Socialism in 21 century?

What do you think about "economic democracy" concept under which economy is primarily based on cooperatives?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy#:~:text=Economic%20democracy%20is%20a%20socioeconomic,neighbours%20and%20the%20broader%20public.
History shows that democracy is by far the most efficient way of administration.

That's how Gaddafi ran Libya but with "committees." It only worked out well because Libya had a ton of oil and sold a ton of it to pay for other ****-ups. I don't understand why some countries who have respective reserves and yet other places with huge reserves like Venezuala, Nigeria, etc. are screwed.

There are some cooperative farms and businesses here. They tend to do quite well. Some people use the farms to grow extra vegetables, fruits, etc. that they can't fit in their garden or simply want fresh farm food and they take turns caring for the crop. The businesses tend to be a bunch of hippies living together and selling branded products. They pitch in and split the profits.


I disagree. Parliamentary systems will always have infighting, competing interests and most of it is a waste of time. An authoritarian dictatorship has proven in modern history to be the most efficient administration - Germany, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Ukrainians have no propensity for dictatorship. Which country in the World ever willingly returned from official democracy to an absolute monarchy or started to do better under absolute monarchy than under democracy?

A credit union, a type of financial institution similar to a commercial bank, is a member-owned financial cooperative, controlled by its members and operated on a not-for-profit basis. Credit unions generally provide services to members similar to retail banks, including deposit accounts, provision of credit, and other financial services. Worldwide, credit union systems vary significantly in terms of total assets and average institution asset size, ranging from volunteer operations with a handful of members to institutions with hundreds of thousands of members and assets worth billions of US dollars.[4] In 2018, the number of members in credit unions worldwide was 274 million, with nearly 40 million members being added since 2016.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_union

Seriously???

That is your opinion only....

I never encountered claims of any well known economist (which would be based on deep analysis and widely collected statistics) that cooperatives are less efficient than sole-owned enterprizes. Do you?

As far as I have read cooperatives can work very well in a market system, meaning they can be as effective and successful in a democratic, capitalist system as a sole-owned enterprise....it's the in-efficient one-party-rule system common in socialist systems which puts a damper on everything...it just doesn't work...the economy doesn't work and hence even cooperatives have no chance in such a failed system!

Has nothing to do with socialism. Majority of capitalist countries experienced either one party rule or dictatorship during its existance. Remember Nazi Germany. Or interwar Poland.

It is a mainstay of socialism.....after all no socialist country managed without it!

PS: NationalSOCIALISM!!!

Up to date there was no socialist country in the world. Only Yugoslavia pretended they are tried to build something like this. Salaries there were higher than in USSR, according to some sources. But still unnecessary envolvement of government in economy was still too high there to restrict full potential. Still I respect countries like China and their leaders at least for attempt to build socialism and protecting socialism ideas verbally.


Comrades started to wake up. Who could expect...

The largest credit union in North America:
The Desjardins Group (French: Mouvement Desjardins) is a Canadian financial services cooperative and the largest federation of credit unions (French: caisses populaires) in North America. It was founded in 1900 in Lévis, Quebec by Alphonse Desjardins. As of 2017, Desjardins Group consists of 293 local credit unions operating 1,032 points of service and serving more than seven million members and clients, mostly in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.

polishforums.com/off-topic/socialism-century-87089

Despite their common origins, the socialist economy of Yugoslavia was much different from the economy of the Soviet Union and the economies of the Eastern Bloc, especially after the Yugoslav-Soviet break-up of 1948. Though they were state-owned enterprises, Yugoslav companies were nominally collectively managed by the employees themselves through workers' self-management, albeit with state oversight dictating wage bills and the hiring and firing of managers

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia#Economy

That is a bold statement!

Just because they all failed doesn't mean they didn't try the best they could. It just never worked like promised in the books because it forget about the people...but alot of things don't survive the test of reality! For such ideologies to work you need another humans!

Smart people learn their lessons....stupid people want to try again!

Do you know Einstein's definition of insanity?

They never tried the best they could. They all prohibited or severely restricted cooperatives. Cooperatives are veriety and even mainstream of socialist property form. Therefore no country which prohibits socialist property form could be named fully socialist. In modern Western countries and especially in US or Canada countries like China, USSR or GDR are usually named "communist", not "socialist". And one-party rule is also usually associated with "communism". Personally for me word "communism" is rather utopic and delusional, but if they agreed to use it, this is up to them.

