That’s how it often ends up, sure, but that’s not its defining feature. If you strip away all government (i.e. leave a bunch of people on a desert island), you’d end up with a capitalist system. It’s just the natural way of things. It starts with a market economy, and eventually market participants find they can pay others to grow their goods faster than trading/earning it directly, and some people would prefer to take the steady income of working for someone else over starting their own venture. If a venture fails, the owner loses everything, whereas the workers just move on to someone else’s venture.
When a government gets involved, it takes a monopoly on force in order to protect market participants from each other. Since it has that monopoly on force, there’s a lot of potential upside for market participants to get the government on their side. That’s why we see so much cronyism, because it’s a lot more profitable to get the guy with the gun on your side than compete in a fair market. But once you allow that to happen, capitalism becomes corrupted because you introduce ways to eliminate the inherent risk of market participation. It’s a lot harder to fail when you can get the government to make rules to prevent competition, letting you keep charging high prices for lower quality products and services.
Socialism as a state of being requires some form of protection
Exactly, and if that form of protection gets corrupted, the entire system is screwed. Look at what happened to pretty much every socialist state, the elites find they can get a ton of gain through treating their people unequally, and resort to heavy-handed measures to keep them in line.
The most successful “socialist” states (e.g. Nordic countries) aren’t socialist at all, they’re capitalist societies (and in many ways have a more free market than the US) with a hefty social safety net. Sweden has a high number of billionaires relative to their population. Why? Because they’re capitalist, not socialist. They do have a high tax rate, but they abolished their wealth and inheritance taxes in the 2000s, probably because they tend to scare away wealthy people and therefore local investment.
And I really don’t think socialism is actually classless, at least not when there’s a strong governing body. It just exchanges the capitalist “owner vs worker” class for “ruling vs worker” class, because there’s no way those in control will settle for the same living conditions as the workers. So it basically just trades someone who gained ownership through investment for someone who gained control (essentially ownership) through moving up in the party. To me, that means the owner is likely better equipped to run things than someone who “inherited” it through political maneuvering. Why would a socialist leader want to actually improve the living conditions of the people if they could just maintain power by killing off rivals?
So no, I largely reject socialism as a governing system because it’s way too easy to corrupt, and instead seek to borrow socialist ideas for how to operate an economy. Instead of governments owning the means of production, let’s instead look at co-ops. Instead of production and consumption quotas, let’s do cash redistribution from the wealthy to the poor so everyone can participate in the market economy (and a worker w/ a steady base income can take more risks and try to become an owner, or at least leave awful employers). A system like that can better weather bad leadership than one where the leadership has significant control over the economy.
That’s how it often ends up, sure, but that’s not its defining feature. If you strip away all government (i.e. leave a bunch of people on a desert island), you’d end up with a capitalist system. It’s just the natural way of things. It starts with a market economy, and eventually market participants find they can pay others to grow their goods faster than trading/earning it directly, and some people would prefer to take the steady income of working for someone else over starting their own venture. If a venture fails, the owner loses everything, whereas the workers just move on to someone else’s venture.
When a government gets involved, it takes a monopoly on force in order to protect market participants from each other. Since it has that monopoly on force, there’s a lot of potential upside for market participants to get the government on their side. That’s why we see so much cronyism, because it’s a lot more profitable to get the guy with the gun on your side than compete in a fair market. But once you allow that to happen, capitalism becomes corrupted because you introduce ways to eliminate the inherent risk of market participation. It’s a lot harder to fail when you can get the government to make rules to prevent competition, letting you keep charging high prices for lower quality products and services.
Exactly, and if that form of protection gets corrupted, the entire system is screwed. Look at what happened to pretty much every socialist state, the elites find they can get a ton of gain through treating their people unequally, and resort to heavy-handed measures to keep them in line.
The most successful “socialist” states (e.g. Nordic countries) aren’t socialist at all, they’re capitalist societies (and in many ways have a more free market than the US) with a hefty social safety net. Sweden has a high number of billionaires relative to their population. Why? Because they’re capitalist, not socialist. They do have a high tax rate, but they abolished their wealth and inheritance taxes in the 2000s, probably because they tend to scare away wealthy people and therefore local investment.
And I really don’t think socialism is actually classless, at least not when there’s a strong governing body. It just exchanges the capitalist “owner vs worker” class for “ruling vs worker” class, because there’s no way those in control will settle for the same living conditions as the workers. So it basically just trades someone who gained ownership through investment for someone who gained control (essentially ownership) through moving up in the party. To me, that means the owner is likely better equipped to run things than someone who “inherited” it through political maneuvering. Why would a socialist leader want to actually improve the living conditions of the people if they could just maintain power by killing off rivals?
So no, I largely reject socialism as a governing system because it’s way too easy to corrupt, and instead seek to borrow socialist ideas for how to operate an economy. Instead of governments owning the means of production, let’s instead look at co-ops. Instead of production and consumption quotas, let’s do cash redistribution from the wealthy to the poor so everyone can participate in the market economy (and a worker w/ a steady base income can take more risks and try to become an owner, or at least leave awful employers). A system like that can better weather bad leadership than one where the leadership has significant control over the economy.