News Is communism still a big taboo in america? if so why?

[icma]

Hi, Just wondering if Communism is still a big taboo in America, and if so, why?
It's just a question that came to mind, thought I'd ask.

 

[256bits]

What do you mean by taboo. are you asking if there is a political Communist Party of America? And do they ever currently stand a slim chance in hell in becoming mainstream?

 

[lisab]

Communism isn't taboo. It's simply been shown to not work.

 

[russ_watters]

I was thinking of starting a similar thread, based on discussion in another thread. I think you have the focus wrong though, but please feel free to elaborate if I'm off base and hijacking...

Communism is a dead theory [edit: lisab wins...]. The taboo is "socialism". But it isn't the concepts that are taboo, it is just the word. People don't like it and whether for or against the concepts in it will often react aggressively to the use of the word. As a result, people avoid usage of it at all costs. While researching for the other thread, I found these interesting little nuggets:

Marx is widely considered as one of the most influential thinkers in history, cited by historians and in polls. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#Influence

and:

An April 2009 Rasmussen Reports poll, conducted during the Financial crisis of 2007–2010 (which many believe resulted due to lack of regulation in the financial markets) suggested that there had been a growth of support for socialism in the United States. The poll results stated that 53% of American adults thought capitalism was better than socialism, and that "Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided".[94]Bernie Sanders, current U.S. Senator from Vermont, has described himself as a democratic socialist. Sanders served as the at-large representative for the state of Vermont before being elected to the senate in 2006.[95]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_States#Socialism_today

Yet people often vehemently deny influence from socialism/Marxism in the US. The recent thread argument is one of a great many examples on PF of people bristling at the idea that socialist policies/ideas have relevance in the US. And the issue has been brought up with Obama, particularly relating to the healthcare debate. Savvy marketters replaced a clear-cut reference to socialism in the labeling of the issue:

Socialized medicine is a system for providing medical and hospital care for all at a nominal cost by means of government regulation of health services and subsidies derived from taxation.[1] Because of the U.S. cultural's historically negative associations with socialism, the term is used primarily and usually pejoratively in United States political discussions concerning health care.[2][3][4][5][6] The term was first widely used in the United States by advocates of the American Medical Association in opposition to President Harry S. Truman's 1947 health-care initiative.[7][8][9] The term may be used by some in referring to a system of universal health care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine

 

[AlephZero]

Marx is widely considered as one of the most influential thinkers in history, cited by historians and in polls. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#Influence

and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_States#Socialism_today

Yet people often vehemently deny influence from socialism/Marxism in the US.

Interesting to compare that position with the UK, where for example Ralph Milliband (died 1994, father of the current Labour party leader Ed Milliband) was highly regaded as a Marxist academic, writing books with titles like "Class struggle in contemporary capitalism".

That family backround probably isn't going to gain Ed Milliband much share of the vote, but neither is it likely to lose him any. I guess that in the USA having a father like that would be poliitical suicide.

 

[jtbell]

Hi, Just wondering if Communism is still a big taboo in America,

It's still just about the worst thing you can call somebody in a political discussion, followed closely by "socialist." Maybe "Islamofascist" is up there with it nowadays.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

In my experience the issue with the term socialism is the many different definitions people use coupled with the vehemence that some of those definitions invoke. The word can literally range from meaning welfare capitalism to totalitarian communism and can cover social, economic and/or political theory.

I guess that one of the reasons "socialism" is taboo in the states is due to the decades of opposition to the USSR which probably contributed strongly to the American sense of identity.

 

[Alesak]

Communism isn't taboo. It's simply been shown to not work.

This is wrong, only Marxism–Leninism and other shades has been shown to not work.

 

[Pythagorean]

There's no problem with adopting Marxist ideas into policy in the US. But a typical rhetorical tactic of the Republican party in the last 4-6 years has been to conflate liberalism with socialism. So now all liberals are considered socialists. The taboo with communism is essentially reversed: now it's taboo to call people communists because it was a popular propaganda mechanism in the last century. The new equivalent of that is socialism (though the repercussion are not nearly as intense this time around).

Socialism is strictly anti-capitalism, while liberalism can be (and in the US, generally is) pro-capitalism. In fact, liberal policies during FDR's presidency were considered to have saved capitalism. There is such thing as a liberal socialist, but there is also such thing as a liberal capitalist. That is, we're talking about two independent axes here.
a wiki intro to liberalism

Particularly, socialism literally requires redistribution of property as a fundamental premise; liberalism does not. Liberalism is about making changes to the system via policy. If your goal with those policies is to redistribute wealth, then you are socialist liberal (i.e. Obama and the Democratic party practice this moderately, but calling someone "socialist" is still distinct from saying they adopt social policies... still somewhat weasel language). But if your policies simply go towards more fair business practices or seek to curtail corruption, or to ensure that social equality is being enforced, then socialism doesn't play a role.

