Do you think this is true about socialism?
-
Not sure this is the primary issue tbh, most human desires are fabricated anyways by the system, that needs our continuous consumption to function.
The issue in existing socialist countries, primarily the USSR, was that the leadership simply did not care about the population. There is no true socialism under dictatorship.
There is no true socialism under dictatorship.
I agree.
Lenin was probably the worst thing that has happened to socialism. I wonder if he managed to taint it for good?
-
Socialism will never work because it’s founded on emancipation, and you can’t force people to emancipate themselves. That would be the opposite of emancipation.
I’m not sure if this is a quote, I can’t remember where I heard it.
"Emancipation" in this case meaning emancipation from wage slavery.
Socialism will never work because if there is no incentive for work, no one will work.
Sure there are people who like doing stuff for the sake of it. But I can guarantee there are not enough people that enjoy plumbing to deal with all the shits that people take.
-
Socialism will never work because it’s founded on emancipation, and you can’t force people to emancipate themselves. That would be the opposite of emancipation.
I’m not sure if this is a quote, I can’t remember where I heard it.
"Emancipation" in this case meaning emancipation from wage slavery.
ITT: People who don't know the definition of Socialism.
Socialism is simply when the workers of a business all equally share ownership of the business ("means of production") and thus have input on how the business is run.
Socialist businesses would still trade their goods in a marketplace, which could even be a "free market."
-
There is no true socialism under dictatorship.
I agree.
Lenin was probably the worst thing that has happened to socialism. I wonder if he managed to taint it for good?
On the other hand, he wasn't special in that regard. People with unchecked power are almost always monsters, because people in general are awful.
-
Socialism will never work because it’s founded on emancipation, and you can’t force people to emancipate themselves. That would be the opposite of emancipation.
I’m not sure if this is a quote, I can’t remember where I heard it.
"Emancipation" in this case meaning emancipation from wage slavery.
I can read lemmy from piefed but cant read piefed from lemmy? Is this correct?
-
Socialism will never work because if there is no incentive for work, no one will work.
Sure there are people who like doing stuff for the sake of it. But I can guarantee there are not enough people that enjoy plumbing to deal with all the shits that people take.
I think you may be confusing socialism with communism.
-
Socialism will never work because it’s founded on emancipation, and you can’t force people to emancipate themselves. That would be the opposite of emancipation.
I’m not sure if this is a quote, I can’t remember where I heard it.
"Emancipation" in this case meaning emancipation from wage slavery.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Socialism is everywhere, currently. The American government is socialist, but they do t allow any of those policies to trickle down to you as citizens. They bar it at every opportunity to continue to enrich themselves on your backs. Canada is a socialist society, as is most of the developed world.
UBI would be ideal, it is actually cheaper to pay for people before they become destitute, homeless criminals. But then you don't have the scaremongering keeping people working shitty jobs for shit pay to stay on the "good" side of society.
You wouldn't even need to with UBI, shit employers would not be able to find workers, and people inherently want to do things and make a difference/impact on the lives of others.
Disabled people could still house and feed themselves. Mentally ill people could seek the treatment they need to get better. It is cheaper and more effective to deal with problems before they become problems. Cleaning up the mess is far more costly on so many different metrics it's almost funny we don't do this already.
-
ITT: People who don't know the definition of Socialism.
Socialism is simply when the workers of a business all equally share ownership of the business ("means of production") and thus have input on how the business is run.
Socialist businesses would still trade their goods in a marketplace, which could even be a "free market."
Imagine not knowing the difference between non-market and market socialism and then smugly writing this.
-
Socialism will never work because if there is no incentive for work, no one will work.
Sure there are people who like doing stuff for the sake of it. But I can guarantee there are not enough people that enjoy plumbing to deal with all the shits that people take.
As opposed to the current system where we don't have enough doctors or teachers, and let's face it, the prices that plumbers charge suggest there aren't enough of those either. If free market economics were accurate, prices would tumble if there were more of them, right?
-
Socialism will never work because it’s founded on emancipation, and you can’t force people to emancipate themselves. That would be the opposite of emancipation.
I’m not sure if this is a quote, I can’t remember where I heard it.
"Emancipation" in this case meaning emancipation from wage slavery.
There are countries that were made democratic not by the people but their dictator/monarch. Why couldn’t the same happen with socialism?
