Current Events > i really hate socialism because of how it fetishizes labor

(+) Yeah! (+)

newsflash, assholes, people who dont work deserve just as much say in business and just as much remuneration as people who do work. really pisses me off sometimes how people with physical or mental challenges are often sidelined implicitly using this dumbass 1800s logic

nah, I get the whole 'from each according to their abilities, for eaxh according to their need' thing, im just a liberal, it isnt your fault
---

Most socialists don't think like the strawman you just made up
---

But at least we all get a fair share of nothing
---

Paper_Okami posted...

Most socialists don't think like the strawman you just made up

Most people of whatever ideology are more nuanced than whatever they claim says they should be

But did you finish reading my post i blame myself for my feelings
---

I would hope most modern versions of capitalist or socialist systems would incorporate supplementary humanist principles.

Dragonblade01 posted...

I would hope most modern versions of capitalist or socialist systems would incorporate supplementary humanist principles.

Is it supplementary? Self-described capitalists love inequality. That's why labels like libertarian in a US political sense exist
---

I mean, in socialism, no one who does not work needs to exist

That's why people freely die in communism
---

Balrog0 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I would hope most modern versions of capitalist or socialist systems would incorporate supplementary humanist principles.

Is it supplementary? Self-described capitalists love inequality. That's why labels like libertarian in a US political sense exist

I say supplementary, but I don't mean that they naturally fit within the structure's framework. More that it's a check system created by another structure. Just as a lot of people may say they're capitalist or socialist, I think many would also describe themselves as humanist. As long as there is a willingness to be both, there's room for humanist principles to stave off the colder considerations of the (socio)economic frameworks.

I love all the young "socialists" who think socialism means they just get money/services without working or contributing that are just magically funded by "rich people." In reality, going by every actual socialist nation ever, the guys here who are rooting for it would be assigned absolutely abysmal manual labor jobs by the government. And if they refused, it's a quick trip to the gulag or mysterious "disappearance."
---

The Admiral posted...

I love all the young "socialists" who think socialism means they just get money/services without working or contributing that are just magically funded by "rich people." In reality, going by every actual socialist nation ever, the guys here who are rooting for it would be assigned absolutely abysmal manual labor jobs by the government. And if they refused, it's a quick trip to the gulag or mysterious "disappearance."

Millennial "Socialists:" The US should be a socialist country!
Venezuala: "We're a socialist country, and we starve while our our government shoots us and drives us over with tanks.
Millennial "Socialists:" No, we want to be socialist like places such as... DENMARK!
Denmark: We aren't socialists. We're a capitalist economy.
Millennial "Socialists:" Well whatever, somebody just pay my damn bills already. And Trump is racist.
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I would hope most modern versions of capitalist or socialist systems would incorporate supplementary humanist principles.

Is it supplementary? Self-described capitalists love inequality. That's why labels like libertarian in a US political sense exist

I say supplementary, but I don't mean that they naturally fit within the structure's framework. More that it's a check system created by another structure. Just as a lot of people may say they're capitalist or socialist, I think many would also describe themselves as humanist. As long as there is a willingness to be both, there's room for humanist principles to stave off the colder considerations of the (socio)economic frameworks.

Ah, thats a more nuanced and fair view than i expected to encounter, my bad dude
---

You should hate socialism because it's fucking trash
---

I think this piece does a good enough job of summarizing why socialists place labor at the forefront:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/03/abcs-socialism-working-class-workers-capitalism-power-vivek-chibber/

...The prognosis is, in order to have a better chance at life for the vast majority of the people, and since power centers are not going to give them up voluntarily, youre going to have to extract it from them, through a countervailing power on the part of the poor.

Its a practical issue: if the bourgeois state, and the capitalist class, which has the power, does not, by its own generosity, allow the poor these basic things that it needs for a decent life, where is the power going to get the means to get those things from the capitalists? The answer can only be by extracting it from them, through a countervailing power on the part of the poor. This is where the strategic and practical importance of the working class comes in.

The working class is unlike any other social grouping in the non-capitalist section of modern society. However penurious it is, however dominated it is, however atomized it is, it is the goose that lays the golden egg. It is the source of profits, because unless workers show up to do their work every day and create profits for their employers, that principle of profit maximization cannot be carried out. It remains a dead letter.

Workers, therefore, have an opportunity, if they can take advantage of it: they hold the lever to the stream of profits that keeps the system going. Capitalists have the authority over them, but unless they agree to do what their employers say, the employers are left simply holding the bag no profits for them.

