NationStates

I think several of you have already seen that I am quite anti-socialist/anti-communist, so here are my answers

• Does socialism still present a threat to the world? To your country? : I live in Venezuela, in just 20 years of socialism this country has gone into a tailspin, definitely yes, socialism must end throughout the world and Venezuela must soon recover the democracy and capitalism that once made us so prosperous

• Should liberals and conservatives do more to square their differences and rally against socialist tides, wherever they may spring up? : Indeed, liberals and conservatives should unite to fight leftism together. The same applies to the Venezuelan Opposition, who must put aside their ideas if they are social democrats, liberals, Christians, conservatives, nationalists, let's unite to defeat socialism once and for all

• At what point is armed resistance against socialism called for? : I have never approved violence, but this Narco communist regime seems that it will only leave Miraflores with violence

And remember friends, the worst pandemic in history is called socialism, which killed more people than the Black Death!

All Wild Things wrote:"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."

What about publicly owned rail networks, electricity grids, gas pipelines, water and sewerage pipelines, telephone networks, broadband networks. They're all kind of like public roads aren't they? Are these all perfectly compatible with capitalism too?

If the government can choose to give universal healthcare and education, and still not be socialist, can they give out food too? Food is essential for staying healthy. As is exercise. Can we get universal gym memberships and still be capitalists?

"The government owning things" is not socialist per se, though it is certainly socialistic. Many socialists, for instance, would want universal healthcare, though universal healthcare is not a socialist value per se. Many countries like Norway or Sweden has extensive government ownership of certain industries. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of those countries' firms and producers are run and operated by private individuals for profit.

All Wild Things wrote:"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."

What about publicly owned rail networks, electricity grids, gas pipelines, water and sewerage pipelines, telephone networks, broadband networks. They're all kind of like public roads aren't they? Are these all perfectly compatible with capitalism too?

If the government can choose to give universal healthcare and education, and still not be socialist, can they give out food too? Food is essential for staying healthy. As is exercise. Can we get universal gym memberships and still be capitalists?

No, those are all socialist policies, having been envisioned during the times of the Industrial Revolution and 1920's-30's when the USSR was taking off.

Does socialism still present a threat to the world? To your country? No. Few people are calling for full blown common ownership of the means of production and they have no powerful state to back them further.
Should liberals and conservatives do more to square their differences and rally against socialist tides, wherever they may spring up? No. Liberalism, especially classical liberalism, gives rise to the forces and factors that make people want turn to socialism.

The Marlborough wrote:Does socialism still present a threat to the world? To your country? No. Few people are calling for full blown common ownership of the means of production and they have no powerful state to back them further.
Should liberals and conservatives do more to square their differences and rally against socialist tides, wherever they may spring up? No. Liberalism, especially classical liberalism, gives rise to the forces and factors that make people want turn to socialism.

Excuse me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the first communist-turned-Stalinist-reverted back to-socialist revolution trying to overthrow a monarchy, particularly the Russian absolutist one?

Also, liberalism gives rise to people who like the idea of socialism, because it has the actual freedom to think and have ideologies. Liberalism also may allow socialists to protest, but it is quite unlikely that it is liberalism that makes socialists revolt. Perhaps in the future the effects of liberalism may cause people to revolt, the effects likely being corporations or more specifically corporations with control over markets, but that is the fault of corporations, not an idea supporting the right to have a mixed market that leans free.

Anyways, I’m no McCarthy. But obviously socialism isn’t perfect. And communism seems perfect, but it’s just socialism with the same but bigger pros and the same but bigger cons. Flaws include lack of incentives; why should anyone do according to their ability when they get according to their need anyways? Socialism is also incredibly difficult to make efficient, unlike capitalism.

New haven america wrote:

All Wild Things wrote:"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."

What about publicly owned rail networks, electricity grids, gas pipelines, water and sewerage pipelines, telephone networks, broadband networks. They're all kind of like public roads aren't they? Are these all perfectly compatible with capitalism too?

If the government can choose to give universal healthcare and education, and still not be socialist, can they give out food too? Food is essential for staying healthy. As is exercise. Can we get universal gym memberships and still be capitalists?

No, those are all socialist policies, having been envisioned during the times of the Industrial Revolution and 1920's-30's when the USSR was taking off.

So how come it's ok for us all to share a road but not a gas pipeline?

And how come it's okay to provide universal healthcare, but not to provide healthy food that would reduce the need for that healthcare?

