For those that may prefer a Socialist country

[Kruska]

What about Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland?

Denmark and Sweden are also up to their necks into state debts - mostly due to excessive lefty&lib policies in the past 40 years - and as a result are getting more and more sympathizers leaning to the so called right. Which is actually happening in ALL Western countries - due to Newtons law - an action always causes a counter-reaction.

Switzerland is the only country in the world that really practices democracy - as such lefty&lib ideals have been kept mostly at bay. Once all the criminal institutions withdraw their $$ and gold bars - Switzerland most likely is economically finished.

 

[surada]

Denmark and Sweden are also up to their necks into state debts - mostly due to excessive lefty&lib policies in the past 40 years - and as a result are getting more and more sympathizers leaning to the so called right. Which is actually happening in ALL Western countries - due to Newtons law - an action always causes a counter-reaction.

Switzerland is the only country in the world that really practices democracy - as such lefty&lib ideals have been kept mostly at bay. Once all the criminal institutions withdraw their $$ and gold bars - Switzerland most likely is economically finished.

It's been awhile since I was in any of those countries...so you may be right, but do you think right wing nationalism is the answer?

 

[surada]

Socialism does not work in the real world. The Russians tried it for 70 years and abandoned it. The Chinese tried it for 40 years and dumped it. Every nation in Eastern Europe gave it up when the USSR dissolved and the Red Army left. It only now exists in North Korea and Cuba. Both have food shortages. Margaret Thatcher said it:"Socialism does not work because eventually you run out of other people's money."

Do you know the difference between democratic socialism and communism?

 

[Red Front]

Do you know the difference between democratic socialism and communism?

High-communism is the revolutionary objective of socialism. Which is a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. Now we might choose to have a small state in the future, and I'm one of those communists who believe human beings will always need a state, but it will reduce itself to some very basic services and functions in the community, due to the level of control that the consumer will have over production. In the future, you will be able to produce everything that you consume at home. You won't even have to go to the community store or production center/factory, you will have everything in your garage.

Have you heard of Atomic Precision Manufacturing Machines? APMMs? Watch this:

​

 

[Kruska]

It's been awhile since I was in any of those countries...so you may be right, but do you think right wing nationalism is the answer?

Any extreme political form will never be the right answer towards a political/social solution - but presently due to the non-Switzerland practiced "democracy" in Western countries - Lefty&lib ideals can only be stopped/countered by right wing factions or so called conservative minded people. Since normal people usually don't engage into politics (aside maybe going to the polls) - they leave the political battlefield to those extremist wings. Too bad, but that is how the world has always been working in the past 10,000 years. - except maybe Switzerland for the past 500 years.

 

[Kruska]

...... objective of socialism. Which is a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money.

I don't quite agree - your definition is already an "altered" version of socialism, that tries to implement this no money based idea from 2000 onward concepts.

Original Socialism propagates the ideal of a state with non socioeconomic classes and controlled by people governed institutions, and market prices being evaluated/set upon the work input/output of it's society - therefore it does not exclude money or a monetary based currency as such.

A perfect example of this socialist thesis would be Belgium - a country that like any other county has established institutions that govern administrative processes - regulated by laws. E.g. a Tax department knows due to its regulations as what to do. The same applies towards e.g a police or fire department. And e.g. towards a medical institution such as a hospital - financed via taxes.

Therefore it was no surprise that Belgium without a government was able to run it's society very well, based on established systems/institutions for years.

 

[Thinker101]

The US household debt is 75.2%.

Would you say France is more socialist than Canada? I would, and their household debt is 66.5%. That's lower than ours and you cannot possibly argue France is less socialist than the United States.

How about Germany? They are certainly more socialist than the US, and their household debt is 55.7%. Germany's government has been dominated by the Christian Democratic Union and the Social Democratic Party for the past 75 years.

So, basically, your premise is a giant steaming pile of horseshit.

Well, seems that Fance is up there at 118%.
France: household debt ratio 2022 | Statista.

Germany appears to be 91%-92%.
Germany: household debt ratio | Statista.

 

[Red Front]

Any extreme political form will never be the right answer towards a political/social solution - but presently due to the non-Switzerland practiced "democracy" in Western countries - Lefty&lib ideals can only be stopped/countered by right wing factions or so called conservative minded people. Since normal people usually don't engage into politics (aside maybe going to the polls) - they leave the political battlefield to those extremist wings. Too bad, but that is how the world has always been working in the past 10,000 years. - except maybe Switzerland for the past 500 years.

