When has socialism ever worked?

[Mac1958]

Democrats have become ardent supporters of socialism...just look at the collapse of USSR in 1989, and China? Is THAT a political model we want?

No.

The problem is, you're not paying attention to the actual opinions of others. You're just believing and screaming simplistic platitudes and distortions of what other people want.

The opinions of others -- their real opinions, not what you're told their opinions are -- are easy to find. In fact, you're on the internet right now. Hint. Or, you could take a couple of liberal friends (do you have any?) out for lunch, ask them lots of questions, let them talk. Listen. Learn. Understand.

BUT: That's up to you.

 

[Godboy]

Socialism predates capitalism or currency.
When the primitive hunter/gatherer tribes sat down for dinner, they shared what ever any hunter was able to come up with.
That is socialism.
Socialism is the historic norm, and capitalism did not get invented until long after the switch to sedentary agriculture.

That isnt socialism, retard. Quit claiming that everything nice = socialism. Ots fucking dumb. Socialism is only a couple hundred years old you imbecile.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Every country that murders people always does it for profit, which is capitalism.
These is never an incentive to murder people under socialism, where profits do not matter.

Who are you kidding? Under socialism it is all about profit the elite ruling class bleeds the underlings to enrich themselves. Socialism is basically promising idiots the moon, delivering starvation, but the ruling class always manages to enrich themselves.

 

[dudmuck]

They are all communist according to Marx Ideology. The state employer was in fact the temporary dictatorship. Even Marx acknowledged that the temporary part was very vague. It could mean years or even centuries. So long as the dictatorship is giving a nod and a wink at eventually fading away it is still communism.

communism is very clear that it intends a classes society and the "withering away of the state". If you have ultra-wealthy people, and a state, then you dont have communism.

 

[Soupnazi630]

communism is very clear that it intends a classes society and the "withering away of the state". If you have ultra-wealthy people, and a state, then you dont have communism.

Communism is not an end it is the work to reach that end. With dictators and a state who claim to be working to that end ( whether they are or not ) you habve communism

 

[bripat9643]

It needs explaining to you?

Idiocy always needs explaining.

 

[bripat9643]

communism is very clear that it intends a classes society and the "withering away of the state". If you have ultra-wealthy people, and a state, then you dont have communism.

True, and if you have a polygon with three sides, you have a triangle, even though the idiot who drew it says it's a square. That doesn't mean millions of people weren't killed trying to achieve communism.

 

[Mac-7]

No.

The problem is, you're not paying attention to the actual opinions of others. You're just believing and screaming simplistic platitudes and distortions of what other people want.

The opinions of others -- their real opinions, not what you're told their opinions are -- are easy to find. In fact, you're on the internet right now. Hint. Or, you could take a couple of liberal friends (do you have any?) out for lunch, ask them lots of questions, let them talk. Listen. Learn. Understand.

BUT: That's up to you.

This is how tweeners remain obscure

They just chant “You dont understand us”

In this case I’m not sure what our resident superior being is objecting to

But he is touchy about the subject of socialism and communism

 

[danielpalos]

Democrats have become ardent supporters of socialism...just look at the collapse of USSR in 1989, and China? Is THAT a political model we want?

We can define socialism as Government.

 

[Ken Mac]

The problem with socialism and communism is the same - Someone has to decide how to split the spoils of labor. In a democratic society one could assume that the people would decide. In a democratic Republic it is decided both by the majority and minority. A republic protects against the majority running over the views of the minority. Either way Socialism and Communism both fail because once control is exerted over the spoils of the individual's labor input human behavior changes. The failure comes from the individual who feels as if they are producing more than what they are receiving for their toil. There is a wide distribution of output per individual based on their intelligence, physical characteristics, determination, motivation and many other factors. Those that feel they are not receiving the benefit of their labor in a fair trade will shut down and only produce that which they need. Productivity drops, shortages ensue and society collapses. Stalin, Mao and others believed that they could make societies that would prosper if they had control. They were wrong. They had no understanding of Human Nature.

Yes - there are many other factors - yes I cast a wide net on this but the point is the secondary, tertiary (and so on) effects have to take Human behavior into account. We are built to survive and we have not evolved into a Hive Mind because the nature of man's evolution is based on survival and individual effort. We will all be dead before we see the evolution of man change his behavior.

so for now - fuck socialism - it won't work

As an aside, socialism will work when man's labor is no longer necessary through automation. If we ever get to completely automated production that fulfills man's needs, then we will have had to move to a completely communistic society. In the meantime, man needs to move at an appropriate pace such that societal collapse doesn't occur.

 

[easyt65]

Never.

If you hate the country, hate the US Constitution, hate our laws, GTFO!

It's that simple.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Constitution is a social contract.

