Debunked: Socialism has never worked

[Sparko]

? As I've previously mentioned, Democracy is socialistic in the sense that it socializes political power - distributes it to the people.

I just wanted to retouch this. Socialism isn't about giving the power to the people, it is about giving the GOVERNMENT ownership of the means of production (jobs, companies, product, etc) and supposedly distributing the wealth fairly among the people. On the other hand Capitalism does give the power to the people. The people own the means of production, control the jobs, products, companies, etc. The people have the power. So no democracy is not socialistic.

[Mountain Man]

I just wanted to retouch this. Socialism isn't about giving the power to the people, it is about giving the GOVERNMENT ownership of the means of production (jobs, companies, product, etc) and supposedly distributing the wealth fairly among the people.

Yeah, he's confusing communism with socialism.

[Joel]

But, unlike the USA, [New Zealand] also has an extremely good welfare system and universal health coverage, low levels of incarceration, virtually no gun violence and ranks No 2 on the UN Human Development Index.

In addition to previous correlations I mentioned, freer markets correlate well with the UN Human Development Index. The Fraser Institute's index ranks New Zealand the No 3 most free-market country.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/site...world-2016.pdf

(Heritage Foundation's index also ranks it No 3)

[Joel]

Yeah, he's confusing communism with socialism.

I usually just stick with the standard definition that socialism is the collective control of the means of production, and that Marx and his contemporaries used "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably as synonyms.

When people today start insisting on a difference between the two, I find they hardly ever have clear, reasonable definitions of the two to distinguish them.

My understanding is that the first proposed distinction of some of Marx' successors was that "socialism" is state-imposed socialism and is merely a stepping stone to the goal of communism which is a future stateless utopia where everyone agrees to live communisticaly. Then in the socialist revolutions, the new socialist countries called themselves "communist" to refer to the utopian vision. But that ended up causing "communist" to be associated with authoritarian state socialism. And so some people now try to distinguish "socialist" to refer to a utopian non-authoritarian socialism. And there is general confusion and non-agreement on definitions. (In addition, collective control implies a unitary, centralized control over essentially everything, which cannot be anything but authoritarian and totalitarian.)

Whereas the (OP's) video's alternative definition of supporting social equality and Starlight's definitions of power to the people and concern for others are so broad as to be meaningless. Virtually everyone in the western world today favors those things and could thus be called a socialist.

One thing to note is that (classical) liberalism supported such things, in opposition to political authoritarianism. And socialism in the 1800s arose as an explicitly anti-liberal movement. They mocked and rejected liberalism. So a key to defining socialism would not be to look to possible liberal values socialists happen to adopt, but what are the points at which socialists rejected liberalism and distinguished themselves from it.

[Psychic Missile]

I just wanted to retouch this. Socialism isn't about giving the power to the people, it is about giving the GOVERNMENT ownership of the means of production (jobs, companies, product, etc) and supposedly distributing the wealth fairly among the people. On the other hand Capitalism does give the power to the people. The people own the means of production, control the jobs, products, companies, etc. The people have the power. So no democracy is not socialistic.

Under socialism, the less corrupt the government is, the more the government is equivalent to the people. Capitalism gives the power to the wealthy. The wealthy own the means of protection, control the jobs, products, companies, etc.

[Sparko]

Under socialism, the less corrupt the government is, the more the government is equivalent to the people. Capitalism gives the power to the wealthy. The wealthy own the means of protection, control the jobs, products, companies, etc.

No the people have the means of production, by which they get wealthy. big difference. Anyone can start a business and become wealthy if they have a product people want and they manage their business wisely. Even you. It just happens most people don't want to run their own business so they work for someone else, which still allows them to participate in the market and production and gain some power. You can also purchase shares in various companies and become part owner and get wealthy that way.

[Joel]

Under socialism, the less corrupt the government is, the more the government is equivalent to the people. Capitalism gives the power to the wealthy. The wealthy own the means of protection, control the jobs, products, companies, etc.

The most socialism can do is give (totalitarian) power to a majority. And that still ends up being a centralized, top-down decision-making imposed on everyone, instead of a true individualized freedom of choice. But really that's intentional, because socialism is a form of collectivism, rejecting individualism including individual freedom of choice. (Remember, socialism is anti-liberal.)

And even majority voters often consist largely of people voting for things like lesser evils and not what they think is best. Besides many other inherent flaws in voting, like nobody feeling they have any control, because the possibility of them affecting the outcome is infinitesimal, which also makes it rational to not care about one's vote, and to be an uninformed voter. It becomes rational for voters to organize into special-interest groups, etc.

[Tassman]

I just wanted to retouch this. Socialism isn't about giving the power to the people, it is about giving the GOVERNMENT ownership of the means of production (jobs, companies, product, etc) and supposedly distributing the wealth fairly among the people. On the other hand Capitalism does give the power to the people. The people own the means of production, control the jobs, products, companies, etc. The people have the power. So no democracy is not socialistic.

One elects governments. One doesn't elect oligarchs.

[Starlight]

Socialism isn't about giving the power to the people, it is about giving the GOVERNMENT ownership of the means of production

No, it isn't. Like, that's an incorrect definition of it and misunderstanding of it. Socialism need not entail government ownership and government ownership need not be socialism.

On the other hand Capitalism does give the power to the people. The people own the means of production, control the jobs, products, companies, etc. The people have the power.

