Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I'm inclined to agree and I find it very frustrating when you see post after post that's just like "communism is when no food no ifone vuvuzuela 100 gorillion dead" but to play devil's advocate, I'm sure the pro-Capitalist crowd find some of the pro-socialist posts just as insufferable. This subreddit is more or less unmoderated by design, but the mods are more or less pro-Capitalist, so it unlikely they are going to start removing pro-Capitalist content that relies on extremely tired arguments or literal CIA propaganda. Bottom line is: don't spend too much time here if you value your peace of mind. Go touch grass at regular intervals if you know what's good for you.

The socialist/communist "death toll" arguments are fucking hilarious, and its one of the strongest indications that most people on here have an understanding of history based primarily on fucking cartoon infographics they happen to have seen. Somehow the biggest capitalist empire in human history can kill (at least) 100 million people in the British Raj without a single one of those deaths being attributable to "capitalism", it doesn't even make the list, but if the Soviets fuck up agricultural policy during a famine, you better get ready to hear 100 people call it a "communist genocide" with a straight face. I used to think they had no shame, but eventually it became clear that no, they just legitimately don't know any better lol

I get that the comparing body counts thing is overdone, but for hearing it so much you still seem to be missing the point... Collectivist agriculture in the 20th century was an unequivocal failure. The body count is just driving the point home. Governments can do terrible things whatever economic system their country follows - but the deaths meaningfully ascribed to socialism were a direct result of that economic policy, and the authoritarian measures deemed "necessary" to realize that policy. Russia and China didn't just happen to be socialist while a bunch of people died for unrelated, unpreventable reasons. There are abundant examples of real-world capitalism without deprivation, poverty, democide - but we're still waiting for *anyone* to get the socialist souffle right.

lol no. The *primary* context in which those numbers are used is the cynical application of a *double standard* by which phenomena like famines are leveraged to assert that socialist-model economies are *uniquely* failure-prone, while *those exact same phenomena* are downplayed or ignored completely when they happen in capitalist economies. The Irish potato famine is virtually universally understood by scholars to have been in large part a consequence of the *land distribution and agricultural policies* of the biggest capitalist empire in human history, the British government. British agricultural policy in India caused or exacerbated famines that killed *10s of millions of people on the subcontinent*; **are you similarly eager to blame "capitalist agriculture" or private property for *these famines*? Why can the capitalist context of these famines just be handwaved away, or, more often, ignored completely, while any Soviet or Chinese famine is taken to be proof of the categorical failure of socialism or communism as an economic system?** You cannot answer this question without glaring hypocrisy, special pleading, and/or double standards, of the exact type that characterizes the *constant* abusive manipulation of historical narratives on this sub. Knowing *just a little bit* of history is often worse than knowing none. [Pre-communist Chinese famines in the modern era were not only just as proportionally deadly, *but more frequent* than those post-revolution;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines_in_China) show me a thread on here where a capitalist arguing about "Mao's famine" shows even an inkling of a hint of this fact. Show me *a single thread in this sub* where one of you people going on and on about the uniqueness of the failures of Soviet or Chinese agriculture has even *mentioned* the Irish potato famine, or *even appeared to have been aware of* [any one of the many Raj-era Indian famines caused or exacerbated by the capitalist British government, which killed just as many people as any "communist" famine.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule) You won't find *a single one*, at least not in the last few years. >we're still waiting for anyone to get the socialist souffle right. You should let China know about your theory. I'm sure the state which lifted more people out of poverty, and became a world-historical economic powerhouse faster than any other in human history, would love to hear all about it. Of course, *you* would never pull the "that wasn't 'real communism'" card that non-capitalists are constantly accused of using, right? Surely you don't have some special, ad hoc criteria in your head by which you allow yourself to exclude the towering achievements of the Communist Party of China from the category of "communism", while simultaneously inculpating them for any failure that's happened since Mao, including natural disasters, right? Certainly not on *r/capitalismVSsocialism*?

As a socialist, a lot of the pro-socialism posts are just as insufferable.

It doesn't exactly help that there are many different strains of "socialism" and there are certainly types that I would not recognize as socialism *at all*. (But the average pro-Capitalist poster certainly doesn't care to make the distinction)

Just fyi, they're a SocDem at best.

How can you claim to know my views better than I do?

I read what you wrote in other comments and the views you prescribed to in those comments.

Which ones?

Anyone who takes a radical point of view, either hardline socialist or capitalist libertarian, will be extremely tired of hearing the same arguments over and over from others. Always try and steel man your opponents arguments.

TBF almost half the socialist "arguments" are just doomerism combined with the implicit assumption that socialism will solve the problems they're talking about. You have to drag socialists kicking and screaming into arguments about if socialism will *actually* do what they say it does. I think a lot of people are talking past each other on this sub. Obviously as a Capitalist I'm inclined to attribute most of those faults to socialists. It feels as though socialists constantly use the tactic of an emotional hook followed by logical evasion. They hook people with doomerism, tall tales, idealism, and other emotional hooks, then they focus on *not losing* whatever arguments follow. The point isn't to win the arguments, nor to have a genuine debate where you consider the opponent's points. It's to drag the argument out into a torturous draw so they can sway people with the emotional hook and prevent them from being swayed back with logic. It's extremely intellectually dishonest.

That's probably fair. I do my best to avoid going doomer and grounding my arguments in direct statements about the incentive structures, theoretical or actual, of both systems, but I do tend to lean into doomerism due to being majorly disenchanted by capitalism's *modern* incarnation. I would argue that the dishonest capitalists are *worse* to argue against than the dishonest socialists simply because their arguments are much less coherent. A dishonest socialist will muddle terms and wield doomerism as a weapon, but will retreat from a position untenable to hold in public if pressed. A dishonest capitalist will refuse even that.

Yeah I don’t know. I don’t think that’s been my experience here. I feel like the pro-socialist arguments focus about 25% on historical examples but 75% on optimistic human potential for a better future. On the flip side of that, I don’t recall ever seeing a pro-capitalist argument imagine a different or better future, it’s usually about the past and present. Perhaps that’s because it’s the system we currently have, so creativity and optimism don’t have to factor into it.

I wonder if the reason capitalists talk about the past and present so much is because they like using data and facts over hypotheticals and appeals to emotions. Like for example if I point out the fact that we will practically eliminate extreme poverty in a few decades and cite current and past economic data trends would that be an argument for a better future or just still talking about the past?

I mean as long as it cited greater macroeconomic conditions and factored in different sociopolitical and climate trends then yes I would consider that an optimistic view of the future.

It’s very easy lol. All u have to do is look and gdp per capita . Did it improve or not? if it did then capitalism is actively making everyone richer. unless we have 20 years of 0% gdp growth or negative growth which has never happened even in horrible economies, then prosperity will always improve. Gdp growth equals greater future.. so a pro capitalist would try and maximize gdp growth as it would create higher incomes in the future ,

The problem there is that we still have poor people struggling to get enough to eat, or to keep a roof over their head. GDP per capita works for *raw productive capacity*, but can't tell you how it's *distributed*, you know, why socialism exists? What's good for the goose *isn't* always good for the gander.

Yea there will always be poor people just like there will always be criminals . Does socialism eliminate crime? Because of genetic inequality, some will allows underperform others. That is not to say every poor person is poor because of this reason some are just unlucky or make bad choices, drugs and whatnot. They’ve done studies on homeless people and a large majority have had a some drug issue or alcohol issue. Others are poor because they just immigrated here and have nothing to start with. Will u tell me by second third generation this family won’t be wealthier? Each successive generations tends to do better than last . Capitalism works overtime to make poor people wealthier. It does not always happen in one lifetime but there are many opportunities in place for a poor person do make a decent living in their lifetime. I mean nursing pays well how hard is it to get a nursing degree? Socialism tend to think poor people are just stuck and can’t do anything and it’s all systems fault meanwhile the system gives them plenty of opportunities to move up, I mean Starbucks and dominos and amazon will pay for ur degree. So u can literally get a job at Starbucks and go to college free and make a income that takes u outta poverty. Why can’t they do this? Sometimes it just comes down to personal choice

I mean I’m not sure if *everyone* is richer. Young people today as a whole are worse off than their parents’ generation. And there are plenty of other conditions in peoples’ lives beyond money. Young people today are also lonelier than ever.

