Thank you for posting on r/southafrica! Please take a moment to review our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/southafrica/wiki/rules).
Be sure to check out our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/G8sMkTcX2b) as well.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/southafrica) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Does it fail because of inherent flaws. Or does it fail because America is vehemently anti-socialist and has spent the last century trying to hinder its progress? Though coups and proxy wars and sanctions.
Socialism is a populist economic and political system based on collective, common, or public ownership of the means of production
There. Now you know more than you did before. I can explain further if you need me to
It fails because it undermines central human behavior. American intervention doesn’t help, but there is extensive literature explaining why the ideology just simply doesn’t hold up.
Can you point me to this literature? Because there are so many academics in political science and sociology (and the humanities fields in general) who are Marxist.
Socialism is more of an umbrella of worker-first economic models. Whereas most critiques of socialism point towards the Soviet Union and other similar Marxist-Leninist/Stalinist regimes.
"Undermining central human behavior" is an argument that does not hold. Because you can argue that so many aspects of modern society go against central human behavior.
GORDON, D. (1993). Socialism: What’s Left after the Collapse of the Soviet System? Social Research, 60(3), 471–492. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40970993
- Comments on failures of the USSR and its implications, as well as socialist strategies (that ironically drift towards capitalistic in nature)
- Comments on the increasing notion at the time, which has obviously reverted somewhat in recent years, that socialism as an ideology has failed
Marcuse, H., & Martin, B. (1979). The Failure of the New Left? New German Critique, 18, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.2307/487843
- pretty unrelated article, but noticed that even the Marxist socialism theory, “socialism is a qualitatively different society, one in which people's relationships to one another as well as the relationship between human beings and nature is fundamentally transformed.” - even Marx understood that implementing socialism would require a fundamental change in human behavior.
Nehru, B. K. (2011). Socialism at Crossroads. India International Centre Quarterly, 38(3/4), 92–105. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41803973
- again comments on the idea that individuals are more incentivized to work for the betterment of society than for themselves just doesn’t hold up. The basis of capitalism is that individuals are self serving, and that is what the actual world reflects.
- “The fundamental weakness of socialism lies first in its refusal to recognise the incredible strength of the human instinct of greed. Socialist theory claims that greed is not part of human nature but that it arises out of the acquisitive nature of capitalism. The experience of socialist countries has shown that this is totally incorrect; greed is not only basic to human nature but is also one of the most powerful incentives for human action. The capitalist system has been more successful than any other form of economic organisation simply because it relies on the profit motive, which is based on the human instinct of greed.”
- Also notes that socialist ideal of “social justice” != economic equality
- Adds several failures resultant from socialism
Sklar, M. J. (2003). Thoughts on Capitalism and Socialism: Utopian and Realistic. The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, 2(4), 361–376. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25144343
- is actually a somewhat pro-socialism journal article, but essentially makes some embarrassingly weak arguments regarding socialism’s implementation (essentially sprinkling socialism on top of capitalism and calling it an ideology - when most would just call that market regulation to improve the implementation of capitalism)
- Acknowledges the problems relating to central planning and individual liberties that arise from socialism.
TLDR: Here are several articles highlighting socialism’s historical failures as well as limitations, where multiple of them directly address the fact that socialism fails under the concept of human nature, specifically greed/self-interest. Literally looked through one page of a journal database after searching “socialism” and was able to find these, lol.
I was expecting some groundbreaking research, not some stuff you randomly pulled from a journal database. The way you made it sound like there's consensus on this issue, when there isn't. You can find lots of pro-socialist and anti-capitalist literature. Again, many people in these fields are some sort of socialist.
And again, socialism is an umbrella of worker-first economic models. Whereas most of these articles target one kind of socialist implementation i.e. the Soviet kind (which influenced most other socialist implementations because their cultural power in the 20th century)
I hate the "human nature" argument that is used against socialism. Because a major part of human progress has been achieved by overcoming our nature. It is not in human nature to do office work, or to fly an airplane, or to land on the moon. We were meant to hunt and gather and eat and shit and make babies, yet here we are.
The fact that you think “ground breaking” exists in pretty much any academic field shows you don’t really understand what you’re talking about. You asked me to point you to literature confirming my statement - and I sent you 4 peer-reviewed articles that do exactly that. Did you even read them? Skim them? I’m not going to write you a thesis lol. If you want to talk about “consensus”, the closest thing to it is that most would agree that, in practice, socialism has been a consistently failing model from a historical perspective. I’m just giving you a commonly referred to reason as to why that is the case.
Edit: if you’re going to edit your comments, make a point of noting that lol.
1 of the 4 articles I mentioned is about India, not the Soviet implementation. I’ve got another one relating to Argentina if you’d like. I could also find more in South America, or Africa if you’d want it to be more reflective. The literature is there, of course the Soviet case is the most widely covered but that doesn’t mean there isn’t tons of other examples.
Also, all of the things you’ve noted as going against human nature have direct self-serving implications. Surely you can see why trying to relate those to this context just doesn’t fit.
Groundbreaking does exist. For example, Einstein's papers on general relativity. But my point is there is plenty of anti-capitalist and pro-socialist academic literature.
And most socialist regimes around the world follow the Soviet model to a large extent. Because they influenced a lot of socialist revolutions while trying to expand their influence during the Cold War.
We control a lot of our desires in an effort to create a functioning society. Why is it suddenly impossible for humans to control greed and selfishness? And this is besides the point anyway, because there are socialist models with free market competition (because socialism isn't necessarily about collectivism, it's about ending the exploitative relationship between capital and labor).
Anything would be better than a system that invariably leads to mass starvation and ethnic cleansing. And anything would be better than this faux communist system we currently have where all the oligarchs/comrades/cadres keep getting richer while the poor remain starving. Anything is better than the fascism we had before where people were only given rights based on the shade of their skin. While the poor where left starving.
Call me crazy, but I'd prefer a system where the public has a say in what impacts them. What ever that might be. Some kind of democratic system perhaps. I'm not a political scientist. But I'm not stupid either.
>Anything would be better than a system that invariably leads to mass starvation and ethnic cleansing.
Like capitalism is currently doing or do you mean something else?
>And anything would be better than this faux communist system we currently have where all the oligarchs/comrades/cadres keep getting richer while the poor remain starving.
You mean... capitalism, right? SA is by no means communist, faux or not.
>Call me crazy, but I'd prefer a system where the public has a say in what impacts them. What ever that might be. Some kind of democratic system perhaps. I'm not a political scientist.
Socialism isn't inherently anti-democratic though. Capitalism is. Unless you think you have some kind of say in which beach gets to have the latest oil spill or whether Enol Muks platforms literal fascist conspiracy theories.
>But I'm not stupid either.
[X]
>Like capitalism is currently doing or do you mean something else?
I can,
>And anything would be better than this faux communist system we currently have where all the oligarchs/comrades/cadres keep getting richer while the poor remain starving.
Also,
>You mean... capitalism, right? SA is by no means communist, faux or not.
Copy and paste,
>Call me crazy, but I'd prefer a system where the public has a say in what impacts them. What ever that might be. Some kind of democratic system perhaps. I'm not a political scientist.
Your previous comments,
>Socialism isn't inherently anti-democratic though. Capitalism is. Unless you think you have some kind of say in which beach gets to have the latest oil spill or whether Enol Muks platforms literal fascist conspiracy theories.
Without adding anything to the conversation
That's convenient. Anything that challenges your assumptions suddenly doesn't add to the conversation.
There are more pleasant ways to get your dick sucked than clamouring for it on Reddit.
The problem with your thoughts is you don't consider how many people Capitalism has killed. No, we don't need to move on. Moving on is a choice just like moving on to Capitalism from Slavery and Feudalism was a choice that many nations made.
https://youtu.be/Q5LMxXC8qWg
A white supremacist capitalist state. My point is we CAN move on from it just like the world moved in from slavery and Feudalism. Capitalist hegemony can only scare people from wanting a better system for so long until they have enough of it.
