Your Political Status

[Valjean]

But under socialism, it is without exception that
the regime is fascist, & economic performance is poor.
Moreover, no one loves enslaving people more than
socialist regimes, eg, Soviets, PRC.

USSR? PRC? No true Socialists! Nothing like what socialists, even classical socialists, describe.

Now you've gone off the deep end How is socialism fascist? They're at opposite ends of the political spectrum, aren't they?

 

[Valjean]

You've wonderfully illustrated a fundamental problem
in a command economy, ie, that the state chooses
what initiative to take.
I prefer the capitalist model. The individual takes
initiative of one's own choosing.

One could argue that a command economy (socialism)
could be different. But history shows that it tends to
not be so.

Socialism is not a command economy. In fact, it's much more distributed and worker controlled than Capitalism.

Capitalism had successes immediately upon arising.
Socialism has been around for a century without an
example that measures up to the potential offered
by capitalism.

Capitalism has been around for a few centuries. Socialism has been around for a million years.

Yes, capitalism succeeded, just as did the feudalism from which it arose. But it didn't succeed at creating a general security and prosperity. It succeeded at creating a prosperous owner class supported by a large population of workers; and the more numerous and insecure the workers, the better it was for the owners.

If you claim that some other form of replacing capitalism
with socialism could work well, I'd like to see evidence.
Why replace what has been shown to work well with
something that's yielded only failure so far?
Even without an example of success, you'd need a
theoretical model that fully takes into account human
behavior. Just as capitalists cannot presume homo
economicus, socialists cannot presume an improved
human.

Socialists presume a natural human, as he existed long before modern social and wealth hierarchies developed as humans developed civilizations.
The failures you, and the mass media have been citing for nearly a century, have been post revolutionary power grabs by a ruling élite. They kept the socialist name, but were pretty much its opposite.

I prefer this approach....
1) Look at all economic systems.
Which have offered the best outcomes.
Pursue that which has performed best historically.

Socializing necessities while privatizing wants has worked well and produced prosperity and security. It did so both in the US and in Western Europe. It has never been applied generally, but coöperative management of healthcare, education, infrastructure, emergency services, &c, where it has been tried, has been successful. It's when individuals usurp control and try to make a profit off these systems that they begin to fail.

 

[Valjean]

Under capitalism individuals take initiative very often.
Sure, many are either unable or uninterested.
Under socialism, individual initiative is greatly curbed.
This was what Kim Jong Il said in the recordings.
And his view is born out in socialist countries, where
individuals are legally prohibited from starting businesses.

I keep hearing this. It sounds reasonable, but when has this been shown to happen, in societies with reasonable social or economic opportunity?
In what form of socialism would individuals be prohibited from starting businesses? Social and economic mobility today is greater in most Western European economies than it is in the US, and the red tape required to start and run a business here has become increasingly onerous.

Whether gradual or quick, moving to a command
economy is still abandoning capitalism in favor
of one run by government (which always arises
to represent "the people"). There is no evidence
that this ever turns out well.

Please stop. Nobody wants a command economy, and nobody, save tyrants and oligarchs, wants a government that's independent of The People.

It hasn't worked yet. All attempts have been fascist failures.
Yet somehow, after a century of trying, it will be successful.
Where's the evidence...other than evidence to the contrary?

That's a lot to address.
I can simplify response to it all.

Capitalism isn't best because it always yields positive results.
It's obvious that terrible things happen & happened under it.
But it's best because it can yield & has yielded positive results.
Again....
This is not to ignore the bad results under capitalism.
(Nay, they must be understood in order to design useful
regulation to minimize problems.) It's to discern which
system offers the possibility of the best results.
Contrast this with socialism.
It has not one example in 100 years where replacing
capitalism with a command economy turns out well.
In short...
The best capitalist systems are better than the best
socialist systems.

Once again, you've constructed a straw man. You're speaking from perceived examples that are not what anyone's advocating in the real world.

 

[Valjean]

I eschew labels. However if I was forced to pick a political philosophy that is closest to things I believe, it would be American Individualism as described in President Herbert Hoover's seminal tome.
https://www.amazon.com/American-Individualism-Herbert-Hoover/dp/0817920153

Hoover talked a good game, but had his laissez-faire inaction continued, the whole country would have deteriorated into Hoovervilles.
Luckily our economy was prevented from completely tanking by the socialist policies of the next president.

 

[Valjean]

You just picked one.
And it's a good one...it'll generate much
criticism from those of the hive mentality.

I just wish they'd quit sticking labels onto each individual fruit and vegetable at the local supermarkets.

