Why doesn't socialism work?

I think the simple truth about SJWs who demand socialism is that those who are on top of their personal hygiene, scheduling and responsibilities usually don't have any problems and therefore they don't see the system as flawed, likewise they feel no need to project.

When you do see a clean cut, successful socialist it's either (1) a celebrity who is not in touch with the system at all, (2) a professor who gets their attention from criticizing the system or (3) a rich person who feels guilty about their own success. If we count the typical scruffy SJW as a fourth type, I'd be genuinely interested if a person can even name a fifth type that exists with any kind of frequency.

 

"You?" Who are you talking about? Are you okay?

Fascists are a rightwing reaction to revolutionary socialists.

 

Most people in the states seem confused between what socialism is, and social services are. That goes for the left, and right.
Sorry, the Nordic countries aren’t socialism at its finest. All of them have mixed market economies.
The Post office , military, and Social Security isn’t socialism in America, those are examples of social services.

 

Fascists are a reaction to revolutionary socialism. In gathering support, fascists court business who go along when they lose faith liberal democrats to protect private property.

The political left promotes fascism? Really? What are you smoking?

True. Different ends of the political spectrum.

 

And who/what are 'revolutionary socialists' reacting against?

Eg, Lenin and Che....and Marx?

 

Lenin was sent to Russia to weaken or destroy the monarchy. I don't think that qualifies as helping socialists.

We did help the Soviets during WW2, but you go too far in accusing people like Harry Hopkins.

The League wasn't created to promote world government, and the United Nations was deliberately kept toothless to protect national sovereignty.

 

They're fighting capitalism.

 

Both the League and the UN were creatures of the aftermath of terrible wars.

Which is not to say your international bankers theory is not a factor; however, a desire for an international rules based system, and a world without war, is a real phenomenon among men of goodwill, appearing in active form after catastrophic wars.

The text of the "Declaration of United Nations" was drafted by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Roosevelt aide Harry Hopkins, while meeting at the White House on 29 December 1941. It incorporated Soviet suggestions, but left no role for France. The first official use of the term "United Nations" was on 1–2 January 1942 when 26 Governments signed the Declaration. One major change from the Atlantic Charter was the addition of a provision for religious freedom, which Stalin approved after Roosevelt insisted.[5][6] By early 1945 it had been signed by 21 more states.[7]

I think you are erring on the side of a conspiracy theory, in view of the voluntary signing by those 47 states mentioned above.

That last observation merely reflects your libertarian world view, namely, a free people ought not surrender absolute national sovereignty to a body dedicated to maintaining an international rules based system. But I say to you absolute national sovereignty is an anachronism in our modern interconnected world.

Meanwhile the UN has helped avoid another major war between the great powers; though the veto insisted on by Stalin and agreed by Roosevelt rendered the UNSC unable to keep the peace, so as many people have died in (proxy) wars since WW2, as died in that war itself.

Yes. But the POV of the authors will likely result in slanted conclusions as yours is.....

 

And why are they doing that...… ? (Hint: that's a leading question....)

 

Marxism-Leninism is malignant socialism, not "fake socialism."

Oh, stop--your insults are stupid.

 

57 million Frenchmen can't be wrong. It is both -stop splitting hairs. Bernie Sanders is not stalin nor are any other socialists in the modern world. Marxism-leninism was mistaken and impossible never worked. Marx was just plain wrong. The whole argument that socialism is communism is simply worthless missing of the point, all the issues that Sanders and all socialists are for.

 

If it were a one-off incident I would agree with you, but as I said, in the broader analysis that position doesn't hold up.

Schiff had been funding and fomenting revolution in Russia since at least 1905, and it is well known that the Central Bankers had been trying for decades to gain access to Russia's oil fields and establish a central bank. The only way they were going to accomplish that was by toppling the Tsar.

Shutting down one front in the war was simply cover for their real motivation.

John Maynard Keynes, among many others, cited these reasons for why the Central Bankers funded and assisted Kerensky, Lenin, and Stalin.

The Rockefellers seemed to be tasked with representing the Bankers interests, as representatives of Chase, Standard Oil, etc. The Rockefellers themselves were regular visitors to Moscow.



