Anti-Socialism Thread

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Like, real talk, I'm not really a fan of socialism myself but the explicit bias of the OP is really something. I mean at most I could say socialism is naive, idealistic, and that I'm at best skeptical of it's promises but it's not like it's some grand, evil thing that needs to be crushed and destroyed wherever it's found.

That would be Fascism.

Hold on, you say fascism needs to be destroyed but you're a third positionist?

You make it sound like these are contradictory viewpoints. They are not.

[Zapato]

So, anti-socialists of NationStates, here are a few questions:

1. Does socialism still present a threat to the world? To your country?
2. Should liberals and conservatives do more to square their differences and rally against socialist tides, wherever they may spring up?
3. At what point is armed resistance against socialism called for?

1. Not at all. In fact, Capitalism is a bigger threat to both my country and the world by magnitudes.

2. Too late, but yeah, the worst excesses of capitalism should have been curtailed a long time ago.

3. About 10 years after the armed uprising against capitalism.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Socialism is anti democratic by nature allegedly. Meanwhile in capitalist America, the will of the people isnt respected and is ignored in favor of the will of Wallstreet but I guess we won't go there.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

I made a mistake ever coming to this thread and wish i could buy the premium version now.

[Risottia]

Capitalists believe that, by voting with their money, individuals should decide what goods are produced in the free market. In this way firms that are the most efficient, cost-effective and practical for the consumer will rise to the top. Capitalism has coexisted with freedom and liberal democracy since its inception

1.I'd like to see a source supporting that capitalists believe that they're "voting with their money" and that that's the key point of capitalism.
2.The extracyclic crises of capitalist economies and the informational asymmetry between market players hint that capitalism does not imply a commercial success of the most efficient, effective and practical enterprise.
3.Capitalism has coexisted also with: slavery, imperialism, social democracy, fascism, absolute monarchy, oligarchy, and even with totalitarian countries led by a "communist" party.

[Vivolkha]

Capitalism has coexisted also with: slavery, imperialism, social democracy, fascism, absolute monarchy, oligarchy, and even with totalitarian countries led by a "communist" party.

The natural consequence of being the most efficient economic system is that it is widely adopted, both by modern democracies and by nations that otherwise have completely reprehensible policies.

[-Ocelot-]

Capitalists believe that, by voting with their money, individuals should decide what goods are produced in the free market. In this way firms that are the most efficient, cost-effective and practical for the consumer will rise to the top. Capitalism has coexisted with freedom and liberal democracy since its inception

1.I'd like to see a source supporting that capitalists believe that they're "voting with their money" and that that's the key point of capitalism.
2.The extracyclic crises of capitalist economies and the informational asymmetry between market players hint that capitalism does not imply a commercial success of the most efficient, effective and practical enterprise.
3.Capitalism has coexisted also with: slavery, imperialism, social democracy, fascism, absolute monarchy, oligarchy, and even with totalitarian countries led by a "communist" party.

Communism has coexisted with: Poverty, malnutrition, cannibalism, genocide, anti-semitism, civil war, cultural destruction, all within its own ideological borders.

[Washington Resistance Army]

1.I'd like to see a source supporting that capitalists believe that they're "voting with their money" and that that's the key point of capitalism.
2.The extracyclic crises of capitalist economies and the informational asymmetry between market players hint that capitalism does not imply a commercial success of the most efficient, effective and practical enterprise.
3.Capitalism has coexisted also with: slavery, imperialism, social democracy, fascism, absolute monarchy, oligarchy, and even with totalitarian countries led by a "communist" party.

Communism has coexisted with: Poverty, malnutrition, cannibalism, genocide, anti-semitism, civil war, cultural destruction, all within its own ideological borders.

Capitalism has all of those too tbf.

[Dumb Ideologies]

1.I'd like to see a source supporting that capitalists believe that they're "voting with their money" and that that's the key point of capitalism.
2.The extracyclic crises of capitalist economies and the informational asymmetry between market players hint that capitalism does not imply a commercial success of the most efficient, effective and practical enterprise.
3.Capitalism has coexisted also with: slavery, imperialism, social democracy, fascism, absolute monarchy, oligarchy, and even with totalitarian countries led by a "communist" party.

