The Socialist Poverty Formula
Add socialism to a poor country,
You get more poverty, plus a great big side of mass murder, all within one generation.
(Examples: Cuba, Venezuela, China, North Korea, Cambodia)
Add socialism to a country of moderate to advanced wealth,
You get a gradual erosion of the country's wealth until, multiple generations hence, the citizens start wondering how they got so poor. It can't be socialism, of course, because they've had socialist policies for generations and never been poor before! Solution: add more socialism.
(Examples: Sweden, United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Italy)
Definitions:
When I refer to "socialism", I am talking about widespread and prolonged forcible transfer of wealth by the state from the "wealthy" (often including the middle class) to the "poor" (after the bureaucrat class take their cut.) The ways in which socialism has been implemented in different countries varies widely, from slow and gradual with nice sounding social programs that increase in size, scope, number, and cost generation after generation, to outright revolutionary communism. The speed and extent to which the socialism is implemented in a given country affects the duration of time between implementation and total poverty in that country.
Mass murder also includes state sanctioned mass starvation, as in China during the Great Leap Forward, or in Eastern European Soviet Bloc nations under Stalin.
When I talk about "gradual erosion of a country's wealth", I am speaking of the wealth of its private economy, not of the state itself.
Please discuss!
Hi, I'm Starr!
I believe all human interactions should be consensual
"When I refer to "socialism", I am talking about widespread and prolonged forcible transfer of wealth by the state from the "wealthy" (often including the middle class) to the "poor" (after the bureaucrat class take their cut.)"
socialism is worker control of the means of production. What you are referring to is social democracy, which split from socialist action a long time ago when the time came for real action. Please do not call it socialism....
If the means of production must be forcibly taken from the current owner(s) in order to be controlled by the “workers”, then that is a forcible transfer of wealth. If it occurs in a widespread fashion, it fits with the definition provided.
the means of production are only controlled by an outside force through the power of the state. Without a state capitalism immediately falls away. The basis of capitalism is offensive violence, to keep the control of the means of production out of the hands of the workers and instead in the hands of the "capitalist".
In the Paris commune, all the owners fled and abandoned their businesses and workplaces; after which the workplaces were collectivized and compensation was common for business owners who lost their business and returned.
People always put socialism in an altar. but in most cases it leads to communism.
My country is Venezuela, we have been under a socialism banner since '99, Now we are the country with the highest inflation in the world and the inflation goes up exponentially. A minimum wage (which most earn) is 2 555 500 BSF, which is arround 3$, and it goes down by every day that passes.
"People always put socialism in an altar. but in most cases it leads to communism."
We want socialism to turn into communism, so the people can be free.
last i checked, Venezuela had private ownership of the means of production, which is what is really screwing you all over
Please refrain from commiesplaining, @anarchyhasnogods.
lmao, delusional much.
So socialism is what you say it is, regardless of the long history of the system?
Capitalism cannot exist without the state, so the best way to achieve socialism is to destroy the state.
First of all kiddo, Socialism isn't when the government does stuff. Just because governments does stuff means not that they are Socialist. You would be calling everyone, including Reagan that did stuff in the government so the government could do less, Socialist.
Second of all kiddo, Socialism isn't Social Democracy. Social Democracy is the Capitalist defense mechanism against Marxists, Anarchists and any other sub-type of radical Socialists. The only reason Europe had the big Social Democracy boom was in response to the USSR's existence, workers on the verge of revolts and the USA providing funds (remember the Marshall Plan and Truman Doctrine?) to these countries to rebuild. If one of the three hadn't existed, than Europe would be on a whole different course but eventually subside to Social Democracy because of how pecked up their economy was from WWII.
Third of all kiddo, you clearly don't understand that people inherently like to do shit. Because humans are antsy little pecknecks in nature and Socialism allows that to happen in a higher stage than what Capitalism can offer right now. Workers in Socialism don't make products on Revenue or on Capital (difference between Unproductive and Productive Labor, respectively, in a Capitalist system is the former doesn't reproduce Capitalism in a M-C-M' fashion and the latter adds on to the economy and can be reinvested back into it). They, the workers in Socialism, make products since it comes to benefit THEIR GREED and their satisfaction, in Capitalism they only benefit the Capitalist at the end of the day.
Fourth of all kiddo, the "private" economy, or really the Capitalist economy, is what is being superseded from existence and replaced with a Socialist economy in Socialism. Anyways, wealth is useless even for Capitalist dictum, since wealth has to many far-flinging connotations like being "gross wealth" or "luxury wealth" or even "having a lot wealth." All three principally disagree with each other on many levels of the proper realm they belong to and the level of empirical evidence. Even then, "wealth" isn't inherently tied to the "private" economy since Capital has to be invested outwards to the State because that Unproductive labor based on Revenue still makes a decent chunk of change for the Capitalists when contracted to get products assembled for the State.
