Adam Smith vs. Carl Marx

johncmcleod · February 15, 2003, 00:22

Pick 'em.

I'd have to say Smith. Communism is great if you're in a war and the public is convinced the other side is evil. They'll work their brains out, for every weapon they make helps in the fight against the evil opponent, and still get paid the same. Also, people in a communism feel better about working because it feels like they're work means something, whereas in capitalism it's just for some boss. But if you're in a normal situation with no enemy, the people will only do the least they can where they still have job security. In capitalism, they people will a lot of the time be striving and working hard to try to get to the higher position with more money. It's one big competition, and in the end in leads to more production.

That's my .02 cents.

David Floyd · February 15, 2003, 00:25

Well, considering the fact that the US, a fairly capitalist society, had FAR FAR FAR higher production in WW2 than did the Soviet Union (both absolute and per capita), I don't quite see why you claim that in a war, communism is better.

Velociryx · February 15, 2003, 00:26

Capitalism, every time, all the time.

-=Vel=-

JohnT · February 15, 2003, 00:27

Smith. Easily.

And I thought it was "Karl", though that might be a US thing...

johncmcleod · February 15, 2003, 00:28

In this situation, I'd count the Cold War as a war too. The people of the USSR were convinced that the US would take them over and they worked very hard to produce more for the nation.

Urban Ranger · February 15, 2003, 00:34

Who would win if you lock them up in a cage? I'd say Marx, he probably fights dirty.

David Floyd · February 15, 2003, 00:37

Quote:

The people of the USSR were convinced that the US would take them over and they worked very hard to produce more for the nation.

That doesn't work either. In the Cold War, the US had a much greater world share of industrial output, both absolute and per capita, than did the Soviet Union.

Urban Ranger · February 15, 2003, 00:39

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
That doesn't work either. In the Cold War, the US had a much greater world share of industrial output, both absolute and per capita, than did the Soviet Union.

You realise that's an unfair comparison, right?

Nevermind that, though.

David Floyd · February 15, 2003, 00:44

He's the one who said that communism was better in wartime, I was simply refuting him.

But I'll humor you. Why is it unfair? Is it because the greedy capitalists were out to get the poor, innocent, Soviet Union?

DuncanK · February 15, 2003, 00:51

You guys who voted for Adam Smith have no idea how a war time economy works. That's because Adam Smith had no idea how a modern economy should organize itself in war time. If you want a good fight at least pit Marx against Keynes.

Marx hands down.

With Smith you must keep a ballanced budget, and you can't even use price contols. Hell, you can't even use monetary policy.

JohnT · February 15, 2003, 00:52

"Also, people in a communism feel better about working because it feels like they're work means something, whereas in capitalism it's just for some boss."

There are two types of positions in any economy, regardless how structured:

1. Careers. People have "careers" when they discover a field or activity they like, are currently engaged in the pursuit of that activity for profit/wages, and is actively seeking a greater role in the decision making authority in the development of that field/activity.

2. Jobs. People have "jobs" when they are prevented, or are preventing themselves, from focusing on a career. For example, most people in school have "jobs" because the schooling is the actual career - why complicate your lives by juggling two acts at the age of 18? Jobs are largely aimless, not fitting in with the individuals career path, and therefore tend to cause much greater levels of dissatisfaction than careers.

People who have careers feel like their work means something. They have purposely devoted a portion of their lives (in many cases the largest portion) to building a better car, being a better actress, or running their restaraunts more efficiently and I seriously doubt they would appreciate you saying their efforts don't mean anything just because they have a "boss".

David Floyd · February 15, 2003, 00:53

Quote:

With Smith you must keep a ballanced budget, and you can't even use price contols. Hell, you can't even use monetary policy.

Tingkai · February 15, 2003, 01:03

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
With Smith you must keep a ballanced budget, and you can't even use price contols. Hell, you can't even use monetary policy.

Did Smith ever write anything about price controls and balanced budgets?

DuncanK · February 15, 2003, 01:21

I think he mentioned price controls. He was against them, but never mentioned anything about wartime. He was very specific about governmnet involvement in the economy, and he did not mention budget deficits.

