On the inevitability of socialist failure

[Necroghastia]

Based on what actual logic?

Based on not being dependent on the government's "tit".

Instead, you just have the government dependent on corporations' teats.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Based on not being dependent on the government's "tit".

Instead, you just have the government dependent on corporations' teats.

Third positionist Rhine style economics ftw

[Torrocca]

What do we mean by socialism though? Is the UK a socialist country because of its NHS? Are Scandinavian countries because of their welfare system? I've never seen socialism and capitalism as opposing systems, I see them as flip sides of the same coin.

I'd imagine the OP means Socialism as according to its definition, "the social ownership of the means of production," which can also be defined as "the state ownership of the means of production" (which is a dubious and wrong definition, in my opinion, given the nature of why this is also a definition of Socialism in the first place (that being twofold in that the USSR and subsequent movements inspired by it labeled themselves as Socialist to legitimatize and validate their authoritarian regimes in the eyes of Socialists and sympathizers across the world who needed a revolutionary movement to attach to, and in that the USA and other First World countries labeled them Socialist to delegitimatize Socialism in general)). Social programs such as welfare and healthcare aren't Socialist, although at least the latter of the two theoretically could readily appear in a Socialist system. The former of the two as we currently know it, however, was a reactionary response to Socialism that first appeared in Imperial Germany to prevent Socialism from overtaking the Capitalist system.

[The United Provinces of North America]

Based on not being dependent on the government's "tit".

Instead, you just have the government dependent on corporations' teats.

And that's why you have Union's that protect you, did you watch the video?

[Duvniask]

So the argument has a form akin to "X has not happened, therefore X cannot happen".

This is a bit of a straw argument, as you yourself acknowledge anti-socialist arguments are more nuanced than this. It's more so something like "X failed in A, B, and C and failed, therefore X cannot happen" or "X goes against human nature, therefore X cannot happen".

The former is functionally the same as what I described. You're adding instances of "A", "B" and "C", but it makes no difference to the form except by making explicit each failed instance. The point is that past failure is used to conclude the inevitability of the outcome.

The latter also occurs, but is on its own still a sweeping generalization that is seldom elaborated on.

This is kind of what I mean. It's easy to make these sweeping generalizations. Appealing to our "human nature" is rather vague and non-specific. It's just as easy to claim capitalism will fail because of human nature.

It lacks substance as an argument, to say the least.

I think it's fair to say capitalism will fail because of human nature, it enables our greed far too much.

So why is greed somehow a bigger problem under socialism than under capitalism?

[The United Provinces of North America]

This is a bit of a straw argument, as you yourself acknowledge anti-socialist arguments are more nuanced than this. It's more so something like "X failed in A, B, and C and failed, therefore X cannot happen" or "X goes against human nature, therefore X cannot happen".

The former is functionally the same as what I described. You're adding instances of "A", "B" and "C", but it makes no difference to the form except by making explicit each failed instance. The point is that past failure is used to conclude the inevitability of the outcome.

The latter also occurs, but is on its own still a sweeping generalization that is seldom elaborated on.

I think it's fair to say capitalism will fail because of human nature, it enables our greed far too much.

So why is greed somehow a bigger problem under socialism than under capitalism?

Just look at Venezuela.

[UniversalCommons]

Socialism ultimately is failing. Capitalism is also failing as things approach zero margin costs for production of data and data becomes increasingly the most valuable commodity, you end up with the people most capable of controlling algorithmic trading and market manipulation in control of the money supply and real world goods. This creates a bizarre economic situation where real world goods are not in the hands of the people who produce them and the people in control of data extract wealth for the own good at the expense of the majority. Thus you have an elite that produces little except data and political nonsense and take everything. This will lead to a huge mess soon.

[Czechostan]

The former is functionally the same as what I described. You're adding instances of "A", "B" and "C", but it makes no difference to the form except by making explicit each failed instance. The point is that past failure is used to conclude the inevitability of the outcome.

Sure, but it's different to argue that something won't work just because it hasn't happened and to argue that something won't work because all attempts have failed.

[Vassenor]

Based on what actual logic?

Based on not being dependent on the government's "tit".

Then by this logic there have been no capitalist nations.

[The United Provinces of North America]

Based on not being dependent on the government's "tit".

Then by this logic there have been no capitalist nations.

*Coughs* You aren't directly under the government's tit, just watch the video I linked.

[Vassenor]

Then by this logic there have been no capitalist nations.

*Coughs* You aren't directly under the government's tit, just watch the video I linked.

What is stopping you making your points in thread anyway?

[Necroghastia]

Instead, you just have the government dependent on corporations' teats.

And that's why you have Union's that protect you, did you watch the video?

I make it a point to not watch random contextless youtube videos, especially when they are presented alongside obvious misinformation.

And yeah, unions totally stop corporate lobbying. Pull the other one. They help make things not as bad, true, but they haven't been able to stop a lot of the bad shit that goes on. Not to mention that they're more of a socialist invention than a capitalist one.

