To make things easier and avoid a straw man fallacy, I am also going to rebut each phrase you said one by one. Note: Please excuse any poor English, I'm EAL and a minor.
The problem is that this [the idea that people can only be wealthy when others are poor] is trivially observable to not be true. We do not have to choose between champagne for the few and drinking water for all; both of those things rose greatly under the system of "not being Communist."
You're actually arguing against a version of my argument that I never made. I never said economic growth is impossible under capitalism or that every single increase in wealth must correspond to an exactly equal decrease somewhere else. I just said that capitalism depends on inequality of wealth and power. In capitalism, someone, somewhere, is always poor and suffering.
The fact that average living standards have increased over the years does not disprove that. Slavery has produced a lot of wealth. Colonialism has produced a lot of wealth. Sweatshops produce a lot of wealth. So the existence of economic growth tells us nothing about how wealth is produced or distributed.
On top of that, your champagne and drinking wanted thing doesnβt address my argument either. I accept that technological progress and economic development can lead to an increase in living standards, my point is just that a growing economy doesnβt mean everyone benefits fairly from that growth.
Everyone in the entire world has become wealthier under "not being Communist." The standard of living is higher in the entire world under "not being Communist," when you actually compare it to the previous number instead of comparing it to a number you can imagine. If your understanding of economics was correct, then the standard of living in the rest of the world would go down when America's went up. This is not what we observed. As Europe and Japan rebuilt and their standards of living went up, America's standard of living also went upβ¦.
First of all, as I said, when Americaβs standard of living first started going up, it was actually partially due to the lack of competition due to Japan and Europeβs economies being ruined after WWII. But even after that, when Japan and Europe started to improve, the fact that America did not stop improving does not rebuttal communism. I donβt argue that if Americaβs living standards rise, everyone elseβs must fall in exactly the same amount. I argue that capitalism depends on inequality and suffering, where profits are generated through exploitation of labour and unequal relationships.
Yes, after WWII, the US, Western Europe and Japan all experienced rapid growth. However, this is because of things like technological progress and expanded trade. Just because there was a larger economic "pie" does not mean its benefits were distributed equally.
Because even then, despite the fact that Europe and Japan got richer, this prosperity was connected partially to unequal exchange with the Global South, and these countries being used to gain access to cheap labour, raw materials, and for MNCs to extract profits from poorer countries. This exploitation allowed costs to be reduced and profits increased.
If everyone can live comfortably under capitalism, then why, despite some of the strongest countries in the world having followed capitalist systems for centuries, has comfort not been universally achieved? Why do wealthy countries still depend on poor people breaking their fingers in factories, with extremely low wages? Why arenβt these factories shut down if capitalism can make everyone sufficiently prosperous?
The existence of wealth does not automatically mean that exploitation is gone. Average living standards can increase while unequal conditions remain.
Also, itβs interesting to note that the economic rise in postwar countries actually coincided with things that communists advocate for. From unusually strong labour unions and high taxes on capital to extensive welfare states and heavy government intervention, a lot of the measures introduced after WWII directly contradict free-market capitalism, yet helped workers get a larger share of economic gain.
β¦.and the standard of living in every nation on Earth that was not Communist went up.
This statement is also an oversimplification. Yes, many non-communist countries experienced economic growth and improvements in living standards, but your strange idea that all non-communist countriesβ standard of living went up in a simple and uninterrupted way is completely wrong. I mean, I have seen this with my own eyes where I am from, near the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Do you really think Afghanistanβs living conditions and development are better off now than it was before WWII? How about Yemen and Syria, which faced wars and destruction? Or the chronically impoverished countries from Sub Saharan Africa like South Sudan, Burundi, CAR and Somalia, which to this day have struggled to recover from post-colonial instability, civil wars, poverty and exploitation?
And even if we look at global averages, averages can hide vast differences both between and within countries. Saying that the average person is wealthier today does not mean that every single person in every single social group from every single region have all benefitted from economic growth.
The fact that the average standard of living in countries went up ignores the fact that within these countries there is still inequality. Itβs entirely possible that countries can overall become richer while workers capture a disproportionally small share of the profits. The total amount of wealth may have increased because of technological advancement and higher productivity, but the amount of that wealth that went to the workers compared to the owners of capital has actually decreased. In other words, capitalism actually made society more unequal.
If your concept of economics was correct, economic growth would not be possible, because wealth would only be stolen from others. Economic growth is trivially observable.Β
Yet again, not my argument! All I said was that wealth is unequally distributed, not that wealth can only be "stolen" from others. I never argued that. These are economies not bank robberies???Β
Communists obviously generally recognise that economies can grow from technological innovation, scientific progress and increasing productivity, as well as the development of new industries. Marx himself has analysed how capitalism revolutionised production and increased productive capacity.
But what I disagree with is not if economic growth can happen or not. Itβs over who controls that growth and who receives its benefit.Β
Imagine a society where productivity, shares returns and executive compensation doubles but wages remain the stagnate. Yes, workers are producing more wealth, I would acknowledge that, but I would still call such a society unjust because the workers are producing a smaller share of what they make.
Economic growth and inequality can exist at the same time. Having more wealth does not mean that wealth is distributed in a fair way.
