Topic: Socialist life (Read 987 times)

The socialist will be a civilized and scientific society, in which we will have only science and correct spiritual life and ignore passions, supernatural.

Socialist is a society with a high economy, science and technology. All people for the common goal of society, self-interest and exposure will disappear, no class, class, people for the common goal of society.

I think it is a utopian society that is difficult to achieve when capitalism is going on now and the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Those rich people will never accept such a society, we will find a way to maintain their position.

Social life depends on individual differences, actually socialisation make people to be expose or to be exposure to their society, in other way round some activities attracts in some numerous function which will likely needs someone who are social.

It's plain that before someone partakes in some religious function you most be capable of associating with different calibers of people, and through your social activities it can enable the individual to secure employment opportunity. So in all ramifications some peoples in have to be smart in life

the truth is everybody will look at it on their point of view.
we have democratic world and we live in human rights world and power to the people kind of world.
the poor people will choose sure the socialism ,communism or similar to those.
the rich will choose capitalism sure.
but if the problem is most of the people are poor now and money is only in hands on few then we have democraty and people will choose and they choose the socialism only reason becouse they dont have nothing so they want to share their zero things with capitalists.
the socialism ie communism is like quick marriage just to get 50/50 assets after divorce lol:D when nobody owns nothing then there is no responsebility
but what regime or power we will have in democratic world where bigger part of population decides whats good for the rest of the people as this bigger part of population is poor ,sure they want bigger taxes and more sharing more caring.
capitalists who been working their way up or been just lucky they are less in the world right now.

and all those crisis has created clearly good base for socialism
as i said everybody want the world according their own point of view:)

but will be interesting to see situation when we will have a lot capitalists in society and less poor people it means everybody will have decent job or business it can be only possible if most of the people will be self employed instead of just working for someone and paying their own taxes it will create the full capitalists society

Proudhon and other market socialists would disagree. Even staunch American individualists like Lysander Spooner would scoff at that sort of characterization.

One of the most effective anti-socialist ploys in recent history was to fool people into believing Marxism was the entirety of socialist theory. This lead to the erroneous framing of the discussion as free markets vs. planned economies, allowing capitalists to erroneously lump all socialists in with Stalin and Mao.

The true debate between capitalists and socialists is about whether private property and absentee ownership are morally legitimate. Capitalists accept them, while socialists unequivocally oppose them. It has nothing to do with this idea that capitalists believe in free markets and socialists believe in planned economies. Plenty of socialists acknowledge that free markets are the most efficient way to distribute goods in an economy.

The thing about the religious people keep saying "why don't you steal or kill if you do not believe in god" makes me really scared of where we are living. We live in a world that has people who actually do not kill only because they are afraid of an imaginary being they have created in their minds. I mean is god the only thing that made you not kill a person? If the reason why you do not kill anyone is either god or even the law, you are really screwed and you are not a good person.

For example the reason why I don't kill anyone is the fact that... I do not, and I can't stress this enough I DO NOT want to kill anyone, isn't that a better reason? This could be applied to anything that is morally wrong and that is the place where people miss out, if it is legal and if it is religiously accepted, they can do something morally wrong.

That’s the truth, if employees are not getting incentives for putting in extra hard work in their job, they wouldn’t be encouraged to work that hard another time. I do not agree with such an idea.

If I’m working hard than my counterparts and at the end I still get paid the same amount of money with them, trust me I am never going to work that hard next time, I am going to even reduce the rate of work I do to be less than my counterparts, because it doesn’t make any sense. This idea of equality of outcome will only encourage a lot of people to become even more lazy.

Moral concerns one's inner attitude. Mental intentions are not included in the reach of the law, on the contrary in the context of morality mental attitude is very important. Whereas in religion, the rules between outer and inner are both considered very important so that these two things must be accommodated.

Morals teach what is good and what is bad according to general truth without a clear rule regarding the penalty. Religion is very broad in scope, not just a measure of good and bad according to the truth of the heart and clean mind, not really only orders, prohibitions, and sanctions that are outward in nature, but broader than what is the basis of the two rules, namely there are sanctions on life after humans died.

The law regulates prohibitions and necessities with clear sanctions rules made by the state, the very existence of laws influenced by human rationality. The rules that live in society, no matter how beautiful the concept is, will not be obeyed by all members of society if, without a force that has validity in power and authority to enforce these rules, so anyone will be penalized if he commits an offense.

What people do not like about capitalism is extremely obvious, in capitalism there are winners and there are losers, and those that want to change the system for the most part are on the losing side, they think they are or they are trying to defend those on the losing side.

This is why communism for the most part begins with the idea of equality of rights and then morphs to equality of outcome which is simply impossible, if someone performs better at a job then that person needs to be paid more or move up the ladder and if that does not happen and instead of receiving incentives that person receives disincentives like more work for the same pay or even a reduced pay then other people will notice and they will stop working that hard, this is why despite the promises of communist and socialist regimes the end game always looks the same, a market with empty shelves and no products to buy regardless of how much money you may earn.

Venezuela was in trouble long before oil pries fell and it's because the government looted the wealth of the country by sacking everyone who knew what they were doing and installing cronies and corrupt politicians who would kick the money back to the political leaders. The infrastructure that produces oil is literally breaking down and the purge of intellectuals in the country has left them with scarcely anyone who knows how to fix it.  The drop in oil prices is just the icing on the cake since what they can still produce is worth so much less than it used to be.

