You're a jerk and I won't respond to your points. Edit: if I do it twice in one post does it make you twice as more socialist or do they have to be separate
If I recall our previous discussion (which I admit I chickened out of at the end, I was getting tired) then it seems kind of spot-on that you like abstract imagined results, though? IIRC the last comments were me proposing various everyday situations as counterexamples and you going "yeah but those things *won't exist* in a socialist society" which told me you weren't really into the whole piecemeal engineering business.
What exactly is abstract about me telling you if a particular action generates surplus value or not? If you find stuff like that too "abstract" maybe you just don't understand the concept very well?
The problem here is that disingenuous liberals like yourself set-up the problem in such a way in which a discussion is impossible. If the socialist gives a few basics on what the future might look like you say "Wow, so *abstract*, get your head out of the clouds". If the socialist refuses to speculate on the future you say "Wow, looks like you have no plans for the future and are just engaging in negative criticism without any positive vision".
I'm more than willing to talk more about what I said to you previously. You're the one who ducked out of the conversation as soon as we started talking about concrete examples. What exactly was "abstract" about saying that I think there will have to be more public transport? What exactly is abstract about pointing out that exchange of commodities doesn't *in itself* produce surplus value?
edit: [I'll link our previous discussion so people can judge for themselves](https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/cafyzl/have_rationalists_red_pilled_themselves_into/etavrju/?st=jy7wrgtl&sh=be8128ca).
Now, perhaps I'm wrong, but as soon as I responded to your points you stopped answering, which tells me you weren't really into the whole reading Marx business.
socialism is always predefined as "vague", no matter how many policy details you offer, in the same way that capitalism is always predefined as "practical" and "concrete". i didn't fully understand how weird this is until i started trying to read marx and discovered that he is actually the ultimate logic pedant guy
I mean, there is an obvious reason for this. Capitalism is a description of an existing thing, socialism is a description of a possibility. (with discussions of how to reach that possibility)
There are differing degrees to which the governments of the PRC and Cuba are representative of the true vision of socialism different people have in mind. That's something that goes over a lot of people's head, but MarxBroshevik is right to bring it up. However, it's only fair to mention that, even if they're only considered approximate attempts at socialism, and not the genuine article, there are plenty of countries around the world where something called 'socialism' by someone that can be looked to to learn from, other than those ruled by a self-identified communist party.
Debatable. The (anarchist or left-commie) concept of state-capitalism is applicable here: Both Cuba and North Korea continues to extract surplus value from it's workers in order to benefit the managing class. (which has, in practice, taken the place of capitalists in a market economy)
And I consider them not only to not be making any practical or concrete transitions towards communism, but also as bloody-handed failures that are not only practically but structurally incapable of ever really doing so.
That seems like an analysis that promotes the failures of anarchists while ignoring the struggles of anti-imperialist socialist movements in places like North Korea and Cuba. The "bloody-hand" of places like Vietnam were also those that went up against capitalist empire and won. I don't think it's useful to ignore their contributions and their innovations.
Oh, there is plenty of examples of success against imperialism, and I am not saying anarchists are particularly more successful, but the soviet-style (and I know it's a bit reductive, but it's the simplest term) socialist regimes have been good learning examples... Of what not to do.
There is much to be learnt from failure, of course, but one must first acknowledge that yes they are failures, and what's more, that the failure is structural, and not merely circumstantial. (and even something that was to a certain extent acknowledged by the leadership itself, eg. Mao, bits of the Leftist Opposition of the USSR, etc.) even if they never figured out how to actually solve the issue.
EDIT: There is a pretty good argument that while Soviet-style communism was incapable of creating a socialist alternative to the capitalist ecnomy that was not merely capitalism reskinned, it *did* provide effective means of combating mid-20th century Imperialism, and should be given credit for that.
The way the Cuban economy works. Their surplus value is still extracted, it's just rather than going directly to capitalists it instead goes (via the cuban state) to the manager-class. (which in turn passes at least some of it along to capitalists via international trade, etc.)
Cuban workers do not have control over the full product of their labour-value, anymore than workers in capitalist countries do.
But individuals in communist countries shouldn't have the "full product" of their labor - from each according to ability, to each according to need. There's nothing wrong with managers as such, only in a capitalist economy do managers become hostile to the interests of other workers. You can see how Cuban workers support the state in Cuba. They fought and died for their revolution.
So did people for the american revolution, or ISIS, or any other of a dozen conflicts. Willingness to fight and die for a cause is no guarantee said cause is just, and even if the cause is just, that does not guarantee a just result.
And again, how exactly is the cuban system less exploitative than any given capitalist society? Their surplus value is extracted to serve the interests of the management class, and they have no particularly greater input into how that is done than in capitalist society (arguably less, both because of the limited but-still extant bourgeisie-democratic process, and because of the minimal bargaining influence they gain as consumers)
The problem with managers is that they are, in a sense, the genesis of the class system in the first place, those who manage resources can easily redirect them to suit their own interests. (this does not even have to be out of some kind of personal greed, a simple case of misinformation, or lack of understanding can have similar results) and in so doing they become parisitic on the working classes.
The question of how do you solve this? How do you have managers, specialization, and a generally complex economy without the managerial class usurping the value of labour for their own end is a problem that socialists has been wrestling with for a long time. And whatever the solution looks like, it's distinctly not Cuba, or North korea, or any other variant of Soviet*-style socialism.
Again, it's not as if communist leaders did not realize this would be a problem, they just failed in coming up with a solution.
* Distinct here from Council/Soviet Communism per se.
> And again, how exactly is the cuban system less exploitative than any given capitalist society?
Because they have control of their government and their surplus value goes back into feeding, educating and clothing the people.
>The question of how do you solve this?
You solve it by having a system which looks like Cuba's. Presence of managers just means the economy is organised - remember, that's what communists want.
Except they do not have control of their government, that control rests with the management-class, and the elites. Just like in capitalist societies. The control does not rest with the workers, but with the managers.
> you weren't really into the whole reading Marx business.
No, I'm not. And honestly I'm annoyed by the way /r/SneerClub sometimes suggests you aren't allowed to have an opinion on anything until you've read the first volume of *Capital*. Do I have to read the Bible before I'm allowed to criticise Christianity?
I'm just not all that invested in "debunking" Marxism beyond the occasional off-the-cuff internet debate, so I'm not planning to spend lots time and energy reading Marx -- just like I'm not invested enough in debunking Christianity to read the Bible front to back. If that disqualifies me from debate, fine, you're under no obligation to debate me.
> The problem here is that disingenuous liberals like yourself set-up the problem in such a way in which a discussion is impossible. If the socialist gives a few basics on what the future might look like you say "Wow, so abstract, get your head out of the clouds". If the socialist refuses to speculate on the future you say "Wow, looks like you have no plans for the future and are just engaging in negative criticism without any positive vision".
This is a false dichotomy. There's a reason I said "piecemeal engineering" -- I haven't read Marx but I have read Popper, and I'm pretty firmly convinced of that part. There is a way to "offer a positive vision" without "getting your head in the clouds", and that is to suggest *specific*, *incremental* fixes to currently existing problems -- rather than trying to outline what a totally overhauled system might look like 20 or 50 or 100 years from now.
As for our previous discussion... I mostly got confused when you said you weren't against markets, or private property, or passing that property on to your children. What is even the point of being against capitalism then?
I don't think you need to read Marx to understand Marx. There is an unfortunate tendency of Marxists to suggest someone read *Capital* before they will talk to someone new to Marxism about Marxism. You'd think leftists in SneerClub might recognize this is far too similar to how rationalists ask people new to rationality to read the whole *LessWrong Sequences* or a giant Harry Potter fanfic before they're willing to talk to them. Still, though, I think what people are reacting to is your lack of knowledge displayed about what Marxism and socialism are really about.
Nobody is saying you have to read the whole Bible before you criticize Christianity. However, it would make sense to have a sufficient understanding of Christianity beforehand to make good criticisms, if you're going to bother criticizing them in the first place. Presumably when you criticize Christianity you're not doing so based off a version of Christianity no Christian would recognize as the real thing.
Why socialists get frustrated with you is because you say stuff that betrays what they see as your complete ignorance of socialism when criticizing it. For example, you say:
>As for our previous discussion... I mostly got confused when you said you weren't against markets, or private property, or passing that property on to your children. What is even the point of being against capitalism then?
When you ask things like this, it seems to imply you don't know:
* While 'socialism' or 'communism' can be described as political ideologies, Marxism itself is more a method of analysis or body of thought. It's more intellectual than political.
* Marxism is predicated not on its proposal of any kind of socialism as something to come after capitalism, but for Marx's original analysis of what capitalism is, and how it functions, that has been foundational to economics and sociology.
* Lots of people appreciate aspects of the Marxist criticisms and conceptions of capitalism, without agreeing with all of it, or identifying as a 'Marxist'.
* Some of those people are people who are opposed to capitalism, and appreciate Marxist criticism of capitalism, without being a Marxist themselves, and still favouring an alternative to capitalism that still allows for markets and/or private property.
So, that it appears you can't imagine someone like that might exist betrays how little you know about Marxism or socialism. You don't need to have read *Capital*, but it doesn't seem like you've studied these topics much at all.
Fair enough, I do know very little about it and I'll stop picking this fight. (Although the definition mismatch about "capitalism" makes me very suspicious that some No-True-Scotsmanning is going on.)
I guess I'm just frustrated with how eagerly /r/SneerClub buys into Marxism, and /u/MarxBroshevik's insistence to keep using the words "correct" (about Marxism) and "incorrect" (about everything else) in that particular thread was a flashpoint for that. Like, most of the time SneerClub is the club for people who are moderate and skeptical and laughing at the self-important overconfident theorists and their fringe ideas... but then the same people buy into ironclad theories on the other extreme of the spectrum! And apparently see no irony in this.
I'm here for pointing and laughing at the crazies, not for fighting a weird trench war between two ends of the horseshoe -- and it makes me sad that you apparently can't have the former without the latter.
>I do know very little about it
If you know very little about it, on what basis are you judging that it is a "fringe idea"? What exactly is fringe about it?
I now see why you just threw the book of *Capital* at him. This appears a beast one cannot merely talk out of being an uncritical capitalist. He very quickly becomes an insufferable and annoying. I lasted 2 comments with this twit before he became too grating for me. I don't know how you did it for so long earlier.
>I guess I'm just frustrated with how eagerly [/r/SneerClub](https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/) buys into Marxism, and [/u/MarxBroshevik](https://www.reddit.com/u/MarxBroshevik/)'s insistence to keep using the words "correct" (about Marxism) and "incorrect" (about everything else) in that particular thread was a flashpoint for that.
So, I'm not a Marxist, but I embrace radical politics, and I agree with u/MarxBroshevik you've got a serious and debilitating case of bullshit liberalism. That doesn't mean all liberals are full of shit, but that you're using your 'liberal' identity, and pretending anti-capitalists are just politically bigoted against you, to deflect legitimate criticism of how you're not discussing in good faith.
The way you to interact is to ask questions in not just a skeptical, but cynical way, and because capitalism is the default status quo, you give it the benefit of the doubt, while admitting you're already ignorant of its alternatives. Additionally, as I mentioned before, because Marxism isn't just about socialism, but is more about its understanding of real capitalism, and its criticism of it, Marxists will believe they also tend to understand capitalism better than liberals. That might be different if you were yourself an economist. Yet based on how you've come across as belligerently ignorant about everything else you've talked about to the Marxists of r/SneerClub, you've not given them reason to think you know anything more about neoclassical economics than they do, either. If that's not the case, please correct me.
So, yeah, u/MarxBroshevik is being needlessly dickish if he was talking to a lot of people. Yet you're clearly not most people. Your behaviour indicates that even if he was to hold your hand like a gentle, loving father, and flip through the pages of *Capital* with you, and read it to you as a bedtime story, in a gentle, soothing voice, it would not make any difference. Also, with a username like "Marx BROshevik", I don't know why you would ever expect him to be so respectable when talking about Marxism in the first place. I mean, come on. If that shocks you, it's your own fault.
> Like, most of the time SneerClub is the club for people who are moderate and skeptical and laughing at the self-important overconfident theorists and their fringe ideas... but then the same people buy into ironclad theories on the other extreme of the spectrum! And apparently see no irony in this.
The 'skeptics' community has turned out to be skeptical and rational the same way LessWrong and the rationality community did. And by that I mean, it's not. So, if skeptics are almost as sneer-worthy as rationalists, then, no, r/SneerClub has never been a safe space for skeptics. As for 'moderates', I pegged you as a liberal because u/MarxBroshevik. I interpreted that to mean you're something like a left-leaning Democrat. It's worse than that. It seems now, like, politically, you consider yourself some kind of centrist, between the Democratic and Republican parties, who sticks to Enlightenment values. You're probably basically a conservative, without even realizing it, and not being willing to admit it, like Dave Rubin. And like Dave Rubin, I'm guessing you tell yourself it's true because you support gay marriage or marijuana legalization, or diverge from a right-wing party line by not being willing to embrace *literally every* reactionary position.
Meanwhile, you're calling Marxism, again, *the thing you admitted you know very little about*, a fringe idea, while being every bit a self-important, overconfident theorist as rationalists are, and you're accusing *these Marxists you barely know* as being. If you want to see the irony, look in a mirror, dude. And if you're seeing politics through the lens of horseshoe theory, you are indeed sad, not because that's how you feel. That's you should feel. If I believed in horseshoe theory, I'd be sad too. I'm sad you right now. You're a sad person. I don't know if you deserve to be sad, but if this kind of thing makes you sad, then I understand why nobody else in r/SneerClub cares.
>As for our previous discussion... I mostly got confused when you said you weren't against markets, or private property, or passing that property on to your children. What is even the point of being against capitalism then?
What in the world are you talking about? Do you know what private property refers to in socialist theory and what surplus value refers to? Do you know what a commodity is in Marxist theory? Do you know the basics of what we're talking about here? Do you know what function a market serves in capitalism?
Referring to Marx's theories, please tell me how selling your car to your neighbour is capitalist. Or tell me how leaving a necklace to a relative is capitalist. You're the one who brought these cases up, you should be able to do it.
My specific, incremental fix would be for you to start reading Marx. Is that incremental enough for you?
> Do you know what private property refers to in socialist theory and what surplus value refers to? Do you know what a commodity is in Marxist theory? Do you know the basics of what we're talking about here? Do you know what function a market serves in capitalism?
I know what all of those things mean *if* you remove the "...in socialist theory" bit. And really, if socialist theory has to make up its own special meanings for those terms and can't function with the common definitions, it rather feeds my skepticism about socialist theory.
Regarding reading Marx, I still feel the same as above. I shall continue to [arrogantly ignore all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply)
So basically you don't know anything and you refuse to learn?
How does gifting a necklace to someone generate profit? How does selling a car generate profit? These are the concrete examples *you* gave me, yet you refuse to talk about them.
Look, i know what weight is if you remove the 'in physics' bit. And really, if physics theory has to make up its own special units for those terms and can't function with the common 'kilogram' , it rather feeds my skepticism about physics theory.
For what it's worth, there are legitimate criticisms one could make about both socialism and philosophy as traditions of knowledge that are, in their own ways, often overemphasize abstraction. The legitimate versions of the criticism are just not at all the one Hanson provided, which is particularly ridiculous, and why I was making fun of it.
It's rather interesting considering the fact that unlike liberal theorists trying to imagine what a democratic society would look like used abstractions and allegories (like Candide for example), Marx based his theories on an Analysis of how Capitalism functioned. And now a lot of leftists are closer to liberal idealism in their critique of Capitalism than Marx ever was.
Well, even Marxists can have problems with some of Marx's original thoughts. Obviously some Marxists in history have stigmatized ultimate disagreement with a Marxist (especially Marxist-Leninist) canon. For all Marxists to be like that would be for Marxism to truly be what propagandistic, anti-communist caricatures would make Marxism out to be. I'm not even a Marxist either. So that lots of leftists are closer to liberal idealism than Marx ever was doesn't by itself doesn't seem to mean anything to me.
I would say that in general, abstractions are only useful if they make the model better. The problem is that they can easily be abused. For example, Adam Smith's Economics relies on the abstraction of a barter economy as a thought experiment, which anthropologists later confirmed to not exist. Whereas Marx based his theories on how Capitalism actually functions, which makes it rather hard to disprove the premises of without actively denying that systematic poverty exists.
You're speaking in relative terms though. Sure, Marx's abstractions might make his theories better than the abstractions of some liberals make some of their economic theories better. I'm no cheerleader for capitalism. That doesn't make me a Marxist either. The premise that a burden of responsibility to disprove Marxism necessarily falls on the shoulders of anyone who isn't already a Marxist is based on the assumption Marx's way of looking at economic, political, and material reality should be a primary or default way of doing so. That's an assumption some Marxists make. I see a lot to appreciate in Marx's work. It just seems to me it could just as easily be the case the burden of responsibility to prove some or all of Marx's analysis itself falls on Marxists' shoulders.
My above comment was speaking in general terms about the whole ideology of Marxism, or at least all of Marx's original thought. That was hinging on your use of the word 'disprove', which I just thought was rather strong language, in terms of what it's asking random people to do without giving them a compelling reason to do it. I'm actually largely convinced by Marx's premises about how capitalism functions. Like I said, I'm not a Marxist, and while I'm familiar with some Marxist analysis, I haven't read *Capital.* So, I don't put too much stock in what I think of Marx's analysis of capitalism, simply because I don't think I can, by virtue of not being familiar enough with it to compliment or criticize it myself. So, I can't think of anything his premises got wrong about how capitalism functions off the top of my head. Neither am I making a positive claim that he did in fact get something wrong in his premises about how capitalism functions.
It means ["rule by the vain and useless."](https://www.etymonline.com/word/futility) (I think prediction markets are pretty cool and probably useful for some things, though.)
Also, TIL "futilitarianism."
It’s funny that he says that, because that’s an argument I’ve seen
used against capitalism. Much of our economy depends upon things like
credit and risk which are things that are abstractions.
Yeah I think you can go off the rails on either end of the spectrum if you go too abstract & theoretical. The Chicago bois also believed semi-religiously in a beautiful, logically consistent system of universal laws and you see how that turned out
Credit and "risk" are not the result of academics getting too abstract or theoretical. Similarly, the problems of the capitalist system are not a result of people believing "semi-religiously" in it.
I always believed the reason a complete socialist regime fails is
because human nature won’t allow for such a state to exist. Humans will
always abuse authority when in power furthermore Socialist regimes fail
because they aren’t managed properly and the decision makers are to
concerned with what is fair than the actual people.
Firstly, they're clearly not "ethno-fascist" (not sure how this would differ from regular fascism), they're communists. Did you hear about this little thing called the Korean war?
Secondly the_cheddar_man has made the point that a "socialist regime" will "fail" because of "human nature". Are people going to put their money where their mouth is and predict a date for the collapse of North Korea, then? How about the collapse of Cuba?
If humans "will always abuse authority" and North Korea is supposedly authoritarian, isn't that an argument for the persistence of these states rather than the collapse of them?
None of this is "evidence", it points towards your own fealty to the capitalist system.
https://korcounterprop.tumblr.com/post/176252087082/propaganda-claiming-that-dprk-is-racist-is-based
Maybe you should have a look at your own research and think about how it's based on imperialist sources and wilful misunderstandings of the North Koreans.
Now, you've made a charge of "ethno-fascism" so you should actually make an argument - define what "ethno-fascism" is, how it differs from other fascisms, and then make a case as to why North Korea is fascist.
What else should I term your uncritical repetition regarding bourgeois propaganda about the "ethno-fascism" of North Korea?
You're free to make an argument about how North Korea is "fascist". So far you've only linked to an American propagandist and appealed to your supposed expertise within the liberal academic system. Neither of these things are a definition of "ethno-fascism" or why North Korea is supposedly "ethno-fascist".
You might be new here, I regularly sneer at US imperial propaganda and pseudo-intellectual political science which throws around terms like "ethno-fascism" without making any actual arguments.
edit: Can I see your "massive research" project so I can criticise it properly?
I'm trying to have a legitimate conversation with you. But you linked to a professor whose mistranslations are infamous and says that Juche "doesn't matter" because the entry on Juche in one North Korean encyclopedia is shorter than the encyclopedia entry on one of their buildings (ok? so?).
So let's have a conversation. Why are you calling north Korea ethno-fascist? Is it because this liberal professor told you so? What's the actual evidence?
If you want to have a discussion about Marxism with me I'm more than willing.
>I know more about this than you do.
Weird assumption to make. But ok, sure. That doesn't make your political analysis correct. I'm sure there's plenty of people inside the Republican/Trump administration right now who "know more" than me about US politics.
>I'll be honest, I've been having an ideological struggle with myself lately.