Workers, therefore, are important for a strategic reason, which is that they are the agent, and the only agent, that has a structural place within the society that can bring the power centers to their knees.

That it is a capacity that they have, but they also have an interest in using that capacity. All of those liabilities, all of those constraints which Ive laid out, which are in the way of moving towards a more just society, are most keenly felt in society as a whole by the working class itself. They are the vast majority of modern society. They also happen to be among the poorest end, and they are the ones who every day suffer the indignities, the deprivation, the loss of autonomy, the backbreaking work pace, the insecurity, and the anxiety of what to do with their lives when they are under somebody elses thumb.

But your point that those with disabilities and the otherwise unable to work are often unaccounted for under the crudest Marxist analysis is more or less correct, to its detriment. The working class of the 21st century is somewhat different than the working class of the 19th - or at least we ought to have a better understanding an acceptance of those who were previously excluded from consideration.
---

Your understanding of socialism sounds more soviet, whereas actual Marxism emphasizes the end goal of lessening the need for labor.
It just focuses so intently on labor due to that being the kind of pivoting point where a lot of rights are at stake, and its also the method within capitalism that is weaponized so greatly against the class that became the working class.
---

Balrog0 posted...

newsflash, assholes, people who dont work deserve just as much say in business and just as much remuneration as people who do work. really pisses me off sometimes how people with physical or mental challenges are often sidelined implicitly using this dumbass 1800s logic

I don't have any real issues one way or another with your first sentence, but I'm not entirely sure that the second sentence is a legitimate concern.

our current definition of work is tightly intertwined with how work functions within our capitalist system. in a system where the jobs are worker-controlled, labour would be completely different, to the extent that one could feasibly take issue with it being referred to by the same word.

there are things that disabled people can do. a big part of organizing a socialist system in general is deciding how best to allocate labour. I do believe that, with proper implementation, everyone would be able to contribute something

I disagree with a lot of the things in this essay, but it's good, and it does present an interesting way of thinking about that organization:

http://www.primitivism.com/abolition.htm
---

averagejoel posted...

Balrog0 posted...

newsflash, assholes, people who dont work deserve just as much say in business and just as much remuneration as people who do work. really pisses me off sometimes how people with physical or mental challenges are often sidelined implicitly using this dumbass 1800s logic

I don't have any real issues one way or another with your first sentence, but I'm not entirely sure that the second sentence is a legitimate concern.

our current definition of work is tightly intertwined with how work functions within our capitalist system. in a system where the jobs are worker-controlled, labour would be completely different, to the extent that one could feasibly take issue with it being referred to by the same word.

there are things that disabled people can do. a big part of organizing a socialist system in general is deciding how best to allocate labour. I do believe that, with proper implementation, everyone would be able to contribute something

I disagree with a lot of the things in this essay, but it's good, and it does present an interesting way of thinking about that organization:

http://www.primitivism.com/abolition.htm

Nah, i might be wrong for other reasons, but i am actually considering non-paid forms of labor
---

I will read that essay though!
---

Balrog0 posted...

averagejoel posted...

Balrog0 posted...

newsflash, assholes, people who dont work deserve just as much say in business and just as much remuneration as people who do work. really pisses me off sometimes how people with physical or mental challenges are often sidelined implicitly using this dumbass 1800s logic

I don't have any real issues one way or another with your first sentence, but I'm not entirely sure that the second sentence is a legitimate concern.

our current definition of work is tightly intertwined with how work functions within our capitalist system. in a system where the jobs are worker-controlled, labour would be completely different, to the extent that one could feasibly take issue with it being referred to by the same word.

there are things that disabled people can do. a big part of organizing a socialist system in general is deciding how best to allocate labour. I do believe that, with proper implementation, everyone would be able to contribute something

I disagree with a lot of the things in this essay, but it's good, and it does present an interesting way of thinking about that organization:

http://www.primitivism.com/abolition.htm

Nah, i might be wrong for other reasons, but i am actually considering non-paid forms of labor

can you elaborate on this?
---

manmouse posted...

Your understanding of socialism sounds more soviet, whereas actual Marxism emphasizes the end goal of lessening the need for labor.
It just focuses so intently on labor due to that being the kind of pivoting point where a lot of rights are at stake, and its also the method within capitalism that is weaponized so greatly against the class that became the working class.

Marxism can't have a specific end goal. Historical materialism is merely teleological, it has an end, and you can make predictions about what that end will be
---

Fuparulez posted...

