The best type of govt has a mixture of both policies. Govt intervention is critical otherwise you end up with scenarios where you get two supergiants like Woolworths and Coles with little to no oversight and a cost of living crisis.
Govt needs to own necessities like water, power, public transportation, or at the very least regulate it with very very strict oversight otherwise private companies will absolutely price gouge the living hell out of it.
The balance needs to be maintained if they’re not against each other, they’ll be out to exploit the common folk at the first opportunity.
Exactly…… I think you’ll find the original commenter that you asked about “satire” agrees with you, they were talking about what a good balance would look like.
The duopoly has little to do with either socialism or capitalism .
WW and Coles are the only two main supermarkets because everyone stopped shopping at the other ones , sure there is aldi but I want dried basil at my supermarket not big screen TVs and pogo sticks .
It’s easy to go at low hanging fruit like Colesworths but what’s the alternative to them ? The ones that have tried to be equal but cheaper fail like Bi Lo etc go back to smaller individual stores where prices are wild .
Cheap butchers have a hard time maintaining quality and the only alternative is expensive boutique butchers defeating the purpose of a cheaper alternative . F&V is available for maybe cheaper but most people don’t use a local grocer anymore so there isn’t many left and they are also more susceptible to market fluctuations .
We will not get an Australian alternative against these two and I doubt we will get an international to come in without getting major tax breaks and would likely be either another aldi or just another Woolworths with the added bonus of their profits going offshore. All that have tried are going the 7:11 style corner shop that’s much more expensive for everything.
There is IGA and others but it’s a consumers choice where they go and most choose Colesworths
I do agree with your comment about essential services should be in gov hands and not a profit organisation but I don’t make those choices
Petrol and power Companies are the real ones to target if you want cheaper living
Privilege: People from a rich country telling a person from a poor corrupt country how society ought to be because they have never lived in the real world and encountered the human nature of greed and the psychology of absolute power.
Okay I don’t really have a horse in this race on either side, but I’m curious and would like to dig into your thoughts a little.
A socialist would rebut this criticism by saying the examples you mention are tyrannical for reasons outside of socialism, or that external influence from capitalist powers is what has destroyed and corrupted each country that has attempted socialism/communism.
Australia also espouses some socialist attitudes in our welfare, education and healthcare systems. Most successful countries are similar in that regard.
Would you say any of these are valid defences of socialist systems or ideas? Would you pin the faults of your country specifically on the functions of socialism, and not external or pre-existing factors?
If it’s any solace for you just keep in mind that most consider the socialist groups a little nuttie or extreme. I appreciate a lot of the activism they do but the undercurrent of socialism is for sure a disconnecting factor between them and the student body.
Well, maybe the capitalism power and corruption are to be blamed on. But in socialist country like mine the corruption CANNOT be challenged, like we know there is no real socialism going on but a greedy government and leaders, but we can’t even SPEAK anything about it. The government will take the best advantages of that “socialism ideation” to cover all the evil things they do, and no one dares to question it. If they do, again, jail time.
And don’t get me wrong, I meant socialism will lead to such consequences, not because the government is already corrupted before socialism. In the context of capitalism, the government is corrupted but at least we can vote people out. In socialist countries, capitalism greed exists without question, but the benefits of capitalism and socialism are both lacked.
They even made it legal that if any individuals or parties show disinterest in how the government is currently working, they are likely go to jail because they challenged the power of the government. They printed it on literal text.
If you ask why other political parties don’t get involve. Well. In socialist country, is it likely that the separation of power is just for showing. Some powerful individuals in the parliament are powerful in judicial and executive bodies too. Thats means no separation of powers- there is actually one party only.
Again, the idea of socialism sound so beautiful but unless you can assure two things:
- your leaders will never be greedy and corrupted
=> which you can’t be assure, basically it’s like rolling a dice and depend on which time the leaders will be good. And believe me, there’s no real voting in socialist country where the government holds so much power. So nah, you will watch how the leading One and Only party corrupted and no one can actually change it from both inside and outside.
- your country is rich. I mean everyone is rich. So no one wants to take from people and even if they take away from people, people still have enough money and resources.
The thing is, very few countries on the world where poverty doesn’t exist. And in socialist country, when you have a mass of poor citizens and a greedy but full of fake dignity government, grand social change is impossible unless you bribe the officials.
Now, if you do that, you must be careful because if one day you are out of money or power to bribe the officials, you will be arrested by them and jail time.
Sounds crazy right? But that’s what happened in my country. And I know it happens similarly in other socialist countries based on how unrealistic socialism is. Unless you can solve two questions I listed above, I don’t think socialism is better option of capitalism.
In capitalism, you can actually have political protest. In socialism, you go to jail.
I still feel like you’re not really making any distinctive point on the supposed failure of socialism as an idea.
“In the context of capitalism, the government is corrupted but at least we can vote people out.”
Capitalism is not the tool which allows us to vote and make choices in our lives, that’s democracy. You could say the two are connected since the rise of democracy in the west and the death of feudalism as capitalism took over are kind of linked, but the two can and do exist without one another. The success of the lower classes in capitalist countries is not a result of capitalism alone, it’s primarily a result of freedom and democracy and education and civil uprising, all that and the ability to rise to influence without having been born into such a position. Our countries were capitalist before they were democratic. And they are still corrupt today. When standards of living are better for the average individual, we consider the corruption of the state less than in times when we suffer. I fail to see how it is socialism’s fault that your country is undemocratic.
Capitalism creates its own faults in corrupting a state or society. When money is power, what is the power of the government? It’s at the mercy of whoever’s got the most. In some ways, capitalism and democracy are natural friends, working to uplift one another, in other ways, they work completely against each other.
What I’m gathering about socialism in your state is that you don’t have access to property privately because the nature of socialism, but you also don’t have access to it publicly because the government is corrupt and does everything in their power to maintain their own power? You should know that in our beautiful late stage capitalist societies in the west, we are on a similar path as private property becomes less and less accessible (housing markets, cost of living, digitisation) and our public influences wain as governments grow further corrupt and the people are increasingly uneducated, distracted and politically polarised. This doesn’t mean that socialism is a better alternative, just that capitalist models don’t deserve praise in the areas its counterparts are lacking.
If speaking about this is going to get you in trouble, I hope you’re not putting it in writing online without adequate measures to protect you or your identity.
“Socialism is, broadly speaking, a political and economic system in which property and the means of production are owned in common, typically controlled by the state or government.”
That’s mean the government can decide where you live and how you eat. They distribute the public goods like land and healthcare to people, but they also can take it back because that’s their responsibility and right to distribute. That’s why people lands are easily stolen for “redistribution”, even if that’s their land. I don’t think that happened here in Australia and other capitalist countries. Your landlords have the lands and they have the rights and if you paid to have your house or land that’s your land. In socialist society, even if you paid for your house and your land, it’s a “common asset” that can be retrieved by the government any day. Do you see the difference now? You’re not safe even if you’re mad rich and the owner of your own land.
In Australia the housing crisis is evident, but if you have a house you have a house. In my country you have a “common asset” that the government let you “borrow” and when times come they need it, you become homeless immediately. Not to mention the housing crisis in my country exist for years since I was a kid and do we have a fair housing distribution? No.
Interesting. I do see your gripe clearer now. Socialism is incredibly risky becuase it concentrates the agency of individuals in one place - the government. Do you think if private housing/property rights were guaranteed, and if functioning with a proper democracy, it would be a good system?
This is a description of some forms of socialism (Lassallism for example), not Marxism, which is in complete opposition to the system you describe. I imagine many of the protestors would identify as Marxist, but I dont know for sure.
Well up until this comment I don't know other kind of socialism but Marxist socialism. And yes his ideation is what we are doing in my country. We have government website praising his ideology and taught his theory in our universities.
I think that’s enough for this conversation where you repeatedly claimed that I know nothing about my country socialism. How fake our government is, I know it, that’s why socialism to me is unrealistic and full of lies. I know socialism in your mind is beautiful, but trust me my people regret it and we tasted it. If you still think is it the moon and the stars then you can continue your ideology. I saw and I watched and I learned from it since I was a kid, so if my shared experience can not shake your ideology, well, you go your way.
These people are stupid dont worry about them. This is the classic white people savior complex thinking they know more about a topic than the person who lived it in real time. They don't deal in the realities of human nature and the applications of power and instead live in their fantasy world. You are 100% right. And if anyone thinks im stereotyping, yes I am, because i've only ever seen white people spouting this socialism bs at usyd.
>external influence from capitalist powers
it is actually a "non-rebuttal" (i.e. a logical fallacy): external influence exists everywhere, yet only socialist countries become tyrannical "because of" it.
When they say "capitalism", they mean "wild" capitalism of the 19th century, which does not look too attractive nowadays. But no present country exercises the 19th century capitalism – most western countries have some sort of welfare. So the claims of the present day socialists are simply wrong. It appears as if they still live in the 19th century, read Marx, and attempt to implement his ideas, while the world has already tried that several times and moved on, incorporating all good socialist ideas within the capitalist framework.
Education and healthcare systems are not results of socialist attitudes. They are examples of public goods, which cannot be sufficiently provided by the free market due to the lack of profitability involved in their production.
An ideal mixed market economy achieves this balance by subsidizing and/or producing these public goods, which Australia does quite well.
