Eat the Rich

[Stevicus]

100% failure in the sense that every attempt has failed.
(Not that each failed in every way.)

At first, they had some rough times, but things slowly got better over time.

 

[Revoltingest]

View attachment 55617

At first, they had some rough times, but things slowly got better over time.

Is meager improvement under an authoritarian regime
an argument for socialism over capitalism?

 

[Secret Chief]

I dunno, when I look around the world at "failed states" and societies that exploit the masses I see an easily tapped potential for zealous footsoldiers who'll do almost anything to feel important and useful and that very rarely translates into anti-capitalist mobilisation. Young Westerners are just as easy prey for reactionary psychos as young Iraqis or Somalis. They'll be swept up in the coming fascist resurgence much more frequently than they'll be recruited to fight for working conditions, housing and healthcare.

The only hope I think is the XR movement.

- Extinction Rebellion | Join The Fight Against Climate and Ecological Collapse

 

[Stevicus]

Is meager improvement under an authoritarian regime
an argument for socialism over capitalism?

Not necessarily, but it's an argument refuting the claim of "100% failure."

 

[Revoltingest]

Not necessarily, but it's an argument refuting the claim of "100% failure."

Still misinterpreting how I used "100%", eh.
The USSR & other socialist countries...100% of
them were failures as regimes worth living in.

 

[Stevicus]

Still misinterpreting how I used "100%", eh.
The USSR & other socialist countries...100% of
them were failures as regimes worth living in.

How can I misinterpret "100%"? 100% is...everything.

 

[Kooky]

At first, they had some rough times, but things slowly got better over time.

It may also be worth pointing out that the greatest dip coincided with the Russian Civil War, and the second greatest dip with the fall of the USSR and the re-introduction of capitalism.

 

[Kooky]

That seems a standard idea, the moving to the right with age. I wonder if it will happen given the failure of capitalism for younger people. No housing, crap jobs. Those with no stake in a society will see no need to help sustain it, but will see reasons to disrupt or break it. Imo.

I can say for myself that over the latest twenty years of my life, I've become a more radical leftist than I ever used to be.

 

[Kooky]

Thus there is naturally a reaction. People are reacting. They are mistakenly blaming capitalism. What's really happened is that people have lost their integrity. Without integrity nothing works, not socialism, not capitalism.

I don't see how integrity is going to put food on anybody's table, shelter them during Winter months, or pay for their medical bills when they get sick - so far, we don't seem to have managed to alleviate material problems with immaterial solutions.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't see how integrity is going to put food on anybody's table, shelter them during Winter months, or pay for their medical bills when they get sick - so far, we don't seem to have managed to alleviate material problems with immaterial solutions.

Imperfect solutions are better than perfect ones that don't work.

 

[Augustus]

no one is denying that there were prison camps in the USSR and that counter-revolutionaries were sent there, among other prisoners guilty of crimes.

The problem is that many others were sent there too who weren't counter-revolutionaries or guilty of any crimes.

 

[Revoltingest]

How can I misinterpret "100%"? 100% is...everything.

The issue is 100% of what.
You have the wrong what.

 

[Kooky]

The problem is that many others were sent there too who weren't counter-revolutionaries or guilty of any crimes.

Just like not everyone forcibly deported to Australia or Guayana was actually a criminal.

 

[Stevicus]

The issue is 100% of what.
You have the wrong what.

I believe you said "100% economic failure," and if that had truly been the case, the above chart would have shown "zero" from 1917 to 1990.

 

[Revoltingest]

I believe you said "100% economic failure," and if that had truly been the case, the above chart would have shown "zero" from 1917 to 1990.

If all socialist regimes have been a failure at
avoiding oppression & economic misery, then
that's 100%.
If you want to treat socialism as an eventual
success in the USSR because of a graph, that's
a different issue.

 

[Stevicus]

If all socialist regimes have been a failure at
avoiding oppression & economic misery, then
that's 100%.
If you want to treat socialism as an eventual
success in the USSR because of a graph, that's
a different issue.

Are oppression and economic misery even quantifiable?

Based on the standard of "avoiding oppression and economic misery," has there ever been any regime in the world that can be called a "success"? (Keep in mind that I can find examples of oppression and economic misery in the U.S. very easily, so America is also a failure at avoiding such things.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Are oppression and economic misery even quantifiable?

Yes.

Based on the standard of "avoiding oppression and economic misery," has there ever been any regime in the world that can be called a "success"? (Keep in mind that I can find examples of oppression and economic misery in the U.S. very easily, so America is also a failure at avoiding such things.)

The beauty of capitalism is the ability to rise above
oppression & misery in various countries. The problem
of socialism is that it never does.
This differs from your argument, ie, capitalism isn't perfect,
therefore socialism.

 

[Kooky]

The beauty of capitalism is the ability to rise above
oppression & misery in various countries.

The Communist nomenclatura that rose to the top in the USSR saw nothing wrong with their system, either.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Communist nomenclatura that rose to the top in the USSR saw nothing wrong with their system, either.

They had different values.
I prefer liberty & prosperity, the standard by
which I judge economic & governmental systems.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes.

Seems like it would be pretty subjective. A poor person would see socialism as an elevation in standard of living, while only a rich person would see it as "misery."

The beauty of capitalism is the ability to rise above
oppression & misery in various countries. The problem
of socialism is that it never does.
This differs from your argument, ie, capitalism isn't perfect,
therefore socialism.

But socialism has risen above oppression and misery. If you can't see (or be willing to acknowledge) the differences in Russia between 1917 and 1967, then I don't know what else to say.

I'm certainly willing to acknowledge the differences in the U.S. between those years, as we also rose above oppression and misery in this country. But that was more due to progressivism which many capitalists opposed (and continue to oppose to this day). The U.S. improved in spite of capitalism, not because of it.

The only people who worry about socialism are those who are already obscenely rich and feel that they could lose their idyllic lives of luxury and comfort. They consider themselves special and entitled - a position they fear losing if they were suddenly considered the same as everyone else.

In any case, capitalism has not been "rising above" anything, especially not in the past 50 years in America.

Your points about capitalism "rising above" would make better sense if you had real world data to back up such points. At least when looking at America since WW2, capitalism peaked from roughly 1945-1970, and then has shown nothing but decline and misery ever since.

So, the best you could argue is that capitalism was good, but is no longer.