Americans and other Westerners are going to struggle with this increasingly in the next few years I think. I brought up Cuba and North Korea *not* because I think they are perfect societies, but rather because Westerners have a very dismissive attitude towards societies that are even slightly different - that is, socialist nations which have resisted Western imperialism. Hence "socialism always collapses". Oh, there's still multiple socialist states? Well they'll either collapse tomorrow or they're "ethno-fascist", something some liberal Westerner has made up and projected onto them. Socialism is thus erased, something that benefits both the political Right and the chauvinist Western left which wishes to monopolise their own "pure" socialism.
The key for me is that communist projects like Cuba and North Korea have struggled before us, and we should not so easily dismiss them.
>and have started to splain the past fifteen years of my life to me.
lol. So you recognise that American liberalism is... derailed to say the least, but you're unwilling to turn that criticism onto your own political project and to see how you were embedded in that same liberal propaganda apparatus? This isn't just a "single" tumblr by the way, the tumblr quotes Suzy Kim who disagrees with Meyers propagandist translation.
If you're spreading capitalist propaganda, yes I will "splain" the actual situation to you.
>and he leaves out the American military presence
Of course American liberals always leave American imperialism out of any analysis.
>Like, how can I engage with you?
You can engage with me by giving a definition of "ethno-fascism" and then building a case as to how North Korea meets that definition.
Referring me back to a book that I've already criticised? What's the point of that? I've already given you a citation which refutes the Meyers interpretation. Your "nu-uh" and "I studied this for 15 years!" while calling him "my guy" is... not convincing to say the least. Did you study under him?
We can go on to criticise more of Meyers faulty reasoning if you like. Like the encyclopedia thing I've already brought up. His book is full of this kind of sloppy work. You're pretending like Meyers is some uncontroversial figure in the field of North Korean history; he simply isn't, there's many criticisms of his work.
Now, to further this conversation I would recommend you give me a definition of "ethno-fascism" and *actually build an argument* around why North Korea meets that definition. Or do you just throw around these terms willy-nilly? If you throw them around willy-nilly, then why? If you're going to make political categorisations like this *you are* going to have to deal with people like me who know a lot about political science. So, go ahead and justify yourself.
If you're looking for recommendations on North Korean history I much prefer Bruce Cumings. I'm not sure what this is supposed to achieve in our discussion though?
Ok, you're clearly not engaging at this point. You're just repeating yourself and you refuse to give any sort of definition of "ethno-fascism".
If you're being honest in your statement:
>Obviously American liberalism has failed
then I suggest you start looking in depth at these kinds of liberal political projects such as baselessly calling North Koreans "ethno-fascists". Fascism is already built around extreme ethnic/nationalist identity - even if the North Koreans were secret fascists, the term is completely redundant. You're just saying stuff because it sounds sufficiently scary and you don't really want to think about politics. Propaganda through and through.
What does "ethno-fascism" mean to you?
When Meyers says Juche isn't important because its encyclopedia entry is shorter than the entry for a North Korean tower... what does that mean? The Sonic the Hedgehog wikipedia entry has more footnotes and references than the wikipedia on liberalism. Does that actually mean anything?
Why are a good portion of the bad things about North Korea things that only leftists would find bad if it's propaganda? Wouldn't saying that North Korea's constitution removed all references to Marxism-Leninism be seen as a good thing by a majority of the population?
Well yeah, kinda, not the hottest take nor a counterargument to their position, but, sure, you got me there chief.
Ahahahaaaaaaaaa, I can’t. Breathe. Please. Take this tweet. And read it. aLoud. at my funeral
Robin Hanson is the Free Market optimizing itself to deliver bad takes.
Insulting socialists and refusing to engage with them? That only makes me more socialist.
Seems like a good tagline to me.
“Socialism: Recommended by 8 out of 10 Philosophers”
Ah, suppose we better go with the tried-and-true system then: Good ’ol anarcho-capitalist futarchy.
Why, one might even say that the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.
Alternate interpretation of the poll: Philosophy majors also think socialism is when the government does stuff.
It’s funny that he says that, because that’s an argument I’ve seen used against capitalism. Much of our economy depends upon things like credit and risk which are things that are abstractions.
I always believed the reason a complete socialist regime fails is because human nature won’t allow for such a state to exist. Humans will always abuse authority when in power furthermore Socialist regimes fail because they aren’t managed properly and the decision makers are to concerned with what is fair than the actual people.