Please point me to socialism that works.

[Liriena]

socialism doesnt work for various reasons.

the best type of rule is the long lasting and the one that satisfies if not all, at least most people.

socialism rarely cares about peoples voices or free elections. often elections are banned and people killed for not liking policies etc.

socialism rarely cares about peoples consuming needs and focuses on the wishes of the worker-controlled industry which doesnt care what the masses need to consume but rather what the workers want to produce.

socialism destroys inheritance, a human family based society is focused on working hard to leave ur offspring something behind because u care about them, socialism's 100% inheritance tax kills the family. kids will care more about the government than their own parents or grandparents. why even get married then?

a wealthy society is achieved through hard work and incentives, what incentives can one have if u work twice as hard as ur neighbor, but get paid the same? production will fall drastically, along it will fall goods present for the people and general mood will reach historic lows.

socialism tends to block free speech which is usually used by the folks to express what they need.

socialism bans almost always private gun owning which is all people have to defend themselves from a possible tyranny or abusive government(aggressive officials or passive officials bribed from criminal groups) .

socialism bans real money in favor of a fake currency, often more of a point/credit system than an actual monetary unit. money helps people to protect themselves, private security when the government is evil or purposely passive and careless. real money help people buy what they need rather than the state-made junk food. money helps
gather and rent places, create a people-run media etc.

a stable society needs order, socialism is half-anarchic, punishments for heinous crimes are often not enough. 12 years of jail for taking a life is not fair in anyway. and people cant do anything about it because they dont have free media, free elections or money to change the system.

socialism doesnt work because it bans all the basic tools people have to defend themselves for rising tyrants. free media, money, guns, free elections. all of which in socialist regimes are state controlled, ur not even allowed to form political organizations that have different views from socialism, or u the people are actually "enemies of the people" because a tiny group of tyrants say so.

lawyers are all public officials appoint by the state, u know whats going to happen if u show up for trial "for treason for disagreeing with the government", u also know whats going to happen to ur dear ones.

u dont have private detective or private investigation companies to defend urself in court from state controlled police, prosecutors, judges who are appointed in office from people who appointed themselves as the government in first place.

socialism isnt tyranny by definition, but it block all the tools that the masses have to defend themselves from tyranny. and we saw what has happened with every single socialst regime in the history of the humanity, they all ended becoming oppressing dictatorships, because the people couldnt do anything about it.

So where did this copypasta come from?

[Hatterleigh]

Best weight loss system ever.

For starters, Cuba has done fairly well in the nutrition department, specially when compared to the rest of Latin America. And during the early Mao years, there was a substantial recovery and growth in agricultural output.

"Hmm yeah mao did a gret job in recovering agricultural output right before famining 70 million people haha"

[Liriena]

For starters, Cuba has done fairly well in the nutrition department, specially when compared to the rest of Latin America. And during the early Mao years, there was a substantial recovery and growth in agricultural output.

"Hmm yeah mao did a gret job in recovering agricultural output right before famining 70 million people haha"

I did say in his early years. I ain't no tankie, but the fact that his regime actually managed to make things better in the food production department, even if not for the entirety of his time in power, kind of puts the "lulz socialism makes you starve" cliché in a bad spot.

Also, remember the potato famine? Should we blame that on British capitalism or capitalism as a whole, and arrive at the conclusion that capitalism leads to starvation?

[Baltenstein]

Other than on a very localized scale, it really doesnt. The bigger the polity becomes, the more diverse the various mindsets, economic backgrounds and personal interests (never mind cultural backgrounds, religions and the like) of the people involved are, the more dysfunctional the whole thing will be. Hence why a nationstate with tens of millions of different individuals from all creeds and colors cannot establish a functioning socialist* system, but a small, manageable entity made up of people with a roughly identical social standing and background may.

*Not counting the various social democratic welfare capitalism systems in different parts of the world

[New Dumnezeu]

I believe that socialism works. It's just not done right. First, ALL the people need THE SAME rights, ok? Second, I don't think that a centralized economy is necessary in a socialist utopia. How about this: the state makes some official salaries. I mean, let's say a worker gets 500$/month, for someone who does something else 700$/month and for a politician 1000$/month. My idea isn't really impossible, and idk why someone would be against it. I think it would not only work for America, but for the entire world!
*Listens to the Internationale*

[The New California Republic]

The problem with most attempts at Socialism thus far, in my opinion, is that their implementation has been rushed, most of them wanted results immediately, especially in relation to the economy. To implement true Socialism, it will likely take a very extended period of time, during which there will be a mixed economy. The rapid collectivization and state seizure of all the means of production within a matter of a decade or two just does not work. A more gradual process, spread over a period of a couple of centuries or more, would be more likely to succeed in the long term. There is no doubt that rapid collectivization and state seizures gives short-term gains, but it causes economic problems further down the road. The classic example in Europe is The German Democratic Republic (East Germany). The rapid post-war collectivization and state seizures did reap short-term economic gains for East Germany, but the lack of any private enterprise to "fill the gaps" in the economy as it were, caused real headaches later on. So I do think Socialism could work, but by being implemented much more gradually than has been previously attempted.

