Communism and Capitalism: True Opposites?

[Politesse]

Just some hurried thoughts in between numerous meetings, so bear with me if this is a bit jumbled.

I've been listening to a lot of US news lately, owing to the resumption of my long commute and the fact that talk radio is the only bearable option on the dial. One of my local stations does conservative commentary in the morning, liberal in the afternoon. Something has struck me about the way "capitalism" and "socialism" are used in daily discourse, namely that they are entirely inconsistent in their definitions. And I don't just mean the obvious, that the two "parties" interpret these things differently. I mean that even the same speaker will seem to use one of these words differently depending on the situation. Sometimes "Capitalism" is spoken of as a sort of force, for instance, maybe even an agent with a will of its own that defies the expectations or intentions of those connected to it. Other times, it is spoken of as though it were a question of government policy; that a nation-state has to both choose and continually create it in order to exist, and they could change their mind at any time given that they have the desire. Sometimes it is a relational entity, a broker of sorts between socioeconomic classes, while at other times it is a purely material entity, whose relevance is controlled not by class but by individual attainment. Similarly, socialism seems to wear an awful lot of masks, as I'm sure anyone who has read this far into the thread already knows, as we spar about it on this forum frequently.

But..

I did notice one extremely consistent semiotic trend, and that is how they are positioned relative to one another. It seems to me that there is a key metaphor, a master plan of economic potential, that is present whenever Americans are talking about money and government, and that is the construct of Capitalism vs. Communism. The impression one might get is that there are essentially two possible extremes into which a modern economy might fall, with CAPITALISM occupying one far end, and COMMUNISM occupying the other. Countries and communities seem to be placed on a sliding scale somewhere in between these two extremes regardless of whether they had either philosophy in mind when their system was designed, or whether it was consciously designed at all. "Socialism" floats in the symbolic space in between the extremes, drifting closer or farther away from the communist end depending on who the speaker is and more crucially what they are talking about. This is treated as a scalar but antonymic binary; while you might not belong to a "pure" category, nevertheless the more Capitalist you are, the less Communist you are, and vice versa, in all possible cases. Socialism from a semantic point of view allows for navigation of the middle ground without violation of the binary, much as we invent new terms to navigate the space between other perceived binaries such as gender or moral conduct. Regardless of political or philosophical sympathy, this basic metaphor seems to be almost universally used.

Some possible questions for discussion:

1. What the hell are Capitalism and Communism? Do they exist in tangible, quantitative reality or are they categorical constructs whose purpose is primarily discursive? Is all of this Marx's fault for offering a compelling model for talking about economies?

2. Am I right about the way Americans tend to construct the key metaphor of economic life? For residents of other places, does this hold true for the way other nations discuss economies?

3. Are these true opposites? Is one, in fact, capitalist only and exactly to the extent that one is not communist, and vice versa? (examples: Does China necessarily become "less communist" if it encourages free market activity? Does the U.S. become "more communist" every time it introduces a new market regulation?)

4. What should we do with "socialism"?

 

[rousseau]

1. What the hell are Capitalism, Communism, and Socialism? Do they exist in tangible, quantitative reality or are they categorical constructs whose purpose is primarily discursive?

That. To properly answer this question you'd need an essay, but in short I don't think the term 'capitalism' actually points to anything besides maybe being a kind of indicator of who we are. People capitalize, the result is often economies where we don't discourage capitalizing. Whereas socialism is a kind of ideal - who we want to be - that's been set forth by the Marxist tradition, reality be damned.

In practice these terms don't come close to encapsulating what's actually happening, and are usually used politically by people who spend their weekends watching Netflix, and who haven't been in a library since elementary school.

2. Am I right about the way Americans tend to construct the key metaphor of economic life? For residents of other places, does this hold true for the way other nations discuss economies?

I'd say yes

3. Are these true opposites? Is one, in fact, capitalist only and exactly to the extent that one is not communist, and vice versa?

That seems to be the way the dichotomy is framed, and what exists in the overton window right now. But I'd say the reality is much more complex.

For starters, communism is a nonsense idea and shouldn't exist in our discourse at all. And the term capitalism needs much more subtlety as to what it actually is, and how it arises, and what genuine alternatives are.

4. What should we do with "socialism"?

Not sure what you mean here.

 

[skepticalbip]

1. What the hell are Capitalism and Communism? Do they exist in tangible, quantitative reality or are they categorical constructs whose purpose is primarily discursive? Is all of this Marx's fault for offering a compelling model for talking about economies?

