Communism/Socialism vs. Capitalism. GO!

[Abbyas]

The 90% of the World thread's break off into estate tax and wealth got me thinking about where people stand on the above.

My thinking is along these lines. The human desire is not to work but to play. In order to get people to work, we must pay them. In order to get people to fill necessary roles that require more education or higher capital risk, we must pay them more. The best way to determine what roles society needs filled is with a free market system.

This doesn't mean I'm for unfettered capitalism. Economists note that the market does not correct for externalities. Externalities happen when the social cost or social benefit is not included in the price of the good. For example, the social cost of pollution is not included in the price of a car. And the social benefit of an educated child is greater than the cost of the education, hence free schools. (I also believe that the social benefit from a healthy individual is greater than the cost of health care, ergo free health care, but that's another issue.)

 

[jj]

How about this: Communism, and to a lesser extent socialism, are non-deific religions that require that one take the dogma that people will continue to do their best even when not rewarded on faith.

Unfettered capitalism is a religion that requires that one takes, on faith, the dogma that the tragedy of the commons isn't a tragedy.

 

[Earthborn]

I'd rather say that Communism assumes that people do not need to do their best. To be a communist, you should believe that a society is possible where no one works but everyone plays, and through play (doing whatever you want to do, for as long as you want to do it) enough is produced to make all live comfortably.

Socialism assumes that if no one has to worry about his or her survival and therefore does not have to compete with others for survival, people will become increasingly willing to cooperate with others, voluntarily work without being paid for it. Perhaps a good example of this effect is in the Free Software movement: it consists of people who do not have to worry much about putting food on the table, so they are perfectly willing to work for the benefit of others. Even complete strangers.

Marxists believe that Socialism inevitably leads to such cooperation that Communism becomes possible.

Capitalism on the other hand assumes that competition rather than cooperation leads to the most desirable outcome. Capitalists often seem to believe that the goal of an economy should be to make people work hard and do their best instead of producing the goods to make everyone live comfortably. The difference is not trivial: Capitalists expect people to be eternally dissatified with their economic status and expect them to always strive for more. Many of them look down upon people who claim to be happy with what they have and who chose not to work hard for themselves, but rather prefer to help others without demanding any direct payment.

 

[Cheesejoff]

Firstly,communism and socialism should not be grouped together, because that would mean Orwell is a communist (!)

My thinking is along these lines. The human desire is not to work but to play. In order to get people to work, we must pay them. In order to get people to fill necessary roles that require more education or higher capital risk, we must pay them more. The best way to determine what roles society needs filled is with a free market system.

That's nonsense. Mainly because people are paid whatever their employers choose to pay them, not by how valuable their work is. Anyway, ignoring that, consider this. Cuba has the highest ratio of doctos to patients in the world, even greater than the USA despite American doctors earning more.

The reason is that doctors do not do it for the money. With communism people do the jobs they have a genuine interest to do, even if the interest is just to support the society. (Consider countries that raised the minimum age for sperm donors. Initially there was a shortage of donors, but eventually middle age men started donating because they heard there was a shortage)


Also, quite a few socialist systems allow for pay differences. The difference between that and capitalism is that wages are controlled by the government rather than the industry owners. Essentially socialism is about publicising everything rather than complete equality.

In such systems the wages are decided on by the government based on, as you yourself said, how hard people work or how demanding the job is. You may be thinking "but that's capitalism", but it's not.

In capitalism your pay is at the mercy of your employer; considera footballer like David Beckham for an example. In a socialist system the gap between Beckham and a doctor would be narrowed, he'd still be paid more than most people but not to the ridiculous extent that he's paid now.

Furthermore, consider oil companies. They pay their workers slightly more than workers at a non oil company, despite the fact that the jobs are ssentially the same. Same qualifications, same job, but if you work for the oil company you get paid more. That's capitalism.

In socialism systems, both would be paid the same.

 

[Rob Lister]

How about this: Communism, and to a lesser extent socialism, are non-deific religions that require that one take the dogma that people will continue to do their best even when not rewarded on faith.

Unfettered capitalism is a religion that requires that one takes, on faith, the dogma that the tragedy of the commons isn't a tragedy.

