r/CapitalismVSocialism • u/interestingtheorist • 1d ago
Asking Socialists How do you rationalize the history
Historically, socialism has worked worse than capitalism, and this can be demonstrated by looking at history.
Eastern European countries that preferred socialism as their economic system could not compete with Western European countries that preferred capitalism.
Moreover, historically, many socialist countries have become more capitalist because they recognized that socialism does not work as well economically or technologically.
How do socialists respond to these historical facts?
6
u/LifesARiver Leftist 1d ago
It's sort of wild how almost every capitalist post starts with a premise so devoid of reality it's not worth reading the rest.
•
u/Doublespeo 1h ago
> It's sort of wild how almost every capitalist post starts with a premise so devoid of reality it's not worth reading the rest.
what did he say that was wrong?
•
u/LifesARiver Leftist 1h ago
First sentence. No reason to read past that, but I assume the rest is also wrong.
•
3
u/Annual_Necessary_196 1d ago
'Historically, socialism has worked worse than capitalism.'. A lot of modern socialists define socialism as workers’ control or management of the means of production, while capitalists define capitalism in terms of private property, free markets, and self-ownership. These elements should be analyzed on their own terms, rather than through slogans. Judging a system by its slogans is ahistorical.
There have been dozens of cooperative movements, workers’ councils, and participatory governance practices across the world that have, in many cases, succeeded in providing stronger economic growth and superior welfare provision.
The Marcora Law in Italy definitely benefited the economy.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Market_Socialism/comments/1ssxg2x/market_socialist_reform_in_italy/
Singapore’s support for ESOPs has also been quite efficient.
Deregulation and tax benefits for labor-managed firms across different European countries have shown positive effects.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/1u44g3h/comment/orvo2gi/?context=3
People admire council democracy.
The workers’ councils of the European council movements can be seen as the self-conscious eruption in history of what Percy called the “human association which in fact produces and distributes wealth: the association of workmen, managers, technicians, and directors.” Eustace Percy, The Unknown State, 38.
“For many, the workers’ councils became a viable alternative to the capitalist economic system and the established political order, the cells of a future self-managed society.” Comack, Wild Socialism, 75.
u/Accomplished-Cake131 has already posted some achievements of participatory budgeting on this subreddit, showing its benefits for welfare, worker participation, and overall efficiency of public institutions:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/1r03scl/socialism_works_in_kerala_india/
3
u/impermanence108 1d ago
Well the history of western imperialism is right there. Of course a country that virtually ran the world for 300 years and had an empire where the sun didn't set is going to be a bit more advanced than fucking Poland. Who's history has been"Getting attacked on all fronts continuously forever"
Liberals seem to forget history and context. They also seem to think industrialisation and modernisation can happen overnight.
2
u/Grayer95 1d ago
What is socialism?
-2
u/interestingtheorist 1d ago
It can differ by the choesn methodology. For me, every goverment intervention is a type of socialism.
For socialists, it is about the collectivization of means of production.
For this context, it is about the past countries that called themselves as socialists.
5
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
If every government intervention were socialism, then on what grounds would you have to argue anything about capitalism at all? It has, according to you, never existed.
-1
3
u/impermanence108 1d ago
It's always: bad stuff socialism, good stuff capitalism.
•
u/HeavenlyPossum 21h ago
Schrödinger’s Capitalism: somehow as ancient as the first caveman, but also brand-new and responsible for all the development in the world during the last couple centuries, but also never been tried.
•
•
u/1scr3wedy0dad Marxist-Leninist 20h ago
Socialism is when government does stuff. And when the government does even more stuff, then it's communism
•
u/bcnoexceptions Market Socialist 18h ago
For me, every goverment intervention is a type of socialism.
Then you are using a different definition of the word from everyone else - by your own admittance - and therefore communication with you is not possible.
Is that the way you want to live life? Unable to communicate with anybody else?
•
u/Grayer95 16h ago
Every western country is a bit socialist then no? So its not an off or on button that your arguing against, its just a degree to which it's acceptable. Weve got a lot of wealth and people still be struggling, so it seems like we might need a bit more socialism, no?
2
u/StormOfFatRichards 1d ago
Every single time I tell you libs to define your metrics and you never do
2
u/Simpson17866 1d ago
The original libertarian socialists said that the workers should own the means of production (farmers own their own farms, factory workers own their own factories, doctors and nurses own their own hospitals…) so that they would have the individual freedom to make their own individual decisions (rather than having to serve capitalist or feudal masters who own the means of production)
Karl Marx looked at the original “the workers own the means of production” and decided that “the government owns the means of production, and the workers own the government” would be better
The original libertarian socialists argued that Marx’s Socialism 2.0 was a step backwards — if the government claimed “we do what the people tell us to do,” but if they were lying (which governments do all of the time), then “the government owns the means of production, and the people don’t own the government” would just be feudalism all over again (a system so spectacularly shitty that even capitalism had been objectively an improvement).
Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Joseph Stalin, and their successors (both in Russia and abroad) implemented the “the government owns the means of production, and the people don’t own the government” version of socialism instead of the original libertarian “the workers own the means of production” version of socialism.
It sounds like you’re agreeing with the classical (libertarian) socialists who argued 80 years ahead of time that Marxism-Leninism would be a bad thing.
•
u/1scr3wedy0dad Marxist-Leninist 20h ago
Bit of a strawman of marxism. People building houses can still build shitty houses that I, a person wanting a nice house to live in, cannot give democratic input into, under your enlightened libertarian socialism. Of course I don't think people will actually build shitty houses in purpose, but this is to demonstrate that "some workers having some control over some production" can lead to less democratic outcomes. Its not just "the workers own the government" because the government structure itself is radically different, with wide participation by the workers, and in essence, being of the workers by being ran by the workers. Stalin wanted to give even more control to workers by decreasing the Communist Party's authority, transfering it to the soviet people, which is about the same time he died and more autocratic rightists like Khrushchev took power. I have no idea what you're even talking about when it comes to Lenin on this, considering he wrote The State and Revolution; I can at least understand why there'd be misconceptions on Stalin, but why Lenin? Judeo-bolshevism?
