Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
RoareyRaccoon

The Simple Guide to Why Socialism is Nonsense

I've had arguments with socialists so many times now that I can pin down and articulate a very simple, to-the-point argument for precisely why it is a bad thing. Before I do, it is worth saying that this is not an attempt to attack people for being socialists, I used to be one myself.

1. Socialism is a very complicated and intricate web of a doctrine, it is labyrinthine, which is why it is so easy to think the due diligence has been done and that it holds up. Don't be intimidated by any of it, because there is one simple thing that socialism rests on as an economic model:

Socialism requires the public ownership of the means of production. This basically means no private industry.

Look up any definition of socialism and this principle is always there, it is the very core of it, the entire point of socialism is to be a counter to capitalism.

2. The public is a hell of a lot of people. How can it own, operate, produce and distribute? Think of a room with 20 people in it and they have a single task to do, let's say preparing a presentation on.....the anatomy of crocodile penises. I dunno. Whatever. Now, to be able to decide how to approach the task, there needs to be a hierarchy, a way of organising and planning what is to be done and who is to do it. That's just one simple group of people doing one simple task. Now think of all of society and everything it needs to function, how do "the people" own and run it? Truth is, you need administrators, planners, who can make decisions.

3. In a society you also need rules, laws. Without rules nothing can actually be done at all. Once you have rules, how are they to be enforced? How can people be protected from rule breakers and those who wish to do them harm? How can the nation in general be safeguarded from invasion from outside? You'll need power, a monopoly on force, to do it.

4. We have administrators, we have a need for power/force. That means you need powerful administrators with people on their side in law enforcement. That means police and military. We now have a state.

5.  Since nobody owns anything privately, the state now owns everything, because it has the monopoly on power. A state with such absolute power is a totalitarian state.

6. Since the state runs and owns everything, nobody can oppose them or have property the state cannot control. Which means whomever controls the state power controls the country. Those whom desire power the most are the most ruthless, which is why all governments, the world over, attract the most ruthless people. The system doesn't just fail to protect the country from a dictatorship, it necessitates one, so the country is ruled by the worst people, who own and control everything.

7. We are fucked. Goodbye liberty, goodbye ability to work hard to rise above your beginnings, you get what you're given and you do as you're told.

8. Nobody wants to live like this, which is why people in the affluent west never move to socialist states. Instead, the socialist, to maintain his illusion, must refer to capitalist democracies with large welfare states (such as Sweden, Norway or Canada) as socialist countries. In reality, they are mixed economies that are predominantly dependent on capitalist free enterprise. Since socialism must entail the public ownership of the means of production, none of the western capitalist democracies can be called socialist. Simply because no western democracy has surrendered the concept of private property.

9. It is over. Socialism is dead. It has been for decades and it is simply foolish and misguided to continue defending it. It produces the kinds of societies nobody likes living in or chooses to move to from the west. To push for something one doesn't want, on the pretence it will be "done right this time", when I have just shown it can never be "done right", is pure insanity.

10. We have always much to improve in western societies, there is always injustice to fight, progress to be made. But the solution can never be socialist. Ever.
Viewed: 239 times
Added: 5 months, 4 weeks ago
 
CuriousFerret
5 months, 4 weeks ago
So, when any form of regulation from our current capitalistic countries is proposed, any form of aid and assistance to our poor and down on luck people, such efforts are condemned as communism and socialism that will result in gulags being established?

If countries like Canada, Sweden, Norway, and even universal health care like the U.K. has are in fact capitalists, why are such similar proposals condemned and referred to as socialism?
RoareyRaccoon
5 months, 4 weeks ago
Misuse of the term, basically. Socialism is the surrender of private ownership of property and the means of production. That's what it is. If some daft git says the NHS is bad because it is "socialism" they are wrong. It is a taxpayer-funded population-wide insurance scheme. Not socialism.
smblion
5 months, 4 weeks ago
Socialism is only popular these days because income inequality has gone well past "disgusting" and into the territory of "Crimes against people".

Free market capitalism is the best economic system in the world today, and in the history of intelligent life. That doesn't mean there is not a better system, we just haven't found it yet.

The problem with capitalism is, there's nothing stopping men who don't give a fuck from treating all of us like the easily enslaved sheep that we are. People willingly plant themselves in front of a device that hypnotizes them using flashing lights and colors and expertly crafted music for the sole purpose of placing people into a suggestive state where they can be convinced to buy shit they would _never_ buy otherwise, including diseases and their own destruction (this is real, we can talk if you want details I have strong evidence).

So the 1% got there mostly by being crooks. There's an argument to be made for throwing the laws out the window and tearing them down by force. Is that a sustainable economic model? Absolutely not, but neither is the increasing income inequality. One way or another, this existing system is going to burn down, and the only question is how many people are killed in the process.

Hopefully, our next economic model will be more sustainable, and less destructive in it's eventual collapse (if it has one, I don't want to jinx us).
Hellawulf
4 months, 1 week ago
Well, Occupy Wallstreet was standing up to that sort of thing.
Then this happened.
Harleking
5 months, 4 weeks ago
Comunism - ensure equality without guarantee freedom
Liberalism - ensure freedom without guarantee equality
Capitalism - guarantee non of both
Anacism - ensure both, but never holds long enough before bring one of the first three with them..

