Why Does Socialism Always Fail?

I know. It's much better. What country has pure capitalism by the way?

- - - Updated - - -

Predicting 200 years in the future is just guessing. Look at the world 200 years ago.....no one could have predicted what we have now

 

Actually, I'd say that a mixture of the two is the more advanced and "evolved" structure, and the fact that so many successful societies, including our own, have employed it in some variation, only supports that notion.

 

When even self-proclaimed socialists are arguing for socialism in terms like these, it's no wonder there's so much mess around the the issue.

Socialists know that people are not simply drawn to socialism in the same manner that they are drawn toward reactionaries like Trump. ESPECIALLY TODAY, the task of introducing socialism to the intellectuals and academics is the task of committed communists. And frankly, we don't even have a plan of how to introduce these ideas to the broad masses right now.

Nobody becomes a socialist because they "desire to work together and share in their conscious participation in their own lives."
I mean what even is this? I can do this in non-socialist organisations. Even some stupid small-business joint-venture fulfills this qualification of socialism.

We don't need vague platitudes like this today. Platitudes and common-sense belong to the enemies of socialism!
I mean it. Becoming a socialist intellectual requires self-discipline and a boundless self-critique. Everything you hold dear, everything you thought couldn't be questioned, held up for inspection, scrutinized, dissected, must be critiqued. There must be no thought which can escape the lens of disciplined self-examination!

Really, we socialists cannot hold the space of 'common-sense'. We destroy common sense! We crush the cheap moralism and ethical platitudes of common wisdom! We must be crazy, extremists, today. Because 'common-sense' is simply against us. Common-sense is tending towards fascism today.
I know this sounds insane, but listen.

As socialists we reject the common-sense model today whereby social conflict is designated as being introduced from 'outside'. And that forces from this 'outside' destabilize what was a harmonious society, a corporate body with everyone knowing their place in the social order, as servants of the economy. As in "It's those Jews/politicians/bankers/muslims/SocialJusticeWarriors/Gays" etc.

As socialists we know that the social conflict is inherent to this 'social harmony' itself. Society is class struggle. This is not an empty phrase, this means that the social conflict is inherent in capitalism and cannot be squeezed out as one might squeeze out a mighty great excrement.

Even though the working class is not fighting today, class struggle continues. It goes on between the various factions of the ruling class as they argue over economic and social policy. It goes on between factions who are engaged in the production of different commodities or financial services. It goes on between groups loyal to this or that particular concentration of capital (nation, region, economic bloc etc.). It goes on between the small capitalists and their struggle against being crushed by the weight of big capital and economic recessions. And always it goes on as employers seek to increase their profit margins by cutting the cost of their variable capital (their assault on worker's wages, pensions, social services and benefits).

Please if you are going to argue the case for socialism, get your house in order. Marxism is not a moral position, it is the pretense to scientifically understanding world history and the practical application of this knowledge in communist ideology.

 

Every ideology to date has been created by the elite, for the elite.

The only difference being the "best way to keep the bottom wrung docile."

I bring you Nationalist Capitalism.

Labor in control of the state, with the means of production in private hands.

With technology making the world small, the wealth of the top bracket has grown promiscuous. We must separate wealth and state, like centuries ago the call was to separate church and state. In the time of kings, they were ordained by God. Money had to be king, as it was the only measure of merit an infant society could go by. And it was successful, because said wealth was tied to the nation. Now labor's wealth is more tied to the success of the nation than the top. Yet the top still rules, because they have convinced millionaires to identify with billionaires, and middle class to identify with bums.

How do you keep labor from turning towards collectivism? Simple. You change the term "labor" to also include small business owners. Small business owners tend to work triple the hours of laborers, and in the end, is what all workers strive for - to become masters of their own fate. By making both sides of the cusp the national power in control of the state, you not only strip the elite of their "divide and conquer", but you make the bum class subject to the whims of the self reliant, with all entitlements being the logical bare minimum decent western people can tolerate in tranquility.

For too long millionaires have identified with billionaires, while middle class identified with bums.

The transitional cusp of the socioeconomic ladder is where they have divided you all.
That is where you must join.

