Corporation Socialism

[Immanuel Can]

...your insistence that countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark don’t count as examples of socialism in action because they’re “capitalism-funded” is classic gatekeeping.

No. It's basic truth, actually...and truth you can verify. Unless Socialism owns all the basic means of production, Socialism hasn't even been realized...and Socialists themselves will tell you that sine qua non.

Now, about your list of "real socialism" countries: North Korea, Cambodia, and Zimbabwe. Yes, authoritarian regimes that slap a socialist label on their oppressive systems are disasters.[/quote]
You forgot Russia, China, Vietnam...all the others I listed. In fact, you'll find that there's NO such country that EVER did anything else. So anytime Socialism has been put into practice in the way Socialism itself demands, it's just crashed economies and killed people. And it's still doing it: look at Cuba or Venezuela right now.

...your argument conveniently sidesteps the myriad atrocities of unfettered capitalism: environmental destruction, massive wealth inequality, and corporate exploitation of workers worldwide. Shall we compare those body counts?

Oh, yes...please...let's.

Let's start off with Socialism. Socialist regimes have killed at least 140 million in the last century alone. At least. We don't know how many more, but we know at least 140 million. So now, let's have the alleged "capitalist" total.

Then there’s your laughable attempt to invoke the "military-industrial complex" as an example of socialism gone wrong. Seriously?

I did not say, or imply, that the military-industrial complex is Socialist. Nor are dictators inherently Socialist, although their love for Socialism is well-documented, of course. What I said is that Socialism now colludes with the military-industrial complex, advancing the interests of the military-industrial complex, and exploiting the worker's tax dollars.

But the pièce de résistance is your Davos conspiracy theory. Oh, the rich elites love socialism, do they?

Ardently. And they aren't shy about saying so. On my desk, right here, is their manifesto, "The Great Reset." And if you had read it, you'd realize that Socialism is absolutely its core. They want to use Socialism to reduce the workers to poverty and dependency, and thus to secure all the power and all the resources for themselves...just the way that all Socialist dictators have aimed to do, but now on a global scale. What else do you think their catchphrase, "You'll own nothing, and be happy" means?

The wealthy attending the WEF don’t want socialism;

Read the book. You won't be left in doubt.

As for your parting shot that no one advocates “unregulated capitalism,” spare me.

I won't. I have yet to read anything except what you point out...radical Libertarianism...as advocating a completely unregulated market. They are mercifully few, and nowhere influential, and I think they're unwise. But having some government regulation is perfectly democratic, and is miles away from Socialism. In fact, the only legitimate use of government is to secure the liberties of individuals against oppressors; and monopolies are certainly oppressors, as both you and I can recognize.

Too bad the monopolies love Socialism so much now. But they've discovered that a one-business system works perfectly with a one-government and one-media system. They all win, and we all lose. And Socialism's the ideology that makes it all possible.

So let me flip this back to you: if socialism is such a failure, why do capitalist systems constantly adopt socialist principles to stabilize their economies and protect their citizens?

Well, Socialist measures do not "stabilize economies," actually. They drain them. Name a single Socialist program that pays for itself. None do. They're all a net loss, not a gain, on the financial side.

But you might argue they help stabilize populations, by providing a set of services to the public. Maybe it keeps them from a revolution, by providing some security to the general populace. Maybe. And that might be a good argument, were governments ever efficient in their use of public funds. But again, they are not. None are. So the number of such programs that can be sustained -- always at a loss -- by the larger financial system is always limited. And this is why no government, no matter how generous, can provide things like free health care plus free housing plus free education plus a guaranteed living wage plus national security plus public works plus universal welfare and retirement...There's always a strict limit to how much the market system, which has to generate the surplus value that funds the social programs, can manage to support. They're all drains on the economy -- yet another reason why Socialism inevitably fails: it can't pay for itself.

[Immanuel Can]

Name a country in which the working class is better off for the government being Socialist.

The United Kingdom for one.

It's not a Socialist state. It just has a rather wildly foolish "workers' party," that can be voted out quite as easily as the Conservatives or others can be voted in. And its economy does not run on Socialst principles.

