Capitalism vs Communism: A Different Perspective

 

Capitalism vs communism has been a long-standing point of contention for many decades. I wonder however, if the debate is not misdirected.

I think it best to begin with a bit of history.

The concept of capitalism is generally attributed to Adam Smith - a Scottish economist who published a series of books in the late 1770's, analyzing the nature and causes of the wealth of nations.

Adam Smith's Theory was that  - in the absence of war, resource deficits, or poor governing policies - human economics would evolve naturally through four stages:

1. Primitive hunting
2. Agricultural Nomads
3. Agricultural Feudalism
4. Commercial Interdependence.

The final stage being the 'utopian vision'. 

His observations supporting this were derived from the '14th century crisis'. A combination of wars and famine, followed by the Black Death, caused a severe population decline. This left the great feudal manors with a deficit of serfs to manage their lands. To overcome this, manors would offer increased wages to tenant farmers, to poach them from other manors or entice them from towns. (Note: This seems counter to Smith's model, as it was a combination of war and deficit which caused the transition from Feudalism to Commercial Interdependence.)

This model became the standard for 17th century economics. The key characteristic (lending to its name) was the idea that, rather than using accumulated wealth (capital) to build monuments (statues, cathedrals, pyramids, etc..), one would use that capital to improve the means of production, thereby raising the standard of living for all.

Smith believed this would occur and regulate naturally, according to our own "better natures". He specifically argued against civil intervention, as such government institutions tend to protect the rich to the detriment of the poor.

Smith did note one key flaw in the model; the potential for one, or a small group of individuals to accumulate a monopoly position. He opposed that, though it is not clear (to me at least), how he thought to control for that. Perhaps - relying on humans' "better natures" - he anticipated we would "naturally" choose to prevent the rise of monopoly powers.

Alas, he overlooked our silly ability to conflate disconnected themes - such as wealth and righteousness (which became a popular concept during the protestant reformation era and allowed 'pious' people to justify hoarding their wealth and ignoring the needy on the grounds that the needy were getting what they deserved for their unrighteous behaviors). He also had not considered in his equation, the industrial revolution, and the displacement of human labor by machines.

Communism was, in many ways, Karl Marx's response to these flaws in capitalism. Through the industrial revolution, he observed a consolidation of power into the hands of a few (The very thing Smith opposed), and the formation of a privileged class (The Bourgois).

Marx theorized the natural progression would then be a revolution, in which the increasingly dissatisfied Proletariat would overthrow this privileged class. He believed this would lead to an interim period (Socialism), during which an altruistic, intellectually elite group would assume control of the responsibility of government. They would redistribute the stolen wealth and restore a state of equity. 

Once a state of stability was achieved the interim organization would voluntarily relinquish power, and society would operate under the direction of the collective (Communism).

This model has been tried repeatedly, but always fails in the "Socialism" phase. It should be obvious, knowing what we know about human nature, that those willing to wield such authority, never willingly surrender it. But then somehow, we all believe we are exempt from that particular human characteristic. We uniquely, are truly enlightened, wise, and altruistic - unlike the many others before us. We would only wield such power until the masses have finally matured, and we would recognize this, and then we would happily step aside. We are not like everyone else...

But let's take a moment to consider these models under a different lens.

First, it is notable that those in the capitalist camp tend to treat communism and socialism as one thing. This - I believe - adds to the confusion. As such, let's consider them separately, as Marx described them. However, rather than diagram it according to Marx's timeline. I am going to render it thusly:

Starting on the right side of the image, those in the communist camp idealize it as a system under which all people have access to the means of production.

In simplistic, agrarian terms, everybody has an equal portion of equally good ground, on which they can plant, raise, and harvest food. And because we are 'nice' human beings, we help each other out, so when someone has a bad year, we share our abundance to help them get by until next year. Also, because we are 'fundamentally good', we don't take advantage of this system, to get other people to work for us while we laze about. We all work together, share together, lift together, rise together.

Capitalists object to this system because we aren't all decent human beings. Some will abuse the system, and they don't want to be forced to pay for someone else's laziness. This is where the conflation is a problem. This isn't communism they are describing; this is socialism. Communism (ideally) doesn't have a mechanism to force you to surrender your goods to aid someone else. People do that out of natural human kindness. Socialism is the system in which a few 'enlightened' individuals make the decisions for us, regarding how our resources are allocated. Not communism.

