Democratic/Republican Capitalism vs. Communism/Socialism

[Joe]

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.

OK, nevermind that those evil "Big Corporations" are responsible for most of the prosperity that America, and to an extent the world, enjoys today.

[Joe]

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??

That gets me too. Especially considering the fact that everytime John Ashcroft uses the word "Muslim" in public most hardcore socialists act like we've got a damn civil rights emergency in this country.

[Steven Snyder]

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

And "Big Corporations" are controlled by the masses voting with the almighty dollar. Not to mention the stockholders who can be anybody that just puts in the effort to buy stock.

You would be just amazed how powerful the public can be when spurred to action. It happens every day in this country, from Starbucks offering non-dairy creme to appease the animal rights groups to Tuna companies using dolphin-friendly nets.

Can you provide any examples of the Bill of Rights being curtailed for the benefit of corporations, as you mentioned?

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

Being greedy (read: paying attention to money) is what keeps a business running. A business is not about hiring people or making people happy, it is about making money. A business that forgets this basic tenet is doomed to failure.

I fail to see how big corporations are bad because they are concerned with their basic survival. How many of us work at our jobs because we enjoy it? We do it because we need money, so by the logic you presented we are all greedy and therefore bad.

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

Please provide an example for this? I don't recall a single corporation rising to such a height that it usurped the sovereign status of a nation. Microsoft just recently got out from under the spotlight of the justice department, Enron and Worldcom were smashed, Martha Stuart is packing up for jail...

Perhaps you could elaborate on this point?

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

Could you tell me exactly what that would accomplish? How would society be improved? How do big corporations adversely affect society?

So Jimmy James is a good businessman and he buys a lot of other business, goes public, and makes a lot of money? What exactly is wrong with that?

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.

This means that when the Soviet Union nationalized everything, all should have great. But that isn't what happened, in fact it was the opposite.

I think you were just posting an example of someone else's argument, were you?

[RedImperator]

Every cooperative system has parasites and freeloaders, from non-coding genes in human DNA to nation states. Individuals are motivated by default to seek maximum gain for minimum expenditure of effort--it's hardwired into life itself, and the only thing that prevents the entire system from collapsing under the deadweight of freeloaders is that in any successful natural system (the free market being one of these) contributing to the whole brings greater personal rewards than parisitism. The problem with communism is that contributing brings exactly the same benefit as leeching--to each according to his needs, remember? From each according to his ability can be easily dodged by never working to your full potential so nobody ever realizes what your actual abilities are.

The biggest bad assumption Marx made was that the tendency of people to feeload if they aren't rewarded for working hard is something that's cultural, not a fundamental part of human nature. Communist societies must become coercive if they are to survive at all, and even the most brutally repressive regime will end up with a drunken workforce, shoddy products, and a miserable standard of living (see, Soviet Socialist Republics, Union of).

[Iceberg]

Communism will work when Mechs do.

Mecha are far more likely to work than communism is.

[Slartibartfast]

"Pure" capitalism is what caused the Bigass Depression (or whatever it's called). A minimum amount of control should be enforced. Social ideas are good, in that there should be protection to the "people" and such things, but not in the extremes that are found in Communist countries. And certainly isn't such a groundbreaking discovery - so whoever invented Socialism basically thought "it would be nice if rich powerful people didn't step all over the poor, defenseless people", but did such a poor job at actually putting it on paper and completely failed to actually show HOW to do it effectively. Basically, it's something that simply should be done out of the goodness of our hearts, but we need more of it

Since most people with money are greedy bastards, it simply doesn't work that way.

[CJvR]

No the great war caused the great depression. It was made worse and prolonged by goverments who didn't realize that the world had changed irreversibly.

[Hethrir]

Communism will work when Mechs do.

Mecha are far more likely to work than communism is.

I like the idea of Communism. From a certain point of view it is perfect. Only trouble is, we get people involved in it, and people are bad

[phongn]

No the great war caused the great depression. It was made worse and prolonged by goverments who didn't realize that the world had changed irreversibly.

Severe protectionist tarrifs also contributed to the cause.

[Kurgan]

I think you were just posting an example of someone else's argument, were you?

Yes, that is the case. Otherwise I'd probably be more aggressive in my responses, no? ; )

I have heard people on occasion describe the modern United States as "Welfare Capitalism." I think that is somewhat what we're talking about when we say a "middle ground" between Communism and Capitalism (but leaning more towards the latter than the former).

I have no argument there, if individuals seeking self interest benefit others as a side effect, I'm not going to argue that what caused the side effect is necessarily a bad thing. Some anti-trust laws are needed to prevent destructive monopolies (that ruin a market sooner or later). And some provision for the poor who are unable (for whatever reason) to contribute to society (rather than simply unwilling).

His arguments are based on a myriad of assumptions, I was just hoping others would contribute ways to better understand or refute those arguments and assumptions. Can anyone recommend any good books or authors?

I don't like corruption in government or monopolies that destroy markets by flooding them with shoddy products and bad prices. I like to think that the system eventually self-corrects, where bad politicians piss people off and get caught, and people who cheat others get caught, (like Enron and Worldcom are getting caught) etc. and punished.

What it always comes down to with though him is "Well fine, you don't want Marxism, but what is the better alternative?" We agree that what we have right now should be improved... the question is how to do that?

I'm speaking mainly of the US, but in theory, this kind of thing should apply to a lot of countries... proponents of both systems of course claim that they are universal goods.