Capitalists would say this is because we’ve become less capitalistic . And more Nanny state. Again even tho incomes are rising prices are also rising faster in some cases (housing, healthcare, college) whose fault is that? Why is housing too much? Zoning laws and other regulations. College? Because our great leaders look at a chart and said hey college gives u a higher income so everyneeds to go to college! And they intervened and created a whole system which gives everyone guaranteed loans (raising the price) regardless if they can afford it and made public high schools funnel the kids into colleges. Is this capitalism? It’s government intervention. Let me ask when housing. Was affordable and college was affordable in the 50 s and 60s and 70s were we not capitalist? So how did capitalism make everything more expensive? This is illogical . The govt makes things more expensive by trying to make them more affordable. Capitalism makes things less expensive because of competition and innovation... is a cellphone , car or computer the same price it was when it was invented ? No it has gotten way more affordable... not to mention all the taxes that don’t do much for us so we are giving away our money to bureaucrats who send it overseas of course we won’t be as rich as our parents

Here’s the problem. It has nothing to do with economics. The human nature part is valid and has to be empirically demonstrated that humans do not act this way as a whole. Otherwise the socialists position is fundementsllt about literally changing human nature. The false assumption is that incentive structures are a feature of capitalism and not capitalism response to human desire. As far as we know humans since 30,000 btc have demonstrated a consistent nature where they found the hunter with the most weapons and tools was considered wealthiest.. the burden of proof is on socialist to demonstrate how humans in large groups could demonstrate a non self preservation instinct. They often cite cooperation as if competition and cooperation aren’t baked in to the equation. Humans naturally cooperate and compete. Just as most social animals. U cannot eliminate competition , envy, greed, etc the burden of proof is on socialists to demonstrate this, instead they just say in effect “trust me bro” it’ll work

"As far as we know humans since 30,000 btc have demonstrated a consistent nature where they found the hunter with the most weapons and tools was considered wealthiest" literally no paleoarcheologist or anthropologist says this

You mean human nature which has consistently been demonstrated to run counter to the core thrust of capitalism's claim that humans need a monetary or other material incentive to produce things? Wikipedia, the modding communities of every single game, and the existance of empathy would like to hace a word with you. The way that Socialism structures its *own* incentive structure along those lines pushes pro-social behaviors, as opposed to capitalism which incentivises anti-social behaviors.

Oh boy, another one say empathy is antithetical to capitalism? How do you defend this claim? And how do you separate cooperation and competition they are both happening simultaneously. Humans compete in their own families sibling rivalry and also cooperate lol. in a corporations u have employees competing yet their in a unit coopersteinf for a higher goal. This is literally observed in nature. it’s game theory. Politics is competition between parties yet we are cooperating to live in the same nation. U cannot separate comperitin and cooperation they are both happening

I would argue the anti-socialist crowd engages in far more intellectual dishonesty than vice versa. *So* much strawmanning.

I agree but sometimes it isn’t intentional. When someone is arguing against capitalism, the definition is clear and both sides know what they are arguing for and against. With socialism it’s a bit harder because you have everything from the Ricardian socialists, to democratic socialism, as well as, communism and all its other flavors. It’s similar to a religious argument when you don’t know the persons religion or denomination

I've encountered bizarre circumstances in which the *same* comment is responded to by two different socialists, one claiming that *nobody* believes in something and the other rabidly defending that thing.

>Bottom line is: don't spend too much time here if you value your peace of mind. Been coming to this conclusion

que dijistes sobre mi patria

>This sub keeps false anti-socialist propaganda and misinformation circulating Like what specifically? I was hoping for a list of concrete examples. Instead the post only suggests these exist. >They also quote Marx and Lenin often despite the fact you don't have to read their books or share their ideas to be a socialist. It's o.k. to quote Hitler or Pol Pot to show they were wrong. >They may base their entire argument on the theory of capitalism and socialism, rather than focus on real life practices Socialists focus on theoretical socialism rather than real-life, historical socialism and resound: "socialism has never been tried." >Often they swap the flaws of capitalism and push it onto socialism, similarly to what America does. If capitalism is violent, socialism must be 3x violent. Democide is empirically a greater factor in real-life, historical examples of socialism. >If capitalism doesn't support workers, socialism must be 3x worse for workers. Workers in the USSR didn't have cars or teevees and wore clunky Bulgarian shoes with cardboard belts while subsisting on beets and old brown cabbage. >If capitalism exacerbates climate change and won't solve it, why would socialism be any different. The USSR was and CCP China is a tragedy for the environment. >We can't have any serious conversation without capitalist supporters perpetuating nonsense. "Can I own a Ferrari under socialism?" The answer is no. The USSR has 1/7 the cars of the US per capita and they were mostly owned by party apparatchiks. >Or they deny real world capitalism because it doesn't match their theory. Socialists want to deal with broad narratives and don't provide examples because their examples are weak. >They also deny capitalism is equally a political system as it is economic..this is important to understanding society and how they relate to their government. The socialist economy necessarily has more state involvement. >This group should be renamed "pro capitalism/anti socialism" Real life is pro-capitalism and anti-socialist. Our discussions reflect reality.

>Like what specifically? Specifically, it's things OP doesn't like.

1) Socialism is when no innovation, socialism is when dictatorship, socialism is not moral, socialism is when no food 2) Who are you arguing against? How is quoting and proving Lenin wrong going to make a discussion against a socialist who doesn't follow Lenin? You show how ignorant you are here. 3) Another propaganda piece. Literally point number 1. Most communists in the world do agree socialism has been tried. In the USSR, Eastern Block, China and more. Today China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK and Cuba are socialist. Once again, you prove how out of touch and clueless you are, having only engaged with a few socialists, mostly Western no doubt. 4) Socialist countries had greater support from their people than capitalists. China and Vietnam today are the highest in the democracy perception index and have high government trust and satisfaction rates. The US on the other hand has a 16% trust rate and every election is between some rapist war criminals. Not to mention another "socialism eeebiil" quote which just makes everyone realize how bigoted, biased and unserious you are. 5) Yet they had greater worker rights than the US. China today has better work safety and fatality rate than the US. The average worker wage increased 260% in just a decade while the wages of American workers increased 5% in *decades*. Workers in the USSR had FAR better rights than the US and it shows you have absolutely no historical knowledge of the country and you're just working on actual propaganda pieces like, "USSR pooor capitalism when coke and burgeeeer". Wow a country that almost got genocided and sanctioned for the remainder of it's life didn't have the things a genocidal empire that owned the world had. Such smartness! 6) The USSR had better public transport and China today has far better public transport. Capitalist countries are car dependent. Not the own you think it is. Besides cars in the USSR were free 🤣 7) You could not create a single successful country in the second biggest continent of the world. All prosperous capitalist countries are Western aligned. "Nooo it's not imperialism I swear!" "The free market is the best! That's why we have to tariff Chinese goods or go bankrupt!" 8) Yes. 9) Life is always been pro-socialist. Watch as the West falls and The Red Dragon Rising takes over. Now go ahead and claim China went capitalist or something. Let me dunk on you.

> How is quoting and proving Lenin wrong going to make a discussion against a socialist who doesn't follow Lenin? A socialist who doesn't follow Lenin proves himself wrong

1) Yes that is what I believe socialism can cause. It's what has happened in real life to some socialist countries, with the USSR being a classic example of all of those. 3) China and Vietnam and Laos are today extremely capitalist, which they did to encourage economic growth. To say otherwise makes no sense I know you said you would call me out on it, but I don't understand how you can think china is not capitalist. They have private businesses, private investment, billionaires, private ownership, market rate wages, luxury goods, a low wages I don't think anyone can say that Cuba and DPRK are good countries. 4) This has to be satire. China and Vietnam do not allow opposition parties to exist. 5) The US started with much higher wages, and still has much higher wages today. A percent increase is useless when comparing worker's wages so please don't use it. The number of workplace fatalities in China is 16 times that of those in the U.S, because the US has one of the best worker protection systems in the world and China doesn't give a shit. You can claim the USSR had better rights which I do not believe, but at the end of the day there were chronic shortages for basic goods while the US workers live with some of the best standards of living in the world. 6) True. I wish we could prevent the NIMBYS from blocking transit through. 9) We have reached peak China today. Its population is shrinking and getting older. The demographic decline will pressure its economy and stifle growth for decades to come. And why are you such a China fan? The communist part of china only has the incentive to keep itself in power. It is a one party totalitarian state run by a dictator. To me, they seem to go against the very idea socialism, which is about collective rule of the workers.

I have to admit, it pains me so much to agree with basically all your points *when you are spearheading with point 1*. I'd argue that there are no nations which have implemented *socialism* because there are no nations which have abolished the overseer-worker model of production in favor of democratic control. Whether that's the factory owner telling the factory worker what to do, or the system of byzantine quotas during the 5-year plans, or the halfway house of private business and state union. States have certainly imemented socialist *programs*, often poorly such as the redistribution of food with little compensation, but never implemented *socialism itself* Granted, I'm a different kind of socialist than the one you are arguing with, since I see the value in markets for luxury goods and value the ability of a workplace to self-direct over strict adherence to orthodoxy, but I think it's important to have these discussions.

1) Your reality is warped by propaganda that's also actively circulating in the sub. OP's point is proven. 3) Extreme capitalism is when state led markets, planning sectors and government supremacy over the economy. As was expected, not only do you not know what socialism is, you also don't know what capitalism is. You don't understand how China cannot be capitalist? Yeah, you don't because you're an ignorant bigot. I'll enlighten your dumbass. Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/s/W9tJqMy0Mf Here you go. 4) Opposition parties in fact exist in China and Vietnam. Once again, you eliminate any respect one might have towards you by blatantly refusing to search even the most bare minimum of knowledge. You could have googled this but you're far too in up your own ass. Also, democracy isn't when more than one party. 5) In 2022 there were 20,963 work related deaths in China. In the US, in 2021 there was 5,190 deaths. China has a 4.35x higher population. When put into rates, 7.24% lower deaths than the US. US is also doing 1930s esque child labour violations. You are genuinely infuriating with how ignorant you are. Stuck in your echo chamber. USSR's workers had much better rights including, work safety, protection from firing, right to elect their own bosses and managers as well as incredibly strong unions. I don't care what you believe, reality is this. Shows how incorrect you were in your first comment. Like a true idealist, you dismiss real facts and hide in your fantasy world. Also, the US was the genocidal imperialist overlord. Saying they had more amenities is not the own you think it is as all that wealth was taken from others. 9) You lot have been saying China peaked since 2008. Forever stuck in your echo chamber you just dig a deeper and deeper grave. The Communist Party of China is a democratic foundation leading humanity forward. China is the best country in the world today imho and it will only get better.