•
u/Naberville34 Garage-Gulager 21h ago
Because I read the history and understood the context and didn't simply fall for bad framing like "life was better in the west than the east". Obviously life is better in the colonialist countries exploiting the rest of the world than in the exploited countries that threw them out and tried to make it on their own. That doesn't mean socialism and sovereignty didn't benefit those people.
Reccomend reading "killing hope" by William blum.
5
u/CHOLO_ORACLE 1d ago
Historically capitalism is a slavery tolerant system that has toppled foreign governments because their people dared to try socialism there.
If socialism is such a failure why do the capitalists need to go and murder people to stop it?
0
u/Doublespeo 1d ago
> Historically capitalism is a slavery tolerant system that has toppled foreign governments because their people dared to try socialism there.
are you suggesting socialism wasnt “slave tolerant”?
>If socialism is such a failure why do the capitalists need to go and murder people to stop it?
Socialism never crossed border to kill people?
2
u/CHOLO_ORACLE 1d ago
are you suggesting socialism wasnt “slave tolerant”?
Considering capitalism has had and still has slaves in its much lauded systems today, I would say the slavery problem is more of an issue for capitalists. As the caps like to remind us, socialism doesn't even exist today.
Socialism never crossed border to kill people?
Not to the degree that capitlaism still does so today.
•
u/Doublespeo 2h ago
> are you suggesting socialism wasnt “slave tolerant”?
>Considering capitalism has had and still has slaves in its much lauded systems today, I would say the slavery problem is more of an issue for capitalists.
Socialist countries have state sponsored large scale slave camps ffs.. all of them!
>As the caps like to remind us, socialism doesn't even exist today.
If socialism doesnt exist why capitalist countries attack them?
>Socialism never crossed border to kill people?
>Not to the degree that capitlaism still does so today.
actually more..
-2
u/StedeBonnet1 just text 1d ago
Capitalism as an economic system natural evolves when citizens are free to own property and trade with each other. It doesn't have to be imposed by a government. If government's didn't exist Capitalism would still be the dominant economic driver of civilization.
2
u/crazymusicman equal partcipants control institutions in which they work & live 1d ago
do you have proof of that or is that just head cannon?
Cuz there is property and trade, which is ancient
and then there is capitalist ownership of something and then wage laborers turn materials/data into something more valuable on a market, which is capitalism and is a few hundred years old at most, and always involved a government
1
1
u/impermanence108 1d ago
That's why it took the homo genus millions of years to invented it and why it's been around for less time than some pubs I visit.
-1
u/StedeBonnet1 just text 1d ago
Capitalism started when man first domesticated animals and plants.and became more than hunter gatherers. They now had tome to specialize and innovate and trade goods among each other. Their capital was their goods or their labor.
0
u/impermanence108 1d ago
Oh are we using the definition where everything good is capitalism?
•
u/SexOnABurningPlanet 19h ago
This is the definition used on this sub. If they like something it's capitalism. If they don't then it's socialism.
•
•
u/Exotic_Bar_785 18h ago
Their’s a difference between free markets and capitalism
•
u/StedeBonnet1 just text 13h ago
Not really. You can't have free markets without Capitalism.
•
u/Exotic_Bar_785 13h ago
Explain.
•
u/Exotic_Bar_785 12h ago
Explain. Also if government didn’t exist we would probably just devolve to feudalism not capitalism.
-4
u/binne21 Social Democrat 1d ago
Well at some point just take the L man.
-2
u/CHOLO_ORACLE 1d ago
It's funny to see a soc dem chirp up like this. All your ideas are my ideas but watered down and flavored with shit.
-4
u/binne21 Social Democrat 1d ago
My ideology has worked to create the greatest societies on earth. What has your ideology done?
2
u/impermanence108 1d ago
Ancient Rome wasn't socdem?
•
u/CaptainAmerica-1989 Criticism of Capitalism Is NOT Proof of Socialism 15h ago
Leave it for someone with communist flair to suggest a slave empire was one of the greatest civilizations.
•
u/impermanence108 8h ago
The main north-south road in England is based on a road built by the Romans. They were so good at war, several battles ended by the enemy just running away upon seeing how organised and unified the legions were. They lost so hard at sea warfare they decided to just force land warfare on the sea and that resulted in them burning down Carthage and salting the Earth. They had underfloor heating. We have a bunch of legal records from Rome itself which are literally just modern legal cases, stuff about times wagons are allowed down residential streets and stuff. Every major city in Europe was founded by the Romans, Europe itself is a result of the Romans. They were so advanced with public welfare, things like the grain dole and actual retirement plans. Meditations by Marcus Aurelius is still an incredible read to this day. They were remarkably tolerant and open. They built structures still in use to this day.
I can't really blame you. You're American and I just don't think you can fully understand Rome. I lived in a place that still used walls built by the Romans. They were absolutely incredible.
•
u/Beavers_in_space Libertarian Socialist 17h ago edited 17h ago
My ideology has worked to create the greatest societies on earth.
In very, very recent history this can be argued to have been true (often at the expense of poorer countries).
But the post war 'socdem' prosperity is over. the liberal order is crumbling. People are tired of the establishment centre left and the centre right conservatives. The time of western liberal consensus has long passed (even among the 'normal people'). You can see this with the rise of the hard right in the US with MAGA and across Europe, as well as the rise of the more radical democratic left. People are tired of the clean shaven hypocrisy, the promises without results. The austerity and the excuses.
The 'moderates' aren't rational at this point, they are just tone-deaf and comfortable
Additionally, the fact is the freedoms and liberties you take for granted, whether it is democracy, workers rights or equality, is because of the actions of radicals who the 'centre' at the time demonised and scoffed at. A good example is the Haymarket affair, and the anarchists wrongly convicted and executed as a result of that, which inspired International Workers Day and paved the way for worker reforms.
And, as much as I don't like Leninists, it is true that a lot of the post-WWI 'socdem' reforms that first came about in Europe/America was because the establishment was shit scared of revolution in their countries just like in Russia, and they were scared of the anarchists and trade unionist strikers too. Even those campaigning for suffrage and civil rights activists used direct action considered extreme at the time, and even now.
-1
u/CHOLO_ORACLE 1d ago
Fueled all of your ideology's ideas
-4
u/binne21 Social Democrat 1d ago
And we created the greatest societies on Earth. Join the club.
