How Does a Communist Economy Work?

[Bystander]

p.s. Just by the way , is the word "Yanks" considered an offensive way in which to refer to American citizens?

Speaking only for myself, (gotta be PC) "No, I do not find it offensive." Few years ago, I could have spoken for the majority.

 

[Pepper Mint]

Speaking only for myself, (gotta be PC) "No, I do not find it offensive." Few years ago, I could have spoken for the majority.

You should be happy about my view towards you American capitalist.
Nationalism: NO, not many
Aggressive: NO, not much
Impatient: YES, almost
Enthusiastic, eager to join to play, work, cooperate etc with others: YES, very much
Thoughtful to mainly hurt others: NO because you are straight. This is different from many Canadian and Asian people.

 

[Salvador]

I want to add to what @mheslep said earlier about communism being evil.I kind of though about it and
the danger in ideas like communism is such that it sparks a rebellion against the status quo , maybe not now but it sure did back in the early 20th century.And after violent and abrupt regime changes such ideas usually tend to give the platform of power up to whoever wants it the most , and usually the folks who want the most power are the ones who have the nastiest and deep down evil desires , so the October revolution basically paved the way for a new Czar , only this time a more powerful and vicious one , also the Marxist Leninist idea of how to secure the revolution helped this situation , probably one of the worst things the Bolsheviks did was to exterminate the intelligence and much of the artists and people who had any greater thought than what to eat for supper.
I understand perfectly well why they did that because those with a head and a voice were among those who could influence the society the most so they needed to make sure that the society isn't going anywhere.But later on it backfired as the USSR was established in 1922 after years of devastating civil war , Lenin soon realized that the monstrous machine he had largely helped to invent is running out of control.
Basically many Soviet leaders and I'm not just talking about the official ones making TV news but also the many "grey" ghosts with high ranks and secret job profiles that shaped the USSR were rather evil and power thirsty guys.

So I do not agree that the USSR was entirely about theft and evil and bringing the world to an end but there is a strong correlation between an ideology and the people who follow that ideology.And the paradox here is that this ideology was good on paper and intended to make humanity and the world a better place but somehow it managed to do much of the opposite.
Communism stands out in this regard because other ideologies usually follow their policy and the folks who agree on that are also straightforward
the nazies never hid the fact that they want to exterminate Jews nor that they want to dominate the world for example and many other both religious cults or ideologies usually gather the kind of people you would expect but with communism it's different.

 

[madness]

Anti-semitism is immoral, and was fundamental to the Nazis, but not facism in general, e.g. not under Mussolini before Hitler. Fascism has other evils independent of bigotry. Communism too is fundamentally evil, in its wholesale embrace of theft, and general embrace of authoritarian means.

Ok I guess I was referring to National Socialism, which does treat one group of people preferentially over the others. I don't agree with your points on communism, you may think excessive taxes are theft, while others may think that private ownership of the means of production is theft from the primary producers. In any case, to put that ideology on a par with national socialism is getting a bit silly in my opinion.

Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2:
" Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. "

If the state owns the land, the idea of owning your own home is a fiction.

Why? It's perfectly possible to own my own home but not the land. In fact, that was precisely the point of distinguishing private and personal property. Land is "private" and can't be owned under communism whereas houses can be "personal".

 

[Seth1533]

My analysis is that that everything is just centralized to the government. Basically, it's the heart of the country because everything circulates back to it. Some examples would be: workforce, education, healthcare, military service, etc. The communist organization selects members of its population for certain roles, jobs, and choices. In more extreme countries such as North Korea, the government utilizes fear and controls the population. The "government" also has to pre-approve life choices such as: dress, hairstyle, number of children, internet accessibility, television, etc. I would also caution to use the term "fear" as solely describing North Korea because they don't just cause fear, they cause reason for it because of the slave labor camps, murders, and other severe punishments. In North Korea's case, the government is also fearful of others within itself.

I do believe it is immoral and violates human's rights. I believe in a free-economy and a population that is free to choose of many lifestyles and not forced to be a certain way in matters that do not intensely effect others.

