Why do we champion socialism/communism anyway?

[Aclion]

Capitalism doesn't like it very much when you try to regulate it or put restraints on it. Governments are pressured into reducing regulations to keep businesses from moving away and to retain market confidence, commercial news media reflects its interests, and people tend to think short-term and think they're better off if consumer goods are cheaper even if social services are being slashed to permit lower taxes - right up until the minute they end up requiring them. The constant barrage of advertising helps bolster this faulty logic and disguise what is being taken away.

It is no coincidence that social democracy is in a decades-long retreat - without the plausible threat of imminent revolution capital is able to force a gradual slide to the bottom by using its power to tighten and narrow the parameters in which governments can operate.

Thinking you can change capitalism is like thinking you can change an abusive partner. It's about fundamental dynamics of control that are at the core of the relationship.

Pic related. The gradual slide to the bottom.

[Australian rePublic]

Capitalism doesn't like it very much when you try to regulate it or put restraints on it. Governments are pressured into reducing regulations to keep businesses from moving away and to retain market confidence, commercial news media reflects its interests, and people tend to think short-term and think they're better off if consumer goods are cheaper even if social services are being slashed to permit lower taxes - right up until the minute they end up requiring them. The constant barrage of advertising helps bolster this faulty logic and disguise what is being taken away.

It is no coincidence that social democracy is in a decades-long retreat - without the plausible threat of imminent revolution capital is able to force a gradual slide to the bottom by using its power to tighten and narrow the parameters in which governments can operate.

Thinking you can change capitalism is like thinking you can change an abusive partner. It's about fundamental dynamics of control that are at the core of the relationship.

Pic related. The gradual slide to the bottom.

Are you arguing for or against socialism? Does that graph take inflation into account?

[Aclion]

Pic related. The gradual slide to the bottom.

Are you arguing for or against socialism? Does that graph take inflation into account?

It's based on purchasing power. What do you take me for, an amateur?

[SherpDaWerp]

Aussie, your OP switches back and forth from Socialism to Communism like they're 100% interchangeable. They're not. Ideologically, they are extremely similar, and hard-line socialism does equal communism, but ultimately they are different.

Communism
Under a communist government, everyone receives the same amount of resources and all the resources are produced and owned as a group. One of the reasons Communism hasn't worked in the past ever is because there was always a single dictator who ultimately owned everything, which runs directly contrary to the communal ownership championed by Communism. Another reason is because under a system of pure communism, there is no incentive for individual citizens to perform well at their jobs. If I am to receive an identical weekly wage whether I do all my work or none of it, then why would I do work? And then in a 'snowflake-isn't-responsible-for-a-landslide' style scenario, no-one works and the society collapses due to lack of anything getting done.
Socialism
Hard-line socialism is communism. However, socialist policies can be taken without having a 100% socialist system. Most first world countries are socialist to some extent. Socialism is about the nationalisation of important resources. America has socialist policies, including public education, a minimum wage (albeit a low one), and welfare. As you should know, Aussie, IRL Australia has socialist policies too. Welfare (Newstart), public education, nationally provided Internet, energy, water, healthcare, etc. Granted, the recent move towards privatisation of these programs is a tend towards more pure capitalism, but the core is still there.

Most first-world countries have these socialistic policies. All the Nordic countries, while based off free-market capitalism, have large and well-funded social welfare programs, public healthcare and education, and generous pensions. They also consistently rank highest on real-world rankings like Inequality-Adjusted HDI, Global Peace Index, and the World Happiness Report.

As for why we continually champion these policies: Because socialist policies work. As I said above, Nordic countries that have these policies and have had these policies for a long time are genuinely good places to live, with less of the major problems inherent in western society (homelessness, drug abuse). People who are having a tough time with life have a good system to fall back on, which enables them to go and get a proper paying job and not become stuck in the spiral of homelessness.

Disclaimer: I used Wikipedia, and I am a biased (read: I believe that moderate socialistic policy works) school student who studies subjects that have nothing to do with social policy. While this is based on fact, it is also ultimately mostly based on my opinion.

[Australian rePublic]

And I just received a threatening telegram telling me to shut up or shut down my thread (the idiot didn't even specify which thread he/she was referring to, but I assume it's this one). Lovely

[Takistan DR]

Because it will win and the capitalism is on the way out. Capitalism and imperialism is destroying the planet and in 10 years it killed over 100 million people. The USSR did nothing wrong.