Also one should consider that (at least in the non Stalinist definition) socialism more or less just means worker coops. There are worker coops. There is the theoretical possibility that their numbers rise until private companies are basically non existent. Socialism doesn’t necessarily require a revolution.
-
Socialism is everywhere, currently. The American government is socialist, but they do t allow any of those policies to trickle down to you as citizens. They bar it at every opportunity to continue to enrich themselves on your backs. Canada is a socialist society, as is most of the developed world.
UBI would be ideal, it is actually cheaper to pay for people before they become destitute, homeless criminals. But then you don't have the scaremongering keeping people working shitty jobs for shit pay to stay on the "good" side of society.
You wouldn't even need to with UBI, shit employers would not be able to find workers, and people inherently want to do things and make a difference/impact on the lives of others.
Disabled people could still house and feed themselves. Mentally ill people could seek the treatment they need to get better. It is cheaper and more effective to deal with problems before they become problems. Cleaning up the mess is far more costly on so many different metrics it's almost funny we don't do this already.
Socialism refers to worker ownership of the means of production, not "when the government does stuff".
While politicians call anything the government does socialism, that doesn't make it so. -
ITT: People who don't know the definition of Socialism.
Socialism is simply when the workers of a business all equally share ownership of the business ("means of production") and thus have input on how the business is run.
Socialist businesses would still trade their goods in a marketplace, which could even be a "free market."
*could still trade their goods in a market.
There's many other forms of socialism, most dont have markets since those are exploitative. -
I can read lemmy from piefed but cant read piefed from lemmy? Is this correct?
No, both should work both ways.
-
That doesn't make any sense as a statement. It sounds like you can't force freedom on people, but yeah you can make them free without consent but I don't get how that makes sense in this context.
Multiple countries show socialism works perfectly fine for essential and shared services and other things a society needs. It doesn't work for everything, which is why so many countries are a blend of socialist public stuff like universal healthcare, free education, and those kinds of things whle still having capitalism in the firm of private for profit companies for non-essential stuff like restaurants and clothing stores.
Note that if the country has socialist in the name it probably isn't actually socialist in practice.
No. Socialism is not when the government does stuff.
Socialism refers to workers owning the means of production. Free education and universal healthcare are not socialist in themselves.
-
I think you may be confusing socialism with communism.
Delete my comment because I guess my understanding isn't as concrete as I'd like it to be.
Isn't socialism just the way to get to communism?
-
Socialism will never work because it’s founded on emancipation, and you can’t force people to emancipate themselves. That would be the opposite of emancipation.
I’m not sure if this is a quote, I can’t remember where I heard it.
"Emancipation" in this case meaning emancipation from wage slavery.
That just sounds like it's saying that any form of emancipation is impossible.
-
Socialism will never work because it’s founded on emancipation, and you can’t force people to emancipate themselves. That would be the opposite of emancipation.
I’m not sure if this is a quote, I can’t remember where I heard it.
"Emancipation" in this case meaning emancipation from wage slavery.
If people as a whole felt capable enough and were brave enough to follow and speak about what's right and good for the world, we wouldn't need ideological leaders. The reality of things is that people are mostly fearful sheep, going through life thanks to inertia without any major self analysis or existential considerations, fleeing pain and seeking pleasure, and as such they need good shepherds.
-
Socialism will never work because it’s founded on emancipation, and you can’t force people to emancipate themselves. That would be the opposite of emancipation.
I’m not sure if this is a quote, I can’t remember where I heard it.
"Emancipation" in this case meaning emancipation from wage slavery.
Yeah, it's not like you can just proclaim emancipation.
-
On the other hand, he wasn't special in that regard. People with unchecked power are almost always monsters, because people in general are awful.
I don't really agree that people in general are awful, but we do all have our awful sides.
And indeed, people who really know how to get to the top and stay there tend to almost always have skills and a mindset that steer them towards dictatorship.
-
There are countries that were made democratic not by the people but their dictator/monarch. Why couldn’t the same happen with socialism?
Also one should consider that (at least in the non Stalinist definition) socialism more or less just means worker coops. There are worker coops. There is the theoretical possibility that their numbers rise until private companies are basically non existent. Socialism doesn’t necessarily require a revolution.
Just because something is made a democracy in principle doesn't mean it's democracy in action.
Often these proto-democracies are more prone to corruptive influence because their populace is under-educated and eager for someone to give them easy answers to their problems.
That's a major reason the US is in the state it is, despite there still being a great deal of political power in the hands of the populace.
