Socialism has consistently failed to do that too because it can’t handle outside influence from foreign powers. Let’s just freely distribute technology and let people farm for themselves again doing that. Highly organized societies are nothing but slave mills.
I would suggest anyone concerned about food production under socialism look up Lysenkoism to find the real pitfall.
The fatal flaw in any collective system will always stem from authoritarian policies, but all you need to avoid the greatest errors is simply not, you know, rule by terror.
Yes it clearly has and if it hadn’t, they’d be the exceedingly rich countries with massive militaries, but they’re not. The U.S., the corporate oligarchy, is. So their social structure loses, and the one we both hate wins.
That is how it works. It literally is how reality works. You can see it everywhere. You just don’t want to believe it because you want to live in a working communist nation but it’s just not possible in our Darwinian world where evil triumphs.
If you want to build a social system that reliably and fairly provides people their needs, you have to take the Darwinist nature of existence into account which no social system, including capitalism, really does effectively.
Because it’s nature makes it impossible. We literally tried it as a species and it failed miserably. It doesn’t even really matter why because social systems have to be able to weather any catastrophe including external ones that aren’t really its fault to thrive and last for long periods of time. The USSR didn’t even last a century before other countries outspent it from existence.
In fact, any new nation that wants to thrive has to take that into account regardless of its economic or social structure or system of governance. Sociopaths, for example, have figured out how to break every system we have including capitalism and communism and they will relentlessly continue to achieve power over others as they have done for millennia. Another example is climate collapse. How will any system you propose deal with climate collapse? How will it prevent regulatory capture or foreign powers infiltrating and taking it over like the CIA did with South American countries? How will it prevent uprisings and coups? How will it prevent mass rejection from its people?
Communism doesn’t take issues like that into account and so it fails. Capitalism tries through fascism which doesn’t work at all either.
You should learn about China’s construction boom starting during the housing crisis of 2008, and think about how events may have unfolded differently if China had not held up the steel and concrete industries globally.
The growth rate of either country has been high, but the industrial transformation began over one century later than in countries which are often given for comparison.
As a practical consideration, does anyone believe that within either country has passed a period of twenty years in which the basic substance of daily living had not markedly advanced?
And I am sure totally disregarding the subject of conversation to attack me is 100% not concern trolling in any way. Nope, looking for any opportunity to fling emotional barbs at someone you hate is the height of maturity
Now back to debating the merits of socialism while you go on the block list for the umpteenth time
It is appropriate to express the various legitimate grievances against the Soviet Union, but not through narratives that are simplistic, dishonest, uncritical, or ideological.
Within the course of half a century, the Soviet Union transformed from an agrarian peasant feudal society to the first civilization to succeed in carrying a human to space and welcoming his safe return. Such is a remarkable achievement in its own right, unequaled before or since, yet more so considering the accompanying context, that within the same period had occurred a political revolution, a Civil War, foreign invasions of one wave during the Civil War, by the great powers, including the US, and of a second wave during the Second World War, by the Third Reich.
I am not explaining a risk, though, but rather behavior that has been entirely consistent from the particular participant.
There is no reason to vote down. I am trying to be helpful, by discouraging interaction with someone who repeatedly has demonstrated willful ignorance and obstructive
tactics.
Arguably you are simply suggesting that a population may manage land usage cooperatively.
I would not find much promise, though, in lack of organization. Lands and other resources are finite, and many will want to have a lifestyle or occupation that is urbanized, requiring food to be shipped into cities.
For conflict over land usage not to escalate into harm, it may seem necessary that those affected by its usage participate in organization.
Then let’s just kickstart human expansion into space so resources and land can be unlimited. That would be the only highly organized society you could convince me is legitimate.
We have more than enough land mass for every single human being to have at least one acre to themselves and then some right now, though. We just can’t distribute it evenly because humans are apes that form dominance hierarchies and control over the land goes to the dominant apes. Only when humans are genetically engineered to be egalitarian will it ever change, so I guess our debate is pretty moot.
Give people the technology to meet their needs and survive happily regardless of the surface of the land they’re given. Land that cannot be built on is cut out of the equation. Vertical farms are used to grow crops instead of direct land cultivation. Water is provided in accordance with user use and if there isn’t enough, more is desalinated. Electricity and homeostasis maintenance is achieved with technology attached to the house.
