What point are you trying to make?
Cuz if you wanna debate about the merit or effectiveness of socialism, I’m game.
Ok, I’ll start: True socialism has never been accomplished.
False. The kibbutz communities in Israel were true socialist communities, but those failed due to the fact that the labourers in those communities did not like giving up their children to the community and due to the fact that they saw members of their community not working as hard while receiving the same benefits, causing jealousy. This is why the grand majority of kibbutzes failed.
China was supposed to be Market socialism but just became capitalist in the early stages. The USSR was in a stage in between capitalism and socialism but when Stalin took over it became a Dictatorship by him. Pol Pot was a self described “revolutionary” not a communist. Hitler just took over a “socialist” party and then turned it into a white nationalist party. In fact, he banned true socialist/communist parties. Lots of other countries have tried to implement socialism but have failed due to not enough resources and not enough technological proggress. Also, capitalist imperialism has tried to stop almost all attempted socialism.
In every aspect other than the class struggle, kibbutzim functioned as socialist communes.
Between collective ownership, total internal equality, collective raising of children, it seems like the closest conceivable thing to socialism, and yet it failed as a concept.
From your POV, please explain to me how socialism could properly function within a society in the 21st century?
First, I’m pretty sure socialism doesn’t believe in collective raising of children. Now onto your question. As a Libertarian Socialist I see Socialism functioning as a bunch of Co-ops where the workers own the means of production. There would be no money and workers would reap what they sowed. Different Co-ops would work to provide for everyone. One common argument against some forms of Socialism and Communism is that it would be impossible to manage all of the logistics. This would be rendered null because of the small scale of the co-ops. Everyone would have a voice in politics through citizens councils or unions, e.t.c. However, there would be rules banning taking rights away from people who had done nothing to deserve it. Services like internet, education, healthcare and housing would be available to all and serviced by co-ops. Pretty much, every city would have different co-ops and people would work at them. Whenever they needed something they would go to (a warehouse maybe?)(Resources Might Be Given To Each Household Every day) and collect it. There would be no money, they would work only and then collect things they needed. They would all have an equal voice in the community and have free healthcare, education and housing. Criminals would be rehabilitated and given mental health services.
Now I would like to ask you, so you believe capitalism is sutainable and moral?
With regards to the utopian society you are mentioning, what checks and balances do you see there to be to prevent some outside power from coming in and conquering these small scale coops?
Personally, I do believe mixed-market capitalism is sustainable and moral.
In terms of the class divide that comes from capitalism, I personally am a fan of that divide, as it is in constant fluctuation. In theory, with enough innovation and hard work, anyone can become a member of the upper class. Additionally, with enough poor judgement and poor spending, anyone can end up falling into the lower class.
I find it moral because capitalism is what I see as the closest thing to a meritocracy, whereof those who can effectively work will succeed, and those who cannot will not.
One reason socialism hasn’t worked, capitalist intervention.
“In theory” exactly my point.
It isn’t a meritocracy it’s an oligarchy.
Okay so like, sorry to just jump in, but you’re also just going on a theory here also. Just saying. As you said, ‘true socialism’ has never been tried, so you don’t have anything truly solid to base your judgements off of. You’re also just going off a theory. I’m not picking a side here btw lol, im just saying you can’t use the ‘just a theory argument’ (neither of you can) because you’re both going off a mix of theories and stuff that has actual happened.
Russia was socialist. If you wanna debate please list your definitions.
" In theory, with enough innovation and hard work, anyone can become a member of the upper class."
Are you a tankie
Ik lol. That’s why I was saying technically this whole argument (not just yours, whenever this argument is argued) is theoretical.
You don’t like Stalin? Whaaaaattttt?
As always this turns into leftist infighting.
It wouldn’t have to if you just admit Stalin did nothing wrong.