All countries in Europe which fell into Soviet orbit of influence copied system which existed in Stalin's USSR. Well, they had no choice. Hence one-party rule.

"Stalinism represents Stalin's style of governance as opposed to Marxism-Leninism, the socioeconomic system and political ideology implemented by Stalin in the Soviet Union and later adapted by other states based on the ideological Soviet model, such as central planning, nationalization, and one-party state..."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
There were a few notable exceptions, however. For example in Czechoslovak socialist republic:
"In April 1945, the Third Republic was formed, led by a National Front of six parties...The Communists were the big winners in the 1946 elections, taking a total of 114 seats (they ran a separate list in Slovakia). Thereafter, the Soviet Union was disappointed that the government failed to eliminate "bourgeois" influence in the army, expropriate industrialists and large landowners and eliminate parties outside of the "National Front".[9] Hope in Moscow was waning for a Communist victory in the 1948 elections following a May 1947 Kremlin report concluding that "reactionary elements" praising Western democracy had strengthened."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Socialist_Republic#History

In combating a single family taking over everything, and open to change.

Most problematic side of autocracies is the comfort of positions, by having loyalty and who's side you are on as only/main reason for a job position it removes efficiency, quality and creates room for bribes+mismanagement.

By having a changing leadership, it forces an administration to be professional experts in their field and provide quality services to survive change of leadership (no matter which political side rules) due to competency

I toured Russia before the wall fell and live in Poland. Socialism is the AIDS of nations. It is like fungal root rot eating the whole civilisation out from the inside.

Russia, 1983 : "People they come from all over the world to learn about our intellect and mathematical achievements. They all know the great scienmagism of our society is advancement and science."

Korvinus, 1983 : "You're living in a schizophrenic dream world. People come to visit your country because it is a horror freak show that makes them feel better wherever they live that isn't here. Your culture is the queef from a mile high pile of unwashed jockstraps from the Karl Marx fat camp. KGB agents come into your homes at night and enjoy farting into your open mouths while you sleep."

Russia, 2022 : "People they come from all over the world to learn about our intellect and mathematical achievements. They all know the great scienmagism of our society is advancement and science."

Korvinus, 2022 : "You're living in a schizophrenic dream world. People come to visit your country because it is a horror freak show that makes them feel better wherever they live that isn't here. Your culture is the queef from a mile high pile of unwashed jockstraps from the Karl Marx fat camp. Government bureaucrats come into your homes at night and enjoy farting into your open mouths while you sleep."

Economic democracy isn't the same... Obviously not.

I feel completely comfortable with private property owners. However in 99% of cases private businesses are transfered by inheritance. Children do not always inherit the tallants of their ancestors. Therefore if not-to- bright son inherites bussines of his bright farther (who started business) and manages it, this business will likely start to experience long or not so long period of stagnation, workforce cuts and salaries cuts before it will go bankrupt and all employees will loose their jobs. If transfering property by inheritence is the rule in economy, then there always should be a plenty of companies which stagnate, go bancrupt or consumed by other companies just because their owners-managers are the "princes" without a tallant. And entire economy should always suffer quite a much because of it. In cooperatives on other hand the general managers and directors are elected and employees have always ability to elect person who is the most tallanted of othes, thus avoiding inheritance problem. Therefore entire economy suppose to perform better under economic democracy. Definitely for this the empoyees suppose to have a certain level of proficiency to elect the best manager. Everyone suppose to undrstand selection of candidates on the serious level as a science.


Tell this to post-communist Eastern Europeans

Some of their projects were quite successful. For example
Volkswagen (German: [ˈfɔlksˌvaːɡn̩] (audio speaker iconlisten);[Note 1] shortened to VW [faʊˈveː] (audio speaker iconlisten)) is a German motor vehicle manufacturer headquartered in Wolfsburg, Lower Saxony, Germany. Founded in 1937 by the German Labour Front, known for their iconic Beetle, it is the flagship brand of the Volkswagen Group, the largest car maker by worldwide sales in 2016 and 2017.

