The only implementations are basically run by dominant elites, who emerge as the ruling class, resulting in exclusive political economic systems. Daron Acemoglu's "Why nations fail" offers a great framework to discuss this, I think.

Appropriation of capital basically means that the government decides to eradicate right to private ownership, thus reducing the will for economic creative destruction.

The lack of this creative destruction leads to stagnation.

To my view, one should not harken to a communist system. Marx was a great observer and analyst, but the medicine offered under the brands of socialism and communism generally create only worse situations.

19th century workers movement was needed to create pressure to give every citizen more or less equal right regardless of the property they possessed. After this was achieved, the result was a much fairer capitalist system which was far less harsh than the soul and body destroying early factory/labour conditions Marx described.

Marx's analysis was critical in specifically pointing out what was wrong. The western societies fixed themselves without violent revolution.

The places which were touched by revolution into socialist/communist systems basically became de-facto oligarchy led autocracit governments who need to cling to power using authoritarian bullying.

I think anything that needs to be written as a summary of socialist reality was written by Orwell in Animal Farm. He was a fervent socialist - but became a quite strong critic of it's implementations as they stand.

Orwells fondness for socialism was driven by his experiences as part of the civil service of the british empire - a machine of opression to him, which he came to abhor.

He thought socialism would offer a better, fairer world - only to find out it only enabled a new band of crooks to take over.

The foundations of humane societies are not in communism or socialism.

> The only implementations are basically run by dominant elites, who emerge as the ruling class, resulting in exclusive political economic systems.

This is mighty reminiscent of basically every other system of large (super-Dunbar-scale) society control, from the ancient priest-kings, through the Roman "republic" and imperial systems, medieval feudalism, and late-stage capitalism.

When control of the political system (how society allocates resources) can be used in a self-dealing manner, and resources can be used to control the political system, the steady state will tend towards the pattern you noted above (especially when those resources tend toward power-law distributions).

Notably, the argument can be made that the situations where political power has reverted to a wider base (including the establishment of modern democracies) has come about when social or technological changes destabilized the economic distribution structure. Examples include the workers' movement you cited, the growing late medieval era's growing merchant class (whose willingness to be taxed to fund mutually-beneficial programs and corresponding demands for control over those programs helped trigger the creation of European democracy), and the western Roman Empire's decaying ability to use the funds of expansion to exert social control in its occupied territories.

Lastly, it should be noted that, as brutal, illiberal, and inegalitarian as the USSR ended up being, the society they replaced (the Tsarist Russian Empire), being an industrialized dictatorship built around an enormous serf class was probably worse on all three counts.

"was probably worse on all three counts."

I disagree. The czarist state was far more lenient creature than the industrial scale slaughtermachine that was the stalinist USSR. A poignant example is the treatment of dissenters when Stalin himself was condemned for insurecctions against the czarist Russian state pre 1917. He was sent to 'exile' meaning he had to spend time in specific village, while being more or less free, being cordially observed by the guardsmen. Compare this to the well documented purges he laid upon those regarded as enemies of the state. (Ref. "Young Stalin" by Simon Sebag).

Of course USSR was more a continuation of the Russia of preceding centuries than a new political entity - hence alone cannot be used to empirically judge the quality of communism as a philosophy for state building.

"Luckily" we have many more examples around the world, especially from the eastern block countries which were prosperous modern states before they fell under the communist yoke - which in my opinion form sufficient evidence that communism does not really work as intended as a form of government that would be an obvious improvement to human condition.

Maybe because that's the only way that they can be implemented?

And yet the only words of assurance you have in return following scrutiny of this point is "well it doesn't have to be that way, next time will be different". They never, ever, ever want to focus on this, because they have nothing.

I think communism requires society to operate in an unstable state away from its Nash equilibrium, so it needs a strong dictatorship to keep people coerced into working against their personal interests (even if that's ultimately better for them when everyone complies). If it was democratic, most individuals would see opportunities to do better for themselves one way or another if they had the opportunity, so they'd vote for more individual rights, and erode the communism. Either that, or people really like freedom of choice so much, they'll tolerate a worse quality of life in other areas (assuming communism leads to better quality of life).

