7 popular misconceptions about communism and capitalism

Post Reply New Topic

7 reasons why critics of communism and defenders of capitalism are wrong; usually Americans.

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/02/why_you ... apitalism/

Don't forget the surrealist movement.

That's actually a really good article. Always nice to see someone genuinely engaging with a topic rather than spouting clichés uncritically.

On that note... http://reason.com/archives/2013/08/10/5 ... rtarians/1

I believe Communism is more evil because people are greedy, lazy, self-serving, and likely incompetent. Thus, you want as few as people possible ruling over you.

Capitalists are "evil" in so much as they will screw people over to achieve their goals, however, "Communism" puts these same people in charge of government. How can turning over government functions to these very same people - that will screw people over to achieve their goals - possibly be better ?

I remember being taught (or is it brainwashed) that Capitalism = good Communism = bad so many times in University and I'm not even American. After many years of reality smacking me up the side of the head, I now realize the difference between "Capitalism" and "Communism" is not that significant after all.

I especially liked Myth #7: I believed that one with all my heart until I was railroaded out of my first job after 7 years. I know realize it was BECAUSE I was very intelligent and had individuality that I was essentially shown the door. One thing they never even hinted at was that sure countries like USA, Japan and Singapore are "rich" according to economic indicators but they are also miserable and have high suicide rates. I remember when I visited the USA how incredibly unhappy the people seemed compared to here in Canada. All the money in the world does no good if you're dead! I knew a guy in University who was incredibly intelligent, motivated and EXTREMELY socialist. I used to laugh at him until I realize he was actually on to something. Having said that, the economy is far more complicated that any of these ridiculous ideologies.

Why are you jumping to dictatorship of the proletariat? That's not somthing every communist agrees with.

While I'm an not opposed to using the state for goals like nationalized health care. I am not in favor of the state seizing the means of production, and I don't want anyone ruling over me at the end of the day. I may make comprimises through consensus, but in communism no one is my ruler. Capitalism I believe is held together by ideology. If we want actions individuals perform that benefit themselves, at the same time benefit others, while also maximizing autonomy. I believe we must move towards communism.

Communism is organizing society in a way that allows this to happen. Communism isn't about loyalty to any particular union or leader. If a group or individual can't justify their authority, I believe people have a responsibility reject it.

Last edited by RushKing on 04 Feb 2014, 1:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

A great article- makes me evermore proud to be a communist. If only more people could read and understand that.

I expect in the future that a special interest, health insurance industry person will be appointed to the HHS (Health and Human Services cabinet in the U.S.), so that capitalists can run the government run health care from the inside to maximize their profits.

This is similar to a prior thread that showed North Dakota citizens were unable to stop smoke pollution because of "regulatory capture" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture ) . The government dismissed their concerns because the oil industry is so influential.

Yet, people here still think greedy, lazy, self-interested, possibly incompetent government workers are the answer to society's woes.

I agree that the government is full special intrests, and I ultimatly believe the government should be dismantled. Right now we can fight to get a constitutional admenment passed like Wolf-PAC. That could give national healthcare a chance. Or other industrys can dicide to go at war against private healthcare, becuase money is coming out of their pockets too.

Capitalism is the only economic system that cannot be imposed by force. It is the system that evolves when people are free to pursue their own prosperity. So the choice is not between communism and capitalism, but between tyranny and freedom.

Why can't it be imposed by force?

After all, I'm sure communists living in capitalist nations would disagree with you.


Source?


So now not only is it impossible to impose capitalism by force, but freedom is exclusive to capitalism?

Markets and majorities can both be tyrannical. Look how much worse things were in Victorian times, before we had regulation and government services such as education and healthcare.

110 million people is the median number given by most historians. There are historians who claim up to 260 million people, but this seems a bit far-fetched. The number of 110 million people is just as well researched as the number of deaths that can be traced to the nazi regime.