So what did we lern? humans are not surposed to live in bigger groups then tribes. So the heck :3
MrCoyote
5 months, 4 weeks ago
I see the standard arguments that people repeat as criticism of communist ideology, however I agree that communism is not an option, not at least for a society as corrupt as we have. While some small communist communities have worked, it is impossible to find a single attempt at a communist country that has not ended in state capitalism, for example: urss or Cuba.

 Then my opinion of each argument:

 1: Marx speaks of the end of private property referring to giving the means of production to workers, so that surplus value returns to the worker. But Marx never said that you could not have private goods (as long as you do not own the work of others to get them).

2, 3 and 4: Krupskaya explains that to take care of these issues, all workers should be able to take on different roles and be able to exchange them, for example: today you have to work on the conveyor belt, tomorrow quality control, then inspecting your colleagues and then back to the conveyor belt. That is, maintain a cycle, since all would be equal, everyone should be able to occupy any position.

5: Exact, a totalitarian state, but not a communist one, or better said: state capitalism.

6: This point is related to what Krupskaya explains about the multifunctionality of people for each job. In a communist state there should be no difference between what the person seeks and what the state proposes, because the person is the state. Equal to think about the representation by means of an inviduo for a communist country would be something erroneous. A communist country would be led by many people representative of each sector, removing the possibility of the appearance of a tyrant who monopolizes power.

7: This thought would be something strange for a citizen of a communist country but clearly if you would have the freedom to choose what to do, always faced with a dilemma we can choose what to do. The concept of "grow" would be something different from how we know it and could not formulate a clear idea of ​​how it would be because it is something very far from our reality. What I do know is that our capitalist world has the concept of meritocracy (a great fraud, fantasy and lies, for the Latin American countries at least) that is also linked to the conditions of your country, the global market and other factors, so purely free you are not in the capitalist world either.

8: Absolutely, nobody wants to live in the "communism" that we know historically.

9: To be accurate, communism never surpassed being an idea, there never was a civilization that really embodied this ideology in a way of life and I doubt it will exist, at least in the near future.

10: Yes, we have a lot of things to improve, but I do not really know how far we can go, maintaining a system that is based on the exploitation of some for the benefit of others. I do not think that capitalism will end soon but it is a rotten ideology that does not seek good for all, that is: capitalism is going to expire undeniably, very surely, with a lot of blood.

PS: sorry for my terrible English, is what I managed to do with the Google translator.
RoareyRaccoon
5 months, 4 weeks ago
All of this is irrelevant, lol. You can't have multifunctional people because professionals are required, without people being able to dedicate themselves to specialist careers you end up with a dreadful system in which nobody is a specialist. At least nothing like the excellence one gets in the free world.

Everything else you've written is pure theory, which never works in practice, so it is utterly worthless. Also, state capitalism, as you have been using the term, is a communist red herring. A way to excuse the inevitability of totalitarianism in communist systems while stating it is actually capitalism which caused the problems. Nope! Capitalist countries are extremely successful and communist Russia and China were not capitalists, in any way, shape or form. It might sound smart, what you've written, but it is complete and utter bullshit. Who cares what Krupskaya says? He's a fucking moron, which is why none of the ridiculous stuff you've described from his ideas has ever been a practical reality. Actual intellectuals come up with ideas that have genuine results. Amusingly, nothing you've written here is an argument against any of the points I actually made. Why? Because none of it works, or can be shown to work.
MrCoyote
5 months, 4 weeks ago
Leaving aside the argument fallacies of your answer, I am not to blame that you do not consider my arguments valid because they can not be put into practice, after all, you are stating your opinion about a political ideology that never became a reality at the country level.

 I am aware that the attempts to create the communist paradise spoken of by the most radical left parties have failed and with horrible results.

PS: Krupskaya was a woman: P
PD2: marry me <3
RoareyRaccoon
5 months, 4 weeks ago
Well that's just the thing isn't it, when we're talking about politics, policy that will affect entire nations, the most important thing is reality. We can discuss, say, philosophy with abandon, it's great to play around with it, but when it comes to political philosophy the stakes are the highest they ever get. That's chiefly why I have such disdain for socialism, because it approaches from the top down. Communist theory posits "this is how people should behave, then this system will work", instead of sensible political philosophy, which asks "this is how people really behave, how can we prevent fucking everything up?". So, as far as I'm concerned, any political philosophy that begins with the need for people to behave a certain way for it to work, needs to be laughed at for being so stupid.

The bottom line is, if it results in disaster, it doesn't matter what the intentions are. The reason the communist ideal on paper has never been done in reality is because it cannot be done. It is a complete impossibility, for the theory is wrong before it gets off the ground, in its simple treatment of human beings as if they were termites.

As for Krupskaya, I stand corrected XP. She's a fucking moron.
Hellawulf
4 months, 1 week ago
The problem with the 'multifunction' idea didn't work. Why didn't Stalin step aside for a few days and let someone else be The Glorious leader?

"Captain, I wanna have a go at being Captain of the submarine. C'mon you've been captain for ages. I want my turn."

