SOCIALISM EVENTUALLY FAILS EVERYWHERE IT IS TRIED. SO WHY DO PEOPLE STILL WANT IT?
Here is an idea. How about steem be divided equally at the end of each day? It does not matter if you make a post or not, or even how good your post is – we all get the same amount of steem placed into our accounts. That way we are all equal, we all get a piece. Sounds good right?
Here is an idea. How about steem be divided equally at the end of each day? It does not matter if you make a post or not, or even how good your post is – we all get the same amount of steem placed into our accounts. That way we are all equal, we all get a piece. Sounds good right?
Edited in as @alienbutt reminded me I was leaning communistic in the above example:
'Everyone posts on steemit and people vote to award steem to the best posts. Then at the end of the day, the people who received more steem will have it taken out of their accounts and placed among the rest so that everyone ends up with an equal amount.'
What? You don’t like that idea?
How about we form groups of up to 50 steemians, who then write posts and at the end of the day whatever the group made gets divided equally amongst the members. Each group has a leader that can kick out or invite anyone of their choosing. Again, each member gets the same amount, it doesn’t matter if they posted or not or if their post even made any steem.
Better idea?
How about we leave it like it is, and what you make is what you keep. If you don’t do anything to make steem you don’t get any. If you make a killer post and get $400 then you get to keep that as well.
Good enough?
What I have described in a sense is socialism, tribalism, and capitalism. How do you think steemit would be doing under each of these models? Which would have the best content? Which would have the most active users?
I would think that the socialist model would have the most users. As for the best content? Probably capitalism, but certain tribes could be doing well – just not all of them. I would definitely say that the steemit socialism model would have the worst content of all, there would be no reason to work hard to create good content, and we see this in countries that follow that path.
SO WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP ADVOCATING FOR SOCIALISM?
In 2012 an experiment was conducted in which groups of 8 isolated and anonymous people gathered resources in a virtual game. Some resources were scarce (high value - HV) and some were more common (low value - LV). Participants quickly realized that they needed to share the HV resources when they obtained it because much of the time they would not find any. LV resources were shared less often because they were more readily obtained and the key limiting factor was how hard you worked for them.
This virtual game with people from modern society closely resembles an actual study of a primitive tribe.
Compare that to a harder to acquire resource like meat, which takes luck as well as skill. 90% of the meat was shared outside of the family.
Even a highly skilled hunter could return without a catch, Ache hunters returned with meat 43.5% of the time. So to even it out, they shared what meat they obtained so that on bad days they could still have some. While common plants were everywhere, so it was expected that you go and obtain it yourself.
HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO SOCIETY TODAY?
In this study Danes and Americans (approximately 1,000 from each country) were asked whether they supported giving welfare to 3 individuals. The Danes are known for socialism, while Americans are known to oppose most forms of welfare. Here is what they were asked.
1: A man on welfare. (no additional information)
2: A man on welfare that lost his job due to injury, but is actively seeking new employment.
3: A man on welfare who is lazy and never looks for a job.
For two cultures supposedly on opposite ends of the welfare debate, the results are surprisingly close. Both countries give more support towards the man who lost his job but is looking for a new one, and both withdrew that support for the lazy man. This study showed that support for welfare is similar and not brought on by fundamental differences.
This can be linked back to our evolutionary past as hunter-gatherers. If one hunter was injured and couldn’t hunt for a while we didn’t hold it against him and continued to give him his share of the food. While the lazy man was shunned and probably expelled from the group if there was no other reason to keep him around.
As a species we tend to not help those that would cheat the system, and so have evolved ‘anti-cheat’ detection. But that detection is worthless in a large society where we have no power to stop our resources being given to the cheats. And therein lies the fundamental problem of socialism today.
It does not and cannot work past the tribe level of society. The cheats can just hide in the system and benefits without reciprocity. Others will see this and have no power to stop it, so after time many will just give up as well – or at least not try hard since it is just being given to the cheats.
Politicians know how to use what is known as ‘romantic socialism’, an idea that harkens back to our evolutionary past of close family and small bands of kin. That you can give to everyone and in return they will give something back to you. They can play those feelings on millions of more empathetic people and sell the idea of socialism to the masses. Almost 100% of politicians that play this card just use those feelings to get into power – like Hugo Chavez.
Nobel prize winning economist and globalist Joseph Stiglitz said in 2007:
"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez appears to have had success in bringing health and education to the people in the poor neighborhoods of Caracas, to those who previously saw few benefits of the countries oil wealth."
