Capitalism Is the Operating System (OS) of Modern Society
medium.com
medium.com
That's not actually correct. Communism can be implemented as a centralized model as seen in USSR or China, but it also facilitates decision making done ground up with the workers driving the decision making process as seen with a cooperative ownership model. Richard Wolff explains different approaches here very eloquently https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ywyLiNT3Cs
Meanwhile capitalism promotes top down decision making, and necessarily leads to centralization and monopolies. The game of monopoly is a perfect illustration of this where every player starts in a fair position and over time all the power ends up being consolidated with a single player while the rest of the players lose everything.
This dynamic plays out in the real world as well. As companies compete, successful companies grow while unsuccessful ones die out or end up being absorbed by ones that are successful. As the company grows the amount of initial capital needed to compete with it grows as well. It's pretty much impossible for a small startup to start competing with a company like Walmart or Amazon because these companies leverage advantages like economies of scale and brand recognition.
If we look at capitalist economies we can see that monopolies and cartels are prevalent in pretty much every domain from telecom industry to food production to media and most other domains.
>The Chinese have their own way of implementing Capitalism which is largely informed by the legacy code from the philosophy of Communism.
This is also incorrect seeing that capitalism predates communism, and communism developed as a response to capitalism. It's also worth noting that communism and large public sector are the primary reasons why China is pretty much the only major growing economy after the pandemic. It's pretty evident that this "legacy" system is currently doing a lot better than capitalism.
> For example, Capitalism is built on the philosophy of decentralized decision-making, whilst Communism is built on the philosophy of centralized decision-making.
I'm mainly referring to the process of price-setting. Rather than having some all-powerful body that determines the price, the price is determined by market participants. Too high and no one buys, too low and no one makes a profit. The market determing the price of goods is an example of decentralized decision-making.
This aspect of Capitalism is what allows for a more efficient allocation of scarce resources. The gov't doesn't tell corporations what goods to produce or who they should be sold to, instead corporations make those decisions based on prices set by the market. Where can they make the most profit? The answer to this question correlates (in theory and most of the time, in practice) with where the resources are most needed.
So in short, the market sets the price (decentralized decision-making) and the prices determine where resources are allocated.
Communism as implemented in the USSR lacked this aspect which is why the allocation of resources was less than ideal. e.g. Bread lines, two or more years to receive a car that was purchased, etc.
It should be noted that I'm mainly referring to Communism as seen in the USSR and China.
>The Chinese have their own way of implementing Capitalism which is largely informed by the legacy code from the philosophy of Communism.
I'm referring to the Mao Zedong era in which Communism was the dominant economic model. Following that, the development of "Special economic zones" which are "granted more free market-oriented economic policies" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_economic_zones_of_Chin...).
China still remains a communist country but is trying to integrate the Capitalist model whilst taking into account legacy code from a prior regime.
But that's not the case in practice, and the government isn't the only way centralization happens. For example, consider telecom industry in US or Canada. There are a small number of providers that effectively form a cartel that carves up the country and ensure that prices stay high. Meanwhile, there is no incentive to provide decent service since there is no viable competition. New players are unable to break in because the initial cost of matching the infrastructure is astronomic, and radio spectrum is monopolized.
So, even if initial conditions might facilitate some kind of market competition, it quickly disappears as the system evolves over time.
>This aspect of Capitalism is what allows for a more efficient allocation of scarce resources.
It's quite clear that capitalism isn't very efficient at allocating resources at scale. We have hunger while we throw away around half the food we produce. We have homeless people while there is more housing than the homeless. We throw regularly away goods that are over produced. Products have planned obsolescence just so that they're thrown away and new ones are bought. Furthermore, despite having many advances in technology and automation people still work as hard as ever. You would think that an efficient system would actually reduce work and create more free time for people. Capitalism shows incredibly inefficiency all around.
>Communism as implemented in the USSR lacked this aspect which is why the allocation of resources was less than ideal. e.g. Bread lines, two or more years to receive a car that was purchased, etc.
