Is Socialism inevitable?

[NED funded]

USSR was a form of communism, not socialism.
Every single modern developed nation is in fact socialistic. Every single one.

Government paid road systems: Socialism
Healthcare system: Socialism
Social Security/Pension system: Socialism
Public Utilities system: Socialism
and the list goes on...

Socialism and Capitalism are not exclusive to each other. They function wonderful side by side.

The USSR described itself as socialist in the path to communism. Also having a safety net is not a socialist only thing. And if the goverment owning stuff is socialism, you might as well say having a goverment is socialism.

[Wildberry]

Fun Fact OP - Socialism and Capitalism together form a coherent and stable society, it is only either extreme (extreme Socialism -> Communism and extreme Capitalism -> Fascism) that cause problems.

The US right now is at a cross roads, either to follow Trump et al into fascism, or pull back into a rationalist centre involving socialism as a moderating influence on capitalist ideals.

In what world is Fascism just an extreme incarnation of Capitalism? I mean... what? Are you referring specifically to Pinochet or something? Because Mussolini, Mosley, Primo de Rivera, Codreanu, etc. cannot possibly be misconstrued as being proponents of extreme Capitalism. Please, actually familiarize yourself with the definitions of words before using them.

[minteK917]

The USSR described itself as socialist in the path to communism. Also having a safety net is not a socialist only thing. And if the goverment owning stuff is socialism, you might as well say having a goverment is socialism.

A government action is socialism when it controls the means of production of an industry or service. The problem is people like you not understanding the difference between socialism and communism and not understanding society owning the means of production, does not remove the right to ownership like communism does. Capitalism is an economical system only, socialism is more. Thats why we can and do use both.

Lets take an example, firefighter. Firefighter used to be long ago free market. The problem is that free market is not efficient about delivering a service, it seeks reliable incomes. This mean a work in preventing fire is counter productive to this goal. Because if there is no fire, you got no work. Firefighter were more like thugs with protection money and would act differently depending on who the client is, due to the nature of fire being what it is, putting more then even the client at risk. Thats why firefighter were nationalized, if profit is out of the equation, prevention becomes the better outcome for the clients (society) and the firefighters.

This is why we mix both and as more profit goals came in conflict with efficiency the more we nationalized industries. There are industries that were default nationalized simply because they changed leadership last century, like the military. Since monarchy lost its power to elected government from social democracy, these private army default turned into the hand of society and its new representatives.

Police again same context as firefighter, sheriff used to be private title, closer to a thug selling protection as an industry. Prevention was not the focus as a private industry, however now that police force are nationalized, their first goal is for the most part prevention, because its the best outcome for their jobs and their single payer client (society) since profit is no longer an issue.

Any industry where profit leads/will lead to an ineffective use of resources because money is too limited to produce the best outcome as a service, end up getting nationalized at some point. The arm of society simply takes it and gives it the appropriate funding since only society as a whole has deep enough pocket to not need profit and make a service be about attempting the best possible result at all times.

Public social safety is definitively socialism as well. It actually took that limited industry from bank and insurances companies. It made it much bigger and much more practical and applicable to everyone, because well the previous ownership of such a system could not use the value of it, because it doesent turn reliable profit. Plus the only way bank and insurances used to help you with a safety net last couple centuries is if you already had ownership of something or were already really rich.

A socialism industry can have private industry along side it, usually the public industry controls most of the market and sets the prices. It can also have other industry ran in parallel and use their services. EI, some public roads buying a contract for snow plowers.

[Forogil]

USSR was a form of communism, not socialism.
Every single modern developed nation is in fact socialistic. Every single one.

Government paid road systems: Socialism

Not necessarily.

First and foremost USSR, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, officially had socialism as economic system - they were socialist states run by a communist party - and with the goal of later establishing communism. You cannot say that USSR was ideologically "communist" and not "socialist" and thus use an ideological definition for that, and then claim that republican buildings roads are "socialism" - even if they are not ideologically "socialism".

Choose one definition and stick with it.

Secondly a government paid road system is often publically financed contract work, whereas socialism normally requires "common ownership of the means of production" - and thus it is normal for people who advocate socialism to be against charter schools, privatized rail-roads, etc. That wouldn't make much sense if the privately run government paid systems were socialism.

[schwarzkopf]

In what world is Fascism just an extreme incarnation of Capitalism

-> ... leads to, not is equal to.

Extreme capitalism leads to small elite groups with full and direct corporate control of government.

A short approximation of the two extremes - communism = authoritarian government control of business, fascism is authoritarian business control of government.

[Wildberry]

-> ... leads to, not is equal to.

Please, lay out how extreme Capitalism, as horrible as it may be, leads to Fascism.

To the edited section:

A short approximation of the two extremes - communism = authoritarian government control of business, fascism is authoritarian business control of government.

That is a very basic and somewhat faulty understanding of Fascism.It is incredibly more nuanced as a political ideology, and even if we just grant such a definition of Corporatism, you're still a ways away from Fascism proper.

[schwarzkopf]

Please, lay out how extreme Capitalism, as horrible as it may be, leads to Fascism.

Just did..... you're welcome.

[minteK917]

Neither capitalism or communism have anything to do with fascism. Both can exist without a government and both can be controlled by an authority or be left to anarchy.