[New Dumnezeu]

The problem with most attempts at Socialism thus far, in my opinion, is that their implementation has been rushed, most of them wanted results immediately, especially in relation to the economy. To implement true Socialism, it will likely take a very extended period of time, during which there will be a mixed economy. The rapid collectivization and state seizure of all the means of production within a matter of a decade or two just does not work. A more gradual process, spread over a period of a couple of centuries or more, would be more likely to succeed in the long term. There is no doubt that rapid collectivization and state seizures gives short-term gains, but it causes economic problems further down the road. The classic example in Europe is The German Democratic Republic (East Germany). The rapid post-war collectivization and state seizures did reap short-term economic gains for East Germany, but the lack of any private enterprise to "fill the gaps" in the economy as it were, caused real headaches later on. So I do think Socialism could work, but by being implemented much more gradually than has been previously attempted.

Yeah, I also agree on your opinion.

[Tokora]

Bernie Sanders probably would've opened up for a nice Democratic Socialism but I agree with you that Titoism probably would be the best. Unfortunately for the latter it would require full-blown class warfare to become possible due to wall street's hold on D.C.

[Community Values]

Deng Xiaoping Theory/Socialism with Chinese Characteristics seems to be the only form that "works". And that's a bastardized version of socialism.

[San Marlindo]

The problem is that so many people are unwilling to admit socialism in any incarnation was a failure. All too often they claim that a failed socialist system wasn't true socialism, and some would go so far as to say socialism in its purest form has never been implemented before. Some consider Sweden and Norway socialist nations, others insist they are social democracies. Some leftists consider Cuba to be socialist and indeed a successful socialist experiment, while others claim it isn't socialist at all but crony capitalist. Still others - mostly non-leftists - say Cuba was in fact socialist and is an example of socialist failures. There is some debate as to whether Gadaffi's Libya could be considered as socialist as he claimed it was, too.

The problem I see is that people's personal interpretation of what socialism means varies from individual to individual, hence the never ending debate on whether it's been really attempted before, or whether a specific system is considered a socialist success or failure.

I think generally speaking socialism, as in the public sector owns everything, is impossible. You can't ban the private sector like the some of the old communist bloc nations attempted to do. The private sector simply goes underground and leads to a massive black market which in turn spawn increasingly powerful organized crime. It's as futile as attempting to ban alcohol.

Therefore most self-proclaimed Western socialists don't really want a Soviet style system. They want a mixed economy in which the private sector is heavily regulated but not banned altogether. They want the powers of big banks and multinational corporations restricted, but not the freedom to open a stall at the flea market. That's not socialism, that's a mixed economy. On the other extreme you have ultra orthodox Marxists that demand the workers (rather than the state) own everything and that the ownership of any production generating enterprise is broken down to the basest (i.e. communal) level. And then you have a category of socialists who still insist that Eastern Europe was fine and dandy before the collapse of the Soviet bloc and long for a return to the Soviet style system in which the government owned everything and private enterprise was altogether illegal. They're usually nationalists to boot, which most other socialists are not.

tl;dr "socialists, show me an example of where your system works?" will earn you different answers depending on who you ask. Socialists are not a monolith, therefore their definition of which examples of socialism work and which ones (if any) didn't will vary from individual to individual.

[Xenthalia]

I can't, because Socialism can never work and never will.

[Liriena]

I can't, because Socialism can never work and never will.

Except it has worked. Repeatedly. In a variety of fashions. That some socialist governments have often collapsed, committed atrocities, or been incompetent in some regard or other is not proof that socialism "can never work and never will". Socialist policies have been successful at times. That their success was not universal or eternal is hardly the fault of the ideology itself. Circumstances specific to different contexts have a way of making what was once practical impractical.

[The New California Republic]

I can't, because Socialism can never work and never will.

Some evidence attached to that sweeping statement would be good...

[Liriena]

Deng Xiaoping Theory/Socialism with Chinese Characteristics seems to be the only form that "works". And that's a bastardized version of socialism.

I don't know if a "bastardized" version of socialism. Looking at it, it reads more like an attempt to create the material conditions that, in Marx's theory, would have made a genuinely socialist transition viable.

What is socialism and what is Marxism? We were not quite clear about this in the past. Marxism attaches utmost importance to developing the productive forces. We have said that socialism is the primary stage of communism and that at the advanced stage the principle of from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs will be applied. This calls for highly developed productive forces and an overwhelming abundance of material wealth. Therefore, the fundamental task for the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces. The superiority of the socialist system is demonstrated, in the final analysis, by faster and greater development of those forces than under the capitalist system. As they develop, the people's material and cultural life will constantly improve. One of our shortcomings after the founding of the People's Republic was that we didn't pay enough attention to developing the productive forces. Socialism means eliminating poverty. Pauperism is not socialism, still less communism."

[Community Values]

I can't, because Socialism can never work and never will.

