The Economist ~ Hayek’s Folly, Socialism in eRepublik
Day 855, 12:58
•
Published in United Kingdom 
•
by
•
by Spite313
Please help the Economist: Vote and Subscribe
Dear Friends,
I would like to talk today about a subject which is more than a little esoteric, so if you’re feeling in a tl;dr mood I would switch channels now (after voting of course). Socialism is something which is adhered to by many, but understood by very few. That’s because like most political doctrines it has effects with which people can identify very easily, yet the theory that causes those outcomes is complex and rooted in philosophies which are often entirely distinct from the one they follow.
To talk of socialism or liberalism in eRepublik is very difficult. There are those, probably in a great majority, who will even now be heading toward the comments section to deny that such terms have no meaning in a game where social equality is both impossible and guaranteed at the same time. Socialism in the purist sense is impossible, but so too is exploitation and severe inequality of opportunity. However socialism still survives in eRepublik, and even thrives. I have found more socialists than capitalists in the New World, and the vast majority of them are socialists first and eSocialists later. Yet the principles they hold to are not the principles of socialism, but the outcomes. This makes it difficult for them to argue against those who advocate a capitalist, liberal doctrine.
In this article, I am going to describe “Hayek’s Folly”. Frederick Hayek was a famous Austrian economist, who proposed a great deal of theory about market freedom and advocated a form of laissez faire capitalism. Despite this, he is often remembered for his book “The Road to Serfdom” which he wrote during the Second World War. The book claimed that the rise of socialism in the world was instrumental to the rise of fascism and Nazism in particular. He claimed that the roots of totalitarian dictatorships in Germany, Italy and the USSR lay in socialism, and that by advocating socialism we sacrificed our fundamental freedom and liberties. I believe that he was wrong, and that by showing how he is wrong we show the mechanics of socialism which allow us to offer a socialist alternative to capitalism. If you’re still reading this, you’re probably in an extreme minority of users: those who care enough about where their beliefs lie to make some effort to understand them. Remember, as you read on, that anything I say is only an inadequately expressed reiteration of the thoughts of greater men, and that real answers can be found in libraries not eRepublik.
The Liberal misadventure
In The Road to Serfdom Hayek argues that although socialism claims to be the ideological successor of the Liberal movement (of the UK and Low Countries) it is in fact a German product and irretrievably tied in with Prussian and Eastern concepts of a controlled society. He claims that the socialist movement deliberately hides this fact by using liberal terms like freedom wrongly, in an attempt to harness the emotions associated with the term for the advancement of socialism. The way he describes it is that although socialism claims to be discussing greater freedom, it in fact means power not freedom. The socialist response to this claim is a simple one:
"Freedom for the pike is death to the minnows" - R. H. Tawney, Equality
When we look at the liberal concept of freedom, what we see isn’t so much freedom of choice as it is the possibility of choice in the first place. What the liberals meant by freedom is not the freedom for you or I to take a plane flight to Australia tomorrow, but the potential for a plane to fly to Australia tomorrow. To call this freedom is utterly foolish, because freedom in this sense has existed since the dawn of time and is no modern liberal invention. In medieval times it is arguable that there was freedom to ride a horse whenever you liked, provided you could afford a horse, afford to have sufficient leisure time to ride it, and afford the capital required to buy the privilege of being a member of the equestrian classes. At this point some of you are probably scoffing and thinking “but it’s different now, of course people have the opportunity to fly a plane to Australia, if only they work hard enough!”
The great victory of capitalism is this- it has created a situation where we are all rats in a trap. Because the theoretical opportunity is there, we are content with the system and even support it. After all, if you buy a lottery ticket, you will argue against the person who says “everyone should get their money back and the lottery closed”, since you still have the chance of winning. Once you have lost, you do not see this as a fault of the system since there is always the chance to try again. The vast majority of the world’s population live in abject poverty, and the freedom to vote, to own property and to do all the fabulous things in the world doesn’t bring them any closer to the economic reality of actually exercising those rights.
Liberalism as a foundation stone
Despite Hayek’s ramblings, liberalism is the basis for socialism. Hayek claims that socialism and democracy are intrinsically opposed. I would disagree with this. Democracy is a very simple concept. Once, power was invested in the Monarch, Lords and a small number of landowners. They made laws and decided how public money was to be spent. The concept of democracy is that every citizen is given an equal share of power, and how he uses that power decides either what is done or who decides what is done. In representative democracy, each citizen may use their individual power, or vote, and invest it into a candidate of their choice. Should that candidate win, he or she would wield the combined power of all the citizens in the country, region or constituency.
Socialism is many things, but one of the fundamentals is that democracy is a good thing and should be extended. If I were to tell you tomorrow “Your rights will be removed, you will be subject to the whims of a few men who only care about themselves, your right to vote taken away, your choice of lifestyle restricted and the future of your country forever taken from you and your descendents” you would probably be rightly upset. Yet that is the very situation you are in regarding the economic system which governs the majority of our companies and the majority of companies on Earth. You have no say in how your company operates, in layoffs, in pay scales, in bonuses for the wealthy. Amongst you will be those now saying “And that is how it should be!” in exactly the same way as in the 18th century Lords and Peasants alike defended the system which causes so much social strife and alienation between classes.
