Why Marxism failed according to Bertrand Russell

[enchanted]

 

[Elliott]

I think it's obvious even marxists don't believe in marxism, for one simple reason; they don't start a Marxist community and grow it. Instead, Marxists want to hijack a capitalist community. Look at their excuses with USSR; " The u.s. isolated them", so, they needed capitalism to survive? USSR was largest empire in history, is there a minimum amount of land area they need that's larger than Siberia? They're binary-thinking idiots, authoritarian cultists.

Edited yesterday at 12:18 PM by Elliott

[BlueOak]

28 minutes ago, Elliott said:

I think it's obvious even marxists don't believe in marxism, for one simple reason; they don't start a Marxist community and grow it. 

United States

Twin Oaks Community – Virginia
East Wind Community – Missouri
The Farm – Tennessee
Acorn Community – Virginia
Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage – Missouri
Amana Colonies – Iowa

Israel

Degania – Israel
Ein Gev – Israel
Kibbutz Lotan – Israel
Kibbutz Ein Harod – Israel

Spain

Marinaleda – Andalusia
Mondragon Corporation – Basque Country

Denmark
Christiania – Copenhagen

France / Switzerland / Austria

Longo Maï – Multiple countries

Germany

Kommune Niederkaufungen – Hesse

United Kingdom

Findhorn Foundation – Scotland

Italy

Damanhur – Piedmont

Japan

Yamagishi Movement – Multiple locations

Canada

Windward Community – British Columbia

Netherlands

Vrije Gemeente – Netherlands

 

36 minutes ago, Elliott said:

 They're idiots, authoritarian cultists.

Always a pleasure.

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, enchanted said:

 

Fair point. People do get hung up on hatred and rebellion.
This is also true of capitalists against homeless people or those in poverty, however. So its not a direct correlation as to why socialism has not succeeded in the same way capitalism has, otherwise capitalism too would have failed. Or we may argue it has to those in the lower classes or rungs of society.

Capitalism simply outcompeted it, because by design it thrives on competition.

[Elliott]

6 hours ago, BlueOak said:

United States

Twin Oaks Community – Virginia
East Wind Community – Missouri
The Farm – Tennessee
Acorn Community – Virginia
Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage – Missouri
Amana Colonies – Iowa

Israel

Degania – Israel
Ein Gev – Israel
Kibbutz Lotan – Israel
Kibbutz Ein Harod – Israel

Spain

Marinaleda – Andalusia
Mondragon Corporation – Basque Country

Denmark
Christiania – Copenhagen

France / Switzerland / Austria

Longo Maï – Multiple countries

Germany

Kommune Niederkaufungen – Hesse

United Kingdom

Findhorn Foundation – Scotland

Italy

Damanhur – Piedmont

Japan

Yamagishi Movement – Multiple locations

Canada

Windward Community – British Columbia

Netherlands

Vrije Gemeente – Netherlands

 

Always a pleasure.

 

6 hours ago, Elliott said:

I think it's obvious even marxists don't believe in marxism, for one simple reason; they don't start a Marxist community and grow it. 

Why don't you join one then, instead of trying to force all of us to convert?

Grow marxism from grassroots, rather than from pirating, is what I was saying.

Go be a successful community, everyone will flock to it and convert. Be a shining light on the hill! You guys seem to be ensnared in a psyop, to me. The socialist arguments don't hold up to any bit of scrutiny, it's all feelings. I myself am an egalitarian, everyone deserves everything equally, but this binary argument of socialism vs. Corporatism is very childish.

Edited 18 hours ago by Elliott

[Wilhelm44]

@BlueOak

The Findhorn foundation is a spiritual community, it's not Marxist.

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, Wilhelm44 said:

@BlueOak

The Findhorn foundation is a spiritual community, it's not Marxist.

Its undisputably a socialist, cooperative community. Certainly spiritual also.

If you want specifically Marxism as an ideology, it will be more limited. Just as there are many branches of capitalism, but these tend to just be grouped under one greater whole.

However these were just the top 20 known ones in a google search, I could just pull the next twenty, the point would remain.

 

Edited 18 hours ago by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

6 hours ago, Elliott said:

 

Why don't you join one then, instead of trying to force all of us to convert?

