Socialism Doesn't Work?

Interesting, since you are debating a poli sci major. As an army, or sewers, or roads are not considered socialist, but according to you it is. We've veered from taxes is theft, or taking, to it's socialism because it is at least the partial ownership of production.

I'm sorry but this is silly. Using the definition of socialism as you are would mean almost all governments are socialist. Even maintaining the most basic order under any type of government requires resources. Even the village council would require some space (land) in the village to hold a meeting and somebody(s) probably going to offer snacks or drinks. Those are resources.

 

You had a bad education dude. Although this is not surprising given how politically charged the word "Socialism" is in some Red States.

ANY form of forcible collection of wealth (or ownership of resources and means of production - in whole or in part- ) by the state for redistribution to the collective is socialism.

YOU - do not get to pick and choose which programs, to which the wealth gets redistributed, are socialist and which are not - be it healthcare, welfare, roads or sewage collection.

And yes - almost all nations that I can think of include some form of socialism.

If not - why do people call the left in this country "socialist". They even went as far as calling Bernie Sanders "Communist" which is absurd nonsense.

Taxation is a form of partial State ownership whether it be on your business to your house.

There is no such thing as ownership of private property (one of the cornerstones of liberty) if you pay rent (in the form of taxation) on that property.

 

It is time the pol sci 101

Socialism is a economic system where all the means of production are owned by everyone and private property does not exist.

What you are talking about is a mixed economy; where there may be some government ownership of industry (but not always), strong regulation, and progressive taxation but markets still dominate economic life. Every country you mentioned is a mixed economy.

Just because something called socialist does not mean it is socialist. I could label you a socialist but that does not change the fact that you are not a socialist.

 

True today of capitalism, but socialism is too young, too experimental, too unsettled to be considered a final reading. Methods are evolving and showing promise. Much of the "socialism problem" to date has been the attacks on socialist countries by capitalist countries, most notably the U.S.

 

No, because the means of production are still owned by few.

By collective, I meant everyone.

 

If it is socialist, there are classes and they are --the working class in charge, and the capitalist class trying hard to be practicing capitalists with the working class stopping them successfully.

 

Communism is an extreme form of Socialism. Poly Sci 101 but, it does not have to be complete ownership to be socialism, hence the use of a different word.

I am glad you brought up ownership of private property. The idea that there can be ownership of private property - yet one pays monthly rent on the property (property tax) - is an anathema to the idea of ownership. You do now own something completely if you have to pay rent on that thing for eternity.

 

Ok, ok, let's end this confusion. The use of a "socialist-type program" doesn't mean the country or even the program is socialist. Socialism is worker control of the means of production. That is what "the dictatorship of the proletariat" means. If in fact workers do not control and run their own jobs, it is not socialism you're looking at.

Socialism is not a settled science. Different methods have been tried in the effort to establish it and maintain it and none have fully succeeded yet. Some have failed and some are still trying to make their methods of establishing socialism work and actually lead to socialism as a finished state.

The violent revolutions in most notably Russia and China necessitated the establishment of centralized control of the state machinery over the society. That was their attempted method of establishing socialism. It didn't work for long. Both are now failed cases of state capitalism.

Finland, The Netherlands, Germany, Iceland, Denmark, and other European countries are trying a similar approach and are currently resisting sliding into state capitalism or standard capitalism. The jury is still out on them.

The latest development of socialist theory on how to establish socialism is a peaceful, gradual approach entailing development of worker-owned, worker-controlled co-ops like The Mondragon Corporation. But for it to spread requires a sympathetic government that will pass incentives and other assistance programs to bring it together.

In the U.S. we have The United States Federation of Worker Cooperatives to provide help to startup co-ops: https://usworker.coop/democratic-workplaces/

And studies have been done on best practices and methods of work. One of them is - http://ftp.iza.org/dp6932.pdf

 

Not true.

All wrong and confused. But what is to be expected in a country that has made "socialism" a bad word?

Socialism is "the dictatorship of the proletariat" over the capitalist class. So there are classes in socialism. Communism is a stateless, classless society. No classes and no state machinery to enforce the system. Communism, according to Marx, is a society that will automatically happen many, many generations after socialism is successfully established and it will happen by the state machinery "withering away" in Marx's terminology. So it cannot be imposed and it has never happened yet.

Whoa, whoa. In Marx's terminology and meaning "private property" is limited to the means of production. People may still own homes and cars and tools and jewelry. Real estate would be "disallowed" if it is essentially used as a means of production of wealth.

