[SolarCross]

Huh :?: That's a really weird thing to say since it's actually the exact opposite way around.

Capitalism is what leads to singular powers in the hands of monopolies; socialism is about allowing fair distribution of power by restricting corrupt individuals from owning more wealth than they deserve.

Except in reality that is not what happens.

In a socialist government there would not be power in the hands of a "dear leader"; if a famine takes places because a corrupt leader takes power of all the government, how is that the fault of socialism? Sounds more like capitalism in my opinion.

Except by definition it is socialism not capitalism.

It's not slavery to be obligated to contribute to your community, the very community that you need in order to succeed yourself.

It is slavery, plain and simple.

Specifically on "theft" I'm not sure what you're referring to but I think theft can be justified in some cases.

They call it "expropriation" or "collectivisation" but it is wholesale theft.

I believe that capitalists are much more horrible people in my experience. The reason being is that they are exceedingly selfish and greedy people. They care only about their own well-being and have no problem screwing over the entire society if it helps them to make money.

Except they aren't, this is just something you people make up to justify committing atrocities.

Briefly I'll say that the reason I'm a socialist is because I believe in giving people things that they deserve to have. Socialism achieves this by implementing a fair distribution of goods. By contrast capitalism leads to unfair and one-sided distribution of goods in the hands of the small few.

No you don't. You just want a pretty excuse to kill and steal.

What we see in capitalism, though it has not amounted to violence or killing (yet), is tyranny, corruption, and dictatorship. Those are the same problems experienced by the alleged "socialist" regimes such as China and Russia.

We don't see that though, we see it in socialist regimes. They are the worst for it, always without fail.

[Agent Steel]

Hmm.

There's really only one way to say this.

You're wrong.

Simple as that.

If someone is just plainly and flat out wrong all you can do is inform them.

[Pants-of-dog]

.... Socialism wants to be an all encompasing monopoly over everything while capitalism is by definition distributed authority.

This is incorrect.

Socialism does not want to control everything. For example, it does not want to control women’s sexuality the way traditionalists do.

Nor does capitalism want distributed authority. It wants a centralised state to enforce property rights.

If Dear Leader has a fit and decides Ukrainians don't get food this year then millions die. Dear Leader then is a single point of failure which can bring down the whole system.

This is also incorrect, since socialism would have things run by a collective. There would be no single person who would have this control.

On the other hand, if Joe the greengrocer, one amongst thousands of food distributors, decides he hates ukrainians so bad that he will deny them access to food, no one will notice as any one of thousands of other greengrocers will fill the void.

And yet we see embargoes against socialist countries all the time, where the state punishes any merchant who does provide goods and services to socialist nations.

2. You can't get there from where we are without gargantuan thefts. Like it or not, theft is a violation of the compact of civilisation.

Redefining socialism as theft is intellectually dishonest and inaccurate.

3. It is slavery. When a political structure has total control over what you have, what you can say, where you go and think then you are defacto the slave of that structure. Why would anyone want to be a slave?

Redefining socialism as slavery is intellectually dishonest and inaccurate.

And since socialism is not inherently totalitarian, you are adding things to the definition that you supposedly already agreed to. If you thought the definition was incorrect, you should not have agreed to it.

4. There is no benefit in it that might offset its vast and appalling problems.

The NHS that keeps you alive is one of those benefits.

5. Socialists are horrible, horrible, people. I don't meant they are horrible because they are socialists I mean they are horrible people in their characters quite separately from the odiousness of their beliefs. Given that under the jackboots of socialism the socialists will be the overclass controlling everything then they really need to be saintly people for that situation to be even remotely tolerable. As it is none of them are, just the opposite.

Ad hominem.

Also, I had no idea you were so scared of my mom.

[Stardust]

Redefining socialism as slavery is intellectually dishonest and inaccurate.

And since socialism is not inherently totalitarian, you are adding things to the definition that you supposedly already agreed to. If you thought the definition was incorrect, you should not have agreed to it.

A very good answer, Pants-of-dog, thank you!
He initially sets the rule that 'there has to be some agreement, on the definitions of both; Socialism and Capitalism' between the two parties before they can get involved in the argument. However, sooner than later he loses his patience; and forgets his own precondition entirely.

So you see @Agent Steel what sorts of people we're dealing with here; one cannot get the simplest things through their heads, because they do not want to see anything other than the ways they're used to / prefer to see the world.

Sorry about your disappointing experience earlier on with the guy you chose to have a reasonable debate; it just seems impossible; doesn't it

As for the term Slavery noted above; as if that doesn't exist in Capitalism..! Wage slavery is the main form of slavery by which Capitalism controls and dominate humans' lives. Without it neither the surplus value and profit; nor the regeneration of Capital would be possible.