Urban Ranger · February 15, 2003, 01:21

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
But I'll humor you. Why is it unfair? Is it because the greedy capitalists were out to get the poor, innocent, Soviet Union?

We have been through the same thing zillions of times. I am sure you know why it is unfair. But, just in case you don't, here is the reason: too many variables and too much noise.

If you want to compare two factors, you have to make sure that every other factor are the same, otherwise you will not be able to attribute the effects you are observing to the factors you want to observe.

That should be elementary.

David Floyd · February 15, 2003, 01:40

UR,

Fine, but the point is only this: john tried to say that communist systems work better in wartime, and I was just pointing out that, historically, that's not a correct statement. Now, you might say it's an unfair comparison, but that isn't the question here - the question was whether or not communist countries outperform capitalist ones in wartime.

orange · February 15, 2003, 01:41

I think Smith's ideal nation and Marx's ideal nation would both suck ass and have identical problems.

DuncanK · February 15, 2003, 01:42

I was assuming that the two countries were equal and that all other conditions were equal.

David Floyd · February 15, 2003, 01:43

Quote:

I was assuming that the two countries were equal and that all other conditions were equal.

Then I still don't think that's necessarily true. Remember the Ukrainians and the Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians, who were oppressed by communism, at first siding with Hitler against Stalin. Hardly a sign of a superior system in wartime (or any other time), no?

DuncanK · February 15, 2003, 01:46

What the hell does oppression have to do with it? War is oppressive.

David Floyd · February 15, 2003, 01:47

The point is, that if your own people are revolting to the other side (before they realize the other side is equally bad), then the system is broken.

DuncanK · February 15, 2003, 01:55

DF,

You're adding stuff into it. Anyone can assume there will be revolts on the side of the ideology they don't like.

Urban Ranger · February 15, 2003, 01:58

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Then I still don't think that's necessarily true. Remember the Ukrainians and the Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians, who were oppressed by communism, at first siding with Hitler against Stalin. Hardly a sign of a superior system in wartime (or any other time), no?

David,

Communism is primarily an economic system, so is Capitalism. Political factors just detract from the discussion.

DuncanK · February 15, 2003, 02:02

DF,

If your people ever run our country in another war we will get slaughtered.

David Floyd · February 15, 2003, 02:05

UR,

Quote:

Communism is primarily an economic system, so is Capitalism. Political factors just detract from the discussion.

Then explain to me why communist nations tend to be the most oppressive?

Duncan,

Quote:

If your people ever run our country in another war we will get slaughtered.

Wrong. If Libertarians ran the country, we would never fight. Not even WW2.

DuncanK · February 15, 2003, 02:13

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Wrong. If Libertarians ran the country, we would never fight. Not even WW2.

I don't know any libertarians who believe in zero military expenditures. If they believe in military expenditures they must believe that there is always possibility of war. So if there was a war and the libertarians were in power we would get slaughtered.

Urban Ranger · February 15, 2003, 02:16

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Then explain to me why communist nations tend to be the most oppressive?

It's a reaction against Imperialistic interventions.

David Floyd · February 15, 2003, 02:19

Quote:

It's a reaction against Imperialistic interventions.

OK, then. What did starving millions of Ukrainians to death have to do with "foreign intervention"? I don't recall the Soviet Union being invaded in the 1930s.

And I suppose you're gonna blame the Cultural Revolution on the West somehow, too, right?

Duncan,

Quote:

If they believe in military expenditures they must believe that there is always possibility of war. So if there was a war and the libertarians were in power we would get slaughtered.

The odds of a Libertarian getting into a war are so slight as to be statistically insignificant.

SnowFire · February 15, 2003, 02:19

Oh crud, we have DF defending Adam Smith. Lovely.

I'll just say that in retrospect, the vast majority of the groundwork that Smith set still seems reasonable- incomplete in parts, and perhaps a bit naive in others, but solid. Marx has multiple flagrantly false ideas at work that have been virtually disproven by all but the diehard, however.

Then again, I've read more of Marx's politics than his actual economic treatises, so perhaps I'm off base, but oh well.

DuncanK · February 15, 2003, 02:40

SnowFire,

Only the libertarians would follow his theories in war time. Are you suggesting the limited government intervention in war suggested by Smith would be better than full government control?