Semantic Games? This has nothing to do with Semantics. This is political theory.
Maybe in a classroom dealing with clueless children or young adults but not in the real world. It is like taking college spanish and expecting to communicate perfectly in a spanish speaking country, there are nuances and slang and methods of speech you can’t learn in a classroom.
This is very inaccurate. First Communism as devised by Marxist isn’t control of production by the “government” but by the people and the working class. Fascism is a right wing Capitalist Ideology used when the Bourgeois, the Capitalist Class are in a panic or face stress and they see no other way to protect themselves. Communism and Fascism are directly opposing ideologies to conflate them as the same is moronic and just historically inaccurate.
You are wrong.
How does an individual control an entire industry? They can’t, so “the people” must exercise control through Government. As we have seen in every example of Socialist, Communist and Fascist Government to ever exist, the Government is corrupted by such power and it fails.
There has never been any system where the workers controlled government, even basic structures like local worker Unions the politicians and all powerful people take over and the little guy has no say in anything.
The nations I mention are Social Democratic.
Not according to them, and by fact they are capitalist and still maintain most of their National domestic product from free markets, so again, you are wrong.
You clearly did not read my comment for comprehension, let me offer you a direct quote that proves you wrong again being as you just dodged it:
“I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,” Rasmussen said.
NO I clearly said this and agree with you. The NORDIC MODEL IS NOT DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST! IT IS SOCIAL DEMOCRACY! THERE IS TILL PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Private ownership of the means of production is Capitalist, so all the Nations you mention are Capitalist with a large social welfare state paid for by Capitalism.
I’m confused by what you mean by individuals can’t own production? Thats what CEOs are? Even board of directors, stockholders? They own the businesses and the industry and control all aspects of the working classes life. So Individuals do own production…
Now you are playing stupid so you do not have to admit to the valid point.
Yes, corporations have a board of directors and CEO’s who manage the larger industry, so if you have the capacity to understand this then how it is you can’t understand that individual workers can’t operate an entire industry?
My point is the “workers” need an all powerful management system to handle the day-to-day functions just like the company board of directors and CEO handles that individual company and in the case of Nations this management system is either Capitalism or Socialism. Communism or Fascism where Government manages it.
In your world you claim “workers” own production but if you can’t directly change it then you do not own it, at best you can appoint Government leaders to run it on your behalf as the Academia version of Socialism paints it but where academia goes wrong is the only way Socialism can actually function is if you have all “Sister Theresa” types of Government leaders purely honest and immune to corruption. I have yet to meet a single politician who I would hand that kind of raw unchecked power to.
If you’re speaking of “governing bodies” that would mean the workers themselves directly control the “government” or a workers party. Fascism again is not the same…
Again you are playing stupid, my point is the workers themselves control nothing, they have to have a system of representatives who control it on their behalf and as such you still have the power of Government controlling everything, not the workers themselves.
What you describe is what we have now, a system of elected representatives who do the work on behalf of the voters, how well is that working out for you? Can you name a single member of Congress you trust completely if you handed them ten times the power they currently hold? That is what Socialism looks like, pure unchecked power in the hands of a few Government officials.
But they are different. If they weren’t different than they wouldn’t have different names or be on opposing sides of the political spectrum.
Now you sound like a twix commercial, a janitor and a custodian are not the same right?
You are playing semantics, as it pertains to the people and Governing, Socialism, Communism and Fascism are identical because they place all production and ownership into the hands of Government. In every example where these three types of Government were in place, severe devastation and drastic harms were done to the people.
Yes, if you could enact perfect Socialism with zero chance of corruption (meaning you have to remove all people from decisions) then that kind of society would have a potential to offering more evenly spread out resources based on what was available but the society itself would be stagnant and produce less because you have eliminated all motive to work harder than anyone else if you get exactly the same as the guy who does nothing. Why grind out a 10 year medical degree when your reward is you get the exact same things in life as the burger flipper? This is why we have massive shortages for doctors now in every Nation with Universal healthcare systems, doctors earn very little money in comparison to their degree of education as compared to most other fields of work with even much less educational requirements.
Socialism would just magnify this problem.
Socialism and Communism have not led to “massive and very painful results…” what you consider Communism is most likely State Capitalism of the Stalinist variety which I am very much a critique of. Tho from a different aspect than the one you come from. Fascism is a horrible ideology, but it is only one ugly faction of the capitalist class.
Again, all three of them require the Government ownership or direct control over production, period. When the Government owns or directly controls production, severe and massive harms follow to the citizens.
Play whatever semantics you want, this is fact. If you care to refute this then point to me a successful Nation who applied any one of these three “government control of production” models so I can see that it did not result in great harms as you claim?
Can you offer me an example? Because so far you keep pointing to Capitalist Nations with massive welfare programs, you have yet to point out a single successful Communist, Socialist, or Fascist Nation that did not have massive harms.
Luckily in a communist society, as envisioned by Marx there isn’t a total all controlling governing power. There is only the dictatorship of the Proletariat, which the entire class of the working class takes power and destroys all elements of the Bourgeoise. Eventually the borugeois elements disappear and lower phase communism appears in which than the dictatorship of the proletariat, the workers state than will slowly wither away. Since the state only exists to uphold and protect capital.
Again, this may be possible in academia where you can pretend there are innocent and pure politicians operating Government on behalf of the workers and never experiencing corruption but in the real world this is impossible. Human beings are corruptible, and it is the corrupt people that make communism, Socialism, and Fascism impossible as Governing bodies.
In all the world the only places where the poor have done well is where Capitalism has flourished and been the major factor in society. Just like every example you have offered.
Only the Capitalist class, the Bourgeoise, have control under capitalism. This is a elite few, like about 1–10 percent of the population, and they control about 90 percent of everyones lives. If thats shifting the power to the people than by all means go ahead. There only is dictatorship of bourgeoise or the dictatorship of the proletariat. There is nothing else.
