Communism v. Capitalism

Great Debates
101

A full blown minimum wage debate would be OT. Perhaps more to the point, do you feel that bureacratic/socialists controls like this are necessary for Capitalist society to avoid having rampant starvation, unsafe working conditions, child labor, etc…, or do you just have a hang up with minimum wage?

I think my point with the stealing discussion, is that property implies theft. Lack of a possessive attitude towards things would make theft a bit of an anachronism. Of course some people will always be jerks. Someone might take food from your plate, or squat in you house when your gone. But I think it would be obvious to all that they’re being an ass, and they would suffer the consequences.

Really I’m not completely opposed to the idea of personal property. But I don’t think valuing the idea of the accoutrement of wealth and power is a good way to live. I don’t think selfishness can be an end in itself. “For the common good” means balancing your needs with others not that everyone is some automaton of the state.

I’m not sure if I understand how your example relates to stealing. It sounded like you were saying that if someone works all day making widgets they could keep those widgets at the end of the day and still get to eat. I’m not sure what good a widget collection would do someone. Feel free to clarify.

102

perspective, we all respect your right to become a monk and live in a cave if you wish. I just ask that you do not try to impose your views on those of us who have a different point of view and communism can only succeed (oops, wrong word) . . . ahem . . . communism can only exist when it is imposed on a majority of the people against their will.

Communism has proved to be a bad way of running an economy but even if it were not as bad as it is, it is still unacceptable because personal freedom is way more important than economic success. Personal freedom is an end in itself and communism can only exist by denying it. Anyone who says communism and personal freedoms can coexist does not have a clue because communism is based on everybody agreeing on what is the best thing to do. In practice this is never going to happen so whoever has the power just imposes his will on the rest of the population.

The problem with people who preach communism is that the fail to see most other people have different ideas about how resources should best be allocated.

103

As Mises said, “In saying ‘plan’ what the author of a book on the benefits of planning has in mind is, of course, his own plan alone.” (Human Action, Chapter XXVII, Section 5)

104

Hey that sounds like a great Utopia! You know what happens to communal property? It turns to shit because no one cares what happens to it. You’ve painted this picture of people living in happy little communes, sharing and careing away. I submit that it would be closer to living in a dorm or frat house. “Hey, I’ll just break some windows! Its not mine and everyone else will pay for it if I don’t get caught!” Personal ownership means you feel a responsibility to take care of it because its yours. Even if you don’t take care of it, who cares? You’re the only one who has to use it.

I’ll make the same point I made in the Communism and Gold thread. Personal liberty and freedom is strengthened by defining boundaries of personal ownership. I know that this house, this plate of food and this car are mine to use when and how I want. Other people understand they are mine and respect that. If they want to have their use, they can trade with me.

The communist society you propose where there is no ownership makes no sense. It would just be an endless bickering over who gets to use the car or who gets to sleep in the big room or who gets to eat the last pice of apple pie.

If you want to more equal society, figure out a way of distributing personal ownership and wealth in a more equal manner. That does not mean have everyone share everything.

105

So, are you debating me or not, sailor?

Look if there was a viable communist party in this country I wouldn’t necessarily vote for it.
I’m not trying to get you folks to join some revolution, I don’t even want one.

What I’m trying to do is broaden you ideas about communism. An authoritarian (or even democratic) state is not a community. Having communism doesn’t mean the Ministry of Plenty distributes goods to all. It could mean any number of things. The bolsheviks do not have a monopoly on communist thought.

I will and have readily admitted that much of communism is theoretical. More experimentation needs to be done to make it a viable way of living. I’m not trying to get you folks to join in the experiments, just realize that they’re being done on small scales and meeting some success.

I don’t think calling for thorough experimentation before passing judgement is “hand waving” or “weaseling”.

You folks are skeptical and you have every right to be. But you don’t have any solid evidence on things that haven’t been tried yet. Nobody does.