All Wild Things wrote:

New haven america wrote:No, those are all socialist policies, having been envisioned during the times of the Industrial Revolution and 1920's-30's when the USSR was taking off.

So how come it's ok for us all to share a road but not a gas pipeline?

And how come it's okay to provide universal healthcare, but not to provide healthy food that would reduce the need for that healthcare?

We kinda do already. Go to a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen. Many of these organizations are run by private individuals or firms, which is better than the government anyway.

And none of this has to do with the workers owning the means of production.

Minskiev wrote:

The Marlborough wrote:Does socialism still present a threat to the world? To your country? No. Few people are calling for full blown common ownership of the means of production and they have no powerful state to back them further.
Should liberals and conservatives do more to square their differences and rally against socialist tides, wherever they may spring up? No. Liberalism, especially classical liberalism, gives rise to the forces and factors that make people want turn to socialism.

Excuse me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the first communist-turned-Stalinist-reverted back to-socialist revolution trying to overthrow a monarchy, particularly the Russian absolutist one?

The Russian Empire had allowed capitalist and particularly classical liberal economic forces to run much of the economy, which heightened class contradictions. Lenin actually realized this and continued the revolution against the provisional government. The monarchy was an enemy of the Bolsheviks, but it arguably wasn't their primary ideological enemy.

All Wild Things wrote:

New haven america wrote:No, those are all socialist policies, having been envisioned during the times of the Industrial Revolution and 1920's-30's when the USSR was taking off.

1. So how come it's ok for us all to share a road but not a gas pipeline?

2. And how come it's okay to provide universal healthcare, but not to provide healthy food that would reduce the need for that healthcare?

1. It should be ok to do both.
2. ... You do know a lot of Western and Central Europe is really big on health food, right?

Cringe and blueposted.

Looking forward to seeing this descend into madness.

Minskiev wrote:

The Marlborough wrote:Does socialism still present a threat to the world? To your country? No. Few people are calling for full blown common ownership of the means of production and they have no powerful state to back them further.
Should liberals and conservatives do more to square their differences and rally against socialist tides, wherever they may spring up? No. Liberalism, especially classical liberalism, gives rise to the forces and factors that make people want turn to socialism.

Excuse me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the first communist-turned-Stalinist-reverted back to-socialist revolution trying to overthrow a monarchy, particularly the Russian absolutist one?

No.

Further socialism was born as a reaction to the deprivations faced by the working classes in early to mid 19th century Britain and France as a result of their treatment by the turbo-classical liberal capitalist bourgeoisie.

-Ra- wrote:

All Wild Things wrote:So how come it's ok for us all to share a road but not a gas pipeline?

And how come it's okay to provide universal healthcare, but not to provide healthy food that would reduce the need for that healthcare?

We kinda do already. Go to a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen. Many of these organizations are run by private individuals or firms, which is better than the government anyway.

And none of this has to do with the workers owning the means of production.

Not at all. Private charity is inherently inefficient due to the mechanism of economies of scale. Government action is actually more effective at reducing poverty than charity could ever be.

Just as we pro-capitalism ruined the thread of Marxism, the pro-socialists are going to ruin this thread, nice

Eurasies wrote:Just as we pro-capitalism ruined the thread of Marxism, the pro-socialists are going to ruin this thread, nice

I thought it was supposed to be the right that was opposed to safe spaces.

Capitalism: "Universal healthcare and social safety nets are evil because they steal money from the pockets of hard workers and socialism would never work because humans are inherently too selfish!"

Ok, so how do we deal with people who can't afford healthcare or food?

Capitalism: "IDFK. Charity or something?"

Eurasies wrote:Just as we pro-capitalism ruined the thread of Marxism, the pro-socialists are going to ruin this thread, nice

It's the circle of life, my friend.

Although it is nice to see people on the right suddenly conceding that free healthcare, caring for the needy and education which doesn't subjugate people into debt are not, in fact, communism.

Punished UMN wrote:

Minskiev wrote:
Excuse me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the first communist-turned-Stalinist-reverted back to-socialist revolution trying to overthrow a monarchy, particularly the Russian absolutist one?

The Russian Empire had allowed capitalist and particularly classical liberal economic forces to run much of the economy, which heightened class contradictions. Lenin actually realized this and continued the revolution against the provisional government. The monarchy was an enemy of the Bolsheviks, but it arguably wasn't their primary ideological enemy.

