Socialism Destroys Everything

[Staffsknot]

26 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

What was their excuse in the 1920's and 30's ? this is when first Lenin and then Stalin attempted to shoot anyone with any ambitions to create the perfect socialist society.  This lead first to the mass famine on 1921-22 mainly caused by the inability of the socialist state to respond to demand. That killed 5m. Lenin's response was to seize and sell almost any private asset eg the entire contents of russian churches destroying hundreds of years of cultural artifacts. Always the same response from communists, seize any apparent wealth and persecute those that owned it.

Communists seem to have no perception of what makes people tick. A very simple test is to propose that raising taxes on the rich might be counterproductive. It does not seem to compute that wealthier people might make a value judgement about working that extra day or two a week for very little return. Its like they believe that the only reason anyone is wealthy is raw naked greed at the cost of all others.

 

We did kind of intervene in their affairs by invading along with the other powers of the age and take an active anti-Bolshevik stance you know. 

Now was that elected socialism or a violent civil war and enforced extremes? Think we are into that territory again. In the 30s were there purges based on power struggles for succession - yep.

Just like in the French Revolution much of the bloodshed came as they were constantly watching for counter revolutions. 

The famine was because they were isolated as no country wanted anything to do with them for fear of Bolshevik influence spreading. The aid offered came with strings attached like control over railways and distribution ( Hoover). They also had just been through WW1 and a bloody civil war which kind of interrupts harvests and caused lots of the labourers to you know, be dead.

You really do like to bang on about communists / marxists and the left. Did your brother borrow a drill and break it or did Alexei Sayle not reply to fan mail?

 

[Staffsknot]

25 minutes ago, MancTom said:

Venezuela was already a mess before the sanctions. I recall reading how the regime did the usual socialist thing of sacking all the evil capitalist oil experts and putting their own unqualified people in charge  - and ended up with the predictable result.

You can still argue the sanctions are wrong though - they have made Venezuelans citizens lives even worse and have failed to achieve their objective of regime change. So if it can't achieve the latter what exactly is the justification for them?

 

 

I actually went to Venezuela a few years back. It was functioning, shops had things and they sold oil. Sanctions and drop in oil price killed it.

Funnily enough the yanks like to say it was a basketcase and their sanctions are helping liberate it from communism... obviously the people it killed were just so desperate to buy Pepsi they are willing to make that sacrifice for uncle Sam

[byron78]

Why does Mises keep coming up on this thread?

He's was in the Fatherland Front in Austria for a bloody start!

Is that really where we are now?

[Warlord]

1 hour ago, zugzwang said:

 

The UK hasn't elected a socialist govt in almost half a century!

The US has never had one.

Yet both countries appear to be racing toward bankruptcy at a furious clip. How can this be anything other than a crisis of capitalism?

As for food insecurity? It's never been worse in my lifetime.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/wires/pa/article-9812287/Map-reveals-UK-residents-struggling-access-food.html

 

 

And as you know very well we have crony ,corporatist capitalism. You can still just about make it here and in the US with an idea and access to capital markets (entrepreneur ) though its' getting harder I agree. 

And both the US/UK have progressive income taxes which seize parts of your labour and also Central banks which is another plank of the Communist manifesto.

SO yes, there are elements of socialism/communism which serves the elites in a crony corporatist system. The model they  crave is the Chinese Communist system hence its praise by crony capitalists like Charles Munger

[zugzwang]

9 minutes ago, Warlord said:

And as you know very well we have crony ,corporatist capitalism. You can still just about make it here and in the US with an idea and access to capital markets (entrepreneur ) though its' getting harder I agree. 

And both the US/UK have progressive income taxes which seize parts of your labour and also Central banks which is another plank of the Communist manifesto.

SO yes, there are elements of socialism/communism which serves the elites in a crony corporatist system. The model they  crave is the Chinese Communist system hence its praise by crony capitalists like Charles Munger

Crony capitalism isn't socialism. Not when a country's capital assets remain predominantly in private hands. That's as true today of Venezuela as it is of the UK.

China's transformation is the most extraordinary thing. Clinton-era globalists encouraged by a false belief in the End of History naively assumed that China would fall apart when challenged by capitalism as Yeltsin's Russia had done, leaving them with the spoils. A terrible mistake.