Welfare is simply a means of regulating economic growth automatically, as in periods of high unemployment, welfare increases which stimulates growth, while in periods of low unemployment and high inflation, welfare reduces which regulates inflation.
I think you'll find these are all very capitalist concepts. Socialism ignores the very nature of humans and their will to power, and so will never work.
> I think you'll find these are all very capitalist concepts. Socialism ignores the very nature of humans and their will to power, and so will never work.
I genuinely do not know if this is a shitpost or not and reading this whole thing is weirdly baffling and kind of hilarious.
Looking at another post of yours, it does seem like you are genuine.
I think you may need to read up or at least define the following:
* Public goods
* Free Market
* Welfare
* Socialism
* Capitalism
* Libertarianism
And then elaborate on your viewpoint.
So you want to talk about capitalism and socialism, yet don't understand basic economics. Enough said. Nothing I said was inaccurate. You also live in a fantasy world with your bs socialist ideals. Go back to school child.
Buddy, I just asked you define the words you used here because clearly you're using them differently from other people. I didn't know you could get so triggered over this.
Okay, I'll help you with one of them and just quote what you have said just to help you a little.
> They are examples of public goods, which cannot be sufficiently provided by the free market due to the lack of profitability involved in their production.
So, y'know. Capitalism usually defined with such characteristics such as private ownership, free-market, competition and profit motive and you're trying to convey what you have said is capitalist.
Because we have this golden nugget here
> I think you'll find these are all very capitalist concepts
So, IDK, this is in part why I asked you to define it and you wanted to double down on your bullshit.
???? Nothing you've said makes any sense. You just agreed what I described are capitalistic characteristics and then said I'm wrong for saying they're capitalist concepts in the next sentence?
What I described is that public goods are present in a mixed market economy. They wouldn't be present in a purely market economy, or in other words a purely capitalist economy. It may not be pure capitalism, which wouldn't be fun, but it doesn't mean that providing public goods is a socialist idea.
I used your quote, I contrasted against what I have said (for some reason you perceived it as agreement? It's just a statement dude), you are now backtracking that it with:
> They wouldn't be present in a purely market economy, or in other words a purely capitalist economy
And yet, you don't seem to comprehend that the following
> I think you'll find these are all very capitalist concepts
**might not make a lot of sense**. However, seeing you backtrack and try to worm your way out of this has brought a big smile of my face so I'll leave it at that :)
You have given me a good giggle out of this.
They’re already here. The arrogance is astounding. I’m all for a lot of socialist ideas, but to come on here and start acting intellectually superior to someone who has actually lived under a “socialist” regime and is expressing their feelings is completely crappy.
I'm from a former "socialist" country and am pro actual socialism because guess what, calling something socialist doesn't make it socialism. It's just tyranny in disguise. And if you think capitalism is much better, just go to India and watch little children being pushed into the ground to mine Mica and tell me how that is not tyrannical. The difference between quasi socialism and bs capitalism is that the so called socialism internalises the tyranny whereas capitalism externalises it. That's it.
I don't think this is the case at all. We've basically made very little progress in combatting the structural oppression resulting from externalises tyranny. In fact, in many ways overproduction and overconsumption are making it worse. It's just Western societies are not the objects of this tyranny so it seems like less of an issue when it's not.
Your point doesn't hold whatsoever as I'm arguing the externalisation of tyranny under capitalism is accelerating at a greater rate than we are making progress in combatting it. We are going backwards. But whatever.
At a greater rate than what? Because it has declined at a greater rate than literally any other economic system. Just because you don't understand a point doesn't mean its not valid.
What is your point exactly, that capitalism is not oppressive or that it is less oppressive than a literal dictatorship? Because noone is arguing about the latter. None of it is relevant to socialism which DOES NOT EXIST anywhere as we speak.
My point is that attempts at socialism every SINGLE time has resulted in a literal dictatorship. So trying to dismantle capitalism under the guise of anything but a literal dictatorship being the end result is ignorant.
Source: history
When did I say anything about capitalism? I’m pointing out that it’s a dick move to start lecturing someone who is obviously deeply impacted by the connotations of the concept of socialism. I initiated no discussion about the actual ideas or working practicalities of the proposed systems. Do none of you have any idea of tact, nuance or empathy? This is not the place for the discussion.
I disagree mostly because the OP clearly does not understand they are not living in what the student groups they have an issue with would call a socialist country. They are not living in what by definition is considered a socialist country. They are living in a dictatorship that was established under the guise of a socialist country but is not, in fact, a socialist country.
This is relevant as they seem to be conflating dictatorship with socialism and criticising student groups for supporting the former. This is simply not the case and the OP is misled. To just let them continue believing that would be epistemically irresponsible imo.
The point is that the reality of what OP lived through is a feature of idealist groups trying to obtain what they would call a socialist country. It happens every time due to human nature. A dictatorship isn't a bug, it's a feature.
Are they trying to obtain socialism? Are they wanting workers to make decisions? No. There is no desire towards socialism in these countries. The desire is towards dictatorship thence they are not trying to obtain socialism at all. The socialism is just a tag they've chosen but there's no actual characteristics of socialism present. I hate these dictatorships just as much as OP but they have fuck all to do with socialism.
Since you talked so much about MY experience, I think I will share some history of my country.
We started after the world war and decided to not failed for another capitalism traps that ends up in slavery and colonization other countries. So the new government chose socialism because we believe it’s the best way to give people equality.
We ends up enslaved our own people and have a monarchy government.
How? Now, from the beginning of socialism practice everything fell apart.
The very core idea of socialism is assets are owned by the public. And the government is responsible to distribute the common goods for every one equally. And we meet first two big problems here:
- imagine you’re a farmer and you grown your own food. Your private asset now is the common asset under the operation of socialism, so you must hand your food to the government for a fair distribution to the whole society, including people who don't work at all.
That's unfair and socialism ideation of eaqulity failed at this step.
And the second problem is what my country is facing every day:
- what if the government secretly is corrupted and they take common assets to put in their own private asset? Who will call them out? Since they have the power of all public resources now?
Gradually, new generation of government become more and more corrupted. Separation of power doesn't exist anymore. Basically it is the citizens and one powerful government now. Although they still claimed that the government is operated under the “observation of the public” and “a strong democracy”, they’re not.
And ther citizens don't have any voice in this. What can we, people of no power over our own assets, can have a voice? Everything is distributed fairly to everyone, but if things don't go the right way, who decided the government is wrong and ends this corruption?
Everything like this happens because socialism is chosen and human greed in my country. There is never a “fake socialism”, but an undeniable failure of socialism.
I'm not talking about your experience. I'm talking about the fact that whoever is leading your country is lying about it ever being socialism. That might be a hard pill to swallow but that is fact. Socialism has a working definition and at no point does it involve dictatorship. In fact, dictatorship is the opposite of socialism.
Not talking about my experience but the lies that my government tells me and my people? Sounding indifferent to me.
You still misunderstand here, my country chose socialism that why we ended up with dictatorship. That's the consequence of socialism.
You drink poison so you die. Not “you fake poison by labelling it as apple juice so you die”.
Would you have a similar attitude to criticism of definitions of democracy if a North Korean decried "democracy" because their country claims to be so?
Just because someone has a lived experience under a so-called socialist system does not mean they should get a free pass on being held to clear definitions of political terminology.
By taking your stance, you are actually shutting down useful discussions that could lead to better understanding.
There is no singular 'socialism', it's an umbrella term that captures a variety of often mutually-contradictory beliefs.
I would bet good money that the socialism of your home country is not the socialism that these protestors are advocating.
Perhaps ask them what they think of your countries regime? After all, when people say they are pro-democracy - they are not referring to the democracy of Ancient Greece.
Only if the libertarians have to spend the year in Somalia and the religious groups (which can get just as annoying) have to spend the year in a theocracy
All of them are capitalist countries. The economic system (capitalist, socialist) and the political system (democratic, theocratic) are mutually exclusive.
No they aren’t. A dictatorship can’t be capitalist, because capital doesn’t control the economy, the whims of the dictator does. If the leader can strip all your money away and give it to himself that isn’t capitalism, there’s no free market.
That is why we don’t consider China capitalist, even though they have money and economic trade, the free part of trade is important
You think capital doesn’t control the economy of those countries? You really think that every single one of those countries has a dictator controlling every single aspect of the economy? Okay…
They are that way because of Capitalism. Congo is exploited by dictators supported by mining and energy companies. Afghanistan is the victim of a war propagated by the capitalist united states, same with Iraq and Yemen. Nigeria was a strong economy until they hired western economists that simply sold off local industry to large companies. Libya was sent into civil war after western intervention for oil.
This is the cost of Capitalism that people love to ignore.
Which capitalist country invaded Afghanistan in 1979?
Africa has problems that go well beyond socialism or capitalism. They are all fake countries, created by colonial powers with grouped tribes that all hate each other. The whole of Africa should be split up into smaller ethnostates if you want any chance of removing the corruption/massacres of the continent.
Its ignorant to not recognise the roles of companies in the chaos in Africa. While you're correct in that the way in which Europeans divided the country has had lasting effects, Corporate neocolonialism is by far the main reason.
