That's it, I'm going to be a Communist or an Anarchist.

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
41

This is a response to a few similar rebuttals. Of course capitalism was in place in barter systems. Money is just an abstracted system of bartering. You make more or better things and you get more or better things in return. That is capitalism at its foundation in my mind. I don’t see how it wouldn’t be. Capitalism isn’t a perfect image of natural law in any country however. Governments still put up barriers and tax systems with goals in mind to funnel resources in other directions. That isn’t always a bad thing.

However, you can’t look at a question like capitalism vs. communism and assume that they are equal alternatives that countries can choose between. One is just harnessed and refined natural law and the other is just something (really bad) philosophers made up.

42

This is somewhat akin to saying “Gluing feathers to your arms and flapping really hard has never worked before, but I’m sure if I just try really hard it’ll work.”

Saying that the only problem Communism has is that they “don’t beat the crap out of corrupt people” suggests a broad ignorance of what Communism is and why it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because many of the underlying principles defy reality.

If there had only been one or two experiments with Communism that had failed, maybe it would be worth trying it again, but after dozens of examples don’t you think it’s time to accept reality?

Which is, of course, just as true of communism. The difference being that in a communist system, the measure of competition has nothing to do with economic productivity, so you’re not even getting anything economically useful out of the competition.

43

I don’t think this is responsive to what **Mhendo **and I were saying.

44

Then I am not sure I am really following you.

You said that I was correct that market economics follow natural law. I think that is self-evident. My point just takes it one tiny step further when I claim that governments that arise out of market economics are also following natural law. No country is perfectly capitalistic and there are often good reasons to channel forces to other means if necessary.

There are other forms of government that also follow natural law. Dictatorships, monarchies, and feudal systems do as well based on other quirks of human psychology. However, governments based on capitalism combine natural laws of economics with natural forms of government. Even the more socialist governments of Europe require capitalism as their engine to power other objectives. That is all fine until they are also required to compete in the global market.

No one can just reject capitalism as just one of many alternate economic realities. Its base is made up of market economics which are as real as the law of gravity. No one gets to choose otherwise. I don’t make a big distinction between market economics and capitalism and that may be where we are seeing things differently.

45

It should be noted that the Communist nations aren’t the only examples of failed socialist attempts. There were several “Utopian Societies” set up by 19th Century philosophers and writers (i.e. learned and moral people) and they all collapsed.

[

](Utopian socialism - Wikipedia)

46

Yes, that is where we disagree, as I said in my post. As I think you’d agree, market forces are a reality regardless of the decisions we make about laws and rights. Just like feelings of cooperation and altruism are a natural part of reality regardless of what we decide. But the political, legal, (and to a lesser extent cultural) system that enforces certain norms about property is anything but “natural” in this sense; it is subject to the decisions we make as a society.

For example, an integral part of modern Capitalism is the corporation. But the corporation’s existence and character is the product of centuries of political and legal decisions. People might cooperate in an economic endeavor naturally, but they don’t naturally have indemnity, and everything else that comes with being a modern corporation.

47

Right, and it leaves you with little but a syllogism.

Market economics are natural.
Capitalism and market economics are identical.
Therefore, capitalism is natural

You’re not alone in this belief, of course, but i think it’s an intellectually bankrupt position, especially in any debate that seeks to actually elucidate the philosophical and practical differences of economic systems.

As people in this thread have noted, we have to look at communism not just as an ideal, but in the ways that it has actually functioned. Well, i think we need to do the same with capitalism. Simply equating capitalism with market economics, without taking into account the historically specific manifestations of capitalist societies, makes it very easy to claim that capitalism is natural, but at the same time elides the ways in which many of the forms and structures of modern capitalist societies are human constructions that are independent of market laws. Richard Parker’s example of the corporation as a legal entity is a good one; there are dozens of others.

Also, as others have pointed out, the natural laws of the market also work in communist or socialist societies, but attempts to constrain their effects have particular consequences. If those laws work in socialist and communist societies, it becomes rather pointless to argue that those laws and capitalism are perfectly congruent.

48

I don’t want to get into a big argument about this since I don’t advocate banning interest, but the example I gave totally contradicts this statement. When people lend to kiva they earn no interest and there’s no guarantee that they’ll ever get it back. Granted, to date kiva has a 100% repayment rate but there’s still no guarantee that you will be repaid. You’re loaning to third world mom and pop businesses. The agency doesn’t back or guarantee the loans in any way and there’s zero interest, but still people make the loans.

49

No, free enterprise exists in a purely barter system but not capitalism. For capitalism you need the abstraction of money in order to reinvest your profits as you see fit, you need government to enforce contracts and guarantee the value of money, and you need banks and brokerages to keep track of the tick marks. All of this is invented and artificial. They’re good things, but they aren’t as natural as gravity.

50

You know, Chasing Dreams, capitalism, communism and anarchism are not the only options for running an economy. There’s also social democracy, or democratic socialism. Works well enough in Scandinavia. It’s capitalism, but tamed.

51

Or, it’s socialism, but not always on the leash. :slight_smile:

I tend to consider myself something of a social democrat, and i think that the Scandinavian countries do a pretty good job. Interestingly enough, they actually allow the market to make decisions far more frequently than many people realize. For example, Sweden’s school system is run on a voucher system, something that many free market types have been pushing in America, and that many American liberals have strongly opposed. The money for education still comes from taxes, but the voucher system allows choice and offers some market solutions while still socializing the costs of something considered a public good.

I don’t know many people, at least among social democrats, who dogmatically insist that the government is perfect at running the economy, or that it is always an ideal solution. And i think that, if we can demonstrate that justice and equity for all can be better served by the free market in particular instances, then by all means let the free market rule. But i don’t share with some free market absolutists the notion that government can’t be improved, or that economic efficiency always leads to the best outcomes.

We, as a society, need to think about normative issues such as how we value things like efficiency, equity, social justice, minimum standards of living, etc., and then look for positive economic solutions that will give us the sort of society we want. Are we, for example, willing to have slightly lower levels of efficiency and growth if that means slightly greater levels of equality and a certain minimum standard? And which is more important to think about: the minimum level of acceptable existence, or the question of the gap between rich and poor? And what is the relationship between these two things anyway? Are there some things too fundamental to be left to the market? What might they be?

One problem with market solutions in capitalist countries is that very few people, with the exception of some libertarians, actually advocate them with any real consistency. Businesses want reduced taxes and minimal regulation, arguing in such instances for a free market, but then often lobby for government subsidies, bailouts, and protection from competition. Farmers want to be able to sell their produce for as much as it will fetch when times are good, yet want government to buy or subsidize their crops when the market is bad, and want tariffs on foreign meat. Drivers want freeways, but don’t want to pay tolls to private contractors. Everyone has seen such inconsistencies in action, and maybe even can recognize some similar ones in their own minds.

52

Another option is the anarcho-syndicalism that was tried in the Spanish Revolution, where the workers took control of the factories and the peasants took control of the farms, for real, and without answering to the state. It seemed to have a thriving economy while it lasted, but it lasted less than a year before the nominally Communist government crushed it; so there’s way of knowing how well it would have worked in the long run.