13 ms·

This is conflating cause and effect. Socialism is just a word, you can define it however you like. In theory it can be some sort of vague co-op of co-ops. In p

This is conflating cause and effect. Socialism is just a word, you can define it however you like. In theory it can be some sort of vague co-op of co-ops. In practice it always leads to a centrally planned economy. There's a good reason for that. The ultimate root cause that generates socialist ideals is not the plight of the workers or anything so surface-level, it's the intuition that intellectuals should run society. Thomas Sowell has done a lot of excellent work elucidating this and explaining why it happens. To try and summarize, socialism appeals to people who like the sound of the abstract ideas of intellectuals. If an intellectual posits a clever-sounding reorganization of society justified by high minded ideals, then this feels right to the socialist mind. The sort of people who most aggressively promote socialism are the sort of people who think society is ultimately pretty simple - after all, the way to cure all social ills is so simple it can be summed up in a single book or set of pamphlets. It can be understood and reorganized by a single mind. Marx was famously averse to detail about how communist societies would actually work in practice, as were all other socialists, but this didn't bother them because it didn't seem like you needed a lot of detail. Hence the "calculation debate" the article discusses, which kicked off only after communists gained power. If you intuit that society is simple and the best minds can understand and reorganize it for the greater good, then a planned economy is the obvious next step. Why would you not plan it? The only possible justification would be if the planning process was too hard, but that would imply that society was too complex for any one mind or even a committee of minds to fully understand, and if you believed that, you wouldn't be a communist to begin with. So socialism or communism invariably always leads to top-down authoritarianism in practice. Revealed preferences > stated preferences.