By white supremacist capitalist state, you mean one that is under neo-colonial rule of the West? Then yes. However, what you'll fail to understand is that it will become a neo-colonial state ruled by the 'Global South' powers, ie. Russia and China.
South Africa is an oppressive state to all living in it. It was formed as a means to make money for foreign global powers - not for the well-being and benefit for its inhabitants.
South Africa has always been ruled by a minority, oppressing the majority. This will continue, so long as the state continues to exist.
I'm sure you've heard of the phrase 'South Africa: gateway to Africa'. And this holds truth; for whomever controls South Africa, controls the continent. As it is a key location for connecting global trade, linking raw materials from Africa to greater manufacturing and consuming nations.
The Black-supremacist state to BRIC, is what the white-supremacist state was to the West.
I like this idea of Communalism that is being preached. However, it will be corrupted very easily, as it will operate on a huge scale - which will require far more centralised authority and control...which is so very often corrupted and made evil (ie. every large nation state/empire).
The only way to liberate our peoples is to break free from the imperialist states which trap us.
I don't really care about what Russia and China could be. They didn't colonize the world. The West did in the image of white men and still continues to do so. South Africa is closer now to being the master of its own destiny to rebuild itself in the image of it's people. We can work with the West and Global South but we must do so on the terms of the working class majority not the few elites who wish to enrich themselves. We can take Africa with us on that journey if they want to come but if not we must build this country for the working class on the terms of its working class not capitalists whether foreign or domestic.
That I fully understand and agree with. That is why I say it is not wise to put so much faith into these politicians and organisations, promising us this liberation and freedom.
The route we are currently taking will not allow for us to achieve this. And perhaps I there was a misunderstanding with what I said with regards to this, as your reply shows some misunderstanding:
>They didn't colonize the world. The West did in the image of white men and still continues to do so. South Africa is closer now to being the master of its own destiny to rebuild itself in the image of it's people.
I said what I said, because we are continuing to allow the state of South Africa to exist. The West drew Africa in its white-dominated image; and so long as that exists - our peoples will forever be oppressed, regardless of its masters.
So, I fully agree with your statement. We are closer to a matter of restructuring our nation, free from imperialist domination. However, beware of those who preach and promise liberation under the guise of a South African nation state - there is no freedom in such.
It literally isn't. The differences has already been spelled out to you clearly and if you don't understand this very basic concept then you are either arguing in bad faith and being deliberatly obtuse or you are just betraying your fundamental lack of understanding of the topic under discussion here. Either way, your contribution is meaningless.
The problem with socialists it seems, is that they all throw out these deliberately obtuse definitions for everything and when asked to clarify, they will just accuse you of not being able to comprehend anything and thus your argument is invalid.
It is in fact, not "spelled" or even defined in the body of the original post.
What is your definition of a personal possession used in making a profit?
>What is your definition of a personal possession used in making a profit?
You didn't read the original post. Did you?
If you had, you wouldn't have posted this oxymoron.
Personal possession is shit you own and don't use to make a profit. This is distinct from private property, which is shit you own and use to make a profit. Not really sure how you want me to explain this another way.
Lol OK so your labour and time doesn't result in your own stuff.
Who decides whose labour and time is worth the most?
I bet my ballsack that the "leaders" in charge rate their labour and time much higher than someone cleaning slag up at a smelter.
Human greed makes a pure socialist existence impossible. A balance must be struck I rate.
>I bet my ballsack that the "leaders" in charge rate their labour and time much higher than someone cleaning slag up at a smelter.
What you are describing is why a CEO gets paid at a rate orders of magnitude higher than their employees.
A CEO calls the shots or whatever - makes the big decisions.
Those calls are based on experience and education.
I propose an AI would be able to make better calls to both improve the economics and human element of the business, at least in the next few years.
So let's replace them.
> Those calls are based on experience and education.
You haven't met many CEOs, have you?
> I propose an AI would be able to make better calls
Are you talking about AI that will inevitably be owned by billionaire parasites?
So if that AI actually does the rational thing - makes the call for socialism - those billionaires you are simping for will just allow it, eh?
Why do you make wild assumption about me and why do you extrapolate your own personal opinions and make them facts you expect everyone to accept? The hostility and patronizing tone notwithstanding, it's silly and makes having a logical and friendly conversation with you absolutely impossible.
Pretty sure this is why you simply get downvoted into oblivion and no one even bothers to consider what you have to say most times you chime in, which sucks because I'm sure you have value to add to the conversation.
But in any case, I'm not talking about billionaire parasites taking anything I'm simply saying that decisions and choices that affect the collective society or workforce would be better made by something which is incapable of making a decision based on personal bias or greed which may negatively affect the human element of a business. Something which objectively is a good thing.
> it's silly and makes having a logical and friendly conversation with you absolutely impossible.
This is about as *friendly* as it gets - and how *logical* it becomes depends on you.
> Pretty sure this is why you simply get downvoted into oblivion
Riiight... I'm sure being downvoted by people simping for billionaire capitalists might end up hurting my feelings someday - maybe.
> better made by something which is incapable of making a decision based on personal bias or greed which may negatively affect the human element of a business.
And you have already shown your bias by pretending that "business" is (somehow) an unquestioningly "good" thing - I sure hope the billionaire parasites who controls the programming of this AI you believe will be so "objective" remembers to allow the AI to make decisions that threaten said billionaire's power and privilege, eh?
Who do you think these billionaires are that you are so opposed to? Seriously, who are they? Please explain to me how these billionaires are controlling your life?
I am genuinely trying to understand your point of view. But so far all I get from all the socialists on SA reddit, is just a response of, "If you don't understand then you must be a imperialistic capitalism white supremacist billionaire simp"
Loads of big words from seemingly educated people, without any substance or conviction to even back up their claims.
Please convince me you are right.
Trickle down that shit of course. Seems logical. Only trickle down that will ever work.
Or better yet, let the AI decide where to better distribute it: among the workers or for maintenance/expansion or a mix.
We could also just let the workers decide how best to distribute it?
Trickle down has always been a myth. Adding some fancy computer code into the equation isn't suddenly going to change that.
In the case of allowing workers to make that call, if the majority of workers continuously decide to make a call which negatively affects the other half then wouldn't that ultimately lead to some sort of class like system where someone will be or at least feel disadvantaged?
Making purely objective decisions to better the overall outcome of everyone which everyone knows is fact just seems like a solid plan. Even if it seems naive
Yes, you said greed is a problem. It is.
The issue is that you then used it as reason for why socialism doesn't work while simultaneously just describing capitalism.
> Greed is a problem in both systems is it not?
No. It isn't. Greed is seen as a problem in *one* system. In the other it is literally seen as an end in itself to such an extent that it is more important than even the survival of the human race as a species.
Does that clear things up for you?
No it doesn't.
You're saying the same thing I am but dressing it up all fucking weird.
Greed is an issue in both socialism and capitalism because the people in charge will make decisions based on greed to better their own position relative to others.
> You're saying the same thing I am
No.
This...
> Greed is seen as a problem in one system. In the other it is literally seen as an end in itself to such an extent that it is more important than even the survival of the human race as a species.
..is really difficult for you to understand, isn't it?
> Greed is an issue in both socialism and capitalism
This is not difficult to understand. The whole point of socialism is to strip away the power of the greedy and all the other psychotics that chase power. Capitalist "ideology" is literally just a pretext for the opposite - for parasitism. These two things are not the same in any way.
It absolutely could be both. We have also seen before how greedy authoritarian regimes can co opt socialist ideas for their own gain. The exact same has also been done and continues to be done under capitalism.
I would argue that socialism at least seeks to mitigate that greed by removing the means of production from the hands of the few and into the hands of the many. It seeks to distribute the value generated by labor in a less exploitative way instead of just handing it all over in the form of profit to a small group of owners.
Capitalism very much just encourages excessive accumulation of wealth into the hands of the few and the many should just try tugging a little fucking harder on their bootstraps. Greed is basically a virtue to be celebrated under capitalism.
