Smart people support Socialism.

[Dig Bicks]

Einstein supported socialism.

Pyschos like Trump support capitalism.

[Rustamm]

Einstein supported socialism.

Pyschos like Trump support capitalism.

I myself grew up in the USSR. I know well the ideology of socialism, and from today's position I can say that socialism is just a utopia, an unfulfilled dream of idiots. It seems that it was just a dead end development of society. It gradually distorts values and unofficially introduces a double morality. Socialism in the name of the people destroys its people. It is better to simply develop, improve and humanize a society without any ideological superstructures.

[bitmover]

Einstein supported socialism.

Pyschos like Trump support capitalism.

I have no doubt you live in a capitalist country.

I don't get why so many socialists are interested in bitcoin. Bitcoin is against governments and states , it's all about liberalism at its more pure form.

Socialist countries like Venezuela and north Korea control its fiat an manipulate it like any other capitalist country does.

[cellard]

Einstein supported socialism.

Pyschos like Trump support capitalism.

I myself grew up in the USSR. I know well the ideology of socialism, and from today's position I can say that socialism is just a utopia, an unfulfilled dream of idiots. It seems that it was just a dead end development of society. It gradually distorts values and unofficially introduces a double morality. Socialism in the name of the people destroys its people. It is better to simply develop, improve and humanize a society without any ideological superstructures.

I don't understand when people claim to not follow any ideology or founding societies without any ideological superstructures. I claim that ideology is everywhere, you can't really escape it. "Lack of ideology" gets rendered a ideology itself so to speak.

As far as socialism goes, even if intentions are good, it just ends in more taxes on the middle class, since the elites always find a way to escape and end up paying no taxes. Socialists are impotent against this fact, they can't do nothing, so they end up fucking up the middle class until there's no middle class.

In an ideal world the super mega rich should be helping the guys stuck at the bottom with 0 chances to improve, but we don't live in an ideal world. As long as capitalism is a thing, this will happen. If you have any ideas let us know.

[figmentofmyass]

I myself grew up in the USSR. I know well the ideology of socialism, and from today's position I can say that socialism is just a utopia, an unfulfilled dream of idiots.

there is no singular "ideology of socialism". on the contrary, it's a diverse range of ideologies that includes anarchism, democratic socialism and autonomism among other schools of thought. the USSR and marxism-leninism are not representative of socialism at all. that's a common rhetorical ploy that anti-socialists often employ---"look at how bad stalin was! stalin called himself a socialist! that must mean all socialists are stalinists!"

it's totally illogical, but it works on a really basic level. it's hard to have an honest discussion about the merits of various socialist ideologies when these kinds of rhetorical devices are so rampant. in truth, many marxists actually see ideologies like stalinism and maoism as a perversion of marxist theory.

[bitmover]

I myself grew up in the USSR. I know well the ideology of socialism, and from today's position I can say that socialism is just a utopia, an unfulfilled dream of idiots.

there is no singular "ideology of socialism". on the contrary, it's a diverse range of ideologies that includes anarchism, democratic socialism and autonomism among other schools of thought.

I agree with most of what you said, but anarchism is he exact opposite of socialism.

Anarchism would be a pure liberalism form . No state.
In socialism everything is government and state.


There is a socialist propaganda which want people to believe that anarchism would be a socialism goal, but it's not. Socialists do the opposite everywhere. Liberalism is much closer to anarchism


Everywhere in the world socialists want to make government assisted programs, so people will depend on government.
Socialist goverment also want to increase taxes and make subsidies... All that is contrary to anarchy

[cellard]

I myself grew up in the USSR. I know well the ideology of socialism, and from today's position I can say that socialism is just a utopia, an unfulfilled dream of idiots.

there is no singular "ideology of socialism". on the contrary, it's a diverse range of ideologies that includes anarchism, democratic socialism and autonomism among other schools of thought. the USSR and marxism-leninism are not representative of socialism at all. that's a common rhetorical ploy that anti-socialists often employ---"look at how bad stalin was! stalin called himself a socialist! that must mean all socialists are stalinists!"

it's totally illogical, but it works on a really basic level. it's hard to have an honest discussion about the merits of various socialist ideologies when these kinds of rhetorical devices are so rampant. in truth, many marxists actually see ideologies like stalinism and maoism as a perversion of marxist theory.

People also often forget about national socialism.. for some reason a lot of people think that hitler was far right when he was anti capitalist and wanted to prioritize resources for his people.

Of course we all know how that ended. I believe it's another form of delusional socialism. For it to work it would need to conquer the entire world which is as I said delusional. So any national socialist countries that start gaining power in the long term will just end up in the next world war and will get nuked, this is my game theory analysis on it.