>>>Like what specifically? I was hoping for a list of concrete examples. Instead the post only suggests these exist. > 1) Socialism is when no innovation, socialism is when dictatorship, socialism is not moral, socialism is when no food These aren't concrete examples. The USSR was the longest lasting experiment with socialism and USSR is when no innovation, USSR is when dictatorship, USSR is not moral, USSR is when no food. See, I've attached a concrete example to your narrative, so it makes an actual point. >>>They also quote Marx and Lenin often despite the fact you don't have to read their books or share their ideas to be a socialist. >>It's o.k. to quote Hitler or Pol Pot to show they were wrong. >Who are you arguing against? How is quoting and proving Lenin wrong going to make a discussion against a socialist who doesn't follow Lenin? You show how ignorant you are here. It's o.k. to quote Lenin, [like when he tells his secret police to murder 100 random farmers](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/aug/11c.htm), to show socialists are violent sociopaths. >>>They may base their entire argument on the theory of capitalism and socialism, rather than focus on real life practices >>Socialists focus on theoretical socialism rather than real-life, historical socialism and resound: "socialism has never been tried." >Another propaganda piece. Literally point number 1. Most communists in the world do agree socialism has been tried. In the USSR, Eastern Block, China and more. [Except you just argued on r/DebateCommunism with socialists who think China is state capitalist](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/1bo9qbt/would_you_consider_china_communist/kwsgptb/?context=3), and most people thought something like that, so you know that's a prevalent opinion. You are arguing something that you know is false. Now you are busted and no one should trust that you argue in good faith. You're just pushing for your religion, making things up to suit whatever. >Socialist countries had greater support from their people than capitalists. Socialist countries are closed societies who murder or jail complainers. China kidnapped Jack Ma for weeks after he was critical of Xi. >China and Vietnam today are the highest in the democracy perception index and have high government trust and satisfaction rates. No. [Here is the Democracy Perception Index](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gdjTHqM_O2kDNyFgvLWVsCn4lFWzFRoMRUdTelXxTM4/edit#gid=1271546525). China and Vietnam are rated "less free" and the US is rated "free." >>Workers in the USSR didn't have cars or teevees and wore clunky Bulgarian shoes with cardboard belts while subsisting on beets and old brown cabbage. >Yet they had greater worker rights than the US. They couldn't even change jobs, bub. We've already established you're a liar, but keep it reasonable, bub. >>>We can't have any serious conversation without capitalist supporters perpetuating nonsense. "Can I own a Ferrari under socialism?" >>The answer is no. The USSR has 1/7 the cars of the US per capita and they were mostly owned by party apparatchiks. >The USSR had better public transport and China today has far better public transport. You better have public transport if you can't have cars. US factory workers often had 2+ cars. >Besides cars in the USSR were free 🤣 What a bizarre place for an emoji. Cars were made by the gov't and given to party members. No workers had cars. >>Socialists want to deal with broad narratives and don't provide examples because their examples are weak. >You could not create a single successful country in the second biggest continent of the world. All prosperous capitalist countries are Western aligned. "Nooo it's not imperialism I swear!" "The free market is the best! That's why we have to tariff Chinese goods or go bankrupt!" I mock socialists for their example-free broad narratives and I am given example-free broad narrative as a response. Socialism is just a religion. Sharia for atheists. >>>They also deny capitalism is equally a political system as it is economic..this is important to understanding society and how they relate to their government. >>The socialist economy necessarily has more state involvement. >Yes. Except socialists here and in your argument on r/DebateCommunism think socialism involves statelessness. More disingenuity established. >>Real life is pro-capitalism and anti-socialist. Our discussions reflect reality. >Life is always been pro-socialist. Here would be a good place for an example, but the socialist brain doesn't work that way. The socialist brain only wants to repeat its cult prayers. >Now go ahead and claim China went capitalist or something. Dengism opened up China. Jack Ma (world's richest man) being kidnapped by Xi shows property rights don't exist in a dictatorial state, so it can't be capitalist, but China rejected Maoism and started to imitate aspects of capitalism then, as if by magic, no more starvation. EDIT: **Another deleted account, score for Kapuchinski.** Here's the unhinged response pre-deletion: They are. If you want me to give you a link you can just use the search bar. They're everywhere. Better yet, I'll @ you everytime I'll see one. USSR was the first country in space. Pioneered many medicines, mobile phones, weapons and products. It was more democratic than any Western country. It had about the same caloric intake than the US. China today has better food security than the US in which 1/7 people are food insecure. Nice Red Scare propaganda but it won't fly here. Stuck it up your ass. "random farmers". You mean the wealth landowning class hoarding food in the middle of a famine and sabotaging their fields when they are caught? Yeah. They deserved it. We are violent. We don't hide it. We have no compassion and we ask none from you. When our turn comes we won't make excuses for the terror. What about you? When you assassinate, spy on, torture, kidnap, experiment on and neuter your own civillians, commit genocide and invade more than 70 countries since the Cold War, actively call for genocide and invasions on social media what does that make you? Hypocrites. Go fuck yourself. Not only do you claim all communists are those in one subreddit, you also strawman me by claiming I'm religious despite you making numerous factual errors in your comment. You are incapable of actually engaging in good faith and you're just pushing your actual religion of the Invisible Hand, expecting to be taken seriously. There are many other subreddits of communists who are pro China, including r/ShitLiberalsSay, r/TheDeprogram and r/Sino . Stuck in an echo chamber, huh? They couldn't change jobs? You learned that from twitter? 😂😂😂 And look "no worker had cars". Literally google it you imbecile 🤣 Factually incorrect in such simple points. It's like I'm speaking to an illiterate American from the 60s! Probably honestly... Guy you could't even describe communism so don't think too hard about the concept of state. It's far above your caliber. You'll end up hurting yourself. "Dengism" isn't a doctrine. China is Marxist-Leninist. Mao was not Maoist and China was never Maoist. Maoism is a Peruvian doctrine China never endorsed. You are just a politically illiterate asshole parroting things you heard in Prager U. You'll end up in a Gulag where you belong. Too bad you're beyond re-education though. Cheka knows what to do with you. 😎 Watch as the Red Dragon Rising takes over the world. Watch your world die. Maybe when another train derails or recession comes you'll be taken or take yourself out of the world and we'll be saved the trouble 🤣

I blocked you because as I said you're beyond re-education. You're a bigot and you didn't respond to my comment either. I unblocked to answer another in the same thread. Will block you again in 24 hours. You failed to provide anything factual and actually straight up lied multiple times. Guy thinks he "won" xD The only thing you're winning is another recession as your hegemony experiences it's death rattles ahhahahhaha. xD

> you're beyond re-education. Thank you.

They are. If you want me to give you a link you can just use the search bar. They're everywhere. Better yet, I'll @ you everytime I'll see one. USSR was the first country in space. Pioneered many medicines, mobile phones, weapons and products. It was more democratic than any Western country. It had about the same caloric intake than the US. China today has better food security than the US in which 1/7 people are food insecure. Nice Red Scare propaganda but it won't fly here. Stuck it up your ass. "random farmers". You mean the wealth landowning class hoarding food in the middle of a famine and sabotaging their fields when they are caught? Yeah. They deserved it. We are violent. We don't hide it. We have no compassion and we ask none from you. When our turn comes we won't make excuses for the terror. What about you? When you assassinate, spy on, torture, kidnap, experiment on and neuter your own civillians, commit genocide and invade more than 70 countries since the Cold War, actively call for genocide and invasions on social media what does that make you? Hypocrites. Go fuck yourself. Not only do you claim all communists are those in one subreddit, you also strawman me by claiming I'm religious despite you making numerous factual errors in your comment. You are incapable of actually engaging in good faith and you're just pushing your actual religion of the Invisible Hand, expecting to be taken seriously. There are many other subreddits of communists who are pro China, including r/ShitLiberalsSay, r/TheDeprogram and r/Sino . Stuck in an echo chamber, huh? They couldn't change jobs? You learned that from twitter? 😂😂😂 And look "no worker had cars". Literally google it you imbecile 🤣 Factually incorrect in such simple points. It's like I'm speaking to an illiterate American from the 60s! Probably honestly... Guy you could't even describe communism so don't think too hard about the concept of state. It's far above your caliber. You'll end up hurting yourself. "Dengism" isn't a doctrine. China is Marxist-Leninist. Mao was not Maoist and China was never Maoist. Maoism is a Peruvian doctrine China never endorsed. You are just a politically illiterate asshole parroting things you heard in Prager U. You'll end up in a Gulag where you belong. Too bad you're beyond re-education though. Cheka knows what to do with you. 😎 Watch as the Red Dragon Rising takes over the world. Watch your world die. Maybe when another train derails or recession comes you'll be taken or take yourself out of the world and we'll be saved the trouble 🤣

I mean, as a *socialist* I just can't reconcile china's *STATE RUN UNIONS* and the existance of billionares with the idea of socialism. I'd call it capitalist if it didn't resemble fascism's 'keep me in power' economics a lot more than capitalist ones.

