Capitalists: Socialism never works or Market Socialism out competes Capitalism, which is it?

I can't count the number of times I been told and read and heard on the TV or Internet and had people comment on this blog that socialism has never worked, that it has always failed wherever it's been tried, which of course isn't true since there are socialist entities and have been for decades that not only have not failed for being socialist but have thrived relative to the capitalist competition; but that's not my point here. I've written on that extensively on this blog and don't need to reiterate it all in this post.

If you're interested, see this section of my Post: The Christian Commons: Community Property Works: Religious orders, community property in marriage, Anabaptists, Kibbutzim, U.S. military, earliest Apostles, disciples, Jesus. It will open in a new window/tab so you won't lose your place here.

No, my point in this post isn't to re-refute the falsehood that socialism has never, and can never, work. I also won't spend time in this post explaining some of the many various types and degrees of the concept of "socialism." Suffice it to say that Stalinism is far from the only form. There are decentralized, non-coercive forms of community property that include the means-of-production. I don't want to digress into that area right now, although it is a constantly changing landscape and highly interesting to contemplate all the possible variations. I will say that there is one form that is perfect and that's Heaven, which is the real but yet to be manifested, other than by Jesus, Christianity.

No, my point here is to focus upon the capitalists' own words that refute their other words. It's very common with them: hypocrisy, rationalizations, excuses, and the like.

Given that they claim, at least most of the most vocal of them have, that socialism has always failed, etc., what does it mean that they also complain that it is unfair when a people's/nation's government owns an enterprise that out competes a capitalist enterprise or even all other capitalist enterprises in the same "sector"?

It is inherently illogical to use as an argument against socialism that it has never worked and can never work (even though that isn't true) while turning around and complaining that it works too well relative to capitalism whether in capitalism's corporate, sole-proprietorship, or other form.

Currently, there are many capitalists who, while claiming capitalism is better at bringing forth, are complaining that China's socialist enterprises, which the capitalist term "state-owned" in order to avoid the term socialist, are beating those capitalists in head-to-head competition (short of violence). Now, it should be absolutely clear to anyone looking directly at the unfiltered fundamentals of this situation that the capitalists are proving their other assertion false: that socialism never works.

The Chinese certainly could turn around to say, so what? So what if our enterprises are out competing your "private" corporations (often highly subsidized in what we call "corporate welfare")? The Chinese could simply say that if you don't like being out competed by our socialist enterprises and aren't so monstrous as to violently attack us to stop us from having the form of enterprise ownership that we choose, then get your own "state-owned" businesses.

That's not complicated.

Right now, there is a huge push in the US by the greediest of the greedy who don't give a tinker's damn how many others are left behind in poverty if they get their way, to privatize everything. It's one of the main reasons they crashed the economy via the bubble they deliberately created, bailed themselves out via the private Federal Reserve, and are sitting on the borrowed money — having it largely parked at the Fed earning a profit for the borrowers at the direct expense of the taxpayers and rather than lending out the money (which was the bait used to convince the people to go along with the bailouts in the first place — it's called bait and switch, and it's highly unethical and even illegal).

If privatization is the right way to go, then why are the Chinese state-owned/socialist businesses, the market-socialist enterprises, doing better and so well relative to the capitalists/private corporations that the capitalists are crying out loud for the Chinese to convert to private, thereby harming the Chinese people?

Let me clarify here that I am not a fan of the Chinese model. It is a one-party dictatorship, membership in the Party is highly exclusive/elitist, China is creating huge environmental problems for itself and the world, and China is foolishly going down the militarist path. Those are but a few of the issues I have with China. Those though do not negate the relative superiority of aspects of socialism over capitalism.

Lastly, don't jump to all sorts of conclusions before delving way into this huge subject area. I can think of capitalists with their typical knee-jerk responses leaving comments showing their lack of knowledge concerning actual socialism. Let me repeat, Stalinism is not the only socialism. In fact, I will argue that it was not socialism at all because it lacked an equal vote for every citizen (where private hoards of mammon or the like have no greater say).

Please don't think you can spew the typical laissez-fair lines here and come off looking intelligent and/or even very knowledgeable. Don't falsely assume that I have not read and heard the laissez-faire capitalist dogma. I have. What I have also done is read and listen well beyond it, which should be obvious to you here.

There is the model of the decentralized organization where the employees are the equal owners, where each has the same voice or vote depending upon his or her powers of persuasion, where there is no coercion, where the group goes with the majority decision (which should be a consensus decision based upon the spirit of the whole model that is absent selfishness). That microcosmic model is part of the macrocosmic model where all the microcosmic parts (down to, or up to, the individual human being, depending upon your view of the individual's worth) also have equal ownership and say in that macrocosm. This then would be, is, pure socialism, which is vastly superior to capitalism unless one is self-centered and doesn't want to see everyone doing better than even the best can do in capitalism.

In this model, each individual is as valuable to you as you are to you. You are as valuable to each and all of the other individuals as he, she, or they are to himself, herself, themselves. It doesn't get any better than that.

This does not remove you as yourself. It adds to you. It does not take away.

This goes so far as to do completely away with usury and even mammon itself as being not only unnecessary but inherently evil.

Christianity is this Economics

This is the Holy Spirit of God. It is how Jesus is one with God. It is how we each and all may be, and should move to become, one with God and Jesus in the Holy Spirit.

You will see, or should, that in this spirit, individual human beings are the farthest they can be from mere matter or material in the philosophical materialist sense. I'm not proposing to argue against the position that feeling can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. It can be. God is manifest within, afterall. Manifest means matter and material (materializes, if you will). I can, and have, reconciled the paradoxes here. It's not difficult to accept — to believe.


The atheists can leave the unknown unknown. I don't. I don't assign God to mere gaps in "scientific" (an arrogant misnomer) superficial explanations either. God is why science works, up to the point that it does (a closed-loop). God though is also beyond that science's ability to know — to have knowledge.

Hypothetically to the Godless, could some being in the material universe trick others into believing that that entity/being is God? Well, there is science fiction that is constantly becoming manifest as science fact, isn't there? This is a question of ultimates for which, by definition, there can never be "proof."

Running around childishly appealing to pixies and leprechauns and Santa Clause and the tooth fairy and the "flying spaghetti monster in the sky" and other such nonsense isn't helpful. It is a severely dumb-down starting point.

When one's parents used the concept of a tooth fairy and such, those parents did not believe in the tooth fairy. Those same parents though did, and if they are still alive in the flesh, usually still do, believe in God. Belief in God and belief in the tooth fairy are not analogous, far from it.

Explaining the workings of matter via overlaying models does not explain away God. The idea that they do is ludicrous.

Don't lump Jesus in with violent Popes

Last point: I won't go into detail on this in this post either. The history of religion, including the history of those who claimed Christianity, is not the definition of Christianity. Christianity is what Jesus wants, not what humans who have claimed Christianity have done. Arguing against Christianity from the history of violence by self-styled Christians is just as wrong as arguing against socialism, per se, from the history of the Stalinist purges or any number of other anti-socialists actions by those who styled themselves socialists. I have to tell you that I don't consider Marx to have been a true socialist for the very reason that he was coercive/violent and undemocratic/un-consensus-building.

I hope you received something from this post. If you are of like spirit, then help with the Christian Commons.

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism. Bookmark the permalink.