Thanks for the answer and the list! I understand what you mean now...
What is socialism?
- Thread starter Florida Man
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
This is well worth a read for anyone who thinks Socialism = government doing things
Communism is perfect on paper. Everybody gets a fair share of everything. We're greedy sods who crave a nicer house and faster car than our neighbors though so it will never work.
No problem man
It's almost as if, you don't know that every actual socialist/communist state has been had economic war waged on it by the US and its allies, with the exception of China in the last few decades because China has feck you economic power.
Venezuela and all those other "failed socialist states" may not have been the socialist "utopia", but what lead to their downfall was moving towards it. To create said utopia, it is necessary to hand more and more power to the government. The inevitable result will always be corruption. That's been the case in every single "socialist state" since every single one failed - except for arguably the current state of China (thanks to massive authoritarianism and some capitalist ideas implemented).
And no, western european countries aren't socialist. As the other user said already: They are social democracies.
inb4 "but muh anarcho-socialism". It's a contradiction, because the more liberties you give people - with an anarchic status quo being the extreme side of it - the more people will go back to being darwinistic-driven and strive for their own advantages. Which is directly opposing the idea of socialism. Not to mention those wannabe "anarcho"-socialists who still demand having social property and distribution of goods while not understanding that someone needs to be in charge who does it and decides who gets what - which once again leads to a form of government and turns into a growing and self-serving system as bureaucracy and government always does.
My condolences.
Some illustrations on capitalist vs communist regarding split Germany.
average wage
a map showing how many percent drop out of school:
a map denoting the regional distribution of far right (AFD) and far left (Die Linke) votes in Germany
for reference:
To be fair: The wage-difference in the east not only has to do with the post-DDR environment, but also with eastern Germany having to compete with western Europe. The open borders policy is really harming here. Western and southern Germany doesn't have that problem (at least to this extent), because the neighboring countries are rather wealthy themselves.
What a crap post(not the poster).
Late response here, but I can understand how your grandfather would feel disillusioned with communism especially considering the Soviet flavor of it that really strangled people.
Are humans inherently greedy or did they evolve to become greedy from a capitalist society? Or is greed inherent in certain cultures over others?
Inherent in our natures I’d say. Evolutionary psychology. Men are defined primarily by status.
Yes to all. Capitalism and western culture encourage a human trait.
I'm not greedy. I just want to live and eat whilst having a roof over my head.
Its probably more common than inherent. Not everyone is greedy, ambitious or competitive but its common enough that any political system probably needs to make allowances for it and find a good outlet for it.
Well yes, but these social democracies are regarded as such because while they operate under capitalism they nevertheless have implemented plenty of socialist policies and institutions which rely on people giving money to the state in order for them to survive. And in the cases of things like healthcare, education and policing, where profit should never be the imperative motive, it's fairly clear that that's the best way to do things. As has been said, a state can have policies that are socialist in nature without being completely socialist. In the same way that having public services does not stop a state from being capitalist in nature as a whole.
I think capitalism was build on our inherent greed, or not exactly greed, but our urge to be rewarded for what we do. In the end we're like dogs. We can do lots of cool tricks, but we do want that extra fancy cooky you're holding. Why the feck would I roll over if I get the same cooky for just giving a paw.
That's greedy, you should wanna live outside like a caveman and hunt for your meal.
Two communits countries that have thriving economies are China and Vietnam and it's no because they have "feck you economic power" it's because they have liberalised their economies ie their economic policies are not communist, but far more capitalist.
Survival of the fittest, we want the best for us and ours.
This is an important motivator. I want to provide good opportunities for my children and also, when I die, I want them to inherit absoluteley EVERYTHING I've worked for. I want to give them every bit of help possible when I'm gone.
The problem with capitalism is that it creates insecurity and risk just as readily as it 'creates' wealth and that it distributes these pros and cons unequally; the risk and insecurity is borne by the majority (to varying extents) whilst much of the wealth created flows into the coffers of a relatively small number of people who have more money than is conceivable. In the same way that America pays more per head for healthcare than the UK does but gets less in return because money is siphoned off by private companies, Capitalism doesn't deliver value for money for 99% of people on this planet because the money doesn't go where it's needed.
Socialism, to me, is about building a society where everyone gets 'value for money' for the wealth that society creates. At the very least, the basic needs of life should be met for all, no questions asked. Countries like the UK and USA could provide that and much more comfortably if there was political will to deliver it.
Socialism, to me, is about building a society where everyone gets 'value for money' for the wealth that society creates. At the very least, the basic needs of life should be met for all, no questions asked. Countries like the UK and USA could provide that and much more comfortably if there was political will to deliver it.
Then I must assume you are in favor of inheritance taxes since no other institution (/state of affairs) than the nation state provided a higher security level to its inhabitants.
@PedroMendez
I've not forgotten this; I'm currently (re-)reading some originals which I may incorporate in my reply. So it will still take more time, but it will come.
I've not forgotten this; I'm currently (re-)reading some originals which I may incorporate in my reply. So it will still take more time, but it will come.
The number one authoritarian statist ideology is fascism - it's pretty much the only well-known, "openly statist" political ideology: "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." as Mussolini put it. They are as top right as possible to be.@Florida Man
From what I’ve been taught...
You’d also have your Authoritarian Statist ideologies in the top left and Libertarian capitalist ideologies in the bottom right.
Edit:
*Disclaimer: it was kinda hard to fit the dots on the grid along with the wording without spacing them out a bit more than they might need to be to keep it readable.*
Socialism on paper sounds amazing, but the human factor always manages to wreck everything.