Why are you defending the wealthy from criticism and incisive questions? It makes no sense. Many capitalists, especially American capitalists, are fond of the argument “but xxxx simply worked hard to get where he is now, he deserves it”. Now let me ask those people a question. We have two people, John Smith and James Smith. John Smith is born as the eldest son of an Industrial baron in the early twentieth century. He makes many millions, working often long days, weekends and evenings for many years. He lives in a custom-built mansion, has many nice things. James Smith however was born in a back-alley in Cairo, the youngest of 10 children. He spent his early life working round the clock to provide food and medicine for his surviving siblings, and once he reached adulthood married and worked around the clock until he died, an old man, once again in the gutter. Social opportunity, not effort, distinguishes the wealthy from the poor.
Socialism is not an alternative to liberalism, it is liberalism. It is liberalism where we take the scientific, social and political revolutions of the nineteenth century and harness them to end the social inequality and feudalistic corporate structures of the twentieth centuries. To talk of socialism as the end of liberty is like talking of a roof being the end of the house. Yes it is different, has different characteristics and goals, but it is built from the same foundations and has ultimately the same principles enshrined and embellished at its heart.
Collectivism and the myth of liberal individualism
For many years liberals (and by this I mean those who reject the natural progression of capitalism to socialism) have argued that liberalism is about individualism. Rejecting liberalism, they claim, is to reject the individual. At the same time they complain about how socialism is destroying communities. They are inconsistent in their criticism. Socialism does nothing to affect the individuality of those who live under it, it simply reduces choice and increases opportunity. It is the great leveller. If I were to tell you now, that you could enter two ballots, and in the first ballot you would have a 1 in 100 chance of getting a job worth £100,000 per year, a 19 in 100 chance of getting a job earning £10,000 per year and an 80 in 100 chance of getting a job worth £100 per year, would you enter? Not many people would be happy with those odds, but those are the odds every child faces when it opens its eyes for the first time. Socialism takes away a portion of that top wage, and attempts to redistribute it through social services, education, healthcare and so on for the poor.
Collectivism isn’t anathema to individualism, it is the opposite. Opportunity is the mother of innovation, and most innovators, artists and creators of all stripes never make it past the first dream. Collectivism is about deciding as a group that we have priorities other than personal priorities; that we have a social conscience which extends beyond our own personal success. It accepts the limitations of human nature but celebrates the triumphs. Whether it is altruism or self-preservation, socialists argue that the part of a person that helps others is the best part. Providing opportunity for others to become educated, to be healthy, to have the materials to reach their potential is the ultimate goal of a socialist state, and it is motivated by the love of individual actions of millions of people. Socialism doesn’t want to push people into boxes, but to lift them to the level where escaping the box is a possibility. Socialism isn’t a trap, it’s the means to escape traps. It isn’t a road to serfdom, but instead a road out of it.
A new stage for an old battle: eRepublik
When a citizen joins eRepublik they often exaggerate existing beliefs, but they rarely change them completely. So a social democrat may be an eCommunist, but it’s unlikely he’ll become a far-right authoritarian. For this reason we often see the main parties in various countries defined by a few ideologues who essentially make the party. One interesting case in the United Kingdom of this is that of the People’s Communist Party. When I joined the PCP was a mostly centre-left party, though on paper it was communist. It had very few goals or ideas, and was basically made up of the majority of RL lefties who joined the eUK and were looking for a home. Perhaps in the ‘brain zone’ of the forums you would see Twaters or Bob coming out with something revolutionary, but mostly the difference was a clan one.
The emergence of Dan Fallows began to change the party. He founded the communes with his own money, pulled the party to the left and began to make the party into something more clearly communist. Although he doesn’t play anymore, the UK as a whole has been changed on a fairly significant level by his ideological and political position. It was Dan who first formed an alliance with TUP, which has defined the left for the last eight months or so now. Dan began by looking at eRepublik in a way nobody had before- as a social experiment. He saw inequalities, lack of true freedom, and a gerontocracy made up of elderly citizens using their vast experience to gather wealth and power to themselves in ever increasing amounts.
At the same time, TUP redefined itself in the RL British Socialist tradition, adopting many policies traditionally associated with the left. They called themselves Democratic Socialists, and drew on the likes of Tawney and revisionist politics to form the backbone of a socialist policy for Britain. Though people remember the PCP-TUP governments for their wars, the biggest changes were subtle ones brought through the Ministers not the CPs. Huge changes in the way the country was organised were brought forward. The country stopped relying on private citizens and started to intervene to make markets and supplies more efficient. Consider this: all government companies save skill 0 companies have been created since Kumnaa’s election.
Since that point we have seen a profound shift in not just the UK’s economic policy but its culture. We’ve assumed a dozen new collective identities, which we never had before. The focus on success has shifted from the individual success concept to that of a collective success. Whereas a year ago it was all about owning companies, now it is about joining the navy and getting a promotion. People work for no money in military companies, for the good of the nation. A year ago a suggestion like that would be met with laughter, disdain, and firm opposition from the right.
Framing the debate: a socialist success story
Perhaps the greatest success of all has not been the nationalised companies, or the cultural shift, but the change in definitions between parties and politics. Now, not even the most rabid UKRP member would disagree with the military programs. A year ago the thought of nationalisation made individuals rage and rant in the House of Commons; a few days ago when my government stimulus plans were announced there was a small flurry of interest followed by acceptance. The right in the eUK has come to a position where it is to the left of the spectrum of 2009. The UKRP is, at most, a centrist party. The debate has been redefined from socialism vs capitalism to a state of deciding just how socialist we should be.
