General Discussion

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)

40. What you are talking about is statism, not "socialism"

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 10:34 PM

Jan 2013

All that has failed is bureaucratic statism...democratic, worker-run socialism hasn't yet been tried, so it can't be said to failed.

Besides, if we were to say that "socialism" has failed, that's the same thing as giving up on ANY form of progressive change, or any humane values. Nothing but barbarism and ugliness can ultimately survive in "free market" countries...you can see that here in the way that OUR country has mainly become much, much uglier as we've become much, much more "free market" in our values since 1980.

And in any case, given that nobody favors Soviet-style bureaucratic statism anymore, why did you start this thread? Why are you talking about an extinct model of social organization that no one else is proposing anywhere anymore?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Pictures of a desperate people depict the death of a socialist nation (1991) [View all] banned from Kos Jan 2013 OP

Russians are far worse off today than when the Soviet Union collapsed Cleita Jan 2013 #1

really? banned from Kos Jan 2013 #3

You assume that money is going to the greater population of the former USSR. Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #5

I don't know. What does household income look like (1980-2010)? banned from Kos Jan 2013 #14

All I could find was average monthly income of 720.00 Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #18

GDP is very innaccurate for showing quality of life and does not reflect the people's opinion. white_wolf Jan 2013 #6

May as well show a graph of the stock market - most people don't really benefit from that, either. reformist2 Jan 2013 #10

Excellent !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t RKP5637 Jan 2013 #29

I know they really miss sharp_stick Jan 2013 #13

It was a betrayal, however, to have the West insist Ken Burch Jan 2013 #20

Not according to Dmitry Orlov Jim Warren Jan 2013 #26

Well, of a Stalinist autocracy. nt Deep13 Jan 2013 #2

You can find random pictures like those in the US. Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #4

Good Lord, 1 in 5 American children currently lives in poverty. So if capitalism coalition_unwilling Jan 2013 #25

Yep! I've seen deplorable places in the US. If aired constantly it would make the RKP5637 Jan 2013 #31

Back in the early 80s, my then in-laws visited my ex and me, coming coalition_unwilling Jan 2013 #35

The propaganda that we are the best runs far, wide and thick in the US keeping the masses under RKP5637 Jan 2013 #38

A photo of a prostitute in 1991 in the USSR is a symbol of the failed socialist state. Brickbat Jan 2013 #7

A photo of a prostitute in 2013 in the United States is...what? white_wolf Jan 2013 #9

Exactly. Brickbat Jan 2013 #11

An HBO series bigbrother05 Jan 2013 #30

Those pictures are actually how it looked years before the collapse. reformist2 Jan 2013 #8

Pictures of a desperate people in the US. Rex Jan 2013 #12

Got much worse during the Larry Summers IMF "structural adjustment" period. Much worse. leveymg Jan 2013 #39

No wonder they needed a wall to keep their people from escaping. Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #15

But NOT a "socialist" system in any real sense. Ken Burch Jan 2013 #22

Not true, a democracy will likely reject socialism in favor of a market system. banned from Kos Jan 2013 #27

It goes back and forth on popular support for socialism. Ken Burch Jan 2013 #32

I could have sworn the USSR was a totalitarian Communist state Fumesucker Jan 2013 #16

A Russian's comparison of then and now: moondust Jan 2013 #17

Interesting. Is this your observations or from a source? Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #23

Admittedly, moondust Jan 2013 #34

Yeah, pretty much verbatim from what I hear. Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #37

You can tell a system is crumbling (i.e. capitalism) when its boosters start comparing it to...... marmar Jan 2013 #19

The Soviet Union was NOT "socialist" in any meaningful sense by 1991 Ken Burch Jan 2013 #21

Socialism is the control or ownership of the means of production banned from Kos Jan 2013 #36

What you are talking about is statism, not "socialism" Ken Burch Jan 2013 #40

OK, we have a fundamental disagreement on the definition of "socialism". banned from Kos Jan 2013 #42

Is this "socialist" in the sense of what the Soviets called themselves... JHB Jan 2013 #24

How come this forum doesn't have the brains or balls whatchamacallit Jan 2013 #28

Heh 2ndAmForComputers Jan 2013 #33

I know, it's baffling. Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #43

Do a search on "Russia new drug krokodil" and tell me again they are better off. nt Bonobo Jan 2013 #41