Millennial "Socialists:" The US should be a socialist country!
Venezuala: "We're a socialist country, and we starve while our our government shoots us and drives us over with tanks.
Millennial "Socialists:" No, we want to be socialist like places such as... DENMARK!
Denmark: We aren't socialists. We're a capitalist economy.
Millennial "Socialists:" Well whatever, somebody just pay my damn bills already. And Trump is racist.

Denmark has a higher level of public ownership as a percent of GDP than Venezuela does
---

Its hilarious when people bring up gulags or Venezuela. Theyre basically flying a huge ignorant banner and denying all context and history.

Where to even begin?

1.) Venezuela hasnt always been socialist. It was actually run under a US-sponsored dictatorship for years before the fascist government was overthrown and their people elected Chavez (and international watchdog groups have confirmed the fairness of their elections, by the way). And under Chavezs socialist policies, their poverty went down compared to their conditions under the US-sponsored dictatorship. As for running over their citizens with tanks and starving them?... Lets see, did you hear this from Joanna Hausmann or something? Who happens to be the wealthy white daughter of a former IMF member who had a government position during the prior dictatorship and whose father was promised a new seat under Guaidos government. Actually look into their nation and into the ethnic minority communities, and notice how theyre actually quite well fed, and perfectly happy with the leadership, and notice all the voices talking about starvation are wealthy white Spanish-descended people who arent starving either, and youll start to notice the messaging is quite controlled and uncorroborated. Theres definitely issues to be addressed of course. For one, they are under heavy sanctions which means their trade is severely limited and they have little access to any resources outside their own country, and they only have one valuable resource as a nation (oil), which is finite and not enough to sustain them, and under all the sanctions they cant diversify much beyond that, on top of coming from a heavily destabilized history due to US interference.

So yeah, Venezuela is nothing like our situation in the US. For one, its not as dystopian as the US media paints it, and two: its problems are very different from anything the US could face.

2.) Gulags? Are you playing a cartoon character or are you truly being honest with your beliefs here?
Gulags were a tool of Stalin to jail political enemies. And his political enemies were primarily many of the leftists from the Russian revolution. He LOATHED people like Trotsky and the Mensheviks, who were democratic socialists. Stalins ideals were, from the very start, directly opposed to many leftists of his era, and from his youth he thought many leftist groups in Russia fighting the Tzar were wholly wrong. Gulags werent a result of Marxist thought or socialist ideals, they were Stalins tool to destroy all the people whose ideals were dangerous to his statist ideals, and his statist ideals were inherently anti-Marxist.

On top of that, every example people like this give of socialism gone wrong happens to be a society that was an unindustrialized peasant nation to begin with. Marx himself saw socialism and communism as being the next step in evolution AFTER capitalism ran its course, just as capitalism could never have worked until feudalism had established its own infrastructure and class stability. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, went straight from a late-feudal early-capitalist peasant-and-lord structure into an attempt at violent statist dictatorship with not even a trace of any established means of production.
---

ah theres the "real socialism hasn't been done" argument
---

Yes, the fact that it's failed 100% of the time it's been tried is always the fault of everything else but the ideology itself.

There is no way true socialism works at anything greater than the commune level without a strong central government, which is necessary to redistribute resources at a massive scale. And every single time you give an entity like the federal government such extreme and unquestionable power, it becomes authoritarian. This is exactly what happened in the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, China, North Korea, and every other communist nation ever. And what follows is always a blatant disregard for human rights, brutalization, concentrations of wealth greater among those in power, and economic stagnation.

These are not the results of "Western meddling," or whatever other bullshit guys like averagejoel throw around to dismiss every failure. It's a built-in fatal flaw of the system that ignores that fundamentals of human nature.
---

manmouse posted...

Venezuela hasnt always been socialist.

in terms of how the country actually functions, it's more similar to a nordic-style social democracy than an actual socialist state

manmouse posted...

