Socialismphobia

[Kvatchdom]

Socialism isn't a potatoist dictatorship. That's the issue. It's an actual economic model. Capitalism can succeed, yes. And so can Socialism. All economic models can succeed when done the right way. Social Democracy could have bankrupted the Nordic states if not for the exact policies that were made for social democracy to succeed. I do not claim capitalism does not succeed, because it does. But neither should you claim that socialism does not, simply because you believe so.

Communism is essentially a potatoist dictatorship...

I mean... a large-scale truly ''stateless, moneyless, and classless'' society everyone should want to live in?

Come on... A society where you give nominal dictatorial powers to a potato may have a better chance of actually working.

And no respectable economist would argue for an economic model where you take away the profit motive and ban capital/private investment for profit...

No, it's not. Communism is a utopia. Socialism is an economic model.

Utopia is madness, but it's not a potatoist dictatorship. Also, I don't think you know what communism on the economy is, besides those three main aims.

By "respectable" do you mean the Banker economists? Because they're the only economist group that doesn't mostly believe in socialist economy. Can't say I have any statistics, but I've talked with enough economists to know that Socialism is essential right now, and the time of Capitalism has ended. Profit is an illusion. So is money. We invented the wheel with no actual profit in it. The human nature is innovative, and needs no boost from greed.

[Camelza]

Communism is essentially a potatoist dictatorship...

I mean... a large-scale truly ''stateless, moneyless, and classless'' society everyone should want to live in?

Come on... A society where you give nominal dictatorial powers to a potato may have a better chance of actually working.

And no respectable economist would argue for an economic model where you take away the profit motive and ban capital/private investment for profit...

No, it's not. Communism is a utopia. Socialism is an economic model.

Utopia is madness, but it's not a potatoist dictatorship. Also, I don't think you know what communism on the economy is, besides those three main aims.

By "respectable" do you mean the Banker economists? Because they're the only economist group that doesn't mostly believe in socialist economy. Can't say I have any statistics, but I've talked with enough economists to know that Socialism is essential right now, and the time of Capitalism has ended. Profit is an illusion. So is money. We invented the wheel with no actual profit in it. The human nature is innovative, and needs no boost from greed.

-Utopia isn't madness,communism isn't an utopia and it can be a successful system if not violently interrupted by foreign superpowers.
-It's not now the right time.
-Capitalism =/= Greed.

[Dinahia]

Communism is essentially a potatoist dictatorship...

I mean... a large-scale truly ''stateless, moneyless, and classless'' society everyone should want to live in?

Come on... A society where you give nominal dictatorial powers to a potato may have a better chance of actually working.

And no respectable economist would argue for an economic model where you take away the profit motive and ban capital/private investment for profit...

No, it's not. Communism is a utopia. Socialism is an economic model.

Utopia is madness, but it's not a potatoist dictatorship. Also, I don't think you know what communism on the economy is, besides those three main aims.

By "respectable" do you mean the Banker economists? Because they're the only economist group that doesn't mostly believe in socialist economy. Can't say I have any statistics, but I've talked with enough economists to know that Socialism is essential right now, and the time of Capitalism has ended. Profit is an illusion. So is money. We invented the wheel with no actual profit in it. The human nature is innovative, and needs no boost from greed.

Not everyone considers communism to be utopia.

[Crushilista]

I don't believe in socialism heavily because a man should be able to reap what he sows with his work. Other people shouldn't be in control of the fruit of his labor. I'm not against corporate regulation, however, as long as it just relates to state minimum wage laws, EPA regulation, FDA regulation and monopoly control.

[Mavorpen]

I don't believe in socialism heavily because a man should be able to reap what he sows with his work. Other people shouldn't be in control of the fruit of his labor. I'm not against corporate regulation, however, as long as it just relates to state minimum wage laws, EPA regulation and monopoly control.

Not socialism.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I don't believe in socialism heavily because a man should be able to reap what he sows with his work.

That's the point of socialism, that you get what you work for. With some state-provided goodies like healthcare, although anti-statists would disagree with that.

Other people shouldn't be in control of the fruit of his labor.

That's the point of socialism, that you're in control of the fruit of your own labour.

I'm not against corporate regulation, however, as long as it just relates to state minimum wage laws, EPA regulation and monopoly control.

Socialism isn't about corporate regulation, it's about the complete removal of corporate power via the workers seizing control of their workplaces and self-managing.