Furthermore, liberalism can lead to policies that redistribute wealth without being socialist because of inherit ideology ingrained in socialism (a sort of categorical imperative), vs. the emergent ideology of liberalism (the ends justify the means; i.e. if redistribution does actually make capitalism stronger, then redistribute.)

The Harvard Political review comments on this:
http://hpronline.org/united-states/liberalism-versus-socialism/

But basically, the problem is that as a result of this rhetoric, people think tend to think that liberalism is "at the expense of capitalism" when it is, in fact, a necessary part of it. Without updating our regulation and social policies to change with the times, we would eventually have anarchy, not capitalism.

 

[chemisttree]

...and liberals are running away from that label as fast as they can now calling themselves 'Progressive'.

 

[Pythagorean]

...and liberals are running away from that label as fast as they can now calling themselves 'Progressive'.

Is this really representative? More importantly, does it add anything to the discussion or is it just a random attempt to associate liberals with cowardice?

 

[TylerH]

I would say that almost all people (conservative and liberal) I know, (myself being American), support liberty and freedom in general and see it similarly to Mill in that they see them as being prerequisite to happiness. The majority view I see with all the conservative/capitalist people I talk to is that a free market it synonymous with freedom in general. The way they see it, if one cannot buy and sell as they please, then their inability to do so opens a means by which their freedom in general may be curtailed.
From my interpretation, the major idea of communism is that the proletariat class is basically used by the bourgeoisie to further their interests. The majority of the working people I know deny this as being a bad thing, believing that the bourgeoisie are where they are because they worked hard, were better fit, etc.
I tried to be as unbiased as I could, but for the sake of transparity, I will say that I lean more to the socialist side. I don't know what school I belong to, and it's a lot closer to a social market economy than capitalism.

 

[aquitaine]

In my experience the issue with the term socialism is the many different definitions people use coupled with the vehemence that some of those definitions invoke. The word can literally range from meaning welfare capitalism to totalitarian communism and can cover social, economic and/or political theory.

I guess that one of the reasons "socialism" is taboo in the states is due to the decades of opposition to the USSR which probably contributed strongly to the American sense of identity.

I would think it has just as much, if not more to do with the inherent evils of the communist system. The widespread use of torture, the prodigious amounts of forced labor (aka slavery), the famines cause for forced collectivization of farm land, the total deprivation of political and economic freedoms. Why this keeps getting overlooked is a complete mystery to me.

 

[russ_watters]

...and liberals are running away from that label as fast as they can now calling themselves 'Progressive'.

Unless I misread and/or to clarify: Liberals are re-branding the word "liberal" as "progressive". Mainstream liberals have never self-labeled themselves "communists"!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

A liberal is a multidimensional object confined to a point on a line.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I would think it has just as much, if not more to do with the inherent evils of the communist system. The widespread use of torture, the prodigious amounts of forced labor (aka slavery), the famines cause for forced collectivization of farm land, the total deprivation of political and economic freedoms. Why this keeps getting overlooked is a complete mystery to me.

Interesting use of phrase, as written it would seem you are saying these things are a necessary aspect of communism rather than something communist countries have done. The distinction is important.

 

[Andre]

...the famines cause for forced collectivization of farm land, ...

Another factor worsening the famines is Lysenkoism where Stalin decided to believe the crackpottery of Lysenko over the scientific basics about genetics. Opponents were simply eliminated. An excellent case study for sociology.

 

[phinds]

This is wrong, only Marxism–Leninism and other shades has been shown to not work.

The clear implication of that statement is that there are forms of communism that HAVE been shown to work. Please provide references.

 

[russ_watters]

Meh - most communists and socialists I've come in contact with will begrudgingly acknowledge that no forms/incarnations of communism have been shown to work. But they will say that that doesn't preclude the possibility that there could be ways to make it work and that statement doesn't preclude that possibility.

 

[lisab]

Meh - most communists and socialists I've come in contact with will begrudgingly acknowledge that no forms/incarnations of communism have been shown to work. But they will say that that doesn't preclude the possibility that there could be ways to make it work and that statement doesn't preclude that possibility.

Perhaps on a small scale it could work. I've often heard reference to Israeli Kibbutz used as examples of successful communist communities. But those are very small communities -- protected by a government with a strong military.

 

[chemisttree]

Is this really representative?

Yes, I believe so. There is a Congressional Progressive Caucus but, as far as I know, there isn't one that identifies itself as Liberal.

