Skip to main content

Why Capitalism is better for workers than Communism

Even though Marxist Communism, the kind that was implemented for about half a century in the Soviet Union, is the government system with the highest numbers of people killed for political reasons in the entire history of humanity, and regardless of all of its blatant violations of basic human rights, our western society has been successfully socially engineered in such a way that openly and blatantly Communist ideologues are not only teaching at universities and invited to speak in public events and live TV, but almost nobody even bats an eye anymore (even though in reality it should be treated with as much scorn as a blatantly Nazi ideologue would).

One of their arguments that they love to present is that Communism protects worker's rights, while Capitalism exploits workers, who get pitiable sums while the CEOs and higher-ups get rich on their labor. The workers are pretty much in essence slave labor.

The actual reality, however, is pretty much the exact opposite.

In the Soviet Union, which implemented Marxist Communism, the government assigned you a job and forced you to do that job, lest you be punished (usually by throwing you in jail). Most often than not, the job was assigned you almost at random, completely disregarding your experience, knowledge, background, talents and desires. If you were assigned to work at the assembly line at some factory, then you'd better be there every single morning, no matter how much more experienced you would have been in some other work, or how much you would have wanted to pursue the life of an artist, for example, and no matter how much you hate that factory work.

Moreover, workers were not paid salary. They were paid a government-mandated allowance, which was the same for everybody. You working hard would not be rewarded in any way. No salary raises, no promotions, no career opportunities, no changing jobs. And forget about becoming an independent entrepreneur, because that was banned.

In Capitalism, however, you have a choice. Nobody forces you to work at a particular job, or in any job for that matter. You can choose your own career. If you want to pursue the bohemian life of an artist, you are free to do so. Nobody's stopping you. If you want to become a computer programmer, you can do so. If you hate your current job and can't stand it, you can leave whenever you want (although many countries impose a minimum resignation notice period to partially protect employers, nobody can be forced to do a particular job if they don't want to. That would be slavery.) If another employer offers you a better salary, you can switch jobs.

Moreover, in Capitalism you generally have more opportunities to advance in your career. If you work hard, you often get promotions and salary raises, and you may well start earning more money.

Or if you want to become an independent entrepreneur, nobody is stopping you. If you have a great business idea, you can go ahead and create a business out of it.

In Capitalism you are free to work whatever and however you want, to choose your workplace, or even become independent. In Communism, however, you are a slave of the state, with no choices.

Comments

  1. All you've done is debunk totalitarianism, something no one is advocating for.
    First of all communism is a stateless, classless society in which the workers manage themselves, the USSR never claimed to be communist, it claimed to be socialist.
    Socialism is workers'control of the means of production, the USSR claimed to represent the workers (I'd dispute that but ok).
    The problem with capitalism is that capital can be used as a tool for theft. Me sitting on my ass twiddling my thumbs creates just as much value as Mike Bloomberg doing the same (none). He however does make money then because he owns the MoP, workers are underpaid and the extra value is funneled up (stock-buybacks, dividends,...) from those who work to those who own.(in marxism these are called the proletariat and bourgoisie)

    Most can't start a business meaning you're forced to be exploited, having a choice between getting ripped off by the Irish or Italian mafia still gets you ripped off by the mafia.
    We can fix this by running companies through democracy in the workplace, worker co-ops are just as efficient as capitalist firms, workers'control of the MoP aka socialism.
    Source: http://disjointedthinking.jeffhughes.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Burdin-Dean-2009.-New-evidence-on-wages-and-employment-in-worker-cooperatives-compared-with-capitalist-firms.pdf

    The reason co-ops aren't everywhere currently is because capitalists don't want them to exist and thus they have a harder time getting
    stuff like loans, meaning they usually stay small.

    Well there's some exceptions the biggest co-op, Mondragon has a value of ~28 billion USD.
    Wikipedia on mondragon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Banks refuse to give companies loans because the companies don't have a strict capitalist hierarchy and instead engage in communism? That must be the most hilarious conspiracy theory I have heard in a while. Are you high?

      If you want to create a communist company, nobody is stopping you. That's the beauty of capitalism: Freedom. You can do whatever you want. You can run your company however you want. Your employees are free to choose to work for you or not, if they so want. Nobody forces them to work for you, nobody stops them from working for you, if they so want. If you think you are being exploited in your current job, you are free to leave whenever you want. Nobody's stopping you. That's the beauty of freedom. That's the beauty of capitalism.

