this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2024
95 points (89.3% liked)

Socialism

5196 readers
1 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
dessalines@lemmy.ml
95
Free Markets (lemmy.ml)
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/socialism@lemmy.ml
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

My problem with this is that in practice the working majority in many centralized economies didn't own shit. If they did, it wouldn't have been possible to replace the systems in the Eastern bloc even though most people preferred them. The centralized systems allowed few people to take private ownership and pocket the profits of the economies' entire industrial bases leaving the majority with nothing.

And that's the happy case when the centralized system took good care of its people by sharing enough of their surplus with them. There are of course the ones that don't do that and use their populations as slave labor, even renting it out to other countries.

So I'm thinking that the sustainable alternative isn't a centralized economy but a mix where the decentralized part is worker-owned. At least that's my best guess at this point in time. And you have to have a real democratic political system. Without that, the upper layers of the centralized part are just as untouchable and can afford to be unaccountable as the upper layers of the capitalist monopolies today.

[–] Midnight 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Are we just gonna ignore the fact that the whole critique of centralization is that its inefficient, ineffective, and unresponsive to peoples needs?

Like as capitalism is becoming more monopolistic, its becoming increasingly bad at delivering goods that people actually want and just becomes better at supressing and controling them. You know the same critisism thats pointed at autoritarian communism.

I don't think this is the W you think it is.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

That isn't the critique of monopolies. It's well established that vertical integration and size can achieve efficiencies that are impossible at smaller scales. The critique is that once few entities have cornered a market, they can extract profit that's needed for the rest of the economy to function well. A corollary is that they don't do what people need then them to do because it isn't as profitable. If you remove profit as the variable to optimize for, the whole equation changes and you can end up with the efficiencies while serving the needs of your customers.

Monopolies in econ 101 are called inefficient because they generate excess profits. Inefficiency refers to profits that are extracted. Not inefficiency in the colloquial sense of the word.

[–] Midnight 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Vertical integation and scale are not inherently monopolistic. Some monopolies formed because they exploited these advantages, but there are competative industries today where several vertically integrated companies compete.

Monopolies in econ 101 are not called inefficient because they extract profit. They're inefficient because they don't respond to market forces. Since they control all supply, they can disregard demand.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 3 points 7 months ago

Isn't that what they said?

The profit isn't what makes the monopoly inefficient, it's what makes the market inefficient. By absorbing all the excess product it limits the available funds for other products. On top of the fact that a monopolies ability to disregard demand (and maintain high profits)

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Yeah we are because that critique is not based in reality, and people who still believe it can be safely ignored because they're opining on a subject they have no clue about.

[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Your comment does not promote actual discussion and I'd like you to do better, please.

Your comment is only refuting an argument and then supporting that refutal with an ad hominem attack, rather than actually providing a supporting argument.

I as a layman would also actually like to know why you believe that the critique of centralization is 'not based in reality'.

My prior understanding is that any time you obfuscate the management of a project from the workers of the project - regardless of the method of obfuscation (layers of management, distance, language barriers, subterfuge) or the project type - you inevitably end up with out-of-touch individuals directing.

Please tell me why this is an out of touch understanding of why centralization is an issue.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Your comment is only refuting an argument and then supporting that refutal with an ad hominem attack, rather than actually providing a supporting argument.

What is up with the abundance of debatelord comments around here recently?

Not everything is a debate. When I call someone a cunt sometimes I'm just saying that person is a cunt.

Not that I'm calling you a cunt, but Jesus, 'ad hominem'?? What does this look like, a high school debate club?

[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Well, I come to the comments in good faith to hear perspectives and try and learn something. I had no aim of turning it into a debate.

It is frustrating when seeing what looks like could be an eye opening dialogue having that dialogue never materialize because neither party actually brings anything but insults to the table. You might as well not even comment at that point IMO.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Then fuckin' say so then, why is it necessary to use the language of a scornful british nanny? "I'd like you to do better, please" lmao, like jesus christ.

The best part of your comment is when you said "I, as a layman" LMAO

"How do you do, fellow kids?"

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I agree that making formal points in latin screams debatelord. However, I would otherwise be careful not being too harsh on someone's way of talking. There is nothing wrong with them calling themselves a layman and you calling it weird is just unnecessarily hostile.

Be chill and let people use colourful language if they want to. If they are nonnative English speakers they may even have been force-fed idioms and weird words right, left and centre and your hostility could be making you an ass.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's certainly not my intent to chastise someone who is simply speaking in the manner that they know.

I did just have someone on another thread shadowbox me (telling me I was 'out classed', dismissing casual remarks as 'post-hoc', and counting arguments as if they were points in a game, and just general scummy debatelord behavior), so I may have jumped the gun with the accusation.

