Capitalism = Communism?

[Joe Republic]

Okay forgive the somewhat dramatic thread title.  I'm not trying to imply that the two ideologies are actually the same.

I was thinking about this the other day.  Let's imagine that we lived in a society with a completely laissez-faire attitude to business and the economy.  No regulations on corporations, no anti-monopoly legislation, nothing.

Although it would be highly unlikely, this situation would comfortably allow a giant conglomerate to eventually take control of every other business, and therefore gain a complete monopoly over every aspect of the economy.  They could dictate wages and production quotas, and the consumer will have little to no power any more.

From there, we now have a corporate variant of communism.  Your thoughts on this theory?

[John Dibble]

Even if some conglomerate managed to do that, in the capitalist system someone could still open their own business - in communism you don't really get this luxury. Further, the conglomerate wouldn't be giving people equal wages in all likeliness, and since it didn't treat everyone as economic equals it wouldn't be communism(though, in practice communism does this as the leaders and beauracrats are generally treated better).

[Joe Republic]

Even if some conglomerate managed to do that, in the capitalist system someone could still open their own business - in communism you don't really get this luxury.

That's true in that private enterprise would actually be banned in a communist system.  But if this hypothetical conglomerate really had the will to do so (and they'd certainly have the financial power), they could easily overwhelm the new business and make it fail almost instantly.  It would work out the same.

Further, the conglomerate wouldn't be giving people equal wages in all likeliness, and since it didn't treat everyone as economic equals it wouldn't be communism(though, in practice communism does this as the leaders and beauracrats are generally treated better).

Also true, but if we are to assume that labor unions are either powerless or simply don't exist in this scenario, then the conglomerate can still dictate whatever wages it feels like paying.   Just like in communism, the workers would have no power to decide their rate of pay.

[John Dibble]

Even if some conglomerate managed to do that, in the capitalist system someone could still open their own business - in communism you don't really get this luxury.

That's true in that private enterprise would actually be banned in a communist system.  But if this hypothetical conglomerate really had the will to do so (and they'd certainly have the financial power), they could easily overwhelm the new business and make it fail almost instantly.  It would work out the same.

Depends on how the conglomerate is doing things. If they routinely offer efficient service and low prices, then I expect that that would happen. However, if they only offered low prices when some competition sprouted up I think enough people would catch on that they would decide that they'd rather shop elsewhere.

Further, the conglomerate wouldn't be giving people equal wages in all likeliness, and since it didn't treat everyone as economic equals it wouldn't be communism(though, in practice communism does this as the leaders and beauracrats are generally treated better).

Also true, but if we are to assume that labor unions are either powerless or simply don't exist in this scenario, then the conglomerate can still dictate whatever wages it feels like paying.   Just like in communism, the workers would have no power to decide their rate of pay.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, they can dictate wages, I never said otherwise, but they would still pay certain jobs better than others - they have an incentive to, since they aren't the government and can't force people to allow them to stay open. They'd also probably believe that they would get what they pay for, and not expect to many people to take jobs as doctors if they got paid the same as janitors. They also wouldn't control public things like the school systems so they couldn't force people to be educated a certain way.

Really though, this situation is entirely too unlikely - they'd be like a communist state because they'd spread their resources so thin and would require a vastly inefficient beauracracy, but as I said they wouldn't have the guns of government backing them. All the weaknesses, none of the strengths. They'd collapse in less time than a communist country would.

[Colin]

I believe someone once said that the closer you go to the extremes on one end or the other the more they begin to look alike. This is one example. On the one side we have extreme hyper-capitalism with one corporation ruling all, including the government in a sense, on the other side we have hyper-communism where their is one state ruling all, including corporations. Thus even though it is in theory a different ruler it turns out to have the same effect.

It's an interesting hypothesis I'll give you that.

[David S]

I believe someone once said that the closer you go to the extremes on one end or the other the more they begin to look alike. This is one example. On the one side we have extreme hyper-capitalism with one corporation ruling all, including the government in a sense, on the other side we have hyper-communism where their is one state ruling all, including corporations. Thus even though it is in theory a different ruler it turns out to have the same effect.

It's an interesting hypothesis I'll give you that.

I agree. When you go to extremes you get unpleasant results. Most Libertarians don't favor eliminating government, just restricting it to necessary duties. In my opinion anti-trust laws are a good idea. I firmly believe that a competitive free market is the best means of providing quality goods and services at the lowest prices. When you eliminate competition, either by government monolopy or by corporate monopoly, everything goes to hell. Prices skyrocket and freedom is lost.

