Current Events > Socialism is when [*describes Capitalism*]

(+) Yeah! (+)

GentlemanGamer posted...

Name one country that has ever achieved true socialism

None of them can. That's the point. Humans are inherently selfish.

---

FortuneCookie posted...

GentlemanGamer posted...

Name one country that has ever achieved true socialism

None of them can. That's the point. Humans are inherently selfish.

If humans were inherently selfish, we would have gone extinct a long time ago.

Webmaster4531 posted...

Giving everyone below a 6 figure salary $1200 is capitalism?

Giving the unemployed $600 is capitalism?

Yes. Many people in this topic have explained about workers controlling the means of production being socialism. Welfare states are a capitalist institution. A socialist (an actual one) wouldn't want money to exist to begin with, you wouldn't need a welfare state in a true socialist society. That said no capitalist country exists that doesn't have a welfare state and no society that calls itself socialist actually lets workers control the means of production. So basically everything you currently see are variations of capitalism. Social democracies come the closest to achieving the alleged goals of many people who call themselves socialist, but are explicitly capitalist. This leads to many people who really like the fascist style governance and control that calls itself socialism to reject social democracy in favor of mass income inequality and human rights abuses because you get to lick boots that are red with a sweet hammer and sickle design.

---

treewojima posted...

If humans were inherently selfish, we would have gone extinct a long time ago.

Protecting in-groups is also a form of selfishness. Taking as much as you can take without getting caught is basically how it has always worked.

ssjevot posted...

Many people in this topic have explained about workers controlling the means of production being socialism.

They're all wrong.

In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.
---

nemu posted...

treewojima posted...

If humans were inherently selfish, we would have gone extinct a long time ago.

Protecting in-groups is also a form of selfishness. Taking as much as you can take without getting caught is basically how it has always worked.

Yes, yes, I've heard this line of thinking before, that everything is ultimately a selfish act in the name of self-preservation. My point was that cooperation is not an unnatural behavior, but is instead dictated by the societies in which we live. If we're constantly forced to compete with each other for our scrap of the artificially scarce pie, it's no wonder the most selfish and vicious come out on top.

Keith_Valentine posted...

Why are you guys bitching about capitalism when you probably all have very comfortable lives living in it?

Youd think you were hauling sandbags in Guatemela, your fridges are fuckin stocked and you know it. You have access to all the best things the world has to offer and you feel like youre getting screwed. What the fuck. Probably literally whining on smart phones or desk tops, when was the last time you missed a meal?

I call them wage whiners. Mad they don't ever have any spare cash, but they eat out five or six days a week, have all the latest overpriced bullshit gadgets, video games, and they waste all their spare time getting high or getting drunk instead of developing skills or furthering their education and working toward advancement in their careers.

It's a bad joke. All they want is handouts, handouts, handouts.

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

I think most people just want free Medicare and to not get price gouged by education

Do they? Its impossible to tell with you guys, so many claim different shit but act like they represent what all the others want.

Like joel always jumps in on this but doesnt support private ownership of property and thinks business owners and ceos do nothing and are bad.

I doubt you would claim the stuff some of these people say but they latch on to the movement you seem to want.

AzureAnihilator posted...

I call them wage whiners. Mad they don't ever have any spare cash, but they eat out five or six days a week, have all the latest overpriced bullshit gadgets, video games, and they waste all their spare time getting high or getting drunk instead of developing skills or furthering their education and working toward advancement in their careers.

It's a bad joke. All they want is handouts, handouts, handouts.

Forgot to mention all the self pleasuring and bizarre porn consumption.

Webmaster4531 posted...

They're all wrong.

In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3] of the means of production[4][5][6][7] and workers' self-management of enterprises.

Please let me know if a single country that has ever even remotely attempted that.

Also please don't call social democracy democratic socialism. I realize Bernie Sanders has zero idea what he is talking about, but that doesn't make his definitions true by virtue of being that vaguely leftist guy in US politics. In actually functioning democracies with multiple political parties with different ideologies they don't confuse social democrats with socialists.

---

treewojima posted...

If humans were inherently selfish, we would have gone extinct a long time ago.

Obviously not, since we are inherently selfish and have become one of the most dominant lifeforms on the planet.

Being selfish doesn't mean you never cooperate, because cooperation is often mutually beneficial. It also doesn't mean you can't be selectively altruistic on occasion.

Esrac posted...

