and freedom to the planners of the economy.** Faulty assumption here - the planners of the economy aren’t some special section of the working class, but the entire working class itself - this is one of Marx’ main points. How can you lost power and freedom to a body you’re an actively involved part of? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394/78 "2003-01-15T20:50:57Z")
Because right now I can spend my money however I wish without having to depend on some worker’s comittee. Right now if you want to make and seel icecream and I want to buy and eat icecream, we do not depend on any central planning authority who would decide is the production of icecream should ne ioncreased or not. It’s that simple. I know what I want and you know what you want without some central planning board telling us what we _really_ want. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394/79 "2003-01-15T21:04:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Olentzero \* > \*\*Faulty assumption here - the planners of the economy aren’t some special section of the working class, but the entire working class itself - this is one of Marx’ main points. How can you lost power and freedom to a body you’re an actively involved part of? \*\* But I, as a member of a capitalist society and as a member of the “working classes,” am already involved in the decision-making process of _this_ economy. Why throw it away for an already failed dream? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2003, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394/80 "2003-01-15T21:14:39Z")
This topic has been hashed many times (obviously). In a previous thread some poster whose name I do not remember asked the rhetorical question: > [@](#): > > Who and how decides how much milk is necessary in New York tomorrow? To me the answer is obvious: the price system in a free market, by way of thousands of personal decisions balances the supply of milk to the demand. There is no planning board on earth which can do this as wel or as efficiently. So the planners end up telling me how much milk I am allowed rather than letting me decide how much milk I want. And the idea that the entire working class is going to get together every morning and come to an agreement on how much milk is needed in NYC is just preposterous. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism-bad-capitalism-good/148394.md?page=5)