NationStates

Che Triumphant wrote:

Kramania wrote:Maoist China alone eeclipses any capitalist body count.

Also, if when an ideology is attempted to be implemented and it continually results in mass genocide then that's a pretty good indicator that it ain't gonna work.

Source? Again, even the authors admitted that the Black Book was a work of propaganda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsvZoAATfOw

And even saying that the black book is true capitalism has still kills far more people then socialism does
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnIsdVaCnUE

Source on what? Why is YouTube now a reliable source? But if you're asking for a source on Maoist China's death toll, then here.

45 million people.

I'm not a socialist, but I can point to situations where socialist policies work.

In a sense, the US itself has in fact implemented a few socialist policies, particularly the welfare system. It's not designed to be relied on, but rather it's a safety net in case you were to suddenly lose everything and have to build your way back up.

Socialist policies work best when implemented "a la carte" based on what the nation needs and what policies already exist. A nationalized rail system would benefit a nation that's heavily reliant on rail and can't afford the network exclusivity issues that come with privately owned rail. Meanwhile, a nation with a large wealth gap could benefit from progressive taxation.

The problems often come not from the policies themselves, but trying to force a shift. Large, quick changes in government structure and policy cause MASSIVE instability, which in turn results in terrible things happening. Look at what happened in China - the communist party pushed for a revolution, and ended up with an oppressive dictatorship. It has since somewhat become more moderate, but the atrocities that happened during the revolution in China could have been avoided if a more gradual transition was allowed to happen.

Kavagrad wrote:

Vistulange wrote:Basically, "liberals can't talk about socialism". Okay, socialists don't get to talk about liberalism, neoliberals don't get to talk about Keynesianism, Austrians don't get to talk about Keynesianism, and everybody sits in their safe-space-echo-chambers ratting on about how right they are and how wrong the others are, all to their own choir.

What a wonderful fucking world.

I believe the point was that if you want to define an ideology, the best way to do so is to ask those that actually follow said ideology, rather than those who do not. You wouldn't trust a socially liberal socialist with providing an accurate, non-biased definition of conservatism or capitalism, surely?

(Edit for wording)

I actually would, under the assumption that they are being intellectually honest. I'm not a bloody tabula rasa, and intellectual dishonesty - especially in internet forums like NSG - tends to be blatantly obvious. The tendency to outright dismiss people for "not being left enough to talk about the left" is, in my opinion, utter bullshit and is a menace to the intellectual development of humanity.

Mind you, you can take the above statement and replace the word "left" with anything you deem fit: "Right", "Christian", "Muslim", "Jew", "Russian", "Turkish", "American", so on and so forth. Of course an American will naturally have a better idea about the United States, and usually, most other people can't educate themselves, nor experience enough, as much to catch up to them, but that doesn't mean their opinions have to be discarded outright.

The Greater Siriusian Domain wrote:I'm not a socialist, but I can point to situations where socialist policies work.

In a sense, the US itself has in fact implemented a few socialist policies, particularly the welfare system. It's not designed to be relied on, but rather it's a safety net in case you were to suddenly lose everything and have to build your way back up.

Socialist policies work best when implemented "a la carte" based on what the nation needs and what policies already exist. A nationalized rail system would benefit a nation that's heavily reliant on rail and can't afford the network exclusivity issues that come with privately owned rail. Meanwhile, a nation with a large wealth gap could benefit from progressive taxation.

The problems often come not from the policies themselves, but trying to force a shift. Large, quick changes in government structure and policy cause MASSIVE instability, which in turn results in terrible things happening. Look at what happened in China - the communist party pushed for a revolution, and ended up with an oppressive dictatorship. It has since somewhat become more moderate, but the atrocities that happened during the revolution in China could have been avoided if a more gradual transition was allowed to happen.

Uh, I don't think the Chinese communists were ever non-oppressive in regards to politics...

