No, lol 😂
Listen, socialism doesn’t work.
Thank you for providing a great example of being confidently incorrect.
Do you have any example of working socialism?
You are making the extraordinary claim, that despite socialism being used throughout the world, it simply doesn’t work. Therefore the onus of proof is on you. So, can you please describe why socialism doesn’t work?
Where. Give me an example of a socialist country
China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos are all examples of socialist countries today. China alone lifted over 800 million people out of poverty in recent decades. Compare that to the capitalist paradise in India.
Does countries of Nordic model count? I heard good things about them.
Not really, Nordic model is capitalist because the capital owning class owns the means of production and holds power in society. Nordic model has generous social services and a social safety net, but that of itself does not make it socialist. A socialist model implies that it is the working class that holds power and that means of production are under a mix of public and cooperative ownership. This is the model that all western countries fight against.
China is a terrible example of a socialist economy, and the others are still mired by poverty. One could claim that is due to capitalist sabotage, but I don’t think it does socialism any favors to use them as success stories.
China is in fact an excellent example of a socialist country. Here’s a detailed explanation for you that’s well sourced and referenced https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT7Th2aV0wM
Every single socialist country is an example of working socialism having lifted millions of people out of poverty, provided them with, food, housing education, and jobs. Meanwhile, we’re still looking for examples of working capitalism where majority of the population is not being exploited for the benefit of the capital owning oligarchy.
“Lifted millions out of poverty”
Some people were effectevelly not much different from slaves up until 1970 as they had no passport, worked for food (oh, sorry, for workdays, which is even worse) and required permission to move from kolhoz. Ah tankies never change.
All what communists did for citizens is: lost the election, overturned it with force and forced millions of people back to medieval society with fancy goals.
NoT MuCh DifFeReNT FrOm SlaVes. Should really read up on what actual serfdom was like before the revolution instead of making a clown of yourself in public.
Wow. Read the rest of the thread because I’m not gonna rewrite stuff.
But as I was saying. I live in post communist country and the influence of socialism was extraordinarily destructive and I can see damage made from it to these days.
I grew up in USSR, and I lived through the collapse of USSR. It was one of the biggest humanitarian disasters in history. People who are cheering that on are the ones who benefit from all the exploitation under capitalism today. People who got theirs and don’t care about anything else. Deplorable.
Only a small percentage of socialists (albeit larger in this instance) hold the USSR up as anything but an example of an early, ham-fisted attempt at socialism with a lot of mistakes. If there have been no places socialism has worked yet (debatable, but I’ll argue from this position), that disproves nothing. The first several hundred tries at the lightbulb were probably failures, too, but capitalists talk about that failure as a side effect of innovation without realizing that social systems might need innovation too. I’m sorry if you suffered under an authoritarian socialist government; there’s nothing inherent about the connection between those two characteristics. But authoritarian governments tend to survive better against the kinds of conspiracies and attacks established capitalist governments launch against socialist ones, so you get to see what’s left. (If you don’t know about this, go to a library, start with…maybe Allende in ‘73…It’s very well-documented.). In sum, it has nothing to do with not caring about people harmed by authoritarianism. It has to do with seeing the evils of the system around us and refusing to accept that this is the best humanity can do. I’m sorry you can’t see that. But I’m not letting my friends’ access to insulin sit in the greedy hands of insurance companies without a fight. I’m not living in a pay-to-play political system where donors’ interests matter more than voters’ my whole life if I have anything to say about it. Regardless of your beliefs.
I think perhaps you meant to reply to the parent comment, I certainly did not suffer in USSR and the dissolution of USSR was a great tragedy in my view.
USSR obviously wasn’t the ideal of socialism. In fact, it would be pretty surprising if the first ever attempt at building a socialist society didn’t have problems. Obviously we can learn from USSR and do better going forward. However, I do think that despite all its problems, USSR did manage to achieve many positive outcomes for the majority of the people. It provided everyone with education, housing, healthcare, jobs, and all the necessities of life. This was done despite USSR having been under duress during its whole existence and it’s something that current capitalist regimes are unable to achieve.
As if workers give a shit about customers.
They do when they work in a cooperative and have a stake in the business being successful.
My question is always: so if me and 10 other people have a great idea for a business, where does the money to start it come from? Most businesses take years to turn a profit, so in this collective, are we all just pouring in our savings until it takes off?
What if we all bust ass for 3 years, never getting paid because we’re building the product, we launch and start getting orders, and find that we’re getting a lot more orders than we expected, so we hire / bunch of people to help fulfill orders. Do those new hires all get an equal share, even though they weren’t there for the 3 years of unpaid R&D? Do they have to contribute money when they get hired for the share of the building that the rest of us already own?
