Talk:Criticism of socialism

	This Economics related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): Unbalanced. Reads more like an essay than a proper article.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

The not so "iron-law" of Oligarchy.

Isn't the iron law of Oligarchy supposed to apply strictly to a supposed tendency for democratic organizations to turn into an oligarchy over time? I don't think citing examples of societies that were never really democratic to begin after the establishment of "socialist" regimes genuinely fits as examples of this proposed law, and thus wouldn't be genuine examples of evidence for this phenomena. To say also that the "law" is criticized is putting it mildly and downplaying the methodological criticisms that the concept receives. The idea that this is even close to what can be described as a scientific law is kind of baseless given how malleable it seems to be under certain contexts and the existence of counter examples. See "https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1086/316963" and "https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7s4b6". There is also the issue given the limited sample that Michel's initial study used. It wasn't exactly applied cross culturally to various contexts. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC).

@OnlySortaDumb I'm not using Michels as a primary source here, but Acemoglu and Robinson. Unlike him, they talk about countries, not unions, (indeed, I even criticized his determinism here). I don't think, however, that the Iron Law of Oligarchy a scientific law by any means (I'm not even sure if such thing exist in social sciences). GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 01:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't address the non-applicability of the criticism. Most "socialist" countries wouldn't exactly have met the standards of what can constitute a democracy to begin with, and often they had no intention of being one. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

That was actually their point. They argued that in many countries, after socialists came into power, they at first wanted a more open regime, ended up as corrupt as the older regime. Did this happened in capitalist countries too? Yes. But they argue that countries that could secure property rights could break the mold better than those that couldn't. In other words, if you want democracy, you need macroeconomic stability and property rights (though you can have these two on dictatorships too). It's not a coincidence, according to them, that almost every socialist country turned into a dictatorship.

Still regarding the on whether it's an actual law, to quote Acemoglu and Robinson, "Of course, the iron law of oligarchy is not a true law, in the sense that the laws of physics are. It does not chart an inevitable path, as the Glorious Revolution in England or the Meiji Restoration in Japan illustrate." GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 02:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It was actually their point that these regimes had no desire for a democracy to begin with? And so that makes them perfect examples of how democratic organization tend towards oligarchy? That doesn’t really to seem to be what they are actually arguing; and what would they say that countries like the US, England, and Japan are not in anyway oligarchies? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No, their point is that it is irrelevant if the new group in charge is composed of as bunch of authoritarians psychopaths or not, the new group of leaders will devolve into a tyrannical oligarchy that will use the same extractive institutions as the former group. Having strong propoerty rights and economic freedom help out as you as you don't mix political and economic power. The result: power becomes more spaced - and the benefits of holding political power greatly diminish. Why did England and France break the mold? According to them, there are three reasons, two of them are related to the development of capitalism:

Three factors greatly facilitated the emergence of more inclusive political institutions following the Glorious Revolution and the French Revolution. The first was new merchants and businessmen wishing to unleash the power of creative destruction from which they themselves would benefit; these new men were among the key members of the revolutionary coalitions and did not wish to see the development of yet another set of extractive institutions that would again prey on them.

The second was the nature of the broad coalition that had formed in both cases. For example, the Glorious Revolution wasn’t a coup by a narrow group or a specific narrow interest, but a movement backed by merchants, industrialists, the gentry, and diverse political groupings. The same was largely true for the French Revolution.

The third factor relates to the history of English and French political institutions. They created a background against which new, more inclusive regimes could develop. In both countries there was a tradition of parliaments and power sharing going back to the Magna Carta in England and to the Assembly of Notables in France. Moreover, both revolutions happened in the midst of a process that had already weakened the grasp of the absolutist, or aspiring absolutist, regimes.

And how about Africa?

The international community thought that postcolonial African independence would lead to economic growth through a process of state planning and cultivation of the private sector. But the private sector was not there—except in rural areas, which had no representation in the new governments and would thus be their first prey. Most important perhaps, in most of these cases there were enormous benefits from holding power. These benefits both attracted the most unscrupulous men, (...), who wished to monopolize this power, and brought the worst out of them once they were in power. There was nothing to break the vicious circle.

I've read this book twice, it's my favorite on the subject, and I strongly recommend it to anyone wishing to understand better economic development and political liberty. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

None of these examples explain why these "non-inclusive" nations serve as evidence for the iron law of oligarchy or even come to establish that English or French institutions are without oligarchy. So why is this being included as evidence for the iron law of oligarchy and why is it being treated as especially connected to socialism? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't get your post. What's a "non-inclusive nation"? You mean a country with extractive institutions? I think I've already answered your question. Countries without property rights and economic freedom became oligarchies because these institutions can prevent the rise of oligarchies as they disperse power (that doesn't mean that they can also concentrate power, but it's possible to fight them within a market economy). The "capitalist" countries that became oligarchies are often those that failed at protecting property rights as well. Saying that England and France are oligarchies just like Ethiopia and Zimbabwe is asinine at best. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The public (at least here in the States) still has very limited control over actual policy. It's the top 1% who have the most substantial influence on key matters of policy. I don't know what else you call that but "oligarchy." It's certainly not meaningful democracy. Vee (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Nah, Gee. This isn't evident because the countries you are excluding as oligarchies have not been demonstrated as non-oligarchies. There is zero evidence here tying a direct link between oligarchy and the dominant mode of production, there really isn't any evidence in this at all regarding democracies tending towards oligarchies either (which is necessary to establishing evidence for the iron law of oligarchy so mentioned). The US is very often appealed to as an example of an oligarchy by many. The label is being applied pretty arbitrarily without a definition of what an oligarchy even is. You should easily be able to infer from context of what I mean by "non-inclusive" nations when the quote you are citing specifically credits "inclusive political institutions" to the development of English and French institutions. A clear contrast is being compared with the African nations implicated as having political institutions that are non-inclusive. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC).

Well, then it's your job to prove that US, France, England, Japan, etc are oligarchies. I'm reading Vee's article (which is from 2009, so there are probably newer articles on the subject, supposing this thesis is relevant) and even they don't call US an oligarchy, they just say it's "is useful to think about the US political system in terms of oligarchy" (among other weasel words), but their do not conclude that the US is an oligarchy. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

What's the operational definition of an oligarchy in this context? Because without one any description of a nation being or not being an oligarchy is withtout concrete meaning, and that's primarily my point. My allegation is that the term is being used arbitrarily, evidenced by a lack of operational definition in this context. An undefined set has no clear boundaries of inclusion and exclusion, and such there is no justifiable distinct reason to why x should be included in this set and why y should be excluded. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I can not demonstrate the presence or absence of an oligarchy without an operational definition. So what does Acemoglu and Robinson provide?- Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This paper pretty much demonstrates that the wealthy influence in American politics is so great as to make claims of meaningful American democracy "seriously threatened." Again, what else do you call that but oligarchy? Vee (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (EC) They don't give an "operational" definition as far as I remember on WNF, I believe they expect the reader to know what an oligarchy is. On this article [1] Acemoglu argues that an oligarchy is where the political power is in the hands of few, while in a democracy, power is more difuse, but he doesn't contrast socialism and capitalism. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Consider the very small percentage of people who have the ability to write legislation, and the fact that in places like the US the electoral college has no obligation to follow through on popular vote -- I don't see how most developed nations with a representative democracy would not constitute a type of oligarchy. We are talking less then 0.1% of the population that is able to make active decisions in law-making and public policies through recognized political authority. How does that no fit the definition of political power being in the hands of a few people? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

(EC) I think it's quite bold to say that a single article "proves" something, Vee. They don't use the word oligarchy, even even them admit that they don't know how much impact upon public policy the economic elites have. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's the point of a Representative democracy, which I believe it's better than a direct democracy, but that's not the place for this discussion. Of course every country has oligarchical traits, but I don't think we can compare what happened in socialist countries and what happened in the first world capitalism. Can we compare with what happened in thrid world capitalist countries? Sure, Acemoglu and Robinson for instance compare Bill Gates and US with Mexico and Carlos Slim, and how the former managed to amass a lot less power than the latter, but the problem of countries like Mexico and Africa is, according to them, ill-protected property rights, not too much capitalism (though, as I suggested in the article, they do endorse policies such as the Sherman Act). GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, just a small, unrelated tip, you can use {{--}} instead of "--" if you want to type –. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

This just sort of concedes that the distinction is not categorical and that there is an element of arbitrariness at play. Why can't we compare "first-world" capitalist countries to socialist nations? Isn't that the whole point? Aren't we trying to establish what makes them different and why that difference makes the former superior? It kind of seems like having your cake and eating it too to only allow some comparisons that serve the argument in criticism of socialism . -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

"A market socialist economy is an economy in which firms are owned and controlled by the government but then sell their products to consumers in competitive markets."

