Does America need a bit of Socialism

[United Marxist Nations]

What, then, was the other option? This isn't some fantasy where you can put whatever ideology you want at the helm of the Russian Revolution; we're talking about history.

1) Constitutional monarchy with a new royal family, or a 2) social democratic republic (my preferred choice). The USSR isn't some special snowflake in history that managed to industrialize quickly because of its ideology. And it doesn't excuse its oppression. 3) You can industrialize quickly without Stalinism.

1) Not many people wanted that.
2) That's what the provisional government was, and I already pointed out that many of them were agrarians, and their decision to carry on WWI earned them the hatred of the populace.
3) Examples?

[Yorkopolis]

What, then, was the other option? This isn't some fantasy where you can put whatever ideology you want at the helm of the Russian Revolution; we're talking about history.

Constitutional monarchy with a new royal family, or a social democratic republic (my preferred choice). The USSR isn't some special snowflake in history that managed to industrialize quickly because of its ideology. And it doesn't excuse its oppression. You can industrialize quickly without Stalinism.

Constitutional monarchy was not an option. Social democratic republic? Please go further, socialist republic is my preferred choice. Though, you're entirely correct, industrialisation can be done at lightning speed without Stalinism, as many post-WW2 economies have demonstrated.

[Waideland]

the arms industry and other key industries (like food, healthcare, etc.) are now cooperatives under guidance of the state and state economic plans

And that's why the government pays money off the top to food producers in addition to food stamps, and other charity. That's why the number of uninsured in this country hasn't changed despite the government airing commercial threatening people with fines. If you think the military industrial complex is a good thing, just ask the soldiers that have buy their own body armor what they think.

State masterminding has never led to anything good economically, at least nothing good that lasts.

[Galloism]

1) Constitutional monarchy with a new royal family, or a 2) social democratic republic (my preferred choice). The USSR isn't some special snowflake in history that managed to industrialize quickly because of its ideology. And it doesn't excuse its oppression. 3) You can industrialize quickly without Stalinism.

1) Not many people wanted that.
2) That's what the provisional government was, and I already pointed out that many of them were agrarians, and their decision to carry on WWI earned them the hatred of the populace.
3) Examples?

3) Second industrial revolution, United States, circa 1840 thru 1870.

[United Marxist Nations]

1) Not many people wanted that.
2) That's what the provisional government was, and I already pointed out that many of them were agrarians, and their decision to carry on WWI earned them the hatred of the populace.
3) Examples?

3) Second industrial revolution, United States, circa 1840 thru 1870.

I don't think many of those industrialized as quickly as the USSR, and those also experienced huge repression, poor living conditions, and many starved.

[Yorkopolis]

the arms industry and other key industries (like food, healthcare, etc.) are now cooperatives under guidance of the state and state economic plans

And that's why the government pays money off the top to food producers in addition to food stamps, and other charity. That's why the number of uninsured in this country hasn't changed despite the government airing commercial threatening people with fines. If you think the military industrial complex is a good thing, just ask the soldiers that have buy their own body armor what they think.

State masterminding has never led to anything good economically, at least nothing good that lasts.

I mean that the government will provide food and stuff weekly for free, with extra food being buyable. Same for body armour and stuff, soldiers will receive their equipment freely. Besides that, it's not the companies controlling the government nor the government controlling the companies; it's the people controlling the companies as cooperatives, with the government setting guidelines and regulations to abide by in order not to slip up and do anything that may be dangerous to national health, or anything. Insurance will be entirely government-regulated and the government + cooperatives will make sure none will lose their house or anything the like.

[Galloism]

3) Second industrial revolution, United States, circa 1840 thru 1870.

I don't think many of those industrialized as quickly as the USSR, and those also experienced huge repression, poor living conditions, and many starved.

But it wasn't Stalinism, and the repression was done by corporations that lacked sufficient regulation. The USSR's repression was government-run.

[Divair]

1) Constitutional monarchy with a new royal family, or a 2) social democratic republic (my preferred choice). The USSR isn't some special snowflake in history that managed to industrialize quickly because of its ideology. And it doesn't excuse its oppression. 3) You can industrialize quickly without Stalinism.

1) Not many people wanted that.

Doesn't really matter to me.

2) That's what the provisional government was, and I already pointed out that many of them were agrarians,

Which I don't particularly support.

and their decision to carry on WWI earned them the hatred of the populace.

Settling for Brest-Litovsk wasn't a good deal either.

3) Examples?

Europe post-WW2.

Constitutional monarchy with a new royal family, or a social democratic republic (my preferred choice). The USSR isn't some special snowflake in history that managed to industrialize quickly because of its ideology. And it doesn't excuse its oppression. You can industrialize quickly without Stalinism.

