Socialists may have the same mentality as Nazis: that people must be enslaved

[Revoltingest]

We need a companion thread to the anti-capitalist one.

Every time socialism has been tried, eg, USSR, N Korea,
Khmer Rouge, China, the populace has been oppressed,
enslaved, purged, & starved. Despite this fervent fans
of socialism want yet again to put government in total
control of the means of production.

 

[Stevicus]

We need a companion thread to the anti-capitalist one.

Every time socialism has been tried, eg, USSR, N Korea,
Khmer Rouge, China, the populace has been oppressed,
enslaved, purged, & starved. Despite this fervent fans
of socialism want yet again to put government in total
control of the means of production.

You need new material. I don't know how many times you've posted that same silly political cartoon.

 

[Revoltingest]

You need new material.

Just as you do in that other thread.
And you've still never been able to justify
socialism with any empirical evidence.
All you have is the dream that somehow
in some way, your dream of a government
run economy will work this time without
economic & social woe.
That cartoon must really sting, eh.

I thought @Estro Felino would be the
first to kvetch here, with you second.
I'm lousy at prognostication.

 

[Stevicus]

Just as you do in that other thread.
And you've still never been able to justify
socialism with any empirical evidence.
All you have is the dream that somehow
in some way, your dream of a government
run economy will work this time without
economic & social woe.
That cartoon must really sting, eh.

I thought @Estro Felino would be the
first to kvetch here, with you second.
I'm lousy at prognostication.

The cartoon is indicative of what I would consider to be the fatal flaw in most arguments favoring capitalism and/or criticizing socialism. It operates under the assumption that a "system" is just some abstraction which operates in a vacuum and would produce the same results in every circumstance. That's not how history is told, and it's not how the real world works.

 

[sayak83]

We need a companion thread to the anti-capitalist one.

Every time socialism has been tried, eg, USSR, N Korea,
Khmer Rouge, China, the populace has been oppressed,
enslaved, purged, & starved. Despite this fervent fans
of socialism want yet again to put government in total
control of the means of production.

Many European countries are what may be called Socialist Democracies. They are doing fine.

 

[Revoltingest]

The cartoon is indicative of what I would consider to be the fatal flaw in most arguments favoring capitalism and/or criticizing socialism. It operates under the assumption that a "system" is just some abstraction which operates in a vacuum and would produce the same results in every circumstance. That's not how history is told, and it's not how the real world works.

Tis odd that you cite "the real world".
In that empirical environment, capitalism has shown
greater potential for success. Even socialist fanboys
praise Scandinavian countries, despite their being
capitalist.
But socialism's record is 100% one of oppression
& economic woe.

 

[Revoltingest]

Many European countries are what may be called Socialist Democracies. They are doing fine.

But they're capitalist economics.
Putting "socialist" in the label is merely
the inverse of "lipstick on a pig".

Edit....
"Putting a pig on lipstick"?
"Polishing a turd"?

Yeah, the 2nd one.

 

[Wandering Monk]

But they're capitalist economics.
Putting "socialist" in the label is merely
the inverse of "lipstick on a pig".

Should capitalist economies have heavy regulation of industry?
...state owned railroads,
...national health care for all,
...labor unions having seats on corporate boards,
and still be called capitalist?

What distinction do you make between capitalist and free market?

 

[Estro Felino]

The worshippers of neo-liberism think that all that matters is that few people (the chosen ones) can afford to go to luxury brothels and casinos.
The rest of the population can succumb. They don't matter.

We socialists think that all that matters is that all people can afford a good life, even if nobody, not even the leading class, can afford to go to luxury brothels and casinos.

Can you see the difference, dearest?

 

[Stevicus]

Tis odd that you cite "the real world".
In that empirical environment, capitalism has shown
greater potential for success. Even socialist fanboys
praise Scandinavian countries, despite their being
capitalist.
But socialism's record is 100% one of oppression
& economic woe.

Well, again, the causes and factors which can explain the success of some countries and the failures of other countries are complex and varied. It is not sufficient to simply argue that "the system made it happen," when there were so many other historical occurrences and external/geographical factors in play.

I would also reject the premise behind the reasoning that "it's been tried before and failed" justifying the belief that "it will never work."

In any case, socialists in the here and now can look back on history, see where socialist governments in previous times made their mistakes and try to learn from them.

After all, you might argue that capitalism has evolved from the bad old days of slavery, child labor, sweatshops, etc. Most liberal capitalists of today would categorically deny that it has any part of capitalism and would never do anything like that. Don't you think it's possible that socialists of today (who are basically just liberals with bad haircuts) can evolve from gulags, purges, and other such scourges associated with socialism?

