During the 20th century the world took part in the great socialist experiment led by the Soviet Union and China. When those countries turned away from their cherished socialism it wasn't because of a yearning to be free, or a desire for Jeffersonian Democracy and certainly not because of a new-found love of Ayn Rand. It was because of economic failure. The leaders realized that socialist idealism was not sufficient incentive for their population to allow them to be economically competitive. So now their economies are essentially market driven (and yes the economies are doing much better). As Ayn Rand (and many others) would say, socialism does not reflect the reality of human nature - for all the blathering about "New Soviet Man". When Pope John-Paul II made the remark that the last communist in the world would be a nun in America he obviously overlooked all these posters to Slate.

I've got news for you. The "great socialist experiment: is still alive and well in many countries including out own and the lesson is that mixed economy does the best. So what in your mind sealed the victory of unbridled capitalism anyway? Was it perhaps the great depression or our current economic crisis?

mark14:

I've got news for you. The "great socialist experiment: is still alive and well in many countries including out own and the lesson is that mixed economy does the best. So what in your mind sealed the victory of unbridled capitalism anyway? Was it perhaps the great depression or our current economic crisis?

You're confusing big 'S' Socialism with little 's' socialism. I'll draw you a diagram:

Marxism : economics :: Creationism : biology

Marxism was a moralistic objection to the amoral nature of scientific thought. It posited a future where perfect human engaged with one another out of pure altruism. Failing to be sufficiently altruistic was a moral crime, indicating that one was insufficiently advanced on the path to human perfection.

In a very real sense, the Soviet government argued that its oppressive measures were for the benefit of the individual members of society. Think of it like a drill instructor. He may be mean to you, but it's all for your own good.

No major government really acts like this any more. When your government oppresses you, they might argue that it is for the good of society. But when you get arrested for peddling crack to schoolchildren, the police officers won't try to convince you that prison is designed to be a personal growth experience.

I don't recall Marx having a problem with science.

I'm unfamiliar between the distinction between big "S" Socialism and little "s" socialism. Is there also a distinction between big "C" Capitalism and little "c" capitalism?

If you drew a diagram would it be

Capitalism : economics :: Evolution : biology

or are isn't it

Economics : biology :: Apples : oranges?

Marxism was a brilliant analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of capitalism and economics with flawed solutions similar to Christianity's (I never know if i should use the large or small c) take on man relationship to religion and society.

I'll draw you a diagram :

Marxism : economics :: Christianity : religion

As Marxism was a moralistic objection to the amoral nature of scientific thought Christianity was a moralistic objection to the amoral nature of tribal religiosity. "It posited a future where perfect humans engaged with one another out of pure altruism. Failing to be sufficiently altruistic was a moral crime, indicating that one was insufficiently advanced on the path to human perfection."

While Jesus and Marx did not, it didn't take long for their followers to argue that " oppressive measures were for the benefit of the individual members of society." and the real path to salvation lay not in obeying the message, which is of course too hard (the fatal flaw in both philosophies) , but in being a member of the group - ie they went right back to tribalism. Individuals continue to believe in the original messages and while it is both contradictory and out of favor for governments to oppress in the name of these prophets I think you are a bit optimistic to say "No major government really acts like this any more."

I also disagree that busting people selling crack to children isn't good for the sellers as well as the children and even apart from that drastic example you can't avoid that purpose of governments do indeed include to enforce some rules of behavior for the good of all.

During the 20th century the world took part in the great socialist experiment led by the Soviet Union and China

Simply not true. Russia has had roughly the same form of government for over 500 years:

• An autocratic Oligarchy
• with an all powerful autocrat
• Who still has to appease the elite Oligarchical council lest the autocrat's head be literally lost
• A centrally mandated economy
• The aristocracy would sit in Moscow ordering their lands in anticipation of what they thought the economy was going to do
• Party bureaucrats would sit in Moscow, ordering their regions in anticipation of what they thought the economy was going to do

To pretend that any of this had anything to do with socialism is simply to misundertand socialism.

