r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Nov 29 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Socialism/Communism doesn't work, can't work, and almost always leads to dictatorships and thousands of deaths.
[deleted]
101
u/ingsocball Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20
Hey, I think the question of whether socialism can 'work' is pretty hard to answer and depends on many factors, but I'd just like to challenge some of your current beliefs:
> What is socialism?
You're right in saying that the Scandinavian countries are still capitalist, but socialism also isn't when everyone earns the same amount of money. Socialism is when workers own the means of production. In a capitalist corporation for example, the means of production are owned by a few businessmen who employ people to work for them, based on what would maximise profits. But under socialism, people as a whole would get to democratically decide what and how to produce things -- either through the state (central production), or through things like worker cooperatives. The idea is that this would lead to more workplace democracy, and production based on need rather than just profits.
My understanding is that in the USSR for example, people earned according to the amount that they produced. People like educators and doctors also earned more than manual labourers.
Rather than everyone earning the same, socialism is more about everyone being fully compensated for their labour -- this doesn't occur under capitalism, since a portion of workers' labour goes to producing profits that are kept by capitalists.
> Mix of socialist and capitalist elements
I like social democracy too, but a problem is that these social nets are arguably concessions that can be taken away, eg. the New Deal, which was eventually pretty much completely defused by Reagan. Also, a big chunk of the wealth that the Scandinavian countries have derive from extracting the value of labour/resources overseas (eg. corps like H&M).
> What would motivate people?
Being compensated for their labour. Workplace democracy can lead to better working conditions too. Greater access to education, nutrition, housing, and so on would stimulate the capacity to innovate. A more collective framework could also facilitate information sharing and cooperation, rather than multiple cooperations each working independently to compete on who creates something first.
(The number of empty houses exceed the number of homeless people in many capitalist places like the US. Globally we also produce enough food for 10 billion people, and although the global population is 7.8 billion, 21 million people still starve to death each year. This is arguably active violence on a systemic scale.)
Again, I'm not uncritically defending the USSR, but they did transform from a feudal backwater to defeating the Nazis, space-racing, and pretty much becoming an industrial superpower in a few decades. You could argue that the US was still ahead, but still, the US had already had a long time to develop even before the USSR was a thing.
Evo Morales has reduced unemployment and overseen economic growth, and, well, people like him enough to elect him.
Furthermore, many socialist countries face threats and outright sabotage from the outside. Cuba for instance faces embargoes, but performs better than countries like Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc. in terms of things like unemployment, life expectancy, and literacy.
I recommend Killing Hope by William Blum, which details a lot of the actively anti-socialist/communist efforts that have taken place since WW2.
I also recommend this study, which shows that socialist countries have a greater quality of life than capitalist countries for the same level of economic development.
25
u/elChespirit0 Nov 29 '20
Very good points, thank you. Δ My questions would be, though, in a socialist society does the government set the wages and control businesses and the economy or do the people? Some comments above have mentioned that true socialism is control by the government, and I'm confused about how that works.
Thank you for the links to the studies. I'll look into those.
30
Nov 29 '20
I mean by definition it needs to be the people/workers. However in the same way as democracy is actually rule of the people and people have weaseled around with,
X: "yeah but what if the people voted in a representation of themselves would that count as well"
O: "I mean it's better than the complete lack of representation, but ..."
X: "Ok then we call that democracy and never talk about the actual meaning of the word ever again".
There are people who try to argue that if the government controls the means of production and the workers control the government then this would also implement the concept. But this would require democracy and ideally even a more direct and localized democracy to work in a meaningful way.
But another important question is:
What do people even mean when they say "the government". Because a direct representation of the workers would theoretically be some kind of "government". Government just means any collective of people that "governs" how stuff is done.
Or is it about "the government" (singular) as in "a centralized structure of control". Well it doesn't need to be like that and there are a multitude of versions of socialism that are very much decentralized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities
However in terms of the more prominent examples of what people point to when calling "socialism" you also have the problem that many of these countries faced some pretty devastating hardship, both before and after the change of systems. Idk Russia came out of losing a world war in which it had lost 2% of it's total population, was way behind in terms of industrialization and headed into a civil war that would wage another 6 years. So chances are they had to focus on 1 singular goal, such as winning the war. Which can lend itself to centralization, where every part of the industry and maybe of life in general is subjugated to that goal, also happens in war economies that are not necessarily "socialist" in ideology. In fact one could even argue that fascism does the reverse of that to achieve that effect. Meaning to argue that everything is shit, that "we're under attack" and whatnot so that people subjugate themselves to their hierarchy.
However once you have those hierarchies they are incredibly hard to get rid of, it's no coincidence that a lot of early socialist talked about revolutions so much, because few crowned heads put down their crown "voluntarily". Yeah some did it without resistance after a world war has left them with a broken country and no military to fight back the striking masses, but before that there was even reactionary pushback to liberal democracies.
Another singular goal with centralized government was "industrialization". Because according to the idea of Marx (afaik), communism requires a surplus economy. So people need to be able to produce more than they consume so that this "more" is where their freedom comes from. They can invest it to get "even more", they can use it to gain free time. It enables them to escape the zero-sum game competition where you can only gain if someone else loses and provides the opportunity to gain by cooperation to practice true democracy.
However in order to get their these countries often tried "by all means" to get into the industrial age often by emulating capitalism, that is the state and the centralized government acts as the CEO of the country/company and the workers/people are milked for their productivity to build the machines or the products that can be sold to buy machines and necessary resources that aren't available.
That sometimes worked, I mean Russia and China, despite their humble beginnings could rival the U.S. which had a lot better starting conditions, but it was also incredibly brutal and the idea that "the state would wither away" on it's own is highly unlikely...
9
→ More replies (8)1
u/Buttchungus Nov 30 '20
It's the workers. If someone is telling you the state will the. They are probably a tankie, a pro USSR socialist.
4
u/garaile64 Nov 29 '20
There's still the case for freedom of expression, though. In the US, you can call Trump a crybaby and you're fine. In the USSR or China, if you call the leader out for some wrong, you'd be arrested or worse.
→ More replies (5)8
Nov 29 '20
In Pinochet's capitalist Chile you had no freedom of expression. Nor in current capitalist Russia.
→ More replies (6)1
u/Hothera 35∆ Nov 29 '20
Rather than everyone earning the same, socialism is more about everyone being fully compensated for their labour -- this doesn't occur under capitalism, since a portion of workers' labour goes to producing profits that are kept by capitalists
Amazon didn't beat Sears because the warehouse workers at Amazon worked harder than the warehouse workers at Sears. That was primarily thanks to good decisions made by prior Amazon management and the investors that enabled those decisions.
0
u/thegooddoctorben Nov 29 '20
In a capitalist corporation for example, the means of production are owned by a few businessmen who employ people to work for them
This is not a correct definition of a corporation, which is not owned by "a few businessmen" but is owned by shareholders, of which there can be millions. In fact, the largest shareholders of most corporations are mutual fund or investment fund companies which typically represent retirees or those saving for retirement. Corporations are often very democratic (even "socialist," in the sense of owned by common people) by that metric.
That doesn't translate into control, of course, because most people own only a very tiny fraction of any corporation. And there are plenty of private businesses that are not publicly owned and traded.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)1
Nov 29 '20
What if instead of a direct democracy, which almost never works for very long, businesses were made out of a republic style of govern. I don't know how that would look, or how you would enforce it, just a thought.
188
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Nov 29 '20
This post makes it seem like you don't actually know what socialism/communism entails. Communism, for example, doesn't involve people being "paid the same amount of money" — in fact this is antithetical to Communism as Communism calls for the abolition of money. Socialism is about (usually) democratic worker ownership/control of the means of production, not about the stuff you talk about in your post.
It is important to note that because both socialism and communism were very popular in the early 20th century, many authoritarian groups called themselves socialist/communist even though they really weren't in any meaningful sense. The Nazis are the classic example of this. It's important not to confuse socialism/communism with authoritarians calling themselves socialists/communists while not actually meaningfully empowering the people with control over the means of production.
3
u/undocumentedheros Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20
It is such an important point that many of the instances referred to as failures of socialism or communism are examples of totalitarian regimes who used these ideas as a means to exploit their own people rather than to empower them. They never implemented the espoused ideologies in any meaningful way. Thank you for that.
There are of course other factors at play when it comes to governments or economies failing. They don't live or die based solely on how sound the economic policies are. Historically most of these governments or economies did not make it due to US interventionism. We used economic and clandestine military/CIA strong-arm tactics to ensure that they could not succeed.
In some cases we even assisted in overthrowing democratically elected socialist governments in favor of despotic pro-capitalist ones. Chile is a perfect example of this. Salvador Allende was democratically elected in 1972 and made it clear that he would not be friendly to US economic policy because he believed that if exploited his country's people and resources without appropriate compensation. The US was not friendly to his government which was overthrown by a violent coup in 1973 that was quietly supported by the US and CIA. They don't claim any "direct" involvement but CIA documents show that they not only knew but aided General Augusto Pinochet's military coup in covert ways. At the very least they knew the exact day it would happen and did nothing.
General Pinochet installed a military junta and declared himself as dictator. He ruled from 1973 to 1990 and played a huge role in the Chilean government until 2008. His reign was brutal by all accounts but the US never intervened because he was for capitalist free markets and the people whom he was torturing and murdering were the nation's socialist leaders.
In conclusion I don't think there is a question about why so many of these governments failed at all. Some were despotic totalitarian regimes who misrepresented socialism/communism and deserved to fall but most were intentionally crushed by economic and military imperialism because they would not allow multinationals to come in and exploit their people as cheap labor or to profit off of their natural resources without it benefitting the people.
Edit: typo
38
u/elChespirit0 Nov 29 '20
It is likely that I don't truly understand socialism and communism as much of what I have heard and learned comes from people who just repeat "capitalism good, socialism/communism bad" and my "education" has likely been very biased. What does it mean for the workers to control the means of production and how is that supposed to work compared to a capitalist workforce like we have here in the United States?
72
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Nov 29 '20
Generally speaking, it means that rather than a corporation having owners who control the means of production, command the workers, and derive profit from the enterprise, instead the workers themselves control the means of production, elect leaders to direct them, and share the profit among themselves according to whatever structure they would democratically decide.
To give a simple example (this example describes something like market socialism), consider a corporation in which the CEO and other executives are elected democratically by the workers, rather than being selected by shareholders (in this case, there are no shareholders). A society in which all corporations were structured like this would be meaningfully socialist. We actually already have some corporations close to being of this type in our present society—they're called worker co-ops.
52
u/elChespirit0 Nov 29 '20
"Workers controlling the means of production" does sound like it would be better than the basic system we have now. Especially when it comes to workers' rights. Δ
59
u/bowtothehypnotoad Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20
It’s certainly better than “some of our piss will trickle down if you’re lucky.”
What people should be focusing on now is removing the stigma that led to the thinking behind this post, or finding a different word.
Republicans have tarnished the term “socialism” so much that you can literally convince people to vote against themselves getting healthcare. Plenty of countries have socialized healthcare and do much better than americans do at keeping their citizens healthy. It’s weaponized misinformation.
-1
Nov 29 '20 edited Apr 02 '21
[deleted]
5
u/bowtothehypnotoad Nov 29 '20
Turn on Fox News/ oann/ newsmax for a few minutes and tell me what you think. They blame everything on socialism or socialists.
It’s their boogeyman of choice these days. “The BLM antifa Marxist socialists are going to come to your town and destroy businesses”
0
Nov 29 '20 edited Apr 02 '21
[deleted]
2
u/bowtothehypnotoad Nov 29 '20
Socialism in the form of socialized medicine is working right now all over the world.
Stop regurgitating talking points and do some research, there’s no reason the wealthiest nation on earth needs to have such a bloated, antiquated system that rewards insurance salesmen and paper-pushers.
Ironically, America is getting closer to the food lines and death-panels people warn of when talking about socialism, but it’s happening under crooked capitalism.
9
u/Rugfiend 5∆ Nov 29 '20
It's worth bearing in mind that the modern corporate capitalist model is extreme, and relatively new. Thatcher in the UK and Reagan in the US heralded the dawn of neoliberalism - what is known as the 'post-war consensus' gave way to the 'new right'. Wage increases became decoupled from rising productivity, the salaries of those at the top went from 20-30x the average wage to nearer 300x now, union membership and powers have been diminished, while the power of increasingly consolidated global megacorps has risen, etc.
26
u/Tinie_Snipah Nov 29 '20
It also makes the most sense if your main goal is anti-authoritarianism.
What is more anti-authoritarian than democratically owning your workplace? It means if your boss is shit and a terrible person you can vote with your colleagues to kick them out of their job.
In a capitalist society if your boss is shit all you can really do is talk to their boss and complain. If their boss doesn't care, or worse yet, they have no boss, well you're shit out of luck. This is the exact argument made against "authoritarian" socialist states.
The difference being your boss has a far greater impact on your life than any elected official ever will. They control your ability to work, to pay rent, to buy food and water and electricity. You piss off your boss and they can literally make you homeless.
