Socialism Sucks

Also Marxism is a pseudo science. The basics of Marxism lies in dilectic materialism which is a pseudo science. According to dilectics Einstein's theory of relativity is a bourgeois idea. Black hole does not exist due to not obeying dialectical materialism and many more.

and i'm sure you being a slave complaining about your living and working conditions your entire life is a real true hardcore science, you just love it there, don't you

Adit wrote:The socialist sympathisers including El Gunner should come live in a socialist state instead of glorifying it from probably a market economy.

again, you do not live in a socialist state just because your elected-government officials say they are socialists. You live under a fascist-regime. Begin to think for yourself, please.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Myesyats wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:Denmark isn't socialist

According to wikipedia it is. Is aunt wiki lying to me?

Kind of

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

The Nordic model comprises the economic and social policies as well as typical cultural practices common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden).[1] This includes a comprehensive welfare state and multi-level collective bargaining[2] based on the economic foundations of free market capitalism,[3][4][5] with a high percentage of the workforce unionized and a large percentage of the population employed by the public sector (roughly 30% of the work force).[6]

Heritage Foundation (ie super libertarian) economic freedom rankings:

10. Denmark
11. Iceland
17. Finalnd
21. Sweden
28. Norway

Actual socialist countries:
176. Cuba
177. Venezuela
178. North Korea

https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

These are based on things like Rule of Law, Govt Size, Regulatory Efficiency & Open Markets, ie things neoliberals care deeply about, and the nordic countries all excel in it.

Ok thx. Sometimes these system get confusing. I like that model - taking the best of both worlds.

Naturally I agree about communism and socialism. Some things are morally right "in theory" but disastrous in practice.

Lol Adit with the hot take.

This isn't news by now

Adit wrote:

Babun wrote:

Adit wrote:As some one who is living in a state with  socialist economy and under a province that is ruled by democratically elected communists i declare socialism as an evil economic system from which the west should stay clear off.

Yeah, socialism allows the lazy, corrupt ones to milk the productive members of the society until the well runs dry. Some "socialistic" elements are necessary though. Free public school or a basic healthcare is regarded as socialistic luxuries in the US for example. They should be in place.

Adit wrote:
All the moral righteousness of socialism is just that in practice it is poverty and destruction and migration. I see a lot of peeps in west romanticizing about it. It is a trap and once you are in that trap it is not easy to recover.

You're mixing up an economical system with other topics (migration). One has little to do with the other, it's just right now leftwing politicians would try to include anyone to get the voting their way, so they try to appease to all groups including migrants, LGBT+, ethnical, sociocultural minorities etc.

Indeed having few socialist welfare measures does not impact the macro economic structure hence most of the European models works for now. US is creating enough wealth through capitalism for them to afford few welfare measures but government spending in those sectors also have negative points.

I'm against current socialist welfare measures in Europe for example, even vs few. In my POV, they should be only provided in extreme situations for a limited amount of time. Afterwards, you're on your own. Bits of socialism also equals market regulation. You see what happens in the US with too little market regulation.

Adit wrote:For example the US is leaders in innovation in drugs, Medical research and top class hospitals only because their health industry is free market. If govt start providing free healthcare the innovative mechanism goes away.

The trade off is having basic healthcare for all Vs innovation through competition.

The first working, most effective vaccine against the Wuhan virus came from Europe (Biontech). Middle eastern peeps travel to hotels into Germany and Italy to get treatment in private clinics there. We're talking about very rich people.
Nope, basic healthcare is part of the national security as much as military is. By basic, I really mean basic. Anything beyond basic should be allocated to the private sector. You also mix up medical research with medical treatment. Drugs department has little to do with what happens in the hospitals. The pharmaceutics could use some competition from elsewhere. Their lobby is so great that a basic insulin for a person with diabetis costs a fortune. They can't live without. The substance itself or manufacturing are super cheap. Again, lack of market regulation is a mark of a failed state.

Adit wrote:The stetemen that migration is not linked to economic system is really off. Large scale migrations are mainly economic migrants. My own state witnessed half its population move to middle East and other cities due to the communists destroying the economy.