Advantages of socialism? I'm really curious what those are. Care to elaborate? Socialism is about cooperation, but a guided one. This means that you have to work for the common good, but how this common good will look like is not for you to decide. It's like building a house that is supposed to belong to your whole family but one person in the family holds the plans and decides who will live in each room and what size the rooms will be.

Sure we can.  Morality doesn't come from religion, religion just hijacked the concept in an attempt preserve the favored status their members have historically enjoyed in different societies by telling you that there are arbiters of morality and you need them to believe you're a good person in order to have eternal life.  Organized religion governs through fear.  The regularity with which religious folks violate their own rules proves what a scam it is, and they're the ones trying to tell everyone else how to live.

And religion is not equal to morality. Religion can order its followers to do immoral things like killing people who have different beliefs, that's why terrorism (and all sort of intolerance) exist.

Better stay away from discussion about religion (off-topic) on this section and remain on-topic about economics.

The one with the most food is not necessarily the one who can pass the gene. They need protection, or they will be killed, robbed, etc. Even the king and queen fell in the French Revolution. Hence, even if you are a manly alpha male, you won't have a chance if dealing with angry mobs. We need each other as a social animal.

From this we can see that religious values are absolute and can be used as standardization and, their application in everyday life, can be used as indicators, whether civilized humans or not. We cannot separate religious values from our daily lives. A healthy civilization's thirst is based on awareness of reality. Like the joys of life represented by democracy and liberalism must be transformed into the principle of reality. If socialism and capitalism cannot bring prosperity to mankind on earth, then maybe we should review that the fault lies in their goals or strategies.

Socialism makes the assumption that the economy can be controlled. The economy cannot be controlled, or even predicted, any more than the weather.

It's a fair point on the degree of selfishness being destructive at a point, however economics and money is an entirely man-made construct, it doesn't exist in nature. Money is just a stand-in for food or anything that allows you to survive, and in terms of survival, those with the most are the ones who are most likely to pass their genes along. Society thrives in groups, but man survives without it just fine. It's society that is threatened by excessive selfishness, not necessarily the individual.

The thing about capitalism that doesn't work in people's eyes is the fact that when there are so many homeless people and very poor people who cannot defend themselves politically because they do not have the means for it (what are they going to do, build a homeless voting network?) other people will have to defend them, right now I can easily say that capitalism worked for me, I am doing great and my economy is not bad at all, but I am willing to give 10% more taxes just so other people who are poorer than me could live a better life, 10% more tax from every single human and company would mean there would never be people who are homeless or starving, you can end world poverty with it.

However the problem with socialism is that you can tax as much as you want but if politicians are crooked and corrupt that money won't go to people who need it, that money will go to politicians pockets.

I sincerely prefer the current model, capitalism. In my opinion this is an interesting model, however, several actions are necessary to make it more fair for everyone and not just for the upper class.

I agree with the point that evolutionary biology has rewarded a degree of selfishness, and that natural selection has embedded it in our natures. But I would argue that our evolutionary history has in general only rewarded mild degrees of selfishness, and that higher levels of selfishness have been counterproductive to an individual's survival and ability to pass on their genes. We have evolved as social animals, living in tribal groups of somewhere of the order of 100 people. Arguably much of our intelligence has evolved through the need to build and maintain a complex web of inter-personal bonds, knowing who to trust and who not to, and establishing reciprocal altruism. We can argue convincingly that for a species of solitary creature, selfishness will certainly be selected for, and selflessness will not. I think we are on less solid ground arguing the same for social animals.

Beyond this... I'm not in favour of outright communist-style absolute equality of outcome, I'm more in favour of democratic socialism, a capitalism-lite where truly progressive taxation of both income and wealth work to remove some of the most egregious excesses, and government intervention works for the benefit of the whole population, and removes all innate privilege. This may be a dream that is unlikely to see reality.

I would say that most modern national governments do exhibit extremely selfish tendencies, but I think this is not because all or most people are extremely selfish, but rather that the sort of people who seek power tend to be more selfish than those who do not. If instead we base our assessment of human nature not on politicians, but on volunteers and charity workers, and for example the employees of MSF, who could work extremely well-paid jobs in private healthcare, but instead choose to risk their lives in war zones in the most troubled parts of the world... if we base our assessment on these people, then I would say humans don't seem particularly selfish at all.

Right, this is my point.  Socialism can only work of everyone in society ignores basic human nature and millions of years of evolutionary biology that have ingrained the need to be selfish for survival into our genes. Our survival is now longer predicated on that level of selfishness, but you're not going to reverse the wiring in our brains that reward it.  Religious views won't help you get there either since just about all major religions are based on a hierarchy and have spent hundreds of years preserving traditional and oppressive power structures.

actually there are advantages and disadvantages of each, but if they are shown further, more negative impacts will be generated by socialists, if indeed everyone works together then there will be no more competition and integrity will decrease. But cooperation is also needed in building a relationship country.

I really don't like the socialist economic system where people think that people should cooperate with each other, this creates competition
between humans is reduced. This will make people less creative and cause a decrease in the number of entrepreneurs. It is very different
from the capitalist system which can have the impact of increasing innovation and can improve the quality of the human. And the most
dangerous part of the socialist system is if it has a bad leader, because the role of the state is too big, there can be abuse of power.