More importantly, does it add anything to the discussion or is it just a random attempt to associate liberals with cowardice?

Does it add anything to the discussion? I think so. You want to demonstrate just how taboo Communism is in America? Liberals are avoiding even that label (liberal) and calling themselves 'Progressive'. This has nothing to do with cowardice.

Unless I misread and/or to clarify: Liberals are re-branding the word "liberal" as "progressive". Mainstream liberals have never self-labeled themselves "communists"!

That's right.

 

[Ken Natton]

... as written it would seem you are saying these things are a necessary aspect of communism rather than something communist countries have done. The distinction is important.

This, it seems to me, is the heart of the point. I am unconvinced that Communism, as envisaged by Marx, has ever actually been practiced. The Soviet Union and China certainly never did. But that doesn’t mean that I think that, if it ever were practiced in line with Marx’s vision that it would work. The fundamental reasons cited why the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe failed, and why China has now embraced an essentially capitalist approach whatever the claims it may make to the contrary, are true. Fundamentally, human nature is, essentially, selfish. We won’t work in the interests of a collective as we will work for ourselves. That’s the reality. And the whole point about white elephant industries producing products that nobody wants also holds true. Whatever the materialistic self-interest of capitalism, the reality is that open competition is what makes lean, efficient industries that make products that improve people’s lives, not to mention generate wealth. I don’t mean to shout the praises of capitalism, it has it faults too, but unfortunately, it has proven to be the best of the alternatives.

But all of that doesn’t really address the OP’s question, which was about communism being taboo in America. I also would not have chosen the word taboo. To me, the word that best sums up the USA’s relationship with communism is paranoia. Has the USA really got over its paranoia about communism or has it just gone quiet because the apparent threat has receded? I cannot escape the feeling that it is the latter case. Perhaps it doesn’t matter. Maybe it never will return as a serious political force. But if it did…

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes, I believe so. There is a Congressional Progressive Caucus but, as far as I know, there isn't one that identifies itself as Liberal.

Ah, so I guess by "now", you mean since 1991? I thought you meant more recently.

Does it add anything to the discussion? I think so. You want to demonstrate just how taboo Communism is in America? Liberals are avoiding even that label (liberal) and calling themselves 'Progressive'. This has nothing to do with cowardice.
.

That doesn't sound like a legitimate argument to me. Help me with your premises and conclusions here:

P1. Liberals are running from the word liberal

C. therefore communism is taboo in America

 

[Goodison_Lad]

The clear implication of that statement is that there are forms of communism that HAVE been shown to work. Please provide references.

I don't think that follows at all. Somebody saying that only X has been shown not to work does not neceassarily imply that they think Y has been shown to work.

The statement is also consistent with only X having been tried, and therefore only X having been testable. It is also consistent with both X and Y have been tried, but only X has been subjected to testing, and found to have failed.

The triumphalist 'Communism has failed' assertion is interesting, as is the statement 'Capitalism has failed - if you're poor'.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The triumphalist 'Communism has failed' assertion is interesting, as is the statement 'Capitalism has failed - if you're poor'.

Only that in Capitalism it's often the case that people fail themselves rather than the monetary system failing you. In Communism, you don't even get the chance to fail yourself, the system does it for you right off the bat.

 

[Goodison_Lad]

Only that in Capitalism it's often the case that people fail themselves rather than the monetary system failing you. In Communism, you don't even get the chance to fail yourself, the system does it for you right off the bat.

Possibly - but it's an argument that all too many would find attractive to blame the disadvantaged for their circumstances - a nasty trait among us humans.

In capitalism you have the system whereby wealth, and hence unearned and unmerited advantage, is transferrable. All too often we're encouraged by the undeserving rich to swallow the myth that 'successful' people are purely self-made.

 

[Pythagorean]

Greg, how do you quantify who's fault it is that somebody is failing in different systems, or do you just mean that that was the ideal? It seems that practices in the US has (twice now) caused lots of failures globally with risky monetary practices, the latest fad being risky derivative markets practiced by "too big to fail" financial institutions.

Many economists think the financial institutions should be broken up (or regulated) so all the eggs aren't in one basket because it gives them too much control over global economy, but many economists doubt that politicians will ever actually see that through.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Possibly - but it's an argument that all too many would find attractive to blame the disadvantaged for their circumstances - a nasty trait among us humans.

I would never blame the handicapped for their circumstances.

In capitalism you have the system whereby wealth, and hence unearned and unmerited advantage, is transferrable. All too often we're encouraged by the undeserving rich to swallow the myth that 'successful' people are purely self-made.