Whilst Socialism aims to emancipate human beings from the ties bestowed upon them by the rules of Capital.

But let me say no more, about how Socialism seeks to do so; as they have been explained over and over again, including in the various threads of this forum... The eager individuals may refer to those, as well as to the original, unrevised definitions of Socialism as explained by its true advocates.

[SolarCross]

This is incorrect.

Socialism does not want to control everything. For example, it does not want to control women’s sexuality the way traditionalists do.

Nor does capitalism want distributed authority. It wants a centralised state to enforce property rights.

It is not. If everything is owned by the government then everything is controlled by the government. It isn't even going to be a multi-party state. Capitalism means distributed authority by definition, see above. Name one socialist government that did not aim to own everything.

This is also incorrect, since socialism would have things run by a collective. There would be no single person who would have this control.

Except in practice that never happens.

And yet we see embargoes against socialist countries all the time, where the state punishes any merchant who does provide goods and services to socialist nations.

So military institutions will override civilian concerns but most of the time they don't do that.

Redefining socialism as theft is intellectually dishonest and inaccurate.

Stop lying, I didn't redefine socialism as theft. I said that socialism requires wholesale theft and is for that purpose.

Redefining socialism as slavery is intellectually dishonest and inaccurate.

I am not doing that either, but when one is subject to a regime that monopolises every possible facet of life then one is reduced to a condition effectively identical to slavery.

And since socialism is not inherently totalitarian, you are adding things to the definition that you supposedly already agreed to. If you thought the definition was incorrect, you should not have agreed to it.

By the definition above socialism is totalitarian.

The NHS that keeps you alive is one of those benefits.

The NHS isn't socialist because the private sector exists alongside it. Regardless if it didn't exist I could choose my own doctors.

Ad hominem.

Also, I had no idea you were so scared of my mom.

It's an observation of socialists that I know mostly from pofo. I don't know your mom but she raised you so how good can she be? What fucking chance do you think I'd have if I needed you to sign off my ration card in order to eat? If I had you telling me what work details I would be forced to do? Fuck that.

[Sivad]

totalitarian collectivism is not socialism.

[SolarCross]

Look how about this: socialists have to live under socialism and capitalists get to have capitalism. Is it a deal?

---------

Come to think of it you could all just go to prison. Prison is a pretty close approximation of life under socialism. Except prison is only temporary.

[B0ycey]

Look how about this: socialists have to live under socialism and capitalists get to have capitalism. Is it a deal?

Can't Socialism be democratic? That eliminates all your dictatorship arguments right there.

Although I would prefer to be given a house than a mortgage and I suspect many would agree. Nonetheless to the proletariat it doesn't matter if his surplus Labor goes to the state or the bourgeois. He still doesn't gain from that labor. That is why Capitalism benefits only a selection few as only a select few can gain from that labor without lifting a finger.

Having said all that it is fair to say that unless a state considers the interests of the people over that of the state, the socialist economy will always collapses due to lack of supply and hyperinflation. But if you look at China, its success (economically) is understanding that you can execute state control in many areas, but it is best not to completely elimate yourself from enterprise or from the free market. In other words a hybrid economy.

So in summary that means a successful socialist government should control all the things that matter within your day to day life (housing, health, education etc) and allow enterprise in things that don't matter as much whilst also allow things that require much R&D (toys, electronics cars etc) freedom from that state to progress too. Also it is important to note that if the government fall short of the interests of the people they (the people) should have the democratic means to eject the government from office and hire someone else to do a better job.

[SolarCross]

Can't Socialism be democratic? That eliminates all your dictatorship arguments right there.

Although I would prefer to be given a house than a mortgage and I suspect many would agree. Nonetheless to the proletariat it doesn't matter if his surplus Labor goes to the state or the bourgeois. He still doesn't gain from that labor. That is why Capitalism benefits only a selection few as only a select few can gain from that labor without lifting a finger.

Having said all that it is fair to say that unless a state considers the interests of the people over that of the state, the socialist economy will always collapses due to lack of supply and hyperinflation. But if you look at China, its success (economically) is understanding that you can execute state control in many areas, but it is best not to completely elimate yourself from enterprise or from the free market. In other words a hybrid economy.

So in summary that means a successful socialist government should control all the things that matter within your day to day life (housing, health, education etc) and allow enterprise in things that don't matter as much whilst also allow things that require much R&D (toys, electronics cars etc) freedom from that state to progress too. Also it is important to note that if the government fall short of the interests of the people they (the people) should have the democratic means to eject the government from office and hire someone else to do a better job.

No it can't be democratic, because if it was democratic then it would be socialist for only one or two election cycles before getting kicked out of office. People are sometimes stupid enough to vote for the lies of socialists but almost no one is stupid enough to keep doing that after they are reduced to eating toilet paper.