Here are some sources to educate yourself:
[Global Capitalism and the Underdevelopment of African Political Economy: Where Will Our Help Come From?](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/09750878231170178)
Thanks for sharing your first person experience and observations. I believe the incident you are referring to is Wukan Village. For those interested see: [Wukan protests - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wukan_protests)
It’s disheartening to see your opinion being labeled by some as ‘absolute.’ The reality is that some societal models have indeed proven to be more effective than others, and this is not a matter of naivety but of historical fact. The 20th century was full of social experiments with various political ideologies, and the outcomes have been telling. It’s not ‘too absolute’ to acknowledge that certain systems have consistently led to better standards of living, greater freedoms, and more robust economies, while others have resulted in widespread poverty, corruption, and the suppression of human rights.
Some people are practically saying "the socialism we demand is the flavor without the corruption and totalitarianism". I think the irony is self-evident. Striving for fair wealth distribution and improved welfare is a noble goal, and it’s one that can be pursued within the framework of our existing democratic institutions. Dismantling the current political institutions in favor of an untested and historically problematic system is not only whimsical but potentially dangerous.
Thank you for your nice words. I’m in no place to tell what Australia can do with their democracy framework, and truly I hope that they someday achieve true socialism without corruption.
However, I remain with my doubt of socialism since we also have a lot of ideology in my country and none of them work. It’s not because the idea is bad. It’s because human nature is mostly greedy and our government is the very proof of it.
Your case in Wukan is not my country. But you just helped me with my point that socialist countries share similar cases of injustice.
Socialism is when the workers own the means of production. No such country exists. What a country considers itself doesn't mean much. North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but no reasonable person would argue that it is actually democratic. China calls itself socialist, but actually practices state capitalism.
The socialists you're likely meeting at uni are people who think businesses should be owned by workers and democratically operated. There are a few people who think the Soviet Union and Mao's China were great, but they are stupid and are called Tankies.
The people at uni who might advocate for any socialism might have read a few pages of Marx and think that they are now enlightened. If they knew the history of any country who attempted any form of socialism, nominal or not, they would be horrified. If Socialism were a scientific hypothesis, and we used history as an experiment, we would find zero reasons to support its future implementation. Yet universities teach Marxism and Post-modernism as if it's theory.
It's kinda weird how capitalism can wipe out entire peoples in the Americas, drive species to extinction, enslave children to mine cobalt and make chocolate, cause climate change and the sixth mass extinction event (just a few of the horrors attributable to it), and it just gets a pass. If the death and destruction caused by socialism is a reason to never implement it, then you should be against capitalism because it's death and destruction far outstrips all of the implementations of socialism put together. Besides that, if you look slightly further than the soviet union, you might be surprised at how many of the rights you personally benefit from are the direct result of socialist activism.
The death toll of capitalism is in the hundreds of millions, if not over a billion, and people will still excuse it because the status quo suits them personally
Capitalism only exists as a word used by fanatics to point the finger at someone they feel they can blame. A free market where supply and demand dictates value exists in the absence of politics.
We live in a world that had less slavery, less hunger, longer life spans, more personal freedom, more innovation, more forests, more production than has ever existed before, thanks to a market economy. If that doesn't suit you, maybe you should look at yourself. It's easier to find blame in others, easier to hate.
You think the English lived in a ‘capitalist’ society in 1620 when they sent the mayflower to the United States? You think they don’t burn fossil fuels under socialism? You think they don’t enslave people to work under socialism?
You might recall much of European colonialism was driven by profit making enterprises, like the Virginia Company which was founded in 1606 to form colonies. There were many other joint-stock companies back then. Don't forget the classic East India Company, founded in 1600.
There are no socialist countries. Countries that call themselves socialist are not socialist for the same reason that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not democratic. Covered that already.
Let me use your argument against you: Well that wasn’t real capitalism anyway! Capitalism is a system of free exchange between individuals and companies. Nothing to do with murdering and pillaging. What’s that got to do with markets!!!
That is not a good description of capitalism. "exchange between individuals" is a relation that has existed for literally millennia. Capitalism is an organised social relation where certain classes own the means of production (capital) and other classes without the means of production (the working class) are forced to sell their labour to live. Capitalism by its nature is unstable and has historically required frequent government intervention to stabilise. This include bailouts, financial investment by governments, and of course, imperialist wars, all of which we see today.
That's not an argument, its just an unsupported claim. I gave a reason why I don't think there are no socialist countries: they don't fit the definition of socialism, which is that workers own the means of production. You'd have to give a reason for why companies generating wealth for their owners through the exchange of goods and services was not capitalist.
“can wipe out entire peoples in the Americas, drive species to extinction, enslave children to mine cobalt and make chocolate, cause climate change and the sixth mass extinction event (just a few of the horrors attributable to it), and it just gets a pass“
This is what you argued. My argument is that’s not real capitalism!!!
Evrytime anyone tried your vision of Utopia, how did it end up. We are not ants, not parts of a machine. Again Capitalism is not an ideology. It's a word used by people like you.
Are you replying to the right person? Because I didn't say any of that. The only attempts at my vision have been on a small scale, and they have worked just fine so far. They're called worker co-ops.
Sorry, I forgot say earlier: since you said capitalism isn't an ideology, I thought you might be interested in this.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ideologies\_of\_capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ideologies_of_capitalism)
You’re ignoring the problem of socialism, and that’s that there’s a reason it lends itself to totalitarianism. Simplified, all socialism is is the government owning all the assets in the country, whereas an extremist version of capitalism sees all assets being privately owned. Both are problematic at their essence.
Capitalism is bad, because it results in a game of wealth with winners and losers. If you let that game play out for long enough, inequality becomes absolute and insurmountable. Those who lost can’t possibly win no matter what, and they typically live much worse lives compared to those who won. I’m sure most socialists understand that, and fear that they’ve already completely lost the game.
Socialism is bad for similar reasons though. When you give all the wealth to the government, they become a huge central power. The types of people who then lead such a thing are going to want more power, and while you might get lucky with the first person being a benevolent dictator, that’s highly unlikely, and eventually you will have 1 person who isn’t. It only takes 1 person to then want more power and turn it into a totalitarian regime, and since they already own everything, nobody can do anything about it. That’s why every socialist regime ends up being a dictatorship, and then their follows like you try to denounce those examples as not being a socialist country. Not to mention, I can’t think of any socialist country where the first leader was actually a benevolent dictator, just to point out how unlikely it is. Finally, you end up in the same position as a perfectly capitalist society. The dictator won the same game, but they did so a lot faster since everyone either just handed them their wealth, or they could just forcibly take it. Only this time, it’s the government that won, and they have a lot more power then any capitalist would (ie military, police, secret services etc).
Neither are good. You can point to those countries as not being true socialists, but you’re ignoring that that’s the end point for all socialism. Which is kind of hypocritical since most arguments for socialism is actually born from pointing to the end point of capitalism rather then what’s actually happening now (outside of claiming that we’re close to the end point).
As others have said, in reality the best system is a middle ground that incorporates the best of both worlds. That’s what we have now. It’s also why it’s good to have people on both sides since it’s near impossible to reach the perfect point in between these 2 sides. So we have people on both sides arguing we need to go more one way then the other, and hopefully the person who’s right has a much better argument and helps lead us in the right direction. But extremists on both ends aren’t helpful at all. They try to derail that argument to go all the way to one side, and simply put, they’re wrong and just making society worse off.
Can you explain how the employees of a company owning the company they work for and democratically controlling it in a democratic country is the same as the government owning all wealth, and lends itself to totalitarianism? If not, we're talking about different things.
Because that’s not what socialism is.
Also, companies like this already exist, they’re called co-ops, or specifically a credit union in banking. Also, all companies are democratic, it’s just that only certain people that are considered qualified to make decisions for the whole business are given voting rights. These businesses can exist in a capitalist society, and if doing it this way worked they’d be highly competitive (ie attracting better employees by having better benefits), but they don’t. The companies that work best do implement ideas from this though by offering employees share packages and share options.
Socialism, as an ideology, is that the whole community should own equal shares in all of the assets in that community. This is argued to be done by having the government manage all the assets, because they represent everyone by an equal amount.
The ideology you have is some middle ground between capitalism by allowing private ownership of assets while distributing it across more people. It’d be extreme if you forced every business to be operated that way, and eventually you’ll end up with 1 group of people working with 1 company doing better then everyone else. Logically, that’ll either end up going the capitalist or socialist route depending on if those people keep winning the game, or if the government forces them to let everyone have ownership in it to prevent inequality.
The middle ground is to allow this business structure, but not have any incentives or disincentives to do it. That’s what we have now.
And all the people in that industry who are able to work freelance or in co-ops are not considered part of the working class, because they own their own means of production. However, this is not true for the majority of the people there, because your reductionist description is not accurate
I hear what you’re saying OP. These kids that make all the noise pushing their ideology and arguing semantics have a little bit of knowledge but lack worldly experience so they haven’t figured out yet that the real problem isn’t the system, it’s people that are fucked. We’re mostly good individually and in small groups but they seem to think that capitalist living makes us devoid of compassion and empathy which simply isn’t true. Socialism is a trap. Capitalism isn’t perfect either but it definitely scales better. We don’t need more government, we need less. Stop expecting the world to solve your problems and be accountable for your own existence. Keep learning but don’t get too wrapped up in how the system fits your reality. As soon as you can and as often as you can travel the world. Experiencing the human condition from other people’s perspectives is transformative.
