Talk:Criticism of socialism

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Archives
Archive 1 (Jan 30, 2006 to Apr 30, 2006) Archive 2 (May 01, 2006 to Aug 15, 2006)

Anti-socialism redirect

Would someone with an account create a redirect from Anti-socialism to this page please.--207.230.48.22 02:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent controversy

Vision Thing, it appears that we have a small controversy on our hands, and I propose to discuss it here. As far as I can see, the objects of this controversy are as follows:

• You wish to remove the following paragraph:

Another argument put forward by certain socialists relies on a different view of human psychology, a view of motives as depending more on the specifics of nurture and education than on an underlying genetic cause. In this context they might claim that the need for material incentives is only the result of the indoctrination of children in the present capitalist society, and that the nurturing of children in a future socialist society will lead to a more altruistic mindset with no need for personal incentives. Critics argue that there is no evidence for this theory and that much of human drives and motivations are genetically hardcoded.

I see no reason for such a removal. Libertarian socialists and anarcho-communists often argue that material greed is socially constructed, while anti-socialists typically argue that material greed is natural. Why remove all mention of this debated point?

• You wish to remove the sentence "However, empirical evidence shows no statistical correlation between a nation's wealth and the degree of inequality in that nation", even though it is supported by sources. ^[1][2] Granted, one of those links is broken now, but it worked at the time when it was added (see above). It pointed to a paper by economists Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini. There is also a potential third source for that sentence (Günther Rehme, who wrote in a February 2006 paper, "there is no clear functional relationship between growth and measured income inequality").
• You insist on including the phrase "once you begin to understand" in the Hayek quote. I don't see the point. If some author said "socialists smell funny, and socialism is bad because X, Y and Z", there would be no reason to include his ad hominem about socialists when quoting his opinion on X, Y and Z.
• Finally, I divided the criticisms of Communist states in two paragraphs: Generic criticisms first, death statistics second. The reason for that is because you seemed so intent on keeping a detailed description of the death statistics, even though they belong in criticisms of communism. I conceded that to you; but now I ask you to keep the two paragraphs separate, so as to not give the readers the impression that all criticisms of Communist states are related to the death statistics. That is simply not true. -- Nikodemos 00:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with socialism, is not that it fails to "reward" productivity. When you talk of "incentives", you are viewing people as "employees" or "subjects" of the state, who need to be rewarded for a job well done, so as to get them to work harder.

The criticism goes way beyond that. Our declaration of independence, for example, states that each person is born free, and that they are a free agent. it follows that they have a right to own that which they have worked for. Those who decide to work harder, should have a right to own more. If someone decides to work hard and go to college, while another person decides to take the easy route and work as a waiter, it isn't even remotely fair that they would have the same social status. socialism short circuits the law of sowing and reaping. Those who make bad financial decisions in their lifes, do not have to pay the concequences for their mistakes. And that is the biggest problem with socialism. Dullfig 00:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

How about that fact that socialism would not allow me to own my own business? They are against private ownership of the means of production. I have a major problem with that. Why should the state be allowed to seize my business? Working Poor 03:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"it follows that they have a right to own that which they have worked for" Um, that's a tenet of socialism - the right to the full value of your labour, not what your boss decides he'd like to pay you. --Nema Fakei 17:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be confused: If I work and work and save my money, and want to buy a milling machine so I can start a business, that would be owning the means of production, a big no-no. But machines are merely the embodiment of thought and work, why can I not own one, just like a television set? and why can I not pay someone else to operate it? Dullfig 21:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to have a personal argument about socialism, but, in any case, the reason why you cannot own the means of production is because private property in general is illegitimate. There is no logical basis for a "right" to private property. And no, the Declaration of Independence does not explicitly support such a right, but even if it did, you'd still need a better argument than "it's true because Jefferson said so". By the way, since when is physical labour the "easy way" while going to college is the "hard way"? If I had a choice between doing an exhausting, menial, boring job, or going to college, I would always choose college. Money would not even be an issue. -- Nikodemos 09:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, before you roll your eyes, consider this: private property is a direct corollary to the right to life. If you search in the woods for a nice, straight stick, then fashion a stone point for it, and make yourself a swell spear that can be used for hunting, you have an absolute right to declare that spear yours, as you need it to excercise your right to life. If some one were to take your spear, your chances of surviving would be diminished, and the other guys opportunity of surviving would be increased, with out him doing anything to deserve it. All private property helps you exercise your right to life, that is the basis for property rights. Dullfig 17:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A man lost in the woods with no tools and no way to return to human society is a dead man. (unless he happens to be a trained survival expert, but then his training would be the result of his life within human society) Except in very rare cases, a human being cannot survive outside human society. We are born weak and utterly dependent on others for our survival. We are social animals. We need society in order to live; therefore, talking about an individual right to life outside human society is nonsense. What you need in order to have a right to life is not property, but other human beings willing to work together with you. What kind of prey do you plan to hunt on your own with a single spear? You'd be better off picking fruits; hunting is a social activity (the kinds of tools that allow you to be an effective individual hunter - such as guns - are products of society).

In any case, you seem to be confusing private property with the simple existence of tools. An object does not necessarily have to be yours in order for you to use it. To hunt, you need a spear. Whether it's your speak or the tribe's spear is irrelevant. Keep in mind that the concept of property refers to relationships between human beings. What does it mean to say that a spear is "yours"? It means that no one else may take it and use it without your permission. Thus, when you say that an object is "yours", you're talking about the relationship between you and other humans who may wish to use that object. If there are no other humans around, property is a moot point. -- Nikodemos 08:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Saying that man cannot live alone doesn't change anything. What if you lived in a tribe, and you expended your own (limited, irreplaceable) time in making a spear, and then someone else in the tribe says "that's nice, i think I'll take that, I need to go hunting"? You worked for it, you get to keep it. This whole notion of "the spear belongs to the tribe" will inevitably lead to people not pulling their own weight, and getting the rewards without doing the work. We are hard-wired for minimum effort (it conserves energy during famine) and we tend to go with the easy way out. Private property is taylor-made for human nature. Dullfig 17:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

1) That paragraph consists of original research and weasel words ("in this context they might claim"???). If it is to be included, I ask for sources. Also, material incentives are not the only ones in capitalist society, there are also nonmaterial incentives like prestige, desire to be better than others...

2) Second link might have been working at the time when it was added, but if its quality was the same as that of the first link (personal webpage), it can't be accepted because it's not a reliable source. Since we can't check the quality of the source and correctness of conclusions that were drawn from it, it can't be accepted as a valid source.

3) "once you begin to understand" is not ad hominem, but I'm willing to leave it out.

4) There is no need to divide it in two paragraphs, because in your version first paragraph already talks about number of deaths. -- Vision Thing -- 14:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1) I believe the whole argument is that [libertarian] socialism could preserve or even enhance the non-material incentives while abolishing the material ones. Prestige and public recognition of one's success are perfectly compatible with equality of wealth.

2) Regarding the paper by Persson and Tabellini, my intention was not to use it to support the argument that inequality is harmful to growth, but the argument that inequality is not necessarily beneficial to growth. There is a big difference between the two. I trust you agree that the paper does indeed support the second argument.

3) Thank you. :)

4) Ok. I made a small tweak while keeping your one-paragraph version. -- Nikodemos 09:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

1) Socialist are not supporters of social egalitarianism also?