[schwarzkopf]

Fascism proper.

Fascism is just small elite control, in that realm of possibilities - 'rich' is just one of the possible ways to get there.

That is - fascism doesn't RELY on extreme capitalism however extreme capitalism via elite control does provide a path to one kind of fascism.

Trump's current inner circle is very much fascist in ideology, however currently the US system is keeping them at bay.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither capitalism or communism have anything to do with fascism.

Correct, however extreme capitalism left unchecked often leads to fascism....

[minteK917]

Fascism is just small elite control, in that realm of possibilities - 'rich' is just one of the possible ways to get there.

That is - fascism doesn't RELY on extreme capitalism however extreme capitalism via elite control does provide a path to one kind of fascism.

Trump's current inner circle is very much fascist in ideology, however currently the US system is keeping them at bay.

- - - Updated - - -



Correct, however extreme capitalism left unchecked often leads to fascism....

Any system can lead to fascism, its kind of pointless to even mention it? As soon as the power is centralized into too little amount of individual and political opposition is met with supreme authority, its fascism. Doesent matter if its capitalism, socialism, communism.

[Spectral]

Nothing about a need to redistribute income in the context of high-capital environments implies a necessity for increasingly socialized systems. When defined as simply as possible, socialism is the government ownership of means of production and distribution. This has nothing to do with tax rates and redistribution. Having somewhat higher taxes and handing that money out does not in anyway necessitate socializing production.

Industries that benefit from socialism are typically industries where large collective action that's hard to coordinate is valuable - roads are pretty much the canonical example. Likewise, industries that trend towards runaway costs because of near infinite demand benefit from socialism, such as medicine.

[Wildberry]

Fascism is just small elite control, in that realm of possibilities - 'rich' is just one of the possible ways to get there.

That is - fascism doesn't RELY on extreme capitalism however extreme capitalism via elite control does provide a path to one kind of fascism.

Trump's current inner circle is very much fascist in ideology, however currently the US system is keeping them at bay.

- - - Updated - - -



Correct, however extreme capitalism left unchecked often leads to fascism....

You do realize that Fascism isn't synonymous with "Autocracy" or "Oligarchy," right? Even Bannon, who allegedly dabbles in thinkers like Evola isn't a Fascist.

[schwarzkopf]

Any system can lead to fascism

Incorrect.... it requires an extreme elitist system...

- - - Updated - - -

You do realize that Fascism isn't synonymous with "Autocracy" or "Oligarchy," right?

Fascism is ANY system where the elite controls the government and the masses.

[Cæli]

Only the governments can answer the question, they decide.

So can't really say, but with the technology developing we'll get in a long time in something looking like socialism I believe. But the government can pretty much do what they want.

[Spectral]

Incorrect.... it requires an extreme elitist system...

Yeah, to try to get some working definitions to paper, I'd say that a reasonable working definition of fascism is autarky, autocracy, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, and political opportunism (i.e. lack of consistent principles).

Pretty hard to get there without elitism.

[Queen of Hamsters]

I find it very hard to believe that capitalist swine would EVER want to make cuts into their profits in order to ensure that everyone can live comfortably and mankind can move forward.

Especially in countries where they employ this attitude of "if you ain't rich, it's by choice so gtfo and git good scrub!"...

[Wildberry]

Fascism is ANY system where the elite controls the government and the masses.

No, it's actually not. There are plenty of terms for that, Fascism isn't one of them. Go read "The Doctrine of Fascism," "Fascism viewed from the Right," anything by D'Annunzio, or Mosley.

You seem to be under the impression that a Crony Capitalist Oligarchy would qualify as Fascism, and that certainly isn't the case.

[minteK917]

I find it very hard to believe that capitalist swine would EVER want to make cuts into their profits in order to ensure that everyone can live comfortably and mankind can move forward.

Especially in countries where they employ this attitude of "if you ain't rich, it's by choice so gtfo and git good scrub!"...

It already happened before. Capitalism as we have now is not free market, its a structured market. It works because the government still benefits from it to maintain power. If society is too unstable because of monetary issues, the only way to keep power is in the hand of the government, not private industries. They make the law, apply them and own the industry that makes this possible (police, military). Government will step in if its own power is in danger.

[schwarzkopf]

I'd say that a reasonable working definition of fascism is autarky, autocracy, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, and political opportunism (i.e. lack of consistent principles).

You are mixing your axes there ... authoritarian is UP, capitalism is RIGHT ..... fascism is a mix of the extremes of both.

Pretty hard to get there without elitism.

Indeed, extreme LEFT is homogenisation, extreme RIGHT is elitism ... they are the defining characteristics.

[minteK917]

Incorrect.... it requires an extreme elitist system....

Time to brush up on your political science. Until then plz dont post stupid stuff like capitalism leads to fascism. It may and it may not. You are equalizing things that are not relied to one another to exit. And yes every single political system you can think of from the left all the way to the right can become fascism. Fascism is not opposed to any of them. Its an extreme authority period. It only opposes its other counter part anarchy. You only think it oppose other systems because extreme authority means just that, extreme authority. Once a system either from the left, center, right, enter deep enough level of authority, it will use force to discredit any opposition, to its system or to its lack of freedom.

Fascism is not just extreme right. Extreme left can be lead by fascism as well.