A few months ago Jamesw left UKRP to join TUP and people asked me if he was a left-winger. I responded that everyone is left wing now, it is merely a case of whether you choose to admit it. We have successfully framed the debate.
There will be people reading this who will say “this is wrong, we should fight this”. But ask yourselves this: why? Do you wish to undo it, fight it, because of your real life beliefs, or because you have a viable alternative tucked away up your sleeve? The UK was one of the first socialist countries to successfully nationalise industries and maintain a mixed market. Since then, virtually every nation has followed us. The only ones which have held back are the anglo-sphere nations in North America and the Pacific, and they have suffered from that short-sightedness. The USA has various groups, such as Seal Team 6, who work in communes, but they are still largely funded by wealthy individuals. They have spent vast amounts of RL money to maintain a role-playing system which is inefficient. If they abandoned their ridiculous prejudices and accepted that socialism works in eRepublik they would have a far better equipped military.
Hayek’s Ghost: How socialists must act in future to undo the damage done
Despite all of this, there is still a lingering distrust of socialism present in most countries. Despite having nationalised a dozen dozen companies, and having worked in the marketplace for months, we still have citizens asking why we are destroying competition. We still get accused of social engineering, of corruption. People still quote Stalin and Mao at us, still talk about dole scroungers. The deep-seated propaganda pushed by the right has to a certain extent infiltrated eRepublik.
Socialism isn’t about stealing money from people: that is what capitalism does. We would strongly prefer if business owners paid a fair wage to workers, and we try to make that the case by encouraging citizens who share our values to enter the marketplace themselves to set prices and wages. We know that not everyone wants to work in a state or communist company, so we do our best to prop up the private sector alternative. Recently we had a major financial crisis, and I received a message from a concerned GM. Without actually quoting him, this GM asked what the government was going to do about the wealth generating sector of the economy, upon which the state relied.
The truth of it is that the state doesn’t rely as much on the private sector anymore as most would think. Our plan to help the economy by lowering taxes, devaluing currency, injecting hundreds of thousands of GBP and establishing an export market wasn’t there to save the state, but to promote the enjoyment of those members of the eUK who play because of the functions a private economic sector provides. We are socialists, yes, but we’re not stupid. It’s our goal to make the UK an economic and military powerhouse, and partly that includes private initiative.
Socialists need to look at the future as an opportunity to undo Hayek’s ghost, to prove him wrong. Socialism in eRepublik is limited in part by two things: activity of participants and the compatibility of the economy module. With great ingenuity it is becoming possible to circumvent both. The struggle for socialism has one great challenge left to it: to bring freedom to the people in every way Hayek despise
Conclusion
For those of you who have successfully meandered your way through this document: Well done. I can’t impress upon you how much your opinion is valued by me, so if you have something to say, don’t just put it in the comments. Add me as a friend, send me a PM. Oh and subscribe! I have tried to lay out my thoughts on a topic that is possibly the most complex debate in modern politics. Because of this it has many shortcomings, not least of which is its brevity. Trying to define a whole political culture, its origins, motivations and future in just under 3500 words has been a challenge. I know many readers will have skimmed it- that’s fine. My goal was simply to provide you with something thought provoking and hopefully get something back in return.
Best wishes,
Iain
Don't forget to check out and subsribe to these government papers to keep up to date with country's goings on:
Mr Woldy’s Paper
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Home Affairs
National Newspaper Association
Dear Friends,
I would like to talk today about a subject which is more than a little esoteric, so if you’re feeling in a tl;dr mood I would switch channels now (after voting of course). Socialism is something which is adhered to by many, but understood by very few. That’s because like most political doctrines it has effects with which people can identify very easily, yet the theory that causes those outcomes is complex and rooted in philosophies which are often entirely distinct from the one they follow.
To talk of socialism or liberalism in eRepublik is very difficult. There are those, probably in a great majority, who will even now be heading toward the comments section to deny that such terms have no meaning in a game where social equality is both impossible and guaranteed at the same time. Socialism in the purist sense is impossible, but so too is exploitation and severe inequality of opportunity. However socialism still survives in eRepublik, and even thrives. I have found more socialists than capitalists in the New World, and the vast majority of them are socialists first and eSocialists later. Yet the principles they hold to are not the principles of socialism, but the outcomes. This makes it difficult for them to argue against those who advocate a capitalist, liberal doctrine.
In this article, I am going to describe “Hayek’s Folly”. Frederick Hayek was a famous Austrian economist, who proposed a great deal of theory about market freedom and advocated a form of laissez faire capitalism. Despite this, he is often remembered for his book “The Road to Serfdom” which he wrote during the Second World War. The book claimed that the rise of socialism in the world was instrumental to the rise of fascism and Nazism in particular. He claimed that the roots of totalitarian dictatorships in Germany, Italy and the USSR lay in socialism, and that by advocating socialism we sacrificed our fundamental freedom and liberties. I believe that he was wrong, and that by showing how he is wrong we show the mechanics of socialism which allow us to offer a socialist alternative to capitalism. If you’re still reading this, you’re probably in an extreme minority of users: those who care enough about where their beliefs lie to make some effort to understand them. Remember, as you read on, that anything I say is only an inadequately expressed reiteration of the thoughts of greater men, and that real answers can be found in libraries not eRepublik.