Were the scientists at Chernobyl who buggered things up last week's janitors?
KichigaiKitsune
5 months, 4 weeks ago
Sigh. I was about to do pretty much the opposite of this, but now it'll look like I'm trying to do a bitchy reply to this journal. >w>

Thanks, Roarbama!
RoareyRaccoon
5 months, 4 weeks ago
You were going to make a journal about why socialism is awesome? XP
KichigaiKitsune
5 months, 4 weeks ago
On misconceptions and definitions, of multiple political terms, not just socialism!
KichigaiKitsune
5 months, 4 weeks ago
I did write something here, but I was waiting to see if you got pounced on by a dozen haters and figured replying in comments with this character limit would be difficult anyway. If you'd like to see my attempt to couch a disagreement with you at 3am after a workday anyway, I'll post it.
RoareyRaccoon
5 months, 4 weeks ago
Depends on what it says, really XP. I've had hundreds, nah, thousands of arguments over the years. When someone says something to me that I've heard many times before I just skim through it without reading it properly anyway. I don't have the energy to do much else XP.
KichigaiKitsune
5 months, 4 weeks ago
OK: With all due respect, your understanding of socialism is flawed. You're using the wrong term. Socialism and communism aren't the same thing, and there are quite a few steps in between them:

First of all, I was a laissez-faire capitalist for most of my life. So when I say I fully understand where you're coming from, I want to make clear that I really do. I did my own version of this journal several times now, including recently when someone asked me to discuss libertarianism, and I've said the exact same things. But I actually settled down and started learning about this topic in greater detail recently. As in, I've been reading the works of the influential early socialists and seeing what they actually said, instead of asking pro-capitalist critics to define things for me.

1. Socialism is not public ownership, that's Marx's Dictatorship of the Proletariat -- a concept most early socialists greatly disliked, with Bakunin warning it could lead to opportunists usurping the transitional government and creating an authoritarian bureaucracy (gee, familiar). Socialism can be used to refer to various market or non-market systems, with money and profit and without, it's a form of property relationship where the means of production are owned by the workers themselves. That's not a rhetorical trick, it's very important: at the basic level, socialism means workplaces that are run by the workers at that particular workplace, it means a cooperative workplace owned in part by everyone who works there, where profits are distributed democratically and supervisors are elected. This was the original definition of socialism: the elimination of wage labour by granting a worker full entitlement to the profits of his labour, without the extraction of surplus value by a capitalist. Imagine an economy mostly consisting of worker cooperatives and this would count as a socialist economy. It doesn't mean communism.

2 - 4.
When you start speaking of the "state" owning and operating something, traditional socialists would call that "state capitalism" and opposed it. The term applies if you understand how they defined capitalism. They usually opposed a state entirely, but I don't think we have time to go into anarchism. The idea that the means of production belongs to the community instead of to the workers based on "occupation and use" (Proudhon's mutualism), is communism, where the MOP are owned by the community. If you're strictly discussing socialism, then no, the owner of a business or workplace is the body of workers there. Not the state. Even under other forms of communism, of which there are plenty including Kropotkin's anarcho-communism and autonomism, the democratic nature of the workplace remains, it was mostly just Marx (at the time a lesser-known intellectual) who insisted that a state was necessary for planning and defending the revolution.

Although he wanted to see a democratic, bottom-up organization that would eventually wither away and leave a "classless, moneyless, stateless society", Bakunin's criticism turned out to be correct and Russia became run by a bunch of cunts who defined "the workers" as the party and sought to consolidate their power as a privileged elite.

Finally, I've looked at the response you gave to MrCoyote there. No, 'state capitalism' is not a red herring, most socialist/communist theories are anarchist in nature. That vertical workplace structure is the antithesis of socialism, and Vladimir Lenin admitted that the system he and Trotsky implemented was, in his own words, "state capitalism", and it was NOT present in Mahknovist Ukraine nor CNT anarcho-syndicalist Spain nor Chiapas, Mexico. I'm out of space, but Lenin's Russia spread these ideas - and specifically smashed Mahknovist Ukraine, the soviets, and Kronstadt for threatening them. At no point did Lenin intend to make Russia socialist, but socialism exists today in Europe, with worker cooperatives a significant proportion of Spain and Italy's economy.
RoareyRaccoon
5 months, 4 weeks ago
My understanding of socialism is based on the practical, actual reality of the theory when it is put in practice. All that theory you just wrote? Utterly worthless.

" "That's not a rhetorical trick, it's very important: at the basic level, socialism means workplaces that are run by the workers at that particular workplace, it means a cooperative workplace owned in part by everyone who works there, where profits are distributed democratically and supervisors are elected."


Oh but it is a trick. Here's why: who sets up the businesses? Workers don't create innovative businesses, they work at them. To create business you need entrepreneurs, whom you precisely cannot get if workers are to own the bloody business. Which means it is the state which creates the factories for the workers to have a share in. In the real world it never happens, because it is a practical impossibility. The reason capitalist economies have been so successful is because they allow the best to be the best by owning and profiting from their own brilliance. Socialist cooperative nonsense? Invents sod all. You have to force your smart people to do things. That or you innovate nothing, like all the genuine socialist countries out there which can't invent a damn thing beyond something to do with murder.

I honestly don't care what socialist pseudointellectuals would call state capitalism, or call anything, really. At the end of the day, none of this is practical, at all. If anyone has a poor understanding of anything, it's socialist theoreticians.

You're missing the main point, which is practicality. Actually think about each of the things you've said.

" When you start speaking of the "state" owning and operating something, traditional socialists would call that "state capitalism" and opposed it. The term applies if you understand how they defined capitalism.


Right, more socialist word games. Don't care. Moving on.

" They usually opposed a state entirely, but I don't think we have time to go into anarchism.


Good, because a state is inevitable, see my actual journal and read it again.

" If you're strictly discussing socialism, then no, the owner of a business or workplace is the body of workers there. Not the state.


