Anti-Socialism Thread

[Resilient Acceleration]

I think the biggest problem about actual socialism, and its "from each according to their ability to each according to their need" principle, is that it is hella impossible to judge what "ability" and "need" are. It's a data processing problem.

People are very subjective, the data is simply too much, and no gigantic bureaucratic agency can ever efficiently process that much data and then decide what should and shouldn't be produced and distributed. (The word "bureaucracy" and "efficient" should never be put on the same sentence). This single fact also kills innovation, which is why Cuba is still stuck in the '60s. The larger a socialist country gets, the larger the problem is. There will always be a gigantic gap between supply and demand, and that's why gigantic black markets always sprung up in socialist states, destroying the citizen's faith in the state's ability to provide for them.

Now, this is different if we're talking about a confederacy of near-independent communes, which is a terrible idea. But if it's implemented, then we won't be able to reach a global economy of scale like today, and will be significantly worse off. Also that kind of system would be fragile, because a more organized, stronger, imperialist state structure can easily emerge and ROFLstomp all the other communes. Which leads to instant civil war, arms trade, organized crime, rise of oppresive millitia gangs, rise of charismatic warlords, and basically a violent free-for-all. As another example out of the very long trainwreck of disaster that will emerge, the global military presence would pose hella lot of problem. We can't exactly "distribute" an aircraft carrier or the AEGIS transcontinental missile system, and people capable of running them will still exist in the event of a revolution.

The only way a socialist system can exist perfectly is through:

1. A coordinated global revolution at exactly the same time everywhere, since e.g. if the US is overthrown but China is not, then China would just sweep in and take over the world;
2. The existence of a massive global state apparatus capable of indoctrinating everyone with the values of socialism; and
3. Thr existence of a massive global state apparatus or an ideologically fanatic worldwide populace able to violently crush any movement or emerging proto-state pushing for any better alternative.

It's no coincidence that historically, the more a state attempt achieve socialism, the worse the result is. Cuba is stuck in the 60's. The """Socialist""" Republic of Vietnam meanwhile is the envy of Southeast Asia for its ability to attract big business investments, and I recently watched a food show about a Vietnam-descended US citizen returning to his homeland to start a business and praised the country for its "high entrepreneurial spirit".

Illiberal: "opposed to liberal principles; restricting freedom of thought or behavior."

Authoritarian: "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom."

Fits socialism quite well I'd say.

I'd say I'm a Rawlsian socialist, but I accept that democracy has its limitations and favor a well-ordered authoritarian state to manage a socialist society.

With a few exceptions, I will never expect a ruling elite to do good just out of the kindness of their heart. At least, there is exactly 0 people right now that I could trust to run that kind of authoritarian state. If the system is unimplementable then it's bad. Following the 1998 Reformation in Indonesia for example, we had to keep it mind that the war criminals, corrupt old guards, regional mini-kings, and business oligarchs won't just magically go away. The new system must thus be designed to be able to work even with their presence. While it's not perfect, and obviously need continuous reforms, I'd say it has been sufficient.

virtually the entire Soviet Union has lower life expectancy and quality of life now than it did in 1989.

Not in the Baltic states, though, the same goes for many ex-members of the Warsaw pact. But yeah, if the Soviet Union is a badly designed and rotting building with no roof, then Russia is the building after it collapsed into rubble.

[Punished UMN]

I think the biggest problem about actual socialism, and its "from each according to their ability to each according to their need" principle, is that it is hella impossible to judge what "ability" and "need" are. It's a data processing problem.

People are very subjective, the data is simply too much, and no gigantic bureaucratic agency can ever efficiently process that much data and then decide what should and shouldn't be produced and distributed. (The word "bureaucracy" and "efficient" should never be put on the same sentence). This single fact also kills innovation, which is why Cuba is still stuck in the '60s. The larger a socialist country gets, the larger the problem is. There will always be a gigantic gap between supply and demand, and that's why gigantic black markets always sprung up in socialist states, destroying the citizen's faith in the state's ability to provide for them.

Now, this is different if we're talking about a confederacy of near-independent communes, which is a terrible idea. But if it's implemented, then we won't be able to reach a global economy of scale like today, and will be significantly worse off. Also that kind of system would be fragile, because a more organized, stronger, imperialist state structure can easily emerge and ROFLstomp all the other communes. Which leads to instant civil war, arms trade, organized crime, rise of oppresive millitia gangs, rise of charismatic warlords, and basically a violent free-for-all. As another example out of the very long trainwreck of disaster that will emerge, the global military presence would pose hella lot of problem. We can't exactly "distribute" an aircraft carrier or the AEGIS transcontinental missile system, and people capable of running them will still exist in the event of a revolution.