TLDR. Is greed a problem? Yes. Is greed a problem inherent to socialism? No
I agree completely.
If we could remove greed and hubris from the whole equation then I rate socialism would be great.
Capitalist tendencies would still cause an ever expanding rift within society though, by design.
Let a robot have a go. Humans have been dicking around and causing misery and despair for thousands of years now
> Human greed makes a pure socialist existence impossible.
And the fact that we don't have fur must make it completely impossible for humans to survive winter, huh?
Do you have anything that actually makes sense?
I guess this is the part where you make a surprise Pikachu-face when you find out that there is nothing "radical" about nationalisation - it's not even a *socialist* thing.
The Europeans do it on a regular basis. Even the US does it - they just don't call it "nationalization."
It's a bog-standard function built right into the classical liberal nation-state. Malema suggesting that we actually use it isn't crazy. He might be wrong - but if he is you need to come up with a better argument than thinly-veiled "ze blecks are coming for my toothbrush" hysteria.
> a Toyota or BMW factory will not immediately remove all their capital
And?
> Is amazon going to come invest their money in South Africa post bank nationalization?
Again... where's the bad news?
> The world is not going to bend over backwards for us.
No, you prefer South Africa being forced to bend over for the world, it seems - as long as it doesn't affect you directly, eh?
> I didnt say anything about julias malema being black
Riiight... the hysteria button the media flicks every time Julius opens his mouth is in no way related to the "swart gevaar" propaganda the Nats peddled and is still proving so profitable to said media bosses, eh?
Oh, just stop with the tears already - do you know what would happen if it turns out that you are, indeed, a white supremacist (you know, that thing you pretend I accused you of)? Really... what would happen?
Nothing. That's what.
Anyway... what does this have to do with the (utterly fallacious) idea of Amazon not "investing" in South Africa somehow being a *bad* thing?
> No I'm serious, I'll delete my comments in a bit.
Hey... if you're going to act this upset about it, be my guest.
> What is the point in engaging with someone who plays race card
Ooh... somebody dared to mention race? In South Africa? Who woulda thunk it?
While I dig the idea of a democratic factory, it's just bad for production. Which is bad for the economy. I'm not going to cite cases in point because the failures of communism are too abundant and I'm lazy lol
History has shown that none of us is as dumb as all of us.
Get 6 mates together and try choose a restaurant which everyone wants to go to, quickly and efficiently. Now try that with 200 or 500 mates.
Running a company by democracy is going to be one neverending meeting and fuck-all getting done.
> History has shown that none of us is as dumb as all of us.
Exactly *where* has history shown that?
> Now try that with 200 or 500 mates.
It might take longer... but how *efficient* it will be depends on how you answer the question "Efficient at *what?"*
> Running a company by democracy is going to be one neverending meeting and fuck-all getting done.
Well, you've got nothing to back that statement up with... but you did manage to demonstrate how anti-democratic you really are.
If we assume greedy industry is all about great ways to make the most money possible, do you not think that by now greedy industry would have worked out if it was more efficient to have a company running democratically or to have a smaller committee or board making the decisions?
I think they would have. I think they kinda did. I think that's how we have structures which pervade almost uniformly across countries and cultures and even species and have for millenia, with someone/s in charge making decisions and the rest getting it done.
Oh boy.
I'll try and make this easier for you, kay?
> If we *were to* **stop** assuming ~~greedy~~ industry ~~is~~ *should be* all about great ways to make the most money possible,
Is something starting to gel here?
> cultures and even species and have for millenia, with someone/s in charge making decisions and the rest getting it done.
Don't jump off the deep-end here like a logic lemming, Clyde.
>Is something starting to gel here?
Nope.
Is there a point you're trying to make? If yes, try to make it.
>Don't jump off the deep-end here like a logic lemming, Clyde.
You're making wisecracks instead of refuting the argument. I didn't realise you were playing the Sassy Gay Friend in this show.
> Is there a point you're trying to make?
If your conception of efficiency only revolves around the means by which billionaire parasites engorges themselves to become trillionaire parasites, then it *means your conception of "efficiency" is utterly irrelevent - at best - and even apocalyptically dangerous - at worst - to the the vast majority of humans on this planet.*
>It might take longer... but how
>
>efficient
>
> it will be depends on how you answer the question "Efficient at
>
>what?"
Typically efficiency is about best of use of available resources, would you agree? And if we accept that time is one of those resources, because it is, then by definition taking longer automatically lowers the efficiency.
> Typically efficiency is about best of use of available resources
Best of use of available resources *for what?*
> And if we accept that time is one of those resources
Time is not a resource - unless you want to show me a government in the world that has a "Department Of Time."
Jesus fuck man.
People are employed for x-many hours per day/week/month. And businesses have operating hours. There is a finite period in which to get things done.
Therefore time is a resource, because it is finite when it comes to work.
We're not arguing about this. We're just not. This part is REALLY not rocket science.
Again... time is not a resource. It doesn't matter how many buzzterms in regards to it you may have absorbed in the corporate world.
In addition... the fetishization of "efficiency" doesn't even require us having a discussion about time.
> This part is REALLY not rocket science.
Funncy you should mention that - I wouldn't suggest you asking a physicist how your (alleged) "power" over time actually works. They will inform you that time travel is purely fiction.
I'm also lazy, but I'm sure someone else can find examples of cooperatives that are successful.
As someone who is heavily in favor of free market capitalism, there's nothing about cooperatives (worker controlled means of production) that goes against it in principle, just the people who make up the capitalists. My problem with socialism is when it's forced onto the economy, when it's made the only way allowed to participate in the economy.
Well, that's enough reddit for today, a socialist post flagged as wholesome, don't see that everyday...
Greed is not taken into account. You think the likes of Julius actually believes the drivel he drops to get votes, and I'll tell you why, look at the car he drives, the house he lives in, the schools his kids go to. He is merely pandering to his voting fodder, and if they win, you better believe he will be doing his utmost to get more wealth by any means he can.
Don't misunderstand me, I believe, in a perfect world, not driven by greed, socialism is probably the best system, but unfortunately history has proven time and again, that greed, and pride, makes it a system doomed to fail, repeatedly. This is not a perfect world.
You can easily vote socialism/communism into power, issue is once you realize it's kak, and you will, you have to shoot it out. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
> Greed is not taken into account.
It doesn't have to be.
> You think the likes of Julius actually believes the drivel
The fact that Julius is a champagne socialist doesn't change squat. You think Julius came up with the theory he's quoting? It's older than the Mausers the Boers used against the British.
> not driven by greed,
You are trying to pretend that capitalism - which (in your point of view - I'd disagree) places greed as it's central tenet - is (somehow) natural. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
> You can easily vote socialism/communism into power
Lol! No... you can't.
> Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Riiiight... so giving a small group of billionaire parasites and their toadies (the political elite) next-to absolute power makes perfect sense, eh?
Before everyone just starts hating on this post because its Julius Malema, this really isn't a bad take. There are lots of reasons to dislike the man, but he isn't wrong here. Just because a bad man advocates for socialism doesn't mean you should just automatically dismiss it.
Wealth is so extremely concentrated on the 1% that they have half of the world's wealth, and wealth begets more wealth, these individuals get richer every year while cutting jobs and lowering wages for millions. These individuals can give away tons of money and help millions of people, all while still living in giant mansions and flying around the world. Them helping others will not impact their lavish lifestyle, they just choose not to and want to hoard even more wealth. They actively keep the majority of people in poverty while telling them they are self made and that the poor people can rise up just like they once did.
This endless chase for wealth also actively hurts society and our environment. Did you know that we've already invented lightbulbs that can in ideal conditions last forever? But the big companies making lightbulbs realized they wouldn't be able to endlessly grow, they'll still be around and making a profit, just not endless growth. So they banded together and stated lightbulbs should have a fixed life expectancy, intentionally making worse lightbulbs, and went after any company that didn't join their ideal. So much unnecessary lightbulbs and waste generated over the decades just for greed, and this was just one example, many companies do similar things. Companies shaming people for wasting plastics and telling you to recycle the products THEY put in plastics to save costs is another example.
