You're viewing a single thread.
The idea of socialism has a lot of appeal .
That is why wannabe tyrants latch onto it .
In general, actually, Socialism has a better track record than Capitalism when it comes to "tyrants." You should read Blackshirts and Reds.
Indeed
"The economic disasters of socialism and communism come from assuming a blanket superiority of those who want to run a whole economy. Thomas Sowell " If the tyrant is going to use AI to control people we will be entering a dystopian nightmare. The smaller the government and the less influence they have on your personal life the better. This doesn't apply to socialism only but also fascism. Free speech, liberty and property rights should be the core values of every society.
First off, Sowell is a crank economist that purely exists to push deregulation and allow for higher and higher exploitation of the working class for the benefit of the Capialist class.
Secondly, the economy is already planned, just by those directing it for their personal enrichment. Socialism changes that equation to be planned along a common goal, and democratizes that process.
Thirdly, Socialism and Communism have been economic successes, you'll notice that the "disasters" are left undescribed. Rapid industrialization, stable and constant growth, and massive infrastructure improvements and projects have been staples of Socialist economies, and by and large the Working Class saw the most dramatic improvements.
Finally, there is the non-sequitor of "free speech, liberty, and property rights." Not only are the first 2 entirely unrelated to Capitalism and Socialism, just vague "values," the latter has nothing to do with personal liberty, but the ability of few small individuals to carve out the bulk of society and build their own kingdoms on the backs of the working class.
crank economist?
Really? Ever read basic economics? Even if you don't agree with everything he says, by stating he is a crank economist you are disqualifying yourself.
https://rumble.com/v4u4a8i-basic-economics-by-thomas-sowell.html?e9s=src_v1_pr
I'm well aware of Basic Economics. I maintain that he's a crank, just because you personally agree with him doesn't disqualify myself, I could be just as dishonest and say that you disqualify yourself by quoting him.
Again, I elaborated quite well on some of his dishonesty from the single quote you provided, and I can go more in-depth than that even. His purpose is clear: push deregulation so those who sponsor him can get wealthier and wealthier, no matter how he attempts to squirm to justify that goal.
His purpose is clear: push deregulation so those who sponsor him can get wealthier and wealthier, no matter how he attempts to squirm to justify that goal.
See Argentina what a blessing deregulation is, we need a lot more Milei and less Marx. Socialism is one of the main reasons why Africa is still poor (read Magatte Wade - the heart of a cheetah). Economy is not a zero sum game - who cares that someone else is rich. Is that envy speaking?
Sowell started out as a Marxist btw. It is just a flawed ideology and in its most extreme form always ends in dictatorship.
https://rumble.com/vjzm8i-why-socialism-is-very-appealing-thomas-sowell.html
I’m well aware of Basic Economics.
So I guess you haven't read it?
Argentina is collapsing. Its economy wasn't great before, but austerity is destroying its own foundation for short-term profits for the wealthy. See again: Sowell purely works for the obscenely wealthy against the needs of the people.
As for Africa, it is not Socialism that keeps the various African nations under-developed. Like Parenti said, they aren't under-developed at all, really, they are over-exploited. Imperialism from the Global North has carved out of Africa and South America the lion's share of their resources:
But that expropriation of the Third World—has been going on for 400 years—brings us to another revelation—namely, that the Third World is not poor. You don't go to poor countries to make money. There are very few poor countries in this world. Most countries are rich! The Philippines are rich! Brazil is rich! Mexico is rich! Chile is rich—only the people are poor. But there's billions to be made there, to be carved out, and to be taken—there's been billions for 400 years! The Capitalist European and North American powers have carved out and taken the timber, the flax, the hemp, the cocoa, the rum, the tin, the copper, the iron, the rubber, the bauxite, the slaves, and the cheap labour. They have taken out of these countries—these countries are not underdeveloped—they're overexploited!
Please, elaborate on what you think Socialism is, if it is keeping African nations under-developed.
No, economy is not a zero-sum game, correct. However, one has to call into question the purpose of a system that is built to make a few people obscenely wealthy on the backs of the vast majority. Capitalism naturally suppresses the wages and material conditions of workers, whose conditions gradually, microscopically improve, or even deteriorate, while Capital concentrates in fewer and fewer hands. The end result of Capitalism is monopoly. Once a hypothesis, this statement is now a confirmed fact.
