Originally Posted by
dann
So why don't you?!
Mostly because not enough of us want to. But that’s changing, slowly.
Quote:
By the way, for some reason similar arguments never seem to occur to neo-liberals whenever other societies are discussed, like: 'Chernobyl had little to do with socialism and everything with factors unique to Russia itself.'
I can only tell you what arguments occur to me.
Quote:
Tell us about "textbook socialism or communism or Marxism or whatever".
Sure. It sucks. Everywhere it has been attempted has seemed to lead to cults of personality and abject failure.
Quote:
Can you present us with the titles of the textbooks you have read on the subject?
Here’s what I do know: I’ve heard a lot about what socialism is not: it’s not the Nordic countries, it’s not the NHS, it’s not all the things that people who don’t get it have labeled “socialism.” But I’ve seen very little about what it actually is.
I’ve seen lots of countries that call themselves Communist, but I’ve also heard about how they aren’t really Communist -not really. They aren’t doing what Karl Marx wrote.
So, while I can’t be bothered to read any actual textbooks specifically about these ideas, I can read about history and other commentary and see that whatever has been labeled socialist or communist, isn’t really those things. Real-deal socialism/communism hasn’t actually been implemented in the real world. And the ersatz attempts at the ideology have either outright failed or had to scale back whatever real-deal Marxist/Maoist/Whoeverist (always associated with a particular writer or dictator) ideals they may have espoused to get them in power.
I think the original idea had something to do with Socialism being the next stage after Capitalism, then naturally evolving to the Utopia of Communism where there are no classes and everything is commonly owned. But it always ends up being a, as I said, cult of personality where the leader/party becomes the elite ruling class and everyone else is the working class -same thing as Capitalism, really but totally unsustainable. Capitalism has the distinction of being, at the very least, sustainable.
Quote:
Why did you replace "neo-liberal" with "..."? So why don't you learn from other countries? Until recently, your argument for maintaining your state's pandemic response was that Texans just wouldn't put up with pandemic restrictions, and I guess Texans also love deregulation of energy. Your lie that nobody could have foreseen winter storms is duly noted:
It was just as predictable as the pandemic was when you wrote about how well Texas was doing: It was already there!
Blah, blah, blah. You are really good at pointing out the flaws with Capitalism (and America, specifically) and you are really good at spouting terms; but, you are terrible at illustrating a viable alternative.
Quote:
So your textbooks don't say anything about how economic factors and sociocultural actors are interconnected?!
Of course they do! But I didn’t need a textbook to know that societies with different cultures might have different priorities and ways of thinking that are reflected in their economic policies.