Grow marxism from grassroots, rather than from pirating, is what I was saying.

Go be a successful community, everyone will flock to it and convert. Be a shining light on the hill! You guys seem to be ensnared in a psyop, to me. The socialist arguments don't hold up to any bit of scrutiny, it's all feelings. I myself am an egalitarian, everyone deserves everything equally, but this binary argument of socialism vs. Corporatism is very childish.

Reasonable request on its face, however 95% of people in this forum do the same, they project their values onto you and ask you to accept them. You included. Your doing it now by saying: 

Drop your belief system and values, or go live in your own community, which is equally, in your own words childish. In my words, simplistic.
No thank you, i'll continue to live where I live, and keep the values I have. You'll just have to deal with people who have opposing values and belief systems from yourself.

 

6 hours ago, Elliott said:

The socialist arguments don't hold up to any bit of scrutiny, it's all feelings. 

Feel free to debate any of them with me.  And i'll do facts and numbers all day.
 

6 hours ago, Elliott said:

but this binary argument of socialism vs. Corporatism is very childish.

Then why do you engage in similar binary reasoning?

I can tell you why I do, because they are polar opposites, a bit like liberalism and authoritarianism, and these poles balance society out collectively. They also allow complex ideas to be communicated in short formats. However, I treat the poles as multiple rather than binary and prefer 4 of them for clarity's sake. 

The fact you've used psyop and cult to describe a differing belief system and set of values shows a great deal of intolerance and inflexibility in your own approach to life.

Edited 18 hours ago by BlueOak

[Elliott]

20 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Reasonable request on its face, however 95% of people in this forum do the same, they project their values onto you and ask you to accept them. You included. Your doing it now by saying: 

Drop your belief system and values, or go live in your own community, which is equally, in your own words childish. In my words, simplistic.
No thank you, i'll continue to live where I live, and keep the values I have. You'll just have to deal with people who have opposing values and belief systems from yourself.

 

I'm not saying to drop your belief system, I'm trying to show you why I think it's silly. Moving to those communities makes sense to me if you truly believe in it, supporting capitalism living here being the antithesis.

 

Quote

 

Feel free to debate any of them with me.  And i'll do facts and numbers all day.
 

Then why do you engage in similar binary reasoning?

I can tell you why I do, because they are polar opposites, a bit like liberalism and authoritarianism, and these poles balance society out collectively. They also allow complex ideas to be communicated in short formats. However, I treat the poles as multiple rather than binary and prefer 4 of them for clarity's sake. 

 

Corporatism and socialism are brothers, not opposites. Both authoritarian. Opposites in reckless theory, only. Under capitalism, the workers have the ability, right now, stop buying from and working for corporations. I don't support corporatism, tax corporations and billionaires out of existence. I'm not a liberterian, I find that more foolish than socialism.

Quote

The fact you've used psyop and cult to describe a differing belief system and set of values shows a great deal of intolerance and inflexibility in your own approach to life.

I'd be interested to hear more on this, I see no validity in this view. I've ran into what I consider dumb dead ends every path of socialism I've explored. I like the community level, I consider that egalitarian, while 'socialism' being more similar to a broad government, hence the top-down rather than bottom-up approach by socialists "Revolu-tion!" vs, "let's start a co-op".

Edited 17 hours ago by Elliott

[BlueOak]

12 hours ago, Elliott said:

I'm not saying to drop your belief system, I'm trying to show you why I think it's silly. Moving to those communities makes sense to me if you truly believe in it, supporting capitalism living here being the antithesis.

I've lived in the same place for 30 years. Its a small town; people know me, I know them. I'm happy here. You make compromises in life; nowhere is perfect. Crime is low, people are relatively happy, the air quality is good, and there is a lot of nature around me. Its a nice secure place to live that rarely changes. Despite all the drama in the media, it has a lot of farmers and down to earth people here, the connection to the land is a stabilizing factor. Highly conservative (English version of conservative is different), but I don't need to be surrounded by people that think like me, I am perfectly okay interacting with different opinions and living beside them. England is good for that, or at least we don't exaggerate the differences or fractures, far better than America, it seems.
 