Professor of Linguistics at MIT Noam Chomsky said in 2009:
"I write about peace and criticise the barriers to peace; that's easy. What's harder is to create a better world and what's so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela is that I can see how a better world is being created."
Former president Jimmy Carter said about Chavez:
"We came to know a man who expressed a vision to bring profound changes to his country to benefit especially those people who had felt neglected and marginalized. Although we have not agreed with all of the methods followed by his government, we have never doubted Hugo Chavez's commitment to improving the lives of millions of his fellow countrymen."
Apparently that commitment stops when you can steal untold millions from those same people you say you are helping. There is little doubt now that Venezuela only rode a nice path of increasing oil prices. Now we see what was really beneath that pretty surface that all these celebrities and ‘highly educated’ people praised, and it ain’t pretty.
If Chavez truly believed the bullshit he was saying he wouldn’t have lived in palaces, he would have lived like Jose Mujica, the former president or Uruguay. Mujica was a former leftist guerilla fighter, similar to Chavez, but he lived simply and gave 90% of his salary to charity.
Venezuela now lacks the basics to keep power on or feed the population. It is the murder capital of the world. Are the people better off now? You be the judge, there are many here that post from Venezuela – I will let them tell the story.
I mention Venezuela because it is currently undergoing the end game of socialism and gives us many fresh examples. Once a country becomes socialist everything can seem great for a while, but like someone running up their credit cards, eventually the bill comes due. The game really only comes down to how rich you were before it all started, because once that money is gone the façade falls apart.
WHY ARE SO MANY ‘HIGHLY EDUCATED’ PEOPLE SOCIALISTS? 
Many ‘highly educated’ people seem to think socialism is the best form of government. Can we remember the praise for Venezuela and its socialist government?
Believers in capitalism are using their education and skills to make a living, they are too busy to talk about how capitalism works. Preachers of socialism, on the other hand, can be found in many universities where they can spend their days changing minds. It becomes all one sided, socialism good capitalism bad, as there are not many to stick up for capitalism and if they do it is probably a new student and the professor has done it so many times before they have the perfect counters to any argument – well at least those counters sound perfect if you don’t think about it too hard.
The market controls itself, there is no need to place someone in charge of capitalism. These socialist believers hate this unplanned, spontaneous order – it is anarchy. If everything works itself out, how can they make their opinions heard? They need problems to happen so the people think they need rulers. They need a system that is controllable so they will have a position to be looked up to and listened to, but most of all be in charge of it all.
Since no one can manage an economy with the millions of details that normally just happen, it naturally starts to fall apart under socialism. But they believe socialism can’t be the wrong idea, so these things that go wrong must be because someone is attacking the system! A scapegoat must be found, socialism is perfect! Again, you just have to look to Venezuela today to see such things in action.
The left sees capitalism as unfair because it results in different outcomes. The right sees socialism as rewarding failure and punishing success. The left wants equality of the outcome, while the other sides only see the need for equality of opportunity.
You see, under capitalism you have the liberty to give your share to whomever you think needs it, this is called charity. Under socialism you are forced to give up what you worked for to make everything equal, this is called theft.
"A society that aims for equality before liberty will end up with neither equality nor liberty. And a society that aims first for liberty will not end up with equality, but it will end up with a closer approach to equality than any other kind of system that has ever been developed." - Milton Friedman
Socialism may work in small groups where people that abuse the system can be shamed. When you hand over a share to someone and can think to yourself: “Is this a person who is motivated to give something back to me and society?” But it cannot work in a society where the takers and cheats can be hidden behind a wall of governmental bureaucracy.
Socialism is the worst scaling form of government in existence. It just does not work past a society of a certain size, and I believe that size is a society that can police itself – where everyone knows one another. Now if only university professors could grasp this fact.
So until something that works better than capitalism comes along, you will find me firmly entrenched on its side and the side of liberty.
Img Img Img Img Img
I'd have read further if you actually knew what socialism was, if you can't get that right then what's the point?
Please enlighten me with your definition of socialism so that I can get it right next time.
Your view:
'How about steem be divided equally at the end of each day? It does not matter if you make a post or not, or even how good your post is – we all get the same amount of steem placed into our accounts. That way we are all equal, we all get a piece. Sounds good right?'
This is wrong, you seem to be leaning more to communist ideas, so to use your train of thought socialism would be closer to:
Everyone on steemit has a chance to post and recieve a payment, as a community the users of steem ensure all users can recieve fair steem for their effort.