The Liberal misadventure
In The Road to Serfdom Hayek argues that although socialism claims to be the ideological successor of the Liberal movement (of the UK and Low Countries) it is in fact a German product and irretrievably tied in with Prussian and Eastern concepts of a controlled society. He claims that the socialist movement deliberately hides this fact by using liberal terms like freedom wrongly, in an attempt to harness the emotions associated with the term for the advancement of socialism. The way he describes it is that although socialism claims to be discussing greater freedom, it in fact means power not freedom. The socialist response to this claim is a simple one:
"Freedom for the pike is death to the minnows" - R. H. Tawney, Equality
When we look at the liberal concept of freedom, what we see isn’t so much freedom of choice as it is the possibility of choice in the first place. What the liberals meant by freedom is not the freedom for you or I to take a plane flight to Australia tomorrow, but the potential for a plane to fly to Australia tomorrow. To call this freedom is utterly foolish, because freedom in this sense has existed since the dawn of time and is no modern liberal invention. In medieval times it is arguable that there was freedom to ride a horse whenever you liked, provided you could afford a horse, afford to have sufficient leisure time to ride it, and afford the capital required to buy the privilege of being a member of the equestrian classes. At this point some of you are probably scoffing and thinking “but it’s different now, of course people have the opportunity to fly a plane to Australia, if only they work hard enough!”
The great victory of capitalism is this- it has created a situation where we are all rats in a trap. Because the theoretical opportunity is there, we are content with the system and even support it. After all, if you buy a lottery ticket, you will argue against the person who says “everyone should get their money back and the lottery closed”, since you still have the chance of winning. Once you have lost, you do not see this as a fault of the system since there is always the chance to try again. The vast majority of the world’s population live in abject poverty, and the freedom to vote, to own property and to do all the fabulous things in the world doesn’t bring them any closer to the economic reality of actually exercising those rights.
Liberalism as a foundation stone
Despite Hayek’s ramblings, liberalism is the basis for socialism. Hayek claims that socialism and democracy are intrinsically opposed. I would disagree with this. Democracy is a very simple concept. Once, power was invested in the Monarch, Lords and a small number of landowners. They made laws and decided how public money was to be spent. The concept of democracy is that every citizen is given an equal share of power, and how he uses that power decides either what is done or who decides what is done. In representative democracy, each citizen may use their individual power, or vote, and invest it into a candidate of their choice. Should that candidate win, he or she would wield the combined power of all the citizens in the country, region or constituency.
Socialism is many things, but one of the fundamentals is that democracy is a good thing and should be extended. If I were to tell you tomorrow “Your rights will be removed, you will be subject to the whims of a few men who only care about themselves, your right to vote taken away, your choice of lifestyle restricted and the future of your country forever taken from you and your descendents” you would probably be rightly upset. Yet that is the very situation you are in regarding the economic system which governs the majority of our companies and the majority of companies on Earth. You have no say in how your company operates, in layoffs, in pay scales, in bonuses for the wealthy. Amongst you will be those now saying “And that is how it should be!” in exactly the same way as in the 18th century Lords and Peasants alike defended the system which causes so much social strife and alienation between classes.
Why are you defending the wealthy from criticism and incisive questions? It makes no sense. Many capitalists, especially American capitalists, are fond of the argument “but xxxx simply worked hard to get where he is now, he deserves it”. Now let me ask those people a question. We have two people, John Smith and James Smith. John Smith is born as the eldest son of an Industrial baron in the early twentieth century. He makes many millions, working often long days, weekends and evenings for many years. He lives in a custom-built mansion, has many nice things. James Smith however was born in a back-alley in Cairo, the youngest of 10 children. He spent his early life working round the clock to provide food and medicine for his surviving siblings, and once he reached adulthood married and worked around the clock until he died, an old man, once again in the gutter. Social opportunity, not effort, distinguishes the wealthy from the poor.
Socialism is not an alternative to liberalism, it is liberalism. It is liberalism where we take the scientific, social and political revolutions of the nineteenth century and harness them to end the social inequality and feudalistic corporate structures of the twentieth centuries. To talk of socialism as the end of liberty is like talking of a roof being the end of the house. Yes it is different, has different characteristics and goals, but it is built from the same foundations and has ultimately the same principles enshrined and embellished at its heart.
Collectivism and the myth of liberal individualism
For many years liberals (and by this I mean those who reject the natural progression of capitalism to socialism) have argued that liberalism is about individualism. Rejecting liberalism, they claim, is to reject the individual. At the same time they complain about how socialism is destroying communities. They are inconsistent in their criticism. Socialism does nothing to affect the individuality of those who live under it, it simply reduces choice and increases opportunity. It is the great leveller. If I were to tell you now, that you could enter two ballots, and in the first ballot you would have a 1 in 100 chance of getting a job worth £100,000 per year, a 19 in 100 chance of getting a job earning £10,000 per year and an 80 in 100 chance of getting a job worth £100 per year, would you enter? Not many people would be happy with those odds, but those are the odds every child faces when it opens its eyes for the first time. Socialism takes away a portion of that top wage, and attempts to redistribute it through social services, education, healthcare and so on for the poor.