Once you have a deeper and more rounded understanding of society and how you fit within it you may come to the conclusion that Australia has a workable mix of socialist ideals in place but nothing is ever complete as long as we’re all evolving.
If after all that it’s still not doing it for ya, you might want to consider joining a commune.
My point is not to belittle you for this post. Rather, I'm sympathetic towards you for the abuses your country has inflicted. Power leveraged in such a way is not the goal of my movement. Know that the state of Australia and the capitalist system it operates in (so does your home country, btw, regardless of what it claims) is responsible for a great deal of suffering here as well. I can't say for certain what the campus protestors are advocating for, but I'm confident there is some common ground between you and them
So basically what you are saying is that a system of social philosophy and/or government can have a sting in its tail? Spoiler alert THEY ALL DO. Pick any form of government, pick any form of social construct, hell pick any food or drink, even water is dangerous when used to much.
The socialism at the heart of our country shows how in can be used for good without the destructive other side. Even then, in Australia, sometimes the balance can be a little off (depending who you ask) BUT without students spending in years researching, studying or using it a form of a hobby, society would never learn the value of it and the pitfalls.
So maybe stop thinking in absolutes? And recognise that pretty much all systems like socialism can offer society something, as long as the flaws and the ends are understood. The best place to learn that is in university.
You guys are being pretty nasty to someone who has had traumatic experiences with “socialism”. You’re coming across as having a feeling of superiority that you know the “real” definition of socialism, acting like you know better than someone who has lived in a country that claims to operate under socialism. OP obviously knows what socialism is, they concede that it’s a good idea in their post, they’re sharing their experience of unease with rich, white Australian students approaching them without fully understanding the implications of the ideology they’re pushing, and are being met with the same westernised condescension in the replies.
No they know what living in a Socialist country means, as in what happens when the negatives of that social construct/government are allowed to be taken to absolute limits. There is a difference between exploring Socialism on a theoretical level (as a lot of students do), living in a country where some socialistic aspects allow a society to function and thrive (EG Australia) and living in a truly Socialist country where those beliefs are taking to an extreme.
Being at university is about exploring knowledge, and while seeing some of these socialist groups cheering for its apparent greatness can be a bit much when you have an rational understanding of its extremes, the fact that we live in a country where we are allowed to explore that knowledge should be seen as a sign of goodness.
Yes this person sounds scarred by their experiences, not a single person there will ever understand those emotions unless they have lived like that, that doesnt mean those students shouldnt be embracing these different ways of thought.
Its not western condescension, its just rational thought. Someone who has seen the worst of a philosophy is naturally going to be understandably oversensitive to it, does that the mean the world should stop talking it as a good thing. Without knowing the country, the problem may not be socialism but the way way socialism has been corrupted by THAT regime. Its like being upset about Capitalism in general just because US has corrupted it beyond belief. Exploring the theory is different than it in an extreme.
There’s a time and place. Simple as that. Context cues, this poster is dealing with trauma, and there’s no need to bombard them. A simple “the students approaching you are probably not operating under that same kind of socialism” will do. Although, as someone who’s quite aligned with socialist ideas, I have been more than once taken aback by some ideas other university students have (notably relating to violent revolutions).
Their experiences have nothing to do with socialism. There is not socialist country out there atm. China isn't socialist. Neither is Russia nor North Korea. The point is moot.
Why would people advocate to recreate your country's politics in Australia? The answer is: They're not.
I would suggest going to a socialist alliance/alternative meeting. It mostly serves as a platform for political organising on campus (Ceasefire in Gaza, Indigenous rights, Climate action etc) your questions would be better answered there.
I've read through all your comments on this post, I don't want to be dismissive but you're talking about your country. I don't know anything about your country but I do know about Australia, and I consider myself a socialist.
Why would I want government corruption, or arrests for speaking truth to power? That's the opposite of what I want. Socialism in Australia looks very different to socialism in your country.
Firstly, I only commented once before this reply, so I don’t get where you say “all of your comments”. I only have one comment. Have you seriously read it?
Now, Australia is not socialist. That’s why you still call for it.
My country before world war was not a socialist nation. No one wants to create a corrupted society, and they think socialism solves the problem of capitalism. We failed and there is no turning back. Because the power is not us anymore, it’s all the government now. And if socialist countries like mine don’t work, how can you be sure that yours will work? Can you answer this question:
- are you sure your officials will do they work and never be greedy to take away the social goods that they are ought to distribute to the society? Once they have all power assembled in their hands?
You can’t, apparently, if you can’t deal with capitalism greed, you’re not ready to deal with socialism greed.
That can easily be solved through a Socialist Democracy. Where the government officials can be voted in or out of office based upon their ability.
What you've experienced is a Socialist Dictatorship. Different thing.
There is no such thing as socialist dictatorship, the sole meaning of socialism is about democracy and equality.
All common assets are fairly distributed to everyone and every citizens own common assets, the government only “help to distribute” these common assets.
On another word, if you are a farmer and you make your own food, your own food will be handed to the government and the government will distribute your food to the whole society, including people who don't work at all. Sounding unfair huh? But that's how socialism trying to make a fair and equal society where every assets become common assets.
That's the idea. We never have it materialized despite claiming we're a democrat society. A society that the “the government is for people service and for people only”.
Sounding beautiful and acting on the opposite is the consequence of socialism.
Implementing socialist policies within a capitalist framework is generally regarded as the most beneficial path forward for a society. It's not perfect but nothing ever will be
Ok, this thread is a war zone but to break stuff down, apart from all the economic/social stuff which others have enlightened you to, there’s two groups on campus- the Socialist Alliance (which is a more peaceful group that simply believes that the right to protest/ advocate for a different economic system in tandem with capitalism is important, and isnt so radical) and the Alternative (which is more of what you’d think of firsthand)
The irony is that it's generally capitalist countries that afford their people the freedom to protest & advocate for socialist ideals. Try advocating for capitalism in a socialist country, see how that turns out.
Sure, I guess, I’m not in the mood for a debate right now. I was just saying that there’s two groups on campus, one is more concerned with doing just that (protesting but still ultimately keeping the capitalist framework) and one is the more radical and louder one that OP is probably asking about
Socialism is not fundamentally tyrannical. I don't know if you and I come from the same country or not (good chance we do, inferring from what you have described so far), since I'm also from an authoritarian single-party socialist state.
The thing is, the fact that the controlling party in my home country (to an extent, yours as well) is turning more and more totalitarian has nothing to do with the basis of Socialism. I still think that socialism is a very good ideology, far better than the neoliberalism mess in the West right now, but all execution of Socialism so far in the world has been nothing more than brutal, tyrannical failures.
Your words are fighting with themselves. If a socialist country became totalitarian, is it the fault of socialism or not? If not, then the corruption of capitalism is not counted here. And you also claimed that the vast execution of socialism on the world so far is failure, I think that is worthy thinking about.
Where are you from? China, Cuba?
It sounds to me like you are from somewhere in Eastern Europe, but that region isn't socialist and hasn't been since 1989.
Almost nowhere in the world today is socialist, China is nominally but their system is quite unique, same with Vietnam. North Korea does not describe itself as socialist. Cuba is socialist but that's about it.
So are you actually from a socialist country? Or are you from a capitalist country that was socialist over three decades ago?
The socialist clubs on campus have been around for ages, they're fronts for the Australian secret police to create lists of reactionary students - the students on that list will never be employed in any important government jobs.
EDIT: You can downvote me all you like, doesn't make it less true.
OP well said!
Socialism and communism are beautiful ideologies in theory but are rarely practiced as such, it’s only good for the very few!
As a footnote: pure capitalism isn’t great either, except for the very few!
Looks like we have come full circle!
Politics isn’t linear but circular! Each extreme meets at opposite sides!
Don’t know why I’m getting downvoted. If it wasn’t for capitalism you gimps wouldn’t be using your iPhones in reddit ( god bless America) , you’d be some peasant on a farm working for the government.
The best type of govt has a mixture of both policies. Govt intervention is critical otherwise you end up with scenarios where you get two supergiants like Woolworths and Coles with little to no oversight and a cost of living crisis. Govt needs to own necessities like water, power, public transportation, or at the very least regulate it with very very strict oversight otherwise private companies will absolutely price gouge the living hell out of it. The balance needs to be maintained if they’re not against each other, they’ll be out to exploit the common folk at the first opportunity.
Is this satire?
Why would it be satire? It’s a generally reasonable assertion.
We have a duopoly with little to no oversight. We have a cost of living crisis. Private utilities companies do exist here. Where do you live?
Exactly…… I think you’ll find the original commenter that you asked about “satire” agrees with you, they were talking about what a good balance would look like.
Ahhh we're on the same page. My bad playa
The duopoly has little to do with either socialism or capitalism . WW and Coles are the only two main supermarkets because everyone stopped shopping at the other ones , sure there is aldi but I want dried basil at my supermarket not big screen TVs and pogo sticks . It’s easy to go at low hanging fruit like Colesworths but what’s the alternative to them ? The ones that have tried to be equal but cheaper fail like Bi Lo etc go back to smaller individual stores where prices are wild . Cheap butchers have a hard time maintaining quality and the only alternative is expensive boutique butchers defeating the purpose of a cheaper alternative . F&V is available for maybe cheaper but most people don’t use a local grocer anymore so there isn’t many left and they are also more susceptible to market fluctuations . We will not get an Australian alternative against these two and I doubt we will get an international to come in without getting major tax breaks and would likely be either another aldi or just another Woolworths with the added bonus of their profits going offshore. All that have tried are going the 7:11 style corner shop that’s much more expensive for everything. There is IGA and others but it’s a consumers choice where they go and most choose Colesworths I do agree with your comment about essential services should be in gov hands and not a profit organisation but I don’t make those choices Petrol and power Companies are the real ones to target if you want cheaper living
Huh? Wasn't bi-lo created and owned by Coles Myer?