Obviously not, since we are inherently selfish

[citation needed]

treewojima posted...

[citation needed]

You don't have an argument. He doesn't have to provide citations for something self-evident and he has good points whereas all you have is your shitty attitude. It's time to shut the fuck up.

---

lmao, this is fun

ssjevot posted...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3] of the means of production[4][5][6][7] and workers' self-management of enterprises.

Please let me know if a single country that has ever even remotely attempted that.

Source 1 "Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy."

Weasel worded.

Source 2 "Socialism, you see, is a bird with two wings. The definition is 'social ownership and democratic control of the instruments and means of production.'"

Source 3 "What else does a socialist economic system involve? Those who favor socialism generally speak of social ownership, social control, or socialization of the means of production as the distinctive positive feature of a socialist economic system."

None of these completely support the first sentence.

We have social ownership and democratic control of the means of production in the U.S.
---

These guys almost always scurry when you ask them what they believe in. They hate capitalism, they usually hate the US, but you ask what they want and where its better. What change needs to happen.

Silence.

treewojima posted...

lmao, this is fun

AzureAnihilator posted...

It's time to shut the fuck up.

---

AzureAnihilator posted...

treewojima posted...

lmao, this is fun

AzureAnihilator posted...

It's time to shut the fuck up.

no u

check and mate

Webmaster4531 posted...

Source 1 "Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy."

Weasel worded.

Source 2 "Socialism, you see, is a bird with two wings. The definition is 'social ownership and democratic control of the instruments and means of production.'"

Source 3 "What else does a socialist economic system involve? Those who favor socialism generally speak of social ownership, social control, or socialization of the means of production as the distinctive positive feature of a socialist economic system."

None of these completely support the first sentence.

We have social ownership and democratic control of the means of production in the U.S.

Okay is socialism means government doing stuff then it is meaningless as as I said before, since all governments do stuff. You have people advocating fascism calling it socialism (at least one in this topic, and others have as well), you have people who just want a strong welfare state in a capitalist society calling that socialism, and then you have few people going by the actual definition of worker control of the means of production. If your argument is socialism has no meaning than that's fine. I don't advocate for socialism (largely because of the people who identify with it being indistinguishable from fascists) nor support socialists, so I like to make it clear what socialism is. Wanting the currently existing welfare state in every single country on Earth to be stronger is in no way related to socialism and trying to conflate it with socialism helps no one.

---

AzureAnihilator posted...

You don't have an argument. He doesn't have to provide citations for something self-evident

You can get away with that in a circle jerk with your friends but not on a public forum

If you're gonna make broad generalizations about the human psyche, it needs to be backed by studies and evidence

---

ssjevot posted...

(largely because of the people who identify with it being indistinguishable from fascists)

Fuck off.

Go spread your McCarthy anti-Semitic bullshit somewhere else.
---

Keith_Valentine posted...

Inatead of me being sarcastic and lashing out in lame gfaqs fashion. Would anyone care to tell me what exactly socialism is to them, and not in a bathroom 20 word analogy? And please cite an example of socialist success. Not saying it doesnt exist, i would just like to see yours.

As for the KV is an 'i got mine, fuck the poor' line someone said. I grew up poor and was homeless last year. Please dont pretend to understand why I have the views i do until you give me a chance to explain myself. Or present said views at all

Ok, so "Socialism" is a very broad range of possibilities, so just keep in mind that what I'm discussing here is only what I would like to see us work towards. Importantly though, we must work towards these means democratically, not authoritatively. Also, we may never reach this idea of a society, I just advocate for adopting more of these principles because I think that doing so would result in a better quality of life for a greater number of people..which is my goal here.

A broad definition of socialism is typically that the means of production are owned by the working class. In my ideal society, there is no single capital owner who owns the business, rather, it is owned by the workers collectively. Additionally, this would be set in a country in which democracy is how things are run. The country would be thought of as "owned" by all citizens. Though, as it is now, government and companies would of course be separate entities.
Three broad characteristics:

1. Under our current system, workplaces are typically owned by a single person or relatively small group of people. They are entitled to the profits of said company and pay the people who actually do the work a relatively small fee in order to do the work, while the owners typically handle only the administrative tasks. These workplaces are authoritarian in nature, meaning that the owner (or small group of owners) make all decisions related to the company and can hire/fire at will, regardless of the desires of the workers. I argue that companies can be run democratically. Workers can vote on administrative actions and on bringing someone else onto the team, or removing them if necessary. Any directors or managers, or anyone who will be given more authority to make certain administrative decisions, must be voted in (and can be voted out) by the workers instead of by stockholders or assigned by just one person, etc. All workers are thus entitled to the company's profits collectively.