Except it has worked. Repeatedly. In a variety of fashions. That some socialist governments have often collapsed, committed atrocities, or been incompetent in some regard or other is not more proof that socialism "can never work and never will".Socialist policies have been successful at times. That their success was not universal or eternal is hardly the fault of the ideology itself. Circumstances specific to different contexts have a way of making what was once practical impractical.

there's no doubt that socialist policies have worked, but socialist governments- the kind that are really socialist, performing land redistribution and mass nationalization, don't work out.

[Community Values]

Deng Xiaoping Theory/Socialism with Chinese Characteristics seems to be the only form that "works". And that's a bastardized version of socialism.

I don't know if a "bastardized" version of socialism. Looking at it, it reads more like an attempt to create the material conditions that, in Marx's theory, would have made a genuinely socialist transition viable.

What is socialism and what is Marxism? We were not quite clear about this in the past. Marxism attaches utmost importance to developing the productive forces. We have said that socialism is the primary stage of communism and that at the advanced stage the principle of from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs will be applied. This calls for highly developed productive forces and an overwhelming abundance of material wealth. Therefore, the fundamental task for the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces. The superiority of the socialist system is demonstrated, in the final analysis, by faster and greater development of those forces than under the capitalist system. As they develop, the people's material and cultural life will constantly improve. One of our shortcomings after the founding of the People's Republic was that we didn't pay enough attention to developing the productive forces. Socialism means eliminating poverty. Pauperism is not socialism, still less communism."

I don't personally find corporatism and high economic inequality to be socialist, but whatever floats your boat.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Best weight loss system ever.

For starters, Cuba has done fairly well in the nutrition department, specially when compared to the rest of Latin America. And during the early Mao years, there was a substantial recovery and growth in agricultural output.

Cuba being relatively nice is not a Communist achievement, it was doing well under Batista compared to the rest of Latin America.

Economies always recover after wars fairly quickly if allowed to. The Libyan economy grew 47% in 2012 but it doesn't mean that Gaddafi was overthrown by an overlooked cabal of genius administrators, simply that the war had ended and people weren't spending all their time shooting each other or avoiding getting shot. That being said it took the USSR 20 to 50 years to return to the extrapolated Tsarist trend.

[Rosengarten]

So many posts in here with absolute no knowledge of socialism or communism and it's attempts/successes/failures beyond being told "China. Russia. Scary. Bad."

No mention or consideration of what went wrong during the attempts like the USSR reigniting nationalism and imperialism and the revisionists. No mention of how China was known to have periodic famines. No understanding that socialism is primarily considered a transitional state to communism and is a long procedure. No mention of how the U.S has violently suppressed domestic and foreign communists as individuals and as a state.

Also every time they point to an issue in attempt socialist states, there is a direct instance of that in capitalist states as well.
Starvation ; World hunger and fabricated scarcity.
Bread lines ; Soup kitchens.
Gulags ; Prison labour.

[Liriena]

I don't know if a "bastardized" version of socialism. Looking at it, it reads more like an attempt to create the material conditions that, in Marx's theory, would have made a genuinely socialist transition viable.

What is socialism and what is Marxism? We were not quite clear about this in the past. Marxism attaches utmost importance to developing the productive forces. We have said that socialism is the primary stage of communism and that at the advanced stage the principle of from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs will be applied. This calls for highly developed productive forces and an overwhelming abundance of material wealth. Therefore, the fundamental task for the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces. The superiority of the socialist system is demonstrated, in the final analysis, by faster and greater development of those forces than under the capitalist system. As they develop, the people's material and cultural life will constantly improve. One of our shortcomings after the founding of the People's Republic was that we didn't pay enough attention to developing the productive forces. Socialism means eliminating poverty. Pauperism is not socialism, still less communism."

I don't personally find corporatism and high economic inequality to be socialist, but whatever floats your boat.

It kind of makes sense from an orthodox Marxist perspective: Marx's theory was made for industrialized capitalist nations like Great Britain. In 1949, China was nowhere near reflecting the same material conditions of Great Britain in Marx's time. Corporatism and high economic equality are not socialist. They are most definitely capitalist... but in that regard, they could be argued to be a necessary prelude to socialism.

[Erythrean Thebes]

To answer this question the OP must submit a definition of political ethics so that there can be a recognizable standard for whether or not the economy is 'working'

[Eukrates the Historian]

Who cares if it could work or not? Capitalism is better.

[Narintia]

Simple.

Socialism (or Marxist-Leninism, this is the variant i will be using) can only work in a social democracy, like what most of Europe has right now. If you continue on extremely, you will end up in USSR/Maoist China crazyville with 100 million people dead in one century.
HOWEVER

With the technological revolution and there being robots that will take basically all of our jobs, I feel like there needs to be a basic minimum wage that someone gets just so humanity can survive. Again, this is socialism in a capitalist system.

[Yatzatz]

The Kibbutz program.

[Che Triumphant]

The gulags was not just a harsh prison

Gulags were death camps that ended up killing more people than the holocaust.
(Gulags killed 32M while the holocaust killed 11M, this is not to justify the holocaust in any way shape or form.)

Source for that number, and if it's the Black Book that's been proven to just be propaganda
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PsvZoAATfOw

[Liriena]

Who cares if it could work or not? Capitalism is better.

By what measurement?