This only defines one type of Market Socialism. There are of course others in the tradition of libertarian socialism, even "free market" forms of socialism in the concept of systems like mutualism. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Brain star

Is it good enough for silver? Or who knows, even gold. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s not a particularly balanced article and focuses primarily on the inefficiencies of centrally planned economies over that of a market economies with some critiques of nationalizing industry and government owned enterprises sprinkled throughout. That’s not how socialism is defined though by people who are actually proponents of socialism. Command economies are not even per se incompatible with systems to which the MoP are predominantly owned by private individuals — in fact that is how a lot of economies actually functioned during the world wars. There also a lot of quotes of individuals appealing to their status as an alternative to providing actual empirical evidence. The quote in particular about resource allocation being entirely dictated by market forces is actually straight up contradicted by how private companies like Walmart and Amazon actually operate. There is actually a lot of internal planning happening in some of the largest private firms in the world. Sears famously tried to use have their internal affairs function as a market and it ended up being a failure. This isn’t even like a secret, walmart is entirely open about the way it internally plans it’s resource and product allocation — Amazon as well even boasting about it’s ability to anticipate customer needs before they are needed. Amazon does that via data-driven planing, predictive algorithms, and creating demand through planned marketing, etc. The idea that there is clean distinction between planned economies and market economies is kind of radically oversimplified idea about how real world economic systems actually operate. Many European countries are a mix of both and some actually have a higher degree of life satisfaction and QoL measure then the united states. That is essentially what is happening with the Nordic System. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

If you only look at how socialism is defined by it’s critics you run a serious risk of strawmanning socialists, and in doing that the critiques of “socialism” cease to be critiques of socialism but of something else entirely; the criticisms become irrelevant. Socialism as defined by Marx, Lenin, Kropotkin, etc is defined by an absence of economic classes. Genuine critiques of socialism have to be about why the means of production cannot be owned in common and in why a class-based hierarchy and thus classism is actually a good thing. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@OnlySortaDumb, while I appreciate your response, I honestly feel like you haven’t read the article. I wrote about Amazon and Walmart. You can even see that I remained agnostic about the idea that they “prove” that economic planning is a good idea, not because I agree or disagree with the idea, but because it’s still a fringe, highly speculative proposal with little to no academic support. You can check the RePeC list and I don’t think anyone there actually wrote about the idea advanced by Michal Rozworski, Leigh Phillips. :::Regarding the economies during the World War One, I suggest this article.[2] It’s true that Nazi Germany experienced a command economy (and to a lesser extent, even the US and the UK) According to historian Richard Evans on his Third Reich trilogy, the Nazi economic planning beared much resemblance to the Stalinist planning. I honestly don’t see how this is relevant to the discussions. Yes, there is a clean distinction between planned and market economies, and the idea that the European countries are in fact mixed economies and not capitalist nations always striked to me as absurd.

Regarding your second comment, I mostly used academics and modern (post-1950) authors. I did read much of what Lenin wrote (My PhD project is about War Communism). You can also see that I quoted Robert Heilbroner, one of the most important socialist economists of the second half of the XXth century on the head of the article. I know, I know, there are many definitions of socialism, even SEP doesn't give us a definitive definition, but I used the idea of public/collective ownership of the means of production for a simple reason: that’s what socialism actually was. I have no interest into discussing proposals that don’t exist in the real world and (probably) fall into the Nirvana fallacy, so I used empirical evidence from the whole world. Most of the sources I used don’t even specifically talk about socialism. That being said, I’m pretty sure most socialists would disagree with the concepts of economic freedom and strong property rights, which are all on the article. Sorry if my tone was harsh, I woke up only three hours ago and I’m having an incredibly bad day. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 12:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, Cosmik already demoted it to bronze. Maybe in the future I'll work on this article some more (and maybe others will), so we can have this conversation again. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstood my criticism I wasn’t actually suggesting these mixed economies weren’t capitalist but insisting on the fact they are not simply economies to which resource allocation is totally decided on the basis of market forces in the absence of planning. I did read the article you display a quote in the section on prices and information by Paul Samuelson and William Nordhaus that suggest the rationing of goods isn’t subject to economic planning but simply dictated by supply and demand. That is simply false as apparently you are aware of because large economies like that possessed by companies like Amazon and Walmart do ration goods on the basis of economic planning alongside using external market factors to base such planning around (i.e. predicting seasonal changes in consumption based on past demand). It’s kind of a brain dead response to such realities to insist that economic planning is a “fringe” idea. Walmart is is almost as large as it’s own economy as the soviet union was. It’s a highly profitable business. Most countries engage in a certain degree of economic planning. It’s not a “fringe” thing when it’s regularly put in practice. My entire point is that economic planning versus market forces is not actually a debate between socialism and capitalism. You don’t mention Amazon and Walmart until well after the various sections on prices, information, and incentives; and in those sections especially you present the idea of resource allocation being dictated by supply and demand without economic planning completely uncritically. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Emphasizing this point further socialism != command economy and/or a planned economy. Also please stop presenting my own premises back at me like didn’t already state them. It’s condescending, if you know what I said is technically true then why reiterate it as if I never heard it before. Also like to present those facts as if I said economies with economic planning weren’t capitalist when my whole point is that they are capitalist either suggests you either are just unfortunately obtuse or are deliberately misrepresenting me. The efficiencies of markets over centralized planning is not an argument against socialism, and the one point about yugoslavia doesn’t actually disprove the premise of market socialism. In fact your article gives a defintion of market socialism that uses insufficient and unnecessary conditions. The distinction between socialism and capitalism is about class relations; to effectively criticize socialism you need to criticize the idea of a classless society where the means of production are held in common. The vast majority of the criticisms present in this article don’t even really directly address that but instead focus almost entirely on some vague idea that socialism is a society without markets where the government largely plans the economy as opposed to free enterprise. Again that’s not actually what the distinction between socialism and capitalism is about. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Also you don’t know what the Nirvanna fallacy is, it’s an informal fallacy of prescription not about definitions of concepts. If I insisted that a unicorn was a horse with a single horn protruding from it’s head that is simply telling you what a unicorn is, it is not the nirvana fallacy. It’s not a fallacy concerned with ontology. It’s about refusing to accept actions that are effective with good effects in favour of some unrealistic ideal; it’s a fallacy concerned with ethics the “the perfect is the enemy of the good” and all that. It’s not even a formal fallacy though, so the problem with the fallacy strictly speaking doesn’t even have anything to do with being a formally invalid argument. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Also you are kind of are uncritically accepting these nominally communists countries as being genuinely socialist which is academically contested and is kind of academically dishonest. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Perhaps I wasn't clear enough or you didn't understand some of my points. Or maybe I didn’t understand this last post of yours at all. I never said that planning is impossible, (in fact, I disagree with Mises on that, I believe that the section on him is also pretty agnostic). Indeed, I’m not aware of a truly laissez-faire economy. The main thesis here is that central planning is very inefficient. Central planning is not the same planning some parts of the economy, like the US is doing now with its semiconductor industry. Those are often based on microeconomics (if good or bad economics is another debate), but on the macroeconomic level I’m not aware of any major economist claiming that it is efficient to plan the economy like major companies do. If the idea that central planning can work because Walmart and Amazon can plan their immense economies is not fringe, well, you can mention your sources.

I kinda feel like you want this article to talk about your own definition of socialism. Again, I used Robert Heilbroner, Alec Nove and Janos Kornái as sources for what socialism is. These guys are pros, unlike us. They argue that socialism is a system with public ownership of the means of production. I don’t understand why I should use your definition and focus on class struggle instead.

Finally, regarding the Nirvana fallacy, you should read the creator of the term. [3]. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I honestly didn't even understand if you're arguing in favor of planning the economy or not. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not! My point is that the narrative here is oversimplified and not particularly relevant to being critique of socialism qua socialism. Even in the context of central planning that has been used by countries like France, Germany and Sweden for decades following world war II, none of which were necessarily catastrophic failures. The point about amazon and walmart is not that centrally planned firms are good but that they are actually pretty sizeable profit generating international economies of their own in spite of the use of internal central economic planning. When we speak of inefficiencies like inefficient towards what? Resource allocation? Does Amazon and Walmart fail in that regard? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the word "fringe" here might be the problem. "Fringe" does not equate "wrong". A fringe idea is an idea that thrives in the margin of the mainstream thought. I even said here (and in the article) that I don't believe that this idea is wrong or right, just that it didn't receive enough attention from the academic mainstream yet (the only criticism I could find when I was writing the article came from libertarian right-wing think tanks such as the LvMI and the Foundation for Economic Education that also qualify as fringe). Maybe Rozworski and Philips are right, but I'm not aware of anyone on the mainstream thought supporting or criticizing them. Regarding WWII, I think the article explains the reason. The countries were united for one reason. You can have good results when you plan your economy to focus on one sector (in this case, it was the millitary). You will, however, see some shortages (the Oscar Statue during WWII was made of plaster because they didn't have enough metal, for instance). A good argument is to claim that Hayek and Mises were wrong on the scale of the problem: central planning might lead to inefficiencies, but not as much as they thought. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

>Listening to anything the libertarians have to say about anything ever.

