Corporation Socialism

[henry quirk]

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

He might be. Start a thread. Call it Corporate Capitalism. We'll talk about it.

[Gary Childress]

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.

No. I mean in the name of the "greater good". Look, even theism has had its not so shiny moments. It's very sad that you have such a single-minded hatred of "socialism". No, it takes two to tango and "socialism" wouldn't even be a thing if it weren't for the darker aspects of capitalism.

[BigMike]

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.

Oh, where to start with this barrage of cherry-picked quotes and half-baked conclusions. Shall we dive in and unpack this tangled mess one thread at a time? Let’s.

First, your triumphant quoting of sources to prove that socialism must involve total public ownership of the means of production. Yes, congratulations on nailing down the theoretical ideal of socialism as it was articulated in the 19th century. Do you also define democracy strictly by the standards of ancient Athens? Systems evolve. Modern implementations of socialism integrate public ownership where necessary—healthcare, education, infrastructure—while allowing markets to thrive in other sectors. You cling to the Marxist-Leninist caricature because it’s easier to attack, but that’s a deliberate oversimplification. Who’s laughing now? Well, still me, but for entirely different reasons.

Now, on to your body count competition. You throw out the tired "140 million deaths under socialism" line as though that number isn’t highly contested, context-dependent, and often attributed to totalitarian regimes rather than socialism itself. Meanwhile, capitalism’s body count—wars for resources, colonial exploitation, environmental destruction, rampant inequality—somehow doesn’t get a number in your book. And let's not forget the global toll of unchecked corporate greed, from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire to the Rana Plaza collapse. But sure, let’s pretend capitalism doesn’t have blood on its hands.

Speaking of myths, your take on Canadian healthcare is the stuff of late-night AM radio. Yes, healthcare is a significant budget item—it’s supposed to be, because ensuring people don’t go bankrupt or die from treatable conditions is, you know, a priority in civilized societies. Meanwhile, the U.S. spends more per capita on healthcare than any other nation while delivering worse outcomes overall. Why? Administrative bloat and a profit-driven insurance system. Are there challenges in Canada? Of course. But the alternative—your beloved free-market healthcare—leaves tens of millions uninsured or underinsured and ensures that medical bankruptcy remains a uniquely American phenomenon among wealthy nations. That’s not a feature; it’s a bug.

As for Davos and "The Great Reset," your obsession with this dystopian fever dream is almost endearing. Yes, powerful elites are consolidating wealth and influence. That’s not socialism—it’s crony capitalism masquerading as progressivism. If you read past the headlines and actually studied the policies proposed, you’d find they’re designed to maintain the status quo while appearing benevolent. But sure, keep clutching that book like it’s a smoking gun instead of just another manifesto for corporate dominance wrapped in greenwashing.

And now to the New Deal—calling it "one of the worst pieces of Socialist legislation ever produced" is a choice. Without it, millions would’ve starved during the Great Depression. It created jobs, stabilized the economy, and laid the groundwork for decades of American prosperity. Was it perfect? No. But dismissing it as a vote-buying scheme is a reductionist take that ignores its transformative impact.

Finally, your smug suggestion that I visit Cuba to witness "real socialism" in action. Cute. I could just as easily suggest you visit Flint, Michigan, or Appalachia to see "real capitalism" at work. Every system has its failures, especially when mismanaged or undermined by external forces—Cuba’s decades-long U.S. embargo ring a bell? Or does nuance conveniently evaporate when it doesn’t serve your narrative?

So, no, I don’t need your cherry-picked definitions or reductive comparisons. What I need—and what you clearly lack—is a nuanced understanding of how systems evolve, interact, and impact people’s lives. But by all means, keep tilting at ideological windmills. It’s entertaining, if nothing else.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

No. I mean in the name of the "greater good".

Well, Socialism has never been good. In every case of a Socialist state, it's been very, very bad. So that won't play.

[Gary Childress]

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.

No. I mean in the name of the "greater good".

Well, Socialism has never been good. In every case of a Socialist state, it's been very, very bad. So that won't play.