[B0ycey]

No it can't be democratic, because if it was democratic then it would be socialist for only one or two election cycles before getting kicked out of office. People are sometimes stupid enough to vote for the lies of socialists but almost no one is stupid enough to keep doing that after they are reduced to eating toilet paper.

What you talking about it can't be democratic? Of course it can. If I accept that a socialist government can only remain in power for two election cycles, it doesn't alter the fact that it was originally democratically elected. Although there is Socialist services within the UK today and I don't hear anyone complain about it. Although I hear much complaint about privatisation of once social services. Can you imagine a political party offer everyone a home for free in the next election. Would win by a landslide FYI.

It is a misnomer to think most people would not prefer socialism. They just accept Capitalism as that is all they know.

[SolarCross]

What you talking about it can't be democratic? Of course it can. If I accept that a socialist government can only remain in power for two election cycles, it doesn't alter the fact that it was originally democratically elected. Although there is Socialist services within the UK today and I don't hear anyone complain about it. Although I hear much complaint about privatisation of once social services. Can you imagine a political party offer everyone a home for free in the next election. Would win by a landslide FYI.

It is a misnomer to think most people would not prefer socialism. They just accept Capitalism as that is all they know.

What socialist services? The NHS is nationalist not socialist. Why is Bupa a thing if the NATIONAL Health Service is "socialist"?

Socialism isn't democratically sustainable because people will vote it out when it starts to ruin things. That is why socialists always get rid of democracy as soon as they can. They might be able to use it to get a foot in the door as an alternative to coup d'etat but they can't stay in charge with it.

[Zionist Nationalist]

Israel was a socialist state at one point it led to an economic crisis in the 80s and after reforms the country begun to flourish during the 90s
There are still alot of socialist elements in the country that are holding back the economy
I think socialism=populism
everybody want fee stuff free housing healthcare etc but its not that easy to give away all those stuff since there are always going to be some sacrifices to be made and people forget about that
if people really knew what is socialism and how will it work most would reject it

[Truth To Power]

and since we can't talk about socialism in isolation from its alternative which is capitalism

Blatant false dichotomy fallacy, which I'm sure AS won't object to. Socialism and capitalism both have to pretend the other is the only alternative. They are like two crooked palookas, pretending to fight while they actually hold each other up to avoid meeting the real challenger: justice.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is not. If everything is owned by the government then everything is controlled by the government. It isn't even going to be a multi-party state. Capitalism means distributed authority by definition, see above. Name one socialist government that did not aim to own everything.

We already discussed this in the thread where you argued that the state should force women to have sex with incels, and I had to explain to you that socialists want to control only the economic means of production, and not everything, because it is the economic exploitation that Marxists are trying to stop.

Nor do capitalists want distributed authority. You are a bug fan of capitalist dictatorships, so you should already know this.

Unless you think Pinochet and his ilk were not authoritarian?

Except in practice that never happens.

Sure it does. All the time. Do you think Castro personally ran everything? He was awesome, but not that awesome!

So military institutions will override civilian concerns but most of the time they don't do that.

As long as we agree that capitalist countries use the state to force consumers and merchants to only deal with them.

Stop lying, I didn't redefine socialism as theft. I said that socialism requires wholesale theft and is for that purpose.

If you think socialism requires theft by defintion, then yes, you were intellectually dishonest when you gave the definitions.

I am not doing that either, but when one is subject to a regime that monopolises every possible facet of life then one is reduced to a condition effectively identical to slavery.

Again, this is intellectually dishonest since it has already been explained to you that socialism is about economics and does not wish to control other aspects of your life. This is also in the defintion, and for you to add this to the defintion is also intellectually dishonest.

By the definition above socialism is totalitarian.

No, and if you now wish to add “totalitarian” to the defintion, this would be a third example of intellectual dishonesty.

The NHS isn't socialist because the private sector exists alongside it. Regardless if it didn't exist I could choose my own doctors.

You would not be able to afford doctors in a free market.

ANd yes, it is socialist

It's an observation of socialists that I know mostly from pofo. I don't know your mom but she raised you so how good can she be? What fucking chance do you think I'd have if I needed you to sign off my ration card in order to eat? If I had you telling me what work details I would be forced to do? Fuck that.

Insulting me and my mom is not an argument. I will take this as a concession that your ad hominem was not correct.

No it can't be democratic,

Yes it can, and this highlights the only real problem with socialism:

If people decide to become socialist and vote that way, the capitalists will come with guns and take away your democracy. This is a real and practical problem.

[B0ycey]

What socialist services? The NHS is nationalist not socialist. Why is Bupa a thing if the NATIONAL Health Service is "socialist"?