Oh yes I see, you are correct - my error. Ok how about this then?
'Everyone posts on steemit and people vote to award steem to the best posts. Then at the end of the day, the people who received more steem will have it taken out of their accounts and placed among the rest so that everyone ends up with an equal amount.'
Sorry about that, socialism and communism are so closely related - the only difference is at what point they take your effort to make it equal for everyone.
Socialism and communism may both be left wing ideologies but only someone who has no understanding of either would ever try to mingle the two.
Socialism is when the people collectively own the means of production. If I'm not mistaken. It has nothing to do with taking other people's capital or cash and redistributing it to others so that everyone has the exact same amount of stuff. I have no idea where nor when that became inculcated in the conservative narrative.
Come to think of it, I don't think there even exists a sociopolitical theory which involves pillaging like that and forcing the spoils upon others ...
Socialism is just communism's kinder little brother. But once the going gets tough, he often (not always) turns out just like his bigger brother.
@getonthetrain The only connection between socialism and communism is that Marx theorized that in order to transition from Capitalism to Communism, a period of socialism was required.
Meh, I'm still a foolish utopian. Make mine a Social Democracy, where we all have equal votes and myopic greed is held in check by oversight, which in turn is *actually transparent and overseen by, "We the People."
Come on, remember how much playing Monopoly with your family or older sibling SUCKED!?! Monopoly was created after the Great Depression to illustrate the downfall of unchecked Capitalism. You know, the naked aggression of blind profiteering? LOL just kidding ... I think.
That's exactly right. Socialism is a system that can work. We all have intimate experience with it - it's how families operate. The bigger, more capable share their wealth with the smaller, less capable within the family. But it can't operate on the large scale. It begins to fall apart with groups larger than the size of a small tribe. Economist EF Schumacher, in his book Small is Beautiful, gave one reason why: you must literally be "brothers" in order for socialism to work, and in large groups, you can't be brothers with everyone. Great post!
Thank you, I will have to check out Schumacher's book. Otherwise I seemed have ruffled a few feathers with this post!
great description of the ultimate fail in human governance - followed
Hey thanks! Right back at ya. :D
Great read. You've gone really indepth into what capitalism and socialism stand for and what the differences are. When articles cause people to comment, it proves it is worthy enough to provoke debate and that can only be a good thing.
Fantastic job! Keep on delivering on exceptional quality like you do and we'll all keep on reading them! :)
Seems I have kicked a bit of a bee hive.
I does seem a bit sad that it appears the majority of universities these days will only hand you a diploma if you can recite the socialist/communist party lines. Ya know, just to make sure your indoctrination is complete and they did what they really wanted with your education.
Hey, @getonthetrain. I love this post, especially the beginning using examples of the Steemit ecosystem is illustrate your points!
Phenomenal job as always and I'm personally so happy your doing as well as you are!
Looking forward to the next one of course! :)
Thanks @ezzy, I thought I would hit this content up again as I have learned to become a better writer. Don't worry, I still have my normal stuff too! :D
Socialism will win in 2500 y :)
The way things are going I don't think it will take that long.
Where I think you have it wrong is in believing capitalism is liberty, it isn't. You look at any country which right now is part of the first and developed world and it's a country that has preyed on the natural resources of weaker states. And the same applies to individuals. The stronger will live off of the weak as has always happened, there is no such thing as liberty, you might think you have it but you don't, for example try going to another country without a passport, there you can see there is no freedom of movement you have to pay for it, or open a business lots of paperwork and fees, a poor person cannot travel unless he does so "illegally" . Capitalism is just as bad as any other form of government, maybe worse, because in capitalism one person or group manages to control every single aspect of the production of a country or state that is OK, because he is exercising "freedom" so apart from actually screwing the people you are also lying to them by implying they are free. But just as in socialism or any other form of government what happens is a small group of people actually control everything. Better said in fact we all live in totalitarian states, where you only change the name of the government which might be socialist, "democratic", monarchy, fascist (most countries are actually fascists but refuse to accept this) but we are all governed by a very small group of people who actually reap the benefits.
You might have the fortune of being from one of the rich countries were at least you have been able to attain a certain high level of living (better said a consumer society where you can fall in debt buying stuff), but if you were from a poor country I can assure you your view of capitalism would be very different.
You're confusing capitalism with crony-capitalism, or perhaps even fascism. As soon as you bring any state control or manipulation into the equation, it is no longer capitalism. It has become something else.
True capitalism is laissez faire. It is indeed free, and controlled only by market pressures and human action.
