Socialism: What do we do now?

[Mezonpotania]

Exactly why nobody ever tries to work.
Also, governments can, especially with socialism, gain more goods than the people, since the people have no control to stop them, they can be forced to hand over their stuff! Government is corrupt! I admit, corporations are also corrupt, but at least you can not buy their stuff.
Capitalism is not corporations rule everything, but people rule corporations!

... in the interest of those corporations, thus leading those corporations to act as an unreasonably large actor in the economy, thus wielding enormous global influence.

The difference doesn't really exist.

So? You can just go somewhere else. In capitalism there will always be an alternative due to multiple people wanting your money, and providing goods to get it.

[Kubra]

never in any period of either vietnamese or soviet history has there not been a system of differential wages in place.

Exactly why nobody ever tries to work.
Also, governments can, especially with socialism, gain more goods than the people, since the people have no control to stop them, they can be forced to hand over their stuff! Government is corrupt! I admit, corporations are also corrupt, but at least you can not buy their stuff.
Capitalism is not corporations rule everything, but people rule corporations!

>nobody had any incentive wages
>well actually they had incentive wages
>that's exactly why they didn't work!

um

[Imperializt Russia]

... in the interest of those corporations, thus leading those corporations to act as an unreasonably large actor in the economy, thus wielding enormous global influence.

The difference doesn't really exist.

So? You can just go somewhere else. In capitalism there will always be an alternative due to multiple people wanting your money, and providing goods to get it.

And if you have no money because of capitalists pushing down your wages to push their profits up, you can sit there or you can starve and/or freeze to death in the street.

[Tokora]

What the Hell are you talking about? There actually are, despite the introduction to this forum, socialist nations, by definition, that exist in the world today (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Germany), and they have some of the lowest death tolls, and highest standards of living, in the world today.

And it's never going to spread because whenever the rest of the world (especially here in the U.S.) hears the word Socialism the only thing they think is "AAAAAGH! EVIL ATHEIST COMMUNISTS! THEY WANT TO TAKE OUR FREEDOMS!". I have to live in a country filled to the brim with that nonsensical paranoia. While Europe might be willing to adopt limited Socialism, the majority of Americans are too gullible and hedonistic after a century of bourgeois propaganda to even consider the Nordic model (or any other model for that matter).

[Mezonpotania]

Exactly why nobody ever tries to work.
Also, governments can, especially with socialism, gain more goods than the people, since the people have no control to stop them, they can be forced to hand over their stuff! Government is corrupt! I admit, corporations are also corrupt, but at least you can not buy their stuff.
Capitalism is not corporations rule everything, but people rule corporations!

>nobody had any incentive wages
>well actually they had incentive wages
>that's exactly why they didn't work!

um

The incentive is that you get more if you do more, which socialism doesn't allow. That's why.
Everybody gets the same wages, so some idiot will not work and still gain goods, as an effect everyone will stop working and the economy will grind to a halt.
Also, the government with all power, will try and lower the wages for everybody, keeping most of the goods for themselves. The people won't be able to stop this and soon it will die out.

[Taihei Tengoku]

If only those fat cat capitalists could depress wages--then business cycles wouldn't cause unemployment.

[Mezonpotania]

So? You can just go somewhere else. In capitalism there will always be an alternative due to multiple people wanting your money, and providing goods to get it.

And if you have no money because of capitalists pushing down your wages to push their profits up, you can sit there or you can starve and/or freeze to death in the street.

Look at my original post on this forum on the last page.
I edited it to show everyone my answer to that exact statement and many more.

[Mezonpotania]

If only those fat cat capitalists could depress wages--then business cycles wouldn't cause unemployment.

Then work somewhere else with more wages.

Also, to everyone who calls all capitalists Christians that hate atheists, I am an atheist, and the way I see it, capitalism is evolution for corporations. If you kill all your cells you die.

[Mezonpotania]

Gtg bye! Had fun talking in a lovely debate!

