Society/Culture Can a purely socialist society exist?

[barreness]

None of those things are 'the means of production'.

A state run fire service saves a private factory
" " health service keeps the workers functional
" " military keeps the workers safe(ish? has been used against unionised workers)

These are all factors of the means of production, in fact quite important, and when the state opts out we see corps/business impose terrible conditions on them

And liberalism (which has nothing to do with socialism) is why we have those things. Because its the duty of a Liberal State to protect its citizens from harm.

Questionable at best. In the past they have done some things to protect the working class, arguably from the ruling elites fears of socialism.

Liberal sates have also colonised/enslaved those on the imperial peripheral and seemingly had no duty for those citizens. Often under the liberal guise of "civilising" them

That's the only reason the State exists.

Lol. The state exists to propagate the wants of the ruling class.

A state is an institution that can monopolise violence in a given area, whether that be liberal, socialist, monarchist, fascist etc

 

[barreness]

Firstly, Yugoslavia is an outlier because it's been wrought with a raging ethnic conflict in the decades post perestroika. You cant ignore the fact its been tearing itself apart for most of the past 40 years.

Almost like it was a bad idea to tear apart a state with nationalism and imf loans, very liberal though

And secondly, I didnt just post economic results for Poland, I also posted them for China, Vietnam, North Korea and East Germany (which account for over 1/3 of the world's population).

I mean only one of those state is not currently socialist, and they were part of a reunification. You'll note that east Germany is now a bastion of far right(and left) voting blocks as liberalism fails

China (vs Taiwan)

Taiwan wasn't liberal

, East Germany (vs West Germany)

Yeh ok, soviets denazifided hard as aposed to the west and wanted to keep them down, cause WW and shit

and North Korea (vs South Korea)

South Korea also not liberal, unless you count massacring commies

were even starker examples because they show clear and overwhelming evidence of literally the same peoples, with the same starting position, the same culture and the same ethnicity but each going a different way - and hazard a guess which (out of the capitalist vs the communist States) fared infinitely better?

A capitalist state is better at exploiting energy and destroying the environment, congrats. They only had the world hegemon on there side too

The evidence is overwhelming.

In literally every single former Communist State, since ditching Communism and embracing the free market (and I mean in literally every single one of them) GDP has drastically increased

GDP again, almost irrelevant. What about the current socialist states? oh they've increased too. bad argument

, quality of life has drastically improved, freedoms and liberty have drastically expanded, and there is also this:

Please define these in a quantifiable way

View attachment 2154823

You had to use the 4chan meme, like I know that's where you're coming from but just look up the statistics properly and don't be an edgelord

I'm sure they'll enjoy that extra 6 years with no pension. Or maybe they have a state that has welfare and a public health system, very socialist of them

No I'm saying 'Free Market liberal capitalism would have been quicker and less genocidal'.

Free market liberal capitalism is at the heart of European colonialism and has the worst record in history for genocide(maybe the mongols, depending how you measure it)

Chinas 'Great leap forward' killed 15-40 million people in famines in the 60's.

Oh I know. It's why you'd never repeat the rural collectivisation and urban push at the same time. Mao made terrible decisions at times, he also stepped down after these massive mistakes.

there was a great famine, lower estimates from chinese scholars go at around 3 mil and up to 75 mil from dissidents. Census records were pretty sus in those days(600/700 million pop, give or take I guess lol), incentives to overstate for more rations and understate deaths etc

If you take 20mil as a middle ground then it's ~3% of the pop. The imposed Irish famine saw a death toll of ~8% of the population, from one of your favourite liberal capitalist states, don't get me started on India

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes

Of course, after that, millions more were purged during the Cultural revolution:

Forums are modern public shaming sessions lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#Death_toll

You're putting China forward as an example of 'Good Socialism'? Even leaving the above aside, China only started getting its shit together (and people's lives actually improved) when they ditched pure socialism and implemented free market reforms.

A lot of things did improve during the leap and CR, perhaps not in GDP but **** that.

Would it be better that they stayed under colonial rule? Boxer rebellion had a few 100k. Or better under the nationalist? that ran a 30 year martial law

But yes China is a somewhat good example of socialism now. Of course many mistakes, as with all countries, but they have made many GDP gains(with state capitalism and to the detriment to the environment)

You mean to say 'as soon as Russia stopped propping the economy of North Korea up, it went utterly **** up.'

A small nation excluded from global trade doesn't do well, what a surprise

Here is a map of the Korean peninsula at night:

Like blackout? whats the source? date?