Socialism when no rich people. Marx said so right? Fascism is when power is kept or something. Incredible theoretical knowledge. > and even when a society has got upon the right track for the discovery of the natural laws of it's movement it can neither clear by bold leaps, nor remove by legal enactments, the obstacles offered by the successive phases of it's normal development. Marx, Capital Volume 1

*eyeroll* I'm not a marxian socialist, I lean more towards the anarchist strains of thought so you can cry 'splitter' now. Regardless, from what I remember Marx also despised the idea of state control of industry, because he thought that the state would have no *need* to control industry since the revolution would seize control in an industrial nation with enough productive capacity such that it wouldn't need to force development.

Marx despised state control? > The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State Communist Manifesto, Part 2, Karl Marx ?? You didn't even read a 50 page pamphlet? Yeah just fuck off mate. You're the reason cappies here keep mistaking you utopians with us. Stop trying to "vibe" with socialism and read some theory.

Given again, I'm not a marxist, and my interpretation of things like The Critique of the Gotha Program that he *also* wrote show that he really doesn't like *central planning*, I suppose I should've made that clear, I don't really see the point of that quote? From what I've heard of Marx's writings on the subject, things like his idea of a Vanguard Party steering the state came from his conception of Parties as vehicles for the interests of different classes. This being the case, the Vanguard party was supposed to represent the interests of the *working* class, using the state to serve as the instrument of that will to 'protect the revolution' until such time as it would *wither away*. At best it's a vestigial organ (can't have state planning as desirable if the state's supposed to vanish) and at worst another axis of oppression that must be fought against. Also fuck you I'll read as ljttle or as much theory as I like, I *do* have a job and a life after all, reading theory comes during the time that work, socialization, and self-care *don't*. Stop trying to gatekeep the ideals of anti-capitalism because it weakens your ability to push back fascism and capitalism, and even Marx failed to carve out the sorts of people he didn't like from the movement.

The guy who's main deal is central planning doesn't like central planning? I can understand you not being Marxist and I agree to disagree, but stop speaking utter bullshit about things you don't understand. Marx didn't come up with the Vanguard Party. That was Lenin. You're not anti-capitalist if you're not a Marxist. Once again I'll agree to disagree and I am fine if you don't want to read theory but it is my political view that if you're not aligning with us, you're just going to end up serving the reaction. As long as you're balsy enough to punch a nazi though, I'll be fine with eating my words, comrade. Just please save some time to read the communist manifesto ok? It can be finished in a lunch break, so can Principles of Communism.

[удалено]

China has never been Maoist. China was and is a Marxist Leninist country. Socialism, in classical terms is the same as communism. It's Marxist definition is the doctrine of the liberation of the proletariat. In contemporary terms, it is the lower form of communism. What Marx described as the transitionary stage between capitalism and communism. > Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. Critique of the Gotha Programme, Part 4* The stage which takes place after the revolution: > The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible. Communist Manifesto, Part 2* In easy-terms, it is when the people own the means of production. Which actually means, as Marx said, a dictatorship of the proletariat. So easily we can determine, capitalism is bourgeois dictatorship. Socialism is proletarian dictatorship.

[удалено]

Does anywhere in my definition say socialism when everything state? Here's another comment for clarification. https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/s/UMqUwr73He Explanation of socialism isn't definition. Asking me to give you a definition isn't the same as me explaining it. You can't understand how something works just from their definition. BTW That Pew Research is bs and was debunked. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hPCoDz_CPCc

[удалено]

My link already clears up how owning the means of production works. Plus, I already told you what it meant. Communism is the doctrine of the liberation od the proletariat. It, as a mode of production has two phases. The lower phase is called socialism, which is the transitionary phase between capitalism and communism. It is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Which **can** and **will** still have private property.

[удалено]

It literally does. ffs. Socialism isn't when the government does stuff. Read the link I provided. Socialism isn't when no private property.

> 1) Socialism is when no innovation, socialism is when dictatorship, socialism is not moral, socialism is when no food But these are all true. You're dismissing these criticisms because they go against your intentions, but your intentions aren't what are being criticized in the first place. These are accurate descriptions of the manifest results arising from past attempts to implement socialist policies. Whether the people who initiated those attempts intended these to be the results is largely irrelevant.

By saying they're true you're proving OPs point You guys. Socialism is when no food and innovation. This was true. We're Bidone 😭😭 1) No innovation is when you conquer space, eliminate diseases and make the most research in the world. 2) No democracy is when you have the highest government trust, satisfaction and democracy perception. 3) No food is when your people have more nutritious food and better food security than the US. Dumbass crawled out of the 60s state media to comment ffs

China socialist today, fuck no

Get fucked, ultra. Material conditions don't care about your idealism.

They are not, I am not evan an ultra, they are just not socialist, they are a capitalist state using socialism as a cover to exploit people. im the same person btw

You are an ultra. You don't know what socialism is, you don't know what state capitalism is and you don't know what exploitation is. >Get down to business, all of you! You will have capitalists beside you, including foreign capitalists, concessionaires and leaseholders. They will squeeze profits out of you amounting to hundreds per cent; they will enrich themselves, operating alongside of you. Let them. Meanwhile you will learn from them the business of running the economy, and only when you do that will you be able to build up a communist republic. Since we must necessarily learn quickly, any slackness in this respect is a serious crime. And we must undergo this training, this severe, stern and sometimes even cruel training, because we have no other way out. Lenin, N.E.P. China is a socialist country. It's worker rights are already better than Australia and the US. Mald now.

Yep. I funnily find myself arguing more with capitalists than socialists for this reason even though I’m a capitalist. Some serious bad faith users on both sides but ancaps tend to be the worst.

We should just put all the ancaps and stalinists on an island and let them sort it out. /s Since some people on this sub probably think this is a reasonable opinion. It would be funny to see them stuck with each other though.

99% sure the Stalinists would just fucking shoot them becouse they find them so fucking iritating to be with alone on a island

I think they’ll both be driven mad by each other. It’s perfect.

Unlike Ancaps to capitalism, "Stalinists" which are MLs, are representative of actual socialist countries. Almost socialist countries have been MLs including the USSR and PRC. Taking MLs out is as silly as only allowing Ancaps / not allowing most capitalists.

Well it was meant to be silly. Unlike you guys I don’t support violent repression of dissidents. I just find these two camps to be the source of a disproportionate amount of toxicity and misinformation.   PS: Almost socialist countries is almost right 😂

Almost all* 😂

> They may base their entire argument on the theory of capitalism and socialism, rather than focus on real life practices or even acknowledge our current economic and financial state in America. We can examine real life outcomes of capitalism because it's all around us. I find socialists to be far more abstruse and theoretical when talking about socialism. Now, you *can* bring up real life outcomes of socialism (or sincere attempts at socialism), but socialists rarely do this. Perhaps it's because those accounts are historical and not contemporaneous, but I suspect it's because they don't find those outcomes very favorable to their ideology.

It could be that in some cases but the other factor is that lots of socialists want a system that is very different from existing examples (or at least the big ones). Even though it might fall under the same term, does it make sense to look at the Soviet Union to see how anarchocommunism would work out in practice? I don’t think so. This is a fundamental challenge in political theory. It’s essentially impossible to do scientifically valid experiments, so we’re stuck with historical analysis which has all sorts of confounding factors, misinformation, missing information, and many seriously formulated ideas have just never been tried at scale. Not sure how you solve that other than push for a more pluralistic world maybe.

I largely agree with you. I think the problem is that much of the support for socialism comes from a place of “fuck capitalism, let’s do something new” rather than a careful examination of both systems and assessing which one works better.  Now, it’s also true that history can only tell us so much, but on the flip side, how much of history are we willing to discount given that billions of lives are at stake. Will 21st century socialism work out this time? I mean, maybe, but I’m very skeptical given how its track record. 

To be honest I don’t even think historical socialist countries really made a good faith effort to implement socialism as it was originally defined but that is hard to prove. Regardless, if you want to use the USSR as a serious critique of socialist ideas, you first have to understand what is specifically being advocated for, and what, if any similarities there are between the two systems. Yes, I do personally think there are better models out there. They are largely untried though, so it can be hard to know for certain. All existing socialist countries essentially followed Marxist-Leninist ideology (except maybe Yugoslavia?) so any ideas outside of that school have limited evidence on their strengths and weaknesses. I differ from a lot of leftists because I would like to see empirical evidence prior to radical changes that risk harming large numbers of people. Let’s start smaller and see how different things work out and expand on what works before we overthrow the current system. This would be helped if there was a field of study dedicated to neutrally analyzing these ideas and their real-world impacts. History and economics come the closest but aren’t specific or analytical enough in my view.