You both are more like each other than anyone else.

 

No, I'm claiming that I suspect he didn't quite put it as you say he did. You spin everything else. Why wouldn't you spin this too?

You mean deregulation? Those regulations were put there for a reason. Remember California smog prior to regulations? Remember what China did/does with food and melamine? Remember Flint water? Remember child labor prior to regulations? Regulations are necessary.

You don't accept factual evidence, do you? I showed the history of that. Reagan implemented supply side economics and it did significant damage. Clinton reversed it with demand-side economics.

I showed the record. Your refusal to accept facts does not constitute a change in facts.

Nope. Wrong again.
GDP: http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year
http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/
GDP per capita: https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543 Obama beats them all.

Stagnant median income goes back to Reagan. It has been flat for 47 years. I already showed you that with facts and data.

What "capital" is moved from declining corporations to ascending ones other than stock? Stock transactions don't affect a corporation other than making its treasury stock more valuable.

So to you, natural human social and cooperative drives and instincts are "pollyanna"? Egad. I'm sorry for you.

Early signs are that it's working in Europe. And I'm sure that we can trust you, an anti-socialist pro-capitalist, to tell us the truth about socialism and its successes.

 

Who's talking about communism, or is that another one of your diversionary tactics?

 

Agreed. The only problem with such a hybrid is that it keeps the capitalists encouraged and they never stop trying to subvert the whole economy to capitalism and to destroy any existing socialist reforms. That's because they are so afraid of socialism's benefits and successes.

 

You're talking about things as if we can simply direct society in such a manner. The 'hybrid' you're talking about is itself the result of the victorious struggles (and defeats) of the working class in the 19th and 20th centuries, not the imposition of a policy by some enlightened despot. And the fruits of those struggles, which are uneven across the world, are, as you say, constantly being undermined by the ruling class as they struggle to appease their God, the Holy Economy.
If you have a society where the working class are in so powerful a position that they are actually able to impose and direct economic and social policy and dictate these to the ruling class, then you are already in a position to banish private property altogether and destroy the whole stupid process of the private accumulation of capital!

 

How about worker co-ops for a start? (Not ESOPs)

-if you're one of the owners. But are you saying these interests don't enter into the socialist equation more than the capitalist one?

I think common sense is against the trend of fascism today.

Capitalism engenders social conflict and class struggle. It cannot do otherwise.

And in a myriad of other ways.

I've been trying to talk to my audience. Try making any headway with this crowd in the way you are suggesting. They don't even understand the difference between socialism and communism.

Stick around and show your stuff.

 

Look it up.

No, I don't mean deregulation.

The economy grew at 4%. Supply side economic policies are responsible for the ~ 30 years of prosperity from Reagan to 43.

Your data is not corrected for inflation.

You showed nothing of the sort. Real median household income in non recession years has steadily increased except for the Obama years.

Capital is used to produce wealth. Investments are capital. If a corporation needs to expand it can sell more stock. It is essential that capital be provided to those industries with the greatest productivity and the lowest costs of production. Reducing cap gains tax rates enables this. The rate should be zero.

That's what was said about Soviet Union and Red China.

 

Then you agree with everything I said in your quote. Great.

And in that case you get a violent revolution. I don't believe that is either practical nor possible in the U.S. today. But if a socialist can be elected to the presidency with a compliant congress, socialism can be introduced without throwing the economy and nation into turmoil by gradually, strategically introducing reforms. I believe this was the method in some European countries. The problem is the challenge of keeping it going by finding and electing socialist politicians.

 

Reagan’s first budget deficit - $128 billion
Reagan’s second deficit - $208 billion
Severe economic problems started to develop
Reagan’s last budget - $300 billion deficit

The 1980 debt was less than $1 trillion. By the end of 1992 it was $4.35 trillion. The debt had taken 200 years to reach $1 trillion but Reagan’s supply side economics quadrupled it. So much for supply side economics. The problem is that investing the savings was not tied to the tax cuts, so the investing never happened. The rich took advantage of the low taxes and took the tax cuts as an increase in income and saved it and got richer. In fact, “Supply Siders” vigorously resisted any tying of tax cuts to any business investment requirements.