2) Sure, I also agree that inequality is not necessarily beneficial to growth. Are there some pro-capitalist theorists who think otherwise? I'm only aware of theorists who argue that implementation of different government measures for alleviation of inequality is harmful to growth. -- Vision Thing -- 20:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

1) I am not aware of any socialists who oppose individual prestige and public recognition of one's successes and merits.

2) The article currently states that "The critics of socialism often claim that a reduction of inequality would also reduce incentives, and therefore productivity and total wealth would be reduced in turn." But a reduction of inequality, in and of itself, does not have to be achieved through government intervention and does not necessarily reduce productivity and growth (on the contrary, statistics show that higher degrees of equality are correlated with higher GDPs - this may be because equality produces growth, or because growth produces equality, or because both growth and equality are promoted by the same policies). If there are indeed no capitalists who argue that a reduction in inequality will necessarily reduce growth, we should simply remove the sentence I quoted and be done with it. -- Nikodemos 05:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I found the paper by Persson and Tabellini [3]. Their study found that inequality is harmful for growth, but not because inequality is harmful per se. They found that inequality is harmful for growth because it leads to government polices that do not protect property rights and do not allow full private appropriation of returns from investments. That means that this study can be used as a source for claim that socialist policies are harmful to growth, and not for claim that inequality is intrinsically harmful. -- Vision Thing -- 14:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That paper is not verifiable, since you need a subscription to view it. 72.139.119.165 02:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It was free two days ago, but still, need for subscription doesn't make it unverifiable. -- Vision Thing -- 17:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the main problem with the paper is that is incorrect. It contradicts previous reaserch, see Economic_inequality#Economic_growth. It is also redundant, a more direct way would simply be to compare growth rates and government policy directly (see the IEF controversy). Third, it does not take into account distributive efficiency. Also, few countries developed under laziezz-faire capitalism, most had a "developmental state" of some kind (see Japan, South Korea, etc.) to promote development (incidentally, the Soviet Union experienced rapid growth in the 1930's and after World War 2). 72.139.119.165 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically, economic growth in lazzez-faire capitalist countries tends to be focused in a small group rather than the workers. Also, poor countries in Africa, etc. are poor mainly because the US and other countries keep them poor. For example, to get a loan from the world bank/IMF, countries need to privitize industry (along with other conditions). Then, US based corporations take over the countries economy and do not benefit the local people (see imperialism and neocolonialism). Also, the US often overthrows governments it does not like (like 1953 Iran and 1973 Chile). It also supported UNITA in Angola and RENAMO in Mozambique, which were right-wing capitalist movements supported by Aparthied South Africa. 72.139.119.165 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, socialism is not opposed to all private ownership (at least in most forms). Under socialism, small scale business and self employment are allowed. Also, even under communism, there can be some differences in Wealth (but not huge differences). The critique is usually only extended to large scale industry, important industry, etc., not small markets, shops, etc. 72.139.119.165 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what I wanted to say was that under socialism, presonal property (ie. your own house) is allowed. This means that random people cnnot enter the house that someone can simply take the house, etc. What socialism is opposed to is private ownership of the means of priduction. 72.139.119.165 21:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, property is property. It's like saying, you don't think people should own blue socks, but red ones are ok. House, hammer, machine, these are just objects. The work embodied in them is what justifies ownership. What you are sugesting is incongruous. If I work for 100 days and build a house, I can keep it, but if I work 100 days and build my own milling machine, THAT I can't keep, because of an arbitrary classification of objects into "means of production" and "belongings". Therein lies the oppression of socialist regimes, in that you are subject to totaly arbitrary rules, and that you are prevented from deciding for yourself how you should live your life. And don't tell me that I can, because I can't. Not if I decide that I want to own a factory. Who are you to decide what I can and can't do? are you going to give back to me the years gone by if it turns out you were wrong? Dullfig 22:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a silly statement. Private property either exists, or it doesn't. Private property does not come in sepparate "forms". Under the US constitution, the citizen is the sovereign, giving up certain rights in order to form a government. But the right to private property either is, or it is not. When the government starts saying "you can't own this, but you can own that", the citizen has ceased to be the sovereign, and is now a subject of the state, living at the pleasure of the state, and serving the state's needs and interests. Freedom, and limited private property, cannot co-exist. Dullfig 19:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My response was a bit off-topic to Vision Things claim. The basic problem is as follows: socialist policies attempt to reduce wealth inequality. Now, if a country with high inequality introduces socialist policies, wealth inequality should go down. If the claim is correct, there is a positive corelation between wealth inequality and socialism (this means that countries with socialist policies have more inequality). Now that is an absurd claim. 72.139.119.165 21:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Consider two basic scenarios: 1) in a country with high inequality and growth rate socialist policies are introduced and both inequality and growth are reduced; 2) in a second country with high inequality and growth rate socialist polices are not introduced, and neither inequality and growth are reduced. Why would be absurd to claim that socialist polices hamper growth? -- Vision Thing -- 21:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not claim that was absurd, I said your argument was absurd. First, high growth has taken place under cretain socialist policies (ie. Sweeden (which is social democracy, but some more socialist countries also had high growth)). Second, the response I gave refuted your claim. Your claim was that high inequality causes socialist policies, which reduces growth, which makes countires with high inequality to be more poor. That claim has multiple problems, the most obvious of which is that countries with more inequality would have socialist policies. This means that there would be more inequality if there was more soiclaism, which would mean there is more inequality under a system that reduces inequality. Therefore, if your claim is correct, then reducing inequality would increase it, and that is a contradiction. 72.139.119.165 21:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how did you come to conclusion that there would be more inequality if there would be more socialism, and I'm not interested in giving lesions in logic and logical fallacies. -- Vision Thing -- 18:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not claim that, what you claimed above implied that. 72.139.119.165 19:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I love the inequality argument! Socialists love to dwell on the inequality. Let me ask you this: suppose there is a country where everyone makes $2.00 an hour, and there is another country where one percent of the population makes $1000.00 an hour, and the rest makes $4 an hour. Which country do you want to live in? It doesn't matter if there is inequality! the important thing is: how well off are the ones at the bottom! Dullfig 01:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. But then, socialism is based in envy, not rationality. Working Poor

Imaginary countries prove nothing. If there was a country where one percent of the population made $1000.00 an hour, and the rest made $4 an hour, what would happen if we redistributed wealth equally? Well, the one thing that is certain is that everyone would make $13.96 an hour - a massive improvement for 99% of the population. As for any other long-term effects, I don't know, since this example of yours is imaginary and not very detailed.