[Australian rePublic]

Aussie, your OP switches back and forth from Socialism to Communism like they're 100% interchangeable. They're not. Ideologically, they are extremely similar, and hard-line socialism does equal communism, but ultimately they are different.

Communism
Under a communist government, everyone receives the same amount of resources and all the resources are produced and owned as a group. One of the reasons Communism hasn't worked in the past ever is because there was always a single dictator who ultimately owned everything, which runs directly contrary to the communal ownership championed by Communism. Another reason is because under a system of pure communism, there is no incentive for individual citizens to perform well at their jobs. If I am to receive an identical weekly wage whether I do all my work or none of it, then why would I do work? And then in a 'snowflake-isn't-responsible-for-a-landslide' style scenario, no-one works and the society collapses due to lack of anything getting done.
Socialism
Hard-line socialism is communism. However, socialist policies can be taken without having a 100% socialist system. Most first world countries are socialist to some extent. Socialism is about the nationalisation of important resources. America has socialist policies, including public education, a minimum wage (albeit a low one), and welfare. As you should know, Aussie, IRL Australia has socialist policies too. Welfare (Newstart), public education, nationally provided Internet, energy, water, healthcare, etc. Granted, the recent move towards privatisation of these programs is a tend towards more pure capitalism, but the core is still there.

Most first-world countries have these socialistic policies. All the Nordic countries, while based off free-market capitalism, have large and well-funded social welfare programs, public healthcare and education, and generous pensions. They also consistently rank highest on real-world rankings like Inequality-Adjusted HDI, Global Peace Index, and the World Happiness Report.

As for why we continually champion these policies: Because socialist policies work. As I said above, Nordic countries that have these policies and have had these policies for a long time are genuinely good places to live, with less of the major problems inherent in western society (homelessness, drug abuse). People who are having a tough time with life have a good system to fall back on, which enables them to go and get a proper paying job and not become stuck in the spiral of homelessness.

Disclaimer: I used Wikipedia, and I am a biased (read: I believe that moderate socialistic policy works) school student who studies subjects that have nothing to do with social policy. While this is based on fact, it is also ultimately mostly based on my opinion.

Yes, very well. The best system of government is a balance between capitalism and socialism

[Aclion]

Place to go with that is GCR.

Also how come no one ever threatens me here? Meanies.

Most first-world countries have these socialistic policies. All the Nordic countries, while based off free-market capitalism, have large and well-funded social welfare programs, public healthcare and education, and generous pensions. They also consistently rank highest on real-world rankings like Inequality-Adjusted HDI, Global Peace Index, and the World Happiness Report.

As for why we continually champion these policies: Because socialist policies work. As I said above, Nordic countries that have these policies and have had these policies for a long time are genuinely good places to live, with less of the major problems inherent in western society (homelessness, drug abuse). People who are having a tough time with life have a good system to fall back on, which enables them to go and get a proper paying job and not become stuck in the spiral of homelessness.

Public welfare programs aren't, in and of themselves, socialism.

[Australian rePublic]

Place to go with that is GCR.

Also how come no one ever threatens me here? Meanies.

GCR?

[NoAvailability]

Capitalism doesn't like it very much when you try to regulate it or put restraints on it. Governments are pressured into reducing regulations to keep businesses from moving away and to retain market confidence, commercial news media reflects its interests, and people tend to think short-term and think they're better off if consumer goods are cheaper even if social services are being slashed to permit lower taxes - right up until the minute they end up requiring them. The constant barrage of advertising helps bolster this faulty logic and disguise what is being taken away.

It is no coincidence that social democracy is in a decades-long retreat - without the plausible threat of imminent revolution capital is able to force a gradual slide to the bottom by using its power to tighten and narrow the parameters in which governments can operate.

Thinking you can change capitalism is like thinking you can change an abusive partner. It's about fundamental dynamics of control that are at the core of the relationship.

Pic related. The gradual slide to the bottom.

Something which technological advancements, the development of third world countries and progressive social politics which would help said individuals had absolutely nothing to do with I'm sure. Nah, must be the tax cuts for good 'ol Trump and pals.

On a more serious note: Never trust a statistic you didn't falsify yourself. The above is somewhat tongue in cheek, but saying it's hinging on a single factor is kinda just wrong. I'm not saying that to say that capitalism is bad or anything, but making it the sole cause is somewhat clashing. Doubly so if the thread title implies that people are championing a lot of socialism and communism recently (where 'recently' is also the largest drop in all categories, if the trend continues).

