You are here

From socialist to capitalist economies: Empirical evidence

It's a common theme among AnCaps that their system is economically superior, indeed, many do without question.

However, around 1990ish there were a large number of countries which were socialistic and became capitalistic. All of those countries, without exception, suffered a massive economic downtown in GDP per capita which lasted in most cases over decade before they returned to their level prior to the change in system.

And I'm not even considering median GDP or GDP with purchasing parity. Indeed, at the same time the GDP per capita for the rest of the world increased around 150%.

(All these figures are from the World Bank, if you want to shoot the messenger or engage in a conspiracy theory about the figures being manipulated by a Statist Jewish Banking Conspiracy or some-such)

Now obviously economic transformations like this are disruptive (especially when infrastructure is ignored), and one can make the excuse that what has come afterwards is "crony capitalism", which empirically and rationally seems to be logical consequence of "actually existing capitalism".

Most AnCaps, well versed in grade-school economics, assume a model of perfect competition (or at best monopolistic competition) in their exposition of how markets work. Whilst common in the small-business sector (and AnCaps pretty much are a petite bourgeoise movement) they are do not realise that outside this competitive fringe, mainstream economics is almost entirely oligopolositic and therefore becomes corporatist. What they call 'crony economics' is actually an inevitable result of capital accumulation and market dynamics which generates the barriers to entry to prevent newcomers along with the capital resources to integrate others.

This does not suggest that new success stories can't develop, especially in the disruptive technology sector (e.g., Microsoft, Facebook), but inevitably they too become oligopolositic or monopolistic.

So the question I have to to AnCaps is what, if anything, do you think that capitalism or "propertarianism" (to be precise) does poorly in the sphere of economics?

If you think "nothing", don't bother contributing. You've found your untroubled utopia in your own head.

But if you respect empirical results and think that political opinions should be formed from the facts rather than the other way around, you might want to express a few ideas about what is wrong with capitalism and what can be done to fix it. I would like to hear your thoughts on this,

(In before the bait-and-switch; yes I can think of a lot of things wrong with communist economic theory, much of which was in Alec Nove's "The Economics of Feasible Socialism")

Originally from:

Commenting on this Blog entry will be automatically closed on October 19, 2017.


Soviet military expenditure was around 15% of GDP, a little far from "mostly". It was about twice that of the US in GDP terms. In part this was due to being militaristic, in part because it needed to spend more to have a per capita expenditure equivalent to the US.

The difference in military expenditure is significant, but doesn't account for the other states of the eastern bloc, and certainly doesn't account for differences in other objective measures (e.g., life expectancy and literacy).
If the post-Soviet Union and eastern bloc was simply a matter of redirecting military expenditure the countries would have improved, not dramatically declined.