ApostleofAzathoth said:

The Ecstatic said:

Good luck, comrade OP. I've been trying to drill terms into these morons' heads for years, and they still cant get past "the more a government does things, the more socialister it is."

---

Thanks! I don't blame them. It can be hard to question your views after being subjected to years of anticommunist propaganda.

qman said:

The Ecstatic said:

Good luck, comrade OP. I've been trying to drill terms into these morons' heads for years, and they still cant get past "the more a government does things, the more socialister it is."

---

The OP defines the terms to suit his needs, I can understand why you gravitate towards that line of reasoning.

When I ask for specific examples of those terms, I don't get a response.

---

Mate, the only people here using non standard terms for these words here are you, and the guy with the naked cat avatar. Socialism is a mode of economic production in which the workers control the means of production (land, buildings, tools, machines, infrastructure etc.) either through direct democratic control (which is what anarchists and other libertarian socialists advocate) or through a workers state (what Leninists advocate). Most Marxists (only one kind of socialist) add the condition that markets must also be abolished for socialism to be established, but many types of socialists disagree with this (classical anarchists/libertarians, market socialists, etc). The existing state providing social services is not socialism under any definition.

An example of direct worker control over the means of production could be seen in the worker cooperatives that exist throughout capitalist society. Whether or not worker cooperatives on their own can constitute socialism is a contentious issue.

Examples of nations or regions that elusively practiced worker control have existed in revolutionary Catalonia and the Paris Commune. These never lasted for very long. Whether this was due to lack of organization or to victimization by outside influence, or both, remains another contentious issue.

An example of indirect worker control by means of a workers state can be seen in any number of the Marxist-Leninist states that have existed throughout history: the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.

---

"These never lasted very long"

Exactly, which really means these concepts only exists in the theoretical world and nothing more, what does that tell you? 

"Marxist-Leninist states that existed throughout history: the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam"

Again, more failures. What does that tell you? 

You're embracing an social-economic system that only works in theory, but doesn't work in the real world. You're ignoring the key aspect of the problem, humans nature.

What do you think happens when you leave certain people in charge of distributing the equality throughout an economy?  They don't do such a good job, why would you expect otherwise?

I get it, you're very idealistic about how to fix the horrible unfair world, but humans don't function under these rules. 

Can I ask what age you are?    Many young people embrace this radical approach despite the fact it's never been achievable in all of human history. Hell, the hippie communes of the 1960's couldn't even do it without massive corruption from their fellow hippies.

---

So capitalism is free from the negative influences of human behaviour?

---

Not at all, but at least it doesn't go against human nature.

qman said:

"Real existing socialist nations have provided a better standard of living on average than capitalist nations in proportion to their wealth"

This is great, I'm sure the people living in some poor shithole take comfort they're living better on a relative basis "in proportion to their wealth" on their nation.    You should be embarrassed to post such nonsense.  Shouldn't they be living better overall if their system is superior in nature? Shouldn't their system produce more wealth?  What's the deal with this "proportion" stuff?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/pdf/amjph00269-0055.pdf

What a bunch of cherry picking nonsense. Who knew so many third world nations were "capitalistic".     Most of Africa embraces modern "capitalism"!!!  Living in a unregulated dictatorship isn't capitalism.

"I am an 18 year old college student"

Thank you for your honesty, I respect that fact.   I guess you have many more years to view the world and the best possible systems for humans to embrace in the future. I also think you will learn the most important aspect when it comes to this subject matter- human nature.

I would also mention that I embrace many social programs for US citizens, in fact I will be the first to tell you that our current "capitalistic" system is broken for the vast majority of our population. I'm a capitalist that is suggesting that what we're doing isn't working very well.

---

Quote:

A poll found that more than 50 percent of Russians favored a return to a Soviet-style planned economy.

---

So I'd hardly call what they had a failure.

Your age appears to have given you more time to digest American propaganda. 

qman said:

ApostleofAzathoth said:

Real existing socialist nations have provided a better standard of living on average than capitalist nations in proportion to their wealth

---

This is great, I'm sure the people living in some poor shithole take comfort they're living better on a relative basis "in proportion to their wealth" on their nation.    You should be embarrassed to post such nonsense.