I'm aware of Sowell's past as a "Marxist." Many people have donned such a moniker and failed to genuinely grasp Marxism, and the existence of one such fellow-turned crank does not at all lend credibility to Sowell. Marxism does not turn to dictatorship, rather the vast majority of AES states represented vast democratization of the economy, from Cuba (previously a country of fascist slavers) to Russia (under the thumb of the Tsar) to China (under the thumb of the Nationalist Kuomintang) to Vietnam (under the thumb of colonialist France) and more.
I've read enough of Basic Economics to know that Sowell is a crank. I haven't read it cover to cover, nor do I care to waste my time studying every crank in the world of economics in-depth. I don't imagine you've read Marx's works much either, nor do I expect you to, you clearly have chosen the side of Sowell and the microscopic few that profit off of the vast majority of the population via extortion.
Argentina is collapsing.
Jaja, I love real world examples. The opposite is true. You can see basic economics working in practice 😀
Poverty is down and lower than when Milei started his presidency. Do you really think the poor care that his policies will make a few rich folks even richer? They just want shelter, safety and some food.
It's the opposite, poverty is skrocketing. What's happening is a decrease in debt and inflation at the expense of the poor, not the actual poverty rates, which again shows that those you support serve purely the wealthiest in society.
Safety, shelter, and food are harder to come by for the working class under Millei, while the wealthiest in Argentina celebrate.
aljazeera is your source? really?
Below a site from Argentina and more recent. If you want I can also provide a Spanish source. Sometimes I really think you Marxists rather see people poor than acknowledge your ideology is based on an illusion with no real world prove it has ever worked.
Why not zoom out? Millei marks an increase in poverty rates and a destruction of social services. The economy is shrinking and GDP is falling, and now Social Services those in poverty rely on are being eroded, resulting in the lives of those in poverty being far more at risk to begin with.
I have no idea what you mean by saying I would rather see people poor. It's the opposite, I'd rather the likes of Millei stop trying to destroy economies so that his friends and backers can get wealthier while the poor starve and die. Moreover, Marxist economics works, from the USSR to China to Cuba life expectancies rose dramatically, poverty rates fell dramatically, and the economies rapidly grew. China in particular is doing extremely well now and is now the largest economy in the world, when adjusted for PPP.
On the contrary, it's the "Libertarian Capitalists" that have no actual proof of doing anything other than helping the already obscenely wealthy profit more in the short term. It's basic economics.
Stalin , Mao , and Pol Pot types of leaders are every bit as much of a problem as Hitler , Pinochet , and Mussolini types of leaders
At this point it doesn't matter what economic policies a tyrant nominally supports , the problem is the authoritarianism that they use that overshadows their economic outlook. Your freedom is just as screwed if you are a fascist labor conscript , or you are a prisoner working in a gulag on some trumped up charge.
You should read Blackshirts and Reds. Ultimately, the Communists and Nazis historically served entirely different classes and their interests, and to equate the two is a form of Nazi Apologia due to this vast difference.
The Communists doubled life expectancy, lowered wealth disparity, ended famine, reached near 100% literacy rates from around 25% literacy rates, had free healthcare and education, and full employment. The Nazis, on the other hand, served wealthy Capitalists and invented industrialized murder.
Further, the Communists dramatically democratized the economy. Consider reading Soviet Democracy and Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the Soviet Union for historical texts on how the USSR's economy was democratized and how it functioned.
As a side note, Pol Pot denounced Marxism and did his own thing, he shouldn't be grouped with Marxists.
Totally agree. I still think from a economic and personal freedom perspective you're a lot better off in a capitalist society under authoritarian control than in a Marxist one. Nobody is safe in an authoritarian communist (or probably better term - collectivist) society. How much examples do you need. Mao was the worst. China embraced capitalism and significantly improved the living standards of its people after Mao, while still remaining an authoritarian regime. Pinochet made the economy thriving and under socialist Salvador Allende the economy was a mess.
I am certainly not in favor of an authoritarian regime but at least capitalism gives you more economic freedom and property rights.
China is still Marxist-Leninist, by the way. It isn't Capitalist, it has a Socialist Market Economy. Gradually, it is increasing the strength of the Public Sector and folding the Private under its control as well. Deng didn't "introduce Capitalism," if you want to actually learn how the economy works in China here is a good introduction to Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. The economy is run on a Marxist understanding of economics, if you're praising it you're praising Marxism.