Janszoonia wrote:

Purpelia wrote:This all being said, I don't really see anything about your culture that would be particularly opposed to Soviet style Gulags. I mean, you are very much punishment focused in your justice system. So putting up a very harsh prison in say Alaska wouldn't be too out of place for you.

I would prefer more empowerment for unions in American socialism, as well as the right to bear arms, speak freely, and worship freely.

that's what most American Socialists agree with. Don't let the conservative talk show hosts fool you into Socialism=Communism. Socialism is pro free speech, 2nd amendment and religious freedom. (no offence. at least you're willing to learn.)

West Leas Oros wrote:

Janszoonia wrote:I would prefer more empowerment for unions in American socialism, as well as the right to bear arms, speak freely, and worship freely.

that's what most American Socialists agree with. Don't let the conservative talk show hosts fool you into Socialism=Communism. Socialism is pro free speech, 2nd amendment and religious freedom. (no offence. at least you're willing to learn.)

Since when did socialism promise people the right to bear arms?

Kramania wrote:

Liriena wrote:That's debatable at best. This Youtuber estimated about 20 million deaths per year from lack of food, water and vaccines, and these are resources that are largely managed under global capitalism. Provided that there was little variation over time, this would mean that global capitalism, being the economic system responsible for the most optimal production and distribution of these goods on a global scale, would be responsible for the deaths of over a hundred million people in just five years.

Why am I going to take the word of this YouTuber?

Not to be rude, but it seems like continually your only evidence anymore for why socialism as an ideology has any merit is YouTube videos.

Also, you can't necessarily blame the faults of global distribution on capitalism. There are plenty of other factors at play.

So capitalism gets the benefit of the doubt, but the Black Book and its ilk get taken at face value.

Also, yeah, I resort a lot to Youtubers. While I generally think Youtube is not a good source, there are always individual channels that provide very, very good content. It's not as good as an academic paper or a newspaper article, of course, but it's something. The thing with the particular issue of capitalism's "death toll" is that it's the sort of thing that I wouldn't be surprised if there was little to no mainstream academic or mainstream journalistic work on. Capitalism reigns supreme in pretty much every aspect of our lives, including academia and journalism. Any source that would seek to do something like calculate the "death toll" of the dominant economic system would almost necessarily have to be fringe.

Kramania wrote:

And that's without adding in the killings of political dissidents at the hands of capitalist regimes

Oh ho, trust me. You don't want to go there. That's probably the easiest way possible to nail the asses of socialist regimes to the wall.

What about the executions of political dissidents in China, the Soviet Union, countries that lived under the Iron Curtain, Vietnam, Cuba, pretty much every country that has ever been blessed by a socialist regime.

What about capitalist powers and their tyrannical puppets in the global periphery? How many people did European empires kill for profit? How many people did the United States kill or help kill during the 20th century to further its own economic interests?

Kramania wrote:

or corporate mercenaries, or the deaths caused by capitalist wars.

"Capitalist wars"?

Wars primarily caused by capitalist economic interests.

Kramania wrote:

Socialism has not "continually" resulted in genocide, though. There have been genocides under some socialist governments

And yet socialist governments continually result in mass political repression and human rights violations.

Not really. For starters, not every government led by a socialist party was Marxist-Leninist. And if we're going to play the oppression olympics, mass political repression and human rights violations have been the bread and butter of far right capitalist dictatorships for over a century.

Kramania wrote:Has the same occured in some capitalist countries? Yes. The difference is capitalism works.

Counterpoint: socialism, in its various forms, has had its successes. They were not universal or eternal successes, but successes still.

Also, I find the clichéd claim that "capitalism works" to be rather absurd when capitalism has been the dominant economic system for at least two centuries, it overproduces goods both necessary and luxurious, it remains massively profitable, and yet somehow manages to fail at distributing in a way that benefits all the peoples living under its control, and has been unable to break away from its pathetic cyclical nature.

Kramania wrote:The countries with the highest standards of living in the world are capitalist countries.