With capitalism, the coercion to work is decentralized in the form of people promising to give you somebody else's work (money) if you do some work for them. Being decentralized makes a dictatorship unnecessary to sustain it.

I find this view of history very perplexing. Workers movements in the US have lead the things like a 40 hour workweek, paid sick leave, weekends, minimum wages, workplace safety standards, etc. The people standing in the way of those reforms and, and indeed who employed state violence against workers to prevent these reforms we enjoy today, were capitalists.

People like to say that America is the home of the free, but we have the world’s largest prison population. This happened under a democratic capitalist system.

> With capitalism, the coercion to work is decentralized in the form of people promising to give you somebody else's work (money)

You say the system is decentralized but 3 individuals in the US hold more wealth than 50% of the population. If money is the method of decentralized enticement, yet a handful of people control most of the money and assets, is that really decentralized control? “A handful of elites owning the nation’s wealth” sounds like most people’s perception of communism, and yet it describes reality in capitalist America.

> Being decentralized makes a dictatorship unnecessary to sustain it.

Last January a defeated President and his followers attempted to overthrow democracy and install himself as the first American dictator. This happened under a capitalist republic. If capitalism makes dictatorships unnecessary, why is an authoritarian movement growing in capitalist America?

Up until 10,000 years ago, the entire world was communist. The remaining hunter gatherer bands in the Amazon and elsewhere are communist.

Marx said "I am not a Marxist" and "I do not write recipes for cookshops of the future", so there is no Marxist society other than the one he envisioned in the far future (certainly not a nearer term socialist future) which had the banner "From each according to ability, to each according to need".

Having tribes where everyone knows and are related to everyone makes a lot of things work that doesn't work at larger scales.

> From each according to ability

This is the dystopian part, if they judge you to have high ability they will work you to the bone and punish you if they think they could grind more work out of you. There is no freedom to quit and do something else, there is just the judgement of the state and if they get something wrong you are screwed.

Reward people for work instead of punish people for not working, that is the capitalist way. Punishing people to get them to work is a bad idea, I thought most people on the left agreed with this? So why do you still think communism makes sense, when it is a system based on punishment rather than rewards?

Firstly you're describing pre-Civilization, with no bureaucracy or central agricultural system.

Secondly, tribal human society roved in bands of approx 100+ people which, by virtue that it usually had leadership, was not entirely classless, despite the fact that the groups were small enough not to require political representation or monarchs. You're dreaming if you think individuals were always free to act against a tribe leader's wishes.

I don't think countries that are ruled with communism ended up as a dictatorship because of the ruling class. Maybe it was inevitable.

What makes me say that? Because the concept of complex systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system) gave me a new approach to think about different economic and social organizations.

Economy (and society) is a complex system and it is impossible to model perfectly (at least for now). So any approach that attempts to have everything under control will (eventually) fail. Or you may need to use force to mold the reality to your hypothetical system.

Capitalism may not be the best system there is, but it certainly aligns with a complex systems point of view.

Before the staunchly communist Freda Utley left for the USSR in the 30s, Bertrand Russel, her godfather, cautioned her not to delude herself that any flaws in the society were because of poor implementation by the Russias. Whatever she saw there was socialism he said.

Russel, of course, was aligned with the left his entire life.

Since then socialism (per Marx defined as the nationalization of all but private effects) has been independently tried to the same ruinous effect. Every socialist regime is unique, because they all try to explain and fix why the others failed; uniquely brutal reaching it's zenith with Pol Pot.

It's a shame Marxism/communism/socialism ends up a tyrannical dictatorship every time :D

If you really think that’s a useful description of Gorbeschev, where are you getting your history from?

Is Cuba a “tyrannical dictatorship”?

How did Pinochet fall?

Cuba is indeed a tyrannical dictatorship and has been for decades. A one-party state that regularly arrested dissidents and those who simply didn't fit its ideal narratives even if they had committed no normally defined criminal offense. I can't at all imagine how you could define the decades under castro and his brother as anything close to democratic. By definition that would require political plurality, freedom of association and freedom of expression, all of which were and still are very visibly lacking in Cuban society.

