4 ms·

The only implementations are basically run by dominant elites, who emerge as the ruling class, resulting in exclusive political economic systems. Daron Acemoglu

by fsloth 5y ago

The only implementations are basically run by dominant elites, who emerge as the ruling class, resulting in exclusive political economic systems. Daron Acemoglu's "Why nations fail" offers a great framework to discuss this, I think. Appropriation of capital basically means that the government decides to eradicate right to private ownership, thus reducing the will for economic creative destruction. The lack of this creative destruction leads to stagnation. To my view, one should not harken to a communist system. Marx was a great observer and analyst, but the medicine offered under the brands of socialism and communism generally create only worse situations. 19th century workers movement was needed to create pressure to give every citizen more or less equal right regardless of the property they possessed. After this was achieved, the result was a much fairer capitalist system which was far less harsh than the soul and body destroying early factory/labour conditions Marx described. Marx's analysis was critical in specifically pointing out what was wrong. The western societies fixed themselves without violent revolution. The places which were touched by revolution into socialist/communist systems basically became de-facto oligarchy led autocracit governments who need to cling to power using authoritarian bullying. I think anything that needs to be written as a summary of socialist reality was written by Orwell in Animal Farm. He was a fervent socialist - but became a quite strong critic of it's implementations as they stand. Orwells fondness for socialism was driven by his experiences as part of the civil service of the british empire - a machine of opression to him, which he came to abhor. He thought socialism would offer a better, fairer world - only to find out it only enabled a new band of crooks to take over. The foundations of humane societies are not in communism or socialism.

GoodJokes 5y ago
InitialLastName 5y ago
> The only implementations are basically run by dominant elites, who emerge as the ruling class, resulting in exclusive political economic systems. This is mighty reminiscent of basically every other system of large (super-Dunbar-scale) society control, from the ancient priest-kings, through the Roman "republic" and imperial systems, medieval feudalism, and late-stage capitalism. When control of the political system (how society allocates resources) can be used in a self-dealing manner, and resources can be used to control the political system, the steady state will tend towards the pattern you noted above (especially when those resources tend toward power-law distributions). Notably, the argument can be made that the situations where political power has reverted to a wider base (including the establishment of modern democracies) has come about when social or technological changes destabilized the economic distribution structure. Examples include the workers' movement you cited, the growing late medieval era's growing merchant class (whose willingness to be taxed to fund mutually-beneficial programs and corresponding demands for control over those programs helped trigger the creation of European democracy), and the western Roman Empire's decaying ability to use the funds of expansion to exert social control in its occupied territories. Lastly, it should be noted that, as brutal, illiberal, and inegalitarian as the USSR ended up being, the society they replaced (the Tsarist Russian Empire), being an industrialized dictatorship built around an enormous serf class was probably worse on all three counts.
- fsloth 5y ago
  "was probably worse on all three counts." I disagree. The czarist state was far more lenient creature than the industrial scale slaughtermachine that was the stalinist USSR. A poignant example is the treatment of dissenters when Stalin himself was condemned for insurecctions against the czarist Russian state pre 1917. He was sent to 'exile' meaning he had to spend time in specific village, while being more or less free, being cordially observed by the guardsmen. Compare this to the well documented purges he laid upon those regarded as enemies of the state. (Ref. "Young Stalin" by Simon Sebag). Of course USSR was more a continuation of the Russia of preceding centuries than a new political entity - hence alone cannot be used to empirically judge the quality of communism as a philosophy for state building. "Luckily" we have many more examples around the world, especially from the eastern block countries which were prosperous modern states before they fell under the communist yoke - which in my opinion form sufficient evidence that communism does not really work as intended as a form of government that would be an obvious improvement to human condition.

by fsloth 5y ago

GoodJokes 5y ago

InitialLastName 5y ago

> The only implementations are basically run by dominant elites, who emerge as the ruling class, resulting in exclusive political economic systems. This is mighty reminiscent of basically every other system of large (super-Dunbar-scale) society control, from the ancient priest-kings, through the Roman "republic" and imperial systems, medieval feudalism, and late-stage capitalism. When control of the political system (how society allocates resources) can be used in a self-dealing manner, and resources can be used to control the political system, the steady state will tend towards the pattern you noted above (especially when those resources tend toward power-law distributions). Notably, the argument can be made that the situations where political power has reverted to a wider base (including the establishment of modern democracies) has come about when social or technological changes destabilized the economic distribution structure. Examples include the workers' movement you cited, the growing late medieval era's growing merchant class (whose willingness to be taxed to fund mutually-beneficial programs and corresponding demands for control over those programs helped trigger the creation of European democracy), and the western Roman Empire's decaying ability to use the funds of expansion to exert social control in its occupied territories. Lastly, it should be noted that, as brutal, illiberal, and inegalitarian as the USSR ended up being, the society they replaced (the Tsarist Russian Empire), being an industrialized dictatorship built around an enormous serf class was probably worse on all three counts.

fsloth 5y ago
"was probably worse on all three counts." I disagree. The czarist state was far more lenient creature than the industrial scale slaughtermachine that was the stalinist USSR. A poignant example is the treatment of dissenters when Stalin himself was condemned for insurecctions against the czarist Russian state pre 1917. He was sent to 'exile' meaning he had to spend time in specific village, while being more or less free, being cordially observed by the guardsmen. Compare this to the well documented purges he laid upon those regarded as enemies of the state. (Ref. "Young Stalin" by Simon Sebag). Of course USSR was more a continuation of the Russia of preceding centuries than a new political entity - hence alone cannot be used to empirically judge the quality of communism as a philosophy for state building. "Luckily" we have many more examples around the world, especially from the eastern block countries which were prosperous modern states before they fell under the communist yoke - which in my opinion form sufficient evidence that communism does not really work as intended as a form of government that would be an obvious improvement to human condition.