CIA data suggests they ate just as much as Americans after WW2 peroid while having better nutrition: https://www.scribd.com/document/430076844/CIA-RDP84B00274R00...
Furthermore, Russia went from a backwards agrarian society where people travelled by horse and carriage to being the first in space in the span of 40 years. Russia showed incredible growth after the revolution that surpassed the rest of the world:
* https://wid.world/document/soviets-oligarchs-inequality-prop... * https://wid.world/document/appendix-soviets-oligarchs-inequa...
USSR provided free education to all citizens resulting in literacy rising from 33% to 99.9%:
* http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/PubEdUSSR.htm * http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/anglosov.htm * http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0000/000013/001300eo.pdf * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likbez
USSR doubled life expectancy in just 20 years. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years. the Semashko system of the USSR increased lifespan by 50% in 20 years. By the 1960's, lifespans in the USSR were comparable to those in the USA:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Uni... * https://www.rand.org/pubs/research\_briefs/RB5054/index1.htm...
Quality of nutrition improved after the Soviet revolution, and the last time USSR had a famine was in 1940s. USSR moved from 58.5-hour work weeks to 41.6 hour work weeks (-0.36 h/yr) between 1913 and 1960:
* https://books.google.com/books?id=x8JYjwEACAAJ * https://b-ok.cc/book/2669908/77497f
USSR averaged 22 days of paid leave in 1986 while USA averaged 7.6 in 1996:
* https://www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/1994/94B09_66_englp2.p... * https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ebs.t05.htm
In 1987, people in the USSR could retire with pension at 55 (female) and 60 (male) while receiving 50% of their wages at a at minimum. Meanwhile, in USA the average retirement age was 62-67 and the average (not median) retiree household in the USA could expect $48k/yr which comes out to 65% of the 74k average (not median) household income in 2016:
* https://www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/1994/94B09_66_englp2.p... * https://www.cbsnews.com/news/could-you-get-by-on-the-average...
GDP took off after socialism was established and then collapsed with the reintroduction of capitalism:
* https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Soviet_Union_GDP_per...
The Soviet Union had the highest physician/patient ratio in the world. USSR had 42 doctors per 10,000 population compared to 24 in Denmark and Sweden, and 19 in US:
* http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/07356757849... (sci-hub for access)
* USSR defeated a smallpox epidemic in a matter of 19 days https://www.rbth.com/history/331857-how-ussr-defeated-black-...
* The Social Consequences of Soviet Immunization Policies https://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/1997-812-03g-Hoch.pdf
USSR produced many firsts in the realm of science and technology:
* 1957: First intercontinental ballistic missile R-7 Semyorka
* 1957: First orbiting satellite, Sputnik 1
* 1957: First living in orbit, the dog Laika on Sputnik 2
* 1957: First nuclear powered icebreaker "Lenin" weighing in at 19,240 tons of steel
* 1958: First Tokamak thermonuclear experimental system
* 1959: First man-made object to leave the Earth's orbit, Luna 1
* 1959: First communication to and from Luna 1 with Earth
* 1959: First object to pass near the moon, and the first object in orbit around the Moon, Luna 1
* 1959: First satellite hit the moon, Luna 2
* 1959: First images of the dark side of the moon, Luna 3
* 1960: First satellite to be launched to Mars, the Marsnik 1
* 1961: First satellite to Venus, Venera 1
* 1961: First person to enter orbit around the Earth, Yuri Gagarin in Vostok 1
* 1961: First person to spend a day in orbit, Gherman Titov – Vostok 2
* 1962: First flight of two astronauts, Vostok 3 and Vostok 4
* 1963: First woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova, Vostok 6
* 1964: First flight of several astronauts, Voskhod 1
* 1965: First spacewalk, Aleksei Leonov, Voskhod 2
* 1965: First probe to another planet Venus, Venera 3
* 1966: First probe to descend on the moon and send from there, Luna 9
* 1966: First probe in lunar orbit, Luna 10
* 1967: First meeting of unmanned Cosmos 186/Cosmos 188, this aws not achieved by US until 2006
* 1969: First docking and crew exchange in orbit, Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5
* 1970: First signals sent to the moon by Luna 16
* 1970: First mobile robot, Lunokhod 1
* 1970: First data sent by a probe from another planet (Venus), Venera 7
* 1971: First space station, Salyut 1
* 1971: First satellite in orbit around Mars and landing on Mars 2
* 1975: First satellite in orbit around Venus and sending data to earth, Venera 9
* 1984: First woman to walk in space, Svetlana Savitskaja on Salyut 7
* 1986: First team to visit two space stations Salyut and Mir
* 1986: First permanent space station in Earth orbit from 1986 to 2001, MIR
* 1987: First team to spend more than a year aboard Mir, Vladimir Titov and Musa Manarov
These are just some of the biggest technological and social achievements of the Soviet Union.