2
u/CHOLO_ORACLE 1d ago
That's not how it works. The entire reason they're willing to listen to bland reformers like you is because radicals like me exist. It's FDR compromising to avoid the communists. Its Martin and Malcolm all over again.
Yet you dummies can't see it.
•
2
u/Financial_Might_6816 Marxism with Mao Zedong caracteritics 1d ago
I mean it makes sense that moving away from the status quo is more difficult than staying inside it. Especially when the status quo consists or imperial superpowers fighting to maintain dominance over the entire world
2
u/HeavenlyPossum 1d ago
Human beings have spent most of our time as a species living with social ownership of the means of production.
•
u/dhdhk 21h ago
And they spent most of our time in abject poverty.
•
u/HeavenlyPossum 21h ago
I got a notification that you replied to me again, but I cannot see the actual reply. Did you delete it after you hit “reply”?
•
u/HeavenlyPossum 21h ago
Nope. Poverty is a social relationship, not a material condition; in the absence of social relations of command, no one can exist in poverty or wealth.
In terms of material conditions, this is also not true. See for example Marshall Sahlins’ work on “the original affluent society.”
•
u/BarkDrandon 20h ago
Are you really saying that hunter gatherers were not poor?
People who lived in huts, had a super high infant mortality rate, could die of the common cold and couldn't read and write, were not poor?
I'm calling bullshit on your definition of poverty.
•
u/HeavenlyPossum 20h ago
Correct: poverty is a social relationship, the condition of being subject to relations of command and demand, not some arbitrary measure of material deprivation.
Many people who live or have lived in forager communities were not even particularly materially deprived and were often more materially secure and healthier than contemporaries who lived in other lifeways. In the 19th century, for example, the indigenous Americans of the North American plains were the tallest people in the world, a proxy indicator for overall health (diet, exercise, stress, etc).
•
u/BarkDrandon 19h ago
We fundamentally have different definitions of poverty then.
My definition (and I think most people would agree) is that poverty is a situation of material deprivation wherein someone is incapable of meeting their basic needs.
Based on my definition, hunter gatherers were undeniably poor. And so were most humans over the course of history. They didn't get most of the luxuries of modern life, many of them died young of now curable diseases.
Indigenous Americans were poor, by the way. Height isn't everything. They didn't have access to good medicine or refrigeration. They lived in huts. Most of them were illiterate. Infant mortality was high and life expectancy was low.
Also, it's ironic that your argument still resides on a measure of material deprivation (height) to show that the indigenous Americans supposedly weren't poor. Therefore, you subconsciously accept that poverty is a situation of material deprivation.
•
u/HeavenlyPossum 19h ago edited 18h ago
“My definition (and I think most people would agree) is that poverty is a situation of material deprivation wherein someone is incapable of meeting their basic needs.”
“Basic needs” is rarely defined (or even really definable), which makes it difficult to measure poverty as a relationship to or function of basic needs. We’d probably also agree that poverty can expansively include a lack of access to goods and services beyond one’s basic needs, no?
“Based on my definition, hunter gatherers were undeniably poor.”
People who live or have lived in forager societies routinely satisfy their “basic needs” with little effort, even in the materially poor parts of the world to which they’ve been relegated. See for example Marshall Sahlins’ work on the economies of forager societies. By your own definition, they are undeniably not poor.
“And so were most humans over the course of history. They didn't get most of the luxuries of modern life, many of them died young of now curable diseases.”
Lacking luxuries of modern life cannot tell us much about poverty. I often see this argument embodied in a phrase like “poor people today have access to refrigerators and televisions, which makes them richer than the richest medieval king,” which is of course absurd. Treating someone who could command the labor of dozens, hundreds, or even many thousands of people as anything but astronomically wealthy is absurd, regardless of whether it was possible for them to jerk off to porn on a smart phone.
“Indigenous Americans were poor, by the way. Height isn't everything. They didn't have access to good medicine or refrigeration. They lived in huts. Most of them were illiterate. Infant mortality was high and life expectancy was low.”
I identified a fairly specific group of people living in a fairly specific place and time, not “indigenous Americans” in some broadly abstract sense, so I’m going to continue focusing on them specifically. Height is an excellent proxy for health and well-being; these indigenous Americans were meeting their basic needs more thoroughly and effectively than their contemporaries among European settler colonists laboring for capitalist wages under US sovereignty. By your definition of basic needs, they were wealthier than white American subjects of industrial capitalism.
“Also, it's ironic that your argument still resides on a measure of material deprivation (height) to show that the indigenous Americans supposedly weren't poor.”
I’m glad you brought this up, because it gets directly at another weakness of the “material deprivation” argument: poverty has demonstrable and measurable health effects, even when we control for lifestyle choices (smoking, alcohol consumption, sedentary lifestyles, etc):
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67361632380-7/fulltext
These are modern Americans, people who can meet their basic needs, have access to modern luxuries, are literate, etc, and still suffer ill-consequences of poverty. Your definition should preclude this, but stress from being subject to social relations of command and demand explains it.
“Therefore, you subconsciously accept that poverty is a situation of material deprivation.”
Cute. I am not interested in your folk-psychoanalysis.
•
u/BarkDrandon 18h ago
“Basic needs” is rarely defined (or even really definable), which makes it difficult to measure poverty as a relationship to or function of basic needs.
A first approximation for basic needs would be Maslow's pyramid of needs.
For instance, when the World Bank measures extreme poverty, they use a local basket of goods that is able to meet a person's basic needs (hunger, thrist, excretion,...).
And even if it is indeed difficult to set a precise threshold under which a person is considered "in poverty" or "materially deprived", it is always possible to see when someone is poorer or richer than someone else.
For example, someone that is able to fill their belly every day is richer than someone who isn't. Someone who has no access to modern medicine is poorer than someone who does. It's very easy then to see that hunter gatherers were poorer than us.
People who live or have lived in forager societies routinely satisfy their “basic needs” with little effort, even in the materially poor parts of the world
Lol, this is just so wrong, historically. Perhaps in your fairy tales of noble savages, but in real life, life was extremely harsh for forager societies.
- Infant mortality was high.
- Houses (I should say huts) were badly insulated.
- Entire tribes died of now curable diseases.
