Why Does Socialism Always Fail?

Stalinist Russia, East Germany, North Korea, Venezuela, where else?..

Socialists, please tell us why it is that your plan for all of humanity ends in poverty for all, mass starvation, and an out of control police state which murders its own citizens en mass every single time you get a chance to try it out?

This is your chance to explain away your flawless track record of abysmal failure.

So, please, explain.

 

Socialism fails the people and the country but it enhances/strengthens the socialist/dictator leader. Just look at the lifestyles of the leaders of the countries you listed.

 

Only Lao, Vietnam, China and Cuba are self declared Socialist countries. There are several others that are recognized as Socialist. Most are (*)(*)(*)(*) holes with the exception of Canada, Norway, Finland and Belgium to name a few.

 

Okay, that sounds mostly right. But Canada, Norway, Finland and Belgium, by what criterion are they recognized as socialist, and when did this happen?

 

Before you try go troll some of the few on this forum who are socialists maybe you should have learned sonething about socialism and specifically the rather broad range of socialism. Socialism ranges from the Democratic socialism such as Sweden which has many but not all elements of socialism. Sweden Then read sone history and learn about Marxist Socialism as was almost in place in the Soviet Union. In the Marxist Socialist model all land and all means of production that is industrial and agricultural production and all housing stock is owned by the state andcall the people collectively. So everything is owned by the people and the people own everything. The funny thing is that when everyone owns everything no one owns anything.

You seem to think that only Socialists commit genocide, mass murder, starve people, or have a police state. Well NAZI Germany was not a socialist state but they did all of those things.

Russia did/does commit mass murder, genocide, starved people , is/was a police state but not because they were are are socialists but because they are murdering barbarians, they love to have theur leaders beat them, and Russians love to live under the boots of vice murdering dictators.

If you read history and understand what aSkcialm Security is you will understand that it is a socialist program. Does that mean that we have socialism here or are living under socialism?
Hell no.

 

If you remove the farmer, in come the pigs.

 

Libwill give you another great clue aboutvsicialism and why it fails. Socialism is just against human nature. Socialism can work within a family but once you get beyond that it fails. Maybe small clans of cavemen were able to live as socialists but I would bet that even they failed with socialism once they grew big enough to see thst some groups in their clan got much more tan they brought it.

 

Under conventional socialism the state (or some variation thereof, trade unions for instance) seize power and the means of production. Eg: Revolutionary Catalonia.

In newsocialism, the state nominally keeps the means of production in private hands (typically with those industries which collude to keep the state in power), but seizes a large percentage of the fruits of that production, nominally for public purposes. Eg: pretty much everywhere.

 

We dont live in anything even close to a police state. Incase that is what you were trying to say.

 

You righties are so pathetically lacking in knowledge of this yet you insist on spewing bogus opinions and asserting how right you are.

Here's a fact for you to chew on: So far there has never been a socialist country. A few are working toward it and have both socialism and capitalism as they proceed, a few are stuck between socialism and capitalism and slipping, and a few tried but never got there and then collapsed due to errors in methodology like the ones you listed.

Now, maybe if you had a valid understanding of it you could ask a valid question about it. But you don't. So you can't.

 

Just to be clear ... capitalism is the most advanced and evolved societal structure. Socialism is not an improvement over capitalism; it's not a "more evolved" or higher state for humanity.

 

Capitalism is economic Darwinism. Socialism is an evolved economic model

 

Australia. Oops not on your list



Another bad example of confirmation bias

- - - Updated - - -

Oooooh! (*)(*)(*)(*) but you lot are funeeeee!!!

 

You go on believing that.

- - - Updated - - -

Venezuela shows you are wrong. Maybe you want to move to Caracas.

 

So go ahead and tell me what socialism means according to you.

Is it even possible?

If so, how, and why do you disagree with Marx on the matter? (Obviously you would, since you say none of the examples I gave are examples of socialism, yet, according to him, all of them have seen phases of it.)

If not, then why defend it?

 

I prefer to troll as an ignorant rube, thanks.

 

Mission accomplished

 

Like I said: uninformed. You think it's a crap shoot and a country can just "eeny meeny miney moe" pick a form of economy on a whim! Capitalism is dying and socialism is the future whether we like it or not. And it's a sequential process determined by history, -not choices.

Cling to capitalism and you will end up in a fascist oligarchy, American style, and deeper and deeper oppression for the people. It is inescapable but you don't see the forces at work!

 

Keep up the good work.

 

We're working on it.

 

Workers in control of decision making.

There you are. You have zero understanding of Marxism yet that doesn't stop you from spewing BS. Your assessment on this is 100% incorrect. Can you even tell me about Marx's most basic theory, the notion of surplus labor? I didn't think so.

 

All evidence to the contrary.

 

Was previously a syndicalist so have a fairly decent knowledge of it. Part of the issue is that, as with many radical ideologies (for instance, libertarianism), nobody agrees with anyone else about what it is, and disagreements quickly become worthy of condemnation or exclusion.

There have indeed been socialist territories - the Paris Commune and Revolutionary Catalonia to name two.

Banishing totalitarian regimes which developed out of a revolutionary movement strikes me as somewhat unfair. The USSR was indeed well intentioned to begin with. Part of the issue is that socialism isn't a very stable power structure: someone typically takes it over Animal Farm style.

 

Ain't no capitalism in Denmark, just another socialist hell hole.

 

That's a silly question to ask over the internet. If I didn't know I could just google it right now.
The few words I've said about it are not incorrect at all. He was convinced that state ownership of the means of production was a necessary phase of the transition from capitalism to socialism. Hence

So, other than its massive complex bureaucracy, how would pure socialism differ from a libertarian stateless society in which each person owns and makes decisions for what they homestead or purchase voluntarily?

Oh yeah, you forgot to answer my questions about its possibility.