# communism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 31, 2002, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770 "2002-10-31T23:58:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2002, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770/41 "2002-11-02T23:03:47Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* **This just doesn’t make sense. What are you saying? That people looked over and saw how good it was in the U.S. and revolted? This is quite childish.** [/choice] Well, call me “Mister Baby” because that’s **exactly** what I’m saying. I’m amazed that you’re amazed at this. Isn’t social change normally triggered by a desire for what could be, or for one’s own society to emulate others? If anything is childish, it’s the belief that communist serfs will sit down, shut up, calm down and be happy forever with a system even you admit was oppressive. > [@](#): > > It is not true that for every Guatemala there is a Hungary. The fact is that during the Cold War, Soviet imperialism was confined mostly to Eastern Europe, along traditional invasion routes from Western Europe. On the other hand, U.S. imperialism was world-wide. There is no Soviet analoge to U.S. imperialism in places like Vietnam or Indonesia. There were **no** Soviet analogues? _cough_ Cuba _cough_ Nicaragua. The bullshit is strong in your statement, Grasshopper. > [@](#): > > It is also kind of silly to say that the Americans “won” because their system was better. This leaves out the huge natural advantages Americans enjoy. Remember that Russia was basically a western European colony at the beginning of the 20th century, while the U.S. was already the richest country in the world by far. What we should be amazed at is not that the U.S. “won,” but rather that the USSR was even able to put up a fight. Huge natural advantages? Russia is almost twice the size of the United States and their populations were comparable in size before the USSR collapsed. As for putting up a fight, they certainly purt up a massive effort against the Germans, but their biggest casualties were taken in the name of collectivization; 20 million of their own people starved to death. Way to fight, commies! Go! Go! Go! Choke the enemy’s rivers with your dead! Or choke your own rivers, if that’s easier! At its most decadent, the Americans never killed nearly as many people as the Soviets did casually in the name of their socialist revolution. Maybe you feel killing people in huge numbers doesn’t count when you evaluate a political system, but it’s reasonably important to **me**. And evidently the people living in the USSR thought it was pretty important, too. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2002, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770/42 "2002-11-02T23:11:56Z")
Whoops, bad format (“choice” ? Must have been Freudian). The first part of that post should read: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > **This just doesn’t make sense. What are you saying? That people looked over and saw how good it was in the U.S. and revolted? This is quite childish.** Well, call me “Mister Baby” because that’s **exactly** what I’m saying. I’m amazed that you’re amazed at this. Isn’t social change normally triggered by a desire for what could be, or for one’s own society to emulate others? If anything is childish, it’s the belief that communist serfs will sit down, shut up, calm down and be happy forever with a system even you admit was oppressive. > [@](#): > > It is not true that for every Guatemala there is a Hungary. The fact is that during the Cold War, Soviet imperialism was confined mostly to Eastern Europe, along traditional invasion routes from Western Europe. On the other hand, U.S. imperialism was world-wide. There is no Soviet analoge to U.S. imperialism in places like Vietnam or Indonesia. There were **no** Soviet analogues? _cough_ Cuba _cough_ Nicaragua. The bullshit is strong in your statement, Grasshopper. ---
**Author:** ![Clu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@Clu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clu)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2002, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770/43 "2002-11-02T23:29:51Z")
i love you chumpsky \<3 i can’t say that communism is preferable to capitalism, but it seem that a hybrid of the two may be preferable to what we have now. as far as nationalized health care being worse as a result of long waiting periods for treatment, i’ll have to make an uneducated statement (because i really don’t know anything about how it works), and say that people would likely wait extended time periods if they’re not paying for any of it. most people would still have insurance that pays for some, is that incorrect? ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2002, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770/44 "2002-11-02T23:58:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers \* > \*\*There were **no** Soviet analogues? _cough_ Cuba _cough_ Nicaragua. The bullshit is strong in your statement, Grasshopper. \*\* OK, please tell us how Cuba and Nicaragua are **in any way** analogous to Vietnam or Indonesia. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770/45 "2002-11-03T00:17:49Z")
Well, let’s see… I don’t remember the Americans parking nuclear missiles in Indonesia, do you? ---