If we ignore how people misuse the terms:

... Capitalism is an economic system in which individuals own and control businesses (means of production according to Marx).

... Socialism is an economic system in which all businesses (means of production according to Marx) are owned and controlled by the government.

... Communism is Marx's wet dream where socialism evolves into a system where government dissolves and vanishes leaving all means of production to be shared by the people communally with no private ownership and no controlling government.

 

[rousseau]

1. What the hell are Capitalism and Communism? Do they exist in tangible, quantitative reality or are they categorical constructs whose purpose is primarily discursive? Is all of this Marx's fault for offering a compelling model for talking about economies?

If we ignore how people misuse the terms:

... Capitalism is an economic system in which individuals own and control businesses (means of production according to Marx).

... Socialism is an economic system in which all businesses (means of production according to Marx) are owned and controlled by the government.

... Communism is Marx's wet dream where socialism evolves into a system where government dissolves and vanishes leaving all means of production to be shared by the people communally with no private ownership and no controlling government.

My qualm with the definitions: yes, these are the meanings of the the terms as usually used, but they're all simplistic, pseudo-scientific, and not representative of how our economies spring forth, what they are, or how they persist. So we shouldn't be debating what these terms mean, we should completely do away with them as meaningful to modern discourse.

Unfortunately they're what's set the framework on how people normally understand economics, and it's nauseating.

 

[rousseau]

On a broader, philosophical level those who like capitalism are actually those who prefer to acquire wealth at the expense of others, those who like socialism are those who prefer to spread resources at the expense of the individual. Both of these philosophies are essential to human nature - on one hand acquiring resources to raise offspring is literally what it means to be a living thing. On the other hand, spreading resources among a community creates the conditions for individuals to excel.

So there's a tension there and society works the best when both forces are balanced, which is actually what we see in most nations with a normal history.

 

[steve_bank]

The basic dichotomy is the emphsos on individual rights, ownership of peoperty/goods, and the nature of the economy. There are no black and white examples. In the USA we consider France socialist. Govt is a shaeholer in major business.


Free market capitalism – Private ownership of propert, manufacturing, busness, and cpital. Individual rightsn over the state. Little govt interferunce in busness.

Communiam – Common ownership of the means of production. Profit does not exisr. Stae/tribe over the individual’ The Ruddian and Chinese experiments in communism. Production, wages, and prices set by the state. North Korea is a prime economic example.

Socialism – A mixed economy. China today is more socialist than communist. The state controls the economy with some individualeterprise and ownership of property. International Chinese athlets are not permitted to keep all theur easrnings.

 

[Bomb#20]

3. Are these true opposites? Is one, in fact, capitalist only and exactly to the extent that one is not communist, and vice versa? (examples: Does China necessarily become "less communist" if it encourages free market activity? Does the U.S. become "more communist" every time it introduces a new market regulation?)

No, no, yes, and no. Capitalism and communism are just two kinds of economy; there are many others. For example, there are feudalism, other kinds of slave-based production, hunting and gathering, slash and burn agriculture, caste systems, and mercantilism. They all conflict with one another to various extents, so your economy becoming more of type A generally makes it less of type B, but the converse doesn't follow -- becoming less of type A doesn't need to make it more of type B since it might instead be becoming more of type C. When the U.S. introduces a new market regulation it usually makes us more mercantilist, not more communist.

 

[Bomb#20]

On a broader, philosophical level those who like capitalism are actually those who prefer to acquire wealth at the expense of others

This is an insulting story opponents of capitalism tell themselves about those who like capitalism, to justify looking down on us, much like "Atheists are actually those who are mad at God." It has a certain logic to it from the point of view of the accusers' world-view, much as Christians who imagine they see evidence for God everywhere they look are dumbfounded at how anyone could genuinely be an atheist, and therefore need a psychological explanation for unbelievers. The corresponding false premise at the center of many anticapitalists' worldview is the intuitive conviction that economics is a zero-sum game and consequently acquiring wealth is necessarily at the expense of others. This is so subconsciously wired into many people's mentality that they're dumbfounded at how anyone could genuinely disagree with it. So they logically infer that those who like the acquisition of wealth like doing it at the expense of others. But it isn't true. Just as there isn't really evidence for God anywhere Christians look, economics isn't really a zero-sum game. The whole point of capitalism is to invent and implement win-win solutions.

