When exactly does the Democrats' socialism kick in?

[struth]

You were given great examples. Examples you should already know about.
You chose to balk at them instead of engaging.

Example from a state that failed? That didn’t even stick around for the existence of the iPhone??

 

[TruthNotBS]

What's ridiculous is your bs that employees are slaves. The notion is a joke, a sick joke that any real slave would laugh at, if they didn't punch you first.

But it's vital to to Marxist sales pitch that people think of it that way, that they view themselves as hapless victims who can only be saved by state intervention.



Government corruption is a problem to be sure. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The more we give the state power over labor and resources, the worse the problem will get.

The Marxist agenda is a class struggle, but not like they pretend. It's an attempt by the political class to transfer economic power from private wealth to the state, to themselves.

The socialist unicorn is the delusion that once they get their way, once the state controls labor and resources, wealth, greed and the lust for power will magically go away. That ambitious capitalists will reluctantly become subsistence farmers or something. But of course the lust for power won't go away. The people who are now chasing wealth via the free market will seek it through government "service" instead. And, when the economic power of wealth and the coercive power of the state are combined, they'll have much more power at their disposal.

What's ridiculous is your bs that employees are slaves.

Yes indeed, the employer-employee relationship under capitalism is a form of slavery, where one socioeconomic class exploits another for a profit, reducing human beings to a mere commodity in a "labor market". The capitalist-owned workplace is a totalitarian regime, and the employees who produce everything own nothing of what they produce and are forced to compete with each other for higher wages and benefits from their capitalist master/employer. It's a highly exploitative, dehumanizing, and destructive system of production that is completely unnecessary, especially today with all of the advanced production technology we have available.

The capitalist age is now coming to an end, thanks to advanced automation and artificial intelligence.

The notion is a joke, a sick joke that any real slave would laugh at, if they didn't punch you first.

In the 1800s, former slaves actually agreed, it was a common theme and understanding that employees are wage-slaves, selling their bodies, and their very lives to a capitalist employer for several hours daily. Under capitalism there's a labor class that rents its life to a capitalist ruling class on a daily basis, risking life and limb in hazardous environments, to enrich another socioeconomic class that owns everything, including the lives of those they rent. The capitalist class is a parasitical, leisure-seeking class, that relies on the labor of others to survive and enrich itself.

These capitalist parasites also take control of the government through their wealth, undermining democracy by passing laws that serve their vested interests at the great expense of the public good.

But it's vital to to Marxist sales pitch that people think of it that way, that they view themselves as hapless victims who can only be saved by state intervention.

The capitalist parasites are the ones constantly being "saved" and subsidized by the state.

Rank	Parent	Subsidy Value	Number of Awards
1	Boeing	$15,496,865,703	958
2	Intel	$8,421,707,656	135
3	Ford Motor	$7,742,056,086	703
4	General Motors	$7,524,714,800	792
5	Micron Technology	$6,790,131,915	21
6	Amazon.com	$5,823,705,434	460
7	Alcoa	$5,727,691,764	134
8	Cheniere Energy	$5,617,152,523	43
9	Foxconn Technology Group (Hon Hai Precision Industry Company)	$4,820,110,112	74
10	Venture Global LNG	$4,338,702,441	8
11	Texas Instruments	$4,286,328,869	69
12	Volkswagen	$3,977,630,513	217
13	Sempra Energy	$3,828,022,782	51
14	NRG Energy	$3,415,751,518	266
15	NextEra Energy	$3,008,691,129	116
16	Sasol	$2,836,049,845	72
17	Tesla Inc.	$2,829,855,494	114
18	Stellantis	$2,795,436,436	213
19	Walt Disney	$2,543,219,673	265
20	Nucor	$2,538,761,123	176
21	Iberdrola	$2,380,558,984	110
22	Rivian Automotive Inc.	$2,364,054,012	7
23	Hyundai Motor	$2,349,743,470	18
24	Oracle	$2,272,418,288	96
25	Shell PLC	$2,211,676,001	132
26	Mubadala Investment Company	$2,124,035,097	62
27	Nike	$2,104,917,829	153
28	Meta Platforms Inc.	$2,098,261,272	82
29	Toyota	$2,071,010,689	239
30	Alphabet Inc.	$2,054,325,527	125
31	Brookfield Corporation	$1,979,408,388	288
32	Paramount Global	$1,974,249,897	342
33	Comcast	$1,927,402,844	405
34	Exxon Mobil	$1,917,119,478	241
35	Samsung Electronics	$1,891,136,597	41
36	Apple Inc.	$1,845,004,670	63
37	Nissan	$1,842,814,165	98
38	Berkshire Hathaway	$1,830,986,253	1,200
39	Summit Power	$1,783,593,414	6
40	JPMorgan Chase	$1,740,972,699	1,151
41	Energy Transfer	$1,736,836,843	175
42	Cleveland-Cliffs	$1,705,497,604	129
43	Southern Company	$1,694,958,172	45
44	General Electric	$1,645,135,367	958
45	Vornado Realty Trust	$1,623,857,336	33
46	Duke Energy	$1,580,421,869	86
47	Wolfspeed Inc.	$1,563,595,610	64
48	General Atomics	$1,510,875,891	112
49	IBM Corp.	$1,497,901,697	368
50	Lockheed Martin	$1,462,674,082	325
51	OGE Energy	$1,427,570,182	15
52	SCS Energy	$1,419,011,796	5
53	Corning Inc.	$1,391,603,359	401
54	Panasonic	$1,384,147,584	61
55	Microsoft	$1,366,243,159	113
56	Sagamore Development	$1,320,000,000	2
57	Northrop Grumman	$1,284,014,883	285
58	Vingroup	$1,254,000,000	1
59	Continental AG	$1,244,875,478	111
60	RTX Corporation	$1,193,950,954	797
61	CF Industries	$1,134,394,215	131
62	Valero Energy	$1,053,812,692	207
63	Dow Inc.	$1,049,354,213	640
64	AES Corp.	$1,039,510,135	136
65	Air Products & Chemicals	$1,025,557,482	88
66	Exelon	$986,892,877	98
67	Pyramid Companies	$973,565,278	93
68	SK Holdings	$960,550,283	8
69	SkyWest	$944,296,654	339
70	Centene	$916,607,054	60
71	Mazda Toyota Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc.	$900,000,000	1
72	Apollo Global Management	$897,750,089	594
73	Delta Air Lines	$871,485,833	13
74	Jefferies Financial Group	$871,137,335	16
75	SK Hynix	$866,700,000	2
76	Bayer	$852,475,226	217
77	Honda	$849,832,301	93
78	Shin-Etsu Chemical	$828,683,936	106
79	Enterprise Products Partners	$826,988,371	89
80	SunEdison	$817,425,725	115
81	Goldman Sachs	$800,873,386	253
82	Bank of America	$798,426,128	956
83	E.ON	$786,865,473	40
84	Warner Bros. Discovery Inc.	$786,835,708	219
85	EDF-Electricite de France	$774,590,441	36
86	Triple Five Worldwide	$748,000,000	4
87	EDP-Energias de Portugal	$733,674,868	14
88	Related Companies	$714,675,504	8
89	Koch Industries	$683,066,388	510
90	Caithness Energy	$672,688,888	30
91	Dell Technologies	$658,417,951	185
92	Wells Fargo	$657,333,216	542
93	FedEx	$647,035,546	633
94	Entergy	$638,533,387	235
95	OCI N.V.	$627,879,406	5
96	Eli Lilly	$623,326,368	79
97	Chevron Phillips Chemical	$619,839,444	20
98	Bedrock Detroit	$618,000,000	1
99	Dominion Energy	$615,436,089	79

Download results as CSV or XML or Save your search

Socialism is always a "good investment and practice" when the wealthiest people in our society, the capitalist ruling class, are the direct recipients of public funds, but when the government serves the public (94% of the population is of the working class), it's being supposedly fiscally irresponsible and resorting to tyrannical nanny state control over everyone. How convenient.