[Victoriala II]

The real reason that socialism never works is that not even socialists can stand someone else's socialism

/leftypol/ is a shining example of that

[Imperializt Russia]

>nobody had any incentive wages
>well actually they had incentive wages
>that's exactly why they didn't work!

um

The incentive is that you get more if you do more, which socialism doesn't allow. That's why.

In reality, this doesn't really happen anywhere, except in middle management and the middle classes. Even then, it's supplementary, it's bonus, not direct incentive.

Everybody gets the same wages, so some idiot will not work and still gain goods, as an effect everyone will stop working and the economy will grind to a halt.
Also, the government with all power, will try and lower the wages for everybody, keeping most of the goods for themselves. The people won't be able to stop this and soon it will die out.

til minimum wage destroyed capitalism.

Oh, wait.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Doesn't his presidency have more in common with rapidly degenerative paranoid and antisocial mental illness than a business? He's backtracked or floundered on all his major promises - in terms of what he's delivered he's just a not very effective establishment Republican; his sideline in social media breakdowns and rapidly struck-down rulings by decree just serve to alienate the people he needs if he ever wants any hope of getting the more radical elements of his program through. The focus is becoming more and more insular, and the staff turnover of poor appointees who can't deal with each other ever quicker - I'd be surprised if by the end of the presidency the big adult baby ain't pooping his nappy on live television.

lol. Perhaps. However, I am a sociologist, not a psychiatrist, so I stay away from the diagnostic stuff.

[Constantinopolis]

>nobody had any incentive wages
>well actually they had incentive wages
>that's exactly why they didn't work!

um

The incentive is that you get more if you do more, which socialism doesn't allow. That's why.

Kubra's whole point was that in every historical instance of socialism, people did get more money if they did more.

Everybody gets the same wages-

-is not something that any socialist advocates.

[Jelmatt]

Now, there are definitely some aspects of Trumpism that approach aspects of fascism—Trump certainly demonstrates a “palingenetic nationalism” and is certainly populist and tries to appeal across classes. He works with conservatives while not being all that conservative himself. And he has an authoritarian streak, for sure.

That said, Trump lacks the militarization, mass mobilization, celebration of violence, expansionism, the corporatist and statist restructuring of the economy, or the open contempt of liberal democratic political norms and democracy. Fascism is a revolutionary ideology at its core. An anti-egalitarian, even right-wing, revolutionary ideology, but a revolutionary ideology none the less. Trump is a populist, sure, and he riles against “the establishment.” But he's not dedicated to tearing down the political and social system to build a new one.

How can you really say that?

He's done almost all of those things. He wants a significantly increased US military, and to use it more widely around the world. He's currently engaging in gunboat diplomacy with North Korea and threatening it with China. He is threatening the "mass mobilisation" of police to ethnic areas with crime problems because broken windows policing doesn't affect whites so it's therefore awesome; celebrated violence against citizens with opposing political views and just last week, "joked" that officers shouldn't protect the heads of people they put into their police cars (essentially joking that they should slam their heads into the door frame without overtly stating that) and is flooding senior government positions with big business figures or lobbyists who will surely enact a corporatist agenda.

He promised to imprison his presidential campaign rival and then suddenly forgot about it when he was awarded the presidency. If that's not "open contempt of liberal democratic political norms and democracy", I don't know what is.

"Militarization" doesn't refer to increasing the military but political tactics for winning power. It refers to the use of paramilitaries by fascist parties prior to and helping to win power, by coercing voters and clashing with other parties' paramilitary.

Mass mobilization, too, refers to the mobilization of the civilian population to disrupt the political process, with parades, demonstrations, riots, etc. Trump hasn't done that. He's held rallies, which isn't out of the norm for presidents. It doesn't refer to the racist mobilization of police forces for broken windows policing, though that is definitely a worryingly authoritarian policy.

Your point on the celebration of violence is legitimate; but I mean more statements like "violence is good," "all life is struggle and only the strongest can win." Forming a cult around violence. Trump gets close, but not quite there yet.