 

[rousseau]

On a broader, philosophical level those who like capitalism are actually those who prefer to acquire wealth at the expense of others

This is an insulting story opponents of capitalism tell themselves about those who like capitalism, to justify looking down on us, much like "Atheists are actually those who are mad at God." It has a certain logic to it from the point of view of the accusers' world-view, much as Christians who imagine they see evidence for God everywhere they look are dumbfounded at how anyone could genuinely be an atheist, and therefore need a psychological explanation for unbelievers. The corresponding false premise at the center of many anticapitalists' worldview is the intuitive conviction that economics is a zero-sum game and consequently acquiring wealth is necessarily at the expense of others. This is so subconsciously wired into many people's mentality that they're dumbfounded at how anyone could genuinely disagree with it. So they logically infer that those who like the acquisition of wealth like doing it at the expense of others. But it isn't true. Just as there isn't really evidence for God anywhere Christians look, economics isn't really a zero-sum game. The whole point of capitalism is to invent and implement win-win solutions.

Ok, I'll grant you this. My 'philosophies' were a bit simplistic, but they point toward a central point that you didn't address.

 

[Harry Bosch]

1. What the hell are Capitalism and Communism? Do they exist in tangible, quantitative reality or are they categorical constructs whose purpose is primarily discursive? Is all of this Marx's fault for offering a compelling model for talking about economies?

If we ignore how people misuse the terms:

... Capitalism is an economic system in which individuals own and control businesses (means of production according to Marx).

... Socialism is an economic system in which all businesses (means of production according to Marx) are owned and controlled by the government.

... Communism is Marx's wet dream where socialism evolves into a system where government dissolves and vanishes leaving all means of production to be shared by the people communally with no private ownership and no controlling government.

My qualm with the definitions: yes, these are the meanings of the the terms as usually used, but they're all simplistic, pseudo-scientific, and not representative of how our economies spring forth, what they are, or how they persist. So we shouldn't be debating what these terms mean, we should completely do away with them as meaningful to modern discourse.

Unfortunately they're what's set the framework on how people normally understand economics, and it's nauseating.

How so? His post is absolutely correct. How is it "pseudo-scientific"?

 

[Harry Bosch]

On a broader, philosophical level those who like capitalism are actually those who prefer to acquire wealth at the expense of others, those who like socialism are those who prefer to spread resources at the expense of the individual. Both of these philosophies are essential to human nature - on one hand acquiring resources to raise offspring is literally what it means to be a living thing. On the other hand, spreading resources among a community creates the conditions for individuals to excel.

So there's a tension there and society works the best when both forces are balanced, which is actually what we see in most nations with a normal history.

I think that what you're missing is that there are many die-hard capitalists scum (like myself) who actually do like to "spread resources around". I'm a big believer that we should be helping to lower barriers, help people up, larger safety net, and etc.

 

[rousseau]

On a broader, philosophical level those who like capitalism are actually those who prefer to acquire wealth at the expense of others, those who like socialism are those who prefer to spread resources at the expense of the individual. Both of these philosophies are essential to human nature - on one hand acquiring resources to raise offspring is literally what it means to be a living thing. On the other hand, spreading resources among a community creates the conditions for individuals to excel.

So there's a tension there and society works the best when both forces are balanced, which is actually what we see in most nations with a normal history.

I think that what you're missing is that there are many die-hard capitalists scum (like myself) who actually do like to "spread resources around". I'm a big believer that we should be helping to lower barriers, help people up, larger safety net, and etc.

Ok, I'll address these two posts, but this one first,

As usual I wrote the above post when I was at work and didn't have time to carefully craft my wording. I'm not anti-capitalist, nor do I think people who 'like' capitalism are scum, nor do I think there's anything wrong with capitalism. Bomb#20 presents a perfectly valid point - economics isn't a zero sum game, and these two ideals 'helping people' and 'helping the individual', as you say, aren't mutually exclusive.

The broader point is that we have two competing philosophies - I'll try to word it better - helping the collective versus helping the individual. My argument is that a community of people works best when these two philosophies are balanced. When we do both, not one or the other.

And in practice, this is actually the reality of most nation-states without a disruptive history.

My qualm with the definitions: yes, these are the meanings of the the terms as usually used, but they're all simplistic, pseudo-scientific, and not representative of how our economies spring forth, what they are, or how they persist. So we shouldn't be debating what these terms mean, we should completely do away with them as meaningful to modern discourse.

Unfortunately they're what's set the framework on how people normally understand economics, and it's nauseating.

How so? His post is absolutely correct. How is it "pseudo-scientific"?

This one is a bit more subtle.

