3 ms·

Let's do the similar exercise about the main competitor, capitalism: 1. Capitalism cannot work since it inevitably leads to concentration of capital and monopo

Let's do the similar exercise about the main competitor, capitalism: 1. Capitalism cannot work since it inevitably leads to concentration of capital and monopolies, which hinders competition and causes extreme income and wealth inequality. 2. The same zero sum game applies to capitalism, since people still compete for wealth and status. 3. Historically looking, capitalism and its ever expanding nature lead to colonialism, endless imperial wars and conflicts, resource grab wars and conflicts, debt slavery, people dying of famine although there was no global food shortage, climate destruction, ... So yeah, both capitalism and communism can fail and prosper, depending on the implementation, but none of the systems is inherently better.

ericmay 4y ago
> So yeah, both capitalism and communism can fail and prosper, depending on the implementation, but none of the systems is inherently better. The problem is that we actually have evidence against this tested theory. Whenever communism has been implemented on a large scale it has failed. Countries like the USSR and Mao’s China implemented communism and it resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people. Whereas today we have a variety of capitalist economies ranging from today’s prosperous China which has a mix of capitalism and a dictatorship, to places like Sweden or the United Kingdom. Capitalism is a better system based on the experimental evidence that we have, at a minimum. And that does not even include arguments appealing to human nature and the inability of a government to manage prices or human desires. > 3. Historically looking, capitalism and its ever expanding nature lead to colonialism, endless imperial wars and conflicts, resource grab wars and conflicts, debt slavery, people dying of famine although there was no global food shortage, climate destruction, ... Communism never stopped these things either. The reason is that these issues are government failures.
- tut-urut-utut 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - ericmay 4y ago
    This is factually incorrect. First, the countries you mention included Germany and Japan, which, during World War 2 were both fascist states. Second, the USSR in conjunction with Nazi Germany invaded Poland and together kicked off World War 2 - the USSR was a reluctant ally only to defeat a greater evil. Both regimes were outright evil. Third, colonial expansion was primarily done under monarchist governments. Fourth, if you want to (incorrectly) say that the US, UK, Germany, etc. and capitalist economic systems have the same feature of 'deaths of tens of millions of people" then you also would have to take into account that capitalist economies have also prevented the deaths of millions, provided the world with vaccines and breakthrough medical treatments, helped get us to the moon, and improved living standards for many billions of people. Communism did none of that over the long-term. Even Communist China has come around to support capitalism. Finally, the debate among anyone serious, and I do mean exactly that, isn't capitalism + free markets versus something else, but instead it's to what degree should a government be involved in the market. Capitalism is so obviously superior that it's difficult for anyone to bring about an improved economic system based on the human condition up to this point. Frankly, communism is a failed ideology at the nation-state level and it has been outcompeted by capitalist economies, which is why it doesn't exist except by violent force, and in those limited cases it is dwarfed in wealth, effectiveness, and benefit by all but the worst capitalist economies.
    - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
      [flagged]
Jtype 4y ago
Capitalism requires minor tweaks to work, such as anti- monopolistic laws, but the tweaks required to make communism work, such as removing central planning, make it not communism anymore.
- tut-urut-utut 4y ago
  One can argue that those "minor tweaks" required to make capitalism work make it actually more communist / socialist. On the other hand, if removing central planing makes communism not communism anymore, then adding those "minor tweaks" make capitalism not capitalism anymore. Btw, central planing is not a requirement for a communism, it's just that one of the largest communist experiments was implemented that way. There was also a king of distributed self-planning, that worked much better as an implementation of communism.
  - Jtype 4y ago
    Lol, your logic is flawed. >if removing central planing makes communism not communism anymore, then adding those "minor tweaks" make capitalism not capitalism anymore. The minor tweaks to make capitalism work still allow private ownership, free exchange of goods, and a system based on the movement of capital. The changes to make communism work, make it not communism by definition. If you don't have central planning then how are goods and services created and allocated? By a free market? That's capitalism!

ericmay 4y ago

> So yeah, both capitalism and communism can fail and prosper, depending on the implementation, but none of the systems is inherently better. The problem is that we actually have evidence against this tested theory. Whenever communism has been implemented on a large scale it has failed. Countries like the USSR and Mao’s China implemented communism and it resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people. Whereas today we have a variety of capitalist economies ranging from today’s prosperous China which has a mix of capitalism and a dictatorship, to places like Sweden or the United Kingdom. Capitalism is a better system based on the experimental evidence that we have, at a minimum. And that does not even include arguments appealing to human nature and the inability of a government to manage prices or human desires. > 3. Historically looking, capitalism and its ever expanding nature lead to colonialism, endless imperial wars and conflicts, resource grab wars and conflicts, debt slavery, people dying of famine although there was no global food shortage, climate destruction, ... Communism never stopped these things either. The reason is that these issues are government failures.

tut-urut-utut 4y ago
[flagged]
- ericmay 4y ago
  This is factually incorrect. First, the countries you mention included Germany and Japan, which, during World War 2 were both fascist states. Second, the USSR in conjunction with Nazi Germany invaded Poland and together kicked off World War 2 - the USSR was a reluctant ally only to defeat a greater evil. Both regimes were outright evil. Third, colonial expansion was primarily done under monarchist governments. Fourth, if you want to (incorrectly) say that the US, UK, Germany, etc. and capitalist economic systems have the same feature of 'deaths of tens of millions of people" then you also would have to take into account that capitalist economies have also prevented the deaths of millions, provided the world with vaccines and breakthrough medical treatments, helped get us to the moon, and improved living standards for many billions of people. Communism did none of that over the long-term. Even Communist China has come around to support capitalism. Finally, the debate among anyone serious, and I do mean exactly that, isn't capitalism + free markets versus something else, but instead it's to what degree should a government be involved in the market. Capitalism is so obviously superior that it's difficult for anyone to bring about an improved economic system based on the human condition up to this point. Frankly, communism is a failed ideology at the nation-state level and it has been outcompeted by capitalist economies, which is why it doesn't exist except by violent force, and in those limited cases it is dwarfed in wealth, effectiveness, and benefit by all but the worst capitalist economies.
  - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
    [flagged]

Jtype 4y ago

Capitalism requires minor tweaks to work, such as anti- monopolistic laws, but the tweaks required to make communism work, such as removing central planning, make it not communism anymore.

tut-urut-utut 4y ago
One can argue that those "minor tweaks" required to make capitalism work make it actually more communist / socialist. On the other hand, if removing central planing makes communism not communism anymore, then adding those "minor tweaks" make capitalism not capitalism anymore. Btw, central planing is not a requirement for a communism, it's just that one of the largest communist experiments was implemented that way. There was also a king of distributed self-planning, that worked much better as an implementation of communism.
- Jtype 4y ago
  Lol, your logic is flawed. >if removing central planing makes communism not communism anymore, then adding those "minor tweaks" make capitalism not capitalism anymore. The minor tweaks to make capitalism work still allow private ownership, free exchange of goods, and a system based on the movement of capital. The changes to make communism work, make it not communism by definition. If you don't have central planning then how are goods and services created and allocated? By a free market? That's capitalism!