[jokerman]

This points out one of the greatest hypocricies of libertarians.  You have to protect the freedom of the people from the corporation.  Yet, I do realize it can go too far.  You have to keep a balance.

[David S]

This points out one of the greatest hypocricies of libertarians.  You have to protect the freedom of the people from the corporation.  Yet, I do realize it can go too far.  You have to keep a balance.

"Hypocricies" is the wrong word I think. If I say I like water does it make me a hypocrite if I say I don't want to be dropped off in the middle of the ocean? ( as in "Open Water")

[jokerman]

This points out one of the greatest hypocricies of libertarians.  You have to protect the freedom of the people from the corporation.  Yet, I do realize it can go too far.  You have to keep a balance.

"Hypocricies" is the wrong word I think. If I say I like water does it make me a hypocrite if I say I don't want to be dropped off in the middle of the ocean? ( as in "Open Water")

The fact is an unrestrained corporate baron can trample on one's rights much more than an elected official.  I see no logic to the libertarian arguments.  Libertarianism in the end, would result in a Fascist like society.

[David S]

This points out one of the greatest hypocricies of libertarians.  You have to protect the freedom of the people from the corporation.  Yet, I do realize it can go too far.  You have to keep a balance.

"Hypocricies" is the wrong word I think. If I say I like water does it make me a hypocrite if I say I don't want to be dropped off in the middle of the ocean? ( as in "Open Water")

The fact is an unrestrained corporate baron can trample on one's rights much more than an elected official.  I see no logic to the libertarian arguments.  Libertarianism in the end, would result in a Fascist like society.

Lets put the shoe on the other foot. If you are a Democrat as your avatar suggests then you believe that the government should take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor to level the playing field. But does that mean you want to completely level it so that everyone makes exactly the same amount regardless of whether they work or not, or how hard they work? If you take anything to an extreme it can get ridiculous.

On a slightly different note, I've been told that Japan is somewhat like the corporate barony you suggest. A few large companies control everything. But I think I would much prefer to live there than in any of the communist countries, where the government runs the monopoly.

BTW The US did run like a Libertarian society until the early 1900's and yet there was no facist state.

[A18]

This situation is so fundamentally flawed, it's hilarious that anyone is actually embracing it as if it could ever come about, even if you eradicated government altogether.

[MaC]

This situation is so fundamentally flawed, it's hilarious that anyone is actually embracing it as if it could ever come about, even if you eradicated government altogether.

Agreed.  Even if you took the business so far, it can only go so far.  It has limits like everything else does. That's what an economy is.  A measurement of how resources are limited.  Nomatter how big this 'almighty corporation' is it will still not have the power to do whatever it wants. Where that 'almighty corporation' fails, smaller businesses will pop up and attack the flaws of that business and they will sustain enough customers because people will not put up with that flaw.

[TheresNoMoney]

Although it would be highly unlikely, this situation would comfortably allow a giant conglomerate to eventually take control of every other business, and therefore gain a complete monopoly over every aspect of the economy.  They could dictate wages and production quotas, and the consumer will have little to no power any more.

From there, we now have a corporate variant of communism.  Your thoughts on this theory?

I think you theory is fairly dead on.

A country without anti-trust laws, labor laws, and any regulations would be a complete disaster. It would create a huge plutocracy where 95% of the people in the country would likely be destitute.

[Gabu]

While I'm not sure if an anarchistic country would likely get to that state, it nevertheless is a widely accepted fact among pretty much every economist that there should be a government somewhere.  The free market is only as effective as the intelligence and foresight of the humans who are in it.  In most cases, people are able to know what's in their best interest, and that's why the free market does work most of the times.  However, anyone who's done studies on the topic of goods that fall under the banner of either common resources or public goods can tell you that the free market simply does not work to regulate these types of goods.  Look up "The Tragedy of the Commons" as an example scenario.

[Joe Republic]

This situation is so fundamentally flawed, it's hilarious that anyone is actually embracing it as if it could ever come about, even if you eradicated government altogether.

Its a hypothetical scenario used to highlight the possible extreme that laissez-faire capitalism could be taken to.

In any case, what would the computer software industry be like now if Microsoft had never suffered the consequences of anti-trust legislation?

[John Dibble]

However, anyone who's done studies on the topic of goods that fall under the banner of either common resources or public goods can tell you that the free market simply does not work to regulate these types of goods.  Look up "The Tragedy of the Commons" as an example scenario.