Divvy up land by plains and fields first, then extend from there. Even land in the middle of fucking Siberia can have comfortable housing and farming done on it with the right technology. If it’s too cold or too hot, dome it over. Even the fucking ocean can have artificial islands or floating platforms constructed on it. No one has to go without territory.
Your understanding of biology, anthropology, and history have been limited to the tropes distributed through a reactionary agenda.
Primates are social, and exhibit immensely varied and nuanced behaviors for sharing and cooperation, further enhanced by culture that adapts a particular population to local conditions. Humans share many general similarities with other kinds of ape, but are not constrained by traits that may be observed strictly in such species.
For a point of comparison, suppose we take your suggestion literally, about colonizing off planet. Do you imagine some level of cooperation being required, perhaps even great personal sacrifice, not strongly supported by your caricatured representations of nonhuman species?
Lol go tell that to my detractors who you applaud when they do it to me, in blatant violation of sitewide rules of their own instances, while mods and admins don’t bat an eye.
Don’t pretend there’s any honorability in anything people do, especially not online.
Socialism has consistently failed to do that too because it can’t handle outside influence from foreign powers. Let’s just freely distribute technology and let people farm for themselves again doing that. Highly organized societies are nothing but slave mills.
deleted by creator
I would suggest anyone concerned about food production under socialism look up Lysenkoism to find the real pitfall.
The fatal flaw in any collective system will always stem from authoritarian policies, but all you need to avoid the greatest errors is simply not, you know, rule by terror.
deleted by creator
Yes it clearly has and if it hadn’t, they’d be the exceedingly rich countries with massive militaries, but they’re not. The U.S., the corporate oligarchy, is. So their social structure loses, and the one we both hate wins.
Life just favors evil in that way.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
That is how it works. It literally is how reality works. You can see it everywhere. You just don’t want to believe it because you want to live in a working communist nation but it’s just not possible in our Darwinian world where evil triumphs.
If you want to build a social system that reliably and fairly provides people their needs, you have to take the Darwinist nature of existence into account which no social system, including capitalism, really does effectively.
deleted by creator
Because it’s nature makes it impossible. We literally tried it as a species and it failed miserably. It doesn’t even really matter why because social systems have to be able to weather any catastrophe including external ones that aren’t really its fault to thrive and last for long periods of time. The USSR didn’t even last a century before other countries outspent it from existence.
In fact, any new nation that wants to thrive has to take that into account regardless of its economic or social structure or system of governance. Sociopaths, for example, have figured out how to break every system we have including capitalism and communism and they will relentlessly continue to achieve power over others as they have done for millennia. Another example is climate collapse. How will any system you propose deal with climate collapse? How will it prevent regulatory capture or foreign powers infiltrating and taking it over like the CIA did with South American countries? How will it prevent uprisings and coups? How will it prevent mass rejection from its people?
Communism doesn’t take issues like that into account and so it fails. Capitalism tries through fascism which doesn’t work at all either.
You both suck.
OK troll.
I suggest not worrying too much about the “Darwinist nature of existence”.
You should learn about China’s construction boom starting during the housing crisis of 2008, and think about how events may have unfolded differently if China had not held up the steel and concrete industries globally.
China did that by becoming an authoritarian capitalist country, so that just proves my point. Communism doesn’t work.
Ugh.
Your premise has been that China is not capitalist. Now you insert the contradicting premise that China is capitalist.
No matter, though, if logical consistency is too arduous, you can always fall back on your pseudoscientific schtick 'cuz nature.
It literally doesn’t matter, you’re still wrong.
Bro if you go from negative growth to one percent of positive growth you qualify for being rapidly developing
Doesn’t mean anything about life quality which is shit btw
deleted by creator
The growth rate of either country has been high, but the industrial transformation began over one century later than in countries which are often given for comparison.
As a practical consideration, does anyone believe that within either country has passed a period of twenty years in which the basic substance of daily living had not markedly advanced?
You don’t hate it. You’re just a troll.
And I am sure totally disregarding the subject of conversation to attack me is 100% not concern trolling in any way. Nope, looking for any opportunity to fling emotional barbs at someone you hate is the height of maturity
Now back to debating the merits of socialism while you go on the block list for the umpteenth time
Oh no.
