6 ms·

I think everyone is well aware of that. In a successful socialist state neither party elites or bureaucrats should exist. In a capitalist state or authoritarian

by deft 9y ago

I think everyone is well aware of that. In a successful socialist state neither party elites or bureaucrats should exist. In a capitalist state or authoritarian system those are designed and necessary groups. Most people's objections to socialism are exactly what socialism is attempting to remove. Lenin, Stalin etc. did a terrible job.

Fins 9y ago
But isn't it at least a little bit curious that any and everyone trying to implement it did an equally terrible job?
- Method-X 9y ago
  Exactly. Almost like it's a problem with the fundamentals of the system itself.
  - Fins 9y ago
    Interestingly, it is always assumed that problems with capitalism are systemic, but communism... they just didn't try quite right.
- bbddg 9y ago
  Back when people were trying to overthrow monarchies to introduce democracy and capitalism it didn't exactly go smoothly either. Capitalism in America might not have even been possible without the extensive use of slave labor and the genocide of an entire continent of people. There is such an ahistorical bend to anti-socialist rhetoric that is so pervasive in our society it's nearly impossible to see.
  - reading-at-work 9y ago
    "Capitalism in America might not have even been possible without the extensive use of slave labor and the genocide of an entire continent of people" Rolling my eyes pretty hard at that one. Can you elaborate? Do you really think the whole system would have failed without slave labor? How was the capitalist economy different back then, such that free labor was absolutely necessary for it to be sustained? "There is such an ahistorical bend to anti-socialist rhetoric" I would say the same about pro-socialist rhetoric. The whole "let's ignore what happened the last dozen times a country tried full socialism, and try it again" rhetoric is pretty selectively ignorant of history, wouldn't you say?
    - bbddg 9y ago
      There's a difference between saying "Capitalism in America" vs the whole system of capitalism. That aside it's probably hyperbolic for me to claim that it "might not have even been possible." My point is that people ignore the ugly history of capitalism but only want to talk about the ugly side of socialism. I'm sure there's equally biased pro-socialist rhetoric but since we live in a capitalist society the scale is not even remotely the same. The last thing I want to do is ignore what has happened when countries have tried socialism. I want to be clear that horrible things have happened in socialist countries, but I don't think that is sufficient reason to throw out all of the ideas and philosophy behind socialism.
      - reading-at-work 9y ago
        I see what you're saying, and it's a fair point. I've never claimed capitalism is without its flaws. You say "people ignore the ugly history of capitalism but only want to talk about the ugly side of socialism," but more often I hear the opposite. I see socialism promoted all the time as this utopian ideal, and capitalism detracted as a horrible injustice, at least in my circles. So I suppose I'm more conditioned to call out the flaws in socialism as a reflex. Regardless, I do think the past failures of socialist states are very important to consider, as they present concrete evidence for different ways it can go wrong. And I would make the argument that, given all that evidence, it does speak to flaws in the philosophy itself. Because in order for full socialism to occur, it necessitates an authoritarian takeover of the economy by the state. The state is supposed to represent the people, of course, but once they seize power to start managing property and the economy, well, now they're authoritarian bureaucrats with too much power. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and all that. To me it's no wonder that dictators take control of socialist states so easily. Then, even if the state does avoid becoming despotic, you still have to deal with the problem of a centrally planned economy being incredibly inefficient at creating wealth when compared to a capitalist market economy. The adage "you don't make the poor richer, you just make everyone poorer" in regards to full socialism seems pretty spot-on in my observation. Just look at Venezuela for a live example. In 2013 they were hailed as an economic miracle [1] and now, well, we can all see for ourselves how it went [2]. To me, the most prosperous economic model we've come up with is free market capitalism with some government protections in place, like anti-trust and consumer protection laws, and a basic social safety net. I'm open to debate, though. Are there any socialist economies you would point to as a success? What parts of socialist philosophy in particular do you see as being effective and worth pursuing? 1. https://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_chavezs_economic_miracle/ https://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_chavezs_economic_mirac... 2. http://www.euronews.com/2018/03/26/colombia-s-venezuelan-migrant-influx http://www.euronews.com/2018/03/26/colombia-s-venezuelan-mig...
  - schnable 9y ago
    Capitalism flourished in the parts of the US that did _not_ rely on slave labor and it won out.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      Even in the North and even in the late antebellum period, the two economies were intertwined and, for instance, Northern insurers were insuring Southern slaves, and Northern textile mills were spinning slave-picked Southern cotton.
  - Fins 9y ago
    Isn't this a rather classic "whataboutism"? I don't think anybody here (not me, certainly) is arguing that capitalism is perfect and without a single flaw. But nevertheless any real-world implementations of socialism always ended up being far worse than of capitalism. And communists never were particularly shy about using slave labor or genociding people either. There is a reason why that anti-socialist rhetoric exists.
- zanny 9y ago
