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

Matsku said:
Leadified said:

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.

What are we calling a democracy? They were representative democracies, much like how Western countries are. Of course it isn't direct democracy, but that's why we need your clarification.



Around the Network
Matsku said:
Leadified said:

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.

Sure,the anarchists in Catalonia were running their democratic experiment during the Spanish Civil War. The Soviet Union got it's name from the elected soviets that only lasted a short while before the Supreme Soviet continued to centralize power. Practically every socialist regime has attempted at least in the beginning some form of democracy.

Did those systems fail? Yes but that is irrelevant. Capitalism started off in the absolute monarchies of Europe and it took hundreds of years before capitalism in a representative democracy became the norm and even longer until citizens had universal rights.

Last edited by Leadified - on 29 January 2018

DonFerrari said:
Leadified said:

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.

Yes it is nonsense... but at least here in Brazil when socialists are defending the model and we present all the failures they will point the Nordic countries as examples of socialism that went right, ignoring everything that shows it aint socialist.

Social democrats will probably only consider criticism from the left since it's less inherently hostile than right wing ideologies. But social democrats have also wiped out the left in most countries and they themselves adopted the title of "socialist" so they've set themselves up in a trap.

The irony is that like any other capitalist nation, a social democracy still needs to rely on the same sources of cheap labour from the third world and material, which also often time comes from the third world. While the people of Sweden may live well, their nation is still built upon the backs of people who will never enjoy it and thus the whole world cannot hope to live as well as those do in Sweden. You don't have a choice whether or not you want to participate in the exploitation because you need to pay taxes, you need clothes, you need technology and so on. 

I consider the socdems to be lucky for now since they've been blessed with stable societies and resources such as oil to fuel their welfare states but times are changing and they have no answers.

Cubedramirez said:
Leadified said:

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.

That's assuming there isn't a salt famine going on where said true red socialist lives. Which come to think of it if they actually are true socialist at heart chances are they don't live in a socialist country and are enjoying the fruits and labors of the capitalist system they live in which has no salt famine to speak of. 

And  on the initial post, bingo. I do find it laughable that people cannot see the irony of their position when one of their key points is that it hasn't been implemented correctly, ever, after countless attempts. 

It's almost like you need a system that encourages innovation and achievement... hmm...

Nice, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Last edited by Leadified - on 29 January 2018

VGPolyglot said:
DonFerrari said:

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?

Exactly, they can't just take over the workplace and establish a cooperative because the factory/business owners would get the police to enforce their property rights.

And what is in the way for they to create their own workplace and establish their cooperative? Because if cooperation is such a great tool, they together putting their money and starting their company should work right???? Or it can only work by taking by force what others made before?

Leadified said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes it is nonsense... but at least here in Brazil when socialists are defending the model and we present all the failures they will point the Nordic countries as examples of socialism that went right, ignoring everything that shows it aint socialist.

Social democrats will probably only consider criticism from the left since it's less inherently hostile than right wing ideologies. But social democrats have also wiped out the left in most countries and they themselves adopted the title of "socialist" so they've set themselves up in a trap.

The irony is that like any other capitalist nation, a social democracy still needs to rely on the same sources of cheap labour from the third world and material, which also often time comes from the third world. While the people of Sweden may live well, their nation is still built upon the backs of people who will never enjoy it and thus the whole world cannot hope to live as well as those do in Sweden. You don't have a choice whether or not you want to participate in the exploitation because you need to pay taxes, you need clothes, you need technology and so on. 

I consider the socdems to be lucky for now since they've been blessed with stable societies and resources such as oil to fuel their welfare states but times are changing and they have no answers.

Cubedramirez said:

That's assuming there isn't a salt famine going on where said true red socialist lives. Which come to think of it if they actually are true socialist at heart chances are they don't live in a socialist country and are enjoying the fruits and labors of the capitalist system they live in which has no salt famine to speak of. 

And  on the initial post, bingo. I do find it laughable that people cannot see the irony of their position when one of their key points is that it hasn't been implemented correctly, ever, after countless attempts. 

It's almost like you need a system that encourages innovation and achievement... hmm...

Nice, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Nope man, the true irony comes from society advancing and well being progressing due to capitalism, which you can see and measure on the last 200 years, while what we have seen from the socialist experiments aren't pretty.



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."

DonFerrari said:
VGPolyglot said:

Exactly, they can't just take over the workplace and establish a cooperative because the factory/business owners would get the police to enforce their property rights.

And what is in the way for they to create their own workplace and establish their cooperative? Because if cooperation is such a great tool, they together putting their money and starting their company should work right???? Or it can only work by taking by force what others made before?

What money? The reason they have to sell their labour in the first place is because they don't have the capital to provide for themselves.



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Leadified said:

Social democrats will probably only consider criticism from the left since it's less inherently hostile than right wing ideologies. But social democrats have also wiped out the left in most countries and they themselves adopted the title of "socialist" so they've set themselves up in a trap.

The irony is that like any other capitalist nation, a social democracy still needs to rely on the same sources of cheap labour from the third world and material, which also often time comes from the third world. While the people of Sweden may live well, their nation is still built upon the backs of people who will never enjoy it and thus the whole world cannot hope to live as well as those do in Sweden. You don't have a choice whether or not you want to participate in the exploitation because you need to pay taxes, you need clothes, you need technology and so on. 

I consider the socdems to be lucky for now since they've been blessed with stable societies and resources such as oil to fuel their welfare states but times are changing and they have no answers.

Nice, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Nope man, the true irony comes from society advancing and well being progressing due to capitalism, which you can see and measure on the last 200 years, while what we have seen from the socialist experiments aren't pretty.

I'd like to know why you believe capitalism to be the end of history.



VGPolyglot said:
DonFerrari said:

And what is in the way for they to create their own workplace and establish their cooperative? Because if cooperation is such a great tool, they together putting their money and starting their company should work right???? Or it can only work by taking by force what others made before?

What money? The reason they have to sell their labour in the first place is because they don't have the capital to provide for themselves.

Do you need examples from people that were homeless or waiters and became billionaire to evidence that capacity and planning can be made without having millions prior to the business?

And considering the owner themselves get 5-30% of the capital invested on the company then the sum of the wages of all the employees would make it possible for they to collect together and start their business if they had the prowess?

The truth is people prefer to be tended to and decisions made to them, so they rather have a salary to count on than to provide to themselves and risk.

Leadified said:
DonFerrari said:

Nope man, the true irony comes from society advancing and well being progressing due to capitalism, which you can see and measure on the last 200 years, while what we have seen from the socialist experiments aren't pretty.

I'd like to know why you believe capitalism to be the end of history.

I didn't say I believe it to be the end of history, but I'm pretty certain socialism and any other system that try to be anti-natural will work.



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."

DonFerrari said:
VGPolyglot said:

What money? The reason they have to sell their labour in the first place is because they don't have the capital to provide for themselves.

Do you need examples from people that were homeless or waiters and became billionaire to evidence that capacity and planning can be made without having millions prior to the business?

And considering the owner themselves get 5-30% of the capital invested on the company then the sum of the wages of all the employees would make it possible for they to collect together and start their business if they had the prowess?

The truth is people prefer to be tended to and decisions made to them, so they rather have a salary to count on than to provide to themselves and risk.

Do you know what survivor-ship bias is? Just seeing that a very small number of people have succeeded ignores all the failures. If you saw the number of homeless people that became billionaires as you say, how many others have tried and failed?



Leadified said:
Matsku said:

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

Sure,the anarchists in Catalonia were running their democratic experiment during the Spanish Civil War. The Soviet Union got it's name from the elected soviets that only lasted a short while before the Supreme Soviet continued to centralize power. Practically every socialist regime has attempted at least in the beginning some form of democracy.

Did those systems fail? Yes but that is irrelevant. Capitalism started off in the absolute monarchies of Europe and it took hundreds of years before capitalism in a representative democracy became the norm and even longer until citizens had universal rights.

Maybe a have to refraise my comment name a socialist country that was a democracy for a longer period of time and had better human rights than for example the Nordic countries.



DonFerrari said:
Leadified said:

I'd like to know why you believe capitalism to be the end of history.

I didn't say I believe it to be the end of history, but I'm pretty certain socialism and any other system that try to be anti-natural will work.

Then there is no irony. The fedualists said the same thing about capitalism, there was heavy resistance to rationalism in Europe and the church and aristocrats feared the bourgeoisie. Certain extreme reactionary ideologies such as fascism continue to preach about how unnatural capitalism is and how it has lead to the degeneration of man.