Socialism Is Always Doomed to Fail

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Tristan, myself, and others are describing Socialism in terms of method.

It has no methods.

That has to be one of the most amusing comments in this thread. In your case, I agree completely.

Mr. Harvestdancer,

Snip a lot of irrelevancies.

Mr. BH, before we discuss which works better, we have to be able to discuss what it is. Nothing in your posting even came close to that issue, except for a point that appears to maybe possibly define socialism as a safety net, which it isn't. I award you no points, and my god have mercy on your soul.

 

[untermensche]

That has to be one of the most amusing comments in this thread. In your case, I agree completely.

It destroys all your worthless criticisms.

Does capitalism have methods?

 

[dismal]

The main method of socialism seems to be banning things people would voluntarily want to do and calling it "freedom".

 

[untermensche]

Nobody voluntarily turns themself into some mindless tool of a capitalist.

Capitalists are deluded if they think all the people they are paying are there voluntarily.

They are forced by circumstance to sell their labor. Not by choice.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Nobody voluntarily turns themself into some mindless tool of a capitalist.

Capitalists are deluded if they think all the people they are paying are there voluntarily.

They are forced by circumstance to sell their labor. Not by choice.

I agree with you. Get rid of humans needing to eat, have clothing, and have shelter along with our other needs then we can have utopia.

 

[dismal]

Nobody voluntarily turns themself into some mindless tool of a capitalist.

Capitalists are deluded if they think all the people they are paying are there voluntarily.

They are forced by circumstance to sell their labor. Not by choice.

You forgot to call it "freedom".

 

[untermensche]

Nobody voluntarily turns themself into some mindless tool of a capitalist.

Capitalists are deluded if they think all the people they are paying are there voluntarily.

They are forced by circumstance to sell their labor. Not by choice.

I agree with you. Get rid of humans needing to eat, have clothing, and have shelter along with our other needs then we can have utopia.

A man needs to eat.

He does not need a capitalist standing between him and his food.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody voluntarily turns themself into some mindless tool of a capitalist.

Capitalists are deluded if they think all the people they are paying are there voluntarily.

They are forced by circumstance to sell their labor. Not by choice.

You forgot to call it "freedom".

There is only freedom for the masters.

For the many servants there is not.

 

[dismal]

A man needs to eat.

He does not need a capitalist standing between him and his food.

OK, we're all happy with him growing his own food, opening his own business, whatever.

But what if he'd rather take a job?

What if he'd rather start a business and hire some people who wanted a job?

What he wants doesn't matter right? You will use force to prevent him from doing those things right? Maybe send him to an indoctrination camp, right?

You know, socialism.

 

[coloradoatheist]

A man needs to eat.

He does not need a capitalist standing between him and his food.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody voluntarily turns themself into some mindless tool of a capitalist.

Capitalists are deluded if they think all the people they are paying are there voluntarily.

They are forced by circumstance to sell their labor. Not by choice.

You forgot to call it "freedom".

There is only freedom for the masters.

For the many servants there is not.

And there needs to be some organization that gets the food from where it's produced to the people who need it. So people are either slaves to the government, or they are self-chosen slaves to the organization they want to work for. It's about freedom of choice for the individual.

 

[untermensche]

A man needs to eat.

He does not need a capitalist standing between him and his food.

- - - Updated - - -



There is only freedom for the masters.

For the many servants there is not.

OK, we're all happy with him growing his own food, opening his own business, whatever.

But what if he'd rather take a job?

What if he'd rather start a business and hire some people who wanted a job?

What he wants doesn't matter right? You will use force to prevent those things right? Maybe send him to an indoctrination camp, right?

You know, socialism.

Yes I know.

They are free to eat cake.

Capitalism is about forced deprivation.

All is owned. A person has no land to grow anything

They are forced to sell their labor to some capitalist that will exploit them and steal from them.

And the deluded call it freedom.

 

[coloradoatheist]

A man needs to eat.

He does not need a capitalist standing between him and his food.

- - - Updated - - -



There is only freedom for the masters.

For the many servants there is not.

OK, we're all happy with him growing his own food, opening his own business, whatever.

But what if he'd rather take a job?

What if he'd rather start a business and hire some people who wanted a job?

