In true socialism you only need to work two days a week

[unbound]

While Venezuela has some socialist aspects, all advanced economies do (including the US). Venezuela is not a socialist state despite claims from RW groups like Cato or WSJ.

Forbes sums up the situation very well if you would really like to understand what is going on (the article specifically talks about things like the toilet paper situation).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst.../#411f5f1f2b53

[Kuntantee]

The opposite of capitalism is communism. Socialism is toned down version of communism. That means using a small part of capitalism. So they can indeed co-exist.

Capitalism-----------Liberalism-------------Socialism--------------Communism

Incorrect. Socialism and Capitalism are economical models whereas Communism is a bit more complex, it's a regime model. In order to achieve a classless society, private ownership needs to be abolished. Socialism is a requirement for Communism, not a tuned down version of it. The models in Europe and perhaps in Cuba (going straight into hybrid model) are not examples of Socialism and Capitalism co-existing together. These are hybrid models.

- - - Updated - - -

OH NO! A partially socialist country is doing bad! Means all socialism is bad *hides Sweden, Denmark and a few other countries under the carpet*. Socialism is evil guys and it will destroy you!
On the other hand, capitalism is so amazing! It's perfect, with no flaws whatsoever *hides Somalia and a few other countries and the problems of current day USA under another carpet*. Capitalism is amazing guys! Who doesn't want to be an obedient slave?

Ignorance must be a bliss. You must be a very happy guy without high stress level.

[Deleted]

Incorrect. Socialism and Capitalism are economical models whereas Communism is a bit more complex, it's a regime model. In order to achieve a classless society, private ownership needs to be abolished. Socialism is a requirement for Communism, not a tuned down version of it. The models in Europe and perhaps in Cuba (going straight into hybrid model) are not examples of Socialism and Capitalism co-existing together. These are hybrid models.

- - - Updated - - -



Ignorance must be a bliss. You must be a very happy guy without high stress level.

Incorrect, socialism = communism, the only difference is that communists think that the conversion to socialism should be done by a revolution and the socialists think it should be done through politics in a gradual way.
When you are talking about the state owning the means of production you are talking about state capitalism, that is not socialism. In socialism the workers own the means of production. That means that the people who work for a company would own that company, not the state. This company would be in private hands, because the workers are not part of the government, but rather work for the company that all of them own.
The Cuban example is an example of state capitalism, the state runs businesses for profit. Although this is seen as a conversion between the two, it is as much capitalistic as it is socialist.

[Kuntantee]

Incorrect, socialism = communism, the only difference is that communists think that the conversion to socialism should be done by a revolution and the socialists think it should be done through politics in a gradual way.
When you are talking about the state owning the means of production you are talking about state capitalism, that is not socialism. In socialism the workers own the means of production. That means that the people who work for a company would own that company, not the state. This company would be in private hands, because the workers are not part of the government, but rather work for the company that all of them own.
The Cuban example is an example of state capitalism, the state runs businesses for profit. Although this is seen as a conversion between the two, it is as much capitalistic as it is socialist.

There are lots and lots of confusion about what capitalism, socialism and communism is on your end. I am just gonna say this, owning means of production does not mean controlling the state affairs. If that was the case, any liberal state, e.g., USA would be socialist (and effectively communist) because if you reduce socialism to ownership and then claim state-owned means of production is state capitalism, then private ownership (aka good ol' capitalism) can be private socialism. Deductively speaking, you make no sense whatsoever. In your definition, everything can be socialist or capitalist depending on the perspective.


To further show that your point regarding Socialism and Communism is absurd, we need to look at what kind of classes can exist in a socialist country. As I said, owning means of production doesn't mean you rule the state. When there are two classes that one control means of production (what you call socialism) and those who rule the state (ruling class), it can not be communism. A state may very well be socialist, yet not communist. The requirement for communism is having a class-free society.