Thus, Hitler chose to sponsor an all-new, state-owned factory using Ferdinand Porsche's design (with some of Hitler's design suggestions, including an air-cooled engine so nothing could freeze). The intention was that German families could buy the car through a savings scheme ("Fünf Mark die Woche musst du sparen, willst du im eigenen Wagen fahren" - "Five Marks a week you must set aside, if in your own car you wish to ride"), which around 336,000 people eventually paid into.[11] However, the project was not commercially viable, and only government support was able to keep it afloat.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen#1932%E2%80%931940:_People's_Car_project

Or autobahns:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn#History

I think, one of the largest disadvantages of modern economic system is that it doesn't create sufficient material incentives for an intelligent people to have enough children. History shows that high fertility rates (ether higher or equal to simple self-reproduction) ary typical only to agrarian type of civilization. Each country or nation which experienced 100+ years of firm, widescale industrialisation irriversbly falls well below level of natural self-reproduction. There is no exeptions. The only solution to this problem which was invented so far is immigration. But industrialized countries like Eastern Europe or China wouldn't be able to supply immigrants forever because ultimately they will start to run out people themselves. Then only agrarian countries remain as the ultimate human power source in modern World. But the problem is that immigrants have to be assimilated. You can take a man out of agrarian country, but you cannot always take an agrarian country out of man. I think those of you who are older than 40 remember times when South Africa was widely known as a developed country. It was the first country in which human heart transplantation was made and famous Fermat Theorem was proved! It was a country which independently (and regardless economic sanctions) developed and created nuclear weapon, but later willingly refused from it! Now all the achievments of this country are not more than a fairy tales to be told to grandchildren. What happened in this country is that well educated people gave birth to 1-2 children while those without education and involved in agriculture gave birth to 5-6 children. The same story going to happen in all other countries. Moreover, current World system assumes that agrarian countries must always remain agrarian and undeveloped in order to have high fertility rates and serve mass immigration suppliers.

One possible solution to this problem is introduction in developed countries not jus big, but HUGE children subsidies for intelligent people (or those who qualify), to seduce them to have more children. But the problem is that according to a common sens and justice only increased taxes on the rich could serve the source of such subsidies. And taxes have to become so high, that basically it would be equal to Socialism. Obviously the rich will resist in all ways possible, starting from capital flight and tax evasion. And an average IQ level in the World will continue to fall idefinitely. Probably if majority of enterprises would be cooperatives it is easier to tax them, than sole-owned entreprises and direct these money to raise intelligent children and give good education to them. Income inequalities in many countries started to reach an absurd levels. For example in USA in 1978 1% of the reachest people consumed 10% of the total national probuct, now they consume 35-40%! And this is just officialy. It doesn't include those capitals which are made in illegal ways (mafia) or hidden from tax inspectors in offshores. This tendency to inequality increase started to get unstoppable. Even some billionaires in US started to recognize it. Now it started to undermine the very culturan and intellectual foundation of Western society. Average performance of student in USA started to fall irreversibly. How modern capitalism could be compatible with scientific and technical progress in long run, if avarage IQ level has constat tendency fall??? Definitely it cannot continue long enough by historical measures...

Cut the bs, Vlad. The global problem is that the world does not produce enough white people and produces too many brown ones nobody needs and wants. It was not South Africa that achieved those things you mentioned. It was the whites in South Africa who did.


Because the jobs like engineering are in China. A guy graduates with BSEE and 100k in debt and now what?

Japan, Taiwan or South Korea aren't white, yet their fertility rates are well below replacement levels. It anavoidably happens to any country in which only minority of people are engaged in agriculture. And who therefore outgrowed patriarchal thinking and lifestile. Ultimately it will happen even in Africa. Capitalism will not be able to exist without some extraordinary incentives to encoursge people to have children. Otherwise global population will start to diminish indefinitely.


So what would be your proposition regarding this?

STOP FOREIGN MIGRANTS OF ALL KINDS!!!. This bus is full! Brazil is hell, not a model.

With all that remote technology, we can hire remote Indians to do what they do now locally. "Cheap" Latino labor prevents the development of machines that can work the farms. If we can have self-driving 18-wheelers, we can do without the illegal Latino scum.


1. Not true. The "indefinitely" part. The negative feedback will eventually kick in and stop the process population reduction at some point. The global headcount is not an avalanche positive feedback leading to zero.

2. The world did just fine with 2 billion people and the US with 150 million. Way to go before the streets are empty.

The problem is not the count but the quality of life. With the migration tsunami here and in Europe, it shouldn't be any surprise that the natives are depressed and refuse to have babies.