You could as easily call it a "monarchy," -- which is to say, not really, at all, just vaguely.

Also, you'll notice that the UK economy is presently going in the tank, and a lot of the cause of that is Socialist ideology, such as "open borders."

[Gary Childress]

Name a country in which the working class is better off for the government being Socialist.

The United Kingdom for one.

It's not a Socialist state. It just has a rather wildly foolish "workers' party," that can be voted out quite as easily as the Conservatives or others can be voted in. And its economy does not run on Socialst principles.

You could as easily call it a "monarchy," -- which is to say, not really, at all, just vaguely.

Also, you'll notice that the UK economy is presently going in the tank, and a lot of the cause of that is Socialist ideology, such as "open borders."

"Open borders" in and of itself isn't necessarily a "socialist" doctrine. Milton Friedman the famous capitalist believed in open borders under capitalism so that labor can freely move from one place to the next to meet demand. He more particularly believed that a "welfare state" should not have open borders. So take away socialism and you would have Friedman advocating for open borders.

[Immanuel Can]

The United Kingdom for one.

It's not a Socialist state. It just has a rather wildly foolish "workers' party," that can be voted out quite as easily as the Conservatives or others can be voted in. And its economy does not run on Socialst principles.

You could as easily call it a "monarchy," -- which is to say, not really, at all, just vaguely.

Also, you'll notice that the UK economy is presently going in the tank, and a lot of the cause of that is Socialist ideology, such as "open borders."

"Open borders" in and of itself isn't necessarily a "socialist" doctrine.

Not exclusively, perhaps, but it is a Socialist standing point. Islamist doctrine, for instance, demands the whole world must be colonized and turned into the Dar-El-Salaam. But Socialism's has its own reasons.

Fascism is "National Socialism." Communism is "international Socialism." The Socialist ideology is always seeking a way to pull more people into its orbit, and more ways to wrest control from the local to the centralized. It always looks to the excuse, for its failure, of not-enough-people: not enough people joined the revolution, or there were too many counter-revolutionaries, or the enemies of "the People" weren't fully eliminated...and so on. And this means that its promises of success can infinitely be postoponed, so long as there remain some scapegoats it can still round up and abuse and kill. When enough people join -- which means all the people must -- then, we are promised, Socialism will be real. It has only failed for lack of catching up enough fish in its net...so goes the excuse.

Ultimately, this makes it a globalist, one-world project, as much of its won propaganda proudly admits. (See the UN, the EU or the WEF.)

[BigMike]

...your insistence that countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark don’t count as examples of socialism in action because they’re “capitalism-funded” is classic gatekeeping.

No. It's basic truth, actually...and truth you can verify. Unless Socialism owns all the basic means of production, Socialism hasn't even been realized...and Socialists themselves will tell you that sine qua non.

Now, about your list of "real socialism" countries:

North Korea, Cambodia, and Zimbabwe. Yes, authoritarian regimes that slap a socialist label on their oppressive systems are disasters.

You forgot Russia, China, Vietnam...all the others I listed. In fact, you'll find that there's NO such country that EVER did anything else. So anytime Socialism has been put into practice in the way Socialism itself demands, it's just crashed economies and killed people. And it's still doing it: look at Cuba or Venezuela right now.

...your argument conveniently sidesteps the myriad atrocities of unfettered capitalism: environmental destruction, massive wealth inequality, and corporate exploitation of workers worldwide. Shall we compare those body counts?

Oh, yes...please...let's.

Let's start off with Socialism. Socialist regimes have killed at least 140 million in the last century alone. At least. We don't know how many more, but we know at least 140 million. So now, let's have the alleged "capitalist" total.

Then there’s your laughable attempt to invoke the "military-industrial complex" as an example of socialism gone wrong. Seriously?

I did not say, or imply, that the military-industrial complex is Socialist. Nor are dictators inherently Socialist, although their love for Socialism is well-documented, of course. What I said is that Socialism now colludes with the military-industrial complex, advancing the interests of the military-industrial complex, and exploiting the worker's tax dollars.

