Communism and Capitalism: apples and oranges

[mcompengr]

The thesis here is that there is and has been only one economic system throughout all of human history, namely: free trade and enterprise.  Differences between the various implementations has involved such things as regulation and control of free trade (and the funding of government).  Capitalism would be an advanced free trade technology, a collection of free trade strategies, and not a form of government.  Communism fails because it would replace free trade with....nothing. 
 

[waitforufo]

No they are both apples, with communism being a road apple.

[Phi for All]

I disagree. I'm not sure any modern society can exist without a bit of each in its makeup, including socialism. Any society that tries to use one economic tool to the exclusion of the other two is destined to fail, imo (and history seems to back me up). There are very good reasons why ownership should be private, or held by the citizenry, or held by the state.

Personally, I think it's important for a society to choose areas where profit shouldn't be the priority. It's equally important to make sure that private ownership and the markets that drive it are fair. And yes, there are even areas where state ownership is the best solution. Natural monopolies are often best controlled by a communist, state-owned approach. 

I like to use the example of the penal system. Imo, this is something that should NOT be profit-focused, individually owned, capitalist oriented. In the US, this has led to a quota system that is good at growing the business of crime, which is the opposite of fighting crime. The penal system should be maintained and run by the People or the State. 

 

[Endy0816]

It wouldn't have been so bad, had the planners been better.

Market only wants supply and demand to meet. It really doesn't care how that is made to happen.

Didn't help that they were pursuing autarky at the same time. If you aren't doing what you are best at you'll lose ground. 

[Roamer]

4 hours ago, mcompengr said:

The thesis here is that there is and has been only one economic system throughout all of human history, namely: free trade and enterprise. 

Why not just call it economy if there has been only one system ever ??

4 hours ago, mcompengr said:

and not a form of government. 

forms of govt are democracy, electorate, dictatorship, oligarchy, republic, though generally you 'll see a mixture of these.

capitalism, socialism and communism are systems of logistics; aka how is the market satisfied/supplied.

[Ten oz]

16 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I disagree. I'm not sure any modern society can exist without a bit of each in its makeup, including socialism. Any society that tries to use one economic tool to the exclusion of the other two is destined to fail, imo (and history seems to back me up). There are very good reasons why ownership should be private, or held by the citizenry, or held by the state.

Personally, I think it's important for a society to choose areas where profit shouldn't be the priority. It's equally important to make sure that private ownership and the markets that drive it are fair. And yes, there are even areas where state ownership is the best solution. Natural monopolies are often best controlled by a communist, state-owned approach. 

I like to use the example of the penal system. Imo, this is something that should NOT be profit-focused, individually owned, capitalist oriented. In the US, this has led to a quota system that is good at growing the business of crime, which is the opposite of fighting crime. The penal system should be maintained and run by the People or the State. 

 

Every society in history has failed; economic model notwithstanding. How the success of a economic model is measured is purely relative. Hundreds of years from now people might look back at present day with dusgust over our unsustainable use of resources and destruction of the environment. The Rapa Nui probably thought they had a good system in place at one point. What we see as an economic model promoting compitetion, ownership, and growth most certainly will be viewed differently in the future just as all things are: manifest destiny, slavery, etc.

I believe any economic system can work. I don't think a specific type of model can promote happiness or satisfaction in a society. People must want it to work. Communism, Socialism, Captialism, even a barter system could all work if society embraced it. Ultimately the amount of time, resources, and brain power are equal within any system. The challange is motivating people to be productive. Thoroughout history that motivation has come in a lot of different forms. War has been a very productive motivator. In many ways the economic model of a nation during war most closely resembles communism inthat resources are devoted to the state. In the U.S. we call those who fought WW2 the Greatest Generation. During WW2 factories where turned our to the govt to build military equipment, people were drafted, resources rationed, and etc. Things we wouldn't accpet today. We do not look back on that time period as negative at all. As a society we (U.S.) wanted to make it work. Commitment serving as the most important factor. Fast forward to Vietnam and society wasn't committed. The sacrificed of a daft and govt spending weren't embraced and as a result the time periof is veiwed negatively. How a society feels about what is happening matters nearly much as what is actually happening.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Ten oz
Formatting

[EdEarl]

I think the OP has hit the target, but missed the bulls eye.

There are similarities in all cultures and the goals of most cultures are similar. After all, we are all human and share the same needs.

One thing common to all societies and cultures is leadership and rulers. Leaders among small groups may be an informal position based on personal relationships with every member of the group. In this situation a leader may emerge who is smart and confident, or perhaps someone who possesses a controlling personality.

Another thing common to all societies is members who need assistance, for example children, pregnant women, the ill, injured and infirm. Sometimes these people are sacrificed, for example in times of war or crises. However, loved ones will attempt to save family members, which means societies typically have social programs to help the needy. The Sioux nation, American Indians, cared for their needy with cultural rules. Men in the culture were valued for their ability to hunt, ability in war best was nonviolent counting coup), and generosity. A chief might have very little, because of giving to the needy. Most countries have social programs today, rather than depending on generosity; with large populations government social programs seem to work better than depending on generosity.

There are many other things a modern government will do, and bureaucracies exist to manage them. Sooner or later, governments that fail to satisfy the needs of the people will fall, for example the Soviet Union. These changes can be violent, but do not need to be unless inhumane rulers force violence.

Trade and enterprise are important, but other things are also important.