[Pop321]

1 hour ago, nickb1 said:

I'll take an internet keyboard warrior's view over scientists' any day. Who needs experts, right? Fact is, it's already dramatic.

I am no environmentalist. Not by a long way.

However, if I spend any more that 3 minutes thinking about it I would concur things look grim. 

The thing that isn’t factored in nearly enough is the environmental cost of business now we know what we know. Who is paying me for my share of the environment being destroyed in order to line the pockets of shareholders, directors etc. It’s my environment not just theirs

It doesn’t bear thinking about and I guess it is that attitude big business hopes to rely upon. 🤦🏻‍♂️

[Riedquat]

2 minutes ago, Pop321 said:

I am no environmentalist. Not by a long way.

However, if I spend any more that 3 minutes thinking about it I would concur things look grim. 

The thing that isn’t factored in nearly enough is the environmental cost of business now we know what we know. Who is paying me for my share of the environment being destroyed in order to line the pockets of shareholders, directors etc. It’s my environment not just theirs

It doesn’t bear thinking about and I guess it is that attitude big business hopes to rely upon. 🤦🏻‍♂️

Who are you paying for your share of being part of the society that happily laps up all the things that put the pressure on the environment?

Personally I feel I'm paying due to finding the "solutions" to largely be a present I distinctly dislike heading towards a future I'd rather not live to see.

[Pop321]

7 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Who are you paying for your share of being part of the society that happily laps up all the things that put the pressure on the environment?

Personally I feel I'm paying due to finding the "solutions" to largely be a present I distinctly dislike heading towards a future I'd rather not live to see.

Maybe I am not part of that society? I try not to be. 

Didn't understand the 2nd point.

The destruction of the environment has not benefitted everyone evenly. A minority have benefitted financially the most whereas others have paid for it with their habitat or indeed sometimes their lives.

I am not wishing to sound righteous on this but when somebody's 70 year footprint leaves a nasty dint in the planets well-being how is that a success? When not measured in monetary economic terms then some of the most successful lives will not fair well.

Said it before I am no environmentalist but I can’t argue with anyone who is truly committed to the cause….unless they are PR preachy and should be at school of course😉  

 

[byron78]

10 minutes ago, Pop321 said:

Maybe I am not part of that society? I try not to be. 

Didn't understand the 2nd point.

The destruction of the environment has not benefitted everyone evenly. A minority have benefitted financially the most whereas others have paid for it with their habitat or indeed sometimes their lives.

I am not wishing to sound righteous on this but when somebody's 70 year footprint leaves a nasty dint in the planets well-being how is that a success? When not measured in monetary economic terms then some of the most successful lives will not fair well.

Said it before I am no environmentalist but I can’t argue with anyone who is truly committed to the cause….unless they are PR preachy and should be at school of course😉  

 

You would have had your share of the UK oil wealth if Thatcher had followed the Nordic model. (Never going to happen here in the 80s of course).

I think you make an excellent point here. So much of our modern society is built off the back of fossil fuels. I'd probably argue all of it ultimately is.

In the US it's now second/third generation inherited private owners who control that (the Koch brothers etc) whose grandparents and parents got rich and have now been dominating their government for 100+ years. In Russia, it's friends of Putin, who are all obviously huge fans of crony capitalism. Saudi Arabia and the other big players simply wouldn't exist without their oil.

Huge HUGE sums of money, in very very few hands. For me, they absolutely should pay for the clean up. But they won't of course.

Edited July 28, 2021 by byron78

[Riedquat]

15 minutes ago, Pop321 said:

Maybe I am not part of that society? I try not to be. 

Didn't understand the 2nd point.

The destruction of the environment has not benefitted everyone evenly. A minority have benefitted financially the most whereas others have paid for it with their habitat or indeed sometimes their lives.

I am not wishing to sound righteous on this but when somebody's 70 year footprint leaves a nasty dint in the planets well-being how is that a success? When not measured in monetary economic terms then some of the most successful lives will not fair well.

Said it before I am no environmentalist but I can’t argue with anyone who is truly committed to the cause….unless they are PR preachy and should be at school of course😉 

I wasn't saying anything of it was a success. But as for part of that society, there's an impact on everything you buy, eat, power you use etc.; it's hard to avoid even if you want to, and few want to, even if they don't go as much for large-scale consumption as most.