So if you have more property than me does that mean you have more freedom?

106

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by perspective *
What I’m trying to do is broaden you ideas about communism./quote]

Uh-oh, I’ve heard that before. It was in a thread started by a vegan who wanted to broaden our ideas about how evil it was to eat meat. As in that thread, the people making intelligent arguments seemed broad enough already.

Well, what does it mean? Please describe in detail the basic legal structure of your perfect comunist society, a constitution if you will.

It is a viable way of living, if you restrict your society to a few hundred people with a simple common purpose. Going beyond that and keeping it working seems implausible at best.

Well, excuse the heck out of us, but if you’re the one making extraordinary claims (that communism can work on a large scale), the onus is on you to provide evidence. We, on the other hand, have plenty of counterarguments and evidence (the savagery of the USSR and China).

Define “freedom”. If you mean “freedom” as in a broader range of choices of what to do with your day, than certainly having a car at your disposal increases your freedom. If you mean “freedom” as little or no responsibility, than having very few possessions would meet the bill.

107

I think capitalism has a lot of undesirable properties that could be fixed in a better system. Advertising, for instance, uses up valuable (and finite!) resources without any real use. It also tells people they “need” the newest, latest gadgets and fashions and use up even more resources. Other agencies which are necessary for the existence of capitalism (governments, war offices, institutions dealing with money, etc.) do the same thing.

Under capitalism, corporations only do things that will return a profit. The means of production are put toward shipping bottled water to Boston (where they have tap water) instead of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (where they’re having a severe drought), simply because Bostonians are affluent enough to pay for it.

Capitalism ensures that everybody will never be equal to everybody else. There must be “rich” and “poor”. There will always be “haves” and “have-nots” as long as capitalism exists.

And what’s worse is that all this materialism is killing the planet. The world can’t simply keep up this rate of materialism. If we keep at current rates, in 50 years we will run out of gas, petroleum, and uranium. Our rainforests are being chopped down at a rate of 100 acres per minute. And all to feed the over-consumption machine known as capitalism. How many people even seriously think about this destruction of nature? Few, because humanity has been isolated from nature. When was the last time you walked out into the woods and sat down to enjoy the beauty of nature for a few hours? Probably a long time, because you’ve been too busy going to work to afford the car that got you there and the house you’re leaving empty all day.

What to do about all that? As history can show us, Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism/Kimism/Whateverism just allows fascist-esque dictatorships to rise. I imagine a different kind of communism: one without the state, without money, without possession, without materialism (all of which were/are present in so-called “communist” nations). All things would not belong to this person or that person, but to humanity. Work would be one’s way of contributing to society, to help everybody else out the same way everybody else helps them out. Anything that helps out society would be considered work: giving food to the hungry, picking up litter, whatever. Such a society could very well be possible; communal-type societies were, as Friedrich Engels put it, “the primitive form of society everywhere from India to Ireland.” And don’t forget Paris in 1871.

Okay…enough of my anarcho-communist musings. Continue with your conversation.

108

You didn’t think we were just going to let you slide, did you?

Ah, those cwazy environment-destroying capitalists.

They’re not like these guys.

Or these guys.

Or these guys.

Or these guys.

Or these guys.

Or these guys.

Admittedly, these are mostly the same guys, i.e. the USSR, but my bullshit tolerance is low today.

109

Do you have any idea how many people are employed either directly by the advertising industry, or else thanks to it?

110

If you already assume it’s not going to work, what good would it do? I could write a whole book about my ideal society, and in the end you could just say it’s just some book, a fantasy in my head.
There are more communists theories about ideal societies than you can shake a stick at. My point is that the diversity exists, not that I’ve got a grand plan to save the world.

Yes as I said we need experimental evidence, no amount of chatroom theorizing will make up for it. If you think Russia and China are sufficient cases, that’s your perogative.

The lesson that I draw from them though, is that violent revolution puts power in the hands of the violent and they will not let go once they have it. People’s habits and culture do not dissapear with a revolution.