EDIT: Again, just to make it clear, I'm not saying that capitalism is inherently bad or something, my opinion is rather that an unregulated, pure extreme is ALWAYS damaging. China's State Capitalism is actually one of the most interesting economic models as far as I'm concerned, and it's continued stability make it an interesting test-case for a potential form of government.

[Miami Shores]

And I just received a threatening telegram telling me to shut up or shut down my thread (the idiot didn't even specify which thread he/she was referring to, but I assume it's this one). Lovely

Something similar happened to me a long while back, but I cant go into details about it. I think your thread has been going well with pro and con comments from our fellow nations.

[Australian rePublic]

I'm going to stay away from this thread for a while, because I genuinely feel threatened

[SherpDaWerp]

Public welfare programs aren't, in and of themselves, socialism.

If you look at public welfare in a vacuum, the government taking taxes from the wealthy and giving re-distributing them to those who are more in need sounds pretty socialistic to me. They do require an element of capitalism in the background for the government to be able to take from 'wealthy', but as I said, socialistic policies can and often do exist under a capitalistic system.

[SherpDaWerp]

I'm going to stay away from this thread for a while, because I genuinely feel threatened

If it's that bad, shouldn't you go to moderation or file a GHR...?

EDIT: Again, just to make it clear, I'm not saying that capitalism is inherently bad or something, my opinion is rather that an unregulated, pure extreme is ALWAYS damaging. China's State Capitalism is actually one of the most interesting economic models as far as I'm concerned, and it's continued stability make it an interesting test-case for a potential form of government.

IMO, "pure" capitalism is bad. Just like "pure" socialism and "pure" communism are bad. Almost every country in the world today has a mixture of socialistic and capitalistic policies. And re China, wasn't there some massive economic thing recently where it turned out they had over borrowed and were in danger of serious economic collapse? Probably hyperbole, but it's still a possibility.

[Australian rePublic]

I'm going to stay away from this thread for a while, because I genuinely feel threatened

If it's that bad, shouldn't you go to moderation or file a GHR...?

I already did, but I still feel threatened

[Aclion]

Public welfare programs aren't, in and of themselves, socialism.

If you look at public welfare in a vacuum, the government taking taxes from the wealthy and giving re-distributing them to those who are more in need sounds pretty socialistic to me. They do require an element of capitalism in the background for the government to be able to take from 'wealthy', but as I said, socialistic policies can and often do exist under a capitalistic system.

Policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. All but the most extreme minarchists accept that the government has a legitimate role in protecting peoples rights, and providing people with enough to get by and lift themselves out of poverty is jsut cheaper then protecting rights trough a Nachtwächterstaat. Not only because you have less crime but because you expand the tax pool. It only become socialistic when the goal becomes punishing capitalists and creating a dependency class. Which, fair enough, is the real purpose a lot of public welfare programs.

Place to go with that is GCR.

Also how come no one ever threatens me here? Meanies.

GCR?

GHR. *goes to bed*

[LiberNovusAmericae]

If it's that bad, shouldn't you go to moderation or file a GHR...?

I already did, but I still feel threatened

They can't hurt you, so don't be scared. It's easy to talk shit behind a screen.

[SherpDaWerp]

It only become socialistic when the goal becomes punishing capitalists and creating a dependency class. Which, fair enough, is the real purpose a lot of public welfare programs.

You are correct, I guess, policies don't really have to be socialism or capitalism. Although I don't really see how "a lot" of public welfare programs are trying to punish capitalists...

[Australian rePublic]

So many threads blaming the left for all their ills. When will it end? Saying socialism doesn’t work and such is just going to make socialists who believe it will work or inevitably fail upset or angry so please stop.

Someone has a different opinion to me. Woe is me.

Like capitalists and the right-winger types are any better. Allowing tax breaks for rich people or preaching against globalism when globalism is what keeps our modern world going.

I've already addressed all that in the OP

Such backwards thinking and traditional thought from conservatives is not progress for fuck’s sake.

I don't think that progress is always a good thing. Progress for the sake of progress definitely isn't

So many threads blaming the left for all their ills. When will it end? Saying socialism doesn’t work and such is just going to make socialists who believe it will work or inevitably fail upset or angry so please stop.Like capitalists and the right-winger types are any better. Allowing tax breaks for rich people or preaching against globalism when globalism is what keeps our modern world going.
Such backwards thinking and traditional thought from conservatives is not progress for fuck’s sake.

but that is what all sides do, the left blames the right and the right blames the left. The left and the right blame the centre for being indecisive.

