An implicit assumption of communism is in the perfectibility of man, which Sowell describes as the unconstrained vision in “Conflict of Visions.” The difficulty of course I is that if men were the angels that communism requires, any economic system would work. The advantage of capitalism is that it can work with normal human beings.
Of course economics books give a soft sell to communism and socialism. They are command economies, and economics authors are vain enough to think everything would be better if they and their colleagues were put in charge to fix things up. As Stalin might have said: First, we shoot all the economists...
In Stalingrad, Vasily Grossman makes a persuasive argument that it was communism that allowed Russians to resist and eventually defeat the Nazis. It gave them the collective will to make an unimaginable sacrifice, and it gave them the industrial might to make resistance and victory in the east possible. I agree with your overall assessment of communism in history. But one cannot simply neglect their one great victory.
That's all discussed in Grossman’s Life and Fate (the book he wrote after Stalingrad). I’m not going to defend Stalin (especially not after reading Kotkin’s two volumes on him). But Grossman was there, lived through it, and his first hand account is compelling.
"But they provided solid to excellent incentives in the sectors they really cared about: the military, secret police, border guarding, athletics, space programs, and so on."
I would argue they had horrible incentives in those sectors as well.
The military had the incentive to look good and politically reliable not be actually effective. The T-34 for instance was a terrible tank, but we can produce it in tens of thousands so we're doing well.
The secret police needed to look like they were winning the battle against <insert political stance here> whether or not they were, or whether or not that political stance existed. Secret police in all countries tend to manufacture opposition rather than simply clamp down on it.
Border guarding and athletics relatively objectively testable so maybe they did that well.
But the space program? It blew up it's best engineer and dozens of others trying to rush a launch. And it didn't just happen once.
In summary the incentives were terrible even in the things they cared about.
One of my kids took the AP micro and macro tests about fifteen years ago. He got a 5 on the micro and 4 on the macro. When I asked him why the lower score on the macro, he said there were questions where he knew what they wanted but refused to give it to them because they were wrong.
Everything looks good on paper. It's when you try to transfer an idea to the real world (ie when the rubber meets the road) that reality sets in. Every communist leader has been aware of that and has tried to make or develop a communist population\outlook or group think in their society. It's never worked. People at the top always put their own wants and desires ahead of "the masses". They want the best housing for themselves and their families, the best food, etc. They talk the talk but never walk the walk. Think of it as "the selfish gene" but not the way Dawkins meant it.
When I took an Economics class in college, one book stood out in my memory -- it discussed six econonmists, including Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Veblen, but I don't remember the other three -- and I remembered Veblen in particular because he asked "Why did the Communist Revolution never take root in America and Brittain, when it was supposed to *start* there?" and Veblen's answer was "Because everyone in America thinks they can be a millioniare".
Years later I learned about the Austrian School of Economics, and revisited that book (which was a bit of a challenge to do, considering I don't remember its title or where I put my copy) and found that excepting Adam Smith, none of them were even remotely freedom-valuing, and none were certainly infuenced by the Austrian School (which would include Milton Freedman, Thomas Sowell, and Hayek, among others).
I don't really buy this. I also remember econ textbooks being weirdly neutral but "communism bad" was a very common theme in other subjects.
I'd almost make the opposite case. It feels like we only equip kids with "Communists did horrific things and never did anything good" which makes them easy marks. Every leftist can list off 100 American atrocities. There's obviously areas where the USSR/China excelled. Like the initial 5 year plan under Stalin was a shocking success and they defeated the Nazis. If you spend time in leftist communities this is basically the entire blueprint for recruiting converts.
A leftist's eyes will light up at the chance to go toe to toe against the stuff in this article. If you ask them their thoughts on the socialist calculation debate they will end the conversation as soon as possible.
Can you give me some example of in what way . . . "But they provided solid to excellent incentives in the sectors they really cared about: the military, secret police, border guarding, athletics, space programs, and so on."
