By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - What is "socialism"? - An attempt to clear up myths/misconceptions

DonFerrari said:
VGPolyglot said:

Yes there is, there's a police force to violently suppress them.

I'm yet to see a single police takeover against any cooperative in Brazil, and here being a place people condemn for being corrupt, violent, etc. They fail because they lack the competence to manage a company. Indeed like 90% of the companies in Brazil are very small (less than 10 employees) and they can still exist and do better than the "no owner" philosophy.

What do you mean by "see"? You may not have seen it directly, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/brazils-president-michel-temer-instructs-military-and-police-to-attack-landless-workers-movement-mst/5555258



Around the Network
sc94597 said:
Matsku said:

But the biggest risk would still be by the company's founder an for that people have always wanted and will always want a bigger reward. Also democracy and human rights have almost never worked well with socialism (for example China and the Soviet Union).

There is no single founder. All of the people are equals in a worker's cooperative. There is no hierarchy, and all risk is shared amongst all persons. The bigger reward is earned by being more productive and innovative, just the same as in our current society. 

 

China and the Soviet Union were marxist-leninist hellholes which never achieved socialism. So I don't know why you'd bring them up. It's as if I cited Pinochet as an example of how capitalism is incompatible with liberty. 

Socialism is usually said to be achieved by a communist waypoint and that's where states usually stop.



Matsku said:
sc94597 said:

Why wouldn't people association and dissociate into new worker's cooperatives for a variety of reasons? Competition (and therefore innovation) will still exist under market socialism, it just happens that the rewards are distributed to more people, and therefore more people have stake in reducing costs. Hence you'll still have innovation with the aim to reduce costs of production. There will still be profits in the sense of gains in productivity and wealth over the inputs. 

But the biggest risk would still be by the company's founder an for that people have always wanted and will always want a bigger reward. Also democracy and human rights have almost never worked well with socialism (for example China and the Soviet Union).

China and the Russia were already violent countries long before the establishment of socialism nor is this something exclusive to socialist countries. The US backed capitalist regime in Cuba was notorious for human rights abuses while ultimately lead to the Cuban Revolution.



State controlled means of production and capital generation through regulation and violation of property rights.

Also it leads to a lot of people dying.

I do find it funny how people mention Nordic countries yet have never been there or even accept the fact those countries actually refute the socialism tagline. People confuse a countries culture for their government. Very much market based Representative Democracy which works for a country that size. It would not work for a nation like the United States because you'd have to eliminate state rights in order to achieve that system.



It is my opinion that with true socialism there isn't enough incentive to stay productive, let alone be innovative. It's great in theory, and I wish it worked, but humanity doesn't move forward with it. It could be argued that's a good thing, I suppose.



Owner of PS4 Pro, Xbox One, Switch, PS Vita, and 3DS

Around the Network
VGPolyglot said:
DonFerrari said:

I'm yet to see a single police takeover against any cooperative in Brazil, and here being a place people condemn for being corrupt, violent, etc. They fail because they lack the competence to manage a company. Indeed like 90% of the companies in Brazil are very small (less than 10 employees) and they can still exist and do better than the "no owner" philosophy.

What do you mean by "see"? You may not have seen it directly, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/brazils-president-michel-temer-instructs-military-and-police-to-attack-landless-workers-movement-mst/5555258

And do you research all those cases and see that they aren't being arrested because they made a cooperative but because they were invading other people property and destroying public and private buildings?

MST inclusive is a movement that demands the government to take away property from others, give to them, also give money for they to produce and they them sell their lands to other and go back to the movement? Also their leaders have millionaires accounts.... you have took a very bad example.

Cubedramirez said:
State controlled means of production and capital generation through regulation and violation of property rights.

Also it leads to a lot of people dying.

I do find it funny how people mention Nordic countries yet have never been there or even accept the fact those countries actually refute the socialism tagline. People confuse a countries culture for their government. Very much market based Representative Democracy which works for a country that size. It would not work for a nation like the United States because you'd have to eliminate state rights in order to achieve that system.

That is because socialists need to pretend it can go right, so they'll say Nordics are socialist countries while all the comunist/socialist countries that had intense famine, death and abuse "weren't real socialism".



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

epicurean said:
It is my opinion that with true socialism there isn't enough incentive to stay productive, let alone be innovative. It's great in theory, and I wish it worked, but humanity doesn't move forward with it. It could be argued that's a good thing, I suppose.

Back in cave days we were like socialist societies, I wouldn't say it was better than today.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Joke: Punch a Nazi
Woke: Punch a Nazi and Commie.



Leadified said:
Matsku said:

But the biggest risk would still be by the company's founder an for that people have always wanted and will always want a bigger reward. Also democracy and human rights have almost never worked well with socialism (for example China and the Soviet Union).

China and the Russia were already violent countries long before the establishment of socialism nor is this something exclusive to socialist countries. The US backed capitalist regime in Cuba was notorious for human rights abuses while ultimately lead to the Cuban Revolution.

Well then name a socialist country that was also a democracy.



DonFerrari said:
Cubedramirez said:
State controlled means of production and capital generation through regulation and violation of property rights.

Also it leads to a lot of people dying.

I do find it funny how people mention Nordic countries yet have never been there or even accept the fact those countries actually refute the socialism tagline. People confuse a countries culture for their government. Very much market based Representative Democracy which works for a country that size. It would not work for a nation like the United States because you'd have to eliminate state rights in order to achieve that system.

That is because socialists need to pretend it can go right, so they'll say Nordics are socialist countries while all the comunist/socialist countries that had intense famine, death and abuse "weren't real socialism".

What a load of nonsense, no socialist worth his salt would call the Nordic countries socialist. This reductionism of combining social democrats with socialists is getting old and in this very thread you already had a socialist explain the flaws of social democracy.

Last edited by Leadified - on 29 January 2018