Socialism Doesn't Work?

Lets compare.

Let us remind people.

Give us citations.

 

Bernie Sanders identifies himself as a social democrate, and has been for at 30 years, but we cannot seem to handle nuance.

Shoot, people have been calling center right neoliberal Democratic President Obama as not just a Communist but a Marxist. When Independent Senator Sanders, who merely caucuses with the Democrats, called himself a social democrat, but not a socialist, and most definitely not a communist, peoples' heads started to explode. I think he just gave up, and went with the label of socialist as close enough. At least it was not communist.

 

It is isn't me writing but this guy has put together a list and has given citations to every single claim he has made.

http://www.petersaysstuff.com/2014/05/attempting-the-impossible-calculating-capitalisms-death-toll/

 

First off - there is no such thing as a stateless classless society. Try to focus on "reality" rather than fantasy. There is a different between some ideal and how things work in the real world

Then - you say I am wrong and then you the same thing I did using different words.

From marxmail.org

http://www.marxmail.org/faq/socialism_and_communism.htm

This author uses the term "higher stage" - I used the term extreme which is exacly where communism sits - at the extreme end of the political spectrum.

Warping back into the real world - one of the main tenets of Socialism is redistribution of wealth - in its pure form this is accomplished by state ownership of resources and means of production.

What is mostly practiced in the "real world" - so called Modern Socialism (which is a kind of socialism light)- is where the State does not own things but engages in wealth redistribution by a partial ownership ( = Taxes).

You misunderstood the context of what I was saying as I was not talking about Marx. I was talking about how it is a farce to claim that one has there right of private property ownership when one is forced to pay taxes on that property.

 

The Soviet Union, its Warsaw Pact members, which were controlled by the Kremlin's Politburo, and Red China, were not socialists, but communists, or that's what they called themselves.

Any socialist countries death tolls would be minuscule compared to just capitalist United States and the British Empire.

 

Lolz, lets be clear cowboy.

You are citing a blog, and one that dismisses the socialist planned deaths due to commuism and national socialism.

Please try again, without blogs.

Try hard now. Lets be respectful to those who were killed.

 

Communism is but the end goal of communism. The Nazis were but a flavor of communism not currently in favor by the left, as they were the victors in europe and nationalism is a direct competitor to communism.

 

No.

The Nazis were German nationalists, racial supremacists, eugenicists who ran a capitalist free market economy. The bankers and industrials who gave their support certainly didn't think he was a socialist. Hitler's goals, as much as he had them, was to conquer most, if not all, of Eastern Europe especially Poland, Ukraine, and Russia west of the Urals. Then exterminate everyone except for a few illiterate slaves. Then after looting Europe, settle down to create Greater Germany with its capitalist free market economy under single party rule.

They were death to actual socialist, with extra special death to communist.

 

If you cared to take a look at the sources that are used by this blog; there are sixty seven seperate references from varied sources; however, if you want to talk sources I would like to see where you are getting your information from.

 

Do you even have a basic understanding of what socialism and communism are? because your post suggests you don't

 

Interesting point, and one I've become much more attuned to after the elections of 2000 and 2016. I used to think America was a shining example of democracy, but now I realize we're the only "democracy" in the world where the candidates receiving the fewer votes, wins. The Electoral College is responsible for that perversion, and after those elections cited, I'm convinced the Electoral College has become an impediment to democracy in America and must be discarded ASAP.

 

Not termed "socialist" by those nations or governments. Usually termed "socialist" by advocates of socialism, desperate to find an example of socialism that works. Revealing that the socialist fans never want to talk about the nations that actually identify as socialist.

 

You dwell in an alternate delusion within your own mind. In our economy the wealthy pay most of the taxes and all the entitlements are redistributed to the poor.

 

***

Is it your premise that national SOCIALISTS, where THE STATE controlled the means of production are actually "free market"?

 

Once again you are wrong. A communist state is one which simply follows some form of communist doctrine even if failing to achieve the ultimate goal.

I have read plenty of Marx but unlike you I grasped the horror of what the rapist drug addict wrote. Your condescending comments an appeal to emotion is mere evasion of fact. Communism is evil at it's core and abominable as is it's light weight cousin socialism. The evidence of that is overwhelming.

You are not better informed or read about communism you simply believe the tripe and defend it which is no different than defending national socialism.

The propoganda comes from you and others not those giving an honest and truthful analysis of the idea you defrend

 

Well, facts are inconvenient things You do understand that our ancestors live for 10s of thousands of years if not longer in tribal societies that were what you would call socialistic in nature. Where hunting and gathering, what they found as food, was shared with the whole tribe. This was because the survival of the tribe was the most important thing, for that was the way the individuals could survive, as individuals. And of course it worked well, and was the only way that would have worked. When we discovered and researched Amazonian tribal people, we saw the same kind of collective work and sharing. This arose naturally. The trouble with socialism or communism, is that it is not arising naturally, but was forced upon the people, by dictators. So, of course it fails, for there is no general consensus within the population to share, and so individuals under these forced programs, would hoard and steal from the fruits of their labor, unlike the tribal sort of socialism which lasted until the rise of civilization.

 

From the outset you are dead wrong.

First of all it is very arguable and debatable that tribal societies engaged in such sharing as you claim.

Second sharing or communal effort is not socialism or socialist and never has been. Anyone may understand the value of helping the group one is part of and contributing to it. When it is done voluntarily by individual choice it is not socialism. Socialism is strictly and exclusively imposed against one' will by government force.

This is why defenders of socialism can never rise to the challenge of simply removing government from the equation and allowing people to choose to follow socialist policies voluntarily or ignore them. IF they did so socialism would vanish.

 

None.

 

Read more carefully. That is what I said.

 

Give it up. You misrepresent and twist everything you say about Marx and communism. If you ever "read Marx" it was an anti-communist right wing blog, and you believed it.

 

No I do not actually I state exactly what it says and what it is about.

You simply hate having the truth about what you believe stated.

Your response is simple evasion

 

Riiiiight.

Here. You need this:

 

The title says it all it IS for dummies.

There is still no denying fact that socialism is by design a tyrannical system which violates human rights

 

Or that the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the National Socialist German Workers' Party are actually "free market"?

 

Hitler was a huge fan of Italian Fascism.. How exactly was Germany a free market economy under Hitler? Thousands of Jews were forced into providing free labor.