Here is what Happens in a Socialist Economy.

Why Marx was Wrong
www.aspistrategist.org.au...

Marx regarded private property as the source of all evil in the emerging capitalist societies of his day. Accordingly, he believed that only by abolishing it could society’s class divisions be healed, and a harmonious future ensured. Under communism, his collaborator Friedrich Engels later claimed, the state itself would become unnecessary and ‘wither away’. These assertions were not made as speculation, but rather as scientific claims about what the future held in store.

But, of course, it was all rubbish, and Marx’s theory of history—dialectical materialism—has since been proved wrong and dangerous in practically every respect. The great 20th-century philosopher Karl Popper, one of Marx’s strongest critics, rightly called him a ‘false prophet’. And, if more evidence were needed, the countries that embraced capitalism in the 20th century went on to become democratic, open and prosperous societies.

By contrast, every regime that has rejected capitalism in the name of Marxism has failed—and not by coincidence or as a result of some unfortunate doctrinal misunderstanding on the part of Marx’s followers. By abolishing private ownership and establishing state control of the economy, one not only deprives society of the entrepreneurship needed to propel it forward; one also abolishes freedom itself.

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: Blaine91555

I still fail to see where it is written that in socialism one cannot pursue the career one wants and make a profit doing so. Isn’t this the motivation? To find a way to work doing something you enjoy, and getting paid to do it? And making more money the more successful you are at it? Where does it say you can’t do that in a socialist based system?

Because you don't own anything under the system.

Let's say you are a farmer. OK. Great.

But in order to farm you need tools, machinery, seeds, etc., you are not allowed to own any of that under socialism. It's all property of the state, held in trust for you and your neighbors. The state allows you what it thinks you may need to farm which may or may not be actually what you need where the state allows you to farm because you don't own the ground either. Likely the state assigned you a parcel to farm in trust for everyone because it's all for the glory of the state and everyone around you.

So you make do with what you get whether it's all what you need or not and do your best.

But you only get to keep what the state decides you do. Sound familiar yet? You see. The labor may have been yours, but the land was not. It belongs to everyone. The equipment you used was not. It belonged to everyone. And so on and so forth, so even though all the actual work was yours, you couldn't have actually produced without everyone else helping you in the form of equipment and land allowed you by everyone else in the form of the oh-so-benevolent state, so it decides what is yours and what it keeps.

Good luck making any profit there.

You say you're exploited as an employee now?! Welcome to socialism where you are still exploited. Only now, you have zero recourse to buy your own tools and land and seeds and keep what you can farm with them.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

The article makes sense. Until China is brought into the equation. Even Marx's 'rules' go against what Mao did. Again more support that people just used his ideologies as a 'pick and choose' scenario.

Medicare for all is a perfect example of socialism in action.

180 million Americans get kicked off of their private insurance.

www.dailysignal.com...

Yay socialism!

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

The article makes sense. Until China is brought into the equation. Even Marx's 'rules' go against what Mao did. Again more support that people just used his ideologies as a 'pick and choose' scenario.

So it’s different for Mao than it was for Stalin ? How many communist revolutionary leaders have not used the same bloody models ? This is one reason the Fabian society exists today because bloody revolutions use force and Fabians use incremental movements. The end result is going to be the same- failure because it is a flawed ideology.

originally posted by: neo96
Medicare for all is a perfect example of socialism in action.

180 million Americans get kicked off of their private insurance.

www.dailysignal.com...

Yay socialism!

I hope that the masses finally see how devastating socialism really is.

There is no purely socialist economy. There is no purely capitalist economy. Sweden is socialist capitalist. USA is capitalist socialist. Russia and China aren’t crying so much post socialism/capitalism economically. USA has an ever more draconian and controlling government while being “free capitalist”. Both suck. But at some point humans will have to monitor their own relations with the earth and it resources or cause eventual ecological catastrophe...you don’t have to be a genius to figure that much out. Capitalism, with its voracious cancer-like never-ending hunger regarding the earth, and socialism with its voracious cancer-like governance regarding human freedom will have to make accord or both will fail. Certainly, in the USA, where I need a government liscense/permission to fish in the ocean, hike public land, bicycle a trail, drive, medicate for the flu, cut firewood, use river water, open a business, or soon just to breathe, I don’t feel oh so free. I’ll be paying an accountant two grand to do my impossibly complex government taxes, I currently pay $20,000 a year for health insurance as a self employed healthy man, I watch needless overseas wars killing millions waged in my name for multinational oil cartel profits, and I am still an owned slave of the one percent. But with with the demise of self-cultured character in individuals in capitalist/socialist economies, there is little hope for the future except more of the same.