Denial of communist genocide is just as despicable as denial of the Holocaust, and anyone who denies the atrocities caused by communism, should be treated with the same credibility as 9/11 conspiracy theorists and Holocaust deniers.



Capitalism originated in the late 18th century, when the market went from mercantilism to more relaxed laws, where the market rather than the politicians gained more influence over the economy. Most of it was based upon Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

The average American worker in the 1980s received far more in terms of salary than the average Soviet worker did.



The slavery of black people started 200 years before capitalism existed, and ended rather shortly after capitalism gained foothold. The mass slaughter of native Americans started 300 years before capitalism existed, and capitalism was largely responsible for opening up trade between the settlers and the native Americans.



Neither China, nor Russia has ever transitioned to capitalism. In fact, both countries have an economy that's heavily centralized and relies heavily on politicians to pull the string. Having said that, progressive market liberalizations in China has made life better for the common man.

Lenin killed more people in the first four years of communism than Great Britain did in the Victorian era.



A communist economy would crash the entire American infrastructure in a matter of months. If the revolutions in Russia and China never happened, both countries would probably be among the top 30 countries on the UN HDI list.

Yup.




I would argue you don't even have to look back in time for a reliable yardstick. Look at how countries in the west with more socialised infrastructure and stronger unions compare to countries in South East asia with freer markets and no government legislation to protect workers.

Socialised medicine, the end of child labour, paid holiday leave, the 5 day week and the 8 hour day didn't come about because of the innate 'goodness' of the bosses, they came about because progressive institutions such as trade unions fought for them tooth and nail.

If the bosses could force us to work for a few pennies a day for up to 16 hours every day like they do in India or Thailand they wouldn't make us? Of course they would. In fact, in the UK they fight and corrode daily against the gains of ordinary people, like the abolishment of free university education and the encroachment of the private sector into traditionally publically owned infrastructure such as the Post Office and Department of Social Security ala ATOS. That is why progressives must fight with every sinew against the probes of unfettered capitalism.

I have no sources, I am merely expressing my opinion. There are planes, trains, boats and buses leaving capitalist countries daily and communists are free to leave at any time. Can the reciprocal be said? Are people free to leave and relocate from Cuba or Venezuela whenever they want?
I am not sure that what occurred in Victorian times is relevant. The US constitution stipulates that government shall "promote the general welfare" of its citizens. I do not classify that as tyranny or as socialism as some claim. Besides government is not very effective at education or regulation. I would use the Madoff ponzi incident as an example. That may have been capitalism run amok, but the government regulators were ineffective or incompetent, because they received very specific warnings.

The constitution is a pesky little document designed to limit the power of government. The founders believed rights emanated from God where as communist regimes believe rights are theirs to distribute to those whom they deem fit.

Capitalism may be a flawed system, but communism is a failed system.

1- Its debateable at best that what Stalin or Mao did constituted 'genocide'.
Enormous numbers of death =/= genocide. Moreover what seperates the Nazi atrocities was that it was a deliberate, mechanised effort to systematically erase ethnic-religious identities. The same cannot be said for the Holodomor or the Cultural Revolution.

2- This is an appeal to emotion rater than matter of fact.

Can you provide evidence for this rather than speculation?

What happened in Russia would not necessarilly happen in the United States because both Russia and China were backward, serfdoms that lacked the infrastructure to support a centralised economy. Its for this reason that Russia and China would most certainly NOT be among the 30 top countries in terms of HDI had the Tsardom or Emperor been left in charge.

The closest the world came to capitalism was Hong Kong under British Rule.

What we have in the industrial west (and some Asian countries) is the Mixed Economy which is really modeled after Germany under Chancellor Bismark. Bismark and his buddies invented the modern Welfare State precisely to preempt socialism or communism. It worked!

What we have is a set of Welfare States which mostly delivery Crony Care to their richest and most influential folks

Free enterprise Capitalism is nowhere to be seen.

ruveyn