I’m all for workers rights, and workers standing together collectively to get fair wages and working conditions, but when people say “workers should own the means of production”, they can never seem to explain how that would actually work.
Two things stand out about this comment:
You’ve framed the idea of worker ownership in the context of profit maximization. It’s important to keep that in mind when running a business because you gotta know how your opponents are thinking and making decisions, but the point of worker ownership isn’t profit but instead agency.
I find it hard to believe that in always asking this question no one has ever answered with an overview of the different collective ownership forms that have existed throughout recorded human history or even a brief synopsis of how your country’s corporate law structures allow for it.
Simply, the central bank can play the role of a VC where people with great ideas apply for loans or grants.
Workers don’t give a shit about customers because that’s how the incentive system is set up. Give workers the profits, you give them a good reason to give a shit about how clients feel.
As well as ensuring those profits will keep flowing through their retirement, and you get the long term planning incentive.
When you say “workers” do you mean the actual workers or some vanguard party of intellectual champagne socialists who make decisions on the workers’ behalf?
Actual workers. If we made a society where people are taken care of, we’d find most folks would be enthusiastic about their work. Saying “people don’t want to work” is often taken at face value when the reality is that most people do want to work, because it helps them feel a sense of purpose. They don’t, however, want to be exploited/work under capitalism because that is soul crushing.
Oh I agree completely with all of that. I just have been duped before by MLs saying worker ownership and what they really mean is their particular political party controlling everything. If everything is run by workers’ councils with no existence of a vanguard party, that would be paradise for me.
I would also go beyond saying that labor (not “work,” as IMO the word “work” implies labor under capitalism) gives people a sense of purpose in that it gives communities a sense of purpose and connectedness. When we are all sharing in common labor toward the goal of enhancing our community and generally improving lives, we feel a more collectivized responsibility for one another.
Obviously they meant the former since that’s what we’re literally doing here. But even the latter would do a better job managing Twitter/Reddit than what they have now.
Is it obvious though? MLs mean something very different from anarchists when they say “workers” in this context
Do you think OP is a Marxist-Leninist, posting online using a decentralized protocol ironically controlled by workers, to subtly build support for a big government-run website?
THAT IS WHY I AM ASKING
That doesn’t seem a little convoluted, improbable, and nonsensical to you?
THAT IS WHY I AM ASKING
Honestly I don’t even know where to start with this, so I’ll keep it simple. Enshittification of Twitter, Reddit et al. is not necessarily a result of capitalism, and likewise Fediverse doesn’t exist because “workers took the means of production”.
For example the disastrous YouTube monetisation policy comes in part from a desire to keep the site “child friendly” (that’s why swear words and gore are banned), and in part due to a need to follow existing copyright law.
Even if YouTube was run by a worker co-op, or was a state enterprise those two factors would likely still lead to stringent monetisation rules.
Monetisation rules are a direct result of capitalism. Profits are what motivates the decision making. In a post-capitalism economy it would be the needs and wants that motivates the decision making. One of the failures of capitalism is that we assume wants/needs has a correlation with profits, when clearly the enshitification demonstrates otherwise.
In socialism nobody wants to work so good luck with your YouTube. There is a reason for proprietary software being most popular and often more feature rich. What we need is capitalism + more opensource work from us, regular people. Capitalism + opensource is way to go.
You posted this on an open source platform built by volunteers without any hint of irony. 🤡
If you seriously compare socialism with opensource then I’m sorry for you.
I’m huge advocate for opensource software and I can even say it’s my life passion and I really know how important the relation between capitalism and opensource is.
You wouldn’t have react.js without capitalism. You know what is made in react.js? Mastodon
They could have used different library for js. one made totally by volunteers, but they haven’t. Why? Capitalism and opensource provide reliable products because there is a money factor and it fuels development
😂
Constructive reply
When somebody thinks that something like react.js wouldn’t be possible without capitalism, you can only laugh or cry. If you really can’t understand that open source existed long before corps started messing with it, then you’re an utter ignoramus not worth having a discussion with.
Lmao, social media sites would be insanely worse if the employees made all the decisions. They would all be left-wing circle jerks, as if you all haven’t gotten unhinged enough.
What are you doing trolling on this site then?
Lmao, social media sites would be insanely worse if the employees made all the decisions. They would all be left-wing circle jerks, as if you all haven’t gotten unhinged enough.
Amazing how many people will step in to defend the ownership of everything to a small minority. They will not reward bootlicking yet yall continue.
Look, they’re just temporary inconvenienced billionaires.