So you say. But you offer no data to back it up.

You keep saying this without backing it up, and I keep showing you data that prove you are wrong. So you are still wrong.

It didn't work for Reagan and it hasn't worked since either.

 

Your personal definition of socialism is communism.

 

Reagan's deficits resulted in Clinton's surpluses because of the cuts in defense resulting from the implosion of the Soviet Union. Reagan was also promised spending cuts by the D's ($3 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases) which he never received. Demand side Obamanomics has more than doubled the national debt to the size of the US economy - $20T.

The gdp growth rate data you've linked to is not adjusted for inflation. That is a fact.

http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate

Here is the real median household income

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

Capitalism has benefited more humans than any other economic system. There is no disputing that.

 

You said that capitalism was to blame for the epipen being so expensive, but you were wrong. Patents are why the epipen is so expensive. Without such anti-capitalist government regulations, anyone could produce an epipen for pennies.

 

Usually with China.



​

 

Oh my my so much wrong so little time. First you seem to be of the opinion President's singularly control the budget and that the economy resets back to zero when a new President comes in. Wrong.

In the 70's we had price controls on gas and oil and as a result long lines and short supplies and the stagflation which you mentioned of course Reagan remedied when he lifted those wage and price controls and working with the FED and instituting supply-side measures they squeezed the inflation out of the system that had built up under those controls, deregulated gas and oil and the economy boomed.

Yes it did.

2% during the 1982 recession and then the economy boomed as his supply side polices went into effect and we had a HUGE period of economic growth. And Congress created the deficits. Reagan requested less spending than Congress authorized every year in office and they refused to pass all the recessions he sent to them. Had they accepted his spending request the deficits his last three years in office would have fallen to under $100B heading to surplus.

Nope $155B and his budget request showed a $100B.

Sigh, supply side economics do NOT control CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING. Again Reagan requested LESS spending every year than Congress authorized.

Yes it did happen and the economy was strong and finally the last three years Congress was more willing to slow the growth of THEIR spending and the deficits fell. And what do you think the high earners did with at those lower rates? They INVESTED and that created jobs and those jobs created value and wealth and tax revenues.

Those who earn the least spend the least and pay virtually no taxes anyway and in fact MAKE money off the tax system so how are you going to cut their taxes?

Clinton did not cut middle class income taxes. He came into office on strong recovery with tax revenues on a strong upward path going from 2% then 5% then 9% and then his tax higher tax rates kicked in and that growth FELL to 7% and the GDP growth remained in the 3-4% range. In fact his reelection was threatened by his tax rate increase which even he told a business audience he raised rates too much. It was then the Republicans took control of the Congress and forced him to sign tax rate cuts and welfare reform and restrained his spending, he being the only modern day president besides Obama to request MORE spending than Congress authorized. The economy went into high gear and tax revenues soared and THAT is what produced the surpluses.

It was the supply side policies he was forced to sign that kicked the economy into high gear.

Yes which helped to mitigate the effects of the slowdown/recession that began before he took office and yes he cut those rates and once kicked in the highest earns paid HUGELY more in tax revenues and the economy entered a 52 months period of growth and full employment with average LFPR and with budget restraint the last Republican budget had a deficit of a paltry $161B heading for surplus. THEN in 2007 the Democrats took back the Congress and increased spening 9% in 2008 and the 18% in 2009 and tool that measly !61B deficit to their WHOPPING $1,400B in just two years and kept the deficit over $1,000B for the next 4 until the Republican sequester started bringing it back down. The Democrats never even came close to the WORST Bush/Republican deficit of $400B for just the one year.

It averaged a solid 3% from 2002-2006 hitting 4 in 2004 as the recovery hit full bore. And the surplus was falling when Bush came into office having hit $256B it didn't matter whether it was Bush or Gore who won.

It is exactly what he did and the Republicans did not stop him from instituting his economic policies he had a Democrat House and Senate and those policies have been a disaster.