This picture is from the infamous 1964 meeting between David Rockefeller and Khrushchev in which it was widely speculated that Rockefeller fired Khrushchev.

Of course there is no way to substantiate that claim, but it would be in keeping with how the arrangement was structured.

There's no doubt Hopkins was a communist, and an active agent for the Soviet Union.

The Venona Papers and book Venona Secrets, combined with the information that came out during the Congressional investigations in the '50's, and the released KGB archives clearly show that Hopkins was a full-on Soviet agent.

Combined with Owen Lattimore, Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss, George Marshall, et al... it is not an exaggeration to say that FDR was quite literally surrounded and steered by Soviet agents.

I don't think FDR himself was a traitor in terms of him deliberately acting against US interests, at least in relation to the Soviet Union - but that's just my opinion.

However, there is no doubt that FDR owed his position to the Central Bankers, and he did their bidding for the majority of his presidency.

Stalin was actually of the opinion that the Bankers killed FDR b/c he was beginning to act too independently and against their wishes. I think there is some credence to that. I have a great deal of respect for Stalin as an operator.

 

The short version ... Because capitalism treats workers like an input, not human beings with needs. The longer version relating to today is capitalism is growing stronger and workers are growing weaker. Without the democracy being able to assert itself over business interests, the people will inevitably turn to undemocratic means.

 

No, no, no. No reason to get all philosophical because it's a whole lot simpler than that. You go to work. You do your job. You leave. All the time you spend not in your job is yours and yours alone. This is called freedom.

In a socialist existence, you are judged, sorted and ranked according to your party loyalty 24/7. There is no freedom. This is called oppression.

 

He was wrong, and Marxist-Leninists were even more wrong. What they visited on this world was a monstrous evil. Their successors in Russia and China are better, but they're still just putting lipstick on a pig.

There are still thug socialists in this world, and now Russia has morphed into thug capitalists and China is on that same path.

Communism has never existed and never will. Marxism-Leninism is a malignant brand of socialism, not socialism per se. Socialism existed long before Marxism-Leninism and will exist long after Marxism-Leninism has become ancient history.

 

If they are thugs they are not socialist.or they are reacting to thuggishness from the right.

 

That is communism. Socialism outside the GOP Tory propaganda machine is always Democratic Fair capitalism with a good safety net. Get past the Cold war propaganda please. "We are all socialists now!"--president of Finland when ObamaCare passed.... Canada Australia New Zealand are not that scary. Neither are France Scandinavia Germany etc. Time to tax the rich their fair share along with giant corporations and invest in America and Americans again.

 

And it will always mean democratic and fair to the workers. Which means socialism as understood by everyone but English speaking brainwashed functional idiots.... Everybody else has had socialist parties the last hundred years and know what it means.

 

There is no doubt capitalists wanted to get at Russia's raw materials. They still do.

All about making money, not about supporting Marxism-Leninism.

David Rockefeller fired Khrushchev? No.

What arrangement?

This is malarkey. WW2 created a powerful, free-enterprise economy.

It's not one I share.

It's business, not just bankers. I don't know why people keep the narrow focus on banks.

Stalin was a paranoid. He cleaned out the Politburo in the 1930s. He greatly damaged the army with a purge just before WW2.

 

So simple, eh? What about us replacing workers because a machine is more cost effective than training, supervising people who might be willing to work for next to nothing? What do we do with the excess labor? Do they starve? If not, how much do they get?

I'm all for having people work for their keep, today. But I know the day is coming, assuming society doesn't fly apart, when some of us will be left without work.

Depends upon what kind of socialism you're talking about. Marxism-Leninism, yes.

I'm not a socialist, but I don't like the marginalization of workers we have now.

 

Democrats did it. Complain to them.

 

You don't build trust by denying Marxist-Leninists support collective production. Tell people how you're different.

 

No, you mistakenly think there aren't a lot of people, not just a good number of Americans, who think of Marxist-Leninists when they think of socialism.

 

Brilliant observations. Couldn't possibly agree more.

 

Democrats didn't create AI, and super fast computers. Are you a Trumper?