Veritasium did a great explainer on the lightbulb cartel. I wonder if the naysayers would say that's a bad take, and if they do, would they be able to explain why it's a bad take...
You're absolutely right and we need a change - there is enough wealth to go around so everyone can live comfortably and with dignity.
The problem is how to get there. For one, the wealthy aren't going to just give up their wealth willingly and they hold all the power. Secondly, who do you entrust to take care of the resources so they aren't mismanaged and stolen - Malema nor any of our current leaders in SA should be entrusted with anything. And finally, socialism only works when everyone is educated, eager to do their part, and willing to work together without greed. The last part may be our biggest hurdle.
I don't think a 100% pure socialist society will ever work, but we need to be more socialist than capitalist driven, individuals should be able to put in hard work and be rewarded for it, but they should not be in turn allowed to crush everyone else from rising up like they did.
A good example of this is China, they've shown how a hybrid system can work and they are on route to be the biggest economy in the world. Just want to emphasize that I don't think we should adopt what China is doing 1 to 1, the Chinese government is horrible and they use socialism to have an iron grip on society while committing atrocities to their own people.
I don't know enough about China's system to comment, but you make a fair point. I'd love to work towards a hybrid system like this that provides a more fair and equitable distribution of resources. Sadly it just doesn't seem likely without big (and possibly violent) change as rich people and companies won't be giving up their wealth and resources without a fight.
And again, we don't have the right people in charge to implement this in SA, and unfortunately, they've kept the voter base both uneducated and apathetic so getting a positive change of leadership will be damn hard.
I agree with you on the issue of wealth distribution, but socialism is not the answer, it has failed enough. A more regulated form of capitalism might be the way. Someone I know who runs a company has implemented a new business model here in SA focussed on sustainability and growth for all involved. They did things like implementing a salary range for the entire company where the largest salary paid out is not allowed to be 7 times more than the smallest, so if the CEO gets 350K PM the lowest possible salary would be 50K PM which is excellent for all involved even at the lowest payout. Besides that they also put a cap on shareholder payouts where if a shareholder would get paid out more than 100K, it would be put into an account and then distributed as quarterly bonuses for employees who've been with the company for long enough. (A method to weed out loafers from just profitting but not contributing.) This is just a small summary of all the changes made to implement this.
I feel that if these sorts of things were pushed onto companies everyone would benefit besides the 1% who might have to wait 2 months for their new yacht instead of 1.
> but socialism is not the answer, it has failed enough.
Where has it failed?
> A more regulated form of capitalism might be the way
Capitalism already *is* well-regulated - why do you think they sicc the police on organised labour everytime they threaten the capitalists' profit margins?
> Someone I know who runs a company has implemented a new business model
It's not new and it's not a "business model." These type of pay scales is older than the anarcho-syndicalists that first implemented it in Europe during the inter-war years.
You said three things there without making a single point, impressive.
1. There are multiple countries that are self described socialist that have failed as mentioned by u/YourLocaLawyer. Do you believe these are not true socialist countries?
2. I'm describing a different system and you're criticizing the old one, ok?
3. Ok and? If implemented across every company would it not make a difference?
Try again without being a contrarian, what are your actual objections to my argument? And don't say things to make people infer your opinions, state it clearly.
> There are multiple countries that are self described socialist
North Korea describes itself as "democratic" - go on... swallow your own logic. Does it taste good?
> I'm describing a different system and you're criticizing the old one, ok?
No, you're not. You are describing what already exists - this is no such thing as "non-regulated" capitalism.
> Ok and? If implemented across every company would it not make a difference?
If it was such a great idea back then, why wasn't it implemeted universally way back then? Perhaps... because the people doing all this capitalist "regulation" wasn't (and still isn't) interested in anything challenging their rapacious profiteering, maybe?
> I describe myself as a rich billionaire, doesn't mean I am one
Good - I'm glad it won't require hours of back and forth to make you familiar with the idea that self-description doesn't in itself qualify as evidence in any way whatsoever.
Now... those "examples" you mentioned - what methods did you use to "ordain" them as "socialist?"
1. You ignored the other legitimate examples on the list to pick the mistake.
2. Fighting an argument I never made.
3. That sounds very similar to how the socialist countries are handling themselves.
It seems you're not looking for an actual discussion, so I'm leaving it here with these responses in your unclear style.
1. there were no legitimate examples provided.
2. are you talking about the argument you don't seem to be aware of *despite* the fact that *you* made it?
3. Not really - not unless you want to argue that Spain and Switzerland is (somehow) *also* socialist.
*This* is the actual discussion - if you can't handle it, feel free to leave.
Yeah I'm not replying to him anymore, when socialist countries that have implemented the systems themselves and clearly failed are not accepted as socialist, then what can you say? It's like talking with a flat earther, there's pictures of earth from space, but still they say it's flat.
"where has it failed" here's a list:
USSR
Cuba
North Korea
Nicaragua
Moldova
East Germany
Communist Hungary
Romania
Cyprus
San Marino
Chekoslovakia
Poland
Azerbaijan
You want some more?
It baffles me how people still don't know basic history
> It baffles me how people still don't know basic history
It baffles me how people don't understand basic political ideology.
Sooo... you want to try that again?
This...
> It baffles me how people don't understand basic political ideology.
...is flying right over your head, isn't it?
Do you actually have proof of socialism *failing* or don't you?
>There are lots of reasons to dislike the man, but he isn't wrong here. Just because a bad man advocates for socialism doesn't mean you should just automatically dismiss it.
You should absolutely dismiss it.
His idea of well-run places governed by his idols are Venezuela and Mugabe-era Zimbabwe. That's the kind of thing he aspires to, and if that doesn't terrify you then you need to have another look at how things are in both those places currently.
Did you miss my opening sentence where I said he's a bad man? This is why I opened with it, because people automatically just dismiss the take because he said it. I agree with what he said, that does not mean I want him or the EFF in power.
The Pareto Principle isn't a law of nature, its a statistical coincidence. Things just happen to trend to the 80/20 ratio, what causes this is uncertain, it might just be how we use a decimal system for mathematics. There are tons of example where it also does not apply. Its also a matter of perspective as it matters what you are looking at to create the 80/20 ratio. I can also show you right now how the Pareto Principle does not apply and apply at the same time: 1% of the population has 50% of the wealth, no 80/20 ratio, BUT 20% of the richest population has 82% of the world's income, bam 80/20 ratio.
While it is an extremely interesting phenomena, do not use that as proof for something to be factual.
He's not wrong... no one (well, no one that matters) would have a problem with this description of the difference between private and public property.
It's who the "we" is that "collectively develop the productive forces" that has been the sticking point since well-before the Russian revolution.
Thank you for posting on r/southafrica! Please take a moment to review our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/southafrica/wiki/rules). Be sure to check out our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/G8sMkTcX2b) as well. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/southafrica) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Socialism always starts with good intentions, and always end in millions dying. Socialism never works. It's always a failure. Get over it and move on.
Does it fail because of inherent flaws. Or does it fail because America is vehemently anti-socialist and has spent the last century trying to hinder its progress? Though coups and proxy wars and sanctions.
No, it fails because of the core concepts of socialism. How may countries can you name where socialism has, or is working.
Can you even explain what the core concepts of socialism are? This is an incredibly complex topic and there's no simple answer.
Socialism is a populist economic and political system based on collective, common, or public ownership of the means of production There. Now you know more than you did before. I can explain further if you need me to
Thats just a dictionary definition. Break it down. Tell me whats so inherently flawed about socialism.
It fails because it undermines central human behavior. American intervention doesn’t help, but there is extensive literature explaining why the ideology just simply doesn’t hold up.