What do you identify as "extremist"? Worker-owned factories? Rational central planning of production, in collaboration with the workers who do the actual work? The state is always a dictatorship, dictating what is and isn't legal. It's either legislating for the wealthy elites, in service of vested interests, or in the service of the public good. I often see the term "democratic socialism". Socialism is already democratic, so to add the word "democratic" to socialism is unnecessarily redundant. I'm not suggesting you personally did that, but I see it a lot among Western leftists. "Democratic Socialism".

I do believe there's a place now for markets, but eventually thanks to technology, markets will become superfluous. I don't see however a legitimate reason to continue with the employer/exploiter - employee/exploitee relationship. I believe production is a social endeavor that should be run democratically. The laborers should elect their leadership in the factory or at least vote for those who have the authority to elect managers. At some level, there has to be democratic accountability, between the laborers and the people who lead them. Democracy is both in politics and in the workplace.

 

[Red Front]

I don't quite agree - your definition is already an "altered" version of socialism, that tries to implement this no money based idea from 2000 onward concepts.

Original Socialism propagates the ideal of a state with non socioeconomic classes and controlled by people governed institutions, and market prices being evaluated/set upon the work input/output of it's society - therefore it does not exclude money or a monetary based currency as such.

A perfect example of this socialist thesis would be Belgium - a country that like any other county has established institutions that govern administrative processes - regulated by laws. E.g. a Tax department knows due to its regulations as what to do. The same applies towards e.g a police or fire department. And e.g. towards a medical institution such as a hospital - financed via taxes.

Therefore it was no surprise that Belgium without a government was able to run it's society very well, based on established systems/institutions for years.

According to Marx and Engels, the state "withers away" (using their own words). Marx agreed with Engel's definition of communism.

Socialism is the revolutionary process that leads to a stateless society, without classes or the need for a medium of exchange or "money". The whole capitalist for-profit enterprise collapses as technology advances, automating production, and eliminating the need for human labor (waged jobs are eliminated with advanced technology). When that occurs, a rational central planning apparatus at a national scale has to be in place to meet everyone's needs. Production becomes non-profit, socialized, and democratized.

The alternative to this is techno-feudalism, where a small minority of wealthy elites own all of the technology and facilities of production and ironically, they become the high-tech communists, while the working class is consigned to the compost heap. At best, everyone will become enslaved by the tech-lords, who own all of the advanced machinery and facilities of production. The people have to take control of the means of production.

 

[Kruska]

What do you identify as "extremist"? Worker-owned factories? Rational central planning of production, in collaboration with the workers who do the actual work? The state is always a dictatorship, dictating what is and isn't legal. It's either legislating for the wealthy elites, in service of vested interests, or in the service of the public good. I often see the term "democratic socialism". Socialism is already democratic, so to add the word "democratic" to socialism is unnecessarily redundant. I'm not suggesting you personally did that, but I see it a lot among Western leftists. "Democratic Socialism".

I do believe there's a place now for markets, but eventually thanks to technology, markets will become superfluous. I don't see however a legitimate reason to continue with the employer/exploiter - employee/exploitee relationship. I believe production is a social endeavor that should be run democratically. The laborers should elect their leadership in the factory or at least vote for those who have the authority to elect managers. At some level, there has to be democratic accountability, between the laborers and the people who lead them. Democracy is both in politics and in the workplace.

Wow - that's a lot to answer - so allow me to simplify it a bit.
Extremist or extremism IMO is a form that takes place once violent enforcement comes into the picture. That can be the deed of a single person e.g. Oklahoma Bomber etc. right down to those Lefty&libs that plan violent actions in regards to e.g. demonstrations or gluing themselves onto roads in order to disrupt a societies movements. It also includes a propagated, instituted disrespect, towards other peoples rights, life and property.

As for a worker owned factory - as long there is no violence or a state imposed requisition attempt upon an existing privately owned enterprise - it doesn't have to do anything with extremism or extremists - but rather with an ideal or fantasy ideal.