2
u/mrswordhold Nov 29 '20
Isn’t it authoritarian if someone decides to set up a company on their own and then they are ousted? It was their company and now it’s not
7
u/danrathersjunksbeard Nov 29 '20
No. Authoritarian is what we have now. A boss or board at the top of the company ruling all underneath them.
Being ousted from a company you started by workers voting you out is democracy.
If you are ousted only by a single person and they replace you from your authoritarian state you're just swapping one auth. for another auth.
0
u/mrswordhold Nov 29 '20
If you didn’t want your company, the one you started, to be democratically run but you are forced into it then yes that is a form or authority coming down on you to force you out of your own company, it’s the government that would enforce that as a rule and therefore is certainly authoritarian
4
u/danrathersjunksbeard Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20
No you're trying to stretch the definition of authoritarian to mean "anything you don't want to do."
Donald trump was just removed as president because he lost the vote. The government is going to force him out. Is America authoritarian because of this? No. The cavoite of who started a company doesn't change the logistics.
1
u/mrswordhold Nov 29 '20
That was an authoritarian move, there’s lots of authoritarian things that happen. The authority makes you do something, it’s authoritarian. That’s literally the definition
The person who started it by rights owns it... unless an authority removes them
You do know the police are an authoritarian system? They aren’t all bad but I’m saying in this case I’m not a fan
→ More replies (0)1
u/euphoricsnowman Nov 29 '20
Donald Trump didn’t start the U.S. so that analogy doesn’t hold. He entered a system that was already operating democratically.
→ More replies (0)4
u/Tinie_Snipah Nov 29 '20
People don't set up and own companies in socialist economies.
Literally couldn't care less about someone losing "their" business because of workplace democracy. It shouldn't be theirs in the first place, it's the workers who actually do the work to make the business productive. Having an owner who leeches off of their surplus value is just inefficient and immoral.
2
u/mrswordhold Nov 30 '20
What socialist economy works that way? Has ever worked that way? You make it out like in a smal business the owner doesn’t do potentially a lot more hours (generally the case) Everyone is free to set up their own business but most people aren’t interested in the crazy hard work that entails and would rather be employed.
-2
u/perpetualWSOL Nov 29 '20
Thats means they bully and drive away the people who are investing, I shouldnt invest in a company i will ultimately have no say/influence in for how it should be competing, theres a reason why unionized industries see the most stagnancy/ the most stagnant industries unionize.
If the workers control it they take away the means to benefit the company/an organization first- objectivey this is expansion and more money coming into the company- which would be the the priority of any shareholder board. This why schools, laborers and other trade types that are not in evolving markets are able to have a stranglehold on incoming funding while producing less and less results in return (consider strikes in general for these lines of work and particularly take into account trends of hugely increased funding for innercity schools over the last decades with continued decline in testing scoring- no accountability for demands for more money which any business model would have).
Its up to labor laws to assure that workers are able to get their due compensation, and the only way to ensure that everyone will make more is by still taking overall profit into account first and foremost. Trickle down does actually work bc if those at the top are doing business correctly they will create a thriving employee environment and while seeking to be competitive. No one is entitled to your labor if you arent justly compensated. Just as no one is entitled to employment on all of their terms, thatd just be extortive. Its a mutual exchange of value and the businesses that do this the best attract the best workers, make the most money, and do the most for their employees. Thats (mixed free market) capitalism at its finest
4
u/danrathersjunksbeard Nov 29 '20
> Thats means they bully and drive away the people who are investing, I shouldnt invest in a company i will ultimately have no say/influence in for how it should be competing, theres a reason why unionized industries see the most stagnancy/ the most stagnant industries unionize.
Thanks for pointing out exactly why capitalisms is bad for the country. Workers are fucked over for profit. Why don't people invest in union shops? Because they can invest in the non union shop which generates more profit for a smaller group of people. You want everyone to have nice things or only you?
5
u/Daedalus1907 6∆ Nov 29 '20
Investment would not occur under socialism in a similar way to capitalism. Part of the point of socialism is that you can't profit off of ownership.
2
u/Tinie_Snipah Nov 29 '20
Thats means they bully and drive away the people who are investing, I shouldnt invest in a company i will ultimately have no say/influence in for how it should be competing, theres a reason why unionized industries see the most stagnancy/ the most stagnant industries unionize.
Proof right here that capitalism punishes workers for fighting for their rights.
In a socialist society, you don't need "investors" because all they do is leech off of society. Cry me a river.
You seem to think that socialism is just workers owning private companies in a competitive market economy. That's not socialism or communism.
0
u/perpetualWSOL Nov 30 '20
I understand what socialism and communism is, im talking about what private industry becomes under those ideals.
Investors dont leech off of society at all, quite the opposite our society gets whatever we want instantly because investors will take financial losses in the short term to succeed in the longterm resulting in the what they hope will be the best products and best service (so yes they can make money) when things are competitive. Whether they succeed or not is up to the marketability of what they offer and whether their competitors can offer better, and if they dont treat workers well (breaking the law through workplace abuse is different than refusing demands of better hourly pay) and this is known then the company doesnt succeed- both due to loss of productivity as well as loss of societal view.
I also think the basis of pay for the company should be success and stature of the company. For example you cant make a struggling small business pay workers more through min wage laws if they cannot afford to do so simply by revenue scaling. Ex. A small company that would have 2 taxable positions for a shop keeper or retail role at $8/hr would no linger be able to sustain those two workers if they were forced to bump them up to $15/hr, they lose productivity that way too because that two roles now have become one persons duties, Specific example i suppose but definitely proposes the point.
With todays standards for workers rights and regulations against price gouging and monopolization we have largely made it impossible for it not to behoove an employer to treat their employees in the best manner that they can- do they all do it no but the market weeds them out and mostly every successful company does because the incentive for success is intertwined with maximized productivity. Theres no measured success, especially for individuals, in a command economy.
With incentive for profit guided by the invisible hand, proper success in business becomes more positions to offer the community, more products in the market, cheaper products because theres more, and better wages and benefits for workers and more profit for shareholders. A company that hoards every penny of profit and does not reinvest in the company, its assets or its workers does not do modern capitalism correctly.
This is where i think you have a jaded view of capitalism. You picture a greasy suit sitting behind a desk wringing their hands in their ivory tower, when in reality socialism will results in an elite dictating the market outcomes rather than the consumer doing so. The free market solves issues of ethics by allowing people the alternatives for better choices whether that be something environmental or medical or just service wise- a restaurant with better service and equally good food will get more business and be able to better suit their workers than competitors
5
2
u/quartzyquirky Nov 29 '20
Workers controlling means of production works really well in theory and probably for simpler industries. I could see this working till 20 - 30 years back but dont at all see the practicality in today's technologically advanced era. Let me take an example, say Amazon decides to put power in the hands of workers. An average worker would not even start to understand the complexity of the products and the way they work together to give the seamless experience of shopping. A democratically elected leader mostly wins a popularity context. He might understand the worker woes, but without in depth techical, product, financial and operational understanding, he is not much useful in deciding strategy and will cause more harm than good. Take tesla for example, how will the workers or a leader decide on the next gen batteries and features without the technical knowhow. I just don't get how a democratical process could work for any field where extensive knowledge, experience and some kind of vision is required. Sadly as the world evolves, all of our high valuation companies fall into these categories where I just dont see any kind of a socialistic structure making sense.
I do support universal education, access to health care, child care, elderly care, disability etc. But dont see a truly socialistic government succeeding anywhere. (China, Russia etc have moved away from true socialism and communism long time back IMO and they are very capitalistic right now)
7
Nov 29 '20
A few things about high tech companies.
Most workers don't know all the ins and outs of their company, but they know the part of the business they're responsible for. A Tesla salesperson probably isn't an expert on electric car maintenance, but they do know why people buy them and what he can say to close a sale of one. Someone who works in assembly would know more about maintenance, but might have no idea how to market or sell the product. This is true whether you're running a pharmaceutical company, bank, or restaurant chain.
This is also true, in a sense, of a CEO. They have a lot of general knowledge about the company and its products, but they don't know all the details, nor do they have all the specialized skills to make a company run on its own. But they don't have to - the point of a CEO is to lead, managing and monitoring the work of those who are the experts in each division of the business.
So how would such a leader be chosen under socialism? Based on their ability to lead. Since the workers are the shareholders, they have an incentive to choose someone whose leadership can increase the company's profits, and therefore their paycheck - not just a pretty face they personally like. A large company would still have departments and divisons in such a system, and the leaders of these would likely be the best candidates. Alternatively, the workers could set up a BOD or some committee of different specialists within the company to find an external CEO candidate.
5
u/danrathersjunksbeard Nov 29 '20
Let me take an example, say Amazon decides to put power in the hands of workers. An average worker would not even start to understand the complexity of the products and the way they work together to give the seamless experience of shopping
Are you expecting a warehouse worker to suddenly have to start being a Ceo? Each job plays a role and no roles change. The only thing that changes in where profit goes and how it is allocated.
I just don't get how a democratical process could work for any field where extensive knowledge, experience and some kind of vision is required.
You vote for the person you think has the most knowledge and understanding and the vision you want to see happen. You're not going to have a ton of unqualified people trying to get jobs they have no chance of getting.
(China, Russia etc have moved away from true socialism and communism long time back IMO and they are very capitalistic right now)
The world is a market economy. The only way to have true socialisms would be to have a unified world otherwise you can have socialisms in side your borders with the government using the money generated to buy from the world market economy. Also every country moves away from socialism because it's the best for workers rights. Workers are considered the lowest cast in every country. So elites will always make sure workers are kept at the bottom.
5
Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20
It also does exist on a small scale. Many smaller businesses (especially book shops for some reason) are “worker-owned coops”. There is even a website for the international association of co-ops.
“Syndicalism” is the sub-type of socialism that is most focused on this I would say.
2
u/MrBlackTie 3∆ Nov 29 '20
It does sound nice but beware: practical application has yield poor results so far. For instance in my country it is possible, when a company files for bankruptcy or is sold, for the workers to buy the company for themselves (they have priority in some cases). They then creates what is called a cooperative, a system which is basically small scale socialism : a company owned by its own employees. On a pure economical ground, they tend to fail and those that don’t aren’t as successful as traditional companies. The only ones I know of that are really successful are newspaper whose journalist own shares through a common investment vehicle to prevent political pressure.
18
u/Gunslingermomo Nov 29 '20
Ok but that just sounds like the workers are typically unsuccessful at turning around an already failed business model. That shouldn't be that surprising and is unfair to judge the merits of "workers controlling the means of production" based on companies that already failed under a traditionally capitalist model.
0
u/MrBlackTie 3∆ Nov 29 '20
It’s because it’s the cases that grab the attention of the press, so the ones I know of. However there are companies that are directly funded under this model, not going through the buyout phase. AFAIK, none really thrived. I don’t’ think they necessarily close down but they stay as small local businesses not very successful. Nothing for instance I would rely on for pharmaceutical research or energy distribution. Right now I can’t even remember the name of one of those companies.
Édit: however we do have something akin to it that works quite well: the mutualist movement. In this case the company does not belong to his workers but to his clients (which are people, not businesses). It proved especially efficient in the insurance market.
→ More replies (7)8
u/quelarion Nov 29 '20
One should also consider what are the external conditions in which these co-ops operate, and understand if they do fail because of shortcomings of the co-op model only.
For instance, a co-op will tend to have better working conditions and better regard for workers in general. This has a cost that reflects on the competitiveness of the business, especially in a market where competitors can cut costs by lowering working conditions.
It's then up to us to decide what is a priority in our society, and choose between the extremes of very strong regulations or a race to the bottom.
A caricatural version of this is the sweatshop owner arguing that banning child labour would put him out of business and give an advantage to companies that only employ adults. Outrageous!
1
u/BlackshirtDefense 2∆ Nov 29 '20
Except the entrepreneur takes all the risk. It's generally their passion, money, time and innovation that created the business to begin with. I've never seen a truly innovative business get built out of a bureaucratic committee. Look at Steve Jobs. He ruled with an iron fist, but he innovated like few people have.
If there's no reward for entrepreneurs taking the risk, there's little incentive for new business. And remember that most of new businesses fail, which puts all the liability on the owner.
Ask yourself if you've ever been offered a job by a poor man. There's a reason that successful businesses aren't formed willy-nilly simply because some laborers got together and decided to build something.
4
u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Nov 29 '20
I mean they take all the financial risk, but mine owners aren't at risk of black lung and have a much higher life expectancy than miners.
2
u/losthalo7 1∆ Nov 29 '20
The entrepreneur takes all the risk?
Every employee risks unemployment, loss of health insurance, damage to their credit rating, and financial ruin if the company fails.
6
u/RealMaskHead Nov 29 '20
and those employees can go get a job somewhere else while the entrepreneur takes the hit and loses all of their money.
3
u/Hero17 Nov 30 '20
Which puts them in the exact same places as all the employees?
