Democratic/Republican Capitalism vs. Communism/Socialism

[Kurgan]

Now, I know neither option will ever likely produce a "utopia" since people are inherently corruptable by power, but I have been arguing up and down with a relative of mine about this and I was wanting to hear some reasoned opinions and good sources for arguing this.

He states, for example, that the government of Chile was a socialist utopia, and the only reason it didn't last was because of capitalist interference.

I know Wong feels strongly against this, but what does everyone think?

Is it hopeless?

I could cite the "Black Book of Communism" but I guess they could always argue the evils of American slavery and the treatment of Native Americans were "capitalist based" sins....


Can any form of socialism succeed? Is capitalism without oppression possible?

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Communism will work when Mechs do.

[Hamel]

I could cite the "Black Book of Communism" but I guess they could always argue the evils of American slavery and the treatment of Native Americans were "capitalist based" sins....

RWs typically single out social programs and whatever they don't consider proper responsibilities of gov't and label them as communist or socialist. It's only fair (and it makes sense) to label slavery as one of the great sins of capitalism.

At the extreme ends, you're either a slave of individuals and corporations or a slave of the state.

Can any form of socialism succeed? Is capitalism without oppression possible?

Socialism has enjoyed success, and moderate capitalism is fine as long as you don't put property and excessive freedom above the lives of others.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I would go with capitlism...with a healthy bit of socialism mixed in. Government control of utilities, socialized healthcare, and transportation.

But people are still ree to open and run their own businesses, and even compete with the government(opening their own insurance agency for example)

[weemadando]

Flawed poll.

Australia is democratic, but with very heavy socialist leanings, after all, we are a welfare state.

I think that its a fairly good system that requires some tweaking.

Capitalism if good if your man is in power.

Socialism serves the lowest common denominator - the best system for catering for everyones needs.

[Kurgan]

Actually I tried to add a third poll option "Another economic/government system, please specify (other than anarchy)" but my connection timed out and it didn't display.

Sorry about that...

[Joe]

He states, for example, that the government of Chile was a socialist utopia, and the only reason it didn't last was because of capitalist interference.

Your relative is full of bull. Chile was in a world of shit before Pinochet and capitalism.

As for which is superior, it's quite simple. Purely socialist/communist governments have a record of failure so exceedingly obvious that only a sociology major could fail to understand it. Capitalism actually works.

[Sea Skimmer]

The only country that isn't at least partly capitalist currently has major problems with cannibalism.

[Kurgan]

Could a moderator or admin please modify the poll to add the third option (as I pointed it out in the above message)?

If so, I'd greatly appreciate it... thanks

[Peregrin Toker]

A quick study of Karl Marx' writings, which form the fundament of Communism, reveals that communism's premise is that equality is more important than liberty. No, that's an understatement. In fact, communists believe that freedom as we know it is nothing a byproduct of capitalist thinking and must be "replaced" with "freedom" as Marx defines it. Unfortunately, Karl Marx' definition of freedom is so vague and confusing that it can be used as a justification for despotism and oppression. (One must wonder whether it actually was Marx' intent to limit freedom under the guise of expanding it)

In one of his works, called On The Jewish Question, Marx even claims that all human rights are nothing but hollow freedoms!

(he makes similar claims in the Manifesto of the Communist Party)

I cannot understand how any moral human can approve of an ideology whose founder repeatedly expressed an explicit disregard for human rights.

And that's before we start with Vladimir Lenin, who invented modern totalitarianism and served as an inspiration for Mussolini and Hitler.

There's also the undeniable fact that all attempts to make a working communist society have ultimately failed.

[SyntaxVorlon]

He states, for example, that the government of Chile was a socialist utopia, and the only reason it didn't last was because of capitalist interference.

Your relative is full of bull. Chile was in a world of shit before Pinochet and capitalism.

As for which is superior, it's quite simple. Purely socialist/communist governments have a record of failure so exceedingly obvious that only a sociology major could fail to understand it. Capitalism actually works.

With pinochet they were put into a stadium and shot, so you can understand why many chileans were unhappy with the change.

Marxism will never work, the world is far different from 155 years ago. But many of Marx's ideas are still very valid. Capitalism is by definition nonutilitarian, but it is one of the more efficient forms of macroeconomy open to us at the moment. In the future when means of production are harder to keep controlled in smaller areas, when we get to the point where we don't have to depend on corporations, capitalism won't work. Because of the way capitalism is going right now, toward monopolistic monetarism, corporate control of production will become a staple of economy until such a time as that control is untenable.

[Peregrin Toker]

Because of the way capitalism is going right now, toward monopolistic monetarism, corporate control of production will become a staple of economy until such a time as that control is untenable.

And how will state control be better than corporate control?

[SyntaxVorlon]

Because of the way capitalism is going right now, toward monopolistic monetarism, corporate control of production will become a staple of economy until such a time as that control is untenable.

And how will state control be better than corporate control?

It isn't necessarily, but because in some ways the state can be made answerable to the populace for its mistakes. Corporations, especially if they are big enough do not have checks such as these. The nation state created by its populace has by its nature restraints placed on it. Though in the course of american history these restraints have been superceded or disregarded for the convience of those in power, the basic idea of being controlled by the populace is still intact.

My main point is that when we get to the point where monopolies once again rise to power, they will eventually lose control because of the progress of technology.

[Joe]

With pinochet they were put into a stadium and shot, so you can understand why many chileans were unhappy with the change.

I never said it was Heaven under Pinochet, just that it was Hell under socialism/communism.

It isn't necessarily, but because in some ways the state can be made answerable to the populace for its mistakes.