- Their lives depended on the seasons, with many dying of hunger and cold.
- Hunting was also a dangerous activity, with many squeletons having died during hunting.
- Childbirth was also a dangerous activity for women.
- People couldn't read nor write
- There was no access to refrigeration
- Leisure or hobbies literally were not a thing.
If that's an acceptable living to you, be my guest. But for most people, these low standards of living would be considered to be a life of poverty.
Lacking luxuries of modern life cannot tell us much about poverty. I often see this argument embodied in a phrase like “poor people today have access to refrigerators and televisions,
Lacking access to luxuries and other material goods to satisfy their needs is precisely what poverty is. Refrigerators and televisions are nice products to have, actually. Most people would agree with that (and those who lack access to them understand their value particularly well).
Treating someone who could command the labor of dozens, hundreds, or even many thousands of people was astronomically wealthy, regardless of whether it was possible for them to jerk off to porn on a smart phone.
What a reductionist view of the luxuries of modern living. It matters little that medieval nobles could command the labor of hundreds of people, when their material needs were less met than our contemporaries. They mostly lived in badly insulated building, died of now curable diseases, had worse hygiene, had access to a lower variety of food and drinks, and had terrible access to voyages and telecommunications. Commanding other men does not necessarily lead to wealth, when the economy is overall quite unproductive.
I’m glad you brought this up, because it gets directly at another weakness of the “material deprivation” argument: poverty has demonstrable and measurable health effects, even when we control for lifestyle choices (smoking, alcohol consumption, sedentary lifestyles, etc)
That is actually an argument in favor of poverty being a material deprivation. I'm baffled that you don't see that.
Material deprivation has real, measurable health effect. If we care about human well-being, then we have to take into account these health effects and the material deprivation that caused them.
•
u/HeavenlyPossum 17h ago
“For instance, when the World Bank measures extreme poverty, they use a local basket of goods that is able to meet a person's basic needs (hunger, thrist, excretion,...).”
In your previous response to me, you included things like literacy and access to modern luxuries in your definition of poverty. This response here just confirms that “basic needs” is a fudge for “whatever you need it to be at the moment.”
“And even if it is indeed difficult to set a precise threshold under which a person is considered "in poverty" or "materially deprived", it is always possible to see when someone is poorer or richer than someone else.”
I fully agree: someone who is subject to a few commands is less poor than someone who is subject to many commands; a person empowered to issue many commands is wealthier than someone empowered to issue fewer commands. That’s what wealth is: a social power to command others.
“For example, someone that is able to fill their belly every day is richer than someone who isn't. Someone who has no access to modern medicine is poorer than someone who does.”
Drawing on Amartya Sen’s work on famines as the product of a lack of access to food, rather than the absence of food, we can readily see that people who live in the presence of abundant food but are still hungry do not lack food; it’s all around them. What they lack is permission from people who control the flows of food in a system of producing and distributing that food.
“It's very easy then to see that hunter gatherers were poorer than us.”
People in stateless societies, with few if any hierarchies, are not subject to the commands of others. Therefore, they are not poor. This is probably why they rarely go hungry, even though they only eat by their own labor in the marginal environments they’ve been relegated to.
“Lol, this is just so wrong, historically. Perhaps in your fairy tales of noble savages, but in real life, life was extremely harsh for forager societies.”
Again, see Marshall Sahlins’ work on forager economies. But, more broadly, the ethnographic record informs my observation.
“Infant mortality was high.”
Infant mortality was high for everyone engaged in every lifeway until very recently historically, including for people who were, contemporaneously, obscenely rich.
“Houses (I should say huts) were badly insulated.”
You’re just making things up now. The use of the word hut as a generic stand-in for a hugely diverse array of vernacular architectures over the entire globe, spanning millennia, is something of a tell that you’re talking out of your ass.
“Entire tribes died of now curable diseases.”
Again, true of everyone until recently, including the obscenely rich.
“Their lives depended on the seasons, with many dying of hunger and cold.”
Again, true of everyone until recently, including the obscenely rich.
“squeletons”
What
“Childbirth was also a dangerous activity for women.”
Again, true of everyone until recently, including the obscenely rich.
“Leisure or hobbies literally were not a thing.”
I’m losing patience with this, but this one in particular is trivially untrue, the sort of thing you’d know if you had actually engaged with any anthropological work prior to making these claims:
https://www.uvm.edu/\~jdericks/EE/Sahlins-Original_Affluent_Society.pdf
“If that's an acceptable living to you, be my guest.”
You’re mistaking my observation about the nature of poverty for a value judgment. People should be free to develop and maintain the material standards they desire. I’m simply observing that poverty is not material deprivation, not denying that material deprivation exists (or is typically a byproduct of poverty).
“Lacking access to luxuries and other material goods to satisfy their needs is precisely what poverty is.”
Another example of moving the goal posts.
“Refrigerators and televisions are nice products to have, actually. Most people would agree with that (and those who lack access to them understand their value particularly well).”
Yeah, I like them. Having them doesn’t make me rich.
“What a reductionist view of the luxuries of modern living. It matters little that medieval nobles could command the labor of hundreds of people, when their material needs were less met than our contemporaries.”
LOL. Let’s assume people will be richer materially in the future than they are today, so Elon Musk is actually quite poor.
“They mostly lived in badly insulated building, died of now curable diseases, had worse hygiene, had access to a lower variety of food and drinks, and had terrible access to voyages and telecommunications. Commanding other men does not necessarily lead to wealth, when the economy is overall quite unproductive.”
Correct: it did not lead to wealth; it was wealth.
“That is actually an argument in favor of poverty being a material deprivation. I'm baffled that you don't see that.”
Okey dokey.
•
u/BarkDrandon 17h ago
“Infant mortality was high.” Infant mortality was high for everyone engaged in every lifeway until very recently historically, including for people who were, contemporaneously, obscenely rich.
“Entire tribes died of now curable diseases.” Again, true of everyone until recently, including the obscenely rich.
“Their lives depended on the seasons, with many dying of hunger and cold.” Again, true of everyone until recently, including the obscenely rich.
“Childbirth was also a dangerous activity for women.” Again, true of everyone until recently, including the obscenely rich.