And no, Russia didn't turn to Bolshevism out of economic failure - they did so initially in the spirit of democracy. And it was the sausage making of democracy that they rejected and reinstalled a new Czar in the name of the Party Chariman.

Your ignorance of history is showing

Mark, there is a world of difference between Soviet style "Socialism" and what we call "socialism" in much of the world today. It's the difference between the belief that a government agency has the right and necessity to decide nearly every aspect of your life, and someone who believes we need a social safety net and intelligent regulations to ensure the health of free markets.

So is the socialist experiment still alive and well then?

Degsme didn't understand what I wrote. My comment was that Russia moved from communism/socialism to a semi market economy. I don't recall mentioning the Czars at all. Though I do recall reading in economics at university that in the period of 1905 to 1914 the Russian economy was moving into the "takeoff" phase of economic development. If WWI hadn't occurred exactly when it did Russia might have quickly become more developed such as China did in the last 15 years. Also Degsme was correct in stating how Russia remained in many ways the same under communism as it was under the Czars. The new rulers grew up under the old system - it was all they knew.

If the previous poster had simply called the Soviet system "Sovietism" rather than "socialism" would you have called him ignorant of history? (Of course the Soviet Republic was not a republic either, but we get the concept.)

I would have preferred him to keep "socialism" out of it also, in the same way we don't really consider Peoples' Republics republics at all, but merely tyrannies run by committee. It is people who are justifiably sympathetic to socialism who get confused about the Soviet Union, and start talking about how the Soviets were just well intentioned, misunderstood collectivists who reacted to the pressures of aggressive Western capitalists.

Also, I don't see how the first poster's contention that Russia turned to Bolshevism due to enormous economic failures is in conflict with your statement that they turned to it out of a democratic spirit. Both were true.

It most certainly is. But I don't consider socialism a "system" or "experiment" any more than I consider capitalism to be either. Human beings will always place value on things differently and be willing to trade effort and/or resources to obtain them (capitalism). And people will always want to collectivize and pool resources and efforts in ways to make more efficient use of resources (socialism). The Soviet system was a monstrosity which talked a good game about socialism but was really just tyranny of the masses by the powerful few, by another name.

replying to Mark 14:I recall reading recently an article about one of your favorite countries -Sweden. Not one new company has cracked their top 20 in the last 50 years. Thats what your mixed socialism-capitalism gets you , utter stagnation. No Apples or Micocrosofts or Ciscos or Amazons But of course people like you don't have to feel inferior then because others have more drive and smarts. I have a pretty good idea of what Ayn Rand would think of you but I'll admit my opinion is lower than that. I know you're going to write back that you've started a company, hired people, or made lots of money. Or maybe not.

Top nations on the Human Development Index, 2009:

1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Iceland
4. Canada
5. Ireland
6. Netherlands
7. Sweden
8. France
9. Switzerland
10. Japan
11. Luxembourg
12. Finland
13. United States

<link>

They're doing pretty well for a stagnant country.

Maybe you should read the Slate article that explains that our wealthiest corporations produce goods abroad for sale to foreigners; we hardly export anything anymore.

<link>

replying to businessanalyst. Wow, that really hurts. Do you think Rush Limbaugh, Hannity or Beck would admire me though?

Degsme didn't understand what I wrote. My comment was that Russia moved from communism/socialism to a semi market economy. I don't recall mentioning the Czars at all.

No I understood what you wrote. Your comment was that "Russia led an experiment in socialism" - which is untrue. It never was socialist. It RETAINED THE SAME STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMY AS PREVIOUSLY.

You can't lead an experiment when you don't change anything.

Nor can you "move into a market economy" when you currently do not have a market economy but rather one that is centrally regulated by a handful of oligarchs just as it was before.

So there was no "experiment in socialism" in either Russia or the PRC.

Socialism found its home in western europe. Where it was responsible for faster GDP growth rates than the USA had during the last major boom, as well as took the EU out of recession faster than the USA made it out.