Except it isn't. If you have a gun to your head your priority isn't maximising long term utility. It's convincing the guy with the gun that you're not a traitor or incompetent RIGHT NOW. There isn't the chance to go back and say "See your initial assessment was wrong and in the longer term my plan worked well." or "Yes I made mistakes but now you can see I'm overall a good manager.". Once you're shot any reconsideration of your actions is both moot and unlikely to happen. The incentive to avoid blame is not the same as the incentive to get results.
Just because they have temporarily departed from some of their most egrigious policies, doesn't mean they aren't Communist. It isn't uncommon for a Communist regime to "allow" a certain degree of "free" markets, just so they could have *some* productivity and allow for *some* prosperity and social mobility, but it is *always* under the shadow of the ability of the Communists to come in and do whatever they want, based solely on their whims.
As for them becoming a World Power? Just like the Soviets and Nazis before them, whatever impression of efficiency and power they can project is always undermined by severe corruption and an inability to inspire individuals to do their best.
If China displaces the United States as a World Power, it will be because we ourselves succumbed to the false promises of central control, and not because China somehow got the upper hand on us.
China is authoritairan but not specifically *communist*. It's a market society in which property rights are mostly respected. Yes, the goverment has an element of tyrrany (to be fair less so than many other places), and yes the CCP can "come in and do whatever they want, based solely on their whims". But nobody in power there beleives in Marxism or attempts to promote it. Just because a country is unpleasant in some ways doesn't make it communist.
Communisim is a very specific *type* of tyrrany. China isn't that type.
An implicit assumption of communism is in the perfectibility of man, which Sowell describes as the unconstrained vision in “Conflict of Visions.” The difficulty of course I is that if men were the angels that communism requires, any economic system would work. The advantage of capitalism is that it can work with normal human beings.
Of course economics books give a soft sell to communism and socialism. They are command economies, and economics authors are vain enough to think everything would be better if they and their colleagues were put in charge to fix things up. As Stalin might have said: First, we shoot all the economists...
Also, we starve to death the peasants who aren't supportive of the regime. And enslave everyone else.
In Stalingrad, Vasily Grossman makes a persuasive argument that it was communism that allowed Russians to resist and eventually defeat the Nazis. It gave them the collective will to make an unimaginable sacrifice, and it gave them the industrial might to make resistance and victory in the east possible. I agree with your overall assessment of communism in history. But one cannot simply neglect their one great victory.
It's also made them purge their competent officers repeatedly, and their replacements clumsily squandered untold masses of lives.
That's all discussed in Grossman’s Life and Fate (the book he wrote after Stalingrad). I’m not going to defend Stalin (especially not after reading Kotkin’s two volumes on him). But Grossman was there, lived through it, and his first hand account is compelling.
"But they provided solid to excellent incentives in the sectors they really cared about: the military, secret police, border guarding, athletics, space programs, and so on."
I would argue they had horrible incentives in those sectors as well.
The military had the incentive to look good and politically reliable not be actually effective. The T-34 for instance was a terrible tank, but we can produce it in tens of thousands so we're doing well.
The secret police needed to look like they were winning the battle against <insert political stance here> whether or not they were, or whether or not that political stance existed. Secret police in all countries tend to manufacture opposition rather than simply clamp down on it.
Border guarding and athletics relatively objectively testable so maybe they did that well.
But the space program? It blew up it's best engineer and dozens of others trying to rush a launch. And it didn't just happen once.
In summary the incentives were terrible even in the things they cared about.
Interestingly, we now have rather a surprising supply of Sharia dupes.
> and state-mandated favoritism for Party members. What’s really telling is that communism was “particularly vulnerable to corruption.”
Is it possible that the two actually refer to the same thing?
Yes, pretty stupid!
