Comments by "Tespri" (@Tespri) on "How's Socialism Doing in Venezuela? | 5 Minute Video" video.
-
22
-
+auregamer5
Socialism is system where government/collective owns the means of productions and decides the distribution of the goods.
Socialism/capitalism is more of a spectrum. Not that many country have full on socialism or capitalism on this planet. However it's a fact, that any country that is more socialist than capitalist, always ends up being a shithole.
In case of venezuela. Lot of private industries were turned into public ones, not only that government regulated private industries with heavy hand and had large tax rate on them. Making things worse, they even did price control. Therefore not a single private company in Venezuela, actually had much control over their own means of production and distribution of goods. After these socialist policies were implemented, the growth started to decline. Wealthy Venezuelans left the country, and no one had any interest to create their any new companies, since it was almost impossible to even run one due all the reuglations, price controls and taxes. Venezuela single handedly destroyed their local industry.
Not only that, but a lot socialist politicians that people like you worship, all stated that Venezuela was divine example of socialism being good. Bernie and corbyn both praised it and wanted to run their country in similar manner. But the moment it became clear for everyone that Venezuela was a failed state. All socialists suddenly came up and said "that's not true socialism" or simply ignored that Venezuela even exists.
17
-
14
-
13
-
11
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
+Berning Sandwiches
" Your so called arguments don't even have facts backing them up."
How is that any different from what you had said before?
" Its just you expressing your feels. "
I thought that whole socialism as idea was used to express feels.
" You obviously don't know the meaning of socialism"
Socialism:
Economic system where means of production and distribution of goods are owned by the government/collective.
"because it's too vague a term to describe any one system. "
It's not vague at all. marx stated it pretty clearly. Dictionaries and encyclopedias state it pretty clearly. Don't mix up your own feels in here.
" In fact all functioning countries have socialism in one form or another because leaving everything up to capitalism would lead to an oppressive distopian society."
No they don't. You think so because you misunderstand what socialism is. Also you tend to ignore the fact that more socialist the country is, the more dystopian the society ends up being. We already have empirical evidences for this. Capitalism leads to oppressive dystopian society? No it doesn't. It leads to most freedom to people. Because capitalism promotes Independence while socialism promotes slavery to the government.
Socialism is simply new fancy word for feudalism.
"There would be no democracy. "
Ironically, every socialist country ends up being dictatorship... ;)
"maybe you could point to one country where it does."
There isn't a single country on this planet where government doesn't try to control means of productions through some regulations. Hence pure capitalism doesn't exists. Most countries (aka the functioning ones you mentioned) have followed the Keynisian model. Which is why they are so much in debt currently.
" If you're so sure free market healthcare is the best then point to one country which does it as efficiently as the top ten in the world "
Most countries that provide free healthcare are actually shit holes. You are probably talking about nordic countries in here. Since I live in nordic country, I can confirm that.
1. It's not free, you still have to pay your share.
2. The high taxes actually hurt the poor the most since everything costs more.
3. Line in services takes almost forever (you are most likely dead by the time you get your first doctor's appointment).
4. Shortage on doctors
5. Poor quality of healthcare for those who are poor.
I have first hand experience with this over glorified free healthcare, and I gladly pay extra just to get to private doctor. I got sick and tired of those voodoo priests who think that you can cure virus with antibiotics and chicken soup.
So I don't know who made your metrics and with what standards, but they sure don't reflect reality. Ever considered that those metrics of yours might have taken into account quality of private sector in healthcare?
"I'm fully aware of the shortcomings of public education"
Then what makes you think it will be any better if rest of the industries will be public as well? Also you're not aware that public education is commonly used to spread political propaganda. Nazies did provide free healthcare and education. Education was mostly nazi propaganda and some real stuff beside it. Same with soviets and all the other socialist countries. When you control education, then you control the minds of the people. Why would any politician to not to want to have that sort of power and abuse it according to their own whims?
"but if you think that's bad just wait till the quality of, or even access to education, is dependent solely on your family's ability to afford it"
Education used to be cheap in USA. You could've easily done 3 months summer job and pay your tuition cost. That is until government decided to subsidize student loans. Which in return colleges started to increase their tuition fee, because they knew that government will now be subsidizing any amount of loan they put. So it started to steadily increase. They increase tuition fee, government gives more loan.
Also high level education isn't everything in the world. you do realize that original purpose of universities wasn't to educate you to find better job. But simply sell knowledge to those who were interested in it.
Now... The more people have a college degree, the less valuable it's in the job markets. So you will be left with huge debt and pointless degree.
Now you be like "but if it's free then no debt". Okay, then who do you think will pay all that cost? Government? Government never pays anything, it simply steals money from the people to pay it. So now all the useless degrees you get and waste your life with. Will be paid from back of the other people. Which in turn will hurt you more. You see... making something "free" only hides the cost, but the cost still exists. Expect now it's even greater since everything ran by government is inefficient.
"You could say goodbye to any semblance of upward mobility. "
Upward mobility route for the poor has always been following.
1. Become private business owner.
2. Army
As a business owner you're more likely to get high. Not only that, but it rewards skills far more than useless women's study degree. Historically , the moment the markets are free and less regulations there are. The poor people will start to create more industries.
"Maybe you think private police, prisons, and military are good things too. Who wouldn't want to be subjected to laws created and enforced by unelected bureaucracies?"
Private police? No, they are bad idea. Government holds monopoly of force and it should remain like that. However police, prison and military aren't means of productions nor distributors of the goods. Are you one of those people who thinks that everything that government does is socialism? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Oh right... you're bernie fan... You're fan of a guy who doesn't even know what socialism is.
"Your ideas are idealistic not practical and almost every genocidal movement in history was a result of an ideology."
You do realize that biggest genocides on the planet were made by socialist and communist regimes?
Fun fact, under socialism/communism, you would probably be the first one to be shot or send to gulag.
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
"If you must deny the concept of collective ownership"
No, I don't. As I explained. There is no such thing as collective ownership sector. There is only private and public sectors. Collective ownership is related to totally different issue. It is not, and I repeat... It is not a third option. Since collective ownership exists in both public and private sectors.
"then go ahead and create a new name for it for the sake of this debate."
There already is name for it. It's called as Co-Ownership. And again it's capitalist. Once you abolish private sector, then workers of said company cannot legally own said company. Since then everything is by definition controlled and owned by the government. Check out definitions of both private and public sectors.
You simply want to call it as socialism because of people around you don't like the word capitalism. So you fear of losing friends and family members by being actually honest to yourself.
"Interesting point of view."
It's not a point of view. It's a fact, which you had no clue since you don't understand economics. This is very definition of private sector.
" Let's imagine a blast furnace and everyone owning it equally. Is this according to you private ownership?"
In order to own something, it has to be private.
"If so, are you saying that the very definition of socialism is capitalism? "
In socialism everything is owned by the public sector, which is defined through government ownership/control. If there is no government involved in ownership of said furnace, then it's private sector. If government owns it, then it's public. Simple as that.
" Socialism is, after all, defined as the means of production being owned collectively."
Nope, you're taking it out from context. Because same definitions and all socialist philosophers all have stated that they will abolish private sector. So the "collective" that owns the means of productions is the government. Since government represent the people. Therefore people own those means of productions but they don't have direct control over them. Since that control is given to the government.
"You quoted Merriam-Webster dictionary, which specifically says that means of production are owned collectively or by the government. You quoted Marx's definition of Marxism."
Quote mining. Said same page provides extra things in those definitions. Like system of society or group living in which there is no private property.
A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
"I have to admit on this one. Criminalizing wage labor for a capitalist's profit is indeed forcing people (capitalists)"
As I said, socialism is based on using force and authority. It's dark and cruel system which does not care rights of an individual, instead it seeks to destroy individualism. Socialists are borg.
4
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
No, I'm not kidding you. Power to decide who is allowed to create business and who is not, is tremendous power. It's bound to be abused. It pretty much gives you the key to dictatorship.
" the council gives a permit."
Rent is not the problem... This is the problem.
"This is all so that workers can't start businesses just wherever they like and get chaotic,"
Yeah... And how it's decided who get's and where? Some places are far better for business than others? Surely no one would use personal connections or bribery to get that best spot for themselves (sarcasm).
"Please educate yourself on different forms of ownership. It's not that black and white."
Collective ownership exists in both private and public. You need to educate yourself. You don't even understand basic economics. All public sector is collective, while some private are collective. Once private has been abolished, you have only public ownership.
"Per day, the place started producing 15,000 tons of iron ore, 4,000 tons of pig iron, 2,500 tons of steel."
how much something produces, doesn't prove that it's efficient in producing it. What you fail to take into account is how much it costs to create the thing and produce with it. Plus logistics.. Like is it even worth to have in that one place, wouldn't be more worth to have several smaller furnaces around different areas instead? etc... Logistics... This is also reason why your mob rule never works. Because people like you who are incapable of thinking things like this.
And you would kill all the people who are capable to think these things through... Because they would all be opposing you.
"? That suddenly workers didn't own it and that the government owned it, despite every worker owning it...???"
You clearly didn't read the quote you provided. It's public property owned by government. Workers were simply allowed to use it, but in practice they didn't own it, it was only owned by them arbitrarily. Because government represents the collective. Got it now?
In socialism government represents collective. It's always owned by government and never by the workers who made it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+ᚫᛞᚱᛁᚫᚾ ᛚᚢᛏᚺᛖᚱᚫᛞᚱᛁᚫᚾ ᛚᚢᛏᚺᛖᚱ
-Everything to do with government. Since workers owns all means of production through government body. How do you expect such thing being enforced without government?
- True, not much to do with taxation, expect socialists use taxation as attempt to kill private industry and turn them to public. They have even stated this pretty openly.
- How do you expect them to use them in action.
"Imagine a capitalist company. There's a boss who hires people and his sole purpose is profit, while not doing anything himself"
misconception. In fact the boss generally does the most out of all the workers. Not only that but it demands set of skills that rare amount of people poses.
Seems like I need to explain this...
Owner of the company, used his own resources to create the company. However he knows that if he wishes to expand he needs more people to work with him. So he looks out for people who provide their service as someone to help him. These people are capitalist as well, since they provide supply of workforce. Their product is their workeffort and talent.
got it now?
"Now remove the boss and let the workers of that company collectively decide what is best for the company"
You can already make a collective company in capitalist society. What you are speaking of, is that workers steal someone's factory that the said person did build with his own resources and talent.
Now even this plan of yours have several issues.
1. Have you ever worked in a group project? If you have then you should already know that they never work democratically, they always demand that someone acts as authority if you want to get things done.
2. Bunch of these workers lack education to understand management, financial issues, logistics and people skills. They may also lack talent to even have brain capability to conduct high level thinking. So now you think that they will run efficient company with mob rule?
3. How would worker create a company or hire anyone into it? You see now you have given government power to decide which companies are allowed to be created and which not.
4. Where you get resources to create this company of yours?
5. Why would anyone stay in your collective company when they know that they can get much better salary from another country's company?
6. As I said, you can already create company that is collectively owned by everyone who is part of it.
There isn't a single regulation in capitalist countries that prevents you from doing this.
7. the 6 point leads to the another fair obvious point. Since it's already possible, then why do you think that not a single collectively owned company has been as successful and efficient as private one? ;)
" All I'm going to say is that all communists are socialist, but not all socialists are communist."
Which is why those socialists are called as "useful idiots". Because whole point of socialism is to turn society into communism.
"English is not my native language and I apologize for that. Replace "Publicly owned" to "Collectively owned" in this case.)"
Doesn't really matter so don't worry. Since definition of socialism has both government and collective mentioned.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
"I did look it up recently. The state owns all the major exports."
Which kind of proves my point. Rest of them are simply some minor local pubs, street vendors etc...
Imagine what would happen to Finland for example if suddenly we would stop exporting. Exporting is vital in modern world.
"Difference being that socialism can be put to work, if you follow the ideology. "
just like religion can be put to work if you just follow what the book tells you to ;)
There would be world peace if everyone just simply agreed with one another, no matter what the system is. But that is not the reality, people will never agree with one another on everything. Heck... That sounds pretty dystopian anyway, if people were forced to become identical mindless drones like borg.
"This reminds me of the joke "Communism looks good on paper, but in practice it's usually sabotaged by a military coup d'etat financed by the CIA." Which has some truth to it lol."
nah, it's simply famous excuse. Look Communists did sabotage capitalists as well. A system which cannot handle sabotage, is a weak system. Not only that, but CIA haven't had really no reason to do anything with socialist/communist countries for decades. Cold war is over, capitalists won.