Building community starts with your own. You don’t need the state’s assistance. And if it is a truly better way to live, then people will be drawn towards it. As I’ve come into contact with people in my community who have worked to better their community through cooperation and sharing, I’ve been inspired. If I could buy entirely from coops and work within them I would.

I’m not happy with capitalism, I can imagine better things. I want to work towards a classless society with a strong sense of community and mutual respect. You can say it’s an impossible goal, but you have yet to prove it.

I would say that freedom whether or not it stems from owning possessions is always relative. I’m free to drive a car, but not into your house because your rights must be balanced with mine. You can own all of the land but that would mean that I could not. If possessing things is a form of freedom than some people are more “free” than others.

111

How many rainforests are being destroyed by the US? None…because we don’t have any. Don’t blame capitalism because the South Americans have become industrialized and need a place to live.

They’ve been saying we are going to run out of gas in 50 years for over 50 years. You know what happens when we start to run out of fuel in a capitalist society? It gets more expensive. At some point, it will get so expensive that we will be forced to turn to other sources of energy. Or well all starve and die. Either way the Earth will still be here. We might not be.

What restraints does your anarcho-communist society have on consuming resources other than good intentions?

112

I suppose giving specific responses to our objections is too much? Saying that it will all work out somehow isn’t very satisfying.

And if you want to avoid responsibility for your philosophy by writing off the brutal excesses of the USSR and China because they weren’t “real” communist societies, that’s YOUR perogative. We pro-capitalists can point at success stories like Canada. Where’s YOUR experimental evidence?

What the hell does that mean? It sounds like something you’d say around the campfire between verses of Kumbaya.

What’s stopping you? Having to live in the real world? It sucks, I know. But you can choose where to buy your necessities. That choice is routinely denied to those living in communist societies.

Hey, I’ve been saying all along that communisn was possible, in small groups of people with a simple common goal. It’s just not the way to go if you have millions of people and thousands of industries.

Freedom isn’t a zero-sum game, and you think you’re not free because you can’t drive a car into my house? Poor baby. But as an example of freedom offered by a car, I can visit my sister who lives about 200km away and return to my own house in the same day because I own a car. The car offers me that freedom. Without it, visiting my sister would be a much more expensive and time-consuming proposition.

However, a person who doesn’t own a car has different freedom. He doesn’t need to pay for gas or insurance, and he doesn’t have to worry about parking, repairs or theft. That person is free to get a car if he wants one, though, and take on all the attendant responsibilities.

113

A discussion of hypotheticals will not mend ideological differences. I’ve made some honest attempts in these threads to put forth my ideas and have seen from experience that it’s no help. Every detail is just a new source for contention, a request for more details, or more commonly:a filling of gaps with Orwellian imagery by default. Aftwerwards of course it’s forgotten that I have said anything at all except “it will all workout somehow” or “lets work together”

Considering that Russia was already a culture rife with violent repression, near slavery, and poverty, the fact that things didn’t get much better after a revolution doesn’t surprise me.
Capitalism has had it’s share of evils too. The economic and violent military oppression of third world countries by european powers like France and Portugal help sow the seeds of discontent that allowed communist revolutions to take place.
The US had it’s own colonial antics in the Phillipines, killing an untold number of natives (some estimates as high as a half million).

My evidence is the society that I live in which I’m dissatisfied with. Interesting you would point to Canada, it’s pretty socialist compared to the US. Inasmuch as I find the US a tolerable place to live, I credit socialist reforms. Hence the farther we move away from capitalism, the more progress I think we can make towards changing economic disparity.

Or to those in capitalists countries without money.

Success at a small level could mean an unsurpassable limit, or just a temporary stumbling block. I tend to favor the latter opinion. So just how large do you think it can get? a few hundred, a few thousand? Do you have some theoretical support such as information theory or the like?

