When is one really not a Scotsman? Pontifications on capitalism and communism -

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.
 

Ron /pol/

Free @Corrugated Daffodils
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
cap·i·tal·ism
noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
com·mu·nism
noun
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
so·cial·ism
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
There's your answer.
 

ωσкє вℓυє мυѕℓιм qυєєη

Halal Manic Pixie Non Gender Specific Minor
kiwifarms.net
Really both capitalism and communism are utopic ideals, they are suppose to be the greener pasture at the end of the rainbow and not the dark in the tunnel that would be socialism, its brighter right on front and right behind.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ron /pol/
And no economic intervention will have you end up like Tsarist Russia.
Actual question: was Tsarist Russia a laissez faire state? My understanding is they at least had state industries similar to Prussia, and unless you mean post-emancipation, serfdom is extensively interventionist (since the nobility act like a mixture of government officials and private landowners).

I generally associate pure laissez faire more with 19th century Britain, America, and perhaps France.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: ConfederateIrishman

Ron /pol/

Free @Corrugated Daffodils
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
That's infinitely better than what came immediately after Tsarist Russia, though.
The Russian Revolution probably could've been avoided if the monarchy got dismantled sooner and there had been more economic intervention on behalf of the lower classes.
Actual question: was Tsarist Russia a laissez faire state? My understanding is they at least had state industries similar to Prussia, and unless you mean post-emancipation, serfdom is extensively interventionist (since the nobility act like a mixture of government officials and private landowners).

I generally associate pure laissez faire more with 19th century Britain, America, and perhaps France.
I'm pretty sure the late Russian empire is considered feudalist but most industries and bussinesses were for-profit.
 
The Russian Revolution probably could've been avoided if the monarchy got dismantled sooner and there had been more economic intervention on behalf of the lower classes.

I'm pretty sure the late Russian empire is considered feudalist but most industries and bussinesses were for-profit.
For profit =/= laissez faire

Again, I’m not that familiar with Russian economics 1870s - 1910s, but I’m pretty sure they had a strong regulatory regime, at least compared to other states at that time. Not a laissez faire free for all like the Victorian US or modern Singapore.
 

Ron /pol/

Free @Corrugated Daffodils
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
For profit =/= laissez faire

Again, I’m not that familiar with Russian economics 1870s - 1910s, but I’m pretty sure they had a strong regulatory regime, at least compared to other states at that time. Not a laissez faire free for all like the Victorian US or modern Singapore.
If a majority of a country's assets, industries, or bussinesses are owned by nobles/an aristocracy and run for-profit then yeah that fits within the definition of capitalism I already gave. If there's government intervention but only on behalf of the aristocracy than really that just shows how unrestricted capitalism leads to a system in which private owners become in-effect the government. The private owners were (and in many places still are) the government.
 

The best and greatest

kiwifarms.net
I wouldn't say the failures of capitalism are universally the result of governmental interference. For one thing it infantilizes the business owners who themselves often seek governmental favor to prop up their businesses or to enrich themselves financially. So its less a deal with the devil and more like two devils conspiring for mutual benefit.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino