Isn't Communism Worse Than Capitalism?

It's a common argument from the left that under capitalism, workers will always be exploited and enslaved by their masters, or "CEOs."

If that were that case, isn't communism worse?

I mean, instead of having many greedy CEOs to chose from, you're stuck with one government. What if that government turns out to be greedy, and begins exploiting it's people? You can't simply "quit" and go work for another government that treats you better.

I think we can all agree that not all CEOs are evil and greedy. For the sake of this argument, lets say that most of them are. That would still mean that there are some CEOs that are benevolent and giving.

Under capitalism, workers would have a choice whether or not they want to work for a benevolent CEO, or a greedy one. And if that were the case, wouldn't the greedy CEOs be forced to pay their workers more and treat them better to attract better workers? Obviously, they're competing with the benevolent CEOs; why would anyone want to work for them when someone else is paying them more?

Hopefully you could all understand my point.

So, given that, isn't it safe to say that communism is a worse alternative to capitalism? Because simply but, the people would then be at the mercy of one government.

What could the people do if that government evolved into a dictatorship? Like what happened in Cuba. (In case anyone wants to discuss Cuba, I'd be very happy to. Actually just got back from there 6 months ago and have plenty of family that still lives on the island). So again, I bring up my previous point. How is a CEO any different than the leader(s) of a communist society?

At least under capitalism the people have a choice. What do you believe?

There is no state under Communism. I'll let people who are better at economics fill in the rest.

Nope.

Our problem with Capitalism is not that rich people are all shitheads, its that Capitalism is inherently exploitative.

As MZA said, there will be no state in communism or socialism(whatever you want to call it, they mean the same thing). Communism/socialism will be a stateless, wageless, monyless commonwealth where the mean of production are commonly held, with free producers, acting on their own volition. Communism isn't simply capitalism under new management, it is a different system entirely.

Even the most benevolent, fluffy dictator/CEO will have to accede to the needs of capital. That is the only way capitalism can be run. The bosses cannot afford to ignore market forces or they will lose ground to their rivals, go bust, get taken over, and ultimately cease to be our boss. Therefore, the CEOs aren't the ones really even in control of capitalism, capital itself is

For example, if a manufacturer develops new technology for making cars which doubles productivity it can lay off half its workers increase profits and reduce the price of its cars to undermine competition.
Now, if some benevolent dictator/ceo wanted to be nice to its employees and not lay off workers, eventually it will be driven out of business by its more ruthless competitor, so it will have to bring in new machinery and lay off workers to stay competitive.

But people do not have a choice -- they must work for a fraction of the value they actually produce, no matter how benevolent their boss may be. Also, I think you're confused with your terms. Communism is a stateless and classless society, in which property would be controlled in common among all workers and production would be geared towards meeting human need rather than profit.

But what you're asking is, I think, "isn't capitalism better than what the USSR had?". That's an interesting question with a lot of different answers depending on who you talk to. If you were to ask me and many others here, we'd tell you that what the USSR was, effectively, capitalism. State-Capitalism, with the state taking the place of the bourgeoisie.

I think that when people talk about capitalism and communism, they usually talk about them associating the USA with capitalism and the USSR with communism, which is a little unfair, I think, because I don't think life in Russia would have been comparable to life in the US even if Russia never experienced a revolution and had a decidedly free-market capitalist system. In fact for all the tremendous problems the Soviet Union had, and despite my opinion that the russian revolution was a failure, I'd say that quality of life for people in Russia generally better than it would have been otherwise.

(Don't take that to mean that I'm a fan of the USSR by any stretch of the imagination, though. I just think a free-market capitalist Russia would've been a worse alternative to live through for a russian worker than a state-capitalist one, you know what I mean?)

It doesn't matter how nice a Capitalist is, their role in production is oppressive. They exploit the labor of the working class, their interests are directly opposed to ours as workers.

You mistake communism for State-Capitalism, an unfortunate and all too common occurrence. In places like Cuba and the former USSR the state owns the means of production, and the state is controlled by a ruling class comprised of bureaucrats and party officials, making them a Capitalist class. So your comparison of State-Capitalist dictators to traditional Capitalists is actually very correct

Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society in which the means of production are owned in common and democratically managed by those who work in them.

We do not have a choice. You say if workers do not want to work for one Capitalist, then they should go find a friendlier one (your same rationale by the way could be used to defend dictators). What if we don't want to work for any Capitalist at all? What if we want to own the means of production in common and make decisions democratically? What if we want to abolish Capital? Then we must reject Capitalism altogether and stage a working class revolution.

Simply put, in Capitalism, workers are at the mercy of one class.

For capitalists and wannabe capitalists, yes.

Yeah let's discuss Cuba. 3 things: The best (and free) healthcare system in the world, no one homeless or dying of hunger, and virtually no crime. Compare that to America, the great capitalist paradise. :rolleyes:
Now, I admit, I'm completely opposed to authoritarianism, including Cuba's, but if you set that aside, the Cuban system works, and works very well. While practically all surrounding countries are at the mercy of gangs and wallowing in poverty, Cuba is still a peaceful haven, where everyone has a fairly decent living.

