Money is power. Whoever controls your source of money, controls you. They control your actions during most of your waking hours. They control how you dress and how you communicate. Your source of money is your master. The majority of humans wouldn’t even understand a question about authenticity: are you expressing your authentic self in the world? Who knows? I express the self that I have to be to get my money.
This is probably the primary reason socialism doesn’t usually get too far off the ground: people don’t know what purpose emancipation is supposed to serve. I put on my slave clothes, say my slave lines, collect my slave fee, and all is good. I’m too tired to try to have a hand in governing the world. Let them do it.
And yet, there have been times when communities stirred from their slumber and entertained notions of socialism. One such period was during the Great Depression of the 1930s. In the aftermath of economic collapse, labor unions rose up and took real power in various places in the world. All of those efforts crash landed in the stagflation of the 1970s. The only way to get the economy rolling again was to reinstitute slavery.
This had happened before when the British freed their slaves in the Caribbean. The Caribbean economy stalled. The former slaves became known as the “pumpkin eaters” because they spent about 30 minutes per day growing pumpkins, which they sat around eating. In the British Parliament, there was a call to re-enslave the pumpkin eaters for their own moral well-being. It was considered the depths of depravity to just sit around doing nothing, plus the cost of sugar was increasing due to the lethargy. There was subsequently a poignant speech by a British MP asserting that it was none of the British government’s business how the pumpkin eaters spent their time.
This is going to happen every time we try to employ socialism. The people, not knowing what they’re supposed to be doing when their masters are gone, will just sit around eating pumpkins. The economy will stall. Without a British MP to explain that that’s ok, re-enslavement will ensue.
I’ll take the Wikipedia definition then:
“Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.”
If that is the definition, I fail to see how simply having labor unions qualify as socialism.
Depends on the circumstances.
It’s a bit bare-bones as an explanation of why socialism failed.
Is this “stalling economy” a direct consequence of socialism, such that you can’t have socialism without the economy stalling?
Countries where socialist or social-democratic parties governed since 2000:
Europe
United Kingdom – Labour Party (1997–2010)
Germany – Social Democratic Party of Germany (1998–2005; 2021–present)
France – Socialist Party (2012–2017 presidency)
Spain – Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (2004–2011; 2018–present)
Portugal – Socialist Party (2005–2011; 2015–2024)
Italy – Democratic Party (multiple governments 2013–2018; 2019–2022)
Norway – Labour Party (2005–2013; 2021–present)
Denmark – Social Democrats (2011–2015; 2019–present)
Sweden – Swedish Social Democratic Party (2000–2006; 2014–2022)
Finland – Social Democratic Party of Finland (2019–2023)
Austria – Social Democratic Party of Austria (2007–2017)
Greece – Panhellenic Socialist Movement (2009–2011)
Croatia – Social Democratic Party of Croatia (2000–2003; 2011–2016)
Lithuania – Social Democratic Party of Lithuania (2001–2008; 2012–2016; 2024–present)
Albania – Socialist Party of Albania (2013–present)
Slovakia – Direction – Social Democracy (2006–2010; 2012–2018; 2023–present)
Americas
Brazil – Workers’ Party (2003–2016; 2023–present)
Chile – Socialist Party of Chile (in governing coalitions 2000–2010; 2014–2018)
Bolivia – Movement for Socialism (2006–2019; 2020–present)
Argentina – Peronist coalitions (often social-democratic factions) such as Justicialist Party (2003–2015; 2019–2023)
Uruguay – Broad Front (2005–2020)
Africa
South Africa – African National Congress (1994–present; generally social-democratic orientation)
Asia–Pacific
Australia – Australian Labor Party (2007–2013; 2022–present)
New Zealand – New Zealand Labour Party (1999–2008; 2017–2023)
Japan – Democratic Party of Japan (2009–2012)
Bangladesh – Awami League (2009–present)
Rough count:
About 25–30 democracies since 2000 have had governments led by parties that identify as socialist, democratic-socialist, or social-democratic.
Questionable, as the party was socialist but way before 2000, not really in the 2010s. Also, the party is not in power since 2024 and was banned in 2025 according to Wikipedia:
It was finally overthrown with the Student–People’s Uprising in August 2024. Since then, the party remained underground. On 10 May 2025, the interim government banned all activities by the Awami League, in cyberspace and elsewhere, under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
Having labor unions isn’t socialism, I agree, but I think it’s long been thought of as a precursor to it. Where there are labor unions, wage earners are supposed to be in a position to negotiate working conditions and wages. It’s a step away from slavery toward collective control.
If you get a chance, look back at the OP and consider what I mentioned about power dynamics.
Where there are labor unions, wage earners are supposed to be in a position to negotiate working conditions and wages.
Well, they already can without the unions technically. But it may improve the bargaining power. However, the source of money didn’t change, nor did the ownership, and the master isn’t gone, so it seems tangential to socialism.
But how do you explain the successes of this proto-socialism? Did the economy not stall in the places Banno listed, for example?
In the case of socialism, your theory is, if I get it correctly, that whenever people try socialism, people sit around when the master is gone, the economy stalls, and this leads one way or another to the end of socialism. Do you have other examples outside of the Caribbean case?
look back at the OP and consider what I mentioned about power dynamics.
