I feel as though Kollaps has good intentions so I'm not gonna be rude about it, but the generalizations and misinformation is a lot.

There's been socialist/communist systems/ideologies that aren't authoritarian, and while I'm diligently against vanguard parties/authoritarianism, there's been good governments under it historically (Burkina Faso).

It's all about implementation of said ideologies rather than the ideologies themselves (within reason of course)

I fw bernie the long way he's one of the better US politicians we've ever had I'd argue

At least on consistency and his superiority to most other ppl

and as u can probably see I liked some of your posts ITT cause you've had some good points

And then also I need to make sure before I reply, which types of countries you're referring to because socialism being implemented by governments at different levels and interpretations looks different depending on where and when its been implemented

lets go on a date and talk about this

Reform communists are always looking to revitalise socialism emancipate the mind

bruh that s*** just sounds so funny like "we need to bring back real socialism like the old days" how these dustheads sound. im clowning but people still really believe "trickle down economics" "maybe the elite will accidentally give us more scraps today from their gluttony of resources"

s*** def needs to look different than the old days no matter where we going

Anarchist Communism here. Big up Subcommander Marcos and all my Zapatistas holdin it down in Chiapas

This, when i was younger and more passive toward politics i was more centrist Democratic/liberal what have you,

but over time and the more I pay attention to what is happening I've become more sympathetic toward more further left ideologies, even with considering where governments using these went wrong

Obviously it becomes f***ed up when people let power go to their heads or just become the other side of the same coin if you go too far

we just live in a violent world and need 2 be able to progress past that thats why im more sympathetic to socialism than capitalism because even the terms themselves refer to a collective being the priority as opposed to capital being the priority, respectively

❤️give me a few minutes to read over your replies

By socialist countries I mean Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique, Somalia, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Benin, and the eastern bloc. I get that there are more socialist countries and what I’ve listed are specifically Marxist Leninist, but my main issue with socialism is with central planning for the economy. If you believe that socialism can exist within a market framework, then much of what i posted doesn’t apply

at this point I'm more in a democratic-socialist ideological space, although i desire to become more well-read on everything, and explore more of the historical evidence, theory, and economics as a whole

The thing is it just irks me when people vehemently defend capitalism when at its core I do agree at least on the basis that it is exploitative, with varying degrees of exploitation. how does the "richest country in the world have such inequality?" I know plenty of answers I just use that rhetorically as a point of reference to question the merits of the system we (usa) deem as integral to "freedom" and otherwise

But as I'm not an expert on the history of governments and economies, I'm just referring to the starting theory, and my opinions, and also my experience in the U.S. when it comes to insurance companies, d*** prices, wealth inequality and hoarding, and otherwise

So my own experience is limited mostly to where I live, otherwise I have to study from an outside perspective what other places are doing.

I don't really think any one country is great, even the ones with some of the best social policy imo, because a lot of countries still end up exploiting labor and crops in Africa that are still around from colonialism, just operating slightly differently, for example.

I don't really think one country or another is necessarily that great but we can acknowledge when something is wrong in any of them and also acknowledge "x helped y to improve", of course.

S*** is too complex for anybody to claim they're absolute on the topic, thats how this s*** gets f***ed up in the first place is people getting too high on their high horse

Socialist ideology appeals to people that are moved by the injustices of the world. But when you strip aside all the theory in favor of it’s real life applications, you’ll find that capitalism has done more to lift people out of poverty than socialism has. The biggest success stories for socialism have been the Soviet Union and China, both of which are two of the largest countries with massive resources and populations needed to sustain continued growth without relying too heavily on foreign trade. Contrast with all the examples in Africa and south east Asia where socialist countries are outperformed by some (but not all) of their capitalist counterparts, even from the same starting points. Cuba is also often brought up to defend socialism, but it was already one of the most developed Latin American countries with a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate than even Japan in the 50s. Now it’s gdp per capita has fallen below Brazil