East Germany and the Berlin wall destruction was kind of economics too. People got tired off the socialist experiments.

The socialist sympathisers including El Gunner should come live in a socialist state instead of glorifying it from probably a market economy.

It is so easy to live in capitalism and glorify socialism.
Why? Because socialism is morally right. Equality is morally right.The best defense of socialism isn't that it works or that they have developed a model that will work but that it is the morally right thing to do.

Again, socialism or communism is a market system. There've been plenty of communist states who'd shoot anyone on target for trying to tresspass onto their territory. Not migration friendly much, right? The opposite is true for capitalistic countries: with migrants, cheap labour and more demand for basic products arrive. The number of consumers increases. Contrary to what you believe, being poor is very expensive (not being able to invest or increase own capital, buyng cheap stuff that breaks ending up paying double or trice in comparison with a quality product etc. ), they're the favourite consumers of market capitalism. For communist states, a migrant is an extra mouth to feed. No real interest there from market's point of view.

Adit wrote:Also Marxism is a pseudo science. The basics of Marxism lies in dilectic materialism which is a pseudo science. According to dilectics Einstein's theory of relativity is a bourgeois idea. Black hole does not exist due to not obeying dialectical materialism and many more.  

Every person who regards himself as educated should read the book. Essentially, Karl Marx covers macroeconomy from all points of view. Unregulated free capitalism and total communism are both extremes in his views. Just because communists in Russia twisted the ending to their needs doesn't make the book less valid. His work totally makes sense.
What the uneducated pseudo socialist aren't aware of or don't want to because of their narrative is the type of end socialism Marx described has little to do with communism.
The total amount of resources is limited. Capitalism expects unlimited growth from unlimited resources (bullshit), communism wants to share those unlimited resources with everyone equally (bullshit). What he meant was, globally, there'll be a point of scarce in resources, countries would have to cooperate and plan which one would produce what product in which amounts to cover each other's needs efficiently. He didn't impose lack of capitalism in the countries which produce special goods or a price cap for their products. The question was only about the amount. And if you see how resources are wasted in cheap products today which pollute the environment and reduce the amount of available resources for no reason than "I need the new Iphone XXL now because yes!" you'd understand his point. Me getting a banana in Germany which travels through half of the world makes as little sense as Africans getting blueberries from here.

holy shit Babun i didn't expect that last paragraph
that's why im always advocating the term "global communism" and what my global communism looks like is a system that values Marxist principles

Babun wrote:

Again, socialism or communism is a market system.

It is not. When i say market economy it is meant that price signals demand.

The first working, most effective vaccine against the Wuhan virus came from Europe (Biontech). Middle eastern peeps travel to hotels into Germany and Italy to get treatment in private clinics there. We're talking about very rich people.
Nope, basic healthcare is part of the national security as much as military is. By basic, I really mean basic. Anything beyond basic should be allocated to the private sector. You also mix up medical research with medical treatment. Drugs department has little to do with what happens in the hospitals. The pharmaceutics could use some competition from elsewhere. Their lobby is so great that a basic insulin for a person with diabetis costs a fortune. They can't live without. The substance itself or manufacturing are super cheap. Again, lack of market regulation is a mark of a failed state.

These are anecdotal evidences. A war like corona vaccine manufacturing race shouldnt be compared to normal times and you can check the number of new drugs and development R&D statistics. USA blows every country on earth by a large margin exactly because of the market economy and competition.

"The United States accounted for 42% of prescription drug spending and 40% of the total GDP among innovator countries and was responsible for the development of 43.7% of the NMEs."

When all our ministers get some disease they dont use the socialist healthcare they themselves developed. All of them went to USA for expert treatment. That is the extent of confidence in public healthcare system by ruling politicians. I know about the large waiting time in NHS and Canadian public healthcare system as well. Both have issues and trade offs.

