So, as we all know, Venezuela, the Soviet Union, and the PRC all were not examples of REAL COMMUNISM because REAL COMMUNISM HAVE NEVER BEEN TRIED, except for when they supposedly did something good, and then it temporarily becomes Real Communism (TM) for that one specific thing (like Cubans having good healthcare or Russians having had good engineers).
This troubles me, though, as it raises a potential hypocrisy in my own thinking.
See, Communists, often accuse Capitalism of all sorts of ills, but 99.99999999999999% of the time, whatever they blame on Capitalism is really more a consequence of government intervention in Capitalism, which is the same shit that they support. Things like corporatism, state capitalism, and occasionally feudalism/slavery all get used as examples of the evils of capitalism even though the negative consequences generally come from the influence of the state, both with how it institutionalizes redistributions of wealth (not necessarily from the rich to the poor, but just from out-groups to in-groups) and, due to the economic calculation problem, causes damage pretty much anytime it does anything due to not considering the full consequences of its actions.
However, is there the possibility that this is just the capitalist version of NOT REAL COMMUNISM? That it's NOT REAL CAPITALISM whenever a capitalist system has some major defect due to government intervention? After all, complete laissez-faire is as much of a pipe dream as a stateless egalitarian society with central planning, although it's intermediary stages are a lot more plausible.
It feels to me like the answer is "no," because while ideological Communists may claim they support anarcho-communism or something similar, they ALWAYS, fucking always, establish a totalitarian dictatorship when they take power, whereas ideological Capitalists are generally rather consistent with supporting deregulation. The actions of corporations/lobbyists aren't necessarily reflective as the actions of "capitalists" since those agents aren't necessarily capitalist in ideology, just acting in self-interest. Indeed, many CEOs in the modern world are moderate socialists more than anything else.
It's an issue that I think leans more in capitalism's favor, but I can see the argument on behalf of communism.
This troubles me, though, as it raises a potential hypocrisy in my own thinking.
See, Communists, often accuse Capitalism of all sorts of ills, but 99.99999999999999% of the time, whatever they blame on Capitalism is really more a consequence of government intervention in Capitalism, which is the same shit that they support. Things like corporatism, state capitalism, and occasionally feudalism/slavery all get used as examples of the evils of capitalism even though the negative consequences generally come from the influence of the state, both with how it institutionalizes redistributions of wealth (not necessarily from the rich to the poor, but just from out-groups to in-groups) and, due to the economic calculation problem, causes damage pretty much anytime it does anything due to not considering the full consequences of its actions.
However, is there the possibility that this is just the capitalist version of NOT REAL COMMUNISM? That it's NOT REAL CAPITALISM whenever a capitalist system has some major defect due to government intervention? After all, complete laissez-faire is as much of a pipe dream as a stateless egalitarian society with central planning, although it's intermediary stages are a lot more plausible.
It feels to me like the answer is "no," because while ideological Communists may claim they support anarcho-communism or something similar, they ALWAYS, fucking always, establish a totalitarian dictatorship when they take power, whereas ideological Capitalists are generally rather consistent with supporting deregulation. The actions of corporations/lobbyists aren't necessarily reflective as the actions of "capitalists" since those agents aren't necessarily capitalist in ideology, just acting in self-interest. Indeed, many CEOs in the modern world are moderate socialists more than anything else.
It's an issue that I think leans more in capitalism's favor, but I can see the argument on behalf of communism.