Good grief. Are you for real? There are no purely "capitalist" states anymore. There's a reason for that. Most 1st world countries have combinations of capitalism and socialism. And I wouldn't want it any other way. You seem to be a fundamentalist both economically and theologically. If it were up to you children would be slaving in sweatshops and the economically superfluous would be languishing on the side of the road. Sorry, I'm a humanist. If your God is against welfare for the downtrodden, then no thanks.

[Immanuel Can]

First, your triumphant quoting of sources to prove that socialism must involve total public ownership of the means of production. Yes, congratulations on nailing down the theoretical ideal of socialism as it was articulated in the 19th century.

Right. Now, if you have a different articulation, because you know better than Marx, better than Engels, and better than most of the Socialists in the 20th Century, then let's see it.

Now, on to your body count competition. You throw out the tired "140 million deaths under socialism" line as though that number isn’t highly contested,

It's a number based on entirely secular, scholarly sources. And the only way it's contested is "up," as in "how many MORE died than we know about." In other words, it's a best-case-scenario number, undoubtedly favouring the Socialist's actual record.

...capitalism’s body count...

I'm still waiting for that. Are you going to provide the number, or just keep bluffing?

Are there challenges in Canada?

The Canadian system is collapsing, actually.

As for Davos and "The Great Reset," ...Yes, powerful elites are consolidating wealth and influence. That’s not socialism

And yet, they're using Socialism to do it. And if you read their book, you won't linger in doubt that that is exactly what they are doing.

And now to the New Deal—calling it "one of the worst pieces of Socialist legislation ever produced" is a choice. Without it, millions would’ve starved during the Great Depression.

Hogwash. There was plenty of suffering during the Great Depression, but there's no indication at all that the New Deal did anything to stop it. Rather, it took WW2 to restart the economy, because wars are immensely demanding of both manufacture and manpower.

Finally, your smug suggestion that I visit Cuba to witness "real socialism" in action.

Are you saying that Cuba's not real Socialism? You'll have to take that up with them. Their slogan is actually, "Socialismo o Muerte," -- "Socialism, or Death." But it really should be "El Socialismo es la Muerte" -- "Socialism IS Death."

I could just as easily suggest you visit Flint, Michigan, or Appalachia...

Been to both. Too late. Appalachia isn't industrial or capitalist. Flint is in a Democrat state, and was once ruled by powerful unions. So you're going to have a tough road trying to make any case for either being the fault of "Capitalism."

[Immanuel Can]

No. I mean in the name of the "greater good".

Well, Socialism has never been good. In every case of a Socialist state, it's been very, very bad. So that won't play.

Good grief. Are you for real? There are no purely "capitalist" states anymore. There's a reason for that. Most 1st world countries have combinations of capitalism and socialism.

How do you define a state? I suggest it's by the system that is granted to control its economy. So a street peddler in Havana would not prove Cuba was Capitalist, and a welfare program in New York would not make New York "Socialist."

If it were up to you children would be slaving in sweatshops and the economically superfluous would be languishing on the side of the road.

I've never been an advocate of either. But Socialist policies -- open migration, legalized drugs, failure to provide housing and mental-health services -- have certainly vastly increased the homeless problem, and increased sex trafficking of children, as well. It's your beloved Democrats that have done both. Are you proud of them?

[Gary Childress]

Well, Socialism has never been good. In every case of a Socialist state, it's been very, very bad. So that won't play.

Good grief. Are you for real? There are no purely "capitalist" states anymore. There's a reason for that. Most 1st world countries have combinations of capitalism and socialism.

How do you define a state? I suggest it's by the system that is granted to control its economy. So a street peddler in Havana would not prove Cuba was Capitalist, and a welfare program in New York would not make New York "Socialist."

If it were up to you children would be slaving in sweatshops and the economically superfluous would be languishing on the side of the road.