And some of the countries with the lowest standards of living are capitalist countries. Many of them were even capitalist colonies. So why haven't they all prospered equally?

Well, one theory held by some academics is that global capitalism is structured in such a way that it is only able to provide the highest standards of living to a few countries by exploiting other countries (and thus perpetuating their misery). Under this theory, the misery of the global periphery is not a bug, but a feature. The millions who suffer and die in the "third world" from lack of access to food, water or health care die because capitalism needs them to die to remain viable in the "first world".

Kramania wrote:Even nations that once professed socialist and communist ideology have largely become capitalist.

Because capitalism won the Cold War. Which doesn't make capitalism virtuous or better for the common good. It just makes it more powerful.

Kramania wrote:All I really want is an example of socialism working.

The fábricas recuperadas in Argentina, Zapatista Chiapas, Thomas Sankara's Burkina Faso (with all its flaws), Evo Morales' Bolivia, revolutionary Spain (briefly), hopefully Rojava in the long run...

Kramania wrote:

but not all or necessarily most. And not every action committed by a socialist government is necessarily an attempt to implement socialism.

Then the same can be said of capitalism.

Yes.

Kramania wrote:

(Also, what the heck is "mass" genocide? Genocide is already massive enough.)

Just catchy wording.

Booo!

One should also keep in mind that most nations that underwent a socialist revolution, or serious attempts to implement democratic socialism, did not begin their transition from a position of equity with the central capitalist nations. All the contrary, countries like Cuba were explicitly peripheral, colonial even, and not nearly as industrialized and wealthy as, say, Great Britain, even on a per-capita basis. Not to mention the fact that, specially in the case of Latin America, there had been a centuries old relationship of exploitation for the benefit of the central nations at the expense of the periphery, meaning that a lot of the wealth that had been produced by those nations before their revolutionary or democratic socialist attempts had ended up in the hands of foreign powers who used that wealth for their own economic development. Deriding socialism in former colonial or semi-colonial for failing to meet the same standards of living as their metropolises is just historical illiteracy.

West Leas Oros wrote:

Janszoonia wrote:I would prefer more empowerment for unions in American socialism, as well as the right to bear arms, speak freely, and worship freely.

that's what most American Socialists agree with. Don't let the conservative talk show hosts fool you into Socialism=Communism. Socialism is pro free speech, 2nd amendment and religious freedom. (no offence. at least you're willing to learn.)

True, but Bernie Sanders supports hate speech and firearm regulations. I understand fully that Obama, despite what CRTV says, is not a socialist.

Vistulange wrote:

West Leas Oros wrote:that's what most American Socialists agree with. Don't let the conservative talk show hosts fool you into Socialism=Communism. Socialism is pro free speech, 2nd amendment and religious freedom. (no offence. at least you're willing to learn.)

Since when did socialism promise people the right to bear arms?

Well, Chairman Mao did say that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Make of that what you will.

I will posit that the DPRK is something of a socialist success story (if you consider the anti-capitalist DPRK to be genuinely socialist). Look at this country. Cut off from the world by the United States and its Asian allies, facing several natural disasters and famines (caused by nature and mis-management), the DPRK continually looks like it’s about to collapse. And yet, the DPRK has persisted. It’s cyber-warfare technology has already made headlines around the world. Despite the famines and lack of supplies, the DPRK has or will soon achieve a nuclear deterrent that would prevent an Iraq/Libya style regime change by the United States.

In other words, this seemingly impoverished country has beaten every Western prediction of doom.

Liriena wrote:

Hatterleigh wrote:"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?

The potato famine was first of all, due to a disease, and second of all, due to british imperialism and dehumanization against Ireland. Almost all atrocities that socialist directly point to capitalism for either happened as a result of imperialism or extreme lack of regulation and workers rights, which we have in modern day.

Liriena wrote:

Vistulange wrote:Since when did socialism promise people the right to bear arms?

Well, Chairman Mao did say that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Make of that what you will.