I ask myself, what is the main difference between that and what we have today in western capitalist countries? The difference is businesses become owned by people who did not build them to begin with. So we have the issue I mentioned earlier, nobody creates businesses when they can't actually benefit from the incredible effort it takes to actually get one off the ground. So the state sets up all the business, the production, which means it determines the value of business to begin with. The "workers" can own it all they like but they wont get a fucking penny more than the state decides to give them for it, since the state manages the price of the goods the business produces, hahaha. Look, imagine you're one of those workers, and you're in a...sausage factory. You and 40 guys. So you own a precise 1/40th of it? What if you just hold the skin while the meat flows in? You get the same share as the poor bastard managing the whole business. Try running so much as a fucking party without an organiser. Know what, if I'm a really, really gifted manager, who works way more hours, doing a much harder job, with a much bigger responsibility, I want more than the cunt filling sausages. Or I'm going to be a lazy swine and do as little work as possible, because fuck you.

The rest of what you put is about communism. So what is this ethereal, evasive, super complex socialism that I obviously don't comprehend properly? Looks to me like a load of waffle, some names chucked in like that means anything, and some shit about workers getting to own businesses collectively. Unrealistic crap that still ends up with tyranny, then. Like my journal makes clear already.
KichigaiKitsune
5 months, 4 weeks ago
No, it isn't just theory, and your understanding is not based on the practical implementation. It's based on selective bias. In fact, you ignored examples of practical implementation I gave in that post: Catalonia, Mahknovist Ukraine, Chiapas, and the worker cooperatives of Italy and Spain.

"Workers don't create innovative businesses, they work at them."
That's incorrect. Groups of individuals start cooperatives all the time, and would do whether under a market system such as we have (such as with startup capital or loans) or in a non-market system. It's simply untrue that it requires a state or an individual, as opposed to a group, nor is that an argument for its fairness. There are not many places where socialism has been able to thrive, but there are more than you might think, and isolated examples of it are more common than you think.

"The reason capitalist economies have been so successful is because they allow the best to be the best by owning and profiting from their own brilliance."
That is not the reason for their success, it's the reason for the rampant income inequality allowing for situations where a one man can command as much wealth as thousands of others, by profiting off of their labour. This also has to do with your next point regarding innovation. Innovation is possible and incentivized under socialism in the exact same way, by allowing cooperatives to profit in a market system, and innovation itself is a very interesting topic. Do you have any data to show that capitalism produces markedly more innovation? Your argument is essentially that only with a profit incentive is it worth innovating, without asking about startup capital, investors, or whether an innovation's worth can be solely judged on its market value. Furthermore, I'll humor you by using your definition of socialism: the USSR produced plenty of innovations without a profit motive for the innovators. There are tech-sector cooperatives in Silicon Valley.

"Right, more socialist word games. Don't care. Moving on."
Hardly. You can't just brush past things like that. As I said, that structure is antithetical to socialism. Again, you ignored the examples I provided of socialism on a regional level, such as CNT Catalonia or Chiapas. They maintained a democratic structure for the majority of their industry, proving this isn't an inevitable backslide.

"Good, because a state is inevitable, see my actual journal and read it again."
I read it. History disagrees. There are workable models that have in the past shown that a state as you're conceptualizing it isn't necessary. Nor does the existence of a state under socialism necessitate it meddles in the affairs of the workers in the manner we're discussing here so it doesn't matter.

"The difference is businesses become owned by people who did not build them to begin with."
Which is often true of capitalist corporations, but as to your point: I already said that groups of individuals begin cooperatives, and as it expands they recruit more and more into it. These organizations exist, they're not hypothetical, the largest has over 100,000 employees. Even in Italy where the government helps create these cooperatives, they simply give loans to unemployed persons (in groups of ten) and let them start up a cooperative business, they don't regulate them at all.

As for managers or owners deserving or getting more than the other employees, yes, fine, okay. And that's absolutely fine and occurs in worker cooperatives. No problem there, that makes the position of manager coveted and ensures a high degree of performance from the elected manager. The problem is, you assume many managers bust their ass and deserve more; what if they don't? What if their job is easier? It varies from business to business, but someone being higher in the chain of command doesn't mean they necessarily deserve the higher paycheque, or the position itself. In a socialist workplace you have a say in who gets to be the manager or supervisor.
RoareyRaccoon
5 months, 4 weeks ago
Here's the thing, if you define socialism as essentially cooperative business, which is a legitimate type of business that can be successful, what is the difference between socialism and capitalism, as it operates in the west?

" Furthermore, I'll humor you by using your definition of socialism: the USSR produced plenty of innovations without a profit motive for the innovators.


Yeah, it innovated alright, by forcing its smart people in gulags. Be serious here, capitalist democracies innovate better than any nation while its people remain free, no forcing required.

" That is not the reason for their success, it's the reason for the rampant income inequality allowing for situations where a one man can command as much wealth as thousands of others, by profiting off of their labour.


Yeah, because that one man is one fiercely hard worker himself, and brilliant. And he rewards the people who work for him with wages and salaries that can be negotiated in a competitive market. It ain't perfect but it's better than bloody Catalonia and the rest. Inequality doesn't matter so long as that inequality is a result of what people earn. If you're not offering something other people want, you don't make money. Sure, there are some nasty exploits, damn right, and I hope in the future we can make sustainable improvements, as we seem to be doing all the time across multiple areas of society simultaneously.

