Talk:Criticism of socialism/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 13 July 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Your draft

Your draft is off to a great start. I am looking forward to the article being completed. J.A. Julio (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Uh, thanks I guess? GeeJayK (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You should be careful not to conflate a command or centralized planned economy with socialism .

Socialism is any economic system to which the means of production predominantly is under public/collective/community ownership as opposed to the ownership by private individuals. That leaves it pretty open ended and not confined to a market-less centralized planned economy. You may want to introduce different criticisms for centralized versus decentralized planning as both are related to the socialist computational problem, but the criticisms of both are not identical. You may also have keep in mind that the economic sustainability of say Revolutionary Catalonia did not reflect that of the Soviet Union in the brief time of it's existence, and that needs to be explained. Also it is possibly is in need of an argument to why it wouldn't have been sustainable long term given we have no direct empirical evidence that it wouldn't have been from the situation in Catalonia itself -- but there could still a case to be made. A separate criticism should also be included for mutualism which is a type of free-market socialism that is a bit devoid of the criticisms of socialism as applied by Austrians like Hayek. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC).

@OnlySortaDumb thank you for the feedback. By "socialism" I'm using the definition of public/social (instead of private) ownership of the means of production, which is the definition on SEP [1] and on Britannica [2]. As much as I'd like to cover every form of socialism,, includinf mutalism, I'm not qualified to do so, nor I have time. This will soon be on the main space, on the page Socialism, and others will be able to review and edit my work, fix mistakes and add content too (remember, Wikis are collaborative projects). Regarding Hayek's argument (which isn't on the page yet), I personally believe it is valid (although not as valid as Hayek thought, some economic planning can work) for any form of socialism, since, according to him at least, the information needed for socialism is dispersed in society and only markets are able to use it. GeeJayK (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that I haven't written about Mises' argument yet (which I think was solved by Lange), let alone Hayek's argument (which I believe it's still mostly correct). GeeJayK (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Revolutionary Catalonia, this article, for instance, analyzes 100 countries for 25 years to find out the determinants of growth. Analyzing a single, tiny country that only lasted for two and a half years is out of question, especially considering how long this article already is and how sources on Revolutionary Catalonia are sparse (AFAIK the main source after all these years is still George Orwell, and I couldn't find a single article on their economy on JSTOR). GeeJayK (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm still not sure about what should I do with this

I believe it's well researched, well written (remember, I'm ESL) and overall balanced, so it shouldn't go to the essay space. However, I'm not sure if it should just be a section of the article socialism or if it should be an article o its own. I'd say that these first two sections will cover most of the article, although the last two will probably be quite long too. Thoughts? GeeJayK (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be a great contribution to the essay space. Why do you think elsewise? —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 00:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Cosmikdebris I don't see this as a personal project, and I'd like to see others contributing to this in the future as well. Furthermore, just like we have sections to criticize capitalism social-democracy, neoliberalism, minarchism etc I think it's just natural that we should have one for socialism. GeeJayK (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy

Your entire essay is nothing but a crude collection of Neoliberal/Anarcho-Capitalist propaganda. Your "infograpths" are nothing but idealist and disconnected figures that have no meaning in any real economic conditions, as are Neoliberal or Austrian economics themselves. You do no investigation about the economic development in Socialist states (which was overwhelmingly positive, and only declined when Capitalism was restored), and instead cite random sources which are nothing but Libertarian ideologists who recite Anti-Communist canards.

I recommend these sources:

How Capitalism Ruined Work

Does Capitalism Really Drive Innovation?

Explaining The Economy of The Soviet Union

A Future Beyond Capitalism? Socialism Explained.

How American Workers Are Losing Billions

Wisconcom (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I quote 10 Nobel Memorial prizes on my article. Do you have any peer reviewed source or just YouTube? 22:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I recommend you read the works "Soviet economy" and "Soviet democracy" respectively by Pat Sloan. Regardless, I thought these videos provide refutations of Anti-communist lies in a simple and short manner. They contain sources in their description. Wisconcom (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Second Thought isn't a crank by any means, but I do think you should probably cite more scholarly sources than a Youtube pundit. (Of course, Second Thought probably has a list of sources he's used. May you perhaps read and cite those rather than the Youtube videos themselves?) Alduin (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Wisconcom Pat Sloan is not an academic source, but a random dude that wrote a book more than 85 years ago. When I think of the economic history of the USSR, I think of Alec Nove (University of Glasgow), Peter Boettke (GMU) and Paul R. Gregory (University of Houston). Do you have similar sources that I can use? GeeJayK (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