In my opinion, today capitalism and socialism work simultaneously in almost every country. No country has a pure capitalist or socialist system. Even China is guided by capitalist social communism. Moreover, in its pure form, Socialism is a Utopia. In addition, if you completely disassemble the "Manifesto of the Communist Party", which was written by Marx and Engels, it becomes clear that they saw a social system in the form of "slavery" of the country's population, and the absence of any free that people have today.

I would not say that capitalism has failed. It functions as much as capitalism has to function. Many people only see that it does not work properly because they do not benefit from it. When you see what progress is happening in human civilization (research and development), capitalism is definitely the better alternative to socialism/communism (or name me an existing or past socialist country that has brought progress for humanity in the long run).
I do not understand your reference to religion. Both are first and foremost economic forms, in a graded form also ideologies, but certainly not religions.

You make a good point about socialism vs. dictatorship.

As for Cuba and Venezuela, you are mistaken. Both of these countries had higher standards of living than the other Latin American countries before they turned socialist, and now they are struggling.

Which is why communism and socialism cannot work, that does not mean capitalism is perfect, it is not, however so far it is the best system that we have and the only one that makes sense, communism and its little brother socialism try to go against human nature as if we are a colony of ants or something but we are not, people work hard and spend decades of their lives working in order to get an adequate remuneration for their efforts and if they do not get it they will simply not work, this disincentives those that have the greatest capacities to only work the minimum necessary creating a rush to the bottom from which it is impossible to escape and that makes the system to collapse at the end.

I have you to understand that I believe that whatever kind of economic system in place in the country or world in general, we are still going to realize people with be equal in economic status. Some will have more than others and the reason is strength is not same, bonuses will come in different kinds of work we do. And even government give loan, some will squander theirs while others will be able to grow theirs. We can only practice the one better for the people well being.

This is literally what people are missing out when they are talking about socialist countries and that is the funny part.
When people talk about socialism they are not talking about authoritarian socialism, if there is a dictator at the helm that doesn't mean that it is something ANYONE can agree on, who could say having one strong dictator ruling all of the nation could be good? Right, left, socialism, capitalism, communism, fascism, doesn't matter what you believe in, if there is one person leading it all the time that is not acceptable at all.

However if you look at socialism in these small countries everyone lists, like Cuba or Venezuela even though they did had those type of rulers at times, they were still "better", obviously they compare it to European or american great nations and say look how people are poor but they are missing the fact that even before revolution they were worse, things are not all sunshine and rainbows now neither but at least they are doing better than how they were, which means improvement.

I don't see any sign that we are going to be a socialists world. First and foremost, the world is composed of many different countries, with different beliefs, culture and behaviour. Its not easy to comprehend the kind of economy growth in each country, others may based upon economic and political theories, but some are definitely not.
It is still commendable if the Government will just reach out for help to the community especially those smaller businesses so everyone will be given a chance to grow and be successfull in each endeavour, rather than advocates collectivism for their own good. I believe that if we help each other, the whole economy will grow fast and its a great pride of a certain Country.

I'm in favour of equality of opportunity, where everyone gets the same chance to succeed. I also think that the rampant inequality of outcome that we have in modern societies needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency, and certain well-worn progress paths need to be removed (e.g., in the UK: Eton->Oxbridge->Conservative government).

But at the same time, I don't think absolute enforced equality of outcome is desirable. We need to permit a certain level of inequality in order to give people something to strive for, so that those who try harder or who have more talent are better rewarded... otherwise I think society stagnates. It's all a matter of keeping that permitted inequality to a reasonable level, and ensuring that inequality is based on merit rather than circumstance or an accident of birth.

Isn't that what is already happening? I just watched the Fed print $3 trillion+ to bail out corporations and their shareholders. The US government is planning to borrow $3 trillion this year, most of which is being spent to bail out out the unemployed (literally paying them more than they got at their job to do nothing), homeowners who no longer had to make housing payments without any effect on their mortgage or credit, and unprofitable companies and their workers who were gifted forgivable loans for keeping people on the payroll.

In my book, that means taxpayers and savers like me who are paying to bail out greedy corporations and the people who work(ed) for them, who have spent months this year collecting checks for doing nothing.

Some form of actual socialism (and by that I don't mean to imply Marxism-Leninism) seems preferable to this system where bailing out corporations and the investor / homeowner classes is paramount. In this system, money is taken through taxation and inflation and gifted to those who already have it. It's the worst of both worlds: an absolutely unfree market, but also an inequitable society.

The problem with socialistic ideas that people who should be in charge of these type of stuff usually make it their own mission to get richer than everyone else, human greed just doesn't allow the ideas to work, there is no problem with the concept itself, the problem is with the execution and that is what most of the right people go against and I do understand their point.

If you look at Russia for example, they were Soviet Union for a while and in 91 the day after they became a non-communist regime there were plenty of billionaires, how did those people became so rich so quickly? Because even at the point when everyone should have been equals, they were richer and didn't follow their own rules. So yeah, as an idea socialism is the best one there is to me, but execution should be done with people who are not greedy at all.

Perhaps the cause of the failure of both capitalism and socialism is the separation of economy, politics and religious teachings, even the roots of socialism, namely communism, consider religion to be addictive. In fact, religious teachings adhere to values that not only regulate the relationship between humans and the creator but the relationship between humans and the relationship between humans and nature.

Both socialism and capitalism see the matter as an end, not as a tool. Don't judge the books from its cover, we take an example of the basics of Islamic economics, we can put aside Islam, but what is taught in Islamic economics we can learn and if possible apply if it can bring solutions to the improvement of the global economy.