[Deleted]

A truth that many right-wing europeans and americans seem oblivious to is that capitalism does not cause economic success and socialism does not cause economic decline. Rather, impoverished countries turn to socialism and successful countries tend to be taken over by capitalists. Whenever freemarket capitalism is imposed on a poor country the results are almost always disastrous.

You'd really think grown adults would be capable of distinguishing cause from effect.

Ehm no, it's way more complex than poverty causes socialism and capitalism ruins succesful countries.

You know what happened in China? A poor population gave rise to the communist party, yet the country was still controlled by nationalist non-communist government party. Then the Japanese invasion happened mainly attacking the non-communist government and not the communists. The result of this was that when the Japanese retreated from China due to losing battles in WW2, the non-communists were severely weakened and the communists were thus able to expel them from China.

My point here is that if Japan hadn't attacked the nationalist non-communist government in China, then it's probable (due to pretty much losing the civil war) that the communist party wouldn't be in power of China today, even despite having a dirt poor population.

During the reign of the communist party, their communist policies only lead to economic stagnation, however after they switched to market-based "capitalist" policies, their economy has been developing extremely well, and today the Chinese population, despite still being worse off than us in the west, are living way better lives than they had before they switched to a market based economy.

[Deleted]

There are lots and lots of confusion about what capitalism, socialism and communism is on your end. I am just gonna say this, owning means of production does not mean controlling the state affairs. If that was the case, any liberal state, e.g., USA would be socialist because if you reduce socialism to ownership and then claim state-owned means of production is state capitalism, then private ownership (aka good ol' capitalism) is also private socialism. Deductively speaking, you make no sense whatsoever.

Nope, a lot of misconceptions on your end, go watch the vid i posted..
State owned isn't socialist, it is state capitalist, and im telling you this for the 3th time.
Private ownership isn't capitalist in its nature just because capitalism makes use of it, just like the concept of money isn't capitalistic.
There is no such thing is "private socialism" as in socialism the ownership of the production is the worker, and therefore it is private ownership.
Deductively speaking, you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Deleted]

Ignorance must be a bliss. You must be a very happy guy without high stress level.

So you agree with the OP that everything socialist is evil? And you say I'm the ignorant one?

If not, and you simply misunderstood my post, there's a reason why I put this emoticon: if you mouse over it it literally says "roll eyes (sarcastic)"

[Deleted]

Ehm no, it's way more complex than poverty causes socialism and capitalism ruins succesful countries.

You know what happened in China? A poor population gave rise to the communist party, yet the country was still controlled by nationalist non-communist government party. Then the Japanese invasion happened mainly attacking the non-communist government and not the communists. The result of this was that when the Japanese retreated from China due to losing battles in WW2, the non-communists were severely weakened and the communists were thus able to expel them from China.

My point here is that if Japan hadn't attacked the nationalist non-communist government in China, then it's probable (due to pretty much losing the civil war) that the communist party wouldn't be in power of China today, even despite having a dirt poor population.

During the reign of the communist party, their communist policies only lead to economic stagnation, however after they switched to market-based "capitalist" policies, their economy has been developing extremely well, and today the Chinese population, despite still being worse off than us in the west, are living way better lives than they had before they switched to a market based economy.

Except, China isn't a communist state, and it has never been one. State ownership isn't the same as socialism, it is as much capitalism as it is socialism.
It is the same as the "Democratic Republic of North Korea", you can call your self something, but that doesn't make you that something until you act as that something you call your self.

[May90]

You think the current free-market capitalist system isn't tyranny?

It is not even remotely close to a tyranny.

[Kuntantee]

Nope, a lot of misconceptions on your end, go watch the vid i posted..
State owned isn't socialist, it is state capitalist, and im telling you this for the 3th time.
Private ownership isn't capitalist in its nature just because capitalism makes use of it, just like the concept of money isn't capitalistic.
There is no such thing is "private socialism" as in socialism the ownership of the production is the worker, and therefore it is private ownership.
Deductively speaking, you have no idea what you are talking about.

