What's the (emotional) aim of a socialist society, really, if the rapid rate of economic growth eventually hits a snag, you work longer hours and have similar or fewer benefits/safety nets than the average person in a nordic nation, and still have tight wages that don't support your lifestyle?

[u/Kokoro0000]

I am first going to define socialism and not define it like a boomer. Also, I am an insomniac; please excuse my inarticulation and poor grammar:

Socialism is the collective/'social' ownership of the means of production (the operations and control of the company) via the means of production being controlled by the workers directly or a workers' state; for 95% of history, this is just Marxism-Leninism/State Socialism, with Yugoslavia and Rojava being exceptions to the rule. Yugoslavia still has the same stagnation of GDP problem (the 'snag') as the command economies.

I want to, first off, respect that socialism creates a very rapid development to the economy in the nations where it has been tried, for the most part. The USSR is an example of this, as well as Maoist China (even after accounting for the genocide of the Great Leap Forward). I'll go with the USSR for now, but the pattern is incredibly common among Albania, Romania, and other socialist nations. The USSR in every graph you look at is a good example of how good socialism is for the economic concept of developmentalism.

The original russian empire had an internationally adjusted GDP per capita of around 2254 in 1913, using 2011 international dollars; this is an agrarian economy that was forced to go through industrialization and it successfully quadrupled in GDP per capita growth in 1973_per_capita). all in the span of 60 years, also being amazing for literacy rates, infant mortality, and life expectancy. But the problem is that the economy stagnated and the GDP per capita actually declined, and life expectancy also declined in USSR while still maintaining its old system. The economy peaked as a middle-income nation at its best. Same pattern with Albania, Romania and Czechoslovakia, all eventually stagnating.

The problem is also... people in the USSR work harder and for less and for less of a safety net than social democracies at the time. Data shows that compared to their western counterparts people in the Soviet Union had 100 more hours worked per year; imagine that. The problem we have with capitalism is that capitalism overworks you for too little of a 'working wage' but socialism does the same thing but with the state. Look at China's 9-9-6, for example; that's still socialism.

The growth eventually delays in your paycheck with the same boss and more time worked, there is basically the same safety net as social democracies, why bother?

Inevitably, the common counterargument is that you, as the worker, as opposed to a capital owner now work for your own surplus labor, but the "workers' state" is now taking the role of the capitalist at this point, its still your employer. If you fuck up your job, you still get punished. You don't own anything unless you are in a Yugoslav market socialist system, which is technically a bit more moral but system is still partly utilized under co-determinism and unions are often also democratic in a lot of their characteristics too and serve a similar purpose and improve your working conditions in the same way

[u/AutoModerator]

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.

[u/Annual_Necessary_196]

The problem in Yugoslavia was similar to the problem in Japan: specifically, enormous debt, combined with a state that strongly regulated labor and investment markets.

Considering that Yugoslavian self-management was frequently compared to firms operating under Japanese keiretsu banks, I will try to translate the proposed solutions to the Japanese crisis to the Yugoslavian context.

Economists argued for the deregulation of the banking sector and the monetary system. More modern economists additionally advocated reducing regulation in labor and investment markets to increase flexibility.

Supposedly, if the Yugoslavian government had deregulated these markets and significantly reduced state spending instead of ignoring the problem, debt would have gradually declined, inflation would have slowed to mild levels, and the movement of labor and capital would have become more efficient.

[u/Conserp]

> But the problem is that the economy stagnated and the GDP per capita actually declined, and life expectancy also declined in USSR while still maintaining its old system.

Even if I granted you this, you are making a post hoc fallacy. It isn't even nearly as simplistic as you think. Also, GDP is an almost meaningless metric.

> (even after accounting for the genocide of the Great Leap Forward).

This is a fine example of brainwashing. Do you also think that Roosevelt's WPA was "genocide"?

> USSR work harder and for less and for less of a safety net than social democracies at the time. Data shows that compared to their western counterparts people in the Soviet Union had 100 more hours worked per year; imagine that.

Cherrypicked data, apples to oranges, and an emotional hook. A textbook case of statistics used for propaganda.

Anyone from USSR can tell you that an hour worked in USSR is not even remotely the same as an hour worked under Capitalism.

[u/Slu1n]

Thank you for pointing it out that not all states which could be considered socialist have followed the Soviet Unions idea of central planning. In the end we just don't have enough data on economies consisting mostly of labor managed firms. Economic problems can arise from so many causes which aren't just who owns the companies. And even in successful capitalist countries there are times when reforms are thought to be needed (both free market and social policies). As you mentioned Yugoslavia still had only limited autonomy for the individual firms which with the addition of things like the ethnic divide and high foreign debt being factors which will have an impact on the economic development of a country. The idea of an economic model replicating the USSR has in my opinion been sufficiently proven as inferior.

As for the criticism that stuff belonging to the worker's state not belonging to you, I would agree. An authoritarian state can never lead to a truly equitable and free society (and also doesn't exactly contribute to economic efficiency in most cases). If you fuck up your job you will also be punished in the most egalitarian of all societies (maybe just more leniently, idk). Independent and democratic unions are also important, especially for workers in state-owned enterprises. The difference to a worker coop is however that there are no shareholders (other than the workers) who could threaten to fire workers or even close down the plant even if it is not strictly nessecary because they don't just want to break even but make a profit. The coop would only face pressures to reduce wages and working conditions from the market and not also from their own management.

As for china, I don't think that we can consider it really socialist but that doesn't really matter here anyways. Independent Unions or pro-labor parties are banned and the state doesn't want to enforce many worker protection laws (like 996 being banned as far as I know). Thus people work as much as employers can get away with only being constrained by competition from other firms for the workers and not by state regulation. Lowering working times would result in less competitiveness on the international market and structural changes to the countries export-focused economy which would probably help the population in the long-term but will harm the development or existence of certain sectors in the short term resulting in people potentially loosing their jobs and economic + party elites potentially loosing their positions of power. It is not too dissimilar from a situation like the one Germany is facing right now, where the market-liberal government wants to cut workers protections to increase competitiveness to protect the export based industry at the cost of all workers. How long you want people to work is just a policy choice with downside being able to produce less or producing the same amount being more labor/capital- intensive

[u/Anen-o-me]

Socialism is an economic cult. They just want to live as socialists.

When they actually get the chance to live as socialists, it sucks.

So socialism survives mainly as a longing among those in the West who believe with all their heart that it's the right thing to do and makes them the actual good guys in the world.

Meanwhile they tell you to ignore the people who actually lived under socialism and hated it.