"It's no coincidence that socialist states like Brazil and Venezuela are allowed to do the shit they're doing; it effectively misrepresents socialism and everyone will think it's about high taxes and total government control"
no, it's the actually socialism. Your form of socialism is something that almost no other socialist supports. Your form is simply capitalism where people share their stocks among people who work with them. You may call it socialism as much as you want, but definitions are defined how most people understand something.
"after which everyone will keep on bootlicking the closest capitalist so they don't starve."
Not true on any level. There is less starvation in capitalists systems than in socialists. Not to mention that lot of capitalist countries have adopted welfare state, which makes sure that no one needs to lick anyone's boots in order to survive. In fact your proposed system wouldn't be any different from "bootlicking" perspective. Because now those people have to lick people of said company in order to get majority to like you.
As I said, your system exploits the talented, productive and anti-social people.
Making things worse... IT makes sure that those people won't be able to have offsprings, hence you will suffer from genetic brain leak and lower amounts of people being productive. You will basically end up having country filled with narcissistic psychopaths/sociopaths. Because in the environment that you created, will benefit them the most.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+Some Random person
Communism is against state, not against government. In fact even marx stated that communists will organize governmental body.
". Paris Commune, Makhno's Free Territory, Zapatistas, Rojava, Catalonia. "
Most of them were too short lived to see inevitable results of communism and some of those VERY NEW states. I ahve debunked each and everyone of them. Only idiot thinks that a political system that has existed merely 5-years is good example of how well it will end up.
"Your body is considered PERSONAL property. "
Your body is considered as means of production. What is a prostitute's means of production? It's her body. What is the actor's means of production? It's his mind and body. What is politicians means of production? His tongue. What is scientists means of production? His mind.
"Most philosophers discount her of even being a philosopher"
Anyone who discounts her as philosopher is not philosopher. Because that means that they do not know the essence of philosophy.
"Third, socialism is when the WORKERS own the means. "
Not a single definition online says that.
"Is it because the USSR claimed it was "communist"?"
They followed communists' manifesto perfectly.
"an you call it socialism if the means are controlled by a government with no democracy?"
Actually they had democracy. What you fail to realize that socialism is way to destroy democracy. Socialism centralizes too much power in hands of the couple people. Which will eventually be used to destroy democracy. This is why every socialist country ends up being dictatorship when given time. Why haven't you ever asked that question of yourself of why the end results are always the same?
"Fourth, Hitler was never a socialist. In fact, he even purged the entire left-wing of the Nazi Party, the SA and the Strasserists."
He was purging his political opponents who supported different kind of socialism. Soviet did the same. Hitler was socialists, national socialists. It was his own form of socialism that him and his supporters were for.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+TheFinnishSocialists
Part 1.
"Oh, so a tax funded public body has the power to abuse people from doing businesses. Wow. Dictatorship achieved"
The fact that you laugh at this make me think that I were wrong about you simply not thinking things through. You are actually mentally incapable of doing so.
Look... When they have power to decide who and who is not allowed to create business. Then they can abuse that power in a way that they will only grant permission to those who swear loyalty to them in one way or another. Either in public or in the shadows. No laws can prevent corruption. It never has.
So since you're incapable of fathoming the real influence of such power let me explain this to you.
Let's say that me and my friends somehow get into the council. We are either majority or everyone is my contacts. (if not at start, it can be turned though scheming).
Now I have the power to decide who is allowed to create business. I will give all the best parts of the land to the people who I prefer. Either they pay me and my friends the most, we have some connections with them or they simply support same political line as I do.
Now they become more successful than their rivals, due having better parts of the land. Especially since I can regulate and demolish all rivals who become too big. This is even more powerful if I only allow people who I like to create media companies.
Are you starting to get the point of such power? With such power I could easily amass enough influence to control whole society. Enough control to even take over the whole system.
"They'd only be digging their own graves for not only trying to avoid being lynched by the people for not letting people doing labor"
Oh, they are allowed to do labor. Only the labor that I allow them to do. Aka nothing that actually holds large amount of influence. While army, police, hospitals, major industries, media, agriculture is all in my pockets. That is all I need. With police I can arrest whoever I view as political threat. With hospital I can ensure that my political enemies will die in operating table. With media I can spread lies to support my claim. With agriculture I literally control lives of everyone.
", but also would anyways soon see their tax funds wither away, since people barely have income without work."
So? They don't have weapons and I control the army. All weapon factories are controlled by people who I trust, and they only sell their weapons to the army.
" I see no reason to do this, they should be striving to create a very competent regional economy, no? "
You don't see why someone would want to become a dictator?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
Part 4
"You simply refuse to acknowledge the term. Why don't you google "Collective ownership"? Why not google "Forms of ownership"? Why not distinguish public, private and collective from each other?"
That is you, not me. I have googled this several times in my lifetime.
"Public = Government
Private = One entity "
False. Private is not one entity. It can be several entities.
"Collecive = Always collective. Can be thought of as an entity, yes, but definition doesn't change."
And public is always collective.
"It's - very - productive"
Again, something being productive doesn't determine quality or efficiency. Mao's china created a lot of furnaces and places them on everyone's backyard. Result? Terrible quality of iron and inefficiently produced. Sure they produced lot of iron, but it's quality was so poor that it was non-usable.
"Well you can think of it in an individual level. Buy a pickaxe, food, water and a truck with a full tank of gasoline and off you go!"
Aka highly inefficient.
"Mine that iron ore and smelt it along the collective to make some fine steel. "
Do you have any idea how complex process that is and how much knowledge it demands to do any of that? Do you have any idea how much time it takes? This is highly inefficient system that you just stated.
"And you base that argument on what?"
The very definition on efficiency.
First google search
Efficient.
(of a system or machine) Achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense.
Do note, nothing says that it produced a lot, but achieves maximum productivity with least amount of effort as possible. What you just said and suggested, takes large amount of effort and expenses.
"but hey I guess doubling the life expectancy wasn't efficient enough"
Yeah since let's ignore the context of Soviet revolution happening during WW1 while Russia was struggling against Germany and japan. Having peace after that is bound to lead into economic growth and same with life expectancy. Since you know... People die during war, and there is no resources to build anything that helps economy.
"collective is indistinguishable from a private organization"
I said that private organization can be collective.
"Now you argue that a collective is closely connected with the government"
Because government represents the collective. It's the collective. "for the people, by the people".
"What if I am? lol"
Just surprised, girls almost never debate this long. Word hun really gave you out.
3
-
3
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
Part 1
"Any public body can try to discriminate people, this isn't just in socialism. "
They can only discriminate in places where they hold power. In capitalist country where permits to create business are not needed, government officials and "workers councils" cannot discriminate on that basis.
This is why libertarians exists. Because they know that power will always be misused.
"It almost seems as if you think this is not criminalized"
It almost seems as if you think that no one will do such actions if it's criminalized. If world would work that way, then there would be no crime.
" as if these public bodies do not have the same laws as others"
You have literally no way of catching them, since they hold all the authorial power. Even if you managed to get them caught, you still lack power to do anything about it.
"So a workers' council, decentralized public body"
It's no longer decentralized public body when it controls who can create business. That is the most centralized power you can ever give to someone.
" job is to hand out building permits and strategically appoint places that is best for the regional economy, representatives are elected every 2-4 years, organized discrimination is punishable by law... yeap, dictatorship confirmed."
.... IT will become dictatorship due how much power they have. Got it now. I repeat it... You are basically giving a gun to sociopath who wants to kill you, and you expect that he won't do it because you gave him the gun to do it. That is pretty much perfect analogue of your current reasoning.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
part 10
"And collective isn't always public."
Correct, but all public is is collective.
"ou sure put a lot of effort in that one and decided to ignore the manpower figure (50,000) I gave you, to validate your arguments."
I already provided you the very definition of efficiency. Large production number isn't part of it. Your foundry is not efficient. That is why no one bothered to create so big foundry before. Capitalist systems try to be efficient as possible, because that is one of the ways how you win competition. Soviets didn't promote competition, nor efficiency. Which is why they collapsed economically.
"Yeah since let's ignore the context of a new civil war on its way, kulaks burning their fields and causing famine, WWII, yeah let's ignore those."
Again, they were forced to give their land to the government. So they rather burned them than give to those people. And in Ukraine they were forced to burn by the government. Famine was caused on purpose on Ukraine. This has been documented. Stalin literally wanted to commit genocide on them.
"The soviets lost the more of their population during that war than anyone else."
That is because they killed their own people and were terrible at warfare.
"Average life expectancy STILL went up and population growth STILL went up."
Population growth went up everywhere after the war. So did average life expectancy. Correlation doesn't imply causation. You need to take into account other factors. Which you clearly ignored when you made such ignorant comment.
"You literally said it the other way around."
Nope, never said. I said that ALL public is collective, but only some private are collective. Maybe you shouldn't reply while being drunk?
"So this is getting in to semantics again, eh?"
no, it's not. Since I have already demonstrated why system you propose is terrible, now I can proceed and argue over that you don't even support socialism because you don't understand what it's.
"What is the state of ownership when something is collectively owned, but no government included?"
How does state own and administrate something they own? Through a government. Do you even know difference of state and government?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+ ᚫᛞᚱᛁᚫᚾ ᛚᚢᛏᚺᛖᚱᚫᛞᚱᛁᚫᚾ ᛚᚢᛏᚺᛖᚱ
"Socialists view this system as an alternative to capitalism and see that capitalism is flawed."
They view it as flawed because they don't understand it. Ever noticed how it's young teenagers or young adults who are socialists (in every decade), but not the people who are older? That is because through age they builded up more experience and knowledge to understand how world around them actually works.
"eventually the wealth inequality will grow so huge that not only do capitalists create dependency of the government for themselves"
You're only dependent on government if you rely on it. Wealth inequality is meaningless. If someone has a painting which value is 10 000 000 that is not away from me. Wealth simply means anything than has value to trade into something. It's not just money as lot of people mistakenly believe.
Under capitalist system, people aren't reliant on government to provide anything to them. The opposite, they are more reliant on their own talent and work-effort.
"and hence will be able to dictate policies and/or move/sell their companies overseas if the government is disobedient"
They used their own resources to create those companies, used their own time and talents to create them. It's up to them how to use said company. It's not right to work under someone, it's a privilege.
Ever considered the actual reason why they move companies overseas? Answer isn't as simple as "greed".
" they also will inevitably run out of people to exploit."
It's not exploit when both sides create willingly an agreement with each others.
"I assume that you do not see capitalism as flawed."
It sure has some flaws, but it's better than alternative. However those "flaws" depends highly on your values and worldview.
"I do assume more certainly that you assume that socialism as a system is doomed to fail"
Any system that create highly centralized power structure is bound to fail and become dictatorship.
There is a good reason why historically every socialist and communist revolution ended up becoming dictatorships over time.
"I do not understand how this system "turns whole population into slaves for the governing body.", but I believe I will get an analysis to that from you as well."
Because you're dependent on that organization so badly that they start to exploit you. Let's put it this way. I assume that you have similar line of thinking as I'm but you fail to apply it everywhere.
You think that corporations will exploit people because they are in more powerful position? Am I right?
What makes you think that same won't happen with government? It's in fact even worse. Since corporations and companies are made out different individuals or group of people who have their own set of values. You're absolutely free to refuse their offer for work and go to work for someone else or work for yourself only.
But when it's politicians who control means of productions... Then you have no alternatives. There is no other entity who could provide you work. Since it's outlawed to create your own business. Making things worse... Government also controls the means of distribution of goods. So, they can literally force you to do what ever you want if you wish to have food on your table. Historically they have. Soviets treated their workers like slaves. People were literally chained in their workstations to prevent them from leaving.
PS: Neither of you are proletarians. Proletarian is class of people who don't have high level education, who don't have any working skill, and only thing they do in society is simply have babies.
3
-
3
-
+blitzmaschine
" It was the most prosperous period in history,"
First of all, they went kenynisian.
Second of all, no it wasn't GDP doesn't give accurate representation of how prosperous people are. All the resources went to build warmachines that only destroy and get destroyed, it didn't create any sustainable wealth. People who lived in those countries, defiantly didn't live in luxury, since food and other necessities are rationed.
"Tax cuts after tax cuts, more deregulation, more privatization and more welfare cuts but the suffering goes on."
Meanwhile useful idiots in venezuella increase regulations, taxes, stole private means of productions and turned them into public and addded more to welfare. And whole country collapsed ;)
Clearly your ideal system didn't work.
3
-
+European Nihilist
Clearly you haven't read communists manifesto. They point out that relationship of parents and child is exploit.
Since you're so uneducated over your own belief system, let me quote you.
"On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution. "
"Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. "
"But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social."