Look at any Wikipedia page related to communism or Marxism
One of my kids took the AP micro and macro tests about fifteen years ago. He got a 5 on the micro and 4 on the macro. When I asked him why the lower score on the macro, he said there were questions where he knew what they wanted but refused to give it to them because they were wrong.
Everything looks good on paper. It's when you try to transfer an idea to the real world (ie when the rubber meets the road) that reality sets in. Every communist leader has been aware of that and has tried to make or develop a communist population\outlook or group think in their society. It's never worked. People at the top always put their own wants and desires ahead of "the masses". They want the best housing for themselves and their families, the best food, etc. They talk the talk but never walk the walk. Think of it as "the selfish gene" but not the way Dawkins meant it.
When I took an Economics class in college, one book stood out in my memory -- it discussed six econonmists, including Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Veblen, but I don't remember the other three -- and I remembered Veblen in particular because he asked "Why did the Communist Revolution never take root in America and Brittain, when it was supposed to *start* there?" and Veblen's answer was "Because everyone in America thinks they can be a millioniare".
Years later I learned about the Austrian School of Economics, and revisited that book (which was a bit of a challenge to do, considering I don't remember its title or where I put my copy) and found that excepting Adam Smith, none of them were even remotely freedom-valuing, and none were certainly infuenced by the Austrian School (which would include Milton Freedman, Thomas Sowell, and Hayek, among others).
That was probably Worldly Philosophers by Heilbroner
I don't really buy this. I also remember econ textbooks being weirdly neutral but "communism bad" was a very common theme in other subjects.
I'd almost make the opposite case. It feels like we only equip kids with "Communists did horrific things and never did anything good" which makes them easy marks. Every leftist can list off 100 American atrocities. There's obviously areas where the USSR/China excelled. Like the initial 5 year plan under Stalin was a shocking success and they defeated the Nazis. If you spend time in leftist communities this is basically the entire blueprint for recruiting converts.
A leftist's eyes will light up at the chance to go toe to toe against the stuff in this article. If you ask them their thoughts on the socialist calculation debate they will end the conversation as soon as possible.
Can you give me some example of in what way . . . "But they provided solid to excellent incentives in the sectors they really cared about: the military, secret police, border guarding, athletics, space programs, and so on."
A gun to the head is a better incentive mechanism than any price signal
Except it isn't. If you have a gun to your head your priority isn't maximising long term utility. It's convincing the guy with the gun that you're not a traitor or incompetent RIGHT NOW. There isn't the chance to go back and say "See your initial assessment was wrong and in the longer term my plan worked well." or "Yes I made mistakes but now you can see I'm overall a good manager.". Once you're shot any reconsideration of your actions is both moot and unlikely to happen. The incentive to avoid blame is not the same as the incentive to get results.
Will your homeschooling include a discussion of contemporary China? It may be on track to displace the US as the number one superpower.
What does that have to do with communism? China hasn't been communist since Mao died in 1976.
Just because they have temporarily departed from some of their most egrigious policies, doesn't mean they aren't Communist. It isn't uncommon for a Communist regime to "allow" a certain degree of "free" markets, just so they could have *some* productivity and allow for *some* prosperity and social mobility, but it is *always* under the shadow of the ability of the Communists to come in and do whatever they want, based solely on their whims.
As for them becoming a World Power? Just like the Soviets and Nazis before them, whatever impression of efficiency and power they can project is always undermined by severe corruption and an inability to inspire individuals to do their best.
If China displaces the United States as a World Power, it will be because we ourselves succumbed to the false promises of central control, and not because China somehow got the upper hand on us.
China is authoritairan but not specifically *communist*. It's a market society in which property rights are mostly respected. Yes, the goverment has an element of tyrrany (to be fair less so than many other places), and yes the CCP can "come in and do whatever they want, based solely on their whims". But nobody in power there beleives in Marxism or attempts to promote it. Just because a country is unpleasant in some ways doesn't make it communist.
Communisim is a very specific *type* of tyrrany. China isn't that type.