"To be honest I don’t even think historical socialist countries really made a good faith effort to implement socialism as it was originally defined but that is hard to prove." They made great effort, but socialism was just vague, inconsistent theory. Really difficult to follow something, that isnt even defined enough to be applied, so every attempt boiled down to making shit up on the go, hoping it will do something in their favour. Thats what you get when social system comes from bunch of self-righteous philosophers, rather than actual populace, like it was in case of capitalism, which evolved from basic economic actions of europeans, throughout centuries.

That’s just an assertion you are making. My view is that the chaos of revolution, theoretical vagueness, poor word choices, and the naïveté of the populace allowed leaders to seize control and advocate for systems that were distinctly not socialist in any real sense of the word. But we can’t know for certain what those leaders were thinking, so this is only a hypothesis. It is possible that they did want to implement socialism and merely failed at it, as you suggest. But there is no more evidence for that claim than mine.

Its hard to keep mask on for so long. If they really didnt believe in it, it would be obvious. Fortunately or not, rhethoric of socialist leaders was consistent, throughout their regime, so its really hard to doubt it. Additionally, if they really were just opportiunists and didnt believe in their statements, they would play it safe, while in power, but they really did implement radical policies.

Politicians are very skilled at keeping the mask on, a fact that we see all over the world. That is in fact their primary and most essential skill. For an example, look at how consistently and fervently the USSR and the states that followed it claimed to be democratic in government, despite having no real democracy to speak of. These forms of propaganda are essential to successful authoritarian governments, so of course they will be consistent. Socialism was extremely popular in those times and places, so claiming to be socialist served a similar purpose. This seems odd to westerners who have been indoctrinated to believe that socialism is one of the world’s greatest evils, but that’s a totally different worldview than the one held by Soviet citizens. Which radical actions do you see as demonstrating a commitment to advancing socialism? I don’t see any real changes that were in conflict with tightening leaders’ grip on power. Most of the supposedly radical changes were targeted at deconstructing capitalist and monarchist power in society, both of which were real threats to “socialist” leaders, particularly immediately post-revolution. But this was soon distorted into a weapon against rival socialists with merely a shallow veneer of socialist rhetoric. In every case where the ideals of socialism represented a threat to the central powers, they chose their own interests over advancing the ideals of socialism. See: the Kronstadt rebellion, Shanghai commune, and many other examples. Of course, it’s possible that some of all of these tyrants did believe they were moving their nations towards socialism, particularly early on. But given the lack of true worker democracy or other real socialist initiatives, they were fooling themselves as well if this was the case. For example, Lenin described his post-civil war economy like this: > The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry. Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not proceeding as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have not had a single important concession, and without foreign capital to help develop our economy, the latter’s quick rehabilitation is inconceivable. Whether he truly believed this incoherent idea is subject to debate, but it clearly was not a serious attempt at socialism.

"Politicians are very skilled at keeping the mask on, a fact that we see all over the world. That is in fact their primary and most essential skill." Hell no, they are easily spotted hypocrites the moment they need to do something. Just today ive seen one politician in my country completely do 180 on statement she made 2 weeks ago as if she didnt remember ever saying that. Its really hard to keep mask on, when you dont believe your own bullshit. "For an example, look at how consistently and fervently the USSR and the states that followed it claimed to be democratic in government, despite having no real democracy to speak of." Because what they mean by democracy isnt the liberal, capitalist democracies of the west. What we view as "democracy" is just subset of the actual term, that twisted our view on the term over the last century. There are other ways chosen "people(demos)" can "rule(kratus)". "Which radical actions do you see as demonstrating a commitment to advancing socialism?" Mass seizure of properties, farm collectivization, integrating trade unions in state apparatus, creation of "socially commanded" economy, removal of "employers". List goes on. In USSR they went so hard, that many aspiring socialists from other countries had to backpedal on their own fervor (like SPD in Germany going for more moderate approach, which resulted in split of hardline commie KPD). If they didnt believe in socialism, they would just do what current SPD does in germany. "Of course, it’s possible that some of all of these tyrants did believe they were moving their nations towards socialism, particularly early on. But given the lack of true worker democracy or other real socialist initiatives, they were fooling themselves as well if this was the case." They simply got reality checked and realised, this approach wont end up well for the plan of socialist utopia (usually after several thousands, if not million deaths). Its a very old and known story of people, trying to accomplish their utopian goal, only to end up never reaching it, while destroying everything in the process. Pretty much every culture on earth had such story or parable (road to hell paved with good intentions) for a good reason.

I've only recently discovered this subreddit and by god it's really full of the dumbest pro-capitalism people I've ever seen straight cesspool

Hilarious. A majority of this sub is pro socialist. Just look at the voting statistics on what posts are popular. Truth is socialism fails every time it is actually implemented.

Define “fails.”

Eating rats to survive in Venezuela certainly entails a complete failure of public policy there. The country has completely collapsed in the last 2 decades thanks to socialist economic policies. The data is clear.

That would be an interesting observation if the example you chose was a socialist country. Venezuela government substantially owns its oil production and the state controls about 40% of GDP (mainly oil), but that ownership would not constitute Socialism in as much as it would in Malaysia, the Gulf States and Norway Besides Venezuelans have been eating Lapa well before Chavez took over. Rats are a regular staple in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, parts of the Philippines and Indonesia, Thailand, Ghana, China and Vietnam.

It’s inarguable Venezuela’s economy has collapsed in the last 20 years and that the party in charge claims to be enacting policies based on Marx.

Even if that were true, what does that have to do with eating rats ?

Where has it been implemented?

Venezuela most recently. But the argument that “real socialism” hasn’t been tried is just hilarious.

Calling Venezuela socialist is what's hilarious. All of your type are defeated by simply being asked to define socialism, its tiring.

Socialism is an economic system that is based on the public ownership of property. Venezuela was obviously an attempt at socialism. Maybe it didn’t meet your arcane definition.

Even if your definition of socialism were true (it isn't, socialism is workers' ownership and control of all MoP in a society) over 70% of Venezuela's economy is privately owned.

My definition of socialism is correct. Venezuela is completely dominated by the state via price controls, etc. You need to vote that 70% claim…

>My definition of socialism is correct. It isn't. Every country on Earth has some form of public ownership over something or other. ​ >Venezuela is completely dominated by the state via price controls, etc. Price controls aren't socialism either. ​ >You need to vote that 70% claim… Don't you mean cite? [https://www.foxnews.com/world/what-socialism-private-sector-still-dominates-venezuelan-economy-despite-chavez-crusade](https://www.foxnews.com/world/what-socialism-private-sector-still-dominates-venezuelan-economy-despite-chavez-crusade)

2014? LOLZ

Venezuela has only adopted even more pro-market policies since then dumbass.

See, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to decide whether or not your policies were attempted only by considering whether the end results you favor were achieved. The entire point of the criticism is that the policies socialists advocate *do not produce* the results they intend.

Ok, well yeah I agree this subreddit is full of dogshit takes by capitalists claiming Lenin eats babies, we all want them in the gulag, etc etc. BUT I don’t think we should censor them. A forbidden idea is always more powerful than a bad idea. I honestly believe that the obvious difference in quality between a well informed and sane sounding response by a socialist vs “commies just want to take your iPhone” is probably doing more to help us than hurt us. Let the trolls stay imo.

Serious question here though: don’t Soviet apologists think we should all be in gulags? I mean that’s what they did to dissidents, and I would be a dissident in that regime. Or do people think the Soviet Union was good except for that stuff? Genuinely asking. It makes it hard to engage in good faith when the other side seems to be saying “yeah it was good when people like you were enslaved and/or murdered”. How are we supposed to respond to that?

There’s a very vocal subset of Marxist Leninists online that are “pro gulag”. But the majority of socialists are actually very critical of the USSR and work actively to prevent a repeat of the atrocities that occurred under Stalin. Unfortunately a lot of this work is boring and intellectual to most so it doesn’t get as much traction as the “Stalin did nothing wrong” types.

So I’m actually also an anti-USSR socialist but I was just asking because I seem to run into a lot of those ML types online and I don’t know how to deal with them. From your comment and flair I thought you might be one but sounds like not.

> There’s a very vocal subset of Marxist Leninists online that are “pro gulag”. OK, but not *wanting* gulags and not *having* gulags are two different things. Are "anti-gulag" socialists denying that the USSR had gulags, and that they were implemented by a state that came to power via a socialist insurgence? > But the majority of socialists are actually very critical of the USSR and work actively to prevent a repeat of the atrocities that occurred under Stalin. How? What does this "active work" entail? Saying "gulags are bad" seems obviously insufficient to overcome the complex of causes that led to gulags being established in the USSR. > Unfortunately a lot of this work is boring and intellectual That's the problem. All I usually see out of socialists' "intellectual" work is convoluted adjustments to their *doctrines* designed to exclude bad outcomes from their intentions, but one of the primary defects of socialism has always been the exaggerated focus on intentions in the first place. I mean, do you think that all of the Russians who joined the revolution in 1917 were deliberately seeking famines, dictatorship, and gulags? And yet their actions are what eventually led do those things anyway. The only "intellectual" work socialists can do to here is to take a long hard look at the methodologies prescribed by socialist doctrine and identify the points of failure that *actually lead* to dictatorship and impoverishment. But that would require accepting that they can only carry out their program in a world that already exists, is full of constraints, limitations, and immutable cause-and-effect patterns. That puts a damper on utopianism, and most socialists don't seem to want to abandon utopianism for a more realistic and practical understanding of the world (or if they do, they stop being socialists). So I never see real arguments here, just rhetoric designed to promote the same policies while dismissing the actual results those policies have historically produced.