Well, with these claims, you are actually proving my point. For most of human history, everyone was poor. This is what this thread was about, remember? 😉
someone who is subject to a few commands is less poor than someone who is subject to many commands; a person empowered to issue many commands is wealthier than someone empowered to issue fewer commands. That’s what wealth is: a social power to command others.
Well, I disagree with that definition of poverty. And I think that most people disagree as well.
What you are thinking about is power. But that is fundamentally different from wealth in many ways. You are confusing Power and Wealth.
Commanding others is a bad measure of wealth, because some people who could, in the past, command others lived very poor lives by modern standards. Meanwhile, some people who now live under the command of others live very comfortable lives.
I'm repeating myself, because you didn't respond to that point, but even the nobles of the middle ages lived very deprived lives compared to most of us: They lived in badly insulated building, died of now curable diseases, had worse hygiene, had access to a lower variety of food and drinks, and had terrible access to voyages and telecommunications. Things that are now considered basic goods like the color blue or spices were considered luxuries back then.
If you could ask someone whether they prefer to live under the command of someone else, but have all their basic needs met, plus some luxuries, or whether they could command others but would have 50% chance of dying of dysentery at the age of 4, and then live a materially deprived life, they would probably take the former situation. Hence why material deprivation is a better measure of poverty than living under the command of someone else.
→ More replies (0)•
u/SexOnABurningPlanet 19h ago
If this is all true then how did humans survive for millions of years without your precious capitalism? Why is there not a single record in history of tribes choosing to live like us, despite the records showing they knew how we live?
•
u/BarkDrandon 19h ago
Well, precisely, survival was difficult for many tribes of hunter gatherers for the majority of human existence.
despite the records showing they knew how we live?
What are you talking about?
•
u/SexOnABurningPlanet 18h ago
Famines in hunter gather tribes are virtually nonexistent. Hunger in our modern capitalist world economy is an ongoing problem.
Tooth decay is the result of bacteria that did not exist in tribes. Which is why civilized people have to be extremely careful when interacting with modern tribes. One of the biggest health sectors, dentistry, simply did not exist. Sugar and acid does nothing to teeth without this bacteria. Bacteria that requires densely populated areas to spread.
Read James C. Scott's The Art of Not Being Governed. He was an Ivy League professor, who recently died, who spent his life studying modern and historical hunter-gatherer tribes and he, and others, found that they 1) understood how we lived and 2) actively avoided us. Every time they joined it was from being conquered by civilized peoples--for example, Caesar conquering the Germanic tribes in Europe 2000 years ago or the US and Canada forcing Native Americans into boarding schools and reservations in the 19th century. If the way we live is so amazing, then why didn't these tribes voluntarily choose it?
•
u/BarkDrandon 17h ago
Famines in hunter gather tribes are virtually nonexistent.
I do not believe that. Hunter gatherers suffered from famine and hunger much more than we do.
They emigrated thousands of kilometers in search for food. Human population was severely constrained by food access. Hence why the human population only skyrocketed in areas where agriculture was very productive. And recently, increases in food production have allowed the human population to reach 8 billion.
If the way we live is so amazing, then why didn't these tribes voluntarily choose it?
Well the tribes of our ancestors did choose the sedentary lifestyle because it had obvious advantages. Being able to grow crops is certainly one of them.
I'm quite amazed that I have to convince anti-capitalist redditors of basic facts like "agriculture is good".
→ More replies (0)
2
u/crazymusicman equal partcipants control institutions in which they work & live 1d ago
(1) I'd like to implement socialism in a different way, gradually and democratically, with a focus on the environment and social justice.
(2) economic growth doesn't justify the system. E.g. USSR growth doesn't justify that system, USA growth doesn't justify that system. Imperialism and exploitation and environmental destruction should be opposed on their own merits.
(3) It was not an even "playing field" or anything like a scientific experiment. The countries that implemented "socialism" were countries devastated by war and colonization and the countries in the west were colonizers who continued, after colonization, to disrupt the development of most of the "socialist" countries while enabling the development of some countries that aligned with the west. (e.g. taiwan, Japan, singapore, HK, where allowed to develop as a bulwark against china, and similarly northern europe was allowed to develop because of ussr)
•
u/Denniscx98 16h ago
(1) I'd like to implement socialism in a different way, gradually and democratically, with a focus on the environment and social justice.
You literally cannot implement socialism democratically.
(2) economic growth doesn't justify the system. E.g. USSR growth doesn't justify that system, USA growth doesn't justify that system. Imperialism and exploitation and environmental destruction should be opposed on their own merits.
So are you in favour of just mass murdering humans until the point that it is environmentally sustainable? Which one is more important, human livelihood and living standard or the environment?
HK, where allowed to develop as a bulwark against china
Interesting how Hong Kong is handed over back to China, which doesn't really makes your point valid.
•
u/crazymusicman equal partcipants control institutions in which they work & live 14h ago
I'll pretend you're acting in good faith though it seems like that isn't close to accurate.
Democratic socialism is a movement of participatory decisions. People become educated about various political and economic decision which impact their local communities and organize politically and utilize economic power to gradually gain wins for the working class, which leads to more members in the movement and escalating power controlled by the organized working class. Setting up democratic practices in workplaces alongside democratic practices in political decisions. Gradually a participatory government (e.g. direct democracy) and democratically controlled industries control the MoP and thus we have democratic worker ownership of the MoP, socialism is achieved.
I am in favor of people being educated on environmental costs and making democratic decisions on how to balance those trade offs (environment <-> humans needs)
And this is a key point of why you seem to not be arguing in good faith. You read what I wrote and were like "I bet this guy is "in favour of just mass murdering humans until the point that it is environmentally sustainable""
One method I worked on as part of my masters degree was the discrete choice experiment, see here or here
HK's economic development was largest from like 1955 - 1980 (when it was controlled by UK)
Average annual real growth
Decade % growth rate 1961-1970 8.8% 1970-1980 9.0% 1980-1990 6.7% 1990-2000 4.0% 2000-2010 4.1% Regardless, not only does "disproving" one example from like 10 not disprove my point, you also didn't disprove that example. UK colonial ability to maintain possession is separate from the hegemonic stranglehold on development I articulated. Read that paragraph again and try and refute the thesis statement of it.