and here are academic studies on USSR
Professor of Economic History, Robert C. Allen, concludes in his study without the 1917 revolution is directly responsible for rapid growth that made the achievements listed above possilbe:
* https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.50...
Study demonstrating the steady increase in quality of life during the Soviet period (including under Stalin). Includes the fact that Soviet life expectancy grew faster than any other nation recorded at the time:
* https://www.jstor.org/stable/2672986?seq=1
A large study using world bank data analyzing the quality of life in Capitalist vs Socialist countries and finds overwhelmingly at similar levels of development with socialism bringing better quality of life:
* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/pdf/amj...
This study compared capitalist and socialist countries in measures of the physical quality of life (PQL), taking into account the level of economic development.
* https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2430906/
You also appear to be misunderstanding China here. The way capitalism is introduced there is quite different the way it would work in a capitalist country. Calling the communist model legacy is nonsensical since that's what core economy and policy are based around. Capitalism is introduced in strictly supplementary fashion and not intended to replace the communist model. In fact, China explicitly plans to phase it out entirely by 2050.
> * https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.50...
This paper admits that Imperial Russia growth was just as good or better then Soviet growth. They state:
> Japanese growth was based on institutional modernization that exceeded anything imaginedby the Tsars. Without a comparable institutional revolution, Russia would have languished.
This is a pretty absurd statement that assumes the conclusion. Under the Tsars multiple massive institutional changes happened multiple time, and often in the 19th century. Literally just a few years before WW1 the Tsars enacted the largest land reform program in world history that would have absolutely exploded land productivity.
Yes of course Russia had to continue to reform, but so did Japan and so did the Soviet Union.
I would argue not killing millions of your most productive farmers, put 100s of your intellectuals into labor camps, enacting genocide on multiple nations, declaring global war on the rest of the world would be a benefit.
The paper makes a whole lot of other highly questionable claims.
> I argue that industrial development would have been almost asfast had the five year plans been carried out within the frame work of the NEP–but it none-the-less nudged up the growth rate.
This claim is incredibly questionable. If you actually read the documentation from that time, actually what the people in charge of the Soviet Union knew, was that those things were not independent.
The massive export of grain is what allowed the massive import of foreign machine tools, factory designs and a million other things. The Soviets literally took food away from starving farmers, put it on trains, shipped it to Germany and got amazing high quality machine tools back ON THE SAME TRAIN that were vital for industrialization.
During the NEP they wanted to do the same thing, and they tried, but unfortunately for them the Red Army was parading down Red Square on bicycles and they literally couldn't.
The paper doesn't substantiate these claims on how equal industrialization would have been possible without collectivization.
I could go on, there is so much questionable things in the paper. Honestly I feel slightly discussion by their treatment (or non treatment) of multi-million people starving in the period that they are discussing.
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/2672986?seq=1
I can't event take this paper seriously.
You do realize that tsarist Russia was largely an agrarian society that was lagging far behind industrialized nations of the time, yes? I hope you also realize that the whole reason the revolution was possible was due to mass famines and horrific working conditions that radicalized the population into taking action.