Also, it would be kind of hard to have a people's vanguard that isn't composed of ... the people.

Liriena wrote:

Vistulange wrote:Since when did socialism promise people the right to bear arms?

Well, Chairman Mao did say that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Make of that what you will.

I'm fairly sure that in his context, he didn't mean it in the way the Second Amendment did, Liri.

I'm seriously doubtful regarding Mao's thoughts regarding his opponents to have guns. He's more of the type to, you know, prefer to get to the guns first and let nobody else take them.

Hatterleigh wrote:

Liriena wrote: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?

The potato famine was first of all, due to a disease, and second of all, due to british imperialism and dehumanization against Ireland. Almost all atrocities that socialist directly point to capitalism for either happened as a result of imperialism or extreme lack of regulation and workers rights, which we have in modern day.

So unbridled capitalism.

Also, what do you think were the economics of imperialism?

My socialism. Where I can rule alone, and rule as I wish, all the while calling it socialism.

Vistulange wrote:

Navulva wrote:-snip-

Basically, "liberals can't talk about socialism". Okay, socialists don't get to talk about liberalism, neoliberals don't get to talk about Keynesianism, Austrians don't get to talk about Keynesianism, and everybody sits in their safe-space-echo-chambers ratting on about how right they are and how wrong the others are, all to their own choir.

What a wonderful fucking world.

Amazing how you conflate "Liberals aren't a good source for what is and isn't socialism" with "liberals can't talk about socialism".

Grow up.

Lavrokrazhia wrote:I will posit that the DPRK is something of a socialist success story (if you consider the anti-capitalist DPRK to be genuinely socialist). Look at this country. Cut off from the world by the United States and its Asian allies, facing several natural disasters and famines (caused by nature and mis-management), the DPRK continually looks like it’s about to collapse. And yet, the DPRK has persisted. It’s cyber-warfare technology has already made headlines around the world. Despite the famines and lack of supplies, the DPRK has or will soon achieve a nuclear deterrent that would prevent an Iraq/Libya style regime change by the United States.

In other words, this seemingly impoverished country has beaten every Western prediction of doom.

Nope. All the power is in the hands of a dynasty. It is more akin to feudal monarchy than Socialism.

Vistulange wrote:

Liriena wrote:Well, Chairman Mao did say that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Make of that what you will.

I'm fairly sure that in his context, he didn't mean it in the way the Second Amendment did, Liri.

I'm seriously doubtful regarding Mao's thoughts regarding his opponents to have guns. He's more of the type to, you know, prefer to get to the guns first and let nobody else take them.

You guys ought to focus on wokeing me up.

The New California Republic wrote:

Lavrokrazhia wrote:I will posit that the DPRK is something of a socialist success story (if you consider the anti-capitalist DPRK to be genuinely socialist). Look at this country. Cut off from the world by the United States and its Asian allies, facing several natural disasters and famines (caused by nature and mis-management), the DPRK continually looks like it’s about to collapse. And yet, the DPRK has persisted. It’s cyber-warfare technology has already made headlines around the world. Despite the famines and lack of supplies, the DPRK has or will soon achieve a nuclear deterrent that would prevent an Iraq/Libya style regime change by the United States.

In other words, this seemingly impoverished country has beaten every Western prediction of doom.

Nope. All the power is in the hands of a dynasty. It is more akin to feudal monarchy than Socialism.

Who is to say that a single person (autocrat) cannot lead the Working Class on the socialist path to communism? It’s theoretically possible.

Alright, so the DPRK isn’t a Marxist-Leninist socialist state. But, there are other forms of socialism that aren’t bound to either Marx or Lenin. As long as private individuals do not own the means of production, you have socialism (that’s a very broad but I feel encompassing definition).

And even during the Cold War when the DPRK was Marxist-Leninist, the country showed remarkable resilience in its postwar reconstruction. The DPRK even surpassed the ROK until the 1980s.