Or more simply,
Pure Communism ignores a powerful driving force: greed
Pure Capitalism ignores a powerful human emotion: compassion

 

[Abbyas]

To be a communist, you should believe that a society is possible where no one works but everyone plays, and through play (doing whatever you want to do, for as long as you want to do it) enough is produced to make all live comfortably.

Well, the classic argument for that one is "who takes out the garbage?" It's not something that enough people want to do without adequate compensation and something that society definitely needs.

Socialism assumes that if no one has to worry about his or her survival and therefore does not have to compete with others for survival, people will become increasingly willing to cooperate with others, voluntarily work without being paid for it.

Most capitalists don't believe that people should have to compete for basic human necessities, i.e. food and shelter and basic education. And for the most part, in the U.S. they don't have to (most part).

Perhaps a good example of this effect is in the Free Software movement: it consists of people who do not have to worry much about putting food on the table, so they are perfectly willing to work for the benefit of others. Even complete strangers.

Sure. Volunteering does make people feel good. The thing is, those involved in computer programming often don't have to worry about more than just the food, but other luxury goods as well. And they enjoy programming. I doubt that a Free Garbage Pick Up from software engineers would work so well.

Capitalists often seem to believe that the goal of an economy should be to make people work hard and do their best instead of producing the goods to make everyone live comfortably

I'm going to have to disagree with this. Capitalists don't believe people should be made to work hard. For example, I didn't go to graduate school. I didn't get a medical degree, and I'm not a doctor. Capitalism is fine with this. Capitlists believe that people work hard because of incentive. Whether that incentive is a higher income due to longer hours and more time spent in education or due to the smile on your face after volunteering for a couple of hours.

 

[Abbyas]

The reason is that doctors do not do it for the money. With communism people do the jobs they have a genuine interest to do, even if the interest is just to support the society. (Consider countries that raised the minimum age for sperm donors. Initially there was a shortage of donors, but eventually middle age men started donating because they heard there was a shortage)

Why do waitresses or garbage collectors or bankers do it? It's not for love of the people.

In such systems the wages are decided on by the government based on, as you yourself said, how hard people work or how demanding the job is. You may be thinking "but that's capitalism", but it's not.

No, I don't think that's capitalism at all. In capitalism, society (the people) decide how much a job is worth. After the invention of the lightbulb, people put a lot less stock in candlemakers. Candlemakers made less, lightbulb engineers made more. Capitalism isn't a huge fan of the government deciding what people want.

Furthermore, consider oil companies. They pay their workers slightly more than workers at a non oil company, despite the fact that the jobs are ssentially the same. Same qualifications, same job, but if you work for the oil company you get paid more. That's capitalism.

In socialism systems, both would be paid the same.

Why would they need to be paid the same? Another example: say we have two car manufacturers. One makes cars that run smoothly on very little gas and the other one makes clunkers that fall apart and get .5 miles to the gallon. A door builder in one company has the same qualifications as the other one. But society doesn't want the clunker car. The clunker car gets less money and the door builder in that company makes less. If the socialist society (and forgive me lumping it in with communism) pays both of them the same, society's resources are not being allocated effectively.

In capitalism your pay is at the mercy of your employer;

It's also at the mercy of the employed. Try finding a doctor willing to work for 30,000 a year. Of course, for lower skilled workers it's much the reverse, but this is why there exists a minimum wage.

 

[Abbyas]

Pure Capitalism ignores a powerful human emotion: compassion

Actually, economists have been bandying about a term called "enlightened capitalism" for a couple of decades. This takes into account the "warm fuzzies" that people get from giving others a hand. Also, capitalism also notes that some things the free market can't handle on it's own (the externalities mentioned above). And that a society with it's seniors living on the streets is much less prosperous than one in which the seniors can survive. Hence social security.

 

[jj]

Or more simply,
Pure Communism ignores a powerful driving force: greed
Pure Capitalism ignores a powerful human emotion: compassion

Yes, in fact I like it stated that way. I usually try to look less judgemental, but that's the crux of it.

 

[jj]

Actually, economists have been bandying about a term called "enlightened capitalism" for a couple of decades. This takes into account the "warm fuzzies" that people get from giving others a hand. Also, capitalism also notes that some things the free market can't handle on it's own (the externalities mentioned above). And that a society with it's seniors living on the streets is much less prosperous than one in which the seniors can survive. Hence social security.

