socialism question

[Forogil]

A simple question for you: What kind of alternative to capitalism as economic system would you support?

No workable ones have been found so far.

Universal healthcare, education, and similar things can be done in a capitalistic systems - as is the case in most countries, involving some combination of capitalistic companies and government entities. Socialism is about controlling the means of production, not about providing the services.

[Cizr]

Just pointing out that if nearly every socialist nation ends in authoritarianism, then that may be some type of causality in effect. Now I know that correlation and causality are different subjects entirely, but you must admit that a system that forcibly removes property and rights from people is not going to function without government strong-arming which is authoritarian by nature.

Not even going to address your weird godwin outburst.

Yeah thats main problem with socialism. Socialists in Germany are already pushing for this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_K%C3%BChnert

ühnert described himself as being a democratic socialist,[3] promoting the communisation of large firms and the expropriation of owners from companies like BMW and people who own more than one house or apartment. In his opinion, real democratic socialism has never been tried.

Its funny for me when I see naive people pushing this. We had this socialism and we got rid of it. Now West is embracing shit that we were glad to get rid of .

- - - Updated - - -

And you created a new account just to show me your cowardice?
I feel honored?

Like 2 days ago he made another account but swiftly got banned on it. These cowardly ban evaders are so funny.

[Endus]

Socialism is about controlling the means of production

No more than capitalism is. Why is it you folks never actually understand what socialist theory is?

not about providing the services.

And this makes literally no sense, particularly if you think capitalist economics are in any way concerned with provision of government services.

[Donatello Trumpi]

A simple question for you: What kind of alternative to capitalism as economic system would you support?

As long as he thinks he will be a major benefactor, the loudest anti-capitalist will support any regime, no matter how totalitarian, because he thinks HE will be in power.

[Donatello Trumpi]

If people wanted to be in power of others, they would be capitalists, because the system makes it really easy...

But it requires capital to do so and a complex economical strcuture, which in turn enhances the quality of life of the average citizen.

Pure Socialism requires just a regime, kills any innovation and stagnates a country.

[Endus]

But it requires capital to do so and a complex economical strcuture, which in turn enhances the quality of life of the average citizen.

It doesn't require any of that.

And there are myriad examples of nations where it hasn't really enhanced quality of life. Certainly not in an ongoing basis; the USA's big issue right now is that despite increasing wealth and productivity, that's not being felt as an increased quality of life for its citizens, as a whole.

Pure Socialism requires just a regime, kills any innovation and stagnates a country.

This is pure propaganda and has no connection to reality nor philosophy.

It's directly contradicted by history, where the nations which have seen the greatest economic improvement have been socialist nations. And I'm not talking Norway; my two specific examples will be the early years of the USSR and Maoist China.

It's also hard to claim it "kills any innovation", when until 1969, the USSR was kicking the USA's teeth in, in the space race, because they were more innovative.

Edit: Which isn't me saying "Rah rah, go USSR, the Soviets were great". But you don't get to ignore the facts. I don't want the kind of economic boom those nations produced, because it required such strict oversight and brutal management. But that's not a requirement of socialism, and anyone claiming otherwise is a McCarthyist propaganda tool.

[Kokolums]

It's directly contradicted by history, where the nations which have seen the greatest economic improvement have been socialist nations. And I'm not talking Norway; my two specific examples will be the early years of the USSR and Maoist China.

It's also hard to claim it "kills any innovation", when until 1969, the USSR was kicking the USA's teeth in, in the space race, because they were more innovative.

Edit: Which isn't me saying "Rah rah, go USSR, the Soviets were great". But you don't get to ignore the facts. I don't want the kind of economic boom those nations produced, because it required such strict oversight and brutal management. But that's not a requirement of socialism, and anyone claiming otherwise is a McCarthyist propaganda tool.

The USSR captured a large number of Nazi scientists at the end of WW2 and basically enslaved them to produce cutting edge Russian rockets and other tech that was leveraged to give the USSR an advantage early on in the Space Race with the US. So they were ahead in the 1950s. But R&D was clearly second-rate in the USSR and by the 1960s they were falling behind the US. That's why the US passed them by and got to the moon first while the USSR space program basically fell apart.

There was no economic miracle in the USSR either. In fact, the average soviet citizen in the 1970s lived in very similar circumstances to the average russian in the 1920s. In 1985, there were only 45 cars per 1000 people in the USSR and few owned a TV and if you owned a TV you had a choice of 6 channels, most of which was propaganda programming or something like PBS. People drank heavily. Radio was a big thing but the USSR would pour tens of millions of dollars annually into jamming radio coming from the US and Europe to restrict its citizens to listening to russian radio.

[Vorkreist]

Giving short as possible answer: When Stalin took power the USSR was in the stone age compared to other countries. When he died, he left the Union as a superpower with nuclear weapon in it's arsenal, despite WW2 and all other setbacks. You don't achieve such great historical leap and compensation of historical time by tickling people with a feather and endlessly debating your political opponents in pointless public debates. You take action. The regime might have been brutal, but it achieved it's historical ordeal at the time. It was the red banner with the hammer and sickle that flew over the Reichstag, not the swastika above the Kremlin. I know some people aren't happy about it, but that's just how history went down.
@Kangodo

You can tickle Stalin's balls for defeating the nazis but aside that all that followed was complete cancer for the entire eastern europe and russia itself.
Decades of sadistic oppression and festering corruption in every single inch of that communist machine.