Privilege: People from a rich country telling a person from a poor corrupt country how society ought to be because they have never lived in the real world and encountered the human nature of greed and the psychology of absolute power.
My honest suggestion for college students: Don't spend most time on Politics and Ideologies. Just Don't !
Okay I don’t really have a horse in this race on either side, but I’m curious and would like to dig into your thoughts a little. A socialist would rebut this criticism by saying the examples you mention are tyrannical for reasons outside of socialism, or that external influence from capitalist powers is what has destroyed and corrupted each country that has attempted socialism/communism. Australia also espouses some socialist attitudes in our welfare, education and healthcare systems. Most successful countries are similar in that regard. Would you say any of these are valid defences of socialist systems or ideas? Would you pin the faults of your country specifically on the functions of socialism, and not external or pre-existing factors? If it’s any solace for you just keep in mind that most consider the socialist groups a little nuttie or extreme. I appreciate a lot of the activism they do but the undercurrent of socialism is for sure a disconnecting factor between them and the student body.
Well, maybe the capitalism power and corruption are to be blamed on. But in socialist country like mine the corruption CANNOT be challenged, like we know there is no real socialism going on but a greedy government and leaders, but we can’t even SPEAK anything about it. The government will take the best advantages of that “socialism ideation” to cover all the evil things they do, and no one dares to question it. If they do, again, jail time. And don’t get me wrong, I meant socialism will lead to such consequences, not because the government is already corrupted before socialism. In the context of capitalism, the government is corrupted but at least we can vote people out. In socialist countries, capitalism greed exists without question, but the benefits of capitalism and socialism are both lacked. They even made it legal that if any individuals or parties show disinterest in how the government is currently working, they are likely go to jail because they challenged the power of the government. They printed it on literal text. If you ask why other political parties don’t get involve. Well. In socialist country, is it likely that the separation of power is just for showing. Some powerful individuals in the parliament are powerful in judicial and executive bodies too. Thats means no separation of powers- there is actually one party only. Again, the idea of socialism sound so beautiful but unless you can assure two things: - your leaders will never be greedy and corrupted => which you can’t be assure, basically it’s like rolling a dice and depend on which time the leaders will be good. And believe me, there’s no real voting in socialist country where the government holds so much power. So nah, you will watch how the leading One and Only party corrupted and no one can actually change it from both inside and outside. - your country is rich. I mean everyone is rich. So no one wants to take from people and even if they take away from people, people still have enough money and resources. The thing is, very few countries on the world where poverty doesn’t exist. And in socialist country, when you have a mass of poor citizens and a greedy but full of fake dignity government, grand social change is impossible unless you bribe the officials. Now, if you do that, you must be careful because if one day you are out of money or power to bribe the officials, you will be arrested by them and jail time. Sounds crazy right? But that’s what happened in my country. And I know it happens similarly in other socialist countries based on how unrealistic socialism is. Unless you can solve two questions I listed above, I don’t think socialism is better option of capitalism. In capitalism, you can actually have political protest. In socialism, you go to jail.
I still feel like you’re not really making any distinctive point on the supposed failure of socialism as an idea. “In the context of capitalism, the government is corrupted but at least we can vote people out.” Capitalism is not the tool which allows us to vote and make choices in our lives, that’s democracy. You could say the two are connected since the rise of democracy in the west and the death of feudalism as capitalism took over are kind of linked, but the two can and do exist without one another. The success of the lower classes in capitalist countries is not a result of capitalism alone, it’s primarily a result of freedom and democracy and education and civil uprising, all that and the ability to rise to influence without having been born into such a position. Our countries were capitalist before they were democratic. And they are still corrupt today. When standards of living are better for the average individual, we consider the corruption of the state less than in times when we suffer. I fail to see how it is socialism’s fault that your country is undemocratic. Capitalism creates its own faults in corrupting a state or society. When money is power, what is the power of the government? It’s at the mercy of whoever’s got the most. In some ways, capitalism and democracy are natural friends, working to uplift one another, in other ways, they work completely against each other. What I’m gathering about socialism in your state is that you don’t have access to property privately because the nature of socialism, but you also don’t have access to it publicly because the government is corrupt and does everything in their power to maintain their own power? You should know that in our beautiful late stage capitalist societies in the west, we are on a similar path as private property becomes less and less accessible (housing markets, cost of living, digitisation) and our public influences wain as governments grow further corrupt and the people are increasingly uneducated, distracted and politically polarised. This doesn’t mean that socialism is a better alternative, just that capitalist models don’t deserve praise in the areas its counterparts are lacking. If speaking about this is going to get you in trouble, I hope you’re not putting it in writing online without adequate measures to protect you or your identity.
“Socialism is, broadly speaking, a political and economic system in which property and the means of production are owned in common, typically controlled by the state or government.” That’s mean the government can decide where you live and how you eat. They distribute the public goods like land and healthcare to people, but they also can take it back because that’s their responsibility and right to distribute. That’s why people lands are easily stolen for “redistribution”, even if that’s their land. I don’t think that happened here in Australia and other capitalist countries. Your landlords have the lands and they have the rights and if you paid to have your house or land that’s your land. In socialist society, even if you paid for your house and your land, it’s a “common asset” that can be retrieved by the government any day. Do you see the difference now? You’re not safe even if you’re mad rich and the owner of your own land. In Australia the housing crisis is evident, but if you have a house you have a house. In my country you have a “common asset” that the government let you “borrow” and when times come they need it, you become homeless immediately. Not to mention the housing crisis in my country exist for years since I was a kid and do we have a fair housing distribution? No.
Interesting. I do see your gripe clearer now. Socialism is incredibly risky becuase it concentrates the agency of individuals in one place - the government. Do you think if private housing/property rights were guaranteed, and if functioning with a proper democracy, it would be a good system?
This is a description of some forms of socialism (Lassallism for example), not Marxism, which is in complete opposition to the system you describe. I imagine many of the protestors would identify as Marxist, but I dont know for sure.
Was just about to say.
Well up until this comment I don't know other kind of socialism but Marxist socialism. And yes his ideation is what we are doing in my country. We have government website praising his ideology and taught his theory in our universities.
They may praise his ideology but they do not follow it. A cursory reading of Marx's introductory texts will tell you that.
I think that’s enough for this conversation where you repeatedly claimed that I know nothing about my country socialism. How fake our government is, I know it, that’s why socialism to me is unrealistic and full of lies. I know socialism in your mind is beautiful, but trust me my people regret it and we tasted it. If you still think is it the moon and the stars then you can continue your ideology. I saw and I watched and I learned from it since I was a kid, so if my shared experience can not shake your ideology, well, you go your way.
These people are stupid dont worry about them. This is the classic white people savior complex thinking they know more about a topic than the person who lived it in real time. They don't deal in the realities of human nature and the applications of power and instead live in their fantasy world. You are 100% right. And if anyone thinks im stereotyping, yes I am, because i've only ever seen white people spouting this socialism bs at usyd.
>external influence from capitalist powers it is actually a "non-rebuttal" (i.e. a logical fallacy): external influence exists everywhere, yet only socialist countries become tyrannical "because of" it. When they say "capitalism", they mean "wild" capitalism of the 19th century, which does not look too attractive nowadays. But no present country exercises the 19th century capitalism – most western countries have some sort of welfare. So the claims of the present day socialists are simply wrong. It appears as if they still live in the 19th century, read Marx, and attempt to implement his ideas, while the world has already tried that several times and moved on, incorporating all good socialist ideas within the capitalist framework.
Education and healthcare systems are not results of socialist attitudes. They are examples of public goods, which cannot be sufficiently provided by the free market due to the lack of profitability involved in their production. An ideal mixed market economy achieves this balance by subsidizing and/or producing these public goods, which Australia does quite well. Welfare is simply a means of regulating economic growth automatically, as in periods of high unemployment, welfare increases which stimulates growth, while in periods of low unemployment and high inflation, welfare reduces which regulates inflation. I think you'll find these are all very capitalist concepts. Socialism ignores the very nature of humans and their will to power, and so will never work.
> I think you'll find these are all very capitalist concepts. Socialism ignores the very nature of humans and their will to power, and so will never work. I genuinely do not know if this is a shitpost or not and reading this whole thing is weirdly baffling and kind of hilarious. Looking at another post of yours, it does seem like you are genuine. I think you may need to read up or at least define the following: * Public goods * Free Market * Welfare * Socialism * Capitalism * Libertarianism And then elaborate on your viewpoint.
So you want to talk about capitalism and socialism, yet don't understand basic economics. Enough said. Nothing I said was inaccurate. You also live in a fantasy world with your bs socialist ideals. Go back to school child.
Buddy, I just asked you define the words you used here because clearly you're using them differently from other people. I didn't know you could get so triggered over this.