One satellite photo proves that one of the most unsustainable states on earth is better because they can't see the stars

View attachment 2154841

There is no starker an image that shows the discrepancy between Communism and Capitalism that I could show you than above.

Dude source your stuff, this is meaningless. Does this reflect a one day situation? a decade long thing? Was it earth hour? was it recent?

Again, Liberal capitalism is not perfect. In that glowing wealthy bit to the South there are hundreds of thousands in abject poverty (even if millions in the middle classes are doing it well).

Exactly

Roughly 15% live under the poverty line, aka 8 million

https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20210128000487

Almost half their old people live in poverty, a great example

I still reckon even they the impoverished of the South it better than literally everyone North of the 38th parallel (barring Kim and his cronies running the show of course).

Because you're propagandised, as we all are

Here's a vid from Australians that went there a few years back

What? Quality of life in the Capitalist nations was significantly better (for the majority). People fled Cuba to head to the USA, crossed the Berlin Wall to head West and defected from North Korea to the South for a reason (and not, generally speaking, the other way around).

How are you defining quality?

The owner class of Cuba fled, many more did in recent times because of the impoverishment from embargoes(and poor policy)

You know west Berlin was an enclave deep in the heart of the warsaw pact right? It was the very definition of 'propped up'

I mean there's been quite a few that went back and many defectors the other way(but yeh the numbers in your favour here by far). It's strange to use SK as an example here, one of the most repressive conservative states going around that's borderline one party, run by a few corps, and was a brutal dictatorship back in the day

Life in Communist States was (and is) utterly ****ed. You have zero freedoms. Shit is stagnant. The State controll every aspect of your life.

Great, now we have corporations that do, more sparkel than the kings I guess

Everyone is poor (but at least they're equally poor).

That's legit how people judge their position. A more equal society, no matter how poor, has better social cohesion

Well.. everyone is poor except the Communist party hierarchy that run the show of course. They have billions. Gold plated Lamborghinis and harems of women.

Great, it's better that the dickheads that run my liberal capitalist society(and a few youtube stars) get to have gold plated lambo's

And those people exist at the top in every single communist shithole. country

Yep

Just like us Liberals warned you would happen.

What's the line about the soviets?

Everything they said about communism was a lie, everything they said about capitalism was the truth

I'm a community legal sector lawyer. I help people in not for profits.

Solid

And no, Law doesnt serve itself. Punters get into trouble with the law (or wish to avoid trouble with the law) so they come to us for advice and assistance.

If you want to describe that as 'Byzantine' be my guest.

I still would, but fair enough

 

[Vassp]

Biggest problem with capitalism is central banks and interest rate policy.

Richer areas economies overheat while poorer areas economise are only just getting going.

Interest rate sledgehammers stops them dead. And the policy gets less localised as time goes on. Reserve banks looking at other countries reserve banks for a lead

Reserve banks are corrupt (edit maybe not corrupt), but there should be a royal commission.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

No they were not socialist, they were Stalinist. They were based on the anti-Marxist program of " building socialism in one country,".

Lenin and Trotsky were genuine Marxists/socialists. The Russian Revolution led by the Bolshevik party was based on the perspective of permanent revolution...the genuine socialists understood that socialism represents the next phase of human development and will only be established after the working class seizes political power in every nation, and capitalism is abolished everywhere. Socialism means a world planned economy. It has not yet been achieved in human history.

Now quite literally, mankind confronts only one of two alternatives: socialism or barbarism.


In 1924, Stalin put forward the program of "socialism in one country", which articulated the social interests of a burgeoning bureaucracy within the Soviet union which no longer viewed its material privileges as tied to world socialist revolution but rather to the continued existence of the isolated nation state that was the USSR.

Trotsky at this time began his struggle against Stalinism, initially as the leader of the Left Opposition.

In 1936 Trotsky published his masterpiece, 'The Revolution Betrayed' in which he predicted that unless the Soviet working class could overthrow the bureaucracy in a political revolution, the bureaucracy would ultimately restore capitalism, and the Soviet workers would pay a catastrophic price in terms of a collapse in living standards and material security. This is precisely what occurred in 1991.

Once they were running the show they would cease to be working class. Then what?

The collapse in living standards and material security took place catastrophically well before any resemblance of capitalism.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, living standards improved drastically. They are falling again, but to nowhere near historic depths.