I don't think 'capitalist' economies were consciously chosen. There was no actor, or any point of time where people sat back and said - 'we're going to create a capitalist economy'. I don't know the specifics of how the regulatory systems of many capitalist economies arose, but the subtle point is that these regulations were and are just a logical choice given time / circumstances. They were what worked best at the time.

IOW, we didn't choose capitalism, capitalism chose itself. It was just a natural result of communities of people organizing themselves.

On the other hand, socialism and communism in the tradition of Marx is a fantasy, it's an ideal. A great ideal, but a pseudo-scientific one that's not based in reality.

So what this means is that on one hand we have reality - capitalism - and on the other hand we have an intrusion on reality - Marx. So to say it's either or is a false dichotomy. By claiming that communism is a legitimate opposite of capitalism we're trying to shove a square peg into a round hole.

So the definition of capitalism, sure, maybe, but when we prop it up against communism and socialism in the tradition of Marx the conversation is already broken. So my argument is that instead of normalizing communism as something meaningful, we should be doing a better job of understanding what capitalism is, and how to promote it's evolution to suit the needs of the collective. Ideally in a way that actually works.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Ok, I'll address these two posts, but this one first,

As usual I wrote the above post when I was at work and didn't have time to carefully craft my wording. I'm not anti-capitalist, nor do I think people who 'like' capitalism are scum, nor do I think there's anything wrong with capitalism. Bomb#20 presents a perfectly valid point - economics isn't a zero sum game, and these two ideals 'helping people' and 'helping the individual', as you say, aren't mutually exclusive.

The broader point is that we have two competing philosophies - I'll try to word it better - helping the collective versus helping the individual. My argument is that a community of people works best when these two philosophies are balanced. When we do both, not one or the other.

And in practice, this is actually the reality of most nation-states without a disruptive history.

My qualm with the definitions: yes, these are the meanings of the the terms as usually used, but they're all simplistic, pseudo-scientific, and not representative of how our economies spring forth, what they are, or how they persist. So we shouldn't be debating what these terms mean, we should completely do away with them as meaningful to modern discourse.

Unfortunately they're what's set the framework on how people normally understand economics, and it's nauseating.

How so? His post is absolutely correct. How is it "pseudo-scientific"?

This one is a bit more subtle.

I don't think 'capitalist' economies were consciously chosen. There was no actor, or any point of time where people sat back and said - 'we're going to create a capitalist economy'. I don't know the specifics of how the regulatory systems of many capitalist economies arose, but the subtle point is that these regulations were and are just a logical choice given time / circumstances. They were what worked best at the time.

IOW, we didn't choose capitalism, capitalism chose itself. It was just a natural result of communities of people organizing themselves.

On the other hand, socialism and communism in the tradition of Marx is a fantasy, it's an ideal. A great ideal, but a pseudo-scientific one that's not based in reality.

So what this means is that on one hand we have reality - capitalism - and on the other hand we have an intrusion on reality - Marx. So to say it's either or is a false dichotomy. By claiming that communism is a legitimate opposite of capitalism we're trying to shove a square peg into a round hole.

So the definition of capitalism, sure, maybe, but when we prop it up against communism and socialism in the tradition of Marx the conversation is already broken. So my argument is that instead of normalizing communism as something meaningful, we should be doing a better job of understanding what capitalism is, and how to promote it's evolution to suit the needs of the collective. Ideally in a way that actually works.

Good post. I didn't mean to imply that you are calling capitalists "scum". It's pretty common for capitalists to self deprecatingly call themselves scum or capitalist pigs. I agree that capitalism is a natural feature of human systems. It's extremely contrived to give personal/business assets to the government. Incredibly obscenely contrived to further give them to the "collective". We can mold an economies natural capitalist system by determining the right level of regulation, taxation, and safety net to suit the "collective". The key issue here that I was trying to address is that regulation, taxation and safety net work well and are necessary to a strong capitalistic system. Conversely, healthy and productive private enterprises and individual freedom's are not allowed in a socialist system.

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^

It is true that Marx's idea of a communist state is an absurd delusion and why I called it Marx's wet dream. However socialism as an economic system has been tried several times. A socialist state only needs a strong central government to confiscate 'the means of production'. Cambodia under Pol Pot is the most extreme example I can think of but then there is the USSR under Stalin, China under Mao, North Korea under the Kims, Cuba under Fidel, and lately there is Venezuela.

Ironically, even Marx thought socialism was a bad system but he saw it as a necessary step to reach his ideal of a communist state.

 

[Politesse]

How so? His post is absolutely correct. How is it "pseudo-scientific"?

