Quick quiz, just two questions:
- What’s the opposite of “capitalism?”
- What’s the opposite of “socialism?”
(Hint: They are not opposites of one another.)
That realization came as a surprise to me the other day. I suppose I always knew they weren’t opposites. I’d just forgotten.
I was listening to All Things Considered on the way home Tuesday, and I caught their feature on rural China, which has been running all week. This particular installment was on Huaxi village in Jiangsu province, an interesting story of a centrally planned model for economic prosperity.
There were two comments that put me over the edge. One is from Wu Hao, a local who had studied abroad and returned to the village in order to run one of the textile factories. In heavily accented English he said, “I feel so happy because I make a good salary. Everything is okay.” (I’m pretty sure that’s what he said; it was a heavy accent.)
The other is from his uncle, Wu Xie En, the current party secretary and BMOC. Via translator: “Huaxi is a small place. If all we did was farm, at best we’d just be able to feed and clothe ourselves. We wouldn’t be able to get rich.“
Now back to the quiz. Here are the answers.
- What’s the opposite of “capitalism?” Communism
- What’s the opposite of “socialism?” Consumerism
Capitalism and Communism are about the allocation of resources. The former relies on the collective behaviour of independent individuals. The latter on a centralized plan made by the government. Strangely enough, capitalism tends to be the more efficient method. Emergence theory at work. But, China is challenging that claim. They seem to be saying, “The fall of the USSR didn’t disprove the viability of communism. It only proved that the Soviets were poor planners.” It’ll be interesting to watch the next decade or two unfold.
Now about that other pair of opposites, Socialism and Consumerism.
These have nothing to do with resource allocation per se. They are about ethics and values. Socialism places the the common good at the center, whereas consumerism elevates the individual. Socialism and Consumerism are about ends; Capitalism and Communism are about means.
So, it is with some confidence that I say China isn’t socialist. It’s communist, no doubt. But not socialist. More and more China is more and more like the United States, growing on a foundation of consumerism. What will happen when
Good point. Their govt. is still screwed, though
Any more screwed than ours?
I would venture to say it is, and by a lot
you certainly get a better feel for it when you’re actually in China….
You sound like you’ve been there, so I’ll have to take your word for it.
Hm. That comment looks a bit looking at it now, but anyways…it’s not like you get some inside look at the culture being there, but the western side of things is “china’s high tech, consumerist, developing, etc.”
the reality is “china’s poor, wages are low, the govt. sucks”
I don’t think either of those statements – “china’s high tech, consumerist, developing, etc.” AND “china’s poor, wages are low, the govt. sucks” – necessarily exclude one another.
If fact it sounds a lot like the USA.
Ah, but it’s how you see things. To the average American wages are decent, you’ve got a house, a few cars, etc. It’s a very small percentage of Americans for whom life is really all that bad. In America the average citizen is the face of the country.
In China things suck for the majority of the people, and it’s only the elite who are making all the money (a fair bit from casinos, which suck what little the poor have away)
The average American? The one earning $24K a year with $8K in credit card debt? The one whose leveraged beyond the grave in order to drive his F-150 and watch the Superbowl on his big screen. (Only $24/mo. for the next 30 years!) The ones without health care or whose employer recently pushed 100% of the premium onto them? The one’s with less than $1,000 in the back for a rainy day – to say nothing about retirement? Those average Americans?
I’m hardly saying Americans are living the model life, and what you described is a huge problem, but would you rather be making 100 bucks a month and eating noodles three meals a day?
Depends on what it costs to buy the stuff I need. $100 in China and $100 in the US aren’t the same thing.
But I’m a freak; I don’t mind eating the same thing over and over.
True, true. But you said the average American salary is 24k a year. That’s 20 times the Chinese guy. China is a lot cheaper, but other than pirated software (Windows XP pro can be bought for about a buck) stuff is probably only 2-5 times cheaper.
You also have to add the difference in what is perceived as a need. Give me 1/5th the cost on 1/5th the stuff, and I’m ahead even though I earn 1/20th.
Well, I thought the Chinese system was state capitalism, rather than communism. How much of is is actually centrally planned now? Especially the high-tech stuff, aren’t those companies operating as part of the global economy – just-in-time supply chain processes and all that?