---

ApostleofAzathoth said:

qman said:

"Real existing socialist nations have provided a better standard of living on average than capitalist nations in proportion to their wealth"

This is great, I'm sure the people living in some poor shithole take comfort they're living better on a relative basis "in proportion to their wealth" on their nation.    You should be embarrassed to post such nonsense.  Shouldn't they be living better overall if their system is superior in nature? Shouldn't their system produce more wealth?  What's the deal with this "proportion" stuff?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/pdf/amjph00269-0055.pdf

What a bunch of cherry picking nonsense. Who knew so many third world nations were "capitalistic".     Most of Africa embraces modern "capitalism"!!!  Living in a unregulated dictatorship isn't capitalism.

"I am an 18 year old college student"

Thank you for your honesty, I respect that fact.   I guess you have many more years to view the world and the best possible systems for humans to embrace in the future. I also think you will learn the most important aspect when it comes to this subject matter- human nature.

I would also mention that I embrace many social programs for US citizens, in fact I will be the first to tell you that our current "capitalistic" system is broken for the vast majority of our population. I'm a capitalist that is suggesting that what we're doing isn't working very well.

---

I don't think it is particularly controversial to say that the wealth of nations is much more dependent on international affairs than on intranational affairs. It's not like every state is given a fresh start whenever their leadership changes hands. With this in mind, I think it is perfectly reasonable to measure quality of life in proportion to overall wealth.

As for "unregulated dictatorships" not being capitalistic, I'm done with semantics, but I think you could really benefit from reading some basic economic theory before you continue to embarrass yourself. See if you can find an abridged version of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations," John Maynard Keynes "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" or at the very least just read the Wikipedia article for "capitalism". Just anything outside of the Austrian school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

As far as the Human Nature argument goes, I haven't yet heard a rendition that doesn't rely on the fallacious "individual self interest vs collective interest" dichotomy. The Soul of Man Under Socialism by Oscar Wilde as well as The Ego and It's Own by Max Stirner are both very fun books to read that would help you understand why this is a false dichotomy. If you think you have a rendition of the Human Nature argument that doesn't rely on that distinction, then I would love to hear about it.

I can understand how someone can be critical of socialism for the authoritarian clusterfuck it has lead to in the past, but I have trouble wrapping my head around how people really think that socialism just doesn't work as an economic system. The USSR went from being a feudal mudpit to being the second largest world superpower in an unprecedentedly short period of time, and no, it didn't collapse. It was dissolved against the wishes of the Soviet people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union

---

Malouz said:

Here's another poll dude…I VERY strongly doubt that 50% of people would want to return to a soviet-style economy very fucking much doubt that.
http://tass.com/politics/964414

---

qman said:

So a 18 year old kid is going to school me on economics, this is hilarious, go for it.

---

He's already doing it, and it's entertaining as hell. 

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Russia today (at least Moscow where I visited this summer) appears to be doing ok.  Yet as I've said before:

Quote:

A poll found that more than 50 percent of Russians favored a return to a Soviet-style planned economy.

---

So I'd hardly call what they had a failure.

Your age appears to have given you more time to digest American propaganda. 

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

So a 18 year old kid is going to school me on economics, this is hilarious, go for it.

---

He's already doing it, and it's entertaining as hell. 

---

qman said:

Did they under-perform relative to their real potential?  Most likely.

---

qman said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

So a 18 year old kid is going to school me on economics, this is hilarious, go for it.

---

He's already doing it, and it's entertaining as hell. 

---

Provide one example.

---

You called USSR, China, Cuba, and Vietnam failures.  He pointed out some notable successes.

qman said:

Suggesting that Cuba, Vietnam, China and USSR were the economic utopias of the world is completely baseless and you know it.

---

Yes, I know it.  And I know he didn't come anywhere close to saying that. 

qman said:

If you want to join him on the insanity train, keep digging the hole even deeper.

