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

[Revoltingest]

Because, as I stated already, it isn't so much about left or right but about authoritarianism versus liberty. All your preferred examples are dictatorships.

I have no "preferred" examples.
Every socialist country that ever existed is one of my examples.
It just happens to be that every one of them was/is a dictatorship.

What the "socialist fanboys" want is a democratic socialism, with a social democracy being the next best thing. And the Scandinavian countries are examples of social democracies.

Scandinavian countries are capitalist.
I'm OK with capitalism fueling social programs.
We do it here.
Does it make USA "socialist"?

 

[Yerda]

Nothing fuels useful social benefits better
than taxes paid on income generated in a
capitalist economy.

That could be true, though of course there have been non-capitalist economies that generated social benefits to a greater extent than comparable capitalist economies. Compare Cuba's record on housing, health care, still born rates, education etc to neighbouring countries. The Soviets transformed the living conditions of tens of millions of people in a couple of decades.

The point is that how we allocate resources is a stronger determinant of living standards than how we generate them.

They have a market economy?

I wouldn't say that a market economy is the only requirement for capitalism or not having one the only requirement for socialism.

The title is merely an echo of another thread.

I see.

What fans of socialism say is very much
at odds with the reality of socialism's record
in the real world, eg, USSR, Khmer Rouge,
China (pre-capitalism), N Korea.
All exhibit something far more coercive than
the "wage slavery" claimed by our pinko friends.

I'm a fan of socialism but I would agree that the places have or had systems we shouldn't seek to recreate.

Whuh?

Lots of socialists don't (and never did) want anything like the Soviet Union. My own guess is that most people who call themselves socialist want a system where workers own more enterprise, trade unions are stronger, public goods are publicly owned, the levers capitalists use to extract unearned wealth are disabled, economic exploitation is drastically reduced, and our national economies are designed to produce outcomes that put the needs of the many above the whims of private interests. I think most capitalists would call this socialism. I've read enough of your posts to understand that you maybe wouldn't, and I'm fine with calling it capitalism for our purposes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...


Scandinavian countries are capitalist.
I'm OK with capitalism fueling social programs.
We do it here.
Does it make USA "socialist"?

Well, your black and white is showing. What if a country is nether the one or the other? Have you considered that it could be a matter of degree?

 

[Revoltingest]

That could be true....

Only "could be"?
The Scandinavian model is oft cited by socialism's
fans as the best in the world. Has any socialist
economy done better?

....though of course there have been non-capitalist economies that generated social benefits to a greater extent than comparable capitalist economies. Compare Cuba's record on housing, health care, still born rates, education etc to neighbouring countries.

Authoritarian governments can readily achieve goals
simply by fiat. They're unencumbered by elections &
changes in administrations & political parties. But
despite their successes, eg, Soviet space program,
their economies still suffer. And of course, the kind
of centralized power necessary to impose socialism
also results in social oppression.

The Soviets transformed the living conditions of tens of millions of people in a couple of decades.

With tens of millions of deaths due to starvation
& political purges. Is it really better if some of
the poor get security, but others are killed in the
process, eg, the Holomodor genocide?
Another poster has argued that socialism is great
because the serfs were better off after the revolution.
But this claim has never been supported.

The point is that how we allocate resources is a stronger determinant of living standards than how we generate them.

Under socialism, there are fewer resources to allocate.
And raising living standards isn't necessarily a goal
of governments that impose socialism.

If the goal is raising living standards, then let that be
the goal. It's more possible under capitalism.

I wouldn't say that a market economy is the only requirement for capitalism or not having one the only requirement for socialism.

No, that is pretty much the criterion for each.

I'm a fan of socialism but I would agree that the places have or had systems we shouldn't seek to recreate.

Socialism's problem is fundamental, ie, that a powerful
central government is necessary to impose it, ie, to
prevent all free economic association. That kind of
power has historically inexorably led to oppression.

Lots of socialists don't (and never did) want anything like the Soviet Union. My own guess is that most people who call themselves socialist want a system where workers own more enterprise, trade unions are stronger, public goods are publicly owned, the levers capitalists use to extract unearned wealth are disabled, economic exploitation is drastically reduced, and our national economies are designed to produce outcomes that put the needs of the many above the whims of private interests. I think most capitalists would call this socialism. I've read enough of your posts to understand that you maybe wouldn't, and I'm fine with calling it capitalism for our purposes.