I've never been an advocate of either. But Socialist policies -- open migration, legalized drugs, failure to provide housing and mental-health services -- have certainly vastly increased the homeless problem, and increased sex trafficking of children, as well. It's your beloved Democrats that have done both. Are you proud of them?

I have clearly stated that I am no more for pure socialism than pure capitalism. Figure the rest out on your own if you can.

[BigMike]

First, your triumphant quoting of sources to prove that socialism must involve total public ownership of the means of production. Yes, congratulations on nailing down the theoretical ideal of socialism as it was articulated in the 19th century.

Right. Now, if you have a different articulation, because you know better than Marx, better than Engels, and better than most of the Socialists in the 20th Century, then let's see it.

Now, on to your body count competition. You throw out the tired "140 million deaths under socialism" line as though that number isn’t highly contested,

It's a number based on entirely secular, scholarly sources. And the only way it's contested is "up," as in "how many MORE died than we know about." In other words, it's a best-case-scenario number, undoubtedly favouring the Socialist's actual record.

...capitalism’s body count...

I'm still waiting for that. Are you going to provide the number, or just keep bluffing?

Are there challenges in Canada?

The Canadian system is collapsing, actually.

As for Davos and "The Great Reset," ...Yes, powerful elites are consolidating wealth and influence. That’s not socialism

And yet, they're using Socialism to do it. And if you read their book, you won't linger in doubt that that is exactly what they are doing.

And now to the New Deal—calling it "one of the worst pieces of Socialist legislation ever produced" is a choice. Without it, millions would’ve starved during the Great Depression.

Hogwash. There was plenty of suffering during the Great Depression, but there's no indication at all that the New Deal did anything to stop it. Rather, it took WW2 to restart the economy, because wars are immensely demanding of both manufacture and manpower.

Finally, your smug suggestion that I visit Cuba to witness "real socialism" in action.

Are you saying that Cuba's not real Socialism? You'll have to take that up with them. Their slogan is actually, "Socialismo o Muerte," -- "Socialism, or Death." But it really should be "El Socialismo es la Muerte" -- "Socialism IS Death."

I could just as easily suggest you visit Flint, Michigan, or Appalachia...

Been to both. Too late. Appalachia isn't industrial or capitalist. Flint is in a Democrat state, and was once ruled by powerful unions. So you're going to have a tough road trying to make any case for either being the fault of "Capitalism."

First, your insistence on clinging to Engels and Marx as the ultimate arbiters of socialism’s definition is charmingly outdated. Ideologies evolve, as do their implementations. The socialism practiced or advocated today often emphasizes blending collective action with market mechanisms. Your refusal to acknowledge this doesn’t strengthen your argument; it merely fossilizes it. You’re defending a rigid ideal, not addressing the dynamic realities of how socialism operates in functioning democracies around the world.

Now, about your infamous “140 million” figure. The numbers are contested because they conflate the actions of authoritarian regimes with the ideology of socialism itself. Stalin’s purges and Mao’s Great Leap Forward weren’t dictated by socialism—they were dictated by brutal consolidation of power. Correlation isn’t causation, and if you’re eager to paint socialism as inherently murderous, then let’s apply the same zeal to capitalism’s exploitation of labor and resources across the globe. We don’t need a precise figure to see the catastrophic human toll of colonialism, wage slavery, and environmental destruction—all byproducts of unregulated capitalist greed.

Your assertion that the Canadian healthcare system is “collapsing” is hyperbole at its finest. Yes, it faces challenges—what system doesn’t? But even with its flaws, it still provides universal coverage, something your preferred capitalist models fail spectacularly at achieving. Your selective outrage ignores the fact that a privatized system like that of the U.S. leaves millions uninsured or underinsured while charging more per capita for worse outcomes. Cherry-picking Canadian inefficiencies doesn’t vindicate your position; it just underscores your unwillingness to engage in honest comparison.

And on Davos and “The Great Reset,” you’ve latched onto a conspiracy theory as if it’s gospel. The elites you’re so quick to villainize are wielding capitalism, not socialism. Their rhetoric might borrow the language of equity and sustainability, but their actions are about maintaining wealth and power under the guise of progressivism. If anything, their antics are a betrayal of both capitalism and socialism—a cynical exploitation of both ideologies to serve their own ends.

