Based on catastrophic past failures, Why does anyone believe in Socialism?

I'm not trying to start a fight. I am honestly curious. I admit my bias as a hard core government hating anarcho-capitalist. I am ready to be insulted and called names, it won't bother me. I've just got to ask this question.

I think it is pure fact that every time Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Statism, or whatever you want to call it (those terms are all synonymous to me) has been tried on a national level, it has always ended in massive starvation, destruction, death, and misery.

For example: The USSR, Mao's China, North Korea, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Nazi Germany, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia in the 70's, Cuba, etc.

In addition, nations that flirt with Leftist policies but don't get as violent as the above examples, always see decreases in production and wealth, and increases in unemployment and various social ills. For example, Europe, the USA since 1913, Venezuela, Argentina, etc.

Given the historical track record of complete human catastrophe that Leftism has brought about everywhere it has been implemented, why do people still believe in it? I hope I don't sound like a jerk, but I want to ask this humbly. Why do you leftists believe in this stuff that seems to me to be so completely absurd and damaging to humanity?

My point of view is losing. Last November 51% of Americans that voted went to the polls and pulled the lever for Socialism. That is why I need to know the answer to this question. Either my worldview is all wrong and I need to become a Socialist, or there is some human pathology that causes people to believe in an ideology that will inevitably kill them.

How can we argue against anything you say when you think communism (the end of property, classes and the state) and fascism (the militarisation of the state for the benefit of national capitalism) are the same thing? You don't even speak the same language as us.

So, to take a different tack, why do you support the unnecessary deaths of millions of people every year?

Perhaps you ought to do a little more research on these economic theories before you cast them aside as being the same. Only then will any serious or meaningful discussion be had. A little historical knowledge will tell you that communism and fascism have been at odds since the very conception of the latter.

:laugh:

This 'conversation' won't go anywhere so long as you continue to argue that communism is synonymous with fascism. The two are diametrically opposed to one another. You clearly aren't very knowledgeable about either one of these, so if you're genuine about wanting to learn more it'd help to acquaint yourself with what the two actually are.

I hope you realize that the last time we where in a crisis like this it ended up being solved through the devastation of Europe and Asia in WW2.

That is the promise capitalism gives us for the future.

:lol::laugh: yet another rightie who thinks anything left of Reagan is 'socialism' and any country with the words 'Democratic / People's / Republic' in it's name is a reflection of communism tee double hee
...actually, it's not funny, it's boring now.

What I think is funny is how all these libertarians that come on here are so apologistic, like, "I don't mean to be a jerk etc" as if they're blowing our tiny minds, when in fact they have the one of the worst undertandings of history and society of almost any political current in the history of the world.

When I say that I do mean to be a jerk, but you need to hear it.

I'm sorry to tell you that but how can you see as the same thing communism and fascism? Golden Dawn members (fascists) have beaten the crap out of communists here in Greece and vice versa. Fascists say that the reds have to die and communists call them Hitler's bastards.... How are these two ideologies the same to you? It's like saying Justin Bieber is the same with Rolling Stones...

Also there are lots of threads talking about USSR, China, Cuba and the rest of the countries you mentioned that explain why they were wrong on practise. These countries didn't have communism. As Blake's Baby (I think correct me if I'm wrong) once said it's different to say I want to eat than I ate. The same goes for communism. It's different to say I want communism (USSR that fucked it up while they wanted) and it's different to say I have communism.

Anyway you should also see some videos about the media propaganda so you can understand what is wrong and what's right. You have some very contradicted ideas and some very wrong definitions of words in your head. No offense.

You need to demonstrate (rather than just claim, as you are doing here) that decreases in production and wealth are down to leftist policies, and not other factors.

Because your personal definitions of what constitutes "leftism" are seriously at odds with the reality on the ground.

Obama is not a socialist. To illustrate, that grand socialist project, Obamacare, is nowhere near as generous or comprehensive as the NHS, which members of the UK's Conservative Party have politically supported. That should give you an indication as to just how far out of joint your definition of "Leftism" is.

