Communism v. Capitalism

Thank you for the debate and courteous approach a debate that often devolves. You have raised many sensible objections; however, they rely on critiques of capitalism rather than an affirmative case for communism. I will focus on rebutting examples used. Your example of defective products suggests intentional malfeasance in the manufacture and sale of IPhone chargers. Whether or not it is intentional is less important than the larger objective: cost to consumers. Apple like could produce IPhone accessories more durable than at present. However, production costs will increase, leading to additional cost to consumers. For example, one fashionable trend in construction is retrofitting buildings for efficiency, saving on energy costs. Although the immediate cost is higher than it is without it, so consumers are unwilling to assume this cost. Apple makes similar calculations in manufacturing their products. Consumers prefer lower cost and less durability in the short-term even to higher costs and more durability. Computer based products change rapidly, so most consumers realize they will abandon the model in a year or two. Your second example of cancer is problematic. Doctors typically have little influence the development of pharmaceuticals, although they do act as consultants and employees during research and development. Maximizing shareholder profits guide the decisions pharmaceutical companies. Patent law protections for companies is strong, especially true in pharmaceutical industries, so the first company to develop a cure have a fiduciary responsibility if possible to design, develop, and sale a cure. Many will object to the notion of “fiduciary responsibility” rather than moral responsibility, which I agree with but do not many to delve into since the debate centers on competing ideologies. It seemed worth mentioned because it is the first objection that comes to mind when you read the sentence. Moving on to the issue of the military-industrial complex and big business let me say everything here is correct but it misses a couple of noteworthy points. For instance, the military budget is chalk full of wasteful spending. It is inefficient overall, misallocating money into misguided areas. Officials at the Pentagon have even said so in public, at least concerning some of the money used to build and maintain antiquated systems and technologies. Still this process is mutable, open through democratic checks, though likely difficult to overcome for reasons we do not have to get into here. In the second part of paragraph two, you mentioned the destructive nature of big business. Big business operates different in say construction than in it does in retail. For example, my business operates at the local-state level and retail chains operate nationally and internationally. A lot of the difference as well as the difference in acceptable practices mentioned result not from economic adherence but accidently legal precedent. For instance, large multinational corporations incorporated in permissive states like Delaware because it allows them to duck taxes, state regulations, in addition to low taxes and little transparency. Coupled with this, multinational companies hire outside the country for a number of reasons among them cost control (labor, manufacturing, assembly). Again, public traded companies are legally obligated to increase shareholder profits, so if say Walmart did hire an executive that desired to change these practices, it would not work. First, it would not work because it would reduce short-term profitability, and second, the board would fire the CEO because of their liability to maximize shareholder profit. Such a system evolved out of the industrial revolution in the United States, with the support of business-friendly courts and lack-luster legislation. However, a construction company caters to the local. In effect, there is a different standard for virtually everything. This means my company chartered by the state, so it follows required state regulation, and it pays the actual tax rate (rather than the statutory rate like big business). There are not really “big guys” in construction at my level, nor would the practices used by Walmart transfer into this industry. So, the reason even say an inexperienced labor around $20s an hour and electricians and site managers make even more is because that is the price for good work and attract employees. Now, other companies pay less but they attract less business. Additionally, shoddy construction at lower costs tends to open the door to lawsuits and other liability issues. Therefore, apart from a desire to avert the legal consequences, my company is a sole proprietorship not a publically traded company, so I do not have to worry about those amorphous shareholders. So what is my point? All that goes to show that many of the differences believed to be inherent to capitalism stem less from ideology or adherence to an economic system and more arbitrary and incoherent legal development outside the economic realm. Now, let me quickly get to the last paragraph because I need to push back on a couple of points. The two conspicuous points are the claim Poland and Sweden’s are communist—or close to it. Poland after the collapse of the Soviet Union pursued a policy of privatization.[1] Even Reason Magazine, a libertarian publication, points out Sweden is far from a socialist state (see article about privatization and business in Sweden provide in footnote).[2] In conclusion, I’ll this illustrates that while capitalism has a number of problems, it pales in comparison to every attempted Communist regime. And I predict this will lead my opponent to rebut this by adding ‘well, communism has actually been tried, only perversions of it.’ If that is a valid argument then Con should be able to use it for capitalism. I could say, as some economist theories do that capitalism if properly transmitted from page to practice could alleviate all problems, grow the economy, and usher an era of endless peace. But the reason I am reluctant to see this as legitimate argument comes from the realization that ideas are mental constructs and cannot be transferred into a pure form but deviate once but into practice. Again, let me thank my opponent this is a fun debate. [1] http://www.economist.com... [2] http://reason.com...