2. People should actually have to work in order to be entitled to a company's profits. You dont get to be born into a wealthy family and stay rich just by investing and never having to work a day in your life. The workers would own the shares, rather than independent entities who just purchase shares and profit without doing work for the company.

3. Finally, a rigid social safety net exists within the society on a governmental level. Healthcare is not tied to employment, citizens are well educated, and have opportunity to pick whatever path they want in life. Citizens are generally ambitious and want to contribute in some way to society. Those who do not are able to live, but will not have as much as the workers of course. They will, however, have access to opportunity to work towards a working position..such as educational opportunities that will not saddle them with unreasonable debt that they may never be able to pay back. This is useful because under the current system, we tend to treat capital owners as if they have some "innate drive" that most people do not. I argue that these drives are mostly environmental in nature, rather than genetic or "just how someone is". Therefore, the better a base system we have in place...the more educated, productive, and motivated that the general populace will be (also the more capable they'll be of making those administrative decisions I was talking about).

---

Webmaster4531 posted...

Fuck off.

Go spread your McCarthy anti-Semitic bullshit somewhere else.

Lol, what? I am talking about people who advocate for regimes like the Soviet Union (massively anti-Semitic by the way), North Korea, etc. I certainly don't advocate for the US government. I just called all their presidents war criminals in another topic. Though assuming you are one of those tankie types who advocates for fascism in red this is an expected response.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union

For those interested. Don't let these genocide deniers calling themselves socialists fool you. They do not care about workers, inequality, racism, etc. It's just a ruse. Actual leftists get chased out by tankies because that's what fascists do. So you might see them dominating leftist spaces, but good leftists do exist.

---

Oh I see Keith made it out of purgatory again

---

AzureAnihilator posted...

You don't have an argument. He doesn't have to provide citations for something self-evident

That's actually precisely when you have to provide citations. Also see: all other situations

---

ssjevot posted...

Lol, what? I am talking about people who advocate for regimes like the Soviet Union (massively anti-Semitic by the way), North Korea, etc. I certainly don't advocate for the US government. I just called all their presidents war criminals in another topic. Though assuming you are one of those tankie types who advocates for fascism in red this is an expected response.

You just mentioned Bernie Sanders for no reason. /s
---

Webmaster4531 posted...

You just mentioned Bernie Sanders for no reason. /s

Bernie Sanders is a capitalist who advocates for capitalism (though he has a very poor understanding of ideology or is disingenuous). I also voted for him twice. Are you even reading my posts?

By the way Bernie Sanders decried communism in a debate and claimed he supported socialism like Nordic countries. Again he doesn't understand ideology, but he makes it clear what he actually stood for. You don't need to be an expert on ideology to be a good person.

---

ssjevot posted...

Lol, what? I am talking about people who advocate for regimes like the Soviet Union (massively anti-Semitic by the way), North Korea, etc. I certainly don't advocate for the US government. I just called all their presidents war criminals in another topic. Though assuming you are one of those tankie types who advocates for fascism in red this is an expected response.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union

For those interested. Don't let these genocide deniers calling themselves socialists fool you. They do not care about workers, inequality, racism, etc. It's just a ruse. Actual leftists get chased out by tankies because that's what fascists do. So you might see them dominating leftist spaces, but good leftists do exist.

Jesus Christ, this guy is going full Proudclad!

Gwynevere posted...

You can get away with that in a circle jerk with your friends but not on a public forum

If you're gonna make broad generalizations about the human psyche, it needs to be backed by studies and evidence

Did you somehow come under the impression that I answer to you? I don't, and I don't care what you think anything needs. It's not even my argument. But needing someone to source that humans are selfish is ridiculous. Don't waste my time.

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

That's actually precisely when you have to provide citations. Also see: all other situations

So when something is self-evident is precisely when you have to provide citations. Water is wet [citation needed]. Humans need to breathe to live [citation needed]. You're being mocked, I want to make sure that's clear enough for you. Or do I need to provide citations? Your post was incredibly stupid.

---

AzureAnihilator posted...