In the very first 5 min of the video, the guy mocks people believing socialists are communists, but just different name. So your own video pretty much proves you wrong and mocks you. Now, I will address what you think to be the only difference between Communism and Socialism.

socialism = communism, the only difference is that communists think that the conversion to socialism should be done by a revolution and the socialists think it should be done through politics in a gradual way..

This is not the difference between Communism and Socialism, it is the difference between the models of Socialism, and in particular what you are describing is the difference between Revolutionary Socialism (Marxist-Leninism) and Democratic Socialism . I just don't know what kind of ignorant person would claim that the difference between Communism and Socialism is the way through which reforms occurs.

I will refrain wasting energy for blatant ignorance. I think I am done. Do not consider "ignorant" as an insult, I just think you don't know what you are talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

So you agree with the OP that everything socialist is evil? And you say I'm the ignorant one?

If not, and you simply misunderstood my post, there's a reason why I put this emoticon: if you mouse over it it literally says "roll eyes (sarcastic)"

What I find absurd in your post is first you give success of hybrid models as an evidence of possibility of success for "socialism". Whether Venezuela is socialist or not is irrelevant. Not that I think Socialism is evil but Denmark isn't the best example to compare with Venezuela, or Cuba for that matter. Second, there are things done better in USA and things that are done better in Nordic Countries. USA kind of economic model encourages entrepreneurship where as the model in Nordics doesn't. It is unlikely for these Nordics to produce a Google or Apple. You just can't shit on USA for no reason.

[Acidbaron]

Cause we all know that once we start treating people more equally we are all doomed!

Oh wait.

[McFuu]

No socialism does not mean "stuff is owned by the government" that is what "state capitalism" means, and although Marks described it as "a form in between socialism and capitalism" it isn't just socialism. In socialism the workers themselves would own the company, so it would be a private enterprise, you just could not trade in it and there would not be a few reaping in all the rewards that the many had earned.

Just google it for fucks sake. Socialism means government run companies where production and distribution is controlled specifically by the government.

You are confusing governments that have social programs with actual socialism. Actual socialism is something more along the lines of the USSR. Actual Marxist Communism is better realized in Star Trek and how their government functions. People are provided with goods and services based off of their station in life. I don't know if they ever went into who actually owns the businesses in the ST universe, I don't know how far down the Marxism rabbit hole they jumped.

[Ripster42]

Typical child who doesn't understand that social programs do not equal socialism. We're talking about state-owned means of production. Venezuela is socialist. Nordic cuckland is not.

Typical child who doesn't understand that state-owned production means communism not socialism.

[Kontinuum]

State socialism sucks ass.

[Deleted]

In the very first 5 min of the video, the guy mocks people believing socialists are communists, but just different name. So your own video pretty much proves you wrong and mocks you. Now, I will address what you think to be the only difference between Communism and Socialism.



This is not the difference between Communism and Socialism, it is the difference between the models of Socialism, and in particular what you are describing is the difference between Revolutionary Socialism (Marxist-Leninism) and Democratic Socialism . I just don't know what kind of ignorant person would claim that the difference between Communism and Socialism is the way through which reforms occurs.

I will refrain wasting energy for blatant ignorance. I think I am done. Do not consider "ignorant" as an insult, I just think you don't know what you are talking about.

- - - Updated - - -



What I find absurd in your post is first you give success of hybrid models as an evidence of possibility of success for "socialism". Whether Venezuela is socialist or not is irrelevant. Not that I think Socialism is evil but Denmark isn't the best example to compare with Venezuela, or Cuba for that matter. Second, there are things done better in USA and things that are done better in Nordic Countries. USA kind of economic model encourages entrepreneurship where as the model in Nordics doesn't. It is unlikely for these Nordics to produce a Google or Apple. You just can't shit on USA for no reason.

You clearly did not watch it, otherwise you would not have made such a claim. I said they only basically differ on one point, but you didn't come that far in the vid, shocker.