 

[Mark44]

Communism too is fundamentally evil, in its wholesale embrace of theft,

I believe you can do better than that and by saying this your reflecting more on your personal feel against communism and the USSR than the reality.
No where in the soviet constitution it was written that it's ok and fine to steal from factories or the government

Salvador, I think you completely missed mheslep's point. He wasn't talking about stealing from the government; he was talking about the government doing the stealing...

 

[toforfiltum]

Hmm...nice discussion going on here. First off let me say that I have no deep knowledge about economic systems whatsoever. But I had always suspected that in a capitalist system, since it's fundamental idea is that of assigning the most value to people who are most productive to society, not everyone is of equal objective worth. I inserted the word objective here, because people tend to argue that they tend to value their family members more than any great leaders or businessmen. While this is true, their opinion doesn't matter at all to society at large. I always thought that income is a very good proxy for measuring the 'worth' of a person, and the rise in income inequality is something that always disturbed me. Not everyone are born with equal abilities, and certainly everyone can't be equally productive. By the way, I think that IQ and income is something hugely correlated, just look at Silicon Valley.

So I guess that communism has that lofty ideal in carrying out a system where everyone's worth is fundamentally equal. But the idea is too idealistic, like zoobyshoe said here, who is going to watch the supposed "distributor of wealth"? That person must be particularly selfless and the citizens equally so, for the whole system to work. Like it or not, people want to assume that their creation of a product or idea is rightfully theirs. And it is right in a sense, they worked hard for that. But it takes a lot of selflessness to admit that their successes are largely due in part to their inborn abilities, in which they won the genetic lottery. So, what I'm think I'm trying to say is that communism can only work if the citizens and government are all truly selfless.

Correct me if I'm wrong, or if you think I'm carrying too simplistic a view. While I believe that what I said is true, I don't quite like the view, I find it disturbing and in a moral sense, fundamentally wrong.

 

[mheslep]

First off let me say that I have no deep knowledge about economic systems whatsoever.

http://wichitaliberty.org/capitalism/capitalism-means-freedom/

 

[Salvador]

@toforfiltum nice to know you enjoy the discussion , yes you got that idea right , not all of us are equal even deep down to genetics not to mention all the other stuff.

@Mark44 , yes now I see I have missed mheslep point but still he isn't correct in what he said , now that I see how you meant that I must say you are even more wrong , and actually it's not theft it's just your opinion of how large a tax can be before you consider that a theft.
But here;s the fun side , nobody in the USSR was worried about taxes , there were literally no talking about those at all , and it's not because people were afraid to talk about taxes it's simply because the income was good enough even for the lowest of scum so that they simply had no reason to complain , the thing everyone was indeed talking about is that the production lines are not effective enough and so folks who had all their money couldn't buy enough of what they wanted , yet everyone got the very basic stuff and what they needed, it's just that to enjoy a more luxurious lifestyle one had to make all kinds of deals trading in favors and merchandise instead of simply taking his money from the bank and going to the shop to get himself a new car , officially he had to wait in line for the car so he used some of his friends gave them some rare stuff they wanted and they in exchange signed his papers and he got his new car faster.

Basically in every time in history those who have a good brain and can adopt fast have lived a good life but those who can't adopt or don't want to learn stay poor , the only difference is that under the soviet socialism these people were given atleast some "free lunch" so to speak of but in a capitalist free market system those people could might as well kill themselves or go and die and nobody gives two sh*** about it.

I believe I wrote this as clear as possible and couldn't say it any clearer.
And no @mheslep , capitalism does not mean freedom , freedom is a word overused like a prostitute much like the word love , it's true meaning lost in the translation. I don't think freedom can be assigned to a economic system , people aren't truly free in any system , it's just that the amount of freedom varies from system to system and from country to regime , in capitalism for example you are basically a "thing' and as all things have properties they can be exploited so you either have those properties or you don't , I think in capitalism freedom is directly proportional to the amount of useful properties you have because that determines how rich or poor you will be and in our modern capitalist world money means everything , if you don't have even the church doesn't want you , so basically what if someone doesn't have the ability to get money for some legitimate reason and his not being exactly a lazy drunk , then I would say he has no freedom , he can't even choose how to die as that too has to do with his lack of money and poor status which leads to all kinds of hunger, disease and poor living conditions.

