On the 26th of December 1991 the Soviet Union was dissolved and in the eyes of many, this was the end of not only the USSR but as overwhelming proof as a failure of socialism.

“Socialism always fails”. It’s probably one of the most common rebuttals against Socialism that I experience and I see it brought up in almost every internet debate. Let’s look more deeply into the argument that Socialism always fails and put it into perspective.

First we need to realise that Socialism like Capitalism is on a spectrum. Finland and the USA are both capitalist but have quite different societies. The Soviet Union was on the authoritarian side of the social spectrum, If we take a look at an authoritarian failed Capitalist state, Chile under Pinochet, which was an authoritarian military regime that ruled Chile between September 11, 1973 and March 11, 1990. The dictatorship was established after the democratically-elected socialist government of Salvador Allende was overthrown in a coup d’état on 11 September 1973. After this, the country was ruled by a military junta headed by General Augusto Pinochet.

Quoting from Wikipedia:

After the military took over the government in 1973, a period of dramatic economic changes began. The Chilean economy was still faltering in the months following the coup. As the military junta itself was not particularly skilled in remedying the persistent economic difficulties, it appointed a group of Chilean economists who had been educated in the United States at the University of Chicago. Given financial and ideological support from Pinochet, the U.S., and international financial institutions, the Chicago Boys advocated laissez-faire, free-market, neoliberal, and fiscally conservative policies, in stark contrast to the extensive nationalization and centrally-planned economic programs supported by Allende. Chile was drastically transformed from an economy isolated from the rest of the world, with strong government intervention, into a liberalized, world-integrated economy, where market forces were left free to guide most of the economy’s decisions. From an economic point of view, the era can be divided into two periods. The first, from 1975 to 1982, corresponds to the period when most of the reforms were implemented. The period ended with the international debt crisis and the collapse of the Chilean economy. At that point, unemployment was extremely high, above 20 percent, and a large proportion of the banking sector had become bankrupt. The following period was characterized by new reforms and economic recovery. Some economists argue that the recovery was due to an about-face turnaround of Pinochet’s free market policy, since he nationalized many of the same industries that were nationalized under Allende and fired the Chicago Boys from their government posts. In 1982–1983 Chile witnessed a severe economic crisis with a surge in unemployment and a meltdown of the financial sector. 16 out of 50 financial institutions faced bankruptcy. In 1982 the two biggest banks were nationalized to prevent an even worse credit crunch. In 1983 another five banks were nationalized and two banks had to be put under government supervision. The central bank took over foreign debts. Critics ridiculed the economic policy of the Chicago Boys as “Chicago way to socialism”

How did the neo-liberals see Pinochet’s Chile? Milton Friedman, described the period after the installment of the Pinochet Junta as “The miracle of Chile” he stated

The Chilean economy did very well, but more important, in the end the central government, the military junta, was replaced by a democratic society. So the really important thing about the Chilean business is that free markets did work their way in bringing about a free society.

Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has argued that

the experience of Chile in this period indicates a failure of the economic liberalism posited by thinkers such as Friedman, claiming that there was little net economic growth from 1975 to 1982 (during the so-called “pure Monetarist experiment”). After the catastrophic banking crisis of 1982 the state controlled more of the economy than it had under the previous socialist regime, and sustained economic growth only came after the later reforms that privatized the economy, while social indicators remained poor. Pinochet’s dictatorship made the unpopular economic reorientation possible by repressing opposition to it. Rather than a triumph of the free market, the OECD economist Javier Santiso described this reorientation as “combining neo-liberal sutures and interventionist cures”. By the time of sustained growth, the Chilean government had “cooled its neo-liberal ideological fever” and “controlled its exposure to world financial markets and maintained its efficient copper company in public hands”.

The question now becomes, did Chile fail because it was capitalist, actually one of the most neo-liberal there has been, or did the fact it was authoritarian play any role? We know it can’t be because it was only capitalist as other countries like Finland have done just fine. Although you can argue that it was that type of Capitalism which failed. Why Can’t the same logic be applied to Socialism? The USSR didn’t fail because it was socialist, it failed because it was authoritarian.

The idea that free markets were the reason Chile became democratic makes no sense at all either. After the USSR; Russia became democratic, we could use the same fallacy to say that it was Marxism that caused it. The real reason may just be that both were failing economically and because the people themselves wanted democracy.