Your opinion has been noted and discarded. A somebody. (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

But I'm not listening to them, I agree that most of them are dumb. I just came across their arguments while doing my research on the Rozworski and Philips and I find their answers wanting. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah ok libertarian. A somebody. (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm a New Keynesian, I know you're joking, but don't compare with those pricks. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

"Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter's prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes' excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (1926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud." -Benito Mussolini, founder of Fascism. A somebody. (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Have you actually read the People’s Republic of Walmart and tried to fact check their claims or are you only aware of the basic premise of the book? Have you looked into articles to how centralized planning was used in “non-communist” European countries post-world war II? Were you aware that Encyclopedia Britanica has an article on that subject? Have you looked into how resource allocation often happens in large private firms? What about how public healthcare services allocate services and resources in Countries like Canada and the Uk? What about the use of a central planner board in countries like Sweden? Exploring alternative hypotheses to why the soviet union had so many fammines? Looked at the rate of famines in Russia prior to the Soviet Union? Compared the strengths and weaknesses of nationalized industries in places like Sweden? Looked into follow up arguments from socialists thinkers in response to Hayek and Mises and see if they hold up to scrutiny? I am not just talking Lange here because the socialist responses to such criticisms doesn’t stop and end there. Gonna mention how Lenin didn’t think the Soviet Union achieved socialism? Why Trotsky didn’t think socialism was possible in a single country? Looked at Libertarian Socialist projects in Rojava, Mexico, Israel, and Catalonia? What sort of problems did their economic projects result in? What kind of strengths did they have if any? Genuinely curious about how much you looked into it, and why only small percentage of this article is dedicated to socialist responses and even is pretty bare bones about it without going into much depth. It’s make it look like we are more willing to engage with MRA’s and anti-vaxxers in good faith with side-by-side rebuttals then it does whenever the subject of anarchism or socialism comes up. It paints a pretty intellectually dishonest picture of our community and doesn’t really suggest we actually care about the whole extent of the discourse and sum-total of accumulated evidence; but rather just a small bubble of evidence that ideologically aligns with mainstream American politics. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

JAQing off will not make your case stronger, you know? I've asked you three or four times. Which major economists (you can see them on Repec) agree with Rozworski and Philips? Or with Lange, Lenin, Trotsky or any of them? If you can answer this question, I might answer yours. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You don’t seem to understand what is being done with the allegation of JAQing Off. I am not actually forwarding the conclusion that Rozworski and Phillips are correct that’s not even hinted at with what I wrote. I am asking you if you did these things, I am asking you if you looked at these other points of reference or evidence? Are you considering all the alleged facts? Are you looking for inconsistencies? Are you looking at all the evidence and arguments accessible to you across various disciplines both in the social sciences and humanities? You play this fucking game all the time where you try to strawman me into a totally different argument that I am not even making. I am asking you did you engage in the literature on economic planning both centralized and decentralized in an intellectually honest way? Did you ask yourself these questions and try to answer them? If not then like this isn’t a well-researched article, it’s bad scholarship. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it’s because I am trained as a philosopher and such we focus more on what makes a good or bad argument, but philosophy students are trained when arguing for a given stance to always anticipate counter-arguments and address them. If I were to write an paper arguing for the B-theory of time and that the A-theory of time was false, I would have to anticipate how an A-theorist would respond and address the existing arguments against the B-theory in the academic literature. Otherwise my paper would be absurdly weak and would not live up to scholarly scrutiny. It’s no different arguing against socialism, you have to anticipate socialist arguments, you have to think of counter-examples to your points and try address them as best as you can. If you just simply ignore or deem them irrelevant you aren’t actually engaging with the thoughts you are trying to criticize. The risk of arguing with a strawmam is incredibly high. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

(EC) " I am not actually forwarding the conclusion that Rozworski and Phillips are correct". No, You're not. This became clear here.[4] What isn't clear perhaps is the fact that I'm not saying that they are wrong either, even though I've stated this many times. The point is, you said that economic planning is not a fringe idea. I asked for sources. Which modern economists and textbooks say that planning is a good thing. You didn't post. I don't see why I should answer your questions either. I'll just answer one of them to motivate you. The last famine in Russia happened in 1890. It killed 500 thousand people, less than half of what the 1921 famine killed. Actually I'll answer another one. Most of the studies I posted on the SOE section study hundreds of countries. That's how social science is done. So, the Sweden case is not very relevant, supposing it's an exception. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that qualitative research is not important. It is. Probably more than many people think. But using one country as a reference to debunk a poit that has been very well-estabilished is not the way to go. Still waiting for which economists support planning since it's not fringe. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

At this point I think your intellectual dishonesty is more than apparent. Does the evidence that the sky is generally blue on a sunny day require a respected economist to affirm before it can be accepted as empirical evidence? I told you already that Enclycopedia Brittanica has an article on non-communist economic planning which you can read about here [5]. You know about things like Canada’s public healthcare and the NHS, you can look at empirical evidence on how effective they are in resource allocation. I am sure there are plenty of articles on it on JSTOR, may even support your argument. For all I know there can plenty of inefficiencies and sub-optimal policies in these services that I am unaware of. This entire argument I am making isn’t even suggesting that if you answered these questions you’d come away with a stronger case for economic planning or whatever, but that you’d actually have a better more nuanced argument against the things you are opposed to if you actually put the work in to fairly represent what they are. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

And I've already told you that this is not planning. Not even Hayek would say it is (he supported universal healthcare). Indeed, even the article mentions that he wasn't talking about welfare stare on his criticism of planning. That wasn't what Lange and Lerner were talking about either. And the funny thing is, I've already told you this on this discussion . At this point I believe you're being blantant dishonest, or you have no idea about what was the economic calculation debate. Possibly both. Same with planning outside communist countries. I've already explained the difference. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 21:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The same Hayek that is burning in hell right now for being an austrian correct? A somebody. (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

(EC) >Still waiting for which economists support planning since it's not fringe.

Like this isn’t even relevant to what I am talking about. My evidence of economic planing being kind of a normal part of many economic systems is already evidence historically by the nations I listed, and the fact that it’s acknowledged as a normal part of many private industries. Wikipedia even talks about it on their page about economic planning under the section “under capitalism” [6]. Hell, my province in Canada openly has an “economic-development plan”[7]. There is so much evidence that economic planning is just a normal part of market economies that I don’t even see why it would be novel enough for economists to write about it. It’s literally kind basic, there is nothing novel to acknowledge it. And again the presence my province having a system of economic planning doesn’t make my province socialist. So why do critiques of socialism focus so much on centralized planning over markets? How is that a criticism of socialism ala social ownership if economic planning centralized or otherwise isn’t even specific to socialism? It’s not even a defining feature by the very definition you state to appeal to! This is also addressed in the SEP article you claimed to reference! - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

so the implemented system of central planning by countries like France after WWII is not a relevant example of centralized planning? That property like hospitals and clinics being owned by governments have nothing to do with public ownership of the means of production? Why are worker self-management programs in Catalonia, or Mexico not addressed? Why is mutualism and market anarchism excluded by the definition of market socialism provided? If you handed me this a paper for a undergrad political philosophy course I would probably give the paper a C+ at best given it’s failure to address counter-arguments or explain seemingly inconsistent evidence. It’s not as if that couldn’t be done reaching the same conclusion that socialism and economic planning is bad, it totally could have been done . You are just lazy. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Not even part of this, but "I am trained as a philosopher" might be the funniest sentence I've read on this wiki all year. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

(Ec) Ok, you've no idea about what central planning is. Did Canada do what Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union did? No. Because that's what the economic calculation debate was about. Some planning, like during the pandemic,is supported even today, when the mainstream is far more liberal than 70 years ago. And yes. It is relevant because you can't find a single economist supporting central planning today. I even asked the chatGPT in order to be sure. Your whole point is a huge strawman. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

If you asked fucking ChatGPT about something in relation to a debate, I think you may be wrong libertarian. A somebody. (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Jokes on you, I only asked ChatGPT because it might know at least one economist that supported central planning. You may say it was an act of desperation because no other source would give me one. It was my last resource, and if failed. So, yeah, no major economist support central planning. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It burns. A somebody. (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Asking ChatGPT a malformed question that is not even relevant to what is actually being argued is not the win you think it is. Absolutely no one was arguing that some mainstream economists “support” economic planning. It honestly doesn’t matter, the fact is that it’s used in many economic systems without resulting economic instability, so the idea that economic planning alone even centralized planning directly causes unsustainable economies, or that sustainable economies are completely void of centralized planning is contradicted by the available evidence. Only Sort of Dumb (talk)