If you want to talk about real countries, I would like to kindly point out that those at the bottom are much better off in Sweden than in the United States. The poor (and sometimes even the rich) are better off in the countries with more equality. Note that the 5 most equal countries in the world right now are Denmark, Japan, Sweden, Belgium and the Czech Republic. By contrast, the most unequal are the Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, Botswana, Lesotho and Namibia. Pop quiz: Which of those sets of countries are overall richer? -- Nikodemos 08:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Capitalist usually argue for more economic freedom, not for more inequality, and researches in this area, like this one, did show that countries with more economic freedom have substantially higher per capita incomes and higher growth rates. They also showed that "The share of income earned by the poorest 10% of the population is unrelated to the degree of economic freedom in a nation." -- Vision Thing -- 20:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Then I guess that the article simply misrepresents the views of capitalists (there is a sentence claiming that capitalists support inequality; see above). We can remove that sentence and clear up the confusion. -- Nikodemos 08:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with socialist countries is that even if the lower class is doing ok, they have no upward mobility. Redistribution always works by taking from the top, and giving to the bottom. But any burden placed on businesses becomes a barrier to entry, preventing new people from becoming entrepreneurs. Get it? Because the record keeping requirements needed to prove you are paying your "fair share" are so burdensome, only big organizations can afford to hire the lawyers required to keep up with the red tape. If you place no burdens on businesses, sure, you're going to have inequality, but by the same token, it becomes possible for the little guy to set up his own business. Dullfig 02:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of socialism is to eliminate the concept of private business altogether. Placing regulations and "red tape" on businesses is not a socialist policy. A socialist policy would be, for example, putting a factory under the control of its workers. When socialists say they support the "little guy", they are not talking about small businesses (which are not inherently better than big businesses). They are talking about the working class - those people who don't own any business. -- Nikodemos 08:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. Here in the US, they are now ramming ISO 9000 down everyone's throat. The requirements are so huge, you need a big organization to handle them. The days of the one man shop, where you could buy a milling machine and put it in your garage and start your own business are long gone. The only one screwed is the little guy. The big corporations will do just fine. So it just isn't enough to say you want to help the little guy, the policies have to actually help. Dullfig 02:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, the "little guy" is not the small business owner, but the worker who doesn't own any business. The days of the one man shop have been swept away by the advance of technology - the whole point of the industrial revolution was to eliminate small-scale production and replace it with large-scale mass production. I understand your concerns, but you are two hundred years too late. Industrial capitalism - just like industrial socialism or any other kind of industrial society - eliminates small shops and replaces them with large factories or firms. -- Nikodemos 08:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Boy, oh boy, oh boy! Where to start? I don't know your background, but sometimes you come accross as not knowing the first thing about capitalism; and I don't mean knowging what the left says about capitalism, but actually living it. When there are huge barriers to entry, the situation is such that the worker has no hope of ever improving his condition. But when setting up your own business becomes accessible even to the little guy, all of a sudden you have just as much of a chance to make it big as anyone else. New fortunes are constantly being made in the US. When I spoke of the "one man shop" I was refering specifically to one industry: the aerospace machine shop. The one man shop is not a myth, and it did not die with the industrial revolution. It is alive and well in the US. There is a reason so many people want to emigrate here. This is the one country where it does not matter your national origin, your social condition, or your economic status, you can start a business here and make it big. That is how true capitalism should work. Dullfig 18:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I take the following from page history. "Peter Self was arguing precisely against 'extreme equality', not the limited equality that he and other socialists support." That's Mihnea's comment. I'm frankly not familiar with Mr. Self's work (I'm not Selfish) but this leaves me scratching my head at the oddity of his turn of phrase. Either two quantities are equal or they are not. In the straightforward arithmetical sense of the term, one can never say that X and Y possess "limited equality." There is X=Y or there is the negation of that. If X>Y, then there are degrees to which it is greater, but that only establishes that "limited inequality" would make sense, not that its inverse does.

Self's language doesn't make a lot of sense applied to society either because, whatever exactly he meant to say, there must be more transparent ways of saying it. Does "limited equality" refer to a specific range in variation (in incomes, wealth, or life style) that will be allowed, and a prohibition on any variation outside of that range? Or does it mean that if certain conditions are lifted, we can reliably predict that a specific (narrower-than-present) range will come about spontaneously? or does it mean something else? Whatever. "Extreme equality" simply means "equality" sans phrase, and a criticism of the former is a criticism of the latter for that reason, though the adjective may serve some purpose in hiding that from (ahem) one's Self. --Christofurio 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the full quote from Self: "Extreme equality overlooks the diversity of individual talents, tastes and needs, and save in a utopian society of unselfish individuals would entail strong coercion; but even short of this goal, there is the problem [for socialism] of giving reasonable recognition to different individual needs, tastes (for work or leisure) and talents. It is true therefore that beyond some point the pursuit of equality runs into controversial or contradictory criteria of need or merit." Self is arguing against the pursuit extreme equality because it requires "strong coercion." He's criticizing traditional socialism planned economy in favor of market socialism. I don't like that Nikodemos cuts down quotes and then editorializes on them, because he when he does it seems he always loses or changes the meaning. Working Poor 16:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting quote, thanks. I was mostly making a pedantic quibble about Self's language. Feel free to ignore me and carry on. --Christofurio 17:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with economic comparisons

I propose a section about the state of the world in the 1970s, which was globally the peak for economic socialism. And as far as I'm concerned there should be a massive section about the relations of economic socialism to inflation and unemployment. Do we so easily forget what Reagan, Thatcher, and Friedman did?

A user has recently added a short paragraph about comparisons between socialist and capitalist countries, which I intend to remove. As an explanation for this removal, I give you the following reasons why most such comparisons are inherently inaccurate and generally useless:

1. Which countries were "socialist"? Which countries were "capitalist"? There is no agreement among self-described socialists regarding the list of countries that can be described as "socialist". Likewise, there are many libertarians who argue that the so-called "capitalist" countries are not capitalist at all, but mixed economies inspired by socialism. When you compare West Germany to East Germany, are you comparing capitalism to socialism, or are you comparing a social democratic welfare state to a Stalinist deformed workers' state?
2. What exactly are we comparing? Total GDP at a given point in time? GDP growth over a certain period? GNP? Some other economic performance indicator? Broad statements such as "the economy of country X performed better than the economy of country Y" give no information whatsoever.
3. Which countries are we comparing? We might compare East Germany with West Germany, or we might compare post-WW2 East Germany with pre-WW2 East Germany. Some would argue that it is more accurate to compare the economic performance of the same country under different economic systems than to compare different countries.

Besides, we should not give undue weight to the Marxist-Leninist version of "socialism". -- Nikodemos 23:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninist version of socialism is the most prominent one.-- Vision Thing -- 21:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it has entire other articles dedicated to it (the criticisms of communism and communist regimes). There is no need to duplicate information. -- Nikodemos 09:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Nikodemos has a point: so what if the biggest country on earth (USSR) tried Marxist-leninist socialism and failed miserably, while putting several generations of russians through misery, the likes of which will never be seen by anyone outside Russia? So what if millions of people lived and died without ever knowing what true freedom is? It is important for us to not give undue weight to such a crackpot, fringe ideology as Marxism-Leninism. Lets find examples of countries where socialism is flourishing. Like Cuba, for example. No, wait, bad example. Ok, I know, I know: Vietnam. Oh, no, wait, their pretty bad too. HEEEY, I KNOW: CHINA!. Oh, wait, they're trying to go to a market econonmy... Man, it's hard to not give undue weight to that crackpot Marxist-Leninist fringe... Any ideas, anyone?

Dullfig 00:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There has been far more misery in Russia since the re-introduction of capitalism than during the entire "socialist" period after World War II. That is what I meant with the problems of comparison: If we compare the Soviet Union with capitalist Russia, the Soviet Union clearly wins on every indicator of economic prosperity and human happiness. -- Nikodemos 09:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The "Ludwig von Mises, socialism should be regarded as a failure" paragraph is inaccurate and should be removed. It is an unfair comparison, because Russia started out poorer than the US, and this was true even before the revolution (in fact, Russia was poor under the tsar). 72.139.119.165 22:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

East Germany and West Germany started as a pile of rubble. Equal conditions, different outcome. Interesting, isn't it? What do you suppose the difference was?

