Debunked, "Socialism has never worked"

We are running into the usual definitions problem. Capitalism and socialism are different economic systems. Capitalism puts the economy in the hands of the public, socialism puts it in the hands of government. Yes pure socialism certainly exists in places like Cuba and Venezuela. You use the term incorrectly to refer to social spending. Use the right term for your reference and you will clear up a ton of misconception.

 

That is not pure socialism in either Cuba or Venezuela - although these are at extreme ends of the spectrum. Often Totalitarianism is conflated with Socialism - because these are often combined historically - how else do you force compliance.. but these are two different things.

You are correct that state ownership is a feature of Socialism - the difference between Stalin's Communism and Pure Socialism are many - starting with how wealth is redistributed and the power of the people. Socialism is not supposed to be Stalin Totalitarianism - in concept.

1) you are welcome to state that I made a mistake - "used a term incorrectly" - but then either state what this term was and how it was used incorrectly - or Fk off.

 

Bit of a ramble isn't it? Without protection of labour property rights, cooperatives cannot flourish. Why? The distinction between profitability and productivity. Empirical evidence confirms higher productivity from worker ownership. However, capitalism's rent-supplemented profit will eliminate any natural market tendency towards efficiency.

Didn't your dictionary mention than then?

 

I won't give you the answer you're pleading for because I won't ignore the actual history of socialist revolutions and socialism in practice. Bolsheviks, Maoists, Khmer Rouge, etc. In the United States, we have a voice, a debate, a vote, a representative self-government with a division of powers, and a peaceful and legal pathway to change. Within that framework we the people are empowered to implement programs YOU might call socialist, but they are subsumed by a form of government that is NOT socialist. I want to keep it that way.

 

Conflated only by you. Totalitarianism is a political system. Socialism is an economic system. Wherever there is socialism there is always totalitarianism. It is the only way to preserve a socialist economic system.

Like i said you have a problem with definitions.

I'll Fk off. I have no use for your nonsense.

 

Probably not because it isn't true.

 

You don't like the definition of socialism. I don't care.

 

Only someone who lacks understanding does not realize that socialism is only possible through changes to the political system.

You then contradict yourself in the next sentence - "where there is socialism there is always totalitarianism" confirming that with socialism comes a political system -and repeating back to me what I already told you.

You are the one with the problem - claiming I made a mistake but not stating what that mistake was .. this is lame - o - rama on steroids.

If that is all you are capable of - then I appreciate your gesture.

 

You are dead wrong. Sorry. The problem you have, as I stated earlier, is that you confuse the term socialism with social spending. You may figure it our over time.

 

You are the one who is wrong. The idea that wealth redistribution is not part of Socialism - is abject nonsense on steroids.

 

Capitalism put the economy in the hand of corporations. the vast majority of the general public neither have the resources nor knowledge of how to create a business, at least one with the potential of competing with large corporations. Capitalism tends to be rigged towards the wealthy. Those who are born into wealthy families have resources and connections that everyone else does not, and without socialist regulations such as antitrust laws, the market could be corrected and rigged for the only a handful of people control it

 

The productivity evidence is available. Read, for example, Logue and Yates (2006, Cooperatives, Worker-Owned Enterprises, Productivity and the International Labor Organization, Economic & Industrial Democracy, Vol. 27, pp. 686-690) review. They note:

"A survey of empirical research on productivity in worker-owned enterprises and cooperatives finds a substantial literature that largely supports the proposition that worker-owned enterprises equal or exceed the productivity of conventional enterprises when employee involvement is combined with ownership. The weight of a sparser literature on cooperatives tends toward the same pattern. In addition, employee-owned firms create local employment, anchor jobs in their communities and enrich local social capital"

 

They're not even socialist policy .. they're merely the luxuries we can afford in our capitalist democracies.

Genuine socialist policy would involve work-to-eat. If a policy claimed as socialist, provides for even a single unearned dollar or advantage, it's the opposite of socialism. It's 'luxuryism' (which can only happen under very robust capitalism).

 

The dream of socialism is one big happy collective where the people control the decision making process and how wealth is redistributed.

 

Capitalism in balls work to eat too. in a pure capitalist society there were in there is no safety net. The concept of a safety net is it only found in socialism. Socialism you work to eat, and those who can work and refuse to are left to starve, but those who are unable to work, are subsidized by the population as a whole. Medicare social security or welfare in general are socialist ideas.

Now I am she 100% sure that if you found capitalism is purest form, uncorrupted by human greed, these things would be found in capitalism as well, but that does not exist.

This is why you need a mix of both capitalism and socialism. Pure socialism cannot handle a large civilization. It works great on the small scale. a single town could easily have a socialist government and beer and very well, but when you get to large governments and Nations as a whole socialism is weaker and less able to function as it gets bigger and bigger.
Capitalism is able to function better on the large-scale but you need regulations and socialist ideal such as a safety net in order to protect the interests of the workers in the public in general. as much as four runners like the claim that corporations police themselves they do not.
there are plenty of examples of corporations having the chance to play some cells but refusing to.

 

Socialism cannot work in numbers greater than about a thousand, and even that is a stretch. The smaller the collective, the more efficient and successful it is. Of course there are minimums for feasibility also .. which I would put at about 10-12.

That's why it's absolutely crucial that democracy remains intact. So that socialism can actually happen (voluntarily and privately), and thus improve the human condition. The more groups who opt for social responsibility, the more social responsibility is taken, and the fewer fall through the cracks. That's what everyone wants, after all - both Left & Right. Though the Left don't want to work for it .. so how genuine they are is anyone's guess. Not very, would be mine.

PS: It's not true at all that safety nets only exist in socialism. In all animal species, the pack/herd/family is your safety net. Attempting to outsource such a fundamental is our doom. Worse, it's done for purely selfish reasons.

 

IOWs, utterly delusional.

 

Socialism doesn't have parts. It is an economic SYSTEM. Playing Robin Hood is social spending. It is a political thing.

 

Tell that to the 66 thousand business owners who have lost their businesses recently by government mandate. I agree that the majority of the public are not entrepreneurs and incapable of running a business. But all of government is incapable of running a business. Proven fact.

 

But sadly it is only a dream.

 

I find it IRONIC that those who are obsessively OPPOSED to Socialism and falsely allege that is has NEVER worked are usually Libertarians and support a system that has been an ABJECT FAILURE on EVERY occasion that it has ever been attempted. That INCLUDES the latest MASSIVE failure in Kansas too.

 

You haven't been reading my posts. Socialism is impossible without a totalitarian government. I said that earlier.

Socialism doesn't come with a political system. Socialism is created by totalitarian political system.

Nice condescension. It gave me a chuckle.

 

What's the recourse under Bernie's socialism if the business owners of Bernie's target resources fail to comply with socialist mandates? This exact type of socialism is ham handedly outlined in Atlas shrugged. You'll sell us your property at the price we say or we'll take it. That's not ownership.

 

Please provide a definition of socialism that all socialists agree upon.

I provided one for capitalism.

 

I hope you defined it as a system in which "surplus value is extracted in the production process by using wage labour and utilized in the circulation process to sustain capital accumulation". I'd hate to see you confuse yourself.