The second point was just me being depressed by it all - another case of the vision of a solution to a problem just being an example of the road to hell being paved by good intentions - none of it leads to the sort of world I want to live in.

[Pop321]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

I wasn't saying anything of it was a success. But as for part of that society, there's an impact on everything you buy, eat, power you use etc.; it's hard to avoid even if you want to, and few want to, even if they don't go as much for large-scale consumption as most.

The second point was just me being depressed by it all - another case of the vision of a solution to a problem just being an example of the road to hell being paved by good intentions - none of it leads to the sort of world I want to live in.

Yep. I see.👍🏻

I guess I do my bit but not nearly enough. However, like a hunter killing a fish and now me using plastic…it’s all about an individual moderate impact. In not an excusable impact but the benefit I derive is smaller than the rewards given to a few.

I am referring to non monetary translation of the impact some people are having. I am not playing this as a socialist argument against “the big bad business owner’ because some businesses have little impact….I am just referring to environmental terms. 

I think the first environmental comment made (not by me) just caught a nerve and my imagination….because I see everything in monetary terms but perhaps that is only one small measure of human existence. Unfortunately it now drives 90% of what we do.

Maybe I am becoming environmentally aware. My cousin is a strict vegan for environmental reasons and I never argue with their views….they are right…but I am not committed. And I like lard. 😉

[nickb1]

3 hours ago, Pop321 said:

My cousin is a strict vegan for environmental reasons and I never argue with their views

I think there are some defensible reasons for being a vegan (I'm not one btw) but I doubt the environmental case. Integrated agriculture is best for soil health, and that is foundational; we need animals on the land. Vegan products can be as destructive as livestock farming. Broadscale soy monoculture in cleared rainforest anyone? But all depends how things are done, whether it's livestock or crops.

[nickb1]

1 hour ago, nickb1 said:

 

 

Edited July 28, 2021 by nickb1

[Pop321]

33 minutes ago, nickb1 said:

I think there are some defensible reasons for being a vegan (I'm not one btw) but I doubt the environmental case. Integrated agriculture is best for soil health, and that is foundational; we need animals on the land. Vegan products can be as destructive as livestock farming. Broadscale soy monoculture in cleared rainforest anyone? But all depends how things are done, whether it's livestock or crops.

I think if that is the case then I guess it’s still a principled objection rather than a practical beneficial one. I guess I wouldn’t even take the time to try find out the ‘truth’ because the truth nowadays in so many things is hidden from us. A terrible admission of distrust and I guess a lazy excuse, I know. 

[Dorkins]

14 hours ago, Warlord said:

Dorkins, if you have time watch the lecture. He gives examples where the managers in these command economies lie about their quotas or you get weird distortions like large clothing to make good use of the materials (most of it totally wasted and unnecessary) ...  

Where you have humans you get fraud, this is not unique to command economies. Who is the biggest fraudster, some small time commie factory overseer who claims his factory made twice as many shoes as it actually did last month or a bankster packaging up subprime mortgage derivatives in a complicated way to sell to unsuspecting pension funds? At least the factory overseer's efforts produced some actual shoes.

[Dorkins]

14 hours ago, Warlord said:

It just doesn't work without prices and yes, they kept it going for 70 years but eventually Mises was proven right and in the 20's that wasn't a popular thing to say. Mises was shunned.

Communists and capitalists spent the 20th century predicting the demise of each other's economic systems, ultimately they were both right. The West largely abandoned capitalism in the 2000s and shows no signs of reintroducing it, hence the continued existence of this website.

Edited July 28, 2021 by Dorkins

[Riedquat]

9 hours ago, Dorkins said:

Communists and capitalists spent the 20th century predicting the demise of each other's economic systems, ultimately they were both right. The West largely abandoned capitalism in the 2000s and shows no signs of reintroducing it, hence the continued existence of this website.

Nope, still mostly capitalist in the West. Rather too tainted by crony corporatism for my tastes (which is an inevitable consequence), but it's a very big exaggeration to stretch that to "largely abandoned."

[Big Orange]

On 28/07/2021 at 11:15, zugzwang said:

 The post-apartheid looting in South Africa is nothing when compared with the pre-apartheid looting of South Africa.

South Africa is now a semi-failed state spiraling into some kind of civil war and ANC corruption has been as steep (if not steeper) than under the white dominated Apartheid regime - Zuma's "state capture" has eroded away the nation from the inside out just to enrich himself, his Zulu cronies, and the Gupta clan.