Just because you mheslep have the cool opportunity to live in the continental US which has had a peace time for quite so long and a working economic model doesn't mean other people in this world have the same freedoms as you have under the same system that you so praise almost like God.Heck I think you could even find people in your area that have suffered under the very system you praise.
And let's not forget as zooby pointed out quite correctly before that capitalism without regulation is basically much freedom for the rich and wealthy and very less freedom for the poor and unfortunate.Because those who have the power will always try to remain in power and keep it and those who are poor have very little ways to enrich themselves and capitalism without regulation is basically a status quo state in which very little change if some at all is possible.It's like a lethargic dead body , it wants to die but it can't because as long as someone is willing to play by the rules it is kept alive.

 

[zoobyshoe]

But I had always suspected that in a capitalist system, since it's fundamental idea is that of assigning the most value to people who are most productive to society, not everyone is of equal objective worth.

The fundamental idea of capitalism is to make as much money as you can. There's no concomitant notion of assignment of value to people based on what they've contributed to society. Capitalism doesn't revolve around a sense of "society". It wasn't ever engineered or designed to address any social problems. It actually wasn't ever engineered or designed, period. It happened and it evolves.

If a rich man is perceived as being more important than a poor one, it's because it's assumed he has more power, which is quite a different thing than him having contributed more to society.

 

[Salvador]

Like I said before I think zooby and hopefully others would agree that capitalism is like the doorknob , it isn't engineered out of nothing it's the logical outcome of how we work and live as humans , the doorknob is like it is because it best fits our hands , capitalism is like it is because it best fits our greedy desire to sit in ferraries live a lavish lifestyle.
If all people somehow were born with a rock hard hope to be Buddhists I'm sure the whole world would somehow be a big USSR right now , just as Lenin and the soviets wanted , just that in a world with selfish people it could have only be done by force but in a different world maybe it would be our very basic idea of how we need to live ,

but here's the problem a doorknob fits our body and works well and it's natural but it does no harm to no one , capitalism is also natural but since we live in a complex world and people are different with varying strengths this basically means that Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' comes into play , capitalism is basically the survival of the strongest both physically and intellectually , and that may seem fine until we realize that the survival of the fittest among humans is way different than between animals , you probably think why is that ? Here's why , because animals only follow their instinct and when they get what they need they stop , so if a tiger is full then the rest of the sheep are fine and he won't suddenly launch a sneak attack for the rest of the world just for fun.
Humans on the other hand don;'t work exactly that way , look at our world , there are many people who are well off and they have plenty but no they won't stop at that , they will reap through the resources and land as much as they can sometimes without even realizing why their doing that , our desire knows no limits and if unregulated it will go as high as possible and even sky is not the limit here.

Sure you can say capitalism self regulates but it only does so after it has crashed the economy and itself and millions of people who worked hard to make the crashers rich enough for them to crash the economy.
So here's the problem , Communism is a utopia , capitalism is the wild west , no system at all is anarchy , so what we are left with?

Anyhow I think as well as capitalism worked for the west for some time it has to fundamentally change , if not for all the reasons it's bad then surely for the reasons hat are about to come , reasons such widely hated men in the west like Marx spoke about hundreds of years ago , one of them is already happening and happening fast , robots are taking over manufacturing and soon I believe not even a janitor will be needed because quite frankly why ? A robot can work without pauses without vacations without social benefits without a raise in wage without health insurance and can go on for years and only needs maintenance, so obviously it's the option to go for.
And let's face it all these people working low wage jobs in manufacturing if those jobs will go away what else they will do ? go and farm their own land and simply live to eat ? No we are way past that state , we are quite frankly too many for that. They can't suddenly educate themselves to a higher level or become smarter just like that.I think the black protests are a good sign of what can happen , ok the blacks protesting right now do it for a different reasons and in many cases their poverty is due to their own lack of morale and the lifestyle they have chosen and as such I condemn them or those who live that way but what if suddenly people of all races are in this position of poverty and very low freedom for a legitimate reason which is the same for all races?

