communism

Great Debates
61

Agoralatry: A Google search comes up empty, so I guess I made it up. Or perhaps I’m merely misspelling it. From the Greek agora, marketplace; and latreia, worship (as in idolatry).

At any rate, now I’m confused. As far as I can tell, Chumpsky thinks that typical Western European welfare states are still seething, Gekko-esque, greed-driven hotbeds of capitalist exploitation and injustice. Contrarily, Mr. Svinlesha seems to be of the view that pointing out that such societies as Sweden, France, or Canada do pretty well as far as quality of life goes is evidence of the utter failure of capitalism, those countries being examples of full communism, I guess. Meanwhile, your typical right-wing letter to the editor writer would agree with Mr. Svinlesha in regarding all nations with single-payer health insurance systems as being three-quarters of the way to outright Stalinism, but would of course indignantly deny that such Godless Bolshevism could produce any good results. I would note, however, that the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, not exactly noted as bastions of Marxian thought, rank all five of the Scandinavian/Nordic nations in the top quartile of all the countries on Earth as far as economic freedom goes, and put three out of five of them (including the notoriously Bolshie Swedes) at the 90th percentile or above.

Like I said, when I say capitalism works, I am not claiming that every single aspect of society must be ruled by market forces. I’m all in favor of social welfare programs. However, just because right-wing letter to the editor writers regard all such social welfare programs as Communistic plots for the destruction of a free market economy does not mean I am obliged to agree with them.

Basically, what I am saying is that Sweden is not a socialist nation. It is a capitalist nation with modifications. If you regard Sweden (or Canada or France or the Netherlands) as socially progressive societies, then you are saying that capitalism can produce socially progressive societies. Of course they aren’t any of them pure capitalism, but “pure” capitalism has never existed outside of the pages of didactic science fiction novels–heck, even the United States has state-funded schools, Social Security, and Medicaid.

62

Oh, where to begin…

First, I’d like a cite showing that ‘virtually all economists’ agree that capitalism is lousy at the distribution of goods. Because I can’t think of any myself.

And since the ‘poverty line’ in the United States is almost twice the world average income, I’d have to say that capitalism seems to do a pretty good job indeed, even for the poorest segments of society.

The U.S. minimum wage represented a standard of living FAR higher than te average middle-class income in the Soviet Union.

Capitalism must create poverty to create wealth? Ridiculous. Capitalism is not a zero-sum game. If I invent a cheaper way to build things, I’ll get rich, but you’ll get things built for less money, so you’ll get wealthier too.

And are you suggesting that off-shore factories *create poverty? They don’t. They improve the standard of living of the people who work there. The fact that they don’t make as much as they would in the U.S. is irrelevant - what matters is if they are better off at home with the factory than without it. And they almost always are.

63

I don’t know how you arrived at this conclusion, either regarding me or Svinlesha. This would appear to be a straw man. No, I basically agree with your statement here:

The point was made well by Svinlesha, I think, that countries like Sweden and Norway show that the thesis that capitalism produces the highest quality of life is false. That is all. Countries like Sweden and Norway have created very healthy societies by explicitely violating free market principles.

It’s not that capitalism can produce socially progressive societies, it is that socially progressive policies can be grafted onto a capitalist economy. Classical liberals like John Stuart Mill basically believed that capitalism was the only way to go, but that the government should intervene when it was expedient to do so, to further the cause of progressive values.

While I applaud countries like Sweden and Canada for their progressive policies, I still find much to criticize. The foremost point is that I think a market-driven economy is very de-humanizing. Adam Smith pointed out the negative effects of such a system, in producing a working class that is “as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become.” The market-driven economy creates classes of masters and their servants which I find intolerable. So, in Sweden and Canada, etc., you still have a large working class that must sell its labor in order. The solution you hear from privileged liberals is to try to blunt these negative aspects by placing more power in the hands of the state. This creates a coordinator class to arrange how society is run, taking away the power of people to run their lives.

Essentially, what I favor is a system that is run bottom-up, as opposed to top-down, where power resides in the hands of the people. In the welfare states, and even in the U.S., but to a lesser extent, the people do have the power to effect public policy, but this is usually quite minimal. When it comes to the most basic public policies, regarding how resources are used and allocated, the people have almost no say. In the U.S. these decisions are made largely by the representatives of the business class, and the state serves as the enforcer of the will of the class. In the more liberal states, there is more power in the state to make these decisions, which makes the decisions democratic to the extent the state is democratic. But, I don’t see why power should be placed either in the hands of the business class, or in the state.

