• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Socialism: evil impact

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
So the Hutterites and probably the Bruderhoffs are communist (def. 1), and the Incas communist by def. 2.
Communism is best when membership is voluntary.
And this is best within a capitalistic free society.
But when compulsory, government needs a big stick.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Libertarian socialism & communism can only exist when voluntary,
& this happens only on smaller scales. When an entire country
goes socialist or communist, it's necessarily authoritarian in order
to prevent movement towards free economic relationships, which
threaten the command economy.
You assume, in your opinion.
Just like there can never be a pure capitalist society because it will always collapse into some form of oligarchy and necessitates command to function as a civil society.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You assume, in your opinion.
Opinion based upon reason.
If one is coerced into socialism or communism, it's no longer libertarian.
It's authoritarian.
But if a few people want to form a commune, & share everything,
then I say more power to'm....it's libertarian communism.
Just like there can never be a pure capitalist society because it will always collapse into some form of oligarchy and necessitates command to function as a civil society.
I'm not claiming purity.
Of course it's in a spectrum.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Opinion based upon reason.
If one is coerced into socialism or communism, it's no longer libertarian.
It's authoritarian.
But if a few people want to form a commune, & share everything,
then I say more power to'm....it's libertarian communism.

I'm not claiming purity.
Of course it's in a spectrum.
This rings of the untrue sentiment that an anarchic or democratic society which has any rules makes it authoritarian, because some in that society reject those rules. That's not how that works.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
This rings of the untrue sentiment that an anarchic or democratic society which has any rules makes it authoritarian....
A silly straw man that is.
For example, rules are useful to preserve individual liberty.
Even we Libertarians favor such rules.
What makes a government authoritarian is when they become excessive.
That's always happened when countries ventured too far towards socialism,
eg, USSR. Btw, that particular example was driven home by a former
co-worker who fled the USSR for Israel, & then immigrated to Ameristan
for political & religious liberty.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
A silly straw man that is.
For example, rules are useful to preserve individual liberty.
Even we Libertarians favor such rules.
What makes a government authoritarian is when they become excessive.
That's always happened when countries ventured too far towards socialism,
eg, USSR. Btw, that particular example was driven home by a former
co-worker who fled the USSR for Israel, & then immigrated to Ameristan
for political & religious liberty.
What is 'excessive' is a nondescript, useless subjectivity. And followed by a reduction to extremes.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
What is 'excessive' is a nondescript, useless subjectivity. And followed by a reduction to extremes.
Hey, you're the one who made it about extremes.
I pointed out that problem.
There is a spectrum ranging from anarchy to oppression.
Minarchy (my preference) is in there. And yes, some
subjective judgment is useful in deciding where a particular
country lies.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Hey, you're the one who made it about extremes.
I pointed out that problem.
There is a spectrum ranging from anarchy to oppression.
Minarchy is in there.
No, I didn't. Literally the opposite. Socialism is also on a spectrum ranging from anarchy to oppression. As is capitalism.

Though the US capitalism is trash and the world would literally be a better place if Jeff Bezos was never born.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I never said 'true' socialism has never been tried. I even said in an earlier post that N Korea started out as a socialist society, but isn't any longer because it's now an absolute monarchy, (once again, we don't call for example Tudor England 'socialist') where the workers no longer in any way control the means of production.

I also said that there isn't one single 'kind' of socialism (its a dynamic umbrella term) and that socialism and capitalism aren't mutually exclusive concepts, and not everything falling under the term 'socialism' is even market adjacent. But red scare mentality (and lack of polysci education in the US, especially in older generations) attempts to push the concept that way.
Well I think I'll stick with the description of socialism as I have understood it throughout my life in Europe, which is very much along the lines of the entry in Encyclopaedia Britannica: socialism | Definition, History, Examples, & Facts

"social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members."

"This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed."

Public ownership has invariably meant state ownership throughout the last century - a handful of local cooperatives excepted. And state ownership has been a recipe for failure, for any productive enterprise. With utilities it can be a different story, sometimes.
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
No, I didn't. Literally the opposite. Socialism is also on a spectrum ranging from anarchy to oppression. As is capitalism.

Though the US capitalism is trash and the world would literally be a better place if Jeff Bezos was never born.