So lets cut across all the waffle, I don't want another fucking essay, I can't be arsed with it. Every socialist I speak to has a different definition of what socialism is and yours so far is restricted to a co-operative business model. So I'd like to know the answer to the question I asked at the start of this comment. What's the actual difference between socialism and capitalism?
KichigaiKitsune
5 months, 4 weeks ago
Yeah it's 6am and I don't want to get into a shitfight, I just wanted a friendly discussion.

"Here's the thing, if you define socialism as essentially cooperative business, which is a legitimate type of business that can be successful, what is the difference between socialism and capitalism, as it operates in the west?"
This is getting at the point of what I was saying, mate, your understanding of the central tenets of socialism is flawed. Socialism is a property relationship where the people who work in the factory get to own it and the profits of their labour; capitalism is defined by (ultra simplified) a man owning a mountain (through whatever means, it doesn't matter) and paying 100 men a wage to make him rich by mining from it, because he can be said to "own" all the profits. That property relationship is the absolute basic element of socialism, and like I said it can exist in a market-system, a non-market system, with money and profit, or without.

We can talk about things like how that person, that one man, got to own a mountain or oil field, but see what I say about Bezos below.

"Yeah, it innovated alright, by forcing its smart people in gulags. Be serious here, capitalist democracies innovate better than any nation while its people remain free, no forcing required."
I don't really want to defend the USSR, but come on. They didn't force all their scientists into gulags. And capitalist democracies of the last 100 years are the most powerful, most stable, and richest nations on the planet, regardless of exactly how that wealth is distributed. The wealth has been built up by a variety of economic systems, using mercantilism, protectionism, and to this day uses various tricks to remain on top, such as the petrodollar and the IMF. Also, the world is dominated by capitalist nations. A lot of innovation comes from the West, and perhaps profit motive is an incentive; but how many potential innovators cannot suggest new ways of doing things, or lack the education, time, or startup capital to innovate due to the demands of the current system? How many innovations were killed by market forces, lack of profit potential, or competition? Also, major capitalist nations have considered any form of socialism, threats and smashed them at every turn.

"Yeah, because that one man is one fiercely hard worker himself, and brilliant"
That's rarely the case, and even if it was, take someone like Jeff Bezos for example, owner of Amazon. Even if we agree he deserves a lot of money for his innovation and business acumen... 120 billion US dollars? And climbing? While many of his workers are on food-stamps? Meanwhile there are people without the MEANS to become entrepreneurs at all.

"Every socialist I speak to has a different definition of what socialism is and yours so far is restricted to a co-operative business model"
It's not restricted to it, it's that it's the baseline. Politics and philosophy are a fucking mess and you know it. You can zig-zag back on forth on various positions, and they did, and you can explore and push concepts. But socialism has that as its definition, and I can see on this site a lot of different definitions, but on YouTube where I debate quite often my definition holds pretty well amongst people who call themselves leftists, socialists, and make videos about that shit.
RoareyRaccoon
5 months, 4 weeks ago
What do you mean "come on"? Do you think anybody was in a position to refuse Stalin? Fuck it, I'm not going into it. Sod Russia.

I get what you're saying, but I think the bottom line at the end of all this is that socialism, the way you think of it, is just not successful the way you're making it out to be. The places you listed are very vulnerable places that have needed outside help from the wealthier nations over and over again. They're not better places to live than here. Not by a mile.

Aside from that, economies cannot be planned or controlled, they're too complex, too vast and unpredictable, which is why we need real variety in how it is approached and what sort of businesses are created. Socialism is too narrow, it isn't realistic. We already have successful co-operatives nested within capitalist countries, if they do well then fantastic, good for them. But that's not all socialism is, is it? It's a planned economy, dude, you're missing pieces out of it. Intentionally or not. You can't plan this stuff, it breaks. That's why western capitalist, individualist democracies have out-competed everywhere else. They're the best and there is great evil, real wickedness, in rolling the socialism dice over and over when the results are so often so absolutely terrible. It's playing roulette with the lives of tens of millions in each country. Indefensible on moral grounds.
KichigaiKitsune
5 months, 4 weeks ago
"So what is this ethereal, evasive, super complex socialism that I obviously don't comprehend properly?"

It's actually quite simple. It's collective ownership, profit sharing, and workplace democracy, where workers share the results of their labour instead of receive a wage.

"Looks to me like a load of waffle, some names chucked in like that means anything"
Those are names of some influential socialist and communist thinkers. The fact that you don't know them but you're not only debating, but doing so arrogantly and sneering at the idea of knowing what one is talking about, shows that you're not interested in having your ideology challenged.

"and some shit about workers getting to own businesses collectively"
Except that happens. It happens. It's a real thing, and studies have shown it to be extremely efficient and conducive to - ding ding! - innovation and productivity. They're really attractive to said smart people, like scientists and those that work with technology, because they know they'll receive the profits off their labor, and not an owner that had nothing to do with it. By the way, not every (not even most) owners are innovators, they snap up innovations produced in the public sector or by employees. E.G, the pharma industry often profits off medicine researched in public spaces such as university labs.