Corporatism isn't just crony capitalism where businessmen are empowered. Those businessmen wouldn't enact a corporatist agenda. Corporatism is more similar to the Nordic Model and its tripartism.

By open contempt of democracy I literally mean him saying "I hate democracy" or "I hate Congress." By "open contempt of democracy," I mean open contempt of democracy. So far, he's certainly been illiberal or authoritarian, but not openly anti-democratic.

[Jelmatt]

That said, Trump lacks the militarization, mass mobilization, celebration of violence, expansionism, the corporatist and statist restructuring of the economy, or the open contempt of liberal democratic political norms and democracy. Fascism is a revolutionary ideology at its core. An anti-egalitarian, even right-wing, revolutionary ideology, but a revolutionary ideology none the less. Trump is a populist, sure, and he riles against “the establishment.” But he's not dedicated to tearing down the political and social system to build a new one.

Even with all his proposals to allocate even more money to the DOD, his celebration of how, "beautiful", it would be for an Arleigh-Burke class destroyer to sink Iranian shipping? He's maybe not statist, but if you read my response to War Gears, he's a proto-corporatist. He absolutely has contmpt for democracy. Just look at how he actually got elected, for one thing, and how much he hates Congress, and his utter disdain for the wishes of 70% of the people in the US. He already has, with his defiance of Congress and the traditional duties of the President, torn down the political system to build a new one, or has at least tried.

Also, War Gears has already answered your point about corporatism:

Which I just countered, look above.

I would also add that most of those Nordic countries you mentioned earlier all run on a quasi-corporatist economic system, not a socialist one.

. Read my response to Great Minarchistan.

Some right-wing populists are at the least neo-fascist, which isn't exactly the same thing as fascism. But Trump, at least, isn't.

Debatable. He's trying to please his constituents, a lot of whom are this.

See my response to Imperializt Russia about the militarization. Militarism and being an imperialist asshole aren't exclusive to fascists. That's just how the U.S. works.

I read your response to War Gears, and all I can say is this: you have no idea what corporatism is, do you? In fascism, it has unions and professional organizations act as organs of political representation, with the goal of representing the interests of everyone in the economy. In its more moderate, tripartite form, the state, employers' organizations, and workers negotiate contracts which are binding for all parties involved. See, for example, Finland's national income policy agreement.

I do think plenty of Trump's constituents could be defined as broadly neo-fascist, but that doesn't make Trump himself a fascist.

You are a funny person. First of all, do you even know what fascism is? No, it's not Donald Trump and no, it's not a buzzword. Second off, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Germany are one of the most pro-business countries in the world (specially the latter), and are far from being socialist. If anything, they are social-democrat - and I don't think so about Germany. Try lecturing yourself into ideologies, yeah?

First off, thank you, I try for humor constantly.

Second of all, yes, yes I do. You people really don't seem to understand that Trump is not a Fascist in what he has accomplished (which is essentially nothing), but what he believes. He looks on people like Mussolini, Hitler and Putin as, "role models", when it comes to leadership (NOT genocide, there is a distinction), and so do his followers. He's been able to implement almost nothing he wants because no one in a democracy, even the moderate right-wing, would support his proposals, and courts would strike them down for being unconstitutional. If you look even to War Gears' definition of Fascism below, Trump fits this in what he believes. So, it is Donald Trump. It's maybe not as extreme as Mussolini or Hitler, but it's still on the spectrum. It's Fascism Light.

Now last of all, why don't you get a lecture on ideologies? Socialism allows for private enterprise, as long as what are deemed, "the commons', like, say, medical care, education, energy, water, food, and basic necessities to keep one living in at least semi-comfort are publicized, private enterprise, be it strictly regulated, generates the revenue. They're pro-business in what little business they have, relative to the US, because that just means more revenue for the government. if everything were privatized, in what you seem to equate with socialism (and this is just another example of how the right-wing over the years have corrupted language so two different words mean the same thing in the vernacular), it would be communism. Even I'm a communist, despite my lack of repression of my citizens. What you probably think of as communism, though, is Stalinism, which, and I actually agree with War Gears hear, is Fascism-in-principle.

