20 years ago, Francis Fukuyama published the book that made him famous -- the end of history (to make it short, the dismiss of the communist ideology and the triumph of the free market and capitalism. As he himself acknowledged, that was not, of course, the "end of history". And capitalism, as an ideology, but also as an historical experience is far from dead. A sign of it is the number of academic and journalistic publications with the title "capitalism": Bruno Amable, the Diversity of Capitalism; Hall and Soskice, etc. There are also lots of publications that associate China with some forms of capitalism (Coase and Wang: How China became capitalist"... etc. To my understanding, this shows two trends. The first one is a scientific effort to define and differentiate diverse form of capitalism as well as to try to see how capitalism is likely to evolve -- distant trade capitalism in the 18 century, capitalist manufacture in the 19e century, Fordism in the 20th century and now??? (see also Rifkin's Age of Access).

Second, there is a (conscious or not) will to promote capitalism as an ideology. The association of China (with its "communist" political regime) with capitalism (eventually state capitalism) is a sign of it. It is clear that in most cases, the authors do not dare to define what is capitalism and they don't really discuss if capitalism fits with the economic system of China (see the conclusion of my book on China's food market). To some extent, it is exactly as if China crystallizes the debate you just mention -- capitalism versus communism. With its economic achievements and its political regime it is not a surprise that China is used as an example to promote these ideologies (especially capitalism). I hope this answer helps.

It more than helps. Your comparison and evaluation is simple yet precise. I have to add another question to amplify a particular dimension of my question:

Both Capitalism and Communism were not merely about how the economic life of the people would be organised and in what ways it would lead to material prosperity. In the period between 1918 to 1991, they came to be clung to and fought for as political ideologies. It would be not true to conclude that the captains of Communism (or their people) did not realise that the economic prosperity attendant on Capitalism is important. Yet they locked horns and whole nations stood divided on 'ideologies'. What do you think appealed to the people in communism (as an ideology) that was beyond the lure of the 'lucre'?

This is difficult to answer for sure. As you mention, both theory are related to materialism. Practically, there was also an intense debate after WWII on the economic performance of each economic system, which lead to an intense effort from the CIA to recalculate the GNP of the USSR (see the book Gross Domestic Problem, Zed Book, 2013). I would tend to say that capitalism offers the prospect for anyone to become rich if they work hard enough, etc. while communism aims to the wealth of the society as a whole. This is of course highly debatable. It is also important to note that the development of markets from the 18 century onward (with cannot be separated from capitalism even though they have a different logic) was not so natural and was accompanied by huge resistances. Thompson, a British historian, analysed peasants riots from the 17 to the mid-19 century (1971), and found that most of them could be linked to the development of wheat markets. For example, a fair price for supply and demand of bread was a price than people could afford. If the price increased over this limit, people felt untitled to seize the wheat and sell it at a price they thought reasonable. Then, the product of the sale could be returned to the owner. Similarly, peasants tried to block the export of wheat from their community because it belonged to the community. In other words, there was a notion of social justice and the fair price was not determined through the equilibrium between supply and demand (see also Polanyi).

OK. That still does not fully answer your question. It just says that capitalism and/or free markets are not as appealing as it may seem. For communism, I guess it depends on the social context. For Western democracies in Europe, communism acted more as a counter power, leading to the development of social-democracies. In countries like China, there was already a background with the 19 century rebellions like the Taiping -- which promoted the disappearance of private property. In the 20 century, it is not sure people were really attracted by the ideology in itself, but more on the policy of land distribution and the end of the corruption. But of course, that does not really answer your question, because people were attracted by the communist (and the capitalist) ideology(gies) for very different reasons.

An outstanding insight, Louis. Actually you have answered as many as you have raised questions!

I quote "there was a notion of social justice" unquote, about Communism that has huge appeal to all those communities where there were huge developmental challenges. Perhaps that is why Communism found homes in countries in the developing and, if I may use the term, under-developed countries.

