It’s not describing a problem with capitalism; it’s describing a problem with every system everywhere. All systems contain hierarchies, all hierarchies are unequal by definition. Marxism simply replaces, or attempts to replace, hierarchies of competence with a hierarchy of power.
Marxism addresses the problem of inequality by being economically inefficient. There is therefore less to possess, and overall people are poorer but closer together in terms of economic equality.
Treating economic inequality by replacing it with the equal distribution of poverty* is kind of a silly solution, but it is a solution.
Regards,
Shodan
*Of course the nomenklatura grab whatever is available in Marxism, which is why the muckymucks in the Communist party got the dachas and the imported goods from the West. But officially, that gets stuffed into the memory hole.
The concluding paragraph of On Liberty is pretty relevant to Communism even if it was published in 1859:
“a State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments
in its hands even for beneficial purposes—will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish”
Contrast this with Rousseau’s ideas about citizens being free when made to obey the general will, the question of how to determine the general will and the practical problems of large-scale direct democracy. When combined you, can easily end up with: “The party secretary has decided that you will be collectivized for the good of the People, tovarisch”.
I tend to agree. I’m an anarchist. If there’s a point of departure between us, it is that I dont’ think all systems have to contain hierarchies, or at least not of people ranked over other people. Even then, I confess I may be wrong about that: when all else is made non-hierchically equal, I suspect there tends to emerge a hierarchy of how well one communicates. And communication becomes power. (It already is, in fact).
There are very natural reasons for the existence of hierarchies:
-Children need parents to raise them to be adults
-Students need teachers to educate them
-Junior employees need to learn from more experienced and knowledgeable employees
-Rank and file employees need more senior leadership to see the “big picture” and set overall direction.
I think one of the challenges is that these hierarchical relationships do confer power to individuals as they rise up the hierarchy. And as power can corrupt, those relationships can become corrupted to the point where they are merely the exercise of power.
Let’s not pretend that capitalism is strictly a “hierarchy of competence”. Capitalism has an advantage over communism in terms of efficiently allocating capital for production of goods and services for the purpose of generating more capital. But doesn’t necessarily ensure that critical goods and services go to everyone who needs them. And in my observation, capitalism often breeds a great deal of arrogance, entitlement and callousness from those who are better off. Presumably because of the “meritocracy” of capitalism, they tend to assume that they have achieved their affluence completely through their own merit.
It arose from the doctrine of revolution: that true communism (as opposed to democratic socialism or some such) could only come about by the annihilation of the entire preceding socio-economic-political system. And that any half-hearted compromise was counter-revolutionary. This was totalitarian enough to begin with; it was only reinforced by the brutally pragmatic necessities of starting as an underground guerrilla movement and winning a civil war. For a dedicated revolutionary, the only morality is to win.
Then once you’ve won? Well as Robespierre discovered well before modern Marxism, in a revolutionary nation ideology is power. Discrediting your political rivals as counter-revolutionaries or even traitors is the fastest and surest way of removing them.
From there, unless limited by hard external reality such as the need to repel an invasion, political reality supersedes all others. The effective reality, the one that determines whether or not you are tortured into confessing and then shot. Success is measured not by what you actually accomplish but by how satisfied your superiors are with you. Think Dilbert’s Pointy-Headed Boss, only a bit less stupid and far more brutal.
But, you might ask, where are the “real” communists while all this is happening? Many were winnowed by the civil war that preceded the revolution, with only the most ruthless surviving. Some of them swallow their doubts and support the regime certain that in the long run it’ll be for the greater good. The rest are purged.
Another organizational/political system that’s based on personal relationships between individuals tends to strong hierarchies (not necessarily as rigid and structured as those who don’t live in one tend to think, though): feudalism.
Historians will tell you that Stalin defeated Trotsky. In my opinion, communism always germinates in the poor soil, and the backward socialist countries, eager to catch up with the advanced capitalist countries, have to choose totalitarianism. So the failure of the German communist party to defeat the Nazi party, the Nazi invasion of the Soviet union, can be seen as an important driver of this process.
Communism requires the cooperative effort of a large percentage of the population. Small numbers work in a church, family, or village; much larger numbers are necessary for a nation. Capitalism, on the other hand requires very few people, and they do not require pluralistic authority, just money.
Communism requires central planning. Capitalism require only one person planning, and its failure affects only that person and those participating. Failed capitalists are a dime a dozen, even in hugely successful capitalist societies. When the central planner decides on a plan, Communism only works if most of the people follow the plan. Failed communist plans affect everyone.
So, communist planners have to have the ability to enforce the plan. In pragmatic terms, that ability matters a lot more than the ability to actually come up with good plans. Central Planning has some drawbacks. Like planning for the center. The edges get a little rough. People get upset. The central planners have to protect themselves from the edges. The enforcers end up protecting the planners more than enforcing the plan.
Capitalists don’t have to please anyone, except customers. If it becomes difficult to please them, you move your capital to other, less difficult customers; or to other places. Or wherever you need to. You can also use your capital to influence, or bribe non-capitalists. Actually forcing people to be customers is much harder than forcing them to hew wood, and carry water. More expensive, too.
Tris
Stealing from the rich is risky. Stealing from the poor is hard work. Thank God for the middle class!
I agree with the last two sentences, but the first sentence is in contradiction to the others. Many people have gotten rich as much through connections as through creating the better product.
I would say just the opposite of the first part here. Communism only requires a few people…we can see this in the actual running of actual communist countries. Really, it requires a few ruthless people with guns. Capitalism, on the other hand, requires basically everyone who buys stuff to participate. That’s what a ‘market’ actually is.
And it’s easier to get large numbers of people to cooperate by appealing to their self-interest than by threatening them. That’s why slave labor is less efficient than hired labor. You don’t need to spend as much time forcing them to work, plus being a slave doesn’t have much of a career path.
Paradoxically enough, “work for the benefit of society and because if you don’t I will shoot you” doesn’t work as well as “I will give you money if you work”. Overall.
“do your job or I will shoot you/send you to the gulag” means you do your job, and keep your head down. You sure as hell don’t take any chances at doing your job differently, even if it might work out better in the long run, because why bother?