What he wants doesn't matter right? You will use force to prevent those things right? Maybe send him to an indoctrination camp, right?

You know, socialism.

Yes I know.

They are free to eat cake.

Capitalism is about forced deprivation.

All is owned. A person has no land to grow anything

They are forced to sell their labor to some capitalist that will exploit them and steal from them.

And the deluded call it freedom.

And the solution to get to that again is to kill about 90 or more of the population. Pol Pot understood it, return everyone to subsistence farming.

 

[untermensche]

Pol Pot had nothing to do with socialism.

Hunger is natural.

Capitalist exploitation and theft is not.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Pol Pot had nothing to do with socialism.

Hunger is natural.

Capitalist exploitation and theft is not.

He was trying to implement a classless system, especially one where there were no masters or exploitation.

trading is natural and that is part of capitalism.

 

[dismal]

Pol Pot had nothing to do with socialism.

Hunger is natural.

Capitalist exploitation and theft is not.

Secret police and Indoctrination camps are part of socialism every time it is tried.

How else do you stop people from doing what they want to do?

How do you stop them from taking a job? How do you stop them from starting a business? How do you stop their natural desire to better their lives?

Camps. Secret Police. Neighbors ratting out neighbors. No other way has yet been developed.

 

[Tristan Scott]

To be fair, there was discussion of socialism before there was discussion of democracy, so it wasn't 44 pages.

Socialism is about collective ownership of the means of production, not sharing resources and rights in an equitable civilized manner. It really is just about collective ownership of the means of production.

Not in practice. That definition is archaic and doesn't apply to most of the countries today that are considered socialist. Even in Communist China we find that less than 30% of its total industrial and service economic sectors are controlled by state owned enterprise. (of course, China's banking and energy sectors are still state owned which arguably is what is keeping China from being the dominant economy in the world.)

So you think you can define socialism as unfair and backward and "not sharing rights and resources in a civilized equitable manner. In the end, my friend I have to declare you are full of shit. .

I probably am full of shit, but I don't see where I said any of the shit your talking about here.

 

[untermensche]

Pol Pot had nothing to do with socialism.

Hunger is natural.

Capitalist exploitation and theft is not.

He was trying to implement a classless system, especially one where there were no masters or exploitation.

trading is natural and that is part of capitalism.

He was doing whatever the hell he wanted.

He was able to do what he did because of all the bombing the US did.

To call it socialism is just worthless insanity.

 

[untermensche]

Pol Pot had nothing to do with socialism.

Hunger is natural.

Capitalist exploitation and theft is not.

Secret police and Indoctrination camps are part of socialism every time it is tried.

The history of the world since WWII is the US has attacked any nation that did not submit to the capitalist system.

The US attacked the Greeks, the Vietnamese, the Chileans, the Nicaraguans, the Venezuelans, and many more.

The US killed millions in Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia. Mostly civilians.

The US attacked the Iraqis and carried out a decade long military occupation that gave us ISIS.

And you have the balls to talk about violence?

 

[ZiprHead]

Nobody voluntarily turns themself into some mindless tool of a capitalist.

Capitalists are deluded if they think all the people they are paying are there voluntarily.

They are forced by circumstance to sell their labor. Not by choice.

You forgot to call it "freedom".

La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain.

 

[dismal]

Pol Pot had nothing to do with socialism.

Hunger is natural.

Capitalist exploitation and theft is not.

Secret police and Indoctrination camps are part of socialism every time it is tried.

The history of the world since WWII is the US has attacked any nation that did not submit to the capitalist system.

The US attacked the Greeks, the Vietnamese, the Chileans, the Nicaraguans, the Venezuelans, and many more.

The US killed millions in Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia. Mostly civilians.

The US attacked the Iraqis and carried out a decade long military occupation that gave us ISIS.

And you have the balls to talk about violence?

I note again your serial failure to answer the question directly. Exactly what do you do with someone who wants to work for someone else or hire someone else? In my personal experience I have always chosen to take a job instead of work for myself. It has worked out ok for me. Not starving yet. Fortunately I haven't lived in a socialist country so haven't been sent to camps either.

 

[Trausti]

Pol Pot had nothing to do with socialism.

This is true, actually. The Khmer Rouge fought for Social Justice.