Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EnigmaticHat]

I don't think a fascist ruler would do worse than Maduro

what the fuck

First of all, an implication of my post is that Maduro *has* most likely made people disappear and killed them.  On the basis that he seems to have done everything else.

Second of all... do you know what Maduro has done in Venezuala?  Its like a Stalin vs Hitler situation; or in this case more like Maduro vs Mussolini.  Yeah I disagree with Stalin less than I disagree with Hitler but the end result is functionally equivalent.

[Baffler]

The thing with socialism is the way is promoted. What if I tell you this revolver is a really good hair drier. People keep dying form using it but it's their fault because the don't know how to use it, or hasn't been implemented the right way. The fact people claim it's a hair dryer is moot, its a fucking revolver.

I would like to remind you that we got the same shit in Brazil from people who said they were saving us from socialism. Don't let yourself be fooled Baal, bad men will perform bad deeds under any banner.

Maybe. Where's the lie though? Literally name a single socialist country you would want to move to. I can't. Frankly it's amazing that anyone falls for this schlock in the modern era, let alone defends its historical record. "Free shit" is a pretty tempting promise I guess.

[Teneb]

The thing with socialism is the way is promoted. What if I tell you this revolver is a really good hair drier. People keep dying form using it but it's their fault because the don't know how to use it, or hasn't been implemented the right way. The fact people claim it's a hair dryer is moot, its a fucking revolver.

I would like to remind you that we got the same shit in Brazil from people who said they were saving us from socialism. Don't let yourself be fooled Baal, bad men will perform bad deeds under any banner.

Maybe. Where's the lie though? Literally name a single socialist country you would want to move to. I can't. Frankly it's amazing that anyone falls for this schlock in the modern era, let alone defends its historical record. "Free shit" is a pretty tempting promise I guess.

There may not be good socialist countries NOW, but there certainly were. Allende's Chile was pretty damn great up until General Pinochet rolled in and murdered and tortured everyone he could.

Socialism, however, ain't about "free shit", as you put it. It's about, and only about, the means of production being owned by those who work it, and often coupled with state oversight of private enterprise. Unfortunately, periods of political transition are a prime time for power-hungry assholes to seize power and corrupt the new system, whatever said new system might be.

And even if you think the above is a bad thing, which you have the right to, Magistrum certainly wasn't defending socialism as much as they were pointing out that there's going to be despots in any sort of ideological system and blaming the ideology for them is missing the point.

[smjjames]

The thing with socialism is the way is promoted. What if I tell you this revolver is a really good hair drier. People keep dying form using it but it's their fault because the don't know how to use it, or hasn't been implemented the right way. The fact people claim it's a hair dryer is moot, its a fucking revolver.

I would like to remind you that we got the same shit in Brazil from people who said they were saving us from socialism. Don't let yourself be fooled Baal, bad men will perform bad deeds under any banner.

Maybe. Where's the lie though? Literally name a single socialist country you would want to move to. I can't. Frankly it's amazing that anyone falls for this schlock in the modern era, let alone defends its historical record. "Free shit" is a pretty tempting promise I guess.

Maybe one of the Scandinavian countries? Though really, there’s full on socialism/communism (former Soviet Union for example, and China before they adjusted to a more open economy), to a mix of purely socialist government with somewhat capitalistic economy (current China), to a government that is a liberal democracy with socialist governing elements and a socialist economy (uh, Lenin comes close? No idea if one ever existed, don’t think any exist now), to a liberal democracy with a left wing party that may or may not call themselves socialist and a capitalist economy with some socialist ideas like say, social security.

With that said. It comes down to what annoys me so much about the usage of the word socialist these days, especially in politics, that is, ‘What do YOU mean by socialist?’  Mind, this is not an attack on you, it’s the way the word has been used in general, sometimes even on this very thread and that people (Republicans usually) act like there is only one type or flavor of socialism.  Just like there isn’t only one type or flavor of democracy (or voting method in a democracy for that matter), there is a whole frigging spectrum of socialist. It’s just that people (nobody here) have used the word socialist for things that are obviously NOT socialist (like Obama ffs) and so, the definition has been shattered into seven billion pieces.

So, again, what type of socialism are you talking about?

/endrant

To repeat, it’s not aimed at you specifically baffles, i’ve Voiced my frustration on it before.

[Baffler]

-snip-

I get what you're saying. Scandis are capitalist economies where redistribution through tax is an integral part of the economy though, I agree with Teneb that socialism is an umbrella for economic models centered around worker ownership, and would add that communism is an umbrella for the subtypes of socialism intellectually beholden to Karl Marx.