To piggyback off your point, way back when a lot of the horrors of the Soviet Union were unknown, or of limited knowledge, in the West at the time. It was more palatable to be a Soviet-aligned leftist, simply because of that lack of knowledge. Alduin (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I just find it hilarious that a communist is throwing around accusations of "blind idealism"… Luigifan18 (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah a tankie (especially a Hoxhaist, who are renowned for their specific insistence on strict adherence to Stalinist doctrine) accusing others of dogmatism is farcical at best. Just to clarify, however, there's a difference between communism in general and Marxism-Leninism (which most tankies are) in particular. In fact they hate each other just as much as they hate liberals, if not more so. Vee (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

This is sort of off-topic, but to further elaborate on my point, I'd argue that labels such as "communist," "socialist," "leftist," "authoritarian," "libertarian," etc are all so frustratingly vague as to only give the merest of hints as to actual beliefs. For example, I call myself a "socialist" on my userpage, but that doesn't actually tell you what I believe much more than "I am to the left of social democrats and I am an anti-capitalist", these labels are good and all for when you want to signal membership in a particular political tribe, but they're little more than buzzwords beyond that. Obviously however, nobody is in a rush to replace these terms because they're still convenient. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," but I do think it's important to keep in mind that the ideological spectrum is very complex, and it does political science a disservice to dismiss these diverse schools of thought out of hand. In fact, I'd also argue that terms like "centrist" are also very vague and dependent on specific societal conditions. What was considered "moderate" a century ago isn't necessarily considered "moderate" today, and I see no reason to believe that things will stay the same in the future. Vee (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Social Democrats are not Socialists

People such as Bernie Sanders are not Socialists; they wish to maintain private ownership of the means of production, support the dictatorhsip of the bourgeoisie, and so on. They are simply the left-side of the Capitalist political system of the United States. The very fact that you think Social-democrats are Socialist indicates you have very little understanding of what Socialism as a mode of production is.

Source(among many others): Like it or not, the Democratic Party is a Right-wing party Wisconcom (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Wisconcom thank you for actually engaging. While it's true that Social democracy is not socialism, I do believe that Sanders is a democratic socialist, even our article claims he is one, though I'd agree that at least some of his views are close to social democracy. GeeJayK (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

"Continued growth is beneficial for the poor"

I'm not certain how true this is, because unhindered growth is unsustainable. Also, how exactly does growth benefit the poor? The homeless certainly don't benefit from it. Most of the benefits of growth, ie increased profits, seem to go to the top of the socioeconomic pyramid, while the rest of us live in precarity at best. I might just be spouting drivel here, of course. Also, I might caution that neoclassical economics has a vested interest in supporting the current system, and is not free from ideological bias. Vee (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

To piggyback off that point, there exist structural inequities that prevent the benefits of "growth" from reaching out to the entire population, so in your criticism you might want to address this. Vee (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vee These are all fair points (except for one). The source article, Growth is Good for the Poor explains how the poor benefit from growth. Regarding the top of the pyramid, I'd recomend this article by Harvard professor Greg Mankiw. Finally, as for "unhindered growth is unsustainable", well, that's actually a good debate. Take a look at this one. [3]

Regarding "neoclassical economics", well, I'll be blunt. You're misguided. To quote /r/badeconomics," You know what the problem is with being an economist? Everyone has an opinion about the economy. Nobody goes up to a geologist and says, 'Igneous rocks are fucking bullshit.' ". Take a look at an textbook and you'll understand why. Regards. GeeJayK (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@GeeJayK Enough with your Reaganite/Anarcho-Capitalist lies. The United States, People's Republic of China, and others had a large amount of economic growth, yet the living conditions of the poor got no better, if not worse. More factiories does not remove homelessness, poverty, hungry, or anything else that Capitalism makes the poor endure. The United States has 18 million empty houses, yet 1 million people without a home. That is not to metion global warming and such. You bourgeois-economists are nothing but Capitalist propaganists, "clergy" if you will. Wisconcom (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

(ec)I'll respond to the article about infinite growth, since I am somewhat more knowledgeable in that area. The article has a few problems; it treats carbon emissions as if they are the only measure of environmental damage, ignores the fact that many important minerals like the rare earth metals are in increasingly limited supply, and generally treats EU countries as if they are fully economically independent from the rest of the world and don't benefit from environmental devastation in periphery countries. It also uses the old neoliberal trope of "don't worry, technology will save us all", ignoring that it's no guarantee, we are approaching a tipping point when it comes to the environment already, and most of these technologies are dependent on limited things like the rare earth metals anyway. Also, I would like to point out that nobody has a vested interest in whether or not igneous rocks are real, although people with vested interests have tried to influence geology to promote things like climate change denial (which typically gets rejected by an overwhelming scientific consensus). Plutocow (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Wisconcom I'm not ancap (I've written articles on them here if you wanna see) nor I support Reagan at all. Do you have any evidence that things are getting worse for most Americans? GeeJayK (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@GeeJayK You have very similar economic ideas, particularly in your support of "trickle-down economics" and austerity measures. In regards to the latter question, housing in unaffordable; most people, particularly younger people, have no other choose than to rent (which that is very high, not to metion how awful Landlordism is), the price of everything is extremely high, wages are very low and have not increased in decades in spite of production increasing 300%, income-gaps are above guilded-age levels, inflation is destroying the economy, and much more. Did I metion that Jeff Bezo's was able to increase his profits to an unthinkable degree during the pandemic? While his workers were forced to work in awful conditions with little pay?

