1. Capitalism cannot work since it inevitably leads to concentration of capital and monopolies, which hinders competition and causes extreme income and wealth inequality.
2. The same zero sum game applies to capitalism, since people still compete for wealth and status.
3. Historically looking, capitalism and its ever expanding nature lead to colonialism, endless imperial wars and conflicts, resource grab wars and conflicts, debt slavery, people dying of famine although there was no global food shortage, climate destruction, ...
So yeah, both capitalism and communism can fail and prosper, depending on the implementation, but none of the systems is inherently better.
The problem is that we actually have evidence against this tested theory. Whenever communism has been implemented on a large scale it has failed. Countries like the USSR and Mao’s China implemented communism and it resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people. Whereas today we have a variety of capitalist economies ranging from today’s prosperous China which has a mix of capitalism and a dictatorship, to places like Sweden or the United Kingdom.
Capitalism is a better system based on the experimental evidence that we have, at a minimum. And that does not even include arguments appealing to human nature and the inability of a government to manage prices or human desires.
> 3. Historically looking, capitalism and its ever expanding nature lead to colonialism, endless imperial wars and conflicts, resource grab wars and conflicts, debt slavery, people dying of famine although there was no global food shortage, climate destruction, ...
Communism never stopped these things either. The reason is that these issues are government failures.
First, the countries you mention included Germany and Japan, which, during World War 2 were both fascist states.
Second, the USSR in conjunction with Nazi Germany invaded Poland and together kicked off World War 2 - the USSR was a reluctant ally only to defeat a greater evil. Both regimes were outright evil.
Third, colonial expansion was primarily done under monarchist governments.
Fourth, if you want to (incorrectly) say that the US, UK, Germany, etc. and capitalist economic systems have the same feature of 'deaths of tens of millions of people" then you also would have to take into account that capitalist economies have also prevented the deaths of millions, provided the world with vaccines and breakthrough medical treatments, helped get us to the moon, and improved living standards for many billions of people. Communism did none of that over the long-term. Even Communist China has come around to support capitalism.
Finally, the debate among anyone serious, and I do mean exactly that, isn't capitalism + free markets versus something else, but instead it's to what degree should a government be involved in the market. Capitalism is so obviously superior that it's difficult for anyone to bring about an improved economic system based on the human condition up to this point. Frankly, communism is a failed ideology at the nation-state level and it has been outcompeted by capitalist economies, which is why it doesn't exist except by violent force, and in those limited cases it is dwarfed in wealth, effectiveness, and benefit by all but the worst capitalist economies.
On the other hand, if removing central planing makes communism not communism anymore, then adding those "minor tweaks" make capitalism not capitalism anymore.
Btw, central planing is not a requirement for a communism, it's just that one of the largest communist experiments was implemented that way. There was also a king of distributed self-planning, that worked much better as an implementation of communism.
>if removing central planing makes communism not communism anymore, then adding those "minor tweaks" make capitalism not capitalism anymore.
The minor tweaks to make capitalism work still allow private ownership, free exchange of goods, and a system based on the movement of capital.
The changes to make communism work, make it not communism by definition. If you don't have central planning then how are goods and services created and allocated? By a free market? That's capitalism!
Which historical communist country would you like to live in?
None of the historically available communist countries would be my choice of living. In the same way, I would not be eager to live in any of the historical early pure capitalist countries, unless I am sure I would belong to the top 1-5% percent.
Good capitalism implementation borrowed quite a bit from communism/socialism, to make those systems bearable for an average citizen.
Given that capitalism exists at least a hundred-year longer, I suppose there's still possibility for a nice implementation of communism to come. It took capitalism at least 150 years to get to the somewhat liveable level.
I'd still rather live in a Star Trek like communist utopia/dystopia than in an Elysium like capitalist utopia/dystopia.
Capitalist societies experience famine, but that's not the same as causing famine, something which has happened numerous times in communist societies:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
Compare that with the following famines that were both experienced and caused by capitalism:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India
If you look at the full list of famines, you'll find the difference between capitalism and communism astonishing:
I had to search for “tankie”. Thanks for introducing a new word for me. For people who don't know what “tankie” is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie
However, please keep in mind that not everyone who is not a priori against communism can be classified as hard core Stalinist. One should be able to criticize both systems, and wish a better one, without being labelled from one side as “tankie” and from the other side as “imperialistic capitalistic pig”, or another insult of the day.
In both cases, government actions were what drove crop failures to become widespread famines.
2. Even in a world where essential resources are plentiful, many people compete for status, which is a zero-sum game.
3. Perhaps as a result, communism when attempted historically results in famine and/or shortages and/or genocides.