There may not be good socialist countries NOW, but there certainly were. Allende's Chile was pretty damn great up until General Pinochet rolled in and murdered and tortured everyone he could.

Socialism, however, ain't about "free shit", as you put it. It's about, and only about, the means of production being owned by those who work it, and often coupled with state oversight of private enterprise. Unfortunately, periods of political transition are a prime time for power-hungry assholes to seize power and corrupt the new system, whatever said new system might be.

And even if you think the above is a bad thing, which you have the right to, Magistrum certainly wasn't defending socialism as much as they were pointing out that there's going to be despots in any sort of ideological system and blaming the ideology for them is missing the point.

I don't really disagree with Magistrum in principle, tyrants can in fact come from diverse backgrounds, although let's not pretend socialism doesn't have a history. I can't speak for him but I got the impression he wasn't saying it in principle but rather in support of Maduro, or at least out of sympathy for Venezuela's socialist government or socialist governments in general, which I most certainly do disagree with.

And in practice yes, socialism is about getting free shit. That's what people are attracted to when they come out in support of it, that's the promise it makes to recruit new followers, and that's what most of its supporters see as the prize for victory when they go in for it.

[SalmonGod]

I don't really disagree with Magistrum in principle, tyrants can in fact come from diverse backgrounds, although let's not pretend socialism doesn't have a history. I can't speak for him but I got the impression he wasn't saying it in principle but rather in support of Maduro, or at least out of sympathy for Venezuela's socialist government or socialist governments in general, which I most certainly do disagree with.

Yeah, socialism has a history... of being crushed by sanctions, embargoes, blockades, sabotage, assassinations, terrorism, and warfare as punishment for daring to socialism.  Unless you can show me an example not tainted by this crap, then the outcomes do not reflect socialism's own merits.

And in practice yes, socialism is about getting free shit. That's what people are attracted to when they come out in support of it, that's the promise it makes to recruit new followers, and that's what most of its supporters see as the prize for victory when they go in for it.

If "getting free shit" is what you want to call workers having a say in how the products of their labor are distributed instead of it being stolen from them through agreements made under duress, then sure.  You admitted yourself that it means workers owning the means of production.  Well if workers are producing stuff, why do you call it getting something for free?

[smjjames]

I don't really disagree with Magistrum in principle, tyrants can in fact come from diverse backgrounds, although let's not pretend socialism doesn't have a history. I can't speak for him but I got the impression he wasn't saying it in principle but rather in support of Maduro, or at least out of sympathy for Venezuela's socialist government or socialist governments in general, which I most certainly do disagree with.

Yeah, socialism has a history... of being crushed by sanctions, embargoes, blockades, sabotage, assassinations, terrorism, and warfare as punishment for daring to socialism.  Unless you can show me an example not tainted by this crap, then the outcomes do not reflect socialism's own merits.

Yeah, a lot of potential good cases of socialism were stamped out because of fear of communism and didn’t allow the experiment to play out. Yes, some fear was warranted because of the Soviet/Chinese brand of socialism, but the Cold War wasn’t exactly a period full of rational thinking.

Socialism seems to attract authoritarians more than capitalism, but I don’t know whether it’s because socialism lends more easily into turning into authoritarianism or whether authoritarians are attracted to it for various reasons.

[SalmonGod]

Socialism seems to attract authoritarians more than capitalism, but I don’t know whether it’s because socialism lends more easily into turning into authoritarianism or whether authoritarians are attracted to it for various reasons.

Or capitalism has just as much authoritarianism trouble as socialism, and most just don't look at the things that happen under capitalism that way because it's their default expectation of reality.

Fact is the vast majority of those who live under capitalism spend most of their waking lives as automatons acting out the detailed will of someone wealthier than them, and have very little choice in the matter.  Not authoritarian?

[Magistrum]

Socialism seems to attract authoritarians more than capitalism, but I don’t know whether it’s because socialism lends more easily into turning into authoritarianism or whether authoritarians are attracted to it for various reasons.

I would disagree. Regime changes generate authoritarians, and it is such a radical move to actually transition that it simply doesn't have another likely pathway to enter in practice.

I don't really disagree with Magistrum in principle, tyrants can in fact come from diverse backgrounds, although let's not pretend socialism doesn't have a history. I can't speak for him but I got the impression he wasn't saying it in principle but rather in support of Maduro, or at least out of sympathy for Venezuela's socialist government or socialist governments in general, which I most certainly do disagree with.

No love for Maduro here, he seems to be as bad as any despot. Venezuela's government is very much useless right now. Should the whole country collapse not much of value is going away. The people who would take over then could be a problem.