Communism is literally about stripping every part of your life that makes life meaningful. Strips away your freedom to love. Strips away your freedom to take care of your loved ones. Remove any sort of life goals and ambitions you might have. Remove your personal freedom and individuality.
You will basically end up being mindless worker ant. Who is doing every thing that their queen tells them to (political party). Simply put, they are trying to force whole mankind to live as a hivemind.
Edit: Orwells 1984 is what communism would be. In fact even though he thought himself as socialists, he was also critic of socialism and communism. All most famous book of his described how communism will end up being dystopia.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
Part 1
"Yet you said: "And again it's capitalist. Once you abolish private sector, then workers of said company cannot legally own said company. Since then everything is by definition controlled and owned by the government. Check out definitions of both private and public sectors.""
Twisting again. Read my comment again. workers of SAID COMPANY. Got it now? THAT PARTICULAR COMPANY, cannot own themselves that company when you abolish the private sector. IT BECOMES PUBLIC OWNERSHIP. AKA GOVERNMENT OWNS IT.
Got it now? Do I need to repeat myself 100 times more again?
Aka, system where ONLY the workers of particular company would own said company, is capitalism. Socialism seeks to abolish private ownership of means of production and seize them to the public. Aka to everyone. Which in action means to the government since they represents the everyone.
" It's your own definition."
It's definition of every dictionary and encyclopedia of the world. Your definition has no academic background what so ever. It's only held by you.
" In private ownership, you can leave other people out from that ownership. In collective ownership, it's always owned collectively and no-one can own over others."
False, in collective the collective only owns it. Which means, if there are two collectives, then other collective group doesn't own what other collective group owns.
That is private ownership. In private people are free to choose who owns and who is part of said ownership.
You already have admitted that there are co-owned companies in capitalistic countries. You do realize... That they work in private sector? They can only work because they are in private sector.
So I repeat. Collective ownership exists in both public and private sectors. It's not it's own sector. It's form of ownership. And owning means of productions is abolished in socialism. Therefore only way "collective" can own anything after private sector has been abolished, is through government.
"Private sector = economy under private control. Literally defined in the world's leading dictionary."
Private does not mean singular.
Private sector.
The part of national economy that is not under direct state control.
-Google.
The private sector is part of economy, sometimes referred to as the citizen sector, which is run by private individuals or GROUPS, USUALLY as means of enterprise for profit, and is not controlled by the state.
-Wikipedia
Business and industries that are not owned or controlled by the government.
-Cambridge
The part of economy which is not controlled or owned by the government
-Merriam webster
The part of the national economy that is not under direct state control
-Oxford
I don't see a single dictionary stating what you just wrote. All of them agrees with my definition.
2
-
+TheFinnishSocialists
"Every dictionary and ecyclopedia of the world? How about you use the world's leading dictionary and don't cherry pick the dictionaries that not only have been reputedly accused of being biased, but also lack concepts?"
You keep throwing the name "leading dictionary" without ever even naming it.
You don't name it because you fear that I will read the source and point out the other parts of the definitions they mention. Go ahead and name it. I provided multiple sources and different definitions. They all disagreed with you.
"Co-ops can exist in a capitalist society, but by being owned by a private organization, they can leave workers out of the ownership if they so want."
workers are that organization. So they can democratically kick out others if they so want. Isn't that what you want?
" In socialism, co-ops have to take qualified workers as their colleagues,"
In socialism there is no meritocracy. There is no such thing as qualified worker. There is only people who has the brownest nose.
"Organized discrimination is again punishable by law."
Impossible to prove that such thing happens. Hence no one will follow the law.
Especially if law makers and authorities are in their pocket, or they are in their pockets.
You just cannot throw word LAW and expect it to be perfect solution. Laws have never prevented anything from happening. IF they actually worked, then world would be perfect place to live.
" "The private sector employs most of the workforce in some countries. In private sector, activities are guided by the motive to earn money.""
What about this? It doesn't address anything I had said.
" I might need to remind that there is no wage labor in socialism. "
hah, so why would anyone join to your company if they don't gain wage? IT would literally be too risky to be part of it. Do you even understand how risky it's to run company while knowing that you don't get paid beforehand but rely purely on profits. Workers actually got it easy. Since they will get paid regardless what will happen.
" I might need to remind you that activities are not guided by the motive to earn money"
Then it's bound to sell products with loss and collapse.
" These concepts are literally taught in high school's first economics course."
You haven't even been in economic course in high school. Last time I did check, they don't even teach economics in our schools. Only start teaching it in college.
Also even if they did taught it. You have proven by your own actions that you don't know what it means. Simply because something is taught in schools, doesn't mean that one learns it.
"Going personal?"
Not, really. Just pointed out objective fact.
" I learned the good sides of abolishing private ownership and giving every qualifiable equal opportunities from the left."
Expect you haven't learned the bad sides of abolishing private ownership.
" Can you let the straw man go already?"
It's not a strawman when all socialist philosophers have advocated that and every socialist state in the world has done it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
Part 2
"Janitor's value of labor is subjective"
Janitor is a worker as well. Yet you don't say that he should have equal right as rest of the workers. Also ALL THE WORKERS VALUE OF LABOR IS SUBJECTIVE. I'm pretty sure that value of labor of CEO is actually higher than someone who simply follows simple instructions and presses one button in the screen.
"The janitor's value of labor has to be determined collectively."
Aka he will be exploited by majority. We have already seen in history how this will end up. There is a reason why not a single civilized country has a direct democracy.
" I also said this too before already..."
You did, but you just moment ago that only people who create the product with their own hands get the profits. That is already highly discriminatory set of rules.
"There is no iron ore, there is just a blast furnace "
You need resources to build up blast furnace in the first place. You're not conjuring it out of nowhere.
So now, you would have group of workers, simply waiting that blast furnace to be built in order to even start their production. None of them earns nothing. No one would have literally any reason at all to create new companies. Since it doesn't give them any benefit, in fact they actually lose from it.
"The iron ore in the ground is also collectively owned!"
Collectively owned by who? You're being vague now. Is it the company that owns. Or is it just free to pick by anyone? This is why I hate your use of word collective. It's too vague and dishonest.
"so the workers can just mine them from there and then smelt them in the blast furnace."
Okay, what if the mine is another side of the world? Just mine it? They would need to travel, and in order to travel they would need to have car. They would need gas as well. But their company doesn't own gas. They would need to have mine equipment, but their company doesn't produce them nor has any. They would need to have knowledge over mining operations and how to purify the ores. And even the purifying process takes time, since you would need to create them as well.
Then, it takes lot of time and physical strenght to mine in the first place.
Why any sane person would go and do all of that? It's highly inefficient. This speaks out over your ignorance of how complicated even mining process is. It's not that simple as you just go and pick it up.
"Nothing is given - workers gather and manufacture."
This makes most modern industries impossible to conduct. Not only that but it would destroy industries all over the world. Since it's not efficient at all for workers to travel to other side of the world just to pick couple pieces of iron. You do realize that resources are limited and they existing equally in different countries?
"What you're talking about... if you can produce something immediately, then you can sell it and earn money."
Do you have any idea how long it takes to design and developed any of the modern luxuries you have now? IT took decade to even make first computer on the planet. Even the one you're using now took a year.
Most movies takes longer than one year to be developed. Most video games as well.
You simply cannot produce something immediately, that is not realistic. It takes time to design and developed the product in the first place. You do realize that actual moment when you can sell the product might take years to get? Especially if you need to create building where to produce in the first place.
2
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
part 3
"If you see long-term potential of creating something without getting paid in the beginning, nothing's stopping you from doing so."
Oh yeah, I forgot that you're uneducated in field of economics. There is this thing called as opportunity cost. You waiting for years to get factory done while you could've been working somewhere else already isn't really a good idea. Especially if all the profits is going to be shared equally among every worker who produces the product in said factory. No one... Literally no one would see no reason to join in your project. They would rather join to factories that already produce. And the things is... There is limited amounts of them.
System you propose is chaotic and literally would provide no reason for anyone to create company. It would form naturally a monopoly since creating new company would be too much of effort.
"This was the case of e.g. Magnitogorsk in USSR, when they built the world's biggest blast furnace. "
And world's most inefficient furnace. There is a reason why not a single country builded that big. Because it's size serves no purpose.
"They did it anyways, because they saw the long-term potential for themselves. "
Clearly provided nothing in long term as we saw.
"They were looked after by other comrades too and gained money from others, since they too saw the potential."
They thought they saw. They were scammed. The fact that you said that others gave them money, made me realize that they were scam artists.
"They be kalinkas of the collective!"
Again you're being vague. Which collective? The government? The company? Religious group? Your family? Dead people? Cats on catnip?
"Like you can't have the services of a company designated to building. Builders can still get paid."
Builder scan still get paid? But that is wage labor. So no, they won't get paid. And again, you cannot create factory to just any building. You're going to put nuclear reactor to a house? What could ever go wrong...
" But anyways, the company doesn't need to earn itself, unless agreed differently. "
It needs to earn if it wishes to purchase needed resources to create the product in the first place. What century are you living in? In the 1700? World has far more complex factories now than what there were in times of marx. A single robot does more than most people combined in your collective workforce.
"this random person would produce iphone by using resources which he has either gathered from the nature"
What could ever go wrong... We have already seen what happens when land has no ownership. People will simply destroy it for their own self gain. Cut all the trees nearby and does not plant more etc...
Also you have any idea how much work it's to actually go and gather those resources from nature? First of all you need to find where they exists. Then you need to cultivate/mine it. It literally takes a life time to do all of this on your own.
" or most likely bought the resources from a company that is designated for gathering said resources."
Also not viable... Also how this does not create "exploitation" like in capitalism. Can't you really see the similarity? Buying from different company? Which means when you buy their service. You're doing exactly the same thing as capitalist who buys service of worker.
"Ad hominem, attacking before I can even answer and then bringing up already covered topics."
it's only ad hominem if you use it as argument why you are wrong. Insults or adjectives about person X are not ad hominems. You just shamed yourself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
+ ᚫᛞᚱᛁᚫᚾ ᛚᚢᛏᚺᛖᚱᚫᛞᚱᛁᚫᚾ
Every counter-argument I make is technically a question. In fact I can turn it into question to deliver same point. Problem is, that it's time consuming so to safe time, I answer for you guys instead.
Also there is nothing to ask. I know your position already. It's terrible as I already did prove in my previous comment. Where I addressed your sum up of the system you propose. Your safeguard against corruption is simply naively stating "we make corruption illegal". As if that has ever worked in mankind's history.
"That's because TheFinnishSocialist has already asked enough questions from you to reveal your stance."
No she didn't. She never even asked why I don't think that wage labor is exploitation. As example. She never even bothered to ask about my system or criticize it.
"You deny and won't address the fundamental problems of capitalism."
You haven't proven any fundamental problems of capitalism.
"You deny the existence of additional sectors other than private or public."
There is no other, Voluntary sector is new word and it's used to describe charity organizations for taxing purposes.
Voluntary sector is non-profit. Non-profit how the whole world understands word profit, not the one that marx uses.
Meaning, voluntary sector doesn't apply to your system at all. Since you still create profit. Word profit in economic sense is very different from what you understand.
". You deny Marx's own words regarding socialism"
And you deny how marx defined socialism. Which was central planned state controlling means of productions.
" proceed to counter-argue with Marx's words on Marxism, "
False, he described socialism with it. Not marxism. Communism is stateless society. Marx was advocating socialism as means to reach to that goal. Then he proceeded and explained how socialism is implemented, and how it will eventually turn into communism. That was in chapter 2 of communists manifesto.
"but you keep misrepresenting it by stating that it's all about bullies and exploitation"
It's not misrepesenting to point out huge flaws in her system. Flaws that favor sociopaths and manipulators.
""Expect most industry is not like going to someone's forest and stealing their blueberries""
If you didn't get that line, then you are more idiotic than I originally thought. That line was to point out that you just can't go and take resources from the land. Someone has to own it, and even in that case. IT'S FAR MORE COMPLEX THAN PICKING A BLUEBERRY.
""Business needs to earn if it wishes to purchase needed resources to create the product in the first place.""
Resources don't come out of nowhere. If your business wants to get resources from someone who has them. Then they have to provide something in return. You just cannot walk into someone's refinery and demand them to give you iron for free. They have to make their living as well. So, if your socialist business, doesn't run on profit. IT will end up collapsing. Because it cannot produce anything without having resources to produce.
""Which collective? The government? The company? Religious group? Your family? Dead people? Cats on catnip?""