It's not necessarily your worldview that is mistaken here, unless you consider free market capitalism to be so integral to your personal self-image that to abandon it would be beyond the pale. In any case, whether you become a socialist or not is up to you.

Personally, I think anyone who isn't stinking rich and who supports capitalism is akin to a turkey voting for Christmas.

Aren't the countries that have the highest per-capita living standards in the world - such as the Scandinavian countries - also among the countries with the most extensive social welfare provision (what he'd call 'socialism')? Does that rather counter the idea that 'socialist' (social-democratic) countries are also the most likely to suffer 'death destruction and misery'?

Each year, millions (not an exaggeration) die due to poverty. What is the reason for their death? A lack of food? No, there's plenty. A lack of resources? No, there are plenty of resources to satisfy everyone's basic needs. They die because production and distribution is subject to profits, and subsequently poor people have to forego on basic means of life when it is unprofitable for corporations to supply them these means of life. They die because of the market economy, not because of a shortage of resources. It's a systematic flaw of markets (regulated or free).

Each year more people die due to competitive market allocation than Hitler killed during his 12 year reign, yet you support such a market economy (albeit, you want to free it from regulation). Capitalism was progressive, it has advanced the productive forces to such a degree we can produce goods in abundance. It is now time, however, to redirect that immense productive capacity towards the satisfaction of social and individual needs to eradicate poverty.

People support 'socialism' because they feel there is a fundamental flaw in such a system of allocation, a dictatorship of profits, of inequality, of exploitation. Unfortunately, rarely they push this to its logical conclusion of communism precisely due to the failed experiments of a Pol Pot, a Stalin, or a Mao.

As for Venezuela: it has cut poverty by 70%, severe poverty by 50%, inflation has decreased in comparison to the previous right-wing administration, as has unemployment. So you insisting wealth and employment have gone down is false. I suppose you merely assumed that because Venezuela aspires a (bourgeois) socialism that therefore they must have gone up.

Communism. A classless, stateless, moneyless society based on common ownership of productive resources and a free association of equal individuals, which is sought to be created through class struggle and internationalism.
Fascism. A class society, based on totalitarian state structure that guards over private capital, based around class collaboration and ultra-nationalism.

I can see how you confused the two, they are so similar after all.

He doesn't; it's da gubmints fault

Yes, you are correct.

To support capitalism is the same thing as supporting capitalist states. One can not exist without the other and so your entire worldview is all wrong.

Without state-power capitalism could not have developed - the workforce was based on the enclosure of common lands and vagabond laws, in modern countries this same task is carried out through governments and imperial efforts like giving loans to countries but demanding they change their laws as a condition.

How do you propose "anarcho-capitalism" be achieved - I'd be shocked if you said through the overthrow of the current government rather than, like most other libertarians, argue that the right people need to be put in charge of the capitalist state in order to then reduce the power of that state. If you think revolution is necissary, well I'm impressed, but such a revolution would either produce communism or increase state-power because the post-revolutionary period of no state insitutions would mean that everyone would stop paying rent to their landloards among other things and so capitalism would not be able to "run smoothly". To counter this, militias would need to be raised to "restore order" so that people go to work and don't rob and don't just drop out and form communes or something.

If you think "the right people" need to be in charge then your anti-state position is all bullshit, you are not against the capitalist state at all but want to use state power to focus only on certain functions of the state - your problem is then not with the capitalist state, just particular policies.

Alrighty, glad to have you here, any comrades worth their salt won't bother insulting you anyway as nothing gets accomplished from it.

As others have said communism and fascism are polar opposites and until you understand this conversation will not be able to go anywhere.

Statism: The belief of the need of a state to ensure stability and growth.

Socialism: The transitional state towards communism which will wither away once it has served its purpose. During this stage money, class, and social antagonisms still exist and are in the process of being eliminated.

Communism: The stage of human development where there are no classes, military, money, or social-antagonisms.

