The Official Socialism/Democratic Socialism/Communism/Marxism Thread
- Thread starter Type Username Here
- Start date
Well I mean, if you want a socialist society it doesn't leave much room for political choice. See USSR, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and Laos. So one-party rule is nearly inevitable if you want a pure socialist society.
I understand what you're saying though socialism is an economic system and democracy is a political system so they can't really be antonyms, but they sort of go hand in hand.
Sounds like you took out too many credit cards in college.
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
Have you read anything in this thread?
Nope. Don't need too, I have a background in political science.
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
That doesn't mean you know anything about socialism. And it's clear that you don't breh.
I would recommend reading through the thread to better acquaint yourself with what socialism is. Further, I would recommend reading through the thread so you have context and can make meaningful contributions to the discussion if you choose to reply again.
That doesn't mean you know anything about socialism. And it's clear that you don't breh.
I would recommend reading through the thread to better acquaint yourself with what socialism is. Further, I would recommend reading through the thread so you have context and can make meaningful contributions to the discussion if you choose to reply again.
Honestly, it just sounds like you don't like I disagreed with you.
Pure socialism will never be achieved through democratic means. Sweeden at about 50% is the closest you'll ever get for an area bigger then a single city. That's my opinion. I don't need to read through 22 pages to have that opinion.
I may read through it later though.
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
Plenty of people read what I and others have to say and disagree with it. That's fine. However, you admitted to not even reading the thread, yet assumed you knew all there was to know because you
"have a background in political science" (
)."Pure socialism"
I would ask you to define what you think socialism is, but this same discussion has been elaborated upon previously in the thread. I am open to engaging further if you read the thread.
lmao, no
There is results-oriented libertarianism (this guy) and then there is process libertiranism (Ron Paul).
The guy you posted is describing a system where everyone starts off on an even playing field and therefore has the freedom to do "whatever" (within the means the govt provides to them) they want with their life. This system would be one with massive public expenditures on things like transportation and education either in addition to or instead of the welfare spending and entitlements we have now. The idea is equalizers in transportation and education when one is young will even the playing field and from there create a fairer society that affords people more choice in their future. Ideally, in this system everyone would be born into the same exact wealth, and then only decisions made from there on out by the individual would determine differences in wealth between people. The idea is THIS is what it would mean to truly be "free."
Basically instead of being cradle to grave socialism, it would be cradle to the end of college socialism.
Ron Paul libertarianism on the other hand has no equalizers, allowing wealth to accumulate within family lines creating inequality long-term inequality. There's freedom in the fact that government won't be taking your money and you can spend all of your money on what you choose, but many people will be severely limited in what they can do with their life.
@The Real Can you give some examples of successful nationalized industries?
and socialism's end game is statism, intended or not.
The spoiler is 100% right. There's no way to have a centrally planned economy without the state dominating all decisions.
I think the best argument socialists have is wealth that gets accumulated in family lines makes some children much more likely to succeed in life then others, all other factors such as intelligence or hard work held the same.
People would be much more receptive to cradle to college socialism then cradle to grave socialism. Too many modern leftists focus too much on redistribution during adult lives. Admittedly, I'm not sure how you would ever actually achieve cradle to college socialism, because you know, families spend discretionary money on their kids. Socialists will win once they figure it out.
I've also yet to have any of my points actually refuted, only "YOU HAVEN'T READ THE WHOLE THREAD, HAVE YOU?"
Maybe socialists lose because they can't argue/debate people with differing opinions.
For the record I'm on page 14 of the thread.
I agree. That's partly why I'm more sympathetic to Christianity than most Marxists. The Christian moral is a net positive for society, and in a socialistic system provides important esoteric incentive.
I forgot about Jesus teachings on the market
Agreed