"Unrealistic crap that still ends up with tyranny, then. Like my journal makes clear already."
Again, it happens, and it doesn't necessarily end up with tyranny at all, you haven't shown that to be the case at all.
RoareyRaccoon
5 months, 4 weeks ago
I checked out all your examples of successful socialism. They're shitholes, unstable states and places dependent on the surrounding prosperity of other nations. Capitalist nations. But sod it, let's say they're all awesome, just for the sake of it. Stack that against the stable capitalist nations, see what the ratio is. Then look at how many times the socialist experiment goes wrong, and what the catastrophic consequences are when it does. The west went through that huge financial crisis not too long ago. I mean, it was called one, but I didn't see people starving to death in the streets despite it. Socialism doesn't stack up to that, and that's if we go by your definition of it, which has none of the cultural rhetoric attached, mysteriously. I sure wouldn't want to live in the fucking Ukraine, or Catalonia, or Chiapas.
KichigaiKitsune
5 months, 4 weeks ago
I think you got confused somewhere, but I'll wrap this up. I don't think we'll get anywhere, not before I face-plant on my keyboard. Mahknovist Ukraine was a region that participated in the Russian Civil War. It fought against capitalist nations, and was betrayed by Lenin's Red Army. All accounts say it was doing well, both in fighting the White Army and in providing social services to its people.

Catalonia in the 30s was also an anarcho-syndicalist region that participated in the Spanish Civil War. They fought the Fascists under Marco and capitalist nations, before being backstabbed by the Bolsheviks (again). All accounts that weren't from the Bolsheviks, including accounts from Orwell, showed they were doing very well, with a well established healthcare system. I'm not too sure where you're getting the idea that, at the time they were relevant here, these places were shitholes dependent on capitalist nations. They were unstable because they were directly under assault from inception by capitalist forces, the same way Russia was, the only difference was that the Russian Revolution proved unstoppable. With the exception of Chiapas which exists today, the other two only existed briefly until capitalists or bolsheviks toppled them, I'm not talking about present-day Ukraine.

"check that against the stable capitalist nations, see what the ratio is."
There are quite a bit more capitalist nations that socialist experiments, and they were also the most powerful nations before the Cold War, whereas most nations considered socialist or communist had a massive disadvantage. They never had the wealth or military of the UK, France or the USA.
Further, many nations that did try to experiment with socialism to varying degrees were embargoed or outright toppled by the West. Chile, for example. Hardly a fair comparison.

"What do you mean "come on"? Do you think anybody was in a position to refuse Stalin?"
Do you think everyone was in gulags? You're right, I'm talking about the implication that they locked all of them up and said "git inventin'!"

"I get what you're saying, but I think the bottom line at the end of all this is that socialism, the way you think of it, is just not successful the way you're making it out to be."
The few regions that did actually implement socialism did very well at the time, for their conditions, and were toppled by outside interference within years. There's a reason I'm being specific with the definition of socialism, and that is the sheer confusion that results when you aren't: there have been very, very few actual socialist nations, most of the revolutions took Lenin's lead ("we cannot have socialism here, we're not advanced enough, we need to make an authoritarian state and hold out to cause a revolution in a more advanced nation"). They specifically rejected the idea of worker-run workplaces or democracy at all anywhere, but they used the word 'socialism' for the same reason Hitler* did: PR. It was popular as hell.

That's why the definition matters, and why I was pointing to the people who came up with the idea. In order to cut this short for now, it's worth understanding why there are still socialists, what they actually want, and how they define their terms. We don't have time to cover the myriad fuckabout subtypes of socialism, so I was focusing on the core value that began the entire thing.

I've already outlined why I don't agree with a lot of what you said to finish off there, but I'm sure people can go through and see what they thought of this discussion. Peace dude.

* and now I invoked Godwin's Law.
RoareyRaccoon
5 months, 4 weeks ago
The point is these success stories are in small regions and they don't last long. That's exactly why they're not success stories. They're not an alternative to the western system, if they were then there'd be a fuckton of hugely successful socialist countries. There aren't. Ergo, regardless of any technical theory, socialism is not the great thing you make it out to be. Results are results. You're inflating every "success" into more than it is or was, sidestepping the abject failures and minimising capitalist democracies to judge them only by their worst qualities. It's really that simple as far as I'm concerned XP. Human lives are too important for intellectuals to fuck with over their own academic ego stroking pet projects.
InannaWDraco
5 months, 4 weeks ago
Several of the things you've defined as "socialist" are not socialist but communist.  And before you go all "they're the same thing," no they're not the same thing.  

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism

For instance, you say that with Socialism there is no private property.  That is not true.  That is true with Communism, but not with Socialism.

For another thing, you say that with Socialism the state owns everything.  Again, not true.  Socialism has individual people owning their own personal property and only businesses are owned by the state.  Total state ownership of everything is a Communist trait, not a Socialist one.

It should be noted that while the countries you've labeled as "Socialist" are actually Communist, the "capitalist welfare states" you listed are actually Socialist countries.  Sweden, Norway, Denmark... all Socialist.

Please stop equating Socialism with Communism.  You are doing no favors to anybody who is against Communism... or against Socialism.  You are completely muddling the issue by mixing the two together.  While they certainly have their similarities and similar proponents, it should be pointed out (though it really shouldn't need to be pointed out) that Christianity and Islam have similarities as well, but there's no way anybody's going to claim that they're the same religion.

Socialism and Communism have similarities, but they are not the same.  Please acknowledge that and stop acting as if traits that are only found in Communism are somehow inherently Socialist.  They're not the same.
RoareyRaccoon
5 months, 4 weeks ago
I'm fucking sick of seeing that ridiculous page.