For literally all of human history trade has made all involved parties wealthier. Cities built on coasts and rivers become wealthy through trade while the partners they trade with also become wealthier. If your concept of economics was correct, they would become poorer.
Oh, yet another misunderstanding. Sigh, Iβm starting to get a bit tired, my hands hurt. Ok. So, I am not arguing that trade makes everyone poorer, trade can totally benefit all parties involved. But the thing is, communism does involve trade. No one said communism involves no trade, the idea that an economy can even survive without the exchange of goods is confounding. If someone advocated for an economy with no trade I would straight up decline that because an economy with no trade is not even an economy.Β
However, what communism does involve is changing the ownership structure of the economy - who owns the means of production and who receives the profits created by labour, not abolishing trade itself. Trade existed for thousands of years before capitalism and would continue to exist under socialism or communism.
Also, the fact that trade can benefit everyone doesnβt mean that trades are equally beneficial. If you really want me and my brotherβs car and we really want idk your Nike shoes, we will trade them and weβll both have benefits, since we got what we wanted. But is that a fair trade? For us to get only some shoes when you took away an entire car? No. How about if we are distributing our "gains" and I get both the shoes but he gets only the shoelaces. No, thatβs not fair either!
Communism does not want to abolish trade, it wants to change the ownership structure of the economy. It wants to change who controls the means of production and who receives profits. It wants to prevent unequal trades due to unequal power dynamics. Since just because an MNC and a single worker both benefit from employment, does not mean they have equal power. Just because both countries benefit from trade, does not mean they have equal positions within the global economy.
Every single time that people with your concept of economics have been in charge of running an economy, they were so bad at running an economy they could not produce food and millions of people died of famine. People who believe in "not being Communist" are so good at producing food that you've needed to redefine famine to mean "doesn't have a Whole Foods that sells a large variety of fresh vegetables" so you can claim that they produce it.
This is a major overgeneralisation. Yes, some communist governments had devastating famines, and of course those were tragic, catastrophic and deserve severe condemnation. But saying "every single time" ignores the complexity of history - youβre literally combining a large number of countries, time periods and government structures into a single conclusion.
To give some examples of this complexity, I will cite some countries commonly described as communist, however please note that many communists disagree that these states were properly communist. For example, I personally believe the Soviet Union was just a socialist authoritarian state rather than a fully communist society. Vietnam and China are also considered mixed economies by some.
Regardless, the Soviet Union rapidly industrialised and became one of the world's leading agricultural and industrial powers. China, the world's largest agricultural producer feeds over a billion people despite tariffs and sanctions. Vietnam is one of the worldβs largest agricultural exporters.Β
Of course, none of this proves that communism is superior. All it proves is that the complex history of communist economies canβt be reduced to the single idea that they couldnβt produce food.
Also, famines - even man made famines - arenβt unique to communist countries. Take a look at the Irish Famine and the Bengal Famine under British Colonial rule where the countries continued to export food to Britain while the people were starving. Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen has argued that famines are caused not only by shortages of food but by failures of distribution and political decision making, including in wealthy, capitalist societies.
So yes, communist countries have caused famines, and they have even been caused by their governments. However, famine is not an inevitable result of communism, nor is it unique to communism. One economic system isnβt responsible for famines while the others are immune to it.
Communist economies were the only ones successful at maintaining quality of life while the rest of the entire world increased their quality of life in the post-WWII boom.
There are two issues with this statement. Firstly, you canβt compare the outcomes of so-called communist countries directly with capitalist countries, and especially not with America, because those countries were often poorer to start off with and are constantly facing sanctions or even war from the US. Russia, China, Vietnam and more started off as largely agrarian, semi feudal and impoverished countries when they started communism. They were also often destroyed by war. During WWII, the Soviet Union lost an estimated 27 million lives and massive infrastructure, and countries like Vietnam and Korea were devastated by decades of hot conflicts from the Cold War. However, the US entered the 20th century already an industrial powerhouse, with a lot of geographic advantages and untouched infrastructure from any wars.
On top of that, communist nations also frequently faced severe economic isolation. The US embargo on Cuba (spanning over six decades), for example has caused a lot of issues with trade and economy.
Even in countries capitalists argue are "identical" with one communist state and one capitalist state actually had the communists at a disadvantage, and so you canβt even compare these. For example, comparisons between East and West Germany are complicated by things such as the Marshall Plan benefitting West Germany while East Germany paid reparations to the Soviet Union.Β
Of course, the Failiure of some of these countries canβt be explained entirely by these factors but itβs unfair to blame communism for these failures as well.
And despite all this, many communist countries actually experienced dramatic improvements in literacy, healthcare, life expectancy and industrial output compared with where they began. The Soviet Union transformed from a largely rural empire into one of the world's leading scientific and industrial powers. China nearly doubled life expectancy within a few decades after 1949. Cuba continues to achieve health outcomes similar to much richer countries.
Okay, yeah, thats the end of my badly done argument.
Sorry about my first response, I understand why it led you to make some of these arguments. It was a bit misleading and oversimplified because I was too tired to write something longer and I didnβt think it was that deep, but this is my actual view. Feel free to counter argument this btw, and have a good day :D
dailybridgerton
yousharknotpass
tangentwithtanner
prguitarman
discoholicmusic
gracieabrams
andulkaphoto