  I'm not a fan of the argument that since the Soviet Union and its derivative states (including China) failed that there is no way to accomplish that Marxist utopic vision or that any variation on socialism has to fail. Russia was the only real attempt. The 1917 revolution was about it, and then the coup by Stalin to overthrow Lenin and Trotsky threw out any shred of attempt to reach any kind of utopia and just turned the country into a dictatorship with a globalist coat of paint. Russia itself can absolutely be used as an example of the failings of Marxism and Communism, but I don't think any other country can, for the sole reason that once the Soviet Union was established and the Cold War underway neither side was going to let an ideological uprising happen anywhere on Earth in isolation. Every single socialist / communist state from the Eastern Bloc countries that were conquered by Russia to puppet states in the Middle East to sponsored uprisings in South America and Southeast Asia were all done with Soviet support to create Stalin style dictatorships. I don't think for a second that Mao ever thought China would become some stateless utopia where everyone owns everything in public. Mao took power to be a king, in the same way Fidel did, in the same way Kim Il Sung did. And they all did it with Soviet support financially and militarily. The US were well documented kingmakers in that era too. It is why most of the Middle East has such deeply instilled hatred of the US that they are willing to give their lives to attack the US. The difference is that the Soviets demanded loyalty by labeling yourself a Peoples Republic and modeling your government after Stalin's - the US just wanted puppet states that did what the US said, be they democratic or totalitarian, it didn't really matter to Washington. But that isn't something that is going to change, either. Revolutions without foreign support always degrade into dictatorships to fill power vacuums when the unorganized hoard of revolutionaries dissipates - France, Russia, and more recently Egypt all demonstrate what happens in those circumstances. The US had a successful revolution only because it was the elite casting off a foreign power with the support of another, and without Frances help or the support of the American aristocracy the US would have never been founded. Internal wars for revolution fail, revolutions without international support fail, and new governments post-revolution that are too "different" from the global status quo also fail because the world powers will cut you off if you don't play by their rules in international trade. And you can be sure almost every government on Earth today with few exceptions function and exist with the blessings of the United States. If anyone tried to overthrow those "for the people" like the Iranian people did to their Shah you can bet the US will have nothing nice to say about the pursuit of liberty if its against American economic interests. So no, communism doesn't work, but its not because of some tautology that you can never reach this post-state utopia, but more because nobody can change their government in isolation - the influence of foreign actors will always either push you towards their favored ideology or sabotage your attempt. The world is too interconnected now for an upstart band of ideologues to depose the king and try something new.
padobson 9y ago
Lenin, Stalin etc. did a terrible job. I'm open to being wrong, but I don't think anyone can do a good job. No one has yet invented a way of distributing resources more efficiently than markets. I'm not sure if socialism can be real socialism if markets are involved, but I know there's no existing solution to feed and clothe people without them. You might argue for Ptolemaic Egypt, but they had a huge advantage with the Nile, and starvation was rampant in drier years. Every 20th Century example of trying to eliminate markets either led to mass starvation or a quick return to markets once it was clear you couldn't grow an economy without them. Sweden, Denmark, Norway and most other big government countries socialists like to point out still rely on markets to provide the economic growth needed to pay the taxes for their social programs. They also have the advantage of strong allies and needing to spend only a small fraction of their tax revenues on defense.
- deft 9y ago
  This is an issue with terms. None of those countries are socialist. Market socialism has been discussed at length by many theorists. A trustless AI market planner / coordinator could also be designed, especially with current tech. Project Cybersyn by the Chilean government in the 70s was an early attempt at this.[0] Technology should be used to free humanity not further constrict it. The topic of this thread is exactly the latter: how the "gig economy" is putting most people in worse positions than ever before [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn
reading-at-work 9y ago
"In a successful socialist state neither party elites or bureaucrats should exist." So to paraphrase, there has never been a successful socialist state.
- deft 9y ago
  Exactly, read the essay length comment above from another user. They explained it well. The USSR was the only country that made a legitimate attempt at implementing it. Once Stalin got rid of the people interested in that idea it was all downhill.
  - reading-at-work 9y ago
    I'd disagree that the USSR was the only "legitimate" attempt. And even accepting that premise I think it does still show a flaw in the system, which is that it was easily exploited by a despot to seize control. By allowing the state absolute control of the economy, which is necessary to transition into a truly socialist system, you give the people running the state immense power. Then you just have to hope they treat it responsibly, which as we know, didn't happen. I made a longer argument about that here, probably better to link it than reiterate it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16689969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16689969

by deft 9y ago

Fins 9y ago

But isn't it at least a little bit curious that any and everyone trying to implement it did an equally terrible job?

