Opinion on socialism?

[Republicke]

Socialism can probably be pretty successful. Then again, I'm of the opinion that most ideologies could "work" given the correct environmental and circumstantial factors (within reason). Citation: the many differing forms of government and societal structure throughout history + the radical transitions that have taken place (ie: dictatorship/absolute monarchy to democracy without the collapse of civilisation). Human beings are more robust than many ideologues suggest -I think- and the argument that say "communism is impossible" presupposes homo sapien fragility.

[Novograd IV]

source?
without mentioning the USSR

Most obviously, look at the difference in the 70s and 80s between East and West Germany.

let's start one at a time: the USSR wanted a weak Germany, to prevent the threat of ANOTHER war. they're bound to have failed, as is the entire eastern bloc due to the control put over them and forcing the countries to specialise in certain industries that they weren't ready to do.

Czechoslovakia was doing well, very well, until the USSR re-enforced their claims.

[Koffiedik]

A strict capitalist would say that the HDI is not a proper measure of quality of life, as taxation and such affects the quality of life of the top 20% to bring up the undeserving bottom 20%.

Ooh, that one is below the belt! Nasty!

[Novograd IV]

It seems to be working well for Sweden...

Sweden isn't socialist, it's social democratic.

oh dear, you think socialism has to have a dictator?

[Aynistan]

Some human drives and behaviours:

-greed, competition, alpha-male stuff, rich-poor gap
-sharing, cooperation, equality, compassion

Now which set fits socialism best and which one a more free government?

It's not the role of government to force people to share, co-operate or dictate who they do business with and help out. If you want to help, that's all very nice of you, but to force (either through legislation or socially coercive morality such as religion) you to do that is a violation of your free will, and to force you to share is a violation of your property rights.

[Verdeguay]

oh dear, you think socialism has to have a dictator?

No, sir. Not at all. Never said it did. But socialism and social democracy are not the same thing.

[Ghostlex]

I don't think, the HDI is not the best indicator for the wealth of a nation. There are so many things disregarded like how satisfied is the population, which is very important. A country can be very successful without economic growth, when its people are satisfied. And a nation with a greater gap between poor and rich is not as satisfied as nations with a smaller gap.
I think every state needs to have an amount of socialism, to regulate. No human being should be left behind, so everyone should have Health Care and everyone has to be able to live when he is unemployed.
Socialism does not mean tyranny. Capitalism can be tyranny as well, when poor people aren't able to care for themselves or children die of hunger. A real Social Market Economy would be a real good concept to regulate, what has to be regulated, and to give freedom, where freedom is needed.

[Aynistan]

Most obviously, look at the difference in the 70s and 80s between East and West Germany.

let's start one at a time: the USSR wanted a weak Germany, to prevent the threat of ANOTHER war. they're bound to have failed, as is the entire eastern bloc due to the control put over them and forcing the countries to specialise in certain industries that they weren't ready to do.

Czechoslovakia was doing well, very well, until the USSR re-enforced their claims.

And what about all the other examples? One case hardly proves a point. Soviet policy towards GDR was actually socialisms ideas of how people should be controlled expanded to the national level. The economy of the GDR was raped to redistribute all their assets to the Soviet Union. GDR then applied the same socialistic thinking to it's own population, and there is zero evidence to suggest that the GDR would have become a socialist paradise were it not for Evil Uncle Joe.

[Forster Keys]

Considering the nations at the top of the HDI, doing brilliantly economically even in this climate, are (in)famous for their levels of individual freedom, and at the head of progressive legislation pertaining to everything from copyright to the environment all indisputably take some form of socialism, I think it would be pretty stupid to universally condemn center-left economics.

A strict capitalist would say that the HDI is not a proper measure of quality of life, as taxation and such affects the quality of life of the top 20% to bring up the undeserving bottom 20%.

That said, my country, Australia, has historically been centre-with-a-tiny-lean-to-the-left overall (depending on the years of government we trail from significantly left to centre-moderate-right), and consistently ranks up with the best of them on the HDI.

Yeah! Fellow ozzie! High-five! As someone else said, why the Canuck flag?

[Verdeguay]

Yeah! Fellow ozzie! High-five! As someone else said, why the Canuck flag?

