Be Strong, Be Wrong

[sharrowman]

Cyclone, you are right to pick on my mistake, I should not have said capitalist democracy, and left the sentence at 'the assumption that capitalism is succesful'

 

Capitalism is focussed on the expansion of resource allocation rather than it's efficiency.

 

Capitalism itself has no other goal than expansion, you are right, but in order to expand it relies on propagandising to it's adherents in order to secure markets for it's expansion. In this sense it has goals that it shares with populations. These markets include world governments, with whom capitalists must negotiate, it might be prudent for the smooth running of these negotiations to at least appear to share a consensus about the apparent direction of travel of society. Of course in Nigeria this has largely been irrelevant with shell oil for example being able to get it's way with little quarter being given over to social aims. I am sure Shell executives were surprised at the welcome it got from local governemnt rep's.

 

I don't know why we should assume that communists might not expect to be rewarded for innovation, working hard or success? Kudos, companionship and respect all seem valid rewards. Of limited appeal perhaps to hardened capitalists.

 

I can see where self desire and communal desire might come together. Where working hard to better oneself contributes to the betterment of society at large.

 

The charge of power corrupts holds true for our friendly capitalists in exactly the same way.

 

 

On charges of universal authoritarianism, can I offer Chile's Allende or the Nicaraguans Sandinista. Both violently put down by US economic interests.

[Cyclone]

Capitalism is IMO about the allocation of scarce resource in the most efficient way. Ie the people with spare resource (AKA money) invest it where they think it will make the biggest return. Communism is about central control and is by nature less efficient than the market place.

The rewards you mention have some appeal, but ultimately most people work for a living, they don't work for a good feeling inside and they won't work harder or take risks for a stronger good feeling or more slaps on the back. They'll work harder and/or take the risks that need taking for the promise of tangible reward, ie a pay-off.

Capitalism isn't perfect and a completely free market would probably be disastrous, but a moderated free market is better than centralised control.

[Kthebean]

Someones left a skoda on london road with its lights on

[catzeyesF]

Lol...I love this thread.....

[sharrowman]

Thanks Kthebean, ahem.

 

Cyclone, we clearly have different opinions on the nature of communism and capitalism. You seem to see the capitalism as a benign force allocating resources where needed to the benefit of the recipients. Efficiency is sometimes a happy side-effect of expansion, but rarely the focus. It is not more efficient for example to fly green beans from Nigeria than it is to grow them in the UK.

 

I see communism as focussed on equal distribution more than central control.

 

Communists work for a living too. A living that might also offer a warming dose of comradeship.

 

Capitalists are also happy to take risks that don't need taking! And often do, at the expense of lives and livelihoods.

 

Capitalism isn't perfect, I am sure communism isn't perfect. For me the idea of community integral to communism trumps the expansion and individualism at the heart of capitalism.

[sharrowman]

catzeyesF, good. loving your bit of it.

[Cyclone]

Thanks Kthebean, ahem.

 

Cyclone, we clearly have different opinions on the nature of communism and capitalism. You seem to see the capitalism as a benign force allocating resources where needed to the benefit of the recipients. Efficiency is sometimes a happy side-effect of expansion, but rarely the focus. It is not more efficient for example to fly green beans from Nigeria than it is to grow them in the UK.

We're talking about different aspects of efficiency though. I'm talking about efficient allocation of resource within the economy, ie investment where it's going to do the most. You're talking about the efficiency of distribution as an example. Companies become more efficient because efficiency makes them the most money, if the cost of labour is that cheap in Nigeria that it makes sense to grow beans there and ship them here, then it is efficient, although counter intuitive. If that happens though, I expect it's for more complex reasons.

 

I see communism as focussed on equal distribution more than central control.

Equal distribution of what? Everything? In which case the state has to own everything, which means that I'm not going to work harder than anyone else since I don't get the benefit of my labour, everyone does.

 

Communists work for a living too. A living that might also offer a warming dose of comradeship.

They work but have no incentive to work harder or to take a risk, nor will they necessarily have any choice about how they work or in what area.

Comradeship is available to anyone, having friends is not restricted to communist states. Indeed given that most such states seem to end up relying on secret police and networks of informants it's safer to have friends in a democracy.

 

Capitalists are also happy to take risks that don't need taking! And often do, at the expense of lives and livelihoods.

It's called personal freedom and responsibility. If I want to risk my money starting up a business I can, if I want to risk that business exploring some R&D I can. If it fails, then that's my tough luck.

 

Capitalism isn't perfect, I am sure communism isn't perfect. For me the idea of community integral to communism trumps the expansion and individualism at the heart of capitalism.

Are there any examples of this communist ideal where everyone gets along and community is somehow better than the communities we have in democracies?

[catzeyesF]

catzeyesF, good. loving your bit of it.

 

Lol...Sorry...I just wanted to let you know what a great thread it is but not got much to add

[plekhanov]

Cyclone, you are right to pick on my mistake, I should not have said capitalist democracy, and left the sentence at 'the assumption that capitalism is succesful'

 

Capitalism is focussed on the expansion of resource allocation rather than it's efficiency.

 

Capitalism itself has no other goal than expansion, you are right, but in order to expand it relies on propagandising to it's adherents in order to secure markets for it's expansion. In this sense it has goals that it shares with populations. These markets include world governments, with whom capitalists must negotiate, it might be prudent for the smooth running of these negotiations to at least appear to share a consensus about the apparent direction of travel of society. Of course in Nigeria this has largely been irrelevant with shell oil for example being able to get it's way with little quarter being given over to social aims. I am sure Shell executives were surprised at the welcome it got from local governemnt rep's.

 

I don't know why we should assume that communists might not expect to be rewarded for innovation, working hard or success? Kudos, companionship and respect all seem valid rewards. Of limited appeal perhaps to hardened capitalists.

 

I can see where self desire and communal desire might come together. Where working hard to better oneself contributes to the betterment of society at large.

 

The charge of power corrupts holds true for our friendly capitalists in exactly the same way.

But significantly there are many examples of capitalist societies which have been successfully organised in such a manner that power is widely distributed so there's a limit to how much damage any individual or group of people corrupted by power can do. You can't say the same thing for communism.

[epiphany]

But significantly there are many examples of capitalist societies which have been successfully organised in such a manner that power is widely distributed so there's a limit to how much damage any individual or group of people corrupted by power can do. You can't say the same thing for communism.

 

This to me is the ongoing struggle that exists within any economic system that has potential to both liberate and oppress.

 

Nobody can say (and I'm not suggesting you are saying this) that capitalism by default leads to more equality than *insert theoretical system here*. Adam Smith pointed out that "only under conditions of perfect liberty will markets lead to perfect equality", suggesting that even he, the supposed (and often worshipped) forefather of modern capitalism, understood that the potential of oppression or liberty in a given system is dependent upon the presumptions upon which it is built.

 

Until equality, sustainability and liberty are at the forefront of human decision making, there is no system that will automatically guide us to a better world, purely by its mechanics.