​

Government corruption is a problem to be sure. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The more we give the state power over labor and resources, the worse the problem will get.

Bullshit, the more we give the capitalist class power over public resources and the people's commonwealth, the worse our problems will get. Privatizing all of our nation's infrastructure and what should be the American people's commonwealth, is the real problem. You're just a shill for the ruling leisure class because either you're one of them or you're one of their brainwashed, working-class consumer drones, trying to commodify everything, in the interest of your masters.

At least the government holds elections, allowing us to elect our managers, whereas capitalist-employers never hold elections. The American working-class should collectively own all of the companies they currently work for and run them democratically and they should use the power of their government to serve their interests, just as the capitalist class currently does. The sooner the big-money capitalist parasite class is placed under the heel of the working class the better.

The Marxist agenda is a class struggle, but not like they pretend. It's an attempt by the political class to transfer economic power from private wealth to the state, to themselves.

More capitalist claptrap bullshit. First of all, I'm a socialist, but I'm not a Marxist, so you're barking up the wrong tree. I agree with Marx on many of his observations and critiques of capitalism, but that doesn't by default make me a Marxist. I just recognize that it's better for our democratic government to manage mass production in collaboration with the working class (worker-owned and democratically-run cooperatives) until there's no longer a need for such collaboration.

The capitalist parasite class is an unnecessary middleman, that serves no constructive purpose, other than to exploit human labor and expropriate and control public resources.

When does the state's services and infrastructure become unnecessary? When the individual consumer, through advanced technology has the capacity to produce everything they consume without anyone else's assistance. Until such conditions are present, the working class will own the means of production collectively and democratically, through their government. It's that simple.

The socialist unicorn is the delusion that once they get their way, once the state controls labor and resources, wealth, greed and the lust for power will magically go away.

Much of the lust for wealth, greed, and power is conditioned and inculcated by the culture and a person's education. Our society's values heavily influence how greedy and lustful we are for personal, self-serving, destructive power. Under capitalism, such human-based desires and flaws are magnified 10 fold. Moreover, in democratic socialism, there are many controls in place to keep the people in full democratic command of their government, that are much more effective and robust than anything we now have here in the United States. We are currently living in a plutocratic oligarchy, that pretends to be democratic, when in fact it's the furthest thing from that.

 

[dblack]

Yes indeed, the employer-employee relationship under capitalism is a form of slavery ...

I'm simply not going to let you get away with making such an asinine statement. Even if you want to pretend that employment is "like" slavery, socialism is far worse. In a free market if you have have a falling out with your employer, you're free to look for other ways to make a living. There are other employers and you're free to start your own business if you want. Under socialism, there's only one game in town. And if you don't do as you're told, the consequences are far more extreme - compare losing your salary for a month or two to being sent to a gulag.

In the 1800s, former slaves actually agreed, it was a common theme and understanding that employees are wage-slaves, selling their bodies, and their very lives to a capitalist employer for several hours daily.

Sure, sure. That's why they were begging to have slavery re-instated.

At least the government holds elections, allowing us to elect our managers, whereas capitalist-employers never hold elections.

And that brings us back to your irrational faith in democracy to solve all problems and right all wrongs. The irony is that democracy, especially in a diverse country like the US, really only works when the powers of government are strictly limited.

Democratic government depends on the consent of the governed. Most importantly, it depends on the consent on the minority in any given vote. For democracy to succeed, it's necessary that we all have enough faith in the system that we're willing to live under leadership that we didn't vote for. As long as government power is reliably limited, that's not so hard to do. The "other side" can only so much damage.

But as government power grows, it becomes harder and harder to concede power to the "other side". That's the situation we find ourselves in now. As we keep piling on with more and more laws, as government takes over more and more aspects of society, we see less and less consent of the governed. And the nation becomes, is becoming, ungovernable.

This will be amplified ten fold if the state takes over labor and the distribution of wealth and resources.

[-- senseless propaganda memes omitted --]

Much of the lust for wealth, greed, and power is conditioned and inculcated by the culture and a person's education. Our society's values heavily influence how greedy and lustful we are for personal, self-serving, destructive power. Under capitalism, such human-based desires and flaws are magnified 10 fold.

Unicorn indeed. Ambition is a human trait, it doesn't depend on government. It will be there under socialism just as much as it is under capitalism. Greedy people will merely navigate the ranks of government, rather than the market.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I'm simply not going to let you get away with making such an asinine statement. Even if you want to pretend that employment is "like" slavery, socialism is far worse. In a free market if you have have a falling out with your employer, you're free to look for other ways to make a living. There are other employers and you're free to start your own business if you want. Under socialism, there's only one game in town. And if you don't do as you're told, the consequences are far more extreme - compare losing your salary for a month or two to being sent to a gulag.


Sure, sure. That's why they were begging to have slavery re-instated.


And that brings us back to your irrational faith in democracy to solve all problems and right all wrongs. The irony is that democracy, especially in a diverse country like the US, really only works when the powers of government are strictly limited.

Democratic government depends on the consent of the governed. Most importantly, it depends on the consent on the minority in any given vote. For democracy to succeed, it's necessary that we all have enough faith in the system that we're willing to live under leadership that we didn't vote for. As long as government power is reliably limited, that's not so hard to do. The "other side" can only so much damage.

But as government power grows, it becomes harder and harder to concede power to the "other side". That's the situation we find ourselves in now. As we keep piling on with more and more laws, as government takes over more and more aspects of society, we see less and less consent of the governed. And the nation becomes, is becoming, ungovernable.

This will be amplified ten fold if the state takes over labor and the distribution of wealth and resources.


Unicorn indeed. Ambition is a human trait, it doesn't depend on government. It will be there under socialism just as much as it is under capitalism. Greedy people will merely navigate the ranks of government, rather than the market.

I'm simply not going to let you get away with making such an asinine statement. Even if you want to pretend that employment is "like" slavery, socialism is far worse.

Democratic socialism is much better than capitalist plutocratic oligarchy and imperialism.

In a free market

So-called "free markets" only exist in your imaginary, fantasy world, along with unicorns and fairies. Markets require government authorities to regulate them, protect contractual and property rights, provide infrastructure, and most importantly, a means of exchange, i.e. money (legal tender).

Worker and consumer rights are also protected by the government, along with providing social services that the public needs to mitigate the gross inequalities endemic to capitalism. This increases stability in society, reducing social unrest, which when ignored, undermines commerce and its markets.

if you have have a falling out with your employer, you're free to look for other ways to make a living.

You may not have the means to pay your bills after that "falling out" or find another employer (master) to hire you for three or six months or even longer. You lose all of your benefits, including your healthcare. etc. and may even be forced to move to another location. All of that costs money that most working-class people don't have. This is why all workers should at least be unionized and the government should protect their rights. This increases job security, avoiding the "falling out".