Any revolutionary period will necessarily be turbulent. However, it's sheer absurdity to argue against the gains that were rapidly made in USSR and the quality of life improvements that followed within decades. USSR demonstrates that communism was able to achieve nearly a hundred years of progress under capitalism in the western countries in mere decades while also having some of the most progressive working conditions at the time.
Russia did better then literally every other empire. Yes it lagged behind Britain, France, Germany and the US but it industrial output growth was outpacing Austria-Hungary.
Compared to other Eurasian Empires, Safavid, Qing and the Ottoman they did amazingly.
And if you actually study WW1 history in detail, you would see Russian industrial output was pretty amazing in WW1. Cut of from all its allies far more then in WW1 they produced an amazing amount of industrial capacity. In fact much of the Soviet success in the 20s is build on that infrastructure.
Russia during this time also built the longest railroad in history.
And saying 'its an agrarian society' is hardly a negative, in fact, by many measures Germany was too. What you are simply ignoring is my point about the largest land reform program in history.
> I hope you also realize that the whole reason the revolution was possible was due to mass famines and horrific working conditions that radicalized the population into taking action.
Nonsense, the revolution was possible because of WW1 and the demilitarization of the autocracy The last large famine had been decades ago and Russia was the most success agricultural country in the world
Germany also had a revolution, failure in war and the collapse of political authority tends to have that effect. The were also multiple revolutions in Austria-Hungary.
You had the three large Eastern and Central European empires collapse. What actually made the Communist revolution stick in Russia is that they had one year to consolidate power in the industrial core of Russia.
> However, it's sheer absurdity to argue against the gains that were rapidly made in USSR and the quality of life improvements that followed within decades.
Multiple million people starved to death in the early 20s and multiple million people starved to death in the late 30s. Millions of people were put into labor camps.
Of course if you don't count those people because they are dead or in the labor camp, then by the 30s they made some gains. But lets not ignore the 10-00k of people who were basically forced work and died in large soviet industrialization.
But again, you have yet to show that this would not have happened under the alternative regime. As literally every statistical model would tell you that it would have.
> USSR demonstrates that communism was able to achieve nearly a hundred years of progress under capitalism in the western countries in mere decades while also having some of the most progressive working conditions at the time.
Again, you are repeating all the typical communist myths. The idea that Imperial Russia was some backwards country from the middle ages while within 10 years after the revolution Soviet Union was some paradise. This is not the case, Imperial Russia was one of the industrial super powers of the world, they had a war economy that basically without allied help fought against the Ottoman, Austria-Hungary and Germany at the same time on a war front that was about 10x larger then the front Britain and France fought on.
In the 20s the NEP basically reactivate that industrial capacity and it took until the late 20s for farm productivity to reach leaves of before. Then it took millions of people to starve to death and more to be malnourished for the Soviet government to buy technology and tools from the West to build up industrial capacity. A fact that you consistently ignore.
The idea that working conditions were progressive under Stalin are frankly absurd. Go read about how the White Sea–Baltic Canal was built and tell me about progressive working conditions. And from 1917 to 1954 is almost have the existence of Soviet Union. And while after that things did improve somewhat, by the late 70s economic growth had stagnated for the most part and the Soviet Union elites all preferred Western import for most of their consumption.
Many countries that were technologically behind managed to have rapid growth in the last century and most of those started from far less industrial capacity compared to Soviet Union. And most didn't have massive amounts of oil and natural resources to exploit either.
Better in what sense exactly? It certainly wasn't doing well in terms of quality of life for general population, and neither were any of the major capitalist powers. It's also a fact that Soviets built most of the infrastructure with 10 year plans.
>And saying 'its an agrarian society' is hardly a negative, in fact, by many measures Germany was too. What you are simply ignoring is my point about the largest land reform program in history.
I'm not ignoring your point, I just think it's nonsensical.
>Nonsense, the revolution was possible because of WW1 and the demilitarization of the autocracy The last large famine had been decades ago and Russia was the most success agricultural country in the world
WW1 played a role, but claiming that living conditions did not is the hieght of absurdity.
