Capitalisim vs. Socialisim

[Sibs bottle of vodka]

It fits state owned.

Just because it fits state-owned does not mean it fits socialism.

Remember, state-owned is not the only criteria for socialism.

So, how would you define the USSR's economic system.

State owned means of production. Centrally planned economy.

[Sibs bottle of vodka]

Seriously, socialsim is a much better alternative

The problem is, is that leaders have the power. Does socialism benefit the leaders? Yes, along with everyone else. Does capitalism benefit the leaders? Yes, ot sureas hell does and the vast majority of power goes to the leaders. Leaders can be anyone, from someone who generally cares about the public (like the Labour party) to some idiot who passed university in the fields of law and politics, which may be a familiar politician to you and me. Capitalism strives on the fact that one can make it out of poverty and beyond through work. Socialism is clearly better than capitalism as it ensures mequality, which is far ethical than who has the biggest paycheck on your office floor. But, as a political satyracal cartoon suggests, both socialism and capitalism have a gun pointed at your head, with the only difference between the doctrines being that with capitalism the one holding the gun has the money whilst with socialsim YOU have the money.

Socailsm or Capitalism

Pick your poison

Why is equality desirable, and how is it fair?

In socialism, people have far less money. Those cartoons don't mean shit.

[Airstrip 100]

Just because it fits state-owned does not mean it fits socialism.

Remember, state-owned is not the only criteria for socialism.

So, how would you define the USSR's economic system.

State owned means of production. Centrally planned economy.

Yes. But not truly socialist. They took the word 'socialism' because it implied an equal and fair society to the workers, like how they explained their system as 'democratic centralism'.

[Moral Libertarians]

Seriously, socialsim is a much better alternative

The problem is, is that leaders have the power. Does socialism benefit the leaders? Yes, along with everyone else. Does capitalism benefit the leaders? Yes, ot sureas hell does and the vast majority of power goes to the leaders. Leaders can be anyone, from someone who generally cares about the public (like the Labour party) to some idiot who passed university in the fields of law and politics, which may be a familiar politician to you and me. Capitalism strives on the fact that one can make it out of poverty and beyond through work. Socialism is clearly better than capitalism as it ensures mequality, which is far ethical than who has the biggest paycheck on your office floor. But, as a political satyracal cartoon suggests, both socialism and capitalism have a gun pointed at your head, with the only difference between the doctrines being that with capitalism the one holding the gun has the money whilst with socialsim YOU have the money.

Socailsm or Capitalism

Pick your poison

You're talking about the current global situation. True capitalism is nothing more than a dream; it has been corrupted into a statist nightmare, corruption and crony capitalism dominating. Vast corporations use their wealth to buy anti-competitive policies to protect their market shares, as well as crushing small start-ups. States use their plundered wealth to bomb and invade each other, klling tens of thousands of people for empty words. The people suffer.

Welcome to our world, my friend.

[Sibs bottle of vodka]

So, how would you define the USSR's economic system.

State owned means of production. Centrally planned economy.

Yes. But not truly socialist. They took the word 'socialism' because it implied an equal and fair society to the workers, like how they explained their system as 'democratic centralism'.

No true Scotsman.

[Airstrip 100]

Yes. But not truly socialist. They took the word 'socialism' because it implied an equal and fair society to the workers, like how they explained their system as 'democratic centralism'.

No true Scotsman.

Does not apply in this situation, as the Soviet Union never fit the basic criteria for socialism in the first place. Have you forgotten that the first socialists were anarchists?

[Jafas United]

*Yawn* Who else is getting tired of the same old same old?

[Kleomentia]

(Image)

*Yawn* Who else is getting tired of the same old same old?

The question is ho isn't.

[-St George]

Just because it fits state-owned does not mean it fits socialism.

Remember, state-owned is not the only criteria for socialism.

So, how would you define the USSR's economic system.

State owned means of production. Centrally planned economy.

Neither of those things are socialist fyi.

[Sibs bottle of vodka]

No true Scotsman.

Does not apply in this situation, as the Soviet Union never fit the basic criteria for socialism in the first place. Have you forgotten that the first socialists were anarchists?

Nope, I haven't.

However, the USSR did fit the basic criteria for socialism.

[Sibs bottle of vodka]

So, how would you define the USSR's economic system.