Constitutional monarchy was not an option. Social democratic republic? Please go further, socialist republic is my preferred choice. Though, you're entirely correct, industrialisation can be done at lightning speed without Stalinism, as many post-WW2 economies have demonstrated.

I thought social democratic republic was fairly self-explanatory. Implement representative democracy and a welfare state, aimed primarily at educating the populace rapidly.

[Yorkopolis]

I don't think many of those industrialized as quickly as the USSR, and those also experienced huge repression, poor living conditions, and many starved.

But it wasn't Stalinism, and the repression was done by corporations that lacked sufficient regulation. The USSR's repression was government-run.

It can be argued that the US government had something to do with the anti-union repression, especially considering it protected business interests.

[United Marxist Nations]

I don't think many of those industrialized as quickly as the USSR, and those also experienced huge repression, poor living conditions, and many starved.

But it wasn't Stalinism, and the repression was done by corporations that lacked sufficient regulation. The USSR's repression was government-run.

It repressed without offering the same benefits that the USSR did, and, as I said before, didn't industrialize as quickly as the USSR.

[WRIF Army]

Socialism is theft, it is perpetrated by a larger mob against a smaller mob at gun point.

Socialism requires govt coercion because nobody would subscribe to its unfair and inefficient schemes under non-coercive conditions. As proof, if socialism really benefited society, why must force be used to implement it ?

Contrast the fantasy boogeyman private sector monopoly (none have ever materialized without collusion with govt) of Starbucks, WalMart, Standard Oil who never forced anyone to purchase their products by force with the govt monopoly that pervades the entire economy and maintains its monopoly on armed force with institutions like the NSA, IRS, ATF, CIA, FBI...... and denies or severely undermines free market competition.

Contrast hundreds of millions of consumers acting diligently in their own behalf with the govt bureaucrat/regulator who is almost always captured by the very firms and industries they are supposed to monitor. There is no backroom deals and bribes in the private sector because firms must satisfy consumers preferences to prosper, with govt, firms simply need to bribe a few politicians and bureaucrats to 'prosper'.

Illogically, statists justify the economy-wide coercive govt monopoly because of the fantasy of a single coercive private sector monopoly in a single sector of the economy that has never existed anyway. Seriously, how can a firm survive to gain monopoly status by losing money by lowering prices to drive out the competition, only to raise prices later which only incentives near immediate competition from startup firms always waiting in the wings in a free market economy unfettered by govt regulations designed to protect large politically connected firms.

[Divair]

But it wasn't Stalinism, and the repression was done by corporations that lacked sufficient regulation. The USSR's repression was government-run.

It repressed without offering the same benefits that the USSR did, and, as I said before, didn't industrialize as quickly as the USSR.

Benefits don't justify oppression.

[Galloism]

But it wasn't Stalinism, and the repression was done by corporations that lacked sufficient regulation. The USSR's repression was government-run.

It repressed without offering the same benefits that the USSR did, and, as I said before, didn't industrialize as quickly as the USSR.

The USSR did have a significant already-running example of industrialization to mimic. There wasn't a significant amount of invention required.

[Waideland]

Constitutional monarchy with a new royal family, or a social democratic republic (my preferred choice). The USSR isn't some special snowflake in history that managed to industrialize quickly because of its ideology. And it doesn't excuse its oppression. You can industrialize quickly without Stalinism.

Constitutional monarchy was not an option. Social democratic republic? Please go further, socialist republic is my preferred choice. Though, you're entirely correct, industrialisation can be done at lightning speed without Stalinism, as many post-WW2 economies have demonstrated.

I beg to differ. Forced industrialization means you have to forcibly change the base of the economy from non-industrialized, rather than letting it progress naturally. If there's been a case in history where that didn't happen in front of a gun barrel, I don't remember it. It always comes in the form of a need to build or re-build due to war, or from government thugs dragging people off of their farms to work in factories. Of course it doesn't have to be on the same level of brutality as Stalin, but it always involves some measure of people being forcibly displaced from non-industrial occupations in favor of what the government wants.

[United Marxist Nations]

1) Not many people wanted that.

Doesn't really matter to me.

2) That's what the provisional government was, and I already pointed out that many of them were agrarians,

Which I don't particularly support.

and their decision to carry on WWI earned them the hatred of the populace.

Settling for Brest-Litovsk wasn't a good deal either.

3) Examples?

Europe post-WW2.

Constitutional monarchy was not an option. Social democratic republic? Please go further, socialist republic is my preferred choice. Though, you're entirely correct, industrialisation can be done at lightning speed without Stalinism, as many post-WW2 economies have demonstrated.

