Socialism: What do we do now?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Literally no socialist wants to kill capitalists.
"But the USSR"
The USSR is state capitalist.

>the USSR was state capitalist meme
No; this requires both a misunderstanding of what capitalism is, as well as a misunderstanding of how the Soviet economy worked.

Gosplan = literally Wall Street

[Zenganopoli]

Tell chile, tell greece, tell russia, tell guatemala how US-exported capitalism works
Then ask the poor who live in those countries what do they think about it.
And if you think "they should work harder", try being a Maya in guatemala. Try and tell us.

If you think socialism has failed because people under socialist countries were poor, then you should know that every day 24.000 die of starvation. Under capitalism.

I don't know if socialism works, but I'm 100% sure that this current system is a complete failure.

[Kubra]

>the USSR was state capitalist meme
No; this requires both a misunderstanding of what capitalism is, as well as a misunderstanding of how the Soviet economy worked.

Gosplan = literally Wall Street

except people actually make money on wall street mirite or mirite

[TheCountryOfVikings]

I think we know so little about socialistic knowledge. if we came to socialism which is provided in social utopias of Thomas Mor or Thomaso Campanella it was a real different socialism which we could see in the 20th century. I don`t know much about this topic but I enjoyed reading the comment below. Also, I know that all the needed information of resources and principles of socialism can be found at https://essayvikings.com/philosophy-paper as well. Hope to read more interesting thoughts on this topic soon.

[Souryuu]

Socialism is the belief that people deserve equal in everything, whether or not they've earned that equality for themselves.

[Impaled Nazarene]

whether or not they've earned that equality for themselves.

Equality is a fundamental human right.

[Bakery Hill]

whether or not they've earned that equality for themselves.

Equality is a fundamental human right.

I like equality, but what do you mean by that?

[Soyouso]

The next thing for Socialism to do is end itself

Port and Kubra's posts win in making me laugh. Sweet lord.

[Hakons]

Leave your discredited ideology in the dust bin of history?

[Souryuu]

Equality is a fundamental human right.

Morally? Yes, I agree. People are created equal.
Economically? No, I disagree. You can't have equality while maintaining competition and a healthy economy.

[Bakery Hill]

Equality is a fundamental human right.

Morally? Yes, I agree. People are created equal.
Economically? No, I disagree. You can't have equality while maintaining competition and a healthy economy.

How and why are they created equal? What does that mean?

[Hakons]

Equality is a fundamental human right.

I like equality, but what do you mean by that?

It's equal opportunity vs. equal wealth, I think.

[Bakery Hill]

I like equality, but what do you mean by that?

It's equal opportunity vs. equal wealth, I think.

I'm just hearing big grandiose moralising with no real basis. People don't think enough about this imo.

[Souryuu]

Morally? Yes, I agree. People are created equal.
Economically? No, I disagree. You can't have equality while maintaining competition and a healthy economy.

How and why are they created equal? What does that mean?

Judeo-Christian values are embodied by the United States of America, the basis of which is that "all men are created equal", a rather popular term.

"Our sense of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply religious faith, and I don't care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion that all men are created equal."
-Dwight Eisenhower

[Bakery Hill]

How and why are they created equal? What does that mean?

Judeo-Christian values are set up so people are judged equally.

"Our sense of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply religious faith, and I don't care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion that all men are created equal."
-Dwight Eisenhower

So it's based on the idea that God created all equally? Okay, I can buy that.

[Hakons]

It's equal opportunity vs. equal wealth, I think.

I'm just hearing big grandiose moralising with no real basis. People don't think enough about this imo.

Equal opportunity is usually based on the idea that fundamental rights are granted to all people. For me, the how is easy, since we were granted our rights by God. The why is a bit more difficult. It could be that all men are equal because of their equal lineage from Adam and Eve. Another version would be that all are equal because we are all sinners. All of this is theological, of course. I haven't read much from Enlightenment authors, since my main point of interest is theology.

[MERIZoC]

Perhaps, but it would get the ball rolling on something interesting

The Black Death was 'interesting'.

And, in the end, dealt a heavy blow to feudalism and brought progress to western europe.

CANT MAKE AN OMELETTE, LADS

[Neo Balka]

Tell chile, tell greece, tell russia, tell guatemala how US-exported capitalism works
Then ask the poor who live in those countries what do they think about it.
And if you think "they should work harder", try being a Maya in guatemala. Try and tell us.

If you think socialism has failed because people under socialist countries were poor, then you should know that every day 24.000 die of starvation. Under capitalism.

I don't know if socialism works, but I'm 100% sure that this current system is a complete failure.

Doubtful.

[Dooom35796821595]

Tell chile, tell greece, tell russia, tell guatemala how US-exported capitalism works
Then ask the poor who live in those countries what do they think about it.
And if you think "they should work harder", try being a Maya in guatemala. Try and tell us.

If you think socialism has failed because people under socialist countries were poor, then you should know that every day 24.000 die of starvation. Under capitalism.