Anyways.
Removed by mod
Listen, troll.
The argument is that activity driven by the profit motive is antithetical to the prevention of needless suffering and death.
Do you have one of your own, or are we done?
It is appropriate to express the various legitimate grievances against the Soviet Union, but not through narratives that are simplistic, dishonest, uncritical, or ideological.
Within the course of half a century, the Soviet Union transformed from an agrarian peasant feudal society to the first civilization to succeed in carrying a human to space and welcoming his safe return. Such is a remarkable achievement in its own right, unequaled before or since, yet more so considering the accompanying context, that within the same period had occurred a political revolution, a Civil War, foreign invasions of one wave during the Civil War, by the great powers, including the US, and of a second wave during the Second World War, by the Third Reich.
Socialism is merely workers owning the means of production. There is no reason you can’t have local, green-style politics or market socialism.
Just don’t.
Any path you follow will quickly lead to a truckload of babble about social Darwinism and other pseudoscientific dribble.
That is always the risk you run talking about politics on the Internet.
I am not explaining a risk, though, but rather behavior that has been entirely consistent from the particular participant.
There is no reason to vote down. I am trying to be helpful, by discouraging interaction with someone who repeatedly has demonstrated willful ignorance and obstructive tactics.
I have no idea why you’re telling me this.
I thought you may have contributed to the down votes, but in fact it also appears that I have been targeted personally by organized voting.
Arguably you are simply suggesting that a population may manage land usage cooperatively.
I would not find much promise, though, in lack of organization. Lands and other resources are finite, and many will want to have a lifestyle or occupation that is urbanized, requiring food to be shipped into cities.
For conflict over land usage not to escalate into harm, it may seem necessary that those affected by its usage participate in organization.
Then let’s just kickstart human expansion into space so resources and land can be unlimited. That would be the only highly organized society you could convince me is legitimate.
We have more than enough land mass for every single human being to have at least one acre to themselves and then some right now, though. We just can’t distribute it evenly because humans are apes that form dominance hierarchies and control over the land goes to the dominant apes. Only when humans are genetically engineered to be egalitarian will it ever change, so I guess our debate is pretty moot.
So how do you distribute it fairly?
What if I a shitty piece of land with rocks in it? And my neighbor has a nice productive piece of land?
Good luck resolving these kinds of disputes
Give people the technology to meet their needs and survive happily regardless of the surface of the land they’re given. Land that cannot be built on is cut out of the equation. Vertical farms are used to grow crops instead of direct land cultivation. Water is provided in accordance with user use and if there isn’t enough, more is desalinated. Electricity and homeostasis maintenance is achieved with technology attached to the house.
Divvy up land by plains and fields first, then extend from there. Even land in the middle of fucking Siberia can have comfortable housing and farming done on it with the right technology. If it’s too cold or too hot, dome it over. Even the fucking ocean can have artificial islands or floating platforms constructed on it. No one has to go without territory.
It doesn’t have to be hard.
Sorry.
Your understanding of biology, anthropology, and history have been limited to the tropes distributed through a reactionary agenda.
Primates are social, and exhibit immensely varied and nuanced behaviors for sharing and cooperation, further enhanced by culture that adapts a particular population to local conditions. Humans share many general similarities with other kinds of ape, but are not constrained by traits that may be observed strictly in such species.
For a point of comparison, suppose we take your suggestion literally, about colonizing off planet. Do you imagine some level of cooperation being required, perhaps even great personal sacrifice, not strongly supported by your caricatured representations of nonhuman species?
At no point in the comment you are trying to answer was implied that cooperation was non existent.
I must conclude you are just arguing in bad faith
Removed by mod
No personal attacks.
Lol go tell that to my detractors who you applaud when they do it to me, in blatant violation of sitewide rules of their own instances, while mods and admins don’t bat an eye.
Don’t pretend there’s any honorability in anything people do, especially not online.
Again, no personal attacks.
Did I represent the comment as insinuating that cooperation is nonexistent?
Your objection is outrageous, considering the intensity of its tone, and the structure of my comment, that you are criticizing, within its context.
Again, the comment was parroting reactionary tropes that are rejected essentially universally by experts who study the relevant fields.