Gulags were a tool of Stalin to jail political enemies. And his political enemies were primarily many of the leftists from the Russian revolution. He LOATHED people like Trotsky and the Mensheviks, who were democratic socialists. Stalins ideals were, from the very start, directly opposed to many leftists of his era, and from his youth he thought many leftist groups in Russia fighting the Tzar were wholly wrong. Gulags werent a result of Marxist thought or socialist ideals, they were Stalins tool to destroy all the people whose ideals were dangerous to his statist ideals, and his statist ideals were inherently anti-Marxist.

it's also important to recognize that the gulags were not significantly worse than equivalent prisons in other countries at the time (this is in terms of living conditions and mortality rates)

the population of the gulags peaked during World War 2, at which point the rate of imprisonment was roughly comparable to that of the US today.
---

LOL. Just to put the brake on averagejoel's complete and utter bullshit about how "gulags weren't that bad for the time," which is possibly the stupidest thing I've seen written on CE in a while:

https://www.history.com/topics/russia/gulag

The Gulag was a system of forced labor camps established during Joseph Stalins long reign as dictator of the Soviet Union. The word Gulag is an acronym for Glavnoe Upravlenie Lagerei, or Main Camp Administration. The notorious prisons, which incarcerated about 18 million people throughout their history, operated from the 1920s until shortly after Stalins death in 1953. At its height, the Gulag network included hundreds of labor camps that held anywhere from 2,000 to 10,000 people each. Conditions at the Gulag were brutal: Prisoners could be required to work up to 14 hours a day, often in extreme weather. Many died of starvation, disease or exhaustionothers were simply executed. The atrocities of the Gulag system have had a long-lasting impact that still permeates Russian society today

---

averagejoel posted...

the population of the gulags peaked during World War 2, at which point the rate of imprisonment was roughly comparable to that of the US today.

This kills the American exceptionalist
---

averagejoel posted...

it's also important to recognize that the gulags were not significantly worse than equivalent prisons in other countries at the time (this is in terms of living conditions and mortality rates)

this isn't it chief
---

The Admiral posted...

Conditions at the Gulag were brutal: Prisoners could be required to work up to 14 hours a day, often in extreme weather. Many died of starvation, disease or exhaustionothers were simply executed.

Do you have an issue with similar practices in the US?
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/24/deadly-heat-in-u-s-prisons-is-killing-inmates-and-spawning-lawsuits/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/01/prison-labor-laws-wages/
https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/foon-rhee/article174370641.html

In any topic about an inmate dying in US prison or federal custody, I've never seen you do anything but justify it.
---

Antifar posted...

The Admiral posted...

Conditions at the Gulag were brutal: Prisoners could be required to work up to 14 hours a day, often in extreme weather. Many died of starvation, disease or exhaustionothers were simply executed.

Do you have an issue with similar practices in the US?
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/24/deadly-heat-in-u-s-prisons-is-killing-inmates-and-spawning-lawsuits/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/01/prison-labor-laws-wages/
https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/foon-rhee/article174370641.html

In any topic about an inmate dying in US prison or federal custody, I've never seen you do anything but justify it.

Yeah, this probably isn't the argument you want to use if you're going to go up to bat for gulags...
---

---

I actually wonder how many would want all the world's resources equally distributed. Like how many of them want to live off $14,000 a year? And that's assuming total world GDP wouldn't decrease under such a system. Not staking a position myself here, just was always my impression meeting self-described socialists that most want an upper-middle class life-style without working, not everyone to have a truly equal distribution of resources around the world.
---

tc is proudclad?

/s
---

Here's a list of death rates in the gulags based on official NVKD records, so these are generous, since the soviets had a habit of releasing prisoners that were near death so they wouldn't die in their custody

1930- 4.2%
1931- 2.9%
1934- 4.81%
1933- 15.3%
1934- 4.28%
1935- 2.11%
1936- 2.11%
1937- 2.42%
1938- 5.35%
1939- 3.1%
1940- 2.72%
1941- 6.1%
1942- 24.9%
1943- 22.4%

Anne Applebaum, Gulag: A History (New York: Anchor Books, 2003), 582.
---

Godnorgosh posted...

ssjevot posted...

I actually wonder how many would want all the world's resources equally distributed. Like how many of them want to live off $14,000 a year? And that's assuming total world GDP wouldn't decrease under such a system. Not staking a position myself here, just was always my impression meeting self-described socialists that most want an upper-middle class life-style without working, not everyone to have a truly equal distribution of resources around the world.

Socialists want to abolish wage labor so idk where the 14k figure comes from. Then you have to consider not having to pay for housing, education, healthcare, etc. It's also an inaccurate cliche that socialists aim for absolute equality or w/e. The goal is worker control of production, not some abstract Jordan Peterson-esque equality of outcome nonsense.

