Leftists claim that totalitarian socialist states weren’t really socialist. Well, what else would you expect from socialists who are hesitant to admit failures of socialism? Anyway, I often hear ridiculous claims that countries like USSR were state-capitalist (although state-capitalism is an oxymoron). That makes me laugh hysterically. They say that the reason why USSR was state-capitalist is because the means of production were controlled by ruling class, instead of workers, and production was driven by profits that were collected by the government. That’s I think is absolute nonsense. Although it’s true that government was responsible for planning, the production itself was never aimed for profit and private enterprise was of course impossible. How would you refute those claims made by leftists?
We used to get a lot of that nonsense on the board my blog is attached to. I wrote up and pinned a response to the term “State Capitalism,” here.
How would you refute those claims made by leftists?
I suppose a good polemic approach would be to accept that there has been no pure socialist state, nor any pure capitalist state, but instead to ask one’s opponent what examples they see from history of states that were more sociaiist or more capitalist than others. If they are honest in giving you their examples, they will make the argument for you.
I suppose a good polemic approach would be to accept that there has been no pure socialist state, nor any pure capitalist state, but instead to ask one’s opponent what examples they see from history of states that were more sociaiist or more capitalist than others. If they are honest in giving you their examples, they will make the argument for you.
The United States has been socialist since the days of Woodrow Wilson (during the Great War, the railroads were nationalized outright). Howbeit, the U.S. still operates with a dominant free market component and most business is market driven, despite government regulation. Many of the regulations that were imposed by force, would have come about even in a free market system. For example, it was to the advantage of the meat packing industry to establish standards of cleanliness if for no other reason than to minimize law suits. Ditto for other industries. The Left Wingers pooh pooh the natural development of appropriate standards without government force. Here are some examples of standards that did not require laws: standard gauge for the railroads, standard car couplers, right hand traffic customs, various communication and electronic standards that were “imposed” by the dominant producer, rather than the government. For example magnetic tape formats were established by IBM when IBM was the Big Cheese. Radio frequency bands existed before the FCC. Standard light bulb socket sizes, plug and outlet sizes were industry, not government standards. Etc. Etc. Etc. Standards and regulations evolve naturally to promote efficiency and marketability. We don’t need no steeeenking government agencies.
Bob Kolker
The United States has been socialist since the days of Woodrow Wilson (during the Great War, the railroads were nationalized outright).
How does this address any of the posts in this thread?
As an aside, if every mixed-economy is to be termed “socialist”, the concept loses its meaning.
Many of the regulations that were imposed by force, would have come about even in a free market system. For example, it was to the advantage of the meat packing industry to establish standards of cleanliness if for no other reason than to minimize law suits. Ditto for other industries.
Absolutely false. A regulation when imposed by force immediately loses whatever claim to a rational basis it once might have had.
Leftists claim that totalitarian socialist states weren’t really socialist. Well, what else would you expect from socialists who are hesitant to admit failures of socialism? Anyway, I often hear ridiculous claims that countries like USSR were state-capitalist (although state-capitalism is an oxymoron). That makes me laugh hysterically. They say that the reason why USSR was state-capitalist is because the means of production were controlled by ruling class, instead of workers, and production was driven by profits that were collected by the government. That’s I think is absolute nonsense. Although it’s true that government was responsible for planning, the production itself was never aimed for profit and private enterprise was of course impossible. How would you refute those claims made by leftists?
By definition, there can be no such thing as “State Capitalism”. A requirement of Capitalism is private property and the freedom to dispose of that property. Whomever makes that claim needs to understand that words do have exact definitions.
In terms of there never being socialist states…that’s a difficult claim to make. You’d have to look back on history to see what private actions if any were being allowed in those mostly socialist states. The thing is, they have to bounce back and forth between the capitalist and socialist ends of the spectrum otherwise the state would have nothing to loot. This is easily shown by the multiple “5 year plans” that the Soviets would come up with that permitted certain levels of private enterprise as a temporary measure so they could get the economy back on its feet.
All in all, it’s easy to see the success of socialism by looking at history. Those states that are less free are the ones that starve, and those that are free don’t.
–Randy
Absolutely false. A regulation when imposed by force immediately loses whatever claim to a rational basis it once might have had.
Safety standards have come about without no steeeenking government because they are necessary to efficiency and commerce. Imposition is not necessary. If a standard serves a rational economic purpose it will be brought into being voluntarily. Air brakes and automatic block signals were installed on American railroads without legal compulsion. Standard couplers which do not require brakemen and yardmen to get between the cars were also installed voluntarily.
To get back to the main question: not only do the socialists among us deny that Stalin’s utter abomination was socialist. They also deny that our country is socialist too. Clearly we are nowhere near as bad as Russia, but if freedom rings in this land, it rings somewhat off key. We are compelled to pay taxes, our incomes are redistributed on altruistic grounds as well as through pure corruption. Our “free” institutions are regulated at gunpoint. Is this capitalism? It sure is not, but the socialists regard our system as too capitalistic and want to do something about it, something not either to your benefit or mine.
The socialists dream that a collectivist user friendly system is possible. So they will keep on trying and that is what makes them dangerous.
Bob Kolker
The socialists dream that a collectivist user friendly system is possible. So they will keep on trying and that is what makes them dangerous.
And has made them dangerous. Their controls and taxes on everything have hurt us immeasurably. If we had been much freer since FDR, think of the advancements in medicine and technology. We’d have much better medicine, we’d have much cheaper medicine, we’d have better cars, roads, airplanes, toothpicks, butter containers, and you name it. Energy would be much cheaper, an obvious example being nuclear, which is virtually too cheap to meter if left unregulated. Energy is the life blood of modern society, so making it cheap would have a stupendously positive impact on people’s lives. Socialists kill, but they do it sneakily, by taking away unforeseen advancements. They kill people and they shorten lives, and it’s the people who are most on the edge who they kill most effectively. Rather ironic that they do this, considering they claim to be concerned with those on the edge.
Many of them support the worst thugs around the world, such as Fidel Castro, so you know they are doing lots of this stuff with their eyes wide open, or is it eyes wide shut?
Socialist be damned. Environmentalists be damned. Postmodernists be damned. The whole lot are killers and have harmed us more than we know. They have harmed us and are harming us in real concrete ways. They suck.