Can we make socialism work? [audio] | Hacker News Reader

Can we make socialism work? [audio]

anchor.fm

On reading Graeber’s The Dawn of Everthing, it becomes clear that “we” (humanity in most places we’ve lived on earth) have made what approximates socialism (broadly construed), work, at scale, for probably most of our existence. In addition to many other forms of society. The question is more what do we need to make work to prevent a catastrophic extinction event for our species? We can probably make anything work that we need to.

I'm reading that Graeber book now, it's good. I enjoyed his Debt book too.

I recommend "Ministry for the Future" by Kim Stanley Robinson as a specific attempt to answer the question "what do we need to make work to prevent a catastrophic extinction event for our species." Whether what KSR describes is actually realistic is something you'll have to decide for yourself.

At scale? For most of our existence, we haven't been at scale - or at least, not at what we today would consider "at scale".

Does that matter? I think it may. I think that you plausibly may not be able to scale socialism above some multiple of Dunbar's Number.

For much of our existence, primitive human groups operated on something more like a gift economy rather than socialism. Those systems are quite different both in theory and practice.

Examples of socialism working, where working is defined as performing stably and accomplishing at least some of its intended goals:

- Norwegian and Texan state resource wealth being used to fund the welfare state. (Texas only has welfare for the middle class via educational funding. When the state funds education, that's socialism, even if you like educational funding.)

- National healthcare systems in most wealthy places except for America. They could be better, but they could be worse too.

- Cuba, which is a poor country but is not experiencing the kind of total collapse that the decline and fall of the Soviet Union made us expect out of every socialist country.

Cuba - given its position, climate, etc - should be absolutely thriving. What you're seeing there is a collapse, it has just reached its bottom (and there's no crazy politician who wants to build a huge ass rocket - yet).

The same argument could be applied to all of my examples, I think they all have people who argue that their current states are worse than they could be. That's why I defined "working" as "functioning" not "as good as it could be," or even "well-managed."

No, that's absolutely incomparable. Cuba is a shithole from hell comparable only to places such as North Korea, Bolivia or Venezuela (coincidentally also socialist states, huh), none of the other places are.

What about Cuba gives you the impression it is functioning, unless your definition of functioning is anything above mass starvation and homelessness?

In a world with (and a history of) many countries full of mass starvation and homelessness, my definition of functioning is anything above mass starvation and homelessness.

Fair enough, though that's an extremely low bar in the modern world.

Cuba - given it is not embargoed by one of the biggest economies of the world that is close to it as well.

The rest of the world doesn't have such problem, I wonder why... Might have something to do with the crazy socialist politicians putting Soviet nukes there, perhaps?

I didn’t say it wasn’t vindicated in doing so, but you ain’t measuring two programs relative performance by running one on a beefy machine and the other on an emulator either. Just don’t conclude more from it than you can.

But this stuff doesn't really happen in free democracies, does it? We're comparing socialism to other systems and this is a feature of socialism (as proven by the other crazy socialist states, it's not just Cuba) - that makes it a part of the equation.

Most of your examples are _not_ socialism, but social democracy. Please stop conflating those two terms.

Democratic socialism is a type of socialism. That is like saying, "Oaks are not trees, but deciduous trees."

Just swapping the two terms around does not mean the same thing. "Democratic socialism" is socialism. "Social democracy" is still capitalistic with an expanded role of the state. Go educate yourself.

The people who got most of the UK social programs started in the 1900s called themselves democratic socialists, not social democrats. I am not sure when the terminology you are describing was introduced, but it is not universal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society

I think socialism by definition forbids private ownership of capital. So countries that allow for private capital (which is most countries) are not socialist. North Korea does not allow private ownership of capital, so they certainly qualify as purely socialist. I believe Laos is similar. Same with Cuba.

China is interesting in that they used to be socialist, and have since transitioned in recent decades to a sort of state capitalism. There are still heavy restrictions on private capital in that you can own it, provided it's in partnership with the state (to some extent). See Jack Ma and his issues with Ali Baba as an example.

I consider myself a libertarian with two exceptions: public education and healthcare as a fail-safe. Maybe a mixed system using vouchers would be even better, not sure. But from a practical perspective, I think they work better than the opposite options.

So we can more or less agree on these parts. But please, the Cuba example is nuts.

>But please, the Cuba example is nuts.

I think you're asking for a definition of functioning that is above what reality can offer. In Cuba, the government controls agriculture, and there isn't any mass starvation right now. That's a functioning system, at least - not every communist government can avoid mass starvation, and in fact most of them have periods of it.

Everyone thinks it's a good idea and on paper it seems fine, however any time you centralize economic decision making you're basically inviting corruption. And even if you somehow avoid that, what's good for the majority often tramples the rights of minorities.

Capitalism has its downsides but "capitalism" is also basically just economic freedom, and 10/10 times I'll choose freedom over some bureaucrat making decisions that affect me.

