4 ms·
That's not socialism. That's a dictatorship and corruption.
by cdancette 9y ago
That's not socialism. That's a dictatorship and corruption.
- mmirate 9y agoFunny how socialism always seems to require the amount and kind of force provided by a dictatorship...
- WJW 9y agoLike in most of Western Europe?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- BjoernKW 9y agoThere's no socialism in Western Europe, at least not by common standards. It's called social democracy. In contrast to socialism the means of production are largely privately owned and there's no single-party system.
- ptaipale 9y agoWestern Europe is not "socialist countries". The traditional meaning of a socialist state is "means of production are controlled by the state". None of the countries in Western Europe work like this. They are market economies. What people often don't understand is, by the way, that the supposedly "more socialist" countries in North Europe, like Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark, are in fact in many ways more market driven and have very free economies, compared to e.g. "non-socialist" Southern Europe. But of course, in all countries the politics meddles with the economy.
- cdancette 9y agoNot at all. Social democracies never needed this amount of force, nor current socialist regimes in Europe.
- Shivetya 9y agobut they are not socialist governments. don't confuse having the word in the government title as being the primary form being exercised.
- dgut 9y agoSocial democracy != socialism. Also, what "current socialist regimes in Europe"? What you mean is that some European countries have a welfare system paid by a highly effective capitalist economy.
- PeachPlum 9y agoNew Lanark (formed before Marx was even born), where the term socialism was coined, didn't need at kind of force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Lanark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Lanark
- gaius 9y agoHow many socialist regimes need to end in "dictatorship and corruption" before the world realises that the latter is the inevitable consequence of the former?
- cdancette 9y agoI think you're confusing socialism and communism. A lot of Western European countries have or have had in the past decades socialist regimes.
- ekianjo 9y agoThere's often many names for the same ill.
- gaius 9y agoThe Western European countries are social democracies - not in socialism as a transitional phase as defined by Marx and Engels.
- tonfa 9y agoI don't think e.g. wikipedia agrees with such a restrictive view (there are many form of socialism). Also many of those countries have their main left wing party named "socialist party". (I think it's cultural difference between US and rest of world where the US considers socialism ~= communism)
- gaius 9y agoWell, M'n'E used the terms almost interchangeably, from the horse's mouth as it were. The USSR called itself "socialist".
- whistlecrackers 9y agoWhat's that saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?
- 9y ago
- whistlecrackers 9y agoIf you're not being sarcastic you're a fucking moron.
- sctb 9y agoCould you please re-read the guidelines and then stop posting like this? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ekianjo 9y agoDictatorship is the only natural course of Socialism. Removing/alienating private property go hand in hand with the destruction of elementary freedoms.
- whistlecrackers 9y agoRemoving private property is the destruction of an elementary freedom.
- ekianjo 9y agoYes, but it's not the only one. Hence the "s". And note that Socialists argue that private property is not a natural right as well.
- cdancette 9y agoThat's your belief based on current societies norms. Don't you think that the first tribes, before the agricultural revolution were not free? And yet they didn't have private property.
- gaius 9y agoAnd yet they didn't have private property Ride the chieftain's favourite horse and see what he'd have to say about ownership...
- sebcat 9y agoPrivate property as ownership is unjust according to e.g., Proudhon. Growing a piece of land and reaping the fruits of your labor is different from having a piece of land(/shares of a company/...) and benefiting from the work others do on that land. Not saying that I agree with that, just presenting a different point of view.
- MadSudaca 9y agoActually, it is socialism. If it hadn't been for the increase in power for government that socialism requires, this situation would probably have been averted. I believe this is one of the reasons why centralization of power in the hands of a government should be avoided as much as possible. If you think some of your government officials don't have the same thirst for power that would eventually lead the country in a path similar to that of Venezuela's, then you're putting too much faith in humanity.
- cynicalkane 9y agoSocialism, in the Marxist sense, requires a dictatorship. Specifically, the people are supposed to install a dictatorship to seize the means of production. This dictatorial body has absolute power to "rewrite society", including the abolition of traditional notions of justice, and civil, economic and human rights. How the dictatorship is supposed to be a means of representing the people's will is left unspecified. This is no problem to the Marxist, because their picture of the way the world works is quite different, and the fact that literally every Marxist socialist government became a brutal and incompetent dictatorship is not interpreted as a flaw of their belief system, but a sign that the will of the people was not properly enforced.
- sebcat 9y agoRevolutionary communism/Marxism (which Chávez identified with) likes the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is not a requirement for socialism in itself, and a lot of socialists would be directly opposed to it.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Shivetya 9y agoit never is socialism, never ever. it is a common thread when socialism fails it is because it wasn't really socialism. socialism works until you run out of wealth that other people had that was easily accessible. then comes the never ending cycle of finding a new bad guy to take from. all the fans of socialism always forget, the same problem that doomed Venezuela exists in all nations. Politicians. Politicians who are above the law, who are the one percent, who are there to lead and by that requirement deserve special status. Doesn't matter what you call your government type, they always have more power and less restrictions on their actions. the difference is that it is implied in a socialist society that there is no private property or very little. as such what is there to aspire too? some quasi socialist countries try to juggle this issue to some success but are they really socialist or truly capitalist with some "socialist" qualities? when government fails to protect the private property rights of people, to the effort of their work, their physical property, the wealth they create in their businesses, it is only a matter of time before it folds. you can only take until the wealth dries up. once that happens you only have force