 

12 hours ago, Elliott said:

I'd be interested to hear more on this, I see no validity in this view. 

 

A cult is defined by patterns of control, not by beliefs you don't like or agree with. There needs to be ways to isolate the members, deny sources of information that are not within the cult, leaving needs to be framed as a destruction of personal identity, high levels of suppression, and a strong authoritarian leadership. Socialists tend to pull information for everywhere, can have leadership from liberal through to authoritarian, do not inherently isolate themselves (as you are somewhat advocating for here!), and do not inherently suppress anyone. Inherently meaning they can, just as you could in a position of leadership, but its not required for the ideology itself.

A Psyop is a coordinated effort by a governing authority, usually via an intelligency agency, to manipulate beliefs or behaviors.

If socialism is a psyop, who is running it? What benefit do they gain? Where is the centralised coordination. From my experience socialists are the most decentralised group on the planet, they argue constantly, many directly opposte state or centralised power, and through history there have been psyops AGAINST socialists not for them.

Too frequently I see the word cult thrown around these days to describe belief systems people don't like. Its simplistic and adds nothing; all it does is obscure any potential for communication and commonality to be found. Which, frankly, is the polar opposite to your worldview; you seem to want isolation and fragmentation. America collectively seems to be trained to look for division rather than unity.

 

12 hours ago, Elliott said:

Corporatism and socialism are brothers, not opposites. Both authoritarian. Opposites in reckless theory, only. Under capitalism, the workers have the ability, right now, stop buying from and working for corporations. I don't support corporatism, tax corporations and billionaires out of existence. I'm not a liberterian, I find that more foolish than socialism.

Socialism can be liberal or authoritarian. Corporatism and socialism are almost polar opposites; rather than go through the many differences manually, I'll GPT this as its going to save us time, as its a large topic to explain:
 

1. Corporatism vs. Socialism: not “brothers”

Corporatism and socialism are not siblings; they are built on opposing logics.

Corporatism (political–economic sense)

• Core feature: Private ownership of capital remains intact.
• Power structure: Large firms coordinate closely with the state; policy favors entrenched corporate actors.
• Distribution: Profits are privatized; losses are often socialized.
• Historical pattern: Elite capture, regulatory favoritism, limited competition.

Corporatism is best understood as capitalism distorted by state power, not as an alternative to capitalism.

Socialism

• Core feature: Social or collective ownership of the means of production.
• Power structure: Varies widely depending on model.
• Distribution: Aims (successfully or not) to subordinate profit to social need.

Socialism is defined by ownership and control, not by the presence or absence of a strong state.

➡️ Key point:
Corporatism preserves capitalist ownership; socialism abolishes or radically transforms it. That makes them structural opposites, not ideological cousins.

2. “Both are authoritarian” is historically false

This is where the argument becomes inaccurate.

Socialism is not inherently authoritarian

There are at least three broad families:

Authoritarian socialism

• One-party rule, centralized planning, coercive enforcement.
• Historically common, but not theoretically required.

Democratic socialism

• Multi-party elections, civil liberties, mixed or socialized sectors.
• Exists in theory and partial practice.

Libertarian / decentralized socialism

• Worker cooperatives, syndicalism, municipal ownership.
• Explicitly anti-authoritarian.

Authoritarianism is a mode of governance, not an intrinsic property of socialism.

Corporatism does tend toward authoritarianism

• Requires state enforcement of cartel-like arrangements.
• Suppresses labor power and small competitors.
• Relies on opaque policy-making and elite bargaining.

So if one had to generalize:

• Corporatism → structurally authoritarian
• Socialism → regime-contingent

3. “Under capitalism, workers can just stop buying or working” — a weak assumption

This claim is theoretically neat and practically flawed.

Problems with the argument:

• Exit is not free: Workers face rent, healthcare, debt, immigration status, and skill constraints.
• Market concentration limits alternatives.
• Collective action problem: Individual refusal doesn’t discipline firms without coordination.
• Basic necessities are often controlled by a small number of firms.

This is why labor movements, unions, and regulation emerge even in capitalist systems: formal freedom does not equal real bargaining power.