---

Ooh, the akira approach - if you can't beat 'em with logic and empirical evidence, try winning with ad hominem attacks! 

Malouz said:

Well economically(and culturally of course) speaking Putin is in favor of nationalism rather than internationalism, there isn't much more to say.

---

Malouz said:

He's working on an idea of his country closer to the "Great Russia" before the october revolution.

---

Malouz said:

I mean saying that more than 50% of the russian population is in favor of a soviet planned economy is a fucking insult. Ask anyone who has actually witnessed the USSR…

---

qman said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

So a 18 year old kid is going to school me on economics, this is hilarious, go for it.

---

He's already doing it, and it's entertaining as hell. 

---

Provide one example.  Suggesting that Cuba, Vietnam, China and USSR were the economic utopias of the world is completely baseless and you know it. If you want to join him on the insanity train, keep digging the hole even deeper.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Malouz said:

He's working on an idea of his country closer to the "Great Russia" before the october revolution.

---

That's news to me.  Source?

---

Malouz said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Malouz said:

He's working on an idea of his country closer to the "Great Russia" before the october revolution.

---

That's news to me.  Source?

---

Have you literally never watched any of his speeches ? I'm not on the same meridian here but I can give some examples tomorrow.

---

Yes, I've watched many of his speeches which is why I'm surprised, so I look forward to your examples tomorrow (which I'll bet never appear). 

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

you went to Moscow that's not quite the same, finding people who agree with you is one thing but getting an accurate idea of what pourcentage of population those people are is another once again ask anyone who has actually witnessed the USSR.

---

Once again, I HAVE asked many people who have actually witnessed the USSR.  I'm good friends with them here in the US, and I've spoken with many more in Moscow, St Petersburg, and Crimea.

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

Did they under-perform relative to their real potential?  Most likely.

---

Do you mean under capitalism or communism?  It think they underperformed under both.

qman said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

So a 18 year old kid is going to school me on economics, this is hilarious, go for it.

---

He's already doing it, and it's entertaining as hell. 

---

Provide one example.

---

You called USSR, China, Cuba, and Vietnam failures.  He pointed out some notable successes.

qman said:

Suggesting that Cuba, Vietnam, China and USSR were the economic utopias of the world is completely baseless and you know it.

---

Yes, I know it.  And I know he didn't come anywhere close to saying that. 

qman said:

If you want to join him on the insanity train, keep digging the hole even deeper.

---

Ooh, the akira approach - if you can't beat 'em with logic and empirical evidence, try winning with ad hominem attacks! 

---

ApostleofAzathoth said:

qman said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

So a 18 year old kid is going to school me on economics, this is hilarious, go for it.

---

He's already doing it, and it's entertaining as hell. 

---

Provide one example.  Suggesting that Cuba, Vietnam, China and USSR were the economic utopias of the world is completely baseless and you know it. If you want to join him on the insanity train, keep digging the hole even deeper.

---

Friendo, nobody called these countries economic utopias. They where poor nations and colonies who were plagued by internal unrest and subject to abuse by outside states and international corporations. In many cases, the implementation of socialism lead to disastrous consequences. Mao's Four Pests Campaign for example created a severe ecological crisis, and will forever serve as a reminder of the dangers of allowing the type of cult of personality and authoritarian power structure that formed around Mao to come about. Also like wtf Mao? Sparrows? Really? What did they ever do to you?

The really incredible thing though, is that despite the level of mishandling and the unworkable conditions, these nations still saw massive economic development and improvements in living standards and longevity under socialism. No one is claiming to have some sort of magic formula to create an economic utopia. If you think that is what Marxism is about you should read Critique of the Gotha Programme in which Marx is highly critical of idealist and utopian notions of how a stateless and classless society can be conjured up out of books, good vibes and thin air.

In order to understand existing socialism you have to examine how the economies of these nations performed within the broader geopolitical context, compare this to the performance of capitalist nations with analogous conditions, and draw your conclusions appropriately. You don't need an PhD in economics or history to do this kind of research, but you do need to be willing to challenge your views and to do a little bit of reading! After all...

---