In a better world, which we should all aspire to create, those who work the productive enterprise (i.e. the business), should own and operate it together, collectively, running it democratically, without unelected, unaccountable leadership, authoritarianism, or human exploitation. The US government can through the SBA provide loans to workers who desire to start worker cooperatives.

​

The ideal would be to implement a non-profit, markerless rationally planned, more democratic system of production, but cooperatives are a step closer to that from where we are now, hence i support them. It further empowers workers, by having them own the business collectively and run it democratically.

There are other employers and you're free to start your own business if you want. ​

There are other parasite capitalist dictators you're correct but that's beside the point. The objective should be not to need or be under the heel of capitalist exploiters and to increase one's control and power in the workplace. The aforementioned cooperatives are one way for anyone to achieve that without exploitation or becoming a capitalist parasite tyrant.

Aspiring to become a capitalist parasite living off of the people's labor, isn't the solution. Self-employment, where it's just you or you and your family running the business, that's not necessarily a problem, that's generally OK. When you become dependent upon other people's labor, to enrich and empower yourself at their expense, that's when your source of income becomes exploitative and you become a scumbag leech and little tyrant.

Under socialism, there's only one game in town. ​

Under capitalism, there's definitely just one game in town in the form of the capitalist ruling class you're forced to rent yourself to for a wage unless you're lucky enough to have the capital to become a parasite leech and little tyrant yourself. Is that really something to aspire for? To become a parasite, living off of other people's labor?

And if you don't do as you're told, the consequences are far more extreme - compare losing your salary for a month or two to being sent to a gulag.
​

That's just cheap capitalist claptrap propaganda. The "gulag" exists right now here in the US, under capitalism, and people are being sent there regularly for what are essentially non-crimes. The private prison system has lobbyists in the halls of government bribing politicians to make more things illegal, to increase your chances of being charged and convicted of a "crime" and incarcerated in an American gulag full of murderous gangs. Dblack disingenuously mentions "gulags" creating the false impression that all socialism equates to Stalin's Soviet Russia as if there's no alternative. That's like me claiming that the only form of capitalism that exists is the one found in Saudi Arabia with its many beheadings and draconian laws.

Dblack has a nonchalant, flippant view of what it means for a working-class person to lose their only source of income (their job), as if it's something trivial. Over half of the country is living paycheck to paycheck, hand to mouth. Some current estimates are as high as 70% of the American working class, is struggling to survive, due to the high cost of living.

Losing your salary can entail becoming homeless and living in an emergency shelter surrounded by crackheads and violence, HIV, TB..etc. Have you ever slept in a homeless shelter before? I work with the homeless sometimes, through my church, and believe me homelessness is death. Horrible.

I met a young man not that long ago, who got into a fistfight with someone out in the street, over a camping spot, and he got infected with hepatitis as a result of getting the other guy's blood on his face and eyes. He still doesn't know if he was infected with HIV, because he has to wait and take another HIV test in a few months. That's what happens when you lose your job and you end up homeless. Unlike you, everyone doesn't have a daddy or mommy to take care of them, they have to survive on what they earn from their job. Under capitalism, losing your job because you had a "fall out" with your employer/master can result in a life-or-death situation.

Sure, sure. That's why they were begging to have slavery re-instated.

Just because capitalism is better than chattel slavery or feudalism, doesn't imply that it is good or that we should continue with it, despite its destructive outcomes. Just like under chattel slavery, there were good slave masters who treated their slaves well, even making their slaves almost part of their families. There were cases of black slave women, nursing their master's white babies. Aunt Jemima, taking care of the white kids, all of that happened under slavery. Not all slave masters were evil bastards, some of them cared for, even loved their slaves. Does that imply that the institution of slavery is good? No.

Human beings shouldn't own other human beings, under chattel slavery, feudalism, or capitalism. The capitalist employer-employee relationship is an exploitative, often dehumanizing, authoritarian relationship that needs to be reformed or even better eradicated and replaced with democratic socialism.

And that brings us back to your irrational faith in democracy to solve all problems and right all wrongs.

You're for unelected, practically unaccountable authorities over you, in government and in the place where people spend most of their waking hours, the workplace because you're supposedly rational and I'm supposedly "irrational" for wanting elected, accountable authorities. Sure.

Democratic government depends on the consent of the governed. Most importantly, it depends on the consent on the minority in any given vote.

No, it doesn't. You were telling me that if I don't like my employer-tyrant's rules, I should go to hell and find myself another employer-dictator to work for and now you're demanding that the position or person who wins the majority vote isn't legitimately in force or in power until those who lost the election accept their defeat? You're confused. You go to hell, and accept the fact that most people in society don't agree with you. Perhaps you should do a better job presenting your case and convince others to adopt your politics. The majority rules within the parameters of the law.

The law stipulates that you have basic rights that can't be violated, even if the majority decides otherwise. In society only that which is within the law, can be voted on, not that which clearly violates the law. So for example, if there's an election on whether society should hang dblack from a tree for being pro-capitalism, or farting in public, that referendum or election would never reach the voting process. Society can't legally execute you for farting in elevators. Only that which is legal can be voted on. Get it? Your human rights are always protected, regardless of whether you hold the majority position or not. That's democratic socialism.

For democracy to succeed, it's necessary that we all have enough faith in the system that we're willing to live under leadership that we didn't vote for. As long as government power is reliably limited, that's not so hard to do. The "other side" can only so much damage.

Government is limited by law and by the citizenry being armed, ready, willing, and able to defend their rights.

 

[dblack]

So-called "free markets" only exist in your imaginary, fantasy world, along with unicorns and fairies.

This kind of sophistry gets tiresome, which is why I usually ignore it. But let's put it to bed. Yes, there no perfectly free market. There's no perfect liberty. Just like there's no totally just society, no perfectly moral person - so what? The question is what our goals should be. Should we pursue these ideals, or not? Is freedom better than unfree?

I often wonder what the point of this kind of conceit is. Is it just the standard propaganda approach of gaslighting society - trying to throw everything into doubt so your bullshit seems more acceptable?

-- colorful multimedia BS omitted --

The objective should be not to need or be under the heel of capitalist exploiters and to increase one's control and power in the workplace.

You're not "under their heel". And since the rest of your bullshit depends on that lie, your argument is out of gas before it begins. You can tell a private employer to piss off whenever you want. If, on the other hand, your employer is the state - if the state is the only legal employer - you're very much "under their heel."

Under capitalism, there's definitely just one game in town in the form of the capitalist ruling class you're forced to rent yourself to for a wage unless you're lucky enough to have the capital to become a parasite leech and little tyrant yourself. Is that really something to aspire for? To become a parasite, living off of other people's labor?

Weak argument exposing the sniveling envy that drives your cause. I'm not an employer myself (but thanks for the compliment). I'm just not falling for your BS. Sorry.

.... Dblack disingenuously mentions ...

You don't have to be afraid to address me directly. I won't bite. But I won't swallow BS either, so I guess there's that risk.

Human beings shouldn't own other human beings, under chattel slavery, feudalism, or capitalism.

Agreed. Slavery is, and should be, illegal. But it seems you're OK with the state (err... the "majority") owning other humans, owning all of us.

You're for unelected, practically unaccountable authorities over you, in government and in the place where people spend most of their waking hours, the workplace because you're supposedly rational and I'm supposedly "irrational" for wanting elected, accountable authorities. Sure.

There you go again. My employer is no authority over me. Period. They offer me me money in exchange for my labor. It's up to me whether I comply or not. The government is an entirely different entity. It does have authority over me.. Again, conflating the two is central to your argument but it just isn't so.