I don't know if socialism works, but I'm 100% sure that this current system is a complete failure.

Doubtful.

http://www.poverty.com

Approx 8,640.

[THE UNITED FEDERATION OF ALGORENIA]

Equality is a fundamental human right.

Morally? Yes, I agree. People are created equal.
Economically? No, I disagree. You can't have equality while maintaining competition and a healthy economy.

I take note with this since the is the very thinking that allows capitalism to become such a disproportionate burden on so many and a championed ideology of a select few....

Yes morally people should be considered equal, but its when we say economically they can't that we allow abuses such a slavery, wealth gaps, gender and racial marginalization, and corruption to become rampant and accepted norms of life!

All children (YES ALL) should have a equal shot at learning and living an equitable life, but its when we let economics get in the way of this thinking that we have the piss poor wealth balance that defines our society. Children who go to a school that gets less revenues, that get inadequate materials, and don't have adequate accommodations and transportation CANNOT have a fair shot and ARE NOT given the same footing to "maintain competition and a healthy economy"... But when someone "makes it" in this system, they often tend to look down and completely forget the uneven footing that those who didn't make it had and that what they saw and took for granted as being normal/ standard, isn't for many.... causing them to find themselves in the economic predicament that they're in and furthering the disproportion of wealth....

The state has a duty to its citizens to empower them to the fullest extent and give them an equal chance at success, this allows the sustainment and continuity of the state (new and healthy producers= new and healthy consumers, vice - versa), but where i live we fail to see the correlation and fail to address the issue of class and fail to see the role that the private and public sector have in investing in and developing a fully functional state where we can have equitable standards of life....

[Hakons]

Morally? Yes, I agree. People are created equal.
Economically? No, I disagree. You can't have equality while maintaining competition and a healthy economy.

I take note with this since the is the very thinking that allows capitalism to become such a disproportionate burden on so many and a championed ideology of a select few....

Yes morally people should be considered equal, but its when we say economically they can't that we allow abuses such a slavery, wealth gaps, gender and racial marginalization, and corruption to become rampant and accepted norms of life!

All children (YES ALL) should have a equal shot at learning and living an equitable life, but its when we let economics get in the way of this thinking that we have the piss poor wealth balance that defines our society. Children who go to a school that gets less revenues, that get inadequate materials, and don't have adequate accommodations and transportation CANNOT have a fair shot and ARE NOT given the same footing to "maintain competition and a healthy economy"... But when someone "makes it" in this system, they often tend to look down and completely forget the uneven footing that those who didn't make it had and that what they saw and took for granted as being normal/ standard, isn't for many.... causing them to find themselves in the economic predicament that they're in and furthering the disproportion of wealth....

The state has a duty to its citizens to empower them to the fullest extent and give them an equal chance at success, this allows the sustainment and continuity of the state (new and healthy producers= new and healthy consumers, vice - versa), but where i live we fail to see the correlation and fail to address the issue of class and fail to see the role that the private and public sector have in investing in and developing a fully functional state where we can have equitable standards of life....

How do you justify taking other people's property and redistributing it? Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they have the right to take other people's property, and vice versa.

The purpose of the State is not to "empower" it's citizens. At a basic level, it's for collective security.

[Dooom35796821595]

I take note with this since the is the very thinking that allows capitalism to become such a disproportionate burden on so many and a championed ideology of a select few....

Yes morally people should be considered equal, but its when we say economically they can't that we allow abuses such a slavery, wealth gaps, gender and racial marginalization, and corruption to become rampant and accepted norms of life!

All children (YES ALL) should have a equal shot at learning and living an equitable life, but its when we let economics get in the way of this thinking that we have the piss poor wealth balance that defines our society. Children who go to a school that gets less revenues, that get inadequate materials, and don't have adequate accommodations and transportation CANNOT have a fair shot and ARE NOT given the same footing to "maintain competition and a healthy economy"... But when someone "makes it" in this system, they often tend to look down and completely forget the uneven footing that those who didn't make it had and that what they saw and took for granted as being normal/ standard, isn't for many.... causing them to find themselves in the economic predicament that they're in and furthering the disproportion of wealth....

The state has a duty to its citizens to empower them to the fullest extent and give them an equal chance at success, this allows the sustainment and continuity of the state (new and healthy producers= new and healthy consumers, vice - versa), but where i live we fail to see the correlation and fail to address the issue of class and fail to see the role that the private and public sector have in investing in and developing a fully functional state where we can have equitable standards of life....

How do you justify taking other people's property and redistributing it? Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they have the right to take other people's property, and vice versa.

The purpose of the State is not to "empower" it's citizens. At a basic level, it's for collective security.

Property is distributed and secured by the state, and as such the state can reclaim it for the national intrest.

[Neo Balka]

Doubtful.

http://www.poverty.com

Approx 8,640.

Not that many in the grand scheme of things, but unfortunate.