[Crushilista]

Ah, alright. You have to understand that the majority of people understand it as people owning the works and trials of other people in America. Well... that's not true, a lot of people see it as an evil Marxist plot (which is stupidity).

That being said, I have nothing really against socialism of the work place in form of unions. However, I don't like when the unions demand more money from their employer. People should be paid on the amount of hard work they do, not based on a group decision.

I also disagree with government bailing out failures or aiding big businesses in any way. I'm against any form, besides mild regulation, of governmental interference. That's a major problem with socialism is the distribution of money where it doesn't belong.

On another note, I find Communism to be foolish. I've read the Communist Manifesto and it means well, but the lack of a higher power and everyone being equal is just a pipe dream. Somebody with enough force and men will come and take over.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

This:

I don't believe in socialism

Contradicts this:

a man should be able to reap what he sows with his work. Other people shouldn't be in control of the fruit of his labor.

If you were truly in favor of that, then you'd support socialism.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Ah, alright. You have to understand that the majority of people understand it as people owning the works and trials of other people in America. Well... that's not true, a lot of people see it as an evil Marxist plot (which is stupidity).

That being said, I have nothing really against socialism of the work place in form of unions. However, I don't like when the unions demand more money from their employer. People should be paid on the amount of hard work they do, not based on a group decision.

I also disagree with government bailing out failures or aiding big businesses in any way. I'm against any form, besides mild regulation, of governmental interference. That's a major problem with socialism is the distribution of money where it doesn't belong.

On another note, I find Communism to be foolish. I've read the Communist Manifesto and it means well, but the lack of a higher power and everyone being equal is just a pipe dream. Somebody with enough force and men will come and take over.

Thank you for demonstrating that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. It will make future interactions with you much simpler--the consideration is greatly appreciated.

[Zweite Alaje]

Ah, alright. You have to understand that the majority of people understand it as people owning the works and trials of other people in America. Well... that's not true, a lot of people see it as an evil Marxist plot (which is stupidity).

Marxism =/=Socialism

That being said, I have nothing really against socialism of the work place in form of unions. However, I don't like when the unions demand more money from their employer. People should be paid on the amount of hard work they do, not based on a group decision.

The entire point of Socialism is to make society more transparent, harmonious, and organic. Socialism seeks to ensure that every worker is payed in full for his labor, and group decision making aids in that process. The collectives make it so that no one is exploiting his fellow men.

I also disagree with government bailing out failures or aiding big businesses in any way. I'm against any form, besides mild regulation, of governmental interference. That's a major problem with socialism is the distribution of money where it doesn't belong.

What you are describing here is Statism, not Socialism. Though there are Socialists with statist tendencies (such as myself), Statism isn't synonymous with Socialism. Also, if you knew anything about economics you'd know that failing to bailout businesses that are vital to the national economy is a very very big mistake. Laissez-faire doesn't work my friend, the state must provide a directive role in the economy.

On another note, I find Communism to be foolish. I've read the Communist Manifesto and it means well, but the lack of a higher power and everyone being equal is just a pipe dream. Somebody with enough force and men will come and take over.

At least we agree on this.

[Anollasia]

One word:

Stereotypes.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

Ah, alright. You have to understand that the majority of people understand it as people owning the works and trials of other people in America. Well... that's not true, a lot of people see it as an evil Marxist plot (which is stupidity).

That being said, I have nothing really against socialism of the work place in form of unions. However, I don't like when the unions demand more money from their employer. People should be paid on the amount of hard work they do, not based on a group decision.

I also disagree with government bailing out failures or aiding big businesses in any way. I'm against any form, besides mild regulation, of governmental interference. That's a major problem with socialism is the distribution of money where it doesn't belong.

On another note, I find Communism to be foolish. I've read the Communist Manifesto and it means well, but the lack of a higher power and everyone being equal is just a pipe dream. Somebody with enough force and men will come and take over.

Thank you for demonstrating that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. It will make future interactions with you much simpler--the consideration is greatly appreciated.

He's got a point though. Communism is an unrealistic idea.

[Crushilista]

Thank you for demonstrating that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. It will make future interactions with you much simpler--the consideration is greatly appreciated.

There's multiple kinds of socialism. I was stating that many of the people in the states refer to socialism as being controlled by the state and not by the people. There's no contradiction of a mans' hard work being taken away from him if the state takes it. However, this is calling back to more of a Stalinist form of socialism, which I'm heavily against.