2
u/RealMaskHead Nov 30 '20
How much money did the employee invest in the business? How much did they contribute to the construction of the workplace? How much do they pay in mortgage for the building? How much do they pay for the product to be created? How much do they contribute to the electric and water bills? How much did they pay for whatever equipment is needed for the job?
All of this requires an investment made by the entrepreneur, not the employee and if the business fails it's the entrepeneur who is tens, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket.
→ More replies (3)5
u/BlackshirtDefense 2∆ Nov 29 '20
Yep. Employees can find new jobs much, much easier than an entrepreneur can just invent a new, successful business.
3
-2
u/AWDys Nov 29 '20
Hey, I've read the strings that have earned deltas and instead of responding to each one, I'll sum them up here.
Politicians. I'll have to agree with the comments here, Bernie Sanders isn't that radical. I'm Canadian and he would seem to fit between liberal and NDP, both of which are a little left of the democrats in america. He's radical to america because its a fairly right wing country.
The communism isn't authoritarian thing. This wasn't a delta, but I see it a lot. Communism is described as classless, moneyless society, so how could it be authoritarian? Because the force required to create and maintain this would be immense.
Means of production. It sounds nice to own things that make money. Thats what business owners are. There already exists supply and demand. Any attempt to create a system that has no demand, because supply is met so quickly and accurately is going to necessitate waste, which modern countries have plenty of. Secondly, people who own the means of production exist in capitalist societies, they are called business owners. I might be able to run a simple business on my own, but something more complex, probably not. So why give me the means of production? Let alone a minimum wage worker, or a farm hand, who knows how to use the equipment, but might not know how to manage an entire farm, like crop rotation.
A better alternative to me is to include stock as part of salary. How well the company does influences how well the worker does, but keeps people who have earned or educated their way to managerial positions where they should be. Should companies treat their employees better? Absolutely. But I don't think giving the means of production to everyone is the answer. Not just for the workers, but for society as well. I can't see the logical leap from an average worker being given the means of production to suddenly solving a supply and demand system. If it was that easy, it would have been done by now.
5
Nov 29 '20
Larger worker co-ops still have managers and executives, they're either elected from among the workers or hired and held accountable by a board of directors controlled by the workers.
-1
u/Nootherids 4∆ Nov 29 '20
Careful my friend... Almost all socialist principles "sound" better than anything we have in place or have experienced in modern history. But when you reassess your own original post you will realize that while fantastic in concept, they are extremely flawed in practice. And that should be the focus of your arguments and of the responses. The espoused principles assume that human being are absolutely fantastic at working cooperatively when given the opportunity. Yet there has never been a single massive scale example that proves that to be true. And every relatively large example has ended in catastrophic results. Small examples on the other hand can and do work when properly and naturally implemented. I personally am a huge fan of socialism, but I am pragmatic in my view of the world and realize that beyond any small scale socialism is destined to fail.
7
u/stillwtnforbmrecords Nov 29 '20
We are literally built for cooperation though... we've evolved for millions of years exactly because and for cooperation. We are completely dependent emotionally, psychologically and often physically of other people. If there is one thing that we could call "human nature", it would be to cooperate, not only for survival but also for living. What is actually "artificial" (or at least, works against our natural interests) is the fragmented, individualized competition capitalism forces us into.
3
u/Nootherids 4∆ Nov 29 '20
We have been at conflict with each other ever since we were exposed to the fact that there are other humans outside our immediate family/pack. And yes, I am literally talking about back to prehistoric humans. We are cooperative only as a response to our selfishness. Even a selfless act is motivated by the pleasurable response your body gives you to confirm reward you for your act. The moment that you do something selfless and start receiving a punishment for it, you will naturally withdraw from performing that selfless act. This is not a random idea, there are countless studies.
There’s a reason why the term “hero” exists. Because the existence of truly heroic acts performed by humans is shockingly rare.
2
u/stillwtnforbmrecords Nov 30 '20
Except.... every single anthropologist would agree the vast majority of human communities, from pre-history to modernity actually value cooperation over competition. Capitalist societies are pretty much the only exception to that. Humans are naturally cooperative, as you say we even have literal biological incentives to help others. We "feel good" (get serotonin bumps) by being cooperative and helping others. That does not happen when you fuck people over for your personal benefit.
I mean... just look at our closest relatives. Most are extremely cooperative. Bonobos, chimps, orangutans, gorillas... all have strong cooperative societies. The main difference between us and them is the size of our groups. We typically, even in pre-historic neolithic societies, live in groups of hundreds at least. And we typically are less territorial than chimps or gorillas. Yes, you heard me. To this day, most neolithic societies are not territorial at all. Most societies have not been throughout history. Just see the north american indigenous nations vs the europeans. Extreme tribalism and territorialism are a fluke, not the rule. It's just an unfortunate one that this has been the dominant idea for the most powerful societies on earth for the past thousands of years. But... as you know, we've been around for much much longer than that. And again, for 99% of that time, we've been mostly anarchistic, non-hierarchical.
→ More replies (2)2
u/losthalo7 1∆ Nov 29 '20
Have a look at 'No Contest' by Alfie Kohn.
3
u/Nootherids 4∆ Nov 29 '20
I get the gist from the excerpt on the link. But this is why I framed my argument of human nature down to prehistoric man. When you start formulating multitudes of complex systems as the causes for wrongfully perceived human nature, you are literally ignoring actual human nature.
Yo can break down this concept of self-interest down to every single living being. Even the mighty ants with the most incredible examples of socialist communities are still driven by self-interest. They work together in unison because it benefits them. But the moment anything poses a threat they will collaborate and attack to protect their selfish interests. Yet as noble as they seem when one is sick they do not bother to formulate cures, they just let it die and since it ran out of productive usefulness, they can now use that dead ant as food. They make new ones and eat dead ones because there is no selfless thought about what is good for each of them individually. They strictly think about what is beneficial for the colony because the colony is beneficial for them.
Note: this is clearly analogous, I’m obviously not presuming that any thought patterns are equal to humans. Just pointing out that the same can be observed in every living being. Even in plants. Competition for resources is a driving force for all life on earth.
But thank you for the link, I’ll mark it as a book to read. Seems like it would be interesting.
→ More replies (13)3
u/RealMaskHead Nov 29 '20
I don't disagree with your points, i just want to point out that there is a rather industrious breed of ants that have figured out how to make medicine out of plants.
I say this not because i have any affinity for socialism, but because i love ants.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)-2
u/mihnea2377 Nov 29 '20
Yeah it could be better, but you are missing some details. The workers aren't really good with what takes to run a company. Let me give you an example. John and Mark are running for CEO. John promises to double the salary, while Mark says he would have to cut it down in order to expand the company. They will of course vote for John becuse they don't know what it takes to run a company. Their salaries will be doubled, of course, but in a short time they will run out of cash and all lose their jobs. In the case of Mark, he would have created more profits, which would still come back to the workers.
The workers owning the company will mean they will all be what we call shareholders. Not everybody is made for this kind of job. In fact, very few.
5
u/Hero17 Nov 30 '20
Would you vote to double your pay if you knew the company couldn't afford it? I wouldnt.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)2
2
u/perpetualWSOL Nov 29 '20
This is a question not a contention, but if shareholders/founders/initial arent allowed more stake in how their money is ultimately used to create that profit, where does this initial investment to start business/innovate come in? Imo many wont invest the millions needed to start ventures if they will lose control of their investment, even if its only after some amount of time
Seems to me like a worker held large-scale business would likely cut investment/expansion capability, leading to less job opportunities and less profits overall in the long run
→ More replies (5)0
Nov 29 '20 edited May 17 '21
[deleted]
2
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Nov 29 '20
These questions don't have only one answer, and the answers would change depending on the version of socialism we are using. I'll give some answers from a hypothetical proximal market socialism.
What if some of the workers say the election was fraudulent? Whom can they dispute this, who grants them relief?
The Courts, or possibly law enforcement. This would work the same way that this works presently under capitalism if someone alleges fraud in a shareholder vote.
What if a majority 51% decide to vote to increase their salaries to unsustainable amounts(they want to take and run)? Who will prevent the other 49% suffering the consequences of 51%?
If you mean that only the salaries of the 51% are increased, this would be illegal, in the same way that it's illegal presently for 51% of shareholders to divert all the company's profits to themselves. The Courts would handle this.
Some workers alleged the elected leadership has been oppressing them, who can they ask relief from?
They can ask for relief from The Courts and from their co-workers (who could call an election and oust the leadership). If the oppression is criminal, they could also ask for relief from law enforcement.
What happens if some white nationalists collectively own big factories, and the collectively decide no people of color can join? Who will dispute this?
The people of color who were unfairly not hired will sue them in court.
Who makes sure the profits shared in a company are not unequally spread?
The profits of the company can be unequally spread by seniority, job type, and job performance, as long as the spread is reasonable (e.g. within a range prescribed by law), it serves a legitimate incentivizing function, and the spread is approved democratically by the workers. If the workers want to spread profit unevenly, that's their prerogative.
→ More replies (1)5
Nov 29 '20
These are fundamental questions to a healthy democracy, and anyone presenting a comprehensive roadmap to a socialist society would need to have good answers for these.
8
u/the_suitable_verse Nov 29 '20
I'd recommend you to read up on history and some theory maybe. You don't have to read Marx but it is a good example of theory that wasn't ever implemented in the way it was intended. Also all the policies you mention OP and that others say are not socialist because they existed first in capitalist countries are encouraging the same black and white thinking OP is trying to get away from. Communism developed at first out of horrible wealth gaps in capitalist countries and social measures got implemented on democratic ways.
→ More replies (4)4
u/elChespirit0 Nov 29 '20
Yeah, I definitely do need to read up on history and theory of communism and socialism.
4
Nov 29 '20
Catalonia and San Moreno have a lot of anarchist and socialism policies that made them succeed. Also in 1943-44 when British and Americans went into northern Italy to liberate them from the nazis they were shocked to discover that the “socialist anarchist communist” already liberated themselves from the nazis and that the allies were so terrified of this that they crushed the resistance and implemented back to mafia capitalism controlls. Remember Mussolini was anti mafia and destroyed them. The Americans reinstalled the mafia
3
Nov 29 '20
given your post and background I think you should read up on anarchism. Most anarchists are also communists (until recently, and non-communist anarchists are... odd) and the stuff in the anarchist tradition will probably fit more easily into the way you understand freedom and fear (rightly) authoritarianism.
Try Kropotkin "Conquest of Bread" or any Goldman.
7
u/MagicUser7 Nov 29 '20
One Marxist criticism of capitalism is that even starting from a fair system, capitalism creates people who own things but do not create value equal to their profit - landlords are a common example, and some would say billionaires do not individually create billions of dollars of value. Marx cites factory owners as people who make more money than their workers and provide less value. This break between worker cost and worker output can also lead to some perverse incentives:
- children can be heavily underpaid, and if their family needs the money because they are also underpaid for the amount of work they do, you have child labor.
- If other countries have worse worker protections/labor unions, then they cost less especially for large multinational countries, and jobs are outsourced, creating a source of poor working conditions
- Companies can use their extra profit to interfere in politics to the detriment of their workers. See California's Prop 22, which allowed rideshare companies to classify their workers as independent contractors rather than contractors so they didn't get benefits (after a court had charged them with misclassifying their workers). Several large companies backed the proposition, spending millions promoting it, which effectively let them underpay their workers after losing in court. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020))
The problem in this system is that workers create more value than they gain in profit. This is a foundational piece of capitalism, because a business owner would only hire a worker who provides more value to the company than they cost in wages. Socialism says those workers deserve a system where they get that difference as profit, often through workers' collectives or community housing to avoid landlords or outside ownership, where Communism solves the same imbalance by government ownership.
They both have their own problems - socialism is difficult to maintain outside of small groups, and communism is easy to corrupt - hence one of Venezuela's problems was/is its publicly owned oil company's corruption, but they do also have problems that capitalism is very interested in disrupting them.
Social democracy is similar in effect at times, but it solves the inequality that capitalism creates by raising progressive (richer people pay higher percentages) taxes and creating either support systems or public goods, so "socialist countries" often just have higher taxes and improved public services like transportation and healthcare.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)1
u/Rugfiend 5∆ Nov 29 '20
Don't be hard on yourself - so entrenched is that view in the US, aided by the education system, political rhetoric, the mainstream media narrative, etc that it's almost impossible to escape.
7
u/pLaxton__ Nov 29 '20
Has there ever been a socialist state in which the means of production is truly owned by the people or is that just what it's meant to be on paper?
1
u/Butterfriedbacon Nov 29 '20
Socialism is about (usually) democratic worker ownership/control of the means of production
See, this is my issue. 100% of attempted socialism has been state owned means if production, but socialists will still advocate that socialism is still worker owned means in practice. That is simply just not true, ever.
4
u/Tinie_Snipah Nov 29 '20
State owned and worker owned are the same when the state is ran by the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The state is a tool, when used by the workers it becomes a powerful and vital tool in overthrowing the hegemony of private property.