>Multiple million people starved to death in the early 20s and multiple million people starved to death in the late 30s. Millions of people were put into labor camps.
Millions of people starve under capitalism today. Around 20 million people die each year under capitalism from starvation, lack of healthcare, and so forth. US currently has the highest prison population in the world, higher than USSR had under Stalin. Prisoners in US are routinely used as slave labor.
>Again, you are repeating all the typical communist myths.
"myths"
>The idea that Imperial Russia was some backwards country from the middle ages while within 10 years after the revolution Soviet Union was some paradise.
Have you actually lived in the Soviet union, because I have and I know what life there was actually like. It's also quite telling that the quality of life has dropped significantly after transition to capitalism in the 90s.
It's quite telling that you're fixating on the turbulent period right after the revolution as opposed to years after WW2 where quality of life continued to improve rapidly with every decade.
Go take a look at what happened under capitalist regimes during 19th century and start of the 20th century. The atrocities like the Irish Famine, British adventures in India, and slave trade are just some of the highlights of the horrors, and many of those horrors continue happening today.
Richard Wolff is total hack and the fringe of fringe fringe economics. Economic study of cooperative model within capitalism has shown the to be mostly not effective and not innovative. Success stories are few an far between and those that do exist usually are successful by copying existing business model.
There is a reason less then 1% of companies operate that way.
> Meanwhile capitalism promotes top down decision making, and necessarily leads to centralization and monopolies.
Funny, if you read Marx you would assume that there would be less companies over time and an workers getting poor consistently.
The exact opposite has happened.
the idea that capitalism lead to top down decision making is frankly incredibly false. Within each company there is some level of top down decision making, but every company has a different culture and many different types of companies have success.
Some companies are large stock holder conglomerates where there is very little top down decision making and each sub-company operates mostly by themselves. Some companies are run by a visionary leader in a more top-down fashion but the good once take advice and ideas.
And on system level the idea that decision making in capitalism is top-down is simply verifiable and completely untrue. The highest political authority clearly does not set prices, in fact often when they do they fail and they clearly don't make the economic choices for everybody.
Ok, lets go to the evil capitalist. Do they make all the choices? No clearly not. Even the richest capitalist only control small parts of companies that themselves are far less then % of the economy. And even the price and worth of those companies are defined in a decentralized way.
Meanwhile, not a single anarchy-syndicalist or even syndicalist system has ever actually worked for a modern economy for any length of time. The counter examples that Socialist often bring up, Basque country in the Spanish Civil war and so on are embracing examples of reaching compared to the global economy.
> The game of monopoly is a perfect illustration of this where every player starts in a fair position and over time all the power ends up being consolidated with a single player while the rest of the players lose everything.
Monopoly the game was designed by a socialist to impose his idea of capitalism the form of a game. Its literally a game design to show how evil capitalism is.
But a little tip from me, don't make up your philosophy based on a propaganda board game. All it shows that the guy who invented the board game is just as wrong as you.
> This dynamic plays out in the real world as well. As companies compete, successful companies grow while unsuccessful ones die out or end up being absorbed by ones that are successful. As the company grows the amount of initial capital needed to compete with it grows as well. It's pretty much impossible for a small startup to start competing with a company like Walmart or Amazon because these companies leverage advantages like economies of scale and brand recognition.
Funny how Walmart already existed when Amazon was created. Funny how IBM existed when Microsoft was created. The examples are literally countless.
You are literally using as an example, a company that is 25 years old. It existence proves that you are wrong. If your theory was actually correct, Amazon could never have been created in the first place.
Its always amazing to who socialism have predicted that all capitalism will centralize into one single big company, and after 200 years and the number of companies generally increasing they still make the exact same arguments. This does make a certain sense since socialism have for 200 years believed everything run by a single top-down operation would be the most efficient.
> If we look at capitalist economies we can see that monopolies and cartels are prevalent in pretty much every domain from telecom industry to food production to media and most other domains.
And Tom Hanks has monopoly on playing Tom Hanks. Hollywood is full of monopolies.
