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

[Revoltingest]

Sure. Why not. Now get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich, slave!

That's "sammich"!

 

[Stevicus]

It seems that you reject any explanation
that would make a socialist country
responsible for its own failure.

It may seem that way to you. I didn't say anything about who was responsible for their own failures. But it's not really "a socialist country" which is responsible, but the people living within it, no? People are actual physical, living, sentient organisms who are responsible for their own actions. A "socialist country" is just an inert abstraction.

 

[Revoltingest]

It may seem that way to you.

On this we agree.

 

[Stevicus]

On this we agree.

Yes. Of course, we agree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I had errands.

So we agree that a welfare state is a combination of capitalism and socialism!!! Good!!!

 

[Tomef]

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.

Socialism isn’t just extreme left-wing politics. That sort of thinking is too flabby, it’s like claiming that anyone who likes the odd drink is an alcoholic. Political systems involve different ways of tackling issues common to all societies, they can be mixed by smart governments. Denmark’s mode of govt, maybe the only one citizens have said they are consistently fairly happy with over time, has traditionally meant picking policies from across the political spectrum without taking on the whole ideological baggage that goes with those policies in other contexts. A related question is to do with culture. Not all cultures are equally suited to one particular form of government.

 

[Nakosis]

So we agree that a welfare state is a combination of capitalism and socialism!!! Good!!!

No, in a socialist economic system, there would be no welfare. There'd be no need for it.
Welfare is an invention of capitalism which would never have been developed in a socialist system.

They are anti-socialist systems used to stave off a need for socialism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, in a socialist economic system, there would be no welfare. There'd be no need for it.
Welfare is an invention of capitalism which would never have been developed in a socialist system.

They are anti-socialist systems used to stave off a need for socialism.

There are different versions of socialism and not just pure ones. Just as there are no pure anarcho-capitalistic ones.

The joke is that we are both subjectively evaluating human behaviour, but somehow you are not really doing that, because you are stating objective facts, right???

 

[Yerda]

We needn't take anything from socialism.
If we want more social benefits, just offer them.

But they did.

Governing by fiat without elections, & having
continuity of leadership is efficient at reaching
goals. Democracy often involves a lot of dithering,
as administrations change direction.
The lack of markets actually inhibits reaching goals
because the less powerful economy limits ability
to finance them.

All the bad things were socialism and all the great achievements were just the by product of authoritarianism?

Famines often aren't things that just "occur".
The Holodomor was intentional.
The Great Leap Forward was incompetent
central planning with coercive enforcement.

People starving to death while the land owners sell crops on the global market. Children dying of easily treatable disease because their family don't have the means to buy medicine. Millions of homeless people living in a world with plenty of homes. Millions more handing over their hard earned incomes to rentiers who leech off the work of others.

These also don't just occur. Strangely no-one seems to count them against capitalism.

Better them than socialist "screwballs", who'd
wreck the economy, & impose fascism, as is
their wont.

Fascism? So you think that under socialism no markets can exist but socialists will impose a system where market trading companies take over significant portions of the state?

That is obviously silly.

Capitalism alone is still better than socialism alone,
eg, The Killing Fields.
It's pointless to decry capitalism with no regulation
& no social programs because that's not what's
being advocated here.

And yet you keep banging on about something no socialists are advocating. I could just as easily point to the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide or the extermination of the native Americans and suggest these are the inevitable result of capitalism.

It sounds like you're saying that capitalism
existed before capitalism came into being.

No. Markets have existed for thousands of years. Capitalism for a few hundred.

A socialist government, even one elected, would
still need a powerful central government to prevent
free economic association, which would be criminalized.

Nonsense. Socialist governments have been elected and did not criminalise free economic association.

Note that USSR managed to get by as well as it did
because of a thriving black market, & by bribing
officials. Sounds like failure.

Ah, yes there's no black market or corruption under capitalism.

 

[Revoltingest]

So we agree....

Not very often.

 

[Revoltingest]

Socialism isn’t just extreme left-wing politics.

All current & historical examples of full blown socialism are.

 

[Tomef]

All current & historical examples of full blown socialism are.

I don’t think ‘full-blown socialism’ is a technical term lol. Any political ideology taken to extremes can be bad news, that doesn’t make politics inherently bad. The notion that a government has to fit neatly within the bounds of some narrowly defined -ism or other isn’t cromulent.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All current & historical examples of full blown socialism are.

All forms of socialism are full blown ones, right?

 

[Revoltingest]

All the bad things were socialism and all the great achievements were just the by product of authoritarianism?

That's a strange way to re-word my claim that authoritarianism
can be very effective at achieving goals. It eschews negotiation,
objection, & distraction.

People starving to death while the land owners sell crops on the global market. Children dying of easily treatable disease because their family don't have the means to buy medicine. Millions of homeless people living in a world with plenty of homes. Millions more handing over their hard earned incomes to rentiers who leech off the work of others.

Goodness gracious, Komarad...that's quite the tirade.
But are you OK with socialism's record of tens of
millions dying in the Holodomor & Great Leap Forward,
which had no capitalist "leeches" to blame?

These also don't just occur. Strangely no-one seems to count them against capitalism.


Fascism? So you think that under socialism no markets can exist but socialists will impose a system where market trading companies take over significant portions of the state?

That is obviously silly.

You obviously don't understand.

And yet you keep banging on about something no socialists are advocating. I could just as easily point to the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide or the extermination of the native Americans and suggest these are the inevitable result of capitalism.

Those were things that happened under capitalism.
I appears that you don't comprehend the point I've repeatedly
stressed, which is that capitalism & socialism are both no
guarantee of justice & prosperity. Both allow for evil.
The difference is that there is better possible outcome
under capitalism, while socialism never works out well.


Hey, this is fun!
Your argument against capitalism appears to be naught
but fault finding....a tactic not applied to socialism.
That is blind bias confirmation.

No. Markets have existed for thousands of years. Capitalism for a few hundred.

I suppose you'd claim that there were no humans
until someone invented the concept of being human?
Things can exist before people conjure up a description
of them.
Oh, you remind me of the old joke about Indians meeting
Europeans for the first time.....
"Looky! We've just been discovered!".
Indians didn't exist until Europeans saw & mis-named
them....& then killed them to steal the land the Indians
wrongly occupied for tens of thousands of years.

Nonsense. Socialist governments have been elected and did not criminalise free economic association.

Examples?

Ah, yes there's no black market or corruption under capitalism.

Black markets are the result of banning & onerous
regulation. Have you not yet grokked that I'm
comparing effects of socialism & capitalism, &
that there are degrees, eg, USSR black markets
were more integral than in capitalist countries..

 

[Revoltingest]

All forms of socialism are full blown ones, right?

You think so?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You think so?

No, but you do.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, but you do.

You have many strange subjective beliefs.
Either that, or your proliferate posting at
me is designed to boost my post count.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don’t think ‘full-blown socialism’ is a technical term lol. Any political ideology taken to extremes can be bad news, that doesn’t make politics inherently bad. The notion that a government has to fit neatly within the bounds of some narrowly defined -ism or other isn’t cromulent.

I agree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have many strange subjective beliefs.
Either that, or your proliferate posting at
me is designed to boost my post count.

No, it is fun point out to your ability to see the spectrum of socialism and how you cover the whole range and understand the variants that are combined with capitalism. You are so nuanced in all your posts and you don't drone on about that there is in effect only one version of socialism.
You are never black and white and you see the whole spectrum, because you understand the standard bias in the US understanding of socialism, but you can see beyond that.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, it is fun....

OK.