**Author:** ![Blackeyes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f6c823/32.png) [@Blackeyes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackeyes)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770/46 "2002-11-03T00:31:54Z")
> [@](#): > > “A huge totalitarian system with all its tanks and guns, gulag camps and secret police, has been brought to its knees because nobody wants to wear Bulgarian shoes.” - P. J. O’Rourke He should have added: “And that’s why, you dumbasses”. ---
**Author:** ![Pulling\_the\_Strings](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@Pulling\_the\_Strings](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pulling_the_Strings)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770/47 "2002-11-03T00:44:04Z")
All we have to do is build robots that’ll do everything for us. Since robots don’t need to be paid, we won’t have to worry about incentive, and communism will work! We can distribute the resources these robots create evenly amongst the people. We’ll have robots to fix robots, robots to direct robots, and robots to make robots. We’ll have artificial intelligence, which will allow robots to make better robots, in turn bringing the people more resources. If people want to work, it’ll be a hobby. Emotions are out of the question, though, because we don’t want robots who think they’re slaves of men, causing a revolution and human-robot war. ---
**Author:** ![Pulling\_the\_Strings](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@Pulling\_the\_Strings](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pulling_the_Strings)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770/48 "2002-11-03T01:09:22Z")
And on the teacher/athlete argument… most schools are run by the government, hence the term ‘public school.’ If schools were part of the capitalistic society we live in, they would be privately owned and people would pay to go to them (though I’m sure the government would financially help those families who couldn’t afford it, and would require parents to send their kids to school, as parents are required to feed their children). If a school hired good teachers, the school could build a reputation of teaching children better than others, increasing demand for said school, allowing them to charge higher prices, allowing them to pay their teachers better and provide even better resources for the children. Being able to better pay their teachers, they would attract more prospects, could be more selective, and in the end the better teachers would make more money. better employees ----\> better job performance ----\> better supply -----\> higher demand ----\> more resources ----\> ability to incentive employees ----\> better employees yay capitalism ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770/49 "2002-11-03T01:12:03Z")
Of course, there’s a big difference between free trade, and corporatism, and neo-colonialism, which was practiced in Latin America-it was the government and the corporations controlling the economy and the state. So…what’s the debate about? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770/50 "2002-11-03T02:04:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > When measured by quality-of-life indicators, like infant mortality, health of the population, health of the environment, etc., capitalism is an utter failure. Let’s take a look at one of your quality-of-life indicators, infant mortality, with some real numbers. From data from the [CIA’s 2002 World Factbook](http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2091.html), I’ve selected the top 25 countries by infant mortality. The first number is after the country name is the number of deaths in infancy per 1000 live births. Lower is obviously better. The second number is taken from the conservative Heritage Foundation’s [Index of Economic Freedom](http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/), and is the overall country’s rank on that index. Note that those guys are right-wingers, fiercely dedicated to unfettered capitalism, and far more right-wing than am I, a good bleeding-heart liberal. Lower numbers are higher ranks, hence indicating more Heritage Foundation/_Wall Street Journal_ style _laissez-faire_ capitalism. Sweden, 3.44, 17 Iceland, 3.53, 23 Singapore, 3.6, 2 Finland, 3.76, 14 Japan, 3.84, 35 Norway, 3.9, 35 Andorra, 4.07, not ranked Netherlands, 4.31, 4 Austria, 4.39, 20 France, 4.41, 45 Switzerland, 4.42, 12 Macau , 4.44, not ranked Slovenia, 4.47, 79 Belgium, 4.64, 20 Germany, 4.65, 20 Luxembourg, 4.71, 4 Spain, 4.85, 26 Australia, 4.9, 9 Guernsey, 4.92, not ranked Liechtenstein, 4.92, not ranked Canada, 4.95, 15 Denmark, 4.97, 12 Gibraltar, 5.4, not ranked Ireland, 5.43, 4 United Kingdom, 5.45, 9 Here are the bottom 25 countries by infant mortality, with the Index of Economic Freedom rankings: Angola, 191.66, not ranked Afghanistan, 144.76, not listed Sierra Leone, 144.38, not ranked Mozambique, 138.55, 76 Liberia, 130.21, not listed Guinea, 127.08, 101 Niger, 122.23, 118 Somalia , 122.15, not listed Malawi, 119.96, 118 Mali, 119.63, 60 Rwanda, 117.79, 108 Tajikistan, 114.77, 137 Swaziland, 109.43, 79 Guinea-Bissau, 108.54, 142 Bhutan, 106.79, not listed Burkina Faso, 105.3, 93 Central African Republic, 103.81, 76 Djibouti, 99.7, 79 Ethiopia , 98.63, 121 Congo, Democratic Republic of the, 98.05, not ranked