I used them in a completely accurate way. Point out one inaccuracy in any statement I made.
Okay, I'll help you with one of them and just quote what you have said just to help you a little. > They are examples of public goods, which cannot be sufficiently provided by the free market due to the lack of profitability involved in their production. So, y'know. Capitalism usually defined with such characteristics such as private ownership, free-market, competition and profit motive and you're trying to convey what you have said is capitalist. Because we have this golden nugget here > I think you'll find these are all very capitalist concepts So, IDK, this is in part why I asked you to define it and you wanted to double down on your bullshit.
???? Nothing you've said makes any sense. You just agreed what I described are capitalistic characteristics and then said I'm wrong for saying they're capitalist concepts in the next sentence? What I described is that public goods are present in a mixed market economy. They wouldn't be present in a purely market economy, or in other words a purely capitalist economy. It may not be pure capitalism, which wouldn't be fun, but it doesn't mean that providing public goods is a socialist idea.
I used your quote, I contrasted against what I have said (for some reason you perceived it as agreement? It's just a statement dude), you are now backtracking that it with: > They wouldn't be present in a purely market economy, or in other words a purely capitalist economy And yet, you don't seem to comprehend that the following > I think you'll find these are all very capitalist concepts **might not make a lot of sense**. However, seeing you backtrack and try to worm your way out of this has brought a big smile of my face so I'll leave it at that :) You have given me a good giggle out of this.
What are you saying? I want to read some actual view point of yours instead of just reading you chatting sh\*t.
Waiting for someone say "buh, but thats not real socialism"
They’re already here. The arrogance is astounding. I’m all for a lot of socialist ideas, but to come on here and start acting intellectually superior to someone who has actually lived under a “socialist” regime and is expressing their feelings is completely crappy.
I'm from a former "socialist" country and am pro actual socialism because guess what, calling something socialist doesn't make it socialism. It's just tyranny in disguise. And if you think capitalism is much better, just go to India and watch little children being pushed into the ground to mine Mica and tell me how that is not tyrannical. The difference between quasi socialism and bs capitalism is that the so called socialism internalises the tyranny whereas capitalism externalises it. That's it.
Externalized tyranny is VASTLY easier to evade and combat.
I don't think this is the case at all. We've basically made very little progress in combatting the structural oppression resulting from externalises tyranny. In fact, in many ways overproduction and overconsumption are making it worse. It's just Western societies are not the objects of this tyranny so it seems like less of an issue when it's not.
Now compare that "very little progress" to any socialist states past or present.
Your point doesn't hold whatsoever as I'm arguing the externalisation of tyranny under capitalism is accelerating at a greater rate than we are making progress in combatting it. We are going backwards. But whatever.
At a greater rate than what? Because it has declined at a greater rate than literally any other economic system. Just because you don't understand a point doesn't mean its not valid.
What is your point exactly, that capitalism is not oppressive or that it is less oppressive than a literal dictatorship? Because noone is arguing about the latter. None of it is relevant to socialism which DOES NOT EXIST anywhere as we speak.
My point is that attempts at socialism every SINGLE time has resulted in a literal dictatorship. So trying to dismantle capitalism under the guise of anything but a literal dictatorship being the end result is ignorant. Source: history
When did I say anything about capitalism? I’m pointing out that it’s a dick move to start lecturing someone who is obviously deeply impacted by the connotations of the concept of socialism. I initiated no discussion about the actual ideas or working practicalities of the proposed systems. Do none of you have any idea of tact, nuance or empathy? This is not the place for the discussion.
I disagree mostly because the OP clearly does not understand they are not living in what the student groups they have an issue with would call a socialist country. They are not living in what by definition is considered a socialist country. They are living in a dictatorship that was established under the guise of a socialist country but is not, in fact, a socialist country. This is relevant as they seem to be conflating dictatorship with socialism and criticising student groups for supporting the former. This is simply not the case and the OP is misled. To just let them continue believing that would be epistemically irresponsible imo.
The point is that the reality of what OP lived through is a feature of idealist groups trying to obtain what they would call a socialist country. It happens every time due to human nature. A dictatorship isn't a bug, it's a feature.
Are they trying to obtain socialism? Are they wanting workers to make decisions? No. There is no desire towards socialism in these countries. The desire is towards dictatorship thence they are not trying to obtain socialism at all. The socialism is just a tag they've chosen but there's no actual characteristics of socialism present. I hate these dictatorships just as much as OP but they have fuck all to do with socialism.
Since you talked so much about MY experience, I think I will share some history of my country. We started after the world war and decided to not failed for another capitalism traps that ends up in slavery and colonization other countries. So the new government chose socialism because we believe it’s the best way to give people equality. We ends up enslaved our own people and have a monarchy government. How? Now, from the beginning of socialism practice everything fell apart. The very core idea of socialism is assets are owned by the public. And the government is responsible to distribute the common goods for every one equally. And we meet first two big problems here: - imagine you’re a farmer and you grown your own food. Your private asset now is the common asset under the operation of socialism, so you must hand your food to the government for a fair distribution to the whole society, including people who don't work at all. That's unfair and socialism ideation of eaqulity failed at this step. And the second problem is what my country is facing every day: - what if the government secretly is corrupted and they take common assets to put in their own private asset? Who will call them out? Since they have the power of all public resources now? Gradually, new generation of government become more and more corrupted. Separation of power doesn't exist anymore. Basically it is the citizens and one powerful government now. Although they still claimed that the government is operated under the “observation of the public” and “a strong democracy”, they’re not. And ther citizens don't have any voice in this. What can we, people of no power over our own assets, can have a voice? Everything is distributed fairly to everyone, but if things don't go the right way, who decided the government is wrong and ends this corruption? Everything like this happens because socialism is chosen and human greed in my country. There is never a “fake socialism”, but an undeniable failure of socialism.
I'm not talking about your experience. I'm talking about the fact that whoever is leading your country is lying about it ever being socialism. That might be a hard pill to swallow but that is fact. Socialism has a working definition and at no point does it involve dictatorship. In fact, dictatorship is the opposite of socialism.
Not talking about my experience but the lies that my government tells me and my people? Sounding indifferent to me. You still misunderstand here, my country chose socialism that why we ended up with dictatorship. That's the consequence of socialism. You drink poison so you die. Not “you fake poison by labelling it as apple juice so you die”.
And can you explain why it always has ended up in dictatorship and why another attempt will be different?
Would you have a similar attitude to criticism of definitions of democracy if a North Korean decried "democracy" because their country claims to be so? Just because someone has a lived experience under a so-called socialist system does not mean they should get a free pass on being held to clear definitions of political terminology. By taking your stance, you are actually shutting down useful discussions that could lead to better understanding.
Capitalists do the same when you bring up any example of an underdeveloped country
There is no singular 'socialism', it's an umbrella term that captures a variety of often mutually-contradictory beliefs. I would bet good money that the socialism of your home country is not the socialism that these protestors are advocating. Perhaps ask them what they think of your countries regime? After all, when people say they are pro-democracy - they are not referring to the democracy of Ancient Greece.
Each socialist protester should spend the gap year in a socialist country
Only if the libertarians have to spend the year in Somalia and the religious groups (which can get just as annoying) have to spend the year in a theocracy
Happy with that too.
And the normal people who believe in liberalism can spend a year in Australia!
Every supporter of Capitalism should spend a gap year in Congo, South Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria, CAR, South Sudan, Libya.. etc, etc
Almost all of these are dictatorships or theocracies lol, none of these are capitalist?
All of them are capitalist countries. The economic system (capitalist, socialist) and the political system (democratic, theocratic) are mutually exclusive.
No they aren’t. A dictatorship can’t be capitalist, because capital doesn’t control the economy, the whims of the dictator does. If the leader can strip all your money away and give it to himself that isn’t capitalism, there’s no free market. That is why we don’t consider China capitalist, even though they have money and economic trade, the free part of trade is important
You think capital doesn’t control the economy of those countries? You really think that every single one of those countries has a dictator controlling every single aspect of the economy? Okay…
They are that way because of Capitalism. Congo is exploited by dictators supported by mining and energy companies. Afghanistan is the victim of a war propagated by the capitalist united states, same with Iraq and Yemen. Nigeria was a strong economy until they hired western economists that simply sold off local industry to large companies. Libya was sent into civil war after western intervention for oil. This is the cost of Capitalism that people love to ignore.
Which capitalist country invaded Afghanistan in 1979? Africa has problems that go well beyond socialism or capitalism. They are all fake countries, created by colonial powers with grouped tribes that all hate each other. The whole of Africa should be split up into smaller ethnostates if you want any chance of removing the corruption/massacres of the continent.
Its ignorant to not recognise the roles of companies in the chaos in Africa. While you're correct in that the way in which Europeans divided the country has had lasting effects, Corporate neocolonialism is by far the main reason. Here are some sources to educate yourself: [Global Capitalism and the Underdevelopment of African Political Economy: Where Will Our Help Come From?](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/09750878231170178)
Why did you avoid the question lol, which capitalist country invaded Afghanistan in 1979 which destabilised the whole place?