Capitalism is not a form of government. It works best in the absence of government. In fact, it's not even a system. It's a lack of a system that gets out of the way of a free economy. There are no examples of this in the modern world.
So, you are saying capitalism does not exist, right? I can agree with that because there is not a single country in the world that is not governed by an elite who are very few in number, so actually when I say most countries are fascist I am really right on the button. Can you give me an example of true capitalism today? In theory what you say is great but so is communism, in reality neither one is possible every time it ends up in the few getting most of the goodies and the many having to work so the few can get them.
Well, communism can't be "great" for several reasons, not the least of which is that it necessitates coercion. Of course, its track record is one of pain and destruction.
Communism is both political and economic. Capitalism is only economic, with no political (from a state perspective) control. They really can't be compared.
Capitalism does exist in pockets and "spheres" of influence. Sometimes these are underground. Sometimes it's just a local barter system.
That's the thing - capitalism is not a system. It's really the absence of one. It's human activity trading freely. We can do it in many ways, from trading coffee for a donut to bitcoin for a good or service. As long as we're doing so freely and without having to deal with outside coercion, control, taxation, regulation, etc., then it's capitalism.
In a lot of countries there are artisans who just ignore the government and tax system. They make their product and sell it without reporting anything. This would be capitalism too.
Some of our structure is capitalistic too. For instance, eBay is a great example. You can trade freely. Cgraigslist is a good example too - probably better than eBay. Then there are other sites like LocalBitcoins, where there really are no regulations at all, other than their escrow service.
If you're looking for a country that's capitalist then, yeah, it's harder to find than a needle in a haystack. But capitalism is a product of the pursuit of freedom. Wherever people strive to be free, there will be some vestiges of capitalism.
See what I am trying to say is all political system ideologies have rational and probably good intentions, but in the long run they al evolve into the big guy eating the little guy.
By the way I have found the topic most interesting, thanks for posting.
It is a good discussion, especially when level headed. :) Thanks.
You're less cynical than I am about these ideologies. While I think so people embrace socialism for good reasons, I don't think anyone imposes it for anything but greed and power.
Everything is corrupted by greed though. There is no system that will keep that from happening. I think the question is more in regard to what's the best pursuit. In my mind, it's freedom. Let us defend ourselves and learn to watch out for those who would do us harm rather than depending upon over-regulation from tyrants to do it.
If we all started with equal access to food, shelter, education, finances etc. then we could say that capitalism is potentially a fair and just economic system for a large population, but that is so not the case. Attempting to justify an economic system which victimizes and minimizes opportunity for over 90% of the participants AT BIRTH seem like deliberate blindness to reality. That is not even discussing the long term damage to our natural environment which is minimizing the safety and opportunities of future generations with no consideration what so ever as long as it provides profit for a few today. I think human beings can do better in designing, organizing and producing an economic system which actually is fair, just and equitable for ALL people and our planet cohabitants. oc
I do not disagree that powerful people have usurped the governments of the world. I do not disagree that governments are a problem.
Socialists tend to think that resources are finite, that if the rich have this much pie then that leaves less for the rest. That is not true.
Everyone makes their own pie in capitalism. The more rich people around you the better off you become. Those rich people hire others and increase their standard of living. An enterprising person with ambition can rise in a system of capitalism, not easily under socialism. Because socialism rewards poor judgement and penalizes good judgement.
Can socialism better the life of someone in absolute poverty? Yes, for awhile. After they have used up all the wealth, there won't be much coming in. Because people that know how to create it will not continue to work when it is just stolen from them. Again, many successful people fled Venezuela when it turned socialist - and now they can't even make food or toilet paper. And that is the fault of socialism.
I can see what you mean, the problem is, these rich guys aren't at all willing to share their wealth, just look at all the outsourcing going on, why do you think this is? I'll tell you, it's because the countries were the work is being out sourced has very low wages so the outsourcers make a killing, the only ones who make a profit here, apart from the same rich people are the guys in transportation, everyone else loses out, you as a customer will be presented with a lower quality product than you would have obtained if it were made in your country.
And in the country were the goods are made, again only a select few see good money, the workers don't.
By the way I don't think much of Socialism either.
Right? Let's say a business owner saves a LOT on taxes Will that employer turn around and hire someone in the community, thereby creating jobs? Doubtfully. It is more likely that they'd invest it or put it in savings. If it was used for the business, it would much more likely go to capital improvements, which is essentially adding value to the business owner's asset pool.