Modern factories have the tendency for less and less workers and as I have noticed that , the higher the tech in a given factory the less workers required.
Anyway I wonder how manufacturing will look like when AI arrives , could humans finally then leave the working and focus on higher issues like philosophy , science , arts , but again if they remain in their intellectual capacity what kind of focus can they possibly come up with , rather they will be left like unnecessary garbage.

Ok this is getting too long and I have a feeling no one is reading these anymore.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Basically in every time in history those who have a good brain and can adopt fast have lived a good life but those who can't adopt or don't want to learn stay poor , the only difference is that under the soviet socialism these people were given atleast some "free lunch" so to speak of but in a capitalist free market system those people could might as well kill themselves or go and die and nobody gives two sh*** about it.

Here's where FDR style socialism kicks in in the US. The US has all kinds of "free lunch." Under the "Section 8" program, a low income family can rent any approved house or apartment for only 30% of their monthly income:

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8

Additionally we have the WIC program, so no baby goes malnourished:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/wic-benefits-and-services

We have "food stamps," free extra food for low income families:

http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/hhsa/programs/ssp/food_stamps.html

Your first 12 years of education are free. After that there are practically free trade schools for people who want to become welders, machinists, electricians, etc, or very inexpensive community colleges for people who want more education.

There are even free phones, the so-called "Obama Phone."

http://www.obamaphone.com/

There are more programs, different ones in different states, too. No one in the US really has to be homeless. The ones who are are very mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or very alcoholic, or criminals who are trying to stay beneath the radar, or people who ran away from home when under-aged and don't really know how to get back into society, or people who hate any and all authority so much they'd rather sleep under a bridge and beg for change than jump through anyone's hoops.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Ok this is getting too long and I have a feeling no one is reading these anymore.

They're too long and rambling. I've been reading them but they're impossible to fully address.

As for what you said about theft actually being taxation:

When Lenin formed the Bolsheviks in 1903, Jughashvili[Stalin] eagerly joined him. Jughashvili proved to be a very effective organizer of men as well as a capable intellectual. Among other activities, he wrote and distributed propaganda, organized strikes, and raised funds through bank robberies, kidnappings, extortion, and assassinations.

Thats not taxation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Early_life

 

[Salvador]

sure of all the beggars their always atleast half of them that simply doesn't want to work even if provided such an option.
the good thing in the USSR was that all education was free , so basically if you had the brains and the wish you could have educated yourself to a Phd with nothing but money for lunch.

 

[Salvador]

Yup I have a tendency of going on long and sometimes insulting rants about what I believe as such I think I would have made a good demagogue for the Communist party if the USSR was still around :D
I was referring to the taxation under the USSR not in the years when it emerged , surely no one not even Lenin denied that a revolution doesn't just happen on it's own , much like every great flood it needs a catalyst a source , something that ignites the volatile situation , sure the situation has to be volatile in the first place so it works like an internal combustion engine , you get the conditions right or they simply are that way and then you add the spark or the fuel in the right moment and then boom goes the world and a Marxist empire is born.

Surely they robbed banks and killed officers along the way but that was necessary for them to establish what they established. Surely they couldn't just go to the Czar and say "Hey , can we overthrown you and then form a basis for one of the last empires to rule the world as mentioned in the bible , oh and can we kill your wife? "
Whether what they did was ethical or made the world better or worse let time be the judge.

