I have posters for Mad Max &I think Pink Floyd's "The Wall" is great for posters.
Buckaroo Banzai Across The 8th Dimension.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I have posters for Mad Max &I think Pink Floyd's "The Wall" is great for posters.
Throughout history, every country that has everAs is the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Socialism can do with or without that.
Most socialists now oppose the idea of an "intermittent" dictatorship - because it never is.
The problem: Dictatorship is an emergentThey condemn dictatorship.
Analysis & evidence?Capitalism, especially late stage capitalism like in the US, is not sustainable. It is going to self destruct if left unchecked.
Marx was a dreamer, ungrounded in theThe real problem is when capitalism is no longer a form of economy but becomes a form of government (a.k.a. "money in politics"). Marx saw this plutocracy and had no other remedy against it than revolution and dictatorship. Except for one or two no socialist (and even the communists) condone dictatorship.
That only applies to your black and white world. I.e. countries were a dictator took over after a revolution. You're only counting as socialist those who went all the way. But there are hybrids where the state own some means of production and allows (regulated) capitalism all while maintaining democracy. And those hybrids tend to fair better than either of the extremes.Throughout history, every country that has ever
ditched capitalism for socialism has become a
dictatorship or other such authoritarian rule.
The problem: Dictatorship is an emergent
property of socialism. Social authoritarianism
is enabled by giving government such great
power that's necessary for economic authoritarianism.
The thing about power is that leaders will always
use all they have.
Socialism's fans always see their dream, but
never view it from a system response or historical
perspective.
The Limits to Growth is probably the most famous one but there are more and more recent.Analysis & evidence?
Capitalism enables good outcomes when it is restricted.Marx was a dreamer, ungrounded in the
reality of what he proposed. He never tested
his theories, & he never applied any kind of
system analysis, eg, considering failure modes.
He even adopted the utterly loopy premise
that all people would agree to follow his plan.
We have countries with capitalism that are greatWe agree on that one. Though others have tested his hypothesis and his economic analysis is still taught in economics because many of it was spot on.
places to live. Not all are so, but capitalism's
advantage is that it enables good outcomes.
(Don't read "enable's" as "guarantees".)
Socialism has no such examples...only misery.
You've yet to adequately address the gray that you claim.That only applies to your black and white world.
Duh.You're only counting as socialist those who went all the way.
I've specifically addressed countries thatBut there are hybrids where the state own some means of production and allows (regulated) capitalism all while maintaining democracy. And those hybrids tend to fair better than either of the extremes.
So, we agree that state owned means of production are not a problem as long as private enterprise is also allowed? That it is the political part (dictatorship) of socialism that is bad not the economical?You've yet to adequately address the gray that you claim.
Duh.
You're only just now discovering that I mean
exactly what I've been saying all along?
I've specifically addressed countries that
ditched capitalism in favor of socialism.
The degree of state ownership is an issue.So, we agree that state owned means of production are not a problem as long as private enterprise is also allowed?
The economics of socialism is fundamentally bad.That it is the political part (dictatorship) of socialism that is bad not the economical?
I like my state and communally owned suppliers of basic goods and services, like water and public transport. I wouldn't want that put in the greedy hands of corporations. I like it especially when there is no monopoly on the state side and they have to compete with private businesses.The degree of state ownership is an issue.
I prefer no state ownership of the means of production.
We have different experiences in Europe.The economics of socialism is fundamentally bad.
But the political consequence, ie, political & social
authoritarianism, is a bad consequence of granting
such power that's needed for economic authoritarianism.
As opposed to the imperious qualified immunity hand ofI like my state and communally owned suppliers of basic goods and services, like water and public transport. I wouldn't want that put in the greedy hands of corporations.
So do I.I like it especially when there is no monopoly on the state side and they have to compete with private businesses.
Yeah, you guys are a mess.We have different experiences in Europe.