Term collective simply means group. She never described which group owns those, and neither did you. I did proceed and explain why it's vague term while making fun out of her dishonesty. Neither of you had answered to that question so far. Unless I see something in next comments which I'm going to address.
2
-
2
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
You cannot switch around how marx defined words and how dictionary defines words. Especially when they don't match with each others. You're cherry picking.
That "world's leading dictionary".
Capital,
4. The wealth, whetever in money or property, owned or employed in business by an individual, firm, corporation, etc
5. An accumulated stock of such wealth.
6. any form of wealth employed or capable of being employed in the production of more wealth.
Usage notes
And to wealth or resources
British dictionary (still same source)
Capital
noun
2. Material wealth owned by an individual or business enterprise.
3. Wealth available for or capable of use in the production of further wealth, as by industrial investment.
Quoting adam's smith old books doesn't define what is capital today. Nor was he the one who coined the term.
Ladies and gentlemen. As you see... She refuses to show all the other definitions of the words that matches the context. This is because she is dishonest. Everyone go to dictionary site which she referred and type word capital. You will notice the truth with your own eyes.
"So you openly admit that you're only fighting over semantics now?"
That would be you. You use words in different way how most people on the planet use, in order to confuse and trick them into think that your ideas are good. Even though none of the words you use actually matches and delivers the ideas you're trying to promote.
This is actually common debate tactic from socialist, marxists and left wing overall. Trying to change meaning of words during debate into something that fits their narrative much better.
" Why don't you rather make a decent argument on the socialist system that I proposed or socialism itself?"
I already had done that. Not only it was decent, it was fatal to your system. After that you ran away. Because you couldn't handle it. I did even do that in here when your friend made sum up of the system you guys proposed. Neither of you did address my refutation of it. Instead he said he is going to ignore me.
You have been defeat on every field. In meaning of words, in being proven that your system is fatally flawed, and you have been proven to be cherry picking and conducting dishonest debate tactics.
This is what one could already call as sound defeat for you. And we both know... You won't become libertarian and capitalist. But instead you would try to find another way to make things work for socialism. Without realizing... It's the very core concept of the socialism that is flawed. that is why it always ends up the same. You cannot fix it, there is nothing to fix. The very idea is flawed. It's not the ways it were implemented. After all, that is as far as politics of envy gets you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
+TheFinnishsocialist
"You're assuming again that in socialism all factories are state-owned, right? If you can think of a different possibility than co-ops, when private ownership is abolished, those can exist as well."
Again, you wouldn't advocate for abolishing private sector, if you actually just wanted to regulate the system in a way that everything has to be co-ops. So far you haven't provided as single definition from any socialist figure head who claims that socialism isn't about governmental control.
Even marx in his manifesto stated what I had said. Which you keep ignoring and quoting some off marks which isn't relevant to it.
In fact his comment of yours is evidence of how twisted and dishonest you are. Instead of addressing my point. Which is... Just create regulation and that's it. You go and talk about me assuming that socialism is about state ownership. Instead of just saying.. Well that is good idea, let's regulate it this way instead.
"If you can think of a different possibility than co-ops, when private ownership is abolished, those can exist as well."
It can't by definition. As I already had proven. Proof that you're currently ignoring.
"Yeah you're back to the whole authoritarian -argument again, even though I've specifically shown that socialism can be libertarian and that this system keeps a limited government power."
You're not fooling us. You kept defending authoritarian regimes and claimed that they only failed because of america. You keep calling a literal communist as your comrade. There is so many things which have shown your true color. You are a lier.
"even though I've specifically shown that socialism can be libertarian and that this system keeps a limited government power."
You don't even know what libertarianism is. If you think it's simply about free market then you're bigger idiot than I thought. But I'm pretty sure that you're just lying. You know what it's and use the word in attempt to convert libertarians to your positition. Even though you know fully well that they have nothing in common.
"What the hell? "
It's the exact same thing that soviets did all over the world. Their KGB agents were converting students and other prominent people to communism by twisting the meanings of the words. And the moment socialism was implemented, those people lost their lives. Because they were useful idiots, they were for something which they did not understand. They were lied to. History has proven countless amount of times... you can never trust a single word that comes out from socialists mouth. It's all lies and propaganda to get into power by any means necessary.
When one believes that his cause is just, then they are ready to do anything for it.
" I promise I'll make this society socialist" and then oopsie daisies Venezuela happens."
Isn't that exactly how it went in venezuela?
"where PEOPLE seize the means of production and even the state if necessary."
There we have it. Ladies and gentlement she believes that governmental organization made out of people should STEAL (seize is just pretty word for it) means of productions, and even give the power to the state if she sees it fit.
Notice... NOTHING IN HER SENTENCE says anything about only company's workers own that company. She said cut and dry word PEOPLE. Which means literally everyone.
CASE closed. I were right. Nothing but evangelist trying to sell religion of government.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
Part 1
"To gain a monopoly over the fish market, you'd literally have to work so hard that you'd own all the fish. Even more so, it's ridiculously to achieve a monopoly in a free market society, unless you have private ownership."
Actually no... It's surprisingly easy. I could actually just poison whole fish population and leave couple pieces of fish for myself and then increase the price since supply did suddenly drop. In capitalist society thing like this is not convenient at all, but in socialist society of yours this would be common practice.
"Just like in capitalism, this is regulated to keep them from killing ecosystems and whole species."
False, Most of the nature is private owned. Private owners don't see any benefit in destroying the land they themselves own. Because then they would need to buy another piece of land. It's far more profitable to cultivate the land instead and do business which can last for generations. While in your system. Since they don't own the land. They strip and destroy everything, since they know that there is another piece of land for free abuse. We have already seen how society treats public property. It has never been a good thing. Or did you live in rich neighborhood your whole life and never seen the ghettos? There you will see the prime example how much people take care of the public property...
Also again throwing name regulation isn't solution since you're not naming what sort of regulation. If you keep doing this I will just conclude that you lost the debate. Don't call yourself as libertarian if you stand for regulations.
"No. lol. If the robot gathers/produces, the gathered/produced goods are owned commonly or cooperatively, while the robot itself is owned collectively."
Slavery! ROBOT IS THE WORKER. HE IS ENTITLED TO THE PRODUCT HE PRODUCES. YOU CAPITALIST PIG!
"Are you talking about patents? I'm personally against them, because they're forcible. You can have innovation without patents, simply because of the free market and because innovations compete better."
Why would anyone bother and waste their resources to invent anything if there is nothing in form them as well? Most stuff we now have, took billions of dollars amount of resources to be innovated. Your system is backwards and would slow scientific progress of mankind. In fact it would reverse it.
AS I said before. You're system doesn't reward talent and mind. It punishes people from using them.
" did say "much like forest fires are made illegal". Sorry to crush your dreams on this one, if you wanted to dump everything in to forests and set wildfires."
But in some cases forest fire are used to cultivate the land. You do realize that there are benefits in burning forest? So now your regulation already prevented one form of industry being used. Also there are literally thousands of things how you can abuse this. Since you cannot regulate every single human action that can be used to harm environment. Not to mention you would have no one to enforce it.
"Not an argument. Point out how this more vulnerable to be abused than in capitalism, please."
How creating monopoly in socialism would be vulnerable to abuse more than in capitalism? Hmm let me think... How about the fact that it would literally LITERALLY concentrate all the power and resources in the hands of the person who is in power in said organization a. Or how it's literally impossible to break monopoly in socialism. Unlike in capitalism where competition always is the best way to break it. In socialism competition isn't profitable, therefore no one will compete They rather join to the one organization that is already successful.
2
-
+TheFinnishSocialisT
part 2
"Law. Do you need specific talents to fly an airplane? Yes you do. You need to have a proper education on proof of it, much like in many countries you need to pass high school/college to get in to a university etc., you get the idea. Also, are you a child? Are you disabled? Are you too old? etc."
So you would give politicians power to decide... WOOOOW. What could ever go wrong... It's not like they would sell positions in successful and most influential companies to the people who they like. Noooooo definitely not... OR threat to someone lose their job etc... Totally never would happen. Humans never break laws. Humans be kind and always follow laws like robots...
Also no one would study years to fly airplane in your world. Since only the ones who build can profit, therefore no one wants to be exploited by airplane builders.
"In the end, it's not your company, they're not your machines, and you don't have a say who can join and who can't. "
So why make company in that case? There is no profit and anyone can simply come in and join and take part of the profits for himself. Spending time and effort to create company in your system is like shooting yourself in a leg. No one would ever create a single new business or company. You actually lose money and time in doing so.
"You're entitled to many things, while living in a social democracy. Also, not an argument."
It's argument. You literally aren't entitled to anything. OR can you name this magical being which created this invisible rule of universe which says that human beings are entitled to everything since birth?
As far as I see when looking at nature... Things have to earn their place in the world. Those who don't, will perish due their own incompetence. IT's a privilege to live in modern western society, it's not entitlement.
"...and anyone can join in, if they qualify. Turn them back and then you're doing organized discrimination."
But you cannot prove that they are doing that. They can throw billions of different excuses and you have no scientific way to measure which excuse is true and which not. It's even worse if they are connected to the authorities. Which they will be btw...
"If there's work to be done, no worker loses earnings."
Expect they lose, since machines.. Plus limited space etc...
" Just because another comrade joins in to fill an unfilled position, you can still produce the same amount you produced before. "
You clearly don't understand cost of new worker in company. Even if it had no salary.
"Tertiary workers are different though, they require a centralized profit, from where the money is redistributed to them, aka. a company fund."
oh yeah the slavery workers.
"Unfounded claim, therefore not an argument."
Everything you have said in here is unfounded claim. like the claim that capitalist exploit workers.
Also This is once again evidence that you're incapable of defending your stupid ideas.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
" I've posted evidence that very many socialist countries are targeted by a military coup when about to form or already formed. "
You posted that somewhere in distance past. While ignoring every time socialist did target military coup to capitalist country like Finland. Not to mention you ignored the results after USA didn't bother to do anything with them. Like north Korea or vietnam after vietnam war.
Only embargoed country was cuba, and only USA was part of. Rest of the world didn't join it it and kept trading with Cuba. This is where I also point out the flaws of your reasoning since you blame that africa is poor because west trades with them.
" Chile went down because of a military coup"
In result chile became most prosperous country in southern america. Unlike Cuba or vietnam.
"USSR's Russia defeated 16 capitalist countries who attacked them during civil war, introduced work and meritocracy"
I'm sorry. How USSR was meritocracy when only way to get up was family connections and all talented and intelligent people were killed?
"industrialized, boomed their economy"
Boomed state economy. not the citizens economy. And economy boom was false. They forced people to work on something which was never used. Everyone earned pretty well, but there was no food to buy. So earnings were pointless.
May I remind you... War time makes it look like that economy is booming, while in reality people are starving.
"doubled the life expectancy, eliminated illiteracy,"
Russia was in war before it, and industralization was the thing which double life expectancy. They only taught kids to read in order to make indoctrinate and brainwashing easier.
"became the 2nd superpower,"
Not really. They were considered as superpower only because of the nukes.
"won WWII"
Objectively false. IT was all thanks to gay british guy who did break the enigma. Without the intel that his discovery provided, soviets would've lost eastern front. In fact same intel made sure that attacking German from two fronts was possible.
" had constant population growth despite wars and famines"
Just like african countries... So prosperous... You do realize that population growth is tied to poverty. Because more poor people are the more likely they are to rely in their family. While population is in decline in every country that is actually prosperous. Look at our country for example. It's envied all over the world, yet our population growth is in decline. Same with japan, other nordic countries etc..
" You will also point out the famines and blame socialism for it, even though you don't know how. "
Bad planning. And in case of urkaine's famine they actually starved them in purpose and sold all the food to the western countries instead of giving it to ukraine people who farmed them.
For mao, he killed natural enemies of the pestilences that ate crops... etc...
Not only that but after modern china privatized farm industry. They experienced huge growth in productivity. Clearly people are more motivated to work over profit than for "collective good".
"Even if I say that kulaks (capitalists) burned their crops and killed their livestock"
Well it wasn't about to be theirs anymore since they were about to be stolen.
Also citation needed.
"where I point out capitalist USA, Germany and Netherlands have all had famines"
nope, no famine.
" USA had a great depression"
made by feds. This has been confirmed by themselves.
"USA now has seasonal crises"
Only because government keep distorting the prices until they cannot keep up with the lie.
" Even if I say that the world has more debt than money already, specifically because of capitalism"
All socialist states on the planet has debt. This is not because of capitalism. It's because government officials love to spend money that they don't have. So instead of cutting funds they take debt.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
This is hilarious. You already dug hole so deep that I can't do anything else than laugh while writing this.
"Public ownership is a form of social ownership, correct."
