this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
314 points (90.7% liked)

Socialism

5111 readers
53 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] michaelrose@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How do you keep the singular state bank from being captured and corrupted inside of 2 years?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Captured and corrupted by whom? Without capitalism, you don't have rich oligarchs running around to corrupt everything. As a real world example, the central bank works fine for over 70 years in USSR.

[–] michaelrose@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The USSR was famously corrupt and a massive failure on the overall besides. This is not the example you are looking for.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Oh, do enlighten us in what way USSR was a massive failure. This ought to be good.

[–] michaelrose@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Would you like to talk about the inherent limitations of a planned economy vs a free market or the epic level of corruption that is evident to this day.

[–] theluddite@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I don't agree with the other person you're talking to, but I also don't agree with this framing of "planned economy vs free market," as if planning is doomed to failure, and markets work.

It is true that previously planned economies have had problems. Planning be that way, though. Plans are hard, and when you plan things, sometimes it doesn't work out, but that doesn't mean that the notion of planning in and of itself is inherently flawed. Planning fails all the time in all facets of life, but there's only one facet of life, the economy, where we have for some reason decided that that means the concept of planning itself is broken, rather than previous plans failed.

The market is just the absence of a plan, which is a little bit of a tricky abstraction, and ends up being a bit unfalsifiable. It's got this teflon quality to it, where even when markets collapse, as they do all the time, they don't get blamed for it. Right now, we are living through the worst possible failure of an economic system -- the literal destruction of the planet. There is no greater failure mode, yet somehow, markets don't get blamed for it, and are still seen as fundamentally sound.

The dream, for me, is a democratically planned economy. True economic and political democracy. We have a lot to learn to understand how that would work, but dreaming, and then figuring out how to achieve that dream, is the stuff of socialist politics.

[–] michaelrose@lemmy.ml -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It is definitively proved that neither planning nor pure markets fucking work. You need to plan and or regulate the things that markets are known to fail on and let the market allocate the resources not needed to provide basic or societal needs. This isn't rocket science or credibly in dispute. We know what in broad strokes actually works.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You should let China know that planning doesn't work. 🤣

[–] michaelrose@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

China is a market economy with strong central controls it mixes market and planning as I have suggested.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 11 months ago

China is very much a planned economy where the party comes up with 5, 10, and 25 year plans that are then executed. Markets are strictly subordinate to central planning.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

lmfao free market doesn't even work under capitalism https://www.versobooks.com/en-ca/blogs/news/4385-failing-to-plan-how-ayn-rand-destroyed-sears

Meanwhile, here's what' actually evident. Maybe learn a bit about the subject before forming opinions?

Professor of Economic History, Robert C. Allen, concludes in his study without the 1917 revolution is directly responsible for rapid growth that made the achievements listed above possilbe:

Study demonstrating the steady increase in quality of life during the Soviet period (including under Stalin). Includes the fact that Soviet life expectancy grew faster than any other nation recorded at the time:

A large study using world bank data analyzing the quality of life in Capitalist vs Socialist countries and finds overwhelmingly at similar levels of development with socialism bringing better quality of life:

This study compared capitalist and socialist countries in measures of the physical quality of life (PQL), taking into account the level of economic development.

This study shows that unprecedented mortality crisis struck Eastern Europe during the 1990s, causing around 7 million excess deaths. The first quantitative analysis of the association between deindustrialization and mortality in Eastern Europe.

And here's what people who lived under communism feel now that they got a taste of capitalism and your precious free markets

[–] michaelrose@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Socialism and communism aren't really the same thing and entirely aside from what sham wig the USSR put on its corrupt kleptocracy it was a brutal dictatorship that murdered 10s of millions and created mass starvation. How can you have socialism/communism if you replace the market with decisions dictated by some asshole that you all didn't pick and can't remove if he fucks up. I don't see how you can possibly have socialism or indeed ANY economic system without a functional democracy. I also don't understand how you can look at the history of the USSR and call THAT clusterfuck success.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Socialism is just a transition step between capitalism and socialism, you can read up on the relationship here https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/3228-lenin-s-three-theoretical-arguments-about-the-dictatorship-of-the-proletariat

Meanwhile, the studies I provided completely debunk the nonsense about USSR you keep regurgitating here. Maybe spend a bit a of time learning about USSR and how it actually worked. It was far more democratic than any capitalist regime. The very fact that it dissolved peacefully is proof of that. No autocratic regime would just give up power peacefully.

[–] michaelrose@lemmy.ml -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You don't think Stalins Russia was an autocratic regime? He murdered to get and keep power and was murdered in turn. Their successor state is run by a dictator! There is no dictatorship of the proletariat forthcoming. The withering away of the state is fiction.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No I don't think Stalin's Russia was an autocratic regime because I'm not an utter ignoramus raised guzzling propaganda out of a firehouse. Even the CIA didn't think that Stalin's Russia was an autocratic Regime

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf

Maybe learn some history instead of making a clown of yourself.

[–] michaelrose@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If you don't think Stalin was a autocrat I don't think you are worth talking to. Good day.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 11 months ago

I mean if you think you know better than the CIA what else is there to say to you. Enjoy wallowing in your ignorance.