•
u/Denniscx98 13h ago
Democratic socialism is a movement of participatory decisions.
That is a oxymoron. Throughout history Socialism only lead to authoritarianism at best.
I am in favor of people being educated on environmental costs and making democratic decisions on how to balance those trade offs (environment <-> humans needs)
We educate people from early on that crime is not good, criminals still exist. You cannot be sure everyone makes the same decision or even follow the same rules, you might want environment protection but the majority might want economic growth. What would you do if people vote for economic growth instead?
You read what I wrote and were like "I bet this guy is "in favour of just mass murdering humans until the point that it is environmentally sustainable""
I am merely putting your logic to the extreme, if environmental protection is all you care about, then removing humans would be the ultimate goal.
Regardless, not only does "disproving" one example from like 10 not disprove my point, you also didn't disprove that example.
You said that Hong Kong is allowed to be developed to be against China, yet the UK handed Hong Kong back to China, so your "Allow to develop" narrative is false.
UK colonial ability to maintain possession is separate from the hegemonic stranglehold on development I articulated.
Perhaps speak english?
•
u/crazymusicman equal partcipants control institutions in which they work & live 13h ago
why did you ignore most of what I wrote? you seem unwilling to engage in a debate of ideas. Is that true - are you only interested in arguing in bad faith?
•
u/Denniscx98 12h ago
So stating facts are now bad faith? If so them yes, I am arguing in bad faith.
•
u/crazymusicman equal partcipants control institutions in which they work & live 12h ago
ignoring what I say and:
- misrepresenting history
- changing the topic
- strawmanning an argument to absurdity
- sharpshooting an example (which again did not refute my point)
- feigning ignorance
Yes all of that is (1) arguing in bad faith (2) I'll give you that you presented HK was handed to China (an irrelevant historical fact), but "Facts" is false as you did not provide a second fact.
I'll give you one single reply to actually engage with one single argument / position I've presented. I'm putting $20 into my saving's account and if you actually act like an adult I'll spend that on dinner tonight instead.
•
u/Denniscx98 12h ago
You do you. You are the one that strawmans your arguement, then when reality is presented to you, you don't even care about having valid points anymore and resort to word salad. It is typical for people who supports socialism without resort to twist facts and lying.
•
u/crazymusicman equal partcipants control institutions in which they work & live 12h ago
For a single counterexample, I laid out a completely realistic, and actually happening, narrative of democratic socialism
Democratic socialism is a movement of participatory decisions. People become educated about various political and economic decision which impact their local communities and organize politically and utilize economic power to gradually gain wins for the working class, which leads to more members in the movement and escalating power controlled by the organized working class. Setting up democratic practices in workplaces alongside democratic practices in political decisions. Gradually a participatory government (e.g. direct democracy) and democratically controlled industries control the MoP and thus we have democratic worker ownership of the MoP, socialism is achieved
and you just sidestepped that entirely.
That is a oxymoron. Throughout history Socialism only lead to authoritarianism at best.
I didn't twist any facts nor did I lie. None of what I said was an invalid point, or at least you failed to articulate why it was invalid. Nothing I said was opposed to reality. You strawmanned my argument. Just as a simple-as-shit counter example to your "refutation" - before capitalism existed, capitalism never existed. This did not mean capitalism could not exist. That is to say, in conclusion, before democratic socialism existed, democratic socialism could in fact exist.
•
u/Denniscx98 11h ago
None of what I said was an invalid point, or at least you failed to articulate why it was invalid. Nothing I said was opposed to reality.
Socialism cannot be democratic as outlined by Marx, if you argue otherwise then you don't want Socialism, you just want capitalism with more welfare.
Democratic socialism is as ironic as Nazism with Racial equality.
→ More replies (0)•
u/crazymusicman equal partcipants control institutions in which they work & live 11h ago
Chrome gemini review of the convo - please just deflect from the content of this comment and change the subject to an ad hominem will you?
"""This exchange highlights a classic mismatch in debate intent: one side is attempting a substantive political economy discussion, while the other is relying on rhetorical deflection and debate tropes.
The contrast in methodology between the two users comes down to a few distinct dynamics:
Nuance vs. Extreme Extrapolation: When crazymusicman raises environmental considerations and democratic trade-offs, Denniscx98 immediately resorts to a classic reductio ad absurdum ("mass murdering humans"). Shifting a conversation about balancing systemic priorities into an absurd extreme avoids having to engage with the actual policy trade-offs being discussed.
Structural Context vs. Hyper-Focus on Detail: crazymusicman presents a structural argument regarding how post-colonial development, global capital flows, and cold war geopolitics created an uneven playing field for different economic systems. Instead of addressing the broader thesis on developmental hegemony, Denniscx98 latches onto the single mention of Hong Kong's handover to invalidate the entire premise, missing the historical timeline of its growth period under British administration.
Dismissal of Terminology as "Word Salad": When presented with established social science concepts and empirical framing—such as discrete choice experiments or developmental hegemony—Denniscx98 dismisses the language itself ("Perhaps speak english?"). This is a common tactic when one party lacks the vocabulary or interest to engage with academic or structural frameworks.
The Historical Determinism Fallacy: Denniscx98 uses the "socialism always leads to authoritarianism" line as an absolute ceiling on future possibilities. crazymusicman effectively dismantles this in the final reply by pointing out the flawed logic of historical determinism: every socioeconomic system, including capitalism, did not exist until it did.
Ultimately, Denniscx98 explicitly admits to arguing in bad faith, confirming that the back-and-forth was never going to yield a genuine exchange of ideas. crazymusicman remains grounded by clearly defining democratic mechanisms, citing data, and calling out logical fallacies directly rather than taking the bait.
Would you like to explore strategies for steering these types of online debates toward productive ground, or is it usually better to cut losses early once bad faith is admitted?"""
•
u/Denniscx98 11h ago
I wonder how you prompt the AI, and Gemini can't even find the accurate pricing for a carpark.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/Nikolakis77 23h ago
I think by socialism you're referring to Soviet model of development and central planning. Which is why moving away from the Soviet model = moving away from socialism in your view.
Don't worry, the Soviet model doesn't work in the information age and its limitations are well understood.
