Listen Up - The Three Types of Socialism

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

I do not desire to be a part of the collective.

And you aren't a part of a collective - when you parrot and believe authoritarian talking points. How is that being a free thinking individual?

Yeah it's that bad 🤣

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

I do not desire to be a part of the collective.

And you aren't a part of a collective - when you parrot and believe authoritarian talking points. How is that being a free thinking individual?

You accuse me of believing in authoritarian talking points.

Name them.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The best they can do .... because it's all a joke anyway 😃

As I understand it, the three types of socialism in the world are failed, failing and lying.

Socialism works great on a small scale, such as a family or small commune. But when even non-connected communities try to exchange with one another even if they use the same scale and principals, they have a hard time negotiating a price for exchange. Even if both use one dozen eggs=1 gallon of milk as a standard. Throw pure capitalism exchanging with pure socialism and it works less because the socialists have to have some form of currency in reserve.

Why doesn’t it work? The eggs could be old or fertilized, the milk could be near sour or watered down or separated to keep you from churning butter. The distrust between the two groups strains exchange and a bad experience (no butter) ends future open trade.

Capitalism devalues the other guy’s dollar if similar tricks occurred. The eggs, if fresh, will cost more and the milk will cost less.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

I do not desire to be a part of the collective.

And you aren't a part of a collective - when you parrot and believe authoritarian talking points. How is that being a free thinking individual?

So the only way to be "free thinking" is to think like you?

I reject that premise.

It's simple math. Collectivism doesn't work. You can dress it up in as many fancy ways as you want, but in the end, you cannot game math. It is what it is, and I know they're teaching our kids Common Core math so that they all think the fancy process is far more important than the actual answer, but the answer itself does not change.

In every population, you will have a few high achievers who will prosper beyond all others, a bunch of average folks, and those who refuse to do what they ought and will become heavily dependent on everyone else ... and that's leaving out those who cannot do for themselves through disability of some sort and will thus need a compassionate society to support them for all or much of their lives.

There will never be enough high achievers and average achievers to cancel out affects of those who will not do and prefer to let everyone else carry their water because it's easier or those who simply make bad choices, and everyone fails.

It's like the teacher doing the averages on a person's grades to demonstrate why a 100% does not cancel out a 0%.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Nothing more than a BS story from another socialist idiot. The same thing was claimed about Venezuela's "socialism of the 21st century" which is a "social democrat/democrat socialism" system since the people agreed to it at first... In fact, almost all types of "socialism" was received well by a majority of countries.

However, and like always, Scandinavian countries ARE NOT SOCIALIST... Only people who have no idea what socialism really is keep making this fallacious argument, when in fact Scandinavian countries are still CAPITALIST. When the government controls the market and people can't make any decisions on the market system that is socialism and that will always be real socialism. When people can't own the means of production that is socialism. "Public ownership of the means of production = government ownership of the means of production."

Socialists will continue to falsely claim "the people own the means of production" when in reality "public ownership of the means of production is government ownership of the means of production."

In Scandinavia to this day people can own a farm, they can own a business in manufacturing, they can own any type of "means of production", hence Scandinavia is NOT socialist as it is based on a free market system...

In the Scandinavian countries, like all other developed nations, the means of production are primarily owned by private individuals, not the community or the government, and resources are allocated to their respective uses by the market, not government or community planning.
...

The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

Venezuelans also believed "socialism of the 21st century" was different and that it was "chosen democratically." But once the socialists took control of everything it turned into the same socialist system that has enslaved billions of people...

How do we know those aren't just different stages of the same beliefs?

I don't really see a good form of socialism. All forms have lead to people dying.

Also, Socialism has no place in America as far as I am concerned. I will listen to absolutely none of it. I hate what has already been implemented. I do not want to be poorer just to take care of people that mean nothing to me. I want freedom. I'll be charitable if I feel like it. That's the way it should be.

There is no good socialism. It is going to fail no matter where or “what type”. It’s a failed ideology. I guess the die-hards just won’t learn from the mistakes of the Soviet Union and Cuba and Venezuela. Socialism is also unfair ultimately. It is not morally superior to confiscate the wealth of individuals on the whims of the ruling elite.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: FyreByrd

One result of Socialism....

Misery.

At least for the masses. The political elite will be just fine, the rest of us get to live off what they decide is good enough.

As if our current system of laissez faire capitalism doesn't have poverty and socialism!!!

Every year we have HUGE productivity gains but all the profits only go to the smallest percentage of the population. If you do not think people suffer under our current system of corporations gone wild you are insane!

We have a mixed economy and it is far from laissez faire. So you think that socialism grows the economy and increases prosperity? Far from it. Right now our economy is growing in spite of the socialist programs and bureaucratic regulations.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: FyreByrd



However, and like always, Scandinavian countries ARE NOT SOCIALIST... Only people who have no idea what socialism really is keep making this fallacious argument, when in fact Scandinavian countries are still CAPITALIST. When the government controls the market and people can't make any decisions on the market system that is socialism and that will always be real socialism. When people can't own the means of production that is socialism. "Public ownership of the means of production = government ownership of the means of production."

Socialists will continue to falsely claim "the people own the means of production" when in reality "public ownership of the means of production is government ownership of the means of production."

In Scandinavia to this day people can own a farm, they can own a business in manufacturing, they can own any type of "means of production", hence Scandinavia is NOT socialist as it is based on a free market system...

You are correct, Scandinavian countries are not Socialist. They are Capitalist Welfare States that tends to follow Keynesian economic principles. What does my head in is how Americans think that the US is becoming Socialist. The US is not at all Socialist for all the reasons you mention above and even those who claim to be "Democratic Socialist" in the US are advocating Keynesian economics and a move away from neo-liberalism, not Socialism. Keynesian Capitalism is being re-branded as Socialism and it is not. The Democrats in the US are absolutely not Socialist, not in the slightest.