The main issue with communism is that it puts the entire control of the economy in a few people’s hands. Even more so than capitalism does.
When that happens, the central planning that those people do, even in the best case is orders of magnitude less efficient than capitalism can manage.
And in the usual case, ends up with them funneling much of the resources to their buddies and letting others starve (a la holodomor).
Anyhow, it’s an argument that is about 100 years out of date. The Scandinavians solved this problem half a century ago already. The best thing we can do is have capitalism control production and distribution of goods and services, and democratic government’s socialist policies drive the resources where they need to go and solve the many economic externalities endemic in any capitalistic system.
A better solution, as yet, has not been demonstrated. Anyone advocating “pure communism” or “pure capitalism” is a rube.
Agreed to this! Communism means that people can’t be the owners of a buisness or anything at all. Thoose mixed economies where government-based (communist) companies compete along with individual’s buisness should be enought to make the best of two worlds. But still should be implemented correctly and you might also want to consider governments making some limitation on other private companies anti-competatively though. If government behaves well within this mixed economy then it will be cool i guess
Yes, antitrust, consumer protection, health and welfare programs, and pollution taxes are starkly missing in many of todays capitalist countries, first and foremost being the USA.
Though I must admit I don’t understand what you mean by that people can’t own things in capitalist societies. I would say there’s maybe too much ownership in capitalism.
The main issue with communism is that it puts the entire control of the economy in a few people’s hands. Even more so than capitalism does.
When that happens, the central planning that those people do, even in the best case is orders of magnitude less efficient than capitalism can manage.
And in the usual case, ends up with them funneling much of the resources to their buddies and letting others starve (a la holodomor).
Anyhow, it’s an argument that is about 100 years out of date. The Scandinavians solved this problem half a century ago already. The best thing we can do is have capitalism control production and distribution of goods and services, and democratic government’s socialist policies drive the resources where they need to go and solve the many economic externalities endemic in any capitalistic system.
A better solution, as yet, has not been demonstrated. Anyone advocating “pure communism” or “pure capitalism” is a rube.
Agreed to this! Communism means that people can’t be the owners of a buisness or anything at all. Thoose mixed economies where government-based (communist) companies compete along with individual’s buisness should be enought to make the best of two worlds. But still should be implemented correctly and you might also want to consider governments making some limitation on other private companies anti-competatively though. If government behaves well within this mixed economy then it will be cool i guess
Yes, antitrust, consumer protection, health and welfare programs, and pollution taxes are starkly missing in many of todays capitalist countries, first and foremost being the USA.
Though I must admit I don’t understand what you mean by that people can’t own things in capitalist societies. I would say there’s maybe too much ownership in capitalism.
Sorry, edit needed. I mean in pure communism, people are denied of their ability of owning a company or whatever. Not capitalism