4 ms·

Those successful European countries let the economy operate and tax it. Venezuela runs the economy, including setting prices of basic necessities, which then be

Those successful European countries let the economy operate and tax it. Venezuela runs the economy, including setting prices of basic necessities, which then become unavailable because it turns out the government cannot set those the way it thinks it can.

mortenjorck 10y ago
Indeed, this is the difference between socialism in a free market and socialism in a command economy. While the former may try to influence the market (through social programs, state investment, money supply), it still must bend with the winds of market forces. The latter is an imposition of structure irrespective of the market: It might be seen more as a rigid body that can stand in certain conditions but begins to buckle once the wind changes.
- adventured 10y ago
  There's no such thing as Socialism in a free market, that's a contradiction in terms. Socialism means non-free market, and uses extreme violence to accomplish its ends of nationalizing wealth and production (which are inherently linked). And indeed, very liberal applications of force is the sole means to accomplish such a thing, which is why all attempts at Socialism throughout history always involved the equivalent end result of a dictatorship and extremely violent suppression of the population. Socialism requires at a minimum the nationalization of the means of production. If what you're talking about doesn't involve that, then what you're talking about isn't Socialism.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I understand that 51% of Wikipedians on the page for "Socialism" have come to this conclusion, but it may trouble you to know that 51% of Wikipedians on other pages about other aspects/flavors of socialism do not agree, let alone political scientists as a whole. I'm sorry to be so snarky about this, but "socialism means command economy" is the Scholar's Checkmate of Internet political science debates, and I'm think we benefit by not dignifying it.
  - andrewjl 10y ago
    Curious to hear how you use this perspective to rationalize the government structure for providing public goods in the U.S., such as defense, roads, and the court system. Is the U.S. not a free market economy in your view?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > There's no such thing as Socialism in a free market There's no such thing as a free market, either. > Socialism means non-free market Laissez-faire Capitalism ignores that the ideal efficiency of a free market requires the absence of externalities, which are present in the real world. Socialism attempts to address the existence of externalities (though socialist theory often won't frame it in those terms) through compensatory mechanisms (which may involve outright government control and planned economy, or may, especially in many current strands of socialism, instead include mechanisms to internalize externalities so that the behavior of the imperfectly free market better approaches the efficiency of the ideal free market than an actually unregulated market would without effort to address externalities.) > and uses extreme violence to accomplish its ends of nationalizing wealth and production (which are inherently linked). Nationalizing means of production is not an end of socialism, though its a means of some forms of socialism in assuring that the means of production are harnessed to serve the common good of society. Other forms of socialism change (compared to capitalism) the balance of power in firms between labor and capital as a means of harnessing production to serve the common good, others adopt market regulations which serve to internalize externalities so that forces in the regulated market will naturally direct the means of production to serve the general good. > Socialism requires at a minimum the nationalization of the means of production. No, it doesn't, if you are referring to "socialism", the political philosophy. If you are referring to "socialism", a particular the phase on the road to communism in Marx's Communism (and thus the "socialism" of Leninsm and its descendants which, while abandoning much of Marx's theory, kept this part), then, yes, socialism does involve that, but note that Marx's Communism was one of many kinds of socialist