Huh? I was born in USSR, it was a socialist state. Had it’s perks like free housing (can’t choose), but it was all around unbearable and miserable
Gulag was used for dissidents and whoever conspired against the (socialist) state. What you’re saying feels like American moment
EDIT: If you think you’re a slave in capitalism, wait till you realize that in a socialist state, the government TELLS you what will be your job for the rest of the life, you can’t choose where to live, you’re a cog in a system doomed to work wherever the people above deemed necessary. You’re a tool, and as soon as you start crying, you’ll get replaced. Socialism dues not imply humanity, it’s about distributed work and resources.
Isn’t it the dictatorship part that’s the problem? I don’t think gulags and managed employment are an intrinsic part of socialism, just the authoritarianism of the Soviet.
Same for capitalism really. If it’s regulated and democratic it works fine for most people, but if it’s left unchecked and allowed to go rampant, it causes all kinds of problems (different problems to a rampant authoritarian socialist state, but just as bad)
It’s probably really important to highlight that the USSR was a communist state and communism relies on socialist policy to operate. You never mentioned communism once.
It wasn’t the social policies, such as provision of housing and education, that were the issues, it was the communist application of oppressive law.
The distinction is important because the word ‘socialism’ is wrongly feared in some western societies because it is taken as communism. So, any time a politician wants to introduce a socialist policy such as government paid healthcare, they’re marked as an evil socialist.
Personally, I don’t think the concept of communism itself was at fault. Rather, I believe it is two elements:
1: The wrong people were the leadership. They set the tone for everything that happens, creating the precedents and longterm establishment of the government.
2: A lack of consistent rules to distribute power among individuals in a relatively fair manner, that allows them to keep a modest amount of power. Things like wealth, gun ownership, the ability to unionize, freedom of speech and association, education, voting rights, and so on. While the USA’s Constitution is flawed, it did a decent job considering that we were a nation that initially only occupied the eastern seaboard of a continent, with a relatively small population.
The problems we see today come from distance, population size, technology, inequality, and our elites not being beholden to the nation’s interests. Billionaire creatures like Elon, Trump, Thiel, and so forth, can simply hop on a plane and leave for distant lands. They wouldn’t lose enough wealth if they had to jump ship from the vessel that they crashed into the rocks, free from threats to their life. Ordinary people like you and me would be left holding a bag of shit.
What I argue, is that Soviet Russia’s creation was too flawed to allow communism to be healthy, rather than communism itself being bad. They could have used capitalism, and the results wouldn’t have been any different. The big reason communism got a bad rap, is that it presented a seed of ‘what could be’ that threatened established interests. Part of that is from socialism threatening globalist capitalism, but also because Russia is dangerous to its neighbors. The other powers, regardless of size, had incentive to poke a stick into the wheels of their rivals.
Communism was just an excellent scapegoat for propaganda, because it was a newfangled concept. People are creatures of feeling, and are disturbed by things they haven’t seen before. Be it being trans, black, or socialist, a boogeyman can be manufactured out of the unfamiliar.
No, unfortunately, communism is flawed because no mechanism exists to stop those people from gaining power within it. In fact, it’s those people in general that instigate communism as their preferred system because it’s that exploitable.
Some of the ideals behind it are terrific. In a very advanced world, where we have much better control of the instinctual and irrational, poorly thought out parts of our makeup under control, it’s probably the logical direction. We aren’t there yet by a long, long way. Anywhere near that in fact. We’d have to have religion ‘worn out’ of society first; people in general would need to outgrow that. When that includes religious fanatics, you see how far we are away from a society where systems that depend on individual integrity entirely can be successful.
If we survive the next few centuries, yeah, our successful society could quite possibly be something quite communist in design.
IMO, communism hasn’t gotten a truly fair shake. Many, MANY feudalistic and capitalistic societies died for all sorts of reasons. Nowhere nearly as many communist existences were attempted, so the apparent survival and success rates would seem lower.
In any case, I think that some form of democratic socialism would be the next step beyond the USA’s Republic government. Much as how the Magna Carta and the Constitution reduced the political power of rulers, I believe an economic Bill of Rights would be needed. Things that guarantee housing, UBI, wealth floors and ceilings, worker unionization and voting on leadership pay, ect.