If funny, you just divide up the whole market in to arbitrarily sized sub-markets, then declare each a monopoly. Then you realize that this is not actually the case so you divide the market further. And then its still not actually monopolies, and then you claim that they are cartels (mostly they are not).
So even if your argument would be right, it would still be wrong, because you simply assumed a nationalist point of few. Or are you claiming all telecom companies in the whole world are a cartel? All food production in the world is from a few companies? Funny, I know at least 5 farmers who own their own land and buy food from them.
Oh maybe you mean food distribution? Its not really true their either. But I guess if you divide the market long enough eventually your argument becomes true.
> This is also incorrect seeing that capitalism predates communism, and communism developed as a response to capitalism. It's also worth noting that communism and large public sector are the primary reasons why China is pretty much the only major growing economy after the pandemic. It's pretty evident that this "legacy" system is currently doing a lot better than capitalism.
China is not Communist and anybody that claims it is just does it to score political points in the US political battles.
Funny enough China is a lot more like Imperial Russia then Soviet Union.
This would be pretty big news for economists in Vietnam or China.
>Funny, if you read Marx you would assume that there would be less companies over time and an workers getting poor consistently.
or you know if you look at the world we live in https://twitter.com/LoveandMir/status/1391120730994089987
>The exact opposite has happened.
You must be a visitor from a bizarro universe. This is precisely what happened. We've seen a massive wealth transfer to the top over the past 100 years.
>the idea that capitalism lead to top down decision making is frankly incredibly false. Within each company there is some level of top down decision making, but every company has a different culture and many different types of companies have success.
Nonsense, companies are top down internally, and companies consolidate all the time turning into cartels and monopolies.
>Ok, lets go to the evil capitalist. Do they make all the choices? No clearly not. Even the richest capitalist only control small parts of companies that themselves are far less then % of the economy. And even the price and worth of those companies are defined in a decentralized way.
That's a factually wrong statement.
>Meanwhile, not a single anarchy-syndicalist or even syndicalist system has ever actually worked for a modern economy for any length of time.
Nice straw man, bobody is advocating for anything like that here. However, things like Mondragon do exist and are very successful even within a capitalist system. States like China, Vietnam, and Cuba exist as well.
>Monopoly the game was designed by a socialist to impose his idea of capitalism the form of a game. Its literally a game design to show how evil capitalism is.
That's not a counter argument. The game illustrates what happens over time in a capitalist system. This is precisely what we see happening in the real world. The wealthiest 1 percent of the world's population now owns more than half of the world's wealth.
>But a little tip from me, don't make up your philosophy based on a propaganda board game. All it shows that the guy who invented the board game is just as wrong as you.
A little tip from me, you might want to learn the concept of a thought experiment.
>Funny how Walmart already existed when Amazon was created. Funny how IBM existed when Microsoft was created. The examples are literally countless.
Unfortunately, you did not understand the point that I was making. It doesn't matter what specific company is on top at a particular time. It's the fact that at any given time you have a monopolistic situation.
>Its always amazing to who socialism have predicted that all capitalism will centralize into one single big company, and after 200 years and the number of companies generally increasing they still make the exact same arguments.
The only reason we're having arguments is because people defending capitalism appear to be utterly ignorant of the world they live in. You have to be willfully ignorant not to see mass consolidation in practically every major sector.
>So even if your argument would be right, it would still be wrong, because you simply assumed a nationalist point of few. Or are you claiming all telecom companies in the whole world are a cartel? All food production in the world is from a few companies? Funny, I know at least 5 farmers who own their own land and buy food from them.
You're just creating a false dichotomy here. It's not whether there's exactly 1 company or not. It's whether there is a small number of companies that is dominant in any given sector. This is very obviously the case.
>China is not Communist and anybody that claims it is just does it to score political points in the US political battles.
Last I checked all the essential economy in China is state owned, and public ownership accounts for around half the economy. But sure, tell me more about China.
>Funny enough China is a lot more like Imperial Russia then Soviet Union.
Somebody doesn't understand what the word imperialism means I guess.