You understand that this response is why people disregard your opinions on things, right? If you’re ignorant and unwilling to learn, no one is going to pay attention to anything that falls out of your mouth, because it’s worth less than bullshit, cuz that’s at least useful as fertilizer.
Go learn what words mean, or go back to reddit where your attitude will be welcomed with open arms.
It never materializes (apart from short periods of time before bureaucratic deformation) for very long because it is shot down by the oligarchy. There is tremendous motive in keeping the social status quo (system of classes), and socialism is vilified precisely because it is such a danger to the ruling class.
I guess it’s easier to dream than to come up with something that could actually work or at least make a difference.
It’s also much easier to cynically dismiss all proposed solutions, which is the path you’ve chosen. The things you mentioned before - free healthcare & strong social safety net - have only ever been implemented because people dared to dream bigger. The New Deal in the US was advanced in response to revolutionary socialists as a means of appeasement. Without the international socialist movement we would not have gotten the short break from unfettered capitalism that is now coming to an end.
In addition, it’s a gross oversimplification to characterize the revolutions that established the USSR and PRC as total failures. No serious student of history considers these in isolation from the context of what came before. Though flawed, the first socialist states were a marked improvement over the oppressive Tsarist regime and chaotic rule by several Chinese warlords.
Usually when people talk about socialism now, they’re referring to a semi-planned economy. That’s how. They’re not talking about authoritarianism of the soviet-era (like forced collectivization which is very hard to get people on board with). Their intentions are generally around people being provided necessities through subsidization, not controlling people. Some government intervention is necessary to keep those with unnecessary wealth(power) at bay.
Literally as simple as necessities are nationalized: Healthcare, housing, food, education, that type of thing. (Ie. None of these should be profit-making institutions, along with prisons, but i can explain why in another comment if you’re curious.)
If you’d like, I can explain economically why the free market cannot allocate resources effectively for necessities like this, and therefore my reasoning behind nationalization.
We really shouldn’t be encouraging endless accumulation of wealth, because it slows down the velocity of money when people hoard it, and it becomes a burden on our economy, especially when the class divide gets as wide as it currently is.
Removed by mod
Buddy learn the damn term, it’s not really not that complicated
Removed by mod
You understand that this response is why people disregard your opinions on things, right? If you’re ignorant and unwilling to learn, no one is going to pay attention to anything that falls out of your mouth, because it’s worth less than bullshit, cuz that’s at least useful as fertilizer.
Go learn what words mean, or go back to reddit where your attitude will be welcomed with open arms.
Removed by mod
“It never works”.
It never materializes (apart from short periods of time before bureaucratic deformation) for very long because it is shot down by the oligarchy. There is tremendous motive in keeping the social status quo (system of classes), and socialism is vilified precisely because it is such a danger to the ruling class.
Look no further than the US’s intervention in Cuba to try to quash its socialist efforts
Removed by mod
Oh so your point was that the reason socialism hasn’t worked as well as it could is capitalism. That didn’t seem to be what you were communicating.
If it wasn’t, then no, I’m proving an entirely different point.
Removed by mod
It’s also much easier to cynically dismiss all proposed solutions, which is the path you’ve chosen. The things you mentioned before - free healthcare & strong social safety net - have only ever been implemented because people dared to dream bigger. The New Deal in the US was advanced in response to revolutionary socialists as a means of appeasement. Without the international socialist movement we would not have gotten the short break from unfettered capitalism that is now coming to an end.
In addition, it’s a gross oversimplification to characterize the revolutions that established the USSR and PRC as total failures. No serious student of history considers these in isolation from the context of what came before. Though flawed, the first socialist states were a marked improvement over the oppressive Tsarist regime and chaotic rule by several Chinese warlords.
Usually when people talk about socialism now, they’re referring to a semi-planned economy. That’s how. They’re not talking about authoritarianism of the soviet-era (like forced collectivization which is very hard to get people on board with). Their intentions are generally around people being provided necessities through subsidization, not controlling people. Some government intervention is necessary to keep those with unnecessary wealth(power) at bay.
Literally as simple as necessities are nationalized: Healthcare, housing, food, education, that type of thing. (Ie. None of these should be profit-making institutions, along with prisons, but i can explain why in another comment if you’re curious.)
If you’d like, I can explain economically why the free market cannot allocate resources effectively for necessities like this, and therefore my reasoning behind nationalization.
We really shouldn’t be encouraging endless accumulation of wealth, because it slows down the velocity of money when people hoard it, and it becomes a burden on our economy, especially when the class divide gets as wide as it currently is.