4. “Corporatism and socialism are opposites only in reckless theory”

This reverses reality.

• In theory, socialism and corporatism are clearly distinct.
• In practice, authoritarian socialism sometimes resembles corporatism because:
• Power concentrates
• Bureaucracies entrench
• Elites capture institutions

That resemblance is a failure mode, not a defining feature.

It’s like saying democracy and dictatorship are “brothers” because both use governments.

5. The internal contradiction in the claim

The speaker says:

• “Corporatism and socialism are brothers”
• “Tax corporations and billionaires out of existence”
• “I’m not libertarian”

But:

• Abolishing billionaire power and corporate dominance directly contradicts corporatism
• Heavy taxation and redistribution align more closely with social-democratic or democratic socialist frameworks
• The position borrows socialist tools while rhetorically rejecting socialism
• This suggests ideological confusion, not a coherent synthesis.

Bottom line

Your assessment is more accurate:

• Corporatism and socialism are not natural allies; they are structurally opposed.
• Authoritarianism is not inherent to socialism, but is common in some historical implementations.
• Corporatism is better described as elite-controlled capitalism, often hostile to both workers and genuine market competition
• The “just stop buying/working” argument ignores real-world power asymmetries.

If you want a concise correction to offer:

Corporatism preserves private capital and concentrates power among firms and the state; socialism challenges private ownership itself. Authoritarianism is a governance choice, not an economic necessity. Conflating the two obscures where power actually sits.

 

Edited 5 hours ago by BlueOak

[Elliott]

36 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

I've lived in the same place for 30 years. Its a small town; people know me, I know them. I'm happy here. You make compromises in life; nowhere is perfect. Crime is low, people are relatively happy, the air quality is good, and there is a lot of nature around me. Its a nice secure place to live that rarely changes. Despite all the drama in the media, it has a lot of farmers and down to earth people here, the connection to the land is a stabilizing factor. Highly conservative (English version of conservative is more like your liberal party) but I don't need to be surrounded by people that think like me, I am perfectly okay interacting with different opinions and living beside them. England is good for that, far better than America, it seems.

 

And you want to throw this happiness away because you're brainwashed by a cult.

 

Quote

 

 

A cult is defined by patterns of control, not by beliefs you don't like or agree with. There needs to be ways to isolate the members, deny sources of information that are not within the cult, leaving needs to be framed as a destruction of personal identity, high levels of suppression, and a strong authoritarian leadership. Socialists tend to pull information for everywhere, can have leadership from liberal through to authoritarian, do not inherently isolate themselves (as you are somewhat advocating for here!), and do not inherently suppress anyone. Inherently meaning they can, just as you could in a position of leadership, but its not required for the ideology itself.

 

Socialists absolutely do that. The PSL party(socialist party) in the u.s. makes everyone take a pledge and rigidly accept everything the leadership decrees, no different than China, or ussr states.

Quote

A Psyop is a coordinated effort by a governing authority, usually via an intelligency agency, to manipulate beliefs or behaviors.

If socialism is a psyop, who is running it? What benefit do they gain? Where is the centralised coordination. From my experience socialists are the most decentralised group on the planet, they argue constantly, many directly opposte state or centralised power, and through history there have been psyops AGAINST socialists not for them.

China and Russia

Quote

 

Too frequently I see the word cult thrown around these days to describe belief systems people don't like. Its simplistic, or in your words, childish, and adds nothing; all it does is obscure any potential for communication and commonality to be found.

Control can be by manipulation, not just physical control. 

Quote

Which, frankly, is the polar opposite to your world view, you seem to want isolation and fragmentation. America seems to be trained to look for division rather than unity.

So, if UK went Socialist, you would be okay with them continuing their current relationship the way it is with the u.s. and Israel?(not "isolate")

Quote

Socialism can be liberal or authoritarian. Corporatism and socialism are almost polar opposites; rather than go through the many differences manually, I'll GPT this as its going to save us time, as its a large topic to explain:

Ya, top-down can only be authoritarian, hence "top-down". The bottom-up (co-ops) can be liberal.

Quote

 

Authoritarian socialism

• One-party rule, centralized planning, coercive enforcement.
• Historically common, but not theoretically required.