No, it doesn't. You were telling me that if I don't like my employer-tyrant's rules, I should go to hell and find myself another employer-dictator to work for ...

Yes, because the relationship is entirely voluntary.

...and now you're demanding that the position or person who wins the majority vote isn't legitimately in force or in power until those who lost the election accept their defeat?

I'm making a pragmatic point about democracy. Majority rule only works if the minority is willing to play along.

The law stipulates that you have basic rights that can't be violated, even if the majority decides otherwise.

No, the Constitution stipulates that. And protects them by not empowering government to violate them. But only if the Court has the balls to tell the socialists to get lost.

In society only that which is within the law, can be voted on, not that which clearly violates the law. So for example, if there's an election on whether society should hang dblack from a tree for being pro-capitalism, or farting in public, that referendum or election would never reach the voting process. Society can't legally execute you for farting in elevators. Only that which is legal can be voted on. Get it? Your human rights are always protected, regardless of whether you hold the majority position or not. That's democratic socialism.

You must have been on your third drink here, because I can't make much sense out of what you're saying. What "law" prevents government from passing a law banning farting in elevators? What are you even getting at?

 

[Flopper]

Yes, and what's your point? Let's see if you're able to reason.

Since the USSR broke up the number of members in the communist fell from over 10 million to only 50,000 today. In numbers, it ranks 5th in Russia. Communist is dead in Russia but it has been replaced by Putinism which almost as bad.

 

[Flopper]

Obviously.

Only 50,000 Communist members? Well, Communism was (is?) a good idea but men (like Stalin in particular) corrupted Communism to a point that partially reflected the Western World's nightmarish propaganda against it. Stalin passed but Stalinism lingered on. Men like Dubček were willing and able to reform his own country's form of Soviet Stalinism but he was crushed by well-entrenched Soviet corruption. When Gorbatjov came along and offered his own plan for reform it was too late and the American CIA had him ousted in order to put the inebriated rag-doll puppet Jeltsin in the seat of power. Anyway you look at it, no one can blame the Soviets for wanting out of the whole Communist model, imagining another Stalin to stroll in at the drop of a hat. It is a miracle that Putin has come to the fore and possibly the only chance Russia has to save itself from American-style Fascism. The Russians have run the gauntlet for sure between Stalinism and the present corruption of the CIA. It is going to require a whole lot of work plus a leader who can follow Putin's footsteps once he's gone. More power to them. I hope them well.

Communism in theory was a good idea but it is impractical as an economic system today because it outlaws private ownership as a means of production. Private ownership is the heart of capitalism and is the key to economic growth. The accumulation of wealth is a huge incentive to produce more and better goods and services. That is not to say unbridled capitalism is good. It has be controlled to protect workers and the environment and to protect the free market itself.

Communism failed badly after Stalin. Three year plans, 5 years plans all designed to increase production failed time after time. The same thing happen in China until they discovered that allowing corporation ownership and management increase production of just about everything and made China the largest producer of goods in the world.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Since the USSR broke up the number of members in the communist fell from over 10 million to only 50,000 today. In numbers, it ranks 5th in Russia. Communist is dead in Russia but it has been replaced by Putinism which almost as bad.

As of the most recent elections, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF) garnered approximately 19% of the vote. This result solidified their position as the second-largest party in the State Duma, Russia's lower house of parliament. Despite this, they only secured 12.7% of the seats, largely due to how the single-mandate seats were distributed, with United Russia dominating most of those seats.

This reflects a significant presence but also highlights the challenges they face in a political system heavily dominated by United Russia and its allies (Wikipedia) (RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty).

Fuck you with your bullshit. Putin saved Russia in 2000 by turning the Russian economy into a mixed one. Some capitalism with a bit of socialism. That's what works best until technology forces by necessity, a marketless economy or system of production.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Communism in theory was a good idea but it is impractical as an economic system today because it outlaws private ownership as a means of production. Private ownership is the heart of capitalism and is the key to economic growth. The accumulation of wealth is a huge incentive to produce more and better goods and services. That is not to say unbridled capitalism is good. It has be controlled to protect workers and the environment and to protect the free market itself.

Communism failed badly after Stalin. Three year plans, 5 years plans all designed to increase production failed time after time. The same thing happen in China until they discovered that allowing corporation ownership and management increase production of just about everything and made China the largest producer of goods in the world.

Communism in theory was a good idea

Communism is a great idea and will replace both capitalism and socialism in the future. Socialism is an early stage of communism, or communism "light", when it still allows markets and maintains certain economic and political institutions and instruments that become superfluous in high-communism. Communism is the future successor of capitalism.

but it is impractical as an economic system

Actually, it's capitalism that becomes completely impractical and obsolete once technology permits socialism and communism. Advanced automation and artificial intelligence, render capitalism non-functional and socialism (and later communism) the solution.

today because it outlaws private ownership as a means of production.

In socialism, "private ownership" is the ownership of assets used to generate capital (money), often at the expense and exploitation of human labor. Any property used by one socioeconomic class to exploit another is categorized as "private property". If your business enterprise is simply yourself and maybe your family, then although technically one might still identify the assets of your company as "private property", it's not that in the same sense as a business hiring workers (from the general public or in other words, strangers) and exploiting them for a profit. Paying people less than what they produce and establishing dictatorial control over people's time and labor (their lives).

The other form of property ownership is "personal property", which is for personal use. Your house, plot of land to grow your food, car, computer, fishing boat, gun collection, toothbrush..etc. That's personal property, and isn't "outlawed". Whoever tells you that socialism outlaws all property, including personal, is lying to you.

There are different degrees of socialism, one allowing for the private ownership of the means of production, provided it's within the consumer-goods and services sector of the economy and not in the industries vital to the nation's infrastructure like mining, energy, banking-finance, and a few others.

For the most part, a business within the consumer goods and services market can continue, pretty much as before, with maybe a few more rules that protect labor (allowing workers to unionize). In many ways you have a better chance of being successful business-wise with a socialist government than you do under a capitalist plutocratic oligarchy, which is what we have today in the US. A socialist government might help you stay in business, because you're generating needed jobs. A socialist government will ensure you make a profit, become wealthy, provided your attitude towards business is one of service to the community and nation.

The bottom line of business in socialism isn't private profits but rather the public good. As a capitalist under the authority of socialism, you are serving your community and country. As a capitalist, your socialist government will actually consider you an asset to the community and hence will protect your business, provided you follow the rules and see yourself as a patriot serving your country and people.

As technology advances, allowing production to become more automated, a socialist economy, transitions to the public ownership of the means of mass production. This is socialism, out of necessity, due to material conditions, moving away from a capitalist market economy to a completely socialized economy until it enters into the next phase of mass production which is high-communism. High-communism is when all production becomes personally owned and operated.

In high-communism, you and your family can produce everything you consume without anyone else's assistance. You won't even need the government's infrastructure or resources to produce everything you consume. That's high communism or high-tech communism.

Private ownership is the heart of capitalism and is the key to economic growth.

The heart of capitalism is human labor, not private ownership. Without human labor or without enough of it, there's no capitalism or private ownership. Markets crumble without human labor because labor is also the paying consumer and without people purchasing products and services, there's no market capitalism or private business ownership. Your views on economics are fundamentally flawed.

The accumulation of wealth is a huge incentive to produce more and better goods and services.