Method-X 9y ago
Exactly. Almost like it's a problem with the fundamentals of the system itself.
- Fins 9y ago
  Interestingly, it is always assumed that problems with capitalism are systemic, but communism... they just didn't try quite right.
bbddg 9y ago
Back when people were trying to overthrow monarchies to introduce democracy and capitalism it didn't exactly go smoothly either. Capitalism in America might not have even been possible without the extensive use of slave labor and the genocide of an entire continent of people. There is such an ahistorical bend to anti-socialist rhetoric that is so pervasive in our society it's nearly impossible to see.
- reading-at-work 9y ago
  "Capitalism in America might not have even been possible without the extensive use of slave labor and the genocide of an entire continent of people" Rolling my eyes pretty hard at that one. Can you elaborate? Do you really think the whole system would have failed without slave labor? How was the capitalist economy different back then, such that free labor was absolutely necessary for it to be sustained? "There is such an ahistorical bend to anti-socialist rhetoric" I would say the same about pro-socialist rhetoric. The whole "let's ignore what happened the last dozen times a country tried full socialism, and try it again" rhetoric is pretty selectively ignorant of history, wouldn't you say?
  - bbddg 9y ago
    There's a difference between saying "Capitalism in America" vs the whole system of capitalism. That aside it's probably hyperbolic for me to claim that it "might not have even been possible." My point is that people ignore the ugly history of capitalism but only want to talk about the ugly side of socialism. I'm sure there's equally biased pro-socialist rhetoric but since we live in a capitalist society the scale is not even remotely the same. The last thing I want to do is ignore what has happened when countries have tried socialism. I want to be clear that horrible things have happened in socialist countries, but I don't think that is sufficient reason to throw out all of the ideas and philosophy behind socialism.
    - reading-at-work 9y ago
      I see what you're saying, and it's a fair point. I've never claimed capitalism is without its flaws. You say "people ignore the ugly history of capitalism but only want to talk about the ugly side of socialism," but more often I hear the opposite. I see socialism promoted all the time as this utopian ideal, and capitalism detracted as a horrible injustice, at least in my circles. So I suppose I'm more conditioned to call out the flaws in socialism as a reflex. Regardless, I do think the past failures of socialist states are very important to consider, as they present concrete evidence for different ways it can go wrong. And I would make the argument that, given all that evidence, it does speak to flaws in the philosophy itself. Because in order for full socialism to occur, it necessitates an authoritarian takeover of the economy by the state. The state is supposed to represent the people, of course, but once they seize power to start managing property and the economy, well, now they're authoritarian bureaucrats with too much power. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and all that. To me it's no wonder that dictators take control of socialist states so easily. Then, even if the state does avoid becoming despotic, you still have to deal with the problem of a centrally planned economy being incredibly inefficient at creating wealth when compared to a capitalist market economy. The adage "you don't make the poor richer, you just make everyone poorer" in regards to full socialism seems pretty spot-on in my observation. Just look at Venezuela for a live example. In 2013 they were hailed as an economic miracle [1] and now, well, we can all see for ourselves how it went [2]. To me, the most prosperous economic model we've come up with is free market capitalism with some government protections in place, like anti-trust and consumer protection laws, and a basic social safety net. I'm open to debate, though. Are there any socialist economies you would point to as a success? What parts of socialist philosophy in particular do you see as being effective and worth pursuing? 1. https://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_chavezs_economic_miracle/ https://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_chavezs_economic_mirac... 2. http://www.euronews.com/2018/03/26/colombia-s-venezuelan-migrant-influx http://www.euronews.com/2018/03/26/colombia-s-venezuelan-mig...
- schnable 9y ago
  Capitalism flourished in the parts of the US that did _not_ rely on slave labor and it won out.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Even in the North and even in the late antebellum period, the two economies were intertwined and, for instance, Northern insurers were insuring Southern slaves, and Northern textile mills were spinning slave-picked Southern cotton.
- Fins 9y ago
  Isn't this a rather classic "whataboutism"? I don't think anybody here (not me, certainly) is arguing that capitalism is perfect and without a single flaw. But nevertheless any real-world implementations of socialism always ended up being far worse than of capitalism. And communists never were particularly shy about using slave labor or genociding people either. There is a reason why that anti-socialist rhetoric exists.
zanny 9y ago
I'm not a fan of the argument that since the Soviet Union and its derivative states (including China) failed that there is no way to accomplish that Marxist utopic vision or that any variation on socialism has to fail. Russia was the only real attempt. The 1917 revolution was about it, and then the coup by Stalin to overthrow Lenin and Trotsky threw out any shred of attempt to reach any kind of utopia and just turned the country into a dictatorship with a globalist coat of paint. Russia itself can absolutely be used as an example of the failings of Marxism and Communism, but I don't think any other country can, for the sole reason that once the Soviet Union was established and the Cold War underway neither side was going to let an ideological uprising happen anywhere on Earth in isolation. Every single socialist / communist state from the Eastern Bloc countries that were conquered by Russia to puppet states in the Middle East to sponsored uprisings in South America and Southeast Asia were all done with Soviet support to create Stalin style dictatorships. I don't think for a second that Mao ever thought China would become some stateless utopia where everyone owns everything in public. Mao took power to be a king, in the same way Fidel did, in the same way Kim Il Sung did. And they all did it with Soviet support financially and militarily. The US were well documented kingmakers in that era too. It is why most of the Middle East has such deeply instilled hatred of the US that they are willing to give their lives to attack the US. The difference is that the Soviets demanded loyalty by labeling yourself a Peoples Republic and modeling your government after Stalin's - the US just wanted puppet states that did what the US said, be they democratic or totalitarian, it didn't really matter to Washington. But that isn't something that is going to change, either. Revolutions without foreign support always degrade into dictatorships to fill power vacuums when the unorganized hoard of revolutionaries dissipates - France, Russia, and more recently Egypt all demonstrate what happens in those circumstances. The US had a successful revolution only because it was the elite casting off a foreign power with the support of another, and without Frances help or the support of the American aristocracy the US would have never been founded. Internal wars for revolution fail, revolutions without international support fail, and new governments post-revolution that are too "different" from the global status quo also fail because the world powers will cut you off if you don't play by their rules in international trade. And you can be sure almost every government on Earth today with few exceptions function and exist with the blessings of the United States. If anyone tried to overthrow those "for the people" like the Iranian people did to their Shah you can bet the US will have nothing nice to say about the pursuit of liberty if its against American economic interests. So no, communism doesn't work, but its not because of some tautology that you can never reach this post-state utopia, but more because nobody can change their government in isolation - the influence of foreign actors will always either push you towards their favored ideology or sabotage your attempt. The world is too interconnected now for an upstart band of ideologues to depose the king and try something new.

