58 ms·

In the past century we have countless examples of socialism failing, yet its proponents devise some new scheme, some new brand and try to sell it as if somethin

by ancap 11y ago

In the past century we have countless examples of socialism failing, yet its proponents devise some new scheme, some new brand and try to sell it as if something will be different this time. Socialism will always fail because it is contradictory to human nature.

inflagranti 11y ago
We have countless examples of capitalism failing too. But the argument that socialism is against human nature is obviously wrong, as humans are social animals. However, as any animal, if you corner them and put them in survival mode, things can get ugly. The purpose of modern states is exactly to provide security in multiple ways, one of them being shared financial security, to remove the need of constant struggle for survival and allow the social side of humanity to flurish. As an example on a smaller scale: There were enough articles recently for instance about Amazon, as an extreme example of hiper competitive anti-social environment that encourages people to backstab each other and play politics to advance. Pure survival mode. Compare that for instance with companies like Google, that spoil everyone and even give you 20% time for free. So far they haven't collapsed. Now you can argue that companies are not countries, but I don't see how such learning don't apply. That exactly is the human behaviour argument. Sorry in advance for the ad-hominem, but that supposedly intelligent people even here on Hacker News keep reiterating old tropes about socialism and human nature unreflected, while any research in that regard or simple observations as illustrated above are contradictory to it, is baffling.
- ancap 11y ago
  >But the argument that socialism is against human nature is obviously wrong, as humans are social animals. Socialism is anti-social (or were you confused by it having the word "social" in it?). Socialism says two people do not have the right to come to an agreement on the exchange of property and labor. What is social about that? How is that in harmony with human nature? >There were enough articles recently for instance about Amazon, as an extreme example of hiper competitive anti-social environment that encourages people to backstab each other and play politics to advance. And yet people work for Amazon. Willingly. What's wrong with that? Just because the work environment does not meet your standards of what you expect from a job, why would you want to deprive others of their jobs? That's very anti-social. >Now you can argue that companies are not countries, but I don't see how such learning don't apply. Not only are they not countries but trying to extrapolate such scenarios which happen between free acting, cooperating, social individuals to a generic edict enforced through threat of violence is foolhardy. >Sorry in advance for the ad-hominem, but that supposedly intelligent people even here on Hacker News keep reiterating old tropes about socialism and human nature unreflected, while any research in that regard or simple observations as illustrated above are contradictory to it, is baffling. Again, your examples tell us nothing of socialism and are not even applicable.
  - fnovd 11y ago
    >Socialism says two people do not have the right to come to an agreement on the exchange of property and labor. What is social about that? How is that in harmony with human nature? No, socialism says focusing on group cooperation optimizes aggregate wealth. Socialism says that somewhere between a completely shared economy and a completely private economy is a sweet spot where you get the best of both worlds. You're very focused on this "socialism is anti-social" stance, but not only does it not make any intuitive sense, it is not backed up by any data. Show me a modern, prosperous state that absolutely abstains from social programs or promoting collective interest. The very idea of a state is a threat to (completely) free exchange of property and labor. Most people are willing to buy security from the state in the form of regulations and taxes. We think our food should be safe to eat, so we make rules and add a cost to ensure a baseline. We want advertisements to accurately represent products. As individuals, we have little recourse against an industry which has decided to curtail consumer health in favor of increased profits. The state is simply a mechanism to ensure our collective will is met, not as entities in a capitalist network but as the weird little thinking, walking primates that we are.