csb6 3y ago
> The ultimate root cause that generates socialist ideals is not the plight of the workers or anything so surface-level, it's the intuition that intellectuals should run society. This is not the case. Marx and other writers repeatedly emphasize that the working class itself must take power and begin the process of getting rid of social classes altogether. They definitely did not advocate for a society run by highly educated intellectuals from the top-down. See “The Civil War in France”, where Marx discusses the Paris Commune - a working class uprising that was not lead by intellectuals. > socialism appeals to people who like the sound of the abstract ideas of intellectuals. If an intellectual posits a clever-sounding reorganization of society justified by high minded ideals, then this feels right to the socialist mind. This is just a description of zealotry and overoptimism in general - attitudes than can be found among proponents of any framework. Marx himself criticized earlier utopian socialist thinkers for trying to plan out an idealized society from their armchairs, rather than actively organizing with workers to create a better one. He saw theory and practice as deeply connected, and he definitely was not a utopian thinker. > the way to cure all social ills is so simple it can be summed up in a single book or set of pamphlets. It can be understood and reorganized by a single mind. Marx didn’t believe this. He was a prolific author and corresponded with many other contemporary socialist writers. He published a whole series of books just focused on analyzing capitalism, and he died before completing them. There is a wealth of Marxist writing and many conflicting strands - there is no “one mind” or “one committee” with the final say. > Why would you not plan it? The only possible justification would be if the planning process was too hard, but that would imply that society was too complex for any one mind or even a committee of minds to fully understand, and if you believed that, you wouldn't be a communist to begin with. There is a whole area of thought known as market socialism that rejects both capitalism and central planning. Central planning is not fundamental to socialism; it is simply one kind of economic strategy that could be used by a socialist society. I would encourage you read accounts of socialist thought besides those written by a deeply conservative economist. Marx himself can be challenging to read, but David Harvey has a book called “A Companion to Marx's Capital” that helps explain some of the context.
- revelio 3y ago
  > Marx and other writers repeatedly emphasize that the working class itself must take power [...] He saw theory and practice as deeply connected Marx wrote a lot of things. How many times did this champion of the working class visit a factory? How much time did he spend in working men's clubs, talking to the miners? Did he ever go down a mine to investigate conditions for himself? Did he form a political party to try and put his ideas into practice? If you read a biography of him you'll find the answer to all these questions is no. His friend Engels even offered to give him a tour of the factory he conveniently happened to own, and Marx didn't bother taking him up on it. He didn't need to, for he'd already learned everything he needed to know about the world from books written by other people. And thus he devoted his life to ... writing more books. > Marx didn’t believe [society is simple]. Sure he did! He was advocating revolutionary violence to implement his ideas despite not having worked out the details of what a communist state would actually look like. His books focused almost entirely on why capitalism should be abolished, not what would replace it. To him, it was easy peasy. Overthrow the ruling classes by organizing a class of "professional revolutionaries", get them to take power then put the working classes in charge, everything is now great. Done. > There is a whole area of thought known as market socialism that rejects both capitalism and central planning There are books that contain every possible permutation of social concepts, but that doesn't mean they make sense or any significant number of people believe them. In practice there is no such thing as anarcho-communism beyond, perhaps, tiny groups of people who live in tents. And even then, it doesn't last. Invariably someone takes power and then starts issuing plans that have to be obeyed.
  - Kbelicius 3y ago
    > Marx wrote a lot of things. How many times did this champion of the working class visit a factory? How much time did he spend in working men's clubs, talking to the miners? Did he ever go down a mine to investigate conditions for himself? Did he form a political party to try and put his ideas into practice? And how does all of this translate to him thinking that intellectuals should run society? Also, he was politically active, but you know that since you read his biography...
ModernMech 3y ago
It's quite easy to conclude that the "sorts of people" who don't share your beliefs are fundamentally deluded or so narcissistic, naïve, and simplistic that they think they should be planning everything. However, if you'll notice, here on HN a lot of people calling themselves socialists don't believe in the idea of central planning, so maybe there's more to it than socialists are just a sort of person.
- revelio 3y ago
  They probably do believe in it, if rephrased slightly. The term "central planning" is now indelibly associated with the USSR and failure so nobody supports it anymore, but take concepts that are very similar and all sorts of people including self-declared socialists will line up in praise. For example: - Health authorities should run society and the economy during a pandemic. - Government policy should be made by experts, not politicians. - The EU's constant attempts to create national tech champions via grants. - "Reparations" - Net Zero These are all examples of plans for top-down planning of society and the economy by supposedly rational and disinterested intellectuals. We don't use the exact term central planning for these things, but they have the same sort of effect. Yes, on the internet you can find people who claim to be anarcho-communists, just like you can find people claiming to be a lot of extremely niche things. Good luck finding them in the world of real offline politics!
peterashford 3y ago
That is a rank ad hominem.
- revelio 3y ago
  Ad hominem doesn't mean any description of a group of idea-defined people that you don't like. Definition of ad hominem: "directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining." My post: no specific person mentioned, it's all about a particular position.
  - ModernMech 3y ago
    Your post is not ad hominem, it’s a straw man. You built up a “sort of person”, who is comically naive and deluded, and the you showed us all how easy it was to knock your straw man down. Congrats, but it’s not the point you wanted to make.

csb6 3y ago

> The ultimate root cause that generates socialist ideals is not the plight of the workers or anything so surface-level, it's the intuition that intellectuals should run society. This is not the case. Marx and other writers repeatedly emphasize that the working class itself must take power and begin the process of getting rid of social classes altogether. They definitely did not advocate for a society run by highly educated intellectuals from the top-down. See “The Civil War in France”, where Marx discusses the Paris Commune - a working class uprising that was not lead by intellectuals. > socialism appeals to people who like the sound of the abstract ideas of intellectuals. If an intellectual posits a clever-sounding reorganization of society justified by high minded ideals, then this feels right to the socialist mind. This is just a description of zealotry and overoptimism in general - attitudes than can be found among proponents of any framework. Marx himself criticized earlier utopian socialist thinkers for trying to plan out an idealized society from their armchairs, rather than actively organizing with workers to create a better one. He saw theory and practice as deeply connected, and he definitely was not a utopian thinker. > the way to cure all social ills is so simple it can be summed up in a single book or set of pamphlets. It can be understood and reorganized by a single mind. Marx didn’t believe this. He was a prolific author and corresponded with many other contemporary socialist writers. He published a whole series of books just focused on analyzing capitalism, and he died before completing them. There is a wealth of Marxist writing and many conflicting strands - there is no “one mind” or “one committee” with the final say. > Why would you not plan it? The only possible justification would be if the planning process was too hard, but that would imply that society was too complex for any one mind or even a committee of minds to fully understand, and if you believed that, you wouldn't be a communist to begin with. There is a whole area of thought known as market socialism that rejects both capitalism and central planning. Central planning is not fundamental to socialism; it is simply one kind of economic strategy that could be used by a socialist society. I would encourage you read accounts of socialist thought besides those written by a deeply conservative economist. Marx himself can be challenging to read, but David Harvey has a book called “A Companion to Marx's Capital” that helps explain some of the context.