[Shadowferal]

Pretty sure that what was called communism, really wasn't.

[Zan15]

The USSR captured a large number of Nazi scientists at the end of WW2 and basically enslaved them to produce cutting edge Russian rockets and other tech that was leveraged to give the USSR an advantage early on in the Space Race with the US. So they were ahead in the 1950s. But R&D was clearly second-rate in the USSR and by the 1960s they were falling behind the US. That's why the US passed them by and got to the moon first while the USSR space program basically fell apart.

There was no economic miracle in the USSR either. In fact, the average soviet citizen in the 1970s lived in very similar circumstances to the average russian in the 1920s. In 1985, there were only 45 cars per 1000 people in the USSR and few owned a TV and if you owned a TV you had a choice of 6 channels, most of which was propaganda programming or something like PBS. People drank heavily. Radio was a big thing but the USSR would pour tens of millions of dollars annually into jamming radio coming from the US and Europe to restrict its citizens to listening to russian radio.

Hello what you described is exactly what the US did as well to Nazi scientist.
basically told them to work for the US or be put to death after trial for war crimes.

[Forogil]

No more than capitalism is. Why is it you folks never actually understand what socialist theory is?

You don't make sense.

Capitalism isn't about controlling the means of production, as there is no real control of the means of production - companies just compete for good solutions. Whereas socialism is about collective control of the means of production, based on some odd idea that it is easy to figure out what is needed, and workers are all interchangeable cogs.

Why is that you neither understand capitalism, nor socialistic theory?

[Endus]

You don't make sense.

Capitalism isn't about controlling the means of production, as there is no real control of the means of production - companies just compete for good solutions. Whereas socialism is about collective control of the means of production, based on some odd idea that it is easy to figure out what is needed, and workers are all interchangeable cogs.

Why is that you neither understand capitalism, nor socialistic theory?

If capitalism isn't about "control", then you can't use that term when describing socialism, either.

Because the difference between the two is, solely, about who owns the means of production. If that's what you mean by "control", then capitalism is fundamentally based upon it just as much as socialism. If it isn't, you've got no business bringing it up because it isn't a fundamental component of socialist theory.

If it takes "force" to let socialism happen, it takes just as much "force" to let capitalism happen.

Trying to claim socialism is much worse on these grounds is nothing more than McCarthyist fearmongering and propaganda.

If socialism is "collective control of the means of production", then capitalism is "individual control of the means of production". That's literally the difference. If you're not willing to use that kind of comparative framing, you're engaging in propaganda, not discussing economics theory.

[Forogil]

If people wanted to be in power of others, they would be capitalists, because the system makes it really easy...

Well, it may seem as anyone - including blind drunks - can make better decisions than capitalistic owners, but in practice they actually do a sort of half-decent job of it and the people who think they can do better, can't.

[Elegiac]

Well, it may seem as anyone - including blind drunks - can make better decisions than capitalistic owners, but in practice they actually do a sort of half-decent job of it and the people who think they can do better, can't.

Which is why the vast majority of startups fail due to managerial incompetence or lack of capital (usually also a sign of managerial incompetence). Right.

[Forogil]

If socialism is "collective control of the means of production", then capitalism is "individual control of the means of production".

You are still not making any sense, since you don't understand "many different individuals control parts of means of production" imply that there is no real control.

[Elegiac]

You are still not making any sense, since you don't understand "many different individuals control parts of means of production" imply that there is no real control.

He makes perfect sense.

The problem is people in your camp don't seem to get the idea that social classes exist and believe society is just this amorphous blob composed of individuals of varying degrees of competence.

[Endus]

You are still not making any sense, since you don't understand "many different individuals control parts of means of production" imply that there is no real control.

Then you're using "control" in a deliberately misleading way, and it doesn't apply to socialist theory in the first place, in the way that you're using it.

That's my point. It wasn't that "control" is the right term, it's that if it is, it applies to both socialist and capitalist theory, in equal measure. Same for them involving "force", or "authoritarian rule".

If you're suggesting that there's some overarching authoritarian control by definition at a societal level in socialist systems (other than just "having a legal system", of course), then you're wrong and have no idea what "socialism" means. That's the point, here.

[Forogil]

Which is why the vast majority of startups fail due to managerial incompetence or lack of capital (usually also a sign of managerial incompetence). Right.

The "half-decent job" refers to the normal company leaders, not them.

[Elegiac]

The "half-decent job" refers to the normal company leaders, not them.

No True Entrepreneur? Really?

Talk about a limp dick rebuttal.

[Forogil]

If you're suggesting that there's some overarching authoritarian control by definition at a societal level in socialist systems

I'm not suggesting it, I'm merely stating that there is a control that doesn't exist in capitalistic systems.

And until you have understood at least one of capitalism or socialism I don't see this as getting anywhere.