From the website regarding Socialism's core elements:

Calculation in kind, Collective ownership, Cooperative common ownership, Economic democracy, Economic planning, Equal opportunity, Free association, Industrial democracy, Input–output model, Internationalism, Labour voucher, Material balancing.

A total clusterfuck of terms. I have deliberately focused on a single core value that does not change, which is the public ownership of the means of production. Or as that site you linked puts it: collective ownership and co-operative common ownership. Also note economic planning in that list. And industrial democracy.

Then the fucking idiotic site lists as modern examples of socialist countries:

Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Norway and Ireland; all are democratic.

Note that NONE of those countries possess the core elements listed previously. Because they aren't socialist. It's a fucking lie and you're peddling it. Irony of ironies, you're coming to me to tell me I'm spreading misinformation about socialism!
Stop pretending you get to redefine what socialism means in the modern day because what it has meant since it was bloody thought up didn't work. Democratic socialism haha, we don't have that crap here in the west either.

"Socialism has individual people owning their own personal property and only businesses are owned by the state."

Yeah, and when the state owns all business then it owns all production, so no fucker can have any personal property that the state doesn't decide to produce, can they? Actually think things through.

No matter how technically different they are on paper, they have the SAME REAL LIFE RESULTS. And since politics is about REALITY, how things work out in real life is the ONLY thing that matters. Not what some twat theorises in a fucking essay.
InannaWDraco
5 months, 4 weeks ago
And I'm fucking sick of people like you equating folks who want free healthcare to some Gulag commander in Stalinist Russia.  It's not the same thing, get that through your head.  Stop refusing to acknowledge reality!
RoareyRaccoon
5 months, 4 weeks ago
I don't do that, I'm in favour of a welfare state. Socialism isn't a fucking healthcare system it's an ECONOMIC system. Even the shitty site you linked explicitly says that. And as an economic system it destroys society. There is no such thing as free healthcare. I live in the UK, the NHS isn't free, we pay national insurance contributions every week, that typically is deducted from wages. It is a good system and I'm in favour of it. But it isn't socialism, you daft twat, it's a bloody insurance model.
InannaWDraco
5 months, 4 weeks ago
At least I linked to a site, at all.  You didn't, you just ran off at the mouth acting like you're some kind of an expert, but you never once provided any citations to back up your claims.  On the other hand, what "that shitty site" I mentioned stated are the differences between Socialism and Communism were common fucking knowledge and were even taught in schools when I was a kid.  

And you know full well that I was referring to healthcare as an example.  Stop taking my words out of context to mean whatever the hell you want them to mean.

Back up your assertions with evidence or GTFO.
RoareyRaccoon
5 months, 4 weeks ago
I don't need to link to a website, I made a logical argument. And yes, I know you used healthcare as an example, which is why I qualified my statement in the next sentence. "And as an economic system it destroys society." Which it does, so you wont have any fucking system left, healthcare or otherwise, you'll be looking for dinner in trash bags in the middle of the street like the poor fuckers in Venezuela.
InannaWDraco
5 months, 4 weeks ago
Yes, you really do need a link to a website, Roarey.  So far the only thing you've done is made assertions that have been proven to be false.  You've made a false equivalence between Socialism and Communism, and you've gotten pissed off when I showed you evidence to prove you wrong.  

If you can't or won't provide evidence, your "logic" means nothing.  
RoareyRaccoon
5 months, 4 weeks ago
No I've made a logical argument, which you can verify in real life by looking at the fucking outcome on societies wherever socialism has been tried. A logical argument doesn't need citations, because I'm not citing real examples in it, I'm making an argument that logically follows from one proposition to another, which is not the sort of thing that requires references. You're the one who presented an argument in response to me in the form of a website and I argued against the content of that website by showing it to be internally, logically inconsistent. You don't need a fucking reference for that, because I'm not making a claim about something outside the website!
InannaWDraco
5 months, 4 weeks ago
No, that's not what you've done.  What you've done is labeled communist countries like the Soviet Union and China as "Socialist" when they are *NOT* Socialist countries.  They are *COMMUNIST* countries.

And yes, you DO have to provide evidence other than "I used logic so hurr durr I don't have to prove myself."

And I didn't say that my providing a link proved you wrong.  I said providing a link made me BETTER THAN YOU.  You don't get to make assertions without evidence to back them up and then act like you're the innocent victim when people call you out on your false equivalency and your outright lies.

Social Security is Socialist.
Anti-Trust Laws are Socialist.  
Government-owned Roads are Socialist.

All of those things are Socialist in nature, and they are also policy in the United States.  By your "logic" that makes the USA a communist state like the Soviet Union.  
RoareyRaccoon
5 months, 4 weeks ago
Lol, check the other response. I didn't lie at all, I used the websites own information against it, because it contradicts itself. It's a shit website. Even the socialist guy below you knows it's complete bollocks.
RoareyRaccoon
5 months, 4 weeks ago
You think you proved me wrong by linking the website? Okay, then you didn't read what I said. The website lists a summary of core components of socialism, which I quoted:

" Calculation in kind, Collective ownership, Cooperative common ownership, Economic democracy, Economic planning, Equal opportunity, Free association, Industrial democracy, Input–output model, Internationalism, Labour voucher, Material balancing.


Later in the same page, it lists modern examples of socialist countries:

" Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Norway and Ireland; all are democratic.


I then said that none of those countries, that the site lists itself, possess any of the core components of socialism, that the site lists itself. Which means the website is giving examples that don't fit the criteria. Which means it's bullshit. Simple.