I thought social democratic republic was fairly self-explanatory. Implement representative democracy and a welfare state, aimed primarily at educating the populace rapidly.

1 & 2) Then you're ignoring history; you can't just say "they should have done this" when that option did not exist at the time.

4) Which the USSR also did, to an even greater degree than the other European countries, as the USSR suffered by far the worst from the war.

[Estado Paulista]

Do take the time to inform my supposedly un-enlightened mind of the benefits of capitalism and why such a system should not be built?

I like being able to own as much property as I can afford and shit. Certain key industries should indeed be nationalized — like the electric power industry — but I don't see why the healthcare or the food industry should be nationalized. Etc, etc.

[Divair]

Doesn't really matter to me.


Which I don't particularly support.


Settling for Brest-Litovsk wasn't a good deal either.


Europe post-WW2.


I thought social democratic republic was fairly self-explanatory. Implement representative democracy and a welfare state, aimed primarily at educating the populace rapidly.

1 & 2) Then you're ignoring history; you can't just say "they should have done this" when that option did not exist at the time.

And the Tsar wasn't an option either. Nothing is an option now, because history is set in stone. But if I could choose, I've given you my options. The more likely is constitutional monarchy protected by foreign intervention.

4) Which the USSR also did, to an even greater degree than the other European countries, as the USSR suffered by far the worst from the war.

Source for the former.

[Smoya]

No. Our system has it's flaws, but socialism isn't going to help too much.

[Yorkopolis]

Do take the time to inform my supposedly un-enlightened mind of the benefits of capitalism and why such a system should not be built?

I like being able to own as much property as I can afford and shit. Certain key industries should indeed be nationalized — like the electric power industry — but I don't see why the healthcare or the food industry should be nationalized. Etc, etc.

Well then, I'll tell you.

The healthcare industry should be nationalised or at least put under government guidance - all as cooperatives of course - in order to ensure the healthcare industry will not start to make medicine that only the super-rich can afford while there is a huge plague. It has not happened before, but I can definitely envision it happening in the near future should the healthcare industry be deregulated further. If you think the market really cares enough about people's health to keep medicine prices low, then that is a really, really dumb thought, because the only thing market forces are out for, is a maximalisation of their own profits. They aren't out to maximalise your welfare; they're out to maximalise the amount of money in their pockets.

Same with the food industry. Who checks what the food industry puts in your food? What if they put sugar in your food and then tell you, "there's no sugar in this food"? It has happened, and I'll easily see it happening again. By making the food industry - as every other industry - cooperativized, and by putting it under state guidance, we can ensure that the food industry will no longer be putting random poisons in our food in order to get us addicted to said food. Y'know, it'll help health alot and also really, really push back the problem that is called obesity.

The list goes on and on in arguments for. Sure, you may argue it's "not free", but how "free" are we when the food industry might as well be putting cyanide in our foods without us knowing it? How "free" are we when there's a massive plague going on and only the super-rich can afford a cure? Is that free?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Socialism is theft, it is perpetrated by a larger mob against a smaller mob at gun point.

Socialism requires govt coercion because nobody would subscribe to its unfair and inefficient schemes under non-coercive conditions. As proof, if socialism really benefited society, why must force be used to implement it ?

Contrast the fantasy boogeyman private sector monopoly (none have ever materialized without collusion with govt) of Starbucks, WalMart, Standard Oil who never forced anyone to purchase their products by force with the govt monopoly that pervades the entire economy and maintains its monopoly on armed force with institutions like the NSA, IRS, ATF, CIA, FBI...... and denies or severely undermines free market competition.

Contrast hundreds of millions of consumers acting diligently in their own behalf with the govt bureaucrat/regulator who is almost always captured by the very firms and industries they are supposed to monitor. There is no backroom deals and bribes in the private sector because firms must satisfy consumers preferences to prosper, with govt, firms simply need to bribe a few politicians and bureaucrats to 'prosper'.

Illogically, statists justify the economy-wide coercive govt monopoly because of the fantasy of a single coercive private sector monopoly in a single sector of the economy that has never existed anyway. Seriously, how can a firm survive to gain monopoly status by losing money by lowering prices to drive out the competition, only to raise prices later which only incentives near immediate competition from startup firms always waiting in the wings in a free market economy unfettered by govt regulations designed to protect large politically connected firms.

No seriouly, you believe that it would fare better without government control?

Here's the thing: History during Standard Oil was as unregulated as it could be. After the experience with Standard Oil which made us push the Sherman Anti-Trust acts we never had any other company successfully override a single entire market on its own like they did.

Also, Standard Oil did force people to purchase their products because they were running cheaper than anyone else to drive out of competition every other oil producer in the nation.

Also, you are delusional if you think any of those agencies have any military power whatsoever.