Yes there are problems with Capitalism. It is a system of winners and losers. A lot like life in general. If you have a better idea then please share. Communism has failed. My grandfather was truly dirt poor. He had to steal coal from a train car just to keep warm in winter. Then he ended up orphaned for several years. Long story short, he joined the navy, got educated, built an electronics business and now lives a very comfortable middle class retirement.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Greg, how do you quantify who's fault it is that somebody is failing in different systems, or do you just mean that that was the ideal? It seems that practices in the US has (twice now) caused lots of failures globally with risky monetary practices, the latest fad being risky derivative markets practiced by "too big to fail" financial institutions.

As an ideal yes. Capitalism is far from perfect, as is democracy. But they've gotten us further than any other known system could have. Just look at history. I agree there should be serious reforms.

Many economists think the financial institutions should be broken up (or regulated) so all the eggs aren't in one basket because it gives them too much control over global economy, but many economists doubt that politicians will ever actually see that through.

Everything seems to be fixable, but there is a severe lack of leadership and "will" to do what is right. I'm reading a booked called "Republic Lost" and it explains how even congressmen with the best of intentions are "unconsciously" influenced by money on a systematic level.

 

[russ_watters]

In capitalism you have the system whereby wealth, and hence unearned and unmerited advantage, is transferrable.

Someone at some point had to earn it. Regardless, this is inheritance you're talking about. Though I hear the sentiment a lot, I really don't understand why people would be so against the idea that parents can provide for their children by giving their possessions to them when they die. That's not a bad thing, it is a good thing!

All too often we're encouraged by the undeserving rich to swallow the myth that 'successful' people are purely self-made.

Some are self-made and some aren't. So what? Why does any of this matter?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

why people would be so against the idea that parents can provide for their children by giving their possessions to them when they die. That's not a bad thing, it is a good thing!

It can be a very bad thing. Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian. If anything these two fine ladies have helped destroy an entire generation :D

 

[Ken Natton]

Possibly - but it's an argument that all too many would find attractive to blame the disadvantaged for their circumstances - a nasty trait among us humans.

In capitalism you have the system whereby wealth, and hence unearned and unmerited advantage, is transferrable. All too often we're encouraged by the undeserving rich to swallow the myth that 'successful' people are purely self-made.

The principles of liberal democracy are perfectly comfortable with the fact that some people are wealthier than others. It is not about blaming the poor for their circumstances or crediting the rich with theirs. Those principles only require that the opportunity to improve your own circumstance is available to all. The actual reality falls well short of that ideal, but any liberal democracy worthy of the name strives towards a utopia where that opportunity is universally available, not to a utopia where all wealth is evenly distributed.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Regardless, this is inheritance you're talking about. Though I hear the sentiment a lot, I really don't understand why people would be so against the idea that parents can provide for their children by giving their possessions to them when they die.

The reasons given for the inheritance tax are well known. Do you mean to say that you haven't heard them, or that you heard them but didn't understand them?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

It is not about blaming the poor for their circumstances or crediting the rich with theirs. Those principles only require that the opportunity to improve your own circumstance is available to all.

This is very well said. I need to remember it!

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The reasons given for the inheritance tax are well known. Do you mean to say that you haven't heard them, or that you heard them but didn't understand them?

I don't believe Russ said anything about a tax. Furthermore, are you claiming that the estate tax is working in preventing the perpetuation of wealth? Old money has dried up?

 

[Pythagorean]

As an ideal yes. Capitalism is far from perfect, as is democracy. But they've gotten us further than any other known system could have. Just look at history. I agree there should be serious reforms.

There's no doubt capitalism is the most successful system so far, it's allowed us to achieve many great things. I just wanted to point out that it still allows plenty of power abuse, it just distributes the power abuse to rich citizens and powerful corporations.

Everything seems to be fixable, but there is a severe lack of leadership and "will" to do what is right. I'm reading a booked called "Republic Lost" and it explains how even congressmen with the best of intentions are "unconsciously" influenced by money on a systematic level.

Yeah; on the one hand, financial institutions give government lots of power to do what the officials perceive as "right". On the other, it creates unspoken expectations.

 

[russ_watters]

The reasons given for the inheritance tax are well known. Do you mean to say that you haven't heard them, or that you heard them but didn't understand them?

I didn't mention the inheritance tax.

 

[russ_watters]

I just wanted to point out that it still allows plenty of power abuse, it just distributes the power abuse to rich citizens and powerful corporations.

Due to the much larger numbers on the lower end, there is also "power abuse" on that end as well.

 

[russ_watters]

It can be a very bad thing. Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian. If anything these two fine ladies have helped destroy an entire generation :D

True, and some rich kids fail out of their fancy prep schools too. But I think you know what I mean: I was (or rather: I think Goodison Lad was) talking about the rightness or wrongness of allowing parents to give money (or the results of it) to their kids in general.

