Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 10:54 pm
Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 10:51 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 5:31 pm
Not my job. Yours to disprove.
Wrong. You are making the claims.
No, you are. Everybody but you thinks one thing. You say everybody's wrong.
You're on deck.
Not 'everybody'. Besides those who have direct intimate experience within these countries, I too interpret any of the countries that appear to have begun or sustained 'Socialism' [Communal, not Nationalistic/Tribal] as NOT 'Socialist' because the 'Communist' ideal driving them is a world with voluntary compassion for EACH, EVERY and ALL people, by definition.
The problem relates to how collective ideals can become largely segregated to restricted subclasses, usually their particular work place or area, such that no one feels authoritatively valid to speak on issues beyond that domain. They are 'democratic' but operate more similar to Ancient Athenian 'democracy' where EVERYONE qualified likely requires to play a more direct role in government BUT the limit to respecting domains of other 'unions' is distinct, such that if you worked as a 'teacher', say, your union (U.S.S.R. called the smallest union one is responsible to, their 'soviet', which likely relates to the term, "sovereign", referring to their restricted authority.
The 'dictator' in Marx, is used in the same way as 'speaker' and refered to EACH person as ruler or 'sovereign'. But modern use of the term regarding those who historically embraced it, is a
derogatory reference to a monopolized ruler by one or few people's concerns. Normally, then, the 'dictator' of Communist countries are just representative heads that are supposed to "speak" for all their subdomain unions. But this ideal by definition for 'socialism' in general refers more narrowly to the concept of 'socialism' apart from Communist-goaled systems. So the actual flaw of the WAY they practiced socialism was itself due not to one single person's whims but to the isolation of responsibility of anything but their own limited areas.
The process of voting politically begins at your work or organization where individuals nominate and vote who of themselves best represents their area. Then those workplace "leaders" act as individual members of some larger class representing their particular industry collectively. Then that class collectively vote for who best represents them and may elect another person(s) to represent that for the next level up. All areas lead into their eventual legislative assembly. This then is somewhat 'more' democratic than our system. The "Republican" concept also often added refers to the belief that one or few people are required to represent others in a "democracy" based upon EXPERTICE assumed. Each subclass of the Communist ideal using this process though
can tend to elect someone not qualified by skill nor essential wisdom if the people's society begins from EMPOVERISHED ignorant populations initially. They voluntarily restrict themselves or others based upon a
socially acceptable respect for 'authority' of other's domain but lack the wisdom of the whole for such segregation and 'faith' that others DO. It is a form of intellectual majority begining from empoverishment and isolation.
The logic of the
way they opt to respect strict domains of authority AND the often dire empoverishment they
initiate their form of 'socialism' from has inevitable flaws based solely on bad luck. THEN ADD to that that non-collective interests OUTSIDE their countries, especially strong capitialist countries like us, PENALIZE these countries for being unable to profit independently within their boundary and so deny them trade as a whole. The denial of trade factor is about how the Western ecomomic predisposition to private OWNership interests BY CONTRAST creates the largest means to KEEP whatever poverty existed before to remain where they utilize Western .
So the outside influence, its complement, is a very large reason for THOSE particular 'socialists' who suffer the most to be guaranteed to fail: the arrogance of the capitalistic worlds to be 'uncapitalistic' with respect to fostering countries that favor totalitarian leaders rather than 'democratic' ones that do not permit EASE for manipulation that is needed for exploiting resources. That is, the West prefers the derogatory 'dictator' represent leadership for any other countries, especially those with ecomonically poor majorities (desperation) but can't access their means of exploiting them or the territorial resources of the socialism by Communist-based countries.
By evolution standards, if those Communist related Socialist countries represent a single individual, those who act with more characteristically totalitarian dicatatorship leadership qualities get paid attention that the West wants of their competition BUT lack the access and ease of exploiting countries that are 'democratically elected' in Communist style systems.
So shut up about your hate against 'socialism' or prove how this concept AS THEY define it is flawed with the contextual relevance that Socialism is not Communism (even though Communism requires being Socialist). If you point to particular leaders as the West defines them, prove that YOU PARTICULARLY have better wisdom to know what you claim, not second-hand reference based upon stereotypes that get used to
poison their well. No one can confirm nor deny what goes on behind the scenes of countries that are supposedly as evil as the propoganda provides. What we see from outside has to respect the logical definitions of systems using 'socialism' as INTENDED, not the hypocritical anti-Socialist, anti-Communist "leaders" who might have corrupted their systems.
General definitions of "Socialism" versus "Capitalism"
"Socialism",
in general, is a system or set of principles that at least defines any governmental set up to share resources among people dependent upon need and treats EACH person based upon their social value as 'equal' in worth, not their economic capacity or wealth.
"Capitalism" is,
in general, a system that believes one's capacity to be dependent upon their economic worth and who favors maximizing/capitalizing upon others' worth (or lack of it) in terms of monetary values.
[NOTE: The Communist countries would more appropriately use "Imperialism" in place of "Capitalism". We use "Capitalism" both for the defining of which people are worthy socially AND economically. The above definitions refer to the social. So the "capitalist" social virtue is defined but coincides with the economic meaning. That is, "Imperialism" refers specifically to the defining minority of the power as represented by wealth to get the right to define what is 'socially' acceptable and how to manage the whole, and for capitalism, defines one's value as inheritable ABITRARILY. You can inherit environmental wealth regardless of worth even though society as a whole always inherits the environmental waste.]