64

Since the average income in countries like Guatemala and El Salvador don’t reach the poverty line, would you say that capitalism does a horrible job?

This isn’t really a very good comparison. At the beginning of the 20th century the U.S. was already the richest country in the world, while Russia was basically a colony of Western Europe. It would be more appropriate to compare wages in comparable states. So, like you could compare the wages in Guatemala with those in Poland, which would be a fairer comparison.

If you invent a cheaper way to build things, you first have to have the capital to produce them, you have to have distribution networks, ways to advertise your product, etc.

Not really. The Third World is kept deliberately poor in order to provide a source of cheap labor for the western imperialist countries. Around the world, the western imperialists work to install and maintain fascist governments that smash labor unions, harass or kill activists, and deter the threat of democracy. So, while it is true that the 9 year old girls in Indonesia who make your shoes are better off making the $0.40 per day, than not making it, they would be better off without the oppressive government that we maintain in order to perpetuate the conditions that make it necessary for 9 year old girls to make $200 shoes for $0.40 a day.

65

MEB:

Yeah. Me too.

I probably shouldn’t presume to speak for the man, but you’ve quoted him yourself, above, and so you know that isn’t his opinion. He states clearly that he views ”socialistic” states such as Sweden to be ”better at taking care of their citizens” than ”US-style capitalism” – which scarcely implies that he sees them as capitalist hot tubs. Or beds. He seems to feel they have a way to go, but then again, he appears inspired by a utopian vision.

Now, why do you think such states are better at taking care of their citizens – because they pursue policies of ”Gekko-esque” capitalism, or because they incorporate socialist ideals in their policy decisions?

I am? Gee, that’s news to me!

Although I will grant you that I’m not comfortable with terms like ”utter failure,” myself. In my defense, I can only say that I didn’t introduce it. But my point is that to the extent Sweden and other states inspired by socialist ideals top the charts regarding ”quality of life” indicators, this is due (rather obviously) to the implementation of socialist, rather than capitalist, policies. Perhaps you think that this is an artificial difference?

I don’t know what to make of the study you quote from the Heritage Foundation, because I don’t really know what to make of a category like ”economic freedom.” I don’t think you can adequately compare ”quality of life” indicators like infant mortality rates with economic ranking systems from the Heritage foundation, because there are so many other factors involved in infant mortality rates. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to quantify exactly the extent to which a state is ”capitalist,” anyway.

Uhh…and you said this where, exactly?

Anyway, to the meat of the issue, what do you mean when you write, ”capitalism works”? In what way does it work, and how does it go about working? What price does a capitalist society pay for capitalism to work?

*But on the other hand, you would perhaps agree that social welfare programs can scarcely be regarded as Capitalistic plots to promote a free market economy, no?

My point is that social welfare programs do not coincide with what is generally considered to be the standard ideology of capitalism, regardless of what you agree or disagree with. But perhaps we should define our terms a bit more accurately in this discussion, anyway.

This depends upon the extent to which we are willing to reduce ”social progress” to a function of capitalism. Certainly, if every policy implemented by the Swedish government was an expression of capitalism, then you could say that capitalism had produced a socially progressive society in Sweden. But that’s not my perception the way politics is structured here, nor is it my perception of the way public policy has developed historically. On the contrary: social reform politics in Sweden has traditionally derived from working class movements that were attempting to address the ills unfettered capitalism was imposing upon the population, and have been radically leftist in their ideology, for the most part.

Look, if you’ve got cancer, and a doctor treats you successfully, do you praise your doctor for finding the cure – or do you praise your former illness for making you sick in the first place?

66

Hmm, millions of citizens starved under Soviet rule: 20.
Millions of citizens starved under Chinese rule: 30-40.
Millions of citizens starved under American rule…: ?

Despite these hairsplitting attempts to define all the bad stuff as not “real” communism, the largest attempts to create communist governments (in the USSR and China) have been incredible failures in meeting the basic needs of its citizens, in the sense that staying alive is a basic need. Actually, all of Chumpsky’s posts have been exercises in embracing the good stuff he likes, while ignoring the bad stuff.