philosophies of its time, and that the "socialism" phase in Marx's Communism (and, for that matter, Marx's Communism as a whole) is not representative of (though it may be one example of) socialism as a political viewpoint. I think most socialists would agree that more democratic control of the means of production in general, as compared to laissez-faire capitalism, is a distinguishing feature of socialism. I do not think most socialists would agree that state ownership of the means of production is essential (and, indeed, many would argue that significantly revising the capitalist concept of ownership and property rights in the means of production are necessary to socialism, and that the nature of that revision of what ownership means is more important to socialism than where ownership is located. Socialism as simply state-ownership is a minimally challenging way for capitalists to approach socialism, because it avoids even discussion of the essential difference between socialism and capitalism, which is the challenge to the capitalist understanding of property and ownership.)
  - pastProlog 10y ago
    10000 years ago the entire world was not socialist but communist, and none of what you mentioned happened. It was the formation of class societies of workers and parasites 10000 years ago which led to violence, suppression of the population etc.
    - woodandsteel 10y ago
      The term "socialism" has more than one meaning. Classically, it referred to the means of production being owned and controlled directly by the society, either through the state or workers collectives. Later the word "socialism" came to also mean a market economy in which the government intervenes to a considerable degree, as in European-style social democracy. American conservatives have also recently come to label New Deal-style liberalism as "socialism." I think it would be helpful for productive discussion if people labeled which meaning of the term they are using, and acknowledged that it also has other meanings. Let me add that the state-ownership version of socialism could be totalitarian or democratic. I am not aware of any countries in the world today that have a state-ownership version of socialism and are democracies. Venezuela, from what I understand, has a partly state-owned economy, and is semi-totalitarian. update: let me explain some why I think that discussion can be more productive if people acknowledge the term "socialism" has more than one meaning, and are clear about which one they are using. There are many different economic and governmental systems that are labeled "socialist" including, among others, the totalitarian, total state-control system of the old Soviet Union and the democratic, semi-socialist system of the UK after WWII and up until Margaret Thatcher. What is needed is to discuss how the various systems work and what are their outcomes, good or bad. This is a complicated and difficult discussion. If people insist on either labeling all of them as "socialist" or only one, then people get into endless, fruitless debates over who is right, and it greatly undermines the more factual discussion about specific different systems and why they go right or wrong. The comments to this link are a good example of what I am talking about. But if everyone agrees there are different definitions, then they can focus on the more important part of discussing the systems themselves.
  - ghshephard 10y ago
    I think you're definition has some good elements - about nationalizing wealth and production, but I don't get where violence has anything to do with socialism. I've always considered Socialism to be "socializing" the provision of some goods instead of relying on the free market. Providing things like Street Cleaning, Birth Certificates, Roads, military, coast guard, street lighting, traffic lights, Police Services, K-12 education, Courts are all examples of common socialized goods by that definition. Different countries seem to socialize more (or less) than others. Some countries provide some spectrum of (more or less) socialized fire departments, health care, ambulances, emergency care, homeless shelters, etc... With that in mind - countries like the United States, particularly in the latter half of the 20th century, are quite socialist in comparison to previous eras (though obviously somewhat less so than other countries).