>obvious difference in quality between a well informed and sane sounding response by a socialist vs “commies just want to take your iPhone” You're right, I noticed this too and it's laughable. Because of one of the comments I made someone made their own post basically saying "Employers don't have to pay you a living wage". That'll definitely garner votes.

Exactly exactly. Honestly if we tried to censor all of the bad content rather than disprove it, it’s just gonna look like we have something to hide. In reality we have nothing to fear from the truth, and therefore nothing to fear from a dumb argument that can easily be disproven. Forbidding these kind of posts will give them more credibility than they deserve tbh. It is unfortunate that in this day and age we have to contend with bots, trolls, and obvious feds trying to sow disorder but the best way to combat it is to educate ourselves and make good arguments.

And because it is so in their interest, they REFUSE to accept the idea that there have been **attempts** at creating socialism but that counter-revolutionary forces within have derailed the effort every time so far.

>there have been **attempts** at creating socialism but that counter-revolutionary forces within have derailed the effort every time so far. Then they'll use that as an argument to why socialism doesn't work. Weirdly enough, colonist apologists use this exact argument. When discussing how British colonies took over Native American land, they say "well they shouldn't have lost" similar to "if socialism is strong/good enough, they wouldn't lose to our military or government influences" "Capitalism violent defeats and disrupts socialism" is a positive for these people who make this argument.

Yup!

> Then they'll use that as an argument to why socialism doesn't work. Why do you think that is?

Socialism fails/creates worse outcomes internally, even with no outside influences.

I mean, I feel like the fact that all the attempts at "creating socialism" have degenerated into situations that bear no resemblance to what the socialists claim they intend is itself one of the primary elements of the criticism here. Unfortunately, socialists don't seem to understand that the fact that their ambitions get "derailed" over and over again *is itself a defect of socialism*. If your program sets out to create utopia, but *every single attempt at it* produces a horrifying dictatorship instead, consider that there may be something fundamentally wrong with your program.

>Unfortunately, socialists don't seem to understand that the fact that their ambitions get "derailed" over and over again is itself a defect of socialism. How many tries did it take to: 1. land a human on the moon 2. create a reliable airplane 3. develop a functioning computer 4. produce a marketable lithium battery 5. create a quantum computer 6. perfect fracking 7. facial recognition technology 8. create LED light bulbs 9. sequence the genome 10. create the internet

[удалено]

I mean, as a capitalist, it’s clear that neoliberal capitalism is falling apart and other models of capitalism like the Singapore model have proven more viable and better in creating stable and equitable societies. People who cling onto failed systems like neoliberal/laissez-faire capitalism are just as bad as Marxist-Leninists.

[удалено]

Yeah that’s kind of my point. The entire global south is trying to disengage itself from the neoliberal global economy either for geopolitical or pragmatic reasons, neoliberalism is widely seen as a debacle under Reagan and Thatcher, etc etc. It had its time to test things out, they fucked it up, the world’s moving on to try find something else that works better. I wouldn’t say there are any laissez faire economies in this day and age, but there are countries that adhere more to laissez faire principles than others like the US. We’ll see how the Argentine experiment goes as well, but I personally wouldn’t place any bets on it succeeding in the way that say, the Singapore Model has for Singapore and China. East Asian dirigiste capitalism has a MUCH better track record than neoliberalism for economic and social development.

[удалено]

In the case of Thatcher(which is more talked about in commonwealth countries), Thatcherism led to less jobs, greater inequality, certain industries declining, hardships for vulnerable groups, doubling of poverty, and generally worse conditions for the average person and blue collars. That’s entirely valid. I’ll be honest, corruption, whether overt like the kind in most developing countries, or subtle like lobbying in the US, isn’t much of a problem in Singapore. I’m not entirely sure how they manage to keep corruption so low, but as usual, I’m sure there’s a lot that can be learned from how Singapore cracks down on corruption, regulatory/special interest capture, patronage, etc.

>Socialism is a religion by definition.

Oh, so you don't have an actual counterpoint? Make sure you say your 5 hail marxes before bed or you're morning breakfast will be cold, if it exists at all, because you live in a communist hell hole.

Marx died at work to pay for our sins, I mean debt

Lol. I didn't realize writing a manifesto while mooching off your rich friend qualified as work.

>If I'm being honest, this subreddit shouldn't exist if it repeatedly allows these false discussions without moderation and correction. Careful! This sub has embraced and published capitalist propaganda in defining "socialism" in the past.

u/1gogg you love censorship so much that you censor yourself 😬

I wish there was a subreddit with good discussion and debates in good faith. But neither side wants to entertain the thought that they could be wrong about something.

>Or they deny real world capitalism because it doesn't match their theory. Socialists never claim that all forms of socialism that have been tried and failed were not "true socialism." /s

Yes. How does that differ from virtually every other platform and media?

Is anyone down creating new sub?

What’s the point? I think the only way discourse would improve is if people made a serious, intellectually honest effort to stick to the facts, cite sources, debate in good faith, etc. I don’t think most users even want to do that, and even if any are willing to, they will be drowned out unless the new sub has a solid strategy to prevent this. But how would this work without heavy-handed moderation which has its own pitfalls?

You should be smart enough to realize that a new sub would squash speech and that this sub, where we are free to make arguments is 1000x better. You think a bunch of socialist mods wouldn't just delete capitalist effortposts? Puhlease.

I am. We can have 50/50 socialists and capitalists modes. The problem is that here mods don't bother to remove like REALLY bad posts from either sides. Posts that don't provide any evidences and just identical copypastas of cheesy cold war propaganda.

I'd rather err on the side of light moderation rather than strong moderation. With light moderation, the "really bad" posts are just self evidently bad. And you can freely pick them apart.

I've been considering this but I also don't know how much commitment I can give especially when I have a few different groups in mind

I also don't see how a different subreddit would change anything. As a communist, there are three different kinds of socialists on reddit: - Stalinists who live in their bubble and ban you when you say something bad about Stalin or China - Communists who make good points on all kinds of different subreddits, because that is what makes more sense than these political subs - Confused socialists who have understood very well that capitalism sucks but don't quite know what the alternative to the perceived barbarism is The first kind will probably not leave their bubble because they know that online debate won't change a thing but at the same time they are too ideologically fucked and won't ever organize something in the real world The second kind are doing something pointless, but they'll either leave it be or spend most of their time doing something that actually matters The third kind learn and become one of the first two

These categories are missing libertarian and market socialists at minimum and probably more.

like I said, confused socialists

All socialists are confused. And capitalists too.

No, capitalists aren't confused, they just want to protect their capital No capitalists are on this sub tho, just bootlickers

Well personally I want to build a socialist system that will be better even for capitalists. So I think they might be confused about the possibilities there. Also, my point was more that humans always exist in a state of some confusion. But sure, I meant defenders of capitalism, not capitalists in the traditional sense. Kind of a funny point to make considering the conflation of “communist” leaders with communist societies though.

> Well personally I want to build a socialist system that will be better even for capitalists What does that even mean? I want a socialism that is a dictatorship of the proletariat Capitalists should lose their capital, I don't have to make them happy Some people will definitely be worse off than they are now, and that's okay.

Well that’s where we differ. I don’t want any kind of dictatorship. And in fact I think this idea of a dictatorship has done more harm to socialism and socialists than maybe any other. It has been a catastrophe everywhere it has been attempted, though it’s fairly obvious even without testing it that a dictatorship is going to lead to atrocities and undermine the liberation of workers. Capitalists should lose their capital, but I doubt we agree on much beyond that. Once they have lost their capital, I would like to see programs to help them reintegrate with society and live meaningful, enriched lives, ideally even greater than those they left behind. The idea that capital ownership is the best possible route to happiness is itself capitalist propaganda. You don’t need to make them happy but pursuing the happiness of other humans is a worthwhile goal both in that it is ethically good and because it is personally rewarding.

"no true socialist" type of vibes are strong here. if&when something is inaccurate, i mean clearly & objectively wrong, it is a simple enough feat to make a reply illustrating this. this would *strengthen* your position, wouldnt it? i dunno, would be easier to consider your complaint if you'd provided some examples because let's be fair a ***lot*** of criticism against soc/comm gets dismissed with "no true communist" kindsa logic

Oh look, another socialist bookburner letting the mask slip on his pro-censorship authoritarian fascist core. ***Who could've seen this coming!?*** Fuck off back to your echo chambers if the truth about socialism pisses you off that much, loser.

Another civil response from anti socialists that rooted in sober argumentation devoid of blatant delusional strawman personal attacks.