 

[Valjean]

The GI Bill was brilliant. I took advantage of that myself. It paid for 2 year of my Bachelor's and one year of my Master's. Thanks, Uncle Sam!

Eeeek! Another socialist!

 

[Valjean]

I look at things empirically.
You're offering your vision of socialism. But is that
view ever realized in actual socialist countries?
Governments have always been authoritarian,
with claims of being democratic being hollow.
As for management, there again it tends to
centralization.

I'm offering the vision generally advocated by the vast majority of people calling themselves socialists or democratic socialists today.

And that is capitalism.
So the rest of your post is based upon definitions
of "socialism" & "capitalism" different from standard.
If what you want is capitalism with social services,
I've no argument.

Great!That's pretty much all we're advocating. Not Bolshevism. Not Maoism. We're not monsters trying to take over the government and plunge the country into slavery. We just want to copy those institutions that have proven most beneficial elsewhere.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Under capitalism individuals take initiative very often.
Sure, many are either unable or uninterested.
Under socialism, individual initiative is greatly curbed.
This was what Kim Jong Il said in the recordings.
And his view is born out in socialist countries, where
individuals are legally prohibited from starting businesses.

Note that lack of education doesn't prevent people from
starting businesses. The contractor I use for large
products dropped out of high school when he left home
to be on his own. One can learn if one wants.
People like to blame government, the economy, &
external circumstances for personal failure. But that's
an excuse most of the time.

Whether gradual or quick, moving to a command
economy is still abandoning capitalism in favor
of one run by government (which always arises
to represent "the people"). There is no evidence
that this ever turns out well.

It hasn't worked yet. All attempts have been fascist failures.
Yet somehow, after a century of trying, it will be successful.
Where's the evidence...other than evidence to the contrary?

That's a lot to address.
I can simplify response to it all.

Capitalism isn't best because it always yields positive results.
It's obvious that terrible things happen & happened under it.
But it's best because it can yield & has yielded positive results.
Again....
This is not to ignore the bad results under capitalism.
(Nay, they must be understood in order to design useful
regulation to minimize problems.) It's to discern which
system offers the possibility of the best results.
Contrast this with socialism.
It has not one example in 100 years where replacing
capitalism with a command economy turns out well.
In short...
The best capitalist systems are better than the best
socialist systems.

Except that my views don't support a command economy but only strict regulation of things like wages and labor safety along with nationalization of essential services. Private ownership and initiative would be there to stay for everything but the bare necessities in that framework, and even for the latter, it could exist alongside state-funded offerings.

Every time a socialist explains their views and explicitly says that they don't support the authoritarian models in the vein of the USSR and China, you cite a dictionary definition that is both narrow in scope and vague at best due to the ambiguity of "means of production."

It's much easier to attack a socialist position if it endorses tyranny or a one-party system, but you'll rarely find socialists who support that. Of course, you might call this "capitalism" and dismiss our views based on a dictionary definition, but that doesn't take into account the variations within any system and the different perspectives therein. Dictionaries are usually descriptive, not prescriptive.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm offering the vision generally advocated by the vast majority of people calling themselves socialists or democratic socialists today.
Great!That's pretty much all we're advocating. Not Bolshevism. Not Maoism. We're not monsters trying to take over the government and plunge the country into slavery. We just want to copy those institutions that have proven most beneficial elsewhere.

This. Bolshevists and Stalinists are even pejoratively called "tankies" in a lot of socialist and Marxist circles. The idea that their views are the "only true socialism" is extremely simplistic whether it comes from someone on the left or the right.

 

[Debater Slayer]

And that is capitalism.
So the rest of your post is based upon definitions
of "socialism" & "capitalism" different from standard.

There's no unanimous "standard"—and yes, a dictionary definition is certainly unable to authoritatively delineate such ecompassing labels. For example (red coloring mine):

Marxism is a left-wing to far-left[1][2][3] method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict and a dialectical perspective to view social transformation. It originates from the works of 19th-century German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. As Marxism has developed over time into various branches and schools of thought, no single, definitive Marxist theory exists.[4]

Marxism - Wikipedia

 

[Revoltingest]

Capitalism is the exploitation of humans by humans - in socialism it is the other way around.
(Definition from people having lived in the "real existing socialism" of the GDR.)

It reminds me of a quote whose source I can't recall.
When asked about what he thinks of being exploited
by capitalism, a recent refugee from eastern Europe
replied...
"It's better than being exploited by socialism."

It's possible that my small sample size could
might possibly perhaps have selection bias,
but every emigrant from former socialist
countries there described horrible conditions
of deprivation & oppression.