I really did find your post funny. So I gambled...
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
No, I didn't. Literally the opposite. Socialism is also on a spectrum ranging from anarchy to oppression. As is capitalism.

Though the US capitalism is trash and the world would literally be a better place if Jeff Bezos was never born.
One cannot simply create a model with a spectrum, & claim this as
evidence that real world examples exist throughout it.
Socialism applied to an entire country will necessarily be authoritarian
for reasons given earlier. History bears this out where it's been
implemented, eg, China, USSR, Kampuchea, Cuba, N Korea.
There are no contrary examples.
However, capitalism does have historical & current examples
on the liberty side of the spectrum. Note....I don't claim any
such foolishness as purity or perfection for capitalism.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Well I think I'll stick with the description of socialism as I have understood it throughout my life in Europe, which is very much along the lines of the entry in Encyclopaedia Britannica: socialism | Definition, History, Examples, & Facts

"social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members."

"This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed."

Public ownership has invariably meant state ownership throughout the last century - a handful of local cooperatives excepted. And state ownership has been a recipe for failure, for any productive enterprise. With utilities it can be a different story, sometimes.
The official RF definition....
Socialist: Subscribing to the ideas of public ownership of production and cooperative
management of the economy. This ideology can be seen in Marxism, libertarian socialism,
social democracy, and others. People who find themselves in this ideology often identify
with political organizations such as: Socialist International, Socialist Party USA, Democratic
Socialists of America, New Democratic Party (Canada), Social Democratic Party of Germany.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Like was said in the other thread, funny ratings are okay so long as it's not meant to belittle or mock the poster or their beliefs. Think of it like a sarcastic funny is frowned on.
The part seemed very much a joke.
It was over the top, & struck thru....a humor tool I like.
"Though the US capitalism is trash and the world would literally be a better place if Jeff Bezos was never born."
Did I grok it correctly?
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Well I think I'll stick with the description of socialism as I have understood it throughout my life in Europe, which is very much along the lines of the entry in Encyclopaedia Britannica: socialism | Definition, History, Examples, & Facts

"social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members."

"This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed."

Public ownership has invariably meant state ownership throughout the last century - a handful of local cooperatives excepted. And state ownership has been a recipe for failure, for any productive enterprise. With utilities it can be a different story, sometimes.
Tbh I already have links throughout the thread that talk about socialism blended with capitalism and other non market socialist philosophies.

Edit: think of it like Hinduism. It means a lot of things to a lot of people, and there's very little by way of consistent threads. Not even whether the belief is atheistic or theistic.

From the perspective of most modern socialists, socialism and totalitarian dictatorship is mutually exclusive because ownership by dictator =/= ownership by the public. As well as how much private enterprise can exist within a socialist society (even N. Korea has some private enterprise.)
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
They're also the result of ideologies. I don't know why people can't admit that about Marxist dictatorships.
I can.
It's the dream of a utopia as envisioned...it's theoretical.
Reality falls short, but the hope endures. I understand
because long long ago, I thought a libertarian society was
possible. Pbbbtt! Humans generally don't function that way.
So the best I can hope for is steering society in a slightly
more libertarian direction than it would otherwise be.

Dreams need adjustment to fit reality at times.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Marxist dictatorship? Isn't that an oxymoron? How could a classless, egalitarian society be a dictatorship?
:facepalm:

That's the utopian goal of Marxism, but they have to do a lot of things to get there, and one of those things usually is killing millions of people. That fact that it always collapses into mass murder by government, dictatorship, repression and extreme corruption should be evidence enough that Marxism is a failed theory that needs to be resigned to the garbage bin. Why it's more socially acceptable to be a Marxist than a Fascist is beyond me. I guess winners really do write history.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Did Marx anticipate any killing or oppression as a result of his economic theories?
Just because an opportunistic tyrant hijacks a revolution, installs himself as a dictator and calls his regime socialist, doesn't make it so. It's a Potemkin socialism.
Marx envisioned a classless "dictatorship of the proleteriat." A classless society isn't ruled. There are no rulers, much less a dictator. The Russian, Chinese and N. Korean 'peoples republics' are not Marxist.
 
Top