 

[surada]

Wow - that's a lot to answer - so allow me to simplify it a bit.
Extremist or extremism IMO is a form that takes place once violent enforcement comes into the picture. That can be the deed of a single person e.g. Oklahoma Bomber etc. right down to those Lefty&libs that plan violent actions in regards to e.g. demonstrations or gluing themselves onto roads in order to disrupt a societies movements. It also includes a propagated, instituted disrespect, towards other peoples rights, life and property.

As for a worker owned factory - as long there is no violence or a state imposed requisition attempt upon an existing privately owned enterprise - it doesn't have to do anything with extremism or extremists - but rather with an ideal or fantasy ideal.

What about ESOPs?

 

[Red Front]

Wow - that's a lot to answer - so allow me to simplify it a bit.
Extremist or extremism IMO is a form that takes place once violent enforcement comes into the picture. That can be the deed of a single person e.g. Oklahoma Bomber etc. right down to those Lefty&libs that plan violent actions in regards to e.g. demonstrations or gluing themselves onto roads in order to disrupt a societies movements. It also includes a propagated, instituted disrespect, towards other peoples rights, life and property.

As for a worker owned factory - as long there is no violence or a state imposed requisition attempt upon an existing privately owned enterprise - it doesn't have to do anything with extremism or extremists - but rather with an ideal or fantasy ideal.

Wow - that's a lot to answer - so allow me to simplify it a bit.
Extremist or extremism IMO is a form that takes place once violent enforcement comes into the picture.

Coercion or "violent enforcement" is always present in every single government, regardless of who's in charge. It's the very nature of government, to enforce its laws through the fear or possible use of violence. Violence in and of itself isn't wrong, irrespective of whoever is applying it. So your blanket dismissal of violence and those who use it as "extremists" or terrorists is short-sighted. I can't accuse you of being cynical, because I still don't know where you really stand on the issues.

That can be the deed of a single person e.g. Oklahoma Bomber etc. right down to those Lefty&libs that plan violent actions in regards to e.g. demonstrations or gluing themselves onto roads in order to disrupt a societies movements. It also includes a propagated, instituted disrespect, towards other peoples rights, life and property.

As for a worker owned factory - as long there is no violence or a state imposed requisition attempt upon an existing privately owned enterprise - it doesn't have to do anything with extremism or extremists - but rather with an ideal or fantasy ideal.

You define working-class demonstrations/protests and civil disobedience as "violent actions", comparing it to the OKC bombing, yet fail to identify capitalist cronyism (i.e. imperialism) and its destructive effects on society and the world in general, as violence. You refuse to condemn the exploitation and abuse of human beings under the heel of tyrannical capitalist masters in the workplace, where people spend most of their waking hours, yet are adamantly opposed and quick to condemn any action (even protests) by the working class, as violent, even terrorism. That's RICH.

The people determine how production is done. If they decide that production should be a publicly owned and democratic enterprise, then that's what it will be. If capitalists and their minions attempt to stop the proletariat or working class from taking collective ownership of the means of production, then there would be demonstrations, protests, strikes, civil disobedience, and perhaps also real violence. Class warfare can indeed be violent. You have no problem with the violence of capitalism against workers or the third world, in its pursuit of profits and control of markets, but complain about people protesting or carrying out demonstrations? Weird. Odd.

 

[Kruska]

According to Marx and Engels, the state "withers away" (using their own words). Marx agreed with Engel's definition of communism.

Socialism is the revolutionary process that leads to a stateless society, without classes or the need for a medium of exchange or "money". The whole capitalist for-profit enterprise collapses as technology advances, automating production, and eliminating the need for human labor (waged jobs are eliminated with advanced technology). When that occurs, a rational central planning apparatus at a national scale has to be in place to meet everyone's needs. Production becomes non-profit, socialized, and democratized.

The alternative to this is techno-feudalism, where a small minority of wealthy elites own all of the technology and facilities of production and ironically, they become the high-tech communists, while the working class is consigned to the compost heap. At best, everyone will become enslaved by the tech-lords, who own all of the advanced machinery and facilities of production. The people have to take control of the means of production.

Once you cite e.g. Marx & Engels you are no more citing socialism - but an already enhanced version towards Communism - e,g, Marx Communist manifesto from 1848.
Socialism does not inherently focus onto a work class that rules everything - that is Communism.

Socialism describes any political or economic theory that says the community, rather than individuals, should own and manage property and natural resources. And the community does not exist primarily only out of factory-workers - especially not nowadays.