To say all of the above, by the way, is in no way to defend the also barbaric practices of the Pinochet regime. Pinochet however at least left power after a forceful referendum and peaceful transition to democracy. The ruling elite of Cuba never did and in no way ever even let things reach the point of an honest referendum.

Gorbachiov? That dude who ordered tanks on my countrymen on 1991-01-13 yet he still pretends to be a peace savior? He can rot in hell.

Gorby appears to be the sole exception. Might have something to do with having close family killed in the famines, and tortured in the Gulags. Every European other regime fell under pressure from the streets.

Cuba is a tyranny. They've soften up to get European investment and tourists, but they're brutal in their indoctrination, imprisonment of dissidents, etc. They're also an important (and beloved) backstop preventing American domination in L. America.

Pinochet didn't fall, he basically handed over power peacefully. His (surprisingly liberal) constitution of 1980 established him as head of the armed forces (which he was until he died) and promised free elections. He allowed for a fair and free elections in '88 that he lost and whose result he respected paving the way for the 1990 presidential elections. Again he lost and respected the result.

He's also a murderer who slaughtered thousands of innocents, but that's peanuts compared what the commies have wrought.

Everything I wrote is a gross oversimplification. Volumes have been written for each of the three topics you glibly referenced.

Gorby is not exception. He was bad at his job, yet he still tried to do same shit. E.g. January 1991 events. Looking at the big picture it's clear that either he ordered tanks on his own civilians OR he knew about them and was too coward to come out that he lost chain-of-command.

You do realize Pinochet was a capitalist dictator and the people he murdered were socialists, no?

And you have to be absolutely brainwashed to believe Cuba is a “tyrannical dictatorship.”

And what would you call the Cuba of the last several decades? A democratic politically liberal state that respects personal and political freedoms? I'm honestly curious. Also, you don't need to be brainwashed, you simply need to read, observe and speak to people who live or have lived there.

"Pinochet was a capitalist dictator"

If you read my comment carefully I clearly state:

- Pinochet slaughtered (tens) thousands of innocents

- Cuba is a backstop to American imperialism in the region which I clearly eluded as a good thing for those L. Americans outside of Cuba (at least until Americans drop their Monroe BS).

My parents are from Argentina and lost many friends, students and professors (luckily no family) to capitalist dictators. The battles of L. America literally run through my blood. I think I am very well aware who the Chilean equivalent of Videla is. Pinochet, however, must be recognized for having relinquished power unlike his Argentine capitalist counter parts and Cuban socialist counterparts.

Anyway, I think I have demonstrated a little more nuance in this very complicated topic than trite single line slogans. I am not a "capitalist", whatever that means. I reject the destructive "socialism" vs "capitalism" false dichotomy.

> I reject the destructive "socialism" vs "capitalism" false dichotomy.

Nothing could expose your class position as much as your suggestion that Cuba’s leaders are Pinochet’s “counterparts.”

Pinochet was lifted into power by the American capitalist empire. Castro was lifted into power by the Cuban working class. It takes a lot of nerve to equate the two in any way, and even more to suggest that the latter should step down in spite of overwhelming support from the Cuban people.

Nothing I said contradicts what you wrote. The US did assist Pinochet (bad). The Cuban people did revolt against Battista (good).

You'd be surprised, however, how popular Pinochet is particularly among working class Chileans, just as you'd obviously be surprised how much support Cuba needed from the USSR to keep the regime together. Material support and training manuals on how to buttstock resistive people.

Battista fell over 60 years ago, Cubans want something else.

Reality is complicated, it cannot be reduced to pretty slogans.

I am not surprised by either! But, in both cases, the US has played an extremely aggressive role in generating the circumstances.

> Is Cuba a “tyrannical dictatorship”?