I just took all the worlds GDP and divided it equally. All those things you mentioned not having to pay for would have to come from that GDP. It would have to be taxes out of your $14k a year income. You're talking about welfare state policies when you say things like free housing, education, healthcare etc. Which are unrelated to socialism or the distribution of resources. Almost all capitalist countries have welfare states that provide "free" (tax payer funded) housing, education, healthcare, etc. to varying degrees. But they also have massive income inequality (also to varying degrees). I'm simply proposing a thought experiment where all the world's GDP is equally distributed and wondering how many would actually want to live like that. You can't just create non-existent extra GDP to make the thought experiment more tolerable.
---

It's hard for me to believe the Venezuela truthers when multiple accredited journalists have been through it and spoken with countless witnesses about the trouble there. There can be debate about how at-fault Venezuela's socialist system actually is, but when you start saying all media coming through there is controlled by the illuminati it's very hard to believe you.
---

Godnorgosh posted...

ssjevot posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

ssjevot posted...

I actually wonder how many would want all the world's resources equally distributed. Like how many of them want to live off $14,000 a year? And that's assuming total world GDP wouldn't decrease under such a system. Not staking a position myself here, just was always my impression meeting self-described socialists that most want an upper-middle class life-style without working, not everyone to have a truly equal distribution of resources around the world.

Socialists want to abolish wage labor so idk where the 14k figure comes from. Then you have to consider not having to pay for housing, education, healthcare, etc. It's also an inaccurate cliche that socialists aim for absolute equality or w/e. The goal is worker control of production, not some abstract Jordan Peterson-esque equality of outcome nonsense.

I just took all the worlds GDP and divided it equally. All those things you mentioned not having to pay for would have to come from that GDP. It would have to be taxes out of your $14k a year income. You're talking about welfare state policies when you say things like free housing, education, healthcare etc. Which are unrelated to socialism or the distribution of resources. Almost all capitalist countries have welfare states that provide "free" (tax payer funded) housing, education, healthcare, etc. to varying degrees. But they also have massive income inequality (also to varying degrees). I'm simply proposing a thought experiment where all the world's GDP is equally distributed and wondering how many would actually want to live like that. You can't just create non-existent extra GDP to make the thought experiment more tolerable.

I'll run with it. This is where the Rawlsian thought experiment comes in handy. If you knew nothing about what your position in society would be, which system would you choose? The world's worst off are much better off under a system in which everyone's basic needs are met. Today, nearly half the world's population lives on less than $5.50/day. So, flip a coin. 14k a year now seems like a lot.

I was actually thinking about Rawls when I did this. What is most interesting about his veil of ignorance, is that if you knew a capitalist world with inequality would lead to better outcomes for most people would it be the moral choice then to select that world? I think Rawls is interesting in a lot of ways.

But yes I agree it would be a good deal in that scenario, but I'm more talking about the people who already live in this world and decided they want socialism. I feel like many of them in first world countries actually want an above average lifestyle and don't want to work for it. They don't want a truly equal distribution of labor or income. Can you imagine how much you would be working if all labor was also equally distributed? And you would be doing all that for $14k, if you didn't want to do it then everyone would suffer as the gross GDP we can distribute from would go down. It's a really interesting situation to think about, but I feel many of the people who advocate for socialism wouldn't agree to it. I mean their idea of a living wage is already well above that.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

tc is proudclad?

/s

lmao, literally. made me laugh during my morning poop

actually surprised this topic isnt worse than it is tbh
---

PleaseClap posted...

1942- 24.9%
1943- 22.4%

Yep, no worse than "other prisons at the time."

Which I suppose is true, if he's comparing gulags to German concentration camps.
---

Doe posted...

It's hard for me to believe the Venezuela truthers when multiple accredited journalists have been through it and spoken with countless witnesses about the trouble there. There can be debate about how at-fault Venezuela's socialist system actually is, but when you start saying all media coming through there is controlled by the illuminati it's very hard to believe you.

first:

"Venezuela's socialist system" does not exist. Venezuela's system is more similar to Nordic-style social democracy than it is to an actual socialist state.

second: how many news outlets in the US have you seen that are pro-Guaido vs against Guaido? he's largely being supported by the US because he wants to privatize the oil industry to line his own pockets and those of his buddies. you're literally the first person I've seen bring up "illuminati" when it comes to Venezuela, but there is, factually, a ton of lies and propaganda surrounding what's happening in Venezuela, and if you're only reading mainstream US sources you're not getting an accurate picture.
---

The "illuminati" is a catch-all term for the typically-unnamed people in power and pulling the strings. The other person I've met who said that there is not serious hardship in Venezuela like reported and that the local witnesses are either like crisis actors or not real (along with the millions that have left), also believed
1) The Holodomor (constructed famine of Ukraine) didn't happen
2) There are not actually human rights violations in North Korea
3) Censorship of the news in China is real but happens because the Chinese government is all-benevolent and knows the truth from the lies
As a result I have a disposition to view the claim as born from a conspiracy theory that needlessly seeks to apologize for current (flawed and non-representative of the concept) communist/socialist systems.