The pursuit of profits within capitalism, can also incentivize monopolies which undermine the production of better goods and services. Capitalists remain tied to old investments and hence technologies that are obsolete in order to maintain market share and continue profiting from those previous investments.

One of the reasons that we don't have more modern, public transportation infrastructure in the United States, like interstate highspeed rail and more trains in general, along with city busses, and trollies, is because the fossil fuel industry wants everyone using gas-guzzling vehicles. Human progress can be stifled as a result of the capitalist pursuit of profits.

For tens of thousands of years, humanity produced everything they needed without markets when human production was tribal and communist (primitive communism - no state, no socioeconomic classes, and no need for money):

T

In the future, humanity due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence, will become communist again.

​

"A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state (or nation state).[7][8][9]

Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end. This reflects a distinction between a more libertarian socialist approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers' self-management, and a more authoritarian vanguardist or communist party-driven approach through the development of a socialist state, followed by the withering away of the state.[10] As one of the main ideologies on the political spectrum, communist parties and movements have been described as radical left or far-left.[11][12][note 1]"

Source: Communism - Wikipedia

That is not to say unbridled capitalism is good. It has be controlled to protect workers and the environment and to protect the free market itself.

The free market is a unicorn, it has never existed nor will it ever exist. Markets are always regulated and heavily dependent upon government infrastructure and resources, especially at a national scale, in the modern age.

Capitalism becomes obsolete and non-functional when advanced technology automates production, replacing a significant % of wage labor. A modern society with a market-based economy is forced to adopt socialism by necessity when advanced automation and artificial intelligence begins to significantly replace wage labor. To assert otherwise is to be in denial, like an ostrich with its head in the sand.

Communism failed badly after Stalin. . Three year plans, 5 years plans all designed to increase production failed time after time. The same thing happen in China until they discovered that allowing corporation ownership and management increase production of just about everything and made China the largest producer of goods in the world.

The above statements amount to Flopper's skewed, self-serving, pro-capitalist, Cold War claptrap propaganda version of history. He either forgets to mention certain important facts about the circumstances and context in which the USSR was forced to function and grow, and also lies about what actually occurred.

Also ask yourself why these defenders of capitalism, are always appealing to events that supposedly occurred 100 years ago, 50 years ago, as if that sets the standard forever for what must happen in the future. These disingenuous capitalist polemicists pretend that there's only one form of socialism and that socialists aren't allowed to learn from their mistakes in the past and improve socialism in the future. Socialism and communism must exist in only one form, and must always emulate, perfectly, its past without any modification or adjustments. It must remain static forever because clearly, this version of reality serves capitalists, keeping them in power.

The only reason that I respond to people like "flopper" is for the sake of others, who are genuinely interested in the truth. Those who are sincerely concerned for truth, whatever that might be. I write for them, not for "floppers".

Russia was an under-industrialized, agrarian society, with at least half of its population consisting of illiterate peasants, before its socialist revolution in 1917. Tsarist Russia often suffered famines and wars, taking the lives of millions of Russians. Leninist and Stalinist socialism transformed Russia into an industrial juggernaut, rivaling the United States in less than 20 years. What took the US 100 years of industrial development with capitalism, took much less with socialism.

Socialism, according to all of the stats, recognized by even Western economists, significantly improved the standard of living of the vast majority of Russians. This despite the fact that the US, UK, France and ten other countries invaded Russia in 1918, immediately after WW1, to sabotage the socialist Russian revolution. Over 250K foreign troops, along with about 300K pro-capitalist, Tsarist Russian troops of the "White Armies", fought a brutal civil war against the socialist Red Army. There were also internal conflicts between the socialists as well, due to different groups wanting to carry out their version of socialism in Russia vs the others.

The socialists beat the white armies and foreign invaders by the mid-1920s and when Stalin took power a few years later, that's when the five-year plans began. Those economic plans which flopper dishonestly claims were a disaster, quickly industrialized the Soviet Union, turning it into an economic wonder and powerhouse.

Mind you, this was in the middle of the Great Depression in the United States and the Western world in general.
Thousands of well-educated Westerners, scientists, and engineers, traveled to the Soviet Union, to visit and also live and work. If you were an American professional and wanted a better life for you and your family, in the middle of the Graet Depression, you moved to Soviet Russia.

Then what happened in 1941? The Soviet Union was invaded by 4 million Germans. Operation Barbarossa resulted in the death of 28 million Soviets. They lost 14% of their population and yet they won the war. The Soviets beat the German invaders, just as they defeated the previous invading armies in the 1920s. The Soviets after WW2 rebuilt their new country without the Marshal Plan, offered by the United States to Western Europe and Japan. The conditions for the Soviets to accept financial assistance from the US, was that it had to essentially adopt capitalism. The Soviets said "no thanks" and they rebuilt their country on their own.

By the late 1950s, the Soviets were a nuclear superpower, launching rockets into space. By 1970, they had the second-largest economy in the world. The Soviets were war-weary, exhausted by conflict. Soviet government officials wanted to stop the Cold War and were looking at ways to in a way placate, pander to, satisfy the demands of their powerful Cold War rival, the United States. Perestroika and Glasnost in the 1980s, was that attempt, and it led to the dissolution of the USSR. If the USSR had continued implementing Stalin's five-year plans, the USSR today would be the world's #1 economy and superpower, without a doubt.


As far as China, it also was practically an unindustrialized, agrarian country, that like Tsarist Russia, had also suffered many famines before socialism, resulting in the deaths of millions of people. Socialist China tried to emulate Russian socialism, and in the beginning that led to serious difficulties. Russia and China are two different countries, with different natural resources and one can't expect that Stalin's five-year plans would work in China, without first being modified to meet the unique circumstances found in China. Nonetheless, by the late 1960s, China had overcome all of the famines and was gradually industrializing itself.

China today doesn't have a marketless socialist economy, but it's nonetheless socialist. There's heavy government involvement in the Chinese economy, as well as economic government planning. Capitalism is what happened to Russia in the 1990s, before Putin arrived and added some socialism to the Russian economy. Russia after the dissolution of the USSR, suffered what economists call "Capitalist Shock Therapy", it was forced to privatize everything and essentially sell all of Russia's public assets, once government-owned infrastructure to a bunch of wealthy capitalist oligarchs, who rapped Russia for pennies on the dollar.

China didn't do what Russia did in the 1990s, pre-Putin:

​

China implemented a form of market capitalism in its economy within the safe boundaries of socialism. As mentioned earlier, there's heavy government involvement in the Chinese market economy. It's not by any stretch of the imagination, Milton Friedman-style "free-market" capitalism. Friedman actually had really strong criticism of Chinese "capitalism", he hated it, due to how much government involvement there was.

Soon, due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence, markets will become obsolete and hence unsustainable. Marketless, more democratic, socialism will in time fully replace capitalism, out of necessity.

 

[dblack]

Communism is a great idea and will replace both capitalism and socialism in the future. Socialism is an early stage of communism, or communism "light", when it still allows markets and maintains certain economic and political institutions and instruments that become superfluous in high-communism. Communism is the future successor of capitalism.



Actually, it's capitalism that becomes completely impractical and obsolete once technology permits socialism and communism. Advanced automation and artificial intelligence, render capitalism non-functional and socialism (and later communism) the solution.