WHOLE collective, owning everything. That can only be done through state or monopoly.
"Yes...? What's new to this? Community as a whole owns the means of production. "
But doesn't own the land, capital etc.. in your system. Therefore not socialist.
"Wage labor gives a possibility for exploitation, it's not exploitation itself. In capitalism, where you chiefly have a private sector, which is run by the profit motive, your primary motive is to exploit."
So what makes you think that other people in factory doesn't have primary motive to exploit?
Too easy, too easy. You lost this long time ago.
"In socialism, where you chiefly have a voluntary sector, "
By definition, the moment voluntary sector makes any sort of profit. It stops being voluntary. Aka the producers, aka burger flippers, aren't allowed to get anything from the product they sell.
"which is not run by the profit motive, your primary motive isn't to exploit. "
Expect it's run by profit motive. There is no reason to create company if you don't seek to gain something from it to yourself.
"You cannot earn by having wage labor in socialism"
Yes you can. By having someone who manages the labor. Or someone who organizes the product line. Someone who invents, designs etc... You mus be special kind of idiot for not realizing the benefit of people who aren't flipping the burgers.
"What on earth are you talking about?"
Talking about you exploiting people without realizing it. OR simply being too dishonest to admit it.
"Again, what are you talking about?"!
Source demolishes your definition of socialism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+ᚫᛞᚱᛁᚫᚾ ᛚᚢᛏᚺᛖᚱ
"t socialism would be a system where the whole population, even the unemployed, reaps all the labor value that the workers sow, like a welfare state."
Which leads to the point that people who lack good genes, will spread their genes around. Ending up you having population too large to sustain the consumption. Not to mention those who don't work are more likely to succeed in finding a mate to have children with, since they have more time in their hands. Meaning that according to natural selection. You end up having population made out of people who are too lazy to work. To passive. After couple generations the effect of your system will show. More and more people relying on welfare state, creating too much of a burden to the society.
What do you think will happen then? There is no peaceful solution. Especially since major voting block is made out of these people.
"Capitalism: "Survival of the fittest individuals" Socialism: "Survival of the fittest collectives" (Note: plural)" Not really. Capitalism ensures individuals right, but individuals form collective groups in order to work together. Capitalism is both fittest of individuals and collective. While socialism weakens the rights of the individual and the qualities of them.
"There's still job interviews and qualification tests and all that. "
And you think that mob rule is capable of judging all of that?
" However, when you are appointed by a collective"
You think that mob rule is capable to judge that? We had already seen that people like to vote incompetent people in politics.
" then you can start working there and your salary will be your labor value,"
What is the value of labor? Question that socialist and left wing in general has been unable to answer to.
The system you propose is not based on meritocracy but who is the most popular person among the group.
"You are all dependent of the success of that collective company and if you wish your salaries to increase, you need to work harder, innovate, compete"
Salary increase is too minimal for anyone to bother innovate or compete. Do you have any idea how much more company which has 1000 workers under them have to sell a product in order to make significant increase in salary? Do some math... You will quickly find out that 10 people working in a firm that pays everyone equal amount which is 2500 a month. Will be 300 000 in a year. That is just a ten people. And 2500 is already fairly high salary. Then add there other costs and taxes...
"You will have meetings where you discuss and vote for an optimal strategy, commitments, innovations etc."
Ever wonder why there haven't been a single army in history of mankind that has been successfully ran with democratic voting style? Do you have any idea how much time, effort and knowledge you need to create strategies and innovations in the first place? No one in your company would have time to do this, and there wouldn't be any personal gain to spend extra hours to studying all of this while rest are acting lazy.
Mob rule doesn't work. We only use democracy for government in order to prevent tyrannical dictators from appearing, not because it's efficient system. Same doesn't apply in companies since company run by person like that, will go bankrupt in no time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Stormy5430
Calls someone as idiot, yet is incapable of addressing any of his points...
What does that make you in that case?
"He doesn't even know how money was created."
Creation of money was never relevant to any of the topic we discussed. Also I do know how money is created. However unlike you... I know how it's value is determined.
"It was created because you can pay taxes with it. "
Objectively and historically false.
Money was created as tool for trade. It's far more convenient to trade currency than to create resources.
I'm not really surprised that socialist doesn't understand basics of economics like this... So let me explain this to you.
If you were a watermelon farmer. You raise watermelons and eat some of them. Now every now and then you have surpluss of watermelons, which you don't eat. Instead of saving it (since it goes bad over time), you look for someone else who might want to have a water melon. You see a chicken farmer. Now you would like to have some piece of chicken. So you come up with a plan. You offer X amounts of watermelon for the chicken.
This is what we call as trade.
However, what if the chicken farmer doesn't want watermelon? But wants to have a pig instead? Well you don't own a pig, therefore you can't trade you with chicken farmer. Now you're either have to give up, or find pig farmer who is willing to trade watermelons to a pig.
By now you should be able to see how complicated this process goes if people keep trading on basis of product they have. What could ever make this trading thing simpler and far more convinient for everyone?
Currency. Since chicken farmer, pig farmer and watermelon farmer. All agree that they use this currency to trade around resources they have. This way, watermelon farmer can buy chicken with money, and chicken farmer can choose what to buy with that currency. Watermelon or chicken.
It makes transaction simpler. This is why money exists in all high civilizations. Because it was money, which enabled these cultures to develop into cities and large towns. It allowed people to do business in far more complicated level than it could be done with simply resource trade.
Now what is the value of money and how it's determined? Supply and demand. The more money there is in the system, the less value it has. Which means every product in your society will cost more. So just printing million dollars bills and giving them every citizen once a month. Doesn't change anything expect cause hyperinflation. This will reduce value of your money. Lot of third world countries have done this and their currency is almost worth to nothing. Even their poorest person is millionaire, but they cannot buy anything with that one million they own. Because it has no value. Venezuelans thought that way to solve their problem of government spending, was to print more money and spend it. But they were just like you... And couldn't understand that their currency lost all of it's value. Currency is based on trust.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
The collective against you was one out of many. The lazy and psychopaths were different part.
I explained why the fixed debt example is bad solution. Since it turns creating companies into a scam. Aka create company. People are in debt to you. Then leave it and they have to pay for you. Or worse, company produces almost nothing. The guy who made the company get's all the money while rest who joined late will suffer.
I did mention ponzi scheme and explained how this system of yours is literally it.
I didn't misrepesent, I said that it's literally a ponzi scheme that you were suggesting.
"A radical claim. "
Not at all. When zernobyl did explode, the people were forced to walk with radiator monitors into the places that everyone knew that they are going to die. It was them or their whole family.
It's even confirmed in times before german and soviets were in war, that soviets did chain their workers to the factories in order to prevent them from leaving their spots.
"Just by looking at footage how USSR's society flourished contradicts with that statement. "
Oh like footage of north-Korea. You're buying into propaganda footage. There is a reason why iron curtain was made by soviets. In order to hide the truth.
You can only trust footage that can be taken freely and anytime. Not ones where you follow state approved official who shows you certain spots which are allowed to be shown to visitors.
"I guess that's why the majority of Russians want the Soviet Union back, mostly old people, they're masochists."
Or because they have this thing called as nostalgia. Or because they did belong to the social class in socialist that benefited from socialism. With this I mean politicians and law enforces. Socialist societies did exploit farmers and everyone else who didn't live in a city. Why do you think that people ran away from there if it was such a paradise you claim it was?
"Crises happen and you have to respond with social policies in order to combat them."
Crises which were caused by social policies. Read it up.
" Every crisis starts from capitalists being unhappy there. "
Nope. Literally they all had been caused by government messing up stuff.
" If the people have little to none purchasing power,"
In capitalist countries they have more purchasing power than anywhere on the planet.
" What has the government done so far? Take loans, increase purchasing power one way or another (usually with social policies) and the state takes the burden."
That is no longer capitalism. that is socialism. Or more accurately keynisian economics. Also, socialist countries take loans. Just saying... In fact China has serious debt issue currently.
If you run your household poorly. You don't go and take a loan just so you could eat more candies. Instead you cut the spending from places where you don't need to spend. Reason why government does this, is because they don't view tax money as their own. Hence they spend it irresponsibly.
"Most of Russian refugees we're most likely enemies of the state or people running away from the upcoming WWII, since why would you leave a society that's skyrocketing in economy along with living conditions and higher wages? "
because economy didn't skyrocket, neither did the living conditions. It simply looked that way in paper. But in reality it was oppressive regime.
"You had no trouble in the USSR, unless you had an uncontrollable desire to exploit people or literally fought against the red army."
How delusional are you? IT has been proven that you were killed or even speaking against current regime. They had thought polices around the places and enforced their political lines in a way that even your family would rat you out if you didn't agree with government's plan of starving ukrainians to death.
1
-
1
-
TheFinnishSocialist
Part 2
"Or their whole family as in they'd be executed? Sources, please"
You have sources that in North-Korea whole family get's executed for one of them doing something? Beside the words of people who escaped.
Look... No one in their sane mind would walk into radioactive place which is known to kill people. Literally no reason to do so. Yet they were told to do it.
"You sure these were not people from gulags? Sources, please."
Even if they were people from gulags, it would still be wrong. It's still slavery.
Also sources. This is common knowledge. I didn't take you for soviet apologists. And you know very well that I cannot post links in youtube.
"There was immigration to USSR, you know that, right? "
Yeah? From people who didn't actually know how it was. Were they able to leave freely? No they weren't. There were even a wall in berlin as evidence of how soviets viewed the freedom of movement.
Also some people have immigrated to north korea.
" All in all, there's so much footage is hard to compare to something like North Korea lol."
Actually North-Korea is using soviet model. There are ex KGB agents proving this. that they did exactly the same thing as north-korea had. They only showed certain areas to the press members.
"hese were ordinary people. Teachers, store clerks, farmers, etc., there's even western documentaries with interviews of these people. But go ahead and debunk them as propaganda lol."
There were no store clerks or farmers in soviets. Farmers weren't allowed to own a farm, therefore there were no farmers. Store clerks didn't own the places either.
Also sources? That they were ordinary folks?
"there's even western documentaries"
pretty sure that documentaries made by left wingers.
1
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
Part 3
" capitalists are entitled to profits or else boom, capital flight. "
No? It was that government caused inflation by printing more currency. Or creating regulations which restricted the business. Or gave subsidies that prevented industry from developing.
"They will always earn at a more accelerating rate than the others"
Matters why?
"leading them having the most of the national wealth and money."
Money circulates all the time. Having most wealth has nothing bad in itself. You being rich doesn't mean that someone else needs to be poor.
"It's still capitalism. There's literally a private sector. "
Private sector controlled by government is no longer capitalism. They are practically owned by the government at that point.
"But go ahead and tell how the Nordic countries are socialist."
We have more free market, less regulations and better property laws than USA has. USA is more socialistic than we are.
"Oh you mean the country where most of the small/medium businesses are private and where most of the GDP generated are through the private sector"
Country where you cannot even create private business without permission of government by bribing their officials.
"The doubling of life expectancy, elimination or illiteracy, immense gdp growth, wage growth, universal healthcare and education, greatest innovations in the world, revolutionizing farming and ending famines, sending first satellite and man to space. "
I don't see doubling of life expectancy when country commits genocide on hundreds of millions of people.
They were taught literacy only to learn soviet propaganda. GDP is easy to manipulate and doesn't reflect well being of the people. Or are you going to tell that during war time people are prosperous? Since GDP always is high at those times. Wage growth is meaningless, what matters what will you get with it.
Universal healthcare, also forced healthcare. Which meant you had bad treatment unless you were politician or other major player. Greatest innovations in the world? Not really. Ending famines by starting them?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
Part 3
" I don't know if that could even be allowed, since that starts to get really close to private organization model. "
So now were back to square one. You want to create system where talented people will be abused and exploited and then thrown away. No one has any reason to start business and get more workers into it if his bottom of line can be destroyed by the very same system you just suggested.
"It's the overall income of the company which is then shared with the workers according to a collectively decided meritocratic model. A"
There is no meritocracy in your system. In fact the opposite. It discourages talented people, and favors people who have good social skills.
" And again, organized exploitation would be considered as a private organization and is hence punishable by law."
I'm pretty sure that you think that definition of private is same as exploitation.
"Even if hijacking a company would succeed, the hijackers would most likely be left with a business that is failing due to many workers leaving, because the workers can find better non-exploitative jobs elsewhere and in the end the hijackers don't gain anything. "
Why would they leave? They are forced to pay debt. Did you forget?