Have the Americans done lots of bad stuff? Of course they have. Did the Soviets and the Chinese also do bad stuff? Absolutely. Among the key differences is that an American can say his government is doinbg bad stuff, while making similar comments in the USSR or China was quite likely to get you killed. If all the citizens could bve reduced to sheeplike idiocy, then maybe communism is okey-dokey. After all, fifty sheep won’t notice if one of their number is randomly pulled out and killed, will they? The key point of communism is that sheep remain sheep, often at gunpoint. That 9 year-old girl making shoes has a better chance at a good life than she would under, say, the Khmer Rouge. It’s not much of a chance, but that’s life.

67

Sam:

*How about with a snide, condescending remark?

Not too surprising really. Replace the word ”goods,” above, with the word ”wealth,” and you’ll be a bit closer to the point.

*I specifically addressed this point in the post you’ve cited. Since you apparently missed it, I’ll reiterate:

**Further:

My. What a keen grasp of macroeconomic theory you display here.

Cite?

68

Still waiting for that cite showing that ‘virtually all’ economists think that Capitalism is lousy at distributing wealth.

As for the notion that capitalism made workers poorer until the heroic unions came along, I’d also need a cite for that other than whatever quote you provided above. Because capitalism created an almost-immediate rise in the incomes and standard of living for workers. Why do you think they swarmed in from the countryside to these ‘sweat shops’?

As for the ‘cite’ that people are better off with sweatshops than without them, all you have to do is notice the fact that people voluntarily work in them. Excluding dictatorships that may essentially use slave labor. But most of the countries we are talking about have work forces that are there because they think the ‘sweat shop’ is a better alternative than what they had before.

Subsistence farming really sucks. Backbreaking, dawn to dusk work outside under the hot sun and the elements. For people in the poorest countries, being able to sit on a stool for 12 hours weaving sweaters is WAY more attractive than lugging rocks out of fields or digging furrows by hand for crops.

Sure, the early days of capitalism were rough. That’s because there wasn’t much wealth, period. When people are starving, it doesn’t much matter how good your system is at re-distributing wealth, because there isn’t any to re-distribute. You have to create it first. And capitalism is the best wealth-creation engine the world has ever seen.

69

Ah the old “cite” argument! Right up there with “I know you are so what am I” in the annals of debating.

This is freshman econ stuff. If another country can produce a product cheaper than I can produce it at home, both countries are better off. American (and foreign) consumers benefit from cheaper products and the other country benfits from jobs that generally pay more than are usually available?

…Or did you forget that when wages go up, prices have to increase to cover the additional labor costs? How many people would be able to afford shoes if we paid $40 union wages for someone to stich the Swosh on the side?

Communism is inefficient because it creates work for its own sake. Capitalism creates work to meet a specific consumer need or want. It does not garantee that there will be a job for you in 10 years after someone invents a better mouse trap. Hey, the worlds a tough place.

So…would a communist agree with me on these statements:
-I should get paid the same amount as someone who works twice as hard as does twice the work I do
-I should never have to worry about having to improve my skills or learn new ones if I don’t want to
-My job should be available to me as long as I want it
-People who work should pay for me if I choose not to work

70

Harder to calculate. If we were honest, we would account for all the people who starved to death due to the actions of U.S. imperialism. Any honest accounting would put the number around 100 million.

Glad to hear you admit some obvious facts. But, of course, the vast and ongoing crimes committed by U.S. imperialism does not in any way impugn the nature of the system. Of course not.

Allow me to quote from Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations: In the process of the division of labor, the working man, “The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment.”

A key component of the political economy of capitalism is keeping the populace stupid and distracted. The main purpose of the U.S. mass media, for example, is to make people as stupid and fearful as possible, so that they will stay huddled in their homes, only venturing out to buy stuff. And, in fact, the propaganda system in the U.S. is much more sophisticated than anything Stalin could have dreamed of. So, yes, you could be killed for saying the wrong thing in Stalinite Russia. Here, however, the system has been perfected to the point where, if you are properly educated, you don’t even think the wrong thoughts.

Unlike those kind bastions of human rights like Haiti, Indonesia, El Salvador, etc.

Ahh yes, the common defense. You see, the evils of communist states are directly linked to the communist ideology. But, when comparable evils occur in our client states, well, that is just life…

71

Speaking of which, msmith537, I’m actually in Freshman Econ! Took the midterm this morning, in fact!

It’s called “comparative advantage.”

Obviously, the “sweat-shops” raise the standard of living for the “poor” country’s citizens. The proof is in the pudding. If the jobs were worse, folks wouldn’t flock to work there. Also, this investment into the poor countries by the MNCs encourages growth in the poor country. The “poor” workers now have higher wages than otherwise, and therefore raise their quality of life.