Democratic socialism

•  
• Exists in theory 

 

.

• In practice, authoritarian socialism sometimes resembles corporatism because:
• Power concentrates
• Bureaucracies entrench
• Elites capture institutions

 

 

 

• Authoritarianism is not inherent to socialism, but is common in some historical implementations..

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Elliott

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

I'd like to propose a third option. Marxism failed because it tried to solve a complexity problem with centralization. To run a complex economy you need distributed signals. Capitalism uses price as that signal, but ignores externalities, like pollution and suffering, leading to our current crisis.
Instead of asking 'Who runs the factory?', what if we ask 'What is the factory incentivized to do?'. If we program the economy to value regeneration (via things like local currencies, adaptive UBI, new metrics and/or ecological assets), we could transcend the 'capitalism vs socialism' binary entirely.

[Basman]

20 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Denmark
Christiania – Copenhagen

Christiania was overrun by gangs due to a lack of rules and police until they made a deal with the Danish government to sell the buildings in exchange for police enforcement. 

These kind of communes always tend to turn into a shit show or become semi-cults in the long-run because they don't appreciate what it takes to maintain order. 

[Elliott]

20 minutes ago, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

I'd like to propose a third option. Marxism failed because it tried to solve a complexity problem with centralization. To run a complex economy you need distributed signals. Capitalism uses price as that signal, but ignores externalities, like pollution and suffering, leading to our current crisis.
Instead of asking 'Who runs the factory?', what if we ask 'What is the factory incentivized to do?'. If we program the economy to value regeneration (via things like local currencies, adaptive UBI, new metrics and/or ecological assets), we could transcend the 'capitalism vs socialism' binary entirely.

That is the issue with marxism, it's capitalism in sheep's clothing. Big industry is the problem, there will not be a magical leap of consciousness for society by merely changing to socialism. The people right now have the power to stop being Ultra-Consumers and they don't, they over-consume more and more. The power is already in the people's hands and they collectively rape with it, they will do that with socialism and worse because it will have to be authoritarian, you will have no individual choice where to buy anything from or who to work for, it will all be decided "collectively".

Bottom-up decentralized "socialism", (this is capitalism).

"Workers unite! And just quit being stupid."

Edited 4 hours ago by Elliott

[BlueOak]

50 minutes ago, Elliott said:

And you want to throw this happiness away because you're brainwashed by a cult.

 

Elliot. If you are going to keep calling me a cultist. I'm going to reflect that. You are in the liberal cult. You are brainwashed by the liberals.
Nobody else feel the need to reply here, i'm just going to reflect him every time he says it. Because its ludicrous. Unless we are going to call everything a cult, with no other criteria than media reinforcement and collective belief systems.
 

50 minutes ago, Elliott said:

 

Socialiss absolutely do that. The PSL party(socialist party) in the u.s. makes everyone take a pledge and rigidly accept everything the leadership decrees, no different than China, or ussr states.

 

So you've already shifted from socialists are cultists, to this particular group or party is a cult.

You are describing pledges, and authoritarian-like leadership. Which is present in many groups across multiple ideologies. Libertarian groups can have pledges, corporations can have this, fascists can have this, industries can have this, religious groups, nationalist movements, right wing groups can have this. 

Most socialist groups and communities do not. This is a strawman argument.

If you wish to go into why over things like capitalist pledges, we can, I have personally signed corporate contracts that were significantly more binding than a pledge.

However even on the PSL. They do not isolate their members. Control personal relationships, restrict outside media, claim the leader has absolute truth, make exiting the group destructive or a catastrophe. So you are incorrect even on this point.

The USSR and China were authoritarian socialist states, as I have stated, socialists can be all the way from liberal to authoritarian.

 

50 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Control can be by manipulation, not just physical control. 

Yes. Define manipulation for me, in your own understanding of it please. So I can see if you are referencing everything that influences people's minds, or a distorted view of what power/influence socialists actually hold collectively, which is almost none. Because there are many things in life which manipulate you, and an ideology you can choose to engage with or not is low on that list. Capitalism, for example, which is reinforced almost 24/7 throughout your life with near constant messaging, social reinforcement and reward structures.
 