But the pièce de résistance is your Davos conspiracy theory. Oh, the rich elites love socialism, do they?

Ardently. And they aren't shy about saying so. On my desk, right here, is their manifesto, "The Great Reset." And if you had read it, you'd realize that Socialism is absolutely its core. They want to use Socialism to reduce the workers to poverty and dependency, and thus to secure all the power and all the resources for themselves...just the way that all Socialist dictators have aimed to do, but now on a global scale. What else do you think their catchphrase, "You'll own nothing, and be happy" means?

The wealthy attending the WEF don’t want socialism;

Read the book. You won't be left in doubt.

As for your parting shot that no one advocates “unregulated capitalism,” spare me.

I won't. I have yet to read anything except what you point out...radical Libertarianism...as advocating a completely unregulated market. They are mercifully few, and nowhere influential, and I think they're unwise. But having some government regulation is perfectly democratic, and is miles away from Socialism. In fact, the only legitimate use of government is to secure the liberties of individuals against oppressors; and monopolies are certainly oppressors, as both you and I can recognize.

Too bad the monopolies love Socialism so much now. But they've discovered that a one-business system works perfectly with a one-government and one-media system. They all win, and we all lose. And Socialism's the ideology that makes it all possible.

So let me flip this back to you: if socialism is such a failure, why do capitalist systems constantly adopt socialist principles to stabilize their economies and protect their citizens?

Well, Socialist measures do not "stabilize economies," actually. They drain them. Name a single Socialist program that pays for itself. None do. They're all a net loss, not a gain, on the financial side.

But you might argue they help stabilize populations, by providing a set of services to the public. Maybe it keeps them from a revolution, by providing some security to the general populace. Maybe. And that might be a good argument, were governments ever efficient in their use of public funds. But again, they are not. None are. So the number of such programs that can be sustained -- always at a loss -- by the larger financial system is always limited. And this is why no government, no matter how generous, can provide things like free health care plus free housing plus free education plus a guaranteed living wage plus national security plus public works plus universal welfare and retirement...There's always a strict limit to how much the market system, which has to generate the surplus value that funds the social programs, can manage to support. They're all drains on the economy -- yet another reason why Socialism inevitably fails: it can't pay for itself.

Oh, this is gold. Truly, watching you fling the same tired talking points as though repetition might elevate them to truth is almost endearing. Let’s take this apart—again—with the precision it deserves.

First, your “basic truth” about socialism requiring state ownership of all means of production is, quite frankly, laughable. That’s the caricatured socialism you’re stuck on, not the nuanced and widely varying implementations seen throughout history. Socialism isn’t a monolith; it spans from Marxist-Leninist models to social democracies, yet you insist that only the most extreme forms count. It’s like saying democracy can only exist in its purest Athenian form, ignoring centuries of adaptation. But hey, why let nuance ruin a perfectly good diatribe?

Now, let’s get to your cherry-picked examples of "real socialism": North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela. Yes, we can agree those systems are disasters. What you refuse to address is that their failures are rooted as much in corruption, authoritarianism, and mismanagement as in any ideological flaws. Meanwhile, you conveniently ignore the systemic crises under capitalism: the Great Depression, 2008’s global financial meltdown, or the countless workers crushed under unregulated labor conditions in developing nations. Shall we compare body counts again? Because capitalism’s invisible hand has been pretty heavy when it comes to exploitation, war, and environmental collapse.

Next, your claim that socialist programs “drain economies” is both untrue and hilariously myopic. Let’s take healthcare, one of your favorite punching bags. In countries with universal healthcare systems—yes, even “capitalism-funded” ones like the UK or Canada—overall healthcare costs per capita are significantly lower than in the U.S., a country where private, profit-driven healthcare dominates. Why? Because collective investment reduces inefficiencies and ensures better outcomes. The same applies to education, infrastructure, and welfare programs. These investments improve quality of life and, by extension, economic productivity. But of course, that nuance doesn’t fit your narrative, does it?