What you are demanding is 100 times worse.
Today power is spread to 10 percent of the people as you agree, but in Socialism the power is in the hands of the Government representatives, not the people. These representatives would be elected as we do today, they will be even more corrupt than the politicians we have today because in your model they have 100 times more power.
You have taken everyone else out of power, before a lot of people hold power and the struggle between millions of individuals with power keep a kind of stalemate going against the power of Government. but in your world you want to take away all individual power and place all of it in the few hands of Government officials? Have we not looked around and seen how bad that idea is?
Why do the poor protest or get angry in the first place tho?
Because human beings are rarely happy with their lot in life, the current trend of the left pushing for Socialism is based on jealousy and a desire to get an all powerful Government to go play Robin Hood. They see others have more than them and they want to take it away from them.
I remember my time in the military where the common saying was that as long as the troops are grumbling they are happy, once they get silent that is when you start to worry.
But also, most are unhappy now because there are dishonest politicians and activists and even the media who are preaching discontent. Many poor people lack the capacity to see past these games to see they are really just being used.
Yes it would erase because the working class would no longer have a reason to suffer once the class takes control of the world in a international proletariat revolution.
Again, you leave out the fact these “workers” can’t directly control anything, they have to vote in representatives who will be corrupt as all human beings are corrupt in one degree or another. Each one is corrupt in a different way and after a relatively short period of time the entire system is ruled by the corruption.
This is a prime example of how something possible in theory is actually impossible in practice.
No it is not.
So you say you do not want the kinds of harms we saw with previous socialist, Communist, Fascist Nations but you at the same time want to enact the all powerful Governments that created those corrupt leaders. You can’t have it both ways, any Governing body that takes control of all production must also be corrupt because you are placing way too much power in the hands of an extremely tiny number of leaders.
I’m actually a critique of state planned economies by centralized buercrats. State Capitalism, Capitalism, totalitarianism, fascism are all different forms of commodity production. I wish to see all of them abolished. I am not a supporter of Democratic Socialism, because it is reformist nonsense.
But you demand we put into place governing systems proven to be more corrupt and cause way more harms to the people than Capitalism. You can’t have it both ways. If you want Socialism, Communism, or Fascism, to replace Capitalism then you are asking for more pain and more harms to society.
We have seen this many times before, I believe it is Einstein who is credited with the saying about doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results is insanity. We have seen the Government control over production many times before, and in every example it has turned out horribly for the citizens.
No, I don’t want this. I don’t want capitalism to event exist. If you are going to straw man me atleast understand what you are straw manning. Why the fuck would I want a heavy welfare state where Capitalism pays for handouts if I want a stateless classless society where Capitalism is abolished, along with wage labor and commodity production. Seems rather ridiculous.
You pointed to societies where Capitalism was the primary vehicle and they had a massive welfare state, so if that is not what you want why do you point to them as examples of success?
It seems pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about, lol.
I am attempting to drag you into the real world but you flat refuse to see reality and prefer to wallow in some fantasyland where you can find perfect incorruptible leaders to operate your perfect socialist Utopia for you where you can sit around all day and get free stuff, lol.
I oppose fascism, capitalism, state capitalism, Stalinism, Nazism, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Socialism, Democratic Socialism, Social Democracy, and all other forms of left and right of capital. What I am in favor of is the abolition of Capitalism and dismantling and withering away of the state. If I just wanted the government to control everything I wouldn’t be a revolutionary but rather a counter revolutionary who pretends to be on the side of the working class. So I am telling the truth. It is you who is uneducated and made a incredible ass of yourself. So thank you for making my day :)
But you want to put into place an all powerful Government that controls all aspects of production, this is by definition Socialism, Communism, and Fascism in one form or another. You want to play semantics but when you insert human beings into these government offices to control everything with zero checks and balances you will create a much worse society.
We have seen what you want many times before, and each and every time it has failed not because the idea is bad but because the people who control Government are bad. You refuse to take into consideration the corruptible nature of Government workers and leaders who have to manage everything.
I am going to close with a little education for anyone who may come along and read our exchanges because I know you are too far gone to actually admit your errors.
Why do we have money?
Each and every one of us already control our own labor, we choose to get a job and go to work and we produce what we produce so all of that is under our direct control but we then trade that production for money instead of trading directly with other people for the things we need or want right?
This is because the things we want and need are things we do not have, and the things we can do or produce are what we have and without money we have to find someone who both wants what we offer and has what we want in trade, right? This is called the barter system and each and every one of us can already today practice the barter system if this is what we really want.
But, most of us do not want to be limited to the things we can directly barter for.
So now comes the idea of money, trading your skills and production for money that you can then later trade with someone else for goods and services you need. In the past we operated this system through valuables like gold and gems and other valuables but modern societies built Governments and those Governments managed a system of currency to standardize the system making it easier to smooth out the large fluctuations of labor value over a Nation. Not perfect but more stable than what we can have without a system of currency.
So the worker, labor, handed their power to Government in exchange for a more manageable and standard form of currency.
Where socialist, Communist, Fascist Nations go wrong is they eliminate the real meaning of currency. This is why these Governments where they control production have such weak currencies because labor now has no meaning in a currency market. Production is artificial and stagnant, not driven by the people but instead mandated by an all powerful Government.
Capitalism has been harsh sure, but it has also given the little guy more power than in any other type of society in the world. Look around at the poor people of any Nation that is not now currently operated with Capitalism as a primary element. All of them are the definition of dirt poor.
The proof is found by results, and results tell us all forms of Government where it controls production either directly or indirectly has always ended in profound and drastic failure.
Facts, not emotions Zach.
Have a nice day :)