[Socialists] Why did India, Vietnam and China do better after adopting capitalist ideas?

After independence from the British Empire, India spent 40 years adopting it's own forms of socialism. From Wikipedia:

They switched to a system of decentralized self management and self organization at the national level (markets). Companies and organizations should start doing that as well with their workers and customers I think (give them distributed decision making power).
If it works for countries then (with a few tweaks) it should also work for medium to large enterprises.
By the way Socialism does not require central planning.
Good answer.
If decentralization was such a great idea, why aren’t decentralized companies outcompeting conventional ones?
This is pretty reductionist thinking. "Decision making power" doesn't create prosperity even if it creates "freedom". You really do need capitalism as well for actual progress and prosperity. Even Marx realized this to some extent.
Another way to say that is they moved away from socialism. People were then allowed more freedom to make money for them selves.
Also companies do have decentralized organizations. It’s called franchising. Look it up. It’s made many successful individuals. Private citizens can buy into companies while maintaining standards and make money for them selves. Capitalism is truly amazing.
Socialism is an economic theory regulated by the community as a whole. So by definition it’s centered and not powered by individuals making independent decisions.
How does socialism not require central planning? To me, it definitely does. Like a public school system, for instance. The "people" own the means of production- the administration of education. There is a huge bureaucracy planning away.
At the end of the day, you're denying freedom for a person to own something they have created, and denying freedom for people to form mutual, consentual contracts and working agreements, and when you follow it all the way back, there is a central governing authority overseeing the whole arrangement.
If I build a store and figure out an innovative way to provide a new service, and it's big enough that I want to hire someone to answer phones for me, a central authority is telling me that the person I want to hire also is a full owner and has just as much power to do what they want with the business as I do. Even if that person was perfectly fine just answering phones and getting paid.
If they didn't like the arrangement of the work agreement then they wouldn't agree to the job or salary. If essence, they are like the owner of their own phone answering company and my company is contracting with their company in a consentual, mutually beneficial exchange.
Not only is a central authority taking that right away from both of us, and taking away the right of ownership (and the motivation for people to innovate and build things), if my new employee (but really, now, co-owner according to the central planning authority) and I disagree on the future of the company, and I say, "this is not working out, I am ending our contractual agreement," they can say to me, "sorry, buddy, I own it as much as you and you're fired instead."
Well who, in your scenario, is the ultimate overseer of the business. What if I possess the keys to the store? Who's name is on the company's ownership papers? Did we "self manage" or "self organize" that? No, a central planning authority still does that. Even if some day to day matters are left to the employees, the buck stops at a central panning authority.
The real question of course is the right of ownership and what that means. Free market capitalism believes that if you created something, a thing, an idea, a service, then you have a right to own the thing you created. You can then create consentual business agreements with others, and the beauty is that both parties will only agree if it is a win-win for both. If it is not, one person cannot take from another, or force something on another. The government's sole role then is to protect ownership and prevent theft and the use of force in human relationships.
Socialism turns this on its head and actually has government mandate force in human relationships, does away with the right to ownership of something you have built, and violates consent (I don't want to pay that much for that job. Well you have to). This is not to mention the fact that by gutting the motivation of innovators (the reward for their ingenuity and work), you severely impede economic growth.
If I've misunderstood your position, let me know. I do want to understand where you think I may have gone wrong in this.
In other words, they switched away from socialism into capitalism, then that change resulted in a more successful economy.
As long as it's not compelled, everyone's okay with this. If it made companies and organizations more money, it would quickly be adopted as the standard model.
Compelled socialism's inextricable centralization makes central planning unavoidable.
A lot of this is already done. There's a lot of distributed decision power, at least where I work.
Central planning is just the worst form of collective decision making, you guys still love and want other forms of collective decision making, like democracy and work place democracy.
Sure it does - otherwise it fails.
Humans simply do not accept the concept of communal property, and will always naturally default to a system of private property and free trade. Under a "Socialist" system, people doing this are labelled 'counter-revolutionaries' and arrested. A strong state is required to maintain the 'communal property' system otherwise it breaks down immediately.
"Self organization" so long as people don't organize into positions of wage labor, right?
No, they liberalized ownership and opened competition with negotiable, free floating market pricing. It's not the workers who were the source of newfound economic wisdom. It was the broader consumer market.
If you know Vietnam, you know it is not decentralized
Well, it's not that they "do better after adopting capitalist ideas" because to start off they never adopted socialism or communism.
Why are there actual leftist Indians in here saying it was socialism?
They were entirely run by socialists with total power.
If they failed to adopt socialism or communism, it's because of deficiencies in socialist theory, not deficiencies in power to make whatever changes they wanted.