Fifth of all kiddo, mass murder is as inherent in Socialism as it was under Feudalism, Slave Societies and Capitalist nations. Just because one contingent element seems to be repeating in each of that type of society means not that it inherently has it, that's just a simple problem of induction right there. Anywho, you need to pull heavily cited stats that don't contradict with existing stats to prove your point on mass murders. Because if a study has many holes in it, it is not worth my time and equally not yours either.
Sixth and finally of all, if a country deals with Capital continually, produces for profit and Capital and the ruling class is the bourgeoisie (the Capitalists), then I am sorry kiddo but that ain't Socialism and you know that to be true. Otherwise I might as well call Britain during post-Thatcher Socialist because they scaled back some of Thatcher's privatization projects and still kept NHS which by your dictum is ridiculously Socialist even though Capitalists still own the Means of Production, utilize Capital to enforce their position in society and the fact that even stupid Social Democrats like Corbyn are being lauded as demons by the Tories and LibDems.
Kiddo, your post is bad and you should feel bad. And I don't expect you to agree with any of this, but I will attack you for such. Anyways, call me a Liberal, it's out of my control if you have dense definitions for words and you think that because someone doesn't do Conservative actions to all the way where we have radicals that don't want markets to dictate their lives that they're liberal. Just do everyone a solid and read Marx, otherwise if you're going to reverberate Wikipedia arguments don't talk about Socialism and tell us what a Socialist is and isn't just like how people in general who aren't doctors don't tell doctors what they should and shouldn't do.
All states are socialist. Forcible transfer of wealth is state socialism. I haven't seen a modern state that does not use the forcible transfer of wealth in its funding schemes, so I have not seen a modern state that is not socialist. All of these modern socialist states are only different by degrees: the degree to which they are willing to steal from people, and the degree to which they restrict people's freedoms.
If you want to demonstrate non-state, 100% voluntary, large-scale socialism, I would love to see it tried.
If there is a 'socialist' State, then socialism is forced.
If there is a 'capitalist' State, then capitalism is not free market, but rather corporatism or crony-capitalism.
Absent a State (anarchy), socialism could be implemented by those who want socialism. As long as they are free to engage and disengage as they please.
Absent a State (anarchy), capitalism is just a style of economy where willing participants trade with each other.
As long as proponents of socialism (absent a State) don't demand by gun point that I/we, join them in their ideals, then I say have at it.
I agree with all of the above.
(I realize that there are multiple different definitions of the words "socialism" and "capitalism", which is why I tried to provide a clear definition for the purpose of this post. It's funny to me that so many commenting here are not arguing with my assertions, but rather nitpicking my definitions.)
Your follow up post is superb. Understanding the differences of economic systems in a state based (force & coercion) society vs a free market society is one that is often misunderstood by statists, you summed it up well.
I also find it funny and ironic that the main anti-capitalist replying here is using his capital to upvote his posts to the tune of around $1.70. As Seinfeld would say "Not that there's anything wrong with that!" But I thought they weren't greedy capitalists like that and would infer others to spread the wealth, no?
"you live in a society, hah I win the debate"
I didn't realize someone was forcing you to post on Steemit, my bad.
"Good ideas don't require force."
https://espressostalinist.com/u-s-imperialism-page/
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
capitalism cant exist without force lmao
Yeah, I watched your video that you posted on this same thread already. But feel free to post it again as a new comment so new people can watch it, then upvote it at 100% again.
If you read my last post, you probably didn't but whatever, I don't care if you prefer socialism, communism, whatever -ism. As long as you are against the state, we are on the same team.
Last I checked, Target wasn't holding a gun to my head forcing me to shop there. Neither were the people on craigslist I have done business with. Nor the kid who I pay to mow my lawn. No force, just consensual agreements on the work to be done for a specific price. But I digress.
I always tell people we have perfect examples of why Capitalism is better.
North and South Korea, and East and West Germany.
These people were of the same culture and only the form of government was different. Vastly different results with the Capitalist countries being the ones you would have wanted to live in. So much so that people risked their lives and often died to get to the more Capitalist one, never the other way around.
Socialism and its daddy Communism are freaking horrible, plain as day to me.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
why dont you check out anarchist communism, it has many examples throughout history.
also capitalism killed more than authoritarian socialism ever did,
https://www.reddit.com/r/communism/wiki/debunk
and here is a list of articles about how authoritarian socialism actually is run.
Your analysis is spot on. The more control we surrender to the state means the less prosperity we will have.
which is why social anarchy exists lmao
capitalism cannot exist without a form of state
in general that's true.
some fine points...government (any government) is not monolithic.
the bigger the government (any organization really) the more subunits it is composed of.
each of whom (which?) are interested in their OWN perceived best interests.
They'll do anything they can to achieve that.
That means they'll fight OTHER government agencies for a bigger piece of the pie, while oppressing their citizens for a bigger pie.
Of course the pie gets smaller.
Societies progress in spite of government (any form of government) not because of it.
Socialism is a more lethal form of government than crony-capitalism.
Very good content
The problem is our monetary system, the wealth is not shared properly. We're living through tough times... We're just slaves.
the problem is actually capital itself. Profit is unpaid wages.