Democratic socialists may draw closer to equality, but they do not make economies of society equal. Here I am not in favour of capitalism. it's just that, I assume that equality will be achieved if society adheres to egalitarianism and mutualism. I mean is. The breakdown of hierarchies and entire institutions will give birth to a classless society. and I think that is true equality.

The basic idea of socialism is not so bad. The rich help the poor. The only problem is that socialism has never worked, secondly, it disregards some profound misunderstandings of human nature and thirdly, it has always led to a loss of human progress. If socialism had been introduced thousands of years ago, we would be riding horses today at best, but certainly not flying to the moon. In my opinion, the best economic form is the social market economy, i.e. in principle capitalism with strong social characteristics.

The money comes from returns on existing wealth. The system is set up so that the rich get richer. The richer you are, the greater the benefit.

_{https://newrepublic.com/article/117429/capital-twenty-first-century-thomas-piketty-reviewed}

The current system is unfair because it rewards the already-rich disproportionately to any talent or effort. A wealth tax might be the answer to reducing inequality.

I think that people worry that they would end up paying for those that do nothing because that is the result of communism and communism is a form of socialism.


A socialist country controls a lot more than just the healthcare, police, and fire. A socialist country owns all of the capital and means of production. In other words, the country owns all of the land, all of the natural resources, and all of the businesses. It has nothing to do with student debt, though since the country owns all of the universities, it could make them free to everyone.


Harvard costs a lot of money because it is not subsidized by any government. The money to run it has to come from somewhere. Also, Harvard is bad example for your point. According to Harvard, 20% of the people that go there pay nothing, and Harvard does not admit based on wealth or income. Read this: https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/why-harvard/affordability

Why do people think that when you pay high taxes you are going to end up paying for people who do nothing at all and sit around and just collect checks? Socialism is when you get healthcare for free, you get cops for free, you get firefighters for free, why not get doctors for free? Why do some people think that is different? Socialism is when you do not have student debt, why is community college or state college is almost free but Harvard isn't?

I mean why would it be so difficult to just vet their students better and only get the people who deserve it and not the people who can afford it? Would it be bad if someone who had absolutely no money at all but deserved Harvard can go there instead of guy whose family can afford it? Basically socialism is not giving away free stuff, it is giving away stuff to people who deserve it, a huge difference.

The way I see it is that everyone will be contributing, and not 50% working and feeding the remaining 50%, that won’t work. Seriously, human beings will never do that, if 50% are asked to work and feed the other 50%, they would be like ‘why should I be working and feeding other people why they are relaxing and doing nothing?’, even you yourself would have the same reaction.

Nobody wants to be working while the other people are doing nothing, it will be seen as cheating. Apart from that, I think this kind of life will be very difficult to work out, people will still prefer the current system of them getting paid for their work.

Yes, all of these countries had a leadership that was entrenched and unaccountable. They serve as examples of how communism does not work in practice, and why democracy is so important. But it doesn't mean that all forms of socialism are bad, and that utterly unregulated laissez-faire capitalism is the holy grail.

It's not black and white, it's not either/or. There are degrees of socialism. A democratic socialism may be the best approach to create greater equality of opportunity and reduce corruption at the top.

A socialist regime is an oppression in the name of social. The socialist state has failed and even bring about slavery, poverty and totalitarianism. Communities living in socialist countries, such as the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, and East Germany in the past, not only had to live to standards below countries that adopted a market economy such as the United States, They were also forced to live under power dictator of the top Communist party, and do not have the political freedom to speak and express opinions. Those who dare to resist and criticize the government will be arrested, jailed, and executed.

As in terms of economics, and trying to avoid tying in this reply in to politics, because this is not the political section but I would agree that a 50/50 split between so called "socialism" and "conservatism" or some sort of a mix between to the two makes for a good balance.  Going too far either which way provides more economic issues than not.  Look at all the economies around the world, if it were proven that one way or the other would result in a better stronger economy, everyone would do it..but that's simply not the case.  Plain and simple. I think as in everything in life, a good balance is key.

That's what we can see on the surface. Perhaps it is even more interesting to ask "Who governs the government?" than "Who governs the private sector?" Because I am almost sure that at the top of the food chain are the untouchable elites who not only own the large corporations which are somehow acting as the backbone of a country's economy but also the government itself.

When a government implements this and that, bans this and that, and so on and so forth, the primordial consideration will always be the preference of these elites.

When a government appears strongly decisive to go against a certain company, don't expect that it is acting alone in the name of its being a "government of the people, by the people, for the people." It is probably acting on behalf of a much bigger fish.

Socialist is an always do better economic and political system based on public ownership  Its include all machinery, tools, and factories used to produce goods that aim to directly satisfy human needs. The main purpose of the socialist is to help others.

Currently the U.S. is too distopian with its wealth inequality. The less fortunate, those born with disabilities or in an impoverished or torn apart family have very little chance to rise out of poverty and live a comfortable life. Basic amends like water are too expensive and even that alone can put someone in debt. Property taxes put a burden on poorer families even if they have zero income in most cases. Health care and medical expenses are the worst in the whole world. And moreover, the only credit line poor people can have is predatory loans. The U.S. has huge wealth inequality, with a lot of money accumulation at the very top, while big parts of the population suffer from a housing and health crisis.