In socialism, "private ownership" is the ownership of assets used to generate capital (money), often at the expense and exploitation of human labor. Any property used by one socioeconomic class to exploit another is categorized as "private property". If your business enterprise is simply yourself and maybe your family, then although technically one might still identify the assets of your company as "private property", it's not that in the same sense as a business hiring workers (from the general public or in other words, strangers) and exploiting them for a profit. Paying people less than what they produce and establishing dictatorial control over people's time and labor (their lives).

The other form of property ownership is "personal property", which is for personal use. Your house, plot of land to grow your food, car, computer, fishing boat, gun collection, toothbrush..etc. That's personal property, and isn't "outlawed". Whoever tells you that socialism outlaws all property, including personal, is lying to you.

There are different degrees of socialism, one allowing for the private ownership of the means of production, provided it's within the consumer-goods and services sector of the economy and not in the industries vital to the nation's infrastructure like mining, energy, banking-finance, and a few others.

For the most part, a business within the consumer goods and services market can continue, pretty much as before, with maybe a few more rules that protect labor (allowing workers to unionize). In many ways you have a better chance of being successful business-wise with a socialist government than you do under a capitalist plutocratic oligarchy, which is what we have today in the US. A socialist government might help you stay in business, because you're generating needed jobs. A socialist government will ensure you make a profit, become wealthy, provided your attitude towards business is one of service to the community and nation.

The bottom line of business in socialism isn't private profits but rather the public good. As a capitalist under the authority of socialism, you are serving your community and country. As a capitalist, your socialist government will actually consider you an asset to the community and hence will protect your business, provided you follow the rules and see yourself as a patriot serving your country and people.

As technology advances, allowing production to become more automated, a socialist economy, transitions to the public ownership of the means of mass production. This is socialism, out of necessity, due to material conditions, moving away from a capitalist market economy to a completely socialized economy until it enters into the next phase of mass production which is high-communism. High-communism is when all production becomes personally owned and operated.

In high-communism, you and your family can produce everything you consume without anyone else's assistance. You won't even need the government's infrastructure or resources to produce everything you consume. That's high communism or high-tech communism.



The heart of capitalism is human labor, not private ownership. Without human labor or without enough of it, there's no capitalism or private ownership. Markets crumble without human labor because labor is also the paying consumer and without people purchasing products and services, there's no market capitalism or private business ownership. Your views on economics are fundamentally flawed.




The pursuit of profits within capitalism, can also incentivize monopolies which undermine the production of better goods and services. Capitalists remain tied to old investments and hence technologies that are obsolete in order to maintain market share and continue profiting from those previous investments.

One of the reasons that we don't have more modern, public transportation infrastructure in the United States, like interstate highspeed rail and more trains in general, along with city busses, and trollies, is because the fossil fuel industry wants everyone using gas-guzzling vehicles. Human progress can be stifled as a result of the capitalist pursuit of profits.

For tens of thousands of years, humanity produced everything they needed without markets when human production was tribal and communist (primitive communism - no state, no socioeconomic classes, and no need for money):

View attachment 998745

TView attachment 998746

View attachment 998748​

In the future, humanity due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence, will become communist again.

View attachment 998749

View attachment 998750

View attachment 998752​

"A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state (or nation state).[7][8][9]

Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end. This reflects a distinction between a more libertarian socialist approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers' self-management, and a more authoritarian vanguardist or communist party-driven approach through the development of a socialist state, followed by the withering away of the state.[10] As one of the main ideologies on the political spectrum, communist parties and movements have been described as radical left or far-left.[11][12][note 1]"

Source: Communism - Wikipedia



The free market is a unicorn, it has never existed nor will it ever exist. Markets are always regulated and heavily dependent upon government infrastructure and resources, especially at a national scale, in the modern age.

Capitalism becomes obsolete and non-functional when advanced technology automates production, replacing a significant % of wage labor. A modern society with a market-based economy is forced to adopt socialism by necessity when advanced automation and artificial intelligence begins to significantly replace wage labor. To assert otherwise is to be in denial, like an ostrich with its head in the sand.



The above statements amount to Flopper's skewed, self-serving, pro-capitalist, Cold War claptrap propaganda version of history. He either forgets to mention certain important facts about the circumstances and context in which the USSR was forced to function and grow, and also lies about what actually occurred.

Also ask yourself why these defenders of capitalism, are always appealing to events that supposedly occurred 100 years ago, 50 years ago, as if that sets the standard forever for what must happen in the future. These disingenuous capitalist polemicists pretend that there's only one form of socialism and that socialists aren't allowed to learn from their mistakes in the past and improve socialism in the future. Socialism and communism must exist in only one form, and must always emulate, perfectly, its past without any modification or adjustments. It must remain static forever because clearly, this version of reality serves capitalists, keeping them in power.

The only reason that I respond to people like "flopper" is for the sake of others, who are genuinely interested in the truth. Those who are sincerely concerned for truth, whatever that might be. I write for them, not for "floppers".

Russia was an under-industrialized, agrarian society, with at least half of its population consisting of illiterate peasants, before its socialist revolution in 1917. Tsarist Russia often suffered famines and wars, taking the lives of millions of Russians. Leninist and Stalinist socialism transformed Russia into an industrial juggernaut, rivaling the United States in less than 20 years. What took the US 100 years of industrial development with capitalism, took much less with socialism.

Socialism, according to all of the stats, recognized by even Western economists, significantly improved the standard of living of the vast majority of Russians. This despite the fact that the US, UK, France and ten other countries invaded Russia in 1918, immediately after WW1, to sabotage the socialist Russian revolution. Over 250K foreign troops, along with about 300K pro-capitalist, Tsarist Russian troops of the "White Armies", fought a brutal civil war against the socialist Red Army. There were also internal conflicts between the socialists as well, due to different groups wanting to carry out their version of socialism in Russia vs the others.

The socialists beat the white armies and foreign invaders by the mid-1920s and when Stalin took power a few years later, that's when the five-year plans began. Those economic plans which flopper dishonestly claims were a disaster, quickly industrialized the Soviet Union, turning it into an economic wonder and powerhouse.

Mind you, this was in the middle of the Great Depression in the United States and the Western world in general.
Thousands of well-educated Westerners, scientists, and engineers, traveled to the Soviet Union, to visit and also live and work. If you were an American professional and wanted a better life for you and your family, in the middle of the Graet Depression, you moved to Soviet Russia.

Then what happened in 1941? The Soviet Union was invaded by 4 million Germans. Operation Barbarossa resulted in the death of 28 million Soviets. They lost 14% of their population and yet they won the war. The Soviets beat the German invaders, just as they defeated the previous invading armies in the 1920s. The Soviets after WW2 rebuilt their new country without the Marshal Plan, offered by the United States to Western Europe and Japan. The conditions for the Soviets to accept financial assistance from the US, was that it had to essentially adopt capitalism. The Soviets said "no thanks" and they rebuilt their country on their own.

By the late 1950s, the Soviets were a nuclear superpower, launching rockets into space. By 1970, they had the second-largest economy in the world. The Soviets were war-weary, exhausted by conflict. Soviet government officials wanted to stop the Cold War and were looking at ways to in a way placate, pander to, satisfy the demands of their powerful Cold War rival, the United States. Perestroika and Glasnost in the 1980s, was that attempt, and it led to the dissolution of the USSR. If the USSR had continued implementing Stalin's five-year plans, the USSR today would be the world's #1 economy and superpower, without a doubt.