Also the death of said company might be slow, very slow. You see parasites don't care about lives of their hosts. many of them actually kill their hosts. Workers who don't know the better, will vote psychopath into position of power. He uses that power to give himself better payment. He keeps having high payment while company suffers. Then he uses blame on some other worker and they will collectively vote that person out.
Again... They don't know better, since they don't have mental capability of education to realize errors of this psychopath. Not only that, most people are easily manipulated.
"Even the fellow who in the beginning built the company is secured with the debt they had signed."
Which is even more hilarious, since now the psychopath can pay off his debt by having larger income than others, while others are stuck with the debt and having decline company at their hands.
This is too hilarious. You literally don't think at all.
"All this is pretty much done just for one reason in the first place: intentional sabotage."
You do realize that there is profit in intentional sabotage to the person who does the sabotage. This is even more so if he is used by the rivals of said company. Heck another company could even hire the other company's first owner, and he literally would have no reason to decline since he get's paid by people's debt anyway. :D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheFInnishSocialist
"- Voluntary sector (also called "Community sector") - Business sector (also called "Corporate sector")"
Both of those are private sector by definition. Charity and non-profit organizations are also private.
"So basically you're saying that an economy based on non-government ownership = capitalism?"
You're twisting my words in here, you're being dishonest. But I'm not really surprised.
What I'm saying is that socialism ABOLISHES PRIVATE SECTOR. This means, that there will be only public sector left. That means that you and your fellow workers of company X, cannot own company. Since your ownership has been abolished by the law. Got it now? You're literally making your system illegal.
"Did you forget things like: Anarcho-communism, Councilism, Anarcho-syndicalism, Libertarian Socialism etc.?"
Anarchism is stateless society. It's not society without organizations or governments. Meaning... Anarcho-communists would still have a government. Do you even understand what is difference between government and state? They are not same thing, and usually people who know very little about politics think that they are one and same.
"Pretty much a point of view, rather than a fact, sorry."
When all the definitions from all the books and dictionaries state different. It's a fact. You have twisted version of socialism. What you're advocating is actually capitalism without even realizing it. It's just that you aren't capable of figuring out the consequences of outlawing private sector, because you don't even understand how private sector is defined. Also marx was a lawyer so he was most likely understanding private and public sector in same way as I'm. Since knowing those things is vital in field of law.
"Private ownership is when one private entity holds ownership, not the community as a whole."
There isn't a single definition of private sector that states that private entity has to hold. Community can own privately. You are on your own here. You don't even understand basic meaning of the words. You simply hear word private and think that it means ONE PERSON. That is how uneducated you are.
"Yet by your own definition of socialism: collectively owned OR government owned."
You're repeating yourself while ignoring my previous reply to this statement. This is getting pathetic now.
This proves that you already lost the argument. You're simply not capable of admitting it.
"Yet stated by Marx himself, when representing socialism: "It is not a society in which the individual is subordinated to the state, to the machine, to the bureaucracy.""
Yet in communists manifesto he said that in socialism state will abolish private property and seize all the means of production to themselves.
Should I quote it again to you?
"I'd rather use the world leading dictionary, which actually follows Marx's concepts of socialism as he described it."
I quoted the same one you did in here. And I have provided before what marx views as socialism. Exact quotes in fact.
"Own means of production. Produce. Own what you produce. Sell what you produced. The horror."
sell what you produce by stealing resources from someone else in order to produce what you want.
Making things worse.. You don't even get anything from selling it, since government will take it from you. The horror. Socialism turns people into slaves, while claiming the opposite.
"You're thinking of communism, comrade. And even there individuality exists."
Both are collectivist ideologies. Both despise concept of individual.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
part 2
"Since these people do not actually use the means of production and hence do not produce anything, their value of labor has to be determined by the collective"
They produce services that janitors do provide. Cleaner enviroment, fix places etc..
Also nothing you just said actually addresses the quote you quoted.
In fact this section of yours is brutal and cold. Basically it would exploit janitors. You would have group of bullies exploiting this poor janitor. Hypocrite... Reason why you want to steal means of production is because you envy those who are smarter and more capable than you are.
"Reread the word "employs" and "In private sector, activities are guided by the motive to earn money.". This is not the community sector. "
Just because they don't employ doesn't make them structurally different. You can employ someone and give them stocks in order to have equal say in the company. In fact that can be part of the employment agreement. Motive to earn money, simply means that it's smart business to earn money instead of doing it on loss. Poor you... Seems like you fell as sleep in high school economic classes. No wonder you praise soviets achievements. You think that company that makes loss is actually a good thing.
"There is no "your company""
Semantics, you get the point.
" they would like to join because they own and earn what they produce. "
So janitor who doesn't produce anything doesn't earn anything in said company? Nice slavery you have there.
Also who would join to your "collective company" when they don't get anything in beginning with. First of all. Where do they get resources to be used to produce stuff. You're giving for that to them for free? Not going to work.
Not to mention it takes months or years usually before they produce any profit. Lot of research fields takes years to produce anything. It takes 1-3 years to even create a video game. No one would wait that long without getting paid while doing it. Only business men are crazy enough to do so.
"It's like picking blueberries again,"
Expect most industry is not like going to someone's forest and stealing their blueberries.
"If the company runs so that sales too will be done from there immediately, which they usually do, "
Most technological and entertainment company doesn't work like that. In fact almost nothing works like that. Even to create a factory takes years to build up. No poor person in their sane mind would wait that long.
" If you don't produce or can't sell, you will not gain money."
Most products need resources outside of the company in order to produce anything. You're basically telling now that random person would produce iphone by using resources which he doesn't own. Where do you get the money to run your company if all the money goes to the person who sold the object. This subject is too complex for you to comprehend. Which is why you're socialist. Because you can't even design a good system. As was already proven by our previous conversation in another thread. The highly flawed system that you proposed that is based around ponzi scheme.
Someone who cannot design, is also incapable of seeing flaws in his/her plans. Good designer finds the flaws in the idea and judges idea again based on that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ ᚫᛞᚱᛁᚫᚾ ᛚᚢᛏᚺᛖᚱᚫᛞᚱᛁᚫᚾ
"- Natural resources are collectively owned."
Vague term. She haven't explained which collective owns the resources. As according to her she is not advocating government ownership, nor central planning. Therefore collective doesn't own it. Which means only collective she can mean in her system is the company itself. Which makes things even more problematic. This is why I told that she is being dishonest. Using vague terms which can mean literally anything.
"- You set up a company normally. You buy resources to do it and if you don't want to build yourself, you pay builders to do it for you."
You don't buy resources if you own them collectively. IT makes no sense.
Also you pay builders = Wage labor. That alone already nullifies everything you guys were claiming to stand for.
" You get a construction permit from a decentralized workers' council for example, who will then appoint you to a strategically good position to set up a company"
That alone will create dictatorship as I already had proven previously. It's large amount of power. Large enough to do it. That was the time she ran away and came here instead. Worker's council is pathway to dictatorship. There is no such thing as decentralized worker's council when you give them power to decide who is allowed and who is not allowed to create business. She still haven't provided a working solution to this. She simply insists that there will appear magical laws which will magically prevent corruption from ever happening. This reasoning of hers has been used by billions of people, yet laws never did such a thing.
"- This company is then collectively owned"
Clearly it isn't, if the janitor doesn't share the ownership of it, and according to her, janitor doesn't share ownership of it. IT's outside of the collective according to her.
" they will be looked after collectively or a part of the collective appointed to do so within that company. "
Aka mob rule of incompetent fools.
" If they want to deny workers from coming, they have to prove by law that they are not qualified or that there is no work."
So not only you have council determining who is qualified to work and who is not... But also chooses who is allowed to create and who is not... Yet you people wonder why I say that it will end up in dictatorship...
Also, there are many reasons not to have someone in your company. Lazy, incompetent, disruption to the people in there. IF you have majority of people wanting to get rid of someone. They can make up a lie and no authority would have no power to see is it true or not.
"Worker can sue a company for not letting him in, despite being qualified."
This is something she never advocated for. Why should they let anyone in if they have no need for extra hands? Also it's almost impossible to even prove that case is just. This is just pointless law that no one will follow.
"Do you have something to prove that you can fly an airplane? If so, law is by your side to not get discriminated when wanting to become a pilot to an unfilled position."
They can get someone else. Say that this person is not fit to the company, therefore they are looking for someone else.
"This company can work with many different ways within, because the collective who work in that company manages the company and the policies there."
Mob rule. This encourages psychopaths and other naturally talented liers and manipulators to abuse and exploit other people.
"- Organized discrimination is punishable by law."
Pointless law since it's near impossible to enforce and prove. You have no method of proving that someone is organizing discrimination. This can be done in very subtle way. In fact it's already against he law in western countries and yet it still happens.
" Primary/secondary sector workers produce mainly for themselves, but can give away a part of their value of labor to the business in a form of a company fund."
There is no benefits in doing so.
"Tertiary sector workers are not entitled to take a part of these primary/secondary sector workers' value of labor, "
Discrimination.
"unless collectively agreed differently to agree to give a part of a company's fund to a tertiary worker who wants to sell his services."
Mob rule and exploitation according to your definitions. Since selling services is exploitation in eyes of socialists.
" You can go to any company to produce, as long as there is work and you qualify for the work."
Then it's not collective ownership of the workers of said company. Then it's simply collective ownership by everyone on the country. Meaning, there is no point creating companies, since there is nothing extra to be gained from it.
"You can try to find a deal to sell your services"
Exploitation according to socialists.
"You can pretty much always find work, where you are your own boss."
Already exists in capitalism.
"You can set up a new business by yourself or with a bunch of people."
You can't. Limited amount of space, and council decides are you allowed to do so. Plus you don't want to do so since there is no salary, therefore no one wants to be part of your business before it's fully constructed and ready to start production. Hence they would simply be parasites who join to your business at that point.
Which leads to the point that not that many people would feel motivated to create business.
" You can make a contracts with new workers to owe you up to 100% of the building expenses to those who took part in the expenses."
This would mean that almost no one would have resources to pay up, if someone tries to create large business. For example, no one would be part of factory since it would cost too much to be part of it.
Also.. Exploitation.
"These contracts, once signed, cannot be collectively dismantled."
So you can trick people. Aka create ponzi scheme and leave, and people are forced to follow the contract.
" Only an authority can nullify contracts and that too by abiding the law. "
That is a lot of power for authority...
"They are not policies within a company, they are contracts."
But contracts are exploitation according to socialist.
"his is kind of like temporary wage labor, until the debt has been paid. Clear enough?"
Wage labor is exloitation.
Oh, it's clear what you guys want. And that what you want is a huge mess. I had already lectured her to the point that she admitted in discord that her system was highly flawed. And you're proposing as flawed system here as well. I'm starting to believe that people who support socialism, have never actually bothered to think things through. This is why you guys make the most idiotic suggestions. Suggestions that easily can be taken advantage of.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
"So did you back there, did you not? "
I did provide multiple sources. I didn't rely on wikipedia like you did.
Also world leading dictionary is nothing more than argument from authority. Since you're appealing on it being the most popular. But while ignoring that most wikis have better definitions and are more clear over the issues.
"You're using it the definition that suits you."
Okay World leading dictionary says.
Prof-it
Noun
1. Often, profits.
a. Pecuniary gain resulting from employment of capital in any transaction. Compare gross profit, net profit.
b. The ratio of pecuniary gain to the amount of capital invested.
c. returns, proceeds, or revenue as from property or investments.
2. Monetary surplus left to producer or employer after deducting wages, rent, cost of materials, etc.
3. Advantage, benefit, gain.
None of this applies to your definition of profit. So either you accept the same soruce you have been glorifying. Or have your previous statement over voluntary section totally demolished, since now your source has no authority even for you.
" We've covered this, you know what I mean, but you insist a battle of semantics. "
It's not battle of semantics when were talking about legal applications. MARX is not owner of word profit, neither did he invent it.
"Profit in Marx's context is not the same as earnings. "
But word voluntary sector DOES NOT USE MARX IN IT'S CONTEXT. Therefore Marx own definition of it is irrelevant. You're trying to twisting the words meanings in order to justify your ridiculous bias.
"These are in the world's leading dictionary as well."
And none of them matches marx's definition. All of them states clearly that your way to organize business would not be non-profit. Since people gain capital for transaction.
I also like how you ignored the other definitions from your copy paste. This proves once again of your dishonesty.
"A debate cannot go forward if you won't listen."
That is you. You refuse to acknowledge my points and instead of trying to refute them or acknowledge. You dismiss and go ahead and throw the very same claim again which I had just refuted. You didn't address any of this. You claim that you did, but what you had said didn't refute.