The US implementing programs to help others like universal health care and cheaper higher education DOES NOT turn our economy socialist. The US has the furthest thing from a socialist economy. Are we ever going to stop the fallacious comparisons to Venzuela? This boogeyman stuff needs to stop.

Democrats are not turning the economy socialist. It sounds like conservatives are really on their last legs here with this desperation to categorize democrats as communists. I mean god forbid we give less money to the military and more to healthcare and education like most civilized successful countries do.

This paranoid lunacy needs to stop.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

The article makes sense. Until China is brought into the equation. Even Marx's 'rules' go against what Mao did. Again more support that people just used his ideologies as a 'pick and choose' scenario.

Really? Care to prove your claim with evidence? Because as a matter of fact Marx wrote, and said the opposite of what you claim.

In fact, in an article he wrote called: "The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna, Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 136, 7 November 1848" Marx stated.

The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna
by Karl Marx
Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 136
Translated by the Marx-Engels Institute
Transcribed for the Internet by [email protected], 1994

...
The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.
...

www.marxists.org...

Marx in fact demonized those who would be/were non-compliant to his ideas, and claimed they all were/are part of the bourgeoisie. But here is what the left continues to ignore. Marx, and his ardent followers, saw/see regular people who have small or medium size businesses as part of the bourgeoisie. If you own a small burger, or hotdog stand, you are one of the "bourgeoisie." Anyone who today owns any of the "means of production that produces any wealth," no matter how small your business is, it makes you one of the "bourgeoisie."

Contrary to your claims Marx and his followers always want blood and terror, and his ideas lead to what he called "the dictatorship of the proletariat" which he saw as needing to be permanent for his vision to come true.

Such permanent revolutions are the dictatorships implemented by Mao, Lenin, Stalin, the castro brothers, Chavez, Maduro, etc, etc. So your claim is false. All those dictators in fact are or were fulfilling the ideas of Marx to their core.

a reply to: Barcs

ROFLMAO... You have got to be kidding... THEY ARE CALLING FOR SOCIALISM, yet you want to claim this is not true?... LOL

We even have MORONS from Hollywood, who are rich and pampered, also calling for socialism. Even thou like the rest of the numbnuts they call it "democratic socialism" and then claim the same old lies about "our libraries, schools, museums, national parks, etc, etc, are socialist." Which sorry to say it's a lie. Public schools were not invented by socialists, and neither were libraries, national parks, or our police departments, or our roads...



Hey, but at least you have Jim Carrey calling it what it truly is, socialism. At least one moron has the balls to call it what it truly is.

You can dress it up all you want. Bernie Sanders changed the name to "democratic socialism" to TRY to claim it is different, when it is not different at all. It is the same OLD socialism with some "new lies."

BTW, it was people like you who also made these EXACT claims about the "socialism of the 21st century" that Venezuela embraced.

Left-wingers in these same forums were proclaiming how Chavez was going to finally improve the lives of everyone, except the rich, in Venezuela...

BTW, if you want to falsely claim they are not calling for socialism, why is it that democrats did not applaud POTUS Trump when he denounced socialism, and stated the U.S. will never be a socialist country?...

BTW, i know some "democratic socialists" aka "socialists and communists" will try to claim that "all revolutions are socialist and even the U.S. founding fathers were socialist." Which of course it is false. Same as claiming "but Jesus Christ was also socialist..." He was NOT, and neither were the U.S. Founding Fathers...

There are different types of "revolutions." The revolution that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. fought had an end after achieving freedom, same for the french revolution, even though they did commit atrocities.

The difference is that "socialist/communist revolutions" are permanent and constant. Which is why regimes that embrace socialism/communism are ALWAYS dictatorships.