    - ancap 11y ago
      >No, socialism says focusing on group cooperation optimizes aggregate wealth. Socialism says that somewhere between a completely shared economy and a completely private economy is a sweet spot where you get the best of both worlds. Socialism may claim that but the results are very anti-social as demonstrated in my previous comment. You say "no" in response to my comment concerning socialism preventing two people from entering an agreement--then why can't I hire someone for $4 an hour, if that's what they and I agree upon? That's just one of dozens of possible scenarios I could mention which socialism prohibits. >You're very focused on this "socialism is anti-social" stance Yes, as that was the idea I was refuting from the parent comment. >but not only does it not make any intuitive sense, it is not backed up by any data. Show me a modern, prosperous state that absolutely abstains from social programs or promoting collective interest. Does the absence of a modern state which meets this criteria prove the point? Hardly. It does not follow. We need not compare state to state, as socialist programs are typically applied to individual sectors of an economy. Take any sector of the modern economy which is heavily affected by socialist programs and you will find a sector which is scraping by. You will find corruption and you will find greater public outrage. Healthcare being a prime example. Ironically progressives blame the short comings in these sectors on capitalism. >The very idea of a state is a threat to (completely) free exchange of property and labor. I agree. I would like to see more thought, more experiment and more results to see how little of a state might be accomplished.
maxerickson 11y ago
Planned economies failed. The socialist governments in Western Europe haven't failed yet. (there are even several countries with 3-4 weeks of vacation for everyone and similar annual per person productivity to the US...)
- ancap 11y ago
  >The socialists governments in Western Europe haven't failed yet. "Yet" is the operative word there. Often socialism is applied, at least at first, in a very limited fashion, but then expand as the natural consequences come to fruition. For example, examine the minimum wage law. The natural consequence of the minimum wage law is the least productive individuals lose their jobs. Most often those individuals are youth and minorities, with the affect especially evident among young minorities. Reacting to this natural consequence, legislatures then want to enact social programs to provide for those who are unemployed. These social programs are funded through higher taxes, typically upon the most wealthy. The wealthy are incentivized to be free from the higher taxes and get around them through a myriad of creative ways. A cycle develops where social programs continue to expand, taxes continue to rise and the wealthy flee. This is very evident in France, currently. When the wealthy flee, the taxes fall onto the middle class. There is incentive for immigrants to come into the country. And so on and so forth. The failures of socialism are most evident where the interventions are taking place. Healthcare is a sector where a lot of the interventions are taking place and the affects are glaring. You can see this in Western Europe with sub-prime healthcare. The problems in the socialist governments in Western Europe will be exasperated by the refugee crisis. A socialist government and a planned economy are only different by a few degrees. Bad laws beget more bad laws and the problems will grow. How long until the parasite overpowers the host? Who knows.

