You are making the extraordinary claim, that despite socialism being used throughout the world, it simply doesn’t work. Therefore the onus of proof is on you. So, can you please describe why socialism doesn’t work?
China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos are all examples of socialist countries today. China alone lifted over 800 million people out of poverty in recent decades. Compare that to the capitalist paradise in India.
Not really, Nordic model is capitalist because the capital owning class owns the means of production and holds power in society. Nordic model has generous social services and a social safety net, but that of itself does not make it socialist. A socialist model implies that it is the working class that holds power and that means of production are under a mix of public and cooperative ownership. This is the model that all western countries fight against.
You previously mentioned China. And China do have big companies like NetEase. Are such companies under a mix of public and cooperative ownershiprs? How it differs from IKEA? Not arguing, just trying to understand.
The difference with China is that capitalists don’t run the government and all the core economy is publicly owned. I can highly recommend this book discussing why China is fundamentally socialist
I find that comparing how China and India developed after WW2 is illustrative as well. India took the capitalist route while China remained socialist, and the difference today is stark. India has incredible amount of poverty and the situation continues to get worse, meanwhile China is responsible for the biggest poverty elimination programs in the world. The fact that China is developing differently from capitalist nations is a good indicator that something different is happening there.
I’m learning the material and I have a few questions.
You say that in China the capitalists do not run the government. But how do you know that they do not have their own business or are not affiliated with the capitalists?
For example, in my country there is a law that does not allow deputies and the president to have their own business. But it does not work, these people simply register the business for other persons and, in fact, continue to own the business.
How China got out of poverty is amazing. But I also heard that the workers were very heavily exploited. This is one of the reasons why the US moved production there.
And even now, workers in China are paid little despite the fact that the country is rich. How can this happen in a socialist country that should protect the interests of the workers?
As for the Nordic model, you said that it is not exactly socialism: it is capitalism, but with tough rules for business and good social programs. So they more centric then leftists really. And I don’t argue with that. But I don’t understand why if the capitalists run the country, they simply won’t loosen laws to make business easier and reduce social programs? How has this system not collapsed yet?
Sorry if some of the questions seem stupid, I’m just trying to how this all works.
Every single socialist country is an example of working socialism having lifted millions of people out of poverty, provided them with, food, housing education, and jobs. Meanwhile, we’re still looking for examples of working capitalism where majority of the population is not being exploited for the benefit of the capital owning oligarchy.
Some people were effectevelly not much different from slaves up until 1970 as they had no passport, worked for food (oh, sorry, for workdays, which is even worse) and required permission to move from kolhoz. Ah tankies never change.
All what communists did for citizens is: lost the election, overturned it with force and forced millions of people back to medieval society with fancy goals.
NoT MuCh DifFeReNT FrOm SlaVes. Should really read up on what actual serfdom was like before the revolution instead of making a clown of yourself in public.
Wow. Read the rest of the thread because I’m not gonna rewrite stuff.
But as I was saying. I live in post communist country and the influence of socialism was extraordinarily destructive and I can see damage made from it to these days.
I grew up in USSR, and I lived through the collapse of USSR. It was one of the biggest humanitarian disasters in history. People who are cheering that on are the ones who benefit from all the exploitation under capitalism today. People who got theirs and don’t care about anything else. Deplorable.
Only a small percentage of socialists (albeit larger in this instance) hold the USSR up as anything but an example of an early, ham-fisted attempt at socialism with a lot of mistakes. If there have been no places socialism has worked yet (debatable, but I’ll argue from this position), that disproves nothing. The first several hundred tries at the lightbulb were probably failures, too, but capitalists talk about that failure as a side effect of innovation without realizing that social systems might need innovation too. I’m sorry if you suffered under an authoritarian socialist government; there’s nothing inherent about the connection between those two characteristics. But authoritarian governments tend to survive better against the kinds of conspiracies and attacks established capitalist governments launch against socialist ones, so you get to see what’s left. (If you don’t know about this, go to a library, start with…maybe Allende in ‘73…It’s very well-documented.). In sum, it has nothing to do with not caring about people harmed by authoritarianism. It has to do with seeing the evils of the system around us and refusing to accept that this is the best humanity can do. I’m sorry you can’t see that. But I’m not letting my friends’ access to insulin sit in the greedy hands of insurance companies without a fight. I’m not living in a pay-to-play political system where donors’ interests matter more than voters’ my whole life if I have anything to say about it. Regardless of your beliefs.
I think perhaps you meant to reply to the parent comment, I certainly did not suffer in USSR and the dissolution of USSR was a great tragedy in my view.
USSR obviously wasn’t the ideal of socialism. In fact, it would be pretty surprising if the first ever attempt at building a socialist society didn’t have problems. Obviously we can learn from USSR and do better going forward. However, I do think that despite all its problems, USSR did manage to achieve many positive outcomes for the majority of the people. It provided everyone with education, housing, healthcare, jobs, and all the necessities of life. This was done despite USSR having been under duress during its whole existence and it’s something that current capitalist regimes are unable to achieve.
Some of the richest countries in the world have a socialist framework in place lol. Norway, Switzerland, The Netherlands etc. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
They are not socialist policies. No need to be an ableist prick, mate. Socialism does not mean government doing stuff. It means workers owning the means of production.
Do you have any example of working socialism?
You are making the extraordinary claim, that despite socialism being used throughout the world, it simply doesn’t work. Therefore the onus of proof is on you. So, can you please describe why socialism doesn’t work?
Where. Give me an example of a socialist country
China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos are all examples of socialist countries today. China alone lifted over 800 million people out of poverty in recent decades. Compare that to the capitalist paradise in India.
Does countries of Nordic model count? I heard good things about them.
Not really, Nordic model is capitalist because the capital owning class owns the means of production and holds power in society. Nordic model has generous social services and a social safety net, but that of itself does not make it socialist. A socialist model implies that it is the working class that holds power and that means of production are under a mix of public and cooperative ownership. This is the model that all western countries fight against.
Thank you, this does makes sense!
You previously mentioned China. And China do have big companies like NetEase. Are such companies under a mix of public and cooperative ownershiprs? How it differs from IKEA? Not arguing, just trying to understand.
The difference with China is that capitalists don’t run the government and all the core economy is publicly owned. I can highly recommend this book discussing why China is fundamentally socialist
https://redletterspp.com/products/the-east-is-still-red
This was an excellent discussion on the subject as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT7Th2aV0wM
I find that comparing how China and India developed after WW2 is illustrative as well. India took the capitalist route while China remained socialist, and the difference today is stark. India has incredible amount of poverty and the situation continues to get worse, meanwhile China is responsible for the biggest poverty elimination programs in the world. The fact that China is developing differently from capitalist nations is a good indicator that something different is happening there.
I’m learning the material and I have a few questions.
You say that in China the capitalists do not run the government. But how do you know that they do not have their own business or are not affiliated with the capitalists? For example, in my country there is a law that does not allow deputies and the president to have their own business. But it does not work, these people simply register the business for other persons and, in fact, continue to own the business.
How China got out of poverty is amazing. But I also heard that the workers were very heavily exploited. This is one of the reasons why the US moved production there. And even now, workers in China are paid little despite the fact that the country is rich. How can this happen in a socialist country that should protect the interests of the workers?
As for the Nordic model, you said that it is not exactly socialism: it is capitalism, but with tough rules for business and good social programs. So they more centric then leftists really. And I don’t argue with that. But I don’t understand why if the capitalists run the country, they simply won’t loosen laws to make business easier and reduce social programs? How has this system not collapsed yet?
Sorry if some of the questions seem stupid, I’m just trying to how this all works.
Every single socialist country is an example of working socialism having lifted millions of people out of poverty, provided them with, food, housing education, and jobs. Meanwhile, we’re still looking for examples of working capitalism where majority of the population is not being exploited for the benefit of the capital owning oligarchy.
“Lifted millions out of poverty”
Some people were effectevelly not much different from slaves up until 1970 as they had no passport, worked for food (oh, sorry, for workdays, which is even worse) and required permission to move from kolhoz. Ah tankies never change.
All what communists did for citizens is: lost the election, overturned it with force and forced millions of people back to medieval society with fancy goals.
NoT MuCh DifFeReNT FrOm SlaVes. Should really read up on what actual serfdom was like before the revolution instead of making a clown of yourself in public.
Wow. Read the rest of the thread because I’m not gonna rewrite stuff.
But as I was saying. I live in post communist country and the influence of socialism was extraordinarily destructive and I can see damage made from it to these days.
I grew up in USSR, and I lived through the collapse of USSR. It was one of the biggest humanitarian disasters in history. People who are cheering that on are the ones who benefit from all the exploitation under capitalism today. People who got theirs and don’t care about anything else. Deplorable.
Only a small percentage of socialists (albeit larger in this instance) hold the USSR up as anything but an example of an early, ham-fisted attempt at socialism with a lot of mistakes. If there have been no places socialism has worked yet (debatable, but I’ll argue from this position), that disproves nothing. The first several hundred tries at the lightbulb were probably failures, too, but capitalists talk about that failure as a side effect of innovation without realizing that social systems might need innovation too. I’m sorry if you suffered under an authoritarian socialist government; there’s nothing inherent about the connection between those two characteristics. But authoritarian governments tend to survive better against the kinds of conspiracies and attacks established capitalist governments launch against socialist ones, so you get to see what’s left. (If you don’t know about this, go to a library, start with…maybe Allende in ‘73…It’s very well-documented.). In sum, it has nothing to do with not caring about people harmed by authoritarianism. It has to do with seeing the evils of the system around us and refusing to accept that this is the best humanity can do. I’m sorry you can’t see that. But I’m not letting my friends’ access to insulin sit in the greedy hands of insurance companies without a fight. I’m not living in a pay-to-play political system where donors’ interests matter more than voters’ my whole life if I have anything to say about it. Regardless of your beliefs.
I think perhaps you meant to reply to the parent comment, I certainly did not suffer in USSR and the dissolution of USSR was a great tragedy in my view.
USSR obviously wasn’t the ideal of socialism. In fact, it would be pretty surprising if the first ever attempt at building a socialist society didn’t have problems. Obviously we can learn from USSR and do better going forward. However, I do think that despite all its problems, USSR did manage to achieve many positive outcomes for the majority of the people. It provided everyone with education, housing, healthcare, jobs, and all the necessities of life. This was done despite USSR having been under duress during its whole existence and it’s something that current capitalist regimes are unable to achieve.
Some of the richest countries in the world have a socialist framework in place lol. Norway, Switzerland, The Netherlands etc. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
That’s not socialism. That’s socdem. And it’s still capitalism
Oh you’re moving the goal post.
No that really isn’t socialism.
Socialist policies aren’t socialist? You’re either trolling or retarded.
They are not socialist policies. No need to be an ableist prick, mate. Socialism does not mean government doing stuff. It means workers owning the means of production.
Retard it is then
None of those countries are socialist.
Those countries are actually capitalist, but with strong worker protections
https://www.lifeinnorway.net/scandinavian-socialism/