But sure as a relief for some here I must admit that the USSR with all of it's leaders and policies were probably the largest killing machine ever created by man , it killed mainly by two ways, either because one was deemed an enemy or by means of reshaping society , the Ukrainian famine , the persecution of the church , mass deportation of which my father by the way grew up in Siberia , so I have a very strong argument when I say to russ_waters and others that they don't know much about the USSR. Reading books is not enough to understand such a complex and vast mechanism which by the way hasn't died as you might think , how naive for those who think the end of the USSR is the end of the true soviet union and it's ideas. The work is still ongoing it's just changed it's shape and title.

For those interested give this video a try.
more than 30 years ago and isn't it mind-blowing how accurate his description of the modern day US is.
The US sort of won the Cold war because the USSR fell , but what if the USSR wins in the end without still being around much like Elvis and MJ have sold more being dead than when they were alive or Van Gogh being recognized only after his passing.
Think about it...

 

[zoobyshoe]

For those interested give this video a try.
more than 30 years ago and isn't it mind-blowing how accurate his description of the modern day US is.
The US sort of won the Cold war because the USSR fell , but what if the USSR wins in the end without still being around much like Elvis and MJ have sold more being dead than when they were alive or Van Gogh being recognized only after his passing.
Think about it...

I think the KGB plan backfired and the ideological subversion went the other way. Both Russia and the US are more capitalistic than they were then.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm a bit surprised the Castro economy hasn't come up in this thread. When he took over, he wiped out the upper and middle classes in Cuba and from there, everything left slowly spiraled down the toilet:

http://www.countriesquest.com/caribbean/cuba/history/cuba_under_castro/building_a_new_economy.htm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-under-fidel-castros-47-year-rule-410305.html

The Castro regime was probably the most devious communist take over of all. He denied he was a communist or socialist for years, not revealing it publicly until months after he was in power. Most Cubans who supported him had done so under the intentionally created illusion he was merely anti-Batista.

 

[Sophia]

Here's where FDR style socialism kicks in in the US. The US has all kinds of "free lunch." Under the "Section 8" program, a low income family can rent any approved house or apartment for only 30% of their monthly income:

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8

Additionally we have the WIC program, so no baby goes malnourished:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/wic-benefits-and-services

We have "food stamps," free extra food for low income families:

http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/hhsa/programs/ssp/food_stamps.html

Your first 12 years of education are free. After that there are practically free trade schools for people who want to become welders, machinists, electricians, etc, or very inexpensive community colleges for people who want more education.

There are even free phones, the so-called "Obama Phone."

http://www.obamaphone.com/

There are more programs, different ones in different states, too. No one in the US really has to be homeless. The ones who are are very mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or very alcoholic, or criminals who are trying to stay beneath the radar, or people who ran away from home when under-aged and don't really know how to get back into society, or people who hate any and all authority so much they'd rather sleep under a bridge and beg for change than jump through anyone's hoops.

Sure these are great help. But I have a theoretical question. Is the help of this kind a true part of capitalist philosophy or is it an addition based on morals and non capitalist values?

 

[russ_watters]

Sure these are great help. But I have a theoretical question. Is the help of this kind a true part of capitalist philosophy or is it an addition based on morals and non capitalist values?

It isn't inherrently capitalistic, no. But let's not fall into the other side of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy coin and get into an argument that capitalism doesn't work because modern societies don't "count" as capitalist because they aren't completely unregulated. I think most people recognize that lassez faire capitalism doesn't tend to produce a good outcome. One of the nice things about a democracy is the freedom to make adjustments to the system to enable it to better meet our needs.

The difference between the capitalist/democracies and the socialists/communists is that the former have succeeded in making adjustments that make their systems function and adapt while the latter have not.

 

[Mark44]

@Mark44 , yes now I see I have missed mheslep point but still he isn't correct in what he said , now that I see how you meant that I must say you are even more wrong , and actually it's not theft it's just your opinion of how large a tax can be before you consider that a theft.

The kulaks in Ukraine in the 1930s would disagree with you about what consititues theft, as their farms and acreage were siezed by the Soviet government, to be turned into collective farms. Of course the 5 - 10 million who died wouldn't be able to disagree, as they didn't survive this Голодомо́р (Ukrainian, somehow translated as Holodomor, or hunger starvation).