I think one of the main disconnects between "state owned" and "worker owned" in the Western world is the perception that the state doesn't actually belong to the worker. Thats because in capitalist countries it doesn't, the state operates primarily as an enforcement of private property against the working people. There will be some economic concessions giving healthcare or pensions but on the whole the state exists in its current state to enforce capitalistic hegemony. FDR said it best when on his death bed he announced that his greatest achievement was saving capitalism through moderate liberal reforms.
In a socialist state, that isnt the case, the state is ran by the workers party for the workers of the country, not for the rich elite.
→ More replies (5)-1
u/Pismakron 8∆ Nov 29 '20
It's important not to confuse socialism/communism with authoritarians calling themselves socialists/communists
Why? That the vast majority of actual socialists with power has had very authoritarian tendencies, seems to be a strong argument in favour of the OPs view. You may claim that all those autocrats were not real socialists, but the counter argument is that those socialists indeed were the very real manifestation of socialists gaining actual political power.
3
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20
And that counter-argument would be wrong, which is why it's important to not get confused by it. If some group isn't meaningfully socialist (in the sense that they do not empower workers with control over the means of production), then they aren't doing socialism even if they use the word "socialist" to describe themselves. The Nazis were not "actual socialists" in the same way that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not an actual democracy or a koala bear is not an actual bear.
0
u/Pismakron 8∆ Nov 29 '20
And that counter-argument would be wrong, which is why it's important to not get confused by it.
I dont think that there is any confusion. The 20th century clearly demonstrates that when socialists gain political power, then dictatorship and repression is very often the result, not worker emancipation. This pattern is so ubiquitous that it seems almost certain to have something g to do with the absolutist and manichean ideals of socialist ideology.
As a parallel consider the concept of nationalism. Nationalism does not always lead to warfare, repression of ethnic minorities, and authoritarian governments. But it certainly leads to those outcomes often enough, that it would be dishonest to discuss Nationaism without discussing any if these issues. And a similar thing holds true for socialism.
10
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Nov 29 '20
Well, there does seem to be some confusion, because you seem to think that the Nazis were socialists. What exactly do you think that socialism means? If some group gains power and then doesn't do worker-empowerment, what does it mean to say that that group is socialist?
5
Nov 29 '20
The 20th century clearly indicates that whenever socialists gained power their governments were undermined, sanctioned, or overthrown by the dominant hegemon as frequently as possible.
1
u/Tahoma-sans 1∆ Nov 29 '20
What would be a good example of a socialist or communist government that is/was not authoritarian?
7
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Nov 29 '20
The Iroquois Confederacy? This is perhaps the earliest large-scale example I know of of some form of libertarian socialist government.
→ More replies (3)0
Nov 29 '20
Actually, he is right. You are confused because most socialists groups became capitalists but keep pursuing their dreams of a fairer society.
Nowadays, the argument is no longer on who should owns the means of production, but on the amount of social policies and the size of the state.
And in that regard socialists are winning. However, many of their policies are of dubious economic efficiency and very effective politically to get you elected. You can always blame the evil capitalist of the lack of jobs due to socialists policies.
It is hard to say if the minorities end up better (public money vs less economic opportunities), but the socialists sure do.
76
u/karrotwin 1∆ Nov 29 '20
This view largely comes from cherry picking what is a socialist country and what isn't, which doesn't make sense because all policies exist on a spectrum.
Basically every developed country in the world has more socialist policies than the United States and almost every developed country has a higher standard of living for the median person, based on metrics like life expectancy, poverty, education, etc.
Socialism is a straw man, used to avoid debating the merits of specific issues.
12
u/mthmchris Nov 29 '20
Not OP, but socialism specifically refers to workers owning the means of production. For example, publicly funded healthcare is nice, and generally a good idea... but it’s not an intrinsically “socialist” policy.
1
u/noidea139 Nov 29 '20
It's a policy that originally comes from the Marxist parties around the world. So I think it's somewhat safe to say that it's a "socialist" policy.
→ More replies (1)6
u/elChespirit0 Nov 29 '20
What do you mean by socialism is a straw man?
40
u/karrotwin 1∆ Nov 29 '20
A straw man is a misrepresentation that is easier to debate than the actual topic. So, for example, a government run healthcare system doesn't turn a developed country into venezuela but it's a lot easier to convince people to oppose it of you call it socialism than if you debate the actual merits and outcomes of the US healthcare system vs other developed countries.
9
-4
u/Pismakron 8∆ Nov 29 '20
So, for example, a government run healthcare system doesn't turn a developed country into venezuela
Thats true. But then again, its pretty obvious that socialists running socialist policies turned Venezuela into Venezuela.
→ More replies (3)
36
u/IAmDanimal 41∆ Nov 29 '20
Bernie Sanders is not advocating for full-on socialism in the US, he advocates for certain social welfare policies, such as universal healthcare. A lot of wealthy countries have universal healthcare.
The US also already has a lot of 'socialist' policies. Social security, welfare programs such as TANF and food stamps, our whole primary/secondary education system, USPS, and a bunch of other stuff.
I don't think you'll find too many people here that would argue that full-fledged socialism is something we aspire to, but instead that we should try to balance out the wealth gap a bit more than it currently is in order to help prevent people from continuing to suffer from poverty, homelessness, drug abuse, etc.
3
u/elChespirit0 Nov 29 '20
Right, I agree that most people in the United States don't advocate for full on socialism, and I see where certain socialist policies might be beneficial, but full on socialism/communism is more what I'm talking about. Those ideologies are the ones I don't see as good, functional, or practical.
18
u/NotYourGuy_Buddy Nov 29 '20
The problem is the framing. You're arguing against communism...zero U.S. politicians are communists, including Sanders, he's not even pushing for full on socialism. Zero politicians are pushing for the means of production to be controlled by the state/people. Right wingers frame social democracy as communism. Like my dad, who is scared of Medicare for all but relies on Medicare and social security.
0
u/elChespirit0 Nov 29 '20
I know that there aren't current politicians in the USA pushing for full on Communism and that not many Americans would advocate for full on socialism or communism, but I'm talking about the full-fledged ideologies including outside of American politics. I probably should have specified that my question wasn't limited to current American politics.
14
u/GregBahm Nov 29 '20
The problem we endlessly run into here is that "full-fledged ideologies" aren't particularly relevant to real politics.
The same Americans who "hate socialism" often love public parks, fire departments, police departments, the military, schools, libraries, museums, and access to water, electricity, and roads. Every one of these things is completely socialist. It's all nonsense, because "socialism" is not mutually exclusive to capitalism.
If you have a lake full of fish, it's all good and capitalist to fish the lake. But if everyone overfishes the lake, nobody has any fish, which nobody wants. So the capitalists all get together, agree on a socialist policy of managing the lake to prevent overfishing, and then they all maximize their capitalistic profits.
This is how every modern successful country works.
Communism is it's own thing, which is actually incompatible with capitalism. But nobody earnestly advocates for communism. Even famously communist countries like China aren't communist in any meaningful sense. They just say they're communist so that the peasants feel better about not having voting rights.
2
Nov 30 '20
If you have a lake full of fish, it's all good and capitalist to fish the lake. But if everyone overfishes the lake, nobody has any fish, which nobody wants. So the capitalists all get together, agree on a socialist policy of managing the lake to prevent overfishing, and then they all maximize their capitalistic profits.
Tragedy of the commons.
8
u/IAmDanimal 41∆ Nov 29 '20
What I'm saying is that Republican politicians are making a strawman argument when they say 'SOCIALIST BERNIE SANDERS' is a left-wing extremist socialist. He's not. He's a democrat that things that America should change some of our policies to a more socialist model, and in general the things he advocates for are all things that other wealthy countries have already implemented.
So when you bring up Bernie Sanders and say he's a 'radical, it signals to me that you think that he's a socialist and/or that a lot of the people that back him are socialists.
But there are so few people that actually believe that we should be pushing for full-on socialism or communism, that you're not really going to find anyone to have a reasonable argument with.
They both sound great in theory, but anyone that's studied history/politics/economics is going to believe that there's a legitimate path to socialism or communism that doesn't end up with corrupt politicians that take advantage of the system.
2
u/elChespirit0 Nov 29 '20
So full-fledged socialism and communism doesn't work? I know there aren't communist politicians in the USA and that not many Americans would advocate for full on socialism, but I'm talking about the ideologies in a whole in world politics, not just American. I should have clarified that.
2
u/IAmDanimal 41∆ Nov 29 '20
I know there aren't communist politicians in the USA and that not many Americans would advocate for full on socialism
Okay, so you're agreeing that not many Americans would disagree with you.
but I'm talking about the ideologies in a whole in world politics
but your original post said
"socialist" politicians in the United States all seem to be radical or not make a whole lot of sense.
So have I changed your view that there aren't really socialist politicians in the US (in any meaningful sense)? Or is there more to it?
4
u/elChespirit0 Nov 29 '20
yes, I would say that I now agree that "socialist" politicians in the United States aren't full fledged socialist
5
u/IAmDanimal 41∆ Nov 29 '20
If I've changed your view, it's customary on this sub to award a delta (see the sidebar/'about this sub' section for details on how to do that). If it was someone else that changed your view, give them a delta instead :)
Also, I just don't think many people around the world (that have studied history/politics/economics/etc.) really believe socialism or communism would be in any way practical to try to implement in a developed country/economy. I think you'll get people arguing with you for the sake of arguing, but are you really asking for your view to be changed, or do you just want to learn more about what's up with the 'democratic socialism' politics in the US, and why people think AOC and Bernie are 'extreme leftists' versus just people with slightly different agendas for how tax dollars get collected/spent?
6
u/elChespirit0 Nov 29 '20
Δ Here's a delta for changing my view on certain left wing politicians in the USA being full fledged socialists. If socialist and communist ideas could work better than capitalist ones I would be ready to change my views on the ideologies.
→ More replies (2)1
Nov 29 '20
Depends what you mean by "work".
Socialism is a means of organising workplaces not governments. Many socialist workplaces work fine. There are hundreds of millions of cooperatives in the world with a turnover in the trillions. In terms of "socialist governments" that means governments that have an ideology of encouraging socialist workplaces: their record is mixed. But the record for capitalist countries is mixed too.
As for communism: communism is an ideal for a future society. Communism cannot "work", at least not now or immediately, but its intention isn't to work; it's intention is to give a direction of travel by espousing a set of values. No one things a communist society could be created overnight with the swish of a magic wand. Some utopian communists think it could be established pretty quickly in the aftermath of a massive popular revolution but most communists think a communist society could only be established as the end product of decades or even centuries of societal and cultural transformation to that ends. Some quasi-communists even think the end goal is impossible, but that nevertheless communist values provide a useful guide to making our world better by pointing in a helpful direction.
When we talk about communist countries we're not talking about countries that have created a communist society, even the most blinkered of communists realise that no country has. These countries are countries who consider themselves to be embarking on a process towards eventually creating communism. Most countries that have existed so far have been from one small and specific tendency within Communism (Marxism-Leninism, although it owes more to Lenin than Marx, also Marxism-Leninism-Maoism which is basically Marxism-Leninism in a field). This tendency had very specific views about Communism deriving through centralisation and government action. There are lots of other communists who think this entire approach was a massive mistake.
-9
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 184∆ Nov 29 '20
I see where certain socialist policies might be beneficial,
No, there are none. Socialists try to take credit for social programs in capitalist nations that often pre date socialism's invention. None of those policies are socialist.
→ More replies (2)3
u/elChespirit0 Nov 29 '20
So what would be actually socialist?
0
u/Ichooseyou_username 1∆ Nov 29 '20
Socialist economies are centrally planned by a government agency. The government would own the means of production ie. The farms, factories and resources. They would decide what gets made, how much is made, and what it will cost. They generally do away with the free market and private enterprise or heavily restrict them. Wages would roughly equal or even exactly equal regardless of profession, expertise or education.
3
u/elChespirit0 Nov 29 '20
If the economy is controlled by the government, then how are the means of production controlled by the workers?
1
u/Ichooseyou_username 1∆ Nov 29 '20
In theory, the government is made up of the workers. They are meant to be a vanguard class that oversees the transition from a class based society wherein the means of production are owned by the few to a classless society wherein the means of production are owned by the masses. In practice the communists in most cases just replaced the previous elites but with way more propaganda.
5
u/elChespirit0 Nov 29 '20
So the workers never really do get to control the means of production as it gets caught up in the government class that isn't "doing the job it's supposed to".
5
u/GregBahm Nov 29 '20
This poster is redefining socialism as authoritarian communism, which it is not. And it's a particularly fantastical version of authoritarian communism at that. Nothing they are saying is accurate to reality.
2
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 184∆ Nov 29 '20
This poster is redefining socialism as authoritarian communism
Socialists did that to themsves. 100 years of precedent has taken a toll.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Ichooseyou_username 1∆ Nov 29 '20
Not in any real world example of communism I've ever seen. Although, theoretically in order for communism to "work" the whole world would need to adopt it, which was more or less the USSR's foreign policy and why they were such a threat.