>asked ChatGPT. Really ensuring that you take this topic very seriously. The socialist calculation debate pre-dates the soviet union btw. You can’t even get that fact right. Shit was being argued about at the time of Marx’s writings because he explicitly wanted markets abolished (even then that is only part of the debate, because Marx didn’t think markets could be abolished right away but thought prices could reflect “true labour value” something Joan Robinson was latee heavily critical of). It wasn’t about “nazi germany” from the get go. That didn’t happen till the 30’s, and are we really going the nazi’s were socialist route right now? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the debate started before Marx, with Hermann Heinrich Gossen. You're the one that need to study more. I didn't say that it started with the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany either (I've already said today that they weren't socialists today). Anyway, nice attempt to move the goal post. My point is the scale of planning. Hayek criticism was about this sort of planning, not about providing health care. And I'm still waiting for modern economists that support central planning, which is what the debate was about. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I just said that the debate was happening at the time of Marx’s writings to illustrate it wasn’t as you implied by following Canada not having an economy like the SU and Nazi Germany with “because that is what the economic calculation debate was about” — that the calculation debate was about the SU and Nazi Germany. Saying that the debate was happening at the time of Marx writings because he was a market abolitionist doesn’t necessarily mean that the debate about economic calculation started because of and in response to Marx. Though a good chunk of the subsequent debate was definitely about Marx as the calculation debate was an integral issue in academic marxian economics. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini is this your way of telling us you didn’t go to college? Academic professions are like a thing hon. You know that graduate students are employed by their departments they study under right? You think grad students working in a lab aren’t “trained scientists”? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that this article might gave you some cognitive dissonance and that's why you can't think straight. I never said the economic calculation debate was about SU and Nazi Germany, I said it was about controlling the whole economy, or something close to it. Anyway, still waiting, which economists support central planning? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Let’s not pretend that you have the educational background in social psychology to know what cognitive dissonance theory actually is. This is a weird thing to state in response to an article you wrote that explicitly mentions that these nations didn’t actually control the whole economy because well because that wasn’t even feasible on a national scale (there will always be some significant degree of independent economic activity the government simply can’t monitor or control) even in the case of widespread centralized planning, you and I both know it barely existed for any significant amount of time as these nations had to allow for some degree of free market exchange to keep things running effectively. If you are against referencing any theoretical description of socialism or engaging with how proponents actually define socialism in favour of “actually existing” systems then why preface this on a description of a system under the USSR that never really meaningfully existed? You and I both know that Lenin and Stalin made room for some degree of privatized ownership and market relations. In fact most “socialist” nations have. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I already said what are my sources on the meaning of socialism: Heilbroner, Bobbio, Nove and Kornái. Except for the last one, they are all socialists. Why do I have to repeat myself so many times? Also, are you saying that during the War Communism and the Great Turn the economy wasn't controlled? Yeah, there was a black market, but the idea was to plan the entire economy. Are you going to say now that Five-year plans weren't an attempt to centralize the entire economy? And you know, this sort of credentialism is pretty funny since I'm the most educated between the two of us. You're not a philosopher, you'll just start your graduation. Right now you sound to me like a total political rube. One last thing, I'm still waiting. You said that central planning is mainstream. Which economists advocate for central planning? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Attempting and actually doing it are not the same thing. Also five-year plans are not unique to “socialist” countries so why again is this a critique of socialism? Also “start my graduation” I already graduated, that’s why I am going to post-graduate studies. No one would say that grad students working in a lab and publishing research weren’t scientists or that they weren’t trained as scientists during their undergrad prior to their post-graduate studies. It’s a requirement for programs like that you having experience “doing” science, which is why so many empirical disciplines require a honours thesis to apply to grad school. Philosophy is no different you have to prove you can do philosophy and submit a relevant writing sample to show it. You have no credibility to say who is and who isn’t a philosopher. I been called a “talented philosopher of science” by someone with a Ph.D in philosophy of science but it doesn’t matter because that’s not related to the actual point I was making about good scholarship, maybe philosophy is simply a more rigorous discipline than economics, or political studies, or whatever the fuck you do. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I never said they were? I said they were attempts to centralized planning in socialist countries. Again, you're forgetting the scale. As far as I'm aware, no country ever tried to do what Lenin and Stalin did, even in war times. At this point, I think this is [[PRATT]. And I'm still waiting. You said that central planning is mainstream. Which economists advocate for central planning? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 01:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

So, I guess no brainstar? OSD you take this so personal. If you guys can't agree on an article correction, then what are you accomplishing? I advise that you stop here.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Ariel3145 I'm happy with the current bronze, actually. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 01:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No OSD the funny thing was that you randomly brought it up because you were losing an argument on the internet. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

GeeJayK was not 'winning' this argument lol. A somebody. (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Because this is straight up manipulative bullshit trying to trick me into arguing for something I never really argued. “Mainstream economists support extremely widespread centralized planning like the SU” has never been said by me. It was never implied, it was never suggested. Keeps asking me to cite a “mainstream” economist who believes this. This isn’t what the “debate” is about, Gee just likes to manipulate the conversation into his favour by subtly and tacitly changing the subject by consistently accusing people of making a different weaker argument. I suggested that a degree of economic planning and even centralized planning has been used in many different economic systems. My other argument is that socialism is not by any definition simply a state-run economy. Most “mainstream” socialists thinkers and even the SEP are explicit about this, and ignoring that evidence and pretending that all “effective” capitalist economies are simply running by the invisible hand of the market uncritically is a bullshit representation of social reality, but that is what is uncritically presented by multiple quotes used throughout the article. There is also frequent use of contested sources like the world bank that is presented without any caveats, or defences to why it’s data paints an accurate picture of things like poverty. This article doesn’t deserve a star, it requires at least some critical engagement with the information it’s presenting. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini according to who? A dipshit with no formal training in logic?- Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes lol. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have anything intelligent to contribute? GeeJayK keeps bringing up irrelevant factors in an attempt to derail the conversation, that economic planning is widely used under many different systems including capitalism, ergo it's a strawman. That doesn't sound like winning "anything" unless winning means successfully frustrating your opponent with your intellectual disingenuousness. 138.199.7.163 (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The entire above discussion seems at first glance to be a really ridiculous case of two camps each arguing past the other, each treating one of two competing definitions as the valid one. There's also plenty of framing of the dispute about which definition is the correct one as being many other things (including recently, manipulative maneuvering), while chronically avoiding recognizing that two rather than one definitions may exist (doing otherwise may actually get things somewhere). But which wordings are usually tied to the two definitions, how best to clear that up?

As a non-specialist, I've consulted a dictionary, which has cleared this up a bit further. There's these two main ideas: 1) central planning, planned economy, or command economy (all lead to that definition) -- the "as in the former Soviet Union" idea which GeeJayK is focusing on; 2) economic planning -- the more nuanced idea which OnlySortaDumb is focusing on.

Anyway, those two contrasting ideas are very easy to tell apart above. The very silly shouting match consists largely of @OnlySortaDumb going "you're wrong, economic planning is used everywhere, there's no way it can be fringe" and @GeeJayK going "listen, the topic is that of Soviet-style command economy, not that of just some planning thrown into the mix", except when it gets more mixed up in some places.

Since you're both more educated than me, can't you work to straighten this all out a little more concisely, beginning with dealing with the existence of two well-defined concepts rather than pretending there's only one? --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Right now, I'd rather work on new projects and move one. I'll probably start a draft on Paul Samuelson this week and then start an article on economic development. But maybe I'll come back to this article in the future. Currently I'm a bit bored of this specific subject, I worked on this page for too long. I will, however, take part in talk pages discussions, of course. I can also provide literature. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 08:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ GeeJayK says that they cite socialist authors here, but from a cursory overlook most of the socialist authors they cite tend to be cherrypicked and presented with an idea that they're overwhelmingly critical of their own schools of thought. Nothing from socialist theory is actually analyzed, and most of the "examples" cited are from mixed and command economies, neither of which are actually socialist, but rather modes of economy utilized under a variety of systems. This article reads as one gigantic strawman and/or editorial piece, and quite frankly doesn't deserve a star. Notice how, for example, the author rails on property rights and development, but only mentions the costs of the privatization of land in passing (dispossession of indigenous and peasantry who held land in common before their communal land was seized at gunpoint, ie "theft," not to mention the privatization of land is itself a root cause of homelessness, as what was once held in common is now subject to lordship and therefore rent. People will invariably fall through the cracks, and homelessness results. This is what socialists mean when they say "property is theft," for property originates from acts of systemic violence that are perpetuated to this day.) This article would make a great essay, but for mainspace it is laughable. Another problem the author neglects to mention is the phenomenon of economic insecurity brought about by market reforms, as was observed in Vietnam under the Đổi Mới reforms. In Vietnam the effects of liberalization were "cushioned" by the retention of social safety nets and some retained state owned institutions, but even with these fall-backs economic inequality has skyrocketed in Vietnam in a way not seen prior to the forced liberalization of the country's economy by the IMF in exchange for aid. (Foreign aid deals come with a lot of terms and conditions not necessarily good for the citizenry of the country in question. A lot of these packages come with harsh austerity measures that slash social safety nets and radically increase relative poverty.)^{— Unsigned, by: 138.199.7.163 / talk / contribs}

