4 ms·

"Socialism was very popular around the turn of the last century and for several decades before and after. Especially among intellectuals. Then people saw what

by gnosis 17y ago

"Socialism was very popular around the turn of the last century and for several decades before and after. Especially among intellectuals. Then people saw what happened when you tried it." Yeah. All the citizens got full medical care, and they had a strong social safety net that protected their welfare. What a nightmare! Oh, maybe you're not talking about socialism but about totalitarian communism (aka "state capitalism"). That really was a nightmare. But not because of the economics. Rather, it was because bloodthirsty dictators managed to wrench power away from the people and used it to oppress them. This is exactly the opposite of what socialism is about. As for socialism not being a science... so what? Neither is capitalism.

Semiapies 17y ago
"All the citizens got full medical care, and they had a strong social net that protected their welfare" That happened in market states with welfare systems. You're sharing Glenn Beck's confusion about what exactly "socialism" is.
- camccann 17y ago
  "Socialism", in simplest terms, means control of the "means of production" by workers or the general public, as opposed to a more limited group of owners. Note that an otherwise unrestrained free market economy wherein all corporations are required to be employee-owned would, by this definition, be completely socialist. Soviet-style centralized command economies can be technically called socialist in that the state, as representative of the general public, owns everything; this clearly grossly violates the idea in spirit as a small group of powerful people again end up controlling everything (and typically doing so very poorly). The term "socialism", like "capitalism", describes a huge range of possible ideas and implementations, and to describe one or the other as broadly good or bad is symptomatic of egregiously lazy thinking.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    "Science", in simple terms, is an effort to explain the natural world. Note that creationist propaganda would, by this definition, be completely scientific. This, of course, is because I've chosen an absurd definition of science, not because of lazy thinking of the part of evolutionary biologists.
    - camccann 17y ago
      Okay, you missed my point completely, but never mind. Arguments about terms with lots of emotional content but very ambiguous meanings tend to look more like people cheering for their local sports team more than like a meaningful discussion.
      - Semiapies 17y ago
        Arguments about subjects involving real depth tend to be confusing when people misuse the terminology.
        camccann 17y ago
        I question the assumption that there is, in fact, any depth involved in arguments over the merits of socialism-in-general. Or most discussions of economic systems, for that matter.
lionhearted 17y ago
> Oh, maybe you're not talking about socialism but about totalitarian communism (aka "state capitalism"). The problem is, the path to socialism was laid out by Marx as violent uprising against the capitalists. Then people are surprised that the newly minted generals and blood-covered revolutionaries aren't wise and decent rulers? I mean, what the heck did people expect? Castro, Pol Pot, Lenin, Kim Sung Il - I think these guys really, honestly, truly, legitimately had socialist utopia intentions. The problem is, when you overthrow the current regime in a bloodbath - well, what the heck do you expect after that? Peace and harmony?
- Semiapies 17y ago
  It's only socialism until it fails. "I have seen the future, and it works!" Afterward, it retroactively becomes capitalism.
- gnosis 17y ago
  Yeah, a bloody revolution must inevitably result in an oppressive dictatorship. Just look at what happened after the American Revolution. Oh, wait... Anyway, I should be clear that I am not advocating bloody revolution (I'm against all violence except in clear cases of self-defense). And I very much doubt bloody revolution was what Einstein was advocating either. For that matter, I think you'll find very few advocates of bloody revolution among today's socialists. The trend is towards peaceful, gradual change towards a more socialist system. Northern Europe and particularly South and Central America are proving to be valuable models in this regard. Unfortunately, the latter has been distorted by bloody American intervention over the last hundred years, and by the anti-democratic dictators the US has propped up. But even there there's hope.
  - lionhearted 17y ago
    Edit: Ah, you edited and added more detail that you're more in favor of a peaceful transition. Okay, I'm with you on that - I think the bloody guerella communist takeover is always going to be a real mess. Rest of comment still stands if you're up for discussing, hope it's interesting and informative a bit. > Just look at what happened after the American Revolution. Oh, wait... Let me ask, seriously - I've done a lot of looking into it, and I'm at this point firmly convinced that socialism is a bad thing. I have no desire to be under a socialist system, and I'd resist if people tried to put me under one by force. Is there any way I could convince you to abandon socialistic thought? You've made a lot of pro-socialist comments. If it is, I'll be happy to keep discussing. The main reason the American revolution gave way to good government is that the leaders of the revolution were largely older and more experienced than any other revolution in history. Most revolutionaries are young, and have no idea how to govern once the takeover is complete. Ironically, I'd point to the large mass of successful businessmen, traders, and capitalists as the reason the post-war government was built well in the United States. People like Franklin and Jefferson knew how to build successful organizations. Washington was an actual conventionally trained British military officer, so knew a fair lot more about organization and leadership than the guerrillas like Che, Castro, Kim Sung Il, Mao, Pol Pot, who were largely lost when it came to traditional structures. So let me ask, if you don't mind - what would it take to convince you either that (1) socialism is largely a bad thing, or (2) you ought to live and let live, and let people want to be part of a collective join, whilst leaving people like me who want to be individuals alone? Because I'll attempt to address those points and criteria you have, and discuss if it's possible to change your mind.
anamax 17y ago
> Yeah. All the citizens got full medical care, and they had a strong social safety net that protected their welfare. What a nightmare! Which way to people vote with their feet? Yes, Western Europe is better than Eastern Europe is better than Africa/Middle East (except Israel), but that's a low bar. And the US does it with a population that is far more diverse. (No, French and Italians aren't "diverse".) Europe is starting to become diverse - I hope that it survives. (Did "the youths" stop burning cars in France or did we just stop hearing about it.)