Well, test the theory on yourself. Imagine that after an extended period of learning to trade futures, you no longer need to work because you can make in 10 minutes what would formerly have taken 12 hours.
What will you do with your time? What great feats will you perform for your community?
Since Frank hasn’t laid this out, this is from Wikipedia:
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership. It describes the economic, political, and social theories and movements associated with the implementation of such systems.
In today’s political discourse, at least in the US, “socialism” more often represents social democracy. Again, Wikipedia:
Social democracy is a broad, centre-left social, economic, and political ideology within the wider socialist movement that supports political and economic democracy and a gradualist, reformist, and democratic approach toward achieving social equality. In modern practice, social democracy has taken the form of a predominantly capitalist, yet robust welfare state, with policies promoting social justice, market regulation, and a more equitable distribution of income.
I don’t have any particular problem with @frank’s argument, as long as it isn’t used as an argument against social democracy, which it often is, at least around here. See the recent claptrap about Mayor Mamdani in New York City.
We don’t have to speculate. We have a large sample population of exactly such people. The answer is they seem to continue to work 24/7, make more money than anyone on earth could possibly ever spend, and remain exactly as miserable as before.
Some people are lazy, others work hard, others work too hard. There’s no global settings.
Slavery can be measured by the ratio of forced labor for another’s benefit versus labor for one’s own benefit. Unfortunately socialism advocates for the former while impugning the latter. Unlike now, where a wage slave can liberate himself by walking away and quitting his job, create his own means of production, it isn’t clear that anyone can do that in any socialist system. Far from emancipation, socialism is the systematizing of slavery.
Besides that, socialism misconceives basic human nature, and so inevitably fails.
Thank you. Most people in the US, particularly, know nothing about socialism, or even that it flourishes elsewhere. Maybe that’s changing; our DSA party (Democratic Socialists of America) is at an all-time membership high, somewhat due to charismatic Momdani, but I like to think there’s a growing awareness that the economic set-up is becoming unworkable.
Money is a social construct. It exists only as long as we agree that it exists. So much for its alleged power.
Also the contract between employer and worker exists only as long as we agree that it exists. Without the agreement, the worker still has skills unlike the employer who is left with a pile of worthless stuff formerly known as ‘money’.
Who’s got the power? Money is just a means among many by which someone can exercise power over another.
Wherever necessities such as food and water are unevenly distributed, scarcity and abundance can be exploited in trade by which some become rich and others poor. The rich don’t want this to reverse, hence they teach their offspring to resolutely dismiss any true or ethical argument for a more fair distribution.
For example in universities where postmodern professors taught that also true, fair or ethical are mere social constructs and don’t really exist. Huh. So we let people starve to death.
Money has many roles, but it itself isn’t the source of power. The simple fact is that people can barter, and if literally one has ALL the money, then it would be worthless as everybody else doesn’t have money and thus would have to barter or use something else as your “money”. Then there’s the fact that transactions are voluntary. Person with cash might want to buy something, but then you have to have a person that is willing to sell. Again, power is far more banal as it more about violence or the threat of violence. Max Weber defined power as the ability to impose your will over others, even against resistance. That with money you will have the ability to get that kind of power makes a lot of assumptions, starting from that nobody will steal your money, but accept that you have all that money. If you think that you can simply buy a private army, there’s the possibility of that private army simply takes your money away from you.
Furthermore, take the historical example when Spain looted the gold the Americas. What happened? Basically Spain could afford to have the largest army and navy around for a while until that gold simply went away to others, as Spain had used it to fight wars all around Europe. And then they were poor again as thinking of investing the gold in domestic production wasn’t their objective (or even so easy during the times).
Even the idea of socialism understands that power isn’t in money, but power is in ownership of the produced capital, the machines and industry etc.
Social-Democracy is different of the socialism of like Marxism-Leninism. Perhaps that is the reason why you left out Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea, and China.
I’ve noticed that when you take up the success of Social-Democracy, those fancying socialism in PF just sneer at the idea that political parties like the UK Labour party (now actually in power) would be socialist.
Modern Social-Democracy is a long way from the 19th Century socialists who believed that capitalism could be replaced by elections and not the Marxist revolution and violent class warfare.
I’m not going to say something in terms of socialism because I don’t understand what that word means in our world today. But when we talk about money and how only the oligarchs are having a party and the rest of us must give blood, sweat, and tears, I also don’t recognize this kind of world.
One, are you including happiness in the equation? Because it’s been proven that we don’t need to be wealthy to be happy. So, who were the subjects of these studies about happiness? People with jobs, retired people, people running their own business.
Were they expressing their authentic self when they answered the questions from the researchers? Apparently, yes.
Pulse takers can actually know what people think about their condition in life by writing questions and conducting interviews from the real population.
I think some might argue that authenticity is a non-issue. People don’t really want emancipation. They want to be sheep in a herd (in a good way). Knowing your place in the world is all that matters. No, it’s not perfect, but no life ever is. Would you agree with that view?
Rough count: