FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Socialism
Socialism
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"It depends how far you go, communism certainly only works in a dystopian authoritarian setting. Not sure why some idiots champion it."
Some idiots champion communism, other idiots champion libertarianism. Both extremes are bonkers, but at least with socialist principles there are success stories that exist in our daily lives:
Pre and post natal care
Schooling
Policing, Fire, waste collection and community services
Healthcare |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
We should all have a social conscience of course. Sadly socialism / communism has been hijacked over centuries by some nasty characters.
Definition of a communist ‘someone who has nothing and wants to share it with everyone’. Thanks to the great political philosopher Tony Blackburn for that one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It depends how far you go, communism certainly only works in a dystopian authoritarian setting. Not sure why some idiots champion it."
It works if you combine it with capitalism - as is the case in China.
Don't get me wrong, it's a police state and I wouldn't want to live there - but what could be better if you want to exploit workers; than ones who can't vote?
Worked for the UK, in the industrial revolution - an empire was built on it.
An empire still beloved of most Tories/Englishmen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Socialism doesn't work. It's a solution that lazy thinkers come up with when there is a problem. Price of something goes up because of a supply issue? We should have the government run the service to make it available for cheap. As though a government running the service will automatically increase the supply.
Socialism in theory is inefficient and almost always results in tyranny in practice. Deaths of millions is just a bonus that comes with it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Socialism doesn't work. It's a solution that lazy thinkers come up with when there is a problem. Price of something goes up because of a supply issue? We should have the government run the service to make it available for cheap. As though a government running the service will automatically increase the supply.
Socialism in theory is inefficient and almost always results in tyranny in practice. Deaths of millions is just a bonus that comes with it."
What a childish, idiotic and clumsy reply. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Socialism doesn't work. It's a solution that lazy thinkers come up with when there is a problem. Price of something goes up because of a supply issue? We should have the government run the service to make it available for cheap. As though a government running the service will automatically increase the supply.
Socialism in theory is inefficient and almost always results in tyranny in practice. Deaths of millions is just a bonus that comes with it.
What a childish, idiotic and clumsy reply. "
Sorry I am not as enlightened as your Russian grandpa. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Socialism doesn't work. It's a solution that lazy thinkers come up with when there is a problem. Price of something goes up because of a supply issue? We should have the government run the service to make it available for cheap. As though a government running the service will automatically increase the supply.
Socialism in theory is inefficient and almost always results in tyranny in practice. Deaths of millions is just a bonus that comes with it.
What a childish, idiotic and clumsy reply.
Sorry I am not as enlightened as your Russian grandpa."
Obviously not. Come on you can do better than this, think and engage your brain before writing complete nonsense |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Socialism doesn't work. It's a solution that lazy thinkers come up with when there is a problem. Price of something goes up because of a supply issue? We should have the government run the service to make it available for cheap. As though a government running the service will automatically increase the supply.
Socialism in theory is inefficient and almost always results in tyranny in practice. Deaths of millions is just a bonus that comes with it.
What a childish, idiotic and clumsy reply.
Sorry I am not as enlightened as your Russian grandpa.
Obviously not. Come on you can do better than this, think and engage your brain before writing complete nonsense"
A single line post that says:
"What a childish, idiotic and clumsy reply."
God you must be engaging your brain really well. That sovier propoganda by your grandpa must have really worked up your brain well.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"Are there any countries in the world where socialism has worked successfully?
Socialism has worked in every country it has been implemented in. "
I think that the people of Venezuela, may well disagree with that statement! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
I love how people conflate Socialism with Communism. Try Left and Far Left. Or go more centrist with Social Democracy. Or start heading right...!
What is better? A society that looks after the weaker and poorer and ensures the fundamentals needed for life are always available and affordable OR a society that says you’re on your own, good luck! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I love how people conflate Socialism with Communism. Try Left and Far Left. Or go more centrist with Social Democracy. Or start heading right...!
What is better? A society that looks after the weaker and poorer and ensures the fundamentals needed for life are always available and affordable OR a society that says you’re on your own, good luck!"
The problem with socialism is that it always starts with trying to do good for the poor but ends up badly for the entire population. It's a classic case of the road to hell is paved with good intentions. No matter how many times it fails, people still try to bring it up as a solution to problems because of the good intentions which mask all its problems. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *riel13Woman
over a year ago
Northampton |
"Are there any countries in the world where socialism has worked successfully?
Worked well for the dictators. Not much for the millions who died."
If there is a dictator, that makes it a dictatorship... Socialism run by the corrupt is no longer socialism  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Are there any countries in the world where socialism has worked successfully?
Worked well for the dictators. Not much for the millions who died.
If there is a dictator, that makes it a dictatorship... Socialism run by the corrupt is no longer socialism "
If government owns the means of production, it is socialism. Unfortunately, most socialist form of governments naturally tend towards tyranny. Just because it's dictatorship, it doesn't make it non-socialistic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Are there any countries in the world where socialism has worked successfully?
Worked well for the dictators. Not much for the millions who died.
If there is a dictator, that makes it a dictatorship... Socialism run by the corrupt is no longer socialism
If government owns the means of production, it is socialism. Unfortunately, most socialist form of governments naturally tend towards tyranny. Just because it's dictatorship, it doesn't make it non-socialistic."
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
If the government is dictatorial it stops being the community as a whole and instantly stops being socialism |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Are there any countries in the world where socialism has worked successfully?
Worked well for the dictators. Not much for the millions who died.
If there is a dictator, that makes it a dictatorship... Socialism run by the corrupt is no longer socialism
If government owns the means of production, it is socialism. Unfortunately, most socialist form of governments naturally tend towards tyranny. Just because it's dictatorship, it doesn't make it non-socialistic.
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
If the government is dictatorial it stops being the community as a whole and instantly stops being socialism"
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/socialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism
Socialism can be authoritarian. Saying "But that's not socialism" is a cheap copout after being repeatedly proven that socialism has a tendancy to lead to authoritarianism. Individuals and shareholders own most businesses in all countries. How exactly is the country going to become socialist? All these individuals are going to voluntarily turn up and donate the businesses they worked hard to build to the government? It can only by done through force with the help of armies. Such an action will obviously lead to too much power in hands of few individuals.
India was able to try socialism because it just got independence from foreign rule and ownership for over a century. After 40 years, we realised how bad the idea turned out to be. Luckily we had politicians with the will to liberalise the markets at that time. The country would have turned into a hellhole if not for that because of the population explosion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Are there any countries in the world where socialism has worked successfully?
Worked well for the dictators. Not much for the millions who died.
If there is a dictator, that makes it a dictatorship... Socialism run by the corrupt is no longer socialism
If government owns the means of production, it is socialism. Unfortunately, most socialist form of governments naturally tend towards tyranny. Just because it's dictatorship, it doesn't make it non-socialistic.
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
If the government is dictatorial it stops being the community as a whole and instantly stops being socialism
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/socialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism
Socialism can be authoritarian. Saying "But that's not socialism" is a cheap copout after being repeatedly proven that socialism has a tendancy to lead to authoritarianism. Individuals and shareholders own most businesses in all countries. How exactly is the country going to become socialist? All these individuals are going to voluntarily turn up and donate the businesses they worked hard to build to the government? It can only by done through force with the help of armies. Such an action will obviously lead to too much power in hands of few individuals.
India was able to try socialism because it just got independence from foreign rule and ownership for over a century. After 40 years, we realised how bad the idea turned out to be. Luckily we had politicians with the will to liberalise the markets at that time. The country would have turned into a hellhole if not for that because of the population explosion."
Sure lets change the definition of socialism so we can fit your narrative. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Are there any countries in the world where socialism has worked successfully?
Worked well for the dictators. Not much for the millions who died.
If there is a dictator, that makes it a dictatorship... Socialism run by the corrupt is no longer socialism
If government owns the means of production, it is socialism. Unfortunately, most socialist form of governments naturally tend towards tyranny. Just because it's dictatorship, it doesn't make it non-socialistic.
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
If the government is dictatorial it stops being the community as a whole and instantly stops being socialism
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/socialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism
Socialism can be authoritarian. Saying "But that's not socialism" is a cheap copout after being repeatedly proven that socialism has a tendancy to lead to authoritarianism. Individuals and shareholders own most businesses in all countries. How exactly is the country going to become socialist? All these individuals are going to voluntarily turn up and donate the businesses they worked hard to build to the government? It can only by done through force with the help of armies. Such an action will obviously lead to too much power in hands of few individuals.
India was able to try socialism because it just got independence from foreign rule and ownership for over a century. After 40 years, we realised how bad the idea turned out to be. Luckily we had politicians with the will to liberalise the markets at that time. The country would have turned into a hellhole if not for that because of the population explosion.
Sure lets change the definition of socialism so we can fit your narrative."
I gave you multiple sources. If you look at the Marxist version of socialism, he clearly states in the communist manifesto about "dictatorship of proletariat"
Unless you are going to say Marx is also not a socialist, I don't see a point in your statement. Marx clearly knew that's the only way you can start socialism in countries where production is owned by individuals. How else do you become a socialist country in your model?
There are multiple issues with socialism and authoritarianism is just a part of it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"So who thinks socialism works? Why does it or does not work? "
Yes. Pretty much every democratic state is socialist to some extent.
From the Oxford English dictionary:
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Regulated.
State regulation is a minimum requirement for capitalism to function.
Taken further it also provides education and healthcare and infrastructure and reallocates resources to areas which are unprofitable but provide social and environmental benefits that have no monetary value.
As a democracy, we decide where we are on that continuum. Like most of Europe we are somewhere in the middle and all the better for it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Socialism doesn't work. It's a solution that lazy thinkers come up with when there is a problem. Price of something goes up because of a supply issue? We should have the government run the service to make it available for cheap. As though a government running the service will automatically increase the supply.
Socialism in theory is inefficient and almost always results in tyranny in practice. Deaths of millions is just a bonus that comes with it."
You don't understand socialism, do you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Are there any countries in the world where socialism has worked successfully?
Worked well for the dictators. Not much for the millions who died.
If there is a dictator, that makes it a dictatorship... Socialism run by the corrupt is no longer socialism
If government owns the means of production, it is socialism. Unfortunately, most socialist form of governments naturally tend towards tyranny. Just because it's dictatorship, it doesn't make it non-socialistic.
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
If the government is dictatorial it stops being the community as a whole and instantly stops being socialism
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/socialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism
Socialism can be authoritarian. Saying "But that's not socialism" is a cheap copout after being repeatedly proven that socialism has a tendancy to lead to authoritarianism. Individuals and shareholders own most businesses in all countries. How exactly is the country going to become socialist? All these individuals are going to voluntarily turn up and donate the businesses they worked hard to build to the government? It can only by done through force with the help of armies. Such an action will obviously lead to too much power in hands of few individuals.
India was able to try socialism because it just got independence from foreign rule and ownership for over a century. After 40 years, we realised how bad the idea turned out to be. Luckily we had politicians with the will to liberalise the markets at that time. The country would have turned into a hellhole if not for that because of the population explosion.
Sure lets change the definition of socialism so we can fit your narrative.
I gave you multiple sources. If you look at the Marxist version of socialism, he clearly states in the communist manifesto about "dictatorship of proletariat"
Unless you are going to say Marx is also not a socialist, I don't see a point in your statement. Marx clearly knew that's the only way you can start socialism in countries where production is owned by individuals. How else do you become a socialist country in your model?
There are multiple issues with socialism and authoritarianism is just a part of it."
You are talking about Communism.
You seem confused. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Are there any countries in the world where socialism has worked successfully?
Worked well for the dictators. Not much for the millions who died.
If there is a dictator, that makes it a dictatorship... Socialism run by the corrupt is no longer socialism
If government owns the means of production, it is socialism. Unfortunately, most socialist form of governments naturally tend towards tyranny. Just because it's dictatorship, it doesn't make it non-socialistic.
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
If the government is dictatorial it stops being the community as a whole and instantly stops being socialism
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/socialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism
Socialism can be authoritarian. Saying "But that's not socialism" is a cheap copout after being repeatedly proven that socialism has a tendancy to lead to authoritarianism. Individuals and shareholders own most businesses in all countries. How exactly is the country going to become socialist? All these individuals are going to voluntarily turn up and donate the businesses they worked hard to build to the government? It can only by done through force with the help of armies. Such an action will obviously lead to too much power in hands of few individuals.
India was able to try socialism because it just got independence from foreign rule and ownership for over a century. After 40 years, we realised how bad the idea turned out to be. Luckily we had politicians with the will to liberalise the markets at that time. The country would have turned into a hellhole if not for that because of the population explosion.
Sure lets change the definition of socialism so we can fit your narrative.
I gave you multiple sources. If you look at the Marxist version of socialism, he clearly states in the communist manifesto about "dictatorship of proletariat"
Unless you are going to say Marx is also not a socialist, I don't see a point in your statement. Marx clearly knew that's the only way you can start socialism in countries where production is owned by individuals. How else do you become a socialist country in your model?
There are multiple issues with socialism and authoritarianism is just a part of it.
You are talking about Communism.
You seem confused."
Which part of it is communism? Marx clearly states that it is the intermediate state before reaching communism - socialism
Are you going to say Marx was wrong? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Which part of it is communism? Marx clearly states that it is the intermediate state before reaching communism - socialism
Are you going to say Marx was wrong?"
by your own post they are separate things... otherwise they would be the same state. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
The John Lewis Partnership is socialist.
One of the most profitable businesses in the UK until it had to compete with untaxed online competitors.
The Coop too.
The building societies which all wen bankrupt after privatisation leaving the Nationwide as the sole large survivor
What's wrong with their business models? Not enough debt? Too much long term reinvestment and not enough short term profit extraction?
What's wrong with socialism when it functions as intended? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Socialism doesn't work. It's a solution that lazy thinkers come up with when there is a problem. Price of something goes up because of a supply issue? We should have the government run the service to make it available for cheap. As though a government running the service will automatically increase the supply.
Socialism in theory is inefficient and almost always results in tyranny in practice. Deaths of millions is just a bonus that comes with it.
You don't understand socialism, do you?"
Can you enlighten me with the list for of countries that successfully adapted fully socialist model and succeeded?
India adapts socialism. Doesn't work. Moves on to capitalism and doubles annual growth in a few years.
China adapts socialism. Results in millions of deaths. Starts allowing free markets in multiple sectors and becomes a global power.
Venezuela reaches bankruptcy with socialism and starts recovery after liberalising the economy.
Maybe make a strong argument next time instead of just throwing random lines like "you don't understand socialism"? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The John Lewis Partnership is socialist.
One of the most profitable businesses in the UK until it had to compete with untaxed online competitors.
The Coop too.
The building societies which all wen bankrupt after privatisation leaving the Nationwide as the sole large survivor
What's wrong with their business models? Not enough debt? Too much long term reinvestment and not enough short term profit extraction?
What's wrong with socialism when it functions as intended?"
Comparing small scale economics with economics of an entire country is one of the biggest mistakes arm-chait socialists keep making. And then they are surprised when it fails big time at national level and go back to "but socialism was never implemented properly" excuse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Are there any countries in the world where socialism has worked successfully?
Worked well for the dictators. Not much for the millions who died.
If there is a dictator, that makes it a dictatorship... Socialism run by the corrupt is no longer socialism
If government owns the means of production, it is socialism. Unfortunately, most socialist form of governments naturally tend towards tyranny. Just because it's dictatorship, it doesn't make it non-socialistic.
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
If the government is dictatorial it stops being the community as a whole and instantly stops being socialism
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/socialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism
Socialism can be authoritarian. Saying "But that's not socialism" is a cheap copout after being repeatedly proven that socialism has a tendancy to lead to authoritarianism. Individuals and shareholders own most businesses in all countries. How exactly is the country going to become socialist? All these individuals are going to voluntarily turn up and donate the businesses they worked hard to build to the government? It can only by done through force with the help of armies. Such an action will obviously lead to too much power in hands of few individuals.
India was able to try socialism because it just got independence from foreign rule and ownership for over a century. After 40 years, we realised how bad the idea turned out to be. Luckily we had politicians with the will to liberalise the markets at that time. The country would have turned into a hellhole if not for that because of the population explosion.
Sure lets change the definition of socialism so we can fit your narrative.
I gave you multiple sources. If you look at the Marxist version of socialism, he clearly states in the communist manifesto about "dictatorship of proletariat"
Unless you are going to say Marx is also not a socialist, I don't see a point in your statement. Marx clearly knew that's the only way you can start socialism in countries where production is owned by individuals. How else do you become a socialist country in your model?
There are multiple issues with socialism and authoritarianism is just a part of it.
You are talking about Communism.
You seem confused.
Which part of it is communism? Marx clearly states that it is the intermediate state before reaching communism - socialism
Are you going to say Marx was wrong?"
What bots of the internet are you skim reading?
Do you understand what the "dictatorship of the proletariat is"? It is the enforced nationalisation of all assets. That is not socialism.
Look at the actual definition of socialism again.
Every successful economy is a mix of socialism and capitalism because, guess what, neither of them works on there own. Both systems fail at either extreme because of human weakness. Power and corruption and selfishness.
Consequently you get some mix in the middle that fluctuates. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Which part of it is communism? Marx clearly states that it is the intermediate state before reaching communism - socialism
Are you going to say Marx was wrong?
by your own post they are separate things... otherwise they would be the same state."
They are separate things. In a communist society, there is no money and no one owns anything. Marx proposed socialism can be an intermediate state before communism where the government will own all industries (while money still exists) until they make it reach a stage where a government is not needed anymore and the community can take care of the whole. But alas, that never happened. I wonder why. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Socialism doesn't work. It's a solution that lazy thinkers come up with when there is a problem. Price of something goes up because of a supply issue? We should have the government run the service to make it available for cheap. As though a government running the service will automatically increase the supply.
Socialism in theory is inefficient and almost always results in tyranny in practice. Deaths of millions is just a bonus that comes with it.
You don't understand socialism, do you?
Can you enlighten me with the list for of countries that successfully adapted fully socialist model and succeeded?
India adapts socialism. Doesn't work. Moves on to capitalism and doubles annual growth in a few years.
China adapts socialism. Results in millions of deaths. Starts allowing free markets in multiple sectors and becomes a global power.
Venezuela reaches bankruptcy with socialism and starts recovery after liberalising the economy.
Maybe make a strong argument next time instead of just throwing random lines like "you don't understand socialism"?"
I haven't advocated full socialism. It's perfectly viable if people were able to act less selfishly. They can't though.
Unfettered capitalism is equally terrible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Are there any countries in the world where socialism has worked successfully?
Worked well for the dictators. Not much for the millions who died.
If there is a dictator, that makes it a dictatorship... Socialism run by the corrupt is no longer socialism
If government owns the means of production, it is socialism. Unfortunately, most socialist form of governments naturally tend towards tyranny. Just because it's dictatorship, it doesn't make it non-socialistic.
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
If the government is dictatorial it stops being the community as a whole and instantly stops being socialism
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/socialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism
Socialism can be authoritarian. Saying "But that's not socialism" is a cheap copout after being repeatedly proven that socialism has a tendancy to lead to authoritarianism. Individuals and shareholders own most businesses in all countries. How exactly is the country going to become socialist? All these individuals are going to voluntarily turn up and donate the businesses they worked hard to build to the government? It can only by done through force with the help of armies. Such an action will obviously lead to too much power in hands of few individuals.
India was able to try socialism because it just got independence from foreign rule and ownership for over a century. After 40 years, we realised how bad the idea turned out to be. Luckily we had politicians with the will to liberalise the markets at that time. The country would have turned into a hellhole if not for that because of the population explosion.
Sure lets change the definition of socialism so we can fit your narrative.
I gave you multiple sources. If you look at the Marxist version of socialism, he clearly states in the communist manifesto about "dictatorship of proletariat"
Unless you are going to say Marx is also not a socialist, I don't see a point in your statement. Marx clearly knew that's the only way you can start socialism in countries where production is owned by individuals. How else do you become a socialist country in your model?
There are multiple issues with socialism and authoritarianism is just a part of it.
You are talking about Communism.
You seem confused.
Which part of it is communism? Marx clearly states that it is the intermediate state before reaching communism - socialism
Are you going to say Marx was wrong?
What bots of the internet are you skim reading?
Do you understand what the "dictatorship of the proletariat is"? It is the enforced nationalisation of all assets. That is not socialism.
Look at the actual definition of socialism again.
Every successful economy is a mix of socialism and capitalism because, guess what, neither of them works on there own. Both systems fail at either extreme because of human weakness. Power and corruption and selfishness.
Consequently you get some mix in the middle that fluctuates."
I posted links of definition of socialism above. I didn't read bots. I read communist manifesto and some extracts of Marx's writings. Do tell me if you think you know more about Socialism than Marx.
I am well aware that capitalism has flaws and needs government to keep in check through clever regulations. But that's nothing compared to socialism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Which part of it is communism? Marx clearly states that it is the intermediate state before reaching communism - socialism
Are you going to say Marx was wrong?
by your own post they are separate things... otherwise they would be the same state.
They are separate things. In a communist society, there is no money and no one owns anything. Marx proposed socialism can be an intermediate state before communism where the government will own all industries (while money still exists) until they make it reach a stage where a government is not needed anymore and the community can take care of the whole. But alas, that never happened. I wonder why."
You didn't actually explain what made them bad business models though.
If all companies were able to function in this way, we would probably be far more content and live on a more stable society.
You are arguing about something that I am not discussing though. That often seems to be the case.
You carry on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Socialism doesn't work. It's a solution that lazy thinkers come up with when there is a problem. Price of something goes up because of a supply issue? We should have the government run the service to make it available for cheap. As though a government running the service will automatically increase the supply.
Socialism in theory is inefficient and almost always results in tyranny in practice. Deaths of millions is just a bonus that comes with it.
You don't understand socialism, do you?
Can you enlighten me with the list for of countries that successfully adapted fully socialist model and succeeded?
India adapts socialism. Doesn't work. Moves on to capitalism and doubles annual growth in a few years.
China adapts socialism. Results in millions of deaths. Starts allowing free markets in multiple sectors and becomes a global power.
Venezuela reaches bankruptcy with socialism and starts recovery after liberalising the economy.
Maybe make a strong argument next time instead of just throwing random lines like "you don't understand socialism"?
I haven't advocated full socialism. It's perfectly viable if people were able to act less selfishly. They can't though.
Unfettered capitalism is equally terrible."
Unfettered capitalism is bad. But calling it equally terrible is too much. US has much less regulations compared to rest of the world. It's not like they had millions of people killed like socialism does. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Are there any countries in the world where socialism has worked successfully?
Worked well for the dictators. Not much for the millions who died.
If there is a dictator, that makes it a dictatorship... Socialism run by the corrupt is no longer socialism
If government owns the means of production, it is socialism. Unfortunately, most socialist form of governments naturally tend towards tyranny. Just because it's dictatorship, it doesn't make it non-socialistic.
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
If the government is dictatorial it stops being the community as a whole and instantly stops being socialism
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/socialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism
Socialism can be authoritarian. Saying "But that's not socialism" is a cheap copout after being repeatedly proven that socialism has a tendancy to lead to authoritarianism. Individuals and shareholders own most businesses in all countries. How exactly is the country going to become socialist? All these individuals are going to voluntarily turn up and donate the businesses they worked hard to build to the government? It can only by done through force with the help of armies. Such an action will obviously lead to too much power in hands of few individuals.
India was able to try socialism because it just got independence from foreign rule and ownership for over a century. After 40 years, we realised how bad the idea turned out to be. Luckily we had politicians with the will to liberalise the markets at that time. The country would have turned into a hellhole if not for that because of the population explosion.
Sure lets change the definition of socialism so we can fit your narrative.
I gave you multiple sources. If you look at the Marxist version of socialism, he clearly states in the communist manifesto about "dictatorship of proletariat"
Unless you are going to say Marx is also not a socialist, I don't see a point in your statement. Marx clearly knew that's the only way you can start socialism in countries where production is owned by individuals. How else do you become a socialist country in your model?
There are multiple issues with socialism and authoritarianism is just a part of it.
You are talking about Communism.
You seem confused.
Which part of it is communism? Marx clearly states that it is the intermediate state before reaching communism - socialism
Are you going to say Marx was wrong?
What bots of the internet are you skim reading?
Do you understand what the "dictatorship of the proletariat is"? It is the enforced nationalisation of all assets. That is not socialism.
Look at the actual definition of socialism again.
Every successful economy is a mix of socialism and capitalism because, guess what, neither of them works on there own. Both systems fail at either extreme because of human weakness. Power and corruption and selfishness.
Consequently you get some mix in the middle that fluctuates.
I posted links of definition of socialism above. I didn't read bots. I read communist manifesto and some extracts of Marx's writings. Do tell me if you think you know more about Socialism than Marx.
I am well aware that capitalism has flaws and needs government to keep in check through clever regulations. But that's nothing compared to socialism."
You do know that Communism and Socialism are not synonyms right?
they are not the same thing... you are railing against communism, while calling it socialism.
That's like Railing against Rugby and calling it football.
yeah they are both team sports using a ball played on grass but... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Are there any countries in the world where socialism has worked successfully?
Worked well for the dictators. Not much for the millions who died.
If there is a dictator, that makes it a dictatorship... Socialism run by the corrupt is no longer socialism
If government owns the means of production, it is socialism. Unfortunately, most socialist form of governments naturally tend towards tyranny. Just because it's dictatorship, it doesn't make it non-socialistic.
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
If the government is dictatorial it stops being the community as a whole and instantly stops being socialism
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/socialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism
Socialism can be authoritarian. Saying "But that's not socialism" is a cheap copout after being repeatedly proven that socialism has a tendancy to lead to authoritarianism. Individuals and shareholders own most businesses in all countries. How exactly is the country going to become socialist? All these individuals are going to voluntarily turn up and donate the businesses they worked hard to build to the government? It can only by done through force with the help of armies. Such an action will obviously lead to too much power in hands of few individuals.
India was able to try socialism because it just got independence from foreign rule and ownership for over a century. After 40 years, we realised how bad the idea turned out to be. Luckily we had politicians with the will to liberalise the markets at that time. The country would have turned into a hellhole if not for that because of the population explosion.
Sure lets change the definition of socialism so we can fit your narrative.
I gave you multiple sources. If you look at the Marxist version of socialism, he clearly states in the communist manifesto about "dictatorship of proletariat"
Unless you are going to say Marx is also not a socialist, I don't see a point in your statement. Marx clearly knew that's the only way you can start socialism in countries where production is owned by individuals. How else do you become a socialist country in your model?
There are multiple issues with socialism and authoritarianism is just a part of it.
You are talking about Communism.
You seem confused.
Which part of it is communism? Marx clearly states that it is the intermediate state before reaching communism - socialism
Are you going to say Marx was wrong?
What bots of the internet are you skim reading?
Do you understand what the "dictatorship of the proletariat is"? It is the enforced nationalisation of all assets. That is not socialism.
Look at the actual definition of socialism again.
Every successful economy is a mix of socialism and capitalism because, guess what, neither of them works on there own. Both systems fail at either extreme because of human weakness. Power and corruption and selfishness.
Consequently you get some mix in the middle that fluctuates.
I posted links of definition of socialism above. I didn't read bots. I read communist manifesto and some extracts of Marx's writings. Do tell me if you think you know more about Socialism than Marx.
I am well aware that capitalism has flaws and needs government to keep in check through clever regulations. But that's nothing compared to socialism."
Did you read your own links?
Did you read about "Democratic Socialism"? The country in which we live lies slightly to the right of this.
Germany is economically more successful than we are and sit far closer to Democratic Socialism with State and Worker representation on the boards of most major companies.
Communism is an extreme form of socialism. Nobody has said that is a good idea, have they? So why discuss it?
Authoritarianism and dictatorships arise in any form of government or economic arrangement. Why is this pertinent? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Which part of it is communism? Marx clearly states that it is the intermediate state before reaching communism - socialism
Are you going to say Marx was wrong?
by your own post they are separate things... otherwise they would be the same state.
They are separate things. In a communist society, there is no money and no one owns anything. Marx proposed socialism can be an intermediate state before communism where the government will own all industries (while money still exists) until they make it reach a stage where a government is not needed anymore and the community can take care of the whole. But alas, that never happened. I wonder why.
You didn't actually explain what made them bad business models though.
If all companies were able to function in this way, we would probably be far more content and live on a more stable society.
You are arguing about something that I am not discussing though. That often seems to be the case.
You carry on."
Because environment keeps changing and companies have to adapt to changes. Economics books takes multiple chapters to explain why a supply demand based free markets scale better than public owned system. When you have 50 people using a cooperative model, it's easy to control usage of resources. When you expand it across, it doesn't work. People always work well for their own interests and it has been proven time and again.
You are as usual running away from argument because you don't have an answer. Carry on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Are there any countries in the world where socialism has worked successfully?
Worked well for the dictators. Not much for the millions who died.
If there is a dictator, that makes it a dictatorship... Socialism run by the corrupt is no longer socialism
If government owns the means of production, it is socialism. Unfortunately, most socialist form of governments naturally tend towards tyranny. Just because it's dictatorship, it doesn't make it non-socialistic.
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
If the government is dictatorial it stops being the community as a whole and instantly stops being socialism
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/socialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism
Socialism can be authoritarian. Saying "But that's not socialism" is a cheap copout after being repeatedly proven that socialism has a tendancy to lead to authoritarianism. Individuals and shareholders own most businesses in all countries. How exactly is the country going to become socialist? All these individuals are going to voluntarily turn up and donate the businesses they worked hard to build to the government? It can only by done through force with the help of armies. Such an action will obviously lead to too much power in hands of few individuals.
India was able to try socialism because it just got independence from foreign rule and ownership for over a century. After 40 years, we realised how bad the idea turned out to be. Luckily we had politicians with the will to liberalise the markets at that time. The country would have turned into a hellhole if not for that because of the population explosion.
Sure lets change the definition of socialism so we can fit your narrative.
I gave you multiple sources. If you look at the Marxist version of socialism, he clearly states in the communist manifesto about "dictatorship of proletariat"
Unless you are going to say Marx is also not a socialist, I don't see a point in your statement. Marx clearly knew that's the only way you can start socialism in countries where production is owned by individuals. How else do you become a socialist country in your model?
There are multiple issues with socialism and authoritarianism is just a part of it.
You are talking about Communism.
You seem confused.
Which part of it is communism? Marx clearly states that it is the intermediate state before reaching communism - socialism
Are you going to say Marx was wrong?
What bots of the internet are you skim reading?
Do you understand what the "dictatorship of the proletariat is"? It is the enforced nationalisation of all assets. That is not socialism.
Look at the actual definition of socialism again.
Every successful economy is a mix of socialism and capitalism because, guess what, neither of them works on there own. Both systems fail at either extreme because of human weakness. Power and corruption and selfishness.
Consequently you get some mix in the middle that fluctuates.
I posted links of definition of socialism above. I didn't read bots. I read communist manifesto and some extracts of Marx's writings. Do tell me if you think you know more about Socialism than Marx.
I am well aware that capitalism has flaws and needs government to keep in check through clever regulations. But that's nothing compared to socialism.
Did you read your own links?
Did you read about "Democratic Socialism"? The country in which we live lies slightly to the right of this.
Germany is economically more successful than we are and sit far closer to Democratic Socialism with State and Worker representation on the boards of most major companies.
Communism is an extreme form of socialism. Nobody has said that is a good idea, have they? So why discuss it?
Authoritarianism and dictatorships arise in any form of government or economic arrangement. Why is this pertinent?"
Did you even read my posts completely? I said authoritarian socialism is a type of socialism. It was in response to others claim that just because it's authoritarian, it's not socialism.
How many industries in Germany are owned by the state or "community" as opposed to private? Social democracy is different from democratic socialism.
There are people here who actually said socialism is a good idea. Maybe read posts before randomly making posts and wasting other people's time |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Socialism doesn't work. It's a solution that lazy thinkers come up with when there is a problem. Price of something goes up because of a supply issue? We should have the government run the service to make it available for cheap. As though a government running the service will automatically increase the supply.
Socialism in theory is inefficient and almost always results in tyranny in practice. Deaths of millions is just a bonus that comes with it.
You don't understand socialism, do you?
Can you enlighten me with the list for of countries that successfully adapted fully socialist model and succeeded?
India adapts socialism. Doesn't work. Moves on to capitalism and doubles annual growth in a few years.
China adapts socialism. Results in millions of deaths. Starts allowing free markets in multiple sectors and becomes a global power.
Venezuela reaches bankruptcy with socialism and starts recovery after liberalising the economy.
Maybe make a strong argument next time instead of just throwing random lines like "you don't understand socialism"?
I haven't advocated full socialism. It's perfectly viable if people were able to act less selfishly. They can't though.
Unfettered capitalism is equally terrible.
Unfettered capitalism is bad. But calling it equally terrible is too much. US has much less regulations compared to rest of the world. It's not like they had millions of people killed like socialism does."
The USA was responsible for the near extermination of almost the entire native population and much of the wildlife in the pursuit of capitalism.
As a capitalist society it also allowed the ownership of other humans leading to generations of cruelty and death.
Unfettered capitalism throughout the world led to and still leads to dangerous working conditions for millions of people and poor pay and huge environmental damage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Socialism doesn't work. It's a solution that lazy thinkers come up with when there is a problem. Price of something goes up because of a supply issue? We should have the government run the service to make it available for cheap. As though a government running the service will automatically increase the supply.
Socialism in theory is inefficient and almost always results in tyranny in practice. Deaths of millions is just a bonus that comes with it.
You don't understand socialism, do you?
Can you enlighten me with the list for of countries that successfully adapted fully socialist model and succeeded?
India adapts socialism. Doesn't work. Moves on to capitalism and doubles annual growth in a few years.
China adapts socialism. Results in millions of deaths. Starts allowing free markets in multiple sectors and becomes a global power.
Venezuela reaches bankruptcy with socialism and starts recovery after liberalising the economy.
Maybe make a strong argument next time instead of just throwing random lines like "you don't understand socialism"?
I haven't advocated full socialism. It's perfectly viable if people were able to act less selfishly. They can't though.
Unfettered capitalism is equally terrible.
Unfettered capitalism is bad. But calling it equally terrible is too much. US has much less regulations compared to rest of the world. It's not like they had millions of people killed like socialism does.
The USA was responsible for the near extermination of almost the entire native population and much of the wildlife in the pursuit of capitalism.
As a capitalist society it also allowed the ownership of other humans leading to generations of cruelty and death.
Unfettered capitalism throughout the world led to and still leads to dangerous working conditions for millions of people and poor pay and huge environmental damage."
Occupying other countries and destroying natives have been part of human nature for centuries. It's not an outcome of capitalism.
Flash news! "Dangerous working conditions" and "poor pay" aren't same as millions of people dying due to famines or just exterminated because they didn't approve of the socialist model. And you don't need a socialist government to improve the working conditions either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Which part of it is communism? Marx clearly states that it is the intermediate state before reaching communism - socialism
Are you going to say Marx was wrong?
by your own post they are separate things... otherwise they would be the same state.
They are separate things. In a communist society, there is no money and no one owns anything. Marx proposed socialism can be an intermediate state before communism where the government will own all industries (while money still exists) until they make it reach a stage where a government is not needed anymore and the community can take care of the whole. But alas, that never happened. I wonder why.
You didn't actually explain what made them bad business models though.
If all companies were able to function in this way, we would probably be far more content and live on a more stable society.
You are arguing about something that I am not discussing though. That often seems to be the case.
You carry on.
Because environment keeps changing and companies have to adapt to changes. Economics books takes multiple chapters to explain why a supply demand based free markets scale better than public owned system. When you have 50 people using a cooperative model, it's easy to control usage of resources. When you expand it across, it doesn't work. People always work well for their own interests and it has been proven time and again.
You are as usual running away from argument because you don't have an answer. Carry on."
I do not actually know how to communicate with you because even when you are discussing something completely different to everyone else you have absolute certainty in being completely correct and everyone else stupid.
Have the companies that I described not adapted to changes and economic environments?
Has Germany and the UK not done so? Has the USA (which is a mixed economy) not done so?
People work very well for their own interests, such that they will cause harm to others to do so.
That's why all successful economies are mixed.
The Scandinavian states are more socialist and they are regularly used as an example of how countries should function.
Go figure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Are there any countries in the world where socialism has worked successfully?
Worked well for the dictators. Not much for the millions who died.
If there is a dictator, that makes it a dictatorship... Socialism run by the corrupt is no longer socialism
If government owns the means of production, it is socialism. Unfortunately, most socialist form of governments naturally tend towards tyranny. Just because it's dictatorship, it doesn't make it non-socialistic.
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
If the government is dictatorial it stops being the community as a whole and instantly stops being socialism
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/socialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism
Socialism can be authoritarian. Saying "But that's not socialism" is a cheap copout after being repeatedly proven that socialism has a tendancy to lead to authoritarianism. Individuals and shareholders own most businesses in all countries. How exactly is the country going to become socialist? All these individuals are going to voluntarily turn up and donate the businesses they worked hard to build to the government? It can only by done through force with the help of armies. Such an action will obviously lead to too much power in hands of few individuals.
India was able to try socialism because it just got independence from foreign rule and ownership for over a century. After 40 years, we realised how bad the idea turned out to be. Luckily we had politicians with the will to liberalise the markets at that time. The country would have turned into a hellhole if not for that because of the population explosion.
Sure lets change the definition of socialism so we can fit your narrative.
I gave you multiple sources. If you look at the Marxist version of socialism, he clearly states in the communist manifesto about "dictatorship of proletariat"
Unless you are going to say Marx is also not a socialist, I don't see a point in your statement. Marx clearly knew that's the only way you can start socialism in countries where production is owned by individuals. How else do you become a socialist country in your model?
There are multiple issues with socialism and authoritarianism is just a part of it.
You are talking about Communism.
You seem confused.
Which part of it is communism? Marx clearly states that it is the intermediate state before reaching communism - socialism
Are you going to say Marx was wrong?
What bots of the internet are you skim reading?
Do you understand what the "dictatorship of the proletariat is"? It is the enforced nationalisation of all assets. That is not socialism.
Look at the actual definition of socialism again.
Every successful economy is a mix of socialism and capitalism because, guess what, neither of them works on there own. Both systems fail at either extreme because of human weakness. Power and corruption and selfishness.
Consequently you get some mix in the middle that fluctuates.
I posted links of definition of socialism above. I didn't read bots. I read communist manifesto and some extracts of Marx's writings. Do tell me if you think you know more about Socialism than Marx.
I am well aware that capitalism has flaws and needs government to keep in check through clever regulations. But that's nothing compared to socialism.
Did you read your own links?
Did you read about "Democratic Socialism"? The country in which we live lies slightly to the right of this.
Germany is economically more successful than we are and sit far closer to Democratic Socialism with State and Worker representation on the boards of most major companies.
Communism is an extreme form of socialism. Nobody has said that is a good idea, have they? So why discuss it?
Authoritarianism and dictatorships arise in any form of government or economic arrangement. Why is this pertinent?
Did you even read my posts completely? I said authoritarian socialism is a type of socialism. It was in response to others claim that just because it's authoritarian, it's not socialism.
How many industries in Germany are owned by the state or "community" as opposed to private? Social democracy is different from democratic socialism.
There are people here who actually said socialism is a good idea. Maybe read posts before randomly making posts and wasting other people's time"
So, again. Have a think.
No authoritarian regimes that are capitalist, ever?
the Federal State of Lower Saxony 20% of the VW Group, one of the biggest car companies on the planet.
As I said and as socialism is defined on your own reference and in the dictionary, socialism does not require the ownership of the state. It requires the influence of the community, which can include employees and other stake holders.
You only want to argue about a narrow definition of more extreme examples.
Not sure why.
Socialism works in some forms and not others.
That is true, isn't it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Which part of it is communism? Marx clearly states that it is the intermediate state before reaching communism - socialism
Are you going to say Marx was wrong?
by your own post they are separate things... otherwise they would be the same state.
They are separate things. In a communist society, there is no money and no one owns anything. Marx proposed socialism can be an intermediate state before communism where the government will own all industries (while money still exists) until they make it reach a stage where a government is not needed anymore and the community can take care of the whole. But alas, that never happened. I wonder why.
You didn't actually explain what made them bad business models though.
If all companies were able to function in this way, we would probably be far more content and live on a more stable society.
You are arguing about something that I am not discussing though. That often seems to be the case.
You carry on.
Because environment keeps changing and companies have to adapt to changes. Economics books takes multiple chapters to explain why a supply demand based free markets scale better than public owned system. When you have 50 people using a cooperative model, it's easy to control usage of resources. When you expand it across, it doesn't work. People always work well for their own interests and it has been proven time and again.
You are as usual running away from argument because you don't have an answer. Carry on.
I do not actually know how to communicate with you because even when you are discussing something completely different to everyone else you have absolute certainty in being completely correct and everyone else stupid.
Have the companies that I described not adapted to changes and economic environments?
Has Germany and the UK not done so? Has the USA (which is a mixed economy) not done so?
People work very well for their own interests, such that they will cause harm to others to do so.
That's why all successful economies are mixed.
The Scandinavian states are more socialist and they are regularly used as an example of how countries should function.
Go figure."
As always, you are deflecting when you don't have an answer.
When did US and even Scandinavia become mixed/socialist? You are confusing social democracy with socialism. They sound similar. But they are not. A country can be called mixed economy if a big chunk of its industries are owned by government or in public sector. It's not the case with US. A government setting ground rules on how companies operate doesn't make it socialist. A social democracy is one which uses tax money to provide welfare to people. It's not socialism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Are there any countries in the world where socialism has worked successfully?
Worked well for the dictators. Not much for the millions who died.
If there is a dictator, that makes it a dictatorship... Socialism run by the corrupt is no longer socialism
If government owns the means of production, it is socialism. Unfortunately, most socialist form of governments naturally tend towards tyranny. Just because it's dictatorship, it doesn't make it non-socialistic.
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
If the government is dictatorial it stops being the community as a whole and instantly stops being socialism
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/socialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism
Socialism can be authoritarian. Saying "But that's not socialism" is a cheap copout after being repeatedly proven that socialism has a tendancy to lead to authoritarianism. Individuals and shareholders own most businesses in all countries. How exactly is the country going to become socialist? All these individuals are going to voluntarily turn up and donate the businesses they worked hard to build to the government? It can only by done through force with the help of armies. Such an action will obviously lead to too much power in hands of few individuals.
India was able to try socialism because it just got independence from foreign rule and ownership for over a century. After 40 years, we realised how bad the idea turned out to be. Luckily we had politicians with the will to liberalise the markets at that time. The country would have turned into a hellhole if not for that because of the population explosion.
Sure lets change the definition of socialism so we can fit your narrative.
I gave you multiple sources. If you look at the Marxist version of socialism, he clearly states in the communist manifesto about "dictatorship of proletariat"
Unless you are going to say Marx is also not a socialist, I don't see a point in your statement. Marx clearly knew that's the only way you can start socialism in countries where production is owned by individuals. How else do you become a socialist country in your model?
There are multiple issues with socialism and authoritarianism is just a part of it.
You are talking about Communism.
You seem confused.
Which part of it is communism? Marx clearly states that it is the intermediate state before reaching communism - socialism
Are you going to say Marx was wrong?
What bots of the internet are you skim reading?
Do you understand what the "dictatorship of the proletariat is"? It is the enforced nationalisation of all assets. That is not socialism.
Look at the actual definition of socialism again.
Every successful economy is a mix of socialism and capitalism because, guess what, neither of them works on there own. Both systems fail at either extreme because of human weakness. Power and corruption and selfishness.
Consequently you get some mix in the middle that fluctuates.
I posted links of definition of socialism above. I didn't read bots. I read communist manifesto and some extracts of Marx's writings. Do tell me if you think you know more about Socialism than Marx.
I am well aware that capitalism has flaws and needs government to keep in check through clever regulations. But that's nothing compared to socialism.
Did you read your own links?
Did you read about "Democratic Socialism"? The country in which we live lies slightly to the right of this.
Germany is economically more successful than we are and sit far closer to Democratic Socialism with State and Worker representation on the boards of most major companies.
Communism is an extreme form of socialism. Nobody has said that is a good idea, have they? So why discuss it?
Authoritarianism and dictatorships arise in any form of government or economic arrangement. Why is this pertinent?
Did you even read my posts completely? I said authoritarian socialism is a type of socialism. It was in response to others claim that just because it's authoritarian, it's not socialism.
How many industries in Germany are owned by the state or "community" as opposed to private? Social democracy is different from democratic socialism.
There are people here who actually said socialism is a good idea. Maybe read posts before randomly making posts and wasting other people's time
So, again. Have a think.
No authoritarian regimes that are capitalist, ever?
the Federal State of Lower Saxony 20% of the VW Group, one of the biggest car companies on the planet.
As I said and as socialism is defined on your own reference and in the dictionary, socialism does not require the ownership of the state. It requires the influence of the community, which can include employees and other stake holders.
You only want to argue about a narrow definition of more extreme examples.
Not sure why.
Socialism works in some forms and not others.
That is true, isn't it?"
I never said authoritarian regimes can never be capitalist. But socialism provides an easy path to authoritarianism. You have a bunch of industries in the country. How do you take them away from them? You need an army to force them out of their hands. Someone who thinks its fine to force property out of individuals using armed forces obviously means the person is already travelling the path of authoritarianism. India was able to try out socialism without authoritarianism because they did it during the transition from British rule and private property was not that big among Indians. Even that attempt failed eventually. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Socialism doesn't work. It's a solution that lazy thinkers come up with when there is a problem. Price of something goes up because of a supply issue? We should have the government run the service to make it available for cheap. As though a government running the service will automatically increase the supply.
Socialism in theory is inefficient and almost always results in tyranny in practice. Deaths of millions is just a bonus that comes with it.
You don't understand socialism, do you?
Can you enlighten me with the list for of countries that successfully adapted fully socialist model and succeeded?
India adapts socialism. Doesn't work. Moves on to capitalism and doubles annual growth in a few years.
China adapts socialism. Results in millions of deaths. Starts allowing free markets in multiple sectors and becomes a global power.
Venezuela reaches bankruptcy with socialism and starts recovery after liberalising the economy.
Maybe make a strong argument next time instead of just throwing random lines like "you don't understand socialism"?
I haven't advocated full socialism. It's perfectly viable if people were able to act less selfishly. They can't though.
Unfettered capitalism is equally terrible.
Unfettered capitalism is bad. But calling it equally terrible is too much. US has much less regulations compared to rest of the world. It's not like they had millions of people killed like socialism does.
The USA was responsible for the near extermination of almost the entire native population and much of the wildlife in the pursuit of capitalism.
As a capitalist society it also allowed the ownership of other humans leading to generations of cruelty and death.
Unfettered capitalism throughout the world led to and still leads to dangerous working conditions for millions of people and poor pay and huge environmental damage.
Occupying other countries and destroying natives have been part of human nature for centuries. It's not an outcome of capitalism.
Flash news! "Dangerous working conditions" and "poor pay" aren't same as millions of people dying due to famines or just exterminated because they didn't approve of the socialist model. And you don't need a socialist government to improve the working conditions either."
Yes, many types of society kill those they encounter. Just as many types of society can be ruled by authoritarian leaders. Correct?
However, the natives in the USA were exterminated in order for companies to acquire and make profit. For capitalism.
Sl@very served the same purpose. It was for profit. Capitalism.
Millions of people died of famine in Ireland under a purely capitalist system. Many of them then emigrated to the USA.
Some form of socialism turns out to be necessary. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Are there any countries in the world where socialism has worked successfully?
Worked well for the dictators. Not much for the millions who died.
If there is a dictator, that makes it a dictatorship... Socialism run by the corrupt is no longer socialism
If government owns the means of production, it is socialism. Unfortunately, most socialist form of governments naturally tend towards tyranny. Just because it's dictatorship, it doesn't make it non-socialistic.
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
If the government is dictatorial it stops being the community as a whole and instantly stops being socialism
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/socialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism
Socialism can be authoritarian. Saying "But that's not socialism" is a cheap copout after being repeatedly proven that socialism has a tendancy to lead to authoritarianism. Individuals and shareholders own most businesses in all countries. How exactly is the country going to become socialist? All these individuals are going to voluntarily turn up and donate the businesses they worked hard to build to the government? It can only by done through force with the help of armies. Such an action will obviously lead to too much power in hands of few individuals.
India was able to try socialism because it just got independence from foreign rule and ownership for over a century. After 40 years, we realised how bad the idea turned out to be. Luckily we had politicians with the will to liberalise the markets at that time. The country would have turned into a hellhole if not for that because of the population explosion.
Sure lets change the definition of socialism so we can fit your narrative.
I gave you multiple sources. If you look at the Marxist version of socialism, he clearly states in the communist manifesto about "dictatorship of proletariat"
Unless you are going to say Marx is also not a socialist, I don't see a point in your statement. Marx clearly knew that's the only way you can start socialism in countries where production is owned by individuals. How else do you become a socialist country in your model?
There are multiple issues with socialism and authoritarianism is just a part of it.
You are talking about Communism.
You seem confused.
Which part of it is communism? Marx clearly states that it is the intermediate state before reaching communism - socialism
Are you going to say Marx was wrong?
What bots of the internet are you skim reading?
Do you understand what the "dictatorship of the proletariat is"? It is the enforced nationalisation of all assets. That is not socialism.
Look at the actual definition of socialism again.
Every successful economy is a mix of socialism and capitalism because, guess what, neither of them works on there own. Both systems fail at either extreme because of human weakness. Power and corruption and selfishness.
Consequently you get some mix in the middle that fluctuates.
I posted links of definition of socialism above. I didn't read bots. I read communist manifesto and some extracts of Marx's writings. Do tell me if you think you know more about Socialism than Marx.
I am well aware that capitalism has flaws and needs government to keep in check through clever regulations. But that's nothing compared to socialism.
Did you read your own links?
Did you read about "Democratic Socialism"? The country in which we live lies slightly to the right of this.
Germany is economically more successful than we are and sit far closer to Democratic Socialism with State and Worker representation on the boards of most major companies.
Communism is an extreme form of socialism. Nobody has said that is a good idea, have they? So why discuss it?
Authoritarianism and dictatorships arise in any form of government or economic arrangement. Why is this pertinent?
Did you even read my posts completely? I said authoritarian socialism is a type of socialism. It was in response to others claim that just because it's authoritarian, it's not socialism.
How many industries in Germany are owned by the state or "community" as opposed to private? Social democracy is different from democratic socialism.
There are people here who actually said socialism is a good idea. Maybe read posts before randomly making posts and wasting other people's time
So, again. Have a think.
No authoritarian regimes that are capitalist, ever?
the Federal State of Lower Saxony 20% of the VW Group, one of the biggest car companies on the planet.
As I said and as socialism is defined on your own reference and in the dictionary, socialism does not require the ownership of the state. It requires the influence of the community, which can include employees and other stake holders.
You only want to argue about a narrow definition of more extreme examples.
Not sure why.
Socialism works in some forms and not others.
That is true, isn't it?
I never said authoritarian regimes can never be capitalist. But socialism provides an easy path to authoritarianism. You have a bunch of industries in the country. How do you take them away from them? You need an army to force them out of their hands. Someone who thinks its fine to force property out of individuals using armed forces obviously means the person is already travelling the path of authoritarianism. India was able to try out socialism without authoritarianism because they did it during the transition from British rule and private property was not that big among Indians. Even that attempt failed eventually."
The armed forces have frequently been used to force the ownership of land from individuals to corporations in capitalist regimes.
States have transferred assets to private entities for the benefit of a minority in capitalist regimes.
It seems to work both ways doesn't it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Which part of it is communism? Marx clearly states that it is the intermediate state before reaching communism - socialism
Are you going to say Marx was wrong?
by your own post they are separate things... otherwise they would be the same state.
They are separate things. In a communist society, there is no money and no one owns anything. Marx proposed socialism can be an intermediate state before communism where the government will own all industries (while money still exists) until they make it reach a stage where a government is not needed anymore and the community can take care of the whole. But alas, that never happened. I wonder why.
You didn't actually explain what made them bad business models though.
If all companies were able to function in this way, we would probably be far more content and live on a more stable society.
You are arguing about something that I am not discussing though. That often seems to be the case.
You carry on.
Because environment keeps changing and companies have to adapt to changes. Economics books takes multiple chapters to explain why a supply demand based free markets scale better than public owned system. When you have 50 people using a cooperative model, it's easy to control usage of resources. When you expand it across, it doesn't work. People always work well for their own interests and it has been proven time and again.
You are as usual running away from argument because you don't have an answer. Carry on.
I do not actually know how to communicate with you because even when you are discussing something completely different to everyone else you have absolute certainty in being completely correct and everyone else stupid.
Have the companies that I described not adapted to changes and economic environments?
Has Germany and the UK not done so? Has the USA (which is a mixed economy) not done so?
People work very well for their own interests, such that they will cause harm to others to do so.
That's why all successful economies are mixed.
The Scandinavian states are more socialist and they are regularly used as an example of how countries should function.
Go figure.
As always, you are deflecting when you don't have an answer.
When did US and even Scandinavia become mixed/socialist? You are confusing social democracy with socialism. They sound similar. But they are not. A country can be called mixed economy if a big chunk of its industries are owned by government or in public sector. It's not the case with US. A government setting ground rules on how companies operate doesn't make it socialist. A social democracy is one which uses tax money to provide welfare to people. It's not socialism."
As you wish. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Socialism doesn't work. It's a solution that lazy thinkers come up with when there is a problem. Price of something goes up because of a supply issue? We should have the government run the service to make it available for cheap. As though a government running the service will automatically increase the supply.
Socialism in theory is inefficient and almost always results in tyranny in practice. Deaths of millions is just a bonus that comes with it.
You don't understand socialism, do you?
Can you enlighten me with the list for of countries that successfully adapted fully socialist model and succeeded?
India adapts socialism. Doesn't work. Moves on to capitalism and doubles annual growth in a few years.
China adapts socialism. Results in millions of deaths. Starts allowing free markets in multiple sectors and becomes a global power.
Venezuela reaches bankruptcy with socialism and starts recovery after liberalising the economy.
Maybe make a strong argument next time instead of just throwing random lines like "you don't understand socialism"?
I haven't advocated full socialism. It's perfectly viable if people were able to act less selfishly. They can't though.
Unfettered capitalism is equally terrible.
Unfettered capitalism is bad. But calling it equally terrible is too much. US has much less regulations compared to rest of the world. It's not like they had millions of people killed like socialism does.
The USA was responsible for the near extermination of almost the entire native population and much of the wildlife in the pursuit of capitalism.
As a capitalist society it also allowed the ownership of other humans leading to generations of cruelty and death.
Unfettered capitalism throughout the world led to and still leads to dangerous working conditions for millions of people and poor pay and huge environmental damage.
Occupying other countries and destroying natives have been part of human nature for centuries. It's not an outcome of capitalism.
Flash news! "Dangerous working conditions" and "poor pay" aren't same as millions of people dying due to famines or just exterminated because they didn't approve of the socialist model. And you don't need a socialist government to improve the working conditions either.
Yes, many types of society kill those they encounter. Just as many types of society can be ruled by authoritarian leaders. Correct?
However, the natives in the USA were exterminated in order for companies to acquire and make profit. For capitalism.
Sl@very served the same purpose. It was for profit. Capitalism.
Millions of people died of famine in Ireland under a purely capitalist system. Many of them then emigrated to the USA.
Some form of socialism turns out to be necessary."
Societies killing other societies they encounter is a thing of past. Sl*very existed even before capitalism. If you look at current standards, one of the major factors driving countries to authoritarianism is socialism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Are there any countries in the world where socialism has worked successfully?
Worked well for the dictators. Not much for the millions who died.
If there is a dictator, that makes it a dictatorship... Socialism run by the corrupt is no longer socialism
If government owns the means of production, it is socialism. Unfortunately, most socialist form of governments naturally tend towards tyranny. Just because it's dictatorship, it doesn't make it non-socialistic.
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
If the government is dictatorial it stops being the community as a whole and instantly stops being socialism
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/socialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism
Socialism can be authoritarian. Saying "But that's not socialism" is a cheap copout after being repeatedly proven that socialism has a tendancy to lead to authoritarianism. Individuals and shareholders own most businesses in all countries. How exactly is the country going to become socialist? All these individuals are going to voluntarily turn up and donate the businesses they worked hard to build to the government? It can only by done through force with the help of armies. Such an action will obviously lead to too much power in hands of few individuals.
India was able to try socialism because it just got independence from foreign rule and ownership for over a century. After 40 years, we realised how bad the idea turned out to be. Luckily we had politicians with the will to liberalise the markets at that time. The country would have turned into a hellhole if not for that because of the population explosion.
Sure lets change the definition of socialism so we can fit your narrative.
I gave you multiple sources. If you look at the Marxist version of socialism, he clearly states in the communist manifesto about "dictatorship of proletariat"
Unless you are going to say Marx is also not a socialist, I don't see a point in your statement. Marx clearly knew that's the only way you can start socialism in countries where production is owned by individuals. How else do you become a socialist country in your model?
There are multiple issues with socialism and authoritarianism is just a part of it.
You are talking about Communism.
You seem confused.
Which part of it is communism? Marx clearly states that it is the intermediate state before reaching communism - socialism
Are you going to say Marx was wrong?
What bots of the internet are you skim reading?
Do you understand what the "dictatorship of the proletariat is"? It is the enforced nationalisation of all assets. That is not socialism.
Look at the actual definition of socialism again.
Every successful economy is a mix of socialism and capitalism because, guess what, neither of them works on there own. Both systems fail at either extreme because of human weakness. Power and corruption and selfishness.
Consequently you get some mix in the middle that fluctuates.
I posted links of definition of socialism above. I didn't read bots. I read communist manifesto and some extracts of Marx's writings. Do tell me if you think you know more about Socialism than Marx.
I am well aware that capitalism has flaws and needs government to keep in check through clever regulations. But that's nothing compared to socialism.
Did you read your own links?
Did you read about "Democratic Socialism"? The country in which we live lies slightly to the right of this.
Germany is economically more successful than we are and sit far closer to Democratic Socialism with State and Worker representation on the boards of most major companies.
Communism is an extreme form of socialism. Nobody has said that is a good idea, have they? So why discuss it?
Authoritarianism and dictatorships arise in any form of government or economic arrangement. Why is this pertinent?
Did you even read my posts completely? I said authoritarian socialism is a type of socialism. It was in response to others claim that just because it's authoritarian, it's not socialism.
How many industries in Germany are owned by the state or "community" as opposed to private? Social democracy is different from democratic socialism.
There are people here who actually said socialism is a good idea. Maybe read posts before randomly making posts and wasting other people's time
So, again. Have a think.
No authoritarian regimes that are capitalist, ever?
the Federal State of Lower Saxony 20% of the VW Group, one of the biggest car companies on the planet.
As I said and as socialism is defined on your own reference and in the dictionary, socialism does not require the ownership of the state. It requires the influence of the community, which can include employees and other stake holders.
You only want to argue about a narrow definition of more extreme examples.
Not sure why.
Socialism works in some forms and not others.
That is true, isn't it?
I never said authoritarian regimes can never be capitalist. But socialism provides an easy path to authoritarianism. You have a bunch of industries in the country. How do you take them away from them? You need an army to force them out of their hands. Someone who thinks its fine to force property out of individuals using armed forces obviously means the person is already travelling the path of authoritarianism. India was able to try out socialism without authoritarianism because they did it during the transition from British rule and private property was not that big among Indians. Even that attempt failed eventually.
The armed forces have frequently been used to force the ownership of land from individuals to corporations in capitalist regimes.
States have transferred assets to private entities for the benefit of a minority in capitalist regimes.
It seems to work both ways doesn't it?"
The scenario I gave with Socialism is about how socialism can theoretically take over in a country and how there is rarely a path around this process. What you are saying is an individual incident that happens in some countries. There have been numerous countries that have managed to adapt free markets just fine. The governments play a role in passing regulations to ensure what economists call "external damage" to minimal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Societies killing other societies they encounter is a thing of past. Sl*very existed even before capitalism. If you look at current standards, one of the major factors driving countries to authoritarianism is socialism."
Is your argument seriously, slvery happened before capitalism so we ignore all the slvery under capitalism?
I mean seriously, you are dismissing that entire argument based on that BS? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Socialism doesn't work. It's a solution that lazy thinkers come up with when there is a problem. Price of something goes up because of a supply issue? We should have the government run the service to make it available for cheap. As though a government running the service will automatically increase the supply.
Socialism in theory is inefficient and almost always results in tyranny in practice. Deaths of millions is just a bonus that comes with it.
You don't understand socialism, do you?
Can you enlighten me with the list for of countries that successfully adapted fully socialist model and succeeded?
India adapts socialism. Doesn't work. Moves on to capitalism and doubles annual growth in a few years.
China adapts socialism. Results in millions of deaths. Starts allowing free markets in multiple sectors and becomes a global power.
Venezuela reaches bankruptcy with socialism and starts recovery after liberalising the economy.
Maybe make a strong argument next time instead of just throwing random lines like "you don't understand socialism"?
I haven't advocated full socialism. It's perfectly viable if people were able to act less selfishly. They can't though.
Unfettered capitalism is equally terrible.
Unfettered capitalism is bad. But calling it equally terrible is too much. US has much less regulations compared to rest of the world. It's not like they had millions of people killed like socialism does.
The USA was responsible for the near extermination of almost the entire native population and much of the wildlife in the pursuit of capitalism.
As a capitalist society it also allowed the ownership of other humans leading to generations of cruelty and death.
Unfettered capitalism throughout the world led to and still leads to dangerous working conditions for millions of people and poor pay and huge environmental damage.
Occupying other countries and destroying natives have been part of human nature for centuries. It's not an outcome of capitalism.
Flash news! "Dangerous working conditions" and "poor pay" aren't same as millions of people dying due to famines or just exterminated because they didn't approve of the socialist model. And you don't need a socialist government to improve the working conditions either.
Yes, many types of society kill those they encounter. Just as many types of society can be ruled by authoritarian leaders. Correct?
However, the natives in the USA were exterminated in order for companies to acquire and make profit. For capitalism.
Sl@very served the same purpose. It was for profit. Capitalism.
Millions of people died of famine in Ireland under a purely capitalist system. Many of them then emigrated to the USA.
Some form of socialism turns out to be necessary.
Societies killing other societies they encounter is a thing of past. Sl*very existed even before capitalism. If you look at current standards, one of the major factors driving countries to authoritarianism is socialism."
The societies were all capitalist or feudal.
Turkey, Hungary, Poland, Russia.
All capitalist. Not socialist.
Even the UK is becoming more authoritarian with legislation against protesting, striking, judicial review. Skirting around or closing Parliament when difficult.
You are plain wrong on this point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Are there any countries in the world where socialism has worked successfully?
Worked well for the dictators. Not much for the millions who died.
If there is a dictator, that makes it a dictatorship... Socialism run by the corrupt is no longer socialism
If government owns the means of production, it is socialism. Unfortunately, most socialist form of governments naturally tend towards tyranny. Just because it's dictatorship, it doesn't make it non-socialistic.
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
If the government is dictatorial it stops being the community as a whole and instantly stops being socialism
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/socialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism
Socialism can be authoritarian. Saying "But that's not socialism" is a cheap copout after being repeatedly proven that socialism has a tendancy to lead to authoritarianism. Individuals and shareholders own most businesses in all countries. How exactly is the country going to become socialist? All these individuals are going to voluntarily turn up and donate the businesses they worked hard to build to the government? It can only by done through force with the help of armies. Such an action will obviously lead to too much power in hands of few individuals.
India was able to try socialism because it just got independence from foreign rule and ownership for over a century. After 40 years, we realised how bad the idea turned out to be. Luckily we had politicians with the will to liberalise the markets at that time. The country would have turned into a hellhole if not for that because of the population explosion.
Sure lets change the definition of socialism so we can fit your narrative.
I gave you multiple sources. If you look at the Marxist version of socialism, he clearly states in the communist manifesto about "dictatorship of proletariat"
Unless you are going to say Marx is also not a socialist, I don't see a point in your statement. Marx clearly knew that's the only way you can start socialism in countries where production is owned by individuals. How else do you become a socialist country in your model?
There are multiple issues with socialism and authoritarianism is just a part of it.
You are talking about Communism.
You seem confused.
Which part of it is communism? Marx clearly states that it is the intermediate state before reaching communism - socialism
Are you going to say Marx was wrong?
What bots of the internet are you skim reading?
Do you understand what the "dictatorship of the proletariat is"? It is the enforced nationalisation of all assets. That is not socialism.
Look at the actual definition of socialism again.
Every successful economy is a mix of socialism and capitalism because, guess what, neither of them works on there own. Both systems fail at either extreme because of human weakness. Power and corruption and selfishness.
Consequently you get some mix in the middle that fluctuates.
I posted links of definition of socialism above. I didn't read bots. I read communist manifesto and some extracts of Marx's writings. Do tell me if you think you know more about Socialism than Marx.
I am well aware that capitalism has flaws and needs government to keep in check through clever regulations. But that's nothing compared to socialism.
Did you read your own links?
Did you read about "Democratic Socialism"? The country in which we live lies slightly to the right of this.
Germany is economically more successful than we are and sit far closer to Democratic Socialism with State and Worker representation on the boards of most major companies.
Communism is an extreme form of socialism. Nobody has said that is a good idea, have they? So why discuss it?
Authoritarianism and dictatorships arise in any form of government or economic arrangement. Why is this pertinent?
Did you even read my posts completely? I said authoritarian socialism is a type of socialism. It was in response to others claim that just because it's authoritarian, it's not socialism.
How many industries in Germany are owned by the state or "community" as opposed to private? Social democracy is different from democratic socialism.
There are people here who actually said socialism is a good idea. Maybe read posts before randomly making posts and wasting other people's time
So, again. Have a think.
No authoritarian regimes that are capitalist, ever?
the Federal State of Lower Saxony 20% of the VW Group, one of the biggest car companies on the planet.
As I said and as socialism is defined on your own reference and in the dictionary, socialism does not require the ownership of the state. It requires the influence of the community, which can include employees and other stake holders.
You only want to argue about a narrow definition of more extreme examples.
Not sure why.
Socialism works in some forms and not others.
That is true, isn't it?
I never said authoritarian regimes can never be capitalist. But socialism provides an easy path to authoritarianism. You have a bunch of industries in the country. How do you take them away from them? You need an army to force them out of their hands. Someone who thinks its fine to force property out of individuals using armed forces obviously means the person is already travelling the path of authoritarianism. India was able to try out socialism without authoritarianism because they did it during the transition from British rule and private property was not that big among Indians. Even that attempt failed eventually.
The armed forces have frequently been used to force the ownership of land from individuals to corporations in capitalist regimes.
States have transferred assets to private entities for the benefit of a minority in capitalist regimes.
It seems to work both ways doesn't it?
The scenario I gave with Socialism is about how socialism can theoretically take over in a country and how there is rarely a path around this process. What you are saying is an individual incident that happens in some countries. There have been numerous countries that have managed to adapt free markets just fine. The governments play a role in passing regulations to ensure what economists call "external damage" to minimal."
There have been numerous countries that have adapted socialism just fine.
You are using extreme examples to argue a point.
I am simply saying that pretending that any economic or social model is completely correct or completely wrong is a nonsense.
The models exist because people inherently grasp the realities of both capitalist and socialist systems. Most people want both some tend more towards one or the other, but ultimately all societies are mixed and require a mixed solution.
You can do your thing and childishly accuse me of what ever you wish now  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The societies were all capitalist or feudal.
Turkey, Hungary, Poland, Russia.
All capitalist. Not socialist.
Even the UK is becoming more authoritarian with legislation against protesting, striking, judicial review. Skirting around or closing Parliament when difficult.
You are plain wrong on this point."