Congo, Republic of the, 97.91, 134 Gabon, 93.5, 97 Chad, 93.46, 125 Haiti, 93.35, 136 Cote d’Ivoire, 92.23, 60 (There’s a bunch of irritating gaps in the Heritage Foundation’s ranking, especially at the top of the list. It seems fair to say that Angola, Afghanistan, and Sierra Leone are not pillars of the capitalist community, though.) Looking at these lists, there’s not a perfect correlation; as an American liberal, I wouldn’t expect there to be. There’s plenty of room for disagreement over the best way to run a society in the broader context of industrialized capitalist democracies with respect to more _laissez-faire_ or more social democratic policies. (The United States is in about 40th place out of 220-odd entities, and is tied for 4th place on the Index of Economic Freedom.) Clearly, though, the countries with better infant mortality stats are generally capitalistic, and the countries with lousy infant mortality states also do pretty badly with respect to free market indicators as well. The countries with the best infant mortality stats on the planet are a bunch of Scandinavian or other Western European states, Japan, and Singapore. Those countries may be “socialist” by the standards of Republican Congressmen, but not by anybody else’s. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770/51 "2002-11-03T04:18:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers \* > \*\*Well, let’s see… I don’t remember the Americans parking nuclear missiles in Indonesia, do you? \*\* Uhh, no, but I do remember them parking nuclear missiles in Turkey, _on the border with the USSR_, poised to destroy Russia’s major cities at a moment’s notice. I suppose I will have to wait to hear how Russian involvement in Cuba and Nicaragua had any resemblance whatsoever to U.S. imperialism’s role in southeast Asia. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by MEBuckner_, > **Clearly, though, the countries with better infant mortality stats are generally capitalistic, and the countries with lousy infant mortality states also do pretty badly with respect to free market indicators as well. The countries with the best infant mortality stats on the planet are a bunch of Scandinavian or other Western European states, Japan, and Singapore. Those countries may be “socialist” by the standards of Republican Congressmen, but not by anybody else’s.** I don’t see how this is clear at all. I mean, you just showed that the countries with the lowest infant mortality rates are the more socialistic countries. In fact, these countries, Norway, Sweden, etc., are really not socialistic, but _welfare states_. There is a difference. The point is, though, that by standards of human welfare, capitalism is **not** efficient. Like I have been saying, the U.S. should have the healthiest population in the world by far, due to its enormous natural advantages, but it doesn’t. Other interesting stats in the page you linked to were: Cuba: 7.27 deaths/1,000 live births (2002 est.) United States: 6.69 deaths/1,000 live births (2002 est.) In fact, the infant mortality rates in Cuba and the U.S. have been close for some time now, which is really amazing. Cuba is a country that has been under an embargo for some 40 odd years, and doesn’t have anything even remotely close to the resources the U.S. has. Yet, somehow they are able to take care of their people. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770/52 "2002-11-03T04:23:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > I don’t see how this is clear at all. I mean, you just showed that the countries with the lowest infant mortality rates are the more socialistic countries. In fact, these countries, Norway, Sweden, etc., are really not socialistic, but _welfare states_. There is a difference. Well, are they “socialistic” or ain’t they? If the countries with the lowest infant mortality rates are basically capitalist countries with well-developed welfare states, this indicates that capitalism _is_ efficient, if it’s paired with a well-developed welfare system. Which is all well and good, but it’s not exactly a radical critique of the foundations of the U.S. politico-economic system. You could practically get a column at _The New Republic_ saying that sort of thing. ---
**Author:** ![Soup\_du\_jour](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Soup\_du\_jour](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soup_du_jour)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770/53 "2002-11-03T05:20:50Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Chumpsky_ > Disgusting. Simply disgusting. Excuse me??? First, you try to undermine the legitimacy of the cite by calling the author a “bourgeoise hack.” Next, you claim that the author and I “shouldn’t have the right to live in a civilized society.” Finally, at the end of the post, you have the audacity to tell me that my opinions and words are “disgusting.” I certainly did not deserve this. But, to respond to your points: The cause of many problems in Africa is that there aren’t very good enforcement of laws, either through ineffectiveness or by design. Once the governments can be stable, and can command the respect of their armies, and when peace deals are struck to end the massive numbers of wars. (This is already beginning to happen in Sudan and DRC/Rwanda.) I’m very optimistic about the future of Africa. One of the many