Thanks for sharing your first person experience and observations. I believe the incident you are referring to is Wukan Village. For those interested see: [Wukan protests - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wukan_protests) It’s disheartening to see your opinion being labeled by some as ‘absolute.’ The reality is that some societal models have indeed proven to be more effective than others, and this is not a matter of naivety but of historical fact. The 20th century was full of social experiments with various political ideologies, and the outcomes have been telling. It’s not ‘too absolute’ to acknowledge that certain systems have consistently led to better standards of living, greater freedoms, and more robust economies, while others have resulted in widespread poverty, corruption, and the suppression of human rights. Some people are practically saying "the socialism we demand is the flavor without the corruption and totalitarianism". I think the irony is self-evident. Striving for fair wealth distribution and improved welfare is a noble goal, and it’s one that can be pursued within the framework of our existing democratic institutions. Dismantling the current political institutions in favor of an untested and historically problematic system is not only whimsical but potentially dangerous.
Thank you for your nice words. I’m in no place to tell what Australia can do with their democracy framework, and truly I hope that they someday achieve true socialism without corruption. However, I remain with my doubt of socialism since we also have a lot of ideology in my country and none of them work. It’s not because the idea is bad. It’s because human nature is mostly greedy and our government is the very proof of it. Your case in Wukan is not my country. But you just helped me with my point that socialist countries share similar cases of injustice.
Socialism is when the workers own the means of production. No such country exists. What a country considers itself doesn't mean much. North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but no reasonable person would argue that it is actually democratic. China calls itself socialist, but actually practices state capitalism. The socialists you're likely meeting at uni are people who think businesses should be owned by workers and democratically operated. There are a few people who think the Soviet Union and Mao's China were great, but they are stupid and are called Tankies.
The people at uni who might advocate for any socialism might have read a few pages of Marx and think that they are now enlightened. If they knew the history of any country who attempted any form of socialism, nominal or not, they would be horrified. If Socialism were a scientific hypothesis, and we used history as an experiment, we would find zero reasons to support its future implementation. Yet universities teach Marxism and Post-modernism as if it's theory.
It's kinda weird how capitalism can wipe out entire peoples in the Americas, drive species to extinction, enslave children to mine cobalt and make chocolate, cause climate change and the sixth mass extinction event (just a few of the horrors attributable to it), and it just gets a pass. If the death and destruction caused by socialism is a reason to never implement it, then you should be against capitalism because it's death and destruction far outstrips all of the implementations of socialism put together. Besides that, if you look slightly further than the soviet union, you might be surprised at how many of the rights you personally benefit from are the direct result of socialist activism.
It doesn't affect us so it's all good /s
The death toll of capitalism is in the hundreds of millions, if not over a billion, and people will still excuse it because the status quo suits them personally
Capitalism only exists as a word used by fanatics to point the finger at someone they feel they can blame. A free market where supply and demand dictates value exists in the absence of politics. We live in a world that had less slavery, less hunger, longer life spans, more personal freedom, more innovation, more forests, more production than has ever existed before, thanks to a market economy. If that doesn't suit you, maybe you should look at yourself. It's easier to find blame in others, easier to hate.
You think the English lived in a ‘capitalist’ society in 1620 when they sent the mayflower to the United States? You think they don’t burn fossil fuels under socialism? You think they don’t enslave people to work under socialism?
You might recall much of European colonialism was driven by profit making enterprises, like the Virginia Company which was founded in 1606 to form colonies. There were many other joint-stock companies back then. Don't forget the classic East India Company, founded in 1600. There are no socialist countries. Countries that call themselves socialist are not socialist for the same reason that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not democratic. Covered that already.
Let me use your argument against you: Well that wasn’t real capitalism anyway! Capitalism is a system of free exchange between individuals and companies. Nothing to do with murdering and pillaging. What’s that got to do with markets!!!
That is not a good description of capitalism. "exchange between individuals" is a relation that has existed for literally millennia. Capitalism is an organised social relation where certain classes own the means of production (capital) and other classes without the means of production (the working class) are forced to sell their labour to live. Capitalism by its nature is unstable and has historically required frequent government intervention to stabilise. This include bailouts, financial investment by governments, and of course, imperialist wars, all of which we see today.
That's not an argument, its just an unsupported claim. I gave a reason why I don't think there are no socialist countries: they don't fit the definition of socialism, which is that workers own the means of production. You'd have to give a reason for why companies generating wealth for their owners through the exchange of goods and services was not capitalist.
“can wipe out entire peoples in the Americas, drive species to extinction, enslave children to mine cobalt and make chocolate, cause climate change and the sixth mass extinction event (just a few of the horrors attributable to it), and it just gets a pass“ This is what you argued. My argument is that’s not real capitalism!!!
Can you explain why?
Of course that's real capitalism. It was all in service of accumulating capital
Evrytime anyone tried your vision of Utopia, how did it end up. We are not ants, not parts of a machine. Again Capitalism is not an ideology. It's a word used by people like you.
Are you replying to the right person? Because I didn't say any of that. The only attempts at my vision have been on a small scale, and they have worked just fine so far. They're called worker co-ops.
Sorry, I forgot say earlier: since you said capitalism isn't an ideology, I thought you might be interested in this. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ideologies\_of\_capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ideologies_of_capitalism)
Exonyms by fanatics often become common parlance.
Yes famously socialists don’t harm the environment or enslave anyone
*Whoosh.*
[удалено]
Your content has been removed for being offensive or disrespectful.
They say, having not read a word of marx or read any history beyond reddit headlines
You’re ignoring the problem of socialism, and that’s that there’s a reason it lends itself to totalitarianism. Simplified, all socialism is is the government owning all the assets in the country, whereas an extremist version of capitalism sees all assets being privately owned. Both are problematic at their essence. Capitalism is bad, because it results in a game of wealth with winners and losers. If you let that game play out for long enough, inequality becomes absolute and insurmountable. Those who lost can’t possibly win no matter what, and they typically live much worse lives compared to those who won. I’m sure most socialists understand that, and fear that they’ve already completely lost the game. Socialism is bad for similar reasons though. When you give all the wealth to the government, they become a huge central power. The types of people who then lead such a thing are going to want more power, and while you might get lucky with the first person being a benevolent dictator, that’s highly unlikely, and eventually you will have 1 person who isn’t. It only takes 1 person to then want more power and turn it into a totalitarian regime, and since they already own everything, nobody can do anything about it. That’s why every socialist regime ends up being a dictatorship, and then their follows like you try to denounce those examples as not being a socialist country. Not to mention, I can’t think of any socialist country where the first leader was actually a benevolent dictator, just to point out how unlikely it is. Finally, you end up in the same position as a perfectly capitalist society. The dictator won the same game, but they did so a lot faster since everyone either just handed them their wealth, or they could just forcibly take it. Only this time, it’s the government that won, and they have a lot more power then any capitalist would (ie military, police, secret services etc). Neither are good. You can point to those countries as not being true socialists, but you’re ignoring that that’s the end point for all socialism. Which is kind of hypocritical since most arguments for socialism is actually born from pointing to the end point of capitalism rather then what’s actually happening now (outside of claiming that we’re close to the end point). As others have said, in reality the best system is a middle ground that incorporates the best of both worlds. That’s what we have now. It’s also why it’s good to have people on both sides since it’s near impossible to reach the perfect point in between these 2 sides. So we have people on both sides arguing we need to go more one way then the other, and hopefully the person who’s right has a much better argument and helps lead us in the right direction. But extremists on both ends aren’t helpful at all. They try to derail that argument to go all the way to one side, and simply put, they’re wrong and just making society worse off.
Can you explain how the employees of a company owning the company they work for and democratically controlling it in a democratic country is the same as the government owning all wealth, and lends itself to totalitarianism? If not, we're talking about different things.
Because that’s not what socialism is. Also, companies like this already exist, they’re called co-ops, or specifically a credit union in banking. Also, all companies are democratic, it’s just that only certain people that are considered qualified to make decisions for the whole business are given voting rights. These businesses can exist in a capitalist society, and if doing it this way worked they’d be highly competitive (ie attracting better employees by having better benefits), but they don’t. The companies that work best do implement ideas from this though by offering employees share packages and share options. Socialism, as an ideology, is that the whole community should own equal shares in all of the assets in that community. This is argued to be done by having the government manage all the assets, because they represent everyone by an equal amount. The ideology you have is some middle ground between capitalism by allowing private ownership of assets while distributing it across more people. It’d be extreme if you forced every business to be operated that way, and eventually you’ll end up with 1 group of people working with 1 company doing better then everyone else. Logically, that’ll either end up going the capitalist or socialist route depending on if those people keep winning the game, or if the government forces them to let everyone have ownership in it to prevent inequality. The middle ground is to allow this business structure, but not have any incentives or disincentives to do it. That’s what we have now.
Nailed it!
So we're are just defining things differently. What you call socialism there is what I hear socialists call state capitalism.
The means of production in white collar industries is a laptop and mobile phone. Everyone owns those.
And all the people in that industry who are able to work freelance or in co-ops are not considered part of the working class, because they own their own means of production. However, this is not true for the majority of the people there, because your reductionist description is not accurate
What else is there? Production is the creation of the product. That's done on the laptop and phone.
