Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

the_ref · 08-24-2005, 08:27 AM

This is a case of apples and oranges. In their "pure" forms they have very little in common other than considerations of economics.

Capitalism is neither a political nor a social theory, merely an economic one. It espouses and supports no particular form of government. Equally, there are no moral or social elements to it. Capitialism suggests that the best government would be minimalist, in that the fewer restrictions placed on manufacture and trade would produce the most abundant supply of goods, and therefore a healthier (in terms of economics only) nation. Capitialism, however, does not espouse patriotism at all; if Adam Smith were followed to the letter, manufacturers would be insane to maintain any loyalty to a specific community unless there is clear, stark economic benefit to this decision. If an item can be produced at a more competitive price with equal quality in another locale, it is incumbent upon the manufacturer to move his holdings. Pure Capitalism does not advocte anything other than getting the best price for your goods. It says nothing at all about democracy, taking care of your fellow man, playing fair, protecting the environment, supporting the government, or anything else. It is strictly a non-moralistic economic model. It should not be construed as anything else.

Communism, conversely, has elements of economics, politics, and moral structure all bound together. Prices are, of couse, of little consequence under Communism as the ultimate goal is to have a classless and moneyless society, "From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs". Eventually any vestige of government would fall away and everyone would work for the betterment of their fellow human beings. While pure Communism does speak to economics, it also speaks to how one's fellow humans should be treated, how government can best serve the common weal, why private ownership of property is evil, and even discusses the ultimate perfectability of humankind. In this regard, Communism is a more total view of society in all its forms. As such it is preferable to a simple economic model.

Neither system has been tried in its pure form and we should thank our lucky stars that this is true.

However this question could be construed to mean "Communist-Socialism as practiced in the Soviet Union" versus "Republicanism as practiced in the United States of America". In this case we are comparing to hodge-podge political-social-economic-moral systems that are the duece to untangle. Both systems were created by compromise, power grabs, enlightened and unenlightened self-interest, needs of the day, and a smidgen of foresight. If these two systems are compared, one may say that the United States came out the better simply because it can still claim to be here, while the Soviet Union, for all intents and purposes, is not.

So, again, it all depends on what you mean by the question you pose.

08-24-2005, 08:27 AM	#10 (permalink)
the_ref Upright	This is a case of apples and oranges. In their "pure" forms they have very little in common other than considerations of economics. Capitalism is neither a political nor a social theory, merely an economic one. It espouses and supports no particular form of government. Equally, there are no moral or social elements to it. Capitialism suggests that the best government would be minimalist, in that the fewer restrictions placed on manufacture and trade would produce the most abundant supply of goods, and therefore a healthier (in terms of economics only) nation. Capitialism, however, does not espouse patriotism at all; if Adam Smith were followed to the letter, manufacturers would be insane to maintain any loyalty to a specific community unless there is clear, stark economic benefit to this decision. If an item can be produced at a more competitive price with equal quality in another locale, it is incumbent upon the manufacturer to move his holdings. Pure Capitalism does not advocte anything other than getting the best price for your goods. It says nothing at all about democracy, taking care of your fellow man, playing fair, protecting the environment, supporting the government, or anything else. It is strictly a non-moralistic economic model. It should not be construed as anything else. Communism, conversely, has elements of economics, politics, and moral structure all bound together. Prices are, of couse, of little consequence under Communism as the ultimate goal is to have a classless and moneyless society, "From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs". Eventually any vestige of government would fall away and everyone would work for the betterment of their fellow human beings. While pure Communism does speak to economics, it also speaks to how one's fellow humans should be treated, how government can best serve the common weal, why private ownership of property is evil, and even discusses the ultimate perfectability of humankind. In this regard, Communism is a more total view of society in all its forms. As such it is preferable to a simple economic model. Neither system has been tried in its pure form and we should thank our lucky stars that this is true. However this question could be construed to mean "Communist-Socialism as practiced in the Soviet Union" versus "Republicanism as practiced in the United States of America". In this case we are comparing to hodge-podge political-social-economic-moral systems that are the duece to untangle. Both systems were created by compromise, power grabs, enlightened and unenlightened self-interest, needs of the day, and a smidgen of foresight. If these two systems are compared, one may say that the United States came out the better simply because it can still claim to be here, while the Soviet Union, for all intents and purposes, is not. So, again, it all depends on what you mean by the question you pose. __________________ "Jack! You've debauched my sloth!"