NationStates

Sibs bottle of vodka wrote:

-St George wrote:Statism is anti-collectivism, so how can centrally planned economies be socialist?

That depends on the ownership of the means of production.

Not really, because socialism doesn't require state ownership of any means of production.

Sibs bottle of vodka wrote:

-St George wrote:Statism is anti-collectivism, so how can centrally planned economies be socialist?

That depends on the ownership of the means of production.

Which is supposed to be collectively owned and controlled by the populace, the workers, not owned and controlled by a state which tells everyone what to do. There is a difference between "state" owned and controlled, and "state" owned. You refuse to see this.

Airstrip 100 wrote:

Sibs bottle of vodka wrote: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.

In the USSR, 100% of the means of production were state owned. In the US, I dunno. I bet it's well north of 90% that are privately owned.

In Sweden, a successful capitalist nation that socialists love claiming credit for, more than 90% of industrial output is produced by privately owned firms.

Sibs bottle of vodka wrote:

Airstrip 100 wrote:Using that incredibly narrow definition, America would be socialist as well, due to some of the means of production being controlledby the state.

In the USSR, 100% of the means of production were state owned. In the US, I dunno. I bet it's well north of 90% that are privately owned.

In Sweden, a successful capitalist nation that socialists love claiming credit for, more than 90% of industrial output is produced by privately owned firms.

By your definition, irrelevant.

Sibs bottle of vodka wrote:By my logic?

I did not coin, or define the term.

Wikipedia wrote:Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned

It either has state-owned means of production or not. The problem is your definition, incredibly narrow because you want to define socialism as 'state-control'.

Look, if Socialism is so great, why don't you guys go live in a Socialist country and see how unfeasible it is. If anything, history has shown us that a country following Socialism will eventually degrade into a dictatorship and/or a crap economy. You can argue that it's because it's done the wrong way or the government is corrupted, but that's precisely the point. Many countries have followed Socialism, so it's not difficult to see it.

Pryssilvalia wrote:Look, if Socialism is so great, why don't you guys go live in a Socialist country and see how unfeasible it is. If anything, history has shown us that a country following Socialism will eventually degrade into a dictatorship and/or a crap economy. You can argue that it's because it's done the wrong way or the government is corrupted, but that's precisely the point. Many countries have followed Socialism, so it's not difficult to see it.

Answer me this question. Have you ever heard of Cartelism? It is a capitalist system where big businesses are allowed to monopolise and breifly combine as much as they so desire. It was advocated and practiced in Imperial Germany for instance, screwing over small businesses and the little guys.

Now tell me, are all capitalist systems like this?

Because in the breif 100 years in which socialism has been practiced on large scale, we have only ever had 1 type of socialism, that being state socialism.

Of course, when capitalism goes through an experimental stage that results in death and starvation on mass scales, that of course has no bearing on capitalism as a whole right? So why is this not the same with socialism?

The USOT wrote:

Pryssilvalia wrote:Look, if Socialism is so great, why don't you guys go live in a Socialist country and see how unfeasible it is. If anything, history has shown us that a country following Socialism will eventually degrade into a dictatorship and/or a crap economy. You can argue that it's because it's done the wrong way or the government is corrupted, but that's precisely the point. Many countries have followed Socialism, so it's not difficult to see it.

Answer me this question. Have you ever heard of Cartelism? It is a capitalist system where big businesses are allowed to monopolise and breifly combine as much as they so desire. It was advocated and practiced in Imperial Germany for instance, screwing over small businesses and the little guys.

Now tell me, are all capitalist systems like this?

Because in the breif 100 years in which socialism has been practiced on large scale, we have only ever had 1 type of socialism, that being state socialism.

Of course, when capitalism goes through an experimental stage that results in death and starvation on mass scales, that of course has no bearing on capitalism as a whole right? So why is this not the same with socialism?

Then you're practically arguing that the tried Socialism is the wrong method right? Then do enlighten others as to how would you fix it. Socialism is, at its foundation, an unfeasible economic philosophy, so long as people are still greedy and not altruistic - so regardless of how you fix it, it will still be crap.

Pryssilvalia wrote:

The USOT wrote:Answer me this question. Have you ever heard of Cartelism? It is a capitalist system where big businesses are allowed to monopolise and breifly combine as much as they so desire. It was advocated and practiced in Imperial Germany for instance, screwing over small businesses and the little guys.

Now tell me, are all capitalist systems like this?

Because in the breif 100 years in which socialism has been practiced on large scale, we have only ever had 1 type of socialism, that being state socialism.

Of course, when capitalism goes through an experimental stage that results in death and starvation on mass scales, that of course has no bearing on capitalism as a whole right? So why is this not the same with socialism?

Then you're practically arguing that the tried Socialism is the wrong method right? Then do enlighten others as to how would you fix it. Socialism is, at its foundation, an unfeasible economic philosophy, so long as people are still greedy and not altruistic - so regardless of how you fix it, it will still be crap.

There is no point in me enlightening you on other methods of socialism, for they are discussed on this forum day in day out, be it Anarchist Collectivism, Syndicalism, Co`operatism, A Social Market economy etc. There are certainly many methods of socialism which have never been tried. Personally I advocate Syndicalism, but to each their own.

Likewise one could argue that Capitalism doesnt work because people are greedy and not altruistic, hell if you look at the past of capitalism you would also be shocked at its terrible nature.
Seebohm Rowntree for instance noted this in his own studies.

‘It is thus seen that the wages paid for unskilled labour in York are insufficient to provide food, shelter, and clothing adequate to maintain a family of moderate size in a state of bare physical efficiency … no allowance is made for any expenditure other than that absolutely required for the maintenance of merely physical efficiency. And let us clearly understand what “merely physical efficiency” means. A family living upon the scale allowed for in this estimate must never spend a penny on railway fare or omnibus. They must never go into the country unless they walk. They must never purchase a halfpenny newspaper or spend a penny to buy a ticket for a popular concert. They must write no letters to absent children, for they cannot afford to pay the postage, must never contribute anything to their church or chapel, or give any help to a neighbour which costs them money. They cannot save, nor can they join a sick club or Trade Union, because they cannot pay the necessary subscriptions. The children must have no pocket money for dolls, marbles, or sweets. The father must smoke no tobacco, and must drink no beer. The mother must ever buy any pretty clothes for herself or for her children … Should a child fall ill, it must be attended by the parish doctor; should it die, it must be buried by the parish. Finally, the wage-earner must never be absent from work for a single day.’

Now this, depending on your defenition was 300 years after capitalism had first developed. Socialism did unfortunately get off to a rocky start with the USSR using an authoritarian system which makes no sense in an effective socialist economy which must allocate its resources through democracy or collective initiative. Would the actual thing work? Perhaps, perhaps not. However I beleive that the potential and the effects seen of properly democratic socialist systems (E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation Mondragon Corp) are better than what we currently have.

Meryuma wrote:

Sibs bottle of vodka wrote:Bull.

In socialism, the nomenklatura own 99% of the wealth. The other 99% of the people are almost starving.

You don't know what socialism is.

I know how it turns out if forced on people.

I have nothing against non-coercive free market socialism.

Sibirsky wrote:

Meryuma wrote:

You don't know what socialism is.

I know how it turns out if forced on people.

I have nothing against non-coercive free market socialism.

But... But... If Socialism isn't forced on people via a revolutionary movement that shoots the parasites who disagree with the concept, and then redistributes wealth among the movement's leaders, it cannot possibly satisfy adolescent fantasies of power and glory :(

It's like, implying that economies where state interference is limited to ensuring that only fair - non-coercive - means of competition are used are already perfectly open for letting socialism thrieve if only people would come together, voluntarily, and show them damn capitalists that socialism enjoys superior competitiveness, thus taking over peacefully, since capitalist systems are fundamentally open to change once superior options come about.

It's boring to work like everyone else, except the business is collectively owned by its workers. It requires one to get an education in something other than political science and sociology!

We can't possibly have that. It'd miss the whole point of having a socialist revolution!

Pryssilvalia wrote:Look, if Socialism is so great, why don't you guys go live in a Socialist country and see how unfeasible it is. If anything, history has shown us that a country following Socialism will eventually degrade into a dictatorship and/or a crap economy. You can argue that it's because it's done the wrong way or the government is corrupted, but that's precisely the point. Many countries have followed Socialism, so it's not difficult to see it.

Lol. There's never been a socialist country. There's been countries that called themselves socialist. Big difference.

-St George wrote:

Pryssilvalia wrote:Look, if Socialism is so great, why don't you guys go live in a Socialist country and see how unfeasible it is. If anything, history has shown us that a country following Socialism will eventually degrade into a dictatorship and/or a crap economy. You can argue that it's because it's done the wrong way or the government is corrupted, but that's precisely the point. Many countries have followed Socialism, so it's not difficult to see it.

Lol. There's never been a socialist country. There's been countries that called themselves socialist. Big difference.

*fap**fap**fap**fap**fap**fap**fap**fap**fap*

Defining Feature of Socialism: Means of Production are state-owned.

You seriously saying no country has ever maintained state-ownership of the means of production?

OH! Wait, I get it now.

You're saying that no country has ever maintained state-ownership of the means of production while also maintaining the wet dreams of adolescent, starry-eyed idealists, since they all, quite inevitably so, realise the beautiful options provided for budding totalitarianism once the state owns everything, and can happily set wages as it pleases, release and withhold information as it pleases, limit access to transport infrastructure as it pleases, and limit production of necessities as well as luxury goods as it pleases, not to mention keeping innovation exactly as limited as it pleases.

In this case you're of course right. There's never been a socialist country, just as there's never been a country filled with rainbow-shitting, magical unicorns where everyone lives in peace and without worries - both of which have exactly the same probability of existing, and are equally worthwhile subjects to discuss.

Nazis in Space wrote:
Defining Feature of Socialism: Means of Production are state-owned.

Your Wrong
And if you quote something that agrees with your definition
it is also wrong.

Socialism is the Workers Ownership of the Means of Production
Communism being the Communities Ownership of the Means of Production.

I'm a socialist, State Socialists can go fuck themselves

Guernseyland wrote:Personally, I am socialist. POLITICS ISN'T A GAME.

Politics being not a game has nothing to do with Socialism vs Capitalism. That kind of attempted dichotomy doesn't even make sense.

On the other hand, you have a good point. Stalin was quite the Socialist, and he took his politics, and murdering of millions very seriously.

But to answer the question, though I have some few socialist leanings (I support a limited, efficient welfare system, a lean effective public school system... public roadways) but all in all, I fall pretty in favor of capitalism in most other respects. I do still support some regulation from the government, too. Let's just say I like to support things that seem to work.

Nazis in Space wrote:

-St George wrote:Lol. There's never been a socialist country. There's been countries that called themselves socialist. Big difference.

*fap**fap**fap**fap**fap**fap**fap**fap**fap*

Defining Feature of Socialism: Means of Production are state-owned.

You seriously saying no country has ever maintained state-ownership of the means of production?

OH! Wait, I get it now.

You're saying that no country has ever maintained state-ownership of the means of production while also maintaining the wet dreams of adolescent, starry-eyed idealists, since they all, quite inevitably so, realise the beautiful options provided for budding totalitarianism once the state owns everything, and can happily set wages as it pleases, release and withhold information as it pleases, limit access to transport infrastructure as it pleases, and limit production of necessities as well as luxury goods as it pleases, not to mention keeping innovation exactly as limited as it pleases.

In this case you're of course right. There's never been a socialist country, just as there's never been a country filled with rainbow-shitting, magical unicorns where everyone lives in peace and without worries - both of which have exactly the same probability of existing, and are equally worthwhile subjects to discuss.

*fail**fail**fail**fail**fail**fail**fail**fail**fail**fail**fail**fail**fail**fail**fail**fail**fail**fail**fail*

Defining Feature of Socialism: Means of Production are Worker owned.

Lrn2Socialism.

Sibs bottle of vodka wrote:

Airstrip 100 wrote:Using that incredibly narrow definition, America would be socialist as well, due to some of the means of production being controlledby the state.

In the USSR, 100% of the means of production were state owned.

Uhm, well, actually..

libertarian socialism

GeneralHaNor wrote:
Socialism is the Workers Ownership of the Means of Production
Communism being the Communities Ownership of the Means of Production.

true,another big difference:

In socialism the fruit of labor is not collectivized...so ""From each according to his ability, to each according to his work "
in communism the fruit of labor is made collective...so "from each according to his ability. to each according to his needs"

another difference: communism is against market and moneyless ,socialism can be pro-market or against-market

I have noticed most people confuse socialism with communism so the various strawman about how "socialism can't work because human nature1111"
or they think that socialism is a immense welfare state

capitalism

socialism is the "i dont care if you're a lazy bum who won't get a job, take this welfare from the taxpayers who do have jobs!"

Sythril wrote:capitalism

socialism is the "i dont care if you're a lazy bum who won't get a job, take this welfare from the taxpayers who do have jobs!"

Statist ignorance continues to amaze me.
The most surprising thing is how unsurprising this statement is.

Divair wrote:

Sibs bottle of vodka wrote:
In the USSR, 100% of the means of production were state owned.

Uhm, well, actually..

What a well thought out comment. I bet it took you 45 minutes to type that up.

To clarify. 100% of the legal means of production were state owned.

Cologno wrote:

GeneralHaNor wrote:
Socialism is the Workers Ownership of the Means of Production
Communism being the Communities Ownership of the Means of Production.

true,another big difference:

In socialism the fruit of labor is not collectivized...so ""From each according to his ability, to each according to his work "
in communism the fruit of labor is made collective...so "from each according to his ability. to each according to his needs"

another difference: communism is against market and moneyless ,socialism can be pro-market or against-market

I have noticed most people confuse socialism with communism so the various strawman about how "socialism can't work because human nature1111"
or they think that socialism is a immense welfare state

There isnt a difference between socialism and communism... Communism is an anarchistic style of socialism... Socialism encompasses both the Anarcho Syndicalists of Spain, all the way to the Juche socialists of North Korea, it isnt 1 specific economic practice...

It is like saying Oak is not wood...

The USOT wrote:There isnt a difference between socialism and communism... Communism is an anarchistic style of socialism... Socialism encompasses both the Anarcho Syndicalists of Spain, all the way to the Juche socialists of North Korea, it isnt 1 specific economic practice...

It is like saying Oak is not wood...

yeah sorry,I have explained it bad

communism is a extreme-form of socialism where BOTH the means of production and the fruits of work are collectivized

all communists are socialists but not all socialists are communists

socialism is a economic system
communism is a economic AND political system

I am a capitalist.

Cologno wrote:

The USOT wrote:There isnt a difference between socialism and communism... Communism is an anarchistic style of socialism... Socialism encompasses both the Anarcho Syndicalists of Spain, all the way to the Juche socialists of North Korea, it isnt 1 specific economic practice...

It is like saying Oak is not wood...

communism is a extreme-form of socialism where BOTH the means of production and the fruits of work are collectivized

all communists are socialists but not all socialists are communists

socialism is a economic system
communism is a economic AND political system

Both of these are wrong.

While some forms of socialism do collectivize production, collectivized production is not a necessary trait.
Free-Market Socialism is an example of such a system (whereby Employee owned firms, operate in competition with one another and other corporations)

I actually think that will probably end up being the best system.