Capitalism (and in those days it was the laissez-faire kind) took 13 backwater colonies in 1790, and in less than a century turned the US into an industrial powerhouse. The increase in GDP was astounding. Russia was communist long enough. Had communism worked, you would have already seen that the country was well on its way to being the proverbial "worker's paradise". Don't give me the "they didn't have enough time" line. No American under Capitalism was ever asked to "sacrifice themselves for future generations". Countless russians did, and for what?

We only get to live once. Period. When you die, you nevee rcome back. To ask a person to sacrifice their life, so that others (perhaps in the future) can live well, is a perverse notion. When judging a phylosophy, good intentions don't count. The outcome counts. It doesn't matter that communism is trying to do good. Like I have said elsewhere, Communism has condemned more humans to living miserable, empty lives than capitalism ever will.

Dullfig 23:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As for East Germany and West Germany the Soviet Union removed vast quantities of resources from the East German sector after the war (claiming them as reparations) while the US supplied West Germany with vast economic aid (see Marshall Plan) after the war. 72.139.119.165 02:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Always an excuse. No matter how many times socialism fails, there is always a reason it did, and it never is because of socialism itself. But next time it will be different.Next time it will be beautiful, and all workers will hold hands and live in the land of plenty. How many times must we try the socialist experiment, before we start suspecting there is something wrong with the theory itself? Dullfig 02:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Who said that socialism ever failed? In order to argue that socialism failed in East Germany, for example, you first need to prove two things:

1. That East Germany did, in fact, have socialism. This requires a definition of "socialism".
2. That the economic system of East Germany did, in fact, fail. This requires an objective definition of "failure". How exactly does an economy "fail"? In common speech, to "fail" means that you did not achieve an objective you were supposed to achieve. What was the economy of East Germany supposed to achieve that it did not achieve in practice? I'm talking about objective numbers here, not emotional outbursts about how horrible you think East Germany was. -- Nikodemos 09:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Ludwig von Mises paragraph in particular: We have a referenced quote by Ludwig von Mises saying that the Soviet Union failed to achieve the same standard of living as the United States. This, in itself, cannot be a critique of socialism unless we assume that (a) the Soviet Union was socialist (a view not shared by the majority of self-described socialists, since the majority of self-described socialists are social democrats), and (b) the purpose of socialism is to overcome the United States on some unspecified economic indicator (as opposed to, say, achieving high rates of economic growth, which the Soviet Union did succeed in doing for several decades). -- Nikodemos 23:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that in any situation where you have a country, where the population is willing to walk over minefields, and risk being shot by the military, in order to get out of that country, it can't be all that successful. The ultimate measure of success is how free you are, not how equal you are. What if a country was entirely made up of slaves (I know, there would have to be a slaveowner, but it's a hipothetical situation), that would make everyone completely equal. But you cannot say that it would be a good place to live. Socialism says the most important thing is to be equal, even if it means talking away liberty in order to achieve it. I say the most important thing is freedom, even if it means we won't be equal. Dullfig 00:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of the population was not willing to walk over minefields or risk being shot. In total, some 5000 people tried to cross the Berlin Wall from the East. Meanwhile, in West Germany, a group of very different people formed the Red Army Faction and took up arms to overthrow capitalism. Both groups were extremely dissatisfied with their respective governments, but neither of them were representative of the general population.

The problem with any "ultimate measure of success" is precisely the fact that people cannot agree on it. You think it's liberty (how do you measure liberty, by the way?); other people think it is equality. Yet others might think it is economic development, or military strength, or whatever. Since we cannot agree on what "success" means, we cannot agree on what "failure" means. Most countries (Communist states included) achieve some things at the expense of others. It is a matter of personal preference on whether the trade-off was worth it.

Also, unless you describe your hypothetical society in more detail, there is no way to know whether it would be a good or bad place to live. One could certainly imagine a society made up of very well-treated slaves who have access to anything they desire. -- Nikodemos 01:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

@Nikodemos Why have you removed Mises comment? -- Vision Thing -- 10:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I explained above, but the paragraph may be difficult to find among all the other comments. Here it is again:

Regarding the Ludwig von Mises paragraph in particular: We have a referenced quote by Ludwig von Mises saying that the Soviet Union failed to achieve the same standard of living as the United States. This, in itself, cannot be a critique of socialism unless we assume that (a) the Soviet Union was socialist (a view not shared by the majority of self-described socialists, since the majority of self-described socialists are social democrats), and (b) the purpose of socialism is to overcome the United States on some unspecified economic indicator (as opposed to, say, achieving high rates of economic growth, which the Soviet Union did succeed in doing for several decades). -- Nikodemos 22:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of a political system are always based on the opinion of the one criticising, not on the opinion of the one being criticised. When Republicans criticise yet another Democrat program, the democrats always think their program is just swell. Criticism always comes from people that disagree with the policy. It is the nature of criticism. So, as far as the Von Mises paragraph, I think that:

• It doesn't matter that the majority of self-described socialists would not consider the USSR to have been socialist; Everybody that is NOT a socialist does think they where. It is a common tactic on the left to keep moving the target so that no criticism can ever stick. You can never pin down what socialism means, lest it become a static target and therefore open to criticism.
• What socialism thinks it is trying to accomplish is irrelevant. Like it or not, people outside of socialism DO want to compare countries based on economic factors. It is a central position of capitalists that, as the economy of a country grows, everyone (not just the rich) will be better off. So it is perfectly valid for capitalist to criticise socialism based on economic factors.

In other words, your idea of a "fair" system, is different from our idea of "fair", and we have a right to criticise socialism on whatever aspects we think are valid criticisms, and it is not required that you agree with our views.

Re-instate the Von Mises paragraph.

Dullfig 23:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

1. "Everybody that is NOT a socialist does think [the Soviet Union] were [socialist]" - Really? Do you have any proof of that? I would argue that most people call the Soviet Union communist, not socialist. To use your analogy with the Republicans and Democrats, would you consider it reasonable if the Republicans criticized the policies of the Democratic Party of Turkmenistan and then argued that their criticism applies to all "Democratic Parties"? If not, then why do you consider it reasonable to assume that your criticism of one form of "socialism" should apply to all kinds of "socialism" in general?
2. "So it is perfectly valid for capitalist to criticise socialism based on economic factors." - Certainly, but which economic factors was Von Mises talking about? His quote only mentions "the standard of living of the Russian masses". That is far too vague. What does he mean by "standard of living"? GDP per capita? Or some other economic indicator, perhaps?
3. In any case, detailed criticisms of communist states belong in the criticisms of communism article, not here. -- Nikodemos 02:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ludwig von Mises sees the Soviet Union as example of socialism (if you want a source for that I will easily find it) and he sees living standard as important criterion for measuring success of different ideologies. Because of that, his criticism belongs here. Our views on his criticisms are not important. -- Vision Thing -- 22:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Very well, that would be an adequate answer to point #1. But please read points #2 and #3 above. Von Mises' criticism refers to a particular historical example - Communist states - which has its own separate criticism article. Besides, the present article already includes the sentence "Critics claim that Communist states provided low standards of living and committed numerous human rights violations, including millions of deaths caused directly or indirectly by the government". That describes Von Mises' views, does it not? There is no need to say the same thing twice. -- Nikodemos 08:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Malaria