Now even republican leaders are starting to notice the need for welfare. Past the failure of Trump's "corporate welfare" measures, even he himself enacted regulations on that spectrum, allowing the national debt to go way up. U.S. too, one of the last bastions among countries actively avoiding social policies, is also going down the one way road of socialized programs. Even they are realizing that this is the only way to level the playing field and help the vast majority of the population benefit.

Yes, this might be true to some extent, but who governs the private sector? We have seen how governments dictated specific trade and import agreements between countries, during the trade wars between the USA and China. (The two most powerful economies in the world)

We have also seen how sanctions was enforced on countries that was hostile towards the USA and China and how the government stopped the import and export of specific goods and items. (Example : Huawei routers & mobile phones)

In a FREE market, government should not force specific political agendas on private business. (trade restrictions)

Also, a very large percentage of the world is unemployed ...so the majority of the tax income is going toward social grants and the middle class (also a large percentage of the employed workers) are footing the bill for that. (This is also a kind of socialist design) 

Yes, exactly that. History suggests that real communism can't be implemented in real life, because it is too easy to corrupt.

Also, I wouldn't describe 'real' communism as a utopia. Forced absolute equality sounds extremely dull, and doesn't reward effort or talent. People would have nothing to strive for, and no incentive to try. I'm not sure what utopia might look like, but the best form of society that I can see ('best' in a moral sense) out of those that exist at the moment (and have existed previously) would be a left-leaning democracy where the excesses of capitalism are kept in check, and where there is true equality of opportunity irrespective of whether or not you are born rich. A capitalism that is carefully controlled rather than laissez faire.

I don't understand what you mean by 50%. For socialism, I don't think is about the 50/50 thing. The government regulate the economy indices and does the production mostly to ensure there is a set roles for all.

This is exactly what all socialists/communists have been saying after communism failed-"The communism in USSR wasn't the REAL communism"   Then what is the real communism?Is it come fantasy/utopia that can't be implemented in real life?There's no fair distribution of resources.Nothing is "fair" in our life.
The ideal communist utopian society looks something like "everything is owned by everyone,all the people are equal and there's no government,no rich elite and no poverty" .Sounds too good to be true.
This nonsense can't exist in the real world.
Anyway,I guess that OP is joking about the "50/50" socialism.That's not how socialism works.

Yes. The reason that capitalism triumphed over "communism" in the late 20th century is simply that capitalism is (slightly) less easy to exploit. I use inverted commas because "communism" as practised in the USSR was not real communism. From the other side, it is supposed that most of us live in "capitalist democracies", which is clearly an oxymoron. Capitalist systems are plutocratic, not democratic. There is less corruption in capitalist countries, but this is merely a difference of degree - the corruption is still huge.

The truth really is that both capitalism and our experience of communism are anti-democratic. The closest we have to real democracies are the capitalist countries that are run by left-leaning parties. Perhaps this is the best and most egalitarian compromise that we can achieve.

The ability of the government to carry out corrupt practices is not an indicator of socialism.
Using my country as a case study; social amenities such as electricity, tourism/hospitality has been privatized, with major sellouts still happening in various sectors indicating a shift from socialism. Corruption however is still widespread as they still have influence over financial structures like; budget allocation, contract awarding etc, so corrupt gov'ts can still effectively embezzle public funds.

Well let's look again at what you wrote here!

1) I, too, understand that propaganda. If there were "not so many taxes", then where did all this "free medicine" or "free education"come from? Now you pay for them out of your own pocket and are free to choose the level of services you need. At the socialism time you paid before you saw your money (indirect taxes hello) and you had no choice in the service
2. so hundreds of thousands of people living on benefits are not parasites? Or do you propose to introduce criminal terms/forced employment of those who do not want to work?
3. Social Elevator under socialism-a good attempt! I know very well the lists for the best University in a already non-existent country where there was a prestigious education. The vast majority are children of people from the government, while all the rest studied in their" common " universities. A normal Elevator, I'm sure.

By experiment I mean that they tried to build socialism but the attempts were as unsuccessful as possible and led to very bad consequences.

What prevents you from earning your capital? Personally Bezos who takes your salary?

Yes, all power to people and councils! All the land to the peasants, and the factories to the workers. Slogans are good, but they are just slogans.

Again, no. Socialism is a legendary "non-functioning democracy" because if we assume (as it should be) that under socialism we must take into account the needs of everyone, then just imagine this bureaucratic machine that eats up tens of tons of paper and ink a year just so that the whole structure would somehow function. How will the market work under socialism? What to do with those who are more successful than others? What to do with those who don't want to work? What about the outflow of successful people who will (quite reasonably) run away from such a device?

Even what we can call socialism now, in our 2021 year, arouses dislike rather than any interest. There are too many different "buts" and too few adequate answers and working solutions other than the words "let us try again, the plane also did not take off in the first time".

World is going this, world is going that... mind providing some Proof? and please dont say you are drunk or on weed.

It might be easy to think like that, but every one has to work to keep a country running. Every person is a cog in a large chain and though we tend to have a narrow vision of ourselves there are many others doing different roles in different positions and nobody is inferior to anybody. Just that we dont care to give the importance to others.

So what you say, is a part of your own delusion. Half of the population of any country is not sleeping, they have different work to do.

This is what is happening in most of the countries around the world.