The critique of capitalism is that the majority of the people are employees who do not have much power or truly reap the benefits of their work, and instead the profits are channeled into the hands of a very very small number of people who own the big businesses and become gratuitously wealthy.

Yeah, he's confusing communism with socialism.

Sparko is.

[Psychic Missile]

No the people have the means of production, by which they get wealthy. big difference. Anyone can start a business and become wealthy if they have a product people want and they manage their business wisely. Even you. It just happens most people don't want to run their own business so they work for someone else, which still allows them to participate in the market and production and gain some power. You can also purchase shares in various companies and become part owner and get wealthy that way.

A capitalist economy cannot consist solely of the wealthy. Capitalism requires both labor and capital. Capital will continue to consolidate wealth resulting in a widening economic gap which makes the requirements for class transition more difficult to meet over time.

[Psychic Missile]

The most socialism can do is give (totalitarian) power to a majority. And that still ends up being a centralized, top-down decision-making imposed on everyone, instead of a true individualized freedom of choice. But really that's intentional, because socialism is a form of collectivism, rejecting individualism including individual freedom of choice. (Remember, socialism is anti-liberal.)

And even majority voters often consist largely of people voting for things like lesser evils and not what they think is best. Besides many other inherent flaws in voting, like nobody feeling they have any control, because the possibility of them affecting the outcome is infinitesimal, which also makes it rational to not care about one's vote, and to be an uninformed voter. It becomes rational for voters to organize into special-interest groups, etc.

Assuming this characterization is true for the sake of argument, isn't the power of the population majority preferable to the power of the economic majority?

[Sparko]

One elects governments. One doesn't elect oligarchs.

You are right. In most if not all socialist/communist countries, elections are nothing but a sham if they are held at all. And they are run by dictators and oligarchs.

[Sparko]

No, it isn't. Like, that's an incorrect definition of it and misunderstanding of it. Socialism need not entail government ownership and government ownership need not be socialism.

"need not" LOL, except in every actual case it does. USSR, China, Cuba, East Germany, etc.

The critique of capitalism is that the majority of the people are employees who do not have much power or truly reap the benefits of their work, and instead the profits are channeled into the hands of a very very small number of people who own the big businesses and become gratuitously wealthy.

Because most people don't want to take the risk of starting their own business. They would rather work for someone else and get a steady paycheck. That is their CHOICE in a capitalist society. They can start their own business if they want, and a lot of people even when working for someone else will have side businesses, or buy stock in other companies. The opportunity is there whether people take it or not. That is what matters.

I tried running a business once, a freelance graphic design studio. I found out I didn't like the business end of things, keeping books, trying to drum up clients, schmoozing, and all that. So I decided to work for someone else who did like doing all that and let me do what I liked doing: graphic design. I was happier that way, but it was my decision.

How do you think most of those big businesses got started and the owners got rich? They were started by little guys with a big idea that people liked.

[Mountain Man]

I like how the folks trying to defend socialism assume ideal conditions for socialism while arguing against other economic theories like capitalism under the presumption of non-ideal conditions. Talk about putting your thumb on the scale.

[Joel]

A capitalist economy cannot consist solely of the wealthy. Capitalism requires both labor and capital. Capital will continue to consolidate wealth resulting in a widening economic gap which makes the requirements for class transition more difficult to meet over time.

1) "A capitalist economy cannot consist solely of the wealthy."

The vast majority of people in modern market economies are very wealthy compared to standards of the past. Poverty greatly diminished and continues to diminish. People of the past would consider modern economies to virtually consist solely of the wealthy. And we may very well say the same about the future. Or you might be suggesting that market economies require not absolute poverty but a large degree of relatively less wealth. But that isn't true either.

2) "Capitalism requires both labor and capital."

Sure, economists have traditionally divided the factors of production into three categories: labor, capital, and land. And economists speak of the role of each individually. But one must not confuse that with thinking that they are three disjoint sets of *people*. (Just as economists speak of the roles of producer and of consumer, even though virtually everyone is both producer and consumer.) A middle-class person is typically a capitalist, a laborer, and a land-owner. Most small-business owners work hard in their business. When a business is owned by the workers, the workers are also the capitalists, operating in a market/capitalist economy.

3) "Capital will continue to consolidate wealth"

As I pointed out in an earlier post, freer markets correlates with greater income equality. It is the modern-style regulatory state and taxation systems that correlate with inequality, by artificially protecting big businesses and fortunes, suppressing competition, cutting off the bottom rungs of the economic ladder, and making upward mobility more difficult. (You might possibly be thinking of Thomas Piketty's work which has been roundly refuted.)

Assuming this characterization is true for the sake of argument, isn't the power of the population majority preferable to the power of the economic majority?

No. First, as I've said, freer markets correlate with less inequality and more mobility, so the idea of an economic majority as a fixed set of rich people would be misleading.

Second, a voting majority is necessarily a central/unitary authority. If that authority runs all business, then all business is run as a single, giant monopoly. No one is permitted to dissent from it or can take their business elsewhere. Freer markets, on the other hand correlates with increasing competition, and people can simply choose to cease doing business with any given firm, at any moment, without having to first persuade 51% of the nation, and without having to wait for the next election cycle. Power and decision-making are distributed, with much individual freedom of choice and planning, vs central planning by vote. And there are various additional reasons why, in practice, governments' accountability to people is much less than that of businesses in a market.