The article says "They also point to pharmaceutical companies that have little incentive to produce drugs to cure diseases such as malaria, which primarily affect poor countries that cannot afford to buy them..." That's ridiculous. How do they explain for-profit companies producing Plaquenil, Daraprim, Proguanil, and others. Obviously there is a profit to be made in developing malaria drugs or Astra Zeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and others wouldn't develop them. Even if the people of a country as so destitute that they can't afford to purchase malaria drugs, and therefore have to rely on Bill Gates to purchase the drugs for them out of his philanthropy fund, they are being produced because there is a profit in producing them. Working Poor 06:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no denying that malaria drugs exist; however, private companies invest more money in finding better drugs for erectile dysfunction than malaria. The argument is not that anti-malaria drugs are not produced at all, but that they are produced in insufficient numbers. -- Nikodemos 06:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a citation for this claim. Cite your sources and we don't have to take it on faith. --FOo 07:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So what do the socialists want, the morality police to come in and force everyone to invest in producing things according to their own table of priorities? How do they determine what the priorities are? How about leaving it to the individual to decide what the highest priorities are to invest in? I'm sure erectile dysfunction causes a lot of suffering too and I doubt it discriminates between rich and poor. Working Poor 21:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Socialists do indeed argue that there is an objective difference between different possible priorities (for example, they argue that curing malaria is objectively more important than curing erectile dysfunction), whereas capitalists argue that all priorities and all values are inherently subjective. -- Nikodemos 03:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Objective to whom? subjective to whom? who gets to decide? You? Who died and left you in charge? I'm sure that men with erectile dysfunction will consider a cure for ED to be of far more value than a cure for Malaria. And people with malaria will consider a cure for malaria to be of more value. Look, i don't mean to be offensive with that snide remark, but like I said elsewhere, no one should be required to renounce their own rights, in order to benefit others. No human should have the power to decide how someone else should live their life. The only proper relationship between people is free market exchange of goods and services. You don't get to decide who gets what medicine.

And in any case, if it wasn't the case that millions of Africans are forced to live under corrupt socialist dictatorships, they would have no problem affording the cure for malaria. Dullfig 07:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I maintain that (a) morality is objective, (b) life is the greatest moral value, and (c) moral values are cumulative. Thus, any activity that saves lives should take priority over any activity that does not save lives. And the activity that saves the greatest amount of lives should take priority over everything else.

I find your individualism morally repulsive. Yes, society should have the power to decide how you live your life as long as you choose to live within that society. No, you do not have a choice regarding the "proper" relationship between people. Your thoughts and feelings - the very essence of your being - originate from two sources: The genes passed on to you by your parents and the experiences you have gone through during your life. Thus the actions of other people inevitably shape your actions; indeed, they shape your personality. For this reason, you are a social creature. You would not exist - or you would not be who you are today - if it were not for the society around you. You would have no rights if you did not live in a society that grants you rights. If your comfort stands in the way of someone else's life, then it is my moral obligation to move you aside and save that person's life.

The belief that one's own needs and wishes are more important than the same needs and wishes in someone else is the source of all evil.

More evil than Hitler's Holocaust, or Stalins purges ?!?! Or Mao's "re-education" ?! Do you realize what you are saying?! In order to commit mass murder, first you have to strip people of their rights; the less rights you have, the more vulnerable to the whims of others you are. Name a country with strong individual rights, applied equally to all, where mass murder by the state was commited. Dullfig 09:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's Holocaust was motivated by the belief that the needs and wishes of some people (Germans) were more important than the needs and wishes of others (Jews). Stalin's purges and Mao's excesses were all committed for selfish reasons - enhancing the leader's power and glory. And I can name you a country with strong individual rights where slavery was present for almost a century and a genocide was committed against native populations: the United States of America. -- Nikodemos 09:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Rights are not granted by society. The right to life is self-evident. It is easy to demonstrate tha all other human rights come from the basic right to life. Unless, of course, you don't agree that each human is born free, and has a self-evident right to life. Dullfig 09:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The right to life is by no means self-evident. In their natural state (as tribes of hunter-gatherers), humans have never believed that they had a right to life. And the fact that the "right to life" was only postulated by a few Western intellectuals 200 years ago (that is, some 4800 years after the beginning of human civilization) clearly demonstrates that it is not "self-evident". If it was self-evident, you would not need to teach it to people, and more people would have thought of it sooner. -- Nikodemos 09:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, all African economies are based on private property over the means of production and they exhibit the world's highest degrees of economic inequality. -- Nikodemos 08:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What you are proposing, a society where everyone tells everyone else what to do, is a society that is inherently violent and unjust. How can a society where everyone is a slave to the whims of everyone else, be a just society? Dullfig 09:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not proposing that everyone be a slave to the whims of everyone else. Please avoid the straw man fallacy, thank you very much. What I am proposing is a society with a clearly defined constitution and rule of law, except that the constitution and laws are designed to maximize happiness and promote the greater good rather than protect "individual rights". Such a society would be highly democratic, but you would not be a slave to "whims", because it would still take considerable time and effort to change laws. Think about it: What stops you from being a slave to your government's whims right now? Your precious "individual rights" are meaningless if they are not protected. Who would protect you if the government suddenly decided to abolish the constitution? Your fellow citizens, no doubt. "The mob" you despise so much. -- Nikodemos 09:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As they say, democracy is two wolfs and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Suppose that we found out that for some twist of fate, your blood (yes, the blood of Nikodemos) turned out to be a universal cure for cancer. Would we be justified in killing you in order to harvest your blood? Dullfig 09:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, I would kill myself if that would provide a cure for cancer. -- Nikodemos 09:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Amd, given your "morality" you would kill someone else in order to provide a cure for cancer. All you're telling us is that you don't respect other people. If you tell someone they don't have a right to live as they wish, you are telling them you don't respect them. Ok, fine. That's why benevolent kinds of government are put into place ..to prevent people like you from depriving us of liberty. Working Poor 16:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it is pure coincidence that so many people have been killed under socialist and comunist regimes? Without individual rights, ANYTHING can happen to you, and it will be justified under "greater good for the greatest number"! Dullfig 09:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Anything can happen to you when you do have individual rights as well. For example, you may be hit by a tsunami, or you may starve to death because you have no money to buy food. The vast majority of the deaths blamed on socialism or communism were deaths by starvation. But if we were to count the number of people who starved under capitalism, we would arrive at a much greater total number of deaths than the ones blamed on socialism or communism.

And by the way, just because something is justified under the excuse of promoting the greatest good for the greatest number, that does not mean it actually promotes the greatest good for the greatest number. You can use any moral principle as an excuse for your actions, but that does not invalidate the principle. Many 18th and 19th century massacres were justified by the "inalienable rights of man". -- Nikodemos 09:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How can you even know for sure what action will result in the greatest good for the greatest number in the long term? You can't. But you apparently want to organize some kind of comittee that attempts to calculate what actions will result in the greatest good for the greatest number and force it on us. Well no thanks. That's why the the U.S. government was formed. It was to prevent people like you who lack true respect for others from depriving us of liberty for what you think is the "greatest good for the greatest number." And don't tell me you do respect others, because telling someone they don't have a right to live as they wish is telling them that you don't respect them. You see them as a mere tool to get what you want, or as Kant put it, you seem them as mere means to an end instead of as ends in themselves. Working Poor 16:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask if you would give up your life (a totally selfless, voluntary act); I asked if it would be allright to kill you against your will. And on the subject of right to life, you're all over the map. First you say that life is the highest principle, and that is why society has to sacrifice the few in favor of the many (I guess for the few life isn't the highest principle), but at the same time you say that it is not self-evident, and furthermore it is ok for the majority to take your life if it benefits them. Can you make up your mind? do people have a right to life or not?