As for Marxism being the same as socialism, I understand that. I was talking against people who find Marx to be the anti-Christ.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Thank you for demonstrating that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. It will make future interactions with you much simpler--the consideration is greatly appreciated.

There's multiple kinds of socialism. I was stating that many of the people in the states refer to socialism as being controlled by the state and not by the people.

But of course, that's not socialism at all.

There's no contradiction of a mans' hard work being taken away from him if the state takes it.

But that doesn't happen in socialism.

However, this is calling back to more of a Stalinist form of socialism,

In other words, not socialism at all.

which I'm heavily against.

So you're not against actual socialism. Cool.

As for Marxism being the same as socialism, I understand that.

You understand what? That it is, in fact, not the same as socialism, but rather one particular interpretive framework concerning the historical processes of the origin and development of socialist society, that not all socialists accept?

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Thank you for demonstrating that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. It will make future interactions with you much simpler--the consideration is greatly appreciated.

He's got a point though. Communism is an unrealistic idea.

Except, you know, if you look at reality.

[Crushilista]

I'm not against unionized businesses, no. I am against the state interfering with business and such besides regulation though. The only time I think that a business should be bailed out is if thousands upon thousands of jobs would be lost if it didn't happen. Even then, I would want the business to have to fix the problem that led it to that path instead of using money to drain a sinking ship with a large hole still in the side.

[Crushilista]

He's got a point though. Communism is an unrealistic idea.

Except, you know, if you look at reality.

Human nature makes people want to become alpha males. Nobody wants to be on the same level as another person if their dedication and work ethic is of a higher caliber. Although capitalism might have flaws to it, it has propelled us into scientific discovery and technological advances through competition of each other. If there is no competition between people to be better than each other, then there is little progression made.

As much as I'd like to think that people would all stick with each other through the goodness of man, history of man and the nature of man will always get in the way. Only time I ever see pure communism working well is if there's a catastrophic natural disaster that forces people to work together to survive; even then it's only holding together through greed of their own lives.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

He's got a point though. Communism is an unrealistic idea.

Except, you know, if you look at reality.

Socialists go on more about why communism should be there, or why capitalism is evil for socialism failing, rather than how they'll make communism practical (or at least, keeping it there).

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Except, you know, if you look at reality.

Human nature

Does not exist. The ethnographic record is indisputably clear on this point.

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

Denying the presence of human nature is a tool of the socialist narrative, to restrict people to it's own ideological chains.

I've seen this argument before. Critical psychology implies psychology is a bourgeoisie life science, that tries to underpin socioeconomic oppression as a positivist and objectively scientific fact, but it criticizes it to the point where it makes it's own assumptions that the human mind itself is entirely a social construct, and that PEOPLE (as individuals) do not exist, only society does (in an almost parallel assumption made by Thatcher's Neoliberal stance).

I don't follow it. Two sides of the same coin, as far as I'm concerned.

[Shnercropolis]

He's got a point though. Communism is an unrealistic idea.

Except, you know, if you look at reality.

that ONE TIME that communism worked for a few weeks? Out of the dozens of times it has been tried for YEARS at a time and failed epically? (Vietnam, China, N. Korea, etc.)
Yeah, that's an amazing track record.

[Souseiseki]

Except, you know, if you look at reality.

that ONE TIME that communism worked for a few weeks? Out of the dozens of times it has been tried for YEARS at a time and failed epically? (Vietnam, China, N. Korea, etc.)
Yeah, that's an amazing track record.

north korea ahaahah

[Minarchist Territory of Pineland]

I actually know people that saw both Kim Jongs, as proletariat heroes on the road to Marxism.

It's quite worrying actually, they genuinely think they're socialist.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Except, you know, if you look at reality.

that ONE TIME that communism worked for a few weeks?

One time? For a few weeks?

Pretty sure that the Tolstoyans, Twin Oaks, Hutterites, Shakers, Anabaptists, and kibbutzim have been around quite a bit longer.

Out of the dozens of times it has been tried for YEARS at a time and failed epically? (Vietnam, China, N. Korea, etc.)

Please show me where Vietnam, China, or North Korea ever abolished money, eliminated class distinctions, and repudiated national chauvinism.

[Souseiseki]

I actually know people that saw both Kim Jongs, as proletariat heroes on the road to Marxism.

It's quite worrying actually, they genuinely think they're socialist.

wow, no true scotsman? hello? bloody communists, i swear.