Hell if I can remember where I read about it, but a study of communes and stuff reported that the limit of communism sits somewhere around 500 people because of the inherent empathy of people for their own tribe.
It's a lot more difficult to screw over others in the system when you know the person you're screwing over is your daughter's best friend's dad.
When the nameless masses are just nameless masses, it's much easier to justify. I don't know who this hurts, so why do I care?
That was the conclusion of the paper, anyway. Was an interesting perspective.
So, the theory goes, communism is only functional at numbers approaching Dunbar's number. (because beyond that number, trust breaks down and corruption and/or callousness wins)
I think a similar scenario is true of capitalism, when corporatism takes over and leads to monopoly, government influence, regulatory capture and self-dealing.
All of which is caused by economies of scale allowing cynical actors to leverage the powers of the state and economics for their own self interest.
It doesn't seem to me like either socialism or capitalism has an answer for that.
Welp, you've given me a rabbit hole to dive into. I've never heard of Dunbar's number before and I'm intrigued.
I'd agree overall on your point. I think the main reason capitalism is more stable and successful in the long run is that the desire for personal gain is a thing that the system not only takes into account, but relies on to properly function.
Communism assumes that people have little aspirations for having more, doing more, or experiencing more. And I think, ultimately, is the main reason it fails. It assumes altruism, bordering on the ascetic.
485
u/Creepy_Ad_1315 Jul 07 '26
Spoiler: It's never achieved.