But "socialism" is a scary word

[email protected]

Leading to lack of material resources?

Here’s some socialists feeling the effects of centrally-controlled economic distributuon:

[email protected]

There’s nothing capitalist about American healthcare. If we had a free market I’d be able to buy my antidepressants ($15/mo) without seeing a doctor ($120).

[email protected]

At first, yes. To make that shift you have to throw the aristocracy, and perhaps a monarchy here or there, into the trash and divvy up the spoils. Over time, the new system can (and some say will inevitably) revert. Once you have enough wealth concentration in the hands of a few, you essentially re-create an aristocracy and the feudal system that goes with it.

It can also be argued that a feudal system is capitalist to begin with. Land and laborers to work it, used to be the key deciding factor in wealth and therefore, power. Wars are where you steal land from others, assuming control of the people that live on it, thereby securing more wealth and power. The industrial revolution saw a gradual shift towards energy production and consumption as a defining factor. So still somewhat land based, but with very different constraints and far less dependence on who lives on it. Now, in the late information age, access to energy and data are emerging as the main deciding factors. But it's also not hard to imagine players that have the most access to energy and data as feudal lords, provided they can influence politics and people's lives in the same way a feudal system can (just without borders). And all of that is top-to-bottom running within a capitalist framework.

Did we improve things? Well, moving towards a central government that supports an actual justice system that isn't prey to your employer or landlord's whims (feudal lord) is a huge win. For instance in the UK, that happened a long time ago. In practice, I think that is still mostly true, but there are some lingering artifacts and maybe even some creep backwards. Consider de-facto class systems, institutionalized bigotry, and racism. On balance, I'd say yes, but I can't say with certainty that it's an absolute win.

[email protected]

By “crippling” here you mean unable to participate in the market. That’s the thing that’s crippled when debt affects a person’s life.

A socialist had no access to the market anyway. They’re born into that crippled state.

[email protected]

"It's socialism when the goverment does things"

[email protected]

It sounds like you're describing a free market, not capitalism.

[email protected]

You know there is a lot of great points in this comment, some of which I will now argue against:

You should read the theory, clearly you haven't read enough theory.

[email protected]

Nepal: Installed by force in the armed uprising against Rana rule in 1951

India: Neverseized the means of production (or really got very powerful IMO)

San Marino: Attemped a coup and never seized the means of production.

[email protected]

"Nuance is for Communists!!" /s

[email protected]

One hurdle we have to deal with is the assumption by the general public that markets = capitalism.

You tell people capitalism has failed them and they worry that you mean to take away their ability to buy a latte.

[email protected]

Greedy people vote for greedy leaders. Money mattered more than morals in at least the last federal elections since 2000.

[email protected]

I don't think it's the theory most people disagree with.

[email protected]

Patriarchy appears to have been solved in Rojava/Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. Though I'm afraid not for much longer.

[email protected]

While I welcome some developments in NE Syria, this is propaganda.

[email protected]

Kerala: As you mention, not a country. Also didn't really seize the means of production. But when I think of Communism working well, it's at a local level like this rather than at the level of a country. There are communes and kibbutzes that lasted decades. Generally a tough life but at a small level you can have a government controlling everything without hopefully making as many huge mistakes. Worst case you can more easily just leave if they do (hopefully they let you).

Chile: Also didn't fully seize the means of production, it's more or less a perfect example of a government that's run by a socialist majority for a small amout of time and which enacts socialist measures during that time, but never reaching full communism. This is the kind of thing I would hold up as the ideal case. Socialism for long enough to strengthen the situation of the people, but not long enough to wreck the economy and grow into full blown authoritarianism.

[email protected]

I don't mind being corrected. Would you care to explain?

[email protected]

This might be a better system.

[email protected]

Well, you cannot just declare the dissolution of Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition and expect everything to follow along. We need centuries of conditions of antipatriarchial policy to be able to claim eradication of patriarchy.

I would not even be saying we eradicated classist aristocracy in European republics, because the ideology is still relevant.

[email protected]

Good point. I've read that the Kurdish leadership is trying hard to integrate Arabs into government, making everything available to read in Arabic, etc. I just hope they can hang on and continue to improve. I don't trust HTS at all, and the Turkish government are doing their damnedest to eradicate Rojava.

[email protected]

Oh so now we're moving the goalpost?

We started with "socialist theory is the problem!" but when pressured, suddenly it's "well the theory is not really the problem".

Go figures