The Theory of Permanent Revolution

a reply to: Cology

I know I am raining in your parade but there can be no "socialist capitalist nation..." There can only be one, or the other. Socialism aims at ending capitalism, and capitalism aims at ending socialism. The "let's try some socialism to avoid full blown socialism" has been tried in the past, and it has ALWAYS led to full blown socialism.

Germany, before the nazis took over, embraced this idea of "some socialism" and what came of it was "National Socialism," and the murderous dictator known as Hitler.

The same thing happened in Russia before it became the U.S.S.R., or China, or Vietnam, etc, etc. It was back then the "social democrats" who called for a transition into socialism, or "some socialism."

The "democratic socialists" of today are the same people of the past that were called "social democrats." Just like the "social democrats" of the past, the "democratic socialists" of today are also calling once again for such transition...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Again. The US is NOT becoming socialist. The free market is not going anywhere. Conservatives are literally living 100% in fear. Democratic socialism is not the equivalent of Venezuela. Grow up. Who cares what a celebrity says??? Economic socialism has a ZERO percent chance of happening here. End of story. You like your equivocation but it fails at its basic level and this is just a fake outrage campaign because you know that Trump's chance of re-election is virtually non existent. So intend of defending his decisions, you falsely smear the other side with lies about turning us into Venzuela. It's childish. The sensationalist bull# needs to stop.

In a socialist country the governmenent gives massive handouts to huge companies as well as huge tax breaks. Wake up America you live in a country that has Socialism for the rich, eg Jeff Bezos Welfare Queen gets huge amounts of taxpayer money. Then capitalism for everbody else. In a real free market there is no such thing as a Too Big To Fail company.

I think people complain about capitalism when it starts to run away, and the rich and powerful private citizens begin to dictate to the people rather than the government. This would be the lobbyists and PAC's, etc. This results in low pay for the workers and hue payouts for those on top. I call this feudal capitalism.

If you're arguing about minimum wage, you might have better luck in arguing for a maximum wage. And if you're arguing about how broke you are, maybe you should argue about an upper limit to how much wealth one man can accumulate.
If you put the limit at say $100 million, that would cap a lot of influence peddling, because any money over that would be forfeited back into the money system where it belongs so someone else has a chance to earn it.

Capitalism is the best, but it needs rules for the upper limits so people don't get left behind.

originally posted by: 11SK1180
In a socialist country the governmenent gives massive handouts to huge companies as well as huge tax breaks. Wake up America you live in a country that has Socialism for the rich, eg Jeff Bezos Welfare Queen gets huge amounts of taxpayer money. Then capitalism for everbody else. In a real free market there is no such thing as a Too Big To Fail company.

There is no such thing as that in a socialist economy either. With a socialist economy you don't have corporations. Full stop. You are lying. "Too big to fail" only exists in a far right unregulated capitalist economy. LMAO!

Why does everybody that keeps trying to talk about socialism know nothing about it?

originally posted by: Barcs
There is no such thing as that in a socialist economy either. With a socialist economy you don't have corporations. Full stop. You are lying. "Too big to fail" only exists in a far right unregulated capitalist economy. LMAO!

Why does everybody that keeps trying to talk about socialism know nothing about it?

Really?... Mussolini, a lifelong socialist who created his own version of SOCIALISM employed the help of corporations to help with his version of socialism...

The Progressive Roots of Fascism

Not to mention the fact that the socialists at the UN want to implement a global socialist system derived from corporate governance.

Democratising Global Governance:

The Challenges of the World Social Forum

by

Francesca Beausang


ABSTRACT

This paper sums up the debate that took place during the two round tables organized by UNESCO within the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (25/30 January 2001). It starts with a discussion of national processes, by examining democracy and then governance at the national level. It first states a case for a "joint" governance based on a combination of stakeholder theory, which is derived from corporate governance, and of UNESCO's priorities in the field of governance. As an example, the paper investigates how governance can deviate from democracy in the East Asian model. Subsequently, the global dimension of the debate on democracy and governance is examined, first by identification of the characteristics and agents of democracy in the global setting, and then by allusion to the difficulties of transposing governance to the global level.

www.unesco.org...

So your claim that in socialism there can't be no corporations is false.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You are actually referring to fascism


Yikes

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You are actually referring to fascism


Yikes