Comment by mytailorisrich | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mytailorisrich | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> People really need to give up the cold war, the failures of "end of history" thinking are directly related to all of the economic problems we have today.

That's irrelevant to the point.

The 1980s did settle the capitalism vs. socialism debate. The USSR and, perhaps more consequentially, China effectively abandonned socialism because it failed and acknowledged that capitalism, free enterprise, and the free market was what worked.

The "end of history" is the belief (proved wrong if not naively wrong from the start) that this would lead to everyone being "friends" under a Western-style liberal democracy.

> We could do - have done - much worse than implementing some good sense social safety net measures.

I don't understand what you are getting at unless you consider that socialism = "social safety net measures", which it isn't but, as mentioned, it seems that many in the US think it is...

Reading the comments it does seem that many don't understand the meaning of "socialism" (or seem to think that the passing of time somehow changes things) even on HN so polls to the general public are completely meaningless. But ask people if the prefer to live in North America or Western Europe vs Eastern Europe/China pre-80s and you'll get a much clearer picture of what the real sentiment is... East Germany had to build a wall to keep people IN, after all.

China doubled down, what on earth are you talking about? Every major corporation in China has a party member in a position of power to direct what the company does. And many of them have state ownership.

https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/reassessing-role...

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/arc-of-the-chinese-...

Which isn't what any socialist would call socialism. But it is what many capitalists would call socialism.

Common ownership of the means of production is what I call socialism.

Public welfare isn't technically part of it, but it's hard to imagine a state where we don't have it if power is at all evenly distributed.

Central planning is orthogonal to the whole thing... credit institutions and corporations do a hell of a lot of centralized planning.

State ownership of many companies is not the same as socialism.

China has state capitalism and private capitalist enterprises, and free enterprise with robust free markets overall. These are the main reforms that allowed it to thrive after the catastrophe of socialism under Mao. Even basic stuff like farmers being allowed to sell surplus freely for profit and at market prices only became allowed in 1978.

China now has the second largest number of millionaires in USD after the US.

State ownership of companies is LITERALLY the definition of socialism.

> 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.

State ownership of all companies, yes, that's one implementation of socialism though not "literally the definition". But obviously this isn't how China is now and even state-owned companies in China generally operate in a market and can be in competition with private companies and other state-owned companies. In fact the Chinese eoconomy is probably more competitive that in the West now, it is fierce competition for profit with generally free enterprise.

There are state-owned companies in all Western countries, by the way.

I don't think that you are familiar with the history and economy of China.

No, not all. I can only assume you've never even taken an entry level poli sci course, because socialism has never required COMPLETE ownership by the state. Furthermore, as I linked previously, in China it is north of 70% ownership by the state.

>But obviously this isn't how China is now and even state-owned companies in China generally operate in a market and can be in competition with private companies and other state-owned companies.

"Compete's in a market" is irrelevant to socialism. Again, basic poli sci, socialism encompasses both free market and captured market. What makes it socialism is government ownership of the means of production, with redistribution to the general populace.

>There are state-owned companies in all Western countries, by the way.

Right, and which western "capitalist" society has state ownerhsip of 70%+ of the "private" companies that make up its economy? Correct, 0. Socialism has never required the state to own all business in a given economy anymore than capitalism has required 0 ownership.

Well, I think you've proven my point...

> because socialism has never required COMPLETE ownership by the state

Sure, it's only complete ownership by the workers.

> What makes it socialism is government ownership of the means of production, with redistribution to the general populace.

Well, then China is not socialist. QED. (and again, owenership by the workers, not necessarily thet state)

I would advise you, in good faith and friendship, to visit China one day. It's a free market capitalist dream in day to day life.

> unless you consider that socialism = "social safety net measures", which it isn't

I agree with you that socialism, properly understood, ought to mean something much broader than a social safety net. But not everyone sees it this way.

In my experience, a lot of Americans really do equate social security and welfare as socialism. Or even public education, never mind anything remotely resembling universal healthcare. These people believe that taxation is theft and they're vocal about expressing it. This used to be fringe, but it's a major political movement.

Young Americans have grown up in an environment where anything publicly beneficial is painted as "socialist" by one of the major political parties. Many of them have taken the message to heart.

socialism = "social safety net measures", which it isn't but, as mentioned, it seems that many in the US think it is...

They think "Social Democracy", not pure "Socialism".

But the Right will equate one with the other to pretend the left are communists.

The USSR had nothing to do with socialism (it was a feudal dictatorship) and it's debatable whether China is now capitalist.

I quite regularly read weird characterizations of the USSR, but 'feudal dictatorship'?

  > capitalism vs. socialism

One thing I learned from observing the Americans is how tainted the concept of socialism has become in their discourse. I have a hunch there has been some cultural engineering behind this, but reasons aside, the confusion is unfortunate.

I learned that when an American talks about socialism, they usually mean communism and often the accompanying dictatorships that enable this oppressive system. Meanwhile, the social-democratic countries score high on measures of democracy, rule of law, human rights, regulation contra anti-competitive practices, consumer protection, environment protection, etc.

It is also important to understand what capitalism means. The theory assumes free markets, but that requires an enforcer that breaks up monopolies and upholds rules for competition. Lots of cognitive dissonance there for people calling themselves capitalists while at the same time screaming against intervention, but those rather should call themselves libertarians.

> I have a hunch there has been some cultural engineering behind this, but reasons aside, the confusion is unfortunate.

Yes, it's literally the result of decades of CIA Cold War propaganda, often using conservative Christianity and preachers like Billy Graham (who was funded by the CIA) to scare people into believing communism was literally satanic in nature. Most of American pop culture, media culture and even most subcultures from the 1950s onward were funded by the CIA, if not outright psyops. Americans are more controlled than North Koreans and they don't even realize it.

  > believing communism was literally satanic in nature.

Well, he might have had some point there. The repression against the church was real and heavy in the Russian occupied territories. Especially the youth was targeted, membership of a christian youth organization was enough reason to fire you, to block you from pursuing an education or anything else to participate in society, with lasting consequences. To this day and age, the former DDR (controlled by the Russians) has left its legacy in vastly higher figures in atheism. The barbarism, cruelty and contempt for humans by both communist China and Russia have managed to surpass even the nazi's, and we don't want either of these systems ever on this planet again.

  > Americans are more controlled than North Koreans and they don't even realize it.

I assume you mean that as hyperbole. Yes, the cultural engineering is heavy, and understandably, people are not aware of it, but North Korea is in an entirely different league.

>Meanwhile, the social-democratic countries...

Which don't have anything in common with socialist countries.

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/denmark-tells-...

In my country, no socialist is calling for abandoning the market economy. There are like 14 confused teenagers however, who call themselves communists. The various socialists might give different answers about the question of what things are the responsibility for the government, like public transport.

Lots of social democratic parties are united in the Socialist International.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com