You’re just observing how capitalism works. It’s why some of us would prefer rationally and democratically planned production motivated by needs.
Actually, recently I've been thinking that our legalistic attitude towards a lot of these problems is actually the core issue. "It's legal so therefore we can do it". Well, okay, but that doesn't mean it's ethical. On the other hand we also don't want a government that can make arbitrary decisions on what is or isn't "ethical", but I do think a lot of problems could be solved if we would just focus more on what "the right thing" would be rather on that what is legal by the letter of the law. This is a thought I only had the other day and haven't fully fleshed out my thoughts on this yet though.
What you're describing sounds like "democratic communism", and that didn't really work out especially well in the past. A lot of communist countries started out with democratic aspirations; "any country with the word democratic in the name isn't democratic" is an old joke, but it's also true.
Even if we manage to avoid the "tyrant problem" we're still left with a central planning that may not necessarily make the best decisions, and I'm not so confident that any democratic controls we put in place would correct for that. A significant amount of China's problems in the 50s-70s for example weren't out of sheer tyrannical malice like in Stalinist Russia, but just gross incompetence of the leadership. Not a "democratically planned" economy, granted, but still an important lesson to heed IMHO: when a centrally planned economy screw up the effects can be disastrous.
A lot of what is commonly believed about socialist countries is in fact propaganda by capitalists. Most of the actual problems were and are caused by being under constant siege by capitalist countries.
Socialism is the process of the working class gaining state power and overthrowing the capitalist class. There will still be contradictions and problems, but with planning we at least have a chance to solve them. Leaving it up to markets or the dictatorship of a few capitalists is admitting defeat from the start.
The way I'm reading this is that the problems in Stalin Russia, Maoist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, North-Korea, etc. was/is caused by capitalist countries. And while these were "the worst of it", the practical implementations in many other countries wasn't exactly great either. I don't know of a single example where it worked well, and that's not for lack of trying.
I'm not sure if this is what you meant. It would help being a bit more concrete.
The USSR was actually very successful, especially during Stalin’s time. It went from a semi-feudal country to defeating the Nazis and into space. Eventually it lost the Cold War to the capitalist countries, through infiltration and direct aggression.
All of Eastern Europe was similarly quite successful compared to the conditions from which each country started. Merely ending the periodic environmental famines through industrialisation and collectivisation was a remarkable achievement. My grandparents and parents describe astonishing change in very few years and better conditions overall than today.
China started from an even less developed stage and industrialised very quickly. The material condition of most workers improved greatly, despite the limits imposed by capitalist countries. Later on, other concessions were made so capitalists would no longer block trade and development. And yet the working class is still in control of the state, as we’ve seen during COVID when the state took more direct control of the economy to save lives at the expense of profits.
The DPRK was bombed to an incredible degree by the US, which is still officially at war with it. Despite an almost complete blockade and even losing its socialist trading partners, it persists and to a small extent prospers. Cuba is in a similar position, doing remarkably well despite capitalist aggression.
Vietnam also developed remarkably quickly, despite occupation and a devastating war. Like China, it made concessions to capitalists in order to develop, while workers retain state power as a class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet...
Curious definition of "success".
Guess that must all be "propaganda" too.
You could also talk to older people in Eastern Europe like I have, their experience doesn’t match such exaggerations.
That’s...true, but not in the way you seem to intend it. The focus on regimes espousing Leninism and its descendants to typify “socialist countries” as opposed to those following what Marx described (and objected to, but Marx doesn't encompass socialism any more than Lenin does) as “bourgeois socialism” and “democratic socialism” is a pretty big problem, especially when dismissing Western socialist movements, which are mostly in those categories, not Leninism or its derivatives.
Lenin expanded on Marx, but did not reject his work.