Capitalism vs. Communism - Essay Example

Capitalism vs. Communism

Introduction

The internationalism is believed to be a concept that describes the type of thinking that is associated with the ideas of 'commercial' liberalism (the link between free trade and peace), 'republican' liberalism (the relationship between democracy and peace) and 'regulatory' liberalism (theory of the international cooperation). This concept is opposite to the anti-capitalist ideology, such as Marxism, or other theories regarding critical of capitalism.

Four basic ideas of internationalism are known to include the following. First, the best way the peace can be secured is through the spread of democratic institutions worldwide. Second, liberalism believes that the benefits of the state is not the features are determinants of behavior of states. Benefits may vary from state to state, depending on the culture, economic system and the type of control. However, it is governments, not people start wars because democracy is a hope for peace (as it is the highest form of expression of the popular will of people who definitely opt for peace – the obvious benefits, based on rationality and natural law). Third, the rule of law equally applicable to the states as to the people and voluntarily established a system of international organizations should be performing the functions of the legislature, executive and judiciary, while maintaining the maximum respect for freedom and independence. Fourth, just as you can always identify the aggressor, should be possible to create an effective coalition of law-abiding states against such violators. Hence, internationalism is part ideological foundations, which are built by organizations such as the United Nations (and before – the League of Nations). The purpose of this paper is to investigate the difference between capitalism and communism from the point of view of internationalism. This paper claims that capitalism is much more effective due to a wide range of reasons.

The Perspective of Internationalism

The essence of the internationalism has a unique status because there is not only one of the leading schools of international relations, but the official ideology of the most powerful state in the world, the United States. The US is unique not only because of its strength and place in the evolution of modern Western culture. The United States is a country whose identity is based on liberal idea: all individuals are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. Despite the current and historical realities that are in conflict with this idea, the American national political culture is grounded in liberal philosophy, which strongly influenced the ideas of John Locke. The dominant features of this political culture include a firm belief in capitalism, individual freedom and human progress. Most Americans have accepted these terms and consider them universal truths. These ideas developed in the American belief in universal desire for life, liberty and happiness. This history and national beliefs separate from other US national states.

The political culture of the United States also filled with innate American optimism and the conviction that even complex international problems amenable to a rational solution. Second, internationalism provides a convincing set of arguments that are directly opposed to understanding the state as the source of the tragic conflict between particularism (national interest) and universalism (human rights); while the US act as both a threat to world order and his guarantor. Thus, the theory of liberal internationalism that prevails in American society, the best and most natural approach to the study of American policy, including foreign policy. The most interesting for the research, in particular, is how modern administration are, in practice, according to liberal internationalism, the theory has not been questioned by any administration. Thus, it becomes possible to regard the comparison of the ineffectiveness of communism and effectiveness of the capitalism tools.

Communism and Capitalism

The problem of establishing the role of the state in the socio-economic systems and the selection of appropriate control mechanisms related to the category of “eternal” in the sense that it

It can not be solved once and for all, and changes together with the change of society. For a long time the problem of the state's role was treated in the aspect ratio of the institute to the market as the basis of self-regulation of economic development. There was a tendency to represent the state intervention in the economy mainly as a factor in a forced compensating the deviations from the "ideal model" of market economy.

As the current practice, the state and the public interest factor, certainly, present in the functioning of a market economy at all stages of its existence and development. The importance of government intervention is determined by such factors as: the lack of real perfect competition; unavailability for economic entities of the complete information, and as a result, market failure to achieve complete balance; the need for social redistribution of wealth in accordance with the non-market factors; the absence of many types of markets in a fairly developed form, for example, futures and insurance; the existence of external factors, requiring compensatory actions; the existence of areas related to the creation and consumption of public goods, and so on. These are, mainly, the advantages of the capitalist system in comparison with the communistic regime.

All the arguments are different in the twisted market economy, though at different periods

in specific countries were their own way, they meet the needs of the role of state in the economy.

So, the collapse of the socialist system caused a transformational crisis, which contributed to a change in many institutions of the Russian economy (Downing 45). As a result, it formed a new social system based on capitalist principles. Supporters of the liberal reforms of the economy are considered more effective than the economy with a strong public sector and the predominance of price-planning.

However, the dominance of private property and the market price does not guarantee prosperity in the modern world. There are huge differences in wealth levels between the capitalist countries, they occupy different positions in international system of division of labor and patterns of behavior of entrepreneurs of these countries are very different. And capitalist relations in different countries are not identical to each other. In each case, they are the result of unique historical development.

In order to support the communistic system, Marx and Engels (42) had a conviction that the “industrial revolution was precipitated by the discovery of the steam engine, various spinning machines, the mechanical loom, and a whole series of other mechanical devices” (Marx and Engels 42). This statement is followed by the idea that “these machines, which were very expensive and hence could be bought only by big capitalists, altered the whole mode of production and displaced the former workers, because the machines turned out cheaper and better commodities than the workers could produce with their inefficient spinning wheels and handlooms” (Marx and Engels 42). Stating that communism is better, the author state that “the machines delivered industry wholly into the hands of the big capitalists and rendered entirely worthless the meagre property of the workers (tools, looms, etc.). The result was that the capitalists soon had everything in their hands and nothing remained to the workers. This marked the introduction of the factory system into the textile industry” (Marx and Engels 42). However, these ideas cannot totally prove that capitalism is less advantageous than communism.

Capitalism has the following distinguishing features. Firstly, the economic backbone of the production of goods and services as well as commerce and other legitimate economic activities. Most of the goods and services produced for sale, but subsistence farming is also not prohibited (Downing 89). The exchange takes place on the free market on the basis of mutually beneficial transactions, not by compulsion, as is the case in other economic systems. Second, the means of production are privately owned. Return on invested capital is also the property of the owners of the latter and can be used at their discretion: how to increase production, as well as for personal use. The basis for the profit sharing between the owners of capital is the share capital provided. Third, the source of life benefits for the majority of the members of society is not forced labor, as is the case in other economic systems, and on the conditions of employment of the free, that is, the sale of labor for remuneration in the form of wages.

Indeed, increasingly in scientific discussions the so-called “state capitalism” is featured. It presupposes the economic system in which the state acts as a leading entrepreneur who owns the means of production, hires workers, managers and other staff, manages a profit. The term originated in the social-democratic circles of the early twentieth century (Downing 79). (The question of the nationalization of adequacy for the transition to socialism). With regard to Western countries, the term is used primarily for characterization classic public enterprise, including both state property and other forms of state participation in economic life.

However, state capitalism was everywhere and as old as capitalism itself. To give impetus to the development and protection of the vulnerable areas of the national economy should rely on the state. State intervention in the economy was observed almost everywhere. In England, Brazil, Germany, the state tried to create an enabling institutional environment for investors buying securities, investing in the development of infrastructure. For example, if in 1840 about 80% of the railways are in private ownership in the world, by 1910 the state had already had 60% of the railway network (Downing 114).

To sum up, in many countries, the government pursued an active policy in the framework that supports private companies that produce socially important goods and services (port facilities, channels, utilities and others.), via guarantees. The state is also responsible for subsidizing interest payments on corporate bonds. State acted in many cases and in as an insurance agent for the company's creditors supported. At the same time the companies, gets state guarantees instituting more stringent financial requirements. All these facts mean that capitalism is much more effective than communism.