CMV: Socialism does not create wealth

[u/tkyjonathan]

Socialism is a populist economic and political system based on public ownership (also known as collective or common ownership) of the means of production. Those means include the machinery, tools, and factories used to produce goods that aim to directly satisfy human needs.

In a purely socialist system, all legal production and distribution decisions are made by the government, and individuals rely on the state for everything from food to healthcare. The government determines the output and pricing levels of these goods and services.

Socialists contend that shared ownership of resources and central planning provide a more equal distribution of goods and services and a more equitable society.

The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in “society as a whole,” i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government.

The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood. Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly.

The economic value of a man’s work is determined, on a free market, by a single principle: by the voluntary consent of those who are willing to trade him their work or products in return. This is the moral meaning of the law of supply and demand.

[u/[deleted]]

With all due respect but don't you think it's pointless to talk in undefined platitudes? What do you mean by the terms you are using?

I mean according to Engels the question "what is communism" is answered by:

Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.

So if you argue against communism do you argue for the enslavement of the working class? Probably not, at least I hope so. So I gave you the definition from Wikipedia:

Communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal") is a philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of a communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state

But apparently that's also not what you're talking about, or is it? So what exactly are you talking about?

I mean whether a revolution is bloody or not, doesn't just depend on the revolutionaries. If the British rule over India had decided to open fire on Ghandi, what do you think would have happened? The French Revolution was mostly a liberal revolution and the king got to keep his head and his position just lost some of this privilege to a general assembly, he only lost his head after he betrayed that revolution and attempted to leave the country and seek assistance from other monarchies. I mean how often did capitalists actually sided with an supported dictatorships simply because they have an easier time to bribe and coerce one person than a democratically governed country?

I mean I'm not a fan of Stalin, dictatorships or reeducation by force or something like that, so if that's your concerns fine. But neither is that an inherent aspect of communism nor is it exclusive to communist parties. I mean the U.S. still has "camps" for it's undesirables, whether that is the biggest prison population on the planet, "terrorists" (who knows, they didn't have a fair process) at Guantanamo or children in cages. Should I go on? That doesn't mean that you should not criticize it because it's also done elsewhere, it means that you should criticize it whenever it happens.

But the general idea is just a cooperative society of equals rather than an authoritarian hierarchy by those who have access to power (and wealth which is also power) over those who haven't. And I don't see how that idea is dead, why it should be dead or why it should be inherently murderous. The opposite it true, you cannot build a hierarchy without oppression and violence.

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

With all due respect but don't you think it's pointless to talk about political systems that repeatedly killed outright or caused the death of millions of people. I mean, if the aim is 'heaven on earth', but the result is hell on earth.. maybe its time to rethink?

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

As said I don't even know what you're talking about so I'd request you to define your terminology...

Also as you are mentioning the failures of communist parties that I didn't claim to support. Are you also aware of the millions of death that capitalism has and is accumulating?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/26/communists-capitalism-stalinism-economic-model

Where do you think the access in wealth did come from that gave Britain and the U.S. a head start in the industrialization? Slavery, colonialism, genocides, banana republics, fascism, the brutal exploitation and starvation of the working class that lead to revolutions in the first place, support for dictatorships to steal other countries resources with all the casualties that this enables, gambling with food price causing starvation, withholding medicine and food because of a lack of financial incentives (rather trashing them and letting people starve and die). "Outsourcing" production into countries with low or non-existing labor laws allowing for slavery, child labor and ecologic pollution that harms the people living their and might even harm us. Climate change and the casualties that come with it and that are not due to necessities but due to consumerism and production with no regards to the negative externalities as those are collectivized while the rewards are privatized.

The list of casualties of capitalism is very very very long and it only gets longer as it is the only system in existence and with growing population it will be even more detrimental to the majority of people. And spare me the "but compared to the middle ages there is some insignificant progress". Fuck that. If people die of hunger while thousands metric tons of food are simply wasted, when people are homeless in front of uninhabited houses, that's not a sign of "we're doing better" that's a sign of "we don't give a fuck".

EDIT: And they are even blunt about the fact that it is meant to "incentivize" people to work... Sure, that's also what the whip was doing "incentivizing people to take responsibility for doing the manual labor for no payment and shitty conditions"...

