It seems like quite a leap from your premises (1) and (2) to “socialism”. You don’t clarify much what you mean by it in this post, but afaik I agree with your premises but don’t agree with socialism.
One reason is that I am personally interested in being altruistic, but:
I don’t want to force other people (or even myself) to be “altruistic” against their will
I’m not convinced that governments spend their resources very wisely
So “try and increase the size of government” isn’t that attractive as an end goal.
Another reason is that the actual track record of well-intentioned communist revolutions seems extremely bad—neutral at best (Cuba?) and catastrophic at worst.
Perhaps this is a cop-out, but ‘socialism’ generally just means the reduction of private capital. This doesn’t necessarily mean more government or authority.
In fact, I think you’d probably agree with a lot of socialist anti-imperialism, such as replacing the IMF, World Bank, and Belt & Road with grantmaking organisations (these don’t require enforced austerity or other impositions of power when the recipients don’t make repayments). Equally, without uniform U.S. interventionism in every left-wing revolution since WWII, we may have seen some of these economies flourish. Both of these stances are motivated by an analysis of the West’s involvement as being motivated by protection or enhancement of private capital (whether you buy that or not), but I do agree that the original post could’ve clarified this further.
I think one of the reasons why socialism is so unfalsifiable is because it’s incredibly easy for socialists to shift the goalposts rapidly to another form of ‘socialism’ upon critique, so thank you for your definition.
You say “it’s just the reduction the private capital” or this relatively benign form of anti-imperialism, but the post above outlines the USSR’s space program or China’s economic growth as examples of socialist successes, so it must be to do with the ‘socialism’ in those economies. Your definition sounds like capitalism to me: you can pay rent to a landlord, have your surplus labour taken, the only condition is that ‘private capital’ is being ‘reduced’ (something like the railways are being nationalised or corporations are being taxed).
On your institutional point, being intergovernmental organisations, I don’t believe IMF and World Bank are ‘private capital’. Furthermore, the Belt & Road initiative is run by China, which is listed as a socialist country in the post.
On your intervention point, would I prefer US intervention done in the name of anti-communism across the late 20th century wasn’t so brutal and destructive. Does that make me any less of a liberal? I think you can be pro-capitalism and anti-imperialism, in the same way you can be pro-socialism and pro-imperialism (China, Venezuela, USSR). In other words the attributes pro-imperialism and pro-capitalism are independent.
The general thrust of my take here is that most economies are a hybrid of pro- and anti-property systems, so it’s hard to disentangle a lot of it. But I’ll have a crack:
the post above outlines the USSR’s space program or China’s economic growth as examples of socialist successes, so it must be to do with the ‘socialism’ in those economies
Oh, I read these as counter-examples to the theory that capitalism is a superior economic principle; that whatever causes these things could be independent of either. But equally, China’s economic growth might be more attributable to their capitalist tendencies than their socialist ones.
Your definition sounds like capitalism to me: you can pay rent to a landlord, have your surplus labour taken, the only condition is that ‘private capital’ is being ‘reduced’
It’s all a spectrum, right? No system is entirely ‘capitalist’ either, in the sense that not all forms of capital are subject to private ownership for profit. So I was looking more at decreasing private capital relative to the status quo, rather than abolishing it entirely. It wouldn’t be beyond the pale to refer to such acts as ‘socialist’.
being intergovernmental organisations, I don’t believe IMF and World Bank are ‘private capital’
Given that almost every capitalist government raises some of its own capital by borrowing money from private citizens, yes, these organisations partially serve private capital. I can’t speak to the extent, untangling global debt flows seems hard.
In other words the attributes pro-imperialism and pro-capitalism are independent.
I think that’s fair. I was speaking toward the tendency of capitalist systems to exhaust themselves of growth in their places of origin, and then start looking outward. The usual example leftists like to trot out here is the Dutch East India Company (not without reason!). I think you might be able to be capitalist and anti-imperialist, but it’s harder work and you might find yourself out-competed by those willing to extract the extra value by doing so.
It seems like quite a leap from your premises (1) and (2) to “socialism”. You don’t clarify much what you mean by it in this post, but afaik I agree with your premises but don’t agree with socialism.
One reason is that I am personally interested in being altruistic, but:
I don’t want to force other people (or even myself) to be “altruistic” against their will
I’m not convinced that governments spend their resources very wisely
So “try and increase the size of government” isn’t that attractive as an end goal.
Another reason is that the actual track record of well-intentioned communist revolutions seems extremely bad—neutral at best (Cuba?) and catastrophic at worst.
Perhaps this is a cop-out, but ‘socialism’ generally just means the reduction of private capital. This doesn’t necessarily mean more government or authority.
In fact, I think you’d probably agree with a lot of socialist anti-imperialism, such as replacing the IMF, World Bank, and Belt & Road with grantmaking organisations (these don’t require enforced austerity or other impositions of power when the recipients don’t make repayments). Equally, without uniform U.S. interventionism in every left-wing revolution since WWII, we may have seen some of these economies flourish. Both of these stances are motivated by an analysis of the West’s involvement as being motivated by protection or enhancement of private capital (whether you buy that or not), but I do agree that the original post could’ve clarified this further.
I think one of the reasons why socialism is so unfalsifiable is because it’s incredibly easy for socialists to shift the goalposts rapidly to another form of ‘socialism’ upon critique, so thank you for your definition.
You say “it’s just the reduction the private capital” or this relatively benign form of anti-imperialism, but the post above outlines the USSR’s space program or China’s economic growth as examples of socialist successes, so it must be to do with the ‘socialism’ in those economies. Your definition sounds like capitalism to me: you can pay rent to a landlord, have your surplus labour taken, the only condition is that ‘private capital’ is being ‘reduced’ (something like the railways are being nationalised or corporations are being taxed).
On your institutional point, being intergovernmental organisations, I don’t believe IMF and World Bank are ‘private capital’. Furthermore, the Belt & Road initiative is run by China, which is listed as a socialist country in the post.
On your intervention point, would I prefer US intervention done in the name of anti-communism across the late 20th century wasn’t so brutal and destructive. Does that make me any less of a liberal? I think you can be pro-capitalism and anti-imperialism, in the same way you can be pro-socialism and pro-imperialism (China, Venezuela, USSR). In other words the attributes pro-imperialism and pro-capitalism are independent.
The general thrust of my take here is that most economies are a hybrid of pro- and anti-property systems, so it’s hard to disentangle a lot of it. But I’ll have a crack:
Oh, I read these as counter-examples to the theory that capitalism is a superior economic principle; that whatever causes these things could be independent of either. But equally, China’s economic growth might be more attributable to their capitalist tendencies than their socialist ones.
It’s all a spectrum, right? No system is entirely ‘capitalist’ either, in the sense that not all forms of capital are subject to private ownership for profit. So I was looking more at decreasing private capital relative to the status quo, rather than abolishing it entirely. It wouldn’t be beyond the pale to refer to such acts as ‘socialist’.
Given that almost every capitalist government raises some of its own capital by borrowing money from private citizens, yes, these organisations partially serve private capital. I can’t speak to the extent, untangling global debt flows seems hard.
I think that’s fair. I was speaking toward the tendency of capitalist systems to exhaust themselves of growth in their places of origin, and then start looking outward. The usual example leftists like to trot out here is the Dutch East India Company (not without reason!). I think you might be able to be capitalist and anti-imperialist, but it’s harder work and you might find yourself out-competed by those willing to extract the extra value by doing so.