Socialists dream of what they want.
But beware unintended consequences.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Only "could be"?
The Scandinavian model is oft cited by socialism's
fans as the best in the world. Has any socialist
economy done better?

Authoritarian governments can readily achieve goals
simply by fiat. They're unencumbered by elections &
changes in administrations & political parties. But
despite their successes, eg, Soviet space program,
their economies still suffer. And of course, the kind
of centralized power necessary to impose socialism
also results in social oppression.

With tens of millions of deaths due to starvation
& political purges. Is it really better if some of
the poor get security, but others are killed in the
process, eg, the Holomodor genocide?
Another poster has argued that socialism is great
because the serfs were better off after the revolution.
But this claim has never been supported.

Under socialism, there are fewer resources to allocate.
And raising living standards isn't necessarily a goal
of governments that impose socialism.

If the goal is raising living standards, then let that be
the goal. It's more possible under capitalism.

No, that is pretty much the criterion for each.

Socialism's problem is fundamental, ie, that a powerful
central government is necessary to impose it, ie, to
prevent all free economic association. That kind of
power has historically inexorably led to oppression.

Socialists dream of what they want.
But beware unintended consequences.

Well, I am neither a capitalist nor a socialist, but a combination; i.e. a social democrat. But that is not allowed by you, because the world is black or white and never a matter of degree.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, your black and white is showing.

That's nice.

 

[Heyo]

I have no "preferred" examples.
Every socialist country that ever existed is one of my examples.
It just happens to be that every one of them was/is a dictatorship.

So, citing your cartoon, everyone in the past did it wrong. Unlike communism, socialism has no mandate for dictatorship.

Scandinavian countries are capitalist.
I'm OK with capitalism fueling social programs.
We do it here.
Does it make USA "socialist"?

You speak in absolutes.
I see spectra.

How much private property can a socialist community have, without becoming capitalist?
How much public property can a capitalist community have, without becoming socialist?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's nice.

That is so you. Black or white when it suits you or a matter of degree when that is the case. That you can always claim that you are right as thinking and reasoning, because you decide for all humans, how to do it.
Your subjectivity is truly special, since it is alway correct as for thinking and reasoning.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I am neither a capitalist nor a socialist....

Good for you.
I know you prefer gray to black & white.
Now, please give it a rest, & try conversing
about something interesting for a change.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, citing your cartoon, everyone in the past did it wrong. Unlike communism, socialism has no mandate for dictatorship.

Dictatorships are empirically an emergent property of socialism).
"Mandate" is irrelevant.

How much private property can a socialist community have, without becoming capitalist?

Unanswerable.

How much public property can a capitalist community have, without becoming socialist?

Unanswerable.
Moreover, socialism is about government owning
the means of production....not other public property.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Good for you.
I know you prefer gray to black & white.
Now, please give it a rest, & try conversing
about something interesting for a change.

Well, there is a middle ground between capitalism and socialism. I am not the only one, who knows that. Ask @Heyo

 

[Revoltingest]

That is so you.

I yam what I yam,
& that's all that I yam.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Dictatorships are empirically an emergent property of socialism).
"Mandate" is irrelevant.

Unanswerable.

Unanswerable.
Moreover, socialism is about government owning
the means of production....not other public property.

Well, in Denmark the government owns the means of production for education as it decides the standard for education even in private schools.

Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages

Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages. Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.

languages.oup.com

Social services: government services provided for the benefit of the community, such as education, medical care, and housing.
Service: the action of helping or doing work for someone
The government pays the workers and control what is produced.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well...

Deep subject.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I yam what I yam,
& that's all that I yam.

Yes, you are clearly thinking and reasoning in degrees.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, in Denmark the government owns the means of production for education...

Education isn't the means of production.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Deep subject.

Well, you are clearly thinking and reasoning in degrees.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes...

That sounds agreeable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That sounds agreeable.

Yeah, remember you see in spectra so you see the combination of capitalism and socialism. Now you are thinking and reasoning. See, you can still learn.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah....

More agreeability.