6 ms·

I hope your research leads to the correct conclusion that trying to force people into equality leads to the use of force to stop dissent, and leads people to fl

by brc 13y ago

I hope your research leads to the correct conclusion that trying to force people into equality leads to the use of force to stop dissent, and leads people to flee or campaign against it. Socialism ends in death and misery, every single time. At this point death and misery is a feature, not a bug that can be fixed.

blumbo 13y ago
i'd like to hear more about this, exactly how horribly miserable would you end up if you have trillions and you would be forced to give up 99% of your wealth?
- contulluipeste 13y ago
  Giving it all up was just the "equalizing" part. Being incriminated, prosecuted and sentenced for having employed in some way other people's work was the real face of the system.
- leaveyou 13y ago
  you need to be careful at the terms because "socialism" in communists countries and USA means "communism" and socialism in nord & western europe means higher taxes and a bigger public sector & public services (with afferent bureaucracy). Communism didn't fare well for obvious reasons while europe with all its problems, endures.
- jotm 13y ago
  I'd say pretty miserable, may end up in suicide. But the biggest issue would be that someone else would now control that money. And there are no guarantees that they would do it better.
- brc 13y ago
  The loss of wealth is one thing. The loss of freedom to pursue your own lifes choices would be worse. Add to that the loss of the ability to leave and find a different society that suited your tastes - well, that would be a very miserable existence indeed.
Synaesthesia 13y ago
That's not true, look at Sweden, France, Germany, UK ... all practising socialism. It's helped their people with free health care, education. There are many good things about socialism. The Bolsheviks were dictatorial bastards, no doubt. And many people think Bolshevik communism is the only way to go, it certainly is not.
- Maakuth 13y ago
  This is only true for the American populist definition of socialism. Here in Europe we usually talk about social democracy, where basic needs of people (healtcare, education, not starving) are addressed by the state, but one is free to form private enterprises (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model). This is quite different from the brand of socialism the USSR was aiming for, where all private property would have been abolished.
- roel_v 13y ago
  "The Bolsheviks were dictatorial bastards, no doubt. And many people think Bolshevik communism is the only way to go, it certainly is not." Ah yes, the True Scotsman defense for socialism. Not that it matters, because pointing to the UK of all places (or any place else on your list, for that matter) as an example of socialism is, to put it mildly, 'confused' about socialism, those countries, or both.
- jotm 13y ago
  They're practicing it to a (very) limited degree. People are still allowed to do pretty much anything they want. Also, USSR was not socialist, it was technically a state capitalism system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
- notastartup 13y ago
  Add Canada to that list. Free market but it's definitely trying to emulate the socialist policy successes in Scandinavian countries.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Socialism ends in death and misery, every single time. Leninism and its descendents might, but every country in the developed West -- where the 19th Century socialists criticism of capitalism was focussed, and whose conditions their program was largely designed for -- adopted, between the late 19th and mid-20th centuries, a substantial portion of the socialist program, and its generally not ended in "death and misery", indeed, compared to those same countries experience under the system for which the name "capitalism" was created, its alleviated the "death and misery". You can't really judge "socialism" by the results of a particular family of efforts to implement it outside of the context for which it was designed, which is exactly what judging socialism by Leninism and its descendants is.
- brc 13y ago
  I don't agree with that at all. For a start, socialism goes back further than Marx. The defining characteristic of socialism is the abolition of ownership of private property. Socialism, in the Marxian view, was what was going to arise given the inevitable collapse of capitalism. Everywhere this has been tried, it has ended in death and misery. The creation of a welfare state is not socialism. It's not even close, unless you want to do some post-hoc rebranding.

by brc 13y ago

blumbo 13y ago

i'd like to hear more about this, exactly how horribly miserable would you end up if you have trillions and you would be forced to give up 99% of your wealth?

contulluipeste 13y ago
Giving it all up was just the "equalizing" part. Being incriminated, prosecuted and sentenced for having employed in some way other people's work was the real face of the system.
leaveyou 13y ago
you need to be careful at the terms because "socialism" in communists countries and USA means "communism" and socialism in nord & western europe means higher taxes and a bigger public sector & public services (with afferent bureaucracy). Communism didn't fare well for obvious reasons while europe with all its problems, endures.
jotm 13y ago
I'd say pretty miserable, may end up in suicide. But the biggest issue would be that someone else would now control that money. And there are no guarantees that they would do it better.
brc 13y ago
The loss of wealth is one thing. The loss of freedom to pursue your own lifes choices would be worse. Add to that the loss of the ability to leave and find a different society that suited your tastes - well, that would be a very miserable existence indeed.

Synaesthesia 13y ago

That's not true, look at Sweden, France, Germany, UK ... all practising socialism. It's helped their people with free health care, education. There are many good things about socialism. The Bolsheviks were dictatorial bastards, no doubt. And many people think Bolshevik communism is the only way to go, it certainly is not.

Maakuth 13y ago
This is only true for the American populist definition of socialism. Here in Europe we usually talk about social democracy, where basic needs of people (healtcare, education, not starving) are addressed by the state, but one is free to form private enterprises (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model). This is quite different from the brand of socialism the USSR was aiming for, where all private property would have been abolished.
roel_v 13y ago
"The Bolsheviks were dictatorial bastards, no doubt. And many people think Bolshevik communism is the only way to go, it certainly is not." Ah yes, the True Scotsman defense for socialism. Not that it matters, because pointing to the UK of all places (or any place else on your list, for that matter) as an example of socialism is, to put it mildly, 'confused' about socialism, those countries, or both.
jotm 13y ago
They're practicing it to a (very) limited degree. People are still allowed to do pretty much anything they want. Also, USSR was not socialist, it was technically a state capitalism system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
notastartup 13y ago
Add Canada to that list. Free market but it's definitely trying to emulate the socialist policy successes in Scandinavian countries.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Socialism ends in death and misery, every single time. Leninism and its descendents might, but every country in the developed West -- where the 19th Century socialists criticism of capitalism was focussed, and whose conditions their program was largely designed for -- adopted, between the late 19th and mid-20th centuries, a substantial portion of the socialist program, and its generally not ended in "death and misery", indeed, compared to those same countries experience under the system for which the name "capitalism" was created, its alleviated the "death and misery". You can't really judge "socialism" by the results of a particular family of efforts to implement it outside of the context for which it was designed, which is exactly what judging socialism by Leninism and its descendants is.

brc 13y ago
I don't agree with that at all. For a start, socialism goes back further than Marx. The defining characteristic of socialism is the abolition of ownership of private property. Socialism, in the Marxian view, was what was going to arise given the inevitable collapse of capitalism. Everywhere this has been tried, it has ended in death and misery. The creation of a welfare state is not socialism. It's not even close, unless you want to do some post-hoc rebranding.