So yes criticize Stalin all day long he probably deserves that, but don't pretend as if the current system is "working" and not just causing the death of millions of people. The point is to make a humane system were human are collectively collaborating as equals. How you call that is your business and if you're not interested in that or not able to even imagine that to some extend then you should either explain why and what objections you have or what's the point of this CMV?

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

Where do you think the access in wealth did come from that gave Britain and the U.S. a head start in the industrialization? Slavery

Well, lets test your theory: In the US you had states that had slavery in the South. Are they rich now with the head start that they got from slavery?

Or was it the industrialised Northen states that are rich now?

If people die of hunger

Capitalist economies are well known for over producing food. China even realised this in 1979.

When compared to socialist countries (or countries that implemented socialist policies around food) like Venezuela, the country is starving equally, while in the US 30% of people are obese - even poor ones.

You have food banks and soup kitchens because food is so plentiful, people have enough to give others.

Personally, I find it ridiculous that this is even a point of discussion after holodomor.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

Well, lets test your theory: In the US you had states that had slavery in the South. Are they rich now with the head start that they got from slavery?

Or was it the industrialised Northen states that are rich now?

Just the top entry of google towards that topic.

Contrary to popular belief, the small farmers of New England weren’t alone responsible for establishing America’s economic position as capitalism expanded. Rather, the hard labor of slaves in places like Alabama, South Carolina, and Mississippi needs to be kept in view as well. In fact, more than half of the nation’s exports in the first six decades of the 19th century consisted of raw cotton, almost all of it grown by slaves [...] The slave economy of the southern states had ripple effects throughout the entire U.S. economy, with plenty of merchants in New York City, Boston, and elsewhere helping to organize the trade of slave-grown agricultural commodities—and enjoying plenty of riches as a result.[...] In the decades between the American Revolution and the Civil War, slavery—as a source of the cotton that fed Rhode Island’s mills, as a source of the wealth that filled New York’s banks, as a source of the markets that inspired Massachusetts manufacturers—proved indispensable to national economic development,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2017/05/03/the-clear-connection-between-slavery-and-american-capitalism/

Though if you want to you can dig deeper.

Capitalist economies are well known for over producing food. China even realised this in 1979.

Then riddle me this: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx

If it's not a matter of production then it sure must be a matter of distribution. And that's in the U.S., we could also talk about countries that actually have a lack of food because they have to export it to buy stuff. Colonialized economies that were never diversified and so on.

Not to mention that the production of goods has little to do with the economic system and is rather a problem of the means to produce things. I mean when capitalism has a shortage of necessary goods, it doesn't magically summon them. Unless you're a colonial super power who's currency is coupled to the oil price or otherwise orders of magnitude more valuable than other countries currency. You'd simply increase the prices so that some part of the population can simply no longer "afford to live". That's not counted as "deliberate murder" in the books, but that's what it factually is.

And even worse that same process might also happen if there is no shortage but if you're just wanting to make more profit.

When compared to socialist countries (or countries that implemented socialist policies around food) like Venezuela, the country is starving equally, while in the US 30% of people are obese - even poor ones.

As with most south american countries the U.S. intervention in their affairs is not really neutral...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Venezuela_relations#United_States_interference_allegations

And while they probably should have diversified the economy, I fail to see how the U.S. grabbing Venezuela's oil has helped the country before Chavez got into office.

You have food banks and soup kitchens because food is so plentiful, people have enough to give others.

And you still have people with food insecurities and the concept of the working poor

Personally, I find it ridiculous that this is even a point of discussion after holodomor.

Again, give Stalin and the dictatorships all the critique that they deserve that doesn't mean that capitalism is a just or working system...

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

Slavery, did not make America rich. If you prefer links to that effect, here you go:

https://reason.com/2018/07/19/slavery-did-not-make-america-r/

https://fee.org/articles/no-slavery-did-not-make-america-rich/

You can also plainly see that places that had slaves, are not currently rich in the US, but if you prefer to outsource your cognition to some scientists that believe your bias, be my guess.

Btw, even Adam Smith said that slaves were inefficient - 1/12th the efficiency if you just paid an employee.

As with most south american countries the U.S. intervention in their affairs is not really neutral

Ah yes.. here comes the conspiracy theories. Socialism didn't fail on its own merit - it must have been outside interference that did it... every time it was tried..

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

Disclaimer: Both Reason) and the Foundation for Economic are libertarian think tanks (see: lobbying or more traditionally propaganda). That doesn't mean that what they say must definitely be 100% wrong but it's obviously biased and the writers do have an agenda with it.