Also strong arguments that WWI & II were fought over capitalism, as such all that death lies in capitalism's corner with at least one academic putting the total of capitalism deaths in excess of 150 million from 1914-1992 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Societies killing other societies they encounter is a thing of past. Sl*very existed even before capitalism. If you look at current standards, one of the major factors driving countries to authoritarianism is socialism.
Is your argument seriously, slvery happened before capitalism so we ignore all the slvery under capitalism?
I mean seriously, you are dismissing that entire argument based on that BS?"
That was never my argument. My argument is capitalism was not the cause. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Socialism doesn't work. It's a solution that lazy thinkers come up with when there is a problem. Price of something goes up because of a supply issue? We should have the government run the service to make it available for cheap. As though a government running the service will automatically increase the supply.
Socialism in theory is inefficient and almost always results in tyranny in practice. Deaths of millions is just a bonus that comes with it.
You don't understand socialism, do you?
Can you enlighten me with the list for of countries that successfully adapted fully socialist model and succeeded?
India adapts socialism. Doesn't work. Moves on to capitalism and doubles annual growth in a few years.
China adapts socialism. Results in millions of deaths. Starts allowing free markets in multiple sectors and becomes a global power.
Venezuela reaches bankruptcy with socialism and starts recovery after liberalising the economy.
Maybe make a strong argument next time instead of just throwing random lines like "you don't understand socialism"?
I haven't advocated full socialism. It's perfectly viable if people were able to act less selfishly. They can't though.
Unfettered capitalism is equally terrible.
Unfettered capitalism is bad. But calling it equally terrible is too much. US has much less regulations compared to rest of the world. It's not like they had millions of people killed like socialism does.
The USA was responsible for the near extermination of almost the entire native population and much of the wildlife in the pursuit of capitalism.
As a capitalist society it also allowed the ownership of other humans leading to generations of cruelty and death.
Unfettered capitalism throughout the world led to and still leads to dangerous working conditions for millions of people and poor pay and huge environmental damage.
Occupying other countries and destroying natives have been part of human nature for centuries. It's not an outcome of capitalism.
Flash news! "Dangerous working conditions" and "poor pay" aren't same as millions of people dying due to famines or just exterminated because they didn't approve of the socialist model. And you don't need a socialist government to improve the working conditions either.
Yes, many types of society kill those they encounter. Just as many types of society can be ruled by authoritarian leaders. Correct?
However, the natives in the USA were exterminated in order for companies to acquire and make profit. For capitalism.
Sl@very served the same purpose. It was for profit. Capitalism.
Millions of people died of famine in Ireland under a purely capitalist system. Many of them then emigrated to the USA.
Some form of socialism turns out to be necessary.
Societies killing other societies they encounter is a thing of past. Sl*very existed even before capitalism. If you look at current standards, one of the major factors driving countries to authoritarianism is socialism.
The societies were all capitalist or feudal.
Turkey, Hungary, Poland, Russia.
All capitalist. Not socialist.
Even the UK is becoming more authoritarian with legislation against protesting, striking, judicial review. Skirting around or closing Parliament when difficult.
You are plain wrong on this point."
Feudalism is not capitalism. Not even similar. I don't know how one can put the two together and call others wrong.
Sl*very was a product of time and not a product of capitalism. On the other hand, there is a causal link between socialism and authoritarianism.
Randomly saying X happened in one capitalistic country, hence capitalism is responsible for X is laughable. Try to explain why it always causes X like how I explained why the transition to socialism involves authoritarian behaviour. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Are there any countries in the world where socialism has worked successfully?
Worked well for the dictators. Not much for the millions who died.
If there is a dictator, that makes it a dictatorship... Socialism run by the corrupt is no longer socialism
If government owns the means of production, it is socialism. Unfortunately, most socialist form of governments naturally tend towards tyranny. Just because it's dictatorship, it doesn't make it non-socialistic.
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
If the government is dictatorial it stops being the community as a whole and instantly stops being socialism
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/socialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism
Socialism can be authoritarian. Saying "But that's not socialism" is a cheap copout after being repeatedly proven that socialism has a tendancy to lead to authoritarianism. Individuals and shareholders own most businesses in all countries. How exactly is the country going to become socialist? All these individuals are going to voluntarily turn up and donate the businesses they worked hard to build to the government? It can only by done through force with the help of armies. Such an action will obviously lead to too much power in hands of few individuals.
India was able to try socialism because it just got independence from foreign rule and ownership for over a century. After 40 years, we realised how bad the idea turned out to be. Luckily we had politicians with the will to liberalise the markets at that time. The country would have turned into a hellhole if not for that because of the population explosion.
Sure lets change the definition of socialism so we can fit your narrative.
I gave you multiple sources. If you look at the Marxist version of socialism, he clearly states in the communist manifesto about "dictatorship of proletariat"
Unless you are going to say Marx is also not a socialist, I don't see a point in your statement. Marx clearly knew that's the only way you can start socialism in countries where production is owned by individuals. How else do you become a socialist country in your model?
There are multiple issues with socialism and authoritarianism is just a part of it.
You are talking about Communism.
You seem confused.
Which part of it is communism? Marx clearly states that it is the intermediate state before reaching communism - socialism
Are you going to say Marx was wrong?
What bots of the internet are you skim reading?
Do you understand what the "dictatorship of the proletariat is"? It is the enforced nationalisation of all assets. That is not socialism.
Look at the actual definition of socialism again.
Every successful economy is a mix of socialism and capitalism because, guess what, neither of them works on there own. Both systems fail at either extreme because of human weakness. Power and corruption and selfishness.
Consequently you get some mix in the middle that fluctuates.
I posted links of definition of socialism above. I didn't read bots. I read communist manifesto and some extracts of Marx's writings. Do tell me if you think you know more about Socialism than Marx.
I am well aware that capitalism has flaws and needs government to keep in check through clever regulations. But that's nothing compared to socialism.
Did you read your own links?
Did you read about "Democratic Socialism"? The country in which we live lies slightly to the right of this.
Germany is economically more successful than we are and sit far closer to Democratic Socialism with State and Worker representation on the boards of most major companies.
Communism is an extreme form of socialism. Nobody has said that is a good idea, have they? So why discuss it?
Authoritarianism and dictatorships arise in any form of government or economic arrangement. Why is this pertinent?
Did you even read my posts completely? I said authoritarian socialism is a type of socialism. It was in response to others claim that just because it's authoritarian, it's not socialism.
How many industries in Germany are owned by the state or "community" as opposed to private? Social democracy is different from democratic socialism.
There are people here who actually said socialism is a good idea. Maybe read posts before randomly making posts and wasting other people's time
So, again. Have a think.
No authoritarian regimes that are capitalist, ever?
the Federal State of Lower Saxony 20% of the VW Group, one of the biggest car companies on the planet.
As I said and as socialism is defined on your own reference and in the dictionary, socialism does not require the ownership of the state. It requires the influence of the community, which can include employees and other stake holders.
You only want to argue about a narrow definition of more extreme examples.
Not sure why.
Socialism works in some forms and not others.
That is true, isn't it?
I never said authoritarian regimes can never be capitalist. But socialism provides an easy path to authoritarianism. You have a bunch of industries in the country. How do you take them away from them? You need an army to force them out of their hands. Someone who thinks its fine to force property out of individuals using armed forces obviously means the person is already travelling the path of authoritarianism. India was able to try out socialism without authoritarianism because they did it during the transition from British rule and private property was not that big among Indians. Even that attempt failed eventually.
The armed forces have frequently been used to force the ownership of land from individuals to corporations in capitalist regimes.
States have transferred assets to private entities for the benefit of a minority in capitalist regimes.
It seems to work both ways doesn't it?
The scenario I gave with Socialism is about how socialism can theoretically take over in a country and how there is rarely a path around this process. What you are saying is an individual incident that happens in some countries. There have been numerous countries that have managed to adapt free markets just fine. The governments play a role in passing regulations to ensure what economists call "external damage" to minimal.
There have been numerous countries that have adapted socialism just fine.
You are using extreme examples to argue a point.
I am simply saying that pretending that any economic or social model is completely correct or completely wrong is a nonsense.
The models exist because people inherently grasp the realities of both capitalist and socialist systems. Most people want both some tend more towards one or the other, but ultimately all societies are mixed and require a mixed solution.
You can do your thing and childishly accuse me of what ever you wish now "
Except that you haven't given examples of numerous countries. Instead you give examples of social democracies. You are like those American conservatives who confuse social democracies with socialism. And you call others childish 
It's not like capitalism means zero government. You are defining an anarchy there. Capitalism needs government to implement rule of law to protect an individual's private property.
My view is that unfettered capitalism is indeed dangerous. So you need government to keep it in check through regulations. But government regulations doesn't imply socialism. Not sure what you are arguing against. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The societies were all capitalist or feudal.
Turkey, Hungary, Poland, Russia.
All capitalist. Not socialist.
Even the UK is becoming more authoritarian with legislation against protesting, striking, judicial review. Skirting around or closing Parliament when difficult.
You are plain wrong on this point.
Also strong arguments that WWI & II were fought over capitalism, as such all that death lies in capitalism's corner with at least one academic putting the total of capitalism deaths in excess of 150 million from 1914-1992"
Weird that Soviet Union participated in World war and still it's a capitalist problem |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"The societies were all capitalist or feudal.
Turkey, Hungary, Poland, Russia.
All capitalist. Not socialist.
Even the UK is becoming more authoritarian with legislation against protesting, striking, judicial review. Skirting around or closing Parliament when difficult.
You are plain wrong on this point.
Also strong arguments that WWI & II were fought over capitalism, as such all that death lies in capitalism's corner with at least one academic putting the total of capitalism deaths in excess of 150 million from 1914-1992"
Careful we may end up with someone joining this thread and trotting out the trope that the Nazis were socialist/left wing simply because they were excellent at branding and PR and appropriated words - National Socialist Party. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Socialism doesn't work. It's a solution that lazy thinkers come up with when there is a problem. Price of something goes up because of a supply issue? We should have the government run the service to make it available for cheap. As though a government running the service will automatically increase the supply.
Socialism in theory is inefficient and almost always results in tyranny in practice. Deaths of millions is just a bonus that comes with it.
You don't understand socialism, do you?
Can you enlighten me with the list for of countries that successfully adapted fully socialist model and succeeded?
India adapts socialism. Doesn't work. Moves on to capitalism and doubles annual growth in a few years.
China adapts socialism. Results in millions of deaths. Starts allowing free markets in multiple sectors and becomes a global power.
Venezuela reaches bankruptcy with socialism and starts recovery after liberalising the economy.
Maybe make a strong argument next time instead of just throwing random lines like "you don't understand socialism"?
I haven't advocated full socialism. It's perfectly viable if people were able to act less selfishly. They can't though.
Unfettered capitalism is equally terrible.
Unfettered capitalism is bad. But calling it equally terrible is too much. US has much less regulations compared to rest of the world. It's not like they had millions of people killed like socialism does.
The USA was responsible for the near extermination of almost the entire native population and much of the wildlife in the pursuit of capitalism.
As a capitalist society it also allowed the ownership of other humans leading to generations of cruelty and death.
Unfettered capitalism throughout the world led to and still leads to dangerous working conditions for millions of people and poor pay and huge environmental damage.
Occupying other countries and destroying natives have been part of human nature for centuries. It's not an outcome of capitalism.
Flash news! "Dangerous working conditions" and "poor pay" aren't same as millions of people dying due to famines or just exterminated because they didn't approve of the socialist model. And you don't need a socialist government to improve the working conditions either.
Yes, many types of society kill those they encounter. Just as many types of society can be ruled by authoritarian leaders. Correct?
However, the natives in the USA were exterminated in order for companies to acquire and make profit. For capitalism.
Sl@very served the same purpose. It was for profit. Capitalism.
Millions of people died of famine in Ireland under a purely capitalist system. Many of them then emigrated to the USA.
Some form of socialism turns out to be necessary.
Societies killing other societies they encounter is a thing of past. Sl*very existed even before capitalism. If you look at current standards, one of the major factors driving countries to authoritarianism is socialism.
The societies were all capitalist or feudal.
Turkey, Hungary, Poland, Russia.
All capitalist. Not socialist.
Even the UK is becoming more authoritarian with legislation against protesting, striking, judicial review. Skirting around or closing Parliament when difficult.
You are plain wrong on this point.
Feudalism is not capitalism. Not even similar. I don't know how one can put the two together and call others wrong.
Sl*very was a product of time and not a product of capitalism. On the other hand, there is a causal link between socialism and authoritarianism.
Randomly saying X happened in one capitalistic country, hence capitalism is responsible for X is laughable. Try to explain why it always causes X like how I explained why the transition to socialism involves authoritarian behaviour."
It's not "random".
You were claiming that no large scale death or suffering occurs under a capitalist system. Specifically the USA.
Untrue.
Apparently all negative consequences that occur under capitalism always existed but those under Communism (your arguments are not about socialism) are purely due to that political system and never existed before.
You contradict yourself constantly with a need to justify your fixed belief. Unable to accept any benefits to socialist thought or governance nor any negative consequences of capitalism to the extent that you deny that mixed economies are in any way socialist. They just "sound similar". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Socialism doesn't work. It's a solution that lazy thinkers come up with when there is a problem. Price of something goes up because of a supply issue? We should have the government run the service to make it available for cheap. As though a government running the service will automatically increase the supply.
Socialism in theory is inefficient and almost always results in tyranny in practice. Deaths of millions is just a bonus that comes with it.
You don't understand socialism, do you?
Can you enlighten me with the list for of countries that successfully adapted fully socialist model and succeeded?
India adapts socialism. Doesn't work. Moves on to capitalism and doubles annual growth in a few years.
China adapts socialism. Results in millions of deaths. Starts allowing free markets in multiple sectors and becomes a global power.
Venezuela reaches bankruptcy with socialism and starts recovery after liberalising the economy.