 

All wrong.

Communism is not a state of being such as a stateless classless society it is instead a process of trying to reach such a society. In this sense it is in fact a class society like any other.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not dictatorship over the capitalist class it is totalitarian control over all people within whatever state embraces it.

This is why the USSR and Cuba and China and North Korea are and have always been true communist societies despite the screeching howls of denial from communists in academic circles who are trying to defend the indefensible. So long as they can assert to be working TOWARDS that classless, stateless society ( even if it takes a millions years ) they are still communist societies with various classes.

Of course what the drug addict rapist pig karl marx ignored is that once a dictatorship is established it never goes away unless conquered or overthrown.

Hanging the words " of the proletariat " at the end of the word dictatorship does not make it less of a totalitarian, genocidal, brutal and savage class based dictatorship like any other.

And yes socialism is merely communist lite. The difference is rather like pre meditated murder and manslaughter. Socialists are ultimately after the same goal but pretend to be less violent in achieving it. They prefer to window dress their dictatorship in words like social safety net and progressive reform. They simply prefer an academic class ( where socialism is in no way a bad word ). Or a class of the enlightened who , like you . continue to deny these facts and try to preach a bunch of crap about a failed and proven evil system.

The test for either communism or socialism is very very simple. Unless you are willing to NEVER attempt to use government to enforce the policies you advocate then you are lying and denying fact. IF you leave it strictly up to individuals to voluntarily embrace or reject your ideas then your defense is a lie.

 

That would be a communist effort or practice because it is led by people who want communism. An effort or practice is not a state. The discussion as I understood it was about communist society/state.

Oh, I see, you are a Marxian scholar, eh? Read more on this.

No country has ever attained communist society. You are flat wrong.

That must be why the right often declares the U.S. to be "socialist". LOL!!!!!

Every word of that shows your source to be standard capitalist anti-communist tripe. You would apparently also ask the fox if the henhouse is secure enough.

Marx also said we live under the dictatorship of the capitalist class in the U.S. You have a bogus understanding of "dictatorship" as used by Marx.

Everyone knows by now that you are spreading capitalist anti-socialist propaganda that you were taught.

 

Socialism works for a country when it's protected from its enemies by another larger and more powerful country so therefore it doesn't have to overspend on defense and can have social programs instead. It's also helpful if that larger more powerful country has a strong capitalistic market so it can produce all kinds of cool technological gadgets that the little poor socialistic countries can't produce on their own because socialism doesn't reward inventors.

What I'm saying is socialism works in little European countries as long as big bad capitalistic America has its back.



I wrote a term paper in school on this subject. My professor was not amused.

 

I wouldn't be surprised that your professor was not amused considering that you failed to grasp the difference between socialism and social democracy.

 

I know what the difference is. I suspect you don't understand how socialism really works.

 

Then why call Scandinavian countries socialist when they clearly social democracies.

It seems that you are the one lacking understanding of socialism is.



You may call them socialist and they may call themselves socialist **cough Bernie Sanders cough** but they are not socialists, in the original, historical sense of the word.

 

Where did I call Scandinavian countries socialist?

 

To what "little European countries" did you refer in post #237?

 

All of them. All the countries in Europe are little when compared to the United States. If any of them want to become a full fledged socialist country they can do so as long as America exists and is their ally. As long as America protects them military and as long as American capitalism creates all the gadgets and medical advancements then they can afford to have the backwards system that is socialism.

From what I've read a socialist country cannot succeed on its own. Socialism doesn't motivate individuals to move forward.

 

I grew up in Sweden. I know very well what kind of government and society we have.

 

His information was very out-of-date.

 

So having a democratic workplace where all can share in the profit does not motivate but working for someone who will pay you as little as they can does motivate?

 

I've never heard the expression "hard road" before but I think I like it.

I understand what you mean. Someone (maybe on this forum) said that Obama is a Marxist! Anyway, as a Socialist I feel insulted when people say that Stalin was a Communist.

 

The video or the guy I was replying to?

 

So when you said "What I'm saying is socialism works in little European countries as long as...." in post #237, you meant "All of them" are "socialist". And so that answers your question "Where did I call Scandinavian countries socialist?" in post #242. You did it in post #237.

 

Where does the shared profit come from? Does it come at the expense of the person who started the company? Maybe that person wouldn't have started the company if he thought he would have to give all his money away to others.
For socialism to work the society as a whole has to start the company.