Hacker News Reader

Comment by bbddg | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

"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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com