They ain't invisible we had 52 months of solid economic growth, rising incomes across the board, soaring tax revenues and a falling deficit heading to surplus again after the supply-side surpluses we had before.

Tell you what compare the max tax revenues pulled in under the Clinton 29% rate, the Gingrich/Kaisch 20% rate and the Bush 15% and get back to me with what you find.

 

Prove it. If you say that, you must have a post in which I said such a dumb thing. And if you don't have such a post (and trust me, you don't) and you say that anyway, it makes that lie. Right? And a person who depends on his lies should be ignored, right?

 

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

So he didn't get the results SSE promised? You just shot yourself in the foot.

No, Bush's leftover problems and wars caused that. Why is it everyone knows that but you?

Really? You mean "Real GDP" doesn't mean "inflation-adjusted" even if it says "inflation-adjusted"???
Look again. Your distorted graph tells us nothing, sorta like you.
http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/
https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543
Numbers as in the last link are better proof of reality than your non-specific graph.

Is 56,516 more than 57,909 in your distorted accounting book? And your graph is worthless because it is not seasonally adjusted.

 

Swell. Those patents were devised and set in the context of capitalism. If you're going to whine that we don't have "pure" capitalism anytime you lose a debate, there's no point in debating.

 

I pointed that out upthread.

 

Compare the Reagan defense budget in terms of both % of gdp and the Clinton defense budget in terms of % of gdp and dollars. Then compare the budget surpluses in the Clinton years. What is the result ??

He didn't get the spending cuts promised by Tip O'Neil.

Blame it on Bush 43 ?? Why not, all the D's do. What wars under Obama ?? The Bush/Petraeus surge had ended the fighting in Iraq. The murder rate was lower that Brazil when Obama was sworn in.

My graph is from the Federal Reserve. The table that you originally presented as proof was not adjusted for inflation. And you can see from that that the Reagan years in total the average gdp growth rate was 3.5%, in non recession years the rate was 4.3%, and in supply side policy years the rate was 4.6%. Population growth is ~ 1% per year so the supply side policy growth rate was ~ 3.6% per capita. Obama's non recession growth rate is 2.1% which results in ~ 1.1% per capita. The Reagan per capita gdp growth rate is ~ 3.6/1.1 = X3 that of Obama.

Seasonal adjustment has nothing to do with annual comparisons. And the current real median household income of $56,516 is less than the real median household income in 2007 before the recession (thanks to the worst recovery since the GD resulting from Obama's policies) or in 1999.

 

Those regulations are not capitalism. They violate capitalism. So if you're going to blame the high price of an epipen on capitalism, you're wrong. The high price is due to government regulations.

 

I'm not so sure about that anymore. It was an assumption of the guys who wrote the constitution. But after hearing many of Stephan Kinsella's arguments, I doubt that the net effect of no IP law at all would be less innovation.

 

Of course it's wrong, and I never said that.

Reagan Total = $1.412 trillion, a 142% increase. Highest ever until GHWBush. Clinton brought it back down.
https://www.thebalance.com/deficit-by-president-what-budget-deficits-hide-3306151

Oh, did Reagan veto any budgets?

Now why would any businessman keep all his income when taxes are high and he could have invested it for a write-off thereby reducing his tax bill, and why would he invest income in his business when it is taxed at a lower rate when he could take advantage of low tax rates and pocket it?

Everybody pays some taxes. And in those days when incomes were better, more of the bottom half of income earners paid income taxes.

He absolutely did! Here, if you can read the data.. - http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf
He raised the income level that kicks the taxpayer into the next higher bracket repeatedly for middle America. He raised the top brackets on the wealthy.

The republicans have stopped him from accomplishing anything. Wasn't that their plan and goal? Yup. So actually any objection you have of Obama you can lay at the feet of the republicans.

Reagan: ....$5.75 ...trillion or $718 billion/Yr
GHWBush: $4.161 trillion or $1.04 trillion/Yr.
Clinton:.....$12.36. trillion or $1.545 trillion/Yr.
GWBush: .$17.08 .trillion or $2.135 trillion/Yr.
Obama: ...$21.332 trillion or $2.67 trillion/Yr.

https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762