Oh, aside from freedom of association and equal opportunity. But those two together are not "socialism", so the point still stands.
Hellawulf
4 months, 1 week ago
You don't have to be socialist to have free healthcare.

New Zealand is not socialist. It has a free market same as Eagle-land. In fact the US might be the only Western Country (that I know of) with that weird system. The cliche about being in a shitty job but staying for the dental plan.
KichigaiKitsune
5 months, 4 weeks ago
With all respect, this isn't right. "Socialism has individual people owning their own personal property and only businesses are owned by the state.  Total state ownership of everything is a Communist trait, not a Socialist one."

Absolutely not. Under BOTH communism and socialism there is a difference between "private" and "personal" property, your laptop or toothbrush would be yours under both. The only question is who ultimate has the final say in the ownership of a means of production (a workplace, factory, farm, something responsible for the means of life): the workers occupying and operating it, or the community at large.

Under some definitions of communism, the workers would still operate and make decisions for a farm, for example, but it still would ultimately belong to the community, and everyone can take "according to their need" from what it produces. Socialism is variable enough that the workers of a farm could actually sell their produce on a market and share the profits equally.

"Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Norway and Ireland; all are democratic."

Absolutely none of those nations are socialist, this is a really stupid perversion of the meaning of socialism. It's NOT meant to be about taxes and how much you take from Bob to feed Steve. However, socialism is supposed to be democratic, the point is that socialism extends democracy to the workplace.

The things you dismissed as a clusterfuck of terms have meaning though, and the entire point of my comment above is that your "core value" is actually inappropriate: it is NOT about public ownership of anything, it's about ownership and operation by the workers, and it's only communist philosophies that try to extrapolate that to mean "the public owns and controls the produce." LordShara is correct that you're confusing communism with socialism - there's a reason there are two terms. If you disagree then tell me the difference between the two?

"Or as that site you linked puts it: collective ownership and co-operative common ownership."
Yes, that means the workers owning a workplace, not the entire community.

"Also note economic planning in that list. And industrial democracy."
I don't believe this site has any idea what it's talking about. But economic planning is not common to all forms of socialism at all! As I said above, socialism has market forms. Nonetheless, if this refers to central planning, it needn't necessarily refer to a central authority that can force obedience to its plan. Workers in a factory, or a syndicate of factories, voting to decide on output is industrial democracy, and this is the form of democracy most early socialists were advocating.
RoareyRaccoon
5 months, 4 weeks ago
Your actual argument is that instead of it being about public ownership it is workers ownership. Yeah, I get it, and I answered above.
CuriousFerret
5 months, 4 weeks ago
During WWII when America nationalized our factories and told them what to build to create and support the largest most advanced military in the planet for decades and on going, isn't that an example of top down management and ownership at work?

And didn't that forced innovation from military need create new fields of science and lucrative business opportunities after?

And once the war was over the factories were returned to private control, and many private firms got contracts with the government that helped solidify a number of companies into giants of industry that can't collapse over night despite economic and market forces on up heaval.

These seems to be examples of successful public ownership at work at the very least.  A course of action that helped to ensure we were there only effective and standing economy for most of the century after.
RoareyRaccoon
5 months, 4 weeks ago
It is different in wartime, people are motivated like hell to defend their homeland, but war economies like that of ww2 are not sustainable. You can't do that shit without the context of needing to defend your home or you're dead.
CuriousFerret
5 months, 4 weeks ago
But it shows public ownership can work, despite the unfortunate outcome of WWII.

In regards to the labor shortage and participation rates over here, the reason so many wont work is that it does not pay to work for private firms.

A unifying factor, say the fight against income inequality and the growing gap between labor participation and compensation can and historically always was the reason why socialism and other forms of economics and politics came about as alternatives despite their varying success and failures.

If our entrepreneurs want to remain on top of the system they better start paying their labor for the privilege or the plebs will turn away from capitalism and seek something else out.

And in the end governments will attemped to preserve their own interests over business everytime.

AsherTye
5 months, 4 weeks ago
Hey, I never leave these comment sections without seeing some interesting arguments.
moyomongoose
5 months, 4 weeks ago
Not only are there communist countries and capitalist countries, there are also countries that differ in varying degrees between the two extremes.

A person who is very skilled in having good business acumen, or people from families with established generational wealth, what is called "the old money", would do well in a country that is totally capitalist, even if there were no "social safety nets" for those who hit hard times.

Those (like where I believe I fit in) who never do so well trying to start their own business, but are ambitious workers when employed by someone else, and have the potential to advance working for a company (as they say "move up the ladder"), might do best in a country that is a free country, but also has social programs and safety nets for those who hit hard times if a company they work for goes under.

Those who have the ambition to hold a job, but don't have the where-with-all to climb above the position of an entry level labourer, might be better off living in a "nanny state" such as the state of Massachusetts in the U.S. or Sweden like it was before the migrants flooded into the country.

Then there are those people who won't try to find work, even if someone kicks them in the ass to do so...They can dream up more reasons for not working than the reasons to get a job. They can't even shop around for an apartment to rent without screwing it up. If they own a car, they never have the oil changed or bad tires replaced unless someone reminds them they need to do so. They can not manage their money. Those people would fare out far better in a communist country where they are told what to do and when to do it.  
moyomongoose
5 months, 4 weeks ago
One note on communist countries though...If a country is going to be communist, the international community should forbid that country from forcing anyone to stay in that country who wants to leave.
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.