India has the second largest wealth disparity in the world of any country apart from post-soviet russia. You can see the drop off of relative wealth after 1980.
The issue here is that GDP does not measure lots of forms of non-market labor, and is not an accurate measure of "doing better" but rather "participating in the world market".
For explanatory purposes, someone can have a farm and grow food for their community, but when property taxes rise to the point where they have to work twice as hard to produce the same amount of profit. However, since that worker is adding crops to the market, the GDP goes up.
Honestly didn't investigate vietnam or china because I'm a shitposter, not an intellectual
You guys gonna understand one day, people on the right do not, and will never care about disparities. As long as the absolute level of living standards improve, which in fact it did, the right will win their argument. You can observe this when the absolute living standards actually do not improve or decrease, part of the arguments falters, like in some parts of US right now. But as for third world countries, the living standards improvement of the past 20 years is not a fact that can be argued.
In short, getting trade embargoes while under a socialist regime.
Did India get trade embargoes?
As an Indian i can confirm that life under socialism was better. Although, capitalism has brought money and free market; it has also brought with it extremely high corruption which didn't exist under socialism atleast on this scale.
Also as an Indian I can confirm that corruption existed even in socialist India. It was only when power of government was reduced, corruption was be reduced. Corruption can not exist if government did not have Power to corrupt.
Corruption didn't exist much in India during the Raj period??
Are you insane?
Wtf man! You like standing in queue for ration? Wtf I say!
India is great after 1991 reforms. DO NOT believe anyone who says India is better before reforms or no corruption existed. Pathological liars
You are a fucking liar. We have a term for the day to day corruption that went up to the top during socialism.
May I ask in what ways it was better?
Well, if you confirm.
Corruption exist in one form or other,its responsibility of govt to eradicate but unfortunately Indian govt be it congress or bjp can’t survive without money..........I believe in equality in opportunity,not equality of outcome - stolen from YouTube comment section
majority of the population (21%) is still in rags, but sure, the rich did get better.
Did poverty increase or decrease?
It seems like centrally planned socialism works for getting impoverished countries to a better point... At the expense of freedoms at times...
And capitalism is better for creating wealth.
Capitalism doesn't make sure the poorest children die less often, and it doesn't make sure that they can read either.
A better question to ask would be
"Why don't countries like El Salvador and Guatemala... That did what the USA wanted end up like India and Vietnam and China?"
Central planning brings up the poverty level at the expense of the rich.
Capitalism brings up the rich at the expense of the impoverished.
Cuba is a better place to live if you currently live in a capitalist leaning African country like Congo and you are starving...
USA is a better place to live if you have 10 million dollar inheritance and you currently live in a socialist leaning European country.
because capitalism, since it is not planned, doesn't care about the future and allows a country to perform at it's best (unhindered by future concerns and externalities concerns) in the short term regardless of the long term consequences... and sometimes even some short term consequences:
china is paying wealth with inequality. the question is: what will remain of these years, the wealth or the inequality? if the few fortunate rich manage to get in power, they'll take the wealth in their hands, like in the US (it is their nature, only selfish ppl get rich in capitalism). if the party manages to stand the lobbying pressure, there's hope to keep this trend, or, at best, to keep the wealth and increase it's distribution.
EDIT: remember statistics are history, which is written by the winners.
Yet socialism is the system that collapsed and failed.
Yes China and Vietnam are doing great lmao Exploiting children and poor uneducated people to feed the West sure this is great
idk about Vietnam but 850 million people have been raised out of extreme poverty in China, salaries are tied to the country's economy, and they have strong unions. They're still a developing country, but they have done and continue to do good things for their workers. Child labour is still a big problem there, but it's steadily improving.
Would they be better off not taking those jobs?
Yes it's great for me.
If all you look at is a country's economy you will never notice those that suffer because of capitalism.
They were capitalist from the start.
wow cuz wikipedia said it was socialist country so he gonna believe it was socialist country
they were not socialists and of course not doing more well than socialist countries.
USSR was the best country in the world and fastest country healed after WWII
so if something like that didn't happen it wasn't at all socialist country
Because the goal, at least as I understand it, was to reduce poverty. This was not a result of Capitalism but rather policy making and planning using a Capitalist model.
It's clearly written that India abandoned regulation and central planning in 1991 and started growing
ITT: If tHEy MoVEd tO mY OwN fEveR-DrEAm vERsIoN oF sOcIAliSm In wHIch wOrdS DonT MAttEr tHeN THey'D bE evEn BEttER
That isn't in the thread I just read it
This but unironically
Bonus fact: China's economy is not growing faster after their economic reforms, they are growing at about the same rate as they were is their "more socialist" years.
None of those countries were ever Socialist.
It’s never real socialism ever