He certainly does look upon Mussolini and Putin, at least, as role models for there "strength" in leadership. Not so sure about Hitler, there. He's not winning the "most democratic leader" awards anytime soon, but he doesn't hold the same totalitarian ambitions as Hitler or Mussolini.

What in the definition does Trump fit?

Fascism light is not the same thing as out and out fascism, however.

The difference between communism and socialism is connotation more than actual difference. Socialism is a bit broader and has more "moderate" (less revolutionary) connotations, but they both refer to systems where the means of production are publicly owned and controlled. Communism generally implies the abolition of money and the state along with that, which depending on who you're speaking to, also applies to socialism. The line is a lot more blurry than you make it out to be here. But anyway, the Nordic countries, Norway excepted, don't actually have that much nationalization IIRC (and nationalization does not "social ownership" make, I should note). They also don't have a system, nor are trying to reach a system, where classes are abolished, and abolishing social class is like rule #1 of socialism. Instead they promote class collaboration through corporatism, which has already been described to you at length.

[Kubra]

>nobody had any incentive wages
>well actually they had incentive wages
>that's exactly why they didn't work!

um

The incentive is that you get more if you do more, which socialism doesn't allow. That's why.

except the aforementioned examples did not involve people getting the same wage. That's what differential wages means bruv.

-is not something that any socialist advocates.

I mean my preference is towards wage abolition so yeah I guess so

[Constantinopolis]

-is not something that any socialist advocates.

I mean my preference is towards wage abolition so yeah I guess so

Precisely.

There is no socialist that says, "everyone should have the same wage".

There are some socialists that say "workers' wages need to be more egalitarian than they are now" and some other socialists that say "we should have a moneyless economy, and therefore no wages".

But neither of those supports perfectly equal wages. No one supports perfectly equal wages. Radical egalitarians tend to be in the camp that wants to abolish money instead.

[Great Minarchistan]

Well, which president hasn't been corporatist over the last... 20-30 years? (Or more, really)

All of them? Corporatocracy isn't corporatism.

Both of you can have a REEEEEEE

Pfff, you know what I mean. Whatevs.

[Catochristoferson]

What the Hell are you talking about? There actually are, despite the introduction to this forum, socialist nations, by definition, that exist in the world today (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Germany), and they have some of the lowest death tolls, and highest standards of living, in the world today.

> anarchist/communist
> thinks Denmark, Sweden, and Norway are Socialist countries

Socialism is any ideology that advocates for common ownership of the means of production. Scandinavian "Socialism" does not meet this criteria.

Plus, all of their liberal bourgeois government programs would not be possible without the European exploitation and enslavement of Blacks, Native Americans, aboriginals, Indians, and other enslaved groups, both through imperialism and slavery. Plus, they benefit from the modern Neoliberal economic system which continues the exploitation of third world countries.

First off, thank you, I try for humor constantly.

Second of all, yes, yes I do. You people really don't seem to understand that Trump is not a Fascist in what he has accomplished (which is essentially nothing), but what he believes. He looks on people like Mussolini, Hitler and Putin as, "role models", when it comes to leadership (NOT genocide, there is a distinction), and so do his followers. He's been able to implement almost nothing he wants because no one in a democracy, even the moderate right-wing, would support his proposals, and courts would strike them down for being unconstitutional. If you look even to War Gears' definition of Fascism below, Trump fits this in what he believes. So, it is Donald Trump. It's maybe not as extreme as Mussolini or Hitler, but it's still on the spectrum. It's Fascism Light.

Are you absolutely certain that Donald Trump himself looks up to these people? I don't see any evidence.

Sure, some of Trump's policies may somewhat resemble fascism, and some of his supporters may be fascists themselves, but that doesn't make Trump anything more than a Neo-Nationalist or a Right Wing Populist.