 

[CAC1001]

There is no perfect system, and never will be, because of human nature. Capitalism, when combined with liberal democracy and a free-market, is the system that functions the least badly out of the alternatives. Socialism/communism fails due to the system itself. Even if the people running said socialist system had hearts of gold (which they won't), the system would still fail. Market capitalism, on the other hand, when it fails, is more due to human nature, usually greed and fear. If all humans had hearts of gold in a market capitalist system, the system would probably function nearly flawlessly. No one would try to rip anyone else off, and no one would have to worry about any companies producing unsafe products or anything.

There's no doubt capitalism is the most successful system so far, it's allowed us to achieve many great things. I just wanted to point out that it still allows plenty of power abuse, it just distributes the power abuse to rich citizens and powerful corporations.

Communism distributes all the power to a rich elite as well. But power abuse can be done by workers as well, via unions for example.

 

[Andre]

There is no perfect system, and never will be,...

Likely so, however I would tend to recommend the polder model

 

[Goodison_Lad]

True, and some rich kids fail out of their fancy prep schools too. But I think you know what I mean: I was (or rather: I think Goodison Lad was) talking about the rightness or wrongness of allowing parents to give money (or the results of it) to their kids in general.

Not quite, actually. I can't imagine any parent not wanting to give their children every possible advantage.

I'm really trying to say that capitalism often gets an uncritical round of applause, especially when mentioned in the same sentence as communism. As has been pointed out in this thread, linked to the concept of capitalism in many people's minds is the notion of meritocracy - anyone can do it if they try hard enough. My point about the heritability of wealth and power is that this is a huge divergence from that assumed ideal. On paper, there are no concrete, mile-high barriers written in law preventing a very poor kid from becoming President of the USA or Prime Minister of the UK. But the statistics say it is unlikley. Less so if you're rich.

Now I just happen to believe it is wrong to imply that everybody has an equal chance when they patently don't. I also find it annoying when the lucky in life's lottery claim merit rather than chance as the reason for being a winner. To acknowledge the role of luck is to recognise the myth that pure hard work and 'merit' are all that count.

Some say 'so what'? I just happen to hold dear the idea of fairness. Some don't. It's true that capitalism has delivered high GDP, innovation etc. But it has also delivered colossal inequalities. A not uncommon characteristic of the winners is to ascribe negative characteristics to the losers (lazy, feckless etc.). This elevates the blamer.

And contrary to the belief of some, capitalism itself has often failed. The list of its failures is long. Just look at some of the Eurozone now.

 

[russ_watters]

Not quite, actually. I can't imagine any parent not wanting to give their children every possible advantage.

Ok...

I'm really trying to say that capitalism often gets an uncritical round of applause, especially when mentioned in the same sentence as communism.

Generally, a single sentence is too short for full treatment of an idea, so only the short short version is stated: capitalism has been shown to work, communism hasn't. Don't make the mistake of assuming someone who says that believes capitalism to be flawless -- quite obviously it isn't, since there is no pure capitalist system out there.

As has been pointed out in this thread, linked to the concept of capitalism in many people's minds is the notion of meritocracy - anyone can do it if they try hard enough. My point about the heritability of wealth and power is that this is a huge divergence from that assumed ideal. On paper, there are no concrete, mile-high barriers written in law preventing a very poor kid from becoming President of the USA or Prime Minister of the UK. But the statistics say it is unlikley. Less so if you're rich.

You're making a classic mistake here. The fact that a rich kid who's parents all but grant success exists does not prevent a poor kid from achieving it on his own. The existence of the rich kid is not a barrier to the success of the poor kid.

Now I just happen to believe it is wrong to imply that everybody has an equal chance when they patently don't.

I've never seen anyone say that everyone has equal chance to succeed, but I've seen plenty of people react as if they'd heard it. Don't read into things people don't say.

The problem with you attacking an argument no one has forwarded is the attitude that comes with it. Young people make decisions that are like bets on their future. Betting on success doesn't guarantee success and betting on failure doesn't guarantee failure, but just placing the bet alters the odds of the game. Someone who bets on (attempts to achieve) success is much more likely to achieve it than one who doesn't. And someone who bets on failure is highly likely to achieve that.

Bringing up that the odds aren't equal when no one suggested they were implies a defeatist attitude that is self-destructive.

And contrary to the belief of some, capitalism itself has often failed. The list of its failures is long. Just look at some of the Eurozone now.

The Eurozone countries are pretty mixed and it seems clear to me that it is their socialistic policies, not their capitalistic ones that are causing the failures.

In any case, none of this addresses my question: You said:

In capitalism you have the system whereby wealth, and hence unearned and unmerited advantage, is transferrable.