As I look at both of them as ideologies, I feel that there a need to draw the best of both and develop a new concept that will find its reflection in all societies across the world.

What do you think?

Well... I have tried to keep it academic and not to give my personal, subjective, opinion. But since you are asking, I think an ideology should give hopes to people and not only be based on materialism and/or consumption. It seems capitalism is transforming itself at the moment (in a quite worrying way to some extent) with, again, some resistance from people. At the same time, there are some efforts from civil society to develop new forms of enterprises, social responsibility movements, mutual help, fair trade, etc... My hope is this will develop into a new ideology, or, at least, a new moral code. When money and consumption become an objective and not an aim, it is a problem. To me, the lack of moral values is really a worry for China's development and China's future. (this is actually a discussion we had many times with my wife who is working on Chinese philosophy).

I endorse the view that we must keep our discussions on academic level. It is just that sometimes by stepping outside the strictly academic view of things and looking at what is happening around us from a 'personal' point of view refreshes our perspective. I do hope you agree with me.

As you may be aware, at the time of its independence, India embraced a mix of Socialism and Democracy as its foundational pillars. In the initial decades the Govt went about establishing massive public sector industries/projects that continue till date. Sometime in early 1990s, India embarked upon economic reforms and has adopted a pro-market attitude and liberalisation in its policies. Having watched this from the sidelines, I felt that one of the main reasons for India to overcome the effects of the global meltdown of 2008 (which literally rocked the west) was the stability of state-enterprise, a hall mark attribute of communism. A little less rate of growth but more stable in the process of which it continues to provide employment, generates market, earns revenue, etc, in spite of the vagaries of international economic environment. This is one of the primary reasons why I asked my question above.

The alternative future that is under debate, with neither Capitalism nor Communism as the guiding lights - is it a myth? What factors or concepts in both these ideologies need to be revisited, reviewed,or re-calibrated so as to find a more progressive but equitable alternative future?

Well, East Asian countries/economies have been extremely pragmatic in implementing economic policies. On one hand, they follow market "rules"; but on the other hand, they also adopt policies that are far from what neoclassical economists would favor. In the case of Singapore, that also includes a strong state sector, including State-Owned enterprises.

There are different mix for the other 3 dragons (export promotion, etc. in Korea), in Japan and in China. The famous quote from Deng Xiaoping expresses well this pragmatism: "It doesn't matter whether it's a white cat or a black, I think; a cat that catches mice is a good cat." (you can refer to my encyclopedia article on "export oriented economies", in the Encyclopedia of the developing world, Routledge -- I think it is freely available on the internet). I don't know enough about India to make useful comments.

Though I am not knowledgeable enough to comment about Deng, but whatever little I know makes me think that he was a pragmatist. The results of his 'a cat that catches mice is a good cat' approach is visible to the world.

Recently while reading an article by Michael Burawoy (BURAWOY, MICHAEL, University of California, Berkeley, Theory and Society 29: 151-174, 2000), I found him debating the relevance of Marxism as being dependent on its 'objectivity, engagement and imagination' to project itself as a suitable ideology for an alternative future.

Atleast about 15 countries in the world today have the governance principles or practices based either a fully Communist manifesto or at least a political party professing communism as part of the government (China on one hand and Brazil on the other). Are they actually moving towards reinventing Communism towards the alternative future or as the 'third ideology'?

(PS: In strictly political science parlance, using Marxism, Communism and Socialism as loosely as I do may by itself be debatable. But for the sake of an attempt to look at 'alternative ideology', I take the liberty of combining them as meaning the same in their broadest sense)

There is an interesting terminology that being marked as the balance between socialism and capitalism - 'Bio-Socialism' - which is being defined as the South American solution in which socialism does not predicate the abolition of capitalism and capitalism does not have the freedom for unfettered exploitation of natural resources.

Is this a new way out?

As you put it, this is a new version of social democracy. Clearly, social democracy struggles to be effective in the context of globalisation. It is hard to implement strong controls on capitalism in an era when capital flight is so easy. Another kind of approach coming out of the environmental movement is what I call "radical reformism" which promises a zero growth economy. Personally, I favour the gift economy or non-market socialism as the ultimate goal of present social movements and look at various current strategies as hybrids of the gift economy and capitalism. See recent articles on my website on Gibson-Graham and surplus value, on The New Environmentalism, Anarchist and Hybrid Strategies, The Chikukwa Project:

www.gifteconomy.org.au

To my mind there is no doubt of the continuing relevance of capitalism, we are living it. Nationalised economies have been revealed to have huge problems and are really unlikely to be tried again, even though current proponents envisage a democratic version. Social democracy is still important and struggles to be effective. It does not seem likely to ultimately solve any of our current environmental or social justice problems. The social movements in general are piecemeal and not necessarily animated by an overall vision. However what they are doing is really the way forward and should get some kind of general analysis. That is what I try to do.

Yes and no. To some extent, all the ideologies that emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries are dead, yet in some senses they are still relevant. See my article on "Ideology" from THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF POLITICAL THOUGHT. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2097185

Thank you Terry and Fred for your comments.

I would say that Capitalism is very relevant still; Communism is not.

However, without the counterweight of Communism, Capitalism is becoming more and more extreme. The world is overdue  for an influence to curb extreme Capitalism.

In the financial markets, the stock values are, in the long-run, set by the market; and the bond values are set, to a large extent, by the credit-worthiness of a corporation. This latter index scheme, with AAA ratings as the best, is provided by agencies, such as Moody's and Standard and Poor's.

Perhaps what we need as a curb on stock values (money) driving our economies, are independent, agencies to rate the Social Welfare actions of corporations. Maybe, for international corporations, the agency would be represented, in part by the United Nations; and for the USA would be represented by various. vetted, not-for-profit organizations.  The Social Welfare ranking of a company would serve as a weight to apply to the stock value. The weighted stock value would be the basis for measuring the value of the stock.

Such a scheme would allow investment decisions, and, thereby, profitability to be based on more than the single dimension of money. 

Antonio Lucero

Dear Lucero,

An interesting perspective indeed - rating of social welfare actions of corporations to be linked to their stock values.

As I reflect about what you said, it appears that you intend to create weighted values for CSR actions of corporations that contribute to social welfare in real terms. Say for example, Pfizer running community health programs providing actual health care to citizens in towns and cities. Am I right?

In communism, a commune is expected to produce means of livelihood and also support all members of the community with the resources that it generates. Seen from this perspective, are we actually talking of communism without saying the word?

We thought we are in a no-ideological time, but it's not true. We have the same economical system of Marx 's time, the capitalism. It works in the same way, but the difference is that now we have no alternative, as Thatcher said. Maybe it's true, but the problems are the same, we also have social, political and ,above all, ecomical inequalities. It's not a local problem, only linked to moral corruption, it's a systemic problem that we should solve. Corporations and similar things are unable to solve a systemic problem. In post-modern debact we don't discuss these things, we have stopped reading classics of philosophy and economics, thinking that all it's just done and "there is no alternative". It's not a scientific point of view, so i hope researchers will restart to study seriously.

The recent years witnessed notable rise for strong leaders, they came with their populist speech with political idiologies. Communism and capitalism lost its position but neoliberalism is facing escalating challenges and shocks.

I feel that these issues are still very important, but one cannot ignore that other issues have increased in importance

https://www.usp.ac.fj/index.php?id=22667

@ Ibrahim Rabaia

Strong leaderships have made a difference at least in the case of China, rooted as they may be in Maoist ideologies, the present leadership seems to have tempered their ideology with those of other political systems.

Perhaps you would like to comment as to how.

Regards.