As far as China, it also was practically an unindustrialized, agrarian country, that like Tsarist Russia, had also suffered many famines before socialism, resulting in the deaths of millions of people. Socialist China tried to emulate Russian socialism, and in the beginning that led to serious difficulties. Russia and China are two different countries, with different natural resources and one can't expect that Stalin's five-year plans would work in China, without first being modified to meet the unique circumstances found in China. Nonetheless, by the late 1960s, China had overcome all of the famines and was gradually industrializing itself.

China today doesn't have a marketless socialist economy, but it's nonetheless socialist. There's heavy government involvement in the Chinese economy, as well as economic government planning. Capitalism is what happened to Russia in the 1990s, before Putin arrived and added some socialism to the Russian economy. Russia after the dissolution of the USSR, suffered what economists call "Capitalist Shock Therapy", it was forced to privatize everything and essentially sell all of Russia's public assets, once government-owned infrastructure to a bunch of wealthy capitalist oligarchs, who rapped Russia for pennies on the dollar.

China didn't do what Russia did in the 1990s, pre-Putin:

​

China implemented a form of market capitalism in its economy within the safe boundaries of socialism. As mentioned earlier, there's heavy government involvement in the Chinese market economy. It's not by any stretch of the imagination, Milton Friedman-style "free-market" capitalism. Friedman actually had really strong criticism of Chinese "capitalism", he hated it, due to how much government involvement there was.

Soon, due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence, markets will become obsolete and hence unsustainable. Marketless, more democratic, socialism will in time fully replace capitalism, out of necessity.

This shit stream is like the old Soviet propaganda during the cold war. You'd think they'd try something different.

 

[TruthNotBS]

This shit stream is like the old Soviet propaganda during the cold war. You'd think they'd try something different.

Dblack, the capitalist wannabe, a working-class man brainwashed by his wealthy capitalist masters, says:

"Please capitalist master, don't replace me with a robot or artificial intelligence, I'm willing to work for ten cents an hour....."

And Dblack's master says, "Don't worry Dblack, I got you covered. I'm having my cronies in the government, pay everybody a UBI, and then after a few years of UBI, you will receive a UI. Get it? Get it? Here is some chewing tobacco and a cup. Remember to spit in the cup, don't swallow the chew because you'll get sick".

"Thanks, for your kindness my lord. I can use a UBI and a UI, and of course, some of that chew too. I once had some dip, and I didn't have a cup, and I swallowed it and puked on my dog. My dog stunk for ten days, and I had to give him a bath every day, just sayen. I know what you mean about spitting in the cup. I always have my little cup here with me when I chew some dip."

"I like you Dblack, but I can't hire you anymore, because I have robots and artificial intelligence doing all of the work you used to do. I don't need human employees anymore, I have my robots."

"Well, I guess I'm going to have to be a worthless consumer-serf, living off of a UBI. At least I have my chew-dip, and my dog Roscoe with me."

 

[GLASNOST]

This shit stream is like the old Soviet propaganda during the cold war. You'd think they'd try something different.

You are like a kid with a book on algebra but you haven't yet leaned how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide yet.

 

[dblack]

Dblack, the capitalist wannabe, a working-class man brainwashed by his wealthy capitalist masters, says:

"Please capitalist master, don't replace me with a robot or artificial intelligence, I'm willing to work for ten cents an hour....."

And Dblack's master says, "Don't worry Dblack, I got you covered. I'm having my cronies in the government, pay everybody a UBI, and then after a few years of UBI, you will receive a UI. Get it? Get it? Here is some chewing tobacco and a cup. Remember to spit in the cup, don't swallow the chew because you'll get sick".

"Thanks, for your kindness my lord. I can use a UBI and a UI, and of course, some of that chew too. I once had some dip, and I didn't have a cup, and I swallowed it and puked on my dog. My dog stunk for ten days, and I had to give him a bath every day, just sayen. I know what you mean about spitting in the cup. I always have my little cup here with me when I chew some dip."

"I like you Dblack, but I can't hire you anymore, because I have robots and artificial intelligence doing all of the work you used to do. I don't need human employees anymore, I have my robots."

"Well, I guess I'm going to have to be a worthless consumer-serf, living off of a UBI. At least I have my chew-dip, and my dog Roscoe with me."

You have an active fantasy life.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

They all believe the same lie Lenin told ,che ,mao

That everything is gonna be beautiful and it's gonna work and everyone is gonna live well and equal
They all promised the same shit ....it never changes

Them useful idiots never see it

KNow what also never changes ....the mountain of dead bodies that comes along with the failure that is socialism....however the morons wanna define it ......

 

[GLASNOST]

... what also never changes ....the mountain of dead bodies that comes along with the failure that is socialism... .

And how does the mountain of dead bodies that comes along with the failure of Capitalism compute with your logic?

 

[dblack]

They all believe the same lie Lenin told ,che ,mao

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

And how does the mountain of dead bodies that comes along with the failure of Capitalism compute with your logic?

Mountain of dead bodies the last 60 years has been brought to you by the MIC division of cronyism

 

[TemplarKormac]

To Conservatives

Anything you do to help Corporations is Patriotism
Anything you do to help the People is Socialism

When you try to put corporations on the same level as common society, limiting their gains and increasing the taxes they pay on dividends and other income, you are ensuring communism and socialism.

 

[rightwinger]

When you try to put corporations on the same level as common society, limiting their gains and increasing the taxes they pay on dividends and other income, you are ensuring communism and socialism.

Corporations pay lower tax rates than common society
Making Corporations contribute to society is not Communism

 

[SeaMajor7]

Communism is a great idea and will replace both capitalism and socialism in the future. Socialism is an early stage of communism, or communism "light", when it still allows markets and maintains certain economic and political institutions and instruments that become superfluous in high-communism. Communism is the future successor of capitalism.



Actually, it's capitalism that becomes completely impractical and obsolete once technology permits socialism and communism. Advanced automation and artificial intelligence, render capitalism non-functional and socialism (and later communism) the solution.




In socialism, "private ownership" is the ownership of assets used to generate capital (money), often at the expense and exploitation of human labor. Any property used by one socioeconomic class to exploit another is categorized as "private property". If your business enterprise is simply yourself and maybe your family, then although technically one might still identify the assets of your company as "private property", it's not that in the same sense as a business hiring workers (from the general public or in other words, strangers) and exploiting them for a profit. Paying people less than what they produce and establishing dictatorial control over people's time and labor (their lives).

The other form of property ownership is "personal property", which is for personal use. Your house, plot of land to grow your food, car, computer, fishing boat, gun collection, toothbrush..etc. That's personal property, and isn't "outlawed". Whoever tells you that socialism outlaws all property, including personal, is lying to you.

There are different degrees of socialism, one allowing for the private ownership of the means of production, provided it's within the consumer-goods and services sector of the economy and not in the industries vital to the nation's infrastructure like mining, energy, banking-finance, and a few others.

For the most part, a business within the consumer goods and services market can continue, pretty much as before, with maybe a few more rules that protect labor (allowing workers to unionize). In many ways you have a better chance of being successful business-wise with a socialist government than you do under a capitalist plutocratic oligarchy, which is what we have today in the US. A socialist government might help you stay in business, because you're generating needed jobs. A socialist government will ensure you make a profit, become wealthy, provided your attitude towards business is one of service to the community and nation.

The bottom line of business in socialism isn't private profits but rather the public good. As a capitalist under the authority of socialism, you are serving your community and country. As a capitalist, your socialist government will actually consider you an asset to the community and hence will protect your business, provided you follow the rules and see yourself as a patriot serving your country and people.