Yes, looks like it works just like any other communist state. Communism needs to be maintained through tyranny, people wouldn't vote for it if they could which is why communist states must constantly supress dissent and never allow people to vote for other parties. When people can vote they quickly vote out communism in favor of more liberal parties, communism is very short lived in free societies as when people try it they quickly learn to hate it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/13/world/americas/cuba-judge...

Do you know anything about Cuba besides what the children of ex-Cuban plantation owners say?

Could Cubans vote away communism if they wanted? If not then it isn't free. People could vote away capitalism in USA and become communist if they wanted. Every democracy could.

Absolutely, but Cuba’s democracy is very localized and bottom up in order to prevent a wealthy ruling class from controlling dominant narratives, i.e. oligarchy like in the US. And they don’t hold ridiculous election performances every 4 years to wrangle consent from the public.

Democracy is very sensitive and the liberal democracies in Western capitalist countries are brutally anti-democratic. Most Americans realize this but will be so quick to presume any other country a dictatorship.

Cuba has never been a “dictatorship”. Castro and his successors were and still are deeply loved by the Cuban working class that put them into power. US leaders understand this and it’s why none of their attacks have penetrated. See: Bay of Pigs

This is not accurate. Cubans could not vote out the Communist Party since it is enshrined in the Cuban constitution that there is only one party, the Communist Party, and all other political parties are classed as "illegal".

"Cuba is a one-party state, with the Communist Party of Cuba being described as the "superior driving force of the society and the state" in the Constitution of Cuba, and all other political parties are illegal. Elections in Cuba are not democratic because the government does not allow free and fair voting." ~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Cuba

So how would that work?

“Free and fair voting” is an extremely subjective phrase. In many liberal democracies, this just means “the rich get their way.”

Call it what you want, how do you defeat the communist party in elections if it is enshrined in the Cuban constitution that there can only be one legal party, and that party is the communist party?

How does that jibe with democracy and free elections?

It's very easy to love your leader when the only alternative is the labor camp.

??? Do you even have the first idea what you’re talking about? The other “option” was Batista. And Cuba is more democratic than the US, but it doesn’t allow oligarchs to astroturf consent like in liberal democracies.

There are always a lot of options if you don't have marxists around :)

Cuba was just a Soviet Union's project to burn enough money to show that socialism works. But it didn't. And I very unhappy that we were living so poor in soviet era while paying those "democracies" which were modeled just like our country - with literally no choice on any elections.

And being rich is not a sin, btw.

That couldn’t be further from the truth. The Soviet Union had no role whatsoever in the Cuban revolution.

>Is Cuba a “tyrannical dictatorship”?

People aren't dying on makeshift rafts trying to get there, they're dying on makeshift rafts trying to escape.

This is unfortunately not a joke. It blows my mind that many people today don't understand that communism can only work in a primitive society (the "pure" form that many dream about) or it inevitably leads to an authoritarian dictatorship (in more advanced societies).

(I wouldn't lump "socialism" in there because it's more vague; social-democracy can and does work).

Isn’t the issue less to do with “communism” than with concentrating too much power in too few hands? It seems to me all political systems tend toward autocracy and the only thing preventing that eventuality are robust systems in place that disperse power.

Yeah but communism as a doctrine will inevitably lead to exactly that, concentrating too much power into too few hands. Because if you want to look for the "collective interest" of the people, then people will disagree. Musk can do rockets not because he convinced everyone that it's in our collective interest (though he may believe so) - he can do them because he doesn't have to justify the collective interest. As soon as the collective interest is a matter of doctrine, some group of people will be in charge of it, and they will by necessity suppress other opinions about what "collective interest" might be.

In 1919 no one in the world would have thought the backward, fledgling Soviet Union would be the first in space. Your example is not apt.

But it is - they could because the party leadership wanted to/ decided it was important. My point isn't that communism can't achieve anything, it's that you can't have private initiative that's against the party line - and that's not an accident of one particular implementation, that is a "feature" of communism itself.

"Unanimous" agreement on the collective good/collective interests only works, at all, in small groups (primitive societies) and dictatorships. That was really my point.

A person (or persons) with sufficient power/influence decided to pursue space flight and it happened. Which example does the previous sentence refer to?

