Hacker News Reader

Comment by Fins | Hacker News Reader

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

Back when people were trying to overthrow monarchies to introduce democracy and capitalism it didn't exactly go smoothly either. Capitalism in America might not have even been possible without the extensive use of slave labor and the genocide of an entire continent of people. There is such an ahistorical bend to anti-socialist rhetoric that is so pervasive in our society it's nearly impossible to see.

"Capitalism in America might not have even been possible without the extensive use of slave labor and the genocide of an entire continent of people"

Rolling my eyes pretty hard at that one. Can you elaborate? Do you really think the whole system would have failed without slave labor? How was the capitalist economy different back then, such that free labor was absolutely necessary for it to be sustained?

"There is such an ahistorical bend to anti-socialist rhetoric"

I would say the same about pro-socialist rhetoric. The whole "let's ignore what happened the last dozen times a country tried full socialism, and try it again" rhetoric is pretty selectively ignorant of history, wouldn't you say?

There's a difference between saying "Capitalism in America" vs the whole system of capitalism. That aside it's probably hyperbolic for me to claim that it "might not have even been possible."

My point is that people ignore the ugly history of capitalism but only want to talk about the ugly side of socialism. I'm sure there's equally biased pro-socialist rhetoric but since we live in a capitalist society the scale is not even remotely the same.

The last thing I want to do is ignore what has happened when countries have tried socialism. I want to be clear that horrible things have happened in socialist countries, but I don't think that is sufficient reason to throw out all of the ideas and philosophy behind socialism.

I see what you're saying, and it's a fair point. I've never claimed capitalism is without its flaws. You say "people ignore the ugly history of capitalism but only want to talk about the ugly side of socialism," but more often I hear the opposite. I see socialism promoted all the time as this utopian ideal, and capitalism detracted as a horrible injustice, at least in my circles. So I suppose I'm more conditioned to call out the flaws in socialism as a reflex.

Regardless, I do think the past failures of socialist states are very important to consider, as they present concrete evidence for different ways it can go wrong. And I would make the argument that, given all that evidence, it does speak to flaws in the philosophy itself. Because in order for full socialism to occur, it necessitates an authoritarian takeover of the economy by the state. The state is supposed to represent the people, of course, but once they seize power to start managing property and the economy, well, now they're authoritarian bureaucrats with too much power. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and all that. To me it's no wonder that dictators take control of socialist states so easily.

Then, even if the state does avoid becoming despotic, you still have to deal with the problem of a centrally planned economy being incredibly inefficient at creating wealth when compared to a capitalist market economy. The adage "you don't make the poor richer, you just make everyone poorer" in regards to full socialism seems pretty spot-on in my observation. Just look at Venezuela for a live example. In 2013 they were hailed as an economic miracle [1] and now, well, we can all see for ourselves how it went [2].

To me, the most prosperous economic model we've come up with is free market capitalism with some government protections in place, like anti-trust and consumer protection laws, and a basic social safety net. I'm open to debate, though. Are there any socialist economies you would point to as a success? What parts of socialist philosophy in particular do you see as being effective and worth pursuing?

1. https://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_chavezs_economic_mirac...

2. http://www.euronews.com/2018/03/26/colombia-s-venezuelan-mig...

I would point to Scandinavian countries as probably the best functioning economies in the world right now. They aren't socialist, but they're closer than the US is. The fear of Authoritarianism is a real threat under any system. There is a certain level of authoritarianism that we live with here in the US I would argue. I don't think that socialism has to mean "large-centralized government". I look at it more like extending democracy to include the workplace and the economy.

As for what that means exactly, I don't have a good answer for you. I'm trying to find answers myself. Maybe every business needs to be a worker-owned co-op. Maybe we should have a "National fund" that replaces private banks and investments in which every member of society would have equal ownership of. Maybe we should all live in communes in the woods.

I guess I should explain why I think this is even necessary. If the only issue was poverty, we could probably just make do with the social-democratic, Scandinavian style economy. However, to really challenge climate change and automation I think we might need more radical solutions.

As far as the Scandinavian countries, I'd agree that they're operating well. However, like you said, they aren't socialist. They're strong market economies with social safety nets layered on top. They're also very homogeneous, and smaller population-wise than the US, making those social programs easier to implement, fund, and maintain.

"I don't think that socialism has to mean large-centralized government. I look at it more like extending democracy to include the workplace and the economy."

And therein lies the problem. It seems nobody can agree on what socialism actually means these days. I think it does necessitate state control of the economy by definition, like the USSR back in the day or Venezuela more recently. That's more in line with what Marx originally advocated for and how a lot of countries have tried to implement it.

However, if we scrap that definition, then it's anybody's guess. I have no problem with socialism on a small scale - by all means, start a co-op or go live in a commune. As long as it's your choice to do so. My problem with large-scale socialism is that it's "an idea so good, it's mandatory." There's no "opt-out" when the government seizes control of the economy under the guise of promoting equality. So that's what I worry about when people promote socialism. Like you said, there's a fear of authoritarianism in any system, but I can't help but notice socialist countries are historically much more likely to become despotic dictatorships than capitalist countries are.