Collectivism isn’t anathema to individualism, it is the opposite. Opportunity is the mother of innovation, and most innovators, artists and creators of all stripes never make it past the first dream. Collectivism is about deciding as a group that we have priorities other than personal priorities; that we have a social conscience which extends beyond our own personal success. It accepts the limitations of human nature but celebrates the triumphs. Whether it is altruism or self-preservation, socialists argue that the part of a person that helps others is the best part. Providing opportunity for others to become educated, to be healthy, to have the materials to reach their potential is the ultimate goal of a socialist state, and it is motivated by the love of individual actions of millions of people. Socialism doesn’t want to push people into boxes, but to lift them to the level where escaping the box is a possibility. Socialism isn’t a trap, it’s the means to escape traps. It isn’t a road to serfdom, but instead a road out of it.
A new stage for an old battle: eRepublik
When a citizen joins eRepublik they often exaggerate existing beliefs, but they rarely change them completely. So a social democrat may be an eCommunist, but it’s unlikely he’ll become a far-right authoritarian. For this reason we often see the main parties in various countries defined by a few ideologues who essentially make the party. One interesting case in the United Kingdom of this is that of the People’s Communist Party. When I joined the PCP was a mostly centre-left party, though on paper it was communist. It had very few goals or ideas, and was basically made up of the majority of RL lefties who joined the eUK and were looking for a home. Perhaps in the ‘brain zone’ of the forums you would see Twaters or Bob coming out with something revolutionary, but mostly the difference was a clan one.
The emergence of Dan Fallows began to change the party. He founded the communes with his own money, pulled the party to the left and began to make the party into something more clearly communist. Although he doesn’t play anymore, the UK as a whole has been changed on a fairly significant level by his ideological and political position. It was Dan who first formed an alliance with TUP, which has defined the left for the last eight months or so now. Dan began by looking at eRepublik in a way nobody had before- as a social experiment. He saw inequalities, lack of true freedom, and a gerontocracy made up of elderly citizens using their vast experience to gather wealth and power to themselves in ever increasing amounts.
At the same time, TUP redefined itself in the RL British Socialist tradition, adopting many policies traditionally associated with the left. They called themselves Democratic Socialists, and drew on the likes of Tawney and revisionist politics to form the backbone of a socialist policy for Britain. Though people remember the PCP-TUP governments for their wars, the biggest changes were subtle ones brought through the Ministers not the CPs. Huge changes in the way the country was organised were brought forward. The country stopped relying on private citizens and started to intervene to make markets and supplies more efficient. Consider this: all government companies save skill 0 companies have been created since Kumnaa’s election.
Since that point we have seen a profound shift in not just the UK’s economic policy but its culture. We’ve assumed a dozen new collective identities, which we never had before. The focus on success has shifted from the individual success concept to that of a collective success. Whereas a year ago it was all about owning companies, now it is about joining the navy and getting a promotion. People work for no money in military companies, for the good of the nation. A year ago a suggestion like that would be met with laughter, disdain, and firm opposition from the right.
Framing the debate: a socialist success story
Perhaps the greatest success of all has not been the nationalised companies, or the cultural shift, but the change in definitions between parties and politics. Now, not even the most rabid UKRP member would disagree with the military programs. A year ago the thought of nationalisation made individuals rage and rant in the House of Commons; a few days ago when my government stimulus plans were announced there was a small flurry of interest followed by acceptance. The right in the eUK has come to a position where it is to the left of the spectrum of 2009. The UKRP is, at most, a centrist party. The debate has been redefined from socialism vs capitalism to a state of deciding just how socialist we should be.
A few months ago Jamesw left UKRP to join TUP and people asked me if he was a left-winger. I responded that everyone is left wing now, it is merely a case of whether you choose to admit it. We have successfully framed the debate.
There will be people reading this who will say “this is wrong, we should fight this”. But ask yourselves this: why? Do you wish to undo it, fight it, because of your real life beliefs, or because you have a viable alternative tucked away up your sleeve? The UK was one of the first socialist countries to successfully nationalise industries and maintain a mixed market. Since then, virtually every nation has followed us. The only ones which have held back are the anglo-sphere nations in North America and the Pacific, and they have suffered from that short-sightedness. The USA has various groups, such as Seal Team 6, who work in communes, but they are still largely funded by wealthy individuals. They have spent vast amounts of RL money to maintain a role-playing system which is inefficient. If they abandoned their ridiculous prejudices and accepted that socialism works in eRepublik they would have a far better equipped military.
Hayek’s Ghost: How socialists must act in future to undo the damage done
Despite all of this, there is still a lingering distrust of socialism present in most countries. Despite having nationalised a dozen dozen companies, and having worked in the marketplace for months, we still have citizens asking why we are destroying competition. We still get accused of social engineering, of corruption. People still quote Stalin and Mao at us, still talk about dole scroungers. The deep-seated propaganda pushed by the right has to a certain extent infiltrated eRepublik.
Socialism isn’t about stealing money from people: that is what capitalism does. We would strongly prefer if business owners paid a fair wage to workers, and we try to make that the case by encouraging citizens who share our values to enter the marketplace themselves to set prices and wages. We know that not everyone wants to work in a state or communist company, so we do our best to prop up the private sector alternative. Recently we had a major financial crisis, and I received a message from a concerned GM. Without actually quoting him, this GM asked what the government was going to do about the wealth generating sector of the economy, upon which the state relied.