And now, to "The Great Reset." Ah, the favorite bedtime story of conspiracists everywhere. Let’s set the record straight: Davos elites aren’t pushing socialism—they’re pushing crony capitalism wrapped in feel-good buzzwords like “sustainability” and “equity.” Their goal isn’t to redistribute wealth; it’s to protect their own power under the guise of progressivism. If you really believe billionaires are plotting to "impose socialism," then I’ve got a bridge to sell you—well, except they probably already privatized it and hiked the tolls.

Finally, your assertion that “socialist measures do not stabilize economies” is laughably ignorant. Ever heard of the New Deal? Social Security? Medicare? These programs not only stabilized the U.S. during periods of economic upheaval but also became foundational to its modern economy. They didn’t “drain” anything; they created a safety net that allowed capitalism to flourish by mitigating its worst excesses. But go ahead—keep insisting that unfettered capitalism alone can save us, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

So, here’s a thought: instead of flailing at a strawman version of socialism while turning a blind eye to capitalism’s flaws, maybe you should take a good, hard look at what actually works in practice. Because if there’s one thing your arguments prove, it’s that ideological purity—on either side—leads nowhere.

[Gary Childress]

It's not a Socialist state. It just has a rather wildly foolish "workers' party," that can be voted out quite as easily as the Conservatives or others can be voted in. And its economy does not run on Socialst principles.

You could as easily call it a "monarchy," -- which is to say, not really, at all, just vaguely.

Also, you'll notice that the UK economy is presently going in the tank, and a lot of the cause of that is Socialist ideology, such as "open borders."

"Open borders" in and of itself isn't necessarily a "socialist" doctrine.

Not exclusively, perhaps, but it is a Socialist standing point. Islamist doctrine, for instance, demands the whole world must be colonized and turned into the Dar-El-Salaam. But Socialism's has its own reasons.

Fascism is "National Socialism." Communism is "international Socialism." The Socialist ideology is always seeking a way to pull more people into its orbit, and more ways to wrest control from the local to the centralized. It always looks to the excuse, for its failure, of not-enough-people: not enough people joined the revolution, or there were too many counter-revolutionaries, or the enemies of "the People" weren't fully eliminated...and so on. And this means that its promises of success can infinitely be postoponed, so long as there remain some scapegoats it can still round up and abuse and kill. When enough people join -- which means all the people must -- then, we are promised, Socialism will be real. It has only failed for lack of catching up enough fish in its net...so goes the excuse.

Ultimately, this makes it a globalist, one-world project, as much of its won propaganda proudly admits. (See the UN, the EU or the WEF.)

I think that might be oversimplifying things a bit. There are many moving parts and overlapping concerns in the "isms". I don't think it's as easy to pinpoint what ideals are exclusive to which outside of their basic definitions, "Capitalism" typically refers to private ownership of the means of production, "socialism" typically means social ownership of the means of production and "communism" generally derives from the root "community".

[Immanuel Can]

"Socialism" typically means social ownership of the means of production..."

That's what it promises. But "society" doesn't own anything. The "Soviet," the Socialist elites, are actually the ones who own everything. They, of course, claim that they only do so in the name of "the People." But "people," according to Marx, are not born human: rather, they become "humanized" only by becoming Marxists: so "the People" does not mean ALL the people; it means only "the People, the ones who agree with Marxism." Everybody else, they consider "not humanized," which amounts to "sub-human" and "disposable": which is why they kill so many.

Anyway, even the Communist faithful, "the People" don't actually own things. Again, only the elites get to say what goes where. The people, and "the People" all lose any power.

As for Communism, yes, it comes from the idea of "commune," which is a bunch of people considered as one, just as Fascism is a bundle of sticks, symbolizing a bunch of people considered as one.

[henry quirk]

in light of Mike's last, gumption'd, post, this...

Your average *socialist is envious and mediocre. He wants but can't get. So, when the exceptional socialist (who isn't a socialist at all) comes along with the grand plan to get him what he wants, the average socialist goes to work (but it really isn't work) to make that grand plan happen. He, the average socialist doesn't give a sparrow's fart about anything else. All this crap about egalitarianism, he sez the words, but he doesn't believe them.