by gnosis 17y ago

Semiapies 17y ago

"All the citizens got full medical care, and they had a strong social net that protected their welfare" That happened in market states with welfare systems. You're sharing Glenn Beck's confusion about what exactly "socialism" is.

camccann 17y ago
"Socialism", in simplest terms, means control of the "means of production" by workers or the general public, as opposed to a more limited group of owners. Note that an otherwise unrestrained free market economy wherein all corporations are required to be employee-owned would, by this definition, be completely socialist. Soviet-style centralized command economies can be technically called socialist in that the state, as representative of the general public, owns everything; this clearly grossly violates the idea in spirit as a small group of powerful people again end up controlling everything (and typically doing so very poorly). The term "socialism", like "capitalism", describes a huge range of possible ideas and implementations, and to describe one or the other as broadly good or bad is symptomatic of egregiously lazy thinking.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  "Science", in simple terms, is an effort to explain the natural world. Note that creationist propaganda would, by this definition, be completely scientific. This, of course, is because I've chosen an absurd definition of science, not because of lazy thinking of the part of evolutionary biologists.
  - camccann 17y ago
    Okay, you missed my point completely, but never mind. Arguments about terms with lots of emotional content but very ambiguous meanings tend to look more like people cheering for their local sports team more than like a meaningful discussion.
    - Semiapies 17y ago
      Arguments about subjects involving real depth tend to be confusing when people misuse the terminology.
      - camccann 17y ago
        I question the assumption that there is, in fact, any depth involved in arguments over the merits of socialism-in-general. Or most discussions of economic systems, for that matter.

lionhearted 17y ago

> Oh, maybe you're not talking about socialism but about totalitarian communism (aka "state capitalism"). The problem is, the path to socialism was laid out by Marx as violent uprising against the capitalists. Then people are surprised that the newly minted generals and blood-covered revolutionaries aren't wise and decent rulers? I mean, what the heck did people expect? Castro, Pol Pot, Lenin, Kim Sung Il - I think these guys really, honestly, truly, legitimately had socialist utopia intentions. The problem is, when you overthrow the current regime in a bloodbath - well, what the heck do you expect after that? Peace and harmony?

Semiapies 17y ago
It's only socialism until it fails. "I have seen the future, and it works!" Afterward, it retroactively becomes capitalism.
gnosis 17y ago
Yeah, a bloody revolution must inevitably result in an oppressive dictatorship. Just look at what happened after the American Revolution. Oh, wait... Anyway, I should be clear that I am not advocating bloody revolution (I'm against all violence except in clear cases of self-defense). And I very much doubt bloody revolution was what Einstein was advocating either. For that matter, I think you'll find very few advocates of bloody revolution among today's socialists. The trend is towards peaceful, gradual change towards a more socialist system. Northern Europe and particularly South and Central America are proving to be valuable models in this regard. Unfortunately, the latter has been distorted by bloody American intervention over the last hundred years, and by the anti-democratic dictators the US has propped up. But even there there's hope.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  Edit: Ah, you edited and added more detail that you're more in favor of a peaceful transition. Okay, I'm with you on that - I think the bloody guerella communist takeover is always going to be a real mess. Rest of comment still stands if you're up for discussing, hope it's interesting and informative a bit. > Just look at what happened after the American Revolution. Oh, wait... Let me ask, seriously - I've done a lot of looking into it, and I'm at this point firmly convinced that socialism is a bad thing. I have no desire to be under a socialist system, and I'd resist if people tried to put me under one by force. Is there any way I could convince you to abandon socialistic thought? You've made a lot of pro-socialist comments. If it is, I'll be happy to keep discussing. The main reason the American revolution gave way to good government is that the leaders of the revolution were largely older and more experienced than any other revolution in history. Most revolutionaries are young, and have no idea how to govern once the takeover is complete. Ironically, I'd point to the large mass of successful businessmen, traders, and capitalists as the reason the post-war government was built well in the United States. People like Franklin and Jefferson knew how to build successful organizations. Washington was an actual conventionally trained British military officer, so knew a fair lot more about organization and leadership than the guerrillas like Che, Castro, Kim Sung Il, Mao, Pol Pot, who were largely lost when it came to traditional structures. So let me ask, if you don't mind - what would it take to convince you either that (1) socialism is largely a bad thing, or (2) you ought to live and let live, and let people want to be part of a collective join, whilst leaving people like me who want to be individuals alone? Because I'll attempt to address those points and criteria you have, and discuss if it's possible to change your mind.

anamax 17y ago

> Yeah. All the citizens got full medical care, and they had a strong social safety net that protected their welfare. What a nightmare! Which way to people vote with their feet? Yes, Western Europe is better than Eastern Europe is better than Africa/Middle East (except Israel), but that's a low bar. And the US does it with a population that is far more diverse. (No, French and Italians aren't "diverse".) Europe is starting to become diverse - I hope that it survives. (Did "the youths" stop burning cars in France or did we just stop hearing about it.)