Socialism isn't democratically sustainable because people will vote it out when it starts to ruin things. That is why socialists always get rid of democracy as soon as they can. They might be able to use it to get a foot in the door as an alternative to coup d'etat but they can't stay in charge with it.

The government bought RBS and runs it better now than it was before. Capitalism couldn't run East Coast efficently either. In fact all rail franchises are subsided by the government. So why do you think a state can't run its own affairs better than someone for a profit?

Although you need to read your own definitions before declaring that the NHS isn't a socialist organisation. Who owns the NHS again? As for Bupa, that is an option if you can afford the care. As long as the NHS is free for all, nobody is going to carry about BUPA. Although if a political party privatised the NHS that is something very little would accept.

Nonetheless away from that, why do you declare socialism isn't democratically viable without any evidence but opinion? When Capitalism collapses it will have to be democratically viable FYI.

[SolarCross]

Blatant false dichotomy fallacy, which I'm sure AS won't object to. Socialism and capitalism both have to pretend the other is the only alternative. They are like two crooked palookas, pretending to fight while they actually hold each other up to avoid meeting the real challenger: justice.

If you look at the standard definitions then either the state owns everything which is socialism or ownership is distributed among private citizens and non-citizens which is capitalism. This isn't quite a binary because there is a middle ground where the state owns a lot but not everything and that middle ground is nationalism.

Everything else fits into one of those three categories as a subtype. You are probably thinking of Georgism as an alternative but really whatever Georgism is it will fit into one of those three categories, probably nationalism.

[Pants-of-dog]

If you look at the standard definitions then either the state owns everything which is socialism or ownership is distributed among private citizens and non-citizens which is capitalism. This isn't quite a binary because there is a middle ground where the state owns a lot but not everything and that middle ground is nationalism.

Everything else fits into one of those three categories as a subtype. You are probably thinking of Georgism as an alternative but really whatever Georgism is it will fit into one of those three categories, probably nationalism.

This is also factually incorrect.

The entire non-western world developed other ideas and systems about property and economics that are not described by this false dichotomy of Marxism and capitalism.

[B0ycey]

If you look at the standard definitions then either the state owns everything which is socialism or ownership is distributed among private citizens and non-citizens which is capitalism.

Your definition:

As system or condition in society in which the means of production (healthcare) is run and controlled by the state.

Pretty much nails the NHS in one sentence.

This isn't quite a binary because there is a middle ground where the state owns a lot but not everything and that middle ground is nationalism.

Please provide this definition of "Nationalism"

[Truth To Power]

If you look at the standard definitions then either the state owns everything which is socialism

No, socialism is COLLECTIVE -- which could be state, workers' cooperative, consumer cooperative, or some other arrangement -- ownership of THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION (capital goods and natural resources).

or ownership is distributed among private citizens and non-citizens which is capitalism.

Again, it is only about ownership of the means of production.

This isn't quite a binary because there is a middle ground where the state owns a lot but not everything and that middle ground is nationalism.

My dictionary does not support that usage of "nationalism." You are also avoiding the issue of WHAT is state or collectively owned and what is privately owned. It's not a question of what fraction but what KINDS of things are rightly owned collectively or privately. For example, if you think the sun, the oceans, the atmosphere, the alphabet, etc. cannot rightly be private property, as any sane person does, then you need to account for WHY some things are rightly private property and others aren't -- which I suspect you can't.

You are probably thinking of Georgism as an alternative but really whatever Georgism is it will fit into one of those three categories, probably nationalism.

I'm not a Georgist, but rather a geoist. Geoism holds that people have equal rights to the natural resources (the earth, geo) that no one produced; that such resources therefore can never rightly be appropriated as property, either private or collective (though government is needed to secure and reconcile the equal individual rights of all to use them); and those who want forcibly to deprive others of their liberty to use them owe just (market) compensation to the community of those they deprive.

[Truth To Power]

exactly. Capitalism can destroy countries and societies too but socialism have never proven to be succesful I will give some modern examples as we all know what happened to the Warsaw block the socialist experiment is either ending very bady (Venezuela,) being dropped (China) or a reaching a complete stagnation (Vietnam,Laos,Cuba)

China hasn't been socialist for at least 30 years, and Vietnam is taking some baby steps in the same direction. Venezuela is certainly an object lesson, as it has been ruined in a single generation of brain-dead socialist idiocy despite its stupendous oil wealth. Aside from any practical failures resulting from human greed, laziness, corruption, dishonesty, etc., socialism will always lag capitalism in productivity and prosperity because when socialists steal factories, there are fewer factories available for production, but when capitalists steal land, the amount of land available for production stays exactly the same.