50 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Ya, top-down can only be authoritarian, hence "top-down". The bottom-up (co-ops) can be liberal.

 

Yes there are liberal forms of socialism, there are central versions of socialism and authoritarian forms of socialism.
 

50 minutes ago, Elliott said:

So, if UK went Socialist, you would be okay with them continuing their current relationship the way it is with the u.s. and Israel?(not "isolate"

I'm not sure how that relates to whether socialism is effective or not, or a cult or psyop?

If you are asking for my personal wishes for foreign policy, I wish to maintain basic trade ties with the US but otherwise align with Europe, and step back entirely from Israel or leave support contingent on their government becoming less authoritarian and expansionist. Ditto Russia, Ditto China. Also to retain more sovereignty over things like critical energy supplies and raw materials.

If you are asking, would the UK being socialist mean it should/could continue to trade with the US, I think world governments around the globe shouldn't dictate the ideologies of other states, and populations in those states are free to decide their own course. I also believe in cooperation rather than fragmentation. So yes. I don't think isolation helps globally or domestically. Trade is one of the best ways to ensure world peace.
 

50 minutes ago, Elliott said:

China and Russia

As this claim of a psyop is again something that requires an info dump and could take you into conspiracy thinking i'll GPT it to keep it within forum rules:

1. What his new claim requires to be true

By saying **China and Russia are “running the psyop,” he is making a specific intelligence claim, whether he realizes it or not.

For that to be true, all of the following must hold:

• Central coordination between Chinese and Russian state actors
• Consistent strategic messaging across socialist movements
• A clear beneficiary aligned with Chinese/Russian geopolitical goals
• Evidence of direction or control, not just ideological overlap

If any one of these fails, the psyop claim collapses.

2. Why this fails empirically

(A) Socialist movements are not aligned with China or Russia

• Large portions of Western socialists:
• View China as state-capitalist, nationalist, or imperial
• View Russia as oligarchic, right-wing, and explicitly anti-socialist

Oppose both countries’ foreign policy and domestic repression

A psyop requires message discipline. What we see instead is:

• Fragmentation
• Open hostility
• Ideological schisms
• That is the opposite of an influence operation.

(B) Russia is not even socialist

This is a critical flaw.

Modern Russia:

• Has private ownership
• Is dominated by oligarchic capital
• Promotes traditionalism, nationalism, and anti-left rhetoric
• Actively suppresses socialist and labor movements internally
• Claiming Russia runs a “socialist psyop” is like claiming Saudi Arabia runs a feminist psyop. The incentive structure is backwards.

(C) China has no incentive to radicalize Western workers

China’s strategic interests are:

• Stable Western consumer markets
• Predictable global trade
• Weak labor militancy abroad (which lowers production pressure)

A genuinely radical socialist movement in the U.S. would:

• Disrupt supply chains
• Increase labor costs
• Increase sanctions pressure
• Destabilize trade relationships

That is against China’s material interests.

If China were running a psyop, it would promote:

• Consumerism
• Political apathy
• Elite capture —not worker radicalism.

3. The historical reality cuts the opposite way

Historically:

• Western intelligence agencies repressed socialist movements
• Labor leaders were surveilled, jailed, or assassinated
• Socialist parties were infiltrated and fractured, not amplified

If socialism were a foreign psyop, you would expect:

• Protection
• Media amplification
• Elite tolerance
• Instead, you see:
• Surveillance
• Criminalization
• Marginalization

That pattern is inconsistent with a sponsored operation.

4. What he is actually doing (analytically)

He is using geopolitical association substitution:

“Countries I see as enemies like China/Russia have used propaganda →
Therefore any ideology I dislike must originate from them.”

This is not evidence-based reasoning. It’s threat projection.

Crucially:

• He has not identified mechanisms
• He has not identified chains of command
• He has not identified strategic coherence
• Without those, “psyop” is just a label.

5. A clean way to respond without escalating

Here’s a response that keeps it analytical and puts the burden back where it belongs:

• A psyop requires coordination, strategic intent, and message discipline.
• Socialist movements are fragmented, often hostile to China and Russia, and advocate policies that run against both countries’ interests.
• Russia isn’t even socialist, and China benefits from Western stability, not labor radicalism.
• Without evidence of coordination or control, calling this a psyop isn’t analysis—it’s speculation.