The only way a socialist system can exist perfectly is through:

1. A coordinated global revolution at exactly the same time everywhere, since e.g. if the US is overthrown but China is not, then China would just sweep in and take over the world;
2. The existence of a massive global state apparatus capable of indoctrinating everyone with the values of socialism; and
3. Thr existence of a massive global state apparatus or an ideologically fanatic worldwide populace able to violently crush any movement or emerging proto-state pushing for any better alternative.

It's no coincidence that historically, the more a state attempt achieve socialism, the worse the result is. Cuba is stuck in the 60's. The """Socialist""" Republic of Vietnam meanwhile is the envy of Southeast Asia for its ability to attract big business investments, and I recently watched a food show about a Vietnam-descended US citizen returning to his homeland to start a business and praised the country for its "high entrepreneurial spirit".

I'd say I'm a Rawlsian socialist, but I accept that democracy has its limitations and favor a well-ordered authoritarian state to manage a socialist society.

With a few exceptions, I will never expect a ruling elite to do good just out of the kindness of their heart. At least, there is exactly 0 people right now that I could trust to run that kind of authoritarian state. If the system is unimplementable then it's bad. Following the 1998 Reformation in Indonesia for example, we had to keep it mind that the war criminals, corrupt old guards, regional mini-kings, and business oligarchs won't just magically go away. The new system must thus be designed to be able to work even with their presence. While it's not perfect, and obviously need continuous reforms, I'd say it has been sufficient.

virtually the entire Soviet Union has lower life expectancy and quality of life now than it did in 1989.

Not in the Baltic states, though, the same goes for many ex-members of the Warsaw pact. But yeah, if the Soviet Union is a badly designed and rotting building with no roof, then Russia is the building after it collapsed into rubble.

Those states received massive aid from the EU.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

I'm not even a socialist, I'm just here to watch the carnage and maybe prove people wrong if I feel like it. Want some popcorn?

All the popcorn is mine, and you can't have any! Anti-socialism thread, change my mind.

sorry comrade, but the state will now be seizing your popcorn for redistribution. we have nothing to lose but our grains.

[Sanghyeok]

sorry comrade, but the state will now be seizing your popcorn for redistribution. we have nothing to lose but our grains.

You are arrested for bad puns. The sentence is 10 years with only kernels to harvest and none to eat.

[Resilient Acceleration]

Not in the Baltic states, though, the same goes for many ex-members of the Warsaw pact. But yeah, if the Soviet Union is a badly designed and rotting building with no roof, then Russia is the building after it collapsed into rubble.

Those states received massive aid from the EU.

...So? If ditching dictatorial Soviet communism and integrating with the EU results in a significant improvement of livelihood and freedom, then they should've left a very long time ago.

[Cisairse]

Socialism is pretty good, I'd honestly question anyone who opposes it.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

sorry comrade, but the state will now be seizing your popcorn for redistribution. we have nothing to lose but our grains.

You are arrested for bad puns. The sentence is 10 years with only kernels to harvest and none to eat.

plz no comrade, i barley have enough to eat as is.

[Sanghyeok]

You are arrested for bad puns. The sentence is 10 years with only kernels to harvest and none to eat.

plz no comrade, i barley have enough to eat as is.

Twenty years.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

plz no comrade, i barley have enough to eat as is.

Twenty years.

it was a first time offense, im not a cereal killer or smth.

[Punished UMN]

Those states received massive aid from the EU.

...So? If ditching dictatorial Soviet communism and integrating with the EU results in a significant improvement of livelihood and freedom, then they should've left a very long time ago.

My point is that it's not a representative sample of how well economies do under the respective systems.

[Kowani]

Twenty years.

it was a first time offense, im not a cereal killer or smth.

But you are a cereal offender.

[Kyundao]

it was a first time offense, im not a cereal killer or smth.

But you are a cereal offender.

You just made yourself guilty as well.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Yes because liberal democracy and capitalism "worked" the first time it was tried and not only after multiple failed attempts and successful counter-revolutions.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?

[Kowani]

But you are a cereal offender.

You just made yourself guilty as well.

thatsthejoke

[Vassenor]

Now is this thread about actual socialism, or about what rightists think is socialism?

[The New California Republic]

Now is this thread about actual socialism, or about what rightists think is socialism?

Probably the latter, given that the thread creator wrongly stated that socialism has an "aversion to data".

[-Ra-]

In the broadest of terms, socialism (in theory) is an economic and social model that advocates for collective ownership of the "means of production" (basically things that make things).

TIL that socialism is just stock ownership.

It would be funny were it not for the sheer amount of distortion perpetuated by nearly everyone.

This is literally just the definition of socialism:

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

People who own stocks own them in their capacity as private individuals. There is no collective understanding of stock ownership.

[-Ra-]

Now is this thread about actual socialism, or about what rightists think is socialism?

Alternatively, you could read the OP...

[The New California Republic]

There is no collective understanding of stock ownership.

Wrong. The likes of Jenny Thornley have shown that workers' co-operatives sometimes do offer stocks for various means.

