Does socialism lead to communism?

Does socialism lead to communism?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago
youtube.com/watch?v=vyl2DeKT-Vs
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Dunno, but capitalism leads to Trump

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago

According to Marxist theory.

It still hasn't fucking happened yet, so Marx might just have been full of shit.

You want to fool me comrade? Onlly a true patriot knows knows the way to communism.

nothing leads to anything... philosophy-wise anyway.
a delicate and dynamic balance of everything is required. The US is a socialist democratic republic (and that's a good thing) no matter how much you plebs want to think otherwise.

The US is by definition a Federal Democratic Republic. We're largely Capitalist with some Socialist influence.

Communism is one branch of socialism, so it may or may not end up that way. Also you can have hybrid socialist / capitalist societies, and they generally work quite nicely (most of the western countries have hybrid systems).

oddly enough, socialism leads to rampant capitalism.

> russian socialism -> criminal gangs in it for the money

> chinese socialism -> "let's turn the Shenzen into the world's biggest factory and sell shit."

all other forms of socialism have failed.

Well contrary to popular belief, socialism can coexist with capitalism when it is well implemented. I would take this a step further and argue that capitalism is necessary for a stable Socialist society and economy.

No it fucking isn't.

Go look this shit up before you start talking about it.

>socialism can coexist with capitalism when it is well implemented.

i guess someone has to make the products that socialists are too proud to.

>triggered

I have no idea what that means. What are you saying?

You have places like Australia where private industry makes government services stronger and vice versa bringing quality of life up for everyone. Doesn't have to be one or the other.

Yeah, people talking out of there ass makes me angry.

You must be quite the greasy distended fuck-hole to think that's unusual.

When people hear the term "socialist" I think that they reflexively think about the chaotic places where personal agency doesn't exist and everything is spoon fed to them by a big brother dictatorship government. There is a massive disconnect between what a socialist system is and what people think it is.

Socialism only works out if you practice it on a single specific nation and its people. It does not necessarily lead to communism.

Best example how beneficial a proper socialism works is post-ww1 germany.

>the state owns the means of production
>a vanguard party takes control of the state
>the vaguard party actively preserves the revolution
>the vanguard party runs the state and educates the people in order to one day bring about a Communist society where the workers own the means of production and the state is no longer necessary

What'd I miss?

Seeing as they routinely executed communists and social democrats in the street...

If you're gonna go extremes then the other side must eventually evolve into Blade Runner style corporate anarchy and should also be avoided.

One doesn't beget the other. One is a form of the other...

Every political system has it's victims. The question is, which victims ones do you justify morally?

No, it leads to starvation

EXTREMES!?!

That is literally what Socialism is accourding to Marx & Engels.

You must be a fucking American.

I'm a social democrat. We try to avoid making victims, unless you count someone having to pay 16% tax instead of 15% a victim.

That is hardly a fair representation. You are using the most extreme examples that are completely misrepresentative of most stable systems.
Nazi Germany was not kickstarted by Socialism. That's a complex issue, and I'm not a historian but most people will agree that is was a result of of ethnic nationalism and anger from crushing reparations imposed by foreign powers post WW1

Tell me a country where social democrats are governing. I will tell you about the victims in this country you named.

Socialism is a compromise between capitalism and democratic state. Marx thought of socialism as a half measure, he in no way thought that it was an "extreme". See

Australia. My homeland.

Marx didn't want to build communism, he wanted to destroy capitalism. That's it.

Sweden, Denmark and Norway. Take your time.

>inb4 the white people

youtube.com/watch?v=vyl2DeKT-Vs

When you name it, why are the "white people" not viable victims?

Scotland

What pisses me off about imgur is that it's like reddit lite with alt-right overtones peppered all over the fucking place ever since Trump won. I fucking hate reddit, and I hate the faggots it's produced. You're all too sensitive to handle the shit you try to dish out to others, and what's worse is you lack the common decency to fucking feel bad about it. If you can't take what you dish out, stop acting like an invincible badass while you cry on voicemail to your fucking girlfriend after she fucks another man in your bed. Pussies.

I think it means the only thing people can come up with is the refugee influx from Syria which is kinda irrelevant to this particular discussion.

Ausfag here, can deny. We have a pure centrist for PM at the moment I have no clue what you're talking about.
Labour are neo-cons. Unless you're counting medicare, which is literally just a policy. It's like wearing a pig's snout and running around oinking.

Fuck socialism, you millennial fuckwits...

beep boop

Labor*
"Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, as well as a policy regime involving a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions."

Explain to me how this isn't us?

I'm not talking about victims in this very moment. The refugee politics pursued by countries like sweden will affect it's people in the long run. Every aspect of swedish society will suffer.

I will give to you that this is not an inherent problem of social democracy, but then again, you can say something like that about every other political system.

Not all roads lead to Rome friend.
Social justice isn't a policy concern of either government (unless Bill Shorten has started using that phrase in his circus act).

You'd need to be a little more on top of things, but you'll find that the basis for our social programs tend to be related to treating public health risks, or in the case of Centrelink, keeping poverty-related crime to a minimum (the Kerr report, while more about administrative law sets the tone for this) and the more recent McLure report, being used to inform WPIT welfare reform is all about cutting costs and narrowing all payments into tiers of how to push people into jobs.

None of our welfare policies have to do with social justice, and everything to do with maintaining order, and was largely pushed by conservatives.

Claiming that because socialists and communists do some of these things, they're automatically socialist, doesn't make any sense when you actually know what the fuck you're talking about.

I'll meet you on the income redistribution though - that's all taxes.

MAKE GULAGS AGAIN

So you're saying even though we have all the hallmarks, its not social democracy because of some of the government's motives at the time many decades ago? Isn't that like saying someone isn't dead because they were man-slaughtered instead of murdered?

I am saying that, yes.
I see your point, but policy and politics are everything when it comes to a government, and everything they do. To revisit an earlier metaphor: wearing a pig costume doesn't mean your a pig. The USSR had a constitution, but you wouldn't call it a democracy, and Islam includes the old testament, but you wouldn't call them Jews.

An example: the no-jab, no-pay addition to the family tax benefit A supplement and child care benefit/rebate faced conservative opposition, not because it would deny people access, but because it felt too much like the government was forcing people to have their kids vaccinated. However it pushed through, because the resurgence of small pox is a risk non wanted to take.

It might seem like I'm being pedantic, but the policy behind decisions informs where it goes, or where it has potential to go.