> Everyone thinks it's a good idea and on paper it seems fine, however any time you centralize economic decision making

That's not required for socialism, right?

It's literally the defining feature of socialism...

What is China?

My understanding is that socialism is primarily about public rather than private ownership. And that centralization of market planning varies in different regimes.

It may be a sufficient condition but it is not a necessary one.

Public ownership = centralized ownership = centralized decision making.

If you can't own anything individually you can't make economic decisions individually.

It's like having a million business partners all with equal voting shares but in every aspect of your life.

Left unanswered is: What is China?

China seems to manage largely-decentralized decision-making in a socialist society.

There are exceptions, of course, as Jack Ma is finding out, but then, there seems to be more exceptions in the USA right now, as oligarchs are leveraging their wealth in obscene ways.

> "as oligarchs are leveraging their wealth in obscene ways."

Which US oligarchs are you talking about and what obscene things are they doing?

> China seems to manage largely-decentralized decision-making in a socialist society.

Is this the same China where the CCP issues 5 year plans that dictate what the entire country is going to work towards, and the state owned enterprises that control most of the economy execute on those plans?

>Left unanswered is: What is China?

State capitalism.

China is socialism but allows a certain amount of private enterprise. They still have 5 year plans as pointed out, still have state-controlled enterprises and still maintain a large degree of control over private business.

It would probably be more accurate to label China as a fascist or corporatist state. There are elements of socialism (as well as capitalism) but it isn't the primary policy focus. Look at their actions rather than words.

the problem is the argument seems to devolve into socialism versus capitalism which is ridiculous because most economies are mixed. is a mixed economy socialist? or capitalist? capitalism could look pretty awful as well. If you can buy anything murder for hire etc. Then I would argue against that.

i agree, I wonder how the world will change once we are able to reprogram human nature through CRISPR DNA editing

Pointing out the corruption inherent when power is available is always a valuable thing, but socialism arguably would be suboptimal even if you make the impossible assumption that all humans are saints who are genuinely seeking the best possible outcome for their fellow man.

The Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises wrote an essay in 1920 called "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" which made the argument that without market pricing, rational economic calculation is impossible. To give an example: say that you had a plot of land to develop in a hypothetical city and wanted to do the best possible thing for the people with zero corruption. How can you know if building a hospital, a school, a factory, a mine, a shopping mall, new housing, a public park, a museum, or a farm is the best possible thing for the people? Those are all things that some people might see a need for. Without market pricing, you have no way of truly knowing what is valued more and what's the best use of a limited resource. Even if you democratically tried to decide in a genuinely fair way with informed citizens, there's no way to actually determine what is more valuable under a socialist system.

To give the other point of view, this is somewhat of a debate and this idea has been challenged in various ways, see the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_calculation_debate

Personally I think the best argument against the calculation problem is that you can say that socialism merely tends to be inefficient compared to capitalism. However, I'd make the followup point that the system we have now is arguably not capitalism, but state corporatism. Winners/Losers in the marketplace tend to be determined more by lobbyists, lawyers, and corrupt politicians rather than through genuine open competition.

but market pricing is skewed if Bill Gates decides to turn the whole city into a giant statue of him don't see how that's the best use for that plot of land.

Hypothetically, socialism could solve the problem of allocation of resources by throwing enough smart people at the problem.

To me the corruption potential (which has been realized everytime socialism has been implemented) is the main argument against.

> socialism could solve the problem of allocation of resources by throwing enough smart people at the problem

As I interpret the calculation problem, the unfortunate reality is that this isn't a case where you just have some complicated math problems that you could throw enough geniuses and computers at and could somehow come pretty close to solving. The problem according to this idea is that without market pricing, there's no basis for comparison even theoretically possible. In light of many competing societal needs, you have no clue if you're directing too many resources to produce orange juice or not directing enough resources to build tools. Resources are misallocated in a complex world and everything eventually grinds down.

I believe that one strategy the Soviet system tried in part to deal with the calculation problem was actually acquiring shopping catalogues from the West to try and use their market pricing as a calculation system.

One thing I think that Star Trek gets right is that socialism might work to produce a near-utopia if you have technology that produces near infinite matter and energy for close to free.

I am absolutely not knowledgeable enough on the problem, but other than a company calculating a crude price for e.g. a hospital — that will generally over or undervalue it by a lot (like I don’t even know how many public tenders are won by a company in Hungary, only to increase the price 10-100 folds and the promised timeframe by 3-10 times. This way legitimate companies with more correct pricing loose at the tender already, while these corrupt ones can do this indefinitely leeching on our money (and our stupidity to vote for this corrupt party yet over again))

In a very idealistic system they can may know the availability of concrete, of this specific tool, etc. And we can’t ever know whether an alternative building in its place would have been better — like that doesn’t happen under capitalism either.

but alot of markets end up just monopolies or oligopolies. It's hard to look at most market and call those free markets. So, doesn't really matter if there's no choice for the consumer whether its run by the government or a private company bent of extracting as much as possible from the market.

