. But for the vast, vast majority of people, life would improve significantly.
Socialism is not meant to be an answer to capitalism. It is an alternative.
Of this 7 billion, how many are currently working class and live in poverty and insecurity? The vast majority. And this is under global capitalism.
Life under socialism would be materially worse for the bourgeoisie just as life without white privilege/supremacy would be worse for
The vast majority would be dead because you could not produce enough energy or food without mass production
I'm embarrassed for you, breh. For your lack of knowledge and inability to understand concepts.
Where are you getting this idea that there wouldn't be mass production? Holy fukk. And how many people around the world are dying of hunger, freezing to death, etc. NOW?
How many children are dying of starvation every single day in a capitalist world?
This is accurate. Socialism would improve the majority of peoples lives. People like me in LA will be hit hard, but for every person like me, thousands in poverty and starvation will be elevated.Of this 7 billion, how many are currently working class and live in poverty and insecurity? The vast majority. And this is under global capitalism.
Life under socialism would be materially worse for the bourgeoisie just as life without white privilege/supremacy would be worse for
and that is why we still have capitalism.
Many advocates of capitalism argue that the state has no business doing anything except enforcing contracts...
What is "democracy?" How is it democratic for a worker to not receive the full value of their labor and to be managed by a boss? Capitalist democracy is extraordinarily shallow. Capitalist democracy is really just the dictatorship of capital.
Salvador Allende was democratically elected president in Chile. But he was overthrown with significant U.S. intervention
Now you're just backtracking and disregarding inconvenient facts. You can go back a few pages and find where I provided sources on how Cuba outperformed its neighbors (the World Bank said this. Are they spewing Marxist propaganda?
). But you want to just dismiss that -- "so what if it did"
It makes sense for working class Afrikans to struggle for socialism. It is in their class interests. For the petit bourgeois and bourgeois Afrikans? If they have pro-human values then it makes sense to support socialism, but that means they would have to go against their material interests.
.
Salvador Allende was democratically elected president in Chile. But he was overthrown with significant U.S. intervention
And it would be even worse under a global social system.
Now explain how you will have mass production in la la land?
This is accurate. Socialism would improve the majority of peoples lives. People like me in LA will be hit hard, but for every person like me, thousands in poverty and starvation will be elevated.
I'll sacrafice my 24/hour Laser Tag and sushi bars if millions of little kids get to eat.
Socialism means no one is hungry, but it also means no PS4s and Xbox Ones.
You would be surprised how many Americans would be like 'fukk those kids'
works well in China
Capitalism = A few people own everything and only those people have access to those things.
could socialism lead to a black holocaust? look at china's one child policies and look at the prevelance of abortionJust to address a misconception about socialism/communism... it is not the condition of the state owning everything and handling distribution. That is a form of state capitalism.
Socialism/communism has to do with the ownership of the means of production moving from the hands of capitalists to the hands of the workers, and through that, the abolishing of classes (everyone becomes a worker) and the dissolution of the state (an instrument of bourgeois class rule over workers). In effect, it means worker ownership and operati on of enterprises. Socialism/communism address the central contradiction of capitalism, which is the exploitation of the working class through the extraction of surplus value (th e difference between the value a worker creates and the wages he/she receives). This is a fairly good breakdown as a starting point.
Given my earlier mention of models of market socialism, it is interesting to consider whether or not such a system would be a transitional step to communism (a stateless, classless society with free access to resources and goods) or the best we can do. At the end of the day, what is the real argument for bosses, and why should the working class tolerate this exploitation (the extraction of surplus value) inherent in the system? On a side note I also think that the internet could solve a big part of the availability of information problem with central planning.
At the end of the day, it is impossible to perfectly map out a socioeconomic system. I'm sure there will be a diverse set of socialisms/communisms in the world, just as there are a variety of capitalisms (private, state, crony, etc.). Some will work better than others and the weaker ones fall out of favor. Some could be market-based, essentially with worker co-ops as their backbone. Maybe others will operate on the basis of from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. But the central contradiction of capitalism will have to be addressed, one way or another.
