I believe in socialism, but I feel Stalin shouldn’t be idolised due to things like the Gulag.
I would like more people to become socialist, but I feel not condemning Stalin doesn’t help the cause.
I’ve tried to have a constructieve conversation about this, but I basically get angry comments calling me stupid for believing he did atrocious things.
That’s not how you win someone over.
I struggle to believe the Gulag etc. Never happened, and if it happened I firmly believe Stalin should be condemned.
Why is an extreme a bad situation? What if said extreme was an eradication of poverty? Eradication of racism? Extremes are not inherently superior to moderatiom, nor is the reverse true.
If you want a reading list, I have one linked on my profile.
An extreme version of capitalism would leave the weak and poor to die. And I’m pretty sure that in any financial/political situation you need some sort of constantly adjusted approach. Any extreme would fail to address the nuances (and humanity) of people, we’re not humans after all.
When you say an “extreme Capitalism,” what does that mean? That already happens. Moreover, what haooens when all of the companies centralize?
Maybe where you are, here we have tax funded social programs. And that would be called a monopoly, they’re usually bad for everyone except the few people at the top.
Yes, how do you avoid that trending towards a monopoly? Competition forces centralization over time, and even extension into hyper-exploiting the Global South. Further, you absolutely have people dying out of being impoverished.
You have a government, and people fighting for their rights, etc. I don’t think there is any type of system in which we can just sit back and know it won’t need maintaining.
Where I live there’s a law that a company without competition has to forcefully close. There’s quite a bunch of shops kept alive solely by their competitor, who is forced to drive their prices down and service up because of the competition.
There’s a reason regulation exists.
You’re suggesting you de-develop companies and make them less efficient, rather than folding them into the public sector and further improving their efficiency. Once markets have done their job and left centralized, internally planned structures, the answer isn’t to break them up and repeat the process of misery and squalor, but to further develop by folding it into the public sector. It’s like you want to regularly pick up a race car and put it backwards on the track every time it gets close to crossing the finish line.
Competition naturally trends towards monopoly, there is no benefit to perpetually trying to move the clock back. Moreover, even with such laws, your country is still getting more centralized over time, only without worker control.
You need to seriously reconsider why you believe markets to be better than central planning at all stages in development.
I think some corporate shareholders and other private owners might not be too keen about their super profitable property being taken from them.
What you’re describing is similar to the situation in china, where the government is able to claim property of random companies. Unfortunately for the chinese government, the world is bigger than china, and shareholders do run off with their stuff.
Yes, the shareholders therefore need to be subject to Proletarian supremacy. Revolution is required to advance.
As for China, part of the reason why it works is because Capitalists can’t just up and take their factories, the government can sieze them, plus the size of the market and allowance for the existance of wealthy individuals stems brain drain, which proved to assist in the USSR’s downfall.