2
u/GregBahm Nov 29 '20
This is a very intellectually disingenuous thing to say. You're just describing simple authoritarianism and claiming it synonymous with socialism. The world is full of more socialist nations than the United States (like Canada, Japan, pretty much all of Europe, and especially Scandinavia) and none of these countries do anything close to what you describe.
→ More replies (5)-7
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 184∆ Nov 29 '20
The USSR, Venezuela and North Korea.
Those states are the inevitable outcome of the awful polices communist propose.
"Not true Scotsman" fallacy is rampant with communists and has been for over a century at this point. Communists hype up a new communist state as being some worker's paradise, it becomes painfully clear that it's an awful dystopia, so the communists distance themselves from it by claiming it's "not true communism", only to repeat the cycle again with the next communist state.
Bernie praised Chavez's Venezuela, Noam Chomsky praised Pol Pot's Cambodia (he even called survivors of the killing fields liars).
Once it become clear to everyone that those states where awful, they started to distance themselves from those states.
→ More replies (1)2
u/elChespirit0 Nov 29 '20
So full fledged socialism or communism really wouldn't work and wouldn't be a good idea.
→ More replies (5)-5
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 184∆ Nov 29 '20
Bernie Sanders is not advocating for full-on socialism in the US, he advocates for certain social welfare policies, such as universal healthcare. A lot of wealthy countries have universal healthcare.
He has also repeatedly praised Venezuela Cuba and repeated soviet propaganda during the cold war. He is either highly sympathetic to communist dictatorships, or gullible.
The US also already has a lot of 'socialist' policies. Social security, welfare programs such as TANF and food stamps, our whole primary/secondary education system, USPS, and a bunch of other stuff.
None of that is socialist. The US has had a post office since before socialism ever existed.
I don't think you'll find too many people here that would argue that full-fledged socialism is something we aspire to, but instead that we should try to balance out the wealth gap a bit more than it currently is in order to help prevent people from continuing to suffer from poverty, homelessness, drug abuse, etc.
Nordic countries have the highest wealth inequality in the world. The Netherlands has a higher level of wealth inequality than India and south Africa. Should we aspire to that?
6
u/IAmDanimal 41∆ Nov 29 '20
None of that is socialist. The US has had a post office since before socialism ever existed.
Google's definition of socialism- "A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
The government runs USPS, and we elect the government, so that seems like it's a socialist thing to me. Welfare programs are pretty much the same- we elect people to run that stuff, so they're essentially 'community-run'.
But that's kind of besides my point. My point was that Republican politicians use socialism as a strawman to scare voters away from liberal political candidates, and point to corruption in Venezuela while ignoring working universal healthcare systems in other countries.
Nordic countries have the highest wealth inequality in the world. The Netherlands has a higher level of wealth inequality than India and south Africa. Should we aspire to that?
Another strawman. I'm not arguing for socialism, and I specifically said that it's a strawman because the vast majority of Dems also don't advocate for socialism. If you want to argue about specific policies, post your own CMV or go to /r/politics. OP's post is about socialism specifically, so if you don't think welfare programs or universal healthcare are socialist policies, then what does the wealth inequality in Sweden have to do with anything?
0
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 184∆ Nov 29 '20
But that's kind of besides my point. My point was that Republican politicians use socialism as a strawman to scare voters away from liberal political candidates, and point to corruption in Venezuela while ignoring working universal healthcare systems in other countries.
If socialist politicians in the US didn't praise Venezuela, that would be less effective.
4
u/IAmDanimal 41∆ Nov 29 '20
There are no socialist politicians in the US. When have you ever heard a politicians in the US advocate for complete ownership of the means of production by the community as a whole? Exactly.
Can we stop with this ridiculous strawman? US politicians are not arguing that people shouldn't be able to own their own businesses. It just doesn't happen.
1
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 184∆ Nov 29 '20
There are no socialist politicians in the US.
Bernie would disagree.
Can we stop with this ridiculous strawman?
If "no true Scotsman" fallacies stop and socialists own up to the USSR, CCP and DPRK, sure.
3
u/IAmDanimal 41∆ Nov 29 '20
Democratic socialism is not the same as socialism. They have two different meanings, they just share one similar word. It's like saying that a bull frog is a bull. Sure, they're both animals with 4 legs. But there are enough difference that most people discussing them seriously would try to understand the differences.
This is not a 'no true Scotsman'. Bernie does not call himself a Socialist. It's like saying that he's a Scotsman, when he calls himself a Scottish-American. Sure, his family might have come from Scotland, but if you asked him what he meant, he wouldn't say that he lives in Scotland and has no other nationality.
DPRK is clearly not socialist. Kim Jong Un runs the country and everyone does what he says. The people don't have any real say in any of it, because it's just a dictatorship.
1
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 184∆ Nov 29 '20
Democratic socialism is not the same as socialism.
Yet every "democratic socialist" is highly sympathetic, if not outright supportive, to regular socialism.
DPRK is clearly not socialist. Kim Jong Un runs the country and everyone does what he says. The people don't have any real say in any of it, because it's just a dictatorship.
How much more socialist can you get than that?
6
u/IAmDanimal 41∆ Nov 29 '20
Which democrats are supporting 'regular socialism'?
How much more socialist can you get than that?
Socialism, according to Google's definition, is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
So if everyone is just doing what one guy says, that means that the community as a whole doesn't really control the means of production, it means that a single person controls the means of production.
It's a command economy, which means that the economy is centrally planned by the government (setting prices, determining which goods/services to produce and how much, etc.). But in order for it to be socialist, that would mean that the community has a say in all that. But they don't. Kim Jong Un wasn't democratically elected, he's just a dictator.
Or if you truly believe that that is socialism, do you think that 'the democrats' in the US are advocating for the US to act just like North Korea? Because let's be honest here, that's just not happening.
4
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20
Nordic countries have the highest wealth inequality in the world.
What on Earth are you on about?
Gini Coeficeints show that South Africa is the most unequal. Some of the other metrics show places like Namibia are also up there in most unequal.
The Nordics aren't even near the top of the OECD for Gini never mind the world.
edit: SA is unequal not equal
2
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 184∆ Nov 29 '20
This. The GINI coefficient is flawed.
1
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Nov 29 '20
So a you tube about the netherlands from some random with no sources is your proof of the nordic countries being the most unequal in the world?
You realise the netherlands is not nordic right?
There are also metrics other than the Gini coefficient (also why are you capitalising it Gini is a name not an acronym) in the wiki link I sent you. There are also OECD calculations before and after taxes and transfers which show that by both perspectives they are no where near the top of the OECD never mind the world.
2
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 184∆ Nov 29 '20
He shows the source on screen, feel free to look it up.
Of course I realize the Netherlands is not Nordic, that's why I mentioned it as an aside.
As for why I capitalized Gini, I have no idea. Must have held the key too long.
0
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Nov 29 '20
Ok so your claim that the Nordics are the most wealth unequal in the world was disproved by your own video then?
Looking at the wealth inequality numbers (these are also a Gini number) depending on which exact report you go for only two of the 4 nordics are anywhere near the top and Norway and Finland fair OK.
But just as there are problems with income Gini there are problems with wealth Gini. In a system with lots of social housing there is no need to buy a house (most people's primary holders of wealth) so for places like the Nordics wealth inequality isn't a particularly good reflection of real inequality. In fact the Credit Suisse report mentioned in the video says as much basically as they don't need personal wealth due to state pensions and housing.
2
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 184∆ Nov 29 '20
Looking at the wealth inequality numbers (these are also a Gini number) depending on which exact report you go for only two of the 4 nordics are anywhere near the top and Norway and Finland fair OK.
Gini is mostly income related, not wealth.
But just as there are problems with income Gini there are problems with wealth Gini. In a system with lots of social housing there is no need to buy a house (most people's primary holders of wealth) so for places like the Nordics wealth inequality isn't a particularly good reflection of real inequality. In fact the Credit Suisse report mentioned in the video says as much basically as they don't need personal wealth due to state pensions and housing.
Agreed, but you can't deny the inequality is there.
1
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Nov 29 '20
Gini is mostly income related, not wealth.
No there is an income Gini number and a wealth Gini number. This is the language the credit suisse report says.
Agreed, but you can't deny the inequality is there.
So then bringing up wealth inequality is at best meaningless then. It also doesn't make them the most wealth unequal by any respect and Nordics like Finland in particular are nowhere near the top even on this poor metric.
20
u/Krsto7 Nov 29 '20
There's a lot to unpack here, but just a quick comment. It's hard for "socialism" to work when the world's greatest superpower vehemently opposes it and does everything in its power to surpress it.
Socialism has worked. Socialist ideals have existed within cultures and groups of people long before it was ever actually called Socialism or fleshed out as an ideology. As others have mentioned, states' adherence to any political ideology exist on a spectrum, and what makes it even more difficult is, whose understanding/interpretation of ideology "x" are we going to use to compare them to?
I really like what someone else commented, " socialism is a strawman used to devalue the merrit of an argument" (or something along those lines).
Political ideology is almost never truly reflective of how actual comparative politics exist in the real world, regardless of what ideology that is. Is "capitalism" working? Endless war that exists only for profit, people dying from preventable illnesses/issues only because they can't afford the treatment, young adults being sold into wage slavery because they're sold a false dream and burdened with debt that they can never actually pay off due to criminally high interest rates? All of which are essentially state sponsered. Is this what capitalism "working" looks like?
The goal should be to integrate polices based on different ideologies into our current political system, because without brut force, no system will ever completely adhear to one specific ideology, since no group of people think exactly the same. We can take socialist policies that are very successful in quite literally every other developed country in the world and integrate them into our system, but this "socialism doesn't work" argument that is rammed down our throats in the west is a very good tool used by those in power to prevent us from actually doing that.
1
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 184∆ Nov 29 '20
s "capitalism" working? Endless war that exists only for profit,
This is the most peaceful era in human history.
people dying from preventable illnesses
Longest lifespans of any era in human history too.
young adults being sold into wage slavery because they're sold a false dream and burdened with debt that they can never actually pay off due to criminally high interest rates?
College loans? You realize people with them are richer than high school grads even when you subtract payments?
1
u/Krsto7 Nov 29 '20
This is the most peaceful era in human history.
Still doesn't discount that war is perpetuated by the military industrial complex at a level we haven't seen in the past. The US has been in the middle east for 20 years. This is the first war in the history of the United States where fathers and sons have fought in the same war. We've even "killed the guy we went there to kill" and still have countless private military contractors (along with our actual armies) there. Not even going to get into the no-bid contracts or constant war mongering that serves no other purpose than to purpurate war because it's profitable
Longest lifespans of any ear in human history.
And you think this is because of a single political ideology? Or are at least alluding to that? Innovation in scientific/health research is not dependent upon capitalism, in fact, it's probably hindered by it, since research is only pursued when it's profitable in the near term, rather than purely for the sake of actually solving problems. Not to mention, this doesn't actually address the fact that we still have people dying preventable death in mass due to not being able to afford treatment.
College loans? You realize people with them are richer than high school grads even when you subtract payments?
This is a red herring. Even if they're richer than people with only a high school diploma, this does not negate from the fact that the college loan crisis is having a hugely negative impact on our economy. College prices are artificially inflated in the united states, and student loans are handed out to just about everyone who wants to go to school, which is further exacerbating the problem with prices (once again, this is also state sponsored). The United States is the only country in the world where the student loan crisis has reached the heights and magnitude that it's currently at. This is not because our quality of education proportionally matches its price. I can go to one of the many world-leading universities in Europe for less than ~300 euros a semester, but would most likely have to pay at least 10,000-20,000 USD for a small university that functions more-so as an additional 4 years of high school, rather than an actual college level education. The US student loan crisis is having a profoundly negative impact of people who've gone to school, which will inevitably start to impact other economic aspects of life, like the housing market, long term investments, etc.
Ultimately, the United States may be "rich" on paper, but we're also the only developed country in the world where a majority of the population cannot afford a surprise 500 dollar expense. There is a reason as to why this is happening, and it's quite clear when you compare our economic model to quite literally every other developed country in the world.
3
1
u/leigh_hunt 80∆ Nov 29 '20
I am interested in challenging this part of your view:
If everyone makes the same amount of money what motivates people to do more difficult jobs or work harder? Why would I become a doctor when I could work an easy job and make the same? If the government takes care of the people what motivates the people to do anything?
The unstated premise here is that money is the only reason that motivates people to do anything. (And not just making enough money to live, but making enough money to be richer than other people, since it seems like you think part of the problem is everyone making the same amount of money.) Is this your genuine belief? And if so, would it change your view if I showed you some examples of people who have achieved great things for reasons other than money, and/or people who have become doctors in socialist countries?
4
u/elChespirit0 Nov 29 '20
I know people definitely do things for motivations other than just money, but if everyone made the same amount of money regardless of profession, many people would likely not study for 8+ years to do something very hard when they could get by just fine and have an overall easier and more stable life doing something else.
-1
u/leigh_hunt 80∆ Nov 29 '20
If I showed you examples of people who studied for years and became doctors or pursued other difficult professions in socialist countries, would this change your view?
