Item — HN Reader

After '89, there were some who said, "Communism didn't fail because this wasn't /really/ Communism." I answered, sorry, but that's how Communism is rendered.

There are those now who are saying, "Laissez Faire Capitalism didn't fail because it wasn't /really/ Laissez Faire Capitalism." I'm answering, sorry, you had your chance. You can argue on blogs all you want. The experiment has failed miserably.

Europe is going to come out of this smelling ok, and with it, Third-way Socialism, where there's a balance between the market and the public interest.

8 comments

After '89, there were some who said, "Communism didn't fail because this wasn't /really/ Communism." I answered, sorry, but that's how Communism is rendered.

There are those now who are saying, "American Socialism didn't fail because it wasn't /really/ Socialism." I'm answering, sorry, you had your chance. You can argue on blogs all you want. The experiment has failed miserably.

Point being, simply asserting a preferred definition is not a compelling argument. Whatever it was that was going on, it hasn't been working. Making one or another particular economic philosophy the bogeyman isn't going to help, however good it makes people feel to be able to say, "I told you so."

Anyone else find it curious (almost) no one argues that "National Socialism didn't fail because the Third Reich wasn't /really/ National Socialism"?

It's interesting to contrast the utter repudiation of National Socialism after its defeat in 1945 compared to the ongoing romance with Communism after its collapse in 1989...

E.g. On a university campus today, it's acceptable to call oneself a socialist, but utterly unacceptable to call oneself a National Socialist (a Nazi). Considering the horrors of both, the difference in their treatment in American academia today is somewhat surprising.

But "National Socialism" was the name because that's what sold at the time; the ideology was Facism.

Of course, the fact that there are socialist countries out there which arguably treat their citizens better than America does has nothing to do with it. [Note: I overstate here for effect, the "in many ways, for many citizens" caveats are left as an exercise for the reader.]

Yes, strange. The communists had more appeal to the intellectuals.

> Considering the horrors of both...

The horrors of both?

The Netherlands, Switzerland, Finland, Austria, Germany, etc., are all horror-ible places to live?

No, you don't get to play with "preferred definitions". here.

In 1989, the companies came in and put an extreme back into balance.

In 2009, the government came in to put an extreme back into balance.

In fact, it has been the government that has been saving a complete collapse of Capitalism by bailing it out. I think no one knows if it will work, but they key indicator here is that Wall St. turned to the government for help.

And look at health care: Americans spend much more than other countries yet the indicators show much poorer performance than those other countries. Socialized medicine has been shown, in the hard numbers, to simply work better.

If it was really "American Socialism" that was failing, you wouldn't be seeing government stepping in everywhere. So, no, it's not about picking a definition; it's about trying (finally) to find a balance.

I am not one who says "This wasn't really a free market, so it doesn't count as a failure of the free market." Rather, I'm one who acknowledges that all complex societies will have failures -- including systemic failures of this sort. It doesn't conflict with my worldview at all that a "truly free market" could have a catastrophy like the one we are experiencing.

The question is not: "was this a failure of the market?" Rather, the question is: "would intervention reduce, or increase the number of failures?" There has been no credible case made for the profound wisdom and benevolence of government bureaucrats and politicians.

The communists are right about one thing: the lessons of history are not self-evident. We need to use our brains to interpret events, and their causes. That said: unlike communism, which has a history of nothing but failure and poverty, free market societies have a long track record of creating wealth and prosperity for all.

European banks were leveraged MORE then US banks.

Think of Iceland for Marx and Engles' sake!

Greece, Ireland, the UK, etc.

I am not sure what you mean by third way socialism, perhaps you mean the welfare states of western Europe?

Those do work in a particular way that many people prefer. Many others prefer the more free market of the states. I know many west European immigrants that have come to the US to escape the welfare state, and I ain't talking bankers.

More like engineers, scientists and doctors, and believe me Europeans know the social state costs us some of our best.

As an east European immigrant I can tell you, that the communists switched their story AFTER to soviet collapse.

Libertarians like Milton Freedman on the other hand, have been saying the US is farm from true free markets for a LOOOONG time.

I'll vouch for you. I've moved from the UK to Canada (both countries with welfare and universal health care) and I'll never step foot on US soil without travel insurance with an extradition clause, because the US system of health care disgusts me.

I know many people who have moved from the US into welfare countries in Europe. However, I also know many people who have moved out of Europe into the US.

Welfare systems get you good quality for the money, however if you've got the money to spend more (like your example, engineers, scientists and especially doctors) then you're going to want the best quality money pays for. I think the unfortunate situation is that most welfare countries don't have a system far reaching enough to provide everything people want.

I mean the French system is impressive when it comes to child care. I mean you can get daycare for $1 a day. However, from people I talk to there, their health care is rather lax compared to UK standards. However in the UK even the poor can get phenomenal health care, like triple-bypass surgeries, however god forbid you have a child and want to work!

Again what happens when you have a child with disabilities? Well you're royally fucked, you're treated like it's your own fault despite the government wanting you to have children.