Now last of all, why don't you get a lecture on ideologies? Socialism allows for private enterprise, as long as what are deemed, "the commons', like, say, medical care, education, energy, water, food, and basic necessities to keep one living in at least semi-comfort are publicized, private enterprise, be it strictly regulated, generates the revenue. They're pro-business in what little business they have, relative to the US, because that just means more revenue for the government. if everything were privatized, in what you seem to equate with socialism (and this is just another example of how the right-wing over the years have corrupted language so two different words mean the same thing in the vernacular), it would be communism. Even I'm a communist, despite my lack of repression of my citizens. What you probably think of as communism, though, is Stalinism, which, and I actually agree with War Gears hear, is Fascism-in-principle.

I'm starting to doubt you're actually an anarcho communist. "Capitalism with social services" may be how Max Barry, Bernie Sanders, and liberals define socialism, but that's not how Socialist philosophers define Socialism.

What socialist philosophers and revolutionaries have you read from?

[Great Minarchistan]

Socialism is any ideology that advocates for common ownership of the means of production. Scandinavian "Socialism" does not meet this criteria.

Plus, all of their liberal bourgeois government programs would not be possible without the European exploitation and enslavement of Blacks, Native Americans, aboriginals, Indians, and other enslaved groups, both through imperialism and slavery. Plus, they benefit from the modern Neoliberal economic system which continues the exploitation of third world countries.

That's funny because Scandinavia colonized nobody (unless if you count in Iceland and Greenland which were barely harmed anyways). Also, they are currently a social-democracy/keynesian, not neoliberalism. I love how "neoliberalism" is now a buzzword, it was mentioned exactly 17 times on my History textbook.

[Catochristoferson]

Socialism is any ideology that advocates for common ownership of the means of production. Scandinavian "Socialism" does not meet this criteria.

Plus, all of their liberal bourgeois government programs would not be possible without the European exploitation and enslavement of Blacks, Native Americans, aboriginals, Indians, and other enslaved groups, both through imperialism and slavery. Plus, they benefit from the modern Neoliberal economic system which continues the exploitation of third world countries.

That's funny because Scandinavia colonized nobody (unless if you count in Iceland and Greenland which were barely harmed anyways). Also, they are currently a social-democracy/keynesian, not neoliberalism. I love how "neoliberalism" is now a buzzword, it was mentioned exactly 17 times on my History textbook.

Scandinavia still participates in global neoliberal economics.

[Great Minarchistan]

That's funny because Scandinavia colonized nobody (unless if you count in Iceland and Greenland which were barely harmed anyways). Also, they are currently a social-democracy/keynesian, not neoliberalism. I love how "neoliberalism" is now a buzzword, it was mentioned exactly 17 times on my History textbook.

Scandinavia still participates in global neoliberal economics.

As in? Also, is the world economy even neoliberal? It has been strongly keynesian-favored since 2008.

[Victoriala II]

I mean my preference is towards wage abolition so yeah I guess so

Precisely.

There is no socialist that says, "everyone should have the same wage".

There are some socialists that say "workers' wages need to be more egalitarian than they are now" and some other socialists that say "we should have a moneyless economy, and therefore no wages".

But neither of those supports perfectly equal wages. No one supports perfectly equal wages. Radical egalitarians tend to be in the camp that wants to abolish money instead.

"0% employment > 100% employment" t. Jehu

[Aguaria Major]

What the Hell are you talking about? There actually are, despite the introduction to this forum, socialist nations, by definition, that exist in the world today (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Germany), and they have some of the lowest death tolls, and highest standards of living, in the world today.

> anarchist/communist
> thinks Denmark, Sweden, and Norway are Socialist countries

Socialism is any ideology that advocates for common ownership of the means of production. Scandinavian "Socialism" does not meet this criteria.

Plus, all of their liberal bourgeois government programs would not be possible without the European exploitation and enslavement of Blacks, Native Americans, aboriginals, Indians, and other enslaved groups, both through imperialism and slavery. Plus, they benefit from the modern Neoliberal economic system which continues the exploitation of third world countries.