Moving to the left side, those in the capitalist camp idealize it as a system under which everyone has the capacity to produce value, according to their abilities and efforts, and will fare accordingly (this is really just another way of saying all people have access to the means of production. Our inherent good natures will allow us - through individual industriousness, and through the free exchange of goods and services - to all work together, share together, lift together, and rise together (sound similar to something I just defined?).

Capitalists do chafe at the idea that everybody gets an equal portion of equally good ground, because... well... that is impractical. You can only do that once without robbing somebody to give to the next generation. However, capitalists also hold the ideal (as Smith himself proclaimed), that better human nature - our rational self-interest if you will - will cause us to help out those who are struggling, and a degree of balance will occur naturally. They also believe capitalism is protected to some degree from the problem of people abusing the system; since charity is given by choice, those who try to get a free ride, will at some point be recognized as abusers, and will stop receiving charity, at which point they will of necessity return to a state of productivity.

Socialists and Communists both object to this system, as it means a small number of people amass the wealth and subjugate the masses. However, one should note - this scenario is one which Smith objected to. As such, it should be treated as a separate system from capitalism. Let's call it "corporatism".

Now, ignore for a minute, the rhetoric around the two; the (mis)conceptions regarding how you 'get there'. Just consider the most fundamental ideals of capitalism and communism. The grand utopian vision of each.

A system in which everyone has the means to produce wealth; in which everyone fares according to the effort they expend, and in which, through basic human kindness (charity), nobody is left to suffer unfairly. A system in which free exchange and cooperation allows us all to collectively rise.

The two systems, at the idealistic level, are fundamentally equivalent, and seek fundamentally the same outcome.

Both systems suffer from the same fundamental flaw - that is, they both depend on the manifestation of our better natures; the intentional extinction, or at the very least, suppression, of "Your Greatest Enemy".

Failing that, both systems inevitably degrade to a state in which a small number of individuals accumulate an inordinate amount of control over the means of production. On the left side, this occurs through unethical manipulation of the economic system (typically justified as being 'smart about business' and capitalizing on their advantages or opportunities. That or being blessed by God - divine providence). On the right side, it occurs through manipulation of the social system (typically justified as a response to the aforementioned abuses on the left side; an abuse of power to battle an abuse of power. That or divine or intellectual providence).

The end result on either side is the same, however. A small number of individuals acquire inordinate power and control over the fortunes, freedoms and destinies of the masses. They will claim it is necessary to protect the masses (who are perceived as inferior), but, since they are also human, and subject to the same human failings as the masses, they inevitably prioritize their own needs, according to their specific fears, flaws, and driving survival mechanisms.

So, the reality of these models, considered collectively, is this:

We organize ourselves around one of two ideals, which seem opposed due to our different perspectives, but are fundamentally equivalent. 

We oppose the other system, not based on its 'ideal', but rather on the state of inevitable oppression to which it degrades, due to our inherent, human natures.

The system we espouse degrades to its oppressive state, helped along in part by our own inherent natures. 

It is interesting to note, both sides of this equation can happen simultaneously. It is also notable, those who ascend to power on both sides often do so with our help, and admiration. We view them as the champions opposing the oppression on the other side, and out of fear, we accede to their oppression, to protect us from the others' oppression.

And while the two oppressors appear to be in contention with one another, when one considers our inherent natures, one should realize they have more in common with one another than they do with the masses who serve them. They therefore tend to ally with one another more often than they ally with their respective masses. But because of our highly manipulable natures through fear, uncertainty and doubt, we willingly sacrifice our own will to our respective oppressors, unable to perceive that we in fact have more in common with the 'opposing masses', than we do with our chosen oppressors. 

So, there we sit, pining for identical ideals, while fearing - and adoring identical oppressors. An absurd, foolish tragedy.

In conclusion, I believe "capitalism vs. communism" is a false flag, which leads to an artificial battle against an enemy who is not our enemy, in an alliance with those who are not our allies. It is a distraction; a diversion which enslaves us in a prison we manufacture through our fear of the worst nature in others, and our unwillingness to acknowledge that same nature in ourselves.

Just something to consider next time you take up arms in the social media-sphere.