The truth of it is that the state doesn’t rely as much on the private sector anymore as most would think. Our plan to help the economy by lowering taxes, devaluing currency, injecting hundreds of thousands of GBP and establishing an export market wasn’t there to save the state, but to promote the enjoyment of those members of the eUK who play because of the functions a private economic sector provides. We are socialists, yes, but we’re not stupid. It’s our goal to make the UK an economic and military powerhouse, and partly that includes private initiative.
Socialists need to look at the future as an opportunity to undo Hayek’s ghost, to prove him wrong. Socialism in eRepublik is limited in part by two things: activity of participants and the compatibility of the economy module. With great ingenuity it is becoming possible to circumvent both. The struggle for socialism has one great challenge left to it: to bring freedom to the people in every way Hayek despise
😛To offer every citizen a chance to excel; to offer every citizen a fair wage; to offer every citizen a say in the running of their business. For those who don’t work in worker co-operatives, the option must be made available. The future of socialism is bright in a way capitalism isn’t. Hayek despaired that people abandoned liberalism for socialism because socialism offered change. Why was he surprised? In eRepublik socialism offers many things: personal enjoyment, national success, player retention, a strong economy. Liberalism offers nothing but stagnation and a dependence on market forces in a world where motivation is the most important factor, not necessity.
Conclusion
For those of you who have successfully meandered your way through this document: Well done. I can’t impress upon you how much your opinion is valued by me, so if you have something to say, don’t just put it in the comments. Add me as a friend, send me a PM. Oh and subscribe! I have tried to lay out my thoughts on a topic that is possibly the most complex debate in modern politics. Because of this it has many shortcomings, not least of which is its brevity. Trying to define a whole political culture, its origins, motivations and future in just under 3500 words has been a challenge. I know many readers will have skimmed it- that’s fine. My goal was simply to provide you with something thought provoking and hopefully get something back in return.
Best wishes,
Iain
Don't forget to check out and subsribe to these government papers to keep up to date with country's goings on:
Mr Woldy’s Paper
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Home Affairs
National Newspaper Association
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
1 st
Voted
Socialism is available in eRepublik's capitalist system.
Anyway,it is just about to see this.If eRepublik system doesn't let us found a socialist economical system in countries,we can do it as well.I've been saying this since i began to game.Socialism is better way for statements.It is also better way to have more fun for people but people just think for profit "fun".
It is definetly about stealing money from people.
People can produce and consume together.That will be the best for all.Especially,for statements...
If a country tries it,it might be a beginning for next revolutions...
Of course,these are only my ideas about eSocialism.
By the way,voted.
Voted! Too lazy to read it all right now, but will read later...it's not like I have anything better to do. 😛
"I responded that everyone is left wing now, it is merely a case of whether you choose to admit it. We have successfully framed the debate."
Echoes of Lord Mandelson's "we're all Thatcherite now"? inb4shitstorm
Good article.
Were all left wing, please meet Ajay Bruno...
voted 🙂
voted 🙂
Good read, although I see socialism's main focus as emancipating people entirely from the capitalist mode of production than creating greater equality.
The bottom line is that when you take away money from the rich and give it to the poor, you remove everyone's motivation to work. The rich will not want to expand his wealth, because it will be taken away anyhow, and the poor will not want to work, because he can live comfortably off the wealth of others.
This is why socialist countries in the end always produce less... this is exactly what Marx, Engels and all the other socialist economists forgot: the human psychology factor.
There is a basic human need to feel their connection to property. When they lose that direct connection between their work ethic and the rewards they get (mostly in the form of salary) they will always start to free-ride. This in turn will snowball, and the only thing that will save the system from crashing is state authority that intervenes and forces a certain group of people to work.
This is how socialism in the end always creates slavery. The simple axiom socialist economists always forget: when a man can choose between working and not working, he will always choose the latter. It is human instinct.
awesome read
You make the mistake of assuming that redistribution of wealth means taking money and giving it to people so they don't have to work. I think you'll find that taking money from people and giving it to people so they don't have to work is exactly what capitalism does 😉
You say that someone with nothing is less motivated than someone living in a palace? I think you're making an obvious mistake there.
First you say people won't work, then you say they're slaves- you are contradicting yourself again. You need to stop spouting propaganda and start thinking. Socialism creates equality of opportunity, it doesn't create slavery, that's what capitalism does. What's the difference between a person who is enslaved and another who has no home, no rights and only enough wages to feed himself?
@org:
By nature some people are smarter, quicker, therefore work better. These people will produce more, therefore earn more. How do you try to balance this inherent disparity if you don't want to redistribute wealth?🙂
The only way you can do it high taxes for the rich, and subsidies for the poor. Didn't you listen? I'm not saying that poor people have less motivation to work than the rich. I'm saying that people who earn the same regardless of their performance, WILL NOT WORK. The poor who receive subsidies will not work, because the state sustains them, and the rich will not work, because either way their extra product goes to the poor...
@Galantai;
You are right and because of that statement must distribute the products or money according to producing.
The better one must get more but during he/she does it well.
The problem is that people must be happy for producing and consuming together for people and themselves.It is the love of revolution.
This is easily worthy of a RL newspaper or (intelligent) magazine
Bullshit. The (very) rich aren't rich because they earned it, they are rich because of a system that lets them *own* the labour of others. You speak of the alienation of the worker from his produce, but wage-labour is the cause, not the cure of this.