Maybe make a strong argument next time instead of just throwing random lines like "you don't understand socialism"?
I haven't advocated full socialism. It's perfectly viable if people were able to act less selfishly. They can't though.
Unfettered capitalism is equally terrible.
Unfettered capitalism is bad. But calling it equally terrible is too much. US has much less regulations compared to rest of the world. It's not like they had millions of people killed like socialism does.
The USA was responsible for the near extermination of almost the entire native population and much of the wildlife in the pursuit of capitalism.
As a capitalist society it also allowed the ownership of other humans leading to generations of cruelty and death.
Unfettered capitalism throughout the world led to and still leads to dangerous working conditions for millions of people and poor pay and huge environmental damage.
Occupying other countries and destroying natives have been part of human nature for centuries. It's not an outcome of capitalism.
Flash news! "Dangerous working conditions" and "poor pay" aren't same as millions of people dying due to famines or just exterminated because they didn't approve of the socialist model. And you don't need a socialist government to improve the working conditions either.
Yes, many types of society kill those they encounter. Just as many types of society can be ruled by authoritarian leaders. Correct?
However, the natives in the USA were exterminated in order for companies to acquire and make profit. For capitalism.
Sl@very served the same purpose. It was for profit. Capitalism.
Millions of people died of famine in Ireland under a purely capitalist system. Many of them then emigrated to the USA.
Some form of socialism turns out to be necessary.
Societies killing other societies they encounter is a thing of past. Sl*very existed even before capitalism. If you look at current standards, one of the major factors driving countries to authoritarianism is socialism.
The societies were all capitalist or feudal.
Turkey, Hungary, Poland, Russia.
All capitalist. Not socialist.
Even the UK is becoming more authoritarian with legislation against protesting, striking, judicial review. Skirting around or closing Parliament when difficult.
You are plain wrong on this point.
Feudalism is not capitalism. Not even similar. I don't know how one can put the two together and call others wrong.
Sl*very was a product of time and not a product of capitalism. On the other hand, there is a causal link between socialism and authoritarianism.
Randomly saying X happened in one capitalistic country, hence capitalism is responsible for X is laughable. Try to explain why it always causes X like how I explained why the transition to socialism involves authoritarian behaviour.
It's not "random".
You were claiming that no large scale death or suffering occurs under a capitalist system. Specifically the USA.
Untrue.
Apparently all negative consequences that occur under capitalism always existed but those under Communism (your arguments are not about socialism) are purely due to that political system and never existed before.
You contradict yourself constantly with a need to justify your fixed belief. Unable to accept any benefits to socialist thought or governance nor any negative consequences of capitalism to the extent that you deny that mixed economies are in any way socialist. They just "sound similar"."
I never said no large scale death occurs under capitalism. Most of the world has been free markets for decades. But capitalism is not the driving force behind these mass massacres. On the other hand, socialism has been. Just because X happened during capitalism doesn't mean capitalism is responsible for X. Especially when many countries have proven that capitalism can thrive without X. Also, I never said socialist thought doesn't have a good side at all. There are small things we can learn from. But that's about it. But using it as an economic model of country has been theoretically proven to be inefficient and practically proven to be much worse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *m389Man
over a year ago
Magherafelt |
If a man has £1 to his name and he needs to buy bread to eat.
Suppose it costs 50 pence to make that bread.
We as a society now, love profit and would take as much of that man’s £1 as possible because that’s the game. Business is about making profit.
Capitalism benefits a lot of people. Even now people don’t realise they’re profiting off the misery of others and at the cost of the environment.
The even sad thing is, you likely will charge more than £1 because while that man can’t afford it, plenty of people who can. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If a man has £1 to his name and he needs to buy bread to eat.
Suppose it costs 50 pence to make that bread.
We as a society now, love profit and would take as much of that man’s £1 as possible because that’s the game. Business is about making profit.
Capitalism benefits a lot of people. Even now people don’t realise they’re profiting off the misery of others and at the cost of the environment.
The even sad thing is, you likely will charge more than £1 because while that man can’t afford it, plenty of people who can."
You are taking the case of a single seller single buyer. If you have someone to else who is also selling the bread, you need to compete with that person. When the competition gets harder, the price gets lower. At some point, someone will try to reduce the cost of production of the bread. This is how smartphone prices reduced. This is how internet costs reduced. This how we are able to feed larger percentage of the population now compared to the past even though the population in absolute numbers has increased. That's how air travel which was a luxury to begin with, is something accessible to everyone.
When there is scarcity of innovation in a field and demand outgrows supply, that's when things go bad. For instance, energy sector is dependent on few resources like gas and petrol. The moment supply got hit, prices were increased to handle the demand. The other option is to keep the prices low and give them to people on quota basis. Both approaches have their own problems. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Capitalism is a failed system, it has destroyed countries around the world through war and inequality and led to financial disaster, imperialism (capitalism in its monopoly stage) and a Plutocracy and predatory elite which shits on the working class, hordes capital, and destroys the very fabric of community and wishes to impose slav /ery on the masses .
Socialism is the answer to this failed system.
Workers of the world need to rise up, they have nothing to lose but their chains....
The good news is this is happening. Capitalism is falling and socialism is rising... All power to the proletariat! All power to the community! The capitalists are in retreat.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"I love how people conflate Socialism with Communism. Try Left and Far Left. Or go more centrist with Social Democracy. Or start heading right...!
What is better? A society that looks after the weaker and poorer and ensures the fundamentals needed for life are always available and affordable OR a society that says you’re on your own, good luck!
The problem with socialism is that it always starts with trying to do good for the poor but ends up badly for the entire population. It's a classic case of the road to hell is paved with good intentions. No matter how many times it fails, people still try to bring it up as a solution to problems because of the good intentions which mask all its problems."
Germany is a socially democratic country, as are the Scandinavian people.
Socially responsible government is simply about putting the people first and governing for the benefit of the people. I personally cannot see anything wrong at all with that guiding principle.
Especially as our current Government is all about putting and favouring big business above all else and governing principles directed for the benefit of big business.
Trickle down economics is a lie, it has never worked. If ordinary people are paid well, the economy will work because ordinary people spend their money in the local economy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Capitalism is a failed system, it has destroyed countries around the world through war and inequality and led to financial disaster, imperialism (capitalism in its monopoly stage) and a Plutocracy and predatory elite which shits on the working class, hordes capital, and destroys the very fabric of community and wishes to impose slav /ery on the masses .
Socialism is the answer to this failed system.
Workers of the world need to rise up, they have nothing to lose but their chains....
The good news is this is happening. Capitalism is falling and socialism is rising... All power to the proletariat! All power to the community! The capitalists are in retreat...."
I hope you are not going to hold Russia up as a success. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Capitalism is a failed system, it has destroyed countries around the world through war and inequality and led to financial disaster, imperialism (capitalism in its monopoly stage) and a Plutocracy and predatory elite which shits on the working class, hordes capital, and destroys the very fabric of community and wishes to impose slav /ery on the masses .
Socialism is the answer to this failed system.
Workers of the world need to rise up, they have nothing to lose but their chains....
The good news is this is happening. Capitalism is falling and socialism is rising... All power to the proletariat! All power to the community! The capitalists are in retreat....
I hope you are not going to hold Russia up as a success."
Russia is a success. As I've pointed out previously. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I love how people conflate Socialism with Communism. Try Left and Far Left. Or go more centrist with Social Democracy. Or start heading right...!
What is better? A society that looks after the weaker and poorer and ensures the fundamentals needed for life are always available and affordable OR a society that says you’re on your own, good luck!
The problem with socialism is that it always starts with trying to do good for the poor but ends up badly for the entire population. It's a classic case of the road to hell is paved with good intentions. No matter how many times it fails, people still try to bring it up as a solution to problems because of the good intentions which mask all its problems.
Germany is a socially democratic country, as are the Scandinavian people.
Socially responsible government is simply about putting the people first and governing for the benefit of the people. I personally cannot see anything wrong at all with that guiding principle.
Especially as our current Government is all about putting and favouring big business above all else and governing principles directed for the benefit of big business.
Trickle down economics is a lie, it has never worked. If ordinary people are paid well, the economy will work because ordinary people spend their money in the local economy."
Weak sauce, social democracy is just capitalism with a social programme. The inherent flaws of capitalism still remain, the victims are just given something of a safety net. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I love how people conflate Socialism with Communism. Try Left and Far Left. Or go more centrist with Social Democracy. Or start heading right...!
What is better? A society that looks after the weaker and poorer and ensures the fundamentals needed for life are always available and affordable OR a society that says you’re on your own, good luck!
The problem with socialism is that it always starts with trying to do good for the poor but ends up badly for the entire population. It's a classic case of the road to hell is paved with good intentions. No matter how many times it fails, people still try to bring it up as a solution to problems because of the good intentions which mask all its problems.
Germany is a socially democratic country, as are the Scandinavian people.
Socially responsible government is simply about putting the people first and governing for the benefit of the people. I personally cannot see anything wrong at all with that guiding principle.
Especially as our current Government is all about putting and favouring big business above all else and governing principles directed for the benefit of big business.
Trickle down economics is a lie, it has never worked. If ordinary people are paid well, the economy will work because ordinary people spend their money in the local economy."
Any government's role is to keep the interest of people in mind. But the problem is an idea that looks great in our eyes can end up being terrible when implemented. Because economy at scale is much different from simple economic scenarios we think about. Rent control sounds like a great idea. But it always ends up screwing the housing market.
Define "paid well". Most people talk about "fair pay" when it comes to these discussions. But when you think deep about it, you will find that it's hard to define a fair pay for everyone. Supply demand base salary on the other hand provides a consistent definition of fair pay and steers everyone in the right direction. If there is a job that is in high demand but not enough people, its salary goes up and people will gain those skills to get it. If there are 100 positions for a job and 10,000 people are capable of doing it, who are they supposed to give the jobs to? They just reduce its salary and the remaining people will go look for another job. Jobs are just paid market price. If you travel to a developing country to tour and use a service, you only pay the market price of that country, not the price the same service costs in UK. This is nothing different.
People always bring Scandinavia in these debates too. Sweden doesn't tax just the rich. It taxes the shit out of everyone. They also have an unemployment rate of 7.6%. If even people from low income group are willing to pay as much taxes as Swedes pay, then it will work. If the answer is "those pesky rich people should pay for it", it will never work.
I am happy with social welfare in the form of healthcare, helping out the physically disabled and orphans, free education etc. But people should remember that all this comes at a cost. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I love how people conflate Socialism with Communism. Try Left and Far Left. Or go more centrist with Social Democracy. Or start heading right...!
What is better? A society that looks after the weaker and poorer and ensures the fundamentals needed for life are always available and affordable OR a society that says you’re on your own, good luck!
The problem with socialism is that it always starts with trying to do good for the poor but ends up badly for the entire population. It's a classic case of the road to hell is paved with good intentions. No matter how many times it fails, people still try to bring it up as a solution to problems because of the good intentions which mask all its problems.
Germany is a socially democratic country, as are the Scandinavian people.
Socially responsible government is simply about putting the people first and governing for the benefit of the people. I personally cannot see anything wrong at all with that guiding principle.
Especially as our current Government is all about putting and favouring big business above all else and governing principles directed for the benefit of big business.
Trickle down economics is a lie, it has never worked. If ordinary people are paid well, the economy will work because ordinary people spend their money in the local economy.
Any government's role is to keep the interest of people in mind. But the problem is an idea that looks great in our eyes can end up being terrible when implemented. Because economy at scale is much different from simple economic scenarios we think about. Rent control sounds like a great idea. But it always ends up screwing the housing market.
Define "paid well". Most people talk about "fair pay" when it comes to these discussions. But when you think deep about it, you will find that it's hard to define a fair pay for everyone. Supply demand base salary on the other hand provides a consistent definition of fair pay and steers everyone in the right direction. If there is a job that is in high demand but not enough people, its salary goes up and people will gain those skills to get it. If there are 100 positions for a job and 10,000 people are capable of doing it, who are they supposed to give the jobs to? They just reduce its salary and the remaining people will go look for another job. Jobs are just paid market price. If you travel to a developing country to tour and use a service, you only pay the market price of that country, not the price the same service costs in UK. This is nothing different.
People always bring Scandinavia in these debates too. Sweden doesn't tax just the rich. It taxes the shit out of everyone. They also have an unemployment rate of 7.6%. If even people from low income group are willing to pay as much taxes as Swedes pay, then it will work. If the answer is "those pesky rich people should pay for it", it will never work.
I am happy with social welfare in the form of healthcare, helping out the physically disabled and orphans, free education etc. But people should remember that all this comes at a cost."
What is the cost? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hoirCouple
over a year ago
Clacton/Bury St. Edmunds |
"It depends how far you go, communism certainly only works in a dystopian authoritarian setting. Not sure why some idiots champion it.
Some idiots champion communism, other idiots champion libertarianism. Both extremes are bonkers, but at least with socialist principles there are success stories that exist in our daily lives:
Pre and post natal care
Schooling
Policing, Fire, waste collection and community services
Healthcare"
Libertarianism isn't an extreme at any level.
C |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It depends how far you go, communism certainly only works in a dystopian authoritarian setting. Not sure why some idiots champion it.
Some idiots champion communism, other idiots champion libertarianism. Both extremes are bonkers, but at least with socialist principles there are success stories that exist in our daily lives:
Pre and post natal care
Schooling
Policing, Fire, waste collection and community services
Healthcare
Libertarianism isn't an extreme at any level.
C"
Libertarianism is essentially "Fuck you, what do I get?" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hoirCouple
over a year ago
Clacton/Bury St. Edmunds |
"It depends how far you go, communism certainly only works in a dystopian authoritarian setting. Not sure why some idiots champion it.