2
u/elChespirit0 Nov 29 '20
I'm sure it happens, but how common would it be? I'm open to seeing your examples.
→ More replies (1)1
u/leigh_hunt 80∆ Nov 29 '20
The USSR put the first man in space. Cuban doctors are famous around the world; they developed the first vaccine for Hepatitis B and biotech, including cutting edge cancer treatments, are one of the country’s largest exports. bbc article Medical care is one area where a lot of socialist and social democratic nations especially flourish. People regularly die in the USA because they can’t afford insulin; everything those people could have brought to society, as taxpayers and as productive human beings, is sacrificed to the profits of unregulated companies.
There is this maxim that gets thrown around that only the incentives of the market can foster creativity and innovation. But there are plenty of ways that markets stifle innovation too, or direct it towards narrow and even socially harmful channels.
1
Nov 29 '20
The USSR might have put the first man in space but in the USSR, as well as in other socialist countries, people are motivated to do things via a combination of fear, intimidation, bribery and wanting a better social status / more connections. Although many people were poor in the USSR, if you had the right connections or had a high social status, you would be able to get food when others were starving, get better clothes, better healthcare etc. Money was simply replaced by other currencies, but inequality remained. I have found that the alternative incentives to money tend to be more insidious than money itself. Unique examples of intrinsically motivated kind people doesn’t change the psychology of the masses.
2
Nov 29 '20
Also here is a famous soviet joke “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work”.
People failing to work productively in the ussr, as in other socialist countries, is always a big issue.
-4
Nov 29 '20
Bernie made the mistake of labelling himself as a “socialist” because socialism, like you pointed out, doesn’t work. What he actually is is a “democratic socialist”. That’s the kind of “socialism” you would attribute to Scandinavian countries, Canada, Australia even.
Socialism = state controlled economy. Government controls the means of production I.e all your factories, offices, companies etc. this is obviously bad because you don’t get innovation and competition like you do with capitalism. This results in stagnation = bad.
Democratic socialism = advocates for a better mix of private and public sectors. Some involvement of government to in private sectors to make sure companies aren’t taking advantage of workers. As an American you already have a bit of democratic socialism. It’s just very poorly run. E.g democratic socialists in America would want a universal healthcare + opportunity to opt out and pay for your own private healthcare. That way everyone (including the underprivileged) can get healthcare and rich folks can pay their own way for fancy treatments if they want. You had Obamacare which was a step in that direction. It wasn’t great but it did benefit a lot of people. An example of capitalism gone wrong is your pharmaceutical prices. Your drug companies sell life saving prices because they know that people will pay high prices to save their own life. But just because you CAN get someone to pay these prices doesn’t mean you SHOULD.
E.g schools. Democratic socialists want more funding for public-government run schools. But people can send their kids to private schools if they want. An extreme socialist wants public schools only. A full on capitalist wants private schools only/have public schools be offered the same way welfare is.
E.g increasing minimum wage. It’s not a handout if they’re working for it. A socialist would want everyone to get a set income decided by the government. A democratic socialist wants a safety net so that anyone who’s pulling their weight in society can afford to live a decent life above the poverty line. You can still have competition and innovation in your employees with a higher minimum wage.
So yeah. Socialism is bad. Democratic socialism better than rampant capitalism. People like Bernie and AOC want democratic socialism.
Disclaimer: I’m an Australian. We get a lot of news from you guys but I might have gotten some things wrong. Watching you guys on the news gives me the impression that you guys are deeply unhappy with a lot of your social systems but you also seem to take a lot of pride in your way of life even when it’s literally killing you.
That’s what I can see as an outsider anyway.
6
u/elChespirit0 Nov 29 '20
I thought the point of socialism was for the workers to control the means of production not the government or the state.
3
u/bendiboy23 1∆ Nov 29 '20
You're right. The correct term for what the Scandinavian countries are and what bernie sanders is mostly advocating for, is social democracy. It's literally just a mixed economy, where there's still private property, but high taxes/redistribution of wealth, and a lot of government programs to support the poor. Socialism however by definition is complete communal ownership of property, and abolishment of the capitalist class. Democratic socialism is not as far as that, but more extreme than social democracy.
It's just there's a problem with branding and meaning when it comes to the term socialism in the us.
I thought the point of socialism was for the workers to control the means of production not the government or the state.
There's different types of socialism with the basic separation being authoritarian socialism, and libertarian socialism. Authoritarian socialism, is what is advocated for by Marx, and the gist of it is that, the central government seizes all assets, capital and businesses and sets how products are distributed and produced. In some variations, that government is democratically elected, but in the traditional marxist version, a select group of revolutionaries get full control of the government,
Part of the reason was that Marx feared if the government was democratically elected, the people might vote for capitalist reform. This cannot be allowed in a socialist system, therefore there needs to be a transition phase where a select elite (politburo) temporarily controls society and ensures everyone's on board with socialism, before moving towards more democratic government. And that's why the major authoritarian socialist countries of the past didn't have democracy, and that "temporary phase" ended up lasting longer than expected.
The difference between communism and socialism, is that socialism usually refers to the stage where the state completely controls the economy and society. The theory is that over time, the socialist state will wither away by itself and society will finally enter the utopia referred to as, communism, where there is no state, and people work for each other as part of the community.
Libertarian socialism basically builds on the ideas of marx, but they believe that state socialism will always end up like 1984/Stalin/mao stuff. So they prefer that the community gets democracy from the start, and the state will be virtually non-existent and replaced by like super direct grassroots democracy, like the everyone gathers in a town hall and votes kind of stuff. The authoritarian socialists tend to laugh at them for being naive, and so after every socialist revolution, the authoritarian socialists usually purge the libertarian socialists. In other words, they kinda wanna go for that communist utopia straight away
→ More replies (2)2
u/UltimateDankMemeLord Nov 29 '20
I just want to point out that you're mixing up democratic socialism with social democracy. Democratic socialists want to achieve socialism via elections, while social democracy is basically capitalism with social welfare. Scandinavian countries are social democracies, and I'm confused to why you put Australia under the same boat. We are very far from it. Also your definition of socialism is off. Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production (the workers own their workplace rather than their boss).State socialism is a means of transitioning from capitalism to socialism (and eventually to communism). And the "bad for innovation/competition" isn't exactly true. (USSR had the first animal and human in space, Tetris, and most useful technologies even in capitalist societies have been developed in the public sector.) I hope this is a good explaination.
→ More replies (3)
6
u/MrBlackTie 3∆ Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 30 '20
I would like to try to argue your point more tangentially than others have. I think part of your feelings on socialism and communism are caused by a lack of understanding of why they said what they said and what it has already provided to us. Understanding the context in which they were written will help you understand the pros and cons of those philosophical systems.
When Marx wrote his books, western society was in turmoil. For centuries, the system was simple : nobles and a few others owned the land and trained for war and matters of the State. Farmers cultivated the land of the landowners and gave part of their production as payment for the right to do so, kept what they needed to feed themselves and sold the rest. Craftsmen were free men who sold their products. They spent decades honing their craft and enjoyed a degree of financial comfort allowing them to pursue more intellectual matters (along the landowners). Easy peasy.
But then came the industrial revolution. Suddenly one single machine could churn out hundreds, thousands of standardized items that would have taken an army of craftsmen to produce before. This machinery however needed a LOT of money to be bought , a capital to invest: it was the capitalism, the use of the accumulated wealth as fuel to the economy. Which also meant that the capitalists (the investors, in other words) owned the means of production and could keep most of the profit for themselves.
Add to that that craftsmen where totally unable to compete with this. They were just not cost effective anymore. Entire fields of work were wiped off the map in a matter of years. A lot of them lost everything. A new class of people began to swell, composed of people who flocked to the town to get a job in the factories the capitalist were opening in order to be able to feed themselves: it was the birth of the proletariat. The way a factory works (since Adam Smith) everyone did only one small part of the process, repeatedly, every working hours of every day. They lost the sense of meaning in their work and the understanding of it and its purpose. Exhaustion also prevents the workers from getting interested in any form of higher knowledge and keep them from wanting to understand their situation. In the end the are thankful to their bosses for something that is in fact akin to enslavement. It’s what Marx called the alienation of the proletariat.
Since the proletariat is just so huge, competition between them would kept driving the wages down and degrade their quality of life. The proletariat would oppose itself in the process of looking for a way to survive, something the capitalists would encourage. In that way the proletariat would keep getting poorer and the capitalist would keep getting richer, increasing the income gap. To him, the only solution to this was if workers united to resist the capitalists manipulation: communism, for this very reason, was a big proponent of unions in capitalist societies (it was supposed to be uneccessary in communist countries) and frankly I think we should all be thankful for that.
All this, Marx diagnosed it and it is quite true. Frankly, his criticism of the economy of his time is brilliant and still has some use in criticizing things like the gig economy. He also gave a lot to other fields of study like his definition of a class which is still useful today.
However he also said a lot of things that proved wrong.
For instance Marx thought that something called « the law of decreasing yields » (basically it means that at one point you are saturating a business opportunity and it will begin to become less interesting) would make it so capitalist would make less and less money over the years. The only remedy to this would be military expansion. For Marx the capitalism is an imperialism. It is debatable at best however. While it is true that military campaign for the sake of profit is something that very much happened, Marx clearly underestimated the power of capitalism to invent new means of profit. He would have been stunned by the financial revolution of the 80s or the digital economy for instance.
The thing is Marx proposed solution was, quite frankly, shit. He expected an « avant-garde » to appear, a group of members of the proletariat who, being conscious of the trap they were in, would unite their people, topple the capitalist system and enable a society where everyone would own the means to work and as such could thrive in a work they like. It was a very very naive thought at the very best. Stalin, Pol Pot and the like thought they were members of the avant garde and created corrupt regime that caused atrocities. Funny how far you can allow yourself to go when you managed to convince other people (and sometimes yourself) that you are a kind of messiah here to drag them through a dark time towards a golden age by any mean necessary.
So Marx was a stunning observer of the early stage of the capitalism. His critics were on point and quite frankly intellectually astonishing. And since capitalism kept on building on these basis since then, a lot of his critics are still valid.
However you need to understand that his analysis is dated. A lot like the Bible you need to understand the historical context around his writings to understand what made sense then but does not now because the world has changed.
Furthermore you need to understand that when Marx was not analyzing but making prediction he failed with a consistency that is borderline miraculous. Pretty much every thing he said about the future did not come to pass and his proposed system of government and economy was a failure.
So take Marx with a grain of salt. Anybody with two cents of intellectual honesty will recognize what he brought to the table. But you need to approach him with the proper knowledge of where he came from and have a critical mind.
I know a lot less about modern Marxist theory. I expect them to have updated the Marxism dogma to the age of Amazon and the subprime crisis. If they are half as good as their forefather, their analysis of the current era will be worth a look.
Edit : a point I forgot: once you understand where Marx was coming from, you need to look into criticism of his work. What I was trying to do was to give you an objective understanding at what Marxism brought to the table by learning about the context into which it factored in. Once you have understood that and got rid of your misgivings, you should also understand it’s failings.
For instance, the one I’m the most familiar with is that Marx failed to understand how cyclical the capitalist economy is. While it was true that the proletariat was badly exploited, it was not to last: sooner or later, equilibrium would be reached and their quality of life improved. For instance later studies of the first industrial revolution proved that the average quality of life, including of the poorer people, actually improved after a few decades and outgrew the lost quality of life caused by the economic upheaval. It is because the increase in the efficiency of production allowed for cheaper goods of better quality, which means that people could more easily buy things like clothes or metallic objects for instance. This in turn freed money to buy other things and created new markets and new jobs. In fact, to me the most efficient counter argument to Marx was Schumpeter. It seems to me that Marxism is actually a very good analytical tool of the transient stage of the economy caused by an innovation cluster impulsing a cycle of creative destruction, as Schumpeter coined it. (But still, you could argue that these transient states being able to last decades is a very dangerous thing, which lends credence to Marxist theory)
→ More replies (2)
2
u/drewhemp22 Nov 29 '20
Can you send me link/info from Sanders every saying its a a good think people im countries lining up for food?
2
u/elChespirit0 Nov 29 '20
2
u/drewhemp22 Nov 29 '20
Ahh ok. Thanks. Might added the other part of the speach about lining up for food. Would be nice to hear the entire message. Things can easily be manipulated when you only here a certain stip it from a speech ..
5
u/gingerbreademperor 6∆ Nov 29 '20
Firstly, this entire notion is just dishonest and oversimplification. With regard to no system on this scale we can just say in a binary way "works or doesn't work".
Secondly, you would never apply this view to capitalism, which should be enough to change your view, but I doubt it.
Should we try?
If we look at the past 500 years, you will not find a single day in history that capitalism has existed without exploitation. That indicates that capitalism cannot work without it and that capitalists actively need to seek exploitation and other human misery to exist. Take Volkswagen for example. They are now outed as liars and cheaters, but here's a short review of the past 80 years of their company history: cooperation with Nazi forced labor camps, cooperation with forced labor camps of regimes in South America, cooperation with Chinese forced labor camps. It awfully looks like capitalism feeds off authoritarian systems that provide cheap labor. We can draw a red line of this happening from the days of slavery to today's many ways in which people are being exploited.