All those old social models have failed to accurately predict anything. Treating it as gospel just because someone wrote it down is no smarter than treating the bible as if its gospel, hang on it is gospel.

 

[demondavey]

Did it fail though?

We have it better now than at any other time in human existence.

Do we?

Could go very deep on this! Definitely discussion worthy.

 

[demondavey]

So Stalin wasnt a socialist and neither was the USSR? Thats historical revisionism at its finest.

The means of production were State owned and controlled under a one-party socialist system. Free enterprise and private capital were outlawed.

It was socialism whether you like it or not.

You only repudiate it because Socialism in the USSR quickly devolved into a regressive totalitarian police state that murdered literally millions of its own people (dissidents to the Socialist rule and the bourgeoise) and severely limited all personal freedoms.

Guess what? That happens in literally every single socialist nation (China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba etc), because Socialism requires enforced totalitarianism (or everyone miraculously willingly buying into it) for it to function.

And a significant number of people don't want Socialism (the bourgeoise and a significant number of the Middle class).

For those people, its the Gulags or the Killing fields.



I'll stop you there.

Lets assume a Leninist party in Australia seizes power and takes control of the means of production. All private property (homes, industry, buisiness etc) are seized by the State. The ASX is disbanded, and the Banks (and bank accounts) are taken over by the Government (all wealth appropriated by the State).

That's what the Leninists did in Russia, and its central to their entire ideology.

Their next steps will be to round up any dissidents (Capitalists, liberals, fascists etc) and ship them off to the Gulags, and seize control of all the Press.

Again, this is what the Leninists did in Russia.

We havent even gotten to Stalin yet. We're still at the Leninists.

Lets assume I want to start my own (liberal capitalist) political party, seeking to re-implement private property ownership, restoration of private capital, and freedom of the individual to work where they want, for profit, sell their labor and capitalize on their ideas and inventions.

Am I:

a) Prohibited from doing the above by the Leninist State, and either shot at dawn or sent off to the Gulags, or
b) Allowed to do so by the Leninist State.

Answer the above honestly, and you'll see why literally every Socialist State has regressed into a tyrannical uni-party oppressive State.

Marx. Was. Wrong.

He assumed some kind of Stateless society (and the only form of Stateless society is an Anarchy), and all members of society buying into socialism (after the Bourgeoise are killed in the revolution of course), both of which are fantasist absurdities.

That’s a huge post. Well done. I’d also add that irrespective of the persuasion, fascism or socialism (or communism) there will always be totalitarianism underpinning these persuasions. There is often a mindset that fascism as we saw it through the lens of WW2 caused the mass killing of the Jews, and that the Nazis enabling fascism represented a party that were capable of mass genocide, and that it is only fascist or extreme right wing institutions capable of this, that isn’t true, communism and socialist groups have exercised national killing power and used it abhorrently.

Whether it’s fascism or socialism there has to be a state to institute power to control the principle. That institution of power can be abused brutally.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

That’s a huge post. Well done. I’d also add that irrespective of the persuasion, fascism or socialism (or communism) there will always be totalitarianism underpinning these persuasions. There is often a mindset that fascism as we saw it through the lens of WW2 caused the mass killing of the Jews, and that the Nazis enabling fascism represented a party that were capable of mass genocide, and that it is only fascist or extreme right wing institutions capable of this, that isn’t true, communism and socialist groups have exercised national killing power and used it abhorrently.

Whether it’s fascism or socialism there has to be a state to institute power to control the principle. That institution of power can be abused brutally.

The Italians were Fascists back then. Mussolini ( originally a Socialist ) committed plenty of war crimes, but he managed to not slaughter innocent civilians . ( ie Like Hitler, Lenin, Stalin - anyone who thinks Lenin was a nice guy , two words "red terror". ).
Then there was Tito , originally a socialist, later a Dictator.

Seems not many socialists end up socialists.

 

[Malifice]

The Italians were Fascists back then.

The Fascists (and the National Socialists) incorporated a lot of socialist ideals in their ideology. Heck the Nazis even have the term in their movements name.

Like Lenin, Hitler envisioned a Classless society (barring the Prussian Junkers and industry leaders, who he needed) where every citizen was a socialist Drone, subservient to the State. Unlike Lenin, this desire wasn't so much about class warfare for Hitler (although he sold it that way to the working class, and certainly other Nazi party members such as Rohm saw it that way), it was more the desire for a homogenized (mostly) classless society, where the States needs came before those of the individual.