It was predicted by the libertarian socialist Mikhail Bakunin in the 1860s, that Marxism would inevitably lead to totalitarianism, he wrote in his book Federalism, Socialism, Anti-Theologism in 1867

We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.

And later on in Statism and Anarchism, he wrote

They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship — their dictatorship, of course — can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up.

I bring these quotes up just to show that the weakness and contradictions of Marxism were already expressed by liberal socialists before the USSR and other totalitarian socialist states even existed.

So, bear in mind, I’m not claiming here that the USSR wasn’t socialist or the natural outcome of Marxism at least. I am claiming that is only the authoritarian side of Socialism, just like Pinochet was the authoritarian side of Capitalism. It’s also important to bear in mind that Marxism is only a form of Socialism and not Socialism in itself. For example, the opposite end of the social socialist spectrum would be libertarian socialism aka Anarchism. For example, the type of socialism that Mikhail Bakunin and Noam Chomsky adhere to.

Another objection that follows might be that, if libertarian socialism worked at all, then surely we would have seen it working by now. Why is it that all of the socialist countries descend into totalitarianism?

Libertarian Socialism was at its most influential from the 1860s to the 1930s. The anarcho-syndicalist International Workers Association had several million members in 15 countries in the 1920s. Anarchism was the dominant ideology in Spain’s largest union in the 1920s and 1930s, and that union was the driving force behind the expropriation of industry and the revolutionary process in Spain in 1936–37.

The earlier International however was not able to withstand the differences between anarchist and Marxist currents, with the anarchists largely withdrawing after the Hague Congress of 1872 which saw the expulsion of leading libertarians Mikhail Bakunin and James Guillaume over their criticism of Karl Marx’s party-political approach to social change.

Baukin went on to write:

Is it not astonishing that Mr. Marx has believed it possible to graft onto this precise declaration, which he himself probably wrote, his scientific socialism? For this — the organization and the rule of the new society by socialist savants — is the worst of all despotic governments!

Since WW2, There has been a dominant focus on the left on party politics, thus marginalizing the libertarian socialist tendencies. In addition, Anarchism aka Libertarian socialism has become associated in a negative light amongst mainstream thought and the words are generally understood to mean no laws and violence. However, Anarchism is far more complex than that but these ideas are never promoted heavily and people have a knee jerk reaction upon hearing them. Hence, making the spread of their ideas evermore difficult.

Due to this shift coming from the left on the promotion of the state and party as saviour; we have to go back in time to see any attempts at Anarchism at a national level. As an example, there was the Strandzha Commune, The Free Terrority and Spain before Franco was traditionally very anarchist orientated.

Anarchists played a central role in the fight against Francisco Franco during the Spanish Civil War. At the same time, a far-reaching social revolution spread throughout Spain, where land and factories were collectivized and controlled by the workers. All remaining social reforms ended in 1939 with the victory of Franco, who had thousands of anarchists executed. Resistance to his rule never entirely died, with resilient militants participating in acts of sabotage and other direct action after the war, and making several attempts on the ruler’s life.

In all cases, they were crushed by anti-anarchists and in one case by Marxists!

These external attacks are also something to take into account more generally, many socialist countries have had economic warfare against them and then their failure is then used to support the argument that Socialism fails.

However, on a more local level we see that Anarchist ideas of non-party politics,direct democracy and workers involvement are being used today and show that it is a viable alternative, for example the region Cherán in Mexico as well as Puerto Real and Marinaleda in Spain.

Academics studying Cherán say the new council has largely contained corruption. Council members are paid modestly, and held to account by the neighbourhood assemblies. Michoacán is one of Mexico’s most violent regions, but local officials say that not a single kidnapping or extortion attempt has been reported since the uprising.

Many people today unfortunately use the words Socialism when what they really mean is either Social Democracy if they’re promoting it or they mean Marxism if they’re trying to dismiss it. Socialism should not only be associated with the state, there is a form of socialism that believes in direct democracy and worker run organisations.

In addition, “the Socialism has never worked” logic is never applied back to Capitalism, in that all functioning capitalist societies rely on some sort of Socialisation to keep the system going, either in terms of industry bailouts or government grants to help develop new research technologies. Why does that never count as Capitalism not working or the fact that the most neo-liberal Capitalist societies have failed? When Capitalists say “it works”, what they really mean is the bottom up approach to the economy has worked, which is what Anarchists advocate too but through direct action and worker run organisations.

Check out similar thoughts on my Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/MrTweedyDocumentaries