causes, I believe, of this civil unrest, is the lack of investment into these countries, precipitated by the US and EU trade barriers. Once the average African farmer has the ability to sell crops compeditively on the world stage, money will flow in because of the cheaper goods, and the economies will grow. I partially blame US/EU policies, not capitalism itself. If anything, the West isn’t being capitalist _enough_ with Africa. Also, to curb disease, we need to send more humanitarian aid their way, and someone needs to stop the trade in “blood diamonds,” which is a scourge upon the continent. Back to Communism… > [@](#): > > Uhh, no, but I do remember them parking nuclear missiles in Turkey, on the border with the USSR, poised to destroy Russia’s major cities at a moment’s notice. Do you also remember the Soviet Union blockading Democratic West Berlin? The Jupiter Missiles in Turkey were specifically to counteract a possible Soviet invasion of West Berlin. All of the Allies, save the US, post-WWII, had sustained heavy losses on the continent. The Soviet Union had amassed a huge land army, and there was no way we could defend our ally, West Berlin, through conventional means. Thus, we had to deter them, same as the USSR tried to deter the US in Cuba. Quid pro quo. Many people believe that the Cold War wasn’t a conflict between Communism and Democracy (no matter what the politicians tell you.) It was a conflict between two superpowers. Nothing more, nothing less. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770/54 "2002-11-03T06:14:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > \*\* > Well, are they “socialistic” or ain’t they? If the countries with the lowest infant mortality rates are basically capitalist countries with well-developed welfare states, this indicates that capitalism _is_ efficient, if it’s paired with a well-developed welfare system. Which is all well and good, but it’s not exactly a radical critique of the foundations of the U.S. politico-economic system. You could practically get a column at _The New Republic_ saying that sort of thing. \*\* Sorry, my bad. I meant to say that these countries are not _socialist_. They _are_ socialistic, in that they have some socialist ideals, but they are not socialist in the sense of worker control over the means of production. Thus the term “welfare state.” While I agree that these states are a significant improvement over U.S.-style capitalism, in their priorities, I still think we can do much better. They still have wage-slavery and the institutionalization of greed, with all of the bad effects that flow from that, but, yes, they do do a better job at taking care of their citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770/55 "2002-11-03T06:27:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Soup\_du\_jour \* > **The Jupiter Missiles in Turkey were specifically to counteract a possible Soviet invasion of West Berlin. All of the Allies, save the US, post-WWII, had sustained heavy losses on the continent. The Soviet Union had amassed a huge land army, and there was no way we could defend our ally, West Berlin, through conventional means.** Naturally. Of course, everything any state wants to do is justified as “defense.” I do think that Russia sustained some losses in WWII also… > [@](#): > > \*\*Thus, we had to deter them, same as the USSR tried to deter the US in Cuba. Quid pro quo. Many people believe that the Cold War wasn’t a conflict between Communism and Democracy (no matter what the politicians tell you.) It was a conflict between two superpowers. Nothing more, nothing less. \*\* The USSR tried to deter the U.S. in Cuba? It wasn’t _Cuba_ trying to defend itself against a U.S. attack? In fact, the U.S. immediately began attacking Cuba after the 1959 revolution, long before there was any Cuban-Soviet relationship. Cuba has always had a special place in the hearts of U.S. imperialists, going back to the Founding Fathers, and they were very distraught to lose this gem in 1959. The desire to eliminate Castro had nothing to do with the Soviets, but everything to do with what Arthur Shlessinger called the “Castro idea of taking matters into your own hands.” And, in fact, this is something we can actually test. We can simply look and see what happened with U.S. policy toward Cuba after the collapse of the Soviet Union. What happened? Well, the policy toward Cuba became **harsher** , more restrictions were placed on Cuba. Oh, sorry we’ve been lying to you for 40 years about the Soviet threat in Cuba, but now we have to tighten the noose on Cuba because of… our love for democracy!..yeah, that’s it…our love for democracy! I mean, this is just a joke. You are right, though, that the Cold War had nothing to do with Communism or democracy. In fact, the prime objective of the U.S. in the Cold War (and after) was to prevent democracy from arising. The Cold War was a great pretext for carrying out policies that benefitted U.S. imperialists. Notice that these policies did not change after the Cold War was over. So, NATO still exists, and in fact gets more powerful, we still station troops all over the world, we continue to pay for a massive war budget, etc. The only thing that has changed are the _pretexts_ for carrying out the same policies. ---
**Author:** ![Soup\_du\_jour](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Soup\_du\_jour](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soup_du_jour)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770/56 "2002-11-03T07:01:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Naturally. > > Of course, everything any state wants to do is justified as “defense.” I do think that Russia sustained some losses in WWII also… Of course they did. However, they still managed to amass the largest land army in Europe. The United States and her allies were trying to prevent an attack on a key ally. What’s so bad about that? Imagine the outcome had we not detered the USSR. West Berlin would have been in shambles, just as East Berlin was during Soviet occupation. The Berlin Wall was for the express purpose of keeping the East Berliners in East Berlin. Had the Soviet system been superior, there wouldn’t have been a need for the wall. So, in this case, the missiles in Turkey were justified, as were the USSR putting nukes into Cuba. After all, the Bay of Pigs was pre-Cuban Missile Crisis, and Khruschev had no way of knowing that the US had no intention of attacking again. > [@](#): > > The USSR tried to deter the U.S. in Cuba? It wasn’t Cuba trying to defend itself against a U.S. attack? The missiles were Soviet missiles. They were shipped on Soviet boats. The people building the emplacements were Soviet. The soldiers prepared to fire the nukes were Soviet… Yeah, I’d say that the Crisis was caused by the USSR trying to thwart US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. Either that, or Khruschev was doing this in an attempt to remove the missiles in Turkey, which he got. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770/57 "2002-11-03T07:10:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > Sorry, my bad. I meant to say that these countries are not _socialist_. They _are_ socialistic, in that they have some socialist ideals, but they are not socialist in the sense of worker control over the means of production. Thus the term “welfare state.” > > While I agree that these states are a significant improvement over U.S.-style capitalism, in their priorities, I still think we can do much better. They still have wage-slavery and the institutionalization of greed, with all of the bad effects that flow from that, but, yes, they do do a better job at taking care of their citizens. But, unless you are arguing that Sweden, New Zealand, France, Canada, et al. have high infant mortality rates, unhealthy populations, or ruined environments\*, your statement “When measured by quality-of-life indicators, like infant mortality, health of the population, health of the environment, etc., capitalism is an utter failure” doesn’t hold water. Some capitalist societies do better than others at dealing with those things (usually by injected non-capitalistic means into a basically capitalistic system–I’m certainly jno believer in agoralatry). But clearly, by the measureable statistical indicators, capitalist societies have done better than any other society in history at providing a good quality of life for their citizens. You are reduced to much vaguer and more subjective criticisms like “the institutionalization of greed”. Or perhaps you are arguing that in your ideal society no one will _ever_ die, and no one will ever have to work for a living, either. Sounds great, but I think we’ll want to know the details before we all beam aboard. \*Gauging that one is going to be trickier. If you look at “health of the environment” as a “quality of life” factor, I’d have to say the advanced industrialized nations have done as well as or better than anyone, looking at clean air, clean drinking water, etc. If you want to look at less human-centered factors like biodiversity and protecting other species, I’d still have to say the Western nations do as well as anyone–it’s not like any other system hasn’t done its share of damage to the natural ecosystems, from the Easter Islanders to the Soviets. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770/58 "2002-11-03T13:09:40Z")
**MEB** : > [@](#): > > - But, unless you are arguing that Sweden, New Zealand, France, Canada, et al. have high infant mortality rates, unhealthy populations, or ruined environments\*, your statement “When measured by quality-of-life indicators, like infant mortality, health of the population, health of the environment, etc., capitalism is an utter failure” doesn’t hold water. Some capitalist societies do better than others at dealing with those things (usually by injected non-capitalistic means into a basically capitalistic system–I’m certainly jno believer in agoralatry).