First off, thank you, I try for humor constantly.

Second of all, yes, yes I do. You people really don't seem to understand that Trump is not a Fascist in what he has accomplished (which is essentially nothing), but what he believes. He looks on people like Mussolini, Hitler and Putin as, "role models", when it comes to leadership (NOT genocide, there is a distinction), and so do his followers. He's been able to implement almost nothing he wants because no one in a democracy, even the moderate right-wing, would support his proposals, and courts would strike them down for being unconstitutional. If you look even to War Gears' definition of Fascism below, Trump fits this in what he believes. So, it is Donald Trump. It's maybe not as extreme as Mussolini or Hitler, but it's still on the spectrum. It's Fascism Light.

Are you absolutely certain that Donald Trump himself looks up to these people? I don't see any evidence.

Sure, some of Trump's policies may somewhat resemble fascism, and some of his supporters may be fascists themselves, but that doesn't make Trump anything more than a Neo-Nationalist or a Right Wing Populist.

Now last of all, why don't you get a lecture on ideologies? Socialism allows for private enterprise, as long as what are deemed, "the commons', like, say, medical care, education, energy, water, food, and basic necessities to keep one living in at least semi-comfort are publicized, private enterprise, be it strictly regulated, generates the revenue. They're pro-business in what little business they have, relative to the US, because that just means more revenue for the government. if everything were privatized, in what you seem to equate with socialism (and this is just another example of how the right-wing over the years have corrupted language so two different words mean the same thing in the vernacular), it would be communism. Even I'm a communist, despite my lack of repression of my citizens. What you probably think of as communism, though, is Stalinism, which, and I actually agree with War Gears hear, is Fascism-in-principle.

I'm starting to doubt you're actually an anarcho communist. "Capitalism with social services" may be how Max Barry, Bernie Sanders, and liberals define socialism, but that's not how Socialist philosophers define Socialism.

What socialist philosophers and revolutionaries have you read from?

My pretitle is the way it is simply because I changed it to try for an Easter Egg issue, first off.

And secondly, anarcho-communism means that the government controls the economy, and thus all the means of production, but is extremely libertarian in what rights a government under this system lets its people keep. My nation fits this description.

Philosophy of what socialism is, much like Communism, is extremely different from how it actually gets carried out. Socialist philosophers might want to create communist economies with fewer revolutionary agendas, but socialist nations, in practice have changed it to what you think liberal capitalists define it as. Scandinavia might not match up with philosophical definitions, but this is the closest anyone has come to socialism, so this is again, socialism kin practice.

[Catochristoferson]

And secondly, anarcho-communism means that the government controls the economy, and thus all the means of production, but is extremely libertarian in what rights a government under this system lets its people keep. My nation fits this description.

No it does not. All forms of anarchism are against government, as government is hierarchical. If you even bother to read anarchist or anarcho communist philosophers to begin with, then you wouldn't be making these simplistic claims.

Philosophy of what socialism is, much like Communism, is extremely different from how it actually gets carried out. Socialist philosophers might want to create communist economies with fewer revolutionary agendas, but socialist nations, in practice have changed it to what you think liberal capitalists define it as. Scandinavia might not match up with philosophical definitions, but this is the closest anyone has come to socialism, so this is again, socialism kin practice.

No one "changed" the definition of socialism. Liberals started calling themselves socialist to appear more left wing. That doesn't make the ideology socialist.

Your argument doesn't even work. Scandinavian "socialism" isn't even the closest to any forms of revolutionary socialism in existence today. Rojava is a better example of real socialism, although not particularly anarchist.

Scandinavian socialism isn't even 1% close to socialism.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

The means of production in Scandinavian countries is still private, as such Scandinavian """"socialism"""" does not meet the criteria. At best you can define Scandinavian """"socialism"""" as capitalism regulated by the government. But that isn't socialism.