Actually, the Tragedy of the Commons is more of an argument for a free market(or, more accurately, private property) than not, at least as I heard it in my economics class. In the ToC everyone is free to use the 'Commons', which is a piece of land for sheep grazing. The land is owned publicly, in other words. Because nobody views the land as their explicit responsibility, everyone overuses the land and it gets really trashy and is no longer useful for grazing sheep. Then, the land is sold off in chunks to individuals, and is restored to it's original state and made useable again(however, it is no longer accessible to the general public without a fee being paid to the owner of the area you wish your sheep to graze in). Alternatively(this is not in the story, but it is true nontheless) the local government could regulate the use of the Commons, and possibly restore it that way(though people would probably get to use it less all the same).

I think the real lesson behind the ToC is that people will treat their own property better than other people's property or even public property, as they have a more vested interest in what is theirs.

[Colin]

I believe someone once said that the closer you go to the extremes on one end or the other the more they begin to look alike. This is one example. On the one side we have extreme hyper-capitalism with one corporation ruling all, including the government in a sense, on the other side we have hyper-communism where their is one state ruling all, including corporations. Thus even though it is in theory a different ruler it turns out to have the same effect.

It's an interesting hypothesis I'll give you that.

I agree. When you go to extremes you get unpleasant results. Most Libertarians don't favor eliminating government, just restricting it to necessary duties. In my opinion anti-trust laws are a good idea. I firmly believe that a competitive free market is the best means of providing quality goods and services at the lowest prices. When you eliminate competition, either by government monolopy or by corporate monopoly, everything goes to hell. Prices skyrocket and freedom is lost.

Exactly my thinking.

This situation is so fundamentally flawed, it's hilarious that anyone is actually embracing it as if it could ever come about, even if you eradicated government altogether.

Agreed. Even if you took the business so far, it can only go so far. It has limits like everything else does. That's what an economy is. A measurement of how resources are limited. Nomatter how big this 'almighty corporation' is it will still not have the power to do whatever it wants. Where that 'almighty corporation' fails, smaller businesses will pop up and attack the flaws of that business and they will sustain enough customers because people will not put up with that flaw.

That is why this is just a hypothesis and has never happened in a testable relm, ie a nation or other government entity. All this is showing is that as you go towards the extreme's things begin to mirror each other.

[A18]

Except it doesn't show that, because it's circular reasoning.

[Colin]

Except it doesn't show that, because it's circular reasoning.

How so?

[A18]

You're saying, "Let's assume X things will happen under pure capitalism. Okay, therefore, X things will happen under pure capitalism."

[Colin]

You're saying, "Let's assume X things will happen under pure capitalism. Okay, therefore, X things will happen under pure capitalism."

I actually don't believe that any of the things stated will happen under pure capitalism. I am just saying that through this hypothetical scenario that Joe put forward we can see the two extreme's of Communism and Capitalism converging to become the same. That's all. 

[opebo]

For all the ballyhoo about ugly Communist apartment blocks, I think the architecture of modern American capitalism - strip malls, highways, tract homes, office parks, is even more dehumanizing.  Fast food and chains of all kinds also suggest a homogenization of choice by large, impersonal organizations.  Really in practice it is hard to see a great deal of difference 'on the ground' between Capitalism and Communism, though no doubt the inequality was less severe under the latter.

[Colin]

For all the ballyhoo about ugly Communist apartment blocks, I think the architecture of modern American capitalism - strip malls, highways, tract homes, office parks, is even more dehumanizing.  Fast food and chains of all kinds also suggest a homogenization of choice by large, impersonal organizations.  Really in practice it is hard to see a great deal of difference 'on the ground' between Capitalism and Communism, though no doubt the inequality was less severe under the latter.

Too opebo and all who read this, this will be my official response to everything opebo says for the time being.

[opebo]

For all the ballyhoo about ugly Communist apartment blocks, I think the architecture of modern American capitalism - strip malls, highways, tract homes, office parks, is even more dehumanizing.  Fast food and chains of all kinds also suggest a homogenization of choice by large, impersonal organizations.  Really in practice it is hard to see a great deal of difference 'on the ground' between Capitalism and Communism, though no doubt the inequality was less severe under the latter.

Too opebo and all who read this, this will be my official response to everything opebo says for the time being.

Look around yourself man, the country is completely homogenized and awful.  The only areas that look different at all are the ghettos and the neighborhoods in which the Owning Class resides.

[A18]

You're saying, "Let's assume X things will happen under pure capitalism. Okay, therefore, X things will happen under pure capitalism."

I actually don't believe that any of the things stated will happen under pure capitalism. I am just saying that through this hypothetical scenario that Joe put forward we can see the two extreme's of Communism and Capitalism converging to become the same. That's all. 

That's true only if you accept the premise. I don't, and therefore I don't agree that the two could converge in the extremes to become the same.