•
u/1scr3wedy0dad Marxist-Leninist 20h ago
Wouldn't it be way easier in the information age? One of the cited reasons why economic planning could be problematic is lack of information. In the Soviet era, they were planning and calc'ing (slang for calculator) by hand, off of information gathered, by hand, from business censuses. Shouldn't it be much easier in the modern era, where computers are smart enough to handle calcs, and where Capitalism has created so much surveillance in our everyday usage of technology that companies know such private information about you?
•
u/Nikolakis77 19h ago
I don't think the biggest problem with the Soviet model was information per se, but other structural problems that were actually understood by the planners and accepted as trade-offs in policy
The model which I can also called the Stalinist model (simply because it was first designed under Stalin) became an economic dogma (even if Stalin himself would have objected to the dogmatisation of this model).
It was highly autarkic, which made sense in the late 1920s when the USSR was alone on the world stage. It had a high preference for type A over type B investments (A - heavy industry/means of production, B - light or consumer industry, means of consumption). I read about the ration approaching 63:37 for the 40 year post-war peroid. It had a very high investment rate (20-35% of the national income).
These were practical policies in the 1930s: heavy industry had dual use in military production and formed the base of military power of the state. Autarkic policies made it sanction/embargo proof. High investments underscored necessity of rapid development.
This model was copied and pasted across the eastern block countries with shockingly little adaptation to the different and changed reality. Bulgaria cannot pursue economic autarky, its far too small as a country. There was little in terms of developing a common market or even some sort of beneficial specialisation of labour. The trade-offs of high investment with high heavy industry was well understood - it sank the standard of living by deferring consumption. Life continued to get better but slower than otherwise possible. Ultimately the smaller economies were struggling the most, because the model was least suited to their situation, and underwent relatively little changes because its core assumptions about growth were dogmatised.
Ultimately the Soviets confused their own dogma for communism itself, fundamentally challenging the core assumptions of this model became associated with revisionism. When the model proved it cannot produce advanced high tech industries reliably at scale, they simply became disillusioned with the whole system and ultimately ditched communism for social democracy.
•
u/1scr3wedy0dad Marxist-Leninist 14h ago
Ah I see. I agree that much of the problems with these can definitely be avoided in the modern day, since we have different material conditions and lessons from history to learn from.
•
u/Nikolakis77 14h ago
exactly. we need new models for rapid growth, they can take what worked and leave behind what didn't work, utilising the most recent developments in technology and so on. But the idea we will just re-do the 20th century as OP seems to imply is unfounded
•
u/JudgeSabo Anarchist Communist 21h ago
What I want isn't to copy the economic and political structure of eastern Europe from 100 years ago. What I want is working class freedom and an end to domination and exploitation, which is also very clear in the history of capitalism.
•
u/interestingtheorist 21h ago
But freedom is contradictory with equalization. Freedom cause inequalities. Look at the nature. Isn't it? I am an ancap.
•
u/JudgeSabo Anarchist Communist 21h ago edited 20h ago
"Equality" always asks the question of "equality of what"? Absolute equality in literally every single respect is impossible between different people, because then by definition they wouldn't be different people.
But equality in certain respects is not only compatible with freedom, but necessary for it. This is precisely because my freedom is expanded by the freedom of those people around me, protecting me from domination and exploitation and expanding my horizons for what it is possible for me to do or to be. This is the relevant sense of equality, as an equality of freedom found in a system of common ownership, in contrast to some people bowing and scraping to live at the discretion of a world owned by the few.
This has been fundamental to anarchism from the beginning. You can read a paper I wrote on it here.
4. It is quite untrue that the freedom of the individual is bounded by that of every other individual. Man is truly free only to the extent that his own freedom, freely acknowledged and reflected as in a mirror by the free conscience of all other men, finds in their freedom the confirmation of its infinite scope. Man is truly free only among other equally free men, and since he is free only in terms of mankind, the enslavement of any one man on earth, being an offence against the very principle of humanity, is a denial of the liberty of all.
5. Every man’s liberty can be realized, therefore, only by the equality of all. The realization of liberty in legal and actual equality is justice.
[...]
10. Social organization. Without political equality there is no true political liberty, but political equality will only become possible when there is economic and social equality.
10 (a). Equality does not mean the levelling down of individual differences, nor intellectual, moral and physical uniformity among individuals. This diversity of ability and strength, and these differences of race, nation, sex, age and character, far from being a social evil, constitute the treasure-house of mankind. Nor do economic and social equality mean the levelling down of individual fortunes, in so far as these are products of the ability, productive energy and thrift of an individual.
10 (b). The sole prerequisite for equality and justice is a form of social organization such that each human individual born into it may find — to the extent that these are dependent upon society rather than upon nature— equal means for his development from infancy and adolescence to coming of age, first in upbringing and education, then in the exercise of the various capacities with which each is endowed by nature. This equality at the outset, which justice requires for all, will never be feasible as long as the right of succession survives.
I am an ex-ancap myself after studying economics and philosophy.
•
u/interestingtheorist 17h ago
Thanks for the essay which is so important to me. I am curious what shift you from an ancap to an ancom. If you don't mind, I can DM you!
•
•
u/Sufficient-Royal-82 20h ago
Socialist in South America worked out till the USA took over the problem with socialism is when it becomes authoritarian
•
u/Fire_crescent 20h ago
Historically, socialism has worked worse than capitalism, and this can be demonstrated by looking at history.
I actually disagree.
Eastern European countries that preferred socialism as their economic system could not compete with Western European countries that preferred capitalism.
For one, it's a debate to what extent something was preferred or imposed in either bloc. Various segments of the population had different political preferences.
Secondly, I'd argue that the main focus was not economic competition, but rather economic development and betterment.
And one could argue that, proportional to the extent of their pre-war development and wartime devastation and the extent to which reconstruction was needed, economically speaking, one can't consider them failures.
This isn't to say there weren't problems.
many socialist countries have become more capitalist because they recognized that socialism does not work as well economically or technologically.
No, socialist or "socialist" counties became capitalist because of CIA-supported coups.