The Apartheid regime was about enriching white elites at the gross expense of Africans, its cities and suburbs were heavily policed Potemkin Villages writ large, but at least its corruption wasn't such that it had no money left over to fund vital services or modern urban and industrial infrastructure...

Edited July 29, 2021 by Big Orange

[Warlord]

4 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Nope, still mostly capitalist in the West. Rather too tainted by crony corporatism for my tastes (which is an inevitable consequence), but it's a very big exaggeration to stretch that to "largely abandoned."

At least we''re not eating out of rubbish bins, eh?

[byron78]

14 hours ago, Dorkins said:

Communists and capitalists spent the 20th century predicting the demise of each other's economic systems, ultimately they were both right. The West largely abandoned capitalism in the 2000s and shows no signs of reintroducing it, hence the continued existence of this website.

Largely abandoned.... literally.

They all built massive yachts and sailed off around their trillions held in offshore tax havens. Oh... and a couple firing themselves into space!

[morty]

Couldn’t socialism work if there was a public easily searchable record of every penny given and a crackdown on those who took advantage of generosity?

[Bob8]

On 26/07/2021 at 10:05, Warlord said:

FREE lecture from Prof. Thomas DiLorenzo.

He mentions post-war Britain and  Fabian Socialism as an example when the car industry and everything else was nationalised. He points out it was a disaster by the 1970'.s

Another example he cites is Venezuela in under Chavez ,one of the richest countries in Latin America destroyed within 10 years!

 

The issue is one of accountability.

Dennings is a rather socialist approach to the work place, in opposition to the very non-socialist approach of Lenin who abolished the soviets as soon as he could.

[Riedquat]

13 minutes ago, morty said:

Couldn’t socialism work if there was a public easily searchable record of every penny given and a crackdown on those who took advantage of generosity?

No, because that wouldn't be practical (to the extent where no-one could manipulate or abuse it). But the idea is the sort of thing that fits in, why such societies tend to be pretty repressive and authoritarian.

[scepticus]

On 28/07/2021 at 10:09, Riedquat said:

No, all that demonstrates is that a command economy is a pretty inefficient system, not that it's 100% negative and produces nothing. It wouldn't have lasted 70 years if that was the case.

As I've said often enough any 100% extreme anything isn't going to work very well, that's not a good argument for saying anything vaguely associated with it is wrong though. Just as that extreme socialism results in inefficiency and waste and so on extreme capitalism (and the way it's worded often sounds little different to anarchy) results in monopolies, power concentrated in the few, cronyism and so on.

Not having an extreme one or the other doesn't mean none of that happens (as we can see  easily enough just by looking around); no idea doesn't have its downsides, so all you can do in reality is to try to find a good balance and constantly, actively work to mitigate the issues.

I think that last part - constantly working to mitigate the issues - is the part many people have a problem with. The idea of a simple system that can be left to its own devices, where we never have to make decisions without an ideology telling us exactly what the right decision should be - where the possibility exists that we might make the wrong one for reasons other than "I didn't follow the rulebook exactly" - people don't like that. It provides no certainty and it requires responsibility and accepting that sh1t happens.

This is the kind of sensible statement that the majority of people including me agree with. Solutions to problems should be as simple as possible, but no simpler than that. All the super-simple just do/don't do X and all is well stories like the OP are snake oil.

There is no universal truth of what works and doesn't, so we have to find our way/evolve, which requires making mistakes, and having a means of error correcting and criticism, which in turn requires an open society and institutions that facilitate that.

And it takes time. The sad fact is that finding and correcting errors can take a longer time than the human life span. But looking at where we are and where we came from, it seems the process has been working.

 

[dugsbody]

20 hours ago, morty said:

Couldn’t socialism work if there was a public easily searchable record of every penny given and a crackdown on those who took advantage of generosity?

No, because your post above suggests the problem. Strong leaders can always whip a population in a given direction. Your posts suggests that the people at fault are "benefit scroungers" rather than the people at the top siphoning billions of our money into their mates and donors hands.

If everything was equal, you'd expect people to be more mad at the ultra-haves, stealing from us, rather than some poor sods trying to scrape by at the bottom of the barrel.

But the ultra-haves control who people get angry with, because they control the narrative through the press and their other institutions.

It'll always be like that.