Would you like to borrow my +3 Trident of Troll-Poking?
Historically speaking, it makes little sense to speak of “first times” when it comes to complex political, economic, and social theories. So, no, there is no point in history at which we can point and say, “this is where socialism/capitalism started.” Like pretty much every philosophy, both are continuum rather than narrowly-delineated movements with clear boundaries. Ultimately, I would argue that socialism is millions of years old, seeing as it is an inevitable outgrowth of human nature, which is social and communal in essence.
However, if we limit ourselves to the Marxist-Leninist strain of socialist thought only, then it is pretty clear that it was implemented for the first time on a national level in 1917.
Said trident belongs to the State, comrade, available for all to poke with. You do not own it. We own it.
In your perfect socialistic utopian dream world, are people allowed to barter and exchange goods for goods or goods for services? If not, why not?
If so, what is the huge fundamental leap from a simple barter and trade economy to one that involves currency in the place of a good or service?
In your perfect socialistic utopia, how does the State influence people to do a better job at whatever they do (besides death or disappearance threats, that is) for the “betterment of the people” rather than for any type of personal/familial gain?
Another thing: no socialistic government can provide every single need for every single citizen in its population. People in other socialistic countries, like France, Sweden, etc actually have jobs that allow for personal ambition. Does your model account for personal ambition (outside of being a Party member)? Is it OK for some to earn more than others? If not, why not? Surely the Dear Leader will be rich and pampered…what kind of example does that represent to the populace?
Enough for now. Shitty Imperialistic American Weak-Assed Beer kicking in, in order to further my imperialistic android dreams of electric sheep, of course.
So, Commissar, you’re into that perfect socialist life, huh? Why, then, are you not living in North Korea? They do, after all, accept, well, let’s call them immigrants.
So how’d that work out for you?
[hijack]
Seriously?
You mean besides South Korean defectors?
In a big enough nation, divergence of opinion means that you can always find someone willing to protest any position on any topic. A single demonstration does not equal universal agreement. To this day, thousands of people take to the streets on Stalin’s birthday to protest in favor of the return of Stalinist socialism.
The Soviet Union didn’t “have” to do anything; it “chose” to do the things that are now part of human history. Was it a good idea? In hindsight, probably not. But then again, you know what they say about hindsight…
Same as above. All nations make judgment calls concerning what speech they will and will not allow. Why don’t you look up the many exceptions that have been carved out of your own alleged First Amendment rights (obscenity, direct threats, incitement, hate speech, time/place/manner restrictions, etc.). The fact that our nations took different approaches does not, in and of itself, make your approach superior. Having said that, I personally am opposed to the criminalization of most political speech. I am also opposed to the criminalization of obscenity though, so it’s not like your country got it right, either.
Absolutely. That’s a point I concede to you with no reservations. People like to speak, and shutting them up makes them dangerous. I would let them chatter away to their hearts’ content.
First, a digression: We humans are imperfect, so there really is no way we can ever achieve a “perfect utopia,” socialist or otherwise. What we can do is approach it as closely as possible while taking fallible human nature into account. Hence, my answers will be based on what I see as a realistic “as good as it gets” system, rather than an impossible “perfect” one.
Now, to answer your question: sure, they can barter at will. Most of us, however, will just be using currency to make the process simpler. Currency is not inherently “bad;” it’s just a governmental IOU.
We explain to the workers why it is they should work harder. Because that alone is obviously insufficient, we also give them more currency for more/better/important work. There is nothing wrong with personal gain, as long as one’s gain does not harm or exploit others.
Sure, different wages are both encouraged and allowed. Personal ambition is encouraged. Private entrepreneurship is neither encouraged nor discouraged, but is freely allowed (with some exceptions, such as medicine, weapons production, etc.).
Private business is not inherently “bad,” either, you see. In fact, it’s pretty important. While the state will run the industries that take care of all basic human needs (agriculture, construction and maintenance, infrastructure, education, medical care, etc.), private business is needed to fill in the blanks (restaurants and clubs, luxury goods, high-quality alcohol, etc.). Without private enterprise, the people won’t starve or freeze, but they’ll still be relatively unhappy. So yes, we need both, and we’ll have both.
Political leaders will be paid high salaries to reflect the importance of their services, but will not be unduly “rich” or “pampered.” It’s a vital job, but it’s still just a job.
I disagree with your methods, but not with your goals. 
I will soon be leaving to pick up some nice Russian vodka for tonight. Let’s see, Ruskii Standart or Moskovskaya? Decisions, decisions…
Actually, yes. There are still a few American, as well as other nationalities, defectors there.
I’m placing my bet on Rassimmoc Red
Ownership of +3 Trident of Troll-Pokind identifies you as reactionary. Secret police will come for you and trident today. Tomorrow, neighbors eat cat.
I’m going for Der Erauqs.
I’m confused. How could something be “prefect rational” as in the capitalist you mention above, yet reach the “wrong” decision? Is that another flaw in your logic or perhaps a Freudian slip?
I’m still waiting on an actual answer to why it was necessary to build a wall around East Berlin and kill those who attempted to cross over that wall.
I’m also waiting on an answer to why the OP is not living in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, certainly a far more communist nation than the People’s Repuplic of China which he was touting upthread.
And limiting yourself to Marxism-Leninism when it comes to socialism is nothing but complete idiocy. Your brand was an abject disaster. Mine wasn’t.
I could’ve sworn I’ve addressed this on every single page of this thread. Oh, well, let me summarize one last time:
The Soviet government made the judgment call that the Wall was a cheap and effective way of countering Western propaganda directed at the socialist Germans from the capitalist bastion of West Berlin.
Necessary in hindsight? Maybe not.
The low number of people killed crossing the Wall is statistically insignificant. You kill more people in Iraq and Afghanistan on a weekly basis. Somehow, I haven’t seen much hand-wringing from you on this topic.
“Far more communist?” According to whom? As you may have noticed, our personal ideals are somewhat far apart on these issues. I do not consider North Korea to be a very good example of a viable socialist nation. China, on the other hand, is as close to socialist perfection as we have been able to come at this point (though, of course, there is always plenty of room for improvement).
Not if you were one of the those people. See, this is why it’s very difficult to take your arguments seriously.
I’ll have the answer for you after the fire…
Well if they both come in plastic bottles what difference would it make?