BTW, I smell a restriction coming up for our op...

All very honest and understandable questions, tooAlive, and thank you for being respectful. Note that many of your concerns necessarily involve a discussion on the Soviet Union. As I'm sure you can imagine, to say that there are a variety of attitudes and approaches to the Soviet Union and what communist stances should be toward it would be an understatement.

We do not believe that the relationship between the worker and the capitalist is a master-slave one. That would imply the worker is property and all productive output is extracted in exchange for subsistence. The reality of capitalism is more nuanced and complex. However, it is still inherently exploitative because surplus labor (unpaid labor) is extracted from the worker in exchange for the monetary representation of a fraction of their labor's output (or what we conventionally consider a wage).

It is objectively exploitative because the source of virtually all capitalist profits is unpaid labor, or the output of the worker's labor that isn't remunerated.

Our approach would be no, because as a global stateless, classless, wageless, marketless economy of free producers and voluntarily associated production where the direct producers are not isolated from the means of production or alienated from the product of their labor, communism appears to us to be the most non-exploitative social arrangement imaginable.

This is where you will get different answers because it is going to necessarily incorporate a discourse on the Soviet Union and other planned economies. Most people on this site, at least at the moment, view these states as state-capitalist economies wherein capitalist relations of production still exist except with a state bourgeoisie instead of a private bourgeoisie.

Others believe that at at least one point during a few of these regime's existences a socialist economy was created. They justify this by making a distinction between socialism and communism, wherein socialism is a developmental stage that is purposed with building the foundations for communism until global revolution is achieved.

Still others believe that they were "degenerated or deformed worker's states" that are fine with evading the question of what mode of production it was but are still content with informing us that the existence of a planned economy made it objectively a worker's state, because in contrast to capitalist economies where capital is accumulated among individual capitalists in the form of surplus labor extraction, all the surpluses that were extracted in the Soviet Union and other worker's states were either reinvested into the economy or the maintenance of the state.

Still still others believe that none of these explanations are adequate and believe that the Soviet Union was something different from capitalism, socialism, or worker's-stateism and that it in fact was worse than capitalist economies for the working class.

Hopefully the discussion on these matters is kept out of this thread and is instead confined to this thread.

Our issue isn't the personal character of the capitalists themselves. Many are quite benevolent as you say, in fact I know many of them are. But to us, whether they are the most sadistic and cruel people in the world or the most benevolent and loving matters not. What matters is the objectively existing productive relationship between capitalist and worker - an antagonistic and irreconcilably hostile relationship wherein the interests of both are objectively tied in with the repression of the interests of the other.

As far as "choice" between different flavors of wage labor goes, sure it might exist, but our point is that being able to choose between different varieties of the same relationship does not amount to choice in any meaningful or fundamental way, but rather in a manufactured and artificial way.

I'm curious.. What makes you say that Cuba has the best healthcare system in the world? Is that something that you read, or do you have first hand experience with the Cuban health care system?

A little background info. My grandfather (who lives in Cuba) had to undergo a medical procedure about 6 months ago. Given his age, my family and I traveled to be with him during that time. I had the privileged of accompanying him to one of the better hospitals, as well as talking to one of the doctors there.

If you want more detailed info I will be happy to provide it. But to keep things short, I'm just going to say that their health care system is far from being the best in the world. Even Latin America would be quite a stretch.

You're right on one thing though.. It is 100% free. If you want to argue that Cubans generally live longer I would say that it's because they generally eat less, and much healthier than we do here in America. Of course, that's just my opinion.

And about the part of everyone having a decent standard of living, and not starving.

With all due respect, that is absolutely not true. For the sake of keeping this post short, I won't go into too much detail, as this topic alone deserves it's own thread. I would honestly encourage you to take a trip there and see for yourself what the reality is. And not just explore the tourist areas, but the places where the regular Cubans go.

*yaaaaaawn* Rightist troll

I travel to Cuba twice a year to visit my mother, my two sisters, and my brother (not to mention dozens of extended family). My mother is 89 years-old and in excellent health. My siblings are happy and have no desire to come to the United States (I was brought here by my father when I was seven). My family lives in Havana. I have never once seen a single homeless person in Cuba. I know of nobody starving. Not one person in Cuba needs to suffer because because they cannot afford a doctor. Contrary to popular belief outside of Cuba, you can stand on a street and protest the Castro government without fear of reprisal. I have seen in it in Havana. If anyone is getting his or her news about Cuba from mainstream American media they are receiving 99% lies.

Why does Cuba have a lower infant mortality rate than the United States?
Why do Cubans enjoy longer life expectancy than Americans?
Why, according to a recent study, are Cubans more happy than Americans?

Si tu quieres contestar mis preguntas estoy disponible para contestar las tuyas?

Because they will. Capitalism is inherently exploitative. Nothing will change this.

No, as said before under communism there will be no state, you are thinking of the transitional socialist state, and certainly no government (as the two represent different forms of organization and purpose). "Greed" is largely something promoted and seen in capitalism; by communism consumerism and commidification will be a thing of the past. Since there is no money under communism, and the workers commonly "own" the Means of Production, what is there to be greedy over? Furthermore, you talk as if every worker currently under a bourgeois regime can up and leave for another country every time they are exploited too heavily. This isn't the case. It is not a matter of governments but one of working environment.