I see the benefit of both systems, however personally I like the universal health care. It's rather ironic that I've never stepped foot inside a hospital (I lie, but it was never for me. Once visiting my mum at work - nurse - and the other visiting my dad after he had kidney stones removed) and I barely visited my doctor. In fact I don't even get sick often, I had the flu a few weeks ago, my wife was sleeping like 20 hours a day, I was wide awake the entire time and occasionally had to blow my nose.

However, I'd bet $50,000 that if I ever moved to the US the day I arrived I'd be diagnosed with a prostate tumor the size of a grapefruit, or some incurable disease or something. I mean I didn't even need braces as a kid, I'm either going to die the healthiest person on the planet or my luck's going to turn so bad so fast I'll be hit by a fragment of a meteorite or something equally absurd.

That's true, shortly off the plane realizing exactly what health care is available for the poor in the US, gave me a decidedly uneasy feeling.

I won't even attempt to defend the US health care system.

Suffice it to say, a much longer topic is the set of laws and regulations that maximize freedom, prosperity AND a high minimum of social services for everyone.

Every doctor I have been to in Austria has been superior to every doctor I have been to in the USA, with the exception of my ENT surgeon, who was a middle eastern immigrant to the US. (He was a top doctor in his field, taught at JHU, invented stuff, etc.)

The doctors in Austria take more time with you, they listen to you better, they come up with more novel solutions, and they seem to know more about other medical fields.

And here's why this is true:

a) free medical education. Yes, FREE. That means people who want to be doctors, can; the only requirement is that they can hold their own academically. That also means that when they complete their education, they are not saddled under $300k+ of debt, and thus are not having to hustle and scrimp for money.

b) a culture of service. Yes, really. Austria has a huge number of social workers -- nice ones, too -- and unlike in the US, there's a very solid mixture of men vs women. People can actually earn a decent living (thanks to socialism) helping other people.

c) a very different situation with insurance (everybody has it) and lawsuits (uncommon).

All of this combines to having a huge number of women doctors, and a huge number of doctors who are in it for passion and not for money, and doctors who are not afraid to just give you an atypical solution or who have to worry all the time whether the patient's insurance will pay for it.

And amazingly, it's cheaper than in the US sometimes, even if you pay out of pocket. I saw a top-rated dentist, got a 360 degree x-ray, he himself poked around in my mouth and proscribed an antibiotic -- and with the exchange rate, that whole thing cost me $180 US. Ha!

It's simply awesome.

Communism failed in Russia because it took one approach, a very flawed one that prevented technological advancement. The main failure was that they wanted everyone to work, so when the combine harvester came along they didn't adapt it because it would cost jobs. This would have likely succeeded well, if they weren't trying to be a world superpower, because there's a long history back to ancient China, that the more food a culture can produce with the fewest workers then the more technologically advanced they'll become.

Example: Quite literally two people can farm a few thousand acres of corn with modern equipment. One drives the harvester and one drives the truck.

Ironically Stalin actually caused the evolution of Chinese communism which survived it. The reason the Chinese did so well is that Stalin slaughtered most of them, which resulted in them taking in capitalists. This resulted in them understanding how economies work, and not hoping an artificially constructed economy would work. Combined into this is the political unity and a use of very powerful propaganda techniques to strengthen nationality. It's been shown that strong nationality increases a persons support of the government. I mean look at the German Resistance, they had such difficulty getting support in Germany because it was impossible to go against Hitler without going against Germany. Largely the CPC has done the same, you can't oppose them without opposing China.

The real question in the success of communism will be, "Will communism survive when China's nationalism subsides?"

Edit: Can people please stop down-voting something you disagree with, this isn't reddit. I'm merely reiterating something that's been agreed on by modern-historians for a long time. There's multiple systems of communism and the Stalinist and Chinese forms are very different.

What's communist at all about the modern Chinese economic system?

I'd say not much. But it depends on your definitions. They are very 'pragmatic' nowadays.

If anything you could say a mixed economy doesn't work. The problem is the state makes all sorts of problems and then they blame it on free market capitalism. The current situation is widely attributed to the federal reserve's manipulation of the currency. In a Lassez Faire economy their would be no federal reserve.

In Lassez Faire economy anyone who creates a systemic risk discounts said risk by how big they are in relation to how big the system is.

Chile is more Laissez-Faire and it's doing awesome.

Perhaps, but president Bachelet and her government have as highest priority the reduction of poverty, wealth redistribution etc (thank god btw) through direct government intervention, or at least that's what they say every time they speak (I have TVN).

And thanks to them or instead of them (Concertacion governments) Chile has been reducing its poverty levels; pretty much they are the only country in South America with a middle class.

This has nothing to do with anything but I think in a way it's awesome that a country has a president who is: 1) woman 2) single mother 3) declared agnostic/atheist

can you imagine not a president but just any politician in the US like that?

Strategy:

1. Somebody has an idea that might be good.

2. Do something stupid. Give it the same name as #1.

3. When #2 fails because it was stupid, say that #1 is now a failure.

4. Continue doing #2, because if you don't try any new ideas, the status quo is what you get.

When I posted my reply, the parent had 21 points. Now it has 16 points. That means it's received at least 5 downmods. Did he do something to deserve being downmodded?

A massive and obvious and smug logical fallacy. Which is annoying.

I never tried to be smug. Why don't you elaborate instead of down voting?