      Not so in communism. In communism if you want to earn more money by working hard and running a company, you'll be put against the wall and shot, because that's not allowed. The communist enforcers will come and shoot you for the crime of earning more than others.

      Delete
    2. As I said most can't start a business and most are forced to work in capitalist firms.

      Aspiring socialists whom are able to do start co-ops, I wouldn't be able to show you a study on them if they didn't exist.
      And they do have a harder time getting loans simply because a capitalist will be more reluctant to help something that might serve as a counter example to his power.
      There doesn't need to be a conspiracy for co-ops to still be at a disadvantage.

      Also you can have a democracy with an economy run by co-ops, so your red scare fear mongering is just that, I want socialism not totalitarianism.
      And you didn't even make an effort to try to say how stock-buybacks, dividends,... aren't just theft.

      Maybe look at what a socialist like me actually says instead of the caricature pushed by corporate media.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I'm sure that banks will ask your political views on capitalism vs. socialism when they are deciding whether to give you a loan or not, and if you are too much of a socialist they will deny you the loan because you are "not capitalist enough". Are you completely delusional? That's the silliest conspiracy theory I have seen in a while.

      Saying "I want socialism, not totalitarianism" is an oxymoron because socialism *is* totalitarianism.

      In socialism the government owns all capital and all means of production and commerce, and private commerce and entrepreneurship is banned by law. In other words, the government owns all banks and banking companies, all corporations, all factories, all manufacturing plants, and private business and private property is banned. In socialism the government mandates all salaries and controls every job, and decides what you get paid. Individuals do not get to decide what their salary is, or what salary they will pay to others. The government decides all that. In socialism the government engages in planned economy instead of a free-market economy, which means that the government decides the price of everything, rather than allowing private individuals to set these prices according to supply and demand.

      That's totalitarianism. That's the very definition of totalitarianism.

      And by the way, tax-funded public services have absolutely nothing to do with socialism, because socialism is a form of economy. Socialist regimes might offer public welfare services, but that's not what makes them socialist.

      Capitalism, as an economic model, however, is not totalitarian because of one simple key concept: Freedom. People are *free* to *choose* their line of work, they are free to choose their own businesses, they are free to choose what to pay and how much to ask for their products or services, and they are free to engage in commerce with other companies and individuals, nationally and internationally. The only situation where the government steps in with restrictions is to stop companies and individuals from breaking the law and abusing their power to harmful degrees. And to collect taxes to fund the government and its public services.

      Now tell me: Under socialism, what happens to someone who tries to start a private business where he decides what salary he pays to his employees, and his own salary, which may be significantly higher than the one of his employees? Is he *free* to choose his own business model?

      Delete
  2. Socialism is workers' control of the MoP, in the USSR the state who claimed to represent the workers owned the MoP and therefor claimed to be socialist.
    I, like the vast majority of socialists see this, given history as a bad idea.
    Instead we want workers' control of the MoP via democracy in the workerplace.

    When corporate profits rise your income doesn't change, those who didn't have to lift a finger and didn't create that value are rewarded (stock-buybacks, dividends,...), that value was stolen from you.

    All medium and large corporations do this, having a choice between the Irish and Italian mafia still gets you ripped off by the mafia.

    Also what happens under socialism (the type modern socialists advocate for) if someone starts a business is that he can do that, but he'll have to run it with his workers, democracy in the workplace.
    Since he is in practice still a worker he shares the same interests as his workers and there is no conflict. I already showed you evidence that this is more efficient than a capitalist firm.

    Under capitalism on the other hand (if the company does well) he'll sell off his ownership at some point and then the owners will try to maximize profit and then funnel it up to themselves, in pursuit of this wages will be as low possible, hours as long as possible and benefits as bad as possible (if they're not just eliminated).
    All capitalist firms try to screw their workers, just not more so than the competition.

    BUT YOU'RE STILL GETTING SCREWED, THIS IS WHAT'S WRONG WITH CAPITALISM.

    If you've got anything that's not red scare propaganda then say it, if not then I'm leaving here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are still not answering the question. Not completely. You say "he'll have to run it with his workers". What do you mean "have to"? Who enforces this? Who forces him to do this? The state police? What happens if he doesn't comply?

      More in general, who exactly enforces this "the workers control the MoP"? The state police? The military police? The self-appointed Communist junta? Who? And with what?