And where is capitalism going to get us in the next 50 years? Where are the good examples of capitalist countries where the gap between rich and poor is narrowing rather than widening? Where have we achieved systems which do not force a significant section of the population into poverty? How can you count the US system a success with 40 million people without health care cover and a minimum wage which is too low to enable you to pay your rent?
Just a few additional questions for the quick qwizz?
Greetings,
(from capitalist Europe)
I’m speculating, but I’d say it’s still communist. The fundamental driving force behind capitalism isn’t the market, but self-interest, individual agents each acting in their own self interest. Communism, and China so far as I can tell, is directed from the top down. Decisions -at least at the macro level – are made by the state in pursuit of the state’s interests. Authority and control are tightly held, so even if individuals don’t buy in, there isn’t much they can do about it.
You’re questions are all good one’s to ask of any economic system.
Well, I am no expert in this field, but what you are describing looks more like state capitalism. The state controls the means of production and runs things in pursuit of its own interests.
A communist society is a classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production. I don’t think one has ever existed yet. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Sure, in China the country is run by a party which has the label ‘communist’. But they are running a dictatorship in the interests of the party, the state and the ruling class. Just because it claims the label ‘communist’ does not actually mean that it is communist.
You see a similar a similar phenomenon in churches. People set up organizations and run them to suit their own ideas and purposes, and put the label ‘church’ or ‘Christian’ on them. Sometimes a few people start wondering why God does not show up more in such organizations.
I think we’re saying the same thing; I’m just muddying the water by using poor or non-standard definitions. What Wikipedia calls communism, I’m calling socialism. What you call “state capitalism,” I would call “communist consumerism.” the state = the “commune.”
Yes, that’s probably the case. So if we use the originally intended definition of ‘communism’ we may get close to the idea that the ideal communist society is similar to the early church community described in Acts 4:32-35.
EXCEPT, that (as far as I am aware) Marx thought it could be achieved out of altruism or common sense care for our neighbours and fellow men. Whereas in Acts it is clear it took the sacrfice of Jesus, His resurrection and the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost to achieve it.
Does this mean that Christians should be socialist or communist in their approach to politics and economics?
Here’s where I must be misunderstanding things. I would have called Marx a socialist, but not a communist… which is odd since Marx wrote “The Communist Manifesto.” It’s been a while since I picked it up, but my memory is that he believed the socialist revolution would occur when the poor rose up and seized power from the capitalists, the factory owners and like. (Remember he was writing at the peak of the Industrial Revolution.) Society would then be run via altruism or anarchy or something.
The communist twist – via Lenin et al – was a strong state to enforce the socialist ideal: “To each according to need; from each according to ability.”
I’ve probably got something wrong in there. Should have paid more attention in sociology class.
Anyway, working from the original definition of communism, I’d agree with you. Using my definitions, I’d say we ought to be “Christian socialists” vs. “Christian consumerists,” as most of us in the West are. The ideal of socialism (Marx’s communism) certainly seems encompassed by Jesus’ vision of the Kingdom.
So where do we find “Christian socialists” these days? My impression is that the socialist movement in the US has yet to recover from the McCarthy period and in Europe most of the classic socialist parties (like Tony Blair’s Labour Party in the UK) have moved to the right along the political spectrum.
I’d agree with your impression of US Soviet-socialist associations, and I suspect the rightward movement of European socialism relates directly to the outcome of the Cold War.
As for finding Christian socialists, from what I’ve gathered your best bet of the last fifty years has been fringe movements: communes, “Jesus freaks,” etc. Mainstream Christianity has in large part been co-opted by or sold out to consumerism.
I would say that one of my biggest turnoffs to Christianity is the greed and selfishness that I see in it all the time. When a church can have enough money to create HUGE statues (Touchdown Jesus) or churches with expandable walls or, and this is my MOST hated, chopping down trees to build on undeveloped land when there is PLENTY of unused developed land, then I start thinking that churches are not out for the betterment of mankind. To me, a TRUE Christian church (as I understand the ideas of Jesus, which is poorly) can be nothing BUT socialist. There should never be a time when a person with a strong church should ever find himself/herself in need for a life necessity. I know that many churches have various levels of giving they do, but all that giving should be without wanting in return, and very few give in that way.
I could go on about this subject for days. (Hey maybe I should put it in my own blog!) I’ll cut myself off here. But I do like the turn in the topic…
RG
Well said!