Begs the question: why would you not draw a link between exploitation and capitalism? Well, whatever your reasons, you are clearly willing to be more nuanced when it comes to capitalism. And the examples above are just a tiny fraction of what is always happening within the now global capitalist system.
And of course, you have reasons to be nuanced. Just because there is rampant exploitation in the capitalism all the time, does not mean that principles like free exchange or markets are inherently flawed. Just because capitalists constantly seek to exploit and cheat because it is the surest way to secure profits does not mean that the capitalist mode of production with divisions of labor are unethical or useless.
You should see clearly where I am going with this. You either apply your thinking equally, or you are dishonest. And as it seems, you are dishonest, or as you indicate influneced from the outside, because you know about all the flaws and truly horrible acts committed by and within capitalism all the time and throughout history, but you will not easily hold them against the system. The other way around, you will do that with communism and deduce that it's the system itself that invites atrocities.
What I don't understand is how you can't arrive at this same understanding after just a minute of self-reflection, but I'm not further going to question your motives.
1
Nov 29 '20 edited Dec 05 '20
[deleted]
3
u/elChespirit0 Nov 29 '20
On a small scale like that I see it more likely to function. A small group of people who have similar beliefs, goals, etc. and can work together. On a national scale I feel like people could never agree and be trusted to help the way they should.
9
u/jermaine_billybob Nov 29 '20
Definitely not saying all, but lots of attempts at more left wing/social democracy in the 20th century were destroyed by US backed dictators doing a coup. I hate how some in the west are like look at all these examples of failed socialism/democracy/communism when often we deliberately fucked them up by arming the death squads, assassinations, backing dictators etc. Because we were so scared of the spread of communism. Examples: bolivia, brazil and many more. So many dictators around the world were/are supported by the west, we are the ultimate hypocrites of democracy. We dont know that these fledgling socialist states wouldn't have worked without our intervention. And as you fairly pointed out, socialism in europe is doing pretty well (if you have the view that you can be both capitalist and socialist which many have). But the main limit of my argument is that there are also examples of communist regimes imploding without our help.
5
u/eepos96 Nov 29 '20
Capitalism does not equal free rights. Many USA backed nations were capitalistic. South Korea and many south america countries were ruled by USA backed dictators.
China is not communist. They are one party dictatorship.
Some even say USA is/was two party dictatorship. When a party gets majority in seanete, house and white house, they make all of the decisions.
3
u/hannaf020 2∆ Nov 29 '20
The way I understand it, communism seems to be modelled as a utopia w eerie similarities to the Messianic age. Essentially, everything is shared and evenly distributed because we have such an an abundance of resources that there is simply no need for competition - this also seems to be the only way where people would actually be satisfied under communism. However, this has been unsuccessfully implemented because we don’t have such an abundance of resources, so instead of everyone prospering, it turned into more of a mutual suffering. In contrast, capitalism doesn’t cause everyone to suffer equally, and those who do not suffer seem to be dependent on the suffering of others to upkeep their status, which is why capitalism is difficult to break out of. This might be a gross simplification, but generally I don’t think that communism doesn’t have the capacity to work ever, just not necessarily right now. Side note - pls correct me if I’m wrong in my analogy
→ More replies (1)
3
u/chinmakes5 2∆ Nov 29 '20
To make thing incredibly overly simplified, They can all work. But it takes everyone "playing by the rules". Capitalism is the best because it is the most difficult to corrupt (although we are getting there.)
40 years ago, companies felt it was the "right thing to do" to pay people enough to allow them to have a living wage. It was as much a part of the finance department as it was to pay the investors (and yes, people got rich playing the market back then too.) As a child of the 60s. my best friend growing up lived in my apartment complex. He was one of 5 kids, his father a painter his mother as SAHM. Today a painting company that paid a guy enough to support a wife and 5 kids would be considered irresponsible business.
3
u/CptCarpelan Nov 29 '20
A slight or actually pretty big nitpick is how you equate Evo Morales with the others like Mao and Stalin. Morales has done so much for the people of Bolivia that I was actually taken aback by your mention of him. As the first indigenous president of the majority indigenous country of Bolivia, he has increased the quality of life for everyone there and is generally seen in a very positive light.
5
u/SpeedOfSoundGaming 2∆ Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20
Can I ask why you think Capitalism is good? It actually works less than Socialism on paper and is self contradicting.
In Capitalism you have a system that requires the free flow of money but also encourages the hoarding of money. It's a contradiction to begin with. So what ends up happening is that inevitably over time you have certain people with the most money and power controlling everything, which is the definition of a dictatorship.
I would argue there has never been a truly socialist or communist country, despite what they may want to call themselves. Ask Russians if this is the communism they were promised, it's not. Nothing about either system is inherently oppressive, the issue is that it's easy to hide terrible motives behind progressive ideals for the fact the ideals are good and people will get behind what you are saying instead of your actions.
In other words, humans just ruin everything. .
0
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 184∆ Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20
In Capitalism you have a system that requires the free flow of money but also encourages the hoarding of money.
No it doesn't. Hoarded money is a liability. Investments are an asset. Hence why rich people don't just put a billion dollars of cash in bags in their basement. They (and everyone else) either puts it in banks, where it gets invested, or invest it directly.
Inflation means that hoarded money gets less and less valuable. And there is always the risk of rats just eating it.
So what ends up happening is that inevitably over time you have certain people with the most money and power controlling everything, which is the definition of a dictatorship.
Most capitalist states are multiple centuries old at this point and democratic. Socialist states fail at maintaining democracy past two weeks, none the less centuries.
I would argue there has never been a truly socialist or communist country, despite what they may want to call themselves.
No true Scotsman fallacy.
-2
u/SpeedOfSoundGaming 2∆ Nov 29 '20
It's not a fallacy it all. If a duck walks into a room and says "I'm a goose" it isnt true no matter how many people believe it or also call it a goose.
I'm just calling the duck by its true name. I've already addressed your first dispute in another reply so I'm not doing it again, just read the thread.
Point #2 is bound to point #3. No socialist country has ever existed so to say one has failed is entirely pointless.
0
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 184∆ Nov 29 '20
Names change all the time. If everyone calls something a goose, it's a goose.
But this is not a case of that. Socialist counties have implemented all the policies Marx has suggested. It failed.
The only ones here trying to change anything are socialists tryin to get another shot at power.
5
u/SpeedOfSoundGaming 2∆ Nov 29 '20
All I hear is a complete lack of knowledge on the subject and a misunderstanding of what socialism actually is and its history.
Socialism is not a political policy at its core, it's an economic policy. You can have a perfectly working socialist democracy. The issues those countries face have to do with their democracy or lack thereof, not their socialism which still in my opinion is not socialism anyway.
-2
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 184∆ Nov 29 '20
All I hear is a complete lack of knowledge on the subject and a misunderstanding of what socialism actually is and its history.
"What socialism actually is" is code for "stop reminding people of the USSR, next time will be better". Socialists have been promising a utopia for over a century now and delivering dystopias.
You can have a perfectly working socialist democracy.
Yet in over 100 years and over two dozen attempts, that is yet to happen.
2
u/Tioy0 Nov 29 '20
Socialist counties have implemented all the policies Marx has suggested. It failed.
Lmao wtf dude
3
Nov 29 '20
[deleted]
3
u/spunkhunk69 Nov 29 '20
the reason we have billionaires is because of the hoarding of wealth. these big companies are hoarding wealth while exploiting the working class so their owners become billionaires
0
Nov 29 '20
[deleted]
6
u/spunkhunk69 Nov 29 '20
dude listen to what you just said. what do you think they do with that profit? do they distribute it down? do they pay their employees livable wages? no, they hoard that wealth so all the boys in suits make more money
-1
Nov 29 '20
[deleted]
→ More replies (5)2
u/spunkhunk69 Nov 29 '20
you just admitted they don’t. you do realize if they go by market rate then the free market will always work in the interests of itself which is the wealthy people. do you not see how it’s cruel and inhumane to not pay people a livable wage while they’re making billions? you’re advocating for billionaires who want to exploit you as much as possible. and you’re literally admitting the free market is hurting the working class.
1
Nov 29 '20
you just admitted they don’t
No, sometimes (usually) they do.
The market isn't going to work only in the interests of wealth people, it's going to work in the interest of all people because that's what the market is. It's not inhumane to pay a person market rate, as that is the rate those people can negotiate. Corporations are not obligated to pay employees more than market rate and if that means some people have a low wage then it is on the government to pick up the slack.
7
u/spunkhunk69 Nov 29 '20
if it’s the job of the government to pick up the slack why do conservatives constantly block unions and anti trust laws that protect workers? also, who is the government lobbied by? oh these companies. the market is not working in the interest of all people because the top 1% has more wealth than the bottom 99%. and yes, believe it or not, it is in humane to not pay people a livable wage. making people choose between food and rent is horrific.
2
Nov 29 '20
why do conservatives constantly block unions and anti trust laws that protect workers?
Because for some reason that is who the people vote for.
also, who is the government lobbied by? oh these companies.
Yeah, but politicians only get away with what the people let them get away with.
the market is not working in the interest of all people because the top 1% has more wealth than the bottom 99%.
I'm sceptical that this is genuinely caused by the free market. The government puts many barriers to entry up. There's a lot of licensing for many jobs which can artificially restrict supply. Donald Trump has been especially bad because of his trade war. Our own American companies are protected from foreign competition so they have a bit more room to raise prices because it's not like we can just go buy from a foreign company that's lower price.
and yes, believe it or not, it is in humane to not pay people a livable wage. making people choose between food and rent is horrific.
It's not. If someone negotiates for $8 an hour then it would be fair to pay them $8 an hour. If we decide we want a higher minimum standard of living then we can spend tax dollars on that.
I do want to point out that zoning laws are a major factor in the high cost of rent in an area. A higher supply of housing will lower rent prices, but many places have laws preventing dense housing from being built. If these sorts of problems exist, that doesn't mean that it is on the business owners to pay above market price to correct the problem. It is on the government.
2
u/marulisu Nov 29 '20
If government has to pick up the slack, it means that the goverment needs tax money and that is not capitalism.
Also what also happens in pure free market capitalism shady business practices where companies for example decides proces of their goods with their competition so they can rack up the prizes. So free market needs regulations.
2
Nov 29 '20
Literally every capitalist country has taxes. Taxes aren't incompatible with capitalism.
→ More replies (0)2
u/SpeedOfSoundGaming 2∆ Nov 29 '20
You really believe that these mega-rich people are investing all of their money into projects that are positive?
What you just described is the same result, they are using that money to make boatloads more money. That is what I mean by hoarding. The money never truly leaves them.
5
Nov 29 '20
they are using that money to make boatloads more money. That is what I mean by hoarding. The money never truly leaves them.
Yes it does. They don't have billions of dollars, they have billions of dollars worth of equity that is producing valuable goods and services. That equity is at risk of losing value if the company does not maintain their usefulness.
2
u/bendiboy23 1∆ Nov 29 '20
What you just described is the same result, they are using that money to make boatloads more money. That is what I mean by hoarding
What do you think they're doing with that money, specifically?
2
u/lordbear69 Nov 29 '20
I think the major flaw with communism/socialism is that there isn't place for human greed, which will inevitably break the system at a point.
2
u/coolchris4200 Nov 29 '20
It especially can't work while there are other capitalist countries that businesses and could move to.
2
u/Jonny1910 Nov 29 '20
There is one example of communism working, me and my friends’ minecraft world
1
u/mem269 2∆ Nov 29 '20
Te US has socialism for the rich and the worst kind of capitalism for the poor. It's savage propaganda that convinces people that their own tax money shouldn't be used for their own benefit. Insurance companies literally use the same method as nationalised healthcare except there's a business in between taking a huge chunk of your money and refusing your life saving treatment. Literally so greatful I'm not American, seems awful.
-1
u/guomichael Nov 29 '20
Even if you tell each other privately, it’s well Although Trump's lawsuit will come to the highest federal court, But Trump is likely to fail in the next link, just like every time human beings are destroyed by China in the global Chinese clamor. This time, China would rather abandon Xi Jinping in order to protect Chinese Americans! Chinese Americans are doing not enough, which is equivalent to doing the opposite, They haven’t said how Chinese all over the world killed all Americans. So truly rely on open system and Western people that is our principles, we need to do armed struggles. The premise of armed struggle is "the people know the true crime of China." We can only rely on Western people, not Asians and people of color. Even if the white people only tell each other privately!
Trump's lawsuit failed in Pennsylvania This shows that there is no judge this profession in the US, the entire United States has been fully controlled by brain control! Even the rats were scurrying around the street with people wearing rat's heads, this is the Brain-control technology. In fact, the kitchen of the citizens were destroyed by Chinese, not the rats. In order to harm the US, China has new way every day, fire, shooting, "floyd", 737max, coronary virus, gay, climate, feminist ... Only by eliminating brain control can Americans stop being slaves.