State owned means of production. Centrally planned economy.

Neither of those things are socialist fyi.

Yes, they are.

[Airstrip 100]

So, how would you define the USSR's economic system.

State owned means of production. Centrally planned economy.

Neither of those things are socialist fyi.

Those things can be socialist, but in this instance they're not. If the state were directly controlled by the workers, and controlled the means of production and centrally planned the economy, then it would be socialist. The problem with the Soviet Union was that it was never controlled by the workers.

[-St George]

Neither of those things are socialist fyi.

Yes, they are.

Wrong. Socialism requires worker owned means of production, not state. Centrally planned economies is statist, not socialist. Socialism isn't statist it's collectivist.

[Jafas United]

(Image)

*Yawn* Who else is getting tired of the same old same old?

The question is ho isn't.

Oh c'mon as if you're not. This thread pops up every so often and ends up with lengthy debates with nobody being convinced either way.

[Sibs bottle of vodka]

Neither of those things are socialist fyi.

Those things can be socialist, but in this instance they're not. If the state were directly controlled by the workers, and controlled the means of production and centrally planned the economy, then it would be socialist. The problem with the Soviet Union was that it was never controlled by the workers.

No true Scotsman.

Although, I do agree that the USSR was never controlled by the workers. Far from it.

[Industrial Republics]

Does not apply in this situation, as the Soviet Union never fit the basic criteria for socialism in the first place. Have you forgotten that the first socialists were anarchists?

Nope, I haven't.

However, the USSR did fit the basic criteria for socialism.

No, it didn't. It fit a part of the basic criteria. Here, I will even use the rest of the Wikipedia source that you cut out:

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system.[1] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.

[Sibs bottle of vodka]

Yes, they are.

Wrong. Socialism requires worker owned means of production, not state. Centrally planned economies is statist, not socialist. Socialism isn't statist it's collectivist.

Socialism is state or worker owned means of production.

[Tierra del Helios]

libertarian socialism

[Airstrip 100]

Does not apply in this situation, as the Soviet Union never fit the basic criteria for socialism in the first place. Have you forgotten that the first socialists were anarchists?

Nope, I haven't.

However, the USSR did fit the basic criteria for socialism.

It fit a criteria for socialism. For it to have fit enough criteria to be socialist, said state would have needed to be controlled by the workers.

[-St George]

Neither of those things are socialist fyi.

Those things can be socialist, but in this instance they're not. If the state were directly controlled by the workers, and controlled the means of production and centrally planned the economy, then it would be socialist. The problem with the Soviet Union was that it was never controlled by the workers.

Statism is anti-collectivism, so how can centrally planned economies be socialist?

[Airstrip 100]

Wrong. Socialism requires worker owned means of production, not state. Centrally planned economies is statist, not socialist. Socialism isn't statist it's collectivist.

Socialism is state or worker owned means of production.

Using that incredibly narrow definition, America would be socialist as well, due to some of the means of production being controlledby the state.

[Sibs bottle of vodka]

Nope, I haven't.

However, the USSR did fit the basic criteria for socialism.

It fit a criteria for socialism. For it to have fit enough criteria to be socialist, said state would have needed to be controlled by the workers.

According to whom?

[Sibs bottle of vodka]

Those things can be socialist, but in this instance they're not. If the state were directly controlled by the workers, and controlled the means of production and centrally planned the economy, then it would be socialist. The problem with the Soviet Union was that it was never controlled by the workers.

Statism is anti-collectivism, so how can centrally planned economies be socialist?

That depends on the ownership of the means of production.

[Airstrip 100]

It fit a criteria for socialism. For it to have fit enough criteria to be socialist, said state would have needed to be controlled by the workers.

According to whom?

Just tell me this. Where does your definition differentiate a non-socialist country (America) that still has some of the means of production controlled by the government, from a 'socialist' country (USSR)?

[-St George]

Wrong. Socialism requires worker owned means of production, not state. Centrally planned economies is statist, not socialist. Socialism isn't statist it's collectivist.

Socialism is state or worker owned means of production.

In it's originality, it's worker owned means of production.

Which doesn't mean a state or public sector economy only. Worker-owned co-operatives (such as Britain's John Lewis) are more to what socialism is than any soviet or soviet puppet state was.