Babun wrote:There've been plenty of communist states who'd shoot anyone on target for trying to tresspass onto their territory. Not migration friendly much, right? The opposite is true for capitalistic countries: with migrants, cheap labour and more demand for basic products arrive. The number of consumers increases. Contrary to what you believe, being poor is very expensive (not being able to invest or increase own capital, buyng cheap stuff that breaks ending up paying double or trice in comparison with a quality product etc. ), they're the favourite consumers of market capitalism. For communist states, a migrant is an extra mouth to feed. No real interest there from market's point of view.

Indeed. Capitalism encourage people to move from feudalistic, war torn nations, socialist hells etc to capitalist state not by force. People prefer to move because that system is better than other systems. If you are saying that capitalism has issues then i agree . It has a lot of problems but the problems in practice is much lesser than socialism..

Babun wrote:
Every person who regards himself as educated should read the book. Essentially, Karl Marx covers macroeconomy from all points of view. Unregulated free capitalism and total communism are both extremes in his views. Just because communists in Russia twisted the ending to their needs doesn't make the book less valid. His work totally makes sense.

His works does not make sense from the beginning itself. He takes his dialectics materialism from Hegel who developed this dialectics from Heracletus who lived in BC 400.

This dialectical materialism is a psuedo science and none of the so called predictions of marxism became true exactly because it is a pseudo science.

Britain has been staying as a bourgeoise democracy for 300 years now. According to marx next stage must have been proletarian revolution and setting up proletarian dictatorship. There has been 50+ socialist projects and none of them ended up in abolishing the state.

What the uneducated pseudo socialist aren't aware of or don't want to because of their narrative is the type of end socialism Marx described has little to do with communism.
The total amount of resources is limited. Capitalism expects unlimited growth from unlimited resources (bullshit), communism wants to share those unlimited resources with everyone equally (bullshit). What he meant was, globally, there'll be a point of scarce in resources, countries would have to cooperate and plan which one would produce what product in which amounts to cover each other's needs efficiently. He didn't impose lack of capitalism in the countries which produce special goods or a price cap for their products. The question was only about the amount. And if you see how resources are wasted in cheap products today which pollute the environment and reduce the amount of available resources for no reason than "I need the new Iphone XXL now because yes!" you'd understand his point. Me getting a banana in Germany which travels through half of the world makes as little sense as Africans getting blueberries from here.

Capitalism has inefficiencies but that is because of racism which promotes closed borders and keeping labour movement limited that the reason why your scenario is happening. All this trade deals, anti competitive laws, IP protection, nationalism . saving jobs for the "sons of soil" , bringing job back to america etc etc is not free market capitalism. It is anti capitalism and that is why such inefficiencies exists.

Capitalism has a problem that it need infinite growth hence the population need to be maintained and the debt taken need to be maintained. The next generations have to keep on taking loan to pay back the loans of the previous generation. It is morally wrong and can be viewed as glorified feudalism. While all this is true it is still the best working model available.

Arquitecto wrote:Lol Adit with the hot take.

This isn't news by now

you would be surprised.

concept of equality is morally right position so every generation will have a bunch of them drawn to marxism.

Until they start living in one

El Gunner wrote:holy shit Babun i didn't expect that last paragraph
that's why im always advocating the term "global communism" and what my global communism looks like is a system that values Marxist principles

No communism, more like a minimum global market regulation. It'll come by itself eventually. Those safe heavens for parked tax money would be my first targets
As I described open border migration helps market capitalism the most. There's nothing lefty or leftwing about being pro uncontrolled immigration. It makes sense, for the people who own/push the agenda in MSM media and profit the most from the policy are 100% capitalists (billionares). This is why reading Karl Marx' book is essential so a "leftwing" won't try to sell me rightwing policy as leftist
Immigration is essential for the western society to function as of now though. There're many reasons most important one would be a demography heavily skewed toward old folks. I regard Japan as a text book example of demographics gone wrong if you're interested in research.

Adit wrote:

Spoiler:

Your response is so emotional I doubt a discussion with you at this point would bear fruits. For now, I agree to disagree with you.

What?