So when something is self-evident is precisely when you have to provide citations.

Yes. You always have to provide evidence for your statements when making an argument. The ability to think critically is what separates us from most of the animals we eat for fun. If treewojima were hungry and bored, you'd be in trouble.

---

ssjevot posted...

claimed he supported socialism like Nordic countries.

Oh, like how source 2 from Wikipedia defined socialism?

You're the one confused on what is socialism.
---

AzureAnihilator posted...

Your post was incredibly stupid.

[citation needed]

ButteryMales posted...

Jesus Christ, this guy is going full Proudclad!

The Soviet Union responded to multiple strikes over working conditions by sending in tanks or soldiers to kill workers. So the question becomes why would people who claim to be socialist defend them so much? They never let workers control the means of production, they stripped them of their rights, they ruled with fear, they committed genocides and oppressed LGBT people. So why are they defending them? If they cared about workers wouldn't they advocate countries with great worker protections like Nordic countries? At some point it just becomes to ridiculous to keep pretending they actually care about workers or even socialism beyond using it as a buzzword to gain power.

Leftist anarchists and others of the like are good people though. Chomsky advocates a variation of that called anarcho syndicalism and other than thinking it isn't realistic due to the fascist threat, I think it's a great principle.

---

Keith_Valentine posted...

Why are you guys bitching about capitalism when you probably all have very comfortable lives living in it?

Youd think you were hauling sandbags in Guatemela, your fridges are fuckin stocked and you know it. You have access to all the best things the world has to offer and you feel like youre getting screwed. What the fuck. Probably literally whining on smart phones or desk tops, when was the last time you missed a meal?

They're probably just bored. lol

---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Yes. You always have to provide evidence for your statements when making an argument. The ability to think critically is what separates us from most of the animals we eat for fun. If treewojima were hungry and bored, you'd be in trouble.

Yes, all people not bored enough to play along with your stupid games are cannibals. It seems the ability to think critically has escaped you, if you ever had it to begin with.

---

Webmaster4531 posted...

Oh, like how source 2 from Wikipedia defined socialism?

You're the one confused on what is socialism.

I said he doesn't understand ideology. No leftist thinks those countries are socialist. They have socialist parties in them. They run against social democrats. They're competing ideologies. The sad thing is you probably support social democracy like me (and Bernie), but due to how poorly socialism is understood in the US you are conflating it with both capitalist social democracy and the red fascists. Neither of which are socialist in practice (though one of which actually helps workers).

---

ssjevot posted...

I said he doesn't understand ideology.

Oh, tell us more of your asinine opinions of Upton Sinclair.
---

AzureAnihilator posted...

Yes, all people not bored enough to play along with your stupid games are cannibals.

Well, now I'm bored.

---

Webmaster4531 posted...

Oh, tell us more of your asinine opinions of Upton Sinclair.

You can call it whatever you want. If you live in a functioning democracy with multiple parties. The socialists and social democrats are separate parties. Social Democrats don't consider themselves socialist.

---

ssjevot posted...

You can call it whatever you want. If you live in a functioning democracy with multiple parties. The socialists and social democrats are separate parties. Social Democrats don't consider themselves socialist.

How many Pulitzer prizes have you won?
---

Webmaster4531 posted...

How many Pulitzer prizes have you won?

Appeal to authority isn't an argument. I don't know why you want to redefine the word so much. To you it can mean that. I live in a country where socialists and social democrats are not the same thing. Every country that has social democratic parties is also like that. I never intend to live in the US again, but I voted for Bernie twice because he seemed like the best out of the lot for the likely impossible take of improving the US both times. That said his supporters have shown themselves to be some rather frustrating people to associate with.

---

Anticyclonic posted...

Ok, so "Socialism" is a very broad range of possibilities, so just keep in mind that what I'm discussing here is only what I would like to see us work towards. Importantly though, we must work towards these means democratically, not authoritatively. Also, we may never reach this idea of a society, I just advocate for adopting more of these principles because I think that doing so would result in a better quality of life for a greater number of people..which is my goal here.