Ok, VPN. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 11:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Using Doi Moi as an exemple is actually not very good. Vietnam is a textbook example on market reforms that worked.[8][9] GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 12:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Define your metrics. For me, increases in inequality and economic insecurity (that which necessitates one to sell their labor in the first place) are not signs of a system that "works." At what point does the human cost get lost in this endeavor? Remember that social safety nets were still slashed at brutal rates, and this isn't something limited to Vietnam. Is austerity a good thing when it results in increases in inequality and precarity? Also I notice that you deflected my concerns about strawmanning and cherrypicking. Is systemic displacement as the result of property reforms another one of those pesky human costs not worthy of consideration, or less consideration than "development"? Socialists contend that these human costs are relevant, and should not be dismissed out of hand. The fact you neglect to account for socialist critiques in your attempted "rebuttal" of socialism does not reflect well on the quality of your work. 138.199.7.163 (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)138.199.7.163 (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you please provide evidence that the quality of life on Vietnam is not a lot higher now because of the Doi Moi? I've already posted my sources. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 12:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, define your metrics first. What makes inequality and precarity less important of a consideration than efficiency and growth? I'm not going to answer your challenges without your first addressing mine.

I believe this is a false dilemma. As far as I'm aware, the reforms didn't affect negatively the income per capita, life expectancy and literacy rates in Vetnam. It's up to you to prove that the reforms caused precarity. I do agree that inequality is a problem that should be addressed soon. Still, a less-poor, unequal country is better IMO than a country where everyone is poor. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 12:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "The article examines changes which have taken place in the health system in Vietnam as a result of the economic reform process dating back to the late 1980s. With the liberalization of the economy have come not only growth for many, and increased choice, but also increased income and regional disparities and the problem of access to social services for those households which are less successful in the market economy. While state official policy emphasizes equity and free access to services for the poor, health costs for patients have risen substantially in the form of official and unofficial payments to staff and payments for drugs. The public sector faces an unprecedented challenge in the form of dramatic decreases in the utilization of public facilities; a shift towards self-prescription and, to a lesser extent, private practice by public employees; and, increasing reliance on foreign donors for support to preventive programmes." - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10159185/

"Implementationof Doi Moi has brought aboutsignificant changes in the socio-economic situation of the country during thelast 15 years. The current trend shows growing inequality between the rural andurban population, and between the rich and the poor. If this trend continues,most of the more than one million people who enter Viet Nam's labour force eachyear will be squeezed into poorly paid, part-time employment in the alreadyovercrowded rural sector or into low-income jobs in informal services. The landwill be brought into unsustainable cultivation, and environmental degradationwill worsen.

Progressin poverty reduction is under threat, as is access to health and educationservices by the poor. But, as the World Bank indicated in 1998, byreinvigorating rural reforms without neglecting safety nets, Viet Nam should beable to ride out the current crisis and be well placed to thrive when it ends." - https://www.socialwatch.org/node/10854

"This article explores the ways in which liberalisation processes and the decollectivisation of agriculture have impacted on gender relations in Viet Nam. In Viet Nam, decollectivisation entailed a highly egalitarian land redistribution and so presents a nearly unique case study. I discuss two sets of theories: market transition theory and feminist theories analysing the household and household production processes. While market transition theories offer some insights into the differential effects of liberalisation, they do not address aspects of women's work outside the formal economy. In contrast, feminist theories are able to comprehend the complex and interlocking nature of households, lineages, and the wider economy for women's lives and work.I argue that collectivisation of agriculture presented some advantages for women, in that some work was socialised, and earning work points made their work more visible than it had been within peasant households. Decollectivisation and capitalist market relations have offered opportunities for some: for instance, Vietnamese women's role as market traders has been restored. Agricultural productivity has risen, and this has benefited women as well as men. However, this process also restores much more control to male household heads. New property laws give wives the right to have their names on title deeds, along with husbands; however, this is rarely enforced. The majority of peasant women face a loss of services, increased economic instability, and increased risk. New forms of labour organising may be needed to assist rural women in realising land and other rights." - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41057744_Doi_Moi_and_Its_Discontents_Gender_Liberalisation_and_Decollectivisation_in_Rural_Viet_Nam

All three articles I have cited here demonstrate a negative impact on the social security of vulnerable Vietnamese populations due to the Đổi Mới reforms. The Social Watch article in particular argues that social safety nets should be strengthened in order to shore up the socioeconomic chaos brought on by the market reforms. There is a very real human cost to market reforms that often get ignored and overlooked by capitalist authorities because they hamper "growth" and are therefore inefficient. This is all in addition to the already mentioned strawmanning of actual socialist positions, overlooking of the human costs of development, and cherrypicking of socialist authorities to make it look like they consider their own schools of thought to be weak in substance. This article is not worthy of a star with all these concerns in mind, and arguably shouldn't be in mainspace at all. 169.150.196.146 (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Showing challenges and trade-offs in articles that are nor peer-reviwed is not the same as showing "increase in precarity". There are, however, many studies showing that things got better for most people in VIetnam. Here are a few others. [10][11] [12] They all claimed that things got better, although some challenges arived. This is public policy 101, trade-offs exist. Do you have any study showing an "increase in precarity" in Vietnam as a whole, especially income per capita, life expetancy, infant mortality and literacy rates? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The International Journal of Health Planning and Management is peer-reviewed, moron, and of the other two one is a scholarly dissertation and the other is an overall review of socioeconomic conditions in Vietnam post-reform up until 2003. And yes, trade offs are a matter of public policy, but policy is not determined in a vacuum. To say otherwise is wholly ignorant of sociology (something policy wonks like to arbitrarily ignore and dismiss). From the perspective of the owning classes, things like increases in health-care and gender-related disparities and whatnot are considered an acceptable trade off to increases in growth and efficiency. Any "increase in precarity of Vietnam as a whole" is a rhetorical trick, since conditions are widely dependent on various factors that may or may not correlate to overall national affairs. "Vietnam" is not a monolith, much in the same way the United States isn't. There are going to be people that will be overall-worse off as a result of the reforms, even if the overall average is one of improvement in areas deemed of import to capitalist authorities. As for childhood morality, this study has found that overall while childhood mortality rates have declined in Vietnam since the reforms, the brunt of improvement has been observed in the well-to-do classes, as is to be expected from reforms that increase inequality, and don't combat it, as socialized programs do. The paper finds overall that a lack of progress among the poor will "jeopardize international development goals for childhood mortality rates", and that programs that go towards combating inequality will help defeat this forecasted trend. Either way, are we going to ignore the fact that harsh austerity measures are included in IMF deals for aid, or is that yet another thing we're going to ignore in this supposedly comprehensive and reliable article on criticisms of socialism? 169.150.196.146 (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclided to call it dishonesty. Did you read your own study? It says: "The reduction in child mortality has been sustained at a continuous rate." Your article is from 21 years ago. Was it "jeopardized"? If so, can you provide evidence? Also, who are you to say what trade-offs are acceptable or not? Again, do you think it's better to condenm the whole population to poverty? I did say that combating inequality is important. You were the one that said that Doi Moi resulted in "increases in inequality and precarity" in Vietnam. I agree with the later. You still haven't posted evidence for the former. People aren't worse off on Vietnam, no indicator suggests it. At worse, new challenges appeared, which is exactly what you would expect from a succesful policy. Again, public policy 101. Anyway, are we going to ignore that macroeconomic stability is perhaps the most important thing for quality of life?[13] GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You know, you keep changing the goalposts. I and others point out that this article cherrypicks select socialist authors to present a misleading narrative that socialism is very weak, this article refuses to engage conceptually with actual socialist positions, and instead critiques command economies while downplaying the fact that command economies are present under a wide variety of economic systems, as it is fundamentally a mode of economy, this article ignores, downplays, and glosses over faults of the capitalist system including the human costs associated with market reforms and property developments, this article goes on to attack socially and politically progressive viewpoints based on ethical means rather than, you know, scientific means etc. This article refuses to engage with academic viewpoints other than economic ones, when socialism is a political and therefore ethical ideology, and so therefore a matter of ought and not is. So, again, with all of this in mind, why does this article have a bronze star when it has numerous problems up to and including strawmanning socialism, and why is it even an article in the first place and not an essay? It arguably fails as a critique of socialism as a whole (which has both ethical and scientific elements to it, but at the end of the day is an ethical position. Capitalism too includes both ethical and scientific elements to it. The normative statement "growth is good for the poor" is an ethical statement, not a scientific one.) If someone were to write an article critiquing capitalism, while refusing to engage with capitalist authors, only critiquing certain elements, making normative statements that purport themselves to be non-normative, as this article does here, refusing to critically analyze and engage with the flaws of one's own favored system or ideology (with the hypothetical situation here being socialism) it would rightly be called a strawman of capitalism, and swiftly deleted off this site. Why then is it that a double standard is allowed here with socialism and not with capitalism? The above conversation regarding the Doi Moi reforms demonstrates that both state socialist and state capitalist systems have their respective pros and cons, and to say that one system is objectively "better" than the other is a normative and therefore not scientific statement. ^{— Unsigned, by: 138.199.7.160 / talk / contribs}