Would the Russian Empire not be a traditional economy? Also, quickly googled ‘causes of Russian revolution’

• Widespread suffering under autocracy—a form of government in which one person, in this case the czar, has absolute power
• Weak leadership of Czar Nicholas II—clung to autocracy despite changing times
• Poor working conditions, low wages, and hazards of industrialization
• New revolutionary movements that believed a worker-run government should replace czarist rule
• Russian defeat in the Russo-Japanese War (1905), which led to rising unrest
• Bloody Sunday, the massacre of unarmed protestors outside the palace, in 1905
• Devastation of World War I—high casualties, economic ruin, widespread hunger
• The March Revolution in 1917, in which soldiers who were brought in for crowd control ultimately joined labor activists in calling “Down with the autocracy!”

Seems to be far more about the autocracy rather than the classic liberal imperial Russian corporations.

New haven america wrote:Capitalism: "Universal healthcare and social safety nets are evil because they steal money from the pockets of hard workers and socialism would never work because humans are inherently too selfish!"

Ok, so how do we deal with people who can't afford healthcare or food?

Capitalism: "IDFK. Charity or something?"

This seems kind of biased. You seem to think all non-socialists hate universal healthcare and social safety nets. I myself would love universal healthcare, but of course the taxes. Anyways, I don’t think taxation with representation is theft. Finally, yes. Socialism wouldn’t work, or at least very efficiently, due to the lack of incentive and the inherent inefficiency of the government trying to manage the economy by itself.

Then you poke fun at income inequality, which is strange because I’m pretty sure the Soviet officials were suspiciously better off than the rest of the population. And then you say charity, completely forgetting the fact that we’re not a fully market economy and that we do have social safety nets, and welfare, and homeless shelters. And a society that wants to close the wealth gaps.

Why am I taking this so seriously?

Punished UMN wrote:I thought it was supposed to be the right that was opposed to safe spaces.

Shapiroites have never been consistent in this regard.

Punished UMN wrote:

Eurasies wrote:Just as we pro-capitalism ruined the thread of Marxism, the pro-socialists are going to ruin this thread, nice

I thought it was supposed to be the right that was opposed to safe spaces.

UMN, I never took you for a savage.

Minskiev wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:The Russian Empire had allowed capitalist and particularly classical liberal economic forces to run much of the economy, which heightened class contradictions. Lenin actually realized this and continued the revolution against the provisional government. The monarchy was an enemy of the Bolsheviks, but it arguably wasn't their primary ideological enemy.

Would the Russian Empire not be a traditional economy? Also, quickly googled ‘causes of Russian revolution’

• Widespread suffering under autocracy—a form of government in which one person, in this case the czar, has absolute power
• Weak leadership of Czar Nicholas II—clung to autocracy despite changing times
• Poor working conditions, low wages, and hazards of industrialization
• New revolutionary movements that believed a worker-run government should replace czarist rule
• Russian defeat in the Russo-Japanese War (1905), which led to rising unrest
• Bloody Sunday, the massacre of unarmed protestors outside the palace, in 1905
• Devastation of World War I—high casualties, economic ruin, widespread hunger
• The March Revolution in 1917, in which soldiers who were brought in for crowd control ultimately joined labor activists in calling “Down with the autocracy!”

Seems to be far more about the autocracy rather than the classic liberal imperial Russian corporations.

There was no autocracy when the Bolshevik revolution happened.

New haven america wrote:Capitalism: "Universal healthcare and social safety nets are evil because they steal money from the pockets of hard workers and socialism would never work because humans are inherently too selfish!"

Ok, so how do we deal with people who can't afford healthcare or food?

Capitalism: "IDFK. Charity or something?"

Well, as a liberal, I don't see that public health is a bad thing, in fact, it may be better for a country to have a mixed health system

"Quickly Googled the causes of the Russian Revolution". Bushmoi.

Albrenia wrote:

Eurasies wrote:Just as we pro-capitalism ruined the thread of Marxism, the pro-socialists are going to ruin this thread, nice

It's the circle of life, my friend.

Although it is nice to see people on the right suddenly conceding that free healthcare, caring for the needy and education which doesn't subjugate people into debt are not, in fact, communism.

Yeah, it's karma

Kowani wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:I thought it was supposed to be the right that was opposed to safe spaces.

UMN, I never took you for a savage.

Lol.

The Marlborough wrote:"Quickly Googled the causes of the Russian Revolution". Bushmoi.

The Wikipedia Warriors ride again!