This benefits the “rich” country, as well. Because the costs of production in the “poor” country is lower than the costs in the “rich” country, the producer can sell at a lower cost to the consumer, at no loss to the producer! If my shoes were produced in the USA, with union jobs, the prices would be higher. The rich countries benefit. The poor countries benefit. The corporations benefit. Capitalism=good!

Also, remember that communism gives no such benefit. In a command economy, the ruler makes all of the decisions about what to produce and who produces it, and who is in what jobs. There is no possible way for any entity to accurately determine the wants and needs of every person in the society. Communism doesn’t take into account differing wants and needs, either. A lactose intolerant person will get the same amount of milk that a normal person would. What happens to that excess milk? It gets thrown out. Or, if the person has savvy, they will exchange it for peanuts from the person who is deathly allergic to them. In this sense, all gain. And this, my friends, is called capitalism.

Of course, the barter system only works by accident. If I’m a carmaker, and I have many excess cars, and all I want is some butter, under a barter system, the only way for my needs to be met is for me to meet a butter churner who coincidentally wants a car. The incidental convergence of wants is obnoxiously inefficient.

Thus, society has created a medium of exchange, money! No longer do we have to find someone who is in the opposite situation we are! Money becomes the universal barter medium. It is traded for goods so that the person that sold us a good can turn right around and use the money to barter for another good. This is called capitalism.

Also, I would contend that under capitalism, the worker does have control over what is produced and what isn’t. If the good shouldn’t be produced, the public simply doesn’t buy it. If the good needs to be produced more, than demand will outweigh supply, more firms will enter the market, and more will be produced. The mass of people control production through their buying and selling of produced goods.

Also, labor is one of the factors of production. Who “owns” labor, and can sell it to the highest bidder? That’s right. The worker. Now, if a company gets more efficient in making a product, and lays off a laborer, it’s sad for the laborer, but good for the rest of the population, because the producer can turn around and sell the good for less money. Also, the laborer can, if there’s a good entrepeneurial spirit in the land, find another job.

This is the reason that we have public schools, so that folks can learn to determine what kinds of work they enjoy, and are efficient at, so society can produce the greatest number of goods and services to society.

Now, in countries that lack of education, the “common man” has not developed skills that are necessary to compete in this market. He hasn’t diversified his labor skills. With education, the worker can more easially move from job to job, depending on the market. For this reason, a good public education should be given to all by the state, because education enables the society to produce to its max. Education, therefore, “enables” the capitalist system to be more efficient. Society is willing to pay this price through taxes. Capitalism, man!

In communism, though, jobs are set for life and are determined by the state, not by market forces. Thus, it would be a waste of resources for a communist state to educate a steelworker in the ways of how to weave textiles. The steelworker is only good at making steel, and never has to learn anything else, because of the job security.

One of the main reasons that newly-capitalist countries such as Russia, aren’t doing as well as we hope, is that the workers recieved their educations during the communist period. Thus, we see uneducated workers having to cope with changing market demands. Wait a few generations, and we’ll see what happens. Just look at the pacific rim! Japan (albeit currently with massively poor economic policies) jumped from being poor to being the juggernaut that it is today. Why? Wealth was created through capitalism. Korea’s GDP has jumped astronomically, as well.

Thus, we see, that capitalism is generally better than communism. I don’t see what’s so hard about this!

72

Here’s something you seem to be missing, if I may point out some more “obvious” facts:
[ul]
[li]Extreme capitalism is when corporations have all the power, and government has virtually nil.[/li]
[li]Extreme communism is when governments have all the power, and corporations have virtually nil (and don’t bother countering that under communism, the government is “the people”, or some such nonsense. Administrative control can’t possibly be effectively used by millions of citizens and it is stupid to assume it could).[/li][/ul]

Since both extremes are prone to abuse, corruption and violence, the natural process of reforming capitalism is for the government to take some power (through safety regulations, stock exchange commissions, the courts, mandated pension funds, etc). The natural process of reforming capitalism is for the government to give up some of its power (through looser controls on private ownership, investment, travel, employment).

The kicker is: governments don’t like to give up power. If you create a communist state with an all-powerful government, how will you convince it to regulate itself? That government will always find it easier to eliminate the complainers than to create reforms. It’s relatively safe to create a weaker government and let it have some regulatory power, while keeping a close eye on it, lest it get out of control. If you start with a government that has total contorl, or in a moment of desperation you yield total control to a government, trying to ensure basic freedoms becomes nearly impossible. China is loosening up a little, because they see Japan and South Korea are doing much better than they are, but the government is still clinging to power, even if it means slower development.