The answer is simple: we didn't evolve much on social behaviors as a species. We just became more sophisticated and civilized.
In most species, having a big territory and being attractive to females is a sign of big status.
On humans, territorial domination was substituted by money and by material items we buy: if we have a nice home, a good car and a big flat screen TV, etc, means we possess a lot of territory.
Also, we use this to show how interesting we are for females, and will try to bang as much as we can.
So, despite thousands of years of history, we're still the same basic creatures that just think about expanding it's territory (own material stuff, etc) and bang women.
So, basically, the group of people in power will do everything in their reach to keep that power and raise it if possible.
The answer is simple: we didn't evolve much on social behaviors as a species. We just became more sophisticated and civilized.
In most species, having a big territory and being attractive to females is a sign of big status.
On humans, territorial domination was substituted by money and by material items we buy: if we have a nice home, a good car and a big flat screen TV, etc, means we possess a lot of territory.
Also, we use this to show how interesting we are for females, and will try to bang as much as we can.
So, despite thousands of years of history, we're still the same basic creatures that just think about expanding it's territory (own material stuff, etc) and bang women.
So, basically, the group of people in power will do everything in their reach to keep that power and raise it if possible.
Because of Fascism’s strange economic policies that borrow from both sides, Fascism would actually be plotted straight up at the top of the Y Axis (no pun intended)
Agree. And haha.
Socialism is a sentiment. That's all it seems to be because I don't actually know any socialist country I'd like to live in. I've never met socialists with solutions. Every socialist wants the state to provide these solutions. To tell us all what to do and codify our lives with tedious, often pointless, rules. To crush our initiative. More state means less liberty.
@Eboue - this guy needs you
agreed
The concept of socialism is to create a financial big brother that will control all industries.
The concept behind it is reasonable because in a word where you could exclude corruption and selfishness, things would be regulated and it would generate a highly organized internal economy.
People are seen as the main assets, so they require highly qualified inhabitants and make sure they get all the necessary education. Food and health are also seen as basic needs so everyone gets access to both.
The end product of socialism fails not only because of the human factor, but also because it is a very conservative system that resists to evolutionary changes.
As the power is concentrated in few people and with so many industries to control, it's easy for things to derail.
Besides that, as it is difficult to compete against the government, it makes entrepreneurs life miserable, and eventually importations of some goods become bigger than exportations making it unsustainable for some areas
Let's just remind everyone, that capitalism was an absolute nightmare of an economic system for the vast majority of people until the early 20th century. It was as bad as pretty much anything before it.
We have to remember that capitalism, is not really a new thing, you can argue that it first reared its head under mercantilism, as mercantilism is more or less a precursor and early form of the capitalism we have now, it of course focused primarily on the extraction of wealth and unequal trade between markets, whereas modern capitalism, focused on the extraction of wealth, the exploitation of labor combined with unequal trade betwe...wait oh shit. When it did emerge in its modern form, it simply replaced one group of wealthy individuals who fecked everyone else over, with a new group of wealthy individuals who fecked everyone else over.
Capitalism really only started work for the majority, after socialism knocked it up in the early 20th century.
We have to remember that capitalism, is not really a new thing, you can argue that it first reared its head under mercantilism, as mercantilism is more or less a precursor and early form of the capitalism we have now, it of course focused primarily on the extraction of wealth and unequal trade between markets, whereas modern capitalism, focused on the extraction of wealth, the exploitation of labor combined with unequal trade betwe...wait oh shit. When it did emerge in its modern form, it simply replaced one group of wealthy individuals who fecked everyone else over, with a new group of wealthy individuals who fecked everyone else over.
Capitalism really only started work for the majority, after socialism knocked it up in the early 20th century.
As they say, behind every capitalist is a strong socialist.
I see this a lot. I presume you're referring to greed. But isn't teamwork an inherent part of what got humans to the top of the food chain as well?
But to add to your point, where full on socialism fails right now is because it requires a full paradigm shift rather than a change of system. We've had capitalism more or less for hundreds of years so we're sort of wired to the concept of "do work, get some money". That full paradigm shift will take who knows how many years to implement.
Team work gets you to the top, but there's always people trying to get rights over a big part of the hunt and crops, and some are so "ingeniously evil" that even create a system to help them, like being a member of a royal family that means you'll have wealth and power before you were even born.
Same also happens in socialism: the generals who "create" the "revolution will stick to power no matter what, and make sure their families get involved too.
But I agree with your shift point : it is a very difficult task for a human to motivate without no visible valuable reward. Our "animal instinct" tell us that we need to possess territory (which nowadays translates to house, cars, latest tech, vacations on exotic places, etc), we need to flaunt our conquers.
To change that mindset into a "working to make you and your country richer" is very difficult (if not totally impossible on a full scale), because personal goals become united with "state goals" and our individuality becomes a bit lost.
The best thing is always a mix between both and there are a few countries showing that works well (social democracy), but it requires a strong honesty culture that does not condemn "snitching".
In one hand it lets the market run almost free, but making sure the competition between companies of the same sectors is fair. And they still ensure their citizens get public services with good standards. And the citizens feel motivated to "snitch" persons or companies who are breaking the law.
Socialism is a great ideal.
People are stupid, greedy cnuts.
Not a good match.
People are stupid, greedy cnuts.
Not a good match.
Stop getting Marx wrong!
Socalism is the systemized eradication of human aspiration and ambition.
Last edited:
what aspiration and ambition do the majority of people on the planet have? you're lucky if you can just make ends meet for the vast majority of the planet. the concentration of money into the hands of the elite is more pronounced now than ever. this idealised 'american dream' idea is a falsehood, really.