Any idea what Socialism actually is?

Socialism starts with a social Contract like a Constitution. It is up to us to define the terms.

 

You still think that a society structured in a certain way (a "classless" society) will remove all peoples ill motives and people will behave perfectly. There will always be "class". No matter what you do, no matter what structure you create, there will always be someone who wants to be the leader. Maybe because they think they have a better way, maybe because they crave power, maybe because they are simply corrupt. There will always be emotions and conflict. You find it in every single society, it does not matter what the form or wealth. That's the way people are, even animals have conflict and a peeking order.

 

You forgot the last part. Controlled by a gun.

 

What utter nonsense you speak. You need to educate yourself better. And yes Hitler was a diehard left wing socialist, as was goebbles, goerning, and the rest of the scum.

 

There was no socialism in Sherwood Forest. And Prince John took away all the rights to socialism. Sorta like what capitalism does to a society. Even if it's there for the taking, you can't have it.

 

The promise of transition to socialism has always stagnated when the few in charge of that transition suddenly realized all the power they were handed and didn't want to let go. That is one of the problems with socialism other than thwarting competition by exacting revenue re-distribution.

 

That is true, but with capitalism there is never a transition of power, it stays with the wealthy. Competition works with items like TV's, etc. It doesn't work when it comes to healthcare or education.

 

This is how I continued:

I wasn't exactly attacking the notion of human nature on the grounds of a lack of proof. I'm not some sort of logical positivist. My criticism was a priori.

In any case, a statement about the human condition is different from a statement about a type of society or societal event which could possibly exist in the future. You were arguing that communism has never existed and therefore could never exist. I was arguing that a certain statement about the human condition (which already exists) cannot be proven a priori.

There are very clear and logical reasons for this past failure. I could detail why the USSR failed if you want, but it would of course make for a long post.

Most people would not want to at this point in time. Not many people advocated attempting to overthrow the English monarchy at the turn of the 17th century, but by 1642 the country was in civil war. Things change.

 

I have always liked Winston Churchill's quote:

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"

 

You're attributing moral statements to me again. I do not agree with any moral statements.

I don't think you're quite understanding what class means in the Marxist sense. It isn't any sort of pecking order. Many things could be horizontally structured or made more inclusive or democratic in communism, but recallable, mandated "leaders" may be appointed for certain tasks and certain periods of time for the sake of efficiency (the difference is that their role would be more administrative than coercive, and you'd have a hard time proving that coercive apparati have always existed). But no one can crave power when it doesn't exist, and in a system where everyone owns the means of production, anyone can suggest a "better way" if they have one.

Animals do not have states or means of production, so they're irrelevant. Early human societies, however, had no state and no class of "owners" and counter-class of "workers" (which is what "class" in the Marxist sense means) simply because they didn't need such things. Communism would not need such things either, because they would have been sublated.

 

Reading through this thread has been a wander into la la land ... on both sides.

Socialism (especially in the modern sense) is not Communism. Communism is an extreme form of Socialism that has never really existed - Classless society ? Humor.

Any form of wealth redistribution is socialism. Almost every nation on the planet has some form of wealth redistribution via taxation. The US military is one of the largest social welfare programs on the planet.


Extreme Socialism and Extreme Capitalism meet at the far end of the spectrum. Both end up with a few elites owning all (or most) resources and means of production.

Capitalism initially increases overall wealth. This is simply a function of Global Capital Movement. When Capital is moving the economy will be good for a while, when it is moving out things get bad. Look at Cuba or Russia as examples where Global Capital is scared to go.

Look at what happened to China's economy when capital stared flowing that direction.

We no longer have fair and free markets here in the US and Capital inflow is stagnating (if not moving out). We are regulated to death and the Oligopolies (Corporate and Bureaucratic) run the show - price fixing, anti competitive practices, regulations and tax law has turned this country into one of indentured slavery.

We have somehow managed to combine the worst of both extremes into an "Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster". The worst aspects of capitalism combined with the worst aspects of socialism.

The answer is not to move to extreme capitalism or extreme socialism.