Then you have socialists defending the failures of communist states by bringing up how America has been sabotaging them. When it comes to Cuba I’ll admit they’d probably be doing a lot better without the embargo (it’s not starving them though). But socialism just failed on its own rights, Khmer Rouge Cambodia and Somalia were US allies, yet still some of the worst cases of socialist thought ever put into practice. In fact by many metrics Somalia was actually doing better under no central government than the socialist government they had going on, and there’s a chance you’ve heard about the genocide in Cambodia so we don’t really need to get into that

Under the logic that socialism has failed due to western sabotage, wouldn’t that mean for it to work it would require the US to be socialist? While that’s clearly never going to happen, at least central planning type socialism, even if it did the examples of the 20th century have shown that it would not help the plight of the poor as much as e communists are believing. I mean homelessness could be reduced to almost nothing in a socialist America, but it could be reduced to almost nothing in a capitalist America as well

I don’t have much of a problem with “democratic socialism” provided its in a market framework, but the thing is there hasn’t really been a country in history you can point to as an example

I'll be honest w you I don't think homelessness can be ended while capitalism is still the focus. What profit is there in giving people a roof over their head

Realistically, giving people enough to be consumers seems like it'd boost the economy even more, if everyone at least had a minimum amount of wealth or whatever after expenses they could put the money back into the economy and then whoever they pay can put it back again instead of just someone hoarding all the wealth for no f***ing reason

I just don't think the reasons that people use for capitalism needing to exist at least in its current form, compel me in any way shape or form and also its kind of laughable because in the same way a detractor of socialism often will say it "doesn't work" or whatever I think capitalism makes for a decaying society

But whenever this crosses into human existence and plight as a whole it becomes a lot more broad, I don't have the ability sometimes to limit the debate to more minute details I just trail off into the overall picture by default

It does make sense that people seeing the flaws in their own governments long for something different, as do I, and I'm sure some people in comm/socialist countries end up having an idea of US being a land of opportunity, whether or not thats realistic either

I'm not really one for subscribing to only one philosophy as an absolute

Like, i think someone said ITT that capitalism shouldn't hinder peoples access to essential needs for survival, food water shelter etc, health resources,

People should be able to get that without going broke. Lets just establish that. We have the resources between us to take care of each other. People just wanna make a profit off everything

bout to come back tomorrow and pick up the pieces of my messy ass posts hopefully

shoutout comrades

disclaimer: iono s\*\*\*. boutta get cooked by yall when u wake up

There can be profit when people move from home to home. What profit can be derived from a class of citizens that can never pay into a certain industry?

Wealth isn’t a zero sum game so just because the rich are getting richer doesn’t mean the material conditions are getting worse for the poor. The only thing is, capitalism inherently requires a disparity in wealth so some will always have way more than others, but I think if the system provides in a way where the people who don’t have as much are living better than in the system where everyone has the same, then at least some inequality can be accepted, and even then wealth transfers can whittle away that disparity to great lengths

Maybe the world would be a better place if everyone was a socialist, but that’s never ever going to happen, and each attempt to bring forth an economy based on planning rather than market forces has not been as successful as its counterpart

I'm viewing capitalism as it has progressed in the United States because thats what I'm most familiar with, aside from some Western European countries who came up off colonizing Africans and others, and before that peasantry and serfdom which is a WHOOOOLE other thing, yet not because the employer was still controlling way too much of the workers life, then and now, in a lot of places...

You make good points, I'm not challenging that, but rather the fact that the specific brand of capitalism I'm most familiar with creates all sorts of other problems, to the point where I don't find it worthwhile to say: "Oh, well at least its better than x, y, z..." because the flaws are so deep it doesn't matter if its better imo.

Most power structures, whether claiming capitalist or communist or whatever they use as their basis for economics, is always f***ed up by association of the violence perpetrated by those with the power to create the most violence, I would never say that a government isn't violent or worth criticizing just because I prefer some of their economic and social decisions, thats why some of the people who are speaking to historical periods or context where there was a heavily authoritarian/dictatorship or whatever else, seem to be going for something else than I am necessarily, albeit I believe we as people can take much from someone like Marx or otherwise.

Similar way you can take important points from some of the more controversial authors like Machiavelli or Nietzsche or any writer, without abusing the philosophy as an excuse to dominate another person. You can use a religious text to better your life and care for others, or convince yourself that it gives you the right to oppress others, its just up to interpretation of the philosophy and thats why I don't think socialist governments problems in the 20th century fully discredit many of the merits of socialism.

