Capitalism will also cause bread lines but those will be permanent

[Deleted]

Thomas Sowell is an idiot. Capitalism has failed many times. How many times? About 47 times. It's not a matter of if we're going to have a recession, but when. Franklin D. Roosevelt even said his greatest accomplishment was saving capitalism.

As a "natural" economical system, capitalism has its ups and downs. But it always recovers. Even during recessions capitalist societies tend to retain a stronger economy than any socialist society anywhere, even at their strongest.

Socialism, however, is a flawed system by default, because it ignores the both the phsyical reality of how the world really works, and human mentality. As such socialism always fails, and never recovers; not on its own merit anyway.

[Masark]

As explained numerous times: USSR - the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics controlled by a communist party.

Obviously North Korea is an indictment of democracy and republics. It says its both right in the name!

Hint : There's no truth-in-advertising laws for country names.

[breadisfunny]

Obviously North Korea is an indictment of democracy and republics. It says its both right in the name!

Hint : There's no truth-in-advertising laws for country names.

hey those north korean really are the happiest people on earth. kim jong un did a poll that said so.

[Rukario]

Commerce and the market are a part of humanity that is here to stay...capitalism is just plain stupidity.

I am sure our decendents will one day look at us as if we were savages.

[Mittens]

Obviously North Korea is an indictment of democracy and republics. It says its both right in the name!

Hint : There's no truth-in-advertising laws for country names.

Was the USSR not socialist?

[Endus]

As a "natural" economical system, capitalism has its ups and downs. But it always recovers. Even during recessions capitalist societies tend to retain a stronger economy than any socialist society anywhere, even at their strongest.

Socialism, however, is a flawed system by default, because it ignores the both the phsyical reality of how the world really works, and human mentality. As such socialism always fails, and never recovers; not on its own merit anyway.

Capitalism is by no means "natural". Capitalism is not trade in a marketplace; plenty of economic systems use trade as a driver, and aren't capitalism. Capitalism is not the idea that one can own property; almost all economic systems outside of pure communism have some concept of property, and even with communism it's more that all property is owned by all, anyway.

The "natural" system that most anthropologists consider humans to have originally functioned with, naturally, was more akin to communism than anything that resembled capitalism.

Was the USSR not socialist?

In framing, yes, in practice, not particularly. See, the problem there is that socialism is meant to produce a society where the means of production are used for the benefit of those who need it. The USSR seized those means of production and used them primarily for the benefit of the Party and its supporters. Rather than mitigating class differences, they created a new Party-based bourgeoisie and enforced it rigorously.

Which isn't so much saying that the USSR was "not socialist", but that it was "badly executed socialism that ignored the principles it was meant to foster." The same way that the DPRK is not really democratic. It was a convenient rallying cry that they used to establish themselves, but they didn't really believe in it that strongly, when push came to shove.

[Mittens]

Capitalism is by no means "natural". Capitalism is not trade in a marketplace; plenty of economic systems use trade as a driver, and aren't capitalism. Capitalism is not the idea that one can own property; almost all economic systems outside of pure communism have some concept of property, and even with communism it's more that all property is owned by all, anyway.

The "natural" system that most anthropologists consider humans to have originally functioned with, naturally, was more akin to communism than anything that resembled capitalism.



In framing, yes, in practice, not particularly. See, the problem there is that socialism is meant to produce a society where the means of production are used for the benefit of those who need it. The USSR seized those means of production and used them primarily for the benefit of the Party and its supporters. Rather than mitigating class differences, they created a new Party-based bourgeoisie and enforced it rigorously.

Which isn't so much saying that the USSR was "not socialist", but that it was "badly executed socialism that ignored the principles it was meant to foster." The same way that the DPRK is not really democratic. It was a convenient rallying cry that they used to establish themselves, but they didn't really believe in it that strongly, when push came to shove.

The DPRK is more than not really democratic tho, it's flat out not a democracy. I don't think the same case can be made for the USSR and it not being socialist.

[Endus]

The DPRK is more than not really democratic tho, it's flat out not a democracy.

No, it is. They have elections.

There's only one name on the ballot, but there are elections.

Is that a travesty of the ideals behind democratic theory? Sure, but that's my point.

I don't think the same case can be made for the USSR and it not being socialist.