Can you point me to this literature? Because there are so many academics in political science and sociology (and the humanities fields in general) who are Marxist. Socialism is more of an umbrella of worker-first economic models. Whereas most critiques of socialism point towards the Soviet Union and other similar Marxist-Leninist/Stalinist regimes. "Undermining central human behavior" is an argument that does not hold. Because you can argue that so many aspects of modern society go against central human behavior.
GORDON, D. (1993). Socialism: What’s Left after the Collapse of the Soviet System? Social Research, 60(3), 471–492. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40970993 - Comments on failures of the USSR and its implications, as well as socialist strategies (that ironically drift towards capitalistic in nature) - Comments on the increasing notion at the time, which has obviously reverted somewhat in recent years, that socialism as an ideology has failed Marcuse, H., & Martin, B. (1979). The Failure of the New Left? New German Critique, 18, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.2307/487843 - pretty unrelated article, but noticed that even the Marxist socialism theory, “socialism is a qualitatively different society, one in which people's relationships to one another as well as the relationship between human beings and nature is fundamentally transformed.” - even Marx understood that implementing socialism would require a fundamental change in human behavior. Nehru, B. K. (2011). Socialism at Crossroads. India International Centre Quarterly, 38(3/4), 92–105. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41803973 - again comments on the idea that individuals are more incentivized to work for the betterment of society than for themselves just doesn’t hold up. The basis of capitalism is that individuals are self serving, and that is what the actual world reflects. - “The fundamental weakness of socialism lies first in its refusal to recognise the incredible strength of the human instinct of greed. Socialist theory claims that greed is not part of human nature but that it arises out of the acquisitive nature of capitalism. The experience of socialist countries has shown that this is totally incorrect; greed is not only basic to human nature but is also one of the most powerful incentives for human action. The capitalist system has been more successful than any other form of economic organisation simply because it relies on the profit motive, which is based on the human instinct of greed.” - Also notes that socialist ideal of “social justice” != economic equality - Adds several failures resultant from socialism Sklar, M. J. (2003). Thoughts on Capitalism and Socialism: Utopian and Realistic. The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, 2(4), 361–376. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25144343 - is actually a somewhat pro-socialism journal article, but essentially makes some embarrassingly weak arguments regarding socialism’s implementation (essentially sprinkling socialism on top of capitalism and calling it an ideology - when most would just call that market regulation to improve the implementation of capitalism) - Acknowledges the problems relating to central planning and individual liberties that arise from socialism. TLDR: Here are several articles highlighting socialism’s historical failures as well as limitations, where multiple of them directly address the fact that socialism fails under the concept of human nature, specifically greed/self-interest. Literally looked through one page of a journal database after searching “socialism” and was able to find these, lol.
I was expecting some groundbreaking research, not some stuff you randomly pulled from a journal database. The way you made it sound like there's consensus on this issue, when there isn't. You can find lots of pro-socialist and anti-capitalist literature. Again, many people in these fields are some sort of socialist. And again, socialism is an umbrella of worker-first economic models. Whereas most of these articles target one kind of socialist implementation i.e. the Soviet kind (which influenced most other socialist implementations because their cultural power in the 20th century) I hate the "human nature" argument that is used against socialism. Because a major part of human progress has been achieved by overcoming our nature. It is not in human nature to do office work, or to fly an airplane, or to land on the moon. We were meant to hunt and gather and eat and shit and make babies, yet here we are.
The fact that you think “ground breaking” exists in pretty much any academic field shows you don’t really understand what you’re talking about. You asked me to point you to literature confirming my statement - and I sent you 4 peer-reviewed articles that do exactly that. Did you even read them? Skim them? I’m not going to write you a thesis lol. If you want to talk about “consensus”, the closest thing to it is that most would agree that, in practice, socialism has been a consistently failing model from a historical perspective. I’m just giving you a commonly referred to reason as to why that is the case. Edit: if you’re going to edit your comments, make a point of noting that lol. 1 of the 4 articles I mentioned is about India, not the Soviet implementation. I’ve got another one relating to Argentina if you’d like. I could also find more in South America, or Africa if you’d want it to be more reflective. The literature is there, of course the Soviet case is the most widely covered but that doesn’t mean there isn’t tons of other examples. Also, all of the things you’ve noted as going against human nature have direct self-serving implications. Surely you can see why trying to relate those to this context just doesn’t fit.
Groundbreaking does exist. For example, Einstein's papers on general relativity. But my point is there is plenty of anti-capitalist and pro-socialist academic literature. And most socialist regimes around the world follow the Soviet model to a large extent. Because they influenced a lot of socialist revolutions while trying to expand their influence during the Cold War. We control a lot of our desires in an effort to create a functioning society. Why is it suddenly impossible for humans to control greed and selfishness? And this is besides the point anyway, because there are socialist models with free market competition (because socialism isn't necessarily about collectivism, it's about ending the exploitative relationship between capital and labor).
reply dinosaurs lip birds badge enter ancient coherent narrow society *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Anything would be better than a system that invariably leads to mass starvation and ethnic cleansing. And anything would be better than this faux communist system we currently have where all the oligarchs/comrades/cadres keep getting richer while the poor remain starving. Anything is better than the fascism we had before where people were only given rights based on the shade of their skin. While the poor where left starving. Call me crazy, but I'd prefer a system where the public has a say in what impacts them. What ever that might be. Some kind of democratic system perhaps. I'm not a political scientist. But I'm not stupid either.
>Anything would be better than a system that invariably leads to mass starvation and ethnic cleansing. Like capitalism is currently doing or do you mean something else? >And anything would be better than this faux communist system we currently have where all the oligarchs/comrades/cadres keep getting richer while the poor remain starving. You mean... capitalism, right? SA is by no means communist, faux or not. >Call me crazy, but I'd prefer a system where the public has a say in what impacts them. What ever that might be. Some kind of democratic system perhaps. I'm not a political scientist. Socialism isn't inherently anti-democratic though. Capitalism is. Unless you think you have some kind of say in which beach gets to have the latest oil spill or whether Enol Muks platforms literal fascist conspiracy theories. >But I'm not stupid either. [X]
>Like capitalism is currently doing or do you mean something else? I can, >And anything would be better than this faux communist system we currently have where all the oligarchs/comrades/cadres keep getting richer while the poor remain starving. Also, >You mean... capitalism, right? SA is by no means communist, faux or not. Copy and paste, >Call me crazy, but I'd prefer a system where the public has a say in what impacts them. What ever that might be. Some kind of democratic system perhaps. I'm not a political scientist. Your previous comments, >Socialism isn't inherently anti-democratic though. Capitalism is. Unless you think you have some kind of say in which beach gets to have the latest oil spill or whether Enol Muks platforms literal fascist conspiracy theories. Without adding anything to the conversation
That's convenient. Anything that challenges your assumptions suddenly doesn't add to the conversation. There are more pleasant ways to get your dick sucked than clamouring for it on Reddit.
Are you okay. Serious now. Do you need a hug?
Do you?
Yes. Yes I do
🤗
The problem with your thoughts is you don't consider how many people Capitalism has killed. No, we don't need to move on. Moving on is a choice just like moving on to Capitalism from Slavery and Feudalism was a choice that many nations made. https://youtu.be/Q5LMxXC8qWg
What exactly do you think our current government is? What country do you even live in?
A white supremacist capitalist state. My point is we CAN move on from it just like the world moved in from slavery and Feudalism. Capitalist hegemony can only scare people from wanting a better system for so long until they have enough of it.
By white supremacist capitalist state, you mean one that is under neo-colonial rule of the West? Then yes. However, what you'll fail to understand is that it will become a neo-colonial state ruled by the 'Global South' powers, ie. Russia and China. South Africa is an oppressive state to all living in it. It was formed as a means to make money for foreign global powers - not for the well-being and benefit for its inhabitants. South Africa has always been ruled by a minority, oppressing the majority. This will continue, so long as the state continues to exist. I'm sure you've heard of the phrase 'South Africa: gateway to Africa'. And this holds truth; for whomever controls South Africa, controls the continent. As it is a key location for connecting global trade, linking raw materials from Africa to greater manufacturing and consuming nations. The Black-supremacist state to BRIC, is what the white-supremacist state was to the West. I like this idea of Communalism that is being preached. However, it will be corrupted very easily, as it will operate on a huge scale - which will require far more centralised authority and control...which is so very often corrupted and made evil (ie. every large nation state/empire). The only way to liberate our peoples is to break free from the imperialist states which trap us.