Ignoring that this can be addressed through regulation, would you rather have limited choice between private companies or a single entity that mandates what you'll choose whether you like it or not and also can use force to enforce their mandates?

> Ignoring that this can be addressed through regulation

That's just

> basically inviting corruption

with extra steps ;)

As opposed to inviting it without the extra steps under socialism?

Socialism is not a dictatorship, those are fundamentally different axes. A democratic society can vote to elect a socialist party and mandate them to create multiple competing companies in a given small market segment, for example.

But the fundamental incentives of a company under this ideal socialism are much better. Like a very crude example, other than the reason to avoid very strict regulations, why wouldn’t a food company put cocaine into their product? They have the incentive to make their buyers addicted - while a government run company can be given different goals to optimize for - e.g. the health of a population measured in some way.

> Socialism is not a dictatorship, those are fundamentally different axes. A democratic society can vote to elect a socialist party and mandate them to create multiple competing companies in a given small market segment, for example.

Has anything like this ever happened in practice?

> But the fundamental incentives of a company under this ideal socialism are much better.

Socialism in a theoretical, ideal world would be great. We don't live in one currently, which is probably one reason why every single attempt at socialism/communism has failed.

> Like a very crude example, other than the reason to avoid very strict regulations, why wouldn’t a food company put cocaine into their product? They have the incentive to make their buyers addicted - while a government run company can be given different goals to optimize for - e.g. the health of a population measured in some way.

For one, people wouldn't choose the food with an addictive substance once it was known what the company was doing, plus most companies (and the individuals that run them) actually have morals and values that don't involve poisoning their customers.

> And even if you somehow avoid that, what's good for the majority often tramples the rights of minorities.

That part is not economy-related, so I really don’t see how is it different than under capitalism. It all depends on the democracy axis, and how well minorities are represented.

At the end of the day, capitalism is a pluralistic concept that can contain a number of conflicting ideas and still function. Whatever your flavor of socialism - they generally rely on everyone agreeing on a particular vision.

Your ideas can be cool or fair, but if they are not anti-fragile they will not persist.

What a weirdly US-centric question.

Working just fine in the Nordic countries. For those ready to argue they are not purely socialist, you're confusing socialism with communism.

Socialism is defined as the means of production owned by the state. So the Nordics aren't socialist by the classical definition. Welfare state or social democracy are better terms.

But whatever you call it, I want it.

Owned or controlled by the state. You can have socialism without state ownership if the state has sufficient control. (And that means that socialism isn't binary - you can have degrees of state control.)

Ikea et al aren't controlled by the state any more than American corporations are controlled by the US government.

No. The Nordic countries all have market economies.

dictionary.com: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.

merriam-webster.com: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: Political system in which the (major) means of production are not in private or institutional hands, but under social control.

Wikipedia (just for the heck of it): Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3][4] of the means of production,[5][6][7][8] as opposed to private ownership.

I'm not "confusing socialism with communism". You're confusing "market economy with high levels of government spending" with "socialism".

Although, in many aspects the Nordics often have more "free market" behaviours than the US. I am surprised by how many services are privatized (2/3 of roads in Sweden are privately operated!). And they face less arbitrary import restrictions!

And ease of doing business isn't any less in these countries: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IC.BUS.EASE.XQ?most_rec...

The problem is the choice seems to be oiligarchs or socialism. either way the average person loses.

would you rather be the average Joe in capitalism or socialism?

European or Soviet?

European socialism? There is none.

Capitalism, no question.

Well, you don't generally see doctors and engineers in Miami building rafts out of styrofoam-filled trash bags and crossing shark-infested, hurricane-prone waters because they'd rather be a busboy in Havana.

That and liberal democracy, minor fkin details. Let's just forget the lessons of the last three hundred years?

Democracy is orthogonal to socialism. The one says how you choose the government; the other says what the government's modus operandi is.

Even in the current flawed system of capitalism, the top 20% are doing pretty great and the bottom 80% have a very slow rising tide. What does that look life for communism, 1% doing great and 99% barely surviving?

Can we do better? A lot better. Is communism the way? God no. Now if you tell me America needs to reevaluate is social spending and priorities, I am totally on board.

> the bottom 80% have a very slow rising tide.

Obviously "rising tide" has many meanings, but:

In the US, the poverty rate has remained fairly consistent since about 1970. Purchasing power has remained stagnant since about the same time.

That's my whole point this entire conversation about capitalism and socialism is a waste of time. It's a distraction designed to pit people against each other that probably agree on a lot more then disagree.

> the bottom 80% have a very slow rising tide

This was true until the 1980s in the US. I remember a very popular national politician showing that it wasn't true that the poor were getting poorer, they were just getting richer at a much slower rate.

Then, in his eight years in office, he oversaw a shift so that now the poor are actually getting poorer, while the rich are getting richer at a far faster rate than they were.

Also, nobody mentioned communism but you. The subject under discussion was socialism.

No, we can't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com