[Honeydewistania]

Capitalists after starving children in Africa and letting cancer patients die because giving them money would be socialism:

[Resilient Acceleration]

Capitalists after starving children in Africa and letting cancer patients die because giving them money would be socialism:

Rampant stealing of foreign aid money by corrupt regimes and creation of a dangerous economic dependence is a thing, so it's not really that clear-cut.

[Duvniask]

TIL that socialism is just stock ownership.

It would be funny were it not for the sheer amount of distortion perpetuated by nearly everyone.

This is literally just the definition of socialism:

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

People who own stocks own them in their capacity as private individuals. There is no collective understanding of stock ownership.

I can just quote myself from the past:

Using dictionaries to understand complex political beliefs is incredibly reductive, and a hallmark of someone who knows far too little. You're essentially restricting yourself to a base level of layman's ignorance and it actively harms the discussion you're trying to have.

The endpoint of the semantics you're juggling is to reduce socialism to just another form of capitalism, with no care in the world for what actually makes these distinct modes of operation. Your conception of socialism is just capitalism with some barely red paint on it; it is a society still under the paradigm of capital. There's a reason why Marx' study of the capitalist mode of production is called Capital and not Private Property, because to reduce entire socioeconomic systems to mere distinctions of ownership is reductive and stupid. Leftists who also do this are shooting themselves in the foot and not even noticing it.

[Vivolkha]

• Does socialism still present a threat to the world? To your country? Socialism is more threatening at a popular support level than at a political influence one, derived largely from the failure of modern governments to effectively serve the people on the one hand, and fundamental ignorance about economic on the other (both of how capitalism works and of what socialism implies). Some socialistic policies are actually fine in moderation, but when made into an entire system the result is disastrous, as visibly seen in every single anti-capitalist country in the world. The fact that socialist activism has grown despite the complete collapse of Venezuela is more than worrying. Socialism doesn't seem to pose a particularly acute problem in Spain.
• Should liberals and conservatives do more to square their differences and rally against socialist tides, wherever they may spring up? Anti-socialists in general should be united in their opposition to socialism, but not necessarily in other matters. As said above though, there is a difference between opposing socialism and shutting down every single socialistic policy. Outright repression of the socialist movement is likely to be counterproductive given that it plays directly into their narrative of "oppressive capitalism".
• At what point is armed resistance against socialism called for? I'm generally not a supporter of armed resistance against governments, but I would understand that, at the point where most of the population can no longer provide for themselves or their families, what do they have to lose?

[Honeydewistania]

Does socialism still present a threat to the world? To your country?

While Singapore will likely not be socialist in the near future, I can dream.
Should liberals and conservatives do more to square their differences and rally against socialist tides, wherever they may spring up?

No. They should embrace us

At what point is armed resistance against socialism called for?
Never ever.

Armed resistance against conservatives though....

[Resilient Acceleration]

Ooh, so it's kinda lile F&NI now?

1. Does socialism still present a threat to the world? To your country?
In 1966, following a failed communist uprisings that killed 6 generals, millions of left-wing symphatizers were genocided by the army. They then established the ominously named New Order regime and ruled for the next 31 years, using communism as a general pretext to crackdown against any opposition. All left-wing politics become generalized as "dangerous atheists who hates God and brutally murdered the generals", and everyone from elementary school to old people must watch the 4-hour long gruesome propaganda film against the communists every 30 September. After the New Order is overthrown, the anti-communist tirade do not stop and all TV today still run the anti-communist propaganda film every year, and watching it has become a national tradition.

Meanwhile, as communism has been redefined as "an evil murderous pro-CCP ideology that hates God", the racist Islamists today has became the most ardent opposers of left-wing politics. They often accuse the ruling secular-nationalist party for being closet communists, even though their largest achievement is the passing of a gigantic jobs law designed to crush labor rights and attract Chinese investments, which is pretty communisty as China = CCP = Communists = oppresive and hates God.

So in Indonesia, opposition to labor rights make you a communist. Funny. But it's true.

Such is the warped hatred against left-wing politics here, so socialism won't pose a threat to us anytime soon.

2. Should liberals and conservatives do more to square their differences and rally against socialist tides, wherever they may spring up?
Yes, but this sorts of question leads to self-defeating strategies. Bernie Sanders and the new left is the biggest roadblock to socialism, as most people won't have a reason to support the overthrow of the capital society when supporting AOC et al is far more realistic and preferrable.

3. At what point is armed resistance against socialism called for?
Sparse. Soviet Union collapsed without too much bloodshed, Vietnam and China reformed itself, PT imploded in Brazil, Otto von Bismarck neutralized the socialist menace by introducing welfare state. Note that the opposition to China is because they're a genocidal Orwellian dictstorship who steals IP and is the US's geopolitical rival, and less of because they're socialist.