So what? Are you saying it should not be? Saying it and implying it is a bad thing appears to be suggesting it should not be allowed. And no, that first quote does not address the question. You acknowledge that parents would want to transfer their wealth, but do not address if they should be allowed to.

 

[russ_watters]

Even if the people running said socialist system had hearts of gold (which they won't), the system would still fail.

I've actually never heard that before: can you explain why? I had always thought that if all people had hearts of gold, they would fit into the roles the communist system defined for them and not rebel against the lack of reward for merit, allowing communism to be stable/functional...

Market capitalism, on the other hand, when it fails, is more due to human nature, usually greed and fear. If all humans had hearts of gold in a market capitalist system, the system would probably function nearly flawlessly. No one would try to rip anyone else off, and no one would have to worry about any companies producing unsafe products or anything.

...and on the flip side, I think capitalism harnesses human nature of greed. I think almost any system can be stable if people buy-in to it and cooperate, almost by definition. What sets capitalism apart is that a little greed/competitiveness/individualism doesn't tend to lead to destruction of the system like in so many other systems. Indeed, my criticism of your description is exactly the same as Goodson Lad's characterization: too much cooperation will lead to people accepting lower roles than they need to, resulting in lower achievement than could otherwise be possible. This wouldn't necessarily cause society to be unstable, but it would cause society to fail to achieve as much as it could. And that is the risk I see with the current path of Western politics, even if we set aside the possibility of financial collapse that appears to exist because of underfunded promises.

 

[daveb]

...and on the flip side, I think capitalism harnesses human nature of greed. I think almost any system can be stable if people buy-in to it and cooperate, almost by definition. What sets capitalism apart is that a little greed/competitiveness/individualism doesn't tend to lead to destruction of the system like in so many other systems. Indeed, my criticism of your description is exactly the same as Goodson Lad's characterization: too much cooperation will lead to people accepting lower roles than they need to, resulting in lower achievement than could otherwise be possible. This wouldn't necessarily cause society to be unstable, but it would cause society to fail to achieve as much as it could. And that is the risk I see with the current path of Western politics, even if we set aside the possibility of financial collapse that appears to exist because of underfunded promises.

You may have hit the nail on the head here. I've always felt that those who espouse capitalism take a more pragmatic approach to economic systems since human nature tends towards greed. Those who espouse socialism (assuming they aren't in it for thir own power grab, which many are) seem more idealistic, intent on seeing the world as it ought to be rather than as it is. In a perfect world, where you won't starve, you'll have all the nice things you want, and no one desires power over another, you can pursue the future you want. If you want to write Vogon poetry and that's how you define success, you can. The problem is, there can never be a perect world since there will always be some who want that economic competition - this is how they define success. Hence, capitalism is more pragmatic.

Oh, and I really wish people would stop confusing communism with socialism or lumping them together - they are two different beasts (no, I'm not accusing you Russ).

 

[CAC1001]

Some say 'so what'? I just happen to hold dear the idea of fairness.

How do you define "fairness?"

Some don't. It's true that capitalism has delivered high GDP, innovation etc. But it has also delivered colossal inequalities.

Market capitalism is the system that has delivered colossal equalities, not inequalities. In market capitalist systems, people are unequally rich. In socialism/communism, they are equally poor.

 

[Goodison_Lad]

How do you define "fairness?"


Market capitalism is the system that has delivered colossal equalities, not inequalities. In market capitalist systems, people are unequally rich. In socialism/communism, they are equally poor.

Everybody would have their own idea. How do you define it? In a general way, I'd like to think kids born to poorer families had exactly the same chance as the rich kids to get a top job, live in a great house, live beyond the age of 70 etc. But the fact is that they don't have the same chance. They might do it, but the odds are heavily in favour of the rich. They can buy the private tutor, send their child to an exclusive school, pay for all the enrichment activities, school trips etc.

Now I might well be told either that this isn't true or that it is true, but unavoidable in the real world. The former is simple nonesense and doesn't stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny; the latter might be true. But I don't think it is.

I wouldn't have thought that living on the breadline in an inner city feels 'unequally rich'. That idea would get hollow laughs if put to the poorest 10% in the US or UK.

Poverty has a relative and an absolute form. I suppose the absolute level could be taken as the threshold whereby you have enough to feed and house yourself (though again no two people will agree). Relative poverty (which has a very strong correlation with, among other things, inequalities in life expectancy) is real and important. Excessive inequalities have a corrosive effect on the poor - at least as great, if not greater than, actual GDP per capita.

 

[Goodison_Lad]

The fact that a rich kid who's parents all but grant success exists does not prevent a poor kid from achieving it on his own. The existence of the rich kid is not a barrier to the success of the poor kid.