That one seems obvious to me; the definitions in question are derived from cultural ideals rather than from empirical observation of any particular really esxisting community. This much is just the basics of the social sciences. It would only, though, become pseudo-science if someone actually claims that these are scientific terms, which no one (I think) has done here.

 

[fromderinside]

Apparently people gather together to support one another and to share labor for personal and community benefit, be socialists, without having a 'government' control and regulate it. On the other hand freedom to exploit resources, one of our glorious government's cherished ideals, harms others in the act of such as mining, harvesting timber, controlling water, making money by not serving outliers, etc. We were formed under a social compact. We are free socialists if you like.

 

[Harry Bosch]

How so? His post is absolutely correct. How is it "pseudo-scientific"?

That one seems obvious to me; the definitions in question are derived from cultural ideals rather than from empirical observation of any particular really esxisting community. This much is just the basics of the social sciences. It would only, though, become pseudo-science if someone actually claims that these are scientific terms, which no one (I think) has done here.

Huh? It seems to me that his post pretty much described reality. Most countries are capitalistic, the individuals mostly own the means of production. There many examples of when the government owns the means of production and we generally call these types of countries socialist. And then when socialist countries voluntarily give all means of production to the collective and the government melts away (ergo communism) is a wet dream because it has never happened (and probably never will.)

 

[Harry Bosch]

Apparently people gather together to support one another and to share labor for personal and community benefit, be socialists, without having a 'government' control and regulate it. On the other hand freedom to exploit resources, one of our glorious government's cherished ideals, harms others in the act of such as mining, harvesting timber, controlling water, making money by not serving outliers, etc. We were formed under a social compact. We are free socialists if you like.

I don't understand your post completely. Are you saying that there are examples of communist countries? If so, what were they? Or are you describing free socialists? And if so, could you give concrete examples of free socialism?

 

[Harry Bosch]

^ ^ ^

It is true that Marx's idea of a communist state is an absurd delusion and why I called it Marx's wet dream. However socialism as an economic system has been tried several times. A socialist state only needs a strong central government to confiscate 'the means of production'. Cambodia under Pol Pot is the most extreme example I can think of but then there is the USSR under Stalin, China under Mao, North Korea under the Kims, Cuba under Fidel, and lately there is Venezuela.

Ironically, even Marx thought socialism was a bad system but he saw it as a necessary step to reach his ideal of a communist state.

Agreed. The problem is that socialists must install a brutal force in order to steal everyone's stuff. Brutal people never voluntarily give up power. Hence the transition period to communism never happens. Even if it did, there would be a long period of uncertainty and a large power vacuum, that some group would exploit. Indeed, communism is a wet dream...

 

[steve_bank]

All three are both an economic system and a social/political philosophy as to the purpose of govt.

Anarchists oppose any govt, libertarians may accept some govt such as police, capitalists may accept forms of state assistance like unemployment support, communists want cradle to grave support, a utopia of sorts.

Economics is an expression of social philosophy.

People rail ageist the system, but do not shy away from benefitting. Technocrats who make a lot more than the average worker doing easy comfortable software. Hollywood 'progressives' who get obscene rich acting yet are anti capitalists. Bob Dylan got rich as an anti system counter culture icon.

If you accept we all have to work then it is a matter of compensation. In Soviet and Chinese communism a skilled surgeon might not make much more that a taxi driver. That forced equality led to stagnation and a dull authoterian society.

I have seen it first hand, people who start companies. They mortgage homes. Work 24/7 for years.

Only under our free market system could Jobs and Wozniak have started in a gorge and create a global company. The original HP stared in a SF garage.

Capitalism today is not 19th century capitalism. Owners ruled like aristocrats. Henry Ford.

The idea most anyone can have a retirement IRA is historically new. Money is invested in business to support retirement.

In a broad sense you can say someone at the median income today is far better off than a wealthy person in the early 20th century. House, multiple cars, computers, jet travel, plenty of food and clothing.

You have to look at positives and negatives, Business is comprised of people.

The communist experiments failed miserably. China restructured itself and divested govt of inefficient business. Europe divested a large part of socialism in the Thatcher era.

In terms of standard of living modern free market capitalism is wildly successful. Western investment recued China but they will never acknowledge it. When you say 'busyness makes money at the expense of others' you have to explain.


Up until global warming a UN report said that the global economy was steadily reducing global poverty. A competitive economy is shown to be the best results. The question in the USA today is how far towards socialism we need to go.

We do not want a rigid system where people are not free to choose a path, and we do not want unrestricted capitalism that disregards the betterment of all and the environment. A balance between risk-reward and social stability.