The former is functionally the same as what I described. You're adding instances of "A", "B" and "C", but it makes no difference to the form except by making explicit each failed instance. The point is that past failure is used to conclude the inevitability of the outcome.

The latter also occurs, but is on its own still a sweeping generalization that is seldom elaborated on.


So why is greed somehow a bigger problem under socialism than under capitalism?

Just look at Venezuela.

Everybody drink.

[The United Provinces of North America]

*Coughs* You aren't directly under the government's tit, just watch the video I linked.

What is stopping you making your points in thread anyway?

I already listed my points, where's yours?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Socialism is contrary to human nature.

This is kind of what I mean. It's easy to make these sweeping generalizations. Appealing to our "human nature" is rather vague and non-specific. It's just as easy to claim capitalism will fail because of human nature.

It lacks substance as an argument, to say the least.

Not everyone is going to want to play ball in a socialist society, as diversity of opinion is something humans are known to have. Socialists tend to "fix" that problem with brute force rather than peaceful convincing and/or compromises. Many socialist movements however, try to depict themselves as different from that norm, but that ends up being a lie.

Extremists in the socialist movement also tend to believe that everyone should be equal in all circumstances. While some institutions can function like that, others like the military require hierarchy, as not everyone will play ball otherwise.


You brought up democracy in your OP and yes while there were failures with that idea, we have plenty of plenty of functioning democracies today. Socialism cannot boast any successful places, except some small rebel group controlled areas. Socialism seems to be taking more times to get right than democracy, so that is my response to your OP rebuttal.

[Vassenor]

What is stopping you making your points in thread anyway?

I already listed my points, where's yours?

Your point apparently being that because one person on a reservation got hooked on hard drugs and died as a result that all socialism is bad.

[Duvniask]

Is the failure of socialism inevitable as anti-socialists like to claim?

Yes, socialism is subject to one of two primary failure mechanisms. Either A) it collapses due to low participation. Or B) it resorts to authoritarian oppression to counteract this low participation, and begins to degrade due to government resentment.

Whence cometh low participation?

What, then, would be the casual explanations for its inevitable failure?

Functionally, human diversity, not all people are socialists.

And before the end of feudalism, not all people were capitalists (in the sense of supporting capitalism).

Most people accept the current paradigm of capitalism and try to exist within it. This wasn't always the case, but it became so after our societies cast off the shackles of feudal norms. Why should this principle not hold under a post-capitalist system?

Can you identify the precise points in time (the "turning points") where things go sour?

Immediately, a socialist system on it's outset results in a sophie's choice situation in which the state must accept dwindling productivity or implement heavily authoritarian practices.

I must similarly question this notion that productivity would dwindle. Whence cometh the sloth?

[UniversalCommons]

Social democracy and commonwealth economics produce the highest standards of living statistically. They are not pure socialism or capitalism.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Yes, socialism is subject to one of two primary failure mechanisms. Either A) it collapses due to low participation. Or B) it resorts to authoritarian oppression to counteract this low participation, and begins to degrade due to government resentment.

Command economies are needed to enforce it at least until a point of self-enforcement is reached, which in that case the state should ideally transfer to a rhine style market

[Pacomia]

Social democracy and commonwealth economics produce the highest standards of living statistically. They are not pure socialism or capitalism.

This is certified a True® Fact by the Department of Factchecking.

[Federative Rhodesia]

Please define socialism for the purposes of this discussion.

[Telconi]

Yes, socialism is subject to one of two primary failure mechanisms. Either A) it collapses due to low participation. Or B) it resorts to authoritarian oppression to counteract this low participation, and begins to degrade due to government resentment.

Whence cometh low participation?

Functionally, human diversity, not all people are socialists.

And before the end of feudalism, not all people were capitalists (in the sense of supporting capitalism).

Most people accept the current paradigm of capitalism and try to exist within it. This wasn't always the case, but it became so after our societies cast off the shackles of feudal norms. Why should this principle not hold under a post-capitalist system?

Immediately, a socialist system on it's outset results in a sophie's choice situation in which the state must accept dwindling productivity or implement heavily authoritarian practices.

I must similarly question this notion that productivity would dwindle. Whence cometh the sloth?

Opposition to socialism. In a socialist system, I cannot engage in any other preferred socio-economic system. I am, by default, required to engage in socialism. If I desire not to engage in socialism, then I don't participate in the economy whatsoever.

[The Liberated Territories]

The inevitability of socialist failure is due to the nagging economic calculation problem of the socialist planners.

[The United Provinces of North America]

I already listed my points, where's yours?

Your point apparently being that because one person on a reservation got hooked on hard drugs and died as a result that all socialism is bad.

You surely missed the metaphor.

[Gormwood]

Because socialism involves elements of cooperation and sharing, and too many humans are selfish, self-absorbed assholes.

[Torrocca]

The inevitability of socialist failure is due to the nagging economic calculation problem of the socialist planners.

The constant misapplication of the ECP to Socialism when it was written specifically to solely criticize centralized economic planning needs to go die in a fucking fire.