
A Wonderful Socialist Life - shubhamjain
https://paper.dropbox.com/doc/A-Wonderful-Socialist-Life--AJ8XJdLuOJUmiOSWnbZuDvB3Ag-88s2HEETksWiDIgvRQ4rv
======
mikeash
Yet another in a long line of articles using the example of the Soviet Union
or its satellites to criticize Western Europe and those who seek to emulate
it. I’ve yet to see one that actually contains any argument for why the
version found in Western Europe must inevitably decline into the Soviet or
Venezuelan model, but they’re always absolutely sure that it must. This one
just declares it to be so and insults those who disagree.

The result is not convincing. It’s like a burn victim arguing against fire.
Yes, fire can be bad, and I’m sorry you got burned, but I’m not going to give
up cooking or heating because you’ve been traumatized.

~~~
candiodari
Then why did ALL of them evolve into those hellholes ? Let's not pretend
Soviet satellite states are the only examples. Far from it. It's not like this
happened in one place. This happened in Cuba, in Venezuela, in Soviet Union.

... and the utter disaster that those were were actually still superior to
what happened in China, Vietnam and other South Asian nations.

This is the best, not the worst, that socialism has brought:

> “The third tier socialized healthcare is for everyone else. Yes, it was
> free. But it also was a disaster of epic proportions. Truly horror movie
> like. You may think I'm exaggerating, but I'm not. Countless people died
> because of lack of medicine, filthy operating rooms,…”

> “…lack of heat in the winter, broken down ambulances, overcrowded emergency
> rooms and last but not least doctors who were so poorly paid that they had
> to accept bribes in order to give proper attention to patients. This
> situation remained a disaster for another decade after…”

The worst, of course, was outright mass murder. And that's ignoring that both
Cuba and the Soviet Union, which, again, are the better examples, did cause
famines to eliminate populations. But again, a famine is far preferable to the
"cultural revolution".

~~~
mikeash
France, Germany, Sweden, and many others seem to be doing fine, so it doesn’t
look like “all” of them, not even close.

~~~
1996
Venezuela was fine during the oil boom, Russia was fine in the 1960s.

The issue is sustainability. Besides pensions at the local level, nothing to
worry about for us in the US.

Those in France, Germany, Sweden must deal with major issue, including
homegrown terrorists, low economic activity, decline in population, lack of
control of their monetary policy. They will crash, as all socialistic country
do, when their ressources are exhausted or when their population stops
believing the dream their government sells them.

How many of the top internet companies are located there? Which of the top
blockchain comparies are located there? Unless you think it will be different
for the next technology, they will keep missing the boat and falling more and
more behind.

Average income in Mississipi, the poorest US state, is higher than in these
countries- look at the price of gas and electronics here vs there - and so on.
Here buying a tiny car, without AC or automatic transmission would be weird.
People did that a long time ago, but we can afford better now. There, it is
still the norm.

It is just a question of when they fail

~~~
mikeash
So, the proof that the Soviet lessons of socialism apply to Western Europe is
that all socialist countries eventually suffer from it. The proof of that is
that all of them have. If they haven’t, they will.

That’s just circular reasoning! All socialist countries fail because all of
them will fail if they haven’t already. What?

What’s the deal with your Mississippi statement? A quick search shows
Mississippi with a median income of about $20,000, and France (for example) at
over $30,000.

~~~
1996
It is based on physical reality: over promising limited resources can't work.
Socialism is based on this premise. Unfortunately, it can't work in the long
term.

I would be happy if I am wrong on this one example: I do not wish anyone to be
poor. However, wikipedia says median income for MS is 40k now, cf
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_incom...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income)

While for France, it is 20k according to
[http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_...](http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_di04&lang=en)

My numbers may be wrong, as other sources say it would just be above the 12
poorest, see [https://mises.org/wire/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-
state...](https://mises.org/wire/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-states-they-
would-be-among-poorest-states)

If France median income is not lower than the poorest US state, but on par
with the bottom 1/5 of the states, that still speaks volume. It's burdened by
a system that can't work.

~~~
mikeash
I don’t see why socialism must overpromise.

You appear to be comparing Mississippi’s median household income with France’s
median individual income. The former is of course much higher.

~~~
1996
My mistake, and I am happy I made it. France is only in the 20% poorest US
states, instead of being poorer than the poorest.

However I'm not sure you should celebrate that.

------
toomanybeersies
The question is how is it possible for the Scandinavian countries (as well as
many other developed countries) to run robust social democracies, yet not
Venezuala, and apparently not the USA (according to Sanders' detractors)?

I mean this as a genuine, rather than rhetorical, question.

Also, I can see the email address of everyone who's viewed this document,
along with their name.

~~~
jeffdavis
Scandanavian countries are small, more like a big city/metropolis in America.
Governments don't scale up/down like zooming on a phone... they behave
differently. See:

[https://irl.cs.ucla.edu/papers/right-
size.html](https://irl.cs.ucla.edu/papers/right-size.html)

~~~
mikeash
That’s a great discussion of how scale affects physical systems, but the bit
at the end where it’s applied to governments makes no sense. It just declares
that it must be the same. Are there actual analyses out there of how scale
affects governments, the way one might find quantitative discussion of the
square-cubes law in physics?

