Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's not socialism by its very definition. Let's stick to reality, not some made up fantasy and liberal agile goal post.
Well that's how these state capitalist states everyone uses as examples were organized, like the Soviet Union, the most famous one, it was state capitalist not socialist.
Well that's how these state capitalist states everyone uses as examples were organized, like the Soviet Union, the most famous one, it was state capitalist not socialist.
Wrong. The SU didn't let private industry move forward and fund it own its own. It directed industry what to produce and how much to produce.
"We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."
China is a state capitalist country now. Note that during thei stint with socialism they went backwards. Now that they've adopted some for of capitalism they've finally began to move forward. For the mere fact that they have over a billion people is why they've finally moved to second place and at their current pace they'll overtake the U.S. in a matter of a few years. That's economies of scale at work, nothing else.
Wrong. The SU didn't let private industry move forward and fund it own its own. It directed industry what to produce and how much to produce.
"We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."
China is a state capitalist country now. Note that during thei stint with socialism they went backwards. Now that they've adopted some for of capitalism they've finally began to move forward. For the mere fact that they have over a billion people is why they've finally moved to second place and at their current pace they'll overtake the U.S. in a matter of a few years. That's economies of scale at work, nothing else.
Because the Soviet state was acting as the capitalist
Does Germany have millions of illegal aliens feeding off the government and a group of politicians trying to buy their votes with tax money? Our nation's problem isn't capitalism, it's socialist/populist politicians trying to buy votes with tax money.
Well, Germany does have a pretty big population of Turkish and Moroccan illegal immigrants. Maybe not as large as the Mexican and Central American illegal immigrant population in the US, but it does exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Anyway, I am not here to defend or promote the USSR and its implementation of socialism, not at all. I would not have liked to live in the USSR.
I am interested in a new system, that is neither the socialism nor the capitalism we have seen so far as I consider both very problematic.
What would this new version of socialism entail?
Because China and Cambodia have tried their own takes on socialism and they were worse than the Russian version.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Not really, no. Germans are divided into Wessis and Ossis, i.e. those from the former West and those from the former East. And since there are far more Wessis than Ossis, the Ossis can vote whomever they want, they have little influence. Basically it was a hostile takeover of an entire country...
It was such a "hostile takeover" that hundreds of thousands of the conquered were gleefully flooding into the land of their oppressors and not a single invader was trying to secure their new fiefdom.
GOVERNMENT is creating poverty in our nation, but subsidizing poor living conditions and encouraging broken families and lack of work.
I always snicker at the claim that "capitalism causes poverty". Poverty is the default state of mankind and not something that is imposed on us.
The truth is that the profit motive and self-interest encourages more people to be productive than appeals for the common good (which does in fact motivate some people).
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The state owning the means of production by definition is socialism. Not capitalism..
You dont know what the hell you're talking about.
It is merely just a socialist excuse as to why they f--ked up. "Oh, you see that the reason why the USSR was so bad is not because they were practicing what I support, but they were actually practicing what you support."
Up until the collapse of the Soviet Union this view was seen as Trotskyite revisionism, but since the USSR did fail both economically and politically, "the USSR wasn't really socialist" has become the latest excuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tlaneloli
Which isn't socialism. How many people are in poverty because of socialist enterprises like the Mondragon Corporation? And how many people are in poverty because of capitalism ie private ownership of the means of production hoarding all the wealth. Look at how the United Fruit Company hoarded all that land in Central America with kickbacks from the government guaranteeing a monopoly for them, even going so far as to get the CIA to overthrow the one leader that wasn't friendly to them, that's capitalism, and that kept people in poverty.
The only valid point you raise in the case of companies like United Fruit which was given generous land grants by corrupt governments and paid its workers so little and had a number of severe restrictions on their behavior and movement that several Central American countries were closer to feudal states and the employees of those companies weren't that far off from medieval serfs.
I'll concede that point.
However, with those few exceptions, capitalism creates wealth. How? You see oil just sits in the ground until some with the means to do so actually tries to get it out of the ground and that oil is only worth something once it is refined and processed. That always makes me laugh when I hear Third World politicians and tyrants complaining about how corporations are stealing their wealth. That oil or minerals had no value until someone with the capital and technology decided to utilize it. Without those evil corporations "stealing" Saudi Arabia or Kuwait's wealth, they would pretty much be just like Yemen, but with less arable land.
Because China and Cambodia have tried their own takes on socialism and they were worse than the Russian version.
It was such a "hostile takeover" that hundreds of thousands of the conquered were gleefully flooding into the land of their oppressors and not a single invader was trying to secure their new fiefdom.
It would not have a central government planning everything. That can only go wrong, the more so the bigger the country because with increasing size things easily get too complex to plan, and the consequences of wrong planning can be disastrous. Plus, with big units anonymity increases, which in turn increases corruption and crime. I am a fan of small units.
There would be a list of clear priorities and goals, i.e. food production, housing, clothing, water and energy etc. The goal would be independence from abroad in those areas. Everything else would be considered mere add-on's of luxury.
Regarding your video, yes of course many went to the West. It is like with any animals: Lock them up in a cage for a while, then open the door and they will automatically run away as soon as they can.
But during those 24 years most East Germans have become much more realistic, for many there was a rude awakening. Economically, their country was plundered by the West.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