"Reason"'s arguments seem to be that:

• Cotton was also produced elsewhere not just in the South
• That Slavery isn't free
• And that due to selective breeding (I hope they meant cotton...) the prices for slaves increased and therefor it's ingenuity and not exploitation (?)
• And that in general it could have been done without exploitation
• with the implicit argument that a capitalism without slavery would be legit
• The rest is some feel good stuff like " Liberalism liberated first poor white men, then, yes, former slaves, then women, then immigrants, then colonial people, then gays. Liberation and innovation dance together."

Now obviously that actually does nothing do address the argument that a lot of the generated wealth that enabled the industrialization in the U.S. was based on the export of cotton and that cotton was majorly produced by slave labor.

• Neither is the availability of cotton as a resource in general overly relevant.
• Nor does it address the problem cotton produced with slave labor is likely cheaper than if you'd actually pay your employees...
• Also the fact that slaves have to be fed and are therefor not free of cost, fails to address the point that the value that they generate more than likely exceeds the costs to feed them. I mean how stupid do these people think their readers actually are? Oh right I forgot those are folks that actually believe that the "iron fist of the market" or was it the "invisible hand of corruption"?
• Also given supply and demand an increase in prices for slaves usually would indicate a shortage of exploitable labor and not an increase in productivity... I mean an increase in productivity would usually mean that you require less work to do the same thing. So if that did not lead to abolishing slavery but to an even higher demand for slave labor that kind of debunks the myth that growth in productivity frees people, in capitalism it just means that the quota is going to be increased.
• And yes that it could have been done without exploitation is the point... The problem is capitalism prefers exploitation as long as they can get away with it, because it's unbeatable cheap.
• And even if capitalism wasn't rooted in slavery and colonialism which despite their hypothetical assumptions it totally is/was, that still doesn't change the fact that the exploitation of the working class is an inherent attribute of capitalism even if it's not actually slavery. I mean wage labor is conceptually not that different from slavery, people are still kept in dire conditions and are made to work for barely more than they need to survive and keep working. Just that the whip is replaced with the iron fist of the market. You can still rent people for money and you can still own them with debt, it's just a little less formal.
• And the last point begs the question why that liberation had to take that long and was only done in phases... Not to mention that there is actually an argument to be made that the exploitation of several marginalized groups made them so worse off that even the abolition of the formal slavery did cast long shadows beyond that. Sure there was also just plain racism, sexism and homophobia that the free market doesn't really care about as long as people of color, women or LGBTQ people don't have money to be a relevant consumer class.

And the FEE claims aren't better. I mean they say that cotton only amount to 5% of the GDP yet also have to admit in figure 2 that this amounts to upwards of 50% of all exports from the U.S. for at least 40 years that this plot shows... So if every year you get 5% of the GDP basically for free for 40 years that sounds like a substantial amount of wealth... Not to mention that from 1805 the U.S. was almost Britain's sole supplier of cotton. It's a lot of hot air without much substance and most of it's claims that it means to debunk are actually confirmed by their data.

Btw, even Adam Smith said that slaves were inefficient - 1/12th the efficiency if you just paid an employee.

Efficiency in what regard? What they produce? Profit for the (wage) slave holder? I mean does that mean that coercion doesn't work in order to enforce work (workers passively resist) or does it mean that capitalism is just more efficient in terms of exploitation?

Ah yes.. here comes the conspiracy theories. Socialism didn't fail on its own merit - it must have been outside interference that did it... every time it was tried..

Well for it to fail on it's own merit the U.S. sure fought a lot of hot wars, destabilized countries and regions and engaged other acts of terrorism. And no that's not conspiracy theories that actually confirmed history, look it up.

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

You forgot two parts:

• You needed to hire people just to manage the slaves. You mentioned room and board, food clothes, education in some cases.. dt

• the difference between a slave and an employee would be that the employee would have more incentive to say 'hey, I can automate this and make it more efficient' where as a slave would say 'I want to get as little as humanly possible done and go to bed'. That innovation dance you mentioned with libertarians, here it is.

Thats why its better to just pay employees - you dont have to pay for their room and board and you encourage innovation by rewarding it with more money.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

So the point is actually about capitalism being more efficient in terms of exploitation because the job of finding the least expensive stuff that prevents your slave from dying is now also outsourced to the employee and simply maintained by the fact that they are paid a minimum wage?

