How do I know capitalism is more evil than socialism?

[avevale_intelligencer]

I'll tell you. Capitalism, in its purest form, has no innate mechanism to ensure fairness. Socialism, in its purest form, is about nothing else.

(Don't, by the way, mistake purges and censorship and secret police and revisionist history and all the old trappings of Soviet state communism for integral and inevitable concomitants of socialism. They're not. Capitalism can and will use them just as effectively, even while bidding you exult in how free you are.)

autopope remarked in a comment to a comment that Leninism (which I take to be an extreme form of socialism) and libertarianism (WITTB an extreme form of capitalism) are both founded on a highly idealised view of human beings and how they should interact, and I think that's true. But capitalism doesn't care.

I've heard advocates of capitalism saying that it all evens out, that the free market ensures fair prices for well-made goods and a fair day's work for a fair day's pay and so on. These are, of course, the same people who, when you suffer misfortune, will brace you up by reminding you cheerfully that nobody ever told you life was fair. The free market, in its most basic form, is like a piranha tank--the only way to survive is to be a piranha. It's perfectly fair--for piranhas.

This is not to say that people aren't good, or that it's not possible to be a capitalist and be good. Of course it is, and of course they are, mostly. This is merely to compare the potential for goodness in the system. Capitalism does not of itself reward goodness. Socialism does its best to enforce it.

Neither system is perfect. We don't have that one yet. But of the two, capitalism is the more evil.

This post brought to you by horrible heartburn which has kept me awake for the past few hours.

Comments

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

Capitalism and Socialism are both economic theories. Capitalism advocates private ownership of the means of production and socialism advocates the social ownership, which can mean a variety of things, of the means of production.

Communism is a more extreme form of socialism which in theory would be a classless, moneyless and stateless society with communal ownership of most or all significant resources. Leninism is a strand of Communism which basically says it is okay for the party elite to enforce this on people who don't like the idea because it is for their own good. From previous comments you have made I would say you are possibly a rather unorthodox communist but unlikely to be a leninist.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy not an economic one. It is basically an opposition to authority and as such includes such trends as anarchists. Libertarians can lean toward capitalism or socialism or even communism although most of the louder ones in the US seem to be laisse faire capitalists.

Neither Capitalist nor Socialist theory is evil although followers of both can be. Fairness and good are very nebulous concepts and can mean widely different things to different people looking at the same problem. if you mean that properly implemented socialism tends to distribute wealth more evenly than capitalism then I would agree with you.

Soory about the heartburn and I hope nothing in this comment contributes to making it worse.

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

Was this comment intended to address something I said? If so I think I am missing the point.

[howeird]

Sorry. moved it to where it belonged.

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

It's always seemed to me that "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" is an excellent idea, if only someone could find a way of implementing it. Socialism at least attempts this, capitalism does not.

[billroper]

I don't think that humanity (as currently constituted) is capable of instituting this policy. Once group units become sufficiently large, getting people to contribute according to their ability becomes problematic, as they start to fall into the "what's in it for me?" attitude.

Of course, you can induce them to do so by giving them incentives to do so, but positive incentives reward them in excess of their need, while negative incentives tend toward the gulag and 1984.

We're a cussed species...

(And overall, I sort of like us that way.)

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

I think you're probably right. It's a nice ideal to aim towards, but we're not going to reach it. Not just "what's in it for me?" but "the others aren't, so why should I?"

I'll carry on using it as a guide to personal economic ethics (rather from "from each" than "to each" in my case), but applying it more widely would require an accurate, agreed method of measuring both need and ability, and that isn't likely to happen any time soon.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure we're capable.

More to the point, I think this is one of those ideals that if we couldn't reach it, we'd be much better off not trying. False hope is a killer, and lays one open to treachery; people have been promised new hope time and time again, and too often it's just been the prelude to worse suffering. Better behave like the jungle predators we've decided we are and forget about any pretence at justice or equality.

I'm glad I don't believe that.

[billroper]

But, of course, I didn't say that.

What I said was that in larger systems, people (on average) do not tend to respond with their best work ethic when there's no reward for doing so. This tends to result in lower productivity and less wealth available to be distributed to meet everyone's "needs".

That's a difficult bit of human nature to change. It isn't immediately clear whether we'd be better or worse off if we did change it.

All that said, I recall that I owe you money, vice Mr. Sutton, so we need to figure out how I can best pay you. :)

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

That would be nice. :) I do Paypal...

[billroper]

I can do that. Can you drop me an e-mail at my last name at filker dot com and we can sort out the details?

Thanks!

[howeird]

*comment moved from where it should not have been*
Every time Socialism has been tried, it has been put in place by someone(s) who wanted to be Top Piranha.

And when each is left to do "according to their abilities" some will do, but many will work the system.

And over time, Animal Farm happens.

[pickledginger.livejournal.com]

Whatever the system, some people will try to work it, and if they are not gently reined in, the whole thing will tend to go *kerblooey*. In the history of H. sap so far, that is. One does hope ...

[michael cule (from livejournal.com)]

"Every time Socialism has been tried, it has been put in place by someone(s) who wanted to be Top Piranha."

I'm fairly sure that's bollocks.

Because the most socialist government we ever had, whose achievements the Tories continue to try to tear down, was the 1945 Labour administration.

And there is no way I can imagine Clement Atlee as any sort of piranha, let alone a top one.

[howeird]

here is no way I can imagine Clement Atlee as any sort of piranha, let alone a top one
I stand corrected. Thank you.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I like the idea of rewarding effort and good ideas that make people's lives better. I'm concerned that most iterations of socialism I know of don't do a very good job of that.

I like the idea of making sure nobody suffers for lack of something they need. I'm concerned that most iterations of capitalism I know of don't do a very good job of that.

I'm having a hard time coming up with a theoretical system that makes both happen for the maximum number of people. But I agree bared-teeth capitalism doesn't seem to be working very well. I do seem to recall having read that, for example, Denmark and Sweden do better. Perhaps we could learn from them.

I hope your heartburn gets better soon.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

My soc. professor held up Sweden as a model of a different system from the US. It's quite appealing.

[batyatoon]

This is pretty much what I was going to say.

Honestly I think it is possible to combine the best aspects of capitalism and socialism without having too much of the worst aspects of either. This only works, though, if you don't think that the basic tenets of either are its worst aspects.