If the prizes on offer were unlimited, this might conceivably be possible. But they’re not. For example, top universities are limited in the number of places they offer – therefore if rich kids have elbowed their way in then this clearly presents a barrier to poor kids.

I've never seen anyone say that everyone has equal chance to succeed, but I've seen plenty of people react as if they'd heard it.

Are you seriously suggesting that the illusion of meritocracy isn’t cultivated by the powerful?

Don't read into things people don't say. The problem with you attacking an argument no one has forwarded is the attitude that comes with it.

Well, the context of the OP is around how communism is viewed in the US. I’m hardly the first person to pick up on the communism vs capitalism debate. It strikes me that communism’s relationship to capitalism is entirely pertinent to how communism might be viewed in the US. And it is a commonly expressed view that capitalism is held to have won because communism failed. Therefore capitalism is seen to have won and is seen as working. I’m merely picking up on this comment.
And so I decided to explore an area where I think capitalism, also, patently doesn’t work. And in thinking about the area where ‘successful’ capitalism fails the citizens, it is entirely reasonable to discuss an example e.g. how wealth confers unearned advantage. Any perception of communism will almost invariably invite comparisons with capitalism. So I made one. Surely I don’t have to sit here waiting for somebody else to bring it up first, or ask permission to do so?
I have simply expressed my views. That they are perceived and breezily portrayed by you as representing an ‘attitude’ is regrettable.

Young people make decisions that are like bets on their future. Betting on success doesn't guarantee success and betting on failure doesn't guarantee failure, but just placing the bet alters the odds of the game. Someone who bets on (attempts to achieve) success is much more likely to achieve it than one who doesn't. And someone who bets on failure is highly likely to achieve that.

You can place as many bets as you like, but only once you’re allowed into the casino. And to torture the metaphor a bit more, some are playing with loaded dice.

Bringing up that the odds aren't equal when no one suggested they were implies a defeatist attitude that is self-destructive.

Lest you read into something I haven’t said, I consider myself neither defeatist nor to have a self-destructive streak. Perhaps I misread this part.

The Eurozone countries are pretty mixed and it seems clear to me that it is their socialistic policies, not their capitalistic ones that are causing the failures.

I’m not too sure what you mean by ‘socialistic’ policies are – I suspect they’ll be diluted versions of the same ones operated perfectly well in Scandinavian Europe, which enjoys GDP per capita on a par, or even greater than, the US and UK, and with welfare and educations systems that are considered to be much superior.
The world financial crisis has been brought about by the egregious misbehaviour of some of the West’s financial institutions, leaving many governments at the mercy of the bond markets. A purely capitalist catastrophe. The UK came perilously close to disaster, with only direct central government intervention preventing financial meltdown at a cost of many hundreds of billions of pounds to the taxpayer. Likewise, the US government is pouring staggering sums of money into the economy in an attempt to get it going. Whether either government is doing the right thing is beside the point – what we have is a private sector mess being cleared up by public sector governments.
If governments have anything to be blamed for (and they do) it’s for allowing financial institutions the free hand they’ve had for the last 30 years.
The rich aren’t getting the fallout – it’s the poor. As usual. Now communism, as exemplified by the Soviet Union etc., may well have failed in many ways (although many have argued that those systems were far from communist). But while thinking about how communism is viewed, the track record of capitalism in some areas merits consideration alongside it.

In any case, none of this addresses my question: You said: So what? Are you saying it should not be? Saying it and implying it is a bad thing appears to be suggesting it should not be allowed. And no, that first quote does not address the question. You acknowledge that parents would want to transfer their wealth, but do not address if they should be allowed to.

This issue goes to the heart of many problems. Individuals will want to behave, quite naturally, in ways that maximise benefit both to themselves and their families. However, there can be little doubt that, if there is to be a free and equal society, the distorting effects of generational advantage have to be somehow moderated. Inheritance tax, for example.
Interventions by the state that override individual wishes are commonplace – governments generally don’t give people the free choice whether or not to pay taxes, obey the speed limit and so on. The thinking is that there can be a greater good than individual freedom.
Otherwise you simply can’t have a free and equal society. Not that everybody wants one.

 

[CAC1001]

I've actually never heard that before: can you explain why? I had always thought that if all people had hearts of gold, they would fit into the roles the communist system defined for them and not rebel against the lack of reward for merit, allowing communism to be stable/functional...

