"Socialism always fails, even so-called democratic socialism"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is completely false. Capitalism is the single greatest vehicle for bringing freedom and prosperity to millions (perhaps billions) in human history.
Socialism and its cousin communism by contrast have a remarkable history of creating untold human misery and suffering, unmatched in human history.
 
VonDerTann said:
Capitalism is the single greatest vehicle for bringing freedom and prosperity to millions (perhaps billions) in human history.
Click to expand...
It’s also a state of permanent revolution, Capitalism is the most revolutionary force in human history - rise/fall/re-invention.
 
Paraguay? Since it couldn’t sustain itself…it failed.

And BTW, if you even call it a “success,” rooting around for some obscure select few who liked it does nothing to rebut the basic premise that socialism fails over and over again.

Since socialism is a means of ownership of production, and since what is being “produced” worldwide in the last 175 years, I conclude that we can’t rely on a narrow few years in an obscure (even today) area for socialism’s alleged success.

Paraguay under Stroessner…now there was a nasty period under a particularly nasty individual.

EDITING TO ADD: The article thrown out for discussion focuses on the last 100 years. Paraguay socialism? Much further back.
 
Last edited:
Im surprised more Catholics are not interested in Distributism which holds in a nutshell that:

A. Property ownership is good
B. Therefore the more people own property the better
C. Therefore big monopolies must be dismantled, of which there are two kinds
(I) big business
(Ii) state ownership

This suggests a middle way in keeping with Catholic social teaching, which is both anti-socialist and anti big business
 
Last edited:
False - particularly when compared to the socialist revolutions in places like Russia in 1917 (leading to millions dead); China (leading to millions dead), etc.

A bit closer to home, socialism in Venezuela circa 2020 took a thriving rich nation (maybe the shining star of South America) and made it into a broke cesspool of corruption and human suffering.
 
Distribution is a nice concept which in practice would have everyone living in their thatched roof huts at substance level.
 
VonDerTann said:
False - particularly when compared to the socialist revolutions in places like Russia in 1917 (leading to millions dead); China (leading to millions dead), etc.
Click to expand...
We’ll just have to completely disagree with one another about the nature of capitalism. The dynamic nature of capitalism and its constant creative re-invention is why it survives in the face of competition.
 
The article mentions how the U.K. and Sweden shifted away from democratic socialism and implemented capitalist reforms and returned their countries to prosperity. Both have nationalized healthcare.

So why is there objection to national healthcare since this author is clearly pointing out you can have a hybrid system and be prosperous?
 
Last edited:
Socialism in the form of regulation of the economy (e.g., central planning, nationalization of key industries, protectionism, and export orientation) was successful in Asia, as seen in countries from Japan to the tiger economies.
 
I have already mentioned this in other CAF themes about socialism and communism (but noone is listening here): both - left and right misinterpret the true Marxian meaning of the terms “socialism”, “capitalism” and “postcapitalism” generally. Slavery, serfdom, capitalism are just different social-economic phases in the human history and they were predetermined by the contemporary development of science and technology.

When science and technology made progress, then means/factors of production changed and that brought the inevitable change of social-economic relations, phase transition.

Socialism and communism are just 2 other socio-economic phases that will follow the capitalism in the moment when the technology and science will achieve appropriate level.

Yes, there were and there are political movements that tries to neglect this need for the technological development and there are left who tries to introduce postcapitalism by force and there are righ who presents such actions as marxian revolutions, but all this is false. Marx already predicted and warned against such use of force. Postcapitalism can only emerge as the necessary next phase of socio-economic relations when the production factors will achieve sufficient development.

My guess is - that current Industry 4.0, DARPA sponsore Third Wave Artificial Intelligence https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/ai-next-campaign and Microsoft billion dollar bettings on the Artificial General Intelligence Microsoft Invests In and Partners with OpenAI to Support Us Building Beneficial AGI and cognitive robotics and automation are exactly the necessary technological developments for socio-economic phase to happen.

Wage share Wage share - Wikipedia is one example how technological developments are going through economy and how they are already changing the landscape of jobs and the landscape of socio-economic relations.

There will be Third Vatican Council which will update the Social Teach of the Church accordingly.

So - let be smart and get some knowledge about Marxism before reading internet articles and propagating crude propaganda.
 
Maximian said:
Im surprised more Catholics are not interested in Distributism which holds in a nutshell that:

A. Property ownership is good
B. Therefore the more people own property the better
C. Therefore big monopolies must be dismantled, of which there are two kinds
(I) big business
(Ii) state ownership

This suggests a middle way in keeping with Catholic social teaching, which is both anti-socialist and anti big business
Click to expand...
As someone who knows that the best economies are mixed - socialized functions alongside market functions - I think yours is a nice solution.

It’ll never happen because in order to make it work you eventually have to tax additional income and wealth at 100% when the wealthy (and powerful) hit the limit, but it’s a nice system nonetheless.

Redistributes wealth by destroying incentive past a certain dollar amount.
 
Last edited:
We should not tax the people, we should tax robots and software. Yes, robots and software are owned by someone and their profit will be reduced, but that is OK. All humanity has invested its efforts in development of technologies and now is the time to reap.

And yes - the development of technologies are mainly predetermined by the public investment - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Entrepreneurial-State-Debunking-Public-Private/dp/0141986107/ - each innovation for iPhone were rooted in the publicly funded science. That is why the profit sharing of the income from technologies should happen. That is the base for Universal Basic Income or Universal Dividend - upon which to build ones self-fulfillment via meaningful work.
 
I am just checking this week Nature edition and here is another evidence of automation - robot chemist:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2442-2
Here we use a mobile robot to search for improved photocatalysts for hydrogen production from water15. The robot operated autonomously over eight days, performing 688 experiments within a ten-variable experimental space, driven by a batched Bayesian search algorithm16,17,18. This autonomous search identified photocatalyst mixtures that were six times more active than the initial formulations, selecting beneficial components and deselecting negative ones. Our strategy uses a dexterous19,20 free-roaming robot21,22,23,24, automating the researcher rather than the instruments. This modular approach could be deployed in conventional laboratories for a range of research problems beyond photocatalysis.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top