Fascism: The polar opposite of communism which is capitalism in decay. The last ditch "plan" of the capitalists for when society has moved beyond their control. It is corporatism on steroids, no labor unions are legally permitted, and class society is rigidly enforced. Fascism often comes with theories of racial supremacy, something which the revolutionary left whole heartedly rejects.

All of the countries you mentioned are so radically different from one another that it is impossible to speak as if they are "one in the same" with the only "unifier" being loss of life.

The USSR: What time period are you talking about? Lenin, Stalin, Gorbachev? Pending on your answer some here will agree with your hatred while others will not. The Soviet Union is a nation of stark contrast here on RevLeft as some, like myself, will support said nation while it was under Lenin and Stalin, while others will not.

Mao's China: One of the most successful, albeit chaotic, socialist success stories of the 20th century. Mao united china, brought about a dramatic standard of living, ended the droughts, and paved the way for the economic success which China is seeing today. Had revisionists and counterrevolutionaries never seized power China would today be a beacon of socialism.

North Korea: Probably the poster child of hat happens when a revolution is besieged by capitalist powers. Originally bringing great gains to the Korean masses the north was devastated in later years after vicious war, massive droughts, and stilled economic growth. Safe to say that had the US never interfered upon the outbreak of the north's "invasion" the Korean Peninsula would be much more peaceful than it is today. Sadly this is not the case. Currently the revolution has degraded greatly and is under the duel yoke of Western and Chinese Imperialism.

Cambodia: This isn't a topic much talked about on RevLeft. Most agree that Cambodia was a disastrous experiment. The reason for this are many and convoluted, far too much to really talk about here without derailing the thread.

Nazi Germany: The most infamous fascist state which desired to wipe out world socialism by committing genocide against the soviet union (kinda ruins your claim about fascism and socialism being one in the same, doesn't it?). Hitler ran his empire on racial grounds, mixed with ultra-nationalism, antisemitism, queerphobia, anti-socialism, anti-communism, anti-Anarchism, and protected religious institutions while incorporating them into the ruling structure along with the corporations. Violent militarism is the exact opposite of what communists propose.

Cuba: A inspiring example of what can happen when the oppressed join together with the revolutionaries to overthrow their oppressors. Despite the beast of world aggression so close to their shores the Cuban revolutionaries were able to make a socialist revolution right underneath the US's nose. After the victory of the revolution mistakes were made, to be sure, but these were quickly corrected. I am not aware of massive loss of life in Cuba as most of Cuba's problems came from US embargo.

The first two on your list-Europe and the US-do not belong on the list of nations which flirt with Leftism as social-democracy and progressive liberalism are not leftism. Meanwhile, Venezuela and Argentina are both undergoing their own kind of revolution which will necessarily entail reorganization of society. Sometimes this involves decreases in production of unnecessary products. Yet unless you give some specific examples as what you mean by "production and wealth" we really cannot go much further than this.

The better question to ask is: given the billions of deaths, casualties, and poverty stricken victims why do people still believe in capitalism? The death toll which resulted from Leftist policies in the various leftist countries are greatly exaggerated. This is while the heinous damaged inflicted by capitalism goes unnoticed. Reply for more on this.

When did this happen? I am not aware of this... I know a lot of people voted for grand capitalist imperialist puppet Obama...

ugh god our userbase is so thin-skinned and annoying

posting a substantial thing in just a bit brb

EDIT: Nevermind. Noxion, Jimmy Higgins and TheGodlessUtopian hit the nails I was gonna hit.

Still, though. Goddamn guys not every right-wing person is a troll holy shit

Capitalism is rubbish. Communism is good. End of story.

Are you by any chance Glenn Beck or one of his fan boys?
Because you sure as hell sound like one by making these foolish and uninformed statements.

He could be but it is hard to tell these days. Most of his talking points were typical anti-communist propaganda. Pending on the kind of anti-communist he is he could be a Beck fan but this is up to speculation unless he mentions specific (as there are differences in various conservative demagogues).

I wouldn't call them uninformed, as they do come from a formed opinion, as he is misinformed.

this isn't a helpful reply. please stop posting in OI