If he insists after that, the discussion has crossed from political analysis into conspiratorial thinking.

6. Bottom line (objective assessment)

• The cult claim failed once definitions were applied.
• The organization-level authoritarianism claim was partially valid but overgeneralized.
• The China/Russia psyop claim fails on incentives, structure, and evidence.

Your position remains internally consistent and grounded in political science.
His position has shifted from critique → generalization → conspiracy, each step weakening its explanatory power.

Edited 4 hours ago by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

27 minutes ago, Basman said:

Christiania was overrun by gangs due to a lack of rules and police until they made a deal with the Danish government to sell the buildings in exchange for police enforcement. 

These kind of communes always tend to turn into a shit show or become semi-cults in the long-run because they don't appreciate what it takes to maintain order. 

I'm not advocating any one particular group is well run or successful. This was in response to 'people don't start socialist communities'. I pulled the top 20, I mean there are tens of thousands I could likely find with some poking around.

[Elliott]

5 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

If you are asking, would the UK being socialist mean it should/could continue to trade with the US, I think world governments around the globe shouldn't dictate the ideologies of other states, and populations in those states are free to decide their own course. I also believe in cooperation rather than fragmentation. So yes. I don't think isolation helps globally or domestically. Trade is one of the best ways to ensure world peace.
 

But you hate that at an individual level(capitalism)

 

[BlueOak]

1 minute ago, Elliott said:

But you hate that at an individual level(capitalism)

 

If you mean trade. Socialist states can trade, for example, resource agreements or maintaining currencies to barter with others. Many countries have multiple currency stockpiles they don't actively use domestically.

If you mean I hate capitalism. I don't hate it, I see it as having an outcome that inflicts more suffering than the alternative.
Also I don't dictate what others choose to do, nor should we as a country. Isolation makes for a more dangerous world, prone to fear and mistrust. Trade helps give nation-states a reason to cooperate rather than engage in force and violence towards each other and also a method of negotiating beyond the barrel of a gun.

[Elliott]

3 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

If you mean trade. Socialist states can trade, for example, resource agreements or maintaining currencies to barter with others. Many countries have multiple currency stockpiles they don't actively use domestically.

If you mean I hate capitalism. I don't hate it, I see it as having an outcome that inflicts more suffering than the alternative.
Also I don't dictate what others choose to do, nor should we as a country. Isolation makes for a more dangerous world, prone to fear and mistrust. Trade helps give nation-states a reason to cooperate rather than engage in force and violence towards each other and also a method of negotiating beyond the barrel of a gun.

Do you consider yourself to be familiar with Marxism?

[BlueOak]

59 minutes ago, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

I'd like to propose a third option. Marxism failed because it tried to solve a complexity problem with centralization. To run a complex economy you need distributed signals. Capitalism uses price as that signal, but ignores externalities, like pollution and suffering, leading to our current crisis.
Instead of asking 'Who runs the factory?', what if we ask 'What is the factory incentivized to do?'. If we program the economy to value regeneration (via things like local currencies, adaptive UBI, new metrics and/or ecological assets), we could transcend the 'capitalism vs socialism' binary entirely.

Would you apply this to more liberal, decentralised forms of socialism?

Without centralisation we rely more on regions, localities, or the populations themselves to value regeneration. Which i'm personally not against. The whole Brexit, Nation vs Europe debate largely sidelined me as I prefer a county-level control to be increased; i'd be happier with a federal model across Europe that increased the local power over nationalist power. But that is a different discussion.

What is the factory incentivized to do?

Is good, but to include all elements, you cite UBI, local currencies, local concerns etc, economies need to be modelled on the local level to address the actual concerns people face. Doing this top-down as you suggest can be flawed from the start, UBI might work well for a local economy or hurt it.

There are downsides to local or regional control, more arguments, increasing bureaucracy, independence movements, and regions risking becoming more imbalanced in relation to their neighbors (but this last one happens anyway in a system favoring national governance).

Edited 3 hours ago by BlueOak