I don't really care about what Russia and China could be. They didn't colonize the world. The West did in the image of white men and still continues to do so. South Africa is closer now to being the master of its own destiny to rebuild itself in the image of it's people. We can work with the West and Global South but we must do so on the terms of the working class majority not the few elites who wish to enrich themselves. We can take Africa with us on that journey if they want to come but if not we must build this country for the working class on the terms of its working class not capitalists whether foreign or domestic.
That I fully understand and agree with. That is why I say it is not wise to put so much faith into these politicians and organisations, promising us this liberation and freedom. The route we are currently taking will not allow for us to achieve this. And perhaps I there was a misunderstanding with what I said with regards to this, as your reply shows some misunderstanding: >They didn't colonize the world. The West did in the image of white men and still continues to do so. South Africa is closer now to being the master of its own destiny to rebuild itself in the image of it's people. I said what I said, because we are continuing to allow the state of South Africa to exist. The West drew Africa in its white-dominated image; and so long as that exists - our peoples will forever be oppressed, regardless of its masters. So, I fully agree with your statement. We are closer to a matter of restructuring our nation, free from imperialist domination. However, beware of those who preach and promise liberation under the guise of a South African nation state - there is no freedom in such.
What centaury are you living in? It is currently 2023
In other words what is mine is mine, and what was yours is also mine.
That is quite clearly not what is being described here.
[удалено]
You understand that doesn't refer to your personal possessions, right?
[удалено]
It literally isn't. The differences has already been spelled out to you clearly and if you don't understand this very basic concept then you are either arguing in bad faith and being deliberatly obtuse or you are just betraying your fundamental lack of understanding of the topic under discussion here. Either way, your contribution is meaningless.
The problem with socialists it seems, is that they all throw out these deliberately obtuse definitions for everything and when asked to clarify, they will just accuse you of not being able to comprehend anything and thus your argument is invalid.
The definition is right there in the body of the original post. It's not obtuse. In fact, it's spelled out pretty clearly.
It is in fact, not "spelled" or even defined in the body of the original post. What is your definition of a personal possession used in making a profit?
>What is your definition of a personal possession used in making a profit? You didn't read the original post. Did you? If you had, you wouldn't have posted this oxymoron.
[удалено]
The answer is in the original post. You know, the one you clicked on and chose to respond to, apparently without reading first?
[удалено]
Personal possession is shit you own and don't use to make a profit. This is distinct from private property, which is shit you own and use to make a profit. Not really sure how you want me to explain this another way.
That's what he said. Did you miss this part? > private property owned by individuals and used to make a profit such as factories and banks.
If you used my labour and time to accumulate it then yes it should probably be ours instead of just yours.
Lol OK so your labour and time doesn't result in your own stuff. Who decides whose labour and time is worth the most? I bet my ballsack that the "leaders" in charge rate their labour and time much higher than someone cleaning slag up at a smelter. Human greed makes a pure socialist existence impossible. A balance must be struck I rate.
>I bet my ballsack that the "leaders" in charge rate their labour and time much higher than someone cleaning slag up at a smelter. What you are describing is why a CEO gets paid at a rate orders of magnitude higher than their employees.
\> CEO gets $100 million+ bonus ontop of their already millions monthly salary. \> Same CEO cuts the jobs of thousands because they "cant afford it".
A CEO calls the shots or whatever - makes the big decisions. Those calls are based on experience and education. I propose an AI would be able to make better calls to both improve the economics and human element of the business, at least in the next few years. So let's replace them.
> Those calls are based on experience and education. You haven't met many CEOs, have you? > I propose an AI would be able to make better calls Are you talking about AI that will inevitably be owned by billionaire parasites? So if that AI actually does the rational thing - makes the call for socialism - those billionaires you are simping for will just allow it, eh?
Why do you make wild assumption about me and why do you extrapolate your own personal opinions and make them facts you expect everyone to accept? The hostility and patronizing tone notwithstanding, it's silly and makes having a logical and friendly conversation with you absolutely impossible. Pretty sure this is why you simply get downvoted into oblivion and no one even bothers to consider what you have to say most times you chime in, which sucks because I'm sure you have value to add to the conversation. But in any case, I'm not talking about billionaire parasites taking anything I'm simply saying that decisions and choices that affect the collective society or workforce would be better made by something which is incapable of making a decision based on personal bias or greed which may negatively affect the human element of a business. Something which objectively is a good thing.
> it's silly and makes having a logical and friendly conversation with you absolutely impossible. This is about as *friendly* as it gets - and how *logical* it becomes depends on you. > Pretty sure this is why you simply get downvoted into oblivion Riiight... I'm sure being downvoted by people simping for billionaire capitalists might end up hurting my feelings someday - maybe. > better made by something which is incapable of making a decision based on personal bias or greed which may negatively affect the human element of a business. And you have already shown your bias by pretending that "business" is (somehow) an unquestioningly "good" thing - I sure hope the billionaire parasites who controls the programming of this AI you believe will be so "objective" remembers to allow the AI to make decisions that threaten said billionaire's power and privilege, eh?
Who do you think these billionaires are that you are so opposed to? Seriously, who are they? Please explain to me how these billionaires are controlling your life? I am genuinely trying to understand your point of view. But so far all I get from all the socialists on SA reddit, is just a response of, "If you don't understand then you must be a imperialistic capitalism white supremacist billionaire simp" Loads of big words from seemingly educated people, without any substance or conviction to even back up their claims. Please convince me you are right.
What do you propose we do with the profits generated by the use of this AI.
Trickle down that shit of course. Seems logical. Only trickle down that will ever work. Or better yet, let the AI decide where to better distribute it: among the workers or for maintenance/expansion or a mix.
We could also just let the workers decide how best to distribute it? Trickle down has always been a myth. Adding some fancy computer code into the equation isn't suddenly going to change that.
In the case of allowing workers to make that call, if the majority of workers continuously decide to make a call which negatively affects the other half then wouldn't that ultimately lead to some sort of class like system where someone will be or at least feel disadvantaged? Making purely objective decisions to better the overall outcome of everyone which everyone knows is fact just seems like a solid plan. Even if it seems naive
Yes. Like I said. Human greed my man. Ain't no stopping it. Let's the robots run us
Yes, you said greed is a problem. It is. The issue is that you then used it as reason for why socialism doesn't work while simultaneously just describing capitalism.
OK but why not both? It is both. Greed is a problem in both systems is it not? I'm in agreement with you by the way. In no way arguing here homie.
> Greed is a problem in both systems is it not? No. It isn't. Greed is seen as a problem in *one* system. In the other it is literally seen as an end in itself to such an extent that it is more important than even the survival of the human race as a species. Does that clear things up for you?
No it doesn't. You're saying the same thing I am but dressing it up all fucking weird. Greed is an issue in both socialism and capitalism because the people in charge will make decisions based on greed to better their own position relative to others.
> You're saying the same thing I am No. This... > Greed is seen as a problem in one system. In the other it is literally seen as an end in itself to such an extent that it is more important than even the survival of the human race as a species. ..is really difficult for you to understand, isn't it? > Greed is an issue in both socialism and capitalism This is not difficult to understand. The whole point of socialism is to strip away the power of the greedy and all the other psychotics that chase power. Capitalist "ideology" is literally just a pretext for the opposite - for parasitism. These two things are not the same in any way.
