Synopsis

6y

People starve in capitalist economies

Synopsis

6y

People starve in capitalist economies

Scratchin Mamba

6y

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

Gojira

6y

say it with me

democratic socialism >>>>

Enpax

6y

Cuba’s economy is in a higher place than it was 30 years ago, I mean yeah it could have grown higher if not for what happened, but then again it has grown more rapidly in the last 10 years than it had for the majority of the Cold War. Maybe somewhat opening up the economy had something to do with that

Scratchin Mamba

6y

Still less than a quarter of the economy is privately owned. And yes opening up the economy can at times be benificial if it's done on that country's terms and if trade is otherwise not possible, which is the case when pretty much all socialist countries collapsed.

Enpax

6y

A quarter is a lot, especially compared to like 0 beforehand. It’s not a coincidence that almost every socialist nation has taken steps to incorporate market reforms while still keeping the state as the largest single actor in the economy

KOLLAPS

6y

@spongebob I fell asleep after some GTA will get back to you within the next few hours

spongebob

6y

HE SCARED 2 talk ECONOMICS? Nah its cool

KOLLAPS

6y

you was being dead silent sonn

spongebob

6y

Okay so you said

Socialism directly requires authoritarianism

Which I disagreed with, on the basis that I don't equate socialism only to the authoritarian governments that have used some of its ideas or to the violence of revolutions that were pro-soc./communism,

but rather socialism at its core which, to my interpretation, involves a sense of collective ownership and accountability as opposed to not being able to regulate multi-billionaires while wealth inequality is increasing.

I find it useful to consider social policies when we look at where unchecked capitalism falls short, it often lends itself to wealth hoarding and greed, and championing capitalism to any high degree raises a (red, ironically) flag to me because it prioritizes squeezing the most profit out of low wages and so on,

I'm from the U.S. so I have a specific view of the fruits good and bad of capitalism in this country but I'm sure other ppl ITT see it differently from where they live and etc

I just don't see socialism as government but rather a set of ideas and values that may inform said government

I don't wanna put words in your mouth but I also don't think implementing socialist and more compassionate to the working class policy, and safety nets, requires "authoritarianism" as it were, but rather changes in legislation.

Thats where it gets trickier when it comes to bureaucracy but thats just a bit of my point of view, prob sounds stupid as hell but im exhausted

TL:DR: socialism to me is a set of ideas and philosophy that informs government and doesn't necessarily have to be authoritarian because the authoritarian part stems from a different aspect of the governments needs to control people in other ways

spongebob

6y

ayo you was dead silent after that GTA bro u scared of communism oooooh red scare

KOLLAPS

6y

See I actually agree with 99% of what you’re saying cuz it’s not really opinion mostly just facts. I do disagree on the opinion aspect where you say that a socialist state can be peacefully reached through simple legislation change. While I understand that this is entirely possible, at the core of my statement what I really meant to say is that a socialist state being implemented right now in a country like America would be met with a disparaging anger and I cannot see it not turning violent. America, today, is the home of capitalism and free market trade. I do not see the implementation of full blown socialism in a Western country ending peacefully. So yes technically you’re 100% correct in socialism being a broad philosophy more than an inherent authoritarian movement. But I think we’d be lying to ourselves if we were to pretend that the revolutionaries who turned these Eastern nations communist (or tried to) weren’t true Marxists that truly wanted a communist state.

So I hope you understand where I was coming from saying authoritarianism is “necessary” to implement socialism.

Scratchin Mamba

6y

USSR and PRC only countries to ever have famines according to these guys lmao

spongebob

6y

Just off first glance

I think the “state” as a whole shifting to socialism as the dominant pol/econ philosophy is a huge change and definitely wouldn’t happen under just some legislation

Most of the time it takes some insane events/ the failing of a state or something for things to change so drastically, as opposed to gradual change

I definitely agree too that there would be considerably violent conflict if there was an effort to completely overthrow the current govt, and that the insurgency would have to resort to military and likely authoritarian means to do so,

The discrepancy was just our definition which I just end up applying it to where I think it could be beneficial

In my head I often separate economics and forms of government when defining what they are but they do heavily interconnect so maybe I’m faulty in that approach

KOLLAPS

6y

Ok I get where you coming from. Yea I think there was just some miscommunication on the usage of the word socialism and what its applied to.

Curious, what are your personal thoughts on socialism/communism all that jazz?

Shammy

6y

I hate cultlike thinking so I don't rly f*** with self proclaimed communists

But I f***s with socialist policies mixed with free market capitalism and a dab of technocracy

sace

6y

love this