Debunked, "Socialism has never worked"

The socialistic impulse is laudable. Christian apostles themselves claimed that they shared everything in common. But that's people helping each other voluntarily.

"Socialism" that disallows private business and rescinds freedom of contract as a matter of law enforceable at the point of a gun is the problem, even if it eliminates unemployment and hunger.

Obviously not everyone who calls himself a socialist supports this. But some do. There just cannot be any argument about that. They tend to be Marxist, male, young, and either naive or evil.

 

More drivel. Why do you think orthodox economics has had to steal Marxist analysis? Crikey, Marx is a granddaddy of property rights analysis and new Institutionalism builds off his output.

 

Do you think they're naive or evil when they're arguing against Western arms trade and its profiteering over Saudi war crimes in Yemen? Just looking for perspective....

 

And we know what marxist-leninist-maoist totalitalitarian communists think about property rights.

 

Still more guff! Why don't you ever refer to what is actually said? Marx saw the shift to communism as ultimately part of evolutionary economics. Now we might disagree with him. We might, for example, agree with Schumpeter that its socialism that is ultimately part of evolutionary economics

Given you know naff all about Marxism, do you think the McCarthyism routine is really effective? Just asking.

 

I just think you're ridiculous.

 

So you don't actually have an argument? Why do you think Marxism can be used to understand capitalism and you can only just prance?

 

Apparently that's what YOU think.

 

So you can't actually offer a coherent response to how orthodox economics required Marxist analysis to understand involuntary unemployment? Or perhaps you're an extreme neo-Keynesian who only thinks the Phillips Curve matters?

 

Not at all. I admire them in that regard.

I don't know why the commies I meet are overwhelmingly male and young. I think maybe women are too smart to get bogged down in political b.s. of any stripe. I think maybe they sense and fear the effects on home and hearth of unbridled Revolution.

 

Perhaps you have a warped social group?

 

Da fooq? They aren't my friends.

 

1) I am talking about socialism. Socialism is just another name for collectivism, and collectivism is a survival mechanism - not a profit generating enterprise. The only 'wealth' that exists within the collective is land and labour resources. Just as it is in all social mammals.

2) Distribution, not redistribution. And there is only food and labour to distribute - nothing else. If there were more, it would be a capitalist enterprise.

 

Because they're not genuine. Not even a tiny bit.

Next time you meet one .. ask him what he's prepared to give up to realise his dream. Be sure to remind him it will mean the forfeiture of all of his preferences and freedoms, and compelled work without exception. I guarantee he'll bluster and flail and tell you that that's not what he meant.

 

'
It doesn't matter whether you call it Socialism - or Collectivism - the entire premise for both is wealth redistribution.

WTF about this basic truth are you having trouble understanding.

 

Most of them have very little in terms of money or property. They feel like they have nothing to lose. If you say, "Under communism you will lose your ability to complain about government," they will say "Under communism, I won't have anything to complain about."

 

You have no clue what socialism is - and you yourself love socialism - so what are you complaining about.

 

You likely have me confused with another poster, but there is undoubtedly more than one deofinitionnof socialism. It's not arguable.

 

Perhaps - my bad if I mischaracterized your position .. and yes - there are numerous definitions - all of which however involve some form of wealth redistribution.

 

I don't care. 20 years ago I might have.

 

Nope. I believe in having a voice, a debate, a representative self-government with a division of powers, and legal and peaceful pathway to change in a place where you can freely debate your vacuous "socialism".

 

How cute! You forgot to mention how you fought world war 2 to give me my freedoms today

Its a shame you don't understand the importance of marxism in understanding capitalism. It means that you cant even engage in the debate. Hey ho

 

OK, I'll bite. Why do you think understanding the importance of marxism in understanding capitalism?

 

I wasn't alive during WWII. Hey ho

 

Already referred to it. Take something like efficiency wages, used to try and explain trends in involuntary unemployment. The shirking model is straight from the Marxist playbook