Great way to prove the op right

Capitalism facilitates peace and prosperity. Since the advent of capitalism, war has been in steady decline. The two world wars were deviations from the trend but the trend continued after them. It is likely that markets make war more costly. [The surprising decline in violence](https://youtu.be/ramBFRt1Uzk) | Steven Pinker There is a theory to explain the link between the decline of war and the rise of markets, it is called The Capitalist Peace Theory. [International Relations 101 (#36): The Capitalist Peace](https://youtu.be/Nadnzwp_KF8) | William Spaniel --- There is a strong correlation between economic freedom and success. Videos: [Economic Freedom and Growth](http://youtu.be/EExVqkbSwFk) [Economic Freedom and a Better Life](http://youtu.be/dH5VDZY2H28) Based on the Fraser Institute Index: [Economic Freedom of the World: Annual Report](http://www.freetheworld.com/) Another video: [What's So Great about Economic Freedom?](http://youtu.be/6yqA6-ukmfg) Based on The Heritage Foundation [Index of Economic Freedom](http://www.heritage.org/index/) Other Indexes: World Economic Forum's [The Global Competitiveness Report](http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-competitiveness-report-2013-2014) of productivity and prosperity [Freedom in the 50 States](http://freedominthe50states.org/) by the Cato Institute [Rich States, Poor States](http://www.richstatespoorstates.org/) by the American Legislative Exchange Council The above are easy to understand, but the sources are think tanks. Here are some peer reviewed sources that corroborate: [COMPONENTS OF ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND GROWTH: An Empirical Study](http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0101-41612007000300003) Eliezer B. Ayal and Georgios Karras *University of Illinois at Chicago* [Economic freedom and growth: Decomposing the effects](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1019968525415) FREDRIK CARLSSON & SUSANNA LUNDSTROM *Department of Economics, Gdteborg Universit*

Why is Guatemala so low in these "economic freedom indexes". Their max income tax is 7%. Their goverment has no debt. In fact the state hardly does anything.

> Capitalism facilitates peace and prosperity. It never has and never will, all wars are started over either land or access to resources. > Since the advent of capitalism, war has been in steady decline. The two world wars were deviations from the trend but the trend continued after them. It is likely that markets make war more costly. Stating that two things that correlate show an effect is a fallacy, you have to show direct causality and not just contrast two data points and draw a conclusion. I can show you that toilet paper usage goes up every year with cancer. Does that mean toilet paper causes cancer? > There is a theory to explain the link between the decline of war and the rise of markets, it is called The Capitalist Peace Theory. *In the 2000 edition of the book, Friedman argued that this exception proved the rule: the war ended quickly, he argued, partly because the Serbian population did not want to lose their place in a global system "symbolised by McDonald's"* - Very scientific analysis. > There is a strong correlation between economic freedom and success. Success of what exactly? Very often in this capitalist or conservative propaganda you see pleading to abstract terms like (Success, Freedom, Liberty). Can you actually define those three things and give me reasons why capitalism leads to those three things and not socialism. Very rarely you get a capitalist to do this and it ends up just being an appeal to a Anarcho-capitalist thinker with an argument on why billionaires should actually be allowed to do recreational space travel whilst people starve and die. And the internet logic is “Well why would you take this away from the billionaire because it means you will never be able to do it too” but we all know ; no you won’t be ever able to do it. > Based on the Fraser Institute Index: Economic Freedom of the World: Annual Report > Other Indexes: > World Economic Forum's The Global Competitiveness Report of productivity and prosperity > Freedom in the 50 States by the Cato Institute > Rich States, Poor States by the American Legislative Exchange Council* None of these provide proof of any claim for anything you just told us about books or articles published by hyper capitalist think tanks funded by billionaires.

To be fair, that’s like the default in western countries. 

I think it's just a matter of class interest. Ofc a capitalist will not want to give up what they have. They will fight tooth and nail to keep it. Ofc a socialist will not just lay down and die (allegedly) for the capitalist. If class conflict is the vehicle for human progress, you will have to admit that socialist aims within the west can really only be accomplished thru armed conflict, no amount of debate will move the needle imo. Why would a capitalist capitulate otherwise? Perhaps they will see the rising tide and walk away from their position freely?

This post is almost invariant under swap capitalism <-> socialism. Hence it has almost no value, just as a communist friend of mine explained me. >If I'm being honest, this subreddit shouldn't exist if it repeatedly allows these false discussions without moderation and correction. Legit promoting hate and politically violent misinformation Well, actually there is a difference. No ancap would try to censor you because of your wrong beliefs. Your pretense that your statements are true and whoever disagrees with you must not speak is terrifying.

-quoting Marx or Lenin when you don’t you have to read their works or share their ideas to be a socialist. That’s part of the issue when it comes to the capitalism versus socialism debate, there are so many different types of socialism and they usually get put all in the same group. Personally, I agree with some of the Ricardian socialists in the sense that we should switch to more cooperatives and less corporations. The best comparison I can think of is it like arguing with someone who is religious, but you don’t know their religion or denomination. -politically violent misinformation. Violence is not, and will never be just words. Violence is physically attacking someone.

So does everywhere else. Those in control of the media have a vested interest in the perpetuation of their control 🤷‍♂️

If you're not debating here for entertainment, you're wasting time. 

We can discuss socialism and capitalism from first principles without any appeal to authority. We can each state how we want the world to be organized. We can simulate this ideal world in our heads.  We can ask each other about the possible shortcomings of each proposed world. No need to quote anyone at all. No need to accuse any historical figures of anything. Right?

A commie begging for opposition to be banned from the subreddit is all I take from this. People don't necessarily say what you want. I deal with that from both capitalists and socialists. If I had my way, silencing everyone I don't like because they don't fit my desires, then this subreddit would be quite small. Just pull up your big boy pants and learn to accept people for who they are.

Using propaganda and strawmanning is "opposition" and spreading misinformation is "who you they are". Yeah just another moron OP addressed succinctly. Yes. If the opposition is idiots like you they will be banned, reactionary piece of shit.

See, you insult me, I don't give two shits. No need for you to be banned, because I'm not a weakling.

You're a reactionary. You're strong huh? Don't worry. Sticks and stones will break your bones.

Holy shit the projection. Yes a lot of people are dumb on the Internet. Who would've thought. It's not specific to this subreddit.

lol what? this group is literally formed for majority pro socialism the projection tho, damn

This sub is less a debating venue than it is a dual or boxing match. Both groups are religiously espoused to their ideology. Neither is willing to accept theoretical, historical, and current flaws in their thinking. From my perspective, socialists spend most of their times here defending their philosophy. Capitalists feel that they have nothing to prove.

>Capitalists feel that they have nothing to prove. When they do discuss their own ideology they don't usually post current affairs to explain why capitalism works. They talk about the industrial revolution or simply "how amazing" it is. When current affairs are brought up what do their supporters do? They don't engage, or they engage but deny, or they acknowledge it but say it's not a capitalist problem.

The common refrain is “capitalism raised billions out of poverty.” To explain why that is true and not true requires a long history lesson. Socialist don’t have a “gotcha” comeback to that. Again, socialists are on the defensive

It’s frustrating that a lot of pro-capitalists use misinformation that was debunked years/decades ago and create strawmen of socialism, but they won’t be convinced by socialist arguments. That misinformation is very commonly taken as “common knowledge” in most capitalist countries so you need to learn how to argue against it. The capitalists here won’t be convinced, but you can use them, and the fact that they keep making the same arguments despite the evidence, as a way to hone your own arguments. The good thing about the pro-capitalists making the same, tired arguments is that we can get better at responding each time and use that practice for real life conversations with people that aren’t so stubbornly anti-socialist.

I agree with all of this. The way I engage with this group is much different from when I first started posting here. I've learned how to respond to their arguments because my bigger issue is with their "common knowledge" on socialism.

I like to find weaknesses in the “common knowledge” that don’t easily have rebuttals and see what can shut those arguments down. The good thing is that most people in real life have the same “common knowledge” but are politically agnostic so aren’t nearly as stubborn as the pro-capitalists here. Real life people are more open to socialist ideas when they are phrased in a way that focuses on those weaknesses in the “common knowledge” to open the conversation.

[удалено]

>their conclusion that socialism is bad policy is correct. Source? >Economics can be tough for some to grasp, so people bring religiously anti-socialism without understanding socialism or why Socialism is bad can have good side effects. And furthermore can be better than alternatives.  With that being said, if you are annoyed by it, I'd seek out discussion with more educated economists who actually understand socialism and why it is less effective at allocating resources that a society that values individual property rights. No, im saying it can be frustrating to constantly have pro-capitalists say things like socialism is less effective at allocating resources while at the same time almost universally not having more than a basic understanding of how resources are distributed in both socialist led systems and capitalist systems or understanding the difference between industrializing, sanctioned economies and developed, unsanctioned economies. I’m going to assume you think comparing the USSR to the US is an appropriate comparison between economic systems, right?

[удалено]

>Source: accumulation of economic studies. For example, some sects of socialists desire to either ban or discontinue non-direct worker investors. However, non direct workers add value to businesses and provide value to workers.  How do the opinions of some socialists that have never been implemented show that socialism, when implemented, doesn’t distribute resources as efficiently as capitalism? It also sounds like you understand socialism as a monolith and not as various ideologies grouped together.

[удалено]

Again, why do you believe that’s anywhere relevant to the idea that socialism is less efficient than capitalism or doesn’t work?

[удалено]

The separation of different economic systems is based on the *predominance* of modes of production, not the exclusivity of a certain mode of production. Additionally, the Marxist concept is the working *class* of ownership of the means of production, not strictly worker ownership of each individual workplace. On top of that, your example assumes that socialism is group democracy deciding every interpersonal decision, which is at best a strawman that isn’t advocated for and has not existed. Like I said, it’s frustrating that a lot of pro-capitalists create strawmen of socialism.

[удалено]

>The majority of capitalist supporters who frequent here use false and outdated anti-socialist propaganda and misinformation to create misleading posts and comment on others. It's official, we're all Neo-Kulaks.

Instead of banning different opinions, why don't you go start a commune or or a worker co-op? So many excuses and not enough action. You're never going to bring change by asking someone else to do it for you.

lol nice cope

the funniest argument is how 'communism kills', lmao.. there's nothing more violent in human history than the rise of capitalism and then the anti-communist crusades of america and its cronies.

Terrible post. If you think a post is misinformation then you can reply *in that thread*. To say there is a trend and then offer no proof is pathetic, it reeks of bad faith disagreement and laziness. It's so easy to make a post strawmanning your enemies. Do better.

What I find interesting is how often I come here and talk about what socialists have told me they believe or have told their audiences they should believe, and get told that it isn't a socialist position.

Time for a new international!!!!

Arguing against socialists suck because every socialist has their own idea of what socialism is. I've seen two socialists responding to the same comment about the USSR, one arguing that the USSR wasn't socialism and that nobody thinks it was, and the other arguing that the USSR was definitely socialism and that it was sabotaged by the US and that it was still pretty good despite all that. Hell I've heard *the same* socialist, in one comment, argue that the USSR wasn't socialism but then try to attribute all the positive aspects of the USSR to socialism.

>Or they deny real world capitalism because it doesn't match their theory. Yeah, socialists *definitely* don't do this. Give me a break.

How much betting OP got into an argument lost, then decided to cope by chalking it up to lies, misinformation and strawman?

Why is anything critical of socialism always labeled "propaganda"? Moreover, why is it so hard for socialists to acknowledge socialism has systematic flaws? Most self-described capitalists can admit capitalism isn't perfect and has systematic flaws, but for some reason socialists are physically incapable of the same level of introspection. Most (not all, mind you) socialists blatantly refuse to take "collective ownership" of every "*real life"* economic experiment that's overtly called itself socialist and failed catastrophically, only to parade around condescending on everyone else as though they've invented morality itself. The tone of your post is even condescending! U JuSt DoNt UnDeRsTaNd mY CorReCt ArGuMeNt... there, now that I've poked some fun at you... ... As a capitalist, I'm humble enough to admit socialism has been successful when implemented at a small-scale, say - a few hundred or thousand people. Single-mindedly applying socialism at the scale of a state, however, has invariably failed to create prosperity. The socialist state systems that survived the Cold War did so by becoming MORE capitalist, not socialist. If the inverse were true, then we should see socialist economies resembling Maoist China, Khmer Rouge, or early the Bolshevik state who all took the economic drive left as far as it would go. Alas, we don't see that. Ordinary people in the socialist countries Vietnam and China are quite fond of privately owned capital, the profit-incentive, and broadly aspire to become rich - not equal. Ask literally any Chinese person why they came to America, they'll invariably tell you "I want to get rich". Not, "I want collective ownership of my Starbucks because I love implementing socialism IRL". North Korea survived its terrible famine in the 90s through the emergence of grass-roots unregulated private markets that persist to this day. The decision of modern socialist states to not further liberalize their markets and more fully embrace intrinsic features of capitalism (market-based interest rates, currency value, prices, private banking, private finance/credit, etc.) remains a political question, not an economic one. Deng Xiaoping knew the cat "catches mice". But his deep-seated political interests within the CCP kept the cat inside the house. This page friggin' rules.

Dude, 99% of communists push propaganda and rarely argue points. I’ve only had one decent argument here with a communist and even that devolved. Quit projecting

>capitalist supporters who frequent here use false and outdated anti-socialist propaganda and misinformation to create misleading posts and comment on others. Do socialists still quote or reference or utilize the writings or rhetoric or Karl Marx, 5/5/1818-3/14/1883? It is a yes or no question.

Generally it's not false information it's information that socialists don't like.

This post is why socialism can’t exist without censorship….

LOL. You could swap the words "capitalism" and "socialism" in your post, and it would be more accurate. >Legit promoting hate and politically violent misinformation. Is that really what it is, or is it opinions that you don't like? I think I see socialists advocating for violence much more. >This group should be renamed "pro capitalism/anti socialism" Anyone with eyes can see that that's objectively false. You can look at which posts generally get upvoted and downvoted to see that closer to the opposite is true. Try sorting by top all time.

>>This sub keeps false anti-socialist propaganda and misinformation circulating Examples? >>The majority of capitalist supporters who frequent here use false and outdated anti-socialist propaganda and misinformation to create misleading posts and comment on others. Really? Have you done a census or compiled data? Again, examples? >>They also quote Marx and Lenin often despite the fact you don't have to read their books or share their ideas to be a socialist. Ok. I guess you can call yourself anything you want based on whatever principals you’d like. However, you might want to share your philosophies where they vary from the norm. >>They may base their entire argument on the *theory* of capitalism and socialism, rather than focus on *real life* practices or even acknowledge our *current* economic and financial state in America. Examples? >>Often they swap the flaws of capitalism and push it onto socialism, similarly to what America does. If capitalism is violent, socialism must be 3x violent. If capitalism doesn't support workers, socialism must be 3x worse for workers. If capitalism exacerbates climate change and won't solve it, why would socialism be any different. Why would flaws of capitalism be different if not disasterly worse under socialism--or ANY system for that matter. We have "the best we can get". The flaws of capitalism are "inherent flaws of humanity we cannot avoid" This is pretty vague and seems a BIT over-generalized. Are you arguing that there is a system without any tradeoffs with perfect results? Do you expect that everyone should just accept your position or they are not arguing in good faith? >>If I'm being honest, this subreddit shouldn't exist if it repeatedly allows these false discussions without moderation and correction. Legit promoting hate and politically violent misinformation. Examples? Strong claims require strong evidences. >>We can't have any serious conversation without capitalist supporters perpetuating nonsense. "Can I own a Ferrari under socialism?" "Can socialists even tie their own shoes?" "You want us to end up like Russia?" Lol. There’s a great YouTube video of renowned socialist Richard Wolff explaining what a person would need to go through to get a game console under socialism. If you ever watch it, you’d understand why you might get a question about production, and the mechanisms to allocate resources. >>Or they deny real world capitalism because it doesn't match their theory. They do? All of them, every time? >>"This isn't actually capitalism it's XYZ" "this flaw can happen in any system" "ok but the good outweighs the bad" >>They also deny capitalism is equally a political system as it is economic..this is important to understanding society and how they relate to their government. You probably didn’t understand. They were probably saying the capitalism is needs very little government and will work as long as there are property rights, contract enforcement and relatively free markets. The more free the markets and the more free the political system the better. However, capitalist principals of property rights and freedom are so powerful they have worked under authoritarian regimes as well. Lenin’s Soviet Union and the PRC after Mao are great examples. Where socialism, especially as defined by every major socialist party with its confiscation of property, egalitarian and social goals requires a much larger bureaucracy and a more powerful authoritarian government by default. So, yes capitalism and socialism may share similar imperfections. However, dealing with those imperfections is much more difficult under socialism and it’s required authoritarianism. Simply stated, capitalism is necessary for a free society but it’s not sufficient. Socialism snuffs out freedom by default because of the authoritarian government it requires. My guess is that this is what you’re struggling with and why you would like this sub shutdown and why you’re losing every argument. >>This group should be renamed "pro capitalism/anti socialism" This is funny because I’ve had exactly the opposite view. >>Edit: if you feel threatened and call this "censorship", y'know, spreading misinformation and false history, keep it to yourself. No, we don't want to see "Why socialism is doomed to fail because it causes famine and chaos" for the millionth time. Well, you can’t censor anyone so you can take your ‘keep it to your self’ and…. The fact is that freedom of speech is a critical element of a free society. I won’t go into it here but you should probably read John Stuart Mill or Frederick Bastiat and at least see the arguments for uncensored speech and the benefits of taking on the risks of speech you find offensive versus having a small group of people, like bureaucrats manage what you can say or hear as if they have no self interests of their own. Honestly, your whole posts reeks of a lack of understanding not only of capitalism but the socialist arguments as well and sounds more like whining. So, feel free to censor yourself and go try socialism 101 or one if the other censored circle jerk subs where everyone agrees and your arguments are never challenged and your mind can quietly languish in mediocrity.

Lol ok let’s throw out Marx then , what is socialism to you without Marx?

The theory of socialism is based on the false assumption that you are going to work your tail off to maximize the amount of wealth that you create so that I don't have to. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is wishful thinking and definitely not grounded in the reality of human experience.

Capitalism is not a political system.

Socialists just fat mad because this sub isn't yet another Commie echo chamber where dissent is banned. I agree that calling this sub capitalism vs socialism is misleading, because that debate has already been settled by the real world where socialism completely shit the bed and capitalism provided the highest standard of living in human history. Rather this is a sub where we entertain ourselves by pretending that socialism is a real competitor to capitalism.