The New Deal, contrary to your dismissal, was a lifeline during the Great Depression. Your claim that it achieved nothing flies in the face of extensive historical analysis showing that programs like the CCC and WPA provided jobs, infrastructure, and hope when the private sector had utterly failed. And while World War II undeniably accelerated economic recovery, it was the foundation laid by the New Deal that allowed the U.S. economy to capitalize on that momentum.

Finally, on Cuba—yes, their government claims the banner of socialism, and yes, it has failed its people in countless ways. But to equate Cuba’s struggles solely with socialism while ignoring the crippling impact of decades-long economic embargoes and geopolitical isolation is intellectually dishonest. As for Flint and Appalachia, your eagerness to shrug off their plights with party-line deflections speaks volumes. Blaming unions or Democrats for systemic poverty and environmental neglect is an oversimplification that, once again, dodges the deeper structural issues baked into the very capitalism you defend.

In the end, your argument amounts to little more than an ideological pissing match—an insistence on reducing complex systems to rigid definitions and black-and-white outcomes. It’s not clever, and it’s certainly not convincing. But do carry on; this level of certainty, no matter how misplaced, is at least entertaining.

[Immanuel Can]

Good grief. Are you for real? There are no purely "capitalist" states anymore. There's a reason for that. Most 1st world countries have combinations of capitalism and socialism.

How do you define a state? I suggest it's by the system that is granted to control its economy. So a street peddler in Havana would not prove Cuba was Capitalist, and a welfare program in New York would not make New York "Socialist."

If it were up to you children would be slaving in sweatshops and the economically superfluous would be languishing on the side of the road.

I've never been an advocate of either. But Socialist policies -- open migration, legalized drugs, failure to provide housing and mental-health services -- have certainly vastly increased the homeless problem, and increased sex trafficking of children, as well. It's your beloved Democrats that have done both. Are you proud of them?

I have clearly stated that I am no more for pure socialism than pure capitalism. Figure the rest out on your own if you can.

Well, only one alternative can characterize the economic habits of the state. If you are a Socialist, then there has to be one government, which has to be responsible for everything, and no "means of production" owned by anybody private. The only problem with that, of course, is that Socialism doesn't generate any money, and can never pay for itself. Well, that, and the corpses. They're also a problem.

[Gary Childress]

How do you define a state? I suggest it's by the system that is granted to control its economy. So a street peddler in Havana would not prove Cuba was Capitalist, and a welfare program in New York would not make New York "Socialist."

I've never been an advocate of either. But Socialist policies -- open migration, legalized drugs, failure to provide housing and mental-health services -- have certainly vastly increased the homeless problem, and increased sex trafficking of children, as well. It's your beloved Democrats that have done both. Are you proud of them?

I have clearly stated that I am no more for pure socialism than pure capitalism. Figure the rest out on your own if you can.

Well, only one alternative can characterize the economic habits of the state. If you are a Socialist, then there has to be one government, which has to be responsible for everything, and no "means of production" owned by anybody private. The only problem with that, of course, is that Socialism doesn't generate any money, and can never pay for itself. Well, that, and the corpses. They're also a problem.

So it's either one extreme or the other? A state cannot have both a private and public sector?

Don't you think that's a false dichotomy?

[Immanuel Can]

First, your insistence on clinging to Engels and Marx as the ultimate arbiters of socialism’s definition is charmingly outdated.

Great. What have you got? What's your "new Socialism" like?

Now, about your infamous “140 million” figure. The numbers are contested because they conflate the actions of authoritarian regimes with the ideology of socialism itself. Stalin’s purges and Mao’s Great Leap Forward weren’t dictated by socialism—they were dictated by brutal consolidation of power.

It happens WHEREVER Socialism takes hold. It's happened every single time.

Your assertion that the Canadian healthcare system is “collapsing” is hyperbole at its finest.