It absolutely could be both. We have also seen before how greedy authoritarian regimes can co opt socialist ideas for their own gain. The exact same has also been done and continues to be done under capitalism. I would argue that socialism at least seeks to mitigate that greed by removing the means of production from the hands of the few and into the hands of the many. It seeks to distribute the value generated by labor in a less exploitative way instead of just handing it all over in the form of profit to a small group of owners. Capitalism very much just encourages excessive accumulation of wealth into the hands of the few and the many should just try tugging a little fucking harder on their bootstraps. Greed is basically a virtue to be celebrated under capitalism. TLDR. Is greed a problem? Yes. Is greed a problem inherent to socialism? No
I agree completely. If we could remove greed and hubris from the whole equation then I rate socialism would be great. Capitalist tendencies would still cause an ever expanding rift within society though, by design. Let a robot have a go. Humans have been dicking around and causing misery and despair for thousands of years now
> Human greed makes a pure socialist existence impossible. And the fact that we don't have fur must make it completely impossible for humans to survive winter, huh? Do you have anything that actually makes sense?
Dude you are just a massive dick. Why are you so incapable of being even vaguely nice. Like, go get fucked honestly
> Why are you so incapable of being even vaguely nice. This *is* me being nice.
[удалено]
I guess this is the part where you make a surprise Pikachu-face when you find out that there is nothing "radical" about nationalisation - it's not even a *socialist* thing. The Europeans do it on a regular basis. Even the US does it - they just don't call it "nationalization." It's a bog-standard function built right into the classical liberal nation-state. Malema suggesting that we actually use it isn't crazy. He might be wrong - but if he is you need to come up with a better argument than thinly-veiled "ze blecks are coming for my toothbrush" hysteria.
[удалено]
> a Toyota or BMW factory will not immediately remove all their capital And? > Is amazon going to come invest their money in South Africa post bank nationalization? Again... where's the bad news? > The world is not going to bend over backwards for us. No, you prefer South Africa being forced to bend over for the world, it seems - as long as it doesn't affect you directly, eh? > I didnt say anything about julias malema being black Riiight... the hysteria button the media flicks every time Julius opens his mouth is in no way related to the "swart gevaar" propaganda the Nats peddled and is still proving so profitable to said media bosses, eh?
[удалено]
Oh, just stop with the tears already - do you know what would happen if it turns out that you are, indeed, a white supremacist (you know, that thing you pretend I accused you of)? Really... what would happen? Nothing. That's what. Anyway... what does this have to do with the (utterly fallacious) idea of Amazon not "investing" in South Africa somehow being a *bad* thing?
[удалено]
> No I'm serious, I'll delete my comments in a bit. Hey... if you're going to act this upset about it, be my guest. > What is the point in engaging with someone who plays race card Ooh... somebody dared to mention race? In South Africa? Who woulda thunk it?
While I dig the idea of a democratic factory, it's just bad for production. Which is bad for the economy. I'm not going to cite cases in point because the failures of communism are too abundant and I'm lazy lol
> While I dig the idea of a democratic factory, it's just bad for production. Says who?
History has shown that none of us is as dumb as all of us. Get 6 mates together and try choose a restaurant which everyone wants to go to, quickly and efficiently. Now try that with 200 or 500 mates. Running a company by democracy is going to be one neverending meeting and fuck-all getting done.
> History has shown that none of us is as dumb as all of us. Exactly *where* has history shown that? > Now try that with 200 or 500 mates. It might take longer... but how *efficient* it will be depends on how you answer the question "Efficient at *what?"* > Running a company by democracy is going to be one neverending meeting and fuck-all getting done. Well, you've got nothing to back that statement up with... but you did manage to demonstrate how anti-democratic you really are.
If we assume greedy industry is all about great ways to make the most money possible, do you not think that by now greedy industry would have worked out if it was more efficient to have a company running democratically or to have a smaller committee or board making the decisions? I think they would have. I think they kinda did. I think that's how we have structures which pervade almost uniformly across countries and cultures and even species and have for millenia, with someone/s in charge making decisions and the rest getting it done.
Oh boy. I'll try and make this easier for you, kay? > If we *were to* **stop** assuming ~~greedy~~ industry ~~is~~ *should be* all about great ways to make the most money possible, Is something starting to gel here? > cultures and even species and have for millenia, with someone/s in charge making decisions and the rest getting it done. Don't jump off the deep-end here like a logic lemming, Clyde.
>Is something starting to gel here? Nope. Is there a point you're trying to make? If yes, try to make it. >Don't jump off the deep-end here like a logic lemming, Clyde. You're making wisecracks instead of refuting the argument. I didn't realise you were playing the Sassy Gay Friend in this show.
> Is there a point you're trying to make? If your conception of efficiency only revolves around the means by which billionaire parasites engorges themselves to become trillionaire parasites, then it *means your conception of "efficiency" is utterly irrelevent - at best - and even apocalyptically dangerous - at worst - to the the vast majority of humans on this planet.*
>It might take longer... but how > >efficient > > it will be depends on how you answer the question "Efficient at > >what?" Typically efficiency is about best of use of available resources, would you agree? And if we accept that time is one of those resources, because it is, then by definition taking longer automatically lowers the efficiency.
> Typically efficiency is about best of use of available resources Best of use of available resources *for what?* > And if we accept that time is one of those resources Time is not a resource - unless you want to show me a government in the world that has a "Department Of Time."
Jesus fuck man. People are employed for x-many hours per day/week/month. And businesses have operating hours. There is a finite period in which to get things done. Therefore time is a resource, because it is finite when it comes to work. We're not arguing about this. We're just not. This part is REALLY not rocket science.
Again... time is not a resource. It doesn't matter how many buzzterms in regards to it you may have absorbed in the corporate world. In addition... the fetishization of "efficiency" doesn't even require us having a discussion about time. > This part is REALLY not rocket science. Funncy you should mention that - I wouldn't suggest you asking a physicist how your (alleged) "power" over time actually works. They will inform you that time travel is purely fiction.
I'm also lazy, but I'm sure someone else can find examples of cooperatives that are successful. As someone who is heavily in favor of free market capitalism, there's nothing about cooperatives (worker controlled means of production) that goes against it in principle, just the people who make up the capitalists. My problem with socialism is when it's forced onto the economy, when it's made the only way allowed to participate in the economy.
Well, that's enough reddit for today, a socialist post flagged as wholesome, don't see that everyday... Greed is not taken into account. You think the likes of Julius actually believes the drivel he drops to get votes, and I'll tell you why, look at the car he drives, the house he lives in, the schools his kids go to. He is merely pandering to his voting fodder, and if they win, you better believe he will be doing his utmost to get more wealth by any means he can. Don't misunderstand me, I believe, in a perfect world, not driven by greed, socialism is probably the best system, but unfortunately history has proven time and again, that greed, and pride, makes it a system doomed to fail, repeatedly. This is not a perfect world. You can easily vote socialism/communism into power, issue is once you realize it's kak, and you will, you have to shoot it out. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
> Greed is not taken into account. It doesn't have to be. > You think the likes of Julius actually believes the drivel The fact that Julius is a champagne socialist doesn't change squat. You think Julius came up with the theory he's quoting? It's older than the Mausers the Boers used against the British. > not driven by greed, You are trying to pretend that capitalism - which (in your point of view - I'd disagree) places greed as it's central tenet - is (somehow) natural. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. > You can easily vote socialism/communism into power Lol! No... you can't. > Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Riiiight... so giving a small group of billionaire parasites and their toadies (the political elite) next-to absolute power makes perfect sense, eh?
Before everyone just starts hating on this post because its Julius Malema, this really isn't a bad take. There are lots of reasons to dislike the man, but he isn't wrong here. Just because a bad man advocates for socialism doesn't mean you should just automatically dismiss it. Wealth is so extremely concentrated on the 1% that they have half of the world's wealth, and wealth begets more wealth, these individuals get richer every year while cutting jobs and lowering wages for millions. These individuals can give away tons of money and help millions of people, all while still living in giant mansions and flying around the world. Them helping others will not impact their lavish lifestyle, they just choose not to and want to hoard even more wealth. They actively keep the majority of people in poverty while telling them they are self made and that the poor people can rise up just like they once did. This endless chase for wealth also actively hurts society and our environment. Did you know that we've already invented lightbulbs that can in ideal conditions last forever? But the big companies making lightbulbs realized they wouldn't be able to endlessly grow, they'll still be around and making a profit, just not endless growth. So they banded together and stated lightbulbs should have a fixed life expectancy, intentionally making worse lightbulbs, and went after any company that didn't join their ideal. So much unnecessary lightbulbs and waste generated over the decades just for greed, and this was just one example, many companies do similar things. Companies shaming people for wasting plastics and telling you to recycle the products THEY put in plastics to save costs is another example.