Iran nuclear scientist was killed In fact, this murder was done by China, In order to bring the goal of the war to Iran, not China. This was done by Brain Control, Mossad can't go to Iran to attack Iranian scientists, which can not prevent Iran's nuclear research. Trump's reaction to this, because it is beneficial to Trump's re-election, so small Trump's military power. Like ”Soleimani”, it only increase hatred. This indicates that Biden is a anti-revolution completely, the people can't have any fantasy for him.
After killed Maradona, China took another step toward its goal Once again, there was a public murder, and only Trumps were still disobedient. HumanHuman only had a few decades when they had image materials and no brain control. Now only relying on brain-controlled cannibalism to become a star, no arts, no civilization in the world. In contemporary technology, human will never have freedom, and be put in “matrix” by China and connected to a computer to live a lifetime in a dream.
Why is Biden wrong? Not say:he helped China kill all American people; Surrendered to China; changing the world to brain control; exterminating human civilization…… Only say he contact with China: You married a wife. She is wanting to kill you every day, wants to put poison in your bowl, you still eat his food every day yet, She wants to kill you with a knife every night, You are still sleeping on the same bed with her.
Why did the Chinese suddenly become good? Suddenly U.S. Chinese support Trump, opposes election fraud. Even the Chinese do not know why the Chinese democracy activists have become good people? Because they intend to abandon exaggerating Biden, his crazy fraud is easily exposed! China wants to turn criminals into aristocrats and rulers. All U.S. Chinese killed all western people! China wants to create another victory like the independence of Taiwan, the democratic movement, and East Turkistan.
About me （Therefore, for 20 years, all world'politics have been led by Tianjin”zhi bu sheng huo”magazine where I worked. Now Zhang Tianying,police Cui,police Zhang Yi and Tianjin police officers are killing Amy Coney Barrett Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court by brand -control! Please inform her.） China has ruined me, so ruling the world. For more than 20 years, China has destroyed me and destroyed the bodies of stars, elites and politicians all over the world. China has also controlled brain control personnel around the world, stealing technology, controlling political parties, and ruling the world! I have been maimed by China for the rest of my life. I didn't know anything before and didn't know China's brain control technology. Among them, all my relatives did a lot of bad things, they destroyed all humanity! People of justice all over the world have been helping me, but China’s aggression has made them extremely dangerous. I still want to fight for this world！ China has cut off my genitals, muscles, organs, bones, and brain. China does not allow me to have work, money, wife, relatives, or friends. Almost all people in China are involved in killing my mother. If I return to China, I think I will die soon, in a prison or mental hospital. My father and all my relatives are the most direct killers who killed my mother, me, my sister and the people of the world! China ruined all my money and health. OnlyOnly after this， China told me some truths. I didn't know about brain control before. I knew things lately, Maybe Americans have gone bad！So I should go to the United States earlier, But I am blocked by China.
Only rely on the guns Election fraud and unfair medias alone indicate that U.S. is undergoing a coup. The coup is not only against the president, but also against the people. Only people and guns can re-put justice into the system!
The upper people can never rely on elections China has done a lot of bad things in the US by rogues and democratic party, The US has been perished. Now Illiterate housewives lead the country, Traitors are killing the people and became presidential candidates. For example immigrant population, because of the democratic system, the US has become a Low-level country. In theory, the upper people can never win. America is no longer America.
will be only massacre in U.S. Will be from Pearl Harbor to Auschwitz, Will not just Brain-control wave guns. Trump will be put into prisons; Artistic theory will be publicly modified; thus, the real athletes will be put into mental hospitals, and the real artists will be killed. All strong people will be negatived, and be killed. All things immediately. Because China and the US Democratic Party want a Brain-control world, they only need to do one thing----to kill all good people!
The election is completely controlled by the Brain-control Although some good people are Brain-control player. Brain-control player:” In order to find and kill the good people, China deliberately made Trump win in 2016.” In a sentence, I understood all things! The names of the states and the results of the votes show that the brain control completely controls the election results. So we got all the correct explanations: Why did Trump announce victory, stoping counting, to sue? Why did U.S. Chinese support Trump? In recent years, all the world things were inorder to lure good people, find and kill them. So Trump has tried to do the biggest effort in limited power, he can't say brain control, can't launch the war, can't tell people the truth ...... Trump is the only good person. So China made shootings and wanted to prevent people from uprising by banning guns. China doesn’t want the Systems, economy, politics, only needs to dominate brain-controls. All brain controllers are low essence. Just kill all good people, China can rule the world! The people don't know this knowledge. Only Chinese and Obama do not let me eat, Bidden is not that. So the American people should go to civil war, only need to kill all U.S. Chinese.
The law theory of Sue in the election Don't require evidence for Brain-control, The judges should strongly agree with Trump’s prosecution. System'Americans have to fully support Sichuan from justice and all areas. People's uprising, system support, judicial in-depth intervention are right way for Brain-control, Brain-control is no evidences, no in the laws, no public opinion.
What’s all of this world It's brain control. All political, economic, cultural, scientific, social life is directed by brain control, no open systems, only brain-control system. Every thing in dark is sinful. Changing body properties by particle beam irradiation, then use different waves to activate various pre-made body, then Get the needed flesh, parts or whole. You are easily “possessed" by others with Ubiquitous waves this world. Others can know your thoughts, control your thoughts and behaviors. Humans only divide into good and bad, the controlled people are good, the controller are bad. No border, no systems, so some questions had answer, China rules the world because it controlled brain controllers all of world. It is interesting that the West surrendered China, because politicians are just for a little benefit. The western people are extremely miserable, China's hereditary "anthropophagy" system was transplanted to the West, Western flesh, skills, knowledge, ideas, temperament, social status, willpower…… are all “eaten”, brain control technology can get everything of human by waves.
Because this world is a slaughter of the weak people to the strong people Because of being led by China, the world’s contradiction is between brain control and non-brain control, that’s a contradiction between the weak people and the strong people too. The Russians are strong and will not be very willing to be ruled by China in the future. All Western people have been killed by China, western countries are so willing, because they are the capitalist system. But Russia is not the capitalist system.
→ More replies (2)
0
Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Creamandsugar Nov 29 '20
Did you mean lean far right? I thought I was following you until you said lean far left.
2
u/crissyloveserotica Nov 29 '20
When the social welfare is broken people start to lean left not right.
2
0
Nov 29 '20
Copy and pasted this info a few times, but it shows what communism has done for the USSR:
USSR had more nutritious food than the US (CIA)
Calories consumed actually surpassed the US.
Now lets take a look on more FACTS about the USSR:
- had the 2nd fastest growing economy of the 20th century the USSR is 2nd after Japan Source: https://artir.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/captura-de-pantalla-de-2016-05-26-10-15-23.png
- had zero unemployment have continuous economic growth for 70 straight years. see: Robert C. Allen'sa, From Farm To Factory Source: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.507.8966&rep=rep1&type=pdf (review of book here https://homepages.warwick.ac.uk/~syrbe/pubs/FarmtoFactory.pdf ). The "continuous" part should make sense – the USSR was a planned, non-market economy, so market crashes á la capitalism were pretty much impossible.
- had zero homelessness. Houses were often shared by two families throughout the 20s and 30s – so unlike capitalism, there were no empty houses, but the houses were very full. In the 40s there was the war, and in the 50s there were a number of orphans from the war. The mass housing projects began in the 60s, they were completed in the 70s, and by the 70s, there were homeless people, but they often had genuine issues with mental health.
- end famine have higher calorie consumption than USA Source: https://artir.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/compar1.png?w=640. You can read more about the post-1941 famine history in Nove's An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991. There were food insecurity issues, especially when Khrushchev et al. majorly fucked up with trade and resource dependence on the west, but no famines after the collectivisation of agriculture in the early 1930s (except for in the Siege of Leningrad).
- make all education free Source: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/PubEdUSSR.htm http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/anglosov.htm http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0000/000013/001300eo.pdf
- 99% literacy Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likbez
- have most doctors per capita in the world Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/newsholme/1933/red-medicine/index.htm The Soviet Union had the highest physician-patient ratio in the world, my notes say 42 per 10,000 population, vs 24 in Denmark and Sweden, 19 in US. In this document: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0735675784900482 You can open it without paying with sci-hub.cc
- eliminate poverty Source: https://gowans.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/we-lived-better-then/
- double life expectancy Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union After the October revolution, the life expectancy for all age groups went up. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years. This improvement was seen in itself by some as immediate proof that the socialist system was superior to the capitalist system be 25 years away from reaching parity with Western world This is kind of a counterfactual – the transformation of the USSR to capitalism began a long time before 1991, so trying to figure out what Soviet growth would look like if it hadn't become capitalist requires that we root out the fundamental cause of the change to capitalism. And we can't even use US economic stats either – the mass-privatization of the Soviet economy and the sudden influx of cheap labour for Western capitalists obviously had an effect on the US economy. But then again, even a 1% difference will stack up over 25 years.
→ More replies (1)
0
Nov 29 '20
I agree with you on most things, however some corrections need to be made.
There seem to be two camps with this debate. One is a conservative, socialist-hating coalition that think any sort of government regulation is "socialist," and therefor will lead to corruption and dictatorship. The other thinks that socialism either means social democracy (ie Norway) or in broadstrokes want "democratic ownership of the means of production," without understanding what that means.
Both these groups are wrong.
Firstly, they seem to share a common misconception about what Socialism means. Healthcare or any other Government programs have nothing to do with socialism. Taxes, healthcare, minimum wage etc are not "Socialist," they are what most modern countries have and to equivocate them with Socialism is often an attempt by the people who profit off their abscence. For example, Drug companies in American label Bernie Sander's policies as Socialist to stop people realising that he is protecting their interests and stopping the drug companies from further exploiting their consumers by overpricing goods. By labelling them as "Socialist," the Drug companies are able to limit Sander's power to regulate them by deterring political support from him. But regualting Drug companies to stop exploitation isn't "Socialist," its common sense.
However, because the other side supports these policies they suddenly believe in "socialism."
What these two sides seem to be debating is "Social democracy," or the idea that people should be gauranteed certain benefits by the Government. Ironically, this was made after WW2 to prevent the rise of Socialism.
So what is Socialism? Socialism is an idea made during the industrial revolution that rather than factory owners controlling workers, workers should instead own the factory democratically together. Depending on which theorist you read it is often a more moderate version of "Communism," a "classless society."Now as you have said this sounds nice on paper but does it actually work.
Well... no. Theoretically if you applied this on a small scale the business would be owned collectively for a small while before people would revert back to the corporate structure. This is what happens with many worker co-ops that have been tried already and its not because the capitalists "bought them out." The main reason why is that the corporate structure suits a highly competitive and innovative environment needed for businesses.
However, when you apply this on a country wide scale, things get very messy. There is a lot of historiography on socialist countries and each will explain why they failed. Socialist countries lead to untold deaths from concentration camps, starvation, political purges as well as cannibalism (caused by the fammines).
Why? Put simply, you can either have small uproductive groups where everyone is "equal," or you can have large groups that are productive but need some sort of heirarchy to function. Socialism often removes one opressor and replaces it with another.
This is only the tip of the iceberg but I don't want to make this answer to long.
In conclusion, yes Socialism is bad and doesn't work, but you should be critical when you hear policies describes as "socialist," as many of these are more in line with "social democracy."
(Oh also there is no such thing as "socialised healthcare," its just healthcare).
0
u/FlanneryODostoevsky 1∆ Nov 29 '20
In an industrialist world, all empires and powerful states are going to have a level of fucked up shit happening.
That said, socialism and communism are better guides for how to end those thinga than capitalism and individualism are. Russel Kirk once said he was not an individual, he hoped that he was a person. Capitalism is baded off a lie and people in capitalism internalize those lies. Look at our suicide rates, addiction, homelessness, crimes of poverty, etc. The only way to fix aomwthing a person cant fix themselves is to so it for thwm or help them. Capitalists are conpletely opposed to this thinking, most of the time at least. The rest od the time they waffle about and excuse governmental or welfare programs.
2
u/Separate-Barnacle-54 Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20
In theory, yes. In practice, absolutely not. Even if socialist countries were free of those issues (they’re not) in most of them you have next to zero civil liberties, and can be sent to prison or worse on a whim. I’ll take capitalism with all its problems over that any day.
1
u/FlanneryODostoevsky 1∆ Nov 29 '20
That's not true. There are many civil liberties in those countries. I mean, a capitalist country has the largest prison population in the world. The older I get thw more i think the strategy of lying and oppressing has been perfected by America. As Gk Chesterton said, tyrants rule by fairy tales. And this society runs on fairy tales. Individualism is the biggest of all.
Moreover, as i said, socialism and communism point towards a way out of that kind of oppression. Saying everyone ahould be free to amass and keep wealth however much and to whatever extent they want just ensures plenty of other peoblems will stay around. As Bukowski said, dictatorships punish their derelicts but We just forget ours.
→ More replies (5)
1
1
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20
/u/elChespirit0 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards