Socialismphobia

[Zaras]

Yes it also says "The revolution must get established in a sea of blood so that the bourgeois get afraid of us."

And it doesn't say that after the revolution the state should be preserved and a permanent revolutionary terror should be instituted.

[CTALNH]

Yes it also says "The revolution must get established in a sea of blood so that the bourgeois get afraid of us."

And it doesn't say that after the revolution the state should be preserved and a permanent revolutionary terror should be instituted.

Did I ever say that?
I said we should plan world domination not jump right on it and get our asses handed to us.

[Mavorpen]

Capitalism has jack shit to do with individual freedoms, free Enterprise, entrepreneurship, etc.

I do agree with you that capitalism's goal is to not maximize individual freedoms, however in a capitalist (not corporatist/neo-mercantilist) society, free enterprise and entrepreneurship most certain does exist.

Indeed. I worded that rather poorly.

[Jassysworth 1]

Nope, that's communists' very biased account of what capitalism supposedly is.

No, it's the reality of capitalism. I have the feeling you don't know much about capitalism, or living in it.

Since you won't accept anything to be communist unless it perfectly fits your idealized, rainbow and butterfly theoretical version of it being a stateless, moneyless, classless (I'll add a fourth qualifier) AND desirable society... Marx's theories, capitalism should be judged by its most favorable theoretical formulation too then. =)

Fix'd for ya. Communists gotta have standards, at least sticking to Marx's basic vision and kicking out the authoritarian dicks. Capitalism doesn't have as strong a theoretical formulation, considering that the transition to it involved the upper class depriving the lower classes of whatever access they had to means of production (see the Enclosure Acts for the UK) in order to force them to work for wages and transform them into a proletariat.

Capitalism is all about maximizing individual freedom

Without equal access to the means of production, this is impossible. You can have as much freedom as you want in theory but if somebody can force you to work so they can make profits and pay you wages that are still less than the actual value of your work in order to profits and your other option is basically starving to death because you don't have money, that's not a very free or fair system.

the free market

Is not a fucking magic cure-all that fixes everything.

entrepreneurship, fair competition

Monopolies during the Gilded Age of capitalism and today suggest otherwise.

Capitalism does care about profits but only because most of the time, having most individuals maximizing their own profits tends to maximize the best interests of society through the production of the most efficient and cheap goods and services.

Wrong, capitalism cares about profits because that's the only thing that drives it. And it's not even most of the time that it maximizes society's best interests! The tragedy of the commons, pollution, en-masse firing and offshoring certainly don't help society at all. Capitalism needs strong regulations to shackle it and at least reduce the damage it causes.

Capitalism is not about exploitation,

Paying workers less than the actual value of their labour in order to make profits isn't exploitation? Seriously?

it is about voluntary cooperation and favorable economic exchanges

Favourable to the already rich and privileged elite and too often fucking over everybody else? Yeah, no thanks. Don't want that.

it is about letting individuals enter into mutually beneficial economic contracts and relationships.

Based on power imbalances.

Government is to be kept as small as possible

This is a cosmically fucking stupid idea. Government is necessary to provide a safety net to look after its citizens, provide great public services, and minimise the vicious parts of capitalism through regulation. "Small government" is just gonna mean that more people get fucked over by the elites and the government, by doing nothing, is acting as a tool of elite interests just like Marxists accuse it of being.

Individuals are to be allowed to invent,

Failing to see how non-capitalist systems ban inventions.

work hard

Work isn't a virtue.

and in the process profit themselves and their families

Me me me me me me me me me... what about society? How does society benefit? Individuals' self-interest is a terrible foundation for an economic system.

Meanwhile, competition keeps making sure that relatively efficient economic process dominate society as opposed to one pattern of inefficient economic production.

Shame that competition is often stifled and reduced by the fact that big companies hate it.

Capitalism is also all about the decentralization of political and economic power through economic competition and tends to go hand in hand with democracy (in the ideal capitalist system, monopolies are few to non-existent).

Oh, don't be going all early Dahl on me with the pluralism. Capitalism in no way decentralizes power. It actually concentrates it in the hands of the classes who own the means of production.

Hey you know... this doesn't sound so bad now does it?

To you. Not to me.

You know... you commies are not the only ones who can do this. If you won't talk about communism realistically, then don't expect others to talk about capitalism on YOUR biased terms.

You're the one who doesn't want to discuss communism realistically. Stop projecting.

It's childish when you insist the whole world talk about communism in only its most positive formulations (that have never existed in the real world at the national level) as a stateless, moneyless, classless, AND desirable society and then change the rules and demonize capitalism on your own terms.

Oh, quit projecting childishness on me when you've made posts that refuse to acknowledge the fact that capitalism doesn't need Marxism to be demonised. It's already plenty fucking horrible. And nice ignoring of anarchist Catalonia, the Free Territory and the Paris Commune you got there when you said that communism has never existed.

I insist on talking about communism using Marx and Engels' definition because I'm sick of people perverting, misinterpreting, being misinformed and misunderstanding it. Especially Lenin and Stalin's fanboys. We don't need more people too ignorant to tell the difference between Stalinism and communism.

How come you get to label imperfect societies that use capitalist rhetoric as capitalist when we don't get to label imperfect societies that use communist rhetoric as communist?

Because the Soviet Union and every state that followed in its path during the Cold War was not communist. Saying otherwise is a clear sign you don't have a clue about communism.

North Korea is officially a Democratic People's Republic. Is it ludicrous to refuse to call it a "democratic people's republic" when to any observer it's clear that it is absolutely nothing of the sort?

It is clear you don't understand what capitalism really is (copying a favorite communist strategy here wink wink).

You're one to talk given how you don't understand what communism is.

And no the USSR was not capitalist in any way period.

It wasn't communist in any way period either.

Tell me how it encouraged free enterprise, entrepreneurship, individualism, and freedom on a large scale that exceeds what was being done in the USA (and hence why you called it ''ultra'' capitalist rather than just capitalist).

Terrible fucking argument and strawman view of capitalism. I'll quote Pannekoek here:

On the other hand, if by state capitalism one means the strict control and regulation of private capital by the state, the answer is Yes, the degree of state control varying within a country according to time and conditions, the preservation and increase of profits brought about in different ways, depending upon the historical and political conditions and the relationship of the classes.

The goal of the working class is liberation from exploitation. This goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting the bourgeoisie. It can only be realised by the workers themselves being master over production.

Strict control and regulation by the state instead of workers owning the means of production? Check for the Soviet Union and every shithole that followed in its wake.

And state capitalism is a contradiction as capitalism is all about maximizing individual freedoms... not the state's...

Capitalism isn't about maximising freedoms, it's about maximising profit. Capitalism doesn't give two shits about freedom.

Which is?

Presumably the same double standard he's been using in his posts.

My... my... my...

So capitalism is all about exploitation and hierarchy while communism is all about freedom, equality and justice?

Yeah sure whatever, if you say so. However, I am less concerned about what an ideology is SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT than what results it has actually yielded throughout human history and what we can expect from it in the future. In this aspect, communism fails.

You know... the thing about communism is that well... in all of history it's never existed (except for a few primitive societies... and couple of sub-state entities like Catalonia and the Paris Commune which never even lasted 10 years)...

If you want to convince me with THAT track record that communism is a great replacement for capitalism, good luck.

Out of thousands of years of human existence that's all communism has to show then it's not doing a very good job at all.

Capitalism, while it has its history of failures and is an imperfect system, has created a lot of very successful societies that have lasted to the present day.

If communism is pretty much better than capitalism in every way, then WHY isn't there a single sovereign state in the entire world that has made the successful transition to communism? Why is it that ALL attempts at the NATIONAL level to get to communism ended up in murdering totalitarianism dictatorships while those few attempts at the sub-national level (such as Catalonia and Paris) ended up not lasting more than a decade?

Why has the capitalist system generated so many lasting democracies (ex Norway, USA, Germany etc) that while imperfect, are on the whole quite successful.

To put it in vernacular terms...

In other words, in all of history your communist ideology has generated jack shit (inspired the rhetoric for a few mass murdering totalitarian dictatorships and created a few social experiments like the Commune that lasted less than 10 years)...

So tell me, why should anyone be convinced that communism can work? And especially when so many of its ideas are so counterintuitive to our experience of human nature?

Forming a perpetually stateless, classless, and moneyless society sounds like madness to me... and it should to you too.

[Jassysworth 1]

Zaras sorry to wake you from your dream but us I already said Engels is on our side....

No, he isn't.

Take your utopian drivel and go away please.

Take your Stalinist fanboy bullshit and go away. I don't want people like you on my side.

At least he's more in tune with the potential dangers of your generally populist ideology.

The fact is, all attempts at communism that have resulted in a so-called socialist government taking power at the national level have ended up in Stalinist hellholes. 100% of the time at the national level... go figure..

I have to give him points for that...

[CTALNH]

~snip~

Your talking to me?Eh your talking to me?
Well if your are you should know that there is a well established fact that I am an insane psychopath.

Or so my "Comrades" say.....

[Mavorpen]

If communism is pretty much better than capitalism in every way, then WHY isn't there a single sovereign state in the entire world that has made the successful transition to communism? Why is it that ALL attempts at the NATIONAL level to get to communism ended up in murdering totalitarianism dictatorships while those few attempts at the sub-national level (such as Catalonia and Paris) ended up not lasting more than a decade?

I think most people are ignoring a crucial fact: The Soviet Union couldn't reach socialism even if it wanted to, at that time. Marxists believed that socialism, and later communism, would occur in abundance, hence why Marx called for a transition to capitalism first (he praised capitalism quite a lot, for a communist). So, what did the Soviet Union do? It created a centralized state which acted in essence like a large business. From the beginning, Russian revolutionaries knew that socialism was a far time away. Lenin, in January of 1918 wrote:

"We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism... We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat."

THAT is the essence of the state of the Russian Revolution. It placed its bets on an INTERNATIONAL revolution, and implemented a large state in order to keep the economy afloat and industrialize. It would have worked, too. Revolutions in Germany, Italy, and other countries were happening, and if they had succeeded, we might very well have not seen what ultimately became the hellhole that was Russia at the time.

Why has the capitalist system generated so many lasting democracies (ex Norway, USA, Germany etc) that while imperfect, are on the whole quite successful.

=
Democracy predates capitalism.

In other words, in all of history your communist ideology has generated jack shit (inspired the rhetoric for a few mass murdering totalitarian dictatorships and created a few social experiments like the Commune that lasted less than 10 years)...

And?

So tell me, why should anyone be convinced that communism can work? And especially when so many of its ideas are so counterintuitive to our experience of human nature?

You know jack shit about human nature.

Forming a perpetually stateless, classless, and moneyless society sounds like madness to me... and it should to you too.

Cool story bro. You've been here how long, and you STILL haven't given a valid reason behind this.

[Jassysworth 1]

~snip~

Your talking to me?Eh your talking to me?
Well if your are you should know that there is a well established fact that I am an insane psychopath.

I congratulate you on having a far more pragmatic goal (using violence to keep people in line and under a socialist government) than these other idealists out there who seem to think we can get rid of the state and people will just voluntarily maintain a classless and moneyless desirable society (that ''in no way'' can be described as a utopia).

At least the extremeness of your ideas is matched with your willingness to kill and use force to achieve those objectives... can't say the same for those who have the guts to suggest extreme ideas but merely sit back and HOPE that someday it will all happen.

In the meantime, the empirical record suggests the 100 percent supremacy of the mixed capitalist economic system... they populate the world today and don't look like they will ever go away!

What has communism generated in ALL of human history? A couple of social experiments that each lasted less than 10 years, nothing at the national level, and allegedly a few primitive tribal societies unknowingly practiced their madness.

Right... I am totally convinced that this is the way of the future (no thank you).

[Mavorpen]

At least he's more in tune with the potential dangers of your generally populist ideology.

The fact is, all attempts at communism that have resulted in a so-called socialist government taking power at the national level have ended up in Stalinist hellholes. 100% of the time at the national level... go figure..

I have to give him points for that...

Wrong.

I think most people are ignoring a crucial fact: The Soviet Union couldn't reach socialism even if it wanted to, at that time. Marxists believed that socialism, and later communism, would occur in abundance, hence why Marx called for a transition to capitalism first (he praised capitalism quite a lot, for a communist). So, what did the Soviet Union do? It created a centralized state which acted in essence like a large business. From the beginning, Russian revolutionaries knew that socialism was a far time away. Lenin, in January of 1918 wrote:

"We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism... We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat."

THAT is the essence of the state of the Russian Revolution. It placed its bets on an INTERNATIONAL revolution, and implemented a large state in order to keep the economy afloat and industrialize. It would have worked, too. Revolutions in Germany, Italy, and other countries were happening, and if they had succeeded, we might very well have not seen what ultimately became the hellhole that was Russia at the time.

[Jassysworth 1]

If communism is pretty much better than capitalism in every way, then WHY isn't there a single sovereign state in the entire world that has made the successful transition to communism? Why is it that ALL attempts at the NATIONAL level to get to communism ended up in murdering totalitarianism dictatorships while those few attempts at the sub-national level (such as Catalonia and Paris) ended up not lasting more than a decade?

I think most people are ignoring a crucial fact: The Soviet Union couldn't reach socialism even if it wanted to, at that time. Marxists believed that socialism, and later communism, would occur in abundance, hence why Marx called for a transition to capitalism first (he praised capitalism quite a lot, for a communist). So, what did the Soviet Union do? It created a centralized state which acted in essence like a large business. From the beginning, Russian revolutionaries knew that socialism was a far time away. Lenin, in January of 1918 wrote:



THAT is the essence of the state of the Russian Revolution. It placed its bets on an INTERNATIONAL revolution, and implemented a large state in order to keep the economy afloat and industrialize. It would have worked, too. Revolutions in Germany, Italy, and other countries were happening, and if they had succeeded, we might very well have not seen what ultimately became the hellhole that was Russia at the time.

Why has the capitalist system generated so many lasting democracies (ex Norway, USA, Germany etc) that while imperfect, are on the whole quite successful.

=
Democracy predates capitalism.

In other words, in all of history your communist ideology has generated jack shit (inspired the rhetoric for a few mass murdering totalitarian dictatorships and created a few social experiments like the Commune that lasted less than 10 years)...

And?

So tell me, why should anyone be convinced that communism can work? And especially when so many of its ideas are so counterintuitive to our experience of human nature?

You know jack shit about human nature.

Forming a perpetually stateless, classless, and moneyless society sounds like madness to me... and it should to you too.

Cool story bro. You've been here how long, and you STILL haven't given a valid reason behind this.

I think most people are ignoring a crucial fact: The Soviet Union couldn't reach socialism even if it wanted to, at that time. Marxists believed that socialism, and later communism, would occur in abundance, hence why Marx called for a transition to capitalism first (he praised capitalism quite a lot, for a communist). So, what did the Soviet Union do? It created a centralized state which acted in essence like a large business. From the beginning, Russian revolutionaries knew that socialism was a far time away. Lenin, in January of 1918 wrote:

"We are far from having completed even the transitional period from capitalism to socialism... We have never cherished the hope that we could finish it without the aid of the international proletariat."

THAT is the essence of the state of the Russian Revolution. It placed its bets on an INTERNATIONAL revolution, and implemented a large state in order to keep the economy afloat and industrialize. It would have worked, too. Revolutions in Germany, Italy, and other countries were happening, and if they had succeeded, we might very well have not seen what ultimately became the hellhole that was Russia at the time.

So?

I don't care, communism can't be a great ideology if in all of human history not a single successful communist experiment has worked at the national level and not a single communist experiment on a large scale at the sub-national level has lasted more than 10 years.

Capitalism is better... because look at all those successful capitalist societies that populate the globe today and don't look like they'll ever go away.

Capitalism wins, communism loses.

End of story.

Democracy predates capitalism.

And?

I didn't say it didn't.

Who cares?

Look at the world today... how many successful capitalist countries do you see? How many successful large-scale communist societies do you see (zero)? THERE WE GO.

You know jack shit about human nature.

And?

To the extent that we can make theories about human nature, it works much better in a capitalist society than a communist one. That's why no communist societies at the national level exist today while plenty of capitalist societies exist today. Cool right?

Where's the evidence that human nature allows for stateless, classless, and moneyless societies that are desirable?

Seems to me like we've long evolved away from those primitive moneyless camps of the primitive ages... you want to go back son?

Cool story bro. You've been here how long, and you STILL haven't given a valid reason behind this

How about the simple and obvious fact that a stateless, moneyless, and classless society that is permanently so and a desirable place to live in is just... INSANE-SOUNDING?

And the fact that history has supported this so far because not a SINGLE example of a large-scale communist society exists today?

EH?

[Mavorpen]

So?

I don't care, communism can't be a great ideology if in all of human history not a single successful communist experiment has worked at the national level and not a single communist experiment on a large scale at the sub-national level has lasted more than 10 years.

So capitalism can't be a great ideology because of Somalia, amirite? Let me know when Marxism is implemented on a large scale, and fails. THEN you can conclude all communism fails.

Capitalism is better... because look at all those successful capitalist societies that populate the globe today and don't look like they'll ever go away.

It's better when the alternative has never come close to being implemented. Seems legit.

Capitalism wins, communism loses.

End of story.

How old are you?

And?

I didn't say it didn't.

Who cares?

Look at the world today... how many successful capitalist countries do you see? How many successful large-scale communist societies do you see (zero)? THERE WE GO.

So capitalism hasn't produced anything, democracy has.

And?

To the extent that we can make theories about human nature, it works much better in a capitalist society than a communist one. That's why no communist societies at the national level exist today while plenty of capitalist societies exist today. Cool right?

No it doesn't. Theories about human nature shows communism would work better.

Where's the evidence that human nature allows for stateless, classless, and moneyless societies that are desirable?

Try changing human nature for all 7 billion people if you think it works out so well. Really...you're part of the problem if you can't understand where others are coming from.

Do you actually know what "human nature" is? Have you actually observed humanity objectively from a viewpoint of not being affected by modern culture, where selfishness is ALREADY seen as good? Because if you actually look at research, you'd see that you're just plain wrong concerning your silly view of human nature. Human children have been shown consistently to be significantly more altruistic than we would have thought. And this is BEFORE they are taught the basics of compassion. Anthropologists have recounted the societies of communities such as pygmy tribesman, who live in very similar ways to our ancestors. One of these tribesman lived by the belief that selfishness is of the highest morality. The man, Cephu, was actually stealing the meat hunted collectively by his fellow tribesman.

At an impromptu trial, Cephu defended himself with arguments for individual initiative and personal responsibility. “He felt he deserved a better place in the line of nets,” [the anthropologist Colin] Turnbull wrote. “After all, was he not an important man, a chief, in fact, of his own band?” But if that were the case, replied a respected member of the camp, Cephu should leave and never return. The Mbuti have no chiefs, they are a society of equals in which redistribution governs everyone’s livelihood. The rest of the camp sat in silent agreement.

Faced with banishment, a punishment nearly equivalent to a death sentence, Cephu relented.

"Human nature" based on selfishness and greed is extremely unsupported by research. Human in nature does not consist of societies of millions of people engaging in capitalist free markets. It consists of small communities engaging in collectivist manners.

Seems to me like we've long evolved away from those primitive moneyless camps of the primitive ages... you want to go back son?

Then why the fuck bring up human nature? Make up your mind.

How about the simple and obvious fact that a stateless, moneyless, and classless society that is permanently so and a desirable place to live in is just... INSANE-SOUNDING?

And the fact that history has supported this so far because not a SINGLE example of a large-scale communist society exists today?

EH?

EEEEEEEH?! =)

And?

[Chestaan]

No, he isn't.



Take your Stalinist fanboy bullshit and go away. I don't want people like you on my side.

At least he's more in tune with the potential dangers of your generally populist ideology.

The fact is, all attempts at communism that have resulted in a so-called socialist government taking power at the national level have ended up in Stalinist hellholes. 100% of the time at the national level... go figure..

I have to give him points for that...

Free Territory of Ukraine. Come on, man, we've been over this before!

[CTALNH]

At least he's more in tune with the potential dangers of your generally populist ideology.

The fact is, all attempts at communism that have resulted in a so-called socialist government taking power at the national level have ended up in Stalinist hellholes. 100% of the time at the national level... go figure..

I have to give him points for that...

Free Territory of Ukraine. Come on, man, we've been over this before!

Which we "fake" communists butt fucked.

[Souseiseki]

If communism is pretty much better than capitalism in every way, then WHY isn't there a single sovereign state in the entire world that has made the successful transition to communism? Why is it that ALL attempts at the NATIONAL level to get to communism ended up in murdering totalitarianism dictatorships while those few attempts at the sub-national level (such as Catalonia and Paris) ended up not lasting more than a decade?

Why has the capitalist system generated so many lasting democracies (ex Norway, USA, Germany etc) that while imperfect, are on the whole quite successful.

To put it in vernacular terms...

In other words, in all of history your communist ideology has generated jack shit (inspired the rhetoric for a few mass murdering totalitarian dictatorships and created a few social experiments like the Commune that lasted less than 10 years)...

So tell me, why should anyone be convinced that communism can work? And especially when so many of its ideas are so counterintuitive to our experience of human nature?

Forming a perpetually stateless, classless, and moneyless society sounds like madness to me... and it should to you too.

can you name me a single attempt at a national level that did not pretty much immediately meet a military intervention or coup? maybe that has something to do with how they ended up the way they did? and why the ones that aren't have a bad habit of being ended through being shot in the face by your best friends because france is getting its panties in a twist?

[Souseiseki]

while those few attempts at the sub-national level (such as Catalonia and Paris) ended up not lasting more than a decade?

Free Territory of Ukraine. Come on, man, we've been over this before!

I don't care, communism can't be a great ideology if in all of human history not a single successful communist experiment has worked at the national level and not a single communist experiment on a large scale at the sub-national level has lasted more than 10 years.

correct me if i'm wrong, if you think i am wrong please supply dates, but didn't ukraine get fucked by bolsheviks, catalonia get fucked by fascists and paris get fucked by the armies of versailles

it's almost like...

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Free Territory of Ukraine. Come on, man, we've been over this before!

Which we "fake" communists butt fucked.

Yes, because murdering people who've progressed to the final stage of communism and then deliberately starving the survivors to death in a man-made famine 10 years later while also systematically deporting millions to the East is such a good advert for your ideology.

The world doesn't need more left-wing fascists masquerading as socialists, too many people have died.

[CTALNH]

Which we "fake" communists butt fucked.

Yes, because murdering people who've progressed to the final stage of communism and then deliberately starving the survivors to death in a man-made famine 10 years later while also systematically deporting millions to the East is such a good advert for your ideology.

The world doesn't need more left-wing fascists masquerading as socialists, too many people have died.

Yes but the world can't do without us.
But they can from you.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Yes, because murdering people who've progressed to the final stage of communism and then deliberately starving the survivors to death in a man-made famine 10 years later while also systematically deporting millions to the East is such a good advert for your ideology.

The world doesn't need more left-wing fascists masquerading as socialists, too many people have died.

Yes but the world can't do without us.
But they can from you.

The world seems to be doing better without the USSR than it did with it, actually.

[Ulvena]

Interview ten random Americans who are absolutely for Republicans and hate Obamacare because it's socialist. I bet you at least half of them can't tell you what socialism is.

[CTALNH]

Yes but the world can't do without us.
But they can from you.

The world seems to be doing better without the USSR than it did with it, actually.

Says who?

[Blakk Metal]

Interesting to see capitalists revert to childish appeals to authority.

We revert because your argument is futile, history has taught us capitalism works the best.

It didn't. It proved the more capitalist you get, the shittier your economy does. The Soviet Union was more capitalist then the US, which is why it won.

We revert because your argument is futile, history has taught us capitalism works the best.

Because who won the Cold War?

That's right... the forces of the capitalist and free United States =)

Capitalism hands down... socialismphobia is justified.

Either way capitalism would've won, sir. The Soviet Union was capitalist.

Capitalism thrives on inefficiency. How can your business keep making a profit if your products never break down? Inefficiency is built right into the model.

How can you stay in business against your competitors in a capitalist free market when your products are not being produced efficiently and when your products fail to satisfy the needs of the consumers efficiently?

No... free market capitalism promotes efficiency. The inefficient go out of business, the efficient stay in business and get ahead.

O rly?

To the extent that this is NOT true it's where there is the least competition (ex airlines), where there is too much government intervention/nationalization, and where the market is working least well (in other words, where things are LEAST capitalist and least free in terms of market activity).

Government regulation in modern society is inherently capitalist, since the government is merely a corporation.

It's when you remove competition for monetary profit (like in communism), that you'll have problems of inefficiency.

1. Which is why open source programs suck balls compared to close source programs. Oh wait.
2. The nomeklatura did have a profit motive.

you're talking about cost efficiency.

Cost efficiency is the reason why capitalism is inefficient as a system.

Why? Competition driving the prices of most products down and pushing the way for innovation and higher quality sounds like a relatively efficient system.

The alternative is no competition for profit and one group continuing a pattern of inefficiency indefinitely because no one can put them out of business.

Capitalism and free markets are mutually incompatible.

Capitalism seems to think it can grow endlesdsly, and then it hits the roof and coms crashing down.

The stock markets can't grow forever.

Why not? There's always more money and more people

Personally, I don't understand why some people fear socialism... I mean, most world economies are technically mixed, and lets not forget systems like welfare, social security, and , In the U.S specifically, Medicare

Social Security is NOT in the same order as welfare and Medicare. Check your pay stub. It is forcible taken out of your paycheck each pay period. Originally, the government decided that they would "take care of" those people who - for whatever reason - failed to provide a retirement for themselves. That money was to be set aside, so that as citizens retired, the state would pay them the money that they had paid in. The money was appropriated and used for OTHER issues. Now, as our Baby Boomers are retiring, there is little to no money - money that came from all those pay checks that they earn all those years, money which they did not necessarily agree to have taken out - to pay them.
That is my primary problem with socialism. It is an insult and just wrong when the government - or anyone - can be allowed to decide what is "best for us."

Congrats, you just knocked out a strawman. Sorry, but states do not necessarily have to exist in socialism.

Says the advocator of centralised economy.

State Socialism is not imperialistic monopoly....
What?

The Soviet Union was not socialist.

Of course capitalism won the Cold War. It was, after all, a contest between two capitalists: the mostly-capitalist United States, and the ultra-capitalist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Capitalism won, and as a consequence humanity and individual liberty lost.

LOL at the USSR being ultra-capitalist...

You claim others don't know what communism is... clearly you don't know what capitalism is.

He does.

	Soviet Union	United States
Means of production owned by the few (the capitalists)	Despite what the U'SS'R wanted you to think, yes.	Yes, but not to the extent of the Soviet Union.
Everyone else (the workers) are forced to work for them by threat of death.	Yes.	Mostly.
The workers have a choice of which job they want to do, provided the capitalists want them to do it.	Yes.	Yes.
The capitalists profit from the workers' work.	Yes.	Yes.
The workers don't, unless the capitalists feel especially generous.	Yes.	Yes.
The capitalists' hold on the means of production is enforced by the state.	Yes.	Yes.

You're more insulted by the fact that the government helps people than the existence of crushing poverty, inequality, people who have been financially ruined or lost their lives because of the lack of universal healthcare, unequal opportunities in education, malnutrition, and so forth.

Some fucking sociopathic priorities you have there.

First, neither profanity nor personal insults can convince anyone to accept your reasoning.

Second, some of your topics are incorrect. In America, all people are considered - under the law - to be equal, and they all are given equal access to education. As for the other topics. The Constitution of the United States, grants you the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It does not grant you the right to universal health care or financial independence.
I believe that families, friends, and your spiritual community should help support and sustain you during hard times.

i.e. on paper with absolutely no correlation to actual morality

So, you would have no problem with the government telling you what you can and cannot do based solely on its belief of what is good for you?

I do have a big problem.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

The world seems to be doing better without the USSR than it did with it, actually.

Says who?

Facts.

I'm no demographer, but (bar the blip resulting from the initial effects of the dissolution of the Union) life expectancy in every single former SSR has increased over the last 20 years. In other words, since the end of the USSR.

[Zaras]

So capitalism is all about exploitation and hierarchy while communism is all about freedom, equality and justice?

Considering the goal of communism is an anarchic, stateless society without exploitation and common ownership of the means of production? Yes.

Yeah sure whatever, if you say so. However, I am less concerned about what an ideology is SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT than what results it has actually yielded throughout human history and what we can expect from it in the future. In this aspect, communism fails.