As I pointed out clearly. MARX WAS TALKING ABOUT SOCIALISM in that quote I provided before. Not about marxism. That is a fact, now amount of dodging the point will change it.
You're dishonest person. That is due to your fanatical cult worship over socialism. Socialism is a new religion, which explains why they act like religions fanatics.
You even ignored when I gave you source of legal definition of non-profit which goes in details explaining what it's. Your system is not non-profit. Therefore it's private or public sector. But since you want to abolish private sector, then it falls to the public sector. but since you don't want that government controls it. Then you really no options. Since you just abolished the only sector which allows YOU TO EARN MONEY TO YOURSELF.
So you would have left "non-profit sector, where you sell things with loss" or public sector where government controls means of production instead of direct control of the workers of said means.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ ᚫᛞᚱᛁᚫᚾ ᛚᚢᛏᚺᛖᚱᚫᛞᚱᛁᚫᚾ
Part 2 of the thing you refused to address with your queen of homicide
"- Natural resources are collectively owned."
Vague term. She haven't explained which collective owns the resources. As according to her she is not advocating government ownership, nor central planning. Therefore collective doesn't own it. Which means only collective she can mean in her system is the company itself. Which makes things even more problematic. This is why I told that she is being dishonest. Using vague terms which can mean literally anything.
"- You set up a company normally. You buy resources to do it and if you don't want to build yourself, you pay builders to do it for you."
You don't buy resources if you own them collectively. IT makes no sense. Also you pay builders = Wage labor. That alone already nullifies everything you guys were claiming to stand for.
" You get a construction permit from a decentralized workers' council for example, who will then appoint you to a strategically good position to set up a company"
That alone will create dictatorship as I already had proven previously. It's large amount of power. Large enough to do it. That was the time she ran away and came here instead. Worker's council is pathway to dictatorship. There is no such thing as decentralized worker's council when you give them power to decide who is allowed and who is not allowed to create business. She still haven't provided a working solution to this. She simply insists that there will appear magical laws which will magically prevent corruption from ever happening. This reasoning of hers has been used by billions of people, yet laws never did such a thing.
"- This company is then collectively owned"
Clearly it isn't, if the janitor doesn't share the ownership of it, and according to her, janitor doesn't share ownership of it. IT's outside of the collective according to her.
" they will be looked after collectively or a part of the collective appointed to do so within that company. " Aka mob rule of incompetent fools.
" If they want to deny workers from coming, they have to prove by law that they are not qualified or that there is no work."
So not only you have council determining who is qualified to work and who is not... But also chooses who is allowed to create and who is not... Yet you people wonder why I say that it will end up in dictatorship... Also, there are many reasons not to have someone in your company. Lazy, incompetent, disruption to the people in there. IF you have majority of people wanting to get rid of someone. They can make up a lie and no authority would have no power to see is it true or not.
"Worker can sue a company for not letting him in, despite being qualified."
This is something she never advocated for. Why should they let anyone in if they have no need for extra hands? Also it's almost impossible to even prove that case is just. This is just pointless law that no one will follow.
"Do you have something to prove that you can fly an airplane? If so, law is by your side to not get discriminated when wanting to become a pilot to an unfilled position."
They can get someone else. Say that this person is not fit to the company, therefore they are looking for someone else.
"This company can work with many different ways within, because the collective who work in that company manages the company and the policies there."
Mob rule. This encourages psychopaths and other naturally talented liers and manipulators to abuse and exploit other people.
"- Organized discrimination is punishable by law."
Pointless law since it's near impossible to enforce and prove. You have no method of proving that someone is organizing discrimination. This can be done in very subtle way. In fact it's already against he law in western countries and yet it still happens.
" Primary/secondary sector workers produce mainly for themselves, but can give away a part of their value of labor to the business in a form of a company fund."
There is no benefits in doing so.
"Tertiary sector workers are not entitled to take a part of these primary/secondary sector workers' value of labor, "
Discrimination.
"unless collectively agreed differently to agree to give a part of a company's fund to a tertiary worker who wants to sell his services."
Mob rule and exploitation according to your definitions. Since selling services is exploitation in eyes of socialists.
" You can go to any company to produce, as long as there is work and you qualify for the work."
Then it's not collective ownership of the workers of said company. Then it's simply collective ownership by everyone on the country. Meaning, there is no point creating companies, since there is nothing extra to be gained from it.
"You can try to find a deal to sell your services"
Exploitation according to socialists.
"You can pretty much always find work, where you are your own boss."
Already exists in capitalism.
"You can set up a new business by yourself or with a bunch of people."
You can't. Limited amount of space, and council decides are you allowed to do so. Plus you don't want to do so since there is no salary, therefore no one wants to be part of your business before it's fully constructed and ready to start production. Hence they would simply be parasites who join to your business at that point. Which leads to the point that not that many people would feel motivated to create business.
" You can make a contracts with new workers to owe you up to 100% of the building expenses to those who took part in the expenses."
This would mean that almost no one would have resources to pay up, if someone tries to create large business. For example, no one would be part of factory since it would cost too much to be part of it. Also.. Exploitation.
"These contracts, once signed, cannot be collectively dismantled."
So you can trick people. Aka create ponzi scheme and leave, and people are forced to follow the contract.
" Only an authority can nullify contracts and that too by abiding the law. "
That is a lot of power for authority...
"They are not policies within a company, they are contracts."
But contracts are exploitation according to socialist.
"his is kind of like temporary wage labor, until the debt has been paid. Clear enough?"
Wage labor is exloitation. Oh, it's clear what you guys want. And that what you want is a huge mess. I had already lectured her to the point that she admitted in discord that her system was highly flawed. And you're proposing as flawed system here as well. I'm starting to believe that people who support socialism, have never actually bothered to think things through. This is why you guys make the most idiotic suggestions. Suggestions that easily can be taken advantage of.
Judging by all of this. It wouldn't be libertarian socialist system at all. It would demand heavy amounts of regulations and government interference. Which is never proven to be good thing. Opposite in fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
I don't need to. Only the collective ownership is needed to address and as I already pointed out. YOU ARE STILL VAGUE. It doesn't address which group owns the land. As I explained, there can be lot of different collective groups. Which is why it's idiotic and dishonest to use word collective ownership to define who should own something.
"When the proletariat seize the means of production and the state, there's various possibilities what to do with the government."
Fun fact... You're not proletariat. You would be killed or thrown to gulag.
" accept that private property no longer exists and let them be in their positions, unless of course they wish to resign. "
Which by definition would mean that no one is allowed to own means of productions but the government. Since only according to your definitions only public, and non-profit sectors would exists. And non-profit precisely means that you're not allowed to have personal gain at all from the work you produce.
Not only that, but you would experience large capital flight. no one would stay or invest any business in this country of yours. Why would they? After all you're about to steal every resource they own.
" There can still be right-wing, left-wing, centrists etc. in parliaments doing their usual thing."
Calls herself as libertarian socialist... Doesn't understand that government is bound to increase it's power over time...
Do you understand what word Seize and revolution means?
Seize is just fancy word for steal.
Seize, verb
1. To take hold of suddenly or forcibly
3. To take posession of by force or at will
5. To take posession of by legal authority
All of these imply force as method.
Revolution, noun
1. An overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. (this already implies that force is needed to use)
2. Sociology. A radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.
Can you name non-violent revolution? And how this would in action even happen? Can you take something from someone which they don't wish to give without forcing against their will?
Socialism cannot be implemented in any society without force unless whole society already agrees with it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+The European Nihilist
"But because I am not afraid of the truth and i have nothing to hide"
Right... Which is why you lied about austria being socialist country. Even though it's economic model is called as Rhine capitalism.
"He uses the death blow argument! "Anyone who defends the Marxist literature, or better say the intellectual reverence is a Marxist or a man who is afflicted with ideology""
So far you have done nothing but bashing capitalism and supporting socialism. When asked question what is the economic model you support. You just say "science and logic" which is not economic model nor answering the question. You purposefully hide your true colors.
"And then it comes here He jumps from The Manifesto to the Orwell "
And this is wrong why? I simply stated that 1984 is perfect example of communist society.
Point wasn't Orwell, but the novel he provided. If your IQ was higher than size of my shoe, you would know this.
"as someone who was born in socialist country (Yugoslavia) And someone who lives in Austria since 1994 and who knows the Marxist literature to a certain extent well "
To which I replied that one's country's origins doesn't mean that he knows history of ideology of X. For example, there are lot of Christians from christian majority countries that haven't even read the bible or understood it.
Reply which you ignored. Since you tried to form argument from authority.
"I would like to ridicule the "Marxism" part of my faith nothing more than a false accusations are without evidence"
Your behavior is the evidence.
Then you claim that you used German language one as example why I need to be wrong. My source was from Marxist website. The first one you actually find with google search. You're basically doing similar thing as some religious people who claim that you cannot understand meaning of text unless you read it in original language. You however did not really provide source for it. Only your word and personal translation alone. I wouldn't trust that over actual communist site providing their own source.
"What is the current, the bourgeois family? On the capital, on the private enterprise. Completely developed it exists only for the bourgeoisie; but it finds its complement in the forced familylessness of the proletarians and of public prostitution "
However even with this translation.. It's not refuting the point. It states that family continuum. Like heritage the business, heritage the capital exists only for bourgeoisie (which was defined as middle-class according to himself). Then marx proceed to state that proletarians don't have families and are forced to public prostitution. Basically marx was stating that only bourgeois have a family unit. Since only bourgeois of his time had time to be with family and capital to give their children.
It's well known that marx argued that nuclear family performs ideological functions for capitalism. Therefore nuclear family should be abolished. Since according to him family acts as unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. And is institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.
"What i like how you always use the Word State But if we have read the Manifesto we should know that Communism is Statless Clasless Society"
This is where you fail and badly. Marx, Engels and lenin. All advocated socialist system where state controls everything. Because they believed that state would lose it's power once Everyone thought the same. Engels called it "withers away". Since for them state is defined by use of coercion. Once everyone thinks exactly the same, then there is no need to coerce anyone to do anything. Therefore state would become meaningless.
But all three of them believed that state should exists and be centralized in order to create that sort of society. Because it takes decades to create needed conditions for it.
All socialist here already agrees that all three of those communists believed in big state to achieve communism.
"Btw Cherry Picking is not an Argument!"
It's not cherry picking. It was right after the sentence I quoted before.
Where he was confirming his position.
As you see guys... He left out my response to his response. Because he ignored totally all of my points to it. This is exactly how liar would do.
1
-
1
-
+TheFinnishSOcialisT
"I've studied about it and definitions approve."
I have studied and definitions approve me.
" Socialism is about collective ownership of the means of production."
Word collective means literally any group. This includes government.
And according to this world's most leading dictionary. It's
1. A theory or system of socail organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
In fact... That definition alone dimisses your view of socialism. Since COMMUNITY as a whole. And land, distribution, capital etc...
You know what I love... When people use something as authority and then it's showed right into their ass when it comes back to bite them.
" I'm not playing this game, Tespri. Now we will stay on topic, like it or not."
You were the one who claimed I were in denial. Stay in topic, like it or not.
"Capitalism: Same thing, but with one employer, who dictates all.
Socialism: Same thing, but with multiple employers, who operate democratically."
So you admit that wage labor is not exploitation?
I love this... This is what I were getting at. So since wage labor is not exploitation. Then we have no reason to go for socialism. In fact we have no justification for it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheFinnishMassMurderer.
"Correct, in this context it means the population as a whole, and in this context it's about owning the means of production."
So now you mean whole population... You aren't even capable of being honest. Previously you were for private co-operatives. Now you're advocating literally socialism in soviet style.
"ep, tertiary workers have wages that are determined cooperatively"
Wage slavery and exploitation according to your idiotic ideology.
"so the cooperative can push their luck with it. "
As can business owner in capitalism.
"Supply and demand, free market, if the tertiary worker isn't happy with the bid, then the worker can find a better opportunity elsewhere."
Yet you stop believing in supply and demand when it comes to capitalism... How ironic. This is what I'm trying to make you get. But you are literally too stupid to get it.
"Remember, tertiary workers don't really gather/produce/manufacture anything to be sold, hence exploitation in this sense is a bit of an oddball. "
But their work effort affects the production.
"In (free market) capitalism, which leads to late capitalism, the case isn't really identical."
There is no evidence for such thing as late capitalism. That is one of the idiotic things that marx spouted.
"Many businesses are exploited by royals to struggle, making it nearly impossible to climb the income ladder,"
Objectively false. History stands as my evidence and reason and logic.
"Exploitation is to take others' labor of value for free"
Expect they don't take their labor of value. Nor do they take it for free. Case closed.
" Under capitalism, an employers primary motive is to exploit, to have profits from another's work."
