Communism v. Capitalism

Marx said exactly the same thing as western European nations took control of areas like Africa and South America. Marx and later Leon and Trotsky would make similar pronouncements about “western imperialism,” the claim being the west needed to expand to expand capital and since expansion would not go on until infinity, the colonial empires of westerns nations signal the inevitable collapse of capitalism. And while wrong as an economic forecast it is true open markets and trade are vital, although then open functioned as a synonym for taken by force. Marx’s theory of the elite and wealthy using their power and influence to accumulate money is an observation that Adam Smith made in Wealth of Nations: “All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.”[1] Capitalism has problems, quite a few. All economic ideas and ideas in general are abstractions that breakdown when thrown into concrete reality. Capitalism at its worst today happens in place like the Congo, where multination mining and mineral corporations are too some degree complicit in the warfare and sectarian violence. It is irresponsible to hold capitalism accountable for all the crimes in the world. At the same time, capitalism has other less abhorrent qualities, namely its flexibility. Every western nation today, every wealthy industrialized country functions as a capitalist state—yes, even China despite the window dressing and claims of being a Communist state. For round one then, the best argument in favor of capitalism over communism comes in the form of a question: If communism is preferable to capitalism why is and has capitalism been the dominate form of economic organization since the Industrial Revolution.* Communism at least as a historical phenomenon largely used the rhetoric of the people and nothing more. Communist regimes demonstrated certain tendencies. First, after Nicholas in Russia and Shang Kai Sheik in China, what happened? They became virtual totalitarian regimes, where dissent meant gulag or worse followed by the growth of a small cabal within the government that used the power of the state to further their own self-interest. Thanks for the debate. I enjoy the economic arguments although I am not much on the theory part of economics. The theories get people worked up. I never take it seriously, the theorists tend to be great mathematical wizards or eloquent writers but in reality, it is mostly advertisement. And it is a rare occasion when the steak or burger on your plate looks like the photo shopped perfect piece of sizzling meat on the menu. I am a small businessman, which transformed me over time into an economic atheist—do not worship or pay homage to any economic god. *For those who thought I lacked a sense of history I thought I should clarify on my choice of Industrial Revolution because a voter or reader might assume that capitalism did not exist in some form before. A solid and easily defendable argument might put the first international marker soon after the Black Death, when the Florentine City-States, under the helm of the Medici came to dominate the international banking and commerce. Anyway, thought the comment deserved an asterisk. [1] Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations. Chapter IV, p. 448.