You make another category error here. Is the man who creates computer programs less useful than the man who manages him? Probably not. In fact in terms of usefulness, the programmer is infinitely less replaceable than the manager. The same situation is repeated a hundred times in every workplace. Value of labour is something created by the capitalist system, it only works provided you accept that supply and demand should decide someones worth, and not other values or qualities.
Your second point is equally invalid as your first: Taxes for the rich/subsidies for the poor works on principles of wealth which are themselves products of the capitalist system. You might as well complain that something is impossible because the rules say so. If that's the case, get some different rules. Your measurements of wealth presume that we will not simply reconsider what value is. I also think you're wrong that money is the biggest motivator for people to work. A man works for a small software company because he enjoys the atmosphere, even though he could get more money elsewhere. A woman works for her local legislator because she gets satisfaction working there. How many people remain in jobs because they like coworkers or the perks not because of their wage?
You also presume a system where value and enjoyment are things which can only be purchased with money. You need to think outside of the little box they've provided you with 😃
@burakkocamis:
It is just plain naive that people will work out of the "love of revolution"🙂 No one will work selflessly for others... maybe for your family, but not for millions of people you don't even know. It is against human nature.
If you distribute the wealth according to product, than you still will get very rich people, and very poor, because let's face it: there are geniuses in the world, and there are idiots too. Disparity is in the DNA of humans, you cannot balance that without invading the freedoms of the individual.
@Ian Keers:
Value is a subjective category. You would be willing to kill for a glass of water in the desert, but when you are sitting in your couch at home, a glass of water is of no value.
Money is an instrument to measure value. There are of course other factors beside money, but if you do not use money, how do you define the value of anything? I'm interested in hearing your ideas...🙂
Socialism is just that Galantai- making sure thirsty people in deserts have a glass of water from those people metaphorically sitting at home.
@Galantai;
Maybe,yes.You are thinking right in point of people don't work for others they don't even know but i think there will be always some rich and some poor in eRepublik (of course,if we are talking about eSocialism.If we start talking about RL socialism,it will be very long and confused.Because even communists in RL couldn't find the best solution.)
In eRepublik,eSocialism means more than equal economy in eRepublik.It will mean equal social life and political life.Most of people are working for their countries,eSocialism gets them to work more for their countries.eSocialism is the best way to be better for statements.And... it won't be against human nature in eRepublik.It will be even more funny,won't it ?
But i am repeating,i'm not talking about RL.
@Bob:
The rich are rich mostly because they know something that others don't. (Of course they can also be heir to the fortune of their parents, but that's another matter.)
Either because they know how to manipulate people, or because they invent something that everyone else has need for... but the bottom line is that every self-made millionaire has some qualities that the rest of people don't have.
And most of them don't come from very outstanding social backgrounds, that is just plain bullcr@p.
@Iain Keers:
Yes, but the problem is when there are 2 thirsty people in the desert, and only one glass of water... Resources are limited in general, so your reasoning does not really make sense.
Show the country your bottom line, and we'll see how much they appreciate your version of "Socialism". Running Military companies off taxes isn't Nationalising or controlling a market because none of it makes it to market, and not everyone can access it. If anything, the system is authoritarian in nature, as opposed to the Worker Communes which share openly. At least they figured out the proper side of the line they represent. :/
I think you're wrong Galantai: resources are limited because people choose to sell for money and place more value on that than human life.
Also, >human life
Are we still talking about Erepublik? Last I knew, there isn't really a way to die.
Some of us are talking about RL, some of us about erepublik
lol
@Iain Keers:
Who places value? People do... It is up to them to decide what value they give to certain things! That is their freedom.
I want nobody to tell me how to value my things. I value them as I see fit. This is how the market works: people value things according to their preferences, and then exchange it for their work (with money acting as a medium).
@Galantai: With very few exceptions, the only way to get rich on that scale is to own somebody else's labour. Somebody owning the labour of another person *must* do it out of their own self interest; hence it is inherently exploitative.
@Bob:
So what? Of course they own someone else's labor, because people choose to sell their labors to others...
I own a table, so am I a bad person? No. People own other people's labor because they BUY it.
The difference ultimately is in capacity. Can everyone work on an assembly line in a factory? Almost everyone, yes. Can everyone manage a project (or company) coordinating many thousand people's work? No.
This is the disparity between the labor of the two people. One's work is worth little because everyone can do it, the other is worth a lot, because only a few people can do it.
There's a difference between doing a job (managing a company) and owning a company (can involve hiring managers - hint?). There is also a difference between owning an item and owning a person. As for the argument that 'they choose to do it' - they choose to do it because it's the only way they can work. The disparity comes not because some people can manage a company and others can't, it comes because people are forced to sell themselves to others for any kind of increase in wealth. The owner, the master, the capitalist - doesn't have to do anything to earn money, only have money in the first place.
So where does he take the money "in the first place"?
He got the money by being innovative, smart, whatever. Or he got it because his father or grandfather was innovative, smart, whatever.
Money is not "created" by evil capitalists, people earn their capital one way or the other. Either they earn it themselves, or their fathers have earned it before them. There is nothing wrong with that. If I am smart and work my ass off in my life, and manage to make enough money for my son, that is good for me.
Families are rising and falling all the time. It is up to you to be smart, so that your son may be a capitalist and live in comfort. Everyone has a chance.
I would rather not be a slave than have a chance to be the slave owner.