mortenjorck 10y ago

Indeed, this is the difference between socialism in a free market and socialism in a command economy. While the former may try to influence the market (through social programs, state investment, money supply), it still must bend with the winds of market forces. The latter is an imposition of structure irrespective of the market: It might be seen more as a rigid body that can stand in certain conditions but begins to buckle once the wind changes.

adventured 10y ago
There's no such thing as Socialism in a free market, that's a contradiction in terms. Socialism means non-free market, and uses extreme violence to accomplish its ends of nationalizing wealth and production (which are inherently linked). And indeed, very liberal applications of force is the sole means to accomplish such a thing, which is why all attempts at Socialism throughout history always involved the equivalent end result of a dictatorship and extremely violent suppression of the population. Socialism requires at a minimum the nationalization of the means of production. If what you're talking about doesn't involve that, then what you're talking about isn't Socialism.
- tptacek 10y ago
  I understand that 51% of Wikipedians on the page for "Socialism" have come to this conclusion, but it may trouble you to know that 51% of Wikipedians on other pages about other aspects/flavors of socialism do not agree, let alone political scientists as a whole. I'm sorry to be so snarky about this, but "socialism means command economy" is the Scholar's Checkmate of Internet political science debates, and I'm think we benefit by not dignifying it.
- andrewjl 10y ago
  Curious to hear how you use this perspective to rationalize the government structure for providing public goods in the U.S., such as defense, roads, and the court system. Is the U.S. not a free market economy in your view?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > There's no such thing as Socialism in a free market There's no such thing as a free market, either. > Socialism means non-free market Laissez-faire Capitalism ignores that the ideal efficiency of a free market requires the absence of externalities, which are present in the real world. Socialism attempts to address the existence of externalities (though socialist theory often won't frame it in those terms) through compensatory mechanisms (which may involve outright government control and planned economy, or may, especially in many current strands of socialism, instead include mechanisms to internalize externalities so that the behavior of the imperfectly free market better approaches the efficiency of the ideal free market than an actually unregulated market would without effort to address externalities.) > and uses extreme violence to accomplish its ends of nationalizing wealth and production (which are inherently linked). Nationalizing means of production is not an end of socialism, though its a means of some forms of socialism in assuring that the means of production are harnessed to serve the common good of society. Other forms of socialism change (compared to capitalism) the balance of power in firms between labor and capital as a means of harnessing production to serve the common good, others adopt market regulations which serve to internalize externalities so that forces in the regulated market will naturally direct the means of production to serve the general good. > Socialism requires at a minimum the nationalization of the means of production. No, it doesn't, if you are referring to "socialism", the political philosophy. If you are referring to "socialism", a particular the phase on the road to communism in Marx's Communism (and thus the "socialism" of Leninsm and its descendants which, while abandoning much of Marx's theory, kept this part), then, yes, socialism does involve that, but note that Marx's Communism was one of many kinds of socialist philosophies of its time, and that the "socialism" phase in Marx's Communism (and, for that matter, Marx's Communism as a whole) is not representative of (though it may be one example of) socialism as a political viewpoint. I think most socialists would agree that more democratic control of the means of production in general, as compared to laissez-faire capitalism, is a distinguishing feature of socialism. I do not think most socialists would agree that state ownership of the means of production is essential (and, indeed, many would argue that significantly revising the capitalist concept of ownership and property rights in the means of production are necessary to socialism, and that the nature of that revision of what ownership means is more important to socialism than where ownership is located. Socialism as simply state-ownership is a minimally challenging way for capitalists to approach socialism, because it avoids even discussion of the essential difference between socialism and capitalism, which is the challenge to the capitalist understanding of property and ownership.)
- pastProlog 10y ago
  10000 years ago the entire world was not socialist but communist, and none of what you mentioned happened. It was the formation of class societies of workers and parasites 10000 years ago which led to violence, suppression of the population etc.
  - woodandsteel 10y ago
    The term "socialism" has more than one meaning. Classically, it referred to the means of production being owned and controlled directly by the society, either through the state or workers collectives. Later the word "socialism" came to also mean a market economy in which the government intervenes to a considerable degree, as in European-style social democracy. American conservatives have also recently come to label New Deal-style liberalism as "socialism." I think it would be helpful for productive discussion if people labeled which meaning of the term they are using, and acknowledged that it also has other meanings. Let me add that the state-ownership version of socialism could be totalitarian or democratic. I am not aware of any countries in the world today that have a state-ownership version of socialism and are democracies. Venezuela, from what I understand, has a partly state-owned economy, and is semi-totalitarian. update: let me explain some why I think that discussion can be more productive if people acknowledge the term "socialism" has more than one meaning, and are clear about which one they are using. There are many different economic and governmental systems that are labeled "socialist" including, among others, the totalitarian, total state-control system of the old Soviet Union and the democratic, semi-socialist system of the UK after WWII and up until Margaret Thatcher. What is needed is to discuss how the various systems work and what are their outcomes, good or bad. This is a complicated and difficult discussion. If people insist on either labeling all of them as "socialist" or only one, then people get into endless, fruitless debates over who is right, and it greatly undermines the more factual discussion about specific different systems and why they go right or wrong. The comments to this link are a good example of what I am talking about. But if everyone agrees there are different definitions, then they can focus on the more important part of discussing the systems themselves.
- ghshephard 10y ago
  I think you're definition has some good elements - about nationalizing wealth and production, but I don't get where violence has anything to do with socialism. I've always considered Socialism to be "socializing" the provision of some goods instead of relying on the free market. Providing things like Street Cleaning, Birth Certificates, Roads, military, coast guard, street lighting, traffic lights, Police Services, K-12 education, Courts are all examples of common socialized goods by that definition. Different countries seem to socialize more (or less) than others. Some countries provide some spectrum of (more or less) socialized fire departments, health care, ambulances, emergency care, homeless shelters, etc... With that in mind - countries like the United States, particularly in the latter half of the 20th century, are quite socialist in comparison to previous eras (though obviously somewhat less so than other countries).