*useful idiot, dupe, fodder, etc.

...bears repeatin'.

[Gary Childress]

"Socialism" typically means social ownership of the means of production..."

That's what it promises. But "society" doesn't own anything. The "Soviet," the Socialist elites, are actually the ones who own everything. They, of course, claim that they only do so in the name of "the People." But "people," according to Marx, are not born human: rather, they become "humanized" only by becoming Marxists: so "the People" does not mean ALL the people; it means only "the People, the ones who agree with Marxism." Everybody else, they consider "not humanized," which amounts to "sub-human" and "disposable": which is why they kill so many.

Anyway, even the Communist faithful, "the People" don't actually own things. Again, only the elites get to say what goes where. The people, and "the People" all lose any power.

As for Communism, yes, it comes from the idea of "commune," which is a bunch of people considered as one, just as Fascism is a bundle of sticks, symbolizing a bunch of people considered as one.

I agree that many horrible things have been done in the name of the "greater good". Capitalists in the early industrial revolution subjected their workers to horrible conditions that the capitalists themselves wouldn't approve of if they were in those conditions. Probably every "ism" in the book has its interpretation of what the "greater good" is and the "greater good" often ends up with someone being trampled under jack boots, whether they be those of the police breaking a strike or food riot or commissars breaking the "individualistic" who weren't behaving according to the "common good". It would be really nice if the world were a more peaceful and loving place indeed.

[Immanuel Can]

First, your “basic truth” about socialism requiring state ownership of all means of production is, quite frankly, laughable.

"Social ownership is a type of property where an asset is recognized to be in the possession of society as a whole rather than individual members or groups within it. Social ownership of the means of production is the defining characteristic of a socialist economy..." (Wikipedia)

"To my mind, the so-called ‘socialist society’ is not anything immutable. Like all other social formations, it should be conceived in a state of constant flux and change. It’s crucial difference from the present order consists naturally in production organized on the basis of common ownership by the nation of all means of production." (Engels, 1890.)

"Socialism is a populist economic and political system based on collective, common, or public ownership of the means of production." (Investopedia)

Who's laughing now?

Socialism isn’t a monolith;

No, it's more of a snake: it winds around, but always heads in the same direction eventually. But it does have a basic definition, and "public ownership of the means of production" is the most basic, obviously.

...you conveniently ignore the systemic crises under capitalism: the Great Depression, 2008’s global financial meltdown, or the countless workers crushed under unregulated labor conditions in developing nations. Shall we compare body counts again?

Yes, please. I gave you a (charitable) number. You could at least do the same.

Next, your claim that socialist programs “drain economies” is both untrue and hilariously myopic. Let’s take healthcare, one of your favorite punching bags. In countries with universal healthcare systems—yes, even “capitalism-funded” ones like the UK or Canada—overall healthcare costs per capita are significantly lower than in the U.S.,

That's a myth, actually.

Let's take Canada. In Canada, health care is far and away the number one cost on the provincial budget. In Ontario, the most populous province, for example, it's far and away the most expensive item there is, taking up 90 billion, or 40% of all the moneys collected through tax rates. And tax rates there are punishingly high. Meanwhile, the doctors are fleeing to the US, where they can make more money, the medical technology is increasingly antiquated, and the average wait times for time-sensitive basic procedures like hip-replacement are measured not in days or months, but in numbers of years. Moreover, emergency wards are so overwhelmed that waits of six to eight hours are regular, and people have actually died in waiting rooms.

Let’s set the record straight: Davos elites aren’t pushing socialism—

Let's set the record straight: read the book. They absolutely are.

Their goal isn’t to redistribute wealth; it’s to protect their own power under the guise of progressivism.

Finally, you've got it! That's exactly what they're doing. And my question to all is, "Did you know Socialism is so open to becoming the plaything of powerful elites and big business?" So is this new information to you, or did you know it?

Ever heard of the New Deal?

One of the worst pieces of Socialist legislation ever produced? When the Democrats bought the black vote? Sure, I've heard of it.