It's not QUITE that extreme, but the USSR is a really poor interpretation of socialist principles. They replaced the Tsars with the Party, and got popular support by promising a socialist utopia they had no intent of ever providing.

[Mittens]

No, it is. They have elections.

There's only one name on the ballot, but there are elections.

This literally makes it not a democracy dude. This is ackshtually levels of pedantry.

Anyway, on the rest, I don't think there can be a "properly" implemented socialist form of government as they all fall into the same traps, whether they go commune style and either get crushed by another military or eventually form their state, or state-led which at this point it's viability should be obvious.

[Endus]

This literally makes it not a democracy dude. This is ackshtually levels of pedantry.

And similar pedantry lies behind labelling the USSR as "socialist", when it stood against the principles socialism is meant to foster. That is, again, the point.

Anyway, on the rest, I don't think there can be a "properly" implemented socialist form of government as they all fall into the same traps, whether they go commune style and either get crushed by another military or eventually form their state, or state-led which at this point it's viability should be obvious.

We just need to get away from authoritarianism in general, and totalitarianism in particular. Neither of which has a damned thing to do with socialist theory, when you get right to it.

[Mittens]

And similar pedantry lies behind labeling the USSR as "socialist" when it stood against the principles socialism is meant to foster. That is, again, the point.

Okay, then do explain, how is the USSR not socialist? Refer to the specific principles and tell me how the said principle is vital for something to be considered socialist.

The case for the DPRK is rather simple.

We just need to get away from authoritarianism in general, and totalitarianism in particular. Neither of which has a damned thing to do with socialist theory, when you get right to it.

It seems rather obvious that when you give a great amount of control over the economy to the government stuff like that is bound to happen.

[Endus]

Okay, then do explain, how is the USSR not socialist? Refer to the specific principles and tell me how the said principle is vital for something to be considered socialist.

The case for the DPRK is rather simple.

Loosely paraphrased from here (which goes into greater detail than I shall); https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/...ples-socialism

1> Class struggles result in the effective enslavement of those classes without power, by those which have power, and thus should be counteracted where possible. The creation of the Party and its supporters, in the USSR, was an effective recreation of exactly this kind of class struggle, and thus against principle.

2> That the way to emancipate these oppressed classes is by negating their central power; the exclusive ownership of the means of production, for their primary if not exclusive benefit. Instead, the means of production will be owned collectively (in a wide range of forms, from employee-owned factories up through society-owned collectives), and managed democratically. The USSR failed in both respects; the means of production were owned by the State, which was run by the Party, not democratically, and as a result the means were used to benefit the owners, against principle.

3> That this must emancipation must be driven from the bottom up, not the top down. The USSR was explicitly top-down, violently so.

4> That the purpose of governance is the emancipation, support, and defense of its citizens, not the oppression of them for the benefit of the ruling classes. Again, obviously the USSR worked against this principle, with great violence.

The article is speaking specifically to the Socialist Party of the UK, in some specifics, so I didn't bother getting into that specific context, but the above is the root of it. The USSR paid lip service to the above, but acted against those principles almost exclusively in practice.

That answer your question?

It seems rather obvious that when you give a great amount of control over the economy to the government stuff like that is bound to happen.

Right. That's why I oppose totalitarianism.

It has fuck-all to do with socialism, ideologically speaking.

To provide myself as an example; I'm a liberal market socialist. My primary principles involve defending the rights of the people, ensuring the government exists to serve the people's interests, that the government does not serve to elevate some interests above those of others, that those who contribute to the creation of a profitable business deserve to share in that profit, and so forth. Nothing remotely totalitarian, there, and there's no need for government ownership of the means of production, though I'd argue that some functions are best served that way (such as health care), as the profit motive acts against their purpose.

[Mittens]

Loosely paraphrased from here (which goes into greater detail than I shall); https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/...ples-socialism

1> Class struggles result in the effective enslavement of those classes without power, by those which have power, and thus should be counteracted where possible. The creation of the Party and its supporters, in the USSR, was an effective recreation of exactly this kind of class struggle, and thus against principle.