A broad definition of socialism is typically that the means of production are owned by the working class. In my ideal society, there is no single capital owner who owns the business, rather, it is owned by the workers collectively. Additionally, this would be set in a country in which democracy is how things are run. The country would be thought of as "owned" by all citizens. Though, as it is now, government and companies would of course be separate entities.
Three broad characteristics:

1. Under our current system, workplaces are typically owned by a single person or relatively small group of people. They are entitled to the profits of said company and pay the people who actually do the work a relatively small fee in order to do the work, while the owners typically handle only the administrative tasks. These workplaces are authoritarian in nature, meaning that the owner (or small group of owners) make all decisions related to the company and can hire/fire at will, regardless of the desires of the workers. I argue that companies can be run democratically. Workers can vote on administrative actions and on bringing someone else onto the team, or removing them if necessary. Any directors or managers, or anyone who will be given more authority to make certain administrative decisions, must be voted in (and can be voted out) by the workers instead of by stockholders or assigned by just one person, etc. All workers are thus entitled to the company's profits collectively.

2. People should actually have to work in order to be entitled to a company's profits. You dont get to be born into a wealthy family and stay rich just by investing and never having to work a day in your life. The workers would own the shares, rather than independent entities who just purchase shares and profit without doing work for the company.

3. Finally, a rigid social safety net exists within the society on a governmental level. Healthcare is not tied to employment, citizens are well educated, and have opportunity to pick whatever path they want in life. Citizens are generally ambitious and want to contribute in some way to society. Those who do not are able to live, but will not have as much as the workers of course. They will, however, have access to opportunity to work towards a working position..such as educational opportunities that will not saddle them with unreasonable debt that they may never be able to pay back. This is useful because under the current system, we tend to treat capital owners as if they have some "innate drive" that most people do not. I argue that these drives are mostly environmental in nature, rather than genetic or "just how someone is". Therefore, the better a base system we have in place...the more educated, productive, and motivated that the general populace will be (also the more capable they'll be of making those administrative decisions I was talking about).

Ok, which democratic socialist country would you say fits this model the best iyo? The one we (united states) should strive for.

ssjevot posted...

Appeal to authority isn't an argument.

I cited Merriam Webster's dictionary and you cited Wikipedia.
---

Webmaster4531 posted...

I cited Merriam Webster's dictionary and you cited Wikipedia.

Find me a single social democratic party with seats in any country in the world that claims to be socialist. Any country is fine. You do that and I will say your definition can have utility in those instances. But so far you're just needlessly trying to redefine a word to muddy very clearly different ideologies.

---

Webmaster4531 posted...

Oh, tell us more of your asinine opinions of Upton Sinclair.

"I drink your milkshake. I DRINK IT UP!"

ssjevot posted...

Find me a single social democratic party with seats in any country in the world that claims to be socialist. Any country is fine. You do that and I will say your definition can have utility in those instances. But so far you're just needlessly trying to redefine a word to muddy very clearly different ideologies.

What is the difference? Srs is not social democracy a form of socialism? Keep it simple

Keith_Valentine posted...

"I drink your milkshake. I DRINK IT UP!"

What is the difference? Srs is not social democracy a form of socialism? Keep it simple

I explained it multiple times in this topic. Social democracy advocates for a strong welfare state in a capitalist society. It doesn't advocate for elimination of private property or ownership or shifting means of production to the workers. It simply advocates for a strong welfare state. Many social democratic countries have freer economies than the US even when ranked by conservative institutes.

---

ssjevot posted...

Find me a single social democratic party with seats in any country in the world that claims to be socialist. Any country is fine. You do that and I will say your definition can have utility in those instances.

I cited a dictionary, I don't give two shits on your opinion of the definition.

ssjevot posted...

But so far you're just needlessly trying to redefine a word to muddy very clearly different ideologies.

Fuck off, McCarthy.
---

AzureAnihilator posted...

Did you somehow come under the impression that I answer to you? I don't, and I don't care what you think anything needs. .

[citation needed]

---

Is this one of those topics where people argue about the evils of socialism as a political theory to justify shitting on social policies?

---

Webmaster4531 posted...

I cited a dictionary, I don't give two shits on your opinion of the definition.

Fuck off, McCarthy.

You never showed me a single definition calling social democracy socialism. You tried to redefine it to that yourself. You also claimed the US somehow meets the criterion for socialism which is an absurd claim.

McCarthy was a conservative. Red fascism was a term originating from leftists to describe the Soviet Union and the eventual bromance between Hitler and Stalin until Hitler betrayed him.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism

I don't like conservatives or fascists of any kind. I already said I have no problem with leftists who don't advocate fascism. That you can't comprehend more than two ideologies isn't my problem.

---