this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
916 points (97.2% liked)
Memes
49870 readers
2612 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Socialism is about collective ownership and planning of the economy, so I don't really know what you're getting at, here. If you're talking about Social Democracy, like in the Nordic Countries, those are Capitalist with safety nets, and as such depend on extreme exploitation of the Global South, essentially trust fund kids bragging about how they've "made it" by working at their father's banking firm.
Moreover, I don't know what you mean by planned economies "not working." There have been some issues, sure, but by and large AES states have been undeniable successes for the economy and the living standards of the working class. If you could give an example, then I would love to talk more, but I don't really know what you're referring to here.
Planned economy isn't mandatory for socialism. Market socialism exists, for example the socialist market economy practiced (quite successfully) by China. (And no, I do mean democratic socialism, not Social Democracy or the Nordic model)
I think anyone can point to USSR and China as examples of failed planned economies, so I am quite surprised by you claiming to know nothing about that. I wouldn't include Cuba because there have been a lot of unjust outside pressures against its economy. I will say I don't know much about the AES states so I will have to look into that, but at a quick glance I don't see anyone describing their economy as planned?
China is heavily planned. This isn't really a point in your favor, China's Socialist Market Economy works because it's so heavily planned. The vast bulk of heavy industry like Steel and Energy is fully publicly owned, and finance is in the hands of government as well. Even the private sector is heavily planned and adjusted by the government.
Furthermore, again, I don't know what you mean specifically when you broadly gesture at the USSR and PRC as "economic failures." They have not been perfect, correct, but by and large both saw incredible growth and dramatic improvements in quality of life for the Working Class. Do you have specific issues you are trying to point out? Otherwise, here is a decent video going over the Soviet Economy's myriad successes, and I recommend reading Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the USSR as well if you want to go much deeper.
As for AES, those are not the Sahel States as you might be finding, but China, Cuba, the former USSR, Vietnam, Laos, etc.
Edit: to respond to your edit about "Democratic Socialism," such a name is redundant. Socialism is democratic, and that includes AES, or "Actually Existing Socialism." What are you specifically talking about?
Oh, OK. If that's what you believes... (I wonder if you have talked with someone who actually live in China currently?) I don't think there will be much more I can say that would convince you otherwise. But I do recommend you to read broadly and try to consciously combat your own confirmation biases.
About half of the PRC's economy is publicly owned and centrally planned, and the private sector is under strict planning and guidelines. Industries like Steel, which other industries rely on, are publicly owned and centrally planned in a manner that has control over the Private Sector. Five year plans guide the economy, and Capital is subservient to the State.
I'll mirror your statement back at you: I do recommend you to read broadly and try to consciously combat your own confirmation biases.
Just because they are state owned, doesn't mean they are planned, not in a planned economy sense. They are no more planned than USPS, BBC, the Network Rail in the UK, or Deutsche Bahn in Germany. I think you have either a misinformed, mistaken, or maybe warped perception of what "planned economy" even means. I have older relatives living there who still have vivid memories of life in planned economy China. And from what I've heard I can pretty confidently tell you that it is not this. (But hey, I am just a random guy on the internet, a ghost in the electromagnetic waves, or maybe this is all written by ChatGPT. So you don't have to believe any of what I said.) If you find a random person on the street of China and tell them China is a planned economy (计划经济 in Chinese, pronounced "ji4 hua4 jing1 ji4" if you need help), you will likely be laughed out of court. Like, a company having a plan (which I'd expect a majority of companies around world that know what they are doing to have) doesn't mean it suddenly operates in "planned economy"
Well thanks, that's how I have been trying to operate anyways. It's just kind of funny to hear it uttered by someone who clearly only have very superficial (mis)understanding of how China operates/operated. (Which is a fault I have observed many on lemmy.ml to have unfortunately.) Which also calls the characterization of all your other examples into question. I genuinely meant this as an advice, and I wouldn't have typed all this if not for the ridiculousness of what you are saying.
I am sure you are very well read, which is commendable and I genuinely think you did well there (most of people nowadays don't read anymore). Just, like, please also read something that challenges your point of view sometimes.
To be clear, USPS is planned. I think you're specifically thinking of planning in a similar manner to Mao's later economy, which isn't the only form of planning. To be further clear, companies internally plan all the time, like Amazon and Walmart, though without being centrally planned it isn't what I'm actually getting at.
SOEs and other State firms may operate within a Socialist Market Economy and aren't quite the same as, say, the Soviet economy, but they are publicly owned and planned. I am aware that the economy post-Deng is very different from late-Mao, and that the economy under Xi is also distinct, don't patronize me.
If I wanted to be snarky, I could do the same thing you tried to do in this comment and say that referring to "Democratic Socialism" as an actual, distinct form, as well as your confusion regarding the distinction between Socialism and Communism calls into question all of your examples.
I'll mirror your comment again: I am sure you are very well read, which is commendable and I genuinely think you did well there. Just, like, please also read something that challenges your point of view sometimes.
LOL, OK. Now you are just confidently being wrong.
Sure, OK, you are rubber and I am glue, very clever.
This has been a giant waste of both of our time. Thanks for confirming my pessimistic view of the futility of human communication. Just block me and let's never talk again.
It's very interesting that you can't actually answer, just scoff and jeer. I'll mirror one last time: LOL, OK. Now you are just confidently being wrong.
Sure, OK, you are rubber and I am glue, very clever.
This has been a giant waste of both of our time. Thanks for confirming my pessimistic view of the futility of human communication. Just block me and let's never talk again.