Communism has coexisted with: Poverty, malnutrition, cannibalism, genocide, anti-semitism, civil war, cultural destruction, all within its own ideological borders.

¿HoW eLsE cAn We MoTiVaTe PeOpLe To EaT tHe RiCh?

Get in our belly, kulak.

[Vassenor]

Capitalism has coexisted also with: slavery, imperialism, social democracy, fascism, absolute monarchy, oligarchy, and even with totalitarian countries led by a "communist" party.

The natural consequence of being the most efficient economic system is that it is widely adopted, both by modern democracies and by nations that otherwise have completely reprehensible policies.

And how do we determine economic efficiency?

[The New California Republic]

The natural consequence of being the most efficient economic system [...]

Capitalism actually isn't that efficient. There is plenty of productive capacity and potential that sits idle solely because "no money" or "not profitable to operate it", or production that is ended for the same reasons.

[The Reformed American Republic]

It's important to remember that socialism is not universal healthcare, public roads, free public education, taxes, unions, or "the government doing stuff." These are social policies, not socialist policies, and they are all perfectly compatible with capitalism.

Thank God you posted this clarification. I am pretty anti-communist and I'm not a fan of socialism, but I roll my eyes when some people claim that single payer healthcare is communist or that government doing anything to help non-rich people is evil communism sneaking in.

[Vivolkha]

The natural consequence of being the most efficient economic system is that it is widely adopted, both by modern democracies and by nations that otherwise have completely reprehensible policies.

And how do we determine economic efficiency?

Labor productivity is the first measure that comes to mind. Else, you can just use any of the myriad ways to measure wealth. More economic freedom is positively correlated with a higher GDP per capita and other economic indicators.

The natural consequence of being the most efficient economic system [...]

Capitalism actually isn't that efficient. There is plenty of productive capacity and potential that sits idle solely because "no money" or "not profitable to operate it", or production that is ended for the same reasons.

How is that inefficient?

[The New California Republic]

Capitalism actually isn't that efficient. There is plenty of productive capacity and potential that sits idle solely because "no money" or "not profitable to operate it", or production that is ended for the same reasons.

How is that inefficient?

Having productive capacity sat idle when it needn't be is inefficient.

[Vivolkha]

How is that inefficient?

Having productive capacity sat idle when it needn't be is inefficient.

If something is not profitable to operate, is for a reason. Either the final product is not needed or the production method is just too inefficient to be worth it. Should we use all our productive capacity to make, say, cars that nobody will buy? What will you do with them? Bury them in a landfill in New Mexico?

[The New California Republic]

Having productive capacity sat idle when it needn't be is inefficient.

If something is not profitable to operate, is for a reason. Either the final product is not needed or the production method is just too inefficient to be worth it.

Nope, plenty of production is stopped that is actually needed, and even efficient factories are forced to close, so neither of those reasons holds water. Or some production is never started at all because no money or not profitable, even though said things could benefit society.

Should we use all our productive capacity to make, say, cars that nobody will buy? What will you do with them? Bury them in a landfill in New Mexico?

Could use them for things that society needs, or retool them to make stuff that society does need. Shocking ideas I know.

[Hurdergaryp]

There are a lot of leftists on Nationstates, so I expect this to be a really toxic thread...

That's the joke.

[Genivaria]

Marx also thinks capitalism is inevitable and it is necessary for the transition to communism. Marx=capitalist????

The point here is that Marx abetted colonialism because he thought it would further his political objectives, while liberal thinkers actively opposed it.

Yeah colonialism is too old school, corporate neoliberal imperialism is where its at now right?

[Vivolkha]

If something is not profitable to operate, is for a reason. Either the final product is not needed or the production method is just too inefficient to be worth it.

Nope, plenty of production is stopped that is actually needed, and even efficient factories are forced to close, so neither of those reasons holds water. Or some production is never started at all because no money or not profitable, even though said things could benefit society.

