[viktor]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/econom ... -socialism

Despite it's promises, socialism most always leads to economic stagnation, poverty and low growth

[ckaihatsu]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/econom ... -socialism

Despite it's promises, socialism most always leads to economic stagnation, poverty and low growth

Why did *this* happen -- ?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_in ... _Civil_War

[Godstud]

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.

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.

[Negotiator]

The problem with "socialism" is that most people who say it's a problem HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

QFT

[Cartertonian]

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.

[ckaihatsu]

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

---

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.

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.

Means and Ends CHART

Spoiler: show

Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show

Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

Spoiler: show

[ckaihatsu]

The Difference Between Socialism, Communism, and Marxism Explained by a Marxist

[ckaihatsu]

Introducing Communist Amazon Echo

[minivanburen]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/economic-system/Problems-with-socialism

Despite it's promises, socialism most always leads to economic stagnation, poverty and low growth

Wow really makes you think. Thanks for this original contribution to political thought.

[ckaihatsu]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/econom ... -socialism

Despite it's promises, socialism most always leads to economic stagnation, poverty and low growth

Wow really makes you think. Thanks for this original contribution to political thought.

---


Not a Stalinist myself, but here's what happened with that, historically:

Stalinism

Further information: History of the Soviet Union (1927–1953)

Starting in 1928, the five-year plans began building a heavy industrial base at once in an underdeveloped economy without waiting years for capital to accumulate through the expansion of light industry, and without reliance on external financing. The New Economic Policy was rapidly abandoned and replaced by Stalinism. The country now became industrialized at a hitherto unprecedented pace, surpassing Germany's pace of industrialization in the 19th century and Japan's earlier in the 20th century.

After the reconstruction of the economy in the wake of the destruction caused by the Russian Civil War was completed and after the initial plans of further industrialization were fulfilled, the explosive growth slowed down until the period of Brezhnev stagnation in the 1970s and 1980s.

Led by the creation of NAMI and by the GAZ copy of the Ford Model A in 1929,[56][57][circular reference] industrialization came with the extension of medical services, which improved labor productivity. Campaigns were carried out against typhus, cholera and malaria; the number of physicians increased as rapidly as facilities and training would permit; and death and infant mortality rates steadily decreased.

1930–1970

Further information: Soviet industry in World War II and Soviet combat vehicle production during World War II

As weighed growth rates, economic planning performed very well during the early and mid-1930s, World War II-era mobilization, and for the first two decades of the postwar era. The Soviet Union became the world's leading producer of oil, coal, iron ore and cement; manganese, gold, natural gas and other minerals were also of major importance. However, information about the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 was suppressed by the Soviet authorities until perestroika.

To some estimations, in 1933 workers' real earnings sank on more than 11.4% from 1926 level,[58] though it needs an adjustment due to elimination of unemployment and perks at work (such as inexpensive meals).[59] Common and political prisoners in labor camps were forced to do unpaid labor and communists and Komsomol members were frequently "mobilized" for various construction projects. The German invasion of World War II inflicted punishing blows to the economy of the Soviet Union, with Soviet GDP falling 34% between 1940 and 1942.[60] Industrial output did not recover to its 1940 level for almost a decade.[20]

In 1961, a new redenominated Soviet ruble was issued. It maintained exchange parity with the Pound Sterling until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. After a new leadership, headed by Leonid Brezhnev, had come to power, attempts were made to revitalize the economy through economic reform. Starting in 1965, enterprises and organizations were made to rely on economic methods of profitable production, rather than follow orders from the state administration. By 1970, the Soviet economy had reached its zenith and was estimated at 60 percent of the size of the United States[61] in terms of the estimated commodities (like steel and coal). In 1989, the official GDP of the Soviet Union was $2,500 billion[62] while the GDP of the United States was $4,862 billion[63] with per capita income figures as $8,700 and $19,800 respectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_o ... #Stalinism

[Monti]

There are as many socialisms (types of socialism) as there are people who think about it. So it is nonsense to state a general judgement about "socialism". You must precise what you are speaking about.
I am defending market socialism; there are many ways to build such a system. But because of Marxism, people think that market and socialism are not compatible, which is an error.
See my article on MPRA site:
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/64255/

[ckaihatsu]

There are as many socialisms (types of socialism) as there are people who think about it. So it is nonsense to state a general judgement about "socialism". You must precise what you are speaking about.
I am defending market socialism; there are many ways to build such a system. But because of Marxism, people think that market and socialism are not compatible, which is an error.
See my article on MPRA site:
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/64255/

It follows that the market socialism which emanates from it is not really a MARKET socialism. It is lacking the competition which innovates. Markets for capital goods are also lacking in theses models.

Markets and socialism are *not* compatible, because Marxism doesn't do *commodity-production*, in the sense of attaching *exchange values* to everything. Marxism / socialism is *free-access* and *direct distribution*, cutting out the need for all capitalist-type intermediary market exchanges.

That said, though, I did make a chart that shows 'abstraction' and 'centralization' along the two 2D axes, and where a variety of forms of organization fit on those two qualitative 'spaces':


Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms

Spoiler: show