This is what happens when you have marxist socialist central planning.

"" This is what happens when you have marxist socialist central planning ""

Great Leap Forward

This failure is one reason China (and other countries) is engaging in creeping Capitalism.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I agree that every system has strengths and weaknesses. In fact, most places prefer a mix of socialist programs and capitalist opportunities. I go even further than that by advocating for nationalized societal "needs" mixed with capitalist societal "wants". As in, a nationalized infrastructure and a powerful social safety net mixed with an openly capitalist economy for nonessential things.

A 2nd thing to note about socialism is that in no way does it have to be a large government endeavor. Socialism is incredibly diverse, and can be implemented at small, regional, or national level. An easy example is co-opts. They're controlled by fellow co-opt members who pool their resources for the collective good. Even something as simple as pooling money with friends to buy lottery tickets can be seen as an example. I'm not sure why everyone always jumps to this "nationwide authoritarian nightmare" crap when describing socialism.

And yes, Social Security and Medicare are expensive. But they still help millions of Americans and are absolutely essential for the well being of their recipients. I actually wish our social programs were stronger, which would help our elderly citizens even more.

a reply to: alldaylong

Actually it is, you should inform yourself..


The information is just not shared freely because the state controls most of the media.

Wait a second, where are the unicorns and stuff?

Not even toilet paper. No sense of security, the government seems to behave more like thugs than diplomats.

Some scenes look post-apocalyptic, a few more steps and they are living in a communist state which is paved by socialism.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Look at all of the people lining up to find a scapegoat already.

"Let's take a look at denmark or sweden" they say. Never mind the fact that they are Monarchy's. Don't look at that. Just look at how well their societies do! Don't pay attention to the fact that they are an extremely homogeneous set of countries, that has nothing to do with it!

um i hate socialism and people who think its a great idea are dummies. but this is an idiotic comparison. this is Venezuela. its gonna be terrible there no matter what system (unless its true free market capitalism) they use.

I figured nobody would be able to respond, cuz they never can in my personal life either. Its okay tho, i wont cry too hard

a reply to: speedhead93
I'll respond. Didn't see your post.

originally posted by: speedhead93
New member here. Glad to finally join this one community i feel connected to. Anyways, to my understanding marxism is seperated from socialism. Communist manifesto states that economy is ruled completely by a central government. Socialism is defined as the economy being controlled by the workers. Im no economic/political expert so i may be wrong.

1. In theory, socialism is a part of Marxism. Marxism theorizes about the system-wide shifts from feudalism to capitalism then to socialism then to communism. Or to be blunt, the shift in economic and political power from a small ruling class (feudalism) to the open competition of capitalism, which becomes a system controlled by the working class (socialism), then ends in self controlled communities that have no central government (I think I got the last part correct).

2. As you can probably tell, this theory only works on a small scale. As in, the part that goes from capitalism to socialism to communism works as Marx intended on a small scale. An example would be if some wealthy people buy some land together, collectively decide what it will be used for and how it will operate, and then the community eventually runs itself. I guess some nudist resorts, cult-styled compounds, and/or indigenous communities would be good examples (maybe Amish communities and some religious communes/safe havens, too).

But on a national level, it never works like this. Socialism is incredibly diverse and is usually used in specific programs or organizations (like Social Security and other social programs). Even Wall Street used a version of socialism when demanding its bailouts (it's literally a business practice called "Lemon Socialism" which encourages companies to "privatize the profits while socializing the risks").

Instead of decentralizing power as Marxism claims, "communism" on a national scale usually ends up with an authoritarian stranglehold on society by elites in the "worker's council". Communism claims to use a special council of working class leaders/scholars/whatevers who usher in the changes needed to make the system work. In practice, this special council ends up becoming virtual royalty that never relinquishes power and ends up being corrupt. It's usually a situation where "absolute power corrupts absolutely". Of course, there are a lot of different forms of communism, with Stalin's version arguably not even being "communism". And many Marxist groups reject other "communist" groups as being fake communists. (And now that I think about it, it might have been Lenin and/or Trotsky who came up with the "special ruling council", not Marx. It's been a while since I researched the theoretical side...)

3. Here's a great ATS thread about socialism (HERE). This may help more.

Hope this helps. And someone else may be able to explain it better than I did. I spent the majority of my research trying to see how the economic models were actually implemented by various governments (back then, I was trying to figure out how to rule the world). So sometimes I get confused with the theoretical side (and I'm too lazy to look it up lol).

this is when the blockade, embargo and sanctions from Western countries or/and the sabotage of 5 (blue blood) columns. any people feed themselves. no matter where in Africa or in Russia in the Arctic Circle. except Antarctica. remember executions in egypt ? progress in this direction destruction of red blood has moved . You think not was in the US? what about 1929 ?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I agree that every system has strengths and weaknesses. In fact, most places prefer a mix of socialist programs and capitalist opportunities. I go even further than that by advocating for nationalized societal "needs" mixed with capitalist societal "wants". As in, a nationalized infrastructure and a powerful social safety net mixed with an openly capitalist economy for nonessential things.

A 2nd thing to note about socialism is that in no way does it have to be a large government endeavor. Socialism is incredibly diverse, and can be implemented at small, regional, or national level. An easy example is co-opts. They're controlled by fellow co-opt members who pool their resources for the collective good. Even something as simple as pooling money with friends to buy lottery tickets can be seen as an example. I'm not sure why everyone always jumps to this "nationwide authoritarian nightmare" crap when describing socialism.

And yes, Social Security and Medicare are expensive. But they still help millions of Americans and are absolutely essential for the well being of their recipients. I actually wish our social programs were stronger, which would help our elderly citizens even more.