You're saying that "growth is good for the poor", an article that was cited 6730 times according to Google Scholar, has a fundamental flaw. Sure that someone other than you has found it. Can you post someone criticizing for the same reason as you? The above conversation shows that BoN doesn't know what trade-offs are and can't post any indicator that got worse because of Doi Moi. You're complaining that an article about socialism doesn't criticize capitalism. Why don't you create one about capitalism too? So, again, why should we care about an opinion of someone who doesn't even want to log in on their account? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Say, @OnlySortaDumb? Why aren't you logging in? We know it's you, you've done this before in the past. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, this is the third time, I believe, tha OSD uses the same argument against "Growth is good for the poor" on different discussions. I'm not saying that it is a bad argument, just that I've never seen it. It's a very acclaimed academic paper and I don't think anyone else criticized it on this basis. I'll withdraw from the discussion now. If anyone else wants do discuss the article in good faith instead of socking with VPNs from Netherlands, just ping me. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 21:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This whole talkpage is a Reddit moment. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Without the Karma system & the "awards" stuff. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

That isn’t me unless I have some dissociative identity disorder I don’t know about. So no, you don’t know it’s me because knowledge implies that the statement is actually true. Why this low-tier trolling effort? I don’t see any reason to tag me right now except to try to get an emotional reaction of me. Where’s the maturity in that? What do you mean “done this before” give me one example? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

After thinking about it for a while, I do not believe this article deserves a brainstar of any kind. A somebody. (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of our political articles as I think many of them don't really have much to do with the RW mission. Nevertheless, I note that we don't have "criticisms of capitalism". Just a small section in the capitalism article.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 07:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ How can you not recognize what a normative statement is? Good is a moral statement, to claim that "growth is good for the poor" is to make a statement of ethical value. That's not scientific, which deals with is; it's ethical, which deals with ought. 138.199.7.162 (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That depends wholly on the context, since phrasings using "good" and "bad" and similar are very often used as shorthand, in relation to more careful definitions of different quality. When a goal is defined for any purpose, be it moral or otherwise, including even purely technical definitions, "good" is shorthand for what aligns with the goal and "bad" is shorthand for the opposite. Stripped of context, you're left with a normative statement, but take care; while there are cases where morality displaces science, done carelessly, a critique which is based on seizing on a few words may amount to dishonest quote mining. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, that is strictly speaking a very specific instrumentalist approach, but it also lends itself to the goal of a murderer in finding the most effective means to hatch people up to pieces as finding "good' tools for the job. Like that's technically correct usage, but it is complicated under the context of ethics when in that case "good" is the goal in of itself. Going back to open question style arguments makes clear the distinction. The follow up question to the murderer finding good tools for the job of eating spleens whether or not that is actually good is still a meaningful thing to ask and makes clear the distinction of usage. So what are we talking about when we say x is good for y in this context in particular? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The word "good" would be associated with some concepts and related metrics, which in this case center around income. The catchy title using "good for the poor" obviously relates to that in a way that is also morally suggestive, as a subjectively flavored summary. Such shorthand using "good" and "bad" goes much further in economics, e.g. discussions of "good outcomes" vs. "bad outcomes" for people, the paper borrowing and extending such shorthand more than it defines it. Health, education, what people achieve in their lives is related to such ideas of good and bad. That having been made clear, even those readers who morally object to such things being viewed as good and bad can follow along, and see the title in relation to what it summarizes, though more reading would be required to follow this kind of subjectively tinted shorthand all the way to purely technical definitions, given that the paper also borrows similar from elsewhere. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t really disagree that is how it’s being used, and the effects in general I think are aptly established. I guess what I see and others (i.e.Jason Hickel)is the potential environmental consequences to economic growth being unaddressed that may negatively effect such gains on a longer time frame depending on factors related to geographical location, carbon output, factors that effect agricultural sustainability, etc. Like if you live in a island nation that is experience gains in economic growth and that in turn raises the income of those with relatively lower incomes increasing their buying power — sure that is a “good” outcome and the effect of gains in GDP on such outcomes is measurable. The problem then comes in if the pursuit of economic growth globally overall leads to increased carbon output which in turn effects climate change. If that is the case as various academic degrowth advocates argue, then the rising sea levels, forced climate migration, and loss of agricultural land will leads to outcome that are “bad” for the global poor overall. Especially those living on island nation vulnerable to rising sea levels. Hickel doesn’t think too we should trust studies that demonstrate growth on one nation and decreases in carbon output in that same nation — because countries can and do “sublet” the carbon output on to other nations so as to the experience the economic gains of using fossil fuels while burning less of it “in house”. Which is why we have to look at economic growth as a total aggregate globally to assess to correlation on climate change. We start running into similar issues as Steven Pinker did arguing similar (though not identical) arguments regarding the expanse of free-markets improving QoL outcomes as why things have been getting so much better in terms of wealth and life expectancy over the last two-centuries. We can’t really tell if the alleged effects are only such if we just discount catastrophic climate change further done the line and its associated costs on those of the global south (where most of the folks with the lowest incomes globally exist). - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ How is a mode of economy used by corporate conglomerates like Walmart and Amazon a "fringe phenomenon" when Walmart and Amazon are some of the largest employers in the United States? That isn't a very well thought out response. Carthage (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The idea that economic planning on a national level can work using these companies is evidence is fringe. I've never seen a mainstream study about it. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 02:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that fringe is not wrong though. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 02:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Property rights and colonialism

It should go without saying that European conceptions of property rights have been violently imposed on indigenous and colonized peoples through colonial theft of land (you know, the entire reason for the phrase "property is theft" as state-based conceptions of property are rooted in systemic acts of violence that continue to this day (see the water protests or the entire Black Hills being unceded land but still heavily colonized)). This article still doesn't acknowledge this despite having been pointed out multiple times by myself and now OnlySortaDumb. OnlySortaDumb also goes on to point out that the phrase "property is theft" comes from Proudhon, the founder of mutualism, an anarchist system designed to make anarchism compatible with private property (which criticizes state-based institutions of property as violent theft, see enclosure of the commons and violent dispossession of indigenous land, also see ethnic cleansing). With this in mind, how can you seriously continue to say this article isn't incomplete at best and a strawman at worst? Carthage (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

This article also doesn't mention the two-tiered system of global wealth, as the global south is primarily used for resource extraction, and very little wealth flows back to those countries whose resources are systematically looted by the global north (this is basic neocolonialism, you'd think this get at least a cursory mention.) Carthage (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

(EC) How is that relevant to criticism of socialism? If you can't explain why we should mention things that happened 200 years before Owen kind of founded socialism, we shouldn't mention it here. I'm not reading Sorta's article because he can't post decent sources (maybe that changed and he started to post journals that are less fringe than Murray Rothbard's Review of Austrian Economics [14][15]) and because he cannot engage in good faith. Being coined by a mutualist author doesn't mean that the phrase is not used by socialists. Indeed, we even have essay:property is Theft here, written by a socialist. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, I don't think you know how global trade works. Which is, again, irrelevant to the article. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You cite Austrians in your article. Also I pointed out that violent dispossession of land continues to this day in order to make room for development. Someone else pointed out that this occurred recently with the San in Botswana, and I just pointed out that it's still occurring with indigenous peoples in the United States and Canada. Just look at the battles over unceded land in British Columbia and the Black Hills, or the violent genocide of indigenous peoples in the Amazon to make way for ranching projects. How ignorant are you that you literally deny neocolonialism as a concept, which is something widely recognized by sociologists as being a fundamental feature of relations between the global north and global south? Carthage (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's take a look at Africa, as explained by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The heavy dependence on foreign aid and the apparent activities of the multinational corporations in Africa reveal that Africa at the beginning of the 21st century is still in a neocolonial stage of development. The activities of the corporations in Africa, particularly those from Europe and America reveal nothing short of economic exploitation and cultural domination. Early 21st century Africa is witnessing neocolonialism from different fronts, from the influences of trans-national corporations from Europe and America to the form of a new imperial China, which many African governments now seem obligated to. The establishment of the multinational corporations, and more recently Chinese interests in Africa through Chinese companies, appear mainly to exist for the benefits of the home economies of the neocolonialists than to infuse local African economies with cash to stimulate growth and increase local capacity. (https://iep.utm.edu/neocolon/#H6)