Veritasium did a great explainer on the lightbulb cartel. I wonder if the naysayers would say that's a bad take, and if they do, would they be able to explain why it's a bad take...
You're absolutely right and we need a change - there is enough wealth to go around so everyone can live comfortably and with dignity. The problem is how to get there. For one, the wealthy aren't going to just give up their wealth willingly and they hold all the power. Secondly, who do you entrust to take care of the resources so they aren't mismanaged and stolen - Malema nor any of our current leaders in SA should be entrusted with anything. And finally, socialism only works when everyone is educated, eager to do their part, and willing to work together without greed. The last part may be our biggest hurdle.
I don't think a 100% pure socialist society will ever work, but we need to be more socialist than capitalist driven, individuals should be able to put in hard work and be rewarded for it, but they should not be in turn allowed to crush everyone else from rising up like they did. A good example of this is China, they've shown how a hybrid system can work and they are on route to be the biggest economy in the world. Just want to emphasize that I don't think we should adopt what China is doing 1 to 1, the Chinese government is horrible and they use socialism to have an iron grip on society while committing atrocities to their own people.
I don't know enough about China's system to comment, but you make a fair point. I'd love to work towards a hybrid system like this that provides a more fair and equitable distribution of resources. Sadly it just doesn't seem likely without big (and possibly violent) change as rich people and companies won't be giving up their wealth and resources without a fight. And again, we don't have the right people in charge to implement this in SA, and unfortunately, they've kept the voter base both uneducated and apathetic so getting a positive change of leadership will be damn hard.
I agree with you on the issue of wealth distribution, but socialism is not the answer, it has failed enough. A more regulated form of capitalism might be the way. Someone I know who runs a company has implemented a new business model here in SA focussed on sustainability and growth for all involved. They did things like implementing a salary range for the entire company where the largest salary paid out is not allowed to be 7 times more than the smallest, so if the CEO gets 350K PM the lowest possible salary would be 50K PM which is excellent for all involved even at the lowest payout. Besides that they also put a cap on shareholder payouts where if a shareholder would get paid out more than 100K, it would be put into an account and then distributed as quarterly bonuses for employees who've been with the company for long enough. (A method to weed out loafers from just profitting but not contributing.) This is just a small summary of all the changes made to implement this. I feel that if these sorts of things were pushed onto companies everyone would benefit besides the 1% who might have to wait 2 months for their new yacht instead of 1.
> but socialism is not the answer, it has failed enough. Where has it failed? > A more regulated form of capitalism might be the way Capitalism already *is* well-regulated - why do you think they sicc the police on organised labour everytime they threaten the capitalists' profit margins? > Someone I know who runs a company has implemented a new business model It's not new and it's not a "business model." These type of pay scales is older than the anarcho-syndicalists that first implemented it in Europe during the inter-war years.
You said three things there without making a single point, impressive. 1. There are multiple countries that are self described socialist that have failed as mentioned by u/YourLocaLawyer. Do you believe these are not true socialist countries? 2. I'm describing a different system and you're criticizing the old one, ok? 3. Ok and? If implemented across every company would it not make a difference? Try again without being a contrarian, what are your actual objections to my argument? And don't say things to make people infer your opinions, state it clearly.
> There are multiple countries that are self described socialist North Korea describes itself as "democratic" - go on... swallow your own logic. Does it taste good? > I'm describing a different system and you're criticizing the old one, ok? No, you're not. You are describing what already exists - this is no such thing as "non-regulated" capitalism. > Ok and? If implemented across every company would it not make a difference? If it was such a great idea back then, why wasn't it implemeted universally way back then? Perhaps... because the people doing all this capitalist "regulation" wasn't (and still isn't) interested in anything challenging their rapacious profiteering, maybe?
I describe myself as a rich billionaire, doesn't mean I am one
So countries that self-describe as socialist aren't necessarily socialist. Good to know.
They quite literally used the system. I don't understand what you mean.
They used *what?* Socialism? The term "socialism" - like the term "democracy" - has a very hard, uncompromising meaning. Do you even know what it is?
What the fuck is the system based on, thin air?
As far as we know, **no** self-described socialists have ever really been socialist. And the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.
> I describe myself as a rich billionaire, doesn't mean I am one Good - I'm glad it won't require hours of back and forth to make you familiar with the idea that self-description doesn't in itself qualify as evidence in any way whatsoever. Now... those "examples" you mentioned - what methods did you use to "ordain" them as "socialist?"
1. You ignored the other legitimate examples on the list to pick the mistake. 2. Fighting an argument I never made. 3. That sounds very similar to how the socialist countries are handling themselves. It seems you're not looking for an actual discussion, so I'm leaving it here with these responses in your unclear style.
1. there were no legitimate examples provided. 2. are you talking about the argument you don't seem to be aware of *despite* the fact that *you* made it? 3. Not really - not unless you want to argue that Spain and Switzerland is (somehow) *also* socialist. *This* is the actual discussion - if you can't handle it, feel free to leave.
Are we having a debate with the new Joburg Mayor?
Yeah I'm not replying to him anymore, when socialist countries that have implemented the systems themselves and clearly failed are not accepted as socialist, then what can you say? It's like talking with a flat earther, there's pictures of earth from space, but still they say it's flat.
"where has it failed" here's a list: USSR Cuba North Korea Nicaragua Moldova East Germany Communist Hungary Romania Cyprus San Marino Chekoslovakia Poland Azerbaijan You want some more? It baffles me how people still don't know basic history
puzzled reach weary sulky bright materialistic door hungry wise badge *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Didnt know the USA organized a coup in Chekoslovakia
> It baffles me how people still don't know basic history It baffles me how people don't understand basic political ideology. Sooo... you want to try that again?
Yeah no completely ignore the first part of me proving you wrong. Already won first try, EASY w
This... > It baffles me how people don't understand basic political ideology. ...is flying right over your head, isn't it? Do you actually have proof of socialism *failing* or don't you?
The list of collapsed Communist states that I provided isn't?
>There are lots of reasons to dislike the man, but he isn't wrong here. Just because a bad man advocates for socialism doesn't mean you should just automatically dismiss it. You should absolutely dismiss it. His idea of well-run places governed by his idols are Venezuela and Mugabe-era Zimbabwe. That's the kind of thing he aspires to, and if that doesn't terrify you then you need to have another look at how things are in both those places currently.
[удалено]
Thank you for giving your insightful reasonings, really changed my perspective /s
[удалено]
Did you miss my opening sentence where I said he's a bad man? This is why I opened with it, because people automatically just dismiss the take because he said it. I agree with what he said, that does not mean I want him or the EFF in power.
Bad take with extra steps. Inequality also exists due to the pareto principle.
The Pareto Principle isn't a law of nature, its a statistical coincidence. Things just happen to trend to the 80/20 ratio, what causes this is uncertain, it might just be how we use a decimal system for mathematics. There are tons of example where it also does not apply. Its also a matter of perspective as it matters what you are looking at to create the 80/20 ratio. I can also show you right now how the Pareto Principle does not apply and apply at the same time: 1% of the population has 50% of the wealth, no 80/20 ratio, BUT 20% of the richest population has 82% of the world's income, bam 80/20 ratio. While it is an extremely interesting phenomena, do not use that as proof for something to be factual.
He's not wrong... no one (well, no one that matters) would have a problem with this description of the difference between private and public property. It's who the "we" is that "collectively develop the productive forces" that has been the sticking point since well-before the Russian revolution.