114

I point to Canada because I live in Canada and I love it. Though a devout atheist, I still thank God there is a Canada and I was born into it.

I’m not even being sarcastic, here. I really do love Canada. My mother frequently shop at large supermarkets like Loblaw’s and our long-standing joke is giggling over the tens of thousands of products available at low prices in a bright cheery atmosphere inconceivable in a pre-1989 East Bloc country, and rare even now.

Communism starts to fail as soon as your population and production grow to the point where you need to appoint people to manage your resources. In capitalism, the managers are making decisions in competition with each other and striving for efficiency. In communism, the person controlling the resources has no motivation to put in more effort than necessary and can be corrupted by the life-and-death power he has over the workers. Capitalist workers are free to seek employment elsewhere. Communist workers are not.

115

In case anyone cares, libertarianism defines freedom as “the absence of coercion”.

116

What I love is how communists, when confronted with China, the USSR, Vietnam, E. Germany and all the other myriad states that have had Communism of one form or another all say “Well, yes, but that wasn’t real communism.”

No, but they started out that way. “We will found our nation on the principals of Marx, and we will live in peace with each other!”

And look at what has happened each and every time.

Yes, capitalism has it’s flaws, but for some odd reason, most people that live in capitalist societies are quite happy.

The poorest people in the US live like kings compared to the “middle class” of most of the 3rd world. Why is that?

In the US in the 60’s and 70’s, hundreds of communes just like the ones you’ve spoken of popped up all over the country. Most of them failed. The few that are left are usually religious in origins and stay that way to this day.

Why, in this land of plenty, with a history and tradition of personal freedom and sharing (because we do, we do…) did you’re communes still fail?

117

Capitalism means the individual has the freedom of choice to buy and sell and produce and use as he sees fit. Communism means the state decides what needs to be produced and consumed and bought and sold and at what prices and there is no freedom in this respect (and, consequently, in any other). To say “we will have a communist system where individuals will have the freedom to buy and sell and use and produce as they see fit” is an oxymoron.

I was telling that to a friend during my recent visit to China where they call what they have something like “Chinese style communism”. I told her: “call it whatever you like but what you have here is raw in the tooth capitalism and that is what is developing the economy in leaps and bounds”.

118

You are also assuming an authoritarian state where the manager would not be held democratically responsible to the workers.

Let’s see E. Germany I believe was a blatant military occupation. Vietnam was responding to oppression by a capitalist state (France) and few besides the communists would aid them.
First of all Marx was not the only communist thinker. Second of all, while Marxist ideology is a powerful revolutionary tool, it is fatally flawed when it comes to governance. Marx believed that the “dictatorship of the proletariat” would slowly loosen it controls as people became more accustomed to a communist lifestyle. The proletariats never really had control in Russia, they were led by intelligentsia some of which had their own plans when power was siezed. I’m sure if Marx could have foreseen Stalin he would have burned his writings or substantially altered them. There is not supposed to be a lasting state even in Marxist theory.
Bakunin was a communist contemporary of Marx, and was critical of his plans because he foresaw the power of the state would be self perpetuating. So I don’t think you can chalk it up to 20/20 hindsight.

Maybe because the US is exploiting those third world countries?

They were all radical experiments I would expect many of them to fail. I happen to know that some of them did succeed and they were not religious. I wasn’t interested in them at the time, so I didn’t look into them. But I would love to know why some of the communes didn’t fail.

Assuming that they have enough money and (apparently) if they’re male.

If the end product is a democratic, classless society where the workers own the means of production, I’ll settle for this “oxymoron”.

119

Yeah thats it. Every poor country is poor because the US exploits them. We are the only country in the world with multinational corporations and we are so terrible because we take advantage of the fact that workers in these countries will work for a lower wage than in the US. Without the USA the entire world would be just one big freakin paradise. Just like it was before we got here.

120

Um, actually, when you arrived, you were a bit rude to say the least.