Governments have full control when it comes to manipulation in the economy that's why most of the politicians are suddenly becomes rich due to corruption. They are uncontrollably abusing their power due to this socialism that they are saying. They can't handle the temptation to steal the money from the people, they are just using it in the wrong way that's why economic crisis is still there and they are having a hard time to eliminate it.

Citizens are suffering, especially those poor people who are just relying on the government's support but still the economy are really affected by mishandling of budget.

How exactly is the world going socialist? Are you saying this because of the lockdown? You do know for sure that if you don’t work you’re not going to get any food on your table right? So don’t think that the world is going socialist because you’re sitting at home due to Covid-19, better to find something. And by the way I can’t even imagine that happening, where 50% will sit at home doing nothing and the others are out there working for them to feed.

What makes you think that such thing will ever happen? The way it is nobody is ready to do that, the world will prefer that there is no food for people who don’t work. If we should socialist like you said, trust me, nobody will agree to work while another is at home chilling and doing nothing. The reason why people are working is because they have a target and that target is income.

Common wealth is a lie spread by socialists and communists. It was always about reposession of goods and control over the masses.
The most basic thing in socialism and communism, the concept of equality, cannot work, as people are not born equal and through their lives prove to different from each other. Comunism doesn't even try to treat them equally, it treats the working class, people who produce material goods, better than the rest. Socialism is an unsustainable system that will never work.

Socialism can only be perfect if each human being does not live only for himself, but lives for the needs of the common society. In a socialist system, the people should have a direct voice in matters related to the state and the livelihoods of many people, what is currently happening is democratic socialism. Socialism will be perfect if it is bound by moral and religious values. The true basis of the socialist society is egality and brotherhood. Socialism was originally a communist philosophy that was based on the unity and integrity of society as a community in which socialism entered the economic realm so that it had a political-economic foundation. With the aim that the country's wealth could be enjoyed by the majority of the people, especially the peasants and poor workers - a movement to erode the various political, social, and economic impacts caused by colonialism and imperialism.

Socialism has a weak resistance compared to capitalism even though its basic ideas are equality and brotherhood because socialism is rigid and not flexible to the changes demanded by history.

Full on socialism has never worked and there’s no reason to expect that to change in the future. It requires suppressing with force a market’s natural tendencies and is therefore inherently violent. Countries with a mostly market system and strong social programs (free healthcare and education) have worked well and are probably as close to socialism as you want to get. But it’s not socialism per se.

In theory, based on public benefits, socialism has the greatest goal of common wealth; Since the government controls almost all of society's functions, it can make better use of resources, labors and lands; Socialism reduces disparity in wealth, not only in different areas, but also in all societal ranks and classes.

The Soviet Union remained invincible because it overthrew the capitalist system established the socialist system and overthrew the dictatorship of the exploiting class and established the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this country, the social productive forces have developed at a rapid pace which the capitalist countries have not been able to reach. This country truly practices proletarian internationalism is a real opponent of national oppression and helps the oppressed countries to be free. Such a country is enthusiastically supported by all the people of the country and the people of all the countries of the world.

The re-education camps in China and in Vietnam after the war, and the Soviet labor camps of Lenin and Stalin all demonstrate the terrible outcome of that socialist myth.

And it is precisely because of this that I say that socialism is good in theory but not in practice, if we could change one or several aspects of human nature then socialism could work, but the point is that we can't and most likely we are not going to be able to change that for the foreseeable future and as long as that is the case then we must create a system that follows human nature, and so far the best is capitalism, since it makes complete sense that if you work really hard and invest a lot of money in a certain project that you keep most of the fruits of that project and you do not have to share that with anyone that you do not want to.

Actually, socialism would be a perfect social structure if we were incapable of lying or if there was a fullprof lie detector available to everyone. Just imagine, in that case there could be no individuals abusing the system for their personal gain and the problem of socially vulnerable categories of the population would be eradicated.

This is not my idea but I read it in some science fiction book (I can't remember the name) back when I was in college and it stuck in my head ever since. 

Socialism sounds good in theory but when applied in practice it has failed miserably and it is easy to understand why, people are selfish by nature if I take the time to be very productive I can understand if part of that production is taken away to keep society in place as I benefit from it as well but when they ask you to give the majority of your income when you are working so hard then a question begins to pop out in the minds of people, why am I being punished for being good at what I do? Why many people receive more than what they give while I receive less? And that is when the socialist dream begins to crumble.

Cryptoboss2020 is probably a young kid, you do not have to listen or respond to everything he says, he has created some weird topics in the past so far and all of them are stuff to get attention. There are tons of topics with "bitcoin going over 12k would be possible if X happens" type of non-attention seeking regular topics, I feel like being in them is easier, you do not have to focus on these type of grand ridiculous and basically just useless topics.

Even the first post he wrote himself doesn't make sense and not just because of his bad English, he has horrible English, my English is bad, his is horrible, but even if he made any sense what he wrote doesn't make sense at all, "socialists means 50% doing the work for 50%" that is capitalism, but for 90%+ working to make money for 1% instead of 50% 50% which would be an improvement even if it was true.

COVID-19 is a factor in the occurrence of socialist life, due to an economic downturn. Make all parties help each other.
But that doesn't mean that socialist life is a good thing, because sometimes it makes poor people become dependent
and not independent. Therefore, socialist life can run well, if society has an independent character.

For the government to succeed in any country they need community,in socialism community is under the government, they work with government to make sure the economic of a country is well manage well and productive.