Without an ironclad guarantee to each individual that the right to life is sacred, you never know if you will be disposed of next. How can you justify saying that you are so valuable, that you are justified in killing someone else to benefit yourself? Bottom line: You have no right to demand nothing from no one.

As for the slave thing, I asked you if you knew a country where everyone had equal rights, and you come back with the slavery thing. If there are slaves, there is no equal rights, is there? STRAW MAN ALERT, STRAW MAN ALERT. Again, name a country with EQUAL RIGHTS that has had a genocide.

Dullfig 21:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I've been reading this little debate here, and I could not help but think, wow! Nikodemos has just demonstrated religious fanaticism, for he is willing to die for his beliefs! Straw Man Alert indeed!

Here's a question, was 1800's USA considered capitalist? I would say no, for it was unlawful then for corporation to own land of any kind, until the railroad companies were given permission by congress. And yet, this was the apex of social freedom and lack of any form of entrenched aristocracy (the enemy of both socialists and capitalists.) Sorry, Dullfig, but Americans were far more free a hundred years ago than they are now. Yet again everyone is stuck in such a time warp of the 1900's, that no one can see anything past that. We need more than just social freedom, we need the means to prevent aristocrats from assuming power.

Dullfig does not seem to see that capitalism, today, is being used to establish another form of aristocracy, which is the real target of socialist anyway. In which case freedom would be crushed under the weight of a new nobility, some of whom already behave like nobility right before our eyes (Paris Hilton anyone?). Socialists fail to see that capitalism is not their problem at all, but aristocracy. The Greeks, who had all these same debates, had already figured this out. And yet here we are, debating all the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

First of all, socialism and communism are alien beliefs outside of Western culture, and nothing more than one of many methods of waging war. They were born on the tyranny of industrial-strength aristocracy that was never known on the other side of the Atlantic. Socialism is a response to that tyranny, not the agricultural, farmer-solider liberalism of America. Now that Europe pretty much has its workers paradise, and it is indeed paradise compared to Americans, who cannot even take more than a weeks vacation, the whole argument is moot. It's just too bad Europe never succeeded in its revolutions as America had, for then perhaps all those tens of millions of people would not have had to die so violently, in such futile misery.

But Dullfig is indeed right. ANY social idea can be used to rape and plunder and commit great crimes, regardless of virtuous ideals it promotes. The Crusaders were not Christian by any stretch of the imagination, and yet they killed everyone in Jerusalem in the name of Christianity. Terrorism is not supported by the Koran, but they still convince beautiful teenage girls to blow themselves up in grocery stores in the name of Allah. And soon capitalism will win its day being used as an excuse to make everyone a worker-bee and no one will be free to own their own business, and who knows what wars will be promoted in its name in the future. The most tyrannical empires are built on the shoulders of once free and great people, who unwittingly provided the wealth needed to overthrow democracy and republics to built such empires.

We don't need capitalism or socialism, we just need to be left alone. That is freedom. Jcchat66 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To Nikodemos

You are removing the section on reduced prosperity. This is a very common criticism. In socialist countries the people are poorer than in capitalist countries. You say that you read the paper and didn't see anything about reduced prosperity. Apparently you didn't read it thoroughly. I quote "Socialism promised to bring more economic prosperity to the people than capitalism, and much of its popularity is based on this promise. The arguments brought forward, though, have proved that the opposite is true...so would lead to a relative reduction in the production of wealth...Experience, too, supports this. By and large, living standards in the East European countries are significantly lower than in Western Europe, where the degree to which the socialization of means of production that has taken place, though certainly remarkable, is relatively much lower Also, wherever one extends the degree of redistributive measures and the proportion of [p. 96] produced wealth that is redistributed is increased, as, for instance, in West Germany during the 1970s under social-democratic liberal government coalitions, there is a retardation in the social production of wealth or even an absolute reduction in the general standard of living. And wherever a society wants to preserve the status quo, that is, a given income and wealth distribution, by means of price controls, regulations, and behavioral controls—as, for instance, in Hitler’s Germany or present-day Italy and France—the living standards will constantly fall further behind those of more liberal (capitalist) societies." [4] Working Poor 15:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I searched for the words "prosperity" and "prosperous" throughout the paper to see if there was any explicitly claimed reduction in prosperity in "socialist countries" (however you define "socialist countries"). You are correct that I did not find the paragraphs you quote. But I am glad you quoted them, since now we are both aware of what Hoppe's arguments are (as opposed to before, when only you knew what they were), and we may work together to include them in the article.

On a different note, please try to refrain from starting a new article section for every new paragraph. Vision Thing's paragraph belongs under central planning, and yours belongs under historical examples. To help us divide paragraphs between sections, here is my interpretation of what the various sections are supposed to cover:

Incentives covers all arguments which claim that socialism reduces incentives and thus causes people to work less.

Efficiency covers all arguments which claim that socialist institutions are more wasteful or less efficient than capitalist institutions.

Prices covers all arguments which claim that markets (and particularly prices) are necessary for any good economic arrangement.

Tragedy of the commons covers all arguments which claim that sharing property is bad in some way.

Economic planning covers all arguments which claim that a planned economy is either impossible or undesirable (Hayek's argument, which claims that economic planning leads to authoritarianism, belongs here).

Historical examples covers all arguments which claim that some specific historical countries - which the author identifies as "socialist" - were bad in some way (Hoppe's argument belongs here). -- Nikodemos 15:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like Prosperity to have its own section. That is too common a criticism to be hidden in "Historical examples" which is not even a critical title. I also disagree that Vision THing's section belongs under central planning. Central planning criticism are economic arguments. The one he provided he a political argument that converting to socialism can't take place without reducing freedom. Working Poor 16:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll also be adding another section called "Reduced technological progress." Working Poor 16:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Something more or less similar to your "reduced prosperity" argument is already made in the incentives section, now that I look at it. Perhaps we should rename that entire section "Incentives and prosperity" and move Hoppe's argument there? I would support such a move. Note two things:

1. The section titles refer to the object of criticism, not the criticism itself (thus the sections are called "incentives" and "efficiency" rather than "reduced incentives" or "reduced efficiency"). "Prosperity" should follow the same principle.
2. Hoppe makes an argument about prices as well as one about prosperity. I believe that is already covered in the prices section.