By your defination, there is no exploit if it's about getting someone's labor value for free.
First of all. Worker's labor is simply it's time and skills decided to help the company. Nothing else. And for that the company PAYS to the worker. So it's not free by any definition.
"As Marx himself said, profit = theft. "
That is marx definition. That is because he was an idiot.
Also if theft is profit. Then stealing means of production is profit.
Your definition doesn't work at all.
"Profits are not entirely the same as earnings, even though profits too are a form of earning money."
By leading dictionary they are.
"That is not stealing, correct. Make someone else use it for you and give you what they produce, that's pretty much stealing."
Make someone else use it? They don't just make someone to use it. They pay someone to use it. How am I stealing from them if I pay them to use it for me? How am I stealing for them for trading my resources in return for his resources?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
"Private property abolished pretty much equals to socialism, does it not?"
Correct but you're using systems as example that you claimed to be inherently bad ideas.
You're not defending your view of socialism in here when you mention those countries. It wasn't usa which turned them into socialism ran by government.
"Why? "
Study history and psychology if you want to know why. Psychopaths are masters in manipulating. It's well established fact. Not only that but their yearn social power. They always try to run to become politician or go to any field which gives them any level of power. If they cannot get power on their own, then they create cults or simply befriend everyone in order for them to give him power over them.
Socialist environment is best breeding ground for people like these. Since it's no longer place where competent people survive and breed, but incompetent people with good social skills.
"Their income is literally based on the businesses they'd go exploiting in to"
For same reason as politicians destroy their own country for sake of small benefit for themselves. Psychopaths don't think in long term. They only live for short term goals. They are pretty much animals. Ran by their most basic instincts. After inventor made his invention, his life is useless for psychopath. Hence he will dismiss that person and take his position while taking profits to himself.
". I did give you an idea what the worker's council has to do with this."
If I remember right this was already done in soviets and it didn't end up well.
"-scenario would happen, you insist that they'd still exploit you and cause disunity to the point of failure of the company and that this would happen literally everywhere and always."
Again, because it makes it into a scam. I did explain this to you. Clearly you didn't get it.
"The moment you generalized any form of failure of a business, despite this being a free market, I started feeling if I'd be talking to a brick wall."
You admitted that socialism is flawed system in our discussion. Yet you never changed you actual position. Instead you said that you will try to find ways to make socialism work. This is not honest approach. It simply points out that no matter what is said to you, you refuse to change your mind. Instead you try to make it work or "die trying".
". The moment you implied that these businesses are somehow completely unable to expand in a free market"
Strawman. It wasn't about free market but about socialism. There is no benefit in expanding in such system. It's not worth it. There is literally no increase in profit for the people in it.
"nd that capitalism "is not about profit", I became certain I was talking to a brick wall."
No it's not, not a single definition of capitalism mentions word profit. It simply states that capitalism is economic system where means of production and distribution of goods are in private sector. And that people are allowed to own fruits of their labor.
"At least I got to teach you something new."
Literally nothing new.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Terry Tater
" Nearly every government employee gets healthcare, dental, paid sock days, paid vacations, and paid holidays. "
You're now talking about worker's benefits. But you totally ignore the quality of service that government provides and how inefficient and corrupted it is. You are simply talking about working benefits, while I'm talking about fundamental flaws that government provided services have.
"ou're not a socialist for admitting it either."
You're talking totally different subject. You're not talking about government services being generally better. You're talking about employment benefits are generally better. That is totally different subject.
" You don't see that "corruption" and "profit" are the same exact thing when it comes to systemic efficiency"
Corruption create inefficiency. Since it prevents system from being meritocratic and resources are going away from it's intended purposes. You don't create profit with corruption, you lose profit with it.
" It's not me that doesn't understand money, buddy."
When you fail to understand that money is tool for trade, which value is determined by supply and demand... Yeah... You don't understand money. You don't even know what inflation is and why it happens.
" . I understand that, potentially 99% of US currency is active debt, do you? "
How is this relevant to any of my points?
"I also understand that the money we owe the privately owned federal Reserve doesn't exist, do you?"
How is this relevant to any of my points?
"Federal Reserve act of 1913"
How is this relevant to anything I had said?
"get ready to blame the jews lol."
How is this relevant to anything I had said? Also blame jew? Isn't that what leftists are doing when they are were calling a jew as biggest threat in current time? Aka they were calling Ben Shapiro as a nazi. Heck they even called milo as a nazi even though he is a gay jew...
1
-
+Terry tater
"Nearly all communist countries revolted into communism. "
You know why? Read by communists manifesto
"Nobody slips from social programs into communism"
Expect they can do that. Just because it haven't done before, doesn't mean it cannot be done.
"Communism is caused by oppression."
Communism causes oppression* Fixed for you
"Cuba, Russia, and China all revolted against right wing oppression"
nope. In Russia revolt happened because poor success in ww1. Which had left economy and people into exhaustion. Cuba, was not oppressed. It was objectively doing better than now. China, neither that.
"Capitalists cause communism. "
objectively false. Neither Russia or china had capitalism in them. Russia was feudal society back in then.
Ever bothered to think why capitalism didn't cause communism in western europe? Of course not... Since you're commie who doesn't know jack shit about history.
"Corporations have given billions of people cancer. "
And socialist governments have killed hundreds of millions of people. Corporation doesn't give any one cancer on purpose. Also you need to provide some evidence for your idiotic claim over corporations.
" Corporations have now killed more people than anything in the history of our existence.."
Objectively false.
"Hitler came into power because Germany was broke, because of reparations, from ww1, owed to England. "
Finally something where you are correct. But subject is actually far more deeper and complicated than you can comprehend.
" Hitler hated the central bank, not capitalism."
According to his own words he hated capitalism. He was socialist. This was even clarified in his private speeches. He created new type of socialism. National socialism. And he believed that capitalism was international weapon used against germany.
"if I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that a certain portion of our population needs to be poor or money won't be worth anything.. Correct?"
False. One can be rich without otherone being poor. What you don't understand is value of currency is based on SUPPLY AND DEMAND. More there are in supply the less worth it is. Try.. Please just try to think what would happen if every american would be given one billion dollars now. Would you go to work? Would anyone go to work? The prices will simply rise up in response. Especially since less people are going to work, and you would need to pay more to the people in order to get them to work.
Venezuela is best way to demostrate this. They government started to print more money in order to pay their spending. Yet they became poorer. Can you understand why? Why not just print infinite amount of money and share it to everyone. Solve poverty... You are literally too stupid to understand why it doesn't work.
Also... Almost no one is poor in western countries in traditional sense.
" The average American dies in debt for 67k, bud"
again, WHY IS THIS RELEVANT!? I don't give a shit.
".. We work our life's to end up with less than we started with.... This is economic slavery. "
It's not debt caused by your spending. It's debt caused by government spending.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
Birthday is capitalist celebration. You capitalist pig!
Marx, lenin, engels all the guys who you love. Would kill you for that.
"I'll just say that socialism is a system where the baseline is where you own what you produce and entrepreneurship is controlled democratically. "
Nope. You don't... Because you don't even understand what you produce takes. You are literally too stupid to realize that it's rarely ONE person who does all the necessarily parts of productions. It's not the person who assembles the product that makes biggest part in production. That is the simplest and easiest part.
You fail to take into account that getting resources, designing, managing, creating contacts are all part of production. This is why you keep spouting this stupid non-sense that only the worker who assembled the product should get it all.
"true meritocracy is a thing"
As explained thousand of times. Your system kills meritocracy. It doesn't allow it to exists. It's nothing more than idiotic mob rule where brilliant people aren't allowed to shine.
Also it's not free market if the worker market is not free. You're taking workers right to work for wage with this system of yours.
" as opposed to capitalism."
Literally system which has been proven to promote meritocracy.
"Deep down we all want the same: no-one bossing us around"
False. You want mob rule to boss around.Like when you were kid and bullied that smaller kid with your friends. Bossing that kid around. You do realize that adults are still kids? They simply have more responsibilities. IF you actually follow their behavior patterns you notice that most adults on the planet are no different mentally than kids.
" capitalists controlling the economy"
There is no controlled economy under capitalism.
"nd letting us decide our own destiny and earn for ourselves according to our work. "
You can literally do that under capitalism. As explained before. You are incapable to fathom. That the system you would actually be for if you believed all of that. Would be capitalism.
" I see e.g. ancaps reaching for this, but they find themselves troubled when asked how do they stop monopolization of the markets, violence, consolidating power etc. and the formation of governing bodies etc."
Milton friedman famous economist had already explained this. Only time in human history when monopoly has ever been brought down. Has been in free market without government interference. Government intervening generally actually creates monopolies. Because in order them to exist and sustain themselves. They need government intervention to get rid of competition.
Since you aren't that smart... I explain something for you... Most regulations, interventions, subsidies are lobbied by corporations. Did you know that wallmart lobbies for minimum wage? IF you actually understood about markets and business. You would understand why. Pro tip... It eliminates competition.
"I see nothing wrong in a socialist system and if you can argue against the idea of collective ownership of the means of production and democratic entrepreneurship, I will listen. "
Yeah. I know that you don't see anything wrong in mass murdering people and bullying more talented people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
"As collective ownership I mean that people in a business, in this case workers, own that business."
Well that is your own branch of socialism, you are very small minority and that still sounds just like capitalism. As long as you can do this in capitalist system, it's capitalist.
"Private ownership = "the fact of being owned by a private individual or organization, rather than by the state or a public body""
Notice word organization. I hope you realize that organizations are form of collective.
"The communist manifesto refers to Marxism and that's communism. It's based on socialism, yes, but is not the same thing I'm talking about here obviously."
Well again, most socialists have totally different view of what socialism should be. So far you're advocating capitalist company where stocks are shared with all the people employed in it.
"This is true and can theoretically happen, but it would indeed need the majority, which makes exploitation significantly harder. "
Not really. Minority is almost always abused. Heck, this environment can even be highly abusive. Just imagine someone having different opinion from the rest and they vote to him to do some shitty thing while almost earn nothing. You should've seen enough of real life to know that stuff like this happen. Where huge group bullies one or few individuals.
"This can be (and is in some forms of socialism) made impossible with regulations."
IF you allow government to regulate everything that is made in those companies, then you're turning it slowly into state owned.
"I just need to know first what's your actual argument in that."
I assumed that you take marx as some sort of personal hero, hence wanted to point out that his view of socialism and communism both were radically different from yours.
"seem to have trouble understanding what collective ownership stands for, I'm just gonna copy/paste Wikipedia here:"
I don't have any problem to understand it. Simply pointed out that in marx context collective means all of the proletarians. However as I mentioned before, you're simply talking about capitalism with company that is run by collectively by the workers who are part of it. Currently I'm showing the flaws in it. Very big flaws. There is a reason why this sort of corporations and companies aren't top companies on the planet. Don't bring communist and socialist countries into that one, since again, you can create company like that under capitalism as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+auregamer5
"Marx and Engels first wrote that workers will rebel against the capitalist and take over the means of production, instead of a boss, there would be a worker council"
Tell me something I didn't know already. Also if I remember, marx didn't talk about rebelion of workers, but he believed that society would turn into socialist and communist over time naturally.
"This is socialism."
yes, aka the worker council will be the new class that controls every aspect of your life.
"So, the collective owns the factory. "
Yes, this is why people are saying that soviets were true socialist state trying to achieve communism. However only leftists disagree with that since they don't know jack shit.
" workers can form groups by themselves and do the same thing as with the capitalist"
No they can't. They need permission of the "worker's council". Where do you expect them to get resources to build a new company and a factor? Since all resources and means of produciton are controlled by the council.
"just without the leech up their ass sucking on the profits "becaus we owns it". "
Capitalists don't leech up. They distribute more to the work effort than single burger flipper does.
"You can use this to have a planned economy and do good stuff."
Planned economy has always failed. And has never brought up good stuff.
Why do you think that soviets did collapse in the first place? People were dissatisfied to the communist rule. Especially since they saw that workers under capitalism had much better quality of life than they had.
"That said, first option is direct democratic socialism"
Most idiotic idea ever if you comprehend how much micromanage that would take.
" the other is representative democratic socialism. "
Which always leads to creation of new class. Political class that acts like feudal lords of the past, expect worse than they did.
"If workers don't own the MOP, its not socialism"
Oh they do own it for a while, until anyone who has half a brain and ambition, takes over the system which is extremely vulnerable to take overs.
"You still got a man which does not care about you, just a different one."
Socialism creates these sorts of men.
" Therefore, you are full of dung, go read a book."
Oh I have read a book. But unlike you I have read BOOKS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1