Problems With Socialism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15205538
The problem with "socialism" is that most people who say it's a problem HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. They compare it to Communism, which they also don't know anything about.

viktor wrote:Despite it's promises, socialism most always leads to economic stagnation, poverty and low growth
Pure ignorance.

Educate yourself!!

Pure Socialism Definition
Pure socialism is an economic system under which each individual—through a democratically elected government—is given an equal share of the four factors or economic production: labor, entrepreneurship, capital goods, and natural resources. In essence, socialism is based on the assumption that all people naturally want to cooperate, but are restrained from doing so by the competitive nature of capitalism.

Socialism is an economic system where everyone in society equally owns the factors of production. The ownership is acquired through a democratically elected government. It could also be a cooperative or public corporation in which everyone owns shares. As in a command economy, the socialist government employs centralized planning to allocate resources based on both the needs of individuals and society as a whole. Economic output is distributed according to each individual’s ability and level of contribution.

In 1980, American author and sociologist Gregory Paul paid homage to Marx in coining the phrase commonly used to describe socialism, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution.”

From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution.

Individuals own personal property but all industrial and production capacity is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.

Production is intended to meet individual and societal needs and distributed according to individual ability and contribution.

https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-be ... ism-195448

The most successful countries in the world, in terms of quality of life, are countries like Denmark, Norway and others that embrace a balance between Socialism and Capitalism.

China, is not actually Communist. It's close to a Socialist nation, as it has embraced Capitalism.
#15208923
Godstud wrote:The problem with "socialism" is that most people who say it's a problem HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.


QFT :(
#15208927
Folks, the first problem with any '-ism' is that none of them offer the all-encompassing, universal answer to humanity's challenges.

All of them have good points and bad points. As Godstud intimated the most successful (far from perfect, but comparatively successful) societies blend elements of different '-isms', to optimise the good and minimise the bad.

The second problem with all '-isms' is when dedicated adherents allow themselves to believe they really do offer an all-encompassing, universal answer to humanity's challenges and revere their particular '-ism' as some kind of secular Faith - an immutable, unimpeachable, unquestionable truth. Once they've crossed that line, they no longer have any qualms about imposing their '-ism' on all of humanity by whatever means necessary. :hmm:
#15208934
Godstud wrote:



Socialism is an economic system where everyone in society equally owns the factors of production.



'Owns' really isn't the best term to use since it tends to imply 'private property', which tends to imply 'elitism' -- a better term would be 'collectivized', so that there's *no* ownership, but there *is* collective administration of productive means.



Economic output is distributed according to each individual’s ability and level of contribution.



'Sloganeering' is what I say here, to this, because of real-world material quantities, though I do support any collective workers administration that does this *politically* in some form, or another -- workers government or workers administration.

Realistically it would depend on the relative advancement or retreat of the ongoing global proletarian revolution against the bourgeoisie / forces of capital, to the point where *any* kind of practical 'economics' would implicitly be political *opportunism* because material collectivism doesn't-require, and *transcends*, all economic exchanges. (Free-access, direct-distribution.)


Pies Must Line Up

Spoiler: show
Image



---



Individuals own personal property but all industrial and production capacity is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.



This, too, would be an administration of *convenience*, for the sake of any still-playing-out / ongoing workers revolution against global capitalism. Ultimately all workers could realistically *co-administrate* in realtime.



The most successful countries in the world, in terms of quality of life, are countries like Denmark, Norway and others that embrace a balance between Socialism and Capitalism.



The point of socialism is to *overthrow* capitalism and its class divide and get to post-capitalist (collectivist) communism -- the *transitional* phase of socialism could be called the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', or 'workers power' / workers control, or a workers government / administration.

You're describing 'social democracy' here, not socialism.


Cartertonian wrote:
Folks, the first problem with any '-ism' is that none of them offer the all-encompassing, universal answer to humanity's challenges.

All of them have good points and bad points. As Godstud intimated the most successful (far from perfect, but comparatively successful) societies blend elements of different '-isms', to optimise the good and minimise the bad.

The second problem with all '-isms' is when dedicated adherents allow themselves to believe they really do offer an all-encompassing, universal answer to humanity's challenges and revere their particular '-ism' as some kind of secular Faith - an immutable, unimpeachable, unquestionable truth. Once they've crossed that line, they no longer have any qualms about imposing their '-ism' on all of humanity by whatever means necessary. :hmm:



Means and Ends CHART

Spoiler: show
Image



Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show
Image



Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

Spoiler: show
Image

"When your enemy is making a mistakes don't i[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

War crimes always happen in war, like how they are[…]

The factory owner didn't create or provide what[…]

It is because every country copies policies of th[…]