Socialist is not the government that forces us to do the same. Although we still depend on the government and they are the most powerful bodies, they cannot put in place dictatorships that force people to do so, it is not socialist like you think.
Here, that socialist is the government that will function normally but not force the people to follow a pattern of production. they only appear when the economy is in trouble or the society has problems, of course they will solve the problem their way. I feel socialism is quite amazing because people seem protected from disasters or economic hardship.

Yeah we are into that kind of transition already especially now that we are in pandemic most of the people are striving hard to earn by means of starting a small online business. Corporate business will do but as much as I am interested in socialism it will be more likely to happen.

However,  I do not think that government will not intervene in this. In fact here in our place the small business had to comply in registering their small business. And if it happens that business will going to profit more than the minimum profit set by the government manually then that excess profit will be tax by the government. This is how cruel our government is in our place taking taxes especially to small business but to large business they will just be offered money and then they are now exempted on getting tax and the government were not able to file a case against them because the managment had already receive money as a gift from those big companies evading to pay taxes.

This sounds like the american definition of socialism - socialism is when government does stuff. And by the way, corporations have received far bigger share of covid-19 relief funds than the citizens, so does this still count as socialism or not?


This heavily varies from country to country, but generally the poor are actually getting richer too, just not as fast as the rich. Being poor in the US sucks though, so no wonder that leftism s growing there.

He cannot.He must be one of those ignorant Trump'ers.

In his nomination address, Trump said something along the lines, "Joe Biden is weak and he cannot stand up to all these liberal, Socialists". He says the word like it is something to be despised, which i believe a lot of these uneducated US citizens think because of its association with USSR. This is just another one of those cheap, demagougery tricks after immigrants, scum countries, mexican wall that Trump plays. He pits people against each other on these emotive issues and gains foothold by engaging the fools.

That was my question, too. We have seen leftist-style government intervention in a lot of countries as a response to CV19 - perhaps this is what the OP had in mind? These will likely be temporary measures, as governments remain committed to free-market capitalism. I don't think we're headed for socialism yet.

Having said that, capitalism as currently practised is not sustainable without governments acting to keep it in check. Inequality is growing, the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer... which is one reason that leftist solutions are gaining in popularity.

Can you explain why you think that the world is going towards socialism? It's a big statement and it's rather not self-evident, there's not much countries in this world that are officially socialist, and even less that are actually socialist. And even the word "socialism" starts to mean different things, from marxism to welfare state.

I personally don't see how this can be true, maybe leftist ideas become more popular in the US, but in the rest of the world nothing much changed in the last years. Socialism has been on decline globally since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Socialism lost then and has proven to be a dysfunctional system, so I think that's a utopia. It will not work. It could if the whole world would accept it, but not if there is a comparison to others

The world remains as capitalists because capital makes workers more productive. A single worker with a backhoe is more productive than 20 workers with shovels. It is as simple as that.

Well, let's figure out what you wrote here.
1. SO much is how much? It's hard to believe in this (propaganda, I understand), but under socialism, tax oppression was hardly noticeable. In addition, with all this, medicine of any complexity became absolutely free, as did education (even higher education, yeah).
2. Nonsense. Socialism is a regime that does not accept parasites, because they interfere with the functioning of it.
3. Social lift. I suggest to google what this concept means. The gap cannot be large, because people are in power and there are people from the people.
4. As for the balance, it is definitely impossible to achieve it. I agree 100%

An experiment of the 20th century? Do you know exactly what you are talking about? Was the Neolithic an experiment too? Slave system, feudalism, capitalism? Do you think this is an experiment too? These are the stages through which mankind passed in a natural way, due to the fact that the economic basis came into conflict with the superstructure. They stopped working together.

Any power is a dictatorship (the ability to impose its own political line) of the ruling class.

Capitalism is the dictatorship of a modest number of people who own immodest capital.

Socialism is the dictatorship of the working class, for it is the absolute majority of the population.

And now I'll blow everyone's brain. Look: demos (Greek) - people, kratos (Greek) - power. Suddenly, we get that the real democracy is socialism.
After all, this will be a regime in which the people have real power (and not the opportunity to put a cross in the ballot and change one talking head to another as president)

I do not impose anything on anyone. Love what you like (especially if it's legal). But let's still respect history and get to know it a little before making loud statements.

of course if helping each other creates a harmonious atmosphere, the problem is that some people who are accustomed to being helped think that they can regret their problems by asking others for help, so are more like beggars.
so nothing will be truly beautiful in a long time despite its good intentions.

Socialism is just sweet words, but is basically just an imaginary, or can even be called a figment of imagination at this point, mainly due to how the characteristics of human beings are. Past history has proven this, and I doubt anyone would be willing to try it again at the expense of wasted resources as well as time, that in the end wouldn't really end up to anything good. Plus, a world where everything is equal, a balance of 50/50 is just a world where basically everyone scorns, steals, and lies to each other imo.

The world would probably sooner end than the Government to start helping people because they want to help, they want to solve the problem, compared to generating profit for their own pockets.

The history of human civilization, using the example of the twentieth century, has clearly demonstrated to us the fallacy of the principles of democratic centralism as the basis for building a socialist society. Socialism in almost all countries ended with a personality cult and dictatorship. In theory, everything was fine, the slogans were about humanism, human values, but in practice, it was in the socialist countries that the people were massively destroyed in the name of the same people. Now we see similar events in Belarus. In this country, where socialist relations are still almost intact, the dictator Lukashenka has again been in power for 26 years in a row, who agrees to kill his people in the streets and call on foreign troops, if only to stay in power at any cost.
Therefore, it is better for us to build an ordinary humane society out of a system of checks and balances of power without any political superstructures.