Marx & Engels focused their thoughts onto an existing pure Capitalism - run on the backs of exploited workers due to the then industrial revolution. That all these non-laborious people also profited from pure capitalism - known as the Bourgeoisie - made them an additional enemy or target for Communist ideals.

Thomas Moore in the 16th century was one of those that proposed in UTOPIA - that money has been abolished and people live and work communally.

Early socialists like Henri de Saint-Simon, Robert Owen and Charles Fourier offered up their own models for social organization based on cooperation rather than competition. While Saint-Simon argued for a system where the state controls production and distribution for the benefit of all society’s members, both Fourier and Owen (in France and Britain, respectively) proposed systems based on small collective communities, not a centralized state.

Robert Owen, who had owned and operated textile mills in Scotland, headed to the United States in 1825 to launch an experimental community in New Harmony, Indiana. His planned commune was based on the principles of self-sufficiency, cooperation and public ownership of property. The experiment soon failed, and Owen lost much of his fortune. More than 40 small cooperative agricultural communities inspired by Fourier’s theories, were founded across the United States. One of these, based in Red Bank, New Jersey, lasted into the 1930s.

Therefore as to how socialism is supposed to be defined as a final version, was never accomplished. Marx & Engels simply picked up on all these socialistic "ideas" - then determining by themselves that it is the worker class that should own and run everything - including the usage of money - and thus developing Communism.

Actually I am sure that you know all this.

 

[tahuyaman]

Where has full socialism ever been tried?

It was tried in the Soviet Inion. It failed. It’s being tried in China. It’s failing. They have e huge problems.

That’s always the excuse ….. “it’s never been tried in it’s true form.…..”

 

[Vrenn]

Where did I state that Norway is a socialist country??? - insanity obviously runs in YOUR veins.

How many times do I need to repeat?? - There NEVER has been a socialist state - and there is NO socialist state on this planet.
Socialism is a pure idealistic brain-construct that derives from the mid 19th century - and was picked up in parts by Social Democrats from the 1880's onward and Communists in the 20th century.

Norway is presently ruled by a minority coalition between the Norwegian Social-Democrats (Arbeiderpartiet) and the Center Party (Senterpartiet). It's Prime minister is Jonas Gahr Støre a member of the Social Democrats and it's party leader.

You said it, we read it. Once again, a MAGAt gets bagged and you try and blame someone else.

 

[tahuyaman]

Who cares? that wasn't the point - and you certainly can't out-rule KKK sympathizers or members - also being members or sympathizers of the Republican party.

Defining or desperately trying to paint me as being a Liberal - already shows/proofs what a full retard you are.

For your information you silly boy - I consider myself a fascist. Since I believe in a one-party system and a free market economy lead and guided by a government.
Since you don't know what a fascist is, nor what a socialist or social democrat is - you will always feel deeply inferior in such discussions.

Wow. It’s doesn’t get much absurd than that.


Why would anyone r admit to bring a fascist then in the same breath say they support a free market system under one party rule? .

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It was tried in the Soviet Inion. It failed. It’s being tried in China. It’s failing. They have e huge problems.

That’s always the excuse ….. “it’s never been tried in it’s true form.…..”

Nope, neither of those places were the all means of production, distribution, and exchange owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

 

[Kruska]

What about ESOPs?

yes - what about them? - you still would be in need for a profit oriented management (greedy and smart people) and a lean rationalizing organization, in order to guarantee the respective payouts.
So instead of e.g. 1 greedy owner - you will have to satisfy e.g. 250 greedy employees.

 

[Kruska]

Wow. It’s doesn’t get much absurd than that.


Why would anyone r admit to bring a fascist then in the same breath say they support a free market system under one party rule? .

Because you silly boy - still don't understand what fascism is. But you still keep writing idiotic whilst also hilarious posts and opinions.

Why don't you try e.g. google - write; what is Fascism about - then press enter (enter you can find on the keyboard right hand-side usually added by an arrow symbol)

 

[tahuyaman]

Because you silly boy - still don't understand what fascism is. But you still keep writing idiotic whilst also hilarious posts and opinions.

Why don't you try e.g. google - write; what is Fascism about - then press enter (enter you can find on the keyboard right hand-side usually added by an arrow symbol)

You just keep doubling down on the stupidity.