revelio 3y ago
> Marx and other writers repeatedly emphasize that the working class itself must take power [...] He saw theory and practice as deeply connected Marx wrote a lot of things. How many times did this champion of the working class visit a factory? How much time did he spend in working men's clubs, talking to the miners? Did he ever go down a mine to investigate conditions for himself? Did he form a political party to try and put his ideas into practice? If you read a biography of him you'll find the answer to all these questions is no. His friend Engels even offered to give him a tour of the factory he conveniently happened to own, and Marx didn't bother taking him up on it. He didn't need to, for he'd already learned everything he needed to know about the world from books written by other people. And thus he devoted his life to ... writing more books. > Marx didn’t believe [society is simple]. Sure he did! He was advocating revolutionary violence to implement his ideas despite not having worked out the details of what a communist state would actually look like. His books focused almost entirely on why capitalism should be abolished, not what would replace it. To him, it was easy peasy. Overthrow the ruling classes by organizing a class of "professional revolutionaries", get them to take power then put the working classes in charge, everything is now great. Done. > There is a whole area of thought known as market socialism that rejects both capitalism and central planning There are books that contain every possible permutation of social concepts, but that doesn't mean they make sense or any significant number of people believe them. In practice there is no such thing as anarcho-communism beyond, perhaps, tiny groups of people who live in tents. And even then, it doesn't last. Invariably someone takes power and then starts issuing plans that have to be obeyed.
- Kbelicius 3y ago
  > Marx wrote a lot of things. How many times did this champion of the working class visit a factory? How much time did he spend in working men's clubs, talking to the miners? Did he ever go down a mine to investigate conditions for himself? Did he form a political party to try and put his ideas into practice? And how does all of this translate to him thinking that intellectuals should run society? Also, he was politically active, but you know that since you read his biography...

ModernMech 3y ago

It's quite easy to conclude that the "sorts of people" who don't share your beliefs are fundamentally deluded or so narcissistic, naïve, and simplistic that they think they should be planning everything. However, if you'll notice, here on HN a lot of people calling themselves socialists don't believe in the idea of central planning, so maybe there's more to it than socialists are just a sort of person.

revelio 3y ago
They probably do believe in it, if rephrased slightly. The term "central planning" is now indelibly associated with the USSR and failure so nobody supports it anymore, but take concepts that are very similar and all sorts of people including self-declared socialists will line up in praise. For example: - Health authorities should run society and the economy during a pandemic. - Government policy should be made by experts, not politicians. - The EU's constant attempts to create national tech champions via grants. - "Reparations" - Net Zero These are all examples of plans for top-down planning of society and the economy by supposedly rational and disinterested intellectuals. We don't use the exact term central planning for these things, but they have the same sort of effect. Yes, on the internet you can find people who claim to be anarcho-communists, just like you can find people claiming to be a lot of extremely niche things. Good luck finding them in the world of real offline politics!

peterashford 3y ago

That is a rank ad hominem.

revelio 3y ago
Ad hominem doesn't mean any description of a group of idea-defined people that you don't like. Definition of ad hominem: "directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining." My post: no specific person mentioned, it's all about a particular position.
- ModernMech 3y ago
  Your post is not ad hominem, it’s a straw man. You built up a “sort of person”, who is comically naive and deluded, and the you showed us all how easy it was to knock your straw man down. Congrats, but it’s not the point you wanted to make.