Janszoonia wrote:Socialists of NationStates, I have one question: What form of socialism works, which one will work for America. I ask this question because I understand that American socialists probably will be a lot more generous on religion, unions, minority issues, lgbtq+ issues, and immigration. I am asking will this work? If not, what needs to be adjusted to make American socialism work? My proposal would be a more liberal version of Titoism, with more rights given to unions, the religious, and lgbtq+ folk.

National Socialism is the best Socialism for America because it upholds time tested values of European tradition, culture, religion, and family values that America was founded on before excessive liberalism took over. Unions are Marxist-Leninist breeding grounds and we would replace them with work committees, promote the economic opposite of Titoism with private ownership and sale of capital goods, and weed out fiscal corruption.

Oberstgruppenführer NSA Administration

Liriena wrote:

Vistulange wrote:Since when did socialism promise people the right to bear arms?

Well, Chairman Mao did say that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Make of that what you will.

To be fair, Marx does state socialism is the step towards communism. But there are many meanings of socialism, ie welfare state rather than the intermediate where the proletariat own the means of the production and the disintegration of classes begin.

NSA Administration wrote:

Janszoonia wrote:Socialists of NationStates, I have one question: What form of socialism works, which one will work for America. I ask this question because I understand that American socialists probably will be a lot more generous on religion, unions, minority issues, lgbtq+ issues, and immigration. I am asking will this work? If not, what needs to be adjusted to make American socialism work? My proposal would be a more liberal version of Titoism, with more rights given to unions, the religious, and lgbtq+ folk.

National Socialism is the best Socialism for America because it upholds time tested values of European tradition, culture, religion, and family values that America was founded on before excessive liberalism took over. Unions are Marxist-Leninist breeding grounds and we would replace them with work committees, promote the economic opposite of Titoism with private ownership and sale of capital goods, and weed out fiscal corruption.

Oberstgruppenführer NSA Administration

I meant left wing socialism...

NSA Administration wrote:

Janszoonia wrote:Socialists of NationStates, I have one question: What form of socialism works, which one will work for America. I ask this question because I understand that American socialists probably will be a lot more generous on religion, unions, minority issues, lgbtq+ issues, and immigration. I am asking will this work? If not, what needs to be adjusted to make American socialism work? My proposal would be a more liberal version of Titoism, with more rights given to unions, the religious, and lgbtq+ folk.

National Socialism is the best Socialism for America because it upholds time tested values of European tradition, culture, religion, and family values that America was founded on before excessive liberalism took over. Unions are Marxist-Leninist breeding grounds and we would replace them with work committees, promote the economic opposite of Titoism with private ownership and sale of capital goods, and weed out fiscal corruption.

Oberstgruppenführer NSA Administration

I was wondering when we'd get unironic Nazis in this thread. I was not disappointed.

Kramania wrote:

Che Triumphant wrote:Source? Again, even the authors admitted that the Black Book was a work of propaganda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsvZoAATfOw

And even saying that the black book is true capitalism has still kills far more people then socialism does
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnIsdVaCnUE

Source on what? Why is YouTube now a reliable source? But if you're asking for a source on Maoist China's death toll, then here.

45 million people.

That source cites a Hong Kong historian with claimed access to CPC archives.

Hardly reliable if these archives are supposedly as secret as implied (which is unlikely given the CPC's discrediting of the period). Even if they are public, they were not cited.

You.

Have.

No.

Evidence.

Liriena wrote:

NSA Administration wrote:National Socialism is the best Socialism for America because it upholds time tested values of European tradition, culture, religion, and family values that America was founded on before excessive liberalism took over. Unions are Marxist-Leninist breeding grounds and we would replace them with work committees, promote the economic opposite of Titoism with private ownership and sale of capital goods, and weed out fiscal corruption.

Oberstgruppenführer NSA Administration

I was wondering when we'd get unironic Nazis in this thread. I was not disappointed.

Let's do a capitalist and left socialist dogpile on that Nazi!