Yeah but when all of the actual material merits of a socialist system can be done in a capitalist society, then what’s the point?

There are good governments that are socialist and bad governments that are capitalist, and there are good governments that are capitalist and bad governments that are socialist, and when you match them up together with a country of the most similar profile, you’ll find that the capitalist society tends to ensure a greater standard of living than the socialist one, with a few exceptions. Like I said, my problem in the last few pages have strictly been with central planning. I believe bernie sanders socialism, which puts the majority of major industries such as transportation, energy, and the internet into government hands and provides a more ambitious healthcare plan than anywhere in the world, while might not be economically sound, is still worth a shot. I really don’t have much to say against that because it’s not like what he’s proposing can be as thoroughly debunked as the Soviet model. I also believe that his corporate democracy plan would put power firmly in the hands of workers by empowering co operatives and transferring over 50% control of shares into workers hands. I’m not really that passionate about stuff like that, all that really matters is people aren’t starving and homeless, and that most people can live a somewhat comfortable lifestyle

I think you end up answering your own question in a way because in a society that is so focused on "remaining capitalist" when it should be a blend of whatever benefits people the most as a whole in each part of things, (i.e. healthcare accessible to everyone instead of people not going to the doctor for checkups cause their insurance isnt good or they'd have to spend multiple paychecks for simple tests or procedures).

I'm not even necessarily arguing in favor or against a fully socialist government as far as I'm concerned, I'm rather just expressing my gripes with how much capitalism is allowed to get away with just because it might be somewhat better in certain ways than conditions in other places,

But once again I do think the fact that people are so adamant about capitalism to the point that they decry any mention of socialism shows a huge issue. There aren't a lot of contemporary speakers that I'm aware of, at least as far as talking heads go, that are actively advocating for either something like a blended system, or a "good" capitalism unless they're greenwashing or just saving face by slapping a "We're not racist" "We care" on their product their workers get paid below a living wage for

i just have seen way too many problems with the culture of capitalism to feel like defending it in its current incarnation in any way. I realize that conditions could be much worse, but that doesn't mean we should accept that they're not being made better right now.

S*** needs to get better, people are suffering, due to greed, I think socialist policy reform can remedy that in a lot of places. Accountability wise, equity wise, etc...

But thats just kind of theoretical and not pulling from studies at the moment. Maybe more opinionated/emotionally fueled.

And like you said before "Maybe the world would be a better place if everyone was socialist..." while also stating it most likely wouldn't happen, I don't think improbability should stop people from trying to progress toward a better society for everyone, look at how much can happen in say a decade or so

I gotta stop here cause I feel like im turning into nonsense but I'll come back tmr

@Enpax

(Cuba is dark blue)

Only here to address your statement about Cuba, it's clear when and why Cuba's GDP per capita took a hit when you look at the timing of the collapse of Cuba's economy, and it has nothing to do with anything that's inherent to socialist economies and everything with their trading partners being overthrown.

And you can see how Cuba's economy had very little growth pre-revolution compared to post-revolution.

Central planned economy will always lead to starvation and deficit imagine caping for that

Cuba has mostly recovered from that by now, and even before the 1990s their gdp per capita has fallen below Brazil’s. But like we’ve both said, gdp per capita is not the only way to measure success, and compared to the more dramatic transformation of countries like Costa Rica, Trinidad, and Barbados, Cuban socialism hasn’t done much to change Cuba’s position among the worlds economies. A lot of the gains can be attributed to periods where many economies around the world were seeing major gains

Idk about starvation (though it does seem to be a very common feature). But yeah, no reason for anybody to want a centrally planned economy after its 70 year streak of failures inadequate performance

Cuba has recovered from that collapse only in the sense that its economy is growing nowadays, but its impact is still felt to this day. One could only imagine what the economy would look like if the special period hadn't taken place.

USSR had planned and my grandpa literally had to bring turkey from Moscow(and we aren’t from the middle of nowhere, city was like 1000k back then)