Some idiots champion communism, other idiots champion libertarianism. Both extremes are bonkers, but at least with socialist principles there are success stories that exist in our daily lives:
Pre and post natal care
Schooling
Policing, Fire, waste collection and community services
Healthcare
Libertarianism isn't an extreme at any level.
C
Libertarianism is essentially "Fuck you, what do I get?""
No, it isn't. It's about taking responsibility for your own actions.
Western Socialism, though, that is what you just explained.
C |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hoirCouple
over a year ago
Clacton/Bury St. Edmunds |
In fact, Libertarianism is "I will deal with my own crap and you deal with yours. Don't tread on me and I won't have to tread on you."
It's individualism which is why socialists hate it as you can't get past people doing their own thing without harming others.
C |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In fact, Libertarianism is "I will deal with my own crap and you deal with yours. Don't tread on me and I won't have to tread on you."
It's individualism which is why socialists hate it as you can't get past people doing their own thing without harming others.
C"
Exactly Libertarianism the politics of selfishness. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In fact, Libertarianism is "I will deal with my own crap and you deal with yours. Don't tread on me and I won't have to tread on you."
It's individualism which is why socialists hate it as you can't get past people doing their own thing without harming others.
C
Exactly Libertarianism the politics of selfishness."
How is people doing stuff that they like without harming others selfishness? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In fact, Libertarianism is "I will deal with my own crap and you deal with yours. Don't tread on me and I won't have to tread on you."
It's individualism which is why socialists hate it as you can't get past people doing their own thing without harming others.
C
Exactly Libertarianism the politics of selfishness.
How is people doing stuff that they like without harming others selfishness?"
Libertarianism is about doing what they want regardless of how it affects others, definition of selfishness. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In fact, Libertarianism is "I will deal with my own crap and you deal with yours. Don't tread on me and I won't have to tread on you."
It's individualism which is why socialists hate it as you can't get past people doing their own thing without harming others.
C
Exactly Libertarianism the politics of selfishness.
How is people doing stuff that they like without harming others selfishness?
Libertarianism is about doing what they want regardless of how it affects others, definition of selfishness."
Not at all. Libertarianism still supports rule of law which promises q basic set of rights and ones rights shouldn't infringe others rights. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Libertarianism is about doing what they want regardless of how it affects others, definition of selfishness."
You've got it the wrong way round. Libertarianism is about letting others do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't affect you. Obviously, you can expect your fellow liberals to allow you to do whatever you want, but that's not the point of it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Libertarianism is about doing what they want regardless of how it affects others, definition of selfishness.
You've got it the wrong way round. Libertarianism is about letting others do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't affect you. Obviously, you can expect your fellow liberals to allow you to do whatever you want, but that's not the point of it."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hoirCouple
over a year ago
Clacton/Bury St. Edmunds |
"In fact, Libertarianism is "I will deal with my own crap and you deal with yours. Don't tread on me and I won't have to tread on you."
It's individualism which is why socialists hate it as you can't get past people doing their own thing without harming others.
C
Exactly Libertarianism the politics of selfishness."
Leaving people alone to their own lives is selfish?
What a topsy turvy world we live in.
C |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In fact, Libertarianism is "I will deal with my own crap and you deal with yours. Don't tread on me and I won't have to tread on you."
It's individualism which is why socialists hate it as you can't get past people doing their own thing without harming others.
C
Exactly Libertarianism the politics of selfishness.
Leaving people alone to their own lives is selfish?
What a topsy turvy world we live in.
C"
LOL
Disingenuous statement is Disingenuous |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hoirCouple
over a year ago
Clacton/Bury St. Edmunds |
"In fact, Libertarianism is "I will deal with my own crap and you deal with yours. Don't tread on me and I won't have to tread on you."
It's individualism which is why socialists hate it as you can't get past people doing their own thing without harming others.
C
Exactly Libertarianism the politics of selfishness.
Leaving people alone to their own lives is selfish?
What a topsy turvy world we live in.
C
LOL
Disingenuous statement is Disingenuous"
If your world view wasn't learned from memes, you would know these very basic things. You also wouldn't resort to absurd statements that have zero basis in reality
Libertarianism is the direct opposite to selfishness as other people have highlighted.
C
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In fact, Libertarianism is "I will deal with my own crap and you deal with yours. Don't tread on me and I won't have to tread on you."
It's individualism which is why socialists hate it as you can't get past people doing their own thing without harming others.
C
Exactly Libertarianism the politics of selfishness.
Leaving people alone to their own lives is selfish?
What a topsy turvy world we live in.
C
LOL
Disingenuous statement is Disingenuous
If your world view wasn't learned from memes, you would know these very basic things. You also wouldn't resort to absurd statements that have zero basis in reality
Libertarianism is the direct opposite to selfishness as other people have highlighted.
C
"
The amount of assumptions you make, fairly impressive. It says a lot that you consider a knowledge of memes to be a detriment.
I read far more than you would give me credit for.
In fact I am confident when I say, you would give me less credit for most things than the reality would be.
You have focused on one side of libertarianism and only through a single lens. No form of political ideology is so straightforward.
The implications of libertarian thinking is that the lack of intervention ia the government would result in things like equal rights laws not existing. the NHS wouldn't exist.
This would lead to many people other than the libertarian having a worse life. that is selfish.
You will of course disagree.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In fact, Libertarianism is "I will deal with my own crap and you deal with yours. Don't tread on me and I won't have to tread on you."
It's individualism which is why socialists hate it as you can't get past people doing their own thing without harming others.
C
Exactly Libertarianism the politics of selfishness.
Leaving people alone to their own lives is selfish?
What a topsy turvy world we live in.
C
LOL
Disingenuous statement is Disingenuous
If your world view wasn't learned from memes, you would know these very basic things. You also wouldn't resort to absurd statements that have zero basis in reality
Libertarianism is the direct opposite to selfishness as other people have highlighted.
C
The amount of assumptions you make, fairly impressive. It says a lot that you consider a knowledge of memes to be a detriment.
I read far more than you would give me credit for.
In fact I am confident when I say, you would give me less credit for most things than the reality would be.
You have focused on one side of libertarianism and only through a single lens. No form of political ideology is so straightforward.
The implications of libertarian thinking is that the lack of intervention ia the government would result in things like equal rights laws not existing. the NHS wouldn't exist.
This would lead to many people other than the libertarian having a worse life. that is selfish.
You will of course disagree.
"
NHS wouldn't exist. But equal rights law would. That's the whole point of libertarianism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hoirCouple
over a year ago
Clacton/Bury St. Edmunds |
"
The amount of assumptions you make, fairly impressive. It says a lot that you consider a knowledge of memes to be a detriment.
I read far more than you would give me credit for.
In fact I am confident when I say, you would give me less credit for most things than the reality would be.
You have focused on one side of libertarianism and only through a single lens. No form of political ideology is so straightforward.
The implications of libertarian thinking is that the lack of intervention ia the government would result in things like equal rights laws not existing. the NHS wouldn't exist.
This would lead to many people other than the libertarian having a worse life. that is selfish.
You will of course disagree.
"
Considering I am active, and have been active, in US and UK politics for years, I consider my knowledge better than somebody who is just trolling online to try and destroy a community.
I never mentioned any aspects of Libertarianism, unlike yourself who broadbrushed it. Thankfully I know Libertarianism on moore than a few levels as I progressed through it before I got to my current stance. Governmental intervention is a bad thing, hell even Momentum agree with me there (I know, I have been to their meetings in Cambridge).
Why do you cling to using critically failing institutions as an example?
Why use the human rights laws? You know that is discredited many times down the years. It's a bad faith argument as there is no smaller minority than the individual.
C |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hoirCouple
over a year ago
Clacton/Bury St. Edmunds |
"
NHS wouldn't exist. But equal rights law would. That's the whole point of libertarianism."
They don't seem to realise that even in the basic raw form, the court system is still there but it wouldn't target non-violent offenders. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The amount of assumptions you make, fairly impressive. It says a lot that you consider a knowledge of memes to be a detriment.
I read far more than you would give me credit for.
In fact I am confident when I say, you would give me less credit for most things than the reality would be.
You have focused on one side of libertarianism and only through a single lens. No form of political ideology is so straightforward.
The implications of libertarian thinking is that the lack of intervention ia the government would result in things like equal rights laws not existing. the NHS wouldn't exist.
This would lead to many people other than the libertarian having a worse life. that is selfish.
You will of course disagree.
Considering I am active, and have been active, in US and UK politics for years, I consider my knowledge better than somebody who is just trolling online to try and destroy a community.
I never mentioned any aspects of Libertarianism, unlike yourself who broadbrushed it. Thankfully I know Libertarianism on moore than a few levels as I progressed through it before I got to my current stance. Governmental intervention is a bad thing, hell even Momentum agree with me there (I know, I have been to their meetings in Cambridge).
Why do you cling to using critically failing institutions as an example?
Why use the human rights laws? You know that is discredited many times down the years. It's a bad faith argument as there is no smaller minority than the individual.
C"
I feel so sorry for you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hoirCouple
over a year ago
Clacton/Bury St. Edmunds |
"
The amount of assumptions you make, fairly impressive. It says a lot that you consider a knowledge of memes to be a detriment.
I read far more than you would give me credit for.
In fact I am confident when I say, you would give me less credit for most things than the reality would be.
You have focused on one side of libertarianism and only through a single lens. No form of political ideology is so straightforward.
The implications of libertarian thinking is that the lack of intervention ia the government would result in things like equal rights laws not existing. the NHS wouldn't exist.
This would lead to many people other than the libertarian having a worse life. that is selfish.
You will of course disagree.
Considering I am active, and have been active, in US and UK politics for years, I consider my knowledge better than somebody who is just trolling online to try and destroy a community.
I never mentioned any aspects of Libertarianism, unlike yourself who broadbrushed it. Thankfully I know Libertarianism on moore than a few levels as I progressed through it before I got to my current stance. Governmental intervention is a bad thing, hell even Momentum agree with me there (I know, I have been to their meetings in Cambridge).
Why do you cling to using critically failing institutions as an example?
Why use the human rights laws? You know that is discredited many times down the years. It's a bad faith argument as there is no smaller minority than the individual.
C
I feel so sorry for you."
I am sorry that I reached the end of your knowledge base and there was no meme to 'correct' my post.
At least we know you supportnDonald Trump though, right? After all, he and his followers get their crap from memes and apparently that is nothing to be sniffed at.
However I know I can't change the mind of a troll. So I wish you well. Good luck and hopefully with age, you finally mature.
C |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The amount of assumptions you make, fairly impressive. It says a lot that you consider a knowledge of memes to be a detriment.
I read far more than you would give me credit for.
In fact I am confident when I say, you would give me less credit for most things than the reality would be.
You have focused on one side of libertarianism and only through a single lens. No form of political ideology is so straightforward.
The implications of libertarian thinking is that the lack of intervention ia the government would result in things like equal rights laws not existing. the NHS wouldn't exist.
This would lead to many people other than the libertarian having a worse life. that is selfish.
You will of course disagree.
Considering I am active, and have been active, in US and UK politics for years, I consider my knowledge better than somebody who is just trolling online to try and destroy a community.
I never mentioned any aspects of Libertarianism, unlike yourself who broadbrushed it. Thankfully I know Libertarianism on moore than a few levels as I progressed through it before I got to my current stance. Governmental intervention is a bad thing, hell even Momentum agree with me there (I know, I have been to their meetings in Cambridge).
Why do you cling to using critically failing institutions as an example?
Why use the human rights laws? You know that is discredited many times down the years. It's a bad faith argument as there is no smaller minority than the individual.
C
I feel so sorry for you.
I am sorry that I reached the end of your knowledge base and there was no meme to 'correct' my post.
At least we know you supportnDonald Trump though, right? After all, he and his followers get their crap from memes and apparently that is nothing to be sniffed at.
However I know I can't change the mind of a troll. So I wish you well. Good luck and hopefully with age, you finally mature.
C"
That's a stretch, all I have shown is I have no interest in banging my head against a brick wall of ignorance.
Have the day you deserve! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hoirCouple
over a year ago
Clacton/Bury St. Edmunds |
"
The amount of assumptions you make, fairly impressive. It says a lot that you consider a knowledge of memes to be a detriment.
I read far more than you would give me credit for.
In fact I am confident when I say, you would give me less credit for most things than the reality would be.
You have focused on one side of libertarianism and only through a single lens. No form of political ideology is so straightforward.
The implications of libertarian thinking is that the lack of intervention ia the government would result in things like equal rights laws not existing. the NHS wouldn't exist.
This would lead to many people other than the libertarian having a worse life. that is selfish.
You will of course disagree.
Considering I am active, and have been active, in US and UK politics for years, I consider my knowledge better than somebody who is just trolling online to try and destroy a community.
I never mentioned any aspects of Libertarianism, unlike yourself who broadbrushed it. Thankfully I know Libertarianism on moore than a few levels as I progressed through it before I got to my current stance. Governmental intervention is a bad thing, hell even Momentum agree with me there (I know, I have been to their meetings in Cambridge).
Why do you cling to using critically failing institutions as an example?
Why use the human rights laws? You know that is discredited many times down the years. It's a bad faith argument as there is no smaller minority than the individual.
C
I feel so sorry for you.
I am sorry that I reached the end of your knowledge base and there was no meme to 'correct' my post.
At least we know you supportnDonald Trump though, right? After all, he and his followers get their crap from memes and apparently that is nothing to be sniffed at.
However I know I can't change the mind of a troll. So I wish you well. Good luck and hopefully with age, you finally mature.
C
That's a stretch, all I have shown is I have no interest in banging my head against a brick wall of ignorance.
Have the day you deserve!"
Enjoy yourself and I hope you get the system you want... elsewhere.
Corbyn and Sanders holidayed in Soviet countries. If you want something so bad, reach for your dreams.
C |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