2> That the way to emancipate these oppressed classes is by negating their central power; the exclusive ownership of the means of production, for their primary if not exclusive benefit. Instead, the means of production will be owned collectively (in a wide range of forms, from employee-owned factories up through society-owned collectives), and managed democratically. The USSR failed in both respects; the means of production were owned by the State, which was run by the Party, not democratically, and as a result the means were used to benefit the owners, against principle.

3> That this must emancipation must be driven from the bottom up, not the top down. The USSR was explicitly top-down, violently so.

4> That the purpose of governance is the emancipation, support, and defense of its citizens, not the oppression of them for the benefit of the ruling classes. Again, obviously the USSR worked against this principle, with great violence.

The article is speaking specifically to the Socialist Party of the UK, in some specifics, so I didn't bother getting into that specific context, but the above is the root of it. The USSR paid lip service to the above, but acted against those principles almost exclusively in practice.

That answer your question?



Right. That's why I oppose totalitarianism.

It has fuck-all to do with socialism, ideologically speaking.

Yeah, pretty much. I have to do some reading on socialism on my own tho, my ignorance is showing. XD

To provide myself as an example; I'm a liberal market socialist. My primary principles involve defending the rights of the people, ensuring the government exists to serve the people's interests, that the government does not serve to elevate some interests above those of others, that those who contribute to the creation of a profitable business deserve to share in that profit, and so forth. Nothing remotely totalitarian, there, and there's no need for government ownership of the means of production, though I'd argue that some functions are best served that way (such as health care), as the profit motive acts against their purpose.

Are you talking about workers owning all of the profit or just part of it? There is quite the difference here, as one refers to market socialism and the other is just plain social democracy, which only attempts to reform capitalism to make it more fair rather than pursue the socialist principles you mentioned above.

[Endus]

Are you talking about workers owning all of the profit or just part of it? There is quite the difference here, as one refers to market socialism and the other is just plain social democracy, which only attempts to reform capitalism to make it more fair rather than pursue the socialist principles you mentioned above.

I'm more leaning towards market socialism. Though I'll tell you right off that by "workers", I mean everyone, from the entry-level staff to the CEO and other executives. And I didn't say "share equally". In proportion to their other compensation seems fair to me. With the caveat that I'd like to see executive salaries capped at something like 25-50x their lowest-paid employee, assuming a 40-hour workweek for both. So at the 50x level, if you're paying your janitor $30,000/year, the CEO compensation package would cap out at $1,500,000. Want to pay the CEO more? Pay everyone more. And that's before the (again, proportional) profit-sharing, of course.

[Vash The Stampede]

As a "natural" economical system, capitalism has its ups and downs. But it always recovers. Even during recessions capitalist societies tend to retain a stronger economy than any socialist society anywhere, even at their strongest.

Socialism, however, is a flawed system by default, because it ignores the both the phsyical reality of how the world really works, and human mentality. As such socialism always fails, and never recovers; not on its own merit anyway.

The problem with this is that no country as far as I know has ever went 100% socialism. There are countries by definition more socialist than Venezuela, and doing extremely well, but don't identify as socialist. Denmark, Finland, Canada are all leaning socialist but not actually socialist and doing very well economically. China who might be socialist and might be capitalist and might be communist is doing well considering it's a threat to the United States. Not the standard of living that the US has but it's getting closer to that goal everyday.

Capitalism exists cause we want it to. When the great depression happened it was saved by forcing socialist systems like social security and minimum wage. That and WW2, which rebuilt the industry. Plus Europe was all kinds of fucked up so there was a demand for America's supply. Even the Wall Street bailout was a very socialist like move to save our economy. Point is we're moving towards the direction of socialist whether you like it or not. We may never be 100% socialist, but we may get very close to that.

- - - Updated - - -

Both were caused by socialism.

Venezuela nationalized the oil industry - and put their incompetent henchmen in control of it and used the profit to fund everything - without planning for worse days. They ignored parts that Marx didn't find valuable.

Socialists generally praised Venezuela as socialist example before the fall of the oil price, some still do.

Not very different than American Banks and the housing crisis, and Wall Street needing a bailout. Except we can afford to bailout businesses run by incompetent henchmen and Venezuela can't.

No, the fall of USSR primarily had other reasons - like socialism. As explained numerous times: USSR - the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics controlled by a communist party.

The current problem in Russia is due to falling oil and gas prices.