I am just generally very suspicious of anyone a little too eager for debate, coming out the gate with accusations of latin fallacies to someone expressing an opinion, especially when that opinion is a politically charged one. If it came off strong I apologize.

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago

Totally get that. Likewise hope I was not too harsh either :)

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I believe that the critique of centralization is not based in reality because I've read about what centralization has achieved in USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and even within private enterprises like Walmart or Amazon. You too could spend the time to educate yourself on the subject because all this information is publicly available.

Meanwhile, not sure what obfuscation has to do with central planning. Centralization is about delegation, which is necessary for organizing any non trivial task as explained in a very accessible way here https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Very fast response time, cool.

The only source you've provided so far is a hand-wave at a collection of governments - and multiple companies that have been explicitly known for being terrible for the worker - and an argument of theory from Marx in 1872. you've made a claim that central planning achieved these things, please actually cite the sources you've read.

Meanwhile, not sure what obfuscation has to do with central planning.

When you have people who specialize in politics working in a office space dictating what industrial workers do on the ground, the game of telephone often makes the higher ups make decisions that are actively counter-productive to progress and efficiency. As a factory worker who's safety standards and work procedures are dictated by people who don't even step onto the floor, this is a constant issue.

As an alternative, I think a centralized group helping formulate a general goal with success criteria, then leaving the rest of the planning to the actual workforces, is better for the worker and can actually end up more efficient in the right conditions.

EDIT:Modified the first part to make it clear that I mean Walmart and Amazon have been notoriously bad to their workforces, and that I'm not commenting on the countries.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't see you providing any sources of your own, nor are you actually addressing what the source says.

When you have people who specialize in politics working in a office space dictating what industrial workers do on the ground, the game of telephone often makes the higher ups make decisions that are actively counter-productive to progress and efficiency.

Again, we can compare the speed of development of USSR to decentralized capitalist systems to see that central planning works just fine.

As an alternative, I think a centralized group helping formulate a general goal with success criteria, then leaving the rest of the planning to the actual workforces, is better for the worker and can actually end up more efficient in the right conditions.

Feel free to provide an example of this working at scale.

[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You're correct, so far I've mainly laid out just personal theory and anecdote. I will hunt down some sources and would appreciate it if you do the same. You've now had 4 comments to do so and still have abstained from doing so.

I am gonna have to come back to this, since I have work coming up. I will edit this when I can and will DM you when I've come back to it.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sure, let's take a look at what a centrally planned system in USSR achieved.

Russia went from a backwards agrarian society where people travelled by horse and carriage to being the first in space in the span of 40 years. Russia showed incredible growth after the revolution that surpassed the rest of the world:

USSR provided free education to all citizens resulting in literacy rising from 33% to 99.9%:

USSR doubled life expectancy in just 20 years. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years. the Semashko system of the USSR increased lifespan by 50% in 20 years. By the 1960's, lifespans in the USSR were comparable to those in the USA:

Quality of nutrition improved after the Soviet revolution, and the last time USSR had a famine was in 1940s. CIA data suggests they ate just as much as Americans after WW2 peroid while having better nutrition:

USSR moved from 58.5-hour work weeks to 41.6 hour work weeks (-0.36 h/yr) between 1913 and 1960:

USSR averaged 22 days of paid leave in 1986 while USA averaged 7.6 in 1996:

In 1987, people in the USSR could retire with pension at 55 (female) and 60 (male) while receiving 50% of their wages at a at minimum. Meanwhile, in USA the average retirement age was 62-67 and the average (not median) retiree household in the USA could expect $48k/yr which comes out to 65% of the 74k average (not median) household income in 2016:

GDP took off after socialism was established and then collapsed with the reintroduction of capitalism:

The Soviet Union had the highest physician/patient ratio in the world. USSR had 42 doctors per 10,000 population compared to 24 in Denmark and Sweden, and 19 in US:

USSR defeated a smallpox epidemic in a matter of 19 days https://www.rbth.com/history/331857-how-ussr-defeated-black-smallpox

Furthermore, we can take a look at some scientific studies about USSR.

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

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

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

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

I look forward to you providing the sources that help support your position.

[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago

This is what I was looking for! Thank you. You can get more mileage out of this work by linking this comment in the future.

Currently on break, I've decided to just form the comment I've been formulating into a blog post which I'll link when I've finished. I appreciate the patience.

[–] Midnight -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Out of curiosity, do you think the USSR collapsed because all its own citizens thought the government was doing too good a job?

China introduced private corperations and capital because they increased efficiency and production.