Communism has only been attempted thrice in modern history: the Paris Commune, the Free Territory and anarchist Catalonia. Trying to use the Soviet Union as an example after me, OTFST and other posters have repeatedly pointed out in both this and countless other threads that it is a disgusting aberration that has nothing to do with communism will just out you as spectacularly clueless.

You know... the thing about communism is that well... in all of history it's never existed (except for a few primitive societies... and couple of sub-state entities like Catalonia and the Paris Commune which never even lasted 10 years)...

Catalonia, the Paris Commune AND the Free Territory. It's quite hard for them to last when they were crushed by reactionary cunts and backstabbing fascist bastards masquerading as leftists.

If you want to convince me with THAT track record that communism is a great replacement for capitalism, good luck.

You're too busy holding on to capitalist dogma to listen to me, so why waste my time.

Out of thousands of years of human existence that's all communism has to show then it's not doing a very good job at all.

It's still a better job than capitalism, which has to show for itself a record of violence, oppression, exploitation, discrimination and a trail of blood littering just about every part of the world, from the countries that forcefully transitioned to capitalism and crushed workers' activism to the continents that were stolen by capitalist countries wholesale and exploited for everything they had.

Capitalism, while it has its history of failures and is an imperfect system, has created a lot of very successful societies that have lasted to the present day.

It's only created successful societies in the West. Some record.

If communism is pretty much better than capitalism in every way, then WHY isn't there a single sovereign state in the entire world that has made the successful transition to communism?

1. If you can't find a state that's transitioned to communism, it's because the transition to communism would involve the dismantling of the state.
2. Reactionary forces are strong and bloodthirsty when it comes to suppressing attempts to make life better for people. Why do they have such a vested interest in preventing communism from happening?
3. The USSR was a bunch of dictatorial fucks pretending to be communists who basically did their best to destroy the cause by attempting to impose their will on every communist party across the world through the Comintern, pursuing idiotic policies like the "social fascist" denunciation that played into the hands of far-rightists, and generally showed itself to care more about its power than the cause. Seriously, the country that has the repressions of Kronstadt, the Free Territory, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the backstabbing of Catalonia to its record does not give a flying fuck about communism. It's just as paranoid and obsessed with power as its supposed rival the United States.

Why is it that ALL attempts at the NATIONAL level to get to communism ended up in murdering totalitarianism dictatorships while those few attempts at the sub-national level (such as Catalonia and Paris) ended up not lasting more than a decade?

1. Fuck's sake, the Soviet Union WAS NOT an attempt to get to communism. It might've started off that way but it was hijacked the moment Lenin cancelled the elections that the Mensheviks would've won. Bolsheviks ruin everything.
2. Why is it that sub-national attempts to transition to communism get so viciously repressed?

Why has the capitalist system generated so many lasting democracies (ex Norway, USA, Germany etc) that while imperfect, are on the whole quite successful.

Why is it that capitalism has generated so many brutal dictatorships that have left nothing but misery and death in their wake?

So tell me, why should anyone be convinced that communism can work? And especially when so many of its ideas are so counterintuitive to our experience of human nature?

Fuck human nature. I'm sick of this stupid fucking argument being brought up every time there's a discussion about communism. Define human nature, or quit bringing that bullshit up.

Also, quit with the double standard of demanding absolute proof about communism's advantages while letting capitalism off the hook for its crimes. That's David Irving crap.

Forming a perpetually stateless, classless, and moneyless society sounds like madness to me... and it should to you too.

Okay, so it sounds like you're so fanatically dedicated to kissing capitalism's arse that you can't even bear the idea that somebody would point out that communism would be a better way of organising society. It's fucking stupid to say that a stateless, classless, moneyless society based on common ownership of the means of production sounds like madness, and that I should automatically agree with you. I don't remember ever telling you that by the way, you're supposed to think exactly like I do.

Why are you in a debate forum again?

[Zaras]

To the extent that we can make theories about human nature, it works much better in a capitalist society than a communist one. That's why no communist societies at the national level exist today while plenty of capitalist societies exist today. Cool right?

Except for the part where capitalist societies go froth-raving mad and send in the military to create a bloodbath at the smallest sign of a communist society.

[Wintersun]

People are afraid of socialism because they are either ignorant or rich. Once people actually learn what socialism is they normally embrace a large portion of it.