Socialism is better than your choice of an alternative economy

"This would be no less than a tyrannical mob rule, if I want to produce my own goods and demand payment for them, the "general poplation" has no right to "rise up" against anything since I am not forcing anything on them. I would pose no threat to them by producing my own things. This is why I support the absolute right to gun ownership and the legalisation of machine guns and semi-automattics,. that way if such a mob tried to destroy my property I could defend myself. " The thing is, how can you argue it is legitimate for someone to control the means of production over the workers? I view it as a tyranny for someone to control the means of production and subvert workers. What gives a person a right to piggyback off of workers, who are the ones who are actually doing things? Without the workers, there would be no profit. It's very much like how in feudalism, a baron or owner of a plantation would take from the peasants, when the peasants are the ones doing all the work and all the owner does is make decisions, which the workers/peasants themselves could easily do without someone above them. So, for a people to rise up against a business owner, it is very much like the American revolution, except instead of revolting against a tyrannical political monarchy, you're revolting against a tyrannical business monarchy/oligarchy. Can you really argue for why it is legitimate rule for one person to be at the top of a company, piggybacking off of other people's work and taking advantage of them? "If you want to go form a socilist factory or a socialist community, you can do that under a capitaist model, but you'll most likely go out of buisness due to innefficent production. " As I showed before, GDP, which is of course a measure of production, went up tremendously under two socialist examples. It's not necessarily the case production will become inefficient under socialism. "If all of the profits went to the workers, then the worlkers would make whatever decision they thought would best serve their intrests. So- same results, people serve their own private intrests, " That's true, but the difference between workers doing this and a business owner, is the workers are all part of the poor or middle classes. Since they are part of these classes, they would have more knowledge on what those classes want, and thus them going for their own interests would also be the interests of other poor people and middle class people. The rich are more likely to be able to afford a solution to the problem if the superbug issue escalated, so they are not interested in developing a solution for everybody so long as they can afford it. The workers would be interested in developing something that people of their class can afford, since it is in their interest to do so. Yugoslavia's debt may have gone up during the last decade of its existence, but I would think it likely had to do with the embargo that the west had against Yugoslavia and the policies they set forward to destabilize Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia's debt didn't start rising rapidly, as you can see in your picture, until the mid-1970s. Then in the 1980s, NATO, the IMF, World Bank, and the US all worked together to introduce market economics to Yugoslavia as to try and cure the problem they started. ( http://www.globalresearch.ca... ) However, this mostly ruined the economies of the new countries that formed after Yugoslavia was dismantled. As you can see here, for most of the years after Yugoslavia split into several countries, these several countries have had a GDP growth rate of less than 5%, with the exception of https://www.google.com..., who had only a huge spike in GDP growth in the mid 1990s, but eventually settled down to below 5% GDP growth: ( https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... )whereas it averaged 6.1% when Yugoslavia existed in the 1960s and 1970s(see previous source in the last round I provided for this number). So, in short, the debt raising didn't have to do with the socialist policies of Yugoslavia, but rather the policies capitalist nations and international organizations had towards Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia's debt was very small in the 1950s to early 1970s, yet they still had socialist policies at this time. To claim the socialist policies had to do with the debt, when they didn't have much debt earlier when they had socialist policies, seems to be false. Something changed in the 1970s, and that was the embargoes, and monetary policies the world bank and IMF had towards Yugoslavia. The point I was making about Bolivia is not that their GDP per capita is great now, but rather that it is MUCH better than what is used to be under liberal policies. I acknowledged they are still a poor country, but a LOT has improved since they elected socialist leaders. Again, look at what I said previously for how it improved.