You've got to be kidding me. Has the U.S. government ever been answerable for forcing the Indians off their land? Did Joseph Stalin ever receive any sort of punishment for being the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world?

States are much harder to be made answerable to the populace for their mistakes, because they have a legal right to the use of force, something corporations do not have. As long as the government can enter a corporate office and arrest/shoot/kill/maim/wound the people inside of it, the corporation will never have the kind of power of the 20th Century Leviathan.

Corporations, especially if they are big enough do not have checks such as these.

Antitrust? Tort?

[Xenophobe3691]

As for which is superior, it's quite simple. Purely socialist/communist governments have a record of failure so exceedingly obvious that only a sociology major could fail to understand it. Capitalism actually works.

The book "The Jungle" comes to mind here.

Oh, and Socialism and Communism are not so similar as to be interchangeable. Socialism is a way of living, communism is an economic system.

[Joe]

The book "The Jungle" comes to mind here.

Fictional tripe. The 1906 report ordered by Roosevelt into the meatpacking industry was not made public, in any case.

[NapoleonGH]

this is another random speculation about 2 extremes. Pure capitalism has failed just as often as the mixed dogril attempts to create communism. What has been shown historically to be the best is some mixture of capitalism and socialism. Basically capitalism with government checks, then some form of welfare system. The actual degree of the checks and of the welfare are interesting matters though to discuss.

I dont see why we combined government systems with economic systems anyway. A communist economic system can just as easily be run by a democratic system as otherwise, it is the lenninist single party rule system that cannot be reconciled with democracy. Likewise capitalism has existed before when there was a complete dictatorship, in fact most pureist forms of capitalism that i know of come straight from dictatorships in the modern world.

Yes durran they were so much better off in chile being well you know, murdered. Sorry but if it was a shithole before pinocet it only went far downhill after him.

[fgalkin]

The book "The Jungle" comes to mind here.

Fictional tripe. The 1906 report ordered by Roosevelt into the meatpacking industry was not made public, in any case.

The History of the Standard Oil Company, then.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[SyntaxVorlon]

You've got to be kidding me. Has the U.S. government ever been answerable for forcing the Indians off their land? Did Joseph Stalin ever receive any sort of punishment for being the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world?

I said can be, I meant theoretically, not in practice typically.

States are much harder to be made answerable to the populace for their mistakes, because they have a legal right to the use of force, something corporations do not have. As long as the government can enter a corporate office and arrest/shoot/kill/maim/wound the people inside of it, the corporation will never have the kind of power of the 20th Century Leviathan.

Corporations, especially if they are big enough do not have checks such as these.

Antitrust? Tort?

Are you kidding me the conservative admin is rolling these back as far as possible and perhaps further.
The media are split into TWO conglomerates and a few smaller companies right now. And congress just made it possible for such networks to become further conglomerated.

[Joe]

The book "The Jungle" comes to mind here.

Fictional tripe. The 1906 report ordered by Roosevelt into the meatpacking industry was not made public, in any case.

The History of the Standard Oil Company, then.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

A piece I'm not familiar with beyond a quick mention in U.S. history. As far as I'm aware, this report furthered the myth that John Rockefeller consolidated the oil industry primarily through coercion. Recent research suggests that while some of Rockefeller's takeovers were dirty, the vast majority of them were legit transfers from owners of failing firms who were more than happy to let Rockefeller take them off of their hands.

[Kurgan]

I guess what some people are saying here is that some of the inherent weaknesses of the "two extremes" can be smoothed out by combining the two systems in some way (hope that isn't the "golden mean fallacy".. well I don't think it is because that isn't made to be the ONLY solution or that both extremes are necessarily "bad").

But I guess what I was asking is, which system is more moral/ethical. So that would entail, which TENDS to be more moral/ethical, which has the POTENTIAL to be more moral/ethical, and which one is overall....

I figured that would entail not only theories but also historical examples (as some have done).

My opinion is that communism really hasn't shown itself to be anything more than a system for totalitarianism. "Socialism" or some other theoretical variant is possibly an improvement to vanilla (lasse faire?) Capitalism (leading to so-called "welfare capitalism" which some assert is corrupt and ineffecient), in my opinion. Though that isn't to say that it is necessarily perfect either.

[Peregrin Toker]

Pure capitalism has failed just as often as the mixed dogril attempts to create communism.

Provide examples.

[Kurgan]

Thinking back, I think my relative's basic theory was this (to sum up from his various arguments):

In America at least, and extending to the rest of the world, since America is very influential and powerful:

1) The "Big corporations" control the government (leading to personal freedoms deteriorating, in favor of rights for Big Corporations)

2) Big corporations are bad (ie: greedy, think only of themselves, etc).

3) Capitalism is prone to allowing Big corporations to take over.

4) If we want to improve society, we must oppose Big corporations.


The underlying unspoken assumption though is that ultimately free enterprise has to be curtailed to prevent Big corporations from taking power, so the more socialist things get, the better.

[Peregrin Toker]

The underlying unspoken assumption though is that ultimately free enterprise has to be curtailed to prevent Big corporations from taking power, so the more socialist things get, the better.

However, wouldn't "hard-core" socialism infringe upon even more individual liberties than monopolist capitalism??

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Fictional tripe. The 1906 report ordered by Roosevelt into the meatpacking industry was not made public, in any case.

Most of what Roosevelt did during his administration was okay, but even during the Taft administration--which Roosevelt, after leaving office, accused of being too conservative--was in truth too progressive, with the passage of the consitutional amendments for the popular election of Senators, and for, of course, the income tax. Had, say, Elihu Root followed Roosevelt, and those amendments been avoided, along with Roosevelt avoiding the temptation to reenter politics--and thus the danger of Wilson--the USA would be in much better shape today.