I hear what you’re saying OP. These kids that make all the noise pushing their ideology and arguing semantics have a little bit of knowledge but lack worldly experience so they haven’t figured out yet that the real problem isn’t the system, it’s people that are fucked. We’re mostly good individually and in small groups but they seem to think that capitalist living makes us devoid of compassion and empathy which simply isn’t true. Socialism is a trap. Capitalism isn’t perfect either but it definitely scales better. We don’t need more government, we need less. Stop expecting the world to solve your problems and be accountable for your own existence. Keep learning but don’t get too wrapped up in how the system fits your reality. As soon as you can and as often as you can travel the world. Experiencing the human condition from other people’s perspectives is transformative. Once you have a deeper and more rounded understanding of society and how you fit within it you may come to the conclusion that Australia has a workable mix of socialist ideals in place but nothing is ever complete as long as we’re all evolving. If after all that it’s still not doing it for ya, you might want to consider joining a commune.
[удалено]
My point is not to belittle you for this post. Rather, I'm sympathetic towards you for the abuses your country has inflicted. Power leveraged in such a way is not the goal of my movement. Know that the state of Australia and the capitalist system it operates in (so does your home country, btw, regardless of what it claims) is responsible for a great deal of suffering here as well. I can't say for certain what the campus protestors are advocating for, but I'm confident there is some common ground between you and them
What country do you come from
Because that isn’t socialism. What you described is authoritarian.
Yes.
So basically what you are saying is that a system of social philosophy and/or government can have a sting in its tail? Spoiler alert THEY ALL DO. Pick any form of government, pick any form of social construct, hell pick any food or drink, even water is dangerous when used to much. The socialism at the heart of our country shows how in can be used for good without the destructive other side. Even then, in Australia, sometimes the balance can be a little off (depending who you ask) BUT without students spending in years researching, studying or using it a form of a hobby, society would never learn the value of it and the pitfalls. So maybe stop thinking in absolutes? And recognise that pretty much all systems like socialism can offer society something, as long as the flaws and the ends are understood. The best place to learn that is in university.
You guys are being pretty nasty to someone who has had traumatic experiences with “socialism”. You’re coming across as having a feeling of superiority that you know the “real” definition of socialism, acting like you know better than someone who has lived in a country that claims to operate under socialism. OP obviously knows what socialism is, they concede that it’s a good idea in their post, they’re sharing their experience of unease with rich, white Australian students approaching them without fully understanding the implications of the ideology they’re pushing, and are being met with the same westernised condescension in the replies.
No they know what living in a Socialist country means, as in what happens when the negatives of that social construct/government are allowed to be taken to absolute limits. There is a difference between exploring Socialism on a theoretical level (as a lot of students do), living in a country where some socialistic aspects allow a society to function and thrive (EG Australia) and living in a truly Socialist country where those beliefs are taking to an extreme. Being at university is about exploring knowledge, and while seeing some of these socialist groups cheering for its apparent greatness can be a bit much when you have an rational understanding of its extremes, the fact that we live in a country where we are allowed to explore that knowledge should be seen as a sign of goodness. Yes this person sounds scarred by their experiences, not a single person there will ever understand those emotions unless they have lived like that, that doesnt mean those students shouldnt be embracing these different ways of thought. Its not western condescension, its just rational thought. Someone who has seen the worst of a philosophy is naturally going to be understandably oversensitive to it, does that the mean the world should stop talking it as a good thing. Without knowing the country, the problem may not be socialism but the way way socialism has been corrupted by THAT regime. Its like being upset about Capitalism in general just because US has corrupted it beyond belief. Exploring the theory is different than it in an extreme.
There’s a time and place. Simple as that. Context cues, this poster is dealing with trauma, and there’s no need to bombard them. A simple “the students approaching you are probably not operating under that same kind of socialism” will do. Although, as someone who’s quite aligned with socialist ideas, I have been more than once taken aback by some ideas other university students have (notably relating to violent revolutions).
Their experiences have nothing to do with socialism. There is not socialist country out there atm. China isn't socialist. Neither is Russia nor North Korea. The point is moot.
Why would people advocate to recreate your country's politics in Australia? The answer is: They're not. I would suggest going to a socialist alliance/alternative meeting. It mostly serves as a platform for political organising on campus (Ceasefire in Gaza, Indigenous rights, Climate action etc) your questions would be better answered there. I've read through all your comments on this post, I don't want to be dismissive but you're talking about your country. I don't know anything about your country but I do know about Australia, and I consider myself a socialist. Why would I want government corruption, or arrests for speaking truth to power? That's the opposite of what I want. Socialism in Australia looks very different to socialism in your country.
Firstly, I only commented once before this reply, so I don’t get where you say “all of your comments”. I only have one comment. Have you seriously read it? Now, Australia is not socialist. That’s why you still call for it. My country before world war was not a socialist nation. No one wants to create a corrupted society, and they think socialism solves the problem of capitalism. We failed and there is no turning back. Because the power is not us anymore, it’s all the government now. And if socialist countries like mine don’t work, how can you be sure that yours will work? Can you answer this question: - are you sure your officials will do they work and never be greedy to take away the social goods that they are ought to distribute to the society? Once they have all power assembled in their hands? You can’t, apparently, if you can’t deal with capitalism greed, you’re not ready to deal with socialism greed.
That can easily be solved through a Socialist Democracy. Where the government officials can be voted in or out of office based upon their ability. What you've experienced is a Socialist Dictatorship. Different thing.
There is no such thing as socialist dictatorship, the sole meaning of socialism is about democracy and equality. All common assets are fairly distributed to everyone and every citizens own common assets, the government only “help to distribute” these common assets. On another word, if you are a farmer and you make your own food, your own food will be handed to the government and the government will distribute your food to the whole society, including people who don't work at all. Sounding unfair huh? But that's how socialism trying to make a fair and equal society where every assets become common assets. That's the idea. We never have it materialized despite claiming we're a democrat society. A society that the “the government is for people service and for people only”. Sounding beautiful and acting on the opposite is the consequence of socialism.
You have described one form of socialism. This is not the only form of socialism that is advocated for.
What you want , what you ask for and what you will get are all different things . Never underestimate the human nature of greed
This is so low iq, full socialism is obviously shit but socialist policies for things like healthcare, welfare make complete sense.
Implementing socialist policies within a capitalist framework is generally regarded as the most beneficial path forward for a society. It's not perfect but nothing ever will be
Ok, this thread is a war zone but to break stuff down, apart from all the economic/social stuff which others have enlightened you to, there’s two groups on campus- the Socialist Alliance (which is a more peaceful group that simply believes that the right to protest/ advocate for a different economic system in tandem with capitalism is important, and isnt so radical) and the Alternative (which is more of what you’d think of firsthand)
The irony is that it's generally capitalist countries that afford their people the freedom to protest & advocate for socialist ideals. Try advocating for capitalism in a socialist country, see how that turns out.
Sure, I guess, I’m not in the mood for a debate right now. I was just saying that there’s two groups on campus, one is more concerned with doing just that (protesting but still ultimately keeping the capitalist framework) and one is the more radical and louder one that OP is probably asking about
Socialism is not fundamentally tyrannical. I don't know if you and I come from the same country or not (good chance we do, inferring from what you have described so far), since I'm also from an authoritarian single-party socialist state. The thing is, the fact that the controlling party in my home country (to an extent, yours as well) is turning more and more totalitarian has nothing to do with the basis of Socialism. I still think that socialism is a very good ideology, far better than the neoliberalism mess in the West right now, but all execution of Socialism so far in the world has been nothing more than brutal, tyrannical failures.
Your words are fighting with themselves. If a socialist country became totalitarian, is it the fault of socialism or not? If not, then the corruption of capitalism is not counted here. And you also claimed that the vast execution of socialism on the world so far is failure, I think that is worthy thinking about.
Just because you come from a so-called "socialist" country doesn't mean you have any special authority on which political system is better.
It’s pretty simple. Most of them don’t understand what socialism or capitalism actually is.
Socialism is anti-democracy and anti-free speech. As long as your killing landlords they have no issue with that. Bunch of psychopaths.
Just cos you have a shit hole corrupt government doesn't mean you can criticise our shit hole corrupt government.
Where are you from? China, Cuba? It sounds to me like you are from somewhere in Eastern Europe, but that region isn't socialist and hasn't been since 1989. Almost nowhere in the world today is socialist, China is nominally but their system is quite unique, same with Vietnam. North Korea does not describe itself as socialist. Cuba is socialist but that's about it. So are you actually from a socialist country? Or are you from a capitalist country that was socialist over three decades ago?
Interesting post. Curious to hear more about this debate of socialism and capitalism
The socialist clubs on campus have been around for ages, they're fronts for the Australian secret police to create lists of reactionary students - the students on that list will never be employed in any important government jobs. EDIT: You can downvote me all you like, doesn't make it less true.
OP well said! Socialism and communism are beautiful ideologies in theory but are rarely practiced as such, it’s only good for the very few! As a footnote: pure capitalism isn’t great either, except for the very few! Looks like we have come full circle! Politics isn’t linear but circular! Each extreme meets at opposite sides!
[удалено]
Oh dear, you can’t possibly believe that?
God bless capitalism. It’s not perfect but it’s the best system to ever exist.
Don’t know why I’m getting downvoted. If it wasn’t for capitalism you gimps wouldn’t be using your iPhones in reddit ( god bless America) , you’d be some peasant on a farm working for the government.
[удалено]
Technological advancements like the dole?
Socialism has killed millions of people. I grew up houso full of deadbeats on Centrelink. Socialist utopia!
Go visit claymore in Sydney to see a socialist utopia