100 million people starved through American imperialism? I’d like to see a cite for that. When has a capitalist country ever slide into the mass starvation and slaughter of China, the USSR or Cambodia?

Haiti, Indonesia and El Salvador are, at best, fascist states. Capitalism might struggle along under such a system, but it only works best under democracy. Capitalism is largely irrelevant to that issue, since thugs will find work under any system. Under communism, though, the thugs all work for the government.

Well, I’m glad to see you finally admit that some evil exists in some communist states. I was beginning to think you were totally out to lunch.

73

Sam

*Yeah, well I’m still waiting for a cite that conclusively demonstrates that ”offshore factories… improve the standard of living of the people who work there.” Not that I anticipate one.

You know, the Internet is a wonderful resource, but unfortunately for me, a great deal of my knowledge is derived from rather old-fashioned sources – i.e., books. Since I have neither the time nor the inclination to waste several hours of my evening hunting down internet cites to support my argument, I hope that you will find quotes taken from standard, introductory texts on economics, written by respected, mainstream economic theorists, satisfactory. Let’s start with the appropriately entitled Economics, written by Nobel prize-laureate Paul Samuelson and his good-time Harvard buddy Bill Nordhaus. This flagship text, probably the most widely-used introduction to economics in the history of the American educational system, has been in existence since 1948, and is regularly rewritten and improved upon by the authors. Here, after introducing some basic economic concepts (supply and demand, etc.), they turn to the question of economic equity. In a language more appropriate for pre-school toddlers than college students (but apparently at just the right level for this forum), they write:

By that last sentence they mean that even a perfectly efficient market does not guarantee an equitable distribution of wealth. They go on to present the Irish potato famine as a ”dramatic example” of the failing of laissez-faire economic governance. A later edition of this text states the case even more unequivocally, but unfortunately I don’t have access to it at the moment. In an Internet précis of the 17th edition of their book however, they make the brief point that:

*(The quote is taken from the summary of Chapter 12.)

Joseph Stiglitz makes precisely the same point, in almost the same wording, in his introductory economic text, also entitled (once again) Economics:

Astute readers may note as well, by the way, that this quote implies that an efficient economic system is a zero-sum game, Sam’s earlier insistence to the contrary notwithstanding.

But more eloquent, perhaps, than the economics goons quoted above, is the SDMB’s own most eminent and loquacious bastion of economic conservatism and right-wing Republican thought, Scylla. In this thread, he lays it out for us in as honest and straightforward a manner as a good, confused leftist such as myself could ever wish for:

*Well, at least the man is honest.

So, are you going to actually stand there, Sam with yer facing hangin’ off the side of yer neck and everything, and claim that you don’t know of a single economist who questions the efficacy of the free market as a mechanism for the equitable distribution of wealth? Indeed, it is a performance worthy of one who believes that the Smokey Mountains were named after the pollution caused by all the trees.

Now then: aside from your own hitherto unsupported opinion, bolstered by the redoubtable insights of freshman economist soup du jour, do you have any actual evidence that the poor in developing economies have in fact benefited from international investments?

74

Chumpsky, are you critiquing capitalism or American imperialism? Obviously, a country can be a successful capitalist society without being imperialist. Witness Canada!

American Imperialism is a different animal from capitalism. Just because they’re both hallmarks of American policy does not necessarily make them part of the same system. So, Bryan Eckers and Chumpsky, I’m not going to adress imperialism, tough I think it would be a great topic.

Chumpsky, allow me to re-interperet your Adam Smith quote:

I see this as Adam Smith’s endictment of communism! In communism, if you recall, the worker is employed in the same manner all of his life. All of the harms of the above quote apply. The nature of capitalism, however, ensures the dynamic-ness of the market, constantly making things more and more efficient, and so jobs are usually rolled over many times.

NB: It was the first cite I could find on the matter, so I’m sorry about the source. If anyone could come along with a better cite, be my guest.

So, you see, the rollover of jobs, at least in America, is very large. Thus, the whole Adam Smith critique doesn’t apply to capitalism.

I’ve not been brainwashed, Chumpsky, and I don’t think you have, either.

You believe I’m ignorant, and cannot know the truth because of my Orwellian/American upbringing. I simply believe you’re incorrect. Therin lies the difference.