Yea, it's getting ridiculous tbh

[NoAvailability]

And re China, wasn't there some massive economic thing recently where it turned out they had over borrowed and were in danger of serious economic collapse? Probably hyperbole, but it's still a possibility.

There was a thing in 2015, and now there's the trade war, but I'm not sure it was as massive as the media made it out to be. Keep in mind, I COULD be wrong about that and China could be a week or two before the collapse, but I at least haven't heard anything about China collapsing. Less growth, yes, but no outright collapse.

[The New California Republic]

Yet, we have Westerners who champion this crap. Almost anyone who has lived in a socialist country will tell you, through their first hand experience, that socialism is shit.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of "socialism" that has been tried has been in the utterly discredited Soviet style, with a vanguard Party that ends up replacing the bourgeoisie as the upper social class.

[Australian rePublic]

And re China, wasn't there some massive economic thing recently where it turned out they had over borrowed and were in danger of serious economic collapse? Probably hyperbole, but it's still a possibility.

There was a thing in 2015, and now there's the trade war, but I'm not sure it was as massive as the media made it out to be. Keep in mind, I COULD be wrong about that and China could be a week or two before the collapse, but I at least haven't heard anything about China collapsing. Less growth, yes, but no outright collapse.

I could imagine collapse leading to democracy. The country won't collapse, China is fine. The CCP on the other hand...

Yet, we have Westerners who champion this crap. Almost anyone who has lived in a socialist country will tell you, through their first hand experience, that socialism is shit.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of "socialism" that has been tried has been in the utterly discredited Soviet style, with a vanguard Party that ends up replacing the bourgeoisie as the upper social class.

Well, how would try it?

[The New California Republic]

Keep in mind that the vast majority of "socialism" that has been tried has been in the utterly discredited Soviet style, with a vanguard Party that ends up replacing the bourgeoisie as the upper social class.

Well, how would try it?

For starters, in a way that doesn't flush democracy down the pan at the first opportunity, and the Party apparatchiks and nomenklatura inevitably being accountable to nobody.

[Kaedijork]

...Almost anyone who has lived in a socialist country will tell you, through their first hand experience, that socialism is shit.

https://www.thetrumpet.com/6322-eastern-germans-feel-life-was-better-under-communism
bruh moment.

Why do we champion it?
Because the current state of the world is unnatural. It is, as Marx would say, a 'false consciousness'.
Humans are social creatures. We go insane without other humans, and are biologically hardwired to live in packs.
In a pack, we shared and redistributed the spoils of the hunt and harvest to those who needed it; the children, the sick, the elderly, i.e. those who could not go out and hunt for themselves. The 'herd mentality' is what enabled our species to survive and outlive the neanderthals by settling down and working the land together. We all worked on the farms, made the bread, and shared it - you didn't only make bread from your crops, you made bread from the entire tribes harvest - it is far more efficient and makes no sense not too.

Why do we champion socialism? Because socialism appeals to our biological 'herd mentality'. Capitalism appeals to the ruthless 'kill or be killed' psyche that humans adopt when isolated from their pack, which is okay for short term survival, but long term? Its just toxic and unsustainable.

[Australian rePublic]

...Almost anyone who has lived in a socialist country will tell you, through their first hand experience, that socialism is shit.

https://www.thetrumpet.com/6322-eastern-germans-feel-life-was-better-under-communism
bruh moment.

Why do we champion it?
Because the current state of the world is unnatural. It is, as Marx would say, a 'false consciousness'.
Humans are social creatures. We go insane without other humans, and are biologically hardwired to live in packs.
In a pack, we shared and redistributed the spoils of the hunt and harvest to those who needed it; the children, the sick, the elderly, i.e. those who could not go out and hunt for themselves. The 'herd mentality' is what enabled our species to survive and outlive the neanderthals by settling down and working the land together. We all worked on the farms, made the bread, and shared it - you didn't only make bread from your crops, you made bread from the entire tribes harvest - it is far more efficient and makes no sense not too.

Why do we champion socialism? Because socialism appeals to our biological 'herd mentality'. Capitalism appeals to the ruthless 'kill or be killed' psyche that humans adopt when isolated from their pack, which is okay for short term survival, but long term? Its just toxic and unsustainable.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that capitalism is anti-socialism? Classism- which has been the predominate way of doing things for millennia- maybe, but even then people of class X still interact with people of the same class. Capitalism doesn't change people's social interactions.I know people who are very affluent and well off, and I have people who are quite poor. The wealth division has no impact on y interactions with people on either end of the wealth spectrum