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about, and you're projecting onto me. Carthage (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. I quote Austrian from the interwar period, mention how his argument was refuted by Lange, and cite another one from the 40s whose contributions on this area are widely supported by the mainstream. The other two Austrians which are quickly mentioned, are still more relevant than Leibman. Also, if what you're saying is true (I don't doubt it is, though I'd question the scale), then the government is failing at protecting property rights. Hence proving the article's point. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 21:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding trade on Africa, well. [16][17][18][19] GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 21:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The global poverty rate doesn't even cover food and housing in most countries, so how does this help combat effective poverty as opposed to the ridiculously low standard used by the World Bank and the IMF? Also, events that "happened 200 years ago" are still relevant today, as indigenous peoples still suffer from the harsh effects of a colonial regime they are still continuing to live under, and nations in the global south, such as those in Africa, continue to suffer under neocolonial dominance of their institutions by foreign powers. It's fallacious to arbitrarily handwave events that still continue to meaningfully impact folk as if the fact they happened centuries ago is irrelevant. Did you know that there were ex-slaves who marched with MLK at Selma? These events are not as distant and irrelevant as you think. Given how you continue to ignore fields other than your pet favorite of economics it's no wonder this article is woefully incomplete. Carthage (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, how are these events relevant to criticism of socialism? I didn't say those things are good, the point is, they are irrelevant to the article. Also, problems such as food and housing also got better due to economic growth. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 21:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

They are if you intend to actually criticize socialism, which means properly analyzing what socialists say and believe. You don't do that, instead you criticize Marxist-Leninist command economies and falsely say these are the only relevant examples, and you define socialism as basically being a command economy, when it isn't, in fact the two are only barely related. Socialism is a very vague term as it encompasses many schools of thought; many of which would disagree with the analysis that Marxism-Leninist command economies were actually socialist. This isn't a no true scotsman fallacy, these are the results of genuine ideological differences within the socialist camp, and such they have genuine reasons as to why they believe command economies aren't socialist. One of these being that command economies effectively operate as giant corporations (see above), and still rely on extractive apparatuses to maintain the economy, and therefore still have a class system, when socialism as defined by socialists is classless.

When you cover market socialism you entirely gloss over left-wing market anarchism including mutualism (which Proudhon was the founder of, you know, the guy who is the original author of the quote "property is theft", that'd seem a pretty relevant thing to include if this article wasn't one gigantic strawman) in favor of covering Yugoslavia, which was (yet again) a variant of the Marxist-Leninist command economy. You entirely fail to cover kibbutzim (which, yes, were socialist, I cited a JSTOR study refuting your asinine assertions they weren't, which you then collapsed on the talk page for OSD's essay), Rojava (which OSD actually fairly covers), Catalonia (where productivity actually increased for the two year period prior to the crushing of it by Stalinist forces), or the Zapatistas.

That's not to mention how you entirely neglect other fields of study which are relevant to the study of socialism, since you didn't even know what neocolonialism was until I had to metaphorically shove it in your face. With all of this in mind of course socialists see it as a gigantic strawman, because it is. I must reiterate the fact that this article has a brain star of any kind is beyond insulting, as it legitimizes strawmanning political ideologies as long as they aren't the "right" political ideologies. If anyone were to write an article criticizing capitalism the entire wiki would descend on it like vultures, and for good reason. But they don't do that here. So, again, why the double standard? Carthage (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Well, most of what you said doesn't make sense, so I'll just answer a few things. 1. I've already said why I didn't cover those countries. There's no data about them. Even if there was, they are just a couple of tiny cases. Many of my sources cover over 100 coutries, you can't compare them with tiny studies posted on blogs and on low-tier journals. I didn't see your JSTOR study, and I won't, because there's nothing of value on that page. Nor I will read what OSD has to say about Rojava, because of the reasons I've stated on the talk page and here. 2. Same with the market socialism stuff. I've used the most cited economist in the whole fucking world as a source to the definition. Try to use a source from 150 years ago in a scientific paper. People will laugh at you. 3. I didn't ignore them. There are other researchers on the article. Most of the criticism just comes from economists. 4. Assuming you're not a suck puppet, you don't know how this wiki works (you don't even have a user page), you can start yourself an article criticizing capitalism, I will even volunteer myself to write about market failures. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC) "(Y)ou didn't even know what neocolonialism was until I had to metaphorically shove it in your face" Wish I had your self-esteem. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (EC)Another thing is that like capitalism socialism has both scientific and ethical judgements, and as such to claim your criticism of socialism is scientific when it is dealing with an ought (even an ought informed by empirical evidence) is philosophically dubious, and therefore makes this entire article of only marginal missionality at best. Science isn't in the field of making ethical judgements, and despite what many people here would want socialism doesn't count as pseudoscientific either. The soft sciences don't operate like the hard sciences do, and socialism is very influential in the social sciences, because, again, it's not equivalent to an "alternate" theory of gravity. Economics, sociology, and whatnot all rely on and study social constructs, and as social constructs are, well, social, they are therefore mutable and subject to analysis and interpretations not seen in the physical sciences, as society is fluid and the study of society a process. Different cultures have different conceptions of property. Mainstream economics typically uses the European model of property, while ignoring the fact that other cultures have other views of property, and the European model has come into conflict with these models again and again and again as the wheel of colonialism continues to grind.

As for growth, the vast majority of the global population lives on $5 a day and this hasn't changed for 30 years (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/jul/07/we-squandered-a-decade-world-losing-fight-against-poverty-says-un-academic). With the socially defined limits of poverty and wealth, we should again call into question the axioms upon which these models rely, precisely because they are socially defined. The vast majority of a population living under an economically stratified regime where wealth is continually pumped out, maintained by neocolonial structures of dependency, will continue to ensure that countries and populations remain unequal compared to their neocolonial dominators unless something fundamentally changes with the current system. Even the Harvard Political Review, with its overall favorable view of the IMF, acknowledges this: "Nonetheless, the international economic system is ever-changing. If the IMF’s long-term aim is to achieve long-term, equitable development across the globe, its antiquated lending dynamics ought to reflect that trend." (https://harvardpolitics.com/neocolonialism-imf/) Carthage (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"This article is a strawman as it refuses to acknowledge what socialists actually believe and instead broadbrushes socialism as being effectively Marxism-Leninism therefore ignoring the vast ideological differences in the socialist camp, many of which disagree for valid reasons that the Marxist-Leninist model is socialist" is somehow incomprehensible. OK. How are you not acting in bad faith? Carthage (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, at this point you're just repeating yourself. I'm not going to answer for the third time in a roll the same points. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

