3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - rms 17y ago
    I think a great deal of confusion with this issue is the assumption that someone that advocates socialism advocates 100% socialism. I wouldn't want to live in a fully left-libertarian (also called socialistic anarchism) society just like I wouldn't want to live in a fully right-libertarian society. Hybrid systems are just so much more pragmatic. The US is what, 30% socialist? And Europe is closer to 45% socialist? I think up to about 50% socialism (taxes used to redistribute wealth, not necessarily with welfare payments, but infrastrcture building, etc.) is probably desirable.
    - Semiapies 17y ago
      "The US is what, 30% socialist? And Europe is closer to 45% socialist?" By what definition? Everyone seems to have their own. Einstein sure isn't talking about anything that looks remotely like the modern US or Europe.
  - camccann 17y ago
    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. Really. Have you defined what is and is not socialism in a rigorous, non-subjective manner? Have you conducted empirical studies? Run computer simulations based on behavioral models? Published detailed quantitative predictions based on your understanding of economics? What objective means would you use to test the proposition "socialism is a bad thing"? What scenarios might someone who disagrees with you consider very likely that you would consider very unlikely? This idea of being "firmly convinced" regarding a question of economics is quite novel, so I'm curious how you've come to it.
prodigal_erik 17y ago
If they were utopians dreaming of socialist equality, they wouldn't have granted themselves and their cronies perks beyond any robber baron. They wouldn't have used secret police to terrorize the very class they set out to honor. No, when a system obviously ruled by corrupt thugs strays that far from its principles, I assume the rulers had always been corrupt thugs who paid lip service to the system to sway the masses and achieve power.

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.
- rms 17y ago
  I think a great deal of confusion with this issue is the assumption that someone that advocates socialism advocates 100% socialism. I wouldn't want to live in a fully left-libertarian (also called socialistic anarchism) society just like I wouldn't want to live in a fully right-libertarian society. Hybrid systems are just so much more pragmatic. The US is what, 30% socialist? And Europe is closer to 45% socialist? I think up to about 50% socialism (taxes used to redistribute wealth, not necessarily with welfare payments, but infrastrcture building, etc.) is probably desirable.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    "The US is what, 30% socialist? And Europe is closer to 45% socialist?" By what definition? Everyone seems to have their own. Einstein sure isn't talking about anything that looks remotely like the modern US or Europe.
- camccann 17y ago
  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. Really. Have you defined what is and is not socialism in a rigorous, non-subjective manner? Have you conducted empirical studies? Run computer simulations based on behavioral models? Published detailed quantitative predictions based on your understanding of economics? What objective means would you use to test the proposition "socialism is a bad thing"? What scenarios might someone who disagrees with you consider very likely that you would consider very unlikely? This idea of being "firmly convinced" regarding a question of economics is quite novel, so I'm curious how you've come to it.

prodigal_erik 17y ago

If they were utopians dreaming of socialist equality, they wouldn't have granted themselves and their cronies perks beyond any robber baron. They wouldn't have used secret police to terrorize the very class they set out to honor. No, when a system obviously ruled by corrupt thugs strays that far from its principles, I assume the rulers had always been corrupt thugs who paid lip service to the system to sway the masses and achieve power.