[not an Ozzie]He's a spy.[/not an Ozzie]

[New Immortallia]

Socialism was choked in the East by rampant statist bureacratism, and compromised to death in the West by the realities of the open Market and bourgeois-democracy.

Socialism, unless radically re-invented (which is not nessecarily as unlikely as it sounds considering the modern degeneration of capitalism) is now reserved solely as a concept by capitalism simply to prop up its worst excesses; though not naturally in a "humanitarian" sense. Merely economically. See; bailing out the banks.

Socialism is either dead or degenerated into its opposite. And has in the 20th Century been considered a widespread failure.


There are therefore two paths open to humanity should we wish to avoid the catestrophic meltdown that capitalism is bringing down on us in the shape of famines, scarcities of all kinds, barbarism and eventually total global war (which I need not remind us clever 21st century-ites in an age of mass proliferation of nuclear technology, means complete extinction): A re-invention of Socialisms to either further prop up capitalism, and thus delay the apocolyse, or a return to Communism; either in a new re-vamped form of Socialism shaped in stark contrast to the abysmal 20th Century's Communist conception of Socialism, or simply worldwide Communism; an assault by all people on all instruments of the state, ignoring national borders and crushing the Bourgeois and State Capitalists alike under the mighty arm of the global proletariat (of which we are doubtless all members)*.

EDIT: I will add that the distinction between the two possible progressive futures depends solely on whether you consider Communism's 20th century experiment to be an absolute or a relative failure. And naturally I (as a Communist) would argue the latter, citing the main problem as the regressive nature of the State; arguing that there is no way to impose an inherantly anti-statist ideology onto the state and expect no remoulding of that ideology to serve the needs that a state has (such as integrity and longevity) ... charecterized in the 20th century by the Imperialistic nationalistic reformation of Bolshevism into Socialism in One Country, an ideal which totally (in every aspect) goes against classical Marxism, and even Bolshevism. Though it's roots clearly lie in the Marxist belief in the State as a potential agent of change; when experiance now tells us that it is quite the opposite.

*unless perhaps you own a business which allows you not to earn your living at all through your own labour, though such individuals are few and far between.

[Forster Keys]

Yeah! Fellow ozzie! High-five! As someone else said, why the Canuck flag?

[not an Ozzie]He's a spy.[/not an Ozzie]

Where you from?

[Novograd IV]

let's start one at a time: the USSR wanted a weak Germany, to prevent the threat of ANOTHER war. they're bound to have failed, as is the entire eastern bloc due to the control put over them and forcing the countries to specialise in certain industries that they weren't ready to do.

Czechoslovakia was doing well, very well, until the USSR re-enforced their claims.

And what about all the other examples? One case hardly proves a point. Soviet policy towards GDR was actually socialisms ideas of how people should be controlled expanded to the national level. The economy of the GDR was raped to redistribute all their assets to the Soviet Union. GDR then applied the same socialistic thinking to it's own population, and there is zero evidence to suggest that the GDR would have become a socialist paradise were it not for Evil Uncle Joe.

Let's think about you ignoring my question for sources?

Anyway, i do believe i said that i would address your points one at a time, reading someone's post makes your counter-argument more credible and less trollish.

And one soviet an entire socialist policy does not make. You can't use blanket statements in a respectable argument.

[Aynistan]

There are much quicker ways to reduce a nation to poverty, like taking out central control, destroying key infrastructure (like power and water), and sending a nation into anarchy.

True, and it's funny how those things seems to happen a lot when socialism is involved

True socialism isn't tyrannical. Perverted capitalism (military dictatoship/kleptocracy) I think could be just as bad.

The government, in the best case scenario, takes a dump on your property rights, your rights of association, and crushes independence and initiative. In the best case. All "capitalism" in the world today is distorted and perverted by government intervention, yet even in that form, in many cases (such as the US and Europe, HK, Japan and Korea) it is still far superior in terms of life and liberty than even the "best case" socialism can deliver.

As for the rights thing, that's a matter of opinion, depending on your own morals. Interpersonal relations? How so? The materialism and individualism created by modern society, which is anything but socialist, seems to be warping much of that, and what are these basic drives and behaviours?

Materialism and individualism do not dictate any moral situation. The very point of individualism is one is free to choose for him or herself the nature of his relations with others, without it being enforced on him by an external moral authority.

Your name has nothing to do Ayn Rand by the way?