(EC) ::"Wish I had your self-confidence." Love how you refuse to engage with critiques that fall outside of the purview of mainstream economics and instead resort to snide remarks. Really maintaining that econ cred, GeeJayK. Also, do you dispute that you were overall unfamiliar with neocolonial theory until I summarized it on this page? Your own comments betray you on this page. "Also, I don't think you know how global trade works." followed by "Also, if what you're saying is true (I don't doubt it is, though I'd question the scale)..." and then you proceeded to cite studies from institutions commonly criticized as perpetuating neocolonialism, further demonstrating that you still don't get the point. Carthage (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I repeat myself because you're refusing to properly address my criticisms. You know what that is? Bad faith debating. Carthage (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I've already addressed them. Pretending that they were not answered doesn't change that. Re-using the same talking points is bad faith nonetheless. Also, can you post a study claiming that poverty hasn't dropped? I know that your link is wrong about the over-reliance on China on this point, but I don't know the rest. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, then why is this article purely from an economic perspective and not, say, a sociological one? That criticism hasn't been addressed, and as for the others the responses are mediocre. "I don't include the minor tidbit of an entire school of thought because 'property is theft' is also used by other socialists." That's not a rebuttal, that's a handwave. You can't claim to seriously and comprehensively criticize socialism if you don't actually engage with socialists and what they say. That fact alone, in addition everything else already mentioned, makes this article problematic, and arguably a strawman, which a skeptical wiki shouldn't be in the business of producing. Yet here we are. Carthage (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yes, it was addressed. Most of the criticism comes from philosophers~, historians and economists. I couldn't find sociologists criticizing socialism (I looked at it and I couldn't find anything interesting, from mainstream journals, that wasn't already covered). Supposing there are there are few socialist writers on the article (which is just mildly true), that is still irrelevant, because we're using empirical data here to analyze coutries. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Rodney Stark used criticized it a bit in one of his books, but I didn'ty like it. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but we use contextual cues to interpret said data. Data does not exist in a vacuum. You contend that criticism of command economies correlates or equates even to a criticism of socialism in general. I say there's genuine methodological problems with that, as it's genuinely debatable whether Marxist-Leninist command economies are actually socialist (including because, again, they resemble corporations more than they do classless societies, which is how socialism is defined by socialists, and as Marxist-Leninist command economies still possess class elements and modes of extractive and coercive economic relations, which are again antithetical to socialism). This article should be more properly called "criticism of command economies," as socialism itself is about who owns the means of production, which includes ethical elements to it. You can say that command economies are therefore under public ownership, but the public still doesn't have meaningful control over the command economy. The state does (which is why anti-Leninist socialists often call Marxist-Leninist states "state capitalist" as opposed to "socialist," there's a very real debate here that's not an example of the "no true scotsman" nor the nirvana fallacies.) Command economies themselves aren't exclusively socialist regardless of the definition used (this article also commits basic definitional errors as conflating mixed economies, which still have class relations and coercive modes of economy, with socialism) since they are utilized also by war economies and large corporations. Command economies are market-neutral, not anti or pro-market in nature. So if you want to avoid strawmanning socialism what socialists say does genuinely count, because otherwise you're ignoring and dismissing entire schools of thought and fields of study (such as neocolonialism and dependency theory in this very thread) out of hand. Carthage (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, you don't have anything new and will just keep repeating your own points. Good night then. Also the article goes well beyond criticism of command economies. I've already explained why the criticism is valid on OSD's essay. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Says the libertarian. A somebody. (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, I keep repeating my points because you keep deflecting, ignoring, or handwaving them. Your own comments are self-contradictory or at least lies by omission. ("Most criticism comes from economists" followed by "there's criticism from philosophers, historians, and economists." Which is it? Obviously one is more emphasized than the other. The mission of this website is to document and refute pseudoscience and pseudoacademia. Socialism is far from pseudoacademic, as well as pseudoscientific given its obvious influence in the social sciences, which cannot be downplayed. As far as socialism is authoritarian, one can also accuse capitalism of being authoritarian. Look at the many right wing dictatorships propped up by capitalist powers during the Cold War, or the free market economies of dictatorial states like Russia and China. Capitalism, like socialism, is democracy-neutral. If we were to focus on politics, then the field gets even more muddled, as social democracy, democratic socialism, libertarian socialism, and arguably even welfare capitalism demonstrates. You can't say that the Zapatistas lack democratic elements when their whole thing is participatory democratic confederalism. Science is about describing how the world works, not prescribing how it should work. That's the domain of politics, ethics, and religion. And with the murky nature of social science, this is where the lines between the two begin to blur. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: "Economics is of particular interest to those interested in epistemology and philosophy of science both because of its detailed peculiarities and because it possesses many of the overt features of the natural sciences, while its object consists of social phenomena." (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/economics/) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy goes on to explain some of the normative features of mainstream economics (which you couldn't find in the physical sciences):

First, economists have to interpret and articulate the incomplete specifications of goals and constraints provided by policy makers (Machlup 1969b). Second, economic “science” is a human activity, and like all human activities, it is governed by values. Those values need not be the same as the values that influence economic policy, but it is debatable whether the values that govern the activity of economists can be sharply distinguished from the values that govern policy makers. Third, much of economics is built around a normative theory of rationality. One can question whether the values implicit in such theories are sharply distinguishable from the values that govern policies. For example, it may be difficult to hold a maximizing view of individual rationality, while at the same time insisting that social policy should resist maximizing growth, wealth, or welfare in the name of freedom, rights, or equality. Fourth, people’s views of what is right and wrong are, as a matter of fact, influenced by their beliefs about how people in fact behave. There is evidence that studying theories that depict individuals as self-interested leads people to regard self-interested behavior more favorably and to become more self-interested (Marwell and Ames 1981, Frank et al. 1993). Finally, people’s judgments are clouded by their interests. Since economic theories bear so centrally on people’s interests, there are bound to be ideological biases at work in the discipline (Marx 1867, Preface). (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/economics/#PosiVersNormEcon)

So, again, I think I made a good case that this article is of best marginal missionality, and is still incomplete and fundamentally flawed. Carthage (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "Try to use a source from a paper 150 years ago in a scientific paper. You'll be laughed out of the room." Except that's the point, this isn't about science, at least not purely, it's about politics. Even regarding science, the social sciences aren't like the physical sciences. They deal with mutable concepts because of the inherently fluid nature of human society, so in a very real way authors from centuries ago are still relevant in the fields of study. Carthage (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, once again you failed at it. "Most" is not "only". I believe you know this. You said that I "refuse to engage with critiques that fall outside of the purview of mainstream economics", which was a blantant lie (though most of the article is based on mainstream economics). Hence "most". This is not controversial. The article argues that socialism is not democracy-neutral. You don't have to agree with this, but it is a form of criticism that is widely seen in the academia.The Wiki also goes in details explaining pseudeconomics, which is missional and it is in the article. Again, just because you don't like that doesn't mean that the criticism doesn't exist. Since you're clearly not engaging with good faith, I don't see any reason to keep this conversation. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, no. Using older sources is not the way to go in social sciences. Much of what these people said was right, but most of it was absorbed by the mainstream academia. Das Kapital and The Wealth of the Nations are the most cited books written before the XXth century. Compare the number of citations they have with average modern books. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Except when it comes to the history and development of theories, schools of thought, and general tendencies they are relevant, even if superceded by newer authors they still get cited, especially when it comes to describing theories and schools of thought. Proudhon is only relevant because he's the originator of the phrase "property is theft," the context of that phrase and why it is said is relevant to understanding that phrase. Proudhon is irrelevant otherwise. Mutualism for instance has had over a century and a half of development since Proudhon, but the phrase "property is theft" remains a common slogan because of its utility as a slogan. The social sciences have a normative or fuzzy aspect to them that the physical sciences lack. Yes, this applies even to mainstream economics. Look above. Context is key, without proper context you're left without a proper understanding, and therefore risk strawmanning the thing you're critiquing.

Also as for socialism and democracy, yes it's a common criticism in academia but there remain clear counterexamples to that trend (the Zapatistas and their democratic confederalism, democratic socialism, even China holds direct elections at the lowest levels of government, although China is only nominally socialist and those elections are hardly fair). That's what happens when you have something as vague and ambiguous as socialism. That's because socialism is practically useless as an actual descriptor, instead what's relevant is the actual ideologies and systems themselves. Left-wing market anarchism has hardly anything in common with Hoxhaism beyond a shared antipathy for capitalism, a rejection of class structures, and a general proclivity for labor, even if only in theory. Carthage (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Just chiming in saying that I don't think either OSD or Carthage are debating in bad faith, so lay off the accusations. And if you can't post to GeeJayK without side swipes and accusations of being libertarian, don't, you're likely wrong. Don't do ad hominems either. Anyway, I had similar issues with the article being that it got its definition of socialism wrong and focuses on a subset (a debatable subset) of socialism which is reliant on command-based economies. I think this article is better off an essay as well rather than a mainspace article with a bronze rating(?). --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Finally. Thank you! I wasn't debating in bad faith, and accusations of doing so when all the arguments I posted kept getting deflected, handwaved away, or dismissed was infuriating. Yeah this article is not deserving of either mainspace or a star. Carthage (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remove the brain star then. If you want it on the essay space, you can start an Afd. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Cosmik gave it a bronze star rating. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

And? Cosmik is just one user. The numerous criticisms on this page alone should demonstrate why this article isn't bronze worthy. Carthage (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Just want to add that GeeJayK is a nice person too. He did take my criticisms in mind and is going to try to work to improve the article. In spite of our disagreements on economic theory (I'm socialist as well), I had good interactions with him on Discord and we're trying to work together for a better wiki. Let's try to remember what we have in common, take a break every now and then, and keep it always civil. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Inequality

This article gushes over the vaguely defined social construct of "growth," but a 20% increase in the income of people making two dollars a day is going to be very different from a 20% increase of people with a 2 million dollar income. Inequality leads to power differentials no matter the overall "growth" as those hoarding all the fucking money will have more of a market share than those who don't, ie the majority of people. So from the ground class differences will remain the same. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Even though there's an absolute increase in income this has to be tempered by context. Try living on $300 a month and then compare that to someone with $100k a month. It's not the same no matter how one cuts it. Carthage (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)