There were a lot of factors, but oil was certainly one of them. Oil dropped from $66 a barrel in 1980 to $20 a barrel in 1986. Google it if you don't believe me. History seems to be repeating for Russia. Also Russia can't be socialist and communist. It's either one or the other, pick one.

[Forogil]

The problem with this is that no country as far as I know has ever went 100% socialism. There are countries by definition more socialist than Venezuela, and doing extremely well, but don't identify as socialist. Denmark, Finland, Canada are all leaning socialist but not actually socialist and doing very well economically.

Your successful examples are - as has been repeatedly stated - not socialist countries.

None of Denmark, Finland, or Canada have the state take control of the means of production - instead they primarily let private corporations have control of the means of production, and in none of those countries the major parties are ideologically socialists; there are some fringe parties that are socialists - like Vasemmistoliitto and Socialistisk Folkeparti (but none of the "Left" parties are that left in Denmark). Thus there are parties that are socialists in those countries - and other parties that are not; why do you ignore that distinction?

China who might be socialist and might be capitalist and might be communist is doing well considering it's a threat to the United States. Not the standard of living that the US has but it's getting closer to that goal everyday.

China is formally a socialist country ruled by a communist party, but in reality it has become successful (after the fall of the Gang of Four) by de-socializing its industry. Basically economic reform with minimal political reform - that started earlier than Glasnost and is more successful.

There were a lot of factors, but oil was certainly one of them. Oil dropped from $66 a barrel in 1980 to $20 a barrel in 1986. Google it if you don't believe me. History seems to be repeating for Russia.

Oil was a minor factor.

Your comparison is fundamentally dishonest since Gorbachev first admitted the economic failure of the USSR (where one 'S' is for socialist) in may 1985; paving the way for reforms that led to the downfall - and the large drop in oil prices in the period 1980 to 1986 happened later, after november 1985.

And clearly USSR wasn't founded on the high oil prices after 1974; they managed to put a man in space before that.

Also Russia can't be socialist and communist. It's either one or the other, pick one.

Wrong in so many ways.

I correctly stated that USSR and PRC were socialist countries ruled by communist parties, do you deny that USSR means "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" or that the ruling party was "Communist Party of the Soviet Union"? If you knew about the communistic theory you would understand that a communistic country would be heresy for a traditional Marxist.

However, socialist and communist have different meanings, and that was one set of meanings, but ideologically they can be synonyms, or communist ideology can be a sub-set of socialist ones.

- - - Updated - - -

With the caveat that I'd like to see executive salaries capped at something like 25-50x their lowest-paid employee, assuming a 40-hour workweek for both. So at the 50x level, if you're paying your janitor $30,000/year, the CEO compensation package would cap out at $1,500,000. Want to pay the CEO more? Pay everyone more. And that's before the (again, proportional) profit-sharing, of course.

A fairly meaningless restriction in the US and western Europe, that is likely to have bad effects.

Many companies have already outsourced the janitors (there are number of specialized janitorial service companies) - and many others would do it with such a restriction; similarly many companies form sub-companies for higher-paid employees. This will especially be the case for tech, financial, and some service companies - whereas manufacturing companies have moved the low-skill production to low-wage countries (the part that wasn't automated), and your proposal would increase the move to lower-cost countries.

[Allybeboba]

All these people defending socialism.

[Forogil]

Hint : There's no truth-in-advertising laws for country names.

There isn't, but the point was about USSR being a socialist country (which actually corresponds to reality - the state controlled the means of production for the most part; it was just based on an incorrect theory that taught that socialism would lead to communism with manna from heaven etc) - where the ruling party was communist (and many communists in other countries were often sympathetic with them - and they were close to following the 10-point plan from the communist manifesto).

[Daelak]

All these people defending socialism.

You already benefit from socialistic advocacy many decades before you were born. You can see the failure of whatever form of capitalism we have in the US in many sectors of the economy, with private companies dumping their liability on society to pick up the tab.

[kasuke06]

so... why do socialists think capitalism is bad? I mean... so far it seems like EVERY SINGLE TIME socialism takes a major hold in a country, it takes an almost immediate downturn that takes decades to return to being even a shadow of what it was before socialism happened.

Capitalism: Yeah it sucks pretty hard if you're poor.
Socialism: Yeah it sucks pretty hard if you're alive.