And then you spew some terms not knowing what they mean, no, the difference between communism and socialism is how to get to a certain point, beyond that point they have the same ideology, your ignorance is showing again...

Yes, save your energy and watch the video, you clearly need it. And if it is beyond your grasp then simply watch it again..

- - - Updated - - -

Just google it for fucks sake. Socialism means government run companies where production and distribution is controlled specifically by the government.

You are confusing governments that have social programs with actual socialism. Actual socialism is something more along the lines of the USSR. Actual Marxist Communism is better realized in Star Trek and how their government functions. People are provided with goods and services based off of their station in life. I don't know if they ever went into who actually owns the businesses in the ST universe, I don't know how far down the Marxism rabbit hole they jumped.

No it does not, google "state capitalism" and educate your self. Actual socialism isn't something this world has ever seen, the USSR is state capitalism, again go google it.

[Breccia]

The country in question is, of course, Venezuela -- the 21st century incarnation of a socialist utopia.

Anyone who thinks Venezuela is a utopia is clearly making a strawman. Or just plain old ill-informed.

[Sunseeker]

Ah another stirring thread between a bunch of people who have no idea what they're talking about.

[Deleted]

It is not even remotely close to a tyranny.

Then you've surrendered your mind.

[May90]

People who support socialism like to point out countries like Finland, Sweden, Norway as examples of well working socialism. Well, it really depends on what you consider "well working". I don't know a single company from these countries that develops anything I use. Almost everything I use is developed in the US, Japan and South Korea, but mostly the US - all capitalist countries. Do you think this correlation is random? Capitalism is the system that moves humanity forward, it is the system that provides technological progress. Socialist states can exist and be very successful at providing their citizens with a high quality of life, but they do so only because there are capitalist states that do the tech development for them. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple cannot exist in Europe, with its insane taxes, strong governmental control, countless restrictions of business activities, etc.

Yes, it is no rocket science that, in general, it is better to be poor in Europe than to be poor in the US - but it is also much, much better to be rich in the US than to be rich in Europe. It is better to be an enterpreneur in the US than in Europe. And, unlike Europe, the US provides very good opportunities for becoming either, if you are willing to work hard. Yes, sucks to be a discriminated minority in the US, sucks to be coming from a very poor family in a lousy neighborhood in the US - these problems need to be addressed; there is a point at which there is too much capitalism. However, if you want to turn the US into a new Sweden or Norway, bear in mind that all this shiny tech, all those huge IT companies, SpaceX and such - they will be lost.

I could have immigrated, pretty much, anywhere I wanted, since my educational background is pretty darn good. I chose the US. I think this is the country that lets me realize my potential to its fullest. I cannot do things, say, in Sweden that I am doing here in science, because no one does these things there; those few groups that exists are doing work for organizations oversees anyway. I know it is better to be poor in Sweden than in the US; but the poor are not the only people. They should be cared for, but they are not the only ones determining the quality of life in the country.

---

The point is: there is no ideal system. Each system has advantages and disadvantages. Both capitalism and socialism have a lot of light and dark sides; whichever you choose, you have to sacrifice a lot. I choose capitalism, it better suits my needs; I wouldn't want the US to turn into new Norway, I could have moved in Norway in the first place if I wanted, but I didn't. However, a good socialist country is pretty darn awesome to live in as well.

[McFuu]

No it does not, google "state capitalism" and educate your self. Actual socialism isn't something this world has ever seen, the USSR is state capitalism, again go google it.

Please take your own advise.

Not only does state capitalism have multiple definitions, but the fundamental difference is state capitalism, the government doesn't have to own companies, they can own controlling shares in usually still privately owned companies, so they have an influence in the manner in which these companies are run.

Socialism, the government runs these companies, they own the companies. Also State capitalism vs Socialism, one is for profit, so if it costs too much money to run power out to certain neighborhoods, then they aren't going to do it; socialism prioritizes the people first.

This is all idyllic though.