Yeah look, I’d agree with your view on the fair shake to a degree.
I don’t think it’s the right time for this style of government. We have to be a lot more at peace, with higher integrity across the board and be thinking a lot more critically for something like communism to succeed. The Chinese don’t practice it, that’s for sure, though even there you see many of the social aspects of it doing the good they natively do.
I’d agree with where you say the US might head too, if its people can pull it out of its mess. There’s a lot of reconciling to be done though because all the powerbrokers on the right side and some on the left are guilty of crimes and need to face those.
Well, I did say socialist state, not social policies. I think (assume) the differences are pretty clear. EU have good social policies as an example, but definitely are not socialist states. Extremity versus balance.
You might assume it, but you’ve seen the damage first hand painting socialism in a bad light because of its necessary attachment to communism has done. Others don’t make the same assumption you do, they view socialism as communism, because people such as yourself make that statement.
Communism is seriously flawed. Socialism, the economic arm it and other governments use, is only flawed if it’s used as part of a flawed system. Fascism is also dependent on some socialist policy but that doesn’t make socialism bad.
There actually isn’t really a socialist state; socialism is the economics those states rely on. They’re either communist, fascist or some other form of dictatorial government. Several European countries apply socialism quite strongly in their economics and we don’t need to discuss how they’re doing.
Lol no. USSR by definition was not communist, only by it’s name. Look up what communism actually is. It has no central government for starters. This is why it’s hard for me to even refer to USSR as communists, they were a socialist state.
The S in USSR is “Socialist”. You could say that Communism is the end goal (stateless, classless), and socialism is the transitional stage, but USSR never reached communism, they only had a party that called themselves communist party of socialist state
Correct, which is why I am mocking the liberal who thinks socialism is European style social democracy and AES are evil oppressive places because “communist application of oppressive law”
Communism is flawed because it is exploited easily by bad actors. Grow up and accept that.
Edit: socialism and socialist policies are economic, which means they can be applied to any style of government. It’s communism that’s flawed, not socialism.
We need socialism
USSR anthem starts playing
Hell March!
Because they sent their socialists into gulags?
Huh? I was born in USSR, it was a socialist state. Had it’s perks like free housing (can’t choose), but it was all around unbearable and miserable
Gulag was used for dissidents and whoever conspired against the (socialist) state. What you’re saying feels like American moment
EDIT: If you think you’re a slave in capitalism, wait till you realize that in a socialist state, the government TELLS you what will be your job for the rest of the life, you can’t choose where to live, you’re a cog in a system doomed to work wherever the people above deemed necessary. You’re a tool, and as soon as you start crying, you’ll get replaced. Socialism dues not imply humanity, it’s about distributed work and resources.
Those problems are not inherent to socialism.
Isn’t it the dictatorship part that’s the problem? I don’t think gulags and managed employment are an intrinsic part of socialism, just the authoritarianism of the Soviet.
Same for capitalism really. If it’s regulated and democratic it works fine for most people, but if it’s left unchecked and allowed to go rampant, it causes all kinds of problems (different problems to a rampant authoritarian socialist state, but just as bad)
It’s probably really important to highlight that the USSR was a communist state and communism relies on socialist policy to operate. You never mentioned communism once.
It wasn’t the social policies, such as provision of housing and education, that were the issues, it was the communist application of oppressive law.
The distinction is important because the word ‘socialism’ is wrongly feared in some western societies because it is taken as communism. So, any time a politician wants to introduce a socialist policy such as government paid healthcare, they’re marked as an evil socialist.
Personally, I don’t think the concept of communism itself was at fault. Rather, I believe it is two elements:
1: The wrong people were the leadership. They set the tone for everything that happens, creating the precedents and longterm establishment of the government.
2: A lack of consistent rules to distribute power among individuals in a relatively fair manner, that allows them to keep a modest amount of power. Things like wealth, gun ownership, the ability to unionize, freedom of speech and association, education, voting rights, and so on. While the USA’s Constitution is flawed, it did a decent job considering that we were a nation that initially only occupied the eastern seaboard of a continent, with a relatively small population.
The problems we see today come from distance, population size, technology, inequality, and our elites not being beholden to the nation’s interests. Billionaire creatures like Elon, Trump, Thiel, and so forth, can simply hop on a plane and leave for distant lands. They wouldn’t lose enough wealth if they had to jump ship from the vessel that they crashed into the rocks, free from threats to their life. Ordinary people like you and me would be left holding a bag of shit.