As technology advances, allowing production to become more automated, a socialist economy, transitions to the public ownership of the means of mass production. This is socialism, out of necessity, due to material conditions, moving away from a capitalist market economy to a completely socialized economy until it enters into the next phase of mass production which is high-communism. High-communism is when all production becomes personally owned and operated.

In high-communism, you and your family can produce everything you consume without anyone else's assistance. You won't even need the government's infrastructure or resources to produce everything you consume. That's high communism or high-tech communism.



The heart of capitalism is human labor, not private ownership. Without human labor or without enough of it, there's no capitalism or private ownership. Markets crumble without human labor because labor is also the paying consumer and without people purchasing products and services, there's no market capitalism or private business ownership. Your views on economics are fundamentally flawed.




The pursuit of profits within capitalism, can also incentivize monopolies which undermine the production of better goods and services. Capitalists remain tied to old investments and hence technologies that are obsolete in order to maintain market share and continue profiting from those previous investments.

One of the reasons that we don't have more modern, public transportation infrastructure in the United States, like interstate highspeed rail and more trains in general, along with city busses, and trollies, is because the fossil fuel industry wants everyone using gas-guzzling vehicles. Human progress can be stifled as a result of the capitalist pursuit of profits.

For tens of thousands of years, humanity produced everything they needed without markets when human production was tribal and communist (primitive communism - no state, no socioeconomic classes, and no need for money):

View attachment 998745

TView attachment 998746

View attachment 998748​

In the future, humanity due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence, will become communist again.

View attachment 998749

View attachment 998750

View attachment 998752​

"A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state (or nation state).[7][8][9]

Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end. This reflects a distinction between a more libertarian socialist approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers' self-management, and a more authoritarian vanguardist or communist party-driven approach through the development of a socialist state, followed by the withering away of the state.[10] As one of the main ideologies on the political spectrum, communist parties and movements have been described as radical left or far-left.[11][12][note 1]"

Source: Communism - Wikipedia



The free market is a unicorn, it has never existed nor will it ever exist. Markets are always regulated and heavily dependent upon government infrastructure and resources, especially at a national scale, in the modern age.

Capitalism becomes obsolete and non-functional when advanced technology automates production, replacing a significant % of wage labor. A modern society with a market-based economy is forced to adopt socialism by necessity when advanced automation and artificial intelligence begins to significantly replace wage labor. To assert otherwise is to be in denial, like an ostrich with its head in the sand.



The above statements amount to Flopper's skewed, self-serving, pro-capitalist, Cold War claptrap propaganda version of history. He either forgets to mention certain important facts about the circumstances and context in which the USSR was forced to function and grow, and also lies about what actually occurred.

Also ask yourself why these defenders of capitalism, are always appealing to events that supposedly occurred 100 years ago, 50 years ago, as if that sets the standard forever for what must happen in the future. These disingenuous capitalist polemicists pretend that there's only one form of socialism and that socialists aren't allowed to learn from their mistakes in the past and improve socialism in the future. Socialism and communism must exist in only one form, and must always emulate, perfectly, its past without any modification or adjustments. It must remain static forever because clearly, this version of reality serves capitalists, keeping them in power.

The only reason that I respond to people like "flopper" is for the sake of others, who are genuinely interested in the truth. Those who are sincerely concerned for truth, whatever that might be. I write for them, not for "floppers".

Russia was an under-industrialized, agrarian society, with at least half of its population consisting of illiterate peasants, before its socialist revolution in 1917. Tsarist Russia often suffered famines and wars, taking the lives of millions of Russians. Leninist and Stalinist socialism transformed Russia into an industrial juggernaut, rivaling the United States in less than 20 years. What took the US 100 years of industrial development with capitalism, took much less with socialism.

Socialism, according to all of the stats, recognized by even Western economists, significantly improved the standard of living of the vast majority of Russians. This despite the fact that the US, UK, France and ten other countries invaded Russia in 1918, immediately after WW1, to sabotage the socialist Russian revolution. Over 250K foreign troops, along with about 300K pro-capitalist, Tsarist Russian troops of the "White Armies", fought a brutal civil war against the socialist Red Army. There were also internal conflicts between the socialists as well, due to different groups wanting to carry out their version of socialism in Russia vs the others.

The socialists beat the white armies and foreign invaders by the mid-1920s and when Stalin took power a few years later, that's when the five-year plans began. Those economic plans which flopper dishonestly claims were a disaster, quickly industrialized the Soviet Union, turning it into an economic wonder and powerhouse.

Mind you, this was in the middle of the Great Depression in the United States and the Western world in general.
Thousands of well-educated Westerners, scientists, and engineers, traveled to the Soviet Union, to visit and also live and work. If you were an American professional and wanted a better life for you and your family, in the middle of the Graet Depression, you moved to Soviet Russia.

Then what happened in 1941? The Soviet Union was invaded by 4 million Germans. Operation Barbarossa resulted in the death of 28 million Soviets. They lost 14% of their population and yet they won the war. The Soviets beat the German invaders, just as they defeated the previous invading armies in the 1920s. The Soviets after WW2 rebuilt their new country without the Marshal Plan, offered by the United States to Western Europe and Japan. The conditions for the Soviets to accept financial assistance from the US, was that it had to essentially adopt capitalism. The Soviets said "no thanks" and they rebuilt their country on their own.

By the late 1950s, the Soviets were a nuclear superpower, launching rockets into space. By 1970, they had the second-largest economy in the world. The Soviets were war-weary, exhausted by conflict. Soviet government officials wanted to stop the Cold War and were looking at ways to in a way placate, pander to, satisfy the demands of their powerful Cold War rival, the United States. Perestroika and Glasnost in the 1980s, was that attempt, and it led to the dissolution of the USSR. If the USSR had continued implementing Stalin's five-year plans, the USSR today would be the world's #1 economy and superpower, without a doubt.


As far as China, it also was practically an unindustrialized, agrarian country, that like Tsarist Russia, had also suffered many famines before socialism, resulting in the deaths of millions of people. Socialist China tried to emulate Russian socialism, and in the beginning that led to serious difficulties. Russia and China are two different countries, with different natural resources and one can't expect that Stalin's five-year plans would work in China, without first being modified to meet the unique circumstances found in China. Nonetheless, by the late 1960s, China had overcome all of the famines and was gradually industrializing itself.

China today doesn't have a marketless socialist economy, but it's nonetheless socialist. There's heavy government involvement in the Chinese economy, as well as economic government planning. Capitalism is what happened to Russia in the 1990s, before Putin arrived and added some socialism to the Russian economy. Russia after the dissolution of the USSR, suffered what economists call "Capitalist Shock Therapy", it was forced to privatize everything and essentially sell all of Russia's public assets, once government-owned infrastructure to a bunch of wealthy capitalist oligarchs, who rapped Russia for pennies on the dollar.

China didn't do what Russia did in the 1990s, pre-Putin:

​

China implemented a form of market capitalism in its economy within the safe boundaries of socialism. As mentioned earlier, there's heavy government involvement in the Chinese market economy. It's not by any stretch of the imagination, Milton Friedman-style "free-market" capitalism. Friedman actually had really strong criticism of Chinese "capitalism", he hated it, due to how much government involvement there was.

Soon, due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence, markets will become obsolete and hence unsustainable. Marketless, more democratic, socialism will in time fully replace capitalism, out of necessity.

Who did this to you?