[figmentofmyass]

I myself grew up in the USSR. I know well the ideology of socialism, and from today's position I can say that socialism is just a utopia, an unfulfilled dream of idiots.

there is no singular "ideology of socialism". on the contrary, it's a diverse range of ideologies that includes anarchism, democratic socialism and autonomism among other schools of thought.

I agree with most of what you said, but anarchism is he exact opposite of socialism.

Anarchism would be a pure liberalism form . No state.
In socialism everything is government and state.

specifically, anarchism advocates non-hierarchical organization. by that definition, it opposes both governments and private property. anarchism was theorized in the mid-1800s and historically, it was always considered a socialist philosophy. its history usually traces back to pierre-joseph proudhon and his seminal work "what is property?" proudhon called himself a socialist, as did most anarchists in history, from the anarcho-communists to the market anarchists like benjamin tucker.

in fact, tucker's wikipedia touches on this issue:

According to Frank Brooks, an historian of American individualist anarchism, it is easy to misunderstand Tucker's claim to socialism. Before Marxists established a hegemony over definitions of socialism, "the term socialism was a broad concept." Tucker, as well as most of the writers and readers of Liberty, understood socialism to refer to one or more of various theories aimed at solving "the labor problem" through radical changes in the capitalist economy. Descriptions of 'the problem', explanations of its causes, and proposed solutions (for example, abolition of private property, cooperatives, state-ownership, and so on) varied among socialist philosophies.

However, not all modern economists believe Marxists established a hegemony over definitions of socialism. As the modern economist Jim Stanford states:

"But capitalism is not the only economic system which relies on markets. Pre-capitalist economies also had markets-where
producers could sell excess supplies of agricultural goods or handicrafts, and where exotic commodities (like spices or
fabrics) from far-off lands could be purchased. Most forms of socialism also rely heavily on markets to distribute end
products and even, in some cases, to organize investment and production. So markets are not unique to capitalism, and
there is nothing inherently capitalist about a market."

Karl Marx acknowledged the theory of market socialism, though he strongly disagreed with the theory, especially the theory of Proudhon who happened to be an influence on Tucker's individualist anarchism.

the umbrella term is "libertarian socialism". historically, "libertarian" and "anarchist" were always used to describe left-wing anarchists. outside of the USA, they still generally retain their original meaning. but in the 1960s, rothbard popularized the terms to describe capitalists and it took off in america:

The person most responsible for popularizing the term "libertarian" was Murray Rothbard,[27] who started publishing libertarian works in the 1960s. Rothbard describes this modern use of the words overtly as a 'capture' from his enemies, saying that "...for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy... 'Libertarians'... had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...

of course rothbard knew this was just a rhetorical device, probably aimed at making right-wing politics more palatable to the dying "new left". he knew quite well that anarcho-capitalists were not anarchists and said so:

"We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical."

Everywhere in the world socialists want to make government assisted programs, so people will depend on government.
Socialist goverment also want to increase taxes and make subsidies... All that is contrary to anarchy

you're describing democratic socialism, which is just one school of thought which is very separate from anarchism.

People also often forget about national socialism.. for some reason a lot of people think that hitler was far right when he was anti capitalist and wanted to prioritize resources for his people.

key words, "his people." prioritizing the needs of germans over all others (and at any cost) is inherently anti-socialist. fascists actually weren't opposed to free enterprise or capitalist ownership, but they advocated for economic planning. economic planning =/= socialism. that's another common strawman. economic planning is employed by right-wing and left-wing authoritarians alike.

i think "national socialism" was an intentional misnomer. like rothbard with "libertarianism" and "anarchism", hitler used the word "socialism" as a rhetorical device. fascists like him advocated for capitalism. they just viewed the national interest (viewed in ethnic/racial terms) as more important than private profit:

Fascism presented itself as a third position, alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism. While fascism opposed mainstream socialism, it sometimes regarded itself as a type of nationalist "socialism" to highlight their commitment to national solidarity and unity. Fascists opposed international free market capitalism, but supported a type of productive capitalism.
......
Fascist economic ideology supported the profit motive, but emphasized that industries must uphold the national interest as superior to private profit.

[audaciousbeing]

I think its all about perception and our attitude towards life. I have a friend when he was a bit younger, having grown amongst people who don't have enough and seeing someone else having excess, the best form of economic system to him at the time is an equal distribution of wealth where everyone one would be fairly OK compared to the current phenomenon. But today, he has few wealth, his thinking has changed.

For me, socialism is just a myth that does not have a place in the real world. The only way an economy would develop is if it allows individual initiative but operating in an ideal environment. A situation where some people would just be lazy and waiting for things to fall for them is nothing productive. The same Trump you blaming would have any chance to presidency if he had not built his empire through personal initiative.

