General No country has ever succeeded with socialism. Prove me wrong
- Thread starter ShatsBassoon
- Start date
I believe that true socialism nor true capitalism works. The best bits of both combined are the best imo
To be fair, our Capitalistic system has had to be bailed out and saved many times.
Without socialism or the redistribution of wealth by the Government would we still have our current system?
Without socialism or the redistribution of wealth by the Government would we still have our current system?
i used to believe this. she is way too weak though. of course, that could change. but she's too soft to win presidency. and too soft to be the leader i want
same with Ro Khanna. awesome dude. but totally pussy
we need a fighter who will call out people on both sides for what they are, which is corrupt
nina turner for president
but it highlights the problem of "centrally-planned" economies - the planners always make themselves rich first.
M
member 1013
Guest
M
member 1013
Guest
Your goal should be to become too big to fail.But won’t somebody think of the shareholders! -@Hauler, probably
im the opposite of those two nowadays. i am basically a one issue voter. i cant medicare for all
Bruh, the last president and current president would lose a 2v1 against her
You'd have a better version of it because rent seeking behavior wouldn't be rewarded
Not sure how I missed this thread, but it's a good opportunity to discuss something I was thinking about this morning.
The thing is that the term socialism, which I've taken pains to semi-accurately define on here on other threads, is actually ridiculous on it's face. The idea that we should be attentive to the fact that production is social, meaning all people are a part of it and it is a matter of concern for all of those people equally, is uncontroversial and frankly obvious. It's like saying we breathe oxygen. What is less logical are the premises that capitalism rests on, which as an ism also has its specific meaning. Most of the people we call socialists today are people who leveled a critique of the capitalist form of social relations and believe in altering its logics to one that more accurately takes into account the idea that each person should have equivalent say in the product of social production. To elaborate on what I mean by social production, I'll use each of the points raised by the author in the article above.
Claim 1: "You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity."
There are two taken for granted assumptions in this statement. The first is the existence of a class system, whereby one group in society is suffering a lack of access to socially produced resources. Here they are called "the poor." What gives them this status? Why are they less valuable to society? Where does value come from? Does it come from what we all collectively need to get through the day or from somewhere else? These are the first questions the critic or defender of capitalism must ask and answer, since we live at this point in a capitalist world system.
The second assumption is that there is such a thing as prosperity. This suggests that there is a standard of the good life. Who sets this standard? Or rather, who puts the rules in place that determine who may live below this standard? This is ultimately the socialist question. So to say "you cannot legislate" implies that you cannot answer this question through democratically elected representatives in a state deciding to answer these questions.
Claim #2: "What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving."
This claim exposes the heart of the critiques of capitalism. What are the relations that condition our access to the things we receive? In other words, how do we get stuff to live? Who owns the access to the things we need and why? Who works for whom? Should the answer be a small group of individuals, called capitalists? Should it be the political entity that we call the state? Should it be workers democratically working for themselves? These are the socialist questions.
Claim #3: "The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government first does not take from somebody else."
In each geographic area, there are various governing structures, so it's important to define what we mean here by "the government." In the United States, for example, the government does not give or take. It mostly creates capital out of thin air and then sets rules for who may access it. There is no wealth except that denominated in currency the government of the United States issues. Because of its place in the capitalist system, this is true globally. As such, controlling access to its currency circulation is the primary function of the American government. The socialist question for the rest of the world is how did this come to be? What relations sustain it? Also, who has the most influence on how this currency is circulated? Is it a small group of capitalists, an autonomous group of bureaucrats, or the binding vote of all who are compelled to work for this currency?
Claim #4: "You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
What is said to be wealth here is probably better understood as value. If value, as discussed earlier, is the sum of all social labor, then all wealth is by its nature divided. The question is why should it be multiplied? The capitalist answer is "growth," which is an abstract term in economics that is theorized to be necessary to produce enough of a surplus to meet all demands among humans. But in fact, there is no surplus. There are surpluses enjoyed by the owners of the tools and property we need to produce things, but both the production itself and the brunt of their losses are socialized. This desire for growth at all costs is why there are continual crises in capitalism. Is growth the best metric of social production? If so, why? These are the questions the capitalist must answer. The socialist instead wonders why surplus is not socialized if production and losses are?
Claim #5: "When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of the nation."
This is precisely the system we live in today under capitalism except the distribution is approximately 1% to 99%. The socialist often says if the 99%, understood to be the classes that must work, "got this idea" then it would indeed be the end of the bourgeois capitalist nation-state as it currently exists. Speaking personally, I'm not so optimistic that simply knowing anything is enough. There's also believing it can be different and being willing to do something about it. What is to be done? This is maybe the most important socialist question and we've seen several answers around the world that are usually conditioned by the historical and political circumstances on the ground.