Barring an external emergency situation such as the current Covid crisis, these stand as just claims so far.

Or, in any case, what economic model would you propose instead?

Should we use all our productive capacity to make, say, cars that nobody will buy? What will you do with them? Bury them in a landfill in New Mexico?

Could use them for things that society needs, or retool them to make stuff that society does need. Shocking ideas I know.

Or you could just produce what society actually needs from the very beginning. Shocking idea I know.

[UniversalCommons]

Quite a few popular socialist governments were tried but taken out by fascism. The Spanish Republic lost to Franco, the Salvador Allende in Chile lost to Pinochet, the Prague Spring failed. Very few socialist governments who announce themselves to the world last.

There are some countries that have successfully adopted some socialist policies and are doing fine with them. Canada, Spain, Bolivia, Ireland, Belgium, Iceland, Norway, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand, Australia, and a number of states have some socialist policies. It is not like these places are advertising that they are socialist and socialism is the best thing. They are part of mixed governments which employ a mixture of capitalism and socialism. It is more about pragmatic balancing of where capitalism and socialism fails.

Efficiency is time well used for an intended task. It is not quality of a product or service. Efficiency can be the opposite of quality if the goal is to make something as fast as possible for as cheap as possible. It is one of the reasons that we have so much junk in the world.

[The New California Republic]

Nope, plenty of production is stopped that is actually needed, and even efficient factories are forced to close, so neither of those reasons holds water. Or some production is never started at all because no money or not profitable, even though said things could benefit society.

Barring an external emergency situation such as the current Covid crisis, these stand as just claims so far.

Not really given the great many exceptions to what you are saying.

Could use them for things that society needs, or retool them to make stuff that society does need. Shocking ideas I know.

Or you could just produce what society actually needs from the very beginning. Shocking idea I know.

But capitalism doesn't actually do that as such, so...

[The Reformed American Republic]

If something is not profitable to operate, is for a reason. Either the final product is not needed or the production method is just too inefficient to be worth it.

Nope, plenty of production is stopped that is actually needed, and even efficient factories are forced to close, so neither of those reasons holds water. Or some production is never started at all because no money or not profitable, even though said things could benefit society.

Should we use all our productive capacity to make, say, cars that nobody will buy? What will you do with them? Bury them in a landfill in New Mexico?

Could use them for things that society needs, or retool them to make stuff that society does need. Shocking ideas I know.

That's why I support a mixed economy. Capitalism is good at distributing some services, but others where it is pretty terrible. Some utilities and services should be state owned.

[Mountains and Volcanoes]

Does socialism still present a threat to the world? To your country? No, in fact, the US could use a little more socialism.
Should liberals and conservatives do more to square their differences and rally against socialist tides, wherever they may spring up? No. And they wouldn't even have to think about the possibility if they passed reforms on healthcare and other social safety nets and taxed the rich and powerful.
At what point is armed resistance against socialism called for? Never.

Any other questions?

"Reforms in healthcare and other social safety nets" At what expanse to a taxpayer?

"Taxed the rich and powerful" Like Big Tech For Instance? (e.g. Bill gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, etc.)

[Giovenith]

Communism has coexisted with: Poverty, malnutrition, cannibalism, genocide, anti-semitism, civil war, cultural destruction, all within its own ideological borders.

¿HoW eLsE cAn We MoTiVaTe PeOpLe To EaT tHe RiCh?

Get in our belly, kulak.

Let's be careful with labels, okay?

[Genivaria]

Nope, plenty of production is stopped that is actually needed, and even efficient factories are forced to close, so neither of those reasons holds water. Or some production is never started at all because no money or not profitable, even though said things could benefit society.


Could use them for things that society needs, or retool them to make stuff that society does need. Shocking ideas I know.

That's why I support a mixed economy. Capitalism is good at distributing some services, but others where it is pretty terrible. Some utilities and services should be state owned.

Or at the very least they shouldn't be profit-based.