"Warm fuzzies" is not the right term. It is possible (yes, I have done so in various debates) to argue that it is in one's long-term self interest to show some compassion and concern for less fortunate people. It is, in fact, I think, a very good basis on which to base an atheistic ethical stance.

The stance has some problems in that the person who is willing to violate it for the short term may appear to get ahead, but is probably penalizing everyone including themselves IN THE LONG RUN.

You can probably guess I'm not much for quarter-based management.

 

[daenku32]

Since regulated (or oversighted, oversightful, or whatever the word would be) capitalism is considered same as socialism, I have hard time trying to defend it from accusations of Marxism. Which is tough because I'm not all that familiar with the guy's writings.

Essentially I define it as government involvement when the 'free market' fails to secure life or liberty to a individual in way that makes their life indifferent from life under a feudal dictatorship.

 

[jj]

Since regulated (or oversighted, oversightful, or whatever the word would be) capitalism is considered same as socialism, I have hard time trying to defend it from accusations of Marxism. Which is tough because I'm not all that familiar with the guy's writings.

Essentially I define it as government involvement when the 'free market' fails to secure life or liberty to a individual in way that makes their life indifferent from life under a feudal dictatorship.

How does enforcing things like property laws equal socialism?

 

[Rob Lister]

How does enforcing things like property laws equal socialism?

It doesn't equal socialism, it is socialistic.

The U.S. is
part capitalistic
part socialistic

the right wants the former part greater
the left wants the latter part greater

Only the far fringe of both want either eliminated.

Me? I think the latter is a little larger than it should be but not horribly so. That makes me a rightie.

 

[Elind]

And the social benefit of an educated child is greater than the cost of the education, hence free schools.

Just to pick this point; but some true capitalists don't really believe in "free" schools, they believe in subsidized schools, as in vouchers to go to any, unregulated, private school (preferably Christian).

Take our glorious governor in FL. Bush is the name.

Go figure.

 

[jj]

It doesn't equal socialism, it is socialistic.

The U.S. is
part capitalistic
part socialistic

the right wants the former part greater
the left wants the latter part greater

Only the far fringe of both want either eliminated.

Me? I think the latter is a little larger than it should be but not horribly so. That makes me a rightie.

I don't think that defending property ownership is socialistic at all, it strikes me as a cornerstone of capitalism.

 

[Danivon]

I agree, jj. In a socialist society, more property would be held in common, not individually. Given that much land was originally stolen from someone else, current owners are not defending a 'right' as much as the proceeds of violent conquest.

thats enough dialectics for the time being

 

[Elind]

Given that much land was originally stolen from someone else, current owners are not defending a 'right' as much as the proceeds of violent conquest.

thats enough dialectics for the time being

More like semantics than dialectics, I think.

ALL land could be described as stolen by someone at some time. That doesn't mean society can't recognize a right; now.

 

[brodski]

More like semantics than dialectics, I think.

ALL land could be described as stolen by someone at some time. That doesn't mean society can't recognize a right; now.

but it does make the problem of primary acquisition more interesting, especially for those (such as the Anarcho-capitalists, and some libertarians) who assert absolute property rights. If however you accept that society as a whole can have some degree of claim over private property (such as the right to tax property), the issue disappears. The question of how much control a society should have over private property is a matte to be decided by each society. Although some arrangements have tended to be much more successful than others.

 

[Elind]

but it does make the problem of primary acquisition more interesting, especially for those (such as the Anarcho-capitalists, and some libertarians) who assert absolute property rights.

Perhaps we should ask them to solve that vexing issue at the eastern end of the Med then?

 

[brodski]

Perhaps we should ask them to solve that vexing issue at the eastern end of the Med then?

which is why the problem is so pressing for those that assert absolute property rights as a moral position. Unless they are prepared to legitimize past theft for pragmatic reasons (which generally blows apart their moral stand on property rights).
Following on from that I would say that all successful "capitalist" societies have a socialist basis, however a Rob Lister pointed out, a mixture of socialism and capitalism has proved such a successful economic (and social) model for society, only the real loon want to abandon either. The balance between the two (which also neatly mirror the inherant tensions between liberalism and democracy) is where the interesting politics lie.