They didn’t “drain” anything; they created a safety net

That's actually pretty funny. You imagine that the most expensive items on the budget -- health care, education, social security...they come for free, you think? Or they magically pay for themselves? Let's see your economic breakdown to prove that.

...maybe you should take a good, hard look at what actually works in practice....

And I think you need to stop imagining Socialism in the ideal as you think you'd like it to be, and start looking at everything it's done, and everything it's still doing.

I recommend a vacation in the lovely country of Cuba. Have you been? I have. Let's see what you think of real Socialism at work.

[Alexiev]

in light of Mike's last, gumption'd, post, this...

Your average *socialist is envious and mediocre. He wants but can't get. So, when the exceptional socialist (who isn't a socialist at all) comes along with the grand plan to get him what he wants, the average socialist goes to work (but it really isn't work) to make that grand plan happen. He, the average socialist doesn't give a sparrow's fart about anything else. All this crap about egalitarianism, he sez the words, but he doesn't believe them.

*useful idiot, dupe, fodder, etc.

...bears repeatin'.

Perhaps your average capitalist is even more envious and mediocre, but you say less about that.

[Immanuel Can]

"Socialism" typically means social ownership of the means of production..."

That's what it promises. But "society" doesn't own anything. The "Soviet," the Socialist elites, are actually the ones who own everything. They, of course, claim that they only do so in the name of "the People." But "people," according to Marx, are not born human: rather, they become "humanized" only by becoming Marxists: so "the People" does not mean ALL the people; it means only "the People, the ones who agree with Marxism." Everybody else, they consider "not humanized," which amounts to "sub-human" and "disposable": which is why they kill so many.

Anyway, even the Communist faithful, "the People" don't actually own things. Again, only the elites get to say what goes where. The people, and "the People" all lose any power.

As for Communism, yes, it comes from the idea of "commune," which is a bunch of people considered as one, just as Fascism is a bundle of sticks, symbolizing a bunch of people considered as one.

I agree that many horrible things have been done in the name of the "greater good".

You mean, "...in the name of Socialism." At least, that's what you would mean if you decided to be frank. As bad as any other system has been...even monarchy, or aristocracy, or feudalism, or the Industrial Revolution, nothing has produced the sea of human misery that Socialism has. In sheer numbers it dwarfs all competition.

[Immanuel Can]

in light of Mike's last, gumption'd, post, this...

Your average *socialist is envious and mediocre. He wants but can't get. So, when the exceptional socialist (who isn't a socialist at all) comes along with the grand plan to get him what he wants, the average socialist goes to work (but it really isn't work) to make that grand plan happen. He, the average socialist doesn't give a sparrow's fart about anything else. All this crap about egalitarianism, he sez the words, but he doesn't believe them.

*useful idiot, dupe, fodder, etc.

...bears repeatin'.

Perhaps your average capitalist is even more envious and mediocre, but you say less about that.

Well, only because the subject is Socialism. I would suggest that all people are envious, but that Socialism gives an open moral license to the cruelest and nastiest forms of envy. In fact, the whole motivation for Socialism is that "somebody has more than I have."

[Alexiev]

I recommend a vacation in the lovely country of Cuba. Have you been? I have. Let's see what you think of real Socialism at work.

I haven't been, but I know people who have and they say it's a very nice place. It has the longest life expectancy in the Carribean (and I think in Latin America, except for Chile). The poverty it suffers may very well be due to U.S. embargos, rather than socialism. The huge, rich neighbor that refuses to buy Cuban products imposes financial difficulties. Perhaps if Americans refuse to share IC's prejudices, Cuba's economy would improve.

[Immanuel Can]

I recommend a vacation in the lovely country of Cuba. Have you been? I have. Let's see what you think of real Socialism at work.

I haven't been, but I know people who have and they say it's a very nice place.

You really have to go. Really.

Enjoy the fine cuisine while you're there, especially outside of Havana. And when you're there, have a medical procedure or some dentistry done...and try to get the government to do something for you. You'll have a wonderful time.