re: What is your definition of socialism? And why or why not is it an effective system?

quote:

---

Leftist here. I’m a long-time lurker, but I like to learn more about the perspective on the opposite aisle.

---

Answer this, OP...

Why do you think economic transactions should be involuntary?

Capitalism - competitive capitalism (not the cronyism we have now) is a voluntary exchange between willing parties.

It's literally the most moral form of structuring an economy in human history.

Is it perfect? No, because dumb people make bad choices. But those are THEIR choices.

Empirical evidence is crystal clear. Nowhere in human history has any system of economics created more wealth for the average poor person than capitalism.

Ever seen a Ugandan loot a Walmart to steal big screen TVs and live streaming it on their iPhone? No, you haven't.

quote:

---

But is there any economic/political system that hasn’t? I don’t think that is a good critique.

---

Yes. Capitalism. That's the barter system. It's never resulted in pain and suffering of millions, lol. It's lifted people out of pain and suffering.

For the life of me, I will never understand how people, with unlimited knowledge at their fingertips, can think that socialism will be better than capitalism. All they have to do is open their iPhones and see. We live in a country where humans enjoy the highest standard of living ever in human history thanks almost completely to technological innovation and hard work driven by profit motive. Profit motive incentivizes investment and growth. Profit motive creates competition and drives higher quality products and services. Profit motive strives to minimize waste and economical delivery of goods and services. Profit motive has improved the lives of every human on the planet in some way.

Without profit motive there is no need to take risks. Without profit motive there is no need to work harder than anyone else. The goal of socialism is to remove profit motive as everyone will have an equal outcome in life. The large majority of innovative breakthroughs in raising the standard of living of humans has happened in capitalist economic systems where profit motive was the driver. Your iPhone was not invented in Venezuela, in other words. It was invented by someone who then bought a gigantic mega yacht. Without the mega yacht carrot, there would never be an iPhone invented at the time it was invented.

quote:

---

But historically we can look at examples for either system that had both outcomes.

---

History is crystal clear. Nowhere on Earth in all of human history have more poor people been elevated to a higher relative standard of living than under competitive capitalism with free markets.

Russia industrialized, after murdering millions, stealing technology, etc. Same with the Chicoms.

They didn't invent this shite on their own. And to the extent they ever did invent something it wasn't because the Communist Commissar willed it into being. Someone, somewhere, had benefit to gain personally by doing so.

quote:

---

Leftist here. I’m a long-time lurker, but I like to learn more about the perspective on the opposite aisle.

---

Why would anyone support a system that doesn't lift people out of poverty? Where has socialism taken a poor country and turn them into an economic power? China has grown by loosening its hold and still lagged Hong Kong and Taiwan by decades.

People in the US have built empires starting in their garages. Mike Dell started off in his garage building computers and by 25 he was a billionaire. Hell half of big tech today started off with handful of people in their homes and garages. Ronnie Barret started out in this garage building .50 rifles and is a military manufacturer.
See any socialized nations producing entrepreneurs? Largely a dead area and those countries rely on those heavily subsidized conglomerated for any economic growth.

Socialism doesn't develop the person. The only thing it does is have them be reliant on the government for their "necessities." With the current "equality" of results how does one gain upward mobility without outperforming the next person? Its not possible.

quote:

---

the “workers own the means of production” not the government, no?

---

Which then implies that there is some governance structure in which the workers have a democratic voice. This is more disastrous and is why the Communists always have to end up creating a hierarchal system anyway.

quote:

---

USSR industrialized into a nation that rivaled the US in terms of technology in large part due to socialism

---

They only copied what they stole and were still light years behind the USA, it was a crumbling paper tiger from the 70's on, you can't be this stupid?

Socialism has traditionally been defined as the collective ownership of the means of production. It’s not effective because it’s the abolition of economizing in the means of production.

Today, socialism seems to be defined as an increase in interventionism into an economy to support the expansion of social programs or welfare. This is more effective than socialism traditionally defined because it allows the economizing in the means of production, but it’s still not effective if one’s goals are peace and prosperity.

quote:

---

USSR industrialized into a nation that rivaled the US in terms of technology in large part due to socialism.

---

Know how I can tell you don't know shite about the Soviets? Their technology was rockets and a few military areas. Their airports were the first signs of their lack of technology. They were using analog switches well into late 80s. I had several friends of the family visit the Soviet Union in 70s and 80s and they would laugh about it and question how was the Soviet Union a world power. Well outside of military and nukes, it was a 3rd world nation.