If you ask someone on the Left what's the maximum tax rate anyone should pay, they generally won't give you an answer. For myself, I believe that no one should pay more than 50%, period. The serfs in Medieval Europe had to give half of their crops to the local lord in their area, so placing a limit of no more than 50% seems reasonable to me.

But here;s the fun side , nobody in the USSR was worried about taxes , there were literally no talking about those at all , and it's not because people were afraid to talk about taxes it's simply because the income was good enough even for the lowest of scum so that they simply had no reason to complain , the thing everyone was indeed talking about is that the production lines are not effective enough

A direct result of a "planned" economy as opposed to a free market economy.

and so folks who had all their money couldn't buy enough of what they wanted , yet everyone got the very basic stuff and what they needed

Yeah, right.
It's just that to get the "luxuries" like meat, cheese, bread, fruit, toilet paper and other such "frills," you would have to stand in a long line, and hope the store didn't run out before it was your turn. Money is worthless if there are things you can buy with it.

, it's just that to enjoy a more luxurious lifestyle one had to make all kinds of deals trading in favors and merchandise instead of simply taking his money from the bank and going to the shop to get himself a new car , officially he had to wait in line for the car so he used some of his friends gave them some rare stuff they wanted and they in exchange signed his papers and he got his new car faster.

And no @mheslep , capitalism does not mean freedom , freedom is a word overused like a prostitute much like the word love , it's true meaning lost in the translation. I don't think freedom can be assigned to a economic system , people aren't truly free in any system , it's just that the amount of freedom varies from system to system and from country to regime

There's some truth to what you say, as the only truly free person would have to live alone on an island somewhere. But to state a moral equivalence between communism and a free market economy is misguided, I believe.

Here is a partial list of some of the freedoms that I, as a U.S. citizen, enjoy:
Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion
Freedom of the press
Freedom to keep and bear arms
Freedom of movement
Freedom to be judged by jury of my peers
None of these was a freedom enjoyed by citizens of the USSR.

 

[Sophia]

It isn't inherrently capitalistic, no. But let's not fall into the other side of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy coin and get into an argument that capitalism doesn't work because modern societies don't "count" as capitalist because they aren't completely unregulated. I think most people recognize that lassez faire capitalism doesn't tend to produce a good outcome. One of the nice things about a democracy is the freedom to make adjustments to the system to enable it to better meet our needs.

The difference between the capitalist/democracies and the socialists/communists is that the former have succeeded in making adjustments that make their systems function and adapt while the latter have not.

I guess it would be more exact to say that democracy allows to compensate problems of capitalism then to say that capitalism itself is adjustable.
As zooby said, capitalism must be kept under control, otherwise it will exaggerate the worst human tendencies and lead to injustice.
The same is true for communism.
Thankfully democracy and capitalism can coexist (though I'm not sure about future development)

 

[mheslep]

Under the "Section 8" program, a low income family can rent any approved house or apartment for only 30% of their monthly income:

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8

The damage done to communities by the Section 8 program is described in the current best seller by JD Vance, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0166ISAS8/?tag=pfamazon01-20. Properties have to be sanctioned by the government as Section 8 to qualify for the subsidy. When a stabl-ish community with a mix of middle class and poor has some properties sanctioned as section 8 for rental, they immediately draw nothing but the poorest, and the community collapses into jobless, drug addicted hopelessness.

 

[mheslep]

Is the help of this kind a true part of capitalist philosophy or is it an addition based on morals and non capitalist values?

Free market capitalism is not an ideology or value system. Its an economic reality. A civilization requires a value system applied along side to govern human behavior to survive for long.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The damage done to communities by the Section 8 program is described in the current best seller by https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0166ISAS8/?tag=pfamazon01-20https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0166ISAS8/?tag=pfamazon01-20. Properties have to be sanctioned by the government as Section 8 to qualify for the subsidy. When a stabl-ish community with a mix of middle class and poor has some properties sanctioned as section 8 for rental, they immediately draw nothing but the poorest, and the community collapses into jobless, drug addicted hopelessness.