75

That is a perfectly valid critique of capitalism at its worst, Svinlesha, although I disagree with the “zero-sum” concept, since digging up a natural resource or discovering a new technology does add value to the system, and I can’t see how the inclusion of this possibility makes an economic system less efficient.

Third-world misery can’t be blamed entirely on foreign invesment, except in the sense that local dictators sieze control of that incoming wealth and are loath to change the system, lest their control be jeopardized. Personally, I think an ethical corporation should make foreign investment dependent on governmental and legal reform, with the idea that increased capitalism encourages a nation toward democracy, but call me an ideallist.

In any event, capitalism often does go to its worst extreme, creating situations like the potato famine and Enron. However, communism sucks all the time. Given the choice between a system that is frequently good but occasionally terrible, and one that is constantlyad, I’ll take my chances with the former.

76

err, “constantly bad”, not “constantlyad”.

Actually, “constantly ad” is kind of a slap at capitalism.

77

Mr. Svinlesha, I’ve got the cite you’ve been looking for!

From This PDF File’s abstract…

Read the full abstract for the full effect. The paper in whole for an even fuller effect.

By the way, well said, Bryan Ekers. Capitalism is probably the least-bad economic system there is.

78

Regarding relative health levels in capitalist vs communist nations:

Speaking specifically to the infant mortality rate figures that keep getting obbed around, I think that the nation’s location on the capitalism-communism spectrum only goes so far. It’s probably the single biggest contributing factor, which is why you see most of the communist/socialist nations on the high end, and most of the capitalist nations on the low end. However, it’s not the entire story, and I think that once you’ve established a strong capitalist system (which nations such as Sweden, France, the US, Canada, etc. all have, regardless of less intrusive socialist leanings), other factors take over. Bottom line: I don’t think you can say, “Infant mortality rates in Sweden are 15% lower than in the US, and Sweden has more socialist welfare programs, therefore socialist welfare programs lead to lower infant mortality rates.” There are other factors that will overshadow any minute changes due to the relative level of capitalism.
Regarding capitalism as a zero-sum game:

It would seem to me - and I’m not an economist, I just dabble - that within a given industry, capitalism may approach zero-sum-ness, but it’s certainly not that way on a grand scale. Certainly, if I learn to make a better widget, the other widget companies are going to lose out in the short term. However, I’m also going to expand my company, employ more widgeteers, assist in the growth of the economy, and so on. However, even within my industry, on a large enough time-line, my widget-making opponents will learn to make an even better widget in time, which will help the industry overall.

So, in summary, capitalism is a zero-sum game in the short-term within a given industry. Maybe. Or something like that.
Regarding the US’s nefarious murder of 100 million people:

I, too, would like to see some sort of tally that even approaches that number. I’ll even allow you to use the entirety of the last century to reach this magic number, even though the tallies for Russia and China occured within, I believe, about 50 and 30 years, respectively.
Regarding the “price that a capitalist society pays for capitalism to work”:

I would wager that, given two societies - one capitalist, and one communist that (by some miracle) happens to not implode on itself - we would see the following: The capitalist society would experience a wide variety of levels of wealth. There would be poor people, rich people, and middle-class people. The communist society would have one giant wad of people of the same level of wealth, which would tend towards the poor end of the spectrum, as compared to Capitalismland. Thus, the capitalist society would “pay” a small numer of extremely poor, in exchange for a vast majority that are wealthier. However, even the extremely poor in Capitalismland have the ability to improve their situation. Those in Communismland are simply stuck where they are.
Jeff

79

Couple of things

  1. Finding flaws in capitalism does not validate communism. Few people believe that Laisez Faire capitalism is the way to go but that is still a long way off from communal ownership of all property.

  2. Capitalism is not a zero-sum game. The simple reason is that the “sum” can be increased by increasing efficiency and productivity.

80

What I have been responding to in this thread is mainly this statement by Chumpsky:

What I have been saying is that clearly societies can achieve a good quality of life for their citizens without abandoning capitalist economic systems if they establish other social and governmental institutions alongside a free market economy. Since this is in fact demonstrably the case–everyone seems to admit there are numerous countries which have mainly capitalist economies which have done a good job on those quality of life statistics–then references to infant mortality and so on aren’t a valid argument that a society must abandon capitalism entirely–which is what the quoted statement seems to me to imply.

Personally, I would say that capitalist economic systems generate the wealth which allow societies to afford to deal with social problems in political, non-free market ways.