 

[CowboyTed]

Once upon a time, the Scandinavian nations were held up as proof that socialism could provide an excellent standard of living as well as protecting the freedoms of its people. None of them are still under a socialist system but when they WERE, it was marginally successful. IMO, it succeeded for awhile due to the unique circumstances at that time.

The population of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway were highly homogeneous in culture, well educated, and had an outstanding societal work-ethic. They also had a very stable and lucrative income source. North Sea oil was the cash cow and there was enough to take care of everyone without much economic stress being exacted on any one group. As that economic reality began to change, those countries also enacted changes in their economic model. Unfortunately, the Left took control of the once stable and prosperous region, flooded it with migrants who neither wanted nor respected the rules of their culture and now those nations are crumbling from within.

If I ever decided to leave the U.S. to strike out for a new place to live, I'd choose Viktor Orban's Hungary.

Talk about horseshit...

Tell us whats wrong with Germany?

Hungry are you fucking joking... Hungry is a basket case that has the hand out to the wealthier European Countries to stay a float...

Infographic: Which Countries are EU Contributors and Beneficiaries?

This chart shows which countries are net contributors and net beneficiaries to the EU 2021 budget.

www.statista.com

Hungry better play nice or they will get there wing clipped... You are all piss and vinegar until the bill has to get paid..

 

[Dr Grump]

Your version? Yes…

This is the original post I was responding to, to which you subsequently responded to - ie the OP.

"Democrats have become ardent supporters of socialism...just look at the collapse of USSR in 1989, and China? Is THAT a political model we want?"

Name me ONE Democrat that supports a USSR/China type system of government. Just one.
In subsequent posts I asserted that neither of those systems were socialist. Sure, they spout socialist ideals, but they claim to be Communist (hint: communism and socialism, while related, are different systems), but were/are in fact totalitarian dictatorships based on the Cult of Personality. Not quite up there with North Korea, but definitely a mile away from the way any politician in government thinks in the US.

I find the OP nothing by hyperbole covered in cynicism wrapped in jingoistic bullshit (even then, I'm not sure if MaryL does cynicism or even knows what it means).

The fact I have to spell this out to you makes me wonder what sort of intelligence you have. But there you go. This board is full of all sorts of people.

 

[danielpalos]

...in our case, around two hundred years.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yes they were or are. Yes the USSR was and China is communism exactly as Marx and Engels described. Communism is precisely about a totalitarian regime which is required by Marx/Engels for a a temporary but unspecified amount of time.

Um, no. Communism was about everybody being equal and having the same amount of input and say in how a country was run, as well as the govt owning everything. Are you telling me the street sweeper in Red Square had a nice little dacha on the Black Sea that was the same as Stalin's? Don't think so.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Personally I think communism is possible, but it likely would have to be very decentralized.
But it does not matter.
The world is extremely hostile and competitive, so then the innovations of capitalism likely seems necessary.


Humans normally always lived in communal groups like large extended families.
Isolated nuclear families is not normal, but a way of life capitalists sold to make more profits off us.

"Communism" (communal grouping) worked with Native American tribes because they were family-oriented. Everybody was somehow related to everyone else in the communal groups, so of course they are willing to pool and share resources.

But, look at the relationships they had with hostile communal groups.

That hostile relationship demonstrates a timeless truth about civilization. Society is a truce. Nothing more.

 

[bripat9643]

Talk about horseshit...

Tell us whats wrong with Germany?

Hungry are you fucking joking... Hungry is a basket case that has the hand out to the wealthier European Countries to stay a float...

Infographic: Which Countries are EU Contributors and Beneficiaries?

This chart shows which countries are net contributors and net beneficiaries to the EU 2021 budget.

www.statista.com

Hungry better play nice or they will get there wing clipped... You are all piss and vinegar until the bill has to get paid..

If you want to know what's wrong with Germany, just check out the size of a typical apartment in Germany. Check out how many people own cars there. Check out how much it costs to use a golf course or a tennis court there.

 

[bripat9643]

Um, no. Communism was about everybody being equal and having the same amount of input and say in how a country was run, as well as the govt owning everything. Are you telling me the street sweeper in Red Square had a nice little dacha on the Black Sea that was the same as Stalin's? Don't think so.

The fact that their ideals were impossible doesn't mean they didn't believe in them.

 

[bripat9643]

Name me ONE Democrat that supports a USSR/China type system of government.

Nazi Pisslosi, Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Kamal Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Alexandra Cortez, Hillary Clinton, Elijah Cummins, Cory Booker, Beto O'Rourke, John Kerry, Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, Ilhan Omar, Gavin Newsom, Raphael Warnock, Dianne Feinstein, Ayanna Pressley, Jim Clyburn, Jane Napolitano, Patrick Leahy, yada, yada, yada.