What I argue, is that Soviet Russia’s creation was too flawed to allow communism to be healthy, rather than communism itself being bad. They could have used capitalism, and the results wouldn’t have been any different. The big reason communism got a bad rap, is that it presented a seed of ‘what could be’ that threatened established interests. Part of that is from socialism threatening globalist capitalism, but also because Russia is dangerous to its neighbors. The other powers, regardless of size, had incentive to poke a stick into the wheels of their rivals.
Communism was just an excellent scapegoat for propaganda, because it was a newfangled concept. People are creatures of feeling, and are disturbed by things they haven’t seen before. Be it being trans, black, or socialist, a boogeyman can be manufactured out of the unfamiliar.
No, unfortunately, communism is flawed because no mechanism exists to stop those people from gaining power within it. In fact, it’s those people in general that instigate communism as their preferred system because it’s that exploitable.
Some of the ideals behind it are terrific. In a very advanced world, where we have much better control of the instinctual and irrational, poorly thought out parts of our makeup under control, it’s probably the logical direction. We aren’t there yet by a long, long way. Anywhere near that in fact. We’d have to have religion ‘worn out’ of society first; people in general would need to outgrow that. When that includes religious fanatics, you see how far we are away from a society where systems that depend on individual integrity entirely can be successful.
If we survive the next few centuries, yeah, our successful society could quite possibly be something quite communist in design.
IMO, communism hasn’t gotten a truly fair shake. Many, MANY feudalistic and capitalistic societies died for all sorts of reasons. Nowhere nearly as many communist existences were attempted, so the apparent survival and success rates would seem lower.
In any case, I think that some form of democratic socialism would be the next step beyond the USA’s Republic government. Much as how the Magna Carta and the Constitution reduced the political power of rulers, I believe an economic Bill of Rights would be needed. Things that guarantee housing, UBI, wealth floors and ceilings, worker unionization and voting on leadership pay, ect.
Yeah look, I’d agree with your view on the fair shake to a degree.
I don’t think it’s the right time for this style of government. We have to be a lot more at peace, with higher integrity across the board and be thinking a lot more critically for something like communism to succeed. The Chinese don’t practice it, that’s for sure, though even there you see many of the social aspects of it doing the good they natively do.
I’d agree with where you say the US might head too, if its people can pull it out of its mess. There’s a lot of reconciling to be done though because all the powerbrokers on the right side and some on the left are guilty of crimes and need to face those.
Well, I did say socialist state, not social policies. I think (assume) the differences are pretty clear. EU have good social policies as an example, but definitely are not socialist states. Extremity versus balance.
You might assume it, but you’ve seen the damage first hand painting socialism in a bad light because of its necessary attachment to communism has done. Others don’t make the same assumption you do, they view socialism as communism, because people such as yourself make that statement.
Communism is seriously flawed. Socialism, the economic arm it and other governments use, is only flawed if it’s used as part of a flawed system. Fascism is also dependent on some socialist policy but that doesn’t make socialism bad.
There actually isn’t really a socialist state; socialism is the economics those states rely on. They’re either communist, fascist or some other form of dictatorial government. Several European countries apply socialism quite strongly in their economics and we don’t need to discuss how they’re doing.
The distinction is important.
Giving the workers more crumbs while all power remains with capital isn’t socialism.
Communism is when you’re oppressive for no reason at all.
Lol no. USSR by definition was not communist, only by it’s name. Look up what communism actually is. It has no central government for starters. This is why it’s hard for me to even refer to USSR as communists, they were a socialist state.
The S in USSR is “Socialist”. You could say that Communism is the end goal (stateless, classless), and socialism is the transitional stage, but USSR never reached communism, they only had a party that called themselves communist party of socialist state
Correct, which is why I am mocking the liberal who thinks socialism is European style social democracy and AES are evil oppressive places because “communist application of oppressive law”
Don’t tag me with American pidgeonholes champion
Communism is flawed because it is exploited easily by bad actors. Grow up and accept that.
Edit: socialism and socialist policies are economic, which means they can be applied to any style of government. It’s communism that’s flawed, not socialism.