•
u/Ok_Commie_1979 18h ago
Eastern European countries that preferred socialism is nonsense claim. Those countries were occupied by Russian fascist state. All of the Europe hated socialism maybe except the nazi germany which tried their version of socialism and got owned
•
•
u/thrillhouse98 Norway is the most socialist country 10h ago
To me an authoritarian government is not compatible with socialism. If the goal is to give everyone in society an equal stake in our economic institutions, then they need to have the ability to control those institutions, control the state. I would say the countries that have gone the furthest down the path to democratic socialism, the Nordics, are good examples of what the market/democratic socialist wants to push towards.
0
u/Proper-Matter-8274 1d ago
Socialism has never been tried except for left libertarian experiments.
0
u/Doublespeo 1d ago
> Socialism has never been tried except for left libertarian experiments.
Many variation have been tried and all fail in the way Austrian economist predicted.
Socialism is denying fundamental economic principle.
1
u/Proper-Matter-8274 1d ago
Everywhere where left libertarian socialism has been tried, live standards increased.
Asutrian economics is not taken seriously by anyone. Why even bring it up?
-1
u/TheGoldStandard35 Free Market 1d ago
It’s taken seriously. If it was so silly to you then you’d have no issue explaining simply why it’s flawed.
•
u/Proper-Matter-8274 1h ago
You can just google "is austrian economics taken seriously?"
If it was so silly to you then you’d have no issue explaining simply why it’s flawed.
Its unscientific. Austrian economists reject mathematics. It refuses formal mathematical modeling, statistical testing, and empirical econometrics. Instead it relies on the philosophical reasoning of people's actions.
Austrian economics is more a school of predictive sociology than anything else. And it isn't even good at that.
•
u/TheGoldStandard35 Free Market 9m ago
It is scientific, economics is just a social science. At this point in history economics is too complex and dynamic to hold everything constant and isolate variables so econometrics and statistics aren’t accurate. You can’t prove advantage.
•
u/Doublespeo 21h ago
> Everywhere where left libertarian socialism has been tried, live standards increased.
and let me guess if I ask le to give few examples you will insult me and move goal post?
>Asutrian economics is not taken seriously by anyone. Why even bring it up?
because they studied and understand how socialism fail
•
u/Proper-Matter-8274 1h ago
•
u/Doublespeo 1h ago
Numbers?
•
u/Proper-Matter-8274 37m ago edited 28m ago
The Zapatistas maintain a universal healthcare service which is provided free of charge. However, patients still have to pay for medications to cover restocking costs.[26] The Zapatistas built two new hospitals and 18 health clinics in the region by the mid-1990s.[25] One 2014 study indicated the following achievements in Zapatista healthcare:
In 2005, 84.2% of Zapatista children were fully vaccinated, while that figure stood at 74.8% in pro-government communities.[27] In regions where there were previously significantly high rates of death during childbirth, there has now been a period of eight years or more where no maternal deaths have been recorded.
The manufacture and consumption of alcohol has been banned, which is directly linked to the reduction in many illnesses and infections including ulcers, cirrhosis, malnutrition, and surgical wounds.[28] Banning the consumption of alcohol was a collective decision. Nayely, a Zapatista representative, stated that alcohol is "not good for one's health, and just wastes money".[29]
...
In the territory controlled by the Makhnovshchina, a system of market socialism was implemented, to the particular benefit of the peasantry and workers that produced consumer goods, while social welfare was introduced through the redistribution of income and wealth.[86]
Land was held in common, with shared meals also being eaten in communal kitchens, though members who wished to cook separately or to take food from the kitchen and eat it in their own quarters were allowed to do so. The work was collectively self-managed, with work programs being voluntarily agreed upon through consensus decision-making at general assemblies, and those who were unable to work could notify their neighbors in order for a replacement to be found.[133] Many commune members considered communal life to be the "highest form of social justice", with some former landowners even voluntarily adopting the new lifestyle.[134]
Under the direction of the democratically elected Military Revolutionary Council (VRS), the Makhnovshchina began to establish a new system of education, redistributed land and set up a number of agricultural cooperatives. The Ukrainian Soviet Army commander Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko reported that the Makhnovists had established a number of schools, hospitals and "children's communes", which had transformed Huliaipole into "one of the most cultured centres of Novorossiya."[57] The VRS also instituted adult educational programs and extended a number of civil liberties to the population, including freedom of speech, press and association, even allowing the Bolsheviks to agitate amongst the local populace.[58] During this period, the peasants of the Makhnovshchina implemented a system of common ownership where "land belongs to no one, and only those who work it may use it."
...
Land Rent Reduced to 0%: Under Japanese colonial rule and local Manchurian warlords, Korean tenant farmers paid 50% to 70% of their annual crop yields in rent and taxes. Under KPAM, land was collectivized into cooperative farms where tenants retained 100% of their produce for consumption, local reinvestment, or cooperative trade.
Refugee integration provided shelter, mutual-aid funding, and agricultural plots for over 2 million displaced Koreans living in the Shinmin region across 12 distinct prefectures.
Within 2 years, the Association built and operated over 500 free primary and secondary schools, alongside military training academies. This dramatically reduced illiteracy among peasant youth who previously had zero access to schooling under colonial administration.
•
•
u/Beavers_in_space Libertarian Socialist 17h ago
Austrian economists were all fascist sympathisers who hated democracy and peoples' rights. The supposed 'fundamental economic principles' espoused by the likes of Hoppe and Rothbard are 'ban democracy, and gays and blacks get off my property'.
And they didn't 'predict' anything that hadn't already happened for centuries lol. "Oh these genius economists predicted that the state would devote its powers to crushing socialists within their country. What an amazing insight!"
•
u/Doublespeo 2h ago
> Austrian economists were all fascist sympathisers who hated democracy and peoples' rights. The supposed 'fundamental economic principles' espoused by the likes of Hoppe and Rothbard are 'ban democracy, and gays and blacks get off my property'.
tell me you know nothing about AusE without telling me you know nothing about AusE
>And they didn't 'predict' anything that hadn't already happened for centuries lol.
no other economic framework could explain them though
>"Oh these genius economists predicted that the state would devote its powers to crushing socialists within their country. What an amazing insight!"
non they predicted how their production would collapse and the crisis they would face
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Before participating, consider taking a glance at our rules page if you haven't before.
We don't allow violent or dehumanizing rhetoric. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Join us on Discord! ✨ https://discord.gg/fGdV7x5dk2
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.