 

I didn't argue that Communism has never existed, rather I argued that all attempts have failed over the long term. Human nature can be expressed both in terms of theoretical deduction as well as empirical observation, and as such, I am not sure that you are using the term a priori in its proper context. At any rate, you are holding your argument to a MUCH lower standard of proof then you are insisting upon from others.

You can detail YOUR theory of why Communism failed ( do not bother with a long dissertation), but that theory does not carry with it the absolute that you seem to be trying to attach. I too have a theory for why Communism failed, and that is the disincentive to produce that arises from collectivism that is due to human nature. Neither one of us can definitively PROVE our theories, but the weight of historical evidence undeniably leans in the direction of my theory which is that Communism is vastly inferior to Capitalism in terms of economic output. In order to sway the masses to once again try something that arduous which has never worked, I would say that the burden of proof surely lies on your position, and that burden is not even close to being met.

 

No, you still do not understand.

I am not attributing moral statements to you, you ignore morality - and that's your failure.

You think that if some sort of pure communism is implemented, then there will be no pecking order, no "power", no imbalance in society to spark greed and envy and jealousy. Wrong. There will always be a pecking order and imbalance and greed etc simply because not all people have equal intellect and equal skills and equal ambition.

And there will always be that person who has the ambition and charisma to become a leader of the people and impose his agenda.

It has been that way everyone in all of recorded history because that's the way people are wired.

 

Yes, I know what it is. Socialism is the Diet Coke of Communism. That's about it.

 

Well, maybe in your little world.
It's common sense among historians that Hitler and his Nazi Party were right wing fascists.
But I don't think someone like you would understand that.

 

As true as you sound..I bet you cant even convince a family member of said fact...good luck here. They will vote for Cruz an by golly he is the savior! At least with sanders, a safety net...but danm If anyone on the republican side wins, we will be at war within the year.

- - - Updated - - -

Told ya.^

 

"it's common sense" isn't an argument.

 

I have no clue what you are referring to so it is hard to comment.

Nothing in my post was meant to favor Red or Blue .. both are puppets of the Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster running this country.

Sanders talks an interesting talk in relation to reigning in the Oligopolies but, I have my doubts.

Cruz actually praised Sanders in front of Congress (go figure) and has also talked in relation to reigning in oligopolies.

Neither has said much on the Bureaucracy part of this monster.

 

Yet one most choose. Cast your vote. Unless you have the funds to take majority share of those truly in charge...as corporations are people too?

 

Lets see now ... Extremist religious right wing Cruz or Jewish Socialist Sanders.

No brainer ... I vote Sanders.

 

They're both extremists, and last I checked, jewish is a religion.

So the only difference here appears to be that Sanders is a socialist.

This reminds me of the ads for dumb and dumber. "For Harry and Lloyd, every day is a no-brainer."

 

Changing the subject slightly to how the US political circus is viewed outside the Land of The Brave and The Free :-
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35521558

 

As an American, I don't particularly care what other people think about the US or its political circus. I read most of that article, and he has no ideas. Just bluster and pejoratives. If you thought you're gleaning some keen insight into Trump, you're not going to get it from somebody whose only idea is that Trump is a blustery bigot. This is an unsupported opinion of his. Same thing with his idea that Sanders isn't really a socialist. An allusion to being ignorant of anything that happened after woodstock, or knowing that the berlin wall fell is not an argument.

This author (whoever he is) has no game.

 

You just don't get it. The point of posting that article was not to support or deny any of the ideas contained but to demonstrate how the polical circus in the US is viewed abroad. And yes, I do know how Americans don't particularly care what other people think of the US or it's political system. Tells us something.

 

I don't see an unattributed article with demeaning unsubstantiated opinions of the republican side of the aisle as being representative of how the rest of the world views the American presidential election cycle. It is a circus, no doubt, and an embarrassment, but it is what it is.

If the brits want to laugh, they don't have much to go on. They still have a royal family, fur chrissake! That's something that most people old enough to wear big boy pants, rather than nappies have outgrown, which is why Jeb is a nothing in the polls, and only democrats are still devoted to a Clinton.