With the well-paying jobs pretty much gone, it takes two incomes to live the way one used to be enough to support. Now, many women are forced to go to work to keep a reasonable standard of living. Few can afford babysitters five days a week - something the covid Gestapo ignored.

3. Stop all imports. Bring the factories back home and pay enough so that one income is sufficient. Now, she can afford to get pregnant.

If you think none of that is possible, answer this question: could the US exist as the only country on the globe?

Japan is practically closed to immigration, yet its population diminishes.


This is just an empty words. How could it be done without changing the system?


This is one more serious problem, that cooperatives could answer. I think co-ops aren't as likely to ousource their production facilities in other countries with cheaper workforce as sole-proprietorships. Because in some sense they aren't for-profit organizations as a private companies. Have you ever heard about such cases?

Tariffs. No changes are needed. Just a signature by the president. Tariffs are already lawful and the only question is how much.
Or trade deficits being made illegal as unsustainable and a threat to national security just as living beyond your means is a threat to your family.


From 128 to 126 million in 10 years. BFD. In 1940 - 74 million.

Wan't it been attempted by Trump? What were the ultimate results? For how long it worked out?


This is just the start. In the future it will diminish with increased speed. But I wonder what solution Japanese will ultimately invent for this...


Could you explain and prove it? For now it didn't happen in any country yet.

I can't beyond claiming - without proof - that societies are living organisms and as long as they retain the instinct of self-preservation, something will happen to prevent their death. That's why it's so critical to opposed the LGBT weirdos every step of the way - especially in schools.

And abortions. Poland is spot on in both cases.


They could go back to 70 million heads and still be viable. They were viable enough to give us war in 1941. With everything being automated, 50 would be plenty.

It used to be 30%. Now 3% feeds America and some.

It is not only quantity, but quality that matters. What would be the use of 2 billions of savages?


I agree that all not going to happen overnight, but an advanced civilization suppose to think at least 50-100 years in the future... I guess you will not strongly diagree that global slowdown of scientifical, technical, cultural, economic progress already started. Compare general speed of progress in 20-th and 21-st centuries. And at least partially this slowdown could be attributed to demographic changes...


The problem here is that a lot of things could be proposed, but the question is how realistically could it be implemented within the existing system. From what I know up to date no Western country succeeded to ban immigration almost completely or return almost all outsorsed jobs back to country. It means that opposition to such measures is so strong, that it is practically impossible to break through. And quite obvious what kind of opposition it is. Definitely not workers or peasants. Measerus that you mentioned sounded loudly for the last century in all Western countries, but with time it were only the opposite trends which took over. Probably, it is the end of story.

Already 125!
"The current population of Japan is 125,852,383 as of Saturday, February 12, 2022, based on Worldometer elaboration of the latest United Nations data. Japan 2020 population is estimated at 126,476,461 people at mid year according to UN data."

One million less just in two years!
It is predicted that Japan population will diminish to 105 mln. in 2050. Just in 28 years!
worldometers.info/world-population/japan-population/

That's what happens when the ship tilts past the point of no return. It eventually capsizes.

In the stupid Western "democracies", illegal foreigners are treated better than the locals. That invites more foreign scum. Even that process is self-stabilizing when the host is ruined and the standard of living matches that of the sh*itholes. Then they quit coming but it's too late.

This is why the Japs said hell no! to immigrants. Smart Japs. No Mexicans but you still can buy tomatoes in Japan. Strange...

And they have motels and fast-food restaurants, too! Miracle!

Was you born in US?

No he wasn't. 🤭

Not all of them. Apparently, not Eastern Europeans.

Personally, I never had something against foreigners just because they are foreigners. When I lived in Ukraine I would have no objections if millions of Poles or say Germans would want to immigrate in Ukraine under condition that they will study Ukrainian well and respect Ukrainians. Immigrants are not a problem by themselves if they assimilate well and don't create a lot of problems.

One more option to delay World population quality crisis would be creation of the anti-aging therapy. But either the acheivements in this field are hightly secretive or insufficient money are allocated for the researches.

I despise them because they are foreigners. Specifically, for their lousy English and fu*cked up sense of loyalty.
To many, the US is just a better motel for a limited stay. When the stay is no longer fun, back home they go.