Hitler saw 'socialism' as a means to establish a totalitarian nationalist State, where all Germans were equal (barring Jews, Roma, Homosexuals etc).

Rohm wanted to go all the way, and seize lands and wealth from the Prussian Junker elites, wealthy old guard and German industrialists. Hitler opposed this (he knew full well his political survival hinged on the support of the conservative old guard, and he needed German industry on side as well to fuel his economic and war time plans).

We all know what happened next to resolve that little ideological struggle; the Night of the Long Knives which saw Rohm (and others) murdered by Hitler, and the more hardline socialists of the national socialist movement either sent to the camps, or flat out shot at dawn.

The Prussian elites and wealthy German industrialists were placated (and indeed they flourished from then on), and there was no more real dissent against Hitler until the assassination attempt on him towards the end of the War.

 

[Malifice]

Do we?

200 years ago, to get from New York to California, you had to take a 6 month long wagon train and half the people you left with would be dead before you got there from (now curable) diseases, attacks from bandits and native americans, the weather, starvation and exposure.

Now it's a 6 hour plane ride that costs a few days salary, where you can sit back and watch movies, with a device in your pocket that can literally video call anyone else in the world, film the whole thing, do your banking for you, play video games on, and that has access to the entire worlds collective knowledge.

Yes. Things are better now.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I really don't get the opposition to liberalism, why is there?

What I do get is the opposition to liberalism (even if 'liberalism' is not the correct terminology, so whatever one wants to call it) gone too far, every society needs social elements, to keep order.

What we're seeing now, in liberal democracies is lack of deterrence to maintain our liberal democracies, IMHO opinion the mantra of no consequence or deterrence for anti social behaviour is leading toward anarchy.

I guess this is the reason some do oppose liberalism (or even democracy) even though it has been debunked as a functioning societal model (apart from nordic social democracies, even then I'm not completely aware of it's pros and cons).

My point is there is no perfect societal model, why? Because the far and few between ruin it for the majority out of greed and self interest.

So, socialism by its endth degree is probably the 'fairest' model by its definition. None the less poisoned by human self interest.

So, liberalism (or even liberal democracies), imho is not the problem, nor any other societal model, it's the few that wreck well intended models that wreck for everyone else. Sigh.

So, as has been evident in the past socialism in its endth degree does not work.

In saying all that, I'll staunchly defend liberal democracy. It's far better than any other societal model, even given that it's been hijacked by the few for self interest. It still has checks and balances in place to maintain it (for now).

 

[CM86]

IMHO opinion the mantra of no consequence or deterrence for anti social behaviour is leading toward anarchy.

Where are you seeing that?
Can you give a few examples that you believe would be leading toward anarchy?

And why you oppose anarchy.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Where are you seeing that?
Can you give a few examples that you believe would be leading toward anarchy?

And why you oppose anarchy.

I stopped at 'why do you oppose' anarchy.

If you choose to support anarchy, which this post of yours gives the impression you do, well then that's all that anyone needs to know.

 

[CM86]

I stopped at 'why do you oppose' anarchy.

You should have... because that was the end of my post.
That's where you stop... at the end of a post.


What you should have said, if you were honest, is that you stopped giving any thought to your positions beyond vague statements.
And you're unable to substantiate your position.


But again, time for us both to self reflect on these things!

 

[peetoo]

Socialism may be the easiest to corrupt, but that’s a low bar

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Years ago i worked in a large company, but my workplace only had around 6 people , we were in a secure area away from most of the operation, including the canteen.

I bought a box of Coke on special and put it in the fridge, and told everyone they were welcome to them, just put a dollar in the cup on top to cover my costs. ( I wasn't profiting, the drinks were more expensive over at the canteen ).

I came out well short when the Coke ran out, didn't make a big deal about it, but didn't buy another.

I was kind of surprised that it would happen in such a small work place where you thought you knew everyone.

So i couldn't even get a semblance of socialism in a tiny workplace. Bloody human nature, it only takes 1 to stuff it up for everyone.

 

[Gethelred]

I really don't get the opposition to liberalism, why is there?

What I do get is the opposition to liberalism (even if 'liberalism' is not the correct terminology, so whatever one wants to call it) gone too far, every society needs social elements, to keep order.

What we're seeing now, in liberal democracies is lack of deterrence to maintain our liberal democracies, IMHO opinion the mantra of no consequence or deterrence for anti social behaviour is leading toward anarchy.

Get out your Yeats, he made sense of things pretty well.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.