I can only speak for San Diego where there are no whole communities that have collapsed into jobless, drug addicted hopelessness. Also, section 8 is voluntary on the part of the landlord and they don't have to participate if they're afraid of the tenants they'll get.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Sure these are great help. But I have a theoretical question. Is the help of this kind a true part of capitalist philosophy or is it an addition based on morals and non capitalist values?

It's completely separate from capitalism. Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) started some programs to try and help get people back on their feet during the great depression that followed the stock market crash of 1929. These are looked at retrospectively as somewhat socialistic in nature but without having been inspired by socialism. Rather, they emerged simply from the idea the government was in a position to help, so maybe it should try.

As I said earlier, capitalism doesn't have a philosophy, no one sat down and engineered it on paper and later tried to implement it. It just happened and it evolves. It is best described as a neutral economic system that can exist under many forms of government, experiencing varying degrees of government control.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

As I said earlier, capitalism doesn't have a philosophy, no one sat down and engineered it on paper and later tried to implement it. It just happened and it evolves. It is best described as a neutral economic system that can exist under many forms of government, experiencing varying degrees of government control.

Adam Smith put together a lot of the ideas behind the concept of free market capitalism, but he felt there was some intrinsic "goodness" in humanity that kept the free market from abuses. Really!

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Smith.html

 

[Kevin McHugh]

If you are truly interested, I highly recommend Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley. Everything you ever wanted to know about history and economy of Russia and the Soviet Union, plus more. Over 1200 pages of European history.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Adam Smith put together a lot of the ideas behind the concept of free market capitalism,

I hate to admit it, but I have never looked into this author, despite having heard The Wealth of Nations mentioned over and over. The article definitely piqued my interest.

but he felt there was some intrinsic "goodness" in humanity that kept the free market from abuses.

This isn't evident from the article. According to just what's in the article, he actually says:

In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith wrote: “How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others and render their happiness necessary to him though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.”

I think all he's saying here is that, "Charity happens." This observation is something of an aside, and isn't set out as a natural inclination that prevents abuses, that I can see.

It is, rather, self-interest, itself, that benefits society:

Charity, while a virtuous act, cannot alone provide the essentials for living. Self-interest is the mechanism that can remedy this shortcoming. Said Smith: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest” (ibid.).

Someone earning money by his own labor benefits himself. Unknowingly, he also benefits society, because to earn income on his labor in a competitive market, he must produce something others value. In Adam Smith’s lasting imagery, “By directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.”5

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Smith.html

So, it isn't charity that helps society, but 'enlightened' self-interest, or 'intelligent' self interest, whereby a person actually plays the game of trying to have the best product in a free market. (That would be as opposed to perpetrating a con, I suppose, and actually just selling people a bill of goods.)

This also doesn't look to me like a 'blueprint' of capitalism, it's his attempt to describe what he already saw happening. With communism the 'blueprint' completely preceded the attempt to build.

Anyway, thanks for posting that. He seems to have been quite an important and influential economic philosopher.

 

[mheslep]

...Also, section 8 is voluntary on the part of the landlord and they don't have to participate if they're afraid of the tenants they'll get.

Sure it's voluntary. From the earlier reference

“When you have a large base of Section 8 parents and kids supported by fewer middle-class taxpayers, it’s an upside-down triangle. There’re fewer emotional and financial resources when the only people in a neighborhood are low-income. You just can’t lump them together, because then you have a bigger pool of hopelessness.” On the other hand, he said, “put the lower-income kids with those who have a different lifestyle model, and the lower-income kids start to rise up.” Yet when Middletown [Ohio] recently tried to limit the number of Section 8 vouchers offered within certain neighborhoods, the federal government balked.

 

[mheslep]

It just happened and it evolves...

Well, it happened when sufficiently free societies happened that have a rule of law. Or perhaps they (free trade and free societies) happened together.