When Musk decided to pursue space (or EV for that matter) he had very little power. Wasn't even a billionaire yet. There are thousands of people with similar fortunes that you never hear about.

So you don’t know which situation I was referring to? The fact the Musk accomplished what he did with SpaceX is prima facie proof that he had sufficient power/influence to accomplish the goal.

Which is exactly what I'm talking about. Communism = "for sufficient power to influence/accomplish a goal, you must be in the party elite (tens, at most hundreds of persons)". Liberal democracy: "for sufficient power to influence/accomplish a goal, you must start at least reasonably well off" (3 to 4 orders of magnitude more people)

"power" is distributed in democracies; The centralized nature of communism is its weakest spot, and it is by design.

Another person with sufficient power/influence decided that computing is evil and USSR fell behind in (micro)computers and chips terribly.

Also, a lot of USSR space advancements were made thanks thanks to captured Nazi scientists. If they had to rely purely on homegrown science, they'd have had much harder time.

Look up Wernher Von Braun. A group of people thought Jim Crow was a great idea. A group of BP executives thought it was a great idea to not fix oil leaks in Nigeria and poison a bunch of people. I think you miss the point. People with power in any system can use that power for bad. It’s not the economic system that causes this it’s shitty humans that do.

Thing is, in democratic market economy system there're various checks & balances. Sooner or later (usually, sooner) we learn about all of those issues. If somebody just bids on a wrong evolutionary path... Well, there're many investors bidding on all possible paths. Some win, some loose.

In soviet central planning system, few people make decisions that affect many and there's was redundancy. No free press. No political opposition. No economic rivalries to challenge. Same in civic/industrial evolution. If a committee decides to pursue idea X and drop idea Y.... So be it.

There was no democratic feedback mechanism either. Public is not happy that state money is used to prop up revolutions all around the world while one's citizen are living in poor condition? Tough luck, party line is never wrong.

I think different systems work best at different levels of scale. Power needs to be accountable and visible to the people affected by it. The more local it is, the more you can safely do.

NN Taleb stated it well on Twitter, I think: "At Fed level, libertarian; state, Republican; local, Democrat; family/friends, socialist."

Democracies never end up in dictatorships? How much historical data do we have on that? I'm pretty sure at least brazil was democratic and then was ruled by military dictatorship (juntas) for a long time. 1940s Germany as well right? I just realized I've never seen the breakdown on that for any length of time, lets say going back to the first republics?

I don't know, it seems like a lot of European countries with a pluralistic party system are heavily "Christian Socialist" (pro free market, pro property ownership, pro capitalist, pro safety net) and they don't seem to be any more prone to slide into dictatorship?

I've actually have never read a compiled lists of stats of what types of government make a country impervious to dictatorial rule.

Thing is, marxist-communist-socialist countries don't even stay non-dehumanizing-regimes. Revolution happens, then terrible things kick in.. And then regime flames out over a loooong time. Usually accepting at least some parts of free market and plural democracy.

Nazi (national-socialist) Germany was totally socialist.

P.S. Your description of „socialism“ is a veeeery weird one. Apparently everything is socialist.

> Thing is, marxist-communist-socialist countries don't even stay non-dehumanizing-regimes.

There are no Marxist regimes; all “Communist” regimes are (or are derived from) Leninism which introduces vanguardism and other changes to avoid the prerequisite of developing proletarian class consciousness through mature capitalism in Marxism, and feature a (theoretically) transitional initial phase to replace development through private capitalism, which none have ever escaped from to anything that was supposed to be beyond it (though China rewrote the plan to include authoritarian quasi-private capitalism.)

There's a wide array of arguably socialist non-“Communist” regimes, but all of them are democratic/market socialism that explicitly accepts plural democracy and regulated (not “free”) markets as important elements.

> Nazi (national-socialist) Germany was totally socialist.

This is true to about the same extent as “the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is totally a democratic republic” is true.

If you redefine socialism as "what most Western Europe countries do" you can have some real paradoxical views.

I didn't.