In terms of combating climate change and automation, that's a much broader issue for sure. But I'm optimistic that modifying our current system can help rather than overhauling it completely with an ideology that has proven so difficult to successfully implement.

"My point is that people ignore the ugly history of capitalism but only want to talk about the ugly side of socialism."

I think that's because people tend to blame the uglyof capitalism on particular businesses, like Triangle Shirtwaist, or individuals like the golden age robber barons, without considering them as components of a whole flawed system.

On the other hand, socialist systems get treated as flaws in the entire system. Yes, the governments have more control, but the ugly parts of capitalist systems also come about due to government action or inaction.

Counterfactuals are difficult, but surely you'd agree that the Triangle Trade was important to the economies that actually ended up leading the Industrial Revolution.

Although I have not read it, I think Eric Williams's Capitalism and Slavery is an influential work well known for forcefully arguing for a link between the eponymous phenomena (of course not everyone agrees with its claims).

Of course it was important, but I disagree that the system depended on it to maintain its very existence. If slavery didn't happen, the market still would have evolved around that fact. Capitalism would still exist, just with higher labor costs. Maybe cotton prices would have been a little higher as a result, and maybe the industrial revolution wouldn't have happened as quickly. Still would've happened though. I don't see much evidence to suggest otherwise, but I'll have to check out that book and see if the arguments are any good.

Capitalism flourished in the parts of the US that did _not_ rely on slave labor and it won out.

Even in the North and even in the late antebellum period, the two economies were intertwined and, for instance, Northern insurers were insuring Southern slaves, and Northern textile mills were spinning slave-picked Southern cotton.

Isn't this a rather classic "whataboutism"? I don't think anybody here (not me, certainly) is arguing that capitalism is perfect and without a single flaw. But nevertheless any real-world implementations of socialism always ended up being far worse than of capitalism. And communists never were particularly shy about using slave labor or genociding people either.

There is a reason why that anti-socialist rhetoric exists.

Exactly. Almost like it's a problem with the fundamentals of the system itself.

Interestingly, it is always assumed that problems with capitalism are systemic, but communism... they just didn't try quite right.

I'm not a fan of the argument that since the Soviet Union and its derivative states (including China) failed that there is no way to accomplish that Marxist utopic vision or that any variation on socialism has to fail.

Russia was the only real attempt. The 1917 revolution was about it, and then the coup by Stalin to overthrow Lenin and Trotsky threw out any shred of attempt to reach any kind of utopia and just turned the country into a dictatorship with a globalist coat of paint.

Russia itself can absolutely be used as an example of the failings of Marxism and Communism, but I don't think any other country can, for the sole reason that once the Soviet Union was established and the Cold War underway neither side was going to let an ideological uprising happen anywhere on Earth in isolation. Every single socialist / communist state from the Eastern Bloc countries that were conquered by Russia to puppet states in the Middle East to sponsored uprisings in South America and Southeast Asia were all done with Soviet support to create Stalin style dictatorships. I don't think for a second that Mao ever thought China would become some stateless utopia where everyone owns everything in public. Mao took power to be a king, in the same way Fidel did, in the same way Kim Il Sung did. And they all did it with Soviet support financially and militarily.

The US were well documented kingmakers in that era too. It is why most of the Middle East has such deeply instilled hatred of the US that they are willing to give their lives to attack the US. The difference is that the Soviets demanded loyalty by labeling yourself a Peoples Republic and modeling your government after Stalin's - the US just wanted puppet states that did what the US said, be they democratic or totalitarian, it didn't really matter to Washington.

But that isn't something that is going to change, either. Revolutions without foreign support always degrade into dictatorships to fill power vacuums when the unorganized hoard of revolutionaries dissipates - France, Russia, and more recently Egypt all demonstrate what happens in those circumstances. The US had a successful revolution only because it was the elite casting off a foreign power with the support of another, and without Frances help or the support of the American aristocracy the US would have never been founded. Internal wars for revolution fail, revolutions without international support fail, and new governments post-revolution that are too "different" from the global status quo also fail because the world powers will cut you off if you don't play by their rules in international trade. And you can be sure almost every government on Earth today with few exceptions function and exist with the blessings of the United States. If anyone tried to overthrow those "for the people" like the Iranian people did to their Shah you can bet the US will have nothing nice to say about the pursuit of liberty if its against American economic interests.

So no, communism doesn't work, but its not because of some tautology that you can never reach this post-state utopia, but more because nobody can change their government in isolation - the influence of foreign actors will always either push you towards their favored ideology or sabotage your attempt. The world is too interconnected now for an upstart band of ideologues to depose the king and try something new.

I see what you're saying, and you're right that foreign influence is a big factor, but I'd still argue that the failure of the USSR shows a major flaw in the system, and that is that it is easily exploited by despots. I made a similar point in another comment so I'll just link it rather than copy/paste it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16689969

It's a fair point, but there were quite a few countries (starting with China) that that refused Soviet influence (often, because they considered it not sufficiently communist) and went their own way. They didn't succeed at building the workers' paradise any better than USSR did.

Communism does (well, can...) work just fine. Just not with the actual, real people that exist in this world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com