by ancap 11y ago

inflagranti 11y ago

We have countless examples of capitalism failing too. But the argument that socialism is against human nature is obviously wrong, as humans are social animals. However, as any animal, if you corner them and put them in survival mode, things can get ugly. The purpose of modern states is exactly to provide security in multiple ways, one of them being shared financial security, to remove the need of constant struggle for survival and allow the social side of humanity to flurish. As an example on a smaller scale: There were enough articles recently for instance about Amazon, as an extreme example of hiper competitive anti-social environment that encourages people to backstab each other and play politics to advance. Pure survival mode. Compare that for instance with companies like Google, that spoil everyone and even give you 20% time for free. So far they haven't collapsed. Now you can argue that companies are not countries, but I don't see how such learning don't apply. That exactly is the human behaviour argument. Sorry in advance for the ad-hominem, but that supposedly intelligent people even here on Hacker News keep reiterating old tropes about socialism and human nature unreflected, while any research in that regard or simple observations as illustrated above are contradictory to it, is baffling.

ancap 11y ago
>But the argument that socialism is against human nature is obviously wrong, as humans are social animals. Socialism is anti-social (or were you confused by it having the word "social" in it?). Socialism says two people do not have the right to come to an agreement on the exchange of property and labor. What is social about that? How is that in harmony with human nature? >There were enough articles recently for instance about Amazon, as an extreme example of hiper competitive anti-social environment that encourages people to backstab each other and play politics to advance. And yet people work for Amazon. Willingly. What's wrong with that? Just because the work environment does not meet your standards of what you expect from a job, why would you want to deprive others of their jobs? That's very anti-social. >Now you can argue that companies are not countries, but I don't see how such learning don't apply. Not only are they not countries but trying to extrapolate such scenarios which happen between free acting, cooperating, social individuals to a generic edict enforced through threat of violence is foolhardy. >Sorry in advance for the ad-hominem, but that supposedly intelligent people even here on Hacker News keep reiterating old tropes about socialism and human nature unreflected, while any research in that regard or simple observations as illustrated above are contradictory to it, is baffling. Again, your examples tell us nothing of socialism and are not even applicable.
- fnovd 11y ago
  >Socialism says two people do not have the right to come to an agreement on the exchange of property and labor. What is social about that? How is that in harmony with human nature? No, socialism says focusing on group cooperation optimizes aggregate wealth. Socialism says that somewhere between a completely shared economy and a completely private economy is a sweet spot where you get the best of both worlds. You're very focused on this "socialism is anti-social" stance, but not only does it not make any intuitive sense, it is not backed up by any data. Show me a modern, prosperous state that absolutely abstains from social programs or promoting collective interest. The very idea of a state is a threat to (completely) free exchange of property and labor. Most people are willing to buy security from the state in the form of regulations and taxes. We think our food should be safe to eat, so we make rules and add a cost to ensure a baseline. We want advertisements to accurately represent products. As individuals, we have little recourse against an industry which has decided to curtail consumer health in favor of increased profits. The state is simply a mechanism to ensure our collective will is met, not as entities in a capitalist network but as the weird little thinking, walking primates that we are.
  - ancap 11y ago
    >No, socialism says focusing on group cooperation optimizes aggregate wealth. Socialism says that somewhere between a completely shared economy and a completely private economy is a sweet spot where you get the best of both worlds. Socialism may claim that but the results are very anti-social as demonstrated in my previous comment. You say "no" in response to my comment concerning socialism preventing two people from entering an agreement--then why can't I hire someone for $4 an hour, if that's what they and I agree upon? That's just one of dozens of possible scenarios I could mention which socialism prohibits. >You're very focused on this "socialism is anti-social" stance Yes, as that was the idea I was refuting from the parent comment. >but not only does it not make any intuitive sense, it is not backed up by any data. Show me a modern, prosperous state that absolutely abstains from social programs or promoting collective interest. Does the absence of a modern state which meets this criteria prove the point? Hardly. It does not follow. We need not compare state to state, as socialist programs are typically applied to individual sectors of an economy. Take any sector of the modern economy which is heavily affected by socialist programs and you will find a sector which is scraping by. You will find corruption and you will find greater public outrage. Healthcare being a prime example. Ironically progressives blame the short comings in these sectors on capitalism. >The very idea of a state is a threat to (completely) free exchange of property and labor. I agree. I would like to see more thought, more experiment and more results to see how little of a state might be accomplished.

maxerickson 11y ago

Planned economies failed. The socialist governments in Western Europe haven't failed yet. (there are even several countries with 3-4 weeks of vacation for everyone and similar annual per person productivity to the US...)

ancap 11y ago
>The socialists governments in Western Europe haven't failed yet. "Yet" is the operative word there. Often socialism is applied, at least at first, in a very limited fashion, but then expand as the natural consequences come to fruition. For example, examine the minimum wage law. The natural consequence of the minimum wage law is the least productive individuals lose their jobs. Most often those individuals are youth and minorities, with the affect especially evident among young minorities. Reacting to this natural consequence, legislatures then want to enact social programs to provide for those who are unemployed. These social programs are funded through higher taxes, typically upon the most wealthy. The wealthy are incentivized to be free from the higher taxes and get around them through a myriad of creative ways. A cycle develops where social programs continue to expand, taxes continue to rise and the wealthy flee. This is very evident in France, currently. When the wealthy flee, the taxes fall onto the middle class. There is incentive for immigrants to come into the country. And so on and so forth. The failures of socialism are most evident where the interventions are taking place. Healthcare is a sector where a lot of the interventions are taking place and the affects are glaring. You can see this in Western Europe with sub-prime healthcare. The problems in the socialist governments in Western Europe will be exasperated by the refugee crisis. A socialist government and a planned economy are only different by a few degrees. Bad laws beget more bad laws and the problems will grow. How long until the parasite overpowers the host? Who knows.