Are you suggesting that there's something about "socialism," in and of itself, which turns an ordinary human being into some murderous, dictatorial scoundrel?

 

[Revoltingest]

Should capitalist economies have heavy regulation of industry?
...state owned railroads,

Government has mis-managed its regulation
of railroads. (I once worked in that industry.)

...national health care for all,

Health care isn't the means of production.

...labor unions having seats on corporate boards,
and still be called capitalist?

Labor unions on company boards should be
something they agree upon, not government
imposed. Unions need only buy stock in the
company. But wanting to run it with no
investment makes no sense.

What distinction do you make between capitalist and free market?

I make no distinction.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, again, the causes and factors which can explain the success of some countries and the failures of other countries are complex and varied. It is not sufficient to simply argue that "the system made it happen," when there were so many other historical occurrences and external/geographical factors in play.

I would also reject the premise behind the reasoning that "it's been tried before and failed" justifying the belief that "it will never work."

In any case, socialists in the here and now can look back on history, see where socialist governments in previous times made their mistakes and try to learn from them.

After all, you might argue that capitalism has evolved from the bad old days of slavery, child labor, sweatshops, etc. Most liberal capitalists of today would categorically deny that it has any part of capitalism and would never do anything like that. Don't you think it's possible that socialists of today (who are basically just liberals with bad haircuts) can evolve from gulags, purges, and other such scourges associated with socialism?

Are you suggesting that there's something about "socialism," in and of itself, which turns an ordinary human being into some murderous, dictatorial scoundrel?

Many words.
No substance to address.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Government has mis-managed its regulation
of railroads. (I once worked in that industry.)

Health care isn't the means of production.

Labor unions on company boards should be
something they agree upon, not government
imposed. Unions need only buy stock in the
company. But wanting to run it with no
investment makes no sense.

I make no distinction.

So if the markets aren't free (unregulated?), it is not a capitalist economy.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But they're capitalist economics.
Putting "socialist" in the label is merely
the inverse of "lipstick on a pig".

They are very different to the USA in how they operate. They put far more breaks on the excesses of uncontrolled capitalism.
They put far more emphasis on the welfare of the individual, especially healthcare, job security,Holliday entitlement, personal security
Freedom from the abuses of corporations, land lords, HOS's (which hardly exist) freedom from the abuses of private prisons and from law enforcement. Freedom from gun crime, freedom from zoning systems.
All in all, the European and UK systems and in most British commonwealth countries, offer a far freer, safer and secure environment.
In which to work, live and bring up families.

 

[Revoltingest]

So if the markets aren't free (unregulated?), it is not a capitalist economy.

You speak in absolutes.
I see spectra.

 

[PureX]

One ought to be embarrassed to be preaching the same lies as so many murderous lying despots throughout history, but when one has no other way of defending capitalism but to label everything else a horror-show, I guess one has to keep telling their lies.

 

[Estro Felino]

Let's say you find oilfields on your property.
The Government decides to expropriate your property and compensate you, because oilfields must belong to the Treasury.

Is that a socialist country or not?

 

[Revoltingest]

They are very different to the USA in how they operate. They put far more breaks on the excesses of uncontrolled capitalism.

There is no "uncontrolled capitalism" here.
Socialist do love to use that phrase, but it's a straw man.
We're highly regulated.
I know. I do business here.

They put far more emphasis on the welfare of the individual, especially healthcare, job security,Holliday entitlement, personal security
Freedom from the abuses of corporations, land lords, HOS's (which hardly exist) freedom from the abuses of private prisons and from law enforcement. Freedom from gun crime, freedom from zoning systems.
All in all, the European and UK systems and in most British commonwealth countries, offer a far freer, safer and secure environment.
In which to work, live and bring up families.

You extol the virtues of Europe, & see only problems
in USA. This bespeaks blind prejudice. You can't
argue for socialism, ie, government owning the
means of production by citing capitalist countries
with social programs you prefer....including more
censorship of speech.

I've dealt with Citizens NA, a bank that's owned by
RBS, which is owned by the British government.
They are the most vicious lender I've ever had the
misfortune of dealing with.
Nowadays, I borrow only from lenders who hold
their portfolio...not those who might sell my loan
to a thug.

 

[F1fan]

Many European countries are what may be called Socialist Democracies. They are doing fine.

Even the USA is a type of socialism, but the rigid Communist version is what carries the meaning any time socialism is mentioned. The difference is what degree the pooled resources a society collects goes towards balancing the disadvantaged to the advantaged.

 

[Wandering Monk]

You speak in absolutes.
I see spectra.

Most of the right wingers I grew up with are absolutists.