[Gallup]

Yeah, like we need a kick in the face.

[Galloism]

Socialism is theft, it is perpetrated by a larger mob against a smaller mob at gun point.

Socialism requires govt coercion because nobody would subscribe to its unfair and inefficient schemes under non-coercive conditions. As proof, if socialism really benefited society, why must force be used to implement it ?

Contrast the fantasy boogeyman private sector monopoly (none have ever materialized without collusion with govt) of Starbucks, WalMart, Standard Oil who never forced anyone to purchase their products by force with the govt monopoly that pervades the entire economy and maintains its monopoly on armed force with institutions like the NSA, IRS, ATF, CIA, FBI...... and denies or severely undermines free market competition.

Contrast hundreds of millions of consumers acting diligently in their own behalf with the govt bureaucrat/regulator who is almost always captured by the very firms and industries they are supposed to monitor. There is no backroom deals and bribes in the private sector because firms must satisfy consumers preferences to prosper, with govt, firms simply need to bribe a few politicians and bureaucrats to 'prosper'.

Illogically, statists justify the economy-wide coercive govt monopoly because of the fantasy of a single coercive private sector monopoly in a single sector of the economy that has never existed anyway. Seriously, how can a firm survive to gain monopoly status by losing money by lowering prices to drive out the competition, only to raise prices later which only incentives near immediate competition from startup firms always waiting in the wings in a free market economy unfettered by govt regulations designed to protect large politically connected firms.

No seriouly, you believe that it would fare better without government control?

Here's the thing: History during Standard Oil was as unregulated as it could be. After the experience with Standard Oil which made us push the Sherman Anti-Trust acts we never had any other company successfully override a single entire market on its own like they did.

Also, Standard Oil did force people to purchase their products because they were running cheaper than anyone else to drive out of competition every other oil producer in the nation.

Forget it bub.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Forget it bub.

Those who forget history and doomed to repeat it.

Truer words have never been spoken.

[Estado Paulista]

The healthcare industry should be nationalised or at least put under government guidance - all as cooperatives of course - in order to ensure the healthcare industry will not start to make medicine that only the super-rich can afford while there is a huge plague.

That's not a convincing argument at all. It's based on "what if". I'm sure it would be in the goverment's best interests to make that drug readily avaliable for the general population.

By making the food industry - as every other industry - cooperativized, and by putting it under state guidance, we can ensure that the food industry will no longer be putting random poisons in our food in order to get us addicted to said food.

We can make that without having to nationalize the food indurstry.

[WRIF Army]

Socialism is theft, it is perpetrated by a larger mob against a smaller mob at gun point.

Socialism requires govt coercion because nobody would subscribe to its unfair and inefficient schemes under non-coercive conditions. As proof, if socialism really benefited society, why must force be used to implement it ?

Contrast the fantasy boogeyman private sector monopoly (none have ever materialized without collusion with govt) of Starbucks, WalMart, Standard Oil who never forced anyone to purchase their products by force with the govt monopoly that pervades the entire economy and maintains its monopoly on armed force with institutions like the NSA, IRS, ATF, CIA, FBI...... and denies or severely undermines free market competition.

Contrast hundreds of millions of consumers acting diligently in their own behalf with the govt bureaucrat/regulator who is almost always captured by the very firms and industries they are supposed to monitor. There is no backroom deals and bribes in the private sector because firms must satisfy consumers preferences to prosper, with govt, firms simply need to bribe a few politicians and bureaucrats to 'prosper'.

Illogically, statists justify the economy-wide coercive govt monopoly because of the fantasy of a single coercive private sector monopoly in a single sector of the economy that has never existed anyway. Seriously, how can a firm survive to gain monopoly status by losing money by lowering prices to drive out the competition, only to raise prices later which only incentives near immediate competition from startup firms always waiting in the wings in a free market economy unfettered by govt regulations designed to protect large politically connected firms.

No seriouly, you believe that it would fare better without government control?

Here's the thing: History during Standard Oil was as unregulated as it could be. After the experience with Standard Oil which made us push the Sherman Anti-Trust acts we never had any other company successfully override a single entire market on its own like they did.

Also, Standard Oil did force people to purchase their products because they were running cheaper than anyone else to drive out of competition every other oil producer in the nation.

Also, you are delusional if you think any of those agencies have any military power whatsoever.

Standard Oil was lowering prices throughout the 19th century, their 'crime' was lower costs, more and safer oil products to American consumers.

The motivation for anti-trust was sour grapes competitors who bribed Washington to have the 'right' to charge consumers higher prices without Standard Oil offering under cutting their inefficiency.

Bottom line, it is illogical that socialists would attack a firm for the 'heinous' act of lowering prices to consumers ?!