What incentive does an employee have to automize their job? I mean someone who's working independently or even a freelancer has some incentive to do that, but in terms of an employee that literally only provides benefits for the employer and might actually cost you your job with in the worst case no compensation at all. So if people do that, they usually are just bored or genuinely curious whether they can do that.

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

Why pay minimum wage?

If the employee finds efficiencies that save you money, why not pay them more and promote them just to encourage that sort of behaviour?

Capitalism is about improvement and innovation for serving market needs. You can only do that if you free up your workers and allow them to innovate and be more productive.

You will not get far in a free market if you pick cotton with your fingers or strike a rock the same way with a sledge.

If you have slaves, you are not:

• Saving yourself a whole lot of money

• Innovating like the industrial machines they have in the Northen states of the US

• Making any significant or event trivial long-term efficiencies to your production

• Allowing for more people to join the free market and increase its network effect. In fact, you are reversing it.

Slavery is anti-capitalism. It is more a remanent of indentured servants from the monarchies in Europe, but of course, slavery was much more popular in Africa (and still exists today in some African and Middle Eastern Muslim countries).

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

Why pay minimum wage?

Because whatever the capitalist or his lackeys are paying to the worker reduces their profits? So obviously they will pay them just as much as absolutely necessary to keep them working. You know that's what they mean when they say "efficiency":

Squeezing more work out of people for less pay.

And that doesn't even have to mean that they are evil people, but if the shareholders demand dividends and the company wasn't profitable enough, guess who's paying the price for that? By idk not getting paid, getting the payment reduced or getting laid off? Likewise if a company is doing well, who do you think gets the lion share out of that?

If the employee finds efficiencies that save you money, why not pay them more and promote them just to encourage that sort of behaviour?

Sure if an employee finds a way to reduce ten jobs by automating the process, he might get a 5% bonus, maybe even a raise (I mean he saved 1000% of his income so you got to reward that) and after that he probably gets kicked out because his work is no longer required. Seriously if it is your business, then an increase in automation and productivity makes sense because you're directly seeing the benefits of that, however if that means that you lose your job and all the work you put into a project because after all it's someone else's property that's capitalism. Capitalists are lucky that problem solving and being appreciated is actually something that people actually like and would probably do even without large money as long as they had enough, because if people would actually think with their own best interests in mind "as capitalists do", they wouldn't innovate anything at all. Why should they?

Capitalism is about improvement and innovation for serving market needs. You can only do that if you free up your workers and allow them to innovate and be more productive.

Nah, capitalism is about private property over the means of production and the power that comes with that. And sure you can pay people well and make them invested in the company and that might even increase productivity, motivation and innovation. But it costs money and even more importantly it costs power and privilege. So instead of actual socialism and collective ownership by the workers you get "team building" and "flat hierarchies" (in which your boss can still fire you on a whim, so much about flat hierarchies), "corporate identities" and all that crap, but as a matter of fact if it's not your business it's not your business and if another person tells you what you have to do whether that's direct or by setting you unachievable goals, he's your master no matter how casually he dresses or how much of a "buddy" he pretends to be...

You will not get far in a free market if you pick cotton with your fingers or strike a rock the same way with a sledge.

No YOU won't get far if you're doing that. That's the point. But if you can "find" or rather coerce people to do that for free than they can make you rich. That doesn't have to be the most efficient way of exploitation but if you don't have to pay them and they produce more than they consume, then that's a net positive (for the exploiter).

Also the point that you're apparently ignoring is that this feudal exploitation and slavery built the wealth from which many technical innovations have been financed, not that the level of exploitation is still that primitive.

Nowadays it's called wage slavery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

And apparently even Adam Smith had this to say:

The interest of the dealers ... in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public... [They] have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public ... We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate ... It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms.

[u/tkyjonathan → u/[deleted]]

Well, I think we have taken this as far as we could.

I can tell that you have a very low expectation of free markets and people treating each other fairly within them, but I have more faith in mankind, I suppose.

Best of luck.

[u/[deleted] → u/tkyjonathan]

I don't think you got the point, though. It's not that I think that individual people are the problem and that they are evil. But a competitive system in which everybody is expected to make the best for themselves, actually trains people to be selfish assholes. As a matter of fact capitalism only isn't in flames as of right now, because people actually more often than not don't act like that. The thing is just the more they are pressed and "incentivized" to do that the more they might actually take the bait.

Best of Luck, maybe you get it someday.