Are you saying every government whose ever tried tons of central planning just messed up or randomly decided to scale it back just for funsies?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Given that 70% of people were against dissolution of USSR, that's pretty obviously the case. Meanwhile, China is very obviously a centrally planned system, and US government moans about it incessantly. The fact that China allows private corporations doesn't mean it's not centrally planned as anybody with a functioning brain would understand. China literally puts out 5 years plans for its economy.

Here's how your market based economy is doing against Chinese central planning:

https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/us-eu-economic-system-struggling-to-survive-against-china-us-trade-chief-warns/

Are you saying every government whose ever tried tons of central planning just messed up or randomly decided to scale it back just for funsies?

No, I'm saying that's just bullshit you made up that has no basis in facts. In fact, not only does central planning work well at government level, but it doesn't even work at company level as was clearly demonstrated when Walmart outcompeted Sears using central planning https://www.versobooks.com/en-ca/products/636-the-people-s-republic-of-walmart

Maybe spend a bit of time educating yourself on the subject instead of making a clown of yourself here.

[–] Midnight 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

China has some more central planning than the US, but they lean on the same market mechanisms that the US does when it comes to most solutions, ie tax penalties/incentives and subsidies. An excellent example is their smog reduction plans.

Its also great you linked an article about Chinese steel because they do the same stuff there

There isn't a party planner in every steel mill determining output, they let individual companies react to market forces they shape with tax structures and subsidy.

People's republic of Walmart

Good thing Walmart wasn't supplanted by Amazon who delegates most of whats sold to 3rd party sellers. They certainly havn't copied that for their online sales, right?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

All the core industry in China is state owned, and it accounts for roughly half the economy. Meanwhile, using markets within a centrally planned system is not in any way contradictory with central planning.

There isn’t a party planner in every steel mill determining output, they let individual companies react to market forces they shape with tax structures and subsidy.

You have an incredibly naive understanding of how central planning works. The party makes a general plan and guides the development of industry to fit that plan. Central planning doesn't mean you have a single person sitting there and directing every single aspect of the economy.

Good thing Walmart wasn’t supplanted by Amazon who delegates most of whats sold to 3rd party sellers. They certainly havn’t copied that for their online sales, right?

You think Amazon isn't centrally planned? 😂

Also, actual capitalists understand that virtues of markets and competition is just a bullshit story they sell to the rubes https://archive.is/z43lo

[–] Midnight 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I mean if central planning can be redefined to mean decentralized capitalist markets, I've got a book gor you to read too.

My dude, did you even read the Peter Theil article you linked? His entire speil is in no way congruent with your point. He's basically just saying the rent seeking from a gaining a monopoly can make high risk investments worth it. His argument is still grounded in market logic. He leaves out the people who started high risk companies they thought would be monopolies but turned out to be undesireable.

And I don't even agree with his point, neither Google nor Amazon needed massive capital to hit the market, they needed massive amounts of capital to operate at a loss to squash their early competition to create a monopoly; something that can only be done by the horrible market distortions of a governmnet or rampant late-stage capitalist billionaires with equivalent piles of money.

Edit: I would also point out Theil is a believer in autocracy, known widely for literally owning a company whose product is disinformation, and is shilling to prevent the breakup of his monopolies. I wouldn't trust him under any circumstances.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

Nobody is redefining central planning as a decentralized capitalist system. You're just utterly clueless regarding how the system in China actually works and you keep making a clown of yourself here.

My dude, did you even read the Peter Theil article you linked? His entire speil is in no way congruent with your point. He’s basically just saying the rent seeking from a gaining a monopoly can make high risk investments worth it. His argument is still grounded in market logic.

Thiel clearly rejects the idea that markets are efficient, and he explains that capitalists actually want to have centrally planned monopolies.

He leaves out the people who started high risk companies they thought would be monopolies but turned out to be undesireable.

😂

And I don’t even agree with his point, neither Google nor Amazon needed massive capital to hit the market, they needed massive amounts of capital to operate at a loss to squash their early competition to create a monopoly; something that can only be done by the horrible market distortions of a governmnet or rampant late-stage capitalist billionaires with equivalent piles of money.

Welcome to how "free markets" work in the real world.

Edit: I would also point out Theil is a believer in autocracy, known widely for literally owning a company whose product is disinformation, and is shilling to prevent the breakup of his monopolies. I wouldn’t trust him under any circumstances.

I would also point out that anybody who thinks that other oligarchs think differently from Thiel is naive beyond belief.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

In other news, fire leads to ash demonstrating the self defeating nature of fire, and how the proper way to keep the campsite warm is a big pile of ash, the only question being whether one wants to burn wood to obtain it, or simply dump a wheelbarrow full and then blame the lack of warmth on counter-revolutionary saboteurs.

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago

Grinding the bones of billionaires is hard menial work that I reckon will keep us warm for a long ass while.