Actually, it's just the facts.

And on Davos and “The Great Reset,” you’ve latched onto a conspiracy theory as if it’s gospel.

No: I just believe that they really believe what they say they believe.

... while World War II undeniably accelerated economic recovery, it was the foundation laid by the New Deal that allowed the U.S. economy to capitalize on that momentum.

Prove that.

Finally, on Cuba—yes, their government claims the banner of socialism, and yes, it has failed its people in countless ways. But to equate Cuba’s struggles solely with socialism while ignoring the crippling impact of decades-long economic embargoes and geopolitical isolation is intellectually dishonest.

No, the embargos certainly haven't helped. But if you look at the internal workings of Cuba, you find a whole new level of dysfunction. For example, right now, people have no incentive to grow things. And why? Because 80% of the produce belongs to the government. So farmers have to take the 80% and put it in a pile. The government has no gas, and doesn't send trucks to pick it up, so it rots; but if you try to take it and eat it or sell it, they'll shoot you...because that pile belongs to the government.

Typical Socialism: the ideology becomes so all-consuming that it kills the populace.

Blaming unions or Democrats for systemic poverty and environmental neglect is an oversimplification

And yet, they're largely to blame...especially the Democrats. For example, their subsidies to single mothers have destroyed Black families in the US, and subsidized absentee fatherhood; with the predictable disproportionate increase in things like poverty, abandonment, malnutrition and criminality. And nobody ever seems to call them on that...least of all the people who claim "Black lives matter." And, as Joe Biden himself so poignantly put it, the Dems think that if you don't vote Democrat, "you ain't Black."

Black lives only matter if they vote Democrat. And the New Deal was the first big buyoff for the Black community. Statistically, it is the '30s, not the '60s, when the Black vote switched to the Dems, you know. And please, do check that statistic.

[Immanuel Can]

I have clearly stated that I am no more for pure socialism than pure capitalism. Figure the rest out on your own if you can.

Well, only one alternative can characterize the economic habits of the state. If you are a Socialist, then there has to be one government, which has to be responsible for everything, and no "means of production" owned by anybody private. The only problem with that, of course, is that Socialism doesn't generate any money, and can never pay for itself. Well, that, and the corpses. They're also a problem.

So it's either one extreme or the other? A state cannot have both a private and public sector?

Of course it can -- if the state remains officially committed to free markets and private enterprise, as well as having some welfare programs.

ut Socialism does not allow for that sort of mixed alternative. It requires that the State has to own ALL means of production, so there's no further space for any "capitalist" endeavour...and no place, therefore, for sound economics, either.

[Gary Childress]

Well, only one alternative can characterize the economic habits of the state. If you are a Socialist, then there has to be one government, which has to be responsible for everything, and no "means of production" owned by anybody private. The only problem with that, of course, is that Socialism doesn't generate any money, and can never pay for itself. Well, that, and the corpses. They're also a problem.

So it's either one extreme or the other? A state cannot have both a private and public sector?

Of course it can -- if the state remains officially committed to free markets and private enterprise, as well as having some welfare programs.

ut Socialism does not allow for that sort of mixed alternative. It requires that the State has to own ALL means of production, so there's no further space for any "capitalist" endeavour...and no place, therefore, for sound economics, either.

So your contention is that every 1st world nation is a "capitalist" nation by virtue of not socializing all services and production. Is that correct?

[Immanuel Can]

So it's either one extreme or the other? A state cannot have both a private and public sector?

Of course it can -- if the state remains officially committed to free markets and private enterprise, as well as having some welfare programs.

ut Socialism does not allow for that sort of mixed alternative. It requires that the State has to own ALL means of production, so there's no further space for any "capitalist" endeavour...and no place, therefore, for sound economics, either.

So your contention is that every 1st world nation is a "capitalist" nation by virtue of not socializing all services and production. Is that correct?

No. My claim is that we define a state by its dominant economic practice. Who controls the means of production: is it the state, or is it the people themselves? That's definitional, according to Socialism itself.