[Hydrogen]

Einstein supported socialism.

Pyschos like Trump support capitalism.

The type of "socialism" Einstein supported, wasn't single party totalitarianism. I think Einstein supported a planned economy and other elements of socialism. A case could be made for him supporting the type of mixed economy most nations have today where the government manages some things like defense and healthcare, while maintaining aspects of capitalism. But to be honest, I'm not 100% remembering everything about this clearly.

In terms of history, the cold war was an excellent example of socialism (USSR) versus capitalism (USA). We saw the outcome of that. Socialist USSR died. Many unfortunate russians lost their state funded pension programs & benefits when this occurred. Capitalist USA continued to prosper.

We might see something similar happen in the future. Socialist china could die off the same way socialist USSR did. Capitalist america could continue as the world's dominant power. The reactions of china's leaders and the fragility of china's economy is being made manifest could hint @ this outcome.

You can call Trump names and say negative things about him but the truth is capitalism and the USA may well continue to prosper when socialist china is crumbling into irrelevence.

[trako]

we do not need socialism for the development and implementation of the concept of social state. If the state works in a fair and orderly manner, the problems disappear.
The state is protecting the rich. The state cares about the big companies and the rich.
it doesn't justify tax cuts.
it doesn't help the poor more.
people hungry and unemployed. and governments that need to find a solution to this situation.
the current regime I want to mention here is not. how political regimes are implemented. for example, socialism was not implemented successfully. an oppressive and fascist administration emerged.
Do you think it would be wise to slaughter thousands of peasants?
freedom and justice are not the work of a political regime.
capitalism can be less harmful to humans if it is practiced in the right way. The means of production do not have to sell the state. Also you have to customize. this is entirely in the hands of governments.
To sum up, it cannot be interpreted as wanting capitalism or wanting socialism.

[Ozero]

In my opinion, it should be recognized that socialism as an ideology opposing capitalism has long since exhausted itself. In fact, socialism has failed since the collapse of the USSR. In my opinion, the last country that still consistently supported socialist principles was Cuba. Now she is gradually returning from isolation to the industrialized countries. Other countries, such as North Korea, China, have long been combining a different ideology, although sometimes they don’t even want to admit this to themselves.

[Branko]

I myself grew up in the USSR. I know well the ideology of socialism, and from today's position I can say that socialism is just a utopia, an unfulfilled dream of idiots.

there is no singular "ideology of socialism". on the contrary, it's a diverse range of ideologies that includes anarchism, democratic socialism and autonomism among other schools of thought. the USSR and marxism-leninism are not representative of socialism at all. that's a common rhetorical ploy that anti-socialists often employ---"look at how bad stalin was! stalin called himself a socialist! that must mean all socialists are stalinists!"

it's totally illogical, but it works on a really basic level. it's hard to have an honest discussion about the merits of various socialist ideologies when these kinds of rhetorical devices are so rampant. in truth, many marxists actually see ideologies like stalinism and maoism as a perversion of marxist theory.

Looking from historical standpoint, I tend to believe capitalists "forced" socialism into countries like Russia or Cambogia because
with such ideology and poor industrial development to support it, it was inevitable to end up in tirany, fulfilling its role
of scaring people in capitalist countries in a way you described - "look at how bad stalin was! stalin called himself a socialist! that must mean all socialists are stalinists!"

In my opinion, it should be recognized that socialism as an ideology opposing capitalism has long since exhausted itself. In fact, socialism has failed since the collapse of the USSR. In my opinion, the last country that still consistently supported socialist principles was Cuba. Now she is gradually returning from isolation to the industrialized countries. Other countries, such as North Korea, China, have long been combining a different ideology, although sometimes they don’t even want to admit this to themselves.

Lots of logical errors here...also, Marx said its inevitable that socialism starts first in most developed countries...capitalists themselves
recognized this the best, so they did everything to scare people, including supporting socialism in poor countries. many americans
have no idea that Khmer Rouge were mostly supported by USA, while socialist Vietnam toppled them from power

[Branko]

Einstein supported socialism.

Pyschos like Trump support capitalism.

The type of "socialism" Einstein supported, wasn't single party totalitarianism. I think Einstein supported a planned economy and other elements of socialism. A case could be made for him supporting the type of mixed economy most nations have today where the government manages some things like defense and healthcare, while maintaining aspects of capitalism. But to be honest, I'm not 100% remembering everything about this clearly.

In terms of history, the cold war was an excellent example of socialism (USSR) versus capitalism (USA). We saw the outcome of that. Socialist USSR died. Many unfortunate russians lost their state funded pension programs & benefits when this occurred. Capitalist USA continued to prosper.