      I'm not "getting screwed" by capitalism. I'm being paid salary for my job, according to my qualifications, expertise and job performance. I get more than enough for a very comfortable living with modern luxuries. So what if some boss or owner of the company I work for gets an income that's 10 or 20 times higher than me? Good for him. He created the company, he runs it, he makes sure everything works, he makes sure that things get done, he deserves his salary and his earnings. I don't suffer from jealousy.

      If I were to think that I'm not being paid enough, I'm completely free to leave and go to another company that pays me for my expertise. Nobody is stopping me. That's the beauty of freedom. That's the beauty of the free market.

      Under your socialist utopia I would probably be jailed or shot because of my political dissent, because I would refuse to bend the knee. I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. You would probably live on your knees and get a pittance of a salary and a small apartment that you wouldn't give a flying fuck about because you don't own it and you could lose it at any moment when the self-appointed communist junta decides to give it to someone else.

      Red scare? You are right I'm scared, and for good reason. Communism and socialism are extremely murderous and dangerous political ideologies that have killed more people as political persecution than any other political ideology in the history of humanity. Pretty much every single person who has ever had to live under communism knows how horrible it is. It's oppressive totalitarianism that kills millions of people for political dissent. Socialism deserves only scorn and that political ideology should be eradicated from the face of the Earth, alongside all other totalitarian fascist ideologies. You want to leave here? Well, fuck off then. I have literally zero respect for socialist ideology.

      Delete
    2. What I mean by running it with his workers is that he is democratically accountable to his workers, but since managers are still workers he shares the same interests as his workers.

      And no one needs to enforce workers' control of the MoP, if it weren't for the state enforcing shareholdership there'd be nothing stopping the workers from seizing control themselves and managing themselves.

      This is literally what happens when the state stops enforcing private ownership of the MoP, look at what happened in Anarchist Catalonia or in Northern Italy between the collapse of fascism and the allies arriving.
      (The allies brutally crushed the Italian socialists)

      You only need the state to stop enforcing capitalism, you can keep democracy, freedom of speech,...
      AND YOU CAN STILL SWITCH COOPS LIKE YOU CAN COMPANIES.
      And unlike in capitalism you actually have a say in the running of your workplace.
      If you work for a living (that's what working class means) this option is just better.

      Delete
    3. The state enforcing capitalism... You are becoming more and more hilarious by the message. You seem to live in some kind of delusional imaginary world.

      I also like that expression of yours, "seizing control". You talk as if corporations were some kind of natural resources that just exist there, like a lake or a mountain, which has been taken over by some people who are exploiting it, and how other people can then come and "seize control of".

      A company is the private property of someone or a group of people. A company is always created by someone and is thus owned by someone. "Seizing control" of private property is just another word for "stealing". In other words, your "workers seizing control" means "workers stealing the private property of the company owners".

      Which is, of course, par for the course for socialists. They don't have any respect for private property and private ownership, and only know how to steal other people's property by force. Socialists are nothing but criminal muggers who think that they have some kind of holy right to things that others have created. And if someone resists, he gets shot. Socialists are nothing but thieving bandits.

      Thanks, but no thanks. Just fuck off.

      Delete
    4. You're honestly gonna tell me that without the state (and the state isn't replaced with something more tyrannical) workers would still pay those who don't work because they put their name on what they're using?
      History disagrees.

      And why do you insist on not having control over your workplace, why do you want the value you created to end up in someone else's hands?

      If totalitarianism was the only alternative to capitalism then I would agree with you that capitalism is better.

      But that's not the case, libertarian socialists exist (I am one), if nothing else can you take away that socialism isn't inherently totalitarian.

      Delete
    5. I think you summarized it best: "Seize control." In other words, theft. Taking someone's private property away from him, and seizing control of it.

      If you want to create your own utopian company, nobody is stopping you. There is no law against it. You are free to do so. That's the key word: Freedom.

      But no, that's not what you want. You want to *take away* other people's property. You want to steal what others have created and built, rather than creating your own. That's socialism in a nutshell: Stealing what others have done, and removing people's freedoms and choices. And if they resist and don't agree with it, the socialist regime will kill them.

      So go ahead and create your utopian company where everybody is equal. And don't give me that bullshit of a conspiracy theory that the government is going to stop you from doing so. Nobody is stopping you from doing so. That's the beauty of freedom and the right to private property.

      Delete

Post a Comment