~~~
jeffdavis
The essay is brilliant because it expands your mind by talking about biology
first (a neutral topic) -- delaying natural resistance to ideas that might
conflict with poliical views.

Then, in this new expanded space in your mind, it challenges an assumption
prevalent in politics that policies are "good" or "bad" independent of who
(and how many people) they are applied to.

In my opinion, there should be a lot more discussion about this. Maybe what we
really need is something resembling the Democratic platform at the local
level, and something closer to Libertarianism at the national level.

The fact that these ideas aren't even discussed should make you worried -- how
many other ideas are just not even _thought_ about in public discourse?

~~~
mikeash
Isn’t there already a lot of discussion about this? In the US, there’s
constant debate about whether particular issues are best handled at the
federal, state, or local level. We even fought a bloody civil war over the
question of whether the legality of owning humans should be decided by the
states or by the federal government.

~~~
jeffdavis
I don't hear the constant debate you refer to -- what are your sources for
political news and analysis?

The Civil war is a valid example of our historical struggle with the issue of
state vs federal policies, but that was a long time ago.

~~~
mikeash
I get my news all over. Most prominently, NPR, BBC, Reuters, and France Info.

But I don’t think it’s hard to find, you just have to look for it. Lots of
contemporary debates have a strong element of this. For example, the fight
over “sanctuary cities” is all about this. Gun control and abortion often
involve questions of whether those things are better set at the state or
federal level. A huge amount of education policy debate is about how much the
feds should dictate. A big part of health care reform is whether it should be
done at the state or federal level. Net neutrality is turning into this now
that the feds have given it up. I have a hard time thinking of anything
domestic where central versus local control _isn’t_ a big part of the debate.

~~~
jeffdavis
On reflection, you are right that these issues come up. But I don't ever feel
like the debate is _sincere_. It always just feels like the person always
argues to move the law to the level where they think they can win (or not lose
as badly), not where they legitimately feel is the right place for it.

------
_notreallyme_
Ironically, guess what party currently runs Romania... The social democratic
party, you name it. His point of view doesn't seem to be representative of his
fellow countrymen. Although, everybody that doesn't benefit from corruption
hates it, but that's another problem...

~~~
mikeash
Browsing their mirrored tweets, he doesn’t seem to like the current government
of Romania either.

------
wuschb
Missing the point. We need Empathy

~~~
jeffdavis
But is a national government the best way to express that empathy? Or maybe
there are other solutions.

I think we have too much of a tendancy to think hierarchically, i.e.
Trump/Obama is the boss of America, so if something is wrong anywhere then
look to them for help.

------
lylecubed
It's worth noting the author of this piece keeps getting kicked off of twitter
for talking about his personal experiences in Communist Romania.

~~~
coldtea
Which shows why letting a single country's private companies, with their
single (anglosaxon, pro-market, puritan, pro-US-national-interests) point of
view, to dominate the internet is a problem...

~~~
lylecubed
> single (anglosaxon, pro-market, puritan, pro-US-national-interests) point of
> view

Can you show me proof that any web single company actually has this point of
view? If anything, most tech companies are anti-puritan, anti-anglo-saxon and
anti-US national interests.

Had you bothered to read the link, you would know the author has the exact
point of view you just described and yet he's been kicked off of twitter
thrice.

~~~
coldtea
> _Can you show me proof that any web single company actually has this point
> of view? If anything, most tech companies are anti-puritan, anti-anglo-saxon
> and anti-US national interests._

From CEOs getting cozy with presidents and declaring their patriotism (while
running a globally important web services), cutting off people like Assange,
or even directly working for the State Department or various agencies (e.g.
Bezos), to the censorship that's always based on what a US-person would
tolerate (e.g. nudity) or find offensive, and so on... Their whole mission
statements reek of Californian ideology as well, but that's another story.

------
JoshMnem
Strange design. That looks like an official Dropbox blog post.

------
gremlinsinc
the author's use of 'snowflake' repeatedly made me stop reading. It's
obviously a hit piece, and has no substance from a right wing nut job, who has
an agenda. Not worth my time to address or read alt-right commentary.

------
door4
Romania was an extremely poor country, and that has nothing to do with
socialism. It was poor before socialism, and slightly less poor under
socialism. Comparing it to living conditions in the U.S. is disingenuous. If
this is what Bernie Sanders wants, is Bernie Sanders also planning on somehow
destroying 95% of America's wealth, establishing a secret police force and
enforcing one-party rule before attempting universal healthcare? Then maybe
it'd look like Romania under Ceaușescu.

We have more than enough resources to provide a good living for everyone in
this country. Capitalism does not do that, and never will. Only socialism
will.

~~~
thecolorblue
This was my understanding of Cuba as well, that it was a poor country when it
started.

I am having trouble finding Cuba's GDP before, or arround, the revolution in
1953. So take this comment with a grain of salt.

~~~
toomanybeersies
Cuba's literacy rate apparently went from ~70% to 96% [1] after the revolution
due to a concerted push for literacy.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Literacy_Campaign](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Literacy_Campaign)