@Bob:
That's your choice. Start a company then and do it yourself.
I on the other hand prefer to be the slave owner, than be a slave of the state.
Everyone has a choice. If you are smart enough, you can arrange your life so that you work for yourself. If you are not, than what does it matter if you sell your work to another man, or the state? You will still be a slave...
You're creating a false dichotomy. It isn't a choice between working for a capitalist or working for the state. There is such a thing as self-management - a system where people collectively run their workplaces that require the input of more than one labourer. That's what I call socialism.
And that's what I call anarchy. This is a hotbed for bad management...
Trust me, I come from a country which has experienced this kind of arrangement for 40 years. It was enough.
You know why it doesn't work? Because there are always more untalented people, than good workers. If you place the talented under the command of the untalented, this is a sure way to disaster.
There are those people who are meant to lead, and there are those who are meant to follow. If you exchange the two, the system collapses.
We have experienced this over 40 years...
@burakkocamis
"It is definetly about stealing money from people."
the world is turning on with that economic system. From the beginnig. First we steal from nature, than animals, than people, than races, than governments, than all of system made on stealing.
So it is normal that people wanna be "big bosses" with "stolen money"
we call it economy.
(voted, like that arctictes however you should also press a shorter ones for normal players 🙂 )
The idea is that no one is under the command of anyone. Workers will appoint competent managers (on a representative basis) because it is in their own interest to do so. Also, you do realise you're making an argument against democracy?
@serbia (I assume):
1. That was certainly not 'anarchy'. I really don't see how you could possibly suggest it was.
2. I know serbs who much preferred it to capitalism. However, I won't go into that, because it's not what I'm trying to argue for.
If you want to carry this on, I suggest PMing. This is getting annoying to keep going back to the article, much as I love this Keersianism.
@Bob:
As you please. I am Hungarian by the way.
You are right, on some level I am making a point against democracy. I think it is very unwise to let the folly of the masses overpower the reason of the few.
Unlimited democracy is harmful, we can see that in our own societies. The core problem is universal and equal suffrage. Different weighs should be assigned to people based on education, etc.
But more on that in PM if you are interested enough to reply🙂
I really get sick of this argument. The workers are too stupid to run their own affairs. They had the same argument to keep black people as slaves in the South, they are too stupid to be on their own, so it is better to keep them as slaves. During the Spanish Revolution, the factories and land was taken over by the people and was run democratically. There was a INCREASE in productivity. Worker run enterprises are more efficient than a capitalist ones because there is an actual incentive to work hard and for the workers to run the company better. If you work for a capitalist in eR, you could care less if you worked at 10 wellness or at 100 wellness because u get a pay check all the same. If the capitalist is smart, he will fire you asap and then you just get another job the next day.
Galantai you really are authoritarian, pretty much like the way the USSR and Hungary was run. We the bureaucrats and Commissars are smarter, more educated, etc. than the average person, so we should run everything about the society. It is not much different than a capitalist saying, the workers are too stupid, ignorant, etc. than us smart educated guys at the top, so we should run completely the economy. Corporations are more authoritarian than Stalin could ever been except for not being able to use violence, except against 3rd world poor people. There are sweet shops in Latin America and other places that have armed guards and barbed wire fences to keep the workers there and submissive. You cant try to organize in a union because they will just shoot you. Now that is Stalinism under another name.
If you want to reply to me, PM me because i will not look here for a reply.
Waaaaaaaaa, too many big words me no understand.
tl;dr
Not totally agreed
Songun in this game is more suitable than socialism and liberalism
Good article......I definately think (in eRep),a mix of nationalised and private companies is the way forward to a healthy and vibrant economy
Very good article, as a member of the UKRP I believe that the private market and the governement companies can work together as long as both have the same intrest. We must be al aware that the governement can kill the private market in a blink. I do think that it's the task of the governement to help the newer, weaker players but that they also give the more experienced players a change to become succesful.
@Kemal:
You are wrong on many many counts. If your line of thought were correct, this would mean that the same families are the "wealthy" since the beginning of time. This is obviously not true.
If every human were born with the same capital, we wouldn't have inequalities?!?! That is utter bullsh*t. And the US is the perfect example of that. Most of the population of the US came to the new world with literally nothing, and yet they built one of the most unequal societies in the developed world.
I also question your point on unequal education opportunities. I'm sorry but you are just plain wrong. I live in Hungary, and even here education is FREE for everyone from kindergarten through university. Even the poorest little bastard can have the same education as any other rich kid. This is even more so in more developed countries like Scandinavia.
It is exactly in developed capitalist countries that everyone has access to the same level of education!
I'm sorry, but I believe the riches man alive (Bill Gates) started out as an average middle-class kid in a community college, who built his first computer in his father's garage. Is it impossible then to accumulate that much wealth in 25 years? Obviously not... he is the greatest (and not the only) example for that.
Aristotle Onassis, one of the wealthiest shipping merchants in the world came to Argentina as a 16 year old teenager with $10 in his pocket and the clothes he was wearing.
Is it impossible then to raise so much money in one lifetime? I think not...
You are just repeating all the same socialist bullsh*t, which was not even true 100 years ago, and it is certainly not true today.
I am not rich, I am a middle-class student in Hungary.
Bill gates Dad was a prominent lawyer and his mother was on a bank's board of directors. He was already very rich when he went to university.