[THE UNITED FEDERATION OF ALGORENIA]

I take note with this since the is the very thinking that allows capitalism to become such a disproportionate burden on so many and a championed ideology of a select few....

Yes morally people should be considered equal, but its when we say economically they can't that we allow abuses such a slavery, wealth gaps, gender and racial marginalization, and corruption to become rampant and accepted norms of life!

All children (YES ALL) should have a equal shot at learning and living an equitable life, but its when we let economics get in the way of this thinking that we have the piss poor wealth balance that defines our society. Children who go to a school that gets less revenues, that get inadequate materials, and don't have adequate accommodations and transportation CANNOT have a fair shot and ARE NOT given the same footing to "maintain competition and a healthy economy"... But when someone "makes it" in this system, they often tend to look down and completely forget the uneven footing that those who didn't make it had and that what they saw and took for granted as being normal/ standard, isn't for many.... causing them to find themselves in the economic predicament that they're in and furthering the disproportion of wealth....

The state has a duty to its citizens to empower them to the fullest extent and give them an equal chance at success, this allows the sustainment and continuity of the state (new and healthy producers= new and healthy consumers, vice - versa), but where i live we fail to see the correlation and fail to address the issue of class and fail to see the role that the private and public sector have in investing in and developing a fully functional state where we can have equitable standards of life....

How do you justify taking other people's property and redistributing it? Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they have the right to take other people's property, and vice versa.

The purpose of the State is not to "empower" it's citizens. At a basic level, it's for collective security.

You're failing to realize two things- One, my message supported the ideas of capitalize, but highlighted a dire flaw in how it sustains itself and discredits the role of the state in amplifying its affect, and two that in addition to security, no one would give a damn about state security if the state didn't also provide an element of improving the welfare of it's citizens! If you want a state solely concerned with security go to North Korea, or better yet if you want a capitalist nation solely focused on security go to the Democratic Republic of Congo where wealth is so isolated from the general public that the security apparatus in place is only there to sustain a state only in name, and see if thats what you want...

[Gloriana Americana]

Maybe take a step back and realize your ideology is incredibly flawed and naive and that it's goals are unrealistic and utopian fantasies and that is the primary reason nobody likes socialism or communism because the ideologies require a world where people act like robots and run on a series of logic instead of the basic emotions and instincts people actually act on?

Sounds like literally any class on classical economics.

Oh? I wouldn't know, never took one.

Look, the only way socialism or communism could ever truly effectively work the way it's intended to is if it was enforced on people,but you can't enforce a way of life on someone in a system in which the state is nonexistent and state or not it's still tyrannical.

how so?

You're going to have to be less vague. How so... what? How is it... tyrannical? Contradictory? Hypocritical? Maybe be a little more specific on what you're asking?

Your ideology is, simply put, stupid. It works better for machines than people, because it ignores the fact that greed and selfishness are part of human nature. You can't kill human nature, and so if you really think socialism or communism can work with human beings then you're clearly unfamiliar with how people work.

You're ignoring the fact that the entire premise of socialism is that the working class should act in its own self-interest.

How, exactly, did you arrive at that conclusion? Because nothing I said ignores that.

People can be complete scum, there will always be scummy people, and for that reason alone socialism will never work long-term without tyranny and corruption and communism will never be achieved on a global scale without falling into total anarchy.

Since nobody would have the decisive economic upper-hand and exploitation is impossible, selfishness would end up benefitting everyone, actually. In that sense it's what many capitalists want society to be like.

1. As a capitalist, no it's not and you've never met a capitalist that wasn't the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.

2. Again, the naivety is reeking here. Do you even realize you contradicted yourself? Do you even realize the second half of your first sentence contradicts the first half? And are you actually trying to promote selfishness, or are you just displaying your ignorance of capitalists?

It'd be nice if they could work, but they don't. Most people understand this and that is why most people have aversion for them, not because some guy in the 50s said they were evil. McCarthyism isn't as popular as you might think it is these days, people just realized the ideologies suck hard.

As someone who says people are complete scum, you're putting an awful lot of faith in what the government and media tell the public.[/quote]

Where... where did you even get that from? You're just pulling shit out of your ass now and making up baseless assumptions.

Jesus, where did you learn to debate?

Maybe take a step back and realize your ideology is incredibly flawed and naive and that it's goals are unrealistic

Please take a second and think about what you just typed.

I don't need to, I've been thinking about it for years. It's the truth, sorry if you can't handle it.

I think we can all agree that if socialism is going to be a serious political movement in western nations or the US, it has to improve its image. The socialist idea of "Kill the upper class" leads to bad press, and in the future, people turning away from the ideology. The way is to move up within the democratic process and attempt to implement changes that way. Not to mention, revolution is getting excessively hard without military coup, and that's not going to happen as long as money politics goes on.

Literally no socialist wants to kill capitalists.
"But the USSR"
The USSR is state capitalist.

You Soviet apologists crack me up, you know that? Deny it all you want, a dog is still a dog no matter the breed.