Now, regarding Hayek's argument, I cannot wrap my head around the notion that every anti-socialist book deserves its own section. This article would be a mess if we followed that guideline. It's a criticism of central planning, so what's wrong with placing it under "central planning"? They don't all have to be economic criticisms. -- Nikodemos 16:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are broad common criticisms of socialism that all critics of socialism lodege. Believe me, they are not each backed up by only one source. I'll go find many more. "Central planning" is not a criticism. Central planning is criticisized, but it's not a criticism. If anything, central planning should be discussed under Reduced Prosperity section. Central planning is criticized because it's seen as the reason for reduced prosperity. Vision THing's criticism doesn't belong under central planning either. The argument from Hayek is that converting to socialism will be followed by reduced political freedoms. The loss of freedom isnt central planning. Working Poor 16:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The names of the sections should - and currently do - reflect the names of the things being criticized. Thus, the central planning section contains criticisms of central planning, the efficiency section contains criticisms of socialist efficiency, and so on. As a gesture of good will, I have conceded to give Hayek his own section. But please note that, as mentioned below, "prosperity" and "incentives" are the same thing. The argument is that socialism does not have good incentives and that this leads to reduced prosperity. -- Nikodemos 16:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Prosperity" and "incentives" are not the same thing. The lack of incentives may be a reason for reduced prosperity. Working Poor 16:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant that the "incentives" section covers the things you wanted to place under "prosperity". As Ultramarine pointed out, anything could be a reason for reduced prosperity. This entire article could be renamed to "Arguments that socialism reduces prosperity". (P.S. I really don't understand why you insist so much on that particular word) -- Nikodemos 16:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, section titles really shouldn't be sentence-long descriptions of the sections they head... -- Nikodemos 16:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Also "incentives" is not the only reason for reduced prosperity. What you're trying to do doesn't make sense. Working Poor 16:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am only trying to do two things right now: 1. Make sure the article doesn't have too many sections, and 2. Make sure that section titles are NPOV. How about this: You can rename the "incentives and prosperity" section to anything you like, as long as it is no more than a two or three-word name of the issue being discussed. -- Nikodemos 16:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be more sections, not less. The more contained each type of criticism can be, the more organized the article can be. There needs to be subsections, etc. Working Poor 16:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added a POV tag until this controversy is resolved. I still say we should rename the "Incentives" section to "Incentives and prosperity". Hoppe's argument can go first if you wish. I just don't want to have so many sections. -- Nikodemos 16:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, I think we're going around in circles here. Why don't we take a break and let cool heads prevail? I don't understand what your objection is - I'm letting you put the Hoppe paragraph first. You will get your point across to anyone who reads the article. You don't need to say it twice or spell it out in the section title. -- Nikodemos 16:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got a cool head. This article is a mess. Different kinds of criticism are intertwined. It needs more sections and organization. I say take one type of criticism at a time and create a new section for it. Then organize into main and sub-sections. Working Poor 17:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

By "not having a cool head" I did not mean that we were acting irrationally, but rather that we were losing sight of the big picture. I propose the following section structure:

• Economic criticism
  • Incentives
  • Efficiency
  • Prices
  • The tragedy of the commons
  • Central planning
• Political criticism
• Historical criticism

What you used to call "prosperity" would be better titled "economic criticism", since, after all, that is what it is about - criticisms stating that socialism hurts the economy in some way. Hayek's point could be classified as a political criticism, and the "Historical examples" section should be renamed to "Historical criticism". I utterly dislike your current section titles, which are unnecessarily long and clearly POV. I intend to replace your sentence-long section titles with a few introductory sentences at the beginning of each section. -- Nikodemos 19:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm becoming more and more convinced that Reduced Prosperity needs its own section. Also in that section can be maps showing how socialism correlates with misery. Working Poor 19:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Human Development Index consistently ranks the Scandinavian states - arguably the most "socialist" places in the world right now - as the best countries to live in. But that is not the point. The point is that "reduced prosperity" is a category that encompasses all economic issues. Why do you believe that socialism reduces prosperity? Because of incentives, efficiency, prices and central planning. I honestly don't know why you insist on using the name "prosperity" so much as the title of a section. It's not even a technical economic term. "Reduced GDP growth" at least means something. -- Nikodemos 19:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you telling me that Ireland is more socialist than Sweden? Ireland is ranked above Sweden in that. The U.S. is ranked above more socialist countries as well. If you look at the larger trend in that index, socialized control over the economy correlates with lower rating on that index. Anyway, The Human Devlopment Index is not ranking according to prosperity, which is what matters most. Reduced prosperity is a criticism. Explanation of why socialism correlates with reduced prosperity are another matter. Working Poor 20:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you have discovered the BIG problem with arguing that "socialism" correlates with anything (good or bad): How do you measure socialism? I would argue that countries with more socialized control over the economy tend to rank higher on the Human Development Index. You would argue the opposite. And neither of us could win the argument, because we have no measurement of how much "socialized control" each country has. Norway is more socialized than the US, but where is Japan compared to Canada? Australia compared to the Netherlands? Finland compared to Sweden? Moreover, to be fair, we can't draw universal conclusions from a snapshot of the world at the present time. We would have to look at levels of socialized control in many countries over the past 100 years or so in order to draw any universal conclusions. Not only would we need a way to measure socialism in the present, but we would also need to measure socialism in the past.

I'm aware of this. That's why I'll be looking for sources that measure degrees of socialism in the nations of the world. Working Poor 20:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The one I tend to use when I want a rough estimate of the degree of socialism in a country is the Gini index. It measures equality, not socialism, but equality is the whole purpose of socialism, so the Gini index is a great measure of the extent to which socialist goals have been attained in a country. There is only one small problem for you: more equality correlates quite strongly with a higher GDP per capita. -- Nikodemos 20:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

But all that is off-topic. Do you agree with my section structure, as long as the very first paragraph under "economic criticism" mentions the prosperity argument? I think this is more than reasonable, since anyone who reads the article would almost certainly read that paragraph. -- Nikodemos 20:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Only if it has its own section in the larger Economic Criticism section. It's its own criticism. It doesn't have to be tied to economists' attempted explanation of why that is. Working Poor 20:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Your paragraph about Hoppe's views talks about the prosperity criticism and about Hoppe's attempted explanations for it. Do you want me to separate the two? -- Nikodemos 20:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I already did separate the two. Working Poor 20:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Note on adding new criticisms: Please do not add criticisms of anything that you personally consider to be "socialism" (such as high taxes). Rather, only add criticisms of things that the author specifically identifies as socialist policies. Taxes may or may not fall into this category (some socialists advocate high taxes, others do not). Taxes only exist in market economies, so they are only advocated by socialists who support some kind of markets (if the government controls all economic activity, it would not make sense for it to give you some money and then take it back, would it?) -- Nikodemos 20:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake in wording. The source was about the income and production sharing arrangements of socialism. It argues that the most incentive to work comes when a person receives income individually and receives as much of the profits as possible instead of having to share it with other workers. Working Poor 21:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that a major point of Marxism is that capitalism exploits the workers and robs them of the full value of their labour. One of the goals of socialism, in the Marxist view, is precisely to create an economic system in which workers receive their rightful rewards. Thus, it is incorrect to imply that all forms of socialism want to force income sharing. Only some of them do. -- Nikodemos 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not just income sharing, but the fruits of labor period. If people have to share what they produce, there is less incentive to produce. That's the argument. There is no Marxist that advocates individuals receive the "full value of their labor." They advocate "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." The value of their labor is irrelevant. Marxists do not advocate that individuals receive according to what they produce or according to the value of what they produce but according to what they need. If Marxists think people who work are exploited because they think people aren't receiving the full value of their labor then they must certainly be exploited in Marxism. Working Poor 21:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant! I hadn't thought about that point! they go on and on about how under capitalism workers get exploited, and then they turn around and take "from each according to abilit, to each according to need". So they are not willing to pay the full value of the work either, but instead want to only give enough to satisfy need. How is that not exploitation? -- Dullfig 02:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be a brilliant point if Working Poor's description of Marxism were accurate. But it is not. It is a straw man. Remember that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is the principle of communism, not socialism, and Marxists do not wish to establish communism right away. Instead, Marxists want to establish socialism first - which would reward each worker according to his labour - and only at some later point move on to communism. There have been numerous Marxists (and other socialists) who said that socialism gives workers the full product of their labour or rewards them according to their work. Thorstein Veblen wrote:

