Why Does Socialism Always Fail?

Corporate co-operatives do extremely well when they are allowed to compete on a level playing field.

 

Confirmation bias again. What else was impacting Venezuela?

Oh! And btw Aus was founded on socialist principles. Works for us!!!

 

Tell me more about your personal experiences in countries where its failed - I'm not a fan of socialism either but i'm also not a fan of using sweeping generalisations in a serious discussion.

What are you using as your basis for comparison? You've chosen countries where extreme versions of Socialism have/had taken hold.

 

I can see how they would. The executive costs go way down, so you can attract better more experienced workers. I'm still not sure how they deal with ownership and employees coming and going. If you retire, do you lose your share of the company? If you want a job, do you have to buy stock in the company first? Is the actual physical property owned collectively, or does it belong to one guy who just says he's doing this out of the kindness of his heart, and all profits are divided amongst the employees based on some kinda mutual agreement?

The thing is, since it is possible to do it, then why do we still get socialists/communists complaining about greedy capitalists? Just go that route and leave the rest of us alone. It's one more business model, and it competes with everything else.

 

This article might answer some of your questions about how coops work and who owns what.

http://www.shareable.net/blog/it-takes-an-ecosystem-the-rise-of-worker-cooperatives-in-the-us

 

There are many aspects to the concept of socialism - perhaps the one to which you are referring is the political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. It is excellent in theory, but has never been practiced as it is in opposition to the acquisitive drive which is so powerful in human nature. You are being perhaps a touch naive if you believe that Joseph Stalin, or Kim Jong Il, subscribed to the the ethos of 'from each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs'. 'Communism' as practiced in the few societies wherein it was extant, was nothing like that which Karl Marx envisioned - it was merely another form of dictatorship, much like that in the very many right-wing dictatorships the world has suffered, and is suffering.

But other aspects of socialism may be found in most of the civilised world, from the Nordic countries and Great Britain, to Australia and New Zealand. Those aspects do not take the form of communes or kibbutzim, but rather extensive engines of social justice - from universal health care, to free tertiary education. So while your claims may apply with some validity to places such as North Korea, they certainly have no relevance to the systems extant in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Germany, Austria, Great Britain, France, Belgium, Australia, Canada, or New Zealand.

And should you doubt the success of these societies in the social sense, I refer you to the Inequality Adjusted Human Development Index published each year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI

 

Thanks for that. I really was curious, and can see that there are many different ways it can be done.

And now I know that these guys complaining about greedy capitalists just need to be educated on the subject, and that they can quit working for their evil conglomerated corporation of evil and work for a worker cooperative.

That really is the beauty of capitalism. It allows for competition between different types of business models. We don't have to go all marxist in the country to let them go do whatever it is they want to do, and people who disagree can do what they want to do.

 

The single big advantage that co-ops have is that they can compete head to head with for profit corporations for the best workers since the profits go to the workers and not the shareholders. If there were more such co-ops around before I retired I would definitely have gone to work there.

 

Because it's rubbish.
The whole pathetic concept relies on people being equal - but they aren't.

 

"We hold these truths to be self evident"...er...well some of us do

 

It's an ideology- a theory that if everything worked like this, we would be happy. It is nice sounding in some ways, but it's not practical or realistic, and it ALWAYS is dependent on the theft of value or privilege from the people, meaning that it destroys individual freedom, individual incentives and motivation. Thus- it ends with a disaster where the equality is one of universal poverty and a lack of hope.

Take Venezuela. I flew into Caracas to manage a project in the late 80's- and flew into riots, martial law, curfews and 500 dead in the city. What happened? The government had been using an artificial price control for years, subsidizing it instead of letting a free market regulate itself. When the government ran out of money to do this from oil production, they started borrowing from the IMF and World Bank. When they exhausted their credit, the lenders said unless you go to an open economy, no more. So, they went half-way- and pushed the economy over a cliff. Now, almost 40 years later, they are still trying to manage with socialistic ideas- and are even worse off. They people aren't stupid, the country is beautiful and has many resources- but the government continues to be dishonest and continues to crush the nation, even though the people are starving. The dream of socialism is actually a nightmare. Happens every time.

 

So basically then your argument is that pure socialism (i.e. State control of the means of production) always fails because human beings simply won't or can't go there. A system that people cannot or will not employ may not fail but it cannot be said to be successful either.

 

I agree that state power, if there is to be any, would be better off residing at the most local level possible. I don't see a need for any federal governing body at all. On your ideal, though, there would be a migration problem if any local governments offer sweeter benefit deals than others. You'd have tension between boarders. The situation would tend toward consolidation of power at higher levels, the limit to which would be a global government where public choice and experimentation would ultimately disappear altogether.

Personally, due to a prior commitment to a strict limit on the use of law for the minimization of conflict, which would preclude the power to tax, I couldn't get behind any kind of redistributionist state especially for conveniences such as risk mitigation and common services provision such as transportation and other infrastructure unless it were all somehow voluntary.

 

Which is the prerequisite for the other, socialist programs, or an economy strong enough to support them?

How are socialist programs paid for?

 

Socialism is regressive not more evolved.

Darwinism is more evolved

- - - Updated - - -

That is ridiculoud since workers are more in control of decision making with less socialism and more freedom in the market

 

Socialism is not the future as it always fails and that is obvious

- - - Updated - - -

The evidence proves the opposite

 

You think something other than the state seizing control of capital and productive resources is to blame for the decline the the Venezuelan economy?

Please explain.

 

The problem with willing to compete, is NO one will compete in many rural areas. Just not enough people to warrant the expense.

Take electricity, many rural areas would be without but for socializing it.
The same holds true today with high speed internet. Rural areas, many are business farms, can not get high speed internet unless the gov't does a program like they did with electricity.

 

Collapse of oil prices.

 

It's the opening post of a thread intended to provoke discussion. Essays provoke very little response on discussion boards.

The results of extreme versions of socialism are much easier to see than examples where the results of such programs are obscured by what remains of free trade allowing for economic power to support them. Countries without extreme versions of socialism are sufficient basis for comparison. One should be compared to another in a similar state of advancement. South Korea, for example, serves as a fair comparison to South Korea, while other South American economies, such as that of Brazil, serve as a fair comparison to Venezuela.

 

The Nordic model is a huge success as are the socialist programs in this country. You would not want to live in a country that had no socialist programs

 

Yes I would such a nation would be superior as this one was before such failed ideas came along.

the nordic model has many serious flaws.

 

Then name them.

 

Sorry their as mode pointed no socialist countries in the world except possibly, Cuba and North Korea. The means of production are wholly owned by the state. But in certain regards the state in both cases is invested in one family and its sycophants and hangers on. Whether this arrangement can truly be said to be socialist or not is entirely debatable. For what it's worth the leaders of these two little tin pot dictatorships certainly think they are socialists.

As for Canada, Scandinavia, and western Europe the state does not own all or even most of the means of production and therefore cannot be said to be truly socialist. In fact, they are called mixed economies which basically means they've piggybacked a bunch social programs onto what is basically a capitalist economic model and then by rule and regulation tried to strip out all the advantages of capitalism.

 

Of course this is true. And there are no capitalist countries either