I showed proof that most of the scientific discovery in drugs is done in USA due to higher capital investment due to free market capitalism.

I showed dialectic materialism is a pseudo science which is the foundation of historic materialism of Marx and angels.

The natural progression predicted by marx from feudalism to capitalism to socialism to communism is a long standing unfulfilled prophecy. He had already seen feudlaism to capitalism transformation so that one does not realy count as a prediction.


These are just facts. I dont need to get emotional about facts.

you showed nothing, you're just spewing your own agenda

USA being the leading innovators in drugs is an anecdotal example of many various reasons as to why they are besides free market capitalism. And it is hardly anything to be proud of when "128 people die per day in the USA" because of opioid overdose, and they started a scheming "War on Drugs" agenda that propagated anti-Black tactics in society, racial divide, socioeconomic divide, and lots of false-stereotypes about mind-altering/experimental drugs. The US' pharma industry is the biggest scam on Earth, a huge can of worms that you do not want to get into debating, believe me you will feel ashamed for supporting it.

Drug abuse and addiction cost American society more than $740 billion annually in lost workplace productivity, healthcare expenses, and crime-related costs.

sources:
https://www.drugabuse.gov/drug-topics/opioids/opioid-overdose-crisis
https://americanaddictioncenters.org/rehab-guide/addiction-statistics

Babun wrote:No communism, more like a minimum global market regulation. It'll come by itself eventually.

it's just a matter of semantics i suppose, but at least i know now we are in the same ballpark of how we view Marxism, more or less. You might just be my new best friend, im still surprised that post came from you the way we disagree sometimes on this forum

i'm not so sure if "it'll come by itself eventually". You still need enough radicals to cut down a few capitalists at the end of the day to equal out the playing field. But the increasing rise in communist literature and discourse we are noticing in the Western world recently is a promising sign of "it'll come eventually" i suppose. You can only hope.

Brah, marxism is pseudo science. It stand on dialectic materialism. Angels codified three universal laws of material and ideas of dialectic materialism.

They are
1. Negation of negation
2. Dialectics
3. Change in quantity lead to quality


This is the basis of so called scientific socialism.

El Gunner wrote:

Babun wrote:No communism, more like a minimum global market regulation. It'll come by itself eventually.

it's just a matter of semantics i suppose, but at least i know now we are in the same ballpark of how we view Marxism, more or less. You might just be my new best friend, im still surprised that post came from you the way we disagree sometimes on this forum

i'm not so sure if "it'll come by itself eventually". You still need enough radicals to cut down a few capitalists at the end of the day to equal out the playing field. But the increasing rise in communist literature and discourse we are noticing in the Western world recently is a promising sign of "it'll come eventually" i suppose. You can only hope.

Again, the semantics are clear. I'm in no way a communist proponent. Marxism is associated with marxism-leninism, a faschist ruling system applied to Russia where they literally killed everyone they deemed as elite in the name of equality. In reality, they wanted to get rid of any potential opposition to secure their rule.
One of the grave mistakes of the left- and rightwong they under- or overestimate themselves which leads to fascism. Rich people aren't the problem. Add together the amount of money the top 3 earners in the USA own and compare that to the US budget in 2021, that's a drop in the ocean. You shouldn't punish the players, you should create rules which prevent exploitation. Those rules work rather well in the states themselves but not accross the states.  
The real evil are multinational companies which exploit the loopholes. From market's point of view, they're essentially monopols and have to be broken down. For that, a global cooperation is needed to create rules to contain multinationals.
An example, Bayer is a multinational company. Their glyphosat production is prohibited in the EU, for it was deemed as toxic. The same glyphosat is allowed in India because the legislation couldn't care less. So they sell the cheap, toxic substance for heaps of money to India now. In a world controlled by global market, they shouldn't be allowed to sell the substance anywhere after the EU's decision. An Indian is no less of a human than a human anywhere else.
We're already moving into that direction. The EU is formed, Asian, Oceania, Canada, North and South America are coming together. At some point, they'll sit together and will set those regulations in place, the first step. I wouldn't call that communism.