"Evil" is a moral concept which I do not believe in. Likewise, "Greed" is a social-concept which was created, by and large, by capitalism through commodification. But ignoring these and getting down to your primary point, even if a few are benevolent that does not mean anything.

There are people, like J.K Rowling and Bill Gates, who donate a great deal of their fortunes to charity yet this cannot cure society's ills, it is merely a band-aid. It is kind of them to donate such funds but this does not negate the exploitative nature of capitalism or the need to establish a transitional socialist state.

I have heard this line from Libertarians before (though they take it on steroids). For this to be explained points must be made:

1) How would the workers know which CEO is "good" and which one is "bad"? Meaning, how would they know which one pays the greatest? Which one has the better working conditions for them?

2) You reduce everything to pay and as odd as it seems this is not the only idea going through the minds of workers seeking employment, one must also take into consideration: benefits, the social and working environment, job safety and stability, closeness to home and their transportation abilities, child care, etc. The list is long and workers cannot simply up and leave to a whole new area every time they hear of a new, better employer.

3) In accordance with my previous points, no, a CEO would not be forced to pay their workers more in order to keep them. It is as if you have never worked in a unsavory place before, because if you did than you should surely know that there are a thousand bullshit excuses as to why they will not pay their workers more: the person's performance, perceived sloppiness, attitude, jealously among the other workers, etc. Some workers may leave but others will be compelled by circumstance to stay. This is a fact. Not everything can be a monolithic entity.

I did.

No, see above. To explain this more, however, the workers under communism are not exploited by anyone. They are their own maters who control their own work place. There are no monetary concerns, housing and education along with childcare and freedom is plentiful. There are no governments, because there is no need to regulate capital among the imperialist blocs, and isolation is a thing of the past.

See above.

In any case, you are confusing the oxymoron "communist country", a propaganda term pushed by reactionaries, with the actual deal (communism). The two are not one in the same. Cuba has among the most freedom in the world with far more democratic institutions than one sees elsewhere (though in recent years this has devolved some). Cuba was a socialist state, now a degenerated workers state, and is governed, in part, by a communist party- this does not mean it is communist.

Under capitalism people are restricted in their freedoms; bills must be paid, children must be cared for, pets attended, mortgage managed, etc. When shit hits the fan-financial or otherwise-one simply cannot, in most situations, simply leave all their doubts behind. Money is the underlying chain. If you do not have the necessary funds than you are going nowhere; if you do not have enough money than you cannot go to college and hopefully improve your station; if you do not have funds you cannot buy groceries; if you lack cash you cannot host modern communication mediums or live indoors... the list goes on. Under capitalism you are chained to what you are forced to make a living in. If you are of a certain class this can be transcended but for the majority of workers this cannot be changed.

Under communism, however, this will be radically different: education, travel, social occupation, rights and more will be all widely available. Money connects everything and by simple logic without money holding you down, and instead only the linkage of labor connecting everyone, the world will be a much freer place.

I imagine it is much worse for the Bourgeoisie.

Hola Andres, mucho gusto.

I read your other post as well, and it was interesting to see another perspective from someone in similar shoes.

I'm sorry about your father going to prison; I'm sure that must not have been easy for you, specially at 7 years old. My grandfather was also imprisoned for a bit and it wasn't easy on the family at all.

And I'm happy to hear your family is doing well. I've also been to Havana and will agree; it's very beautiful and colorful, albeit a little degraded by the years. I didn't spend most of my time there though, as my family lives in Cardenas.

My grandparents do quite well in Cuba also; they even have a bigger house than we do here, and can afford to pay someone to go to their house and clean, cook, ect.. So they're pretty well off.

Since you go twice a year, I'm sure you've had to go to the little convenience stores every once in a while. I'm sure you also noticed how the shelves are usually completely stocked, and prices are on par with those here in the US.

It was a little surprising to hear you say that everyone is well off, when on the average Cuban's salary, it's nearly impossible to afford basic necessities. For example, a bar of soap is $2 when an average monthly salary is roughly $12 a month.

Again, I'm just trying to get your perspective on this. I understand your family is doing well, and mine is as well. I've just seen it differently when ever I've gone to visit.

All the best.

Right, Anarcho-Communism is the ultimate goal. How do you suppose you guys will be able to maintain this stateless society before some group of people get all human instinctual and want to have all the power and are tired of working for everyone else? After all, we aren't army ants. Communism looks good on paper but it is completely against human nature.

No logical production proccess allowd for producers to produce based upon their own "volition." Who really cares how many pairs of shoes the shoe workers wish to make?

As

Ah, the human nature argument. I suppose theres many ways to maintain it. How does any society stop people from taking over. A revolution can only happen when most people want it to happen, so I think people taking over wouldn't be much of a threat.

Yes, it is worse than communism. If you are a wealthy capitalist who shits money, has millions of servants, and a big-ass mansion with a dozen private islands.