The reason the most prosperous time in recent history, the American colonial heights, was quickly brought to an end, was because paper money which used land as the value backing the currency was usurped by the king and parliament and a gold/silver standard was enacted which proved to be distributed far to thinly to make any economy, and so the rampant poverty that struck the previously prosperous colonists led to the American Revolution and because there's no evidence in over an extremely long 5000 year history when Gold standard worked because it has always been counterfeit by the ones that issue it, it will never be enough to account for the economy or any portion of it, and it's vastly inconvenient to move a lot of wealth as such and the danger of being separated from the gold makes it better than cash for a thief as far as tracing the gold is concerned. Gold is a store of value, but it couldn't be currency, currency needs stability or it's valuations are worthless, from a logically consistent point with the function of currency or money.
See bibocurrency.com for a great write-up of what money is.
Interesting thought...
I'm curious then, the US dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power since the FED was established in 1913. Is the US dollar a currency in your eyes, seeing as by your definition it is not very stable?
I would consider gold more stable than fiat, simply because gold has gone up in value in the last 100 years, where the dollar (and all fiat for that matter) has clearly gone down. I agree gold isn't easy to transact with, but I'm not making that argument.
Fiat is closer to a currency than gold, yet both fall short when it comes to free unit creation, a standard of any and all standards of measurement. Gold as a store of value doesn't speak at all for gold as a unit of value, either we are talking about actual value or an abstract unit of value, a mile or a rope, a pound or a cut of beef, one's tangible the other forever abstract.
Also 100 years in the history of gold is nothing, if you pull back, every single time gold was used as currency it was eventually if not outright counterfeited and manipulated, it was the inconvenience of carrying gold around that directly led to the creation of fractional reserve banking, while one gold vein or even a gold cache, if they be discovered, could bring the entire value of gold into the dirt, it's no better than any other commodity, except that you can't use gold for much of anything when it comes to industry while most commodities have an intrinsic utilitarian value outside valuation itself.
Last thought about gold's value is that the singular reason for the enormous inflation of the value of gold is the confiscation of gold and the following decades of prohibition, which funneled the gold into the hands of people that are clamouring to drop the insanely inflated gold onto the fools who have no idea this is a bubble three generations in the making. I'd rather tell people to get silver instead of gold and even that would come with a pleasant warning that you cannot eat silver.
who says wealth has to be shared?
MAKE your own wealth.
I work and I'm paid in worthless fiat. If all of us we're paid in gold or silver, the wealth would be more equally shared, no more centralized wealth concentration by central banks and corporations.
do you use a bank?
do you buy products made by corporations?
you do?
well there you have it
I try to avoid those corporations sir. I try my best. And if I eat the 2$ burger at mc donald, I'll come out of there with 2$ worth of napkins. That's the way I do it! And when I go to the bank, I go to the cashier, it's free and it make's the bank pay humans otherwise they would pay for ATM.
By the way, what is a walmart? What is a I phone? things that I don't see often.
Do you buy meat at the grocery store or at the local butcher? I go to the local butcher, to keep those fiats flying around in the neighborhood until they are spent in one theses corporations.
I do my best, my wallet speaks louder than any of my vote will. So before teaching me anything, I practice what I preach, I'm aware of all the shit that surrounds me, but I wish this monopoly game could end and restart.
if I eat the 2$ burger at mc donald, I'll come out of there with 2$ worth of napkins. That's the way I do it!
so you're a thief.
I gotcha.
That's not really fair, @everittdmickey. McDonald's puts the napkins out for people to take. Unless they post a sign or otherwise limit how many napkins customers can take, it is not stealing to take as many as you want.
it's stealing.
By the way, what is a walmart? What is a I phone? things that I don't see often
Never mind..
wup, 20$ a box of 22lr in Canadian $ 5 years ago worth at walmart now 50$, I think I know what I'm doing... My investments doubled, while my paycheck shrunk... Benson & Edges for scottwell, loll no way punk
Buy your greasy big macs to pay for my napkins, I can't afford a fucking big cancer mac, and if I could, I wouldn't.
ideally, socialism is a form that must be created thoroughly. Because the ideals of social justice for all people will bring prosperity together.
only unfortunately in practice the state managers fail to realize the ideas of socialilsme that desires peace equally. then the question arises from which we should start prospering equally?
the answer is that all the parties involved must be willing to make it happen from government apparatus, parliamentarians to all citizens actively trying to make it happen.
the ruler must be able to control the government so as to avoid corruption. the parliament must enact legislation that is capable of protecting the realization of prosperity evenly, not just protecting the interests of the group.
business people have to pay taxes and give more CSR.
"only unfortunately in practice the state managers fail to realize the ideas of socialilsme that desires peace equally. "
forms of it exist without the state lmao
now we know that the state manager has no sense of crisis for people, so they just want to keep their power to be state manager.
to remove this type of manger we need to cut a generation then make a new system with a dedicated human resource.
unfortunately again required the readiness of a new generation of dedicated and integrity that is not necessarily obtained easily