padobson 9y ago

Lenin, Stalin etc. did a terrible job. I'm open to being wrong, but I don't think anyone can do a good job. No one has yet invented a way of distributing resources more efficiently than markets. I'm not sure if socialism can be real socialism if markets are involved, but I know there's no existing solution to feed and clothe people without them. You might argue for Ptolemaic Egypt, but they had a huge advantage with the Nile, and starvation was rampant in drier years. Every 20th Century example of trying to eliminate markets either led to mass starvation or a quick return to markets once it was clear you couldn't grow an economy without them. Sweden, Denmark, Norway and most other big government countries socialists like to point out still rely on markets to provide the economic growth needed to pay the taxes for their social programs. They also have the advantage of strong allies and needing to spend only a small fraction of their tax revenues on defense.

deft 9y ago
This is an issue with terms. None of those countries are socialist. Market socialism has been discussed at length by many theorists. A trustless AI market planner / coordinator could also be designed, especially with current tech. Project Cybersyn by the Chilean government in the 70s was an early attempt at this.[0] Technology should be used to free humanity not further constrict it. The topic of this thread is exactly the latter: how the "gig economy" is putting most people in worse positions than ever before [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn

reading-at-work 9y ago

"In a successful socialist state neither party elites or bureaucrats should exist." So to paraphrase, there has never been a successful socialist state.

deft 9y ago
Exactly, read the essay length comment above from another user. They explained it well. The USSR was the only country that made a legitimate attempt at implementing it. Once Stalin got rid of the people interested in that idea it was all downhill.
- reading-at-work 9y ago
  I'd disagree that the USSR was the only "legitimate" attempt. And even accepting that premise I think it does still show a flaw in the system, which is that it was easily exploited by a despot to seize control. By allowing the state absolute control of the economy, which is necessary to transition into a truly socialist system, you give the people running the state immense power. Then you just have to hope they treat it responsibly, which as we know, didn't happen. I made a longer argument about that here, probably better to link it than reiterate it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16689969 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16689969