We might see something similar happen in the future. Socialist china could die off the same way socialist USSR did. Capitalist america could continue as the world's dominant power. The reactions of china's leaders and the fragility of china's economy is being made manifest could hint @ this outcome.

You can call Trump names and say negative things about him but the truth is capitalism and the USA may well continue to prosper when socialist china is crumbling into irrelevence.

American success is based on army and fake petro dollar...remove army and you'd be one of the worst countries to live on the planet

[usekevin]

Einstein supported socialism.

Pyschos like Trump support capitalism.

Everybody had their own view on this.It is doesn't mean,you are brilliant .If you had supported socialism or capitalism. My preference is Socialism. Most of the people like the socialism. Because in socialism, people is important. In a socialistic government, people will get atleast minimum need. Whereas in capitalist country, the government is work for the individual business man.The people in capitalist country also like socialism.

[KryptoKomsamol]

Einstein supported socialism.

Pyschos like Trump support capitalism.

I myself grew up in the USSR. I know well the ideology of socialism, and from today's position I can say that socialism is just a utopia, an unfulfilled dream of idiots. It seems that it was just a dead end development of society. It gradually distorts values and unofficially introduces a double morality. Socialism in the name of the people destroys its people. It is better to simply develop, improve and humanize a society without any ideological superstructures.

You definatly did not live in either socialistic or a communistic regime, the regime you lived in is best described as totalitarism. That is why you have such a negative view on socialism, because what you call socialism isnt socialism at all. In fact Comusinm is possible, to an extent at least, you dont understand it because you refuse to think or just simply brainwashed by powers that rule the modern world.

[STT]

Einstein supported socialism.

Pyschos like Trump support capitalism.

I myself grew up in the USSR. I know well the ideology of socialism, and from today's position I can say that socialism is just a utopia, an unfulfilled dream of idiots. It seems that it was just a dead end development of society. It gradually distorts values and unofficially introduces a double morality.

Unfortunately thats not an uncommon experience of socialism.   Socialism is great until it runs out of other peoples money then its a failure.    Main problem with this whole argument would be assuming Trump represents capitalism when he commands one of the largest most subsidised and unbalanced governments thats ever existed.   USSR fell over because they ran out of other peoples money, mainly their countrymen where as USA famously commands the world global reserve currency system and is able to print as much as required at will.  
  That too will work until it doesnt, right now its obviously not balanced because of such large deficits and trillions in debt, likely impossible to repay.   The debt of each USA citizen amounts to 70,000 each which does not appear to be a system which can continue.   My point being Trump also represents a failed socialist experiment

[Gozie51]

Socialist countries like Venezuela and north Korea control its fiat an manipulate it like any other capitalist country does.

But what are even the achievement of socialism or socialist countries? They are not even practicing as they are preaching, they live a fearful life. They want to run away from trouble but trouble never seize to come  

Pyschos like Trump support capitalism.

USA has always been a capitalist country before the emergence of Trump as president. Countries who openly practice capitalism are progressives, they present to you what they want straight up and give you what share you can get too. So before you start up anything, you know what you are bargaining for.

I remember that Karl Marx was one of the strongest proponents of capitalism . He might not like it though but he exposed both the benefits and demerits of it.

[fairyvibes]

The wealthy people sabotaged the attempts at socialism.  They wanted socialism to fail around the world so they can keep their wealth and continue to dominate poor people.

[Irvinn]

Einstein supported socialism.

Pyschos like Trump support capitalism.

I myself grew up in the USSR. I know well the ideology of socialism, and from today's position I can say that socialism is just a utopia, an unfulfilled dream of idiots. It seems that it was just a dead end development of society. It gradually distorts values and unofficially introduces a double morality. Socialism in the name of the people destroys its people. It is better to simply develop, improve and humanize a society without any ideological superstructures.

You definatly did not live in either socialistic or a communistic regime, the regime you lived in is best described as totalitarism. That is why you have such a negative view on socialism, because what you call socialism isnt socialism at all. In fact Comusinm is possible, to an extent at least, you dont understand it because you refuse to think or just simply brainwashed by powers that rule the modern world.

In fact of the matter. Ideal socialism, with its slogan about the equality of all people, as well as its main principle: from each according to his ability, to each according to his work, looks good only on paper. In practice, no socialist state was able to fully implement it. The human factor constantly worked, namely: egoism, suspicion, vanity, arrogance, dullness of people who were in power and all good undertakings were distorted. For example, Stalin during the years he was in power because he put forward the idea that as socialism developed, resistance of anti-socialist forces would grow, he declared the enemies of the people and destroyed tens of millions of its citizens using the apparatus created by him.