Under the current, capitalistic system, distribution is not in any sensible degree based on the equities of production, and the exchange value of goods under this system can therefore express their real value only with a very rough, and in the main fortuitous, approximation. Under a socialistic regime, where the laborer would get the full product of his labor, or where the whole system of ownership, and consequently the system of distribution, would lapse, values would reach a true expression, if any. [5]

In the accepted economic theories the ground of ownership is commonly conceived to be the productive labor of the owner. This is taken, without reflection or question, to be the legitimate basis of property; he who has produced a useful thing should possess and enjoy it. On this head the socialists and the economists of the classical line - the two extremes of economic speculation - are substantially at one. The point is not in controversy, or at least it has not been until recently; it has been accepted as an axiomatic premise. With the socialists it has served as the ground of their demand that the laborer should receive the full product of his labor. To classical economists the axiom has, perhaps, been as much trouble as it has been worth. It has given them no end of bother to explain how the capitalist is the "producer" of the goods that pass into his possession, and how it is true that the laborer gets what he produces. [6]

Even non-Marxists agree with the fact that socialism seeks to give to every worker the full product of his labour. Thus, Bakunin mentions it in passing in his Critique of the German Social Democratic Program, as if it's a well-known fact:

The first three clauses of Article 2 conform in every respect to the socialist principles of the International: the abolition of capitalism; full political and social equality; every worker to receive the full product of his labor. [7]

Finally, the 1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union itself stated:

CHAPTER I: ARTICLE 12. In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work." [8]

I think we can safely call the case closed. -- Nikodemos 03:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's just say, for argument's sake, that one worker does not need anything, maybe a little food. Does that mean that under Marxism he would get nothing in exchange for his work? and you complain about Capitalism ?! -- Dullfig 02:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Marxists do not consider needs to be a matter of subjective opinion, but a matter of objective fact. It is true, however, that Marxists in general have given little thought to the question of how to organize a communist society. That is because they see communism as a distant future ideal, and are more concerned with organizing socialism in their lifetime (which does not distribute "according to needs"). Most of the ideas concerning the organization of a communist society have been put forward by anarcho-communists, not Marxists, because anarcho-communists are the only ones who wish to implement communism in the near future. -- Nikodemos 03:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what means they want to get there or interim stage, Marxists want to ultimately eliminate payment for work and replace with with "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Anarcho-communists as well. Working Poor 19:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, yes. But that ultimate goal is communism, and this article is about socialism. -- Nikodemos 08:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You're the one that brought up Marxism. Working Poor 13:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Marxism is about much more than just "hey, let's have communism". Marxist socialism is what the Soviet Union and other countries claimed to have, and what most Marxists have been trying to implement for most of their history. -- Nikodemos 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: You agree that Marxism ultimately will not reward people for their work, but instead will distribute wealth according to need; you also agree that Socialism is an intermediate step towards Communism. So the bottom line is: it doesn't matter what socialism is promising the workers. It's all a bait and switch scheme in order to get into power! First you get the people to vote you in by promising that socialism is going to give them more money than they are getting now, and then when you are firmly in power, you are going to pull the rug from under them by moving towards communism, a system that will give them less than capitalism because it is based on need, not how much work you did. Cute. -- Dullfig 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No one ever said anything about communism giving people less than capitalism does. On the contrary, Karl Marx argued that communism should be implemented when - and ONLY when - the forces of production have grown to such an extent that everyone's needs can be satisfied in full. In other words, Marxists do not say "let's pay the workers more, and then pay them less". Marxists say "let's pay the workers more [socialism], until we get to the point where we produce so much stuff that we can just give it away for free [communism]".

By the way, socialism may be just an intermediate step, but this intermediate step can last for decades - perhaps centuries. No Marxist ever claimed to have achieved communism anywhere. The Soviet Union, throughout its entire existence, claimed to be in the socialist stage. Thus, your argument that socialism is just bait and switch on the way to communism doesn't hold water, because, historically, Marxists were in no hurry to get to communism. Let me emphasize this again: No government ever even claimed to reward people according to need. -- Nikodemos 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course communism has to give you less, and here is why:

• If everyone worked less than they should, there is no way that society could give everything they need, so by definition, and just to be on the safe side, most people under communism will work more than they should in comparison to their needs. Under capitalism, that extra work would be rewarded, but not under communism. sorry, there is no way communism can give you what you can get under capitalism. I have found through the years that most socialists and communists are less motivated by the desire to improve peoples lives, as they are motivated by envy of people making more than them. -- Dullfig 01:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does this article lack sources?

This has got to be one of those articles where sources are incredibly abundant yet it is so poorly sourced. It reaks of WP:OR when I know it doesn't have to. --Quirex 21:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right man. It needs a lot of work. I like what you're doing with the "citation requested" thingies. Give people a week or two to find sources for the statements then if they can't, just delete the stuff. Working Poor 21:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It's really not that hard nowadays to find good sources through Google Books, WorldCat, LexisNexis, and ProQuest. --Coolcaesar 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify the POV tag I have added: Following Working Poor's recent edits, this article is not only biased against socialism, but it is a total and complete mess. Socialist counter-arguments are almost entirely absent, and the views of some authors are misrepresented. I am tempted to add a *totallydisputed* template. -- Nikodemos 09:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: We must only include criticisms (and counter-criticisms) of the things most commonly understood as "socialism". Tony Blair calls himself a socialist, but I don't think anyone could seriously advocate adding criticisms of Blair in this article. Likewise, many right-wing commentators use "socialism" as an epithet for anything they oppose (every American president - including George W. Bush - was called a "socialist" by some ultra-conservative or other). -- Nikodemos 09:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please show some examples of bias, simply saying "This article is biased" is not enough to put a NPOV tag on it. -- Vision Thing -- 13:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I decided it would be easier to go ahead and fix it. -- Nikodemos 09:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Working Poor, note that technological progress is an element of economic growth. Thus, any argument that socialism reduces economic growth necessarily implies an argument that socialism reduces technological progress as well. You can mention this in the article if you wish, but please do not use that out-of-context Friedman quote (besides, you were quoting an op-ed in a newspaper, not a serious study of anything). -- Nikodemos 20:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Technological progress is not necessarily an element of economic growth. Someone can simply invent a new thing. The argument against socialism is that it's not a system that embraces competition and competition is what drives most technological progress. In socialism the state owns industies and outlaws private competition with those industries. Without competition, technological advancement would be slow. The quote from Freidman is not out of context. He says to see how socialism retards technology one need doesn't even have to examine a socialist country, but can just look at areas in the U.S. where industry is owned by the government. Working Poor 22:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I came across an economics book in high-school a long time ago that stated in the preface "Socialist economic principles are generally regarded as more ideal than any other." Here is a book that itself cites no sources, and yet may be used as a source under Wikipedia policy. This will always remain a debate, and citing sources is futile when the majority of sources on the internet, and from other media, are already heavily biased. Jcchat66 17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)