I do hold communist ideals in high regard. I also consider not doing so as a moral failing. They may be difficult to achieve, but they are a true expression of justice and solidarity. We may do whatever works, but we should know that what we do is uncaring, cruel and malevolent.

[Baffler]

Yeah, socialism has a history... of being crushed by sanctions, embargoes, blockades, sabotage, assassinations, terrorism, and warfare as punishment for daring to socialism.  Unless you can show me an example not tainted by this crap, then the outcomes do not reflect socialism's own merits.

Yes, it is the fault of capitalism that the Soviet Union killed all those people, or that Mao killed all those people, or Pol Pot killed all those people, or the Kims killed all those people. Real socialist governments do not engage in such things, and if they do the Great Satan, the United States of America, forced them to. It is unfair that other states would treat them differently over simple matters of internal security and political cohesion, or take umbrage at their support of their ideological brethren abroad.

If "getting free shit" is what you want to call workers having a say in how the products of their labor are distributed instead of it being stolen from them through agreements made under duress, then sure.  You admitted yourself that it means workers owning the means of production.  Well if workers are producing stuff, why do you call it getting something for free?

There's too much ideology here for me to easily parse what you're actually saying. What, in practical terms, does it mean for workers to have a say in how the products of their labor are distributed? Who is stealing labor and how, and how does redistribution of money and property solve the problem?

I do hold communist ideals in high regard. I also consider not doing so as a moral failing. They may be difficult to achieve, but they are a true expression of justice and solidarity. We may do whatever works, but we should know that what we do is uncaring, cruel and malevolent.

What are communist ideals? What makes them uniquely communist?

[MrRoboto75]

Its okay if you kill people to make profit off of bananas tho.

[Kagus]

As a slight addendum, while the "capitalist country with redistribution through taxes" statement is mostly true, I'd like to point out that Norwegian oil and gas (formerly Statoil, now Equinor) is state-owned. While shares in the company are publicly traded, the Norwegian government always holds majority control by a fair margin. And then the Norwegian oil fund, which was built using the proceeds from state-owned oil, also owns a small share of the company... I'm not entirely sure how that all works out, but hey.

Point being, we do have some major state-owned industry, and it's a pretty significant part of why Norway is in the position it is today as far as having a government with actual social systems.

...the current party in power doesn't really like that though, because private industry is God. So they've been trying to split up formerly state-run things like schools, hospitals and public transit in order to pave the way for throwing government money at "incentivizing" private companies to pick up the slack and then make profit for themselves.

[scriver]

And it should also be noted that the current level of private ownership of the Norwegian Oil industry is also a relatively recent thing, early 2000's I believe, which is more than how ownership use to be back when the North was still pursuing socialist ideas rather than the liberalism-infected nonsense they do since the 80's.

[ChairmanPoo]

I think we should establish an egyptian style theocracy under a dynasty of benevolent inbred  genetically pure god-kings

[EnigmaticHat]

Baffler all 95% of the people that are arguing for socialism would refer to the USSR or communist China as communism rather than socialism.  I could see an argument that that distinction is meaningless but if you're arguing people here want to live in Mao's China I think you're talking past people.

As a slight addendum, while the "capitalist country with redistribution through taxes" statement is mostly true, I'd like to point out that Norwegian oil and gas (formerly Statoil, now Equinor) is state-owned. While shares in the company are publicly traded, the Norwegian government always holds majority control by a fair margin. And then the Norwegian oil fund, which was built using the proceeds from state-owned oil, also owns a small share of the company... I'm not entirely sure how that all works out, but hey.

Point being, we do have some major state-owned industry, and it's a pretty significant part of why Norway is in the position it is today as far as having a government with actual social systems.

...the current party in power doesn't really like that though, because private industry is God. So they've been trying to split up formerly state-run things like schools, hospitals and public transit in order to pave the way for throwing government money at "incentivizing" private companies to pick up the slack and then make profit for themselves.

The idea of a private oil company in 2019 is frankly insane.  In globalism all the economic power is in things that cannot be easily transferred from one country to the other.  Oil deposits in the ground are THE thing that is valuable and cannot be transferred between nations.

I really believe half the reason Fox News exists is to build up nostalgia for the manufacturing era, then convince people that we need to deregulate to bring manufacturing back.  Not for the actual purpose of restarting US manufacturing, but to quietly slip in oil extraction and coal mining as equivalent to manufacturing even tho they blatantly aren't because you don't need to compete for the attentions of private industries in order to extract those things.  Only in the US are the oil extracting states the poor ones, and its because somehow private entrepreneurs are allowed to make off with basically all the profits of a natural resource.