Why can't you have the local community implement social safety nets?

Why does it have to be government implementing social safety nets?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Look at all of the people lining up to find a scapegoat already.

"Let's take a look at denmark or sweden" they say. Never mind the fact that they are Monarchy's. Don't look at that. Just look at how well their societies do! Don't pay attention to the fact that they are an extremely homogeneous set of countries, that has nothing to do with it!

A scapegoat for what?

Laissez-Faire capitalism taken to its extreme is NOT more fair. When multinationals act independently against the country in which they claim to be based, they should be taxed; with big tariffs on products returning from overseas sweatshops to the U.S... Too Big To Fail = Too Big To Exist. Reinact Glass-Steagle to reign the buzzards in and then bust 'em up. Again --- this has happened before, when the "Trusts" threatened the power of the Federal (and supposedly the people's) government. If capitalism is so wonderful, why are all of the profits generally in what could be called "destructive industries"?? Do we really need corporate earnings statements every quarter, or would annually or even semiannually provide less persistent shocks to the economy and psyche? One can be a slave in Venezuela, or one can be a slave working for a wage; what was called a "wage slave" in the Industrial Revolution. The standard of living is much higher, but you'll never find simple peace chasing after more $tuff, no matter how much you make. The only news is the history we don't know or choose to ignore. Without a Fed Reserve to crank out $$ in the trillions, 2008 would have been a depression. a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Some mention the scapegoat, I will explain what it is. when they can not kill a red blood cattle , they kill goat

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I agree that every system has strengths and weaknesses. In fact, most places prefer a mix of socialist programs and capitalist opportunities. I go even further than that by advocating for nationalized societal "needs" mixed with capitalist societal "wants". As in, a nationalized infrastructure and a powerful social safety net mixed with an openly capitalist economy for nonessential things.

A 2nd thing to note about socialism is that in no way does it have to be a large government endeavor. Socialism is incredibly diverse, and can be implemented at small, regional, or national level. An easy example is co-opts. They're controlled by fellow co-opt members who pool their resources for the collective good. Even something as simple as pooling money with friends to buy lottery tickets can be seen as an example. I'm not sure why everyone always jumps to this "nationwide authoritarian nightmare" crap when describing socialism.

And yes, Social Security and Medicare are expensive. But they still help millions of Americans and are absolutely essential for the well being of their recipients. I actually wish our social programs were stronger, which would help our elderly citizens even more.

Why can't you have the local community implement social safety nets?

Why does it have to be government implementing social safety nets?

You can have local communities implement socialism and social safety nets. I've directly pointed out that socialism is diverse and can be implemented at the local, State, and national level. No offense, but you seem to fixate on the "central government" angle no matter what I say. So I keep having to go back to that part.

There's a second part that routinely gets overlooked in conversations like this. We socialist-leaning people usually say we'd rather our tax dollars go towards helping other Americans than go towards the MIC, more military missions, corporate welfare, and blah blah blah. The point is that if there's going to be a government, we'd rather it allocate its funds to help the ordinary citizens instead of helping the wealthy & their businesses. Believe it or not, but most people aren't anarchists.

Also, it's simply more efficient in many cases to have a centralized system. Some regions are poorer than others; some are "rich" with natural resources but are too sparsely populated to take advantage of them; and some may have everything they need except a reliable water supply (like LA) or land for growing food (like NYC), etc. It can be very effective to have a centralized system to help distribute goods and services between these areas. That was literally the point in building socialized highways and interstates. They used taxpayer money to create easier transportation routes for the exchange of goods, services, and people/workers/tourists between the diverse regions of our country.

Capitalism can help with this exchange, but it can also contribute to inefficiencies like price gouging. As in, if LA has a disaster and desperately needs water imports, an unregulated capitalist company can price gouge the city's residents and business districts for their emergency water supplies. Or in an unregulated and strictly capitalist setting, roads could be privately owned then shut down during disasters unless drivers paid exorbitant fees (price gouging). Having roads be publicly owned and maintained prevents incidences like this. So yes, I think we also need a central planning and regulating entity to keep people from doing this (remember "Pharma Bro" and his massive price hike?).

a reply to: AvroVulcan

It's like people forget that unregulated capitalism allows for price gouging, fraud, and "buyer beware". Then again, I've concluded that a lot of these people don't really care about their neighbors and "fellow" citizens anyway. So maybe it's time I accept that they do realize these things and just don't care.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
Why can't you have the local community implement social safety nets?

Why does it have to be government implementing social safety nets?

No reason why they couldn't but although local government can be easily held accountable it is also more easily corrupted by cronyism.

A little too much slip showing and you'll have people asking for the feds to do something and you're right back in the same spot.

a reply to: daskakik

I think your answer was more efficient than mine. LOL Quicker and to the point.

Only having local systems will also create an enormous variety of standards. Many communities simply don't have the resources or facilities to offer adequate services to their members. Some small towns even contract out their policing and emergency services to the county or neighboring systems, not to mention a lack of adequate medical facilities.

a reply to: alldaylong

You might be surprised to find that communist china has implemented some capitalist reforms.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: alldaylong

Capitalism is infinitely more fair than what is happening in Cuba,Venezuala,and North Korea.

Capitalism is not as horrible as rampant Marxist socialism.

geez, they all are run by dictators......capitalism has NOTHING to do with their economic model that you are using as a simile.....dictators control 99.9% of the "capital" of their respective countries. you are comparing apples to oranges, as they say.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

If I'm not mistaken, China's started implementing some capitalist reforms back when Deng became its leader (right after Mao). So that would be since the late 1970s.