I'm not sure what your angle is about the difference between a 'socialist system' and a 'social democracy,' I don't really know of a difference unless you define a 'normal' socialist system as being dictator-run which I would disagree with. From what I read a social democracy is defined as democratically achieved socialism. I don't think 'socialism' is a dirty word and I don't think socialism is doomed to fail. Maybe you took issue with the term 'system' in which case I didn't mean to imply the country is necessarily a dictatorship or non-democratic or something.

When you state that Guaido is supported by US news outlets because he wants to privatize oil "to line his own pockets and those of his buddies" I have to roll my eyes. News outlets are not a list of sanctioned opinions held by the administration of the country they reside in. They report what is going on in the world and host opinions on those issues from all sides of the argument. Guiado proposes to open oil to foreign investment- something Venezuela has done in the past to great benefit - because Venezuela kicking out development experts and investment money in the past bears great responsibility for the decline of their oil industry. The country neglected to invest in its own production and it has suffered sharply as a result.
---

manmouse posted...

1.) Venezuela hasnt always been socialist. It was actually run under a US-sponsored dictatorship for years before the fascist government was overthrown and their people elected Chavez

CAP's government wasn't dictatorial. There was free speech (Evidenced by TV comedy shows making fun of government officials 24/7). There was ideological freedom and zero polarization between government and opposition compared to Chavezs regime. Poverty was on the rise, yes, but not because of economic policies, it was the huge international debt we had accumulated.

Chavez did decrease poverty for a short while, but it was due to the oil bonanza of the early 2000's (Oil barrel was over $100 and we were producing 3 million barrels per day). They stole billions of dollars during that time, and only a small percentage was dedicated to social programs.

Right now, we produce 900k barrels at slightly below $40, and 2 decades of failed economic policies have sinked production and escalated inflation to 10 million percent. Out of the over 6600 small, medium and big sized industries and businesses that were expropiated or "nationalized" since 2006, less than 140 are currently operative.

So stop talking about stuff you know SHIT about, and shut your damn mouth. You don't live here in Venezuela, you've never known what we've gone through.
---

Doe posted...

The other person I've met who said that there is not serious hardship in Venezuela

oh, there is serious hardship in Venezuela. it doesn't really have anything to do with their internal politics though -- it's largely due to US intervention

I'm not sure what your angle is about the difference between a 'socialist system' and a 'social democracy,' I don't really know of a difference unless you define a 'normal' socialist system as being dictator-run which I would disagree with. From what I read a social democracy is defined as democratically achieved socialism. I don't think 'socialism' is a dirty word and I don't think socialism is doomed to fail. Maybe you took issue with the term 'system' in which case I didn't mean to imply the country is necessarily a dictatorship or non-democratic or something.

social democracy is capitalist with a welfare state. e.g. Norway, Sweden, various countries in Europe. (sometimes Canada and Australia are mentioned in the same regard, but I don't know much about Australia and I know from experience that Canada's socdem policies are considerably weaker than those in Nordic countries)

while social democracies do tend to provide a higher standard of living to their citizens than, for example, the US, the system itself is not actually distinct from capitalism. dictatorship is not a defining feature of socialism (at least in the traditional sense; dictatorship of the proletariat is a different thing), but it is a different economic system entirely.

socialism is defined by public ownership of the means of production; i.e. workplaces and such being owned publicly or by the state, rather than by a private citizen. fundamentally, this means that production is focused on human use (rather than generating profit as is the case in capitalism).
---

averagejoel posted...

it doesn't really have anything to do with their internal politics though -- it's largely due to US intervention

Are you gonna like, cite sources for that
---

I like how when someone said Gulag was comparable to contemporary prisons in other countries, Addy and someone else cited a bunch of stuff saying Gulag was bad. If that isn't an entirely incompetent argument then I don't know what is
---

scar the 1 posted...

I like how when someone said Gulag was comparable to contemporary prisons in other countries, Addy and someone else cited a bunch of stuff saying Gulag was bad. If that isn't an entirely incompetent argument then I don't know what is

Because a gulag wasn't "comparable" to any prison outside of the ones in Nazi Germany, and claims to the contrary are idiotic.
---