Sources: Average Sales Price of Houses Sold for the United States For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades Cost of living: This chart shows how the price of products has risen in the US Wisconcom (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Plutocow As I said, I'm still on the fence on this subject. However, the usage of minerals is decreasing too. Of course it's not guaranteed that "technology will save us all", but things are indeed improving, as they have improved over the last 200 years, and we don't have any reason to believe that they won't stop improving on this matter. Regarding people using geology to promote climate change denialism, I don't see how it matters (though one of the points of my work here is to criticize economics denialism). GeeJayK (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Wisconcom That doesn't make sense. US wages grew at fastest pace in decades in 2021 though, granted, inflation was also very high. It is also not true that wages are stagant in US. If you wanna know more, I'd recomend this article by Harvard professor Robert Lawrence.

As for ancaps, you clearly don't know the difference between mainstream economics and the Austrian School. GeeJayK (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The wage increase was extremely short-term, and was a reaction by Mega-corporations due to the great resignation. The source you used is from a infamous Neoliberal thinktank which has often promoted Libertarian economics, I do not particularly trust them. Thank you. Wisconcom (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Either way wages still increased, although nowhere near to the point of being an actual living wage. Also, your own argument about GJK's sources can be thrown back at you, considering the sources you tend to cite are heavily biased in favor of Marxist-Leninist politics. You're at least as partisan as the rest of us, if not more so because you refuse to engage in constructive dialogue. Vee (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hell, I gave you pointers on how and where to cite scholarly sources, or at least sources that aren't Youtube videos, and you haven't taken me up on it. (Granted, Second Thought is actually someone I'd recommend watching, but that's besides the point. Hakim on the other hand is a mixed bag, and I'd only recommend his videos with caution, but evidently you're not in the same ballpark.) On the other hand, I do believe Youtube can be a valid source of information, but the thing about Youtube is that anyone can edit, so there's really no quality control beyond the level of individual perusal. If you want to cite Youtube videos, I'd suggest explaining what they say and who made them beforehand, because for all we know you're sending us random links with little to no relevance. Vee (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

There is such a thing as market socialism

Perhaps it would be better to make a new section for these edits and label it "criticism of command economies," because command economies =/= socialism sensu lato, maybe even sensu stricto depending on the POV (there's a case to be made that what the USSR represents was not socialism but state capitalism. As someone, I forget who, said on the Saloon Bar, the economy of the USSR was run more like a corporation (there's a reason company towns so closely resemble command economies) than actual socialism.) Given that it was illegal to strike in the USSR, and that the workers most definitely didn't have any sort of workplace democracy (trade unions were more organs of the state than actual unions).... hopefully you get my drift. Vee (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Huh, it appears @OnlySortaDumb already made this criticism. Vee (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

This is also one of the reasons, one of the biggest ones actually, that non-Leninist socialists oppose the Soviet model, because it more accurately resembles state capitalism than socialism as it was defined prior to Lenin (and after Lenin by left communists and other libsocs, there's a reason why tankies are so disparaging of "ultraleftists"). I'd go as far as to argue the Soviet model is state capitalism in its strictest form, which is why black markets thrived so much. (And no, this does not count as an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. If a Russian claims to be Scottish, they are not a True Scot no matter what they claim to be.) Vee (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is, assuming we're not talking about the Lange Model, there was, as far as I'm aware, only one market socialist country, Yugoslavia, so it's hard to get empirical evidence on it. Furthermore, problems such as incentives also exist on market socialist economies [4] (they exist even in the most capitalistic countries, such as US, as I argue in the article). GeeJayK (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess you're going for the "actually existing socialism" route then? I can't say I blame you, most socialist theory is theoretical (mostly due to the fact that if anyone tried anything they'd get their asses handed to them by the relevant authorities, revolutionary politics are an existential threat to the status quo). Vee (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vee I wrote a bit about the Yugoslavia and black markets under market socialism here. I'll also write an entry on market socialism, though don't expect something super elaborate, I'll probably just analyze Yugoslavia a little bit more. GeeJayK (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Botswana and the San

Botswana has, in order to "reinforce property rights" and "modernize" the country, started engaging in forced cultural assimilation of the nomadic San people. I think this should be acknowledged in your article. Vee (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Will do it. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)