Sure does

[Verdeguay]

[not an Ozzie]He's a spy.[/not an Ozzie]

Where you from?

U.S.A.

[Budgie Islands]

People often associate socialism with a brutual repressive Dictator who is hell ben on controlling the world, i think that is unfair.

I have always been particle to socialism, at least soem aspects of socialism however i am radically against the nanny state, i believe hard work and success should never been penzalized with increased taxes under Tony Blair's New Labour you were best off not working and just keep on having kids and i don't think taht has changed much under Cameron but then again i could be wrong.

[Forster Keys]

There are much quicker ways to reduce a nation to poverty, like taking out central control, destroying key infrastructure (like power and water), and sending a nation into anarchy.

True, and it's funny how those things seems to happen a lot when socialism is involved

True socialism isn't tyrannical. Perverted capitalism (military dictatoship/kleptocracy) I think could be just as bad.

The government, in the best case scenario, takes a dump on your property rights, your rights of association, and crushes independence and initiative. In the best case. All "capitalism" in the world today is distorted and perverted by government intervention, yet even in that form, in many cases (such as the US and Europe, HK, Japan and Korea) it is still far superior in terms of life and liberty than even the "best case" socialism can deliver.

As for the rights thing, that's a matter of opinion, depending on your own morals. Interpersonal relations? How so? The materialism and individualism created by modern society, which is anything but socialist, seems to be warping much of that, and what are these basic drives and behaviours?

Materialism and individualism do not dictate any moral situation. The very point of individualism is one is free to choose for him or herself the nature of his relations with others, without it being enforced on him by an external moral authority.

Your name has nothing to do Ayn Rand by the way?

Sure does

1. I wouldn't be surprised. Those things are usually associated with conflict, and classically, socialism has been associated with revolutions. They also occur during conflicts that have nothing to do with socialism.

2. Property rights, fair enough. Association, independence and initiative? No. Socialism is not synonymous with dictatorship.

3. OK. But what did you mean in your initial post? When you said socialism was bad for interpersonal relations and basic drives and behaviours?

[Feral Land]

Socialism sounds like a nice idea

In reality is doesn't work as it produces a populace hooked on government indulgences, erodes personal freedoms, and is simply unsustainable economically.

As brutal as it can be at times free-market capitalism is probably the most efficient economic structure, assuming to little government control and regulation and an educated consumer...

Other than that human economic structures tend to all fail...

[The Parkus Empire]

Does it work for what? For a higher standard of living (overall)? I guess that depends upon how selfish and/or competent the government in question is in relation to local private enterprise.

[Forster Keys]

Where you from?

U.S.A.

I meant to eyebrow you suspiciously. Instead it looks like I was flirting.

Back to the topic. How can I trust you, yank? You're always, conniving, interfering in the affairs of others... How do I know you're not just spreading discord amongst your allies?

[Duartistan]

I used to say that Communism worked well. However, we can't have a whole world under Communism- it would be too complicated. However Capitalism also wouldn't work too well globally. Socialism may work better and I would consider some of my views Socialist and I also favour Marxism.

[The Parkus Empire]

I used to say that Communism worked well. However, we can't have a whole world under Communism- it would be too complicated. However Capitalism also wouldn't work too well globally. Socialism may work better and I would consider some of my views Socialist and I also favour Marxism.

So obviously not anarcho-communism ("pure" communism), right? Because that's the only kind I can dig, at least ideologically. I don't think it's realistic, but it would be awesome.

[Sungai Pusat]

What do you guys think about socialism? Does it work? Does it not? Is it better than capitalism? communism? Any opinion or view about this economical structure.

Label for any economic, social and religious system: 'Works best when not forced upon'

Which is why I don't think there's any reason for an authority/government to exist.

[The Parkus Empire]

What do you guys think about socialism? Does it work? Does it not? Is it better than capitalism? communism? Any opinion or view about this economical structure.

Label for any economic, social and religious system: 'Works best when not forced upon'

Which is why I don't think there's any reason for an authority/government to exist.

Then you obviously are against corporations? Because they're definitely an authority, and can easily fulfill the function of a government, except they're kept in power by those with the most buying power instead of traditional votes.

[The Western Reaches]

Socialism helps give everyone firm footing if they fall down in life, although complete socialism isn't my cuppa tea and I'd only rather have it in place for vital services such as healthcare.