\* Agoralatry? Anyway, your last observation, concerning the injection of “non-capitalistic” means into a basically capitalistic system, is really the crux of the issue, which is fundamentally an ideological one. By that, I mean that most of those who promote a neo-classical version of capitalism (as I understand it) would disagree with your claim above, as well as with **Numb** ( **Chumpsky** , that is). In fact, they argue the exact opposite: that free-market, lazze-faire capitalism is the _only_ possible route open to a society in pursuit of freedom, democracy, and a decent standard of living. If their claims were correct, one would expect to see a significantly higher quality of life in societies that practice that form of capitalism than in societies that do not. In fact, we see no such thing. On the contrary: to the extent that countries like Sweden and Norway rate higher on a scale of “quality of life” indicators, I submit that this is due to the imposition of redistributive economic policies that run directly counter to the ideological demands of capitalism. Sweden, for example, has one of the largest public sectors of the developed world, measured per-capita, supported by some of the most exorbitant tax rates. I read recently that one worker of three is employed by the Swedish state. These are policies that run directly counter to the demands of the market, as the Swedish Moderates (political right) are often wont to point out. As any economics freshman could explain, the reason behind this contradiction is quite simple. An economy accomplishes three tasks: it determines _what_ gets produced, _how much_ gets produced, and _who_ gets it. In other words, supply, demand, and distribution. While “capitalism” has historically proven to be superior in the first two categories, it is in fact a complete failure at the third, as is generally admitted by virtually all serious economists. This is, in fact, the dialectical contradiction at the heart of a capitalist system: to effectively create wealth, it must also create (and maintain) poverty. Market competition constrains economic actors in such a way that they must reduce the costs of production (in particular, wages) as far as is feasibly possible. In the case of the US and other highly developed industrial societies, this is accomplished to a great extent by “exporting poverty:” production facilities are relocated to developing countries, where wages are low (often below subsistence level), work conditions unregulated, and labor unions practically non-existent. The increasingly broad redistribution of wealth that occurred during the 20th century in the US is also often cited as an example of the superiority of capitalism as a system of social organization. However, inspecting the historical record, we discover that capitalism certainly _did not_ promote wealth redistribution during its early beginnings: if anything, the reverse occurred. Certainly, more wealth was produced, but it was also concentrated in the hands of a very small group of entrepreneurs – the majority of whom, by the way, were members of the aristocracy supposedly swept away during the liberal revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries. Heard of sweat-shops? That’s capitalism in its purest form. It was not until workers organized themselves and began a bloody campaign for their rights that the wealth produced by industrialization began to trickle down to the masses. Again, these organizations were distinctly leftist in political orientation, inspired by communism or anarchism (like the Wobblies). The US was the scene for some of the worst, and most extensive, labor unrest/violence in the Western world, a fact that is often conveniently forgotten in mainstream histories. After all, May 1st, the official, world-wide day of socialist celebration, is in fact a commemoration of the Haymarket riot in Chicago. There are many factors at work in the current standard of living enjoyed by the developed world. Effective resource use, industrialization, scientific development, colonialization, and free markets all played a role, as did capitalism and social the movements that opposed it. Assuming that **Chumpsy** is essentially anarcho-syndicalist (i.e., what Chomsky refers to as “libertarian socialism”), then the central problem he addresses would be resource ownership. In capitalism, such ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy persons, supported by a legal and ideological system that maintains and justifies the rules of the game. This system is in fact horribly inefficient – when viewed from an alternative perspective – and wasteful, etc; arguably, “an utter failure.” That matters are not worse is really the result of popular movements which have acted like brakes on a locomotive, slowing down the process of capitalist exploitation and forcing economic redistribution. That can hardly be construed as evidence that “capitalist societies” (whatever that term might imply) “have done better than any other society in history at providing a good quality of life for their citizens.” ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770/59 "2002-11-03T16:11:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr. Svinlesha \* > \*\ ***MEB** : > > Agoralatry? > > Anyway, your last observation, concerning the injection of “non-capitalistic” means into a basically capitalistic system, is really the crux of the issue, which is fundamentally an ideological one. By that, I mean that most of those who promote a neo-classical version of capitalism (as I understand it) would disagree with your claim above, as well as with **Numb** ( **Chumpsky** , that is). In fact, they argue the exact opposite: that free-market, lazze-faire capitalism is the _only_ possible route open to a society in pursuit of freedom, democracy, and a decent standard of living. > > If their claims were correct, one would expect to see a significantly higher quality of life in societies that practice that form of capitalism than in societies that do not. In fact, we see no such thing. On the contrary: to the extent that countries like