Most of the world remains as capitalists due to the fact that the governments are proposing bailout programs and cash aid to those large corporations while leaving the small to medium enterprises on their own. This isn't socialism since not all the members of society are receiving the same amount of benefits compared to those who are really funding money for the gears to work, even though both of them are doing something for the society. We will never reach such a state given how we are obsessed with having more money than we could ever need in our lifetimes, and our governments are also making those dreams happen to a few chosen elites while leaving the rest of the herd trying to make ends meet.

I don't see it either and when we take into account that in the majority of the countries in which we see the governments controlling the means of production we see that they are incredibly inefficient in doing so, the latest example of this is Venezuela and just look at their economy, while there are some key sectors that should remain in control of the government the truth is that it is better to let the free market to decide which company thrives and which doesn't since only the one that is the most efficient should survive.

You have strange definition. In capitalism few %  holds most capital and 90%+ provide services to that capital.  In socialism work is the center and you are paid for your work not for you capital. If you dont work you get nothing. In capitalism if you have capital and dont work you get a lot.

Socialist life may be a new plan to improve people's AI and protect them from the exploitation of capitalist society. Socialism is that the first stage of communist society. Socialism overthrows personal property and eliminates exploitation depression and unemployment among the people, leaving open the desert for the planned development of the productive forces and therefore the full development of the relations of production. The aim of social production during the amount of socialism was to extend the prosperity of the people and to cause the general development of each member of the society.

Well, let's take apart the parts you wrote.
1) are you Willing to pay so MUCH taxes that would have been socialism?
2) do you Understand that any socialism is totally pandering to all sorts of social parasites who want nothing in life dentate and believe that they all should go for nothing?
3) do you Understand that such is the vaunted socialism creates even wider gap between public authorities and citizens?
4) do you understand in the end that it is impossible to build such a balance (as you have written) 50/50?
No one wants to live under socialism / communism because the memory of the 20th century is still alive and everyone remembers perfectly about Germany and the wall in the middle of Berlin through which thousands of people fled.
Other remarkable socialist experiments are also remembered.
The left-wing order has quite successfully shown its unfitness for life - but no, let's try again. Everything is OK?

Socialism is also quite similar to capitalism, but the only difference is that the government has more power. In socialism, the government has the power to coordinate the domestic market and economy, which means they will adjust for us to have the best and fairest developing country possible. It's not the 50/50 split you say, it's just the people working with the government to solve the problems together.

It might sound sweet and warm if you help like one or two people for a short period. The problem is you cannot support lots of people, and when lots of people don't want to help themselves, they will rely on your support forever. In the end, your life will be dragged down to their level.
Should help each other be voluntary or forced?

Besides, socialism also relies on the community (i.e., the government) decision, which is why socialist countries tend to have authoritarian regimes.

I honestly don't understand your whole point.

Anyway, one of the basic principles of socialism is that the means of production is owned by the state. From this alone, I cannot imagine our present world going to that direction.

From where I am speaking, I am seeing more and more privatizations happening everyday. Even the most basic social services involving the most basic of needs such as water, education, health care, and so on are now passed to the hands of private companies.

I think socialism can make our lives better, where everyone helps each other for a better life. This can be a solution when life starts to deteriorate, such as during the current pandemic. by helping each other in the life between communities and with the government's attention, hopefully it can be better.

Socialism might be a major feature of a prosperous future enriched by high technology and artificial intelligence. If the system can afford a basic income for all citizens, then we can consider it much more socialist than it is today. But, the future will most likely continue to be a mixture of capitalist and socialist systems as it is today.

Socialist? I don't know about that. Corporatist, maybe.


Not sure about other countries, but what you're saying definitely doesn't apply to the US. The Fed monetary injections were the ultimate gift to capital, keeping huge numbers of would-be bankrupt companies alive by buying up the corporate bond market. They are keeping large corporations solvent and their executives pocketing millions under some trickle-down economics theory.......socialist? I think not. The corona virus bailout loan program also showered wealthy corporations and institutions with money. If you look into the fine print, the laws have been riddled with loopholes that allowed corporate America to ransack the funds. The Fed has also been quietly buying massive amounts of mortgage-backed securities, bailing out mortgage banks on the back end as Congress bails out homeowners on the front end. No financial relief for renters, meanwhile. The less fortunate ones will be in debt up to their eyeballs, and mass evictions will come once the moratoriums are lifted.

Is that what socialism looks like?

Socialism is not a 50% split between producers and consumers, it rather advocates for a social structure built on mutual benefits, everyone produces for the society collectively. Socialism is sort of a transition between capitalism; which leans towards a free market with minimal government intervention and communism; which eliminates social classes with resources distributed based on necessity and production based on ability.
Socialism has a bit of both, government regulates the market and social classes exists, both are to a certain extent.

Do you have any reason to say the world is moving towards socialism? Many countries are a blend of different theories, each existing in isolated sectors. There may be more government intervention now due to the current economic crisis, but this is typical of a recession, the market would likely balance out during the economic recovery.


I would definitely not want the government to have full control over the economic market of my country, corruption and nepotism are negative factors that would limit the citizens.

World Going to socialist regime
So 50% will provide services and production for other 50%

I Don't mind this what you think?