Now let's say, your average citizen get's a HUGE tax break and remember we're talking America here, the great bastion of Capitalism, what do you think that person will do? That's right, they will go out and spend it! Even if they are spendthrift and invest the windfall (average Joe? not likely), they are still likely to spend some portion in the marketplace.
What's so special about people having money to spend?
If a lot of people in the community are spending money, then business increases which is the absolute most likely event that will trigger a business owner to hire. What happens next is fascinating, see, more people having jobs = more people spending money. It becomes a positive feedback loop as opposed to a retentive cycle, tightening the belt ever more and more while playing the punitive blame game and squeezing every last drop out of real actual individual humans.
Will Rogers on Capitalist trickle-down theory:
Do you have any idea how many financial crises our young country has already been through? A lot. Over 6.
And socialism improves the quality of products and services how?
Capitalism is about efficiency, when the Berlin wall fell and Germany was reunited many of the East German factories went bankrupt. They could not compete against the efficiency and quality of the west side. The East Germans finally could obtain products of quality at much lower prices. It took up to 10 years to get a car after you ordered it in East Germany, and you got a trabant. A color TV cost 5x as much and was a worse product than what you could purchase in the west side. What was cheaper in East Germany? Stamps, milk, potatoes.
What exactly would those people being hired by the outsourcers be doing instead? They are not forced to work for them, so obviously they choose to work for them as the best option they can see.
It probably is the only option, and they are treated not too good, I am from Honduras, we have dozens if not hundreds of plants that belong to foreign companies who take advantage of how the rules are set, and they have a minimum wage that is lower than the rest of the country's, the working conditions are not so great, so I don't see were the riches are trickling down to the poor.
Also, let's get it straight and not pretend something, no country behind the iron curtain was ever a socialist country they were all totalitarian dictatorships, besides I already told you I am not so keen on socialism either, even though Europe apparently has a political mixture which is not working that bad, except to the good people of the UK.
The kibbutz are mainly socialist and they work just fine, of course they are quite small, I don't think that would work on a large scale.
Rule by force is the problem, each of those social experiments you mentioned came with a boss.
When the people that supplied the shelves today decide to continue to work while not paying for anything they will know freedom.
I don't believe I said anything about capitalism having a boss. In fact I said capitalism was anarchy, which implies that it just happens without anyone in control of it.
If you are using money to engage in exchanges somebody is in control, it is the nature of the beast.
If each person is a dictator over his little kingdom, as crapitalism facilitates and encourages, the boss is you.
I don't seek to eradicate private property, what is yours is yours, exclusively, but the crumbs, minimum wages, that fall from the crapitalusts' tables is wearing a little thin for me.
But then I have gone to the mountain and seen the elephant.
Money is just the store of your previous effort. It is only a more efficient way to obtain what you wish. You could haul around a bunch of corn you grew and trade certain amounts for this or that. But still you are using your previous efforts, and if you don't use or trade all that corn up it will lose value as it decays.
Yes, I also choose to be the boss of myself - and that is not a bad thing.
Ok, in the days of farms and wagons this is probably a good idea, in the days of robots replacing millions of workers and world wide distribution systems capable of abundance for all, you'll understand how quaint the answer seems.
If the people that kept walmart's shelves full continue to fill the shelves, they can take what they want and as long as they return to work tomorrow there will be plenty for all.
The banksters won't like it much, but they can go fly a kite.
As long as anything takes human effort your ideas cannot work. Taking the fruits of human labor without an agreed upon exchange is theft and/or slavery.
So yea, once we have an army of robots to do all our work down to cleaning the toilets and Star Trek style replicators - then we can live how you think.
But, I am not taking anybody's fruit, you got me confused with crapitalism.
The agreement that would be necessary for you to agree to would be to meet the minimum number of hours to replace what you consume.
You would be agreeing to work in return for consuming.
It would be up to you to make your donation of labor consistent with your level of consumption.
If you are happy with a house, food, and time to raise you kids then you could get by with the minimum, but if you need multiple motor vehicles, multiple TVs, whatever extravagance you desire, then you would want to adjust your contribution level so that the neighbors don't start hating.
Have you explored other perspectives on Venezuela?
fwiw, I am not a socialist
https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/43293/Blame+capitalism+not+socialism+for+Venezuelas+crisis
The article seems to be calling for the natural progression of socialism to communism. At least that is what I took away from it once I got past the author's reasons for the problems.
It is funny, the countries next door seem to have plenty of food on the shelves.