Sweden and Norway rate higher on a scale of “quality of life” indicators, I submit that this is due to the imposition of redistributive economic policies that run directly counter to the ideological demands of capitalism. Sweden, for example, has one of the largest public sectors of the developed world, measured per-capita, supported by some of the most exorbitant tax rates. I read recently that one worker of three is employed by the Swedish state. These are policies that run directly counter to the demands of the market, as the Swedish Moderates (political right) are often wont to point out. > > As any economics freshman could explain, the reason behind this contradiction is quite simple. An economy accomplishes three tasks: it determines _what_ gets produced, _how much_ gets produced, and _who_ gets it. In other words, supply, demand, and distribution. While “capitalism” has historically proven to be superior in the first two categories, it is in fact a complete failure at the third, as is generally admitted by virtually all serious economists. This is, in fact, the dialectical contradiction at the heart of a capitalist system: to effectively create wealth, it must also create (and maintain) poverty. Market competition constrains economic actors in such a way that they must reduce the costs of production (in particular, wages) as far as is feasibly possible. In the case of the US and other highly developed industrial societies, this is accomplished to a great extent by “exporting poverty:” production facilities are relocated to developing countries, where wages are low (often below subsistence level), work conditions unregulated, and labor unions practically non-existent. > > The increasingly broad redistribution of wealth that occurred during the 20th century in the US is also often cited as an example of the superiority of capitalism as a system of social organization. However, inspecting the historical record, we discover that capitalism certainly _did not_ promote wealth redistribution during its early beginnings: if anything, the reverse occurred. Certainly, more wealth was produced, but it was also concentrated in the hands of a very small group of entrepreneurs – the majority of whom, by the way, were members of the aristocracy supposedly swept away during the liberal revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries. Heard of sweat-shops? That’s capitalism in its purest form. It was not until workers organized themselves and began a bloody campaign for their rights that the wealth produced by industrialization began to trickle down to the masses. Again, these organizations were distinctly leftist in political orientation, inspired by communism or anarchism (like the Wobblies). The US was the scene for some of the worst, and most extensive, labor unrest/violence in the Western world, a fact that is often conveniently forgotten in mainstream histories. After all, May 1st, the official, world-wide day of socialist celebration, is in fact a commemoration of the Haymarket riot in Chicago. > > There are many factors at work in the current standard of living enjoyed by the developed world. Effective resource use, industrialization, scientific development, colonialization, and free markets all played a role, as did capitalism and social the movements that opposed it. Assuming that **Chumpsy** is essentially anarcho-syndicalist (i.e., what Chomsky refers to as “libertarian socialism”), then the central problem he addresses would be resource ownership. In capitalism, such ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy persons, supported by a legal and ideological system that maintains and justifies the rules of the game. This system is in fact horribly inefficient – when viewed from an alternative perspective – and wasteful, etc; arguably, “an utter failure.” That matters are not worse is really the result of popular movements which have acted like brakes on a locomotive, slowing down the process of capitalist exploitation and forcing economic redistribution. That can hardly be construed as evidence that “capitalist societies” (whatever that term might imply) “have done better than any other society in history at providing a good quality of life for their citizens.” \*\* Utter failure and horribly inefficient are pretty strong words. Compared to what is capitalism horribly inefficient? ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2002, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770/60 "2002-11-03T17:10:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > \*\*Modern corporations are some of the most totalitarian institutions ever invented by humankind. They are totally unaccountable to the public, operate mostly in secret, and demand total obedience from their subjects. \*\* Nonsense. Corporations that are publicly traded are accountable to their stockholders. Corporations are beholden to laws that regulate them, everything from the Taft-Hartley Act to OSHA to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Large manufacturers like General Motors are accountable to labor unions. But most importantly, corporations are accountable to the public through the marketplace. If they don’t produce goods and services the public wants, at the quality and price the public wants, they fail. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/communism/134770.md?page=4)