 

[Revoltingest]

USSR? PRC? No true Socialists!

This reminds me of the No True....uh....what is it....Scotsman!

It suggests that the fundamental problem with
socialism is that no one can implement a version
that even remotely resembles the idealized version.

 

[Valjean]

It reminds me of a quote whose source I can't recall.
When asked about what he thinks of being exploited
by capitalism, a recent refugee from eastern Europe
replied...
"It's better than being exploited by socialism."

It's possible that my small sample size could
might possibly perhaps have selection bias,
but every emigrant from former socialist
countries there described horrible conditions
of deprivation & oppression.

Was itr really a socialist country he was from, or just a repressive country with 'socialist' in its name?

 

[Revoltingest]

Socialism is not a command economy. In fact, it's much more distributed and worker controlled than Capitalism.

That is a view held by fans of socialism.
However when actually implemented,
central control is the emergent property.
Such is history...the empirical view.

To argue that it could be implemented
per the dream, you'd have to come up
with a design of a system with incentives
against such centralization.
This is a tough challenge when government
has such extraordinary power that it can
illegalize free private economic association.

Call me when you've worked out the kinks.
Til then, we'll keep capitalism.

 

[Valjean]

That is a view held by fans of socialism.
However when actually implemented,
central control is the emergent property.
Such is history...the empirical view.

To argue that it could be implemented
per the dream, you'd have to come up
with a design of a system with incentives
against such centralization.
This is a tough challenge when government
has such extraordinary power that it can
illegalize free private economic association.

Call me when you've worked out the kinks.
Til then, we'll keep capitalism.

 

[Revoltingest]

I keep hearing this. It sounds reasonable, but when has this been shown to happen, in societies with reasonable social or economic opportunity?
In what form of socialism would individuals be prohibited from starting businesses? Social and economic mobility today is greater in most Western European economies than it is in the US, and the red tape required to start and run a business here has become increasingly onerous.

This is rather pointless to continue, as long as
you continue referring to capitalist countries
as socialist, & using them as an argument
against capitalism.

Please stop. Nobody wants a command economy....

Please stop being in denial.
You've not one example of socialism being
implemented without control by a powerful
central government.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm offering the vision generally advocated by the vast majority of people calling themselves socialists or democratic socialists today.
Great!That's pretty much all we're advocating. Not Bolshevism. Not Maoism. We're not monsters trying to take over the government and plunge the country into slavery. We just want to copy those institutions that have proven most beneficial elsewhere.

Again...you're proffering a system that's never
been successfully implemented. Socialism has
historically always turned out far worse.
Saying it will be different next time around,
but without saying how the typical emergent
properties of socialism will be curbed...that
doesn't inspire.

 

[Revoltingest]

Every time a socialist explains their views and explicitly says that they don't support the authoritarian models in the vein of the USSR and China, you cite a dictionary definition that is both narrow in scope and vague at best due to the ambiguity of "means of production."

You're committing the etymological fallacy of calling
capitalism with regulation & social services provided
by taxation "socialism" & "marxism".
You repeatedly eschew better labels like "democratic
socialism" & "social democracy" in favor of "socialism",
which is the absence of private ownership of the
means of production.
But capitalism with social services isn't "socialism".
It's "capitalism".

It's much easier to attack a socialist position if it endorses tyranny or a one-party system...

It isn't about being "easier". That's a glib error
based upon misunderstanding my argument.
Socialists fail to acknowledge that implementing
such vastly increased government control over the
economy has historically been accompanied by
authoritarianism in general.

Socialists are analogous to anti-abortion types,
in that their goals have consequences they don't
want to see. Anti-abortion folk don't want the
consequence of back alley abortions or children
being forced to give birth before they're ready.
They just want to save all those fetuses.
Socialists are similar in that they want a system
that ensures all their wonderful social & economic
goals, but don't face consequences of socialism
in every country adopting it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Socialists are similar in that they don't face
how socialism has played out every time it's
been tried.

I keep asking you for examples of socialism "being tried" and you have never once been able to name a country that enacted socialist policies. And when we bring up the example of socialist policies succeeding in mixed economies, you just say "that's capitalism".

Guys, this is a pointless discussion.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's no unanimous "standard"—and yes, a dictionary definition is certainly unable....

Between RF definitions, & your arguments, I've seen
that marxism includes socialism which includes capitalism.
Thus marxism includes capitalism. Using "social democracy",
"democratic socialism", & those terms all interchangeably
leads to a real quagmire of confusion particularly when
many socialists say they want capitalism eliminated.

What do socialists really believe?
Everything under the Sun....except economic liberty.