The reason a communist/socialist system would fail is because it is still a centrally-planned economic system. You have a central authority trying to decide how to ration scarce resources throughout the economy and determine what to produce. But this works badly for a few reasons:

1) Such a system assumes that everything has a set, fixed value, or price. But they don't. Prices are always fluctuating. And there are millions and millions of them, and they all are interconnected. In a free-market system, if the price of steel fluctuates, millions of other prices fluctuate automatically in response to this price fluctuation of steel. However, whenever every single one of those millions of other prices fluctuates in response to steel, millions of other prices respond to each of those millions of price changes. To a group of central planners, this thus makes it impossible to be able to ration the resources throughout the economy. They'd have to be able to centrally calculate millions of prices and then the millions of price changes for each of those price changes, and so on.

2) No ability to gauge demand. Without a market, there would be no way for the central planners to figure out how much of each material to ration, or how much of what to produce. For example, how many sneakers for the national sneaker supply? And what types of sneakers? What sizes for each sneaker? What colors and designs? With a market, whenever people buy a product, they are casting a vote for it. But with a Soviet-style socialist system, the government is just supposed to produce the stuff and issue it.

Another reason communism/socialism will fail is that a form of capitalist system will spring up within it. Let's assume that such a system is able to actually produce all the things it promises, and people actually get issued all sorts of stuff each month. Fruits, vegetables, meats, cheeses, clothing, toothpaste, soap, toys, etc...everything is produced plentifully by the government, and each person or family gets a ration each month. The problem is that people being people, even if they have hearts of gold, will still engage in trade. Maybe one person wants more oranges and another person wants another pair of shoes, so they decide to trade. This trade would lead to a miniature market capitalist system forming under the noses of the communist system.

One other thing, but people having hearts of gold I don't know if that means people will just accept the job issued them by the government. By heart of gold, I just meant such people will do nothing to directly harm anyone else. It doesn't mean however that they will be motivated to do their job and work very hard, and that they won't resent having a job they don't like.

...and on the flip side, I think capitalism harnesses human nature of greed. I think almost any system can be stable if people buy-in to it and cooperate, almost by definition. What sets capitalism apart is that a little greed/competitiveness/individualism doesn't tend to lead to destruction of the system like in so many other systems. Indeed, my criticism of your description is exactly the same as Goodson Lad's characterization: too much cooperation will lead to people accepting lower roles than they need to, resulting in lower achievement than could otherwise be possible. This wouldn't necessarily cause society to be unstable, but it would cause society to fail to achieve as much as it could. And that is the risk I see with the current path of Western politics, even if we set aside the possibility of financial collapse that appears to exist because of underfunded promises.

No doubt that market capitalism works to the degree that it does while socialism/communism fails due to human nature as well. Market capitalism sets up the incentives where greed and self-interest of people lead to the overall benefit of everyone, whereas with the other systems it does the precise opposite.

However, I think that people can very much have hearts of gold and still be competitive, it's just it would be a friendly competition. Self-interest is not the same as ruthless selfishness and greed. You wouldn't find such companies suing other companies for frivolous reasons solely to try and run them out of business, you wouldn't have to worry about businesses lobbying the government for corrupt purposes, there would be no concern about businesses polluting the environment if they don't have to or creating unsafe products, or of mistreating workers with unsafe working conditions or excessive work hours. Such a system could even lead to society achieving more if the people were devoted to working hard and producing and building great things, as opposed to just raw making money.

 

[russ_watters]

Missed this before:

It's true that capitalism has delivered high GDP, innovation etc. But it has also delivered colossal inequalities.

While this is factually accurate as stated, the implication that it is a bad thing implies something that is factually inaccurate (or at best a misleading matter of perspective): that inequality is bad for those on the lower end. But that's a matter of a poorly chosen reference frame. Sure, the poor in the US/West are worse off than the rich, but if the question is whether capitalism has failed them, you must compare the poor in the US/West to the poor in countries that don't have capitalism. And in that comparison it is easy enough to see that the "colossal inequalities" also exist between the Western poor and those of the rest of the world. Western poor live in a state of luxury that is simply unfathomable to most of the rest of the world. And I do mean that literally. A former boss of mine took in a couple of Vietnamese orphans a couple of decades ago and they may as well have been dropped in from another planet, how little they could comprehend of the lifestyle they fell into. My boss told me that when they first arrived, the refrigerator was such a spectacular thing that they just stood in front of it opening and closing it for several minutes straight. Not only was it unfathomable to have this big machine that kept food cold, it was also unfathomable just to have a big box full of food! Naturally, the supermarket caused somewhat of a sensory overload the first time they went to one.

The point is, while it is true that western capitalism has caused large inequities internally, it has also created such vast quantities of wealth that even the "have nots" live vastly better in the West than is average for the rest of the world. Given a vote by choice of which condition they would prefer living in, I rather suspect almost everyone would vote that inequality is better than equality.