Socialists may have the same mentality as Nazis: that people must be enslaved

[mikkel_the_dane]

More agreeability.

Yeah, we agree. It is possible to combine capitalism and socialism.

 

[Stevicus]

Why do socialist fanboys always cite "socialist"
countries that are capitalist? Never socialist
countries that aren't capitalist, eg, N Korea.

Because countries that get bombed out and devastated by war tend to be somewhat hobbled economically, compared to countries that were fortunate enough to avoid such maladies.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because countries that get bombed out and devastated by war tend to be somewhat hobbled economically, compared to countries that were fortunate enough to avoid such maladies.

Well, that doesn't explain the difference between North and South Korea. But it might not have to do with socialism or not?!!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Why do socialist fanboys always cite "socialist"
countries that are capitalist? Never socialist
countries that aren't capitalist, eg, N Korea.

What would you call a country where most large companies and many small companies have state money invested in them. And the largest key industries are virtually all state owned.

The only one I can think of is Norway.

There are now very few countries that are socialist with out capitalism I have previously mentioned N Korea and Cuba but even those have private businesses. North Korea is a communist hereditary Dictatorship pretty much a one off.

Most western countries have hybrid economies. Where the state owned and private enterprises combine with a social agenda.

 

[Stevicus]

Well, that doesn't explain the difference between North and South Korea. But it might not have to do with socialism or not?!!

Well, there was obviously more to it than that, but the explanations of why some countries do well and others founder are varied and multi-faceted. I don't believe it says anything to simply chalk it up to one "system" or another. It's complicated, which is why I kind of object to the gross oversimplifications regarding socialism I often see. I don't care if people don't like socialism or don't agree with it, but it's the distortions of history which I would take issue with.

And the consequences of this should not be taken lightly. In recent times, I've noticed certain ideas cropping up from the body politic which would indicate that we are failing to learn the lessons of history. And this could be a problem.

 

[Heyo]

Education isn't the means of production.

It is. Education produces skilled workers, who are needed by the corporations.
Medicine maintains the productivity of the workers, so it is a useful service.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Education isn't the means of production.

wiki › Means_of_production
In political philosophy, the means of production refers to the generally necessary assets and resources that enable a society to engage in production.

A well educated worker is a resources. So education is in effect a resource that enhances another resource, workers and even capitalists themselves in some cases.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because countries that get bombed out and devastated by war tend to be somewhat hobbled economically....

Yeah...that's the problem that every socialist
country has / had, eg, Cuba, USSR.
Oh, wait....they were miserable without being
"bombed out". There goes that excuse.
BTW, S Korea managed to recover from the
war. Capitalism!

 

[Revoltingest]

What would you call a country where most large companies and many small companies have state money invested in them. And the largest key industries are virtually all state owned.

Your scenario describes socialism.
Norway has privately owned businesses
& a market economy.

Economy of Norway - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nordic Countries Aren’t Actually Socialist

Denmark, Norway, and Sweden shouldn’t be held up as socialist utopias.

foreignpolicy.com

Socialism's fans typically don't advocate a mixed
economy. They usually oppose capitalism, eg,
our friend in Italy. That's where the real trouble
lies, ie, going whole hog.
Many lefties call government provided health care
"socialist". Yet I can live with that, provided it's not
the only way that health care can be legally had.
So I can compromise on a little mixing.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is.

If you say so.

 

[Revoltingest]

wiki...

I've used that too.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've used that too.

Wow, you are back. So we agree that a welfare state is a combination of capitalism and socialism!!! Good!!!

 

[Revoltingest]

Wow, you are back.

I had errands.

 

[Stevicus]

Yeah...that's the problem that every socialist
country has / had, eg, Cuba, USSR.
Oh, wait....they were miserable without being
"bombed out". There goes that excuse.
BTW, S Korea managed to recover from the
war. Capitalism!

Actually, USSR was pretty much bombed out in two world wars. And Cuba was far more miserable before communism. Communism made Cuba better, so I guess that blows that argument out of the water.

 

[Yerda]

Only "could be"?
The Scandinavian model is oft cited by socialism's
fans as the best in the world. Has any socialist
economy done better?

Depends on how you measure it. If housing, feeding, clothing and educating people in need is a valid measure then yes, the Soviet Union.

Scandinavia is so popular amongst socialists because those countries make clear the idea that our political economy doesn't have to be geared solely towards the interests of the wealthy. Despite the claims of the free markets screwballs we can have strong unions, high wages, a supportive welfare state and lots of public ownership while producing more and better than the countries sick with neoliberalism.

I would agree that it isn't socialism. Just taking some of the best bits that can be fitted into a capitalist economy. But most capitalists seem to agree that it is socialism. This is why the miscommunication happens. If you tell people the word for a better system is socialism, then that's the word they'll use when they explain that they want it.

Authoritarian governments can readily achieve goals
simply by fiat.

Not by fiat, but planning the economy allowed them to make huge strides without markets. It would be silly to discard what can be learned there.

With tens of millions of deaths due to starvation
& political purges. Is it really better if some of
the poor get security, but others are killed in the
process, eg, the Holomodor genocide?
Another poster has argued that socialism is great
because the serfs were better off after the revolution.
But this claim has never been supported.

Famines have occured throughout the world under every system but for some reason only the ones that happened in particular countries count as a mark against the economic system in place. We've seen people starving to death because they lack the means to purchase food while the land owners in the same place export grain on the global market. This is the direct result of capitalism and for some strange reason the dozens of examples don't seem to count against capitalism.

Under socialism, there are fewer resources to allocate.

There is no reason at all to expect this to be true.

If the goal is raising living standards, then let that be
the goal. It's more possible under capitalism.

Generally, I can agree with this. Not the kind of capitalism advocated by the free market screwballs, but definitely markets are useful for lifting people out of poverty.

What you will see if you have a look into each and every country that has managed to lift people out of terrible poverty are focused government programs. They had capitalism before and after, but the change was a concentrated effort at policy level to change things. So capitalism paired with government programs to alleviate poverty seems to work quite well. Capitalism alone, worse than useless.

It is interesting that Marx seemed to take a similar view. The great forces that capitalism could muster were the only thing that could bring a pre-industrial society to the level where socialism could be effective.

No, that is pretty much the criterion for each.

Markets are how goods are distributed. Socialism is how goods are produced. There were market economies before capitalism and market socialism is a thing.

Socialism's problem is fundamental, ie, that a powerful
central government is necessary to impose it, ie, to
prevent all free economic association. That kind of
power has historically inexorably led to oppression.

If we only consider govenments that came to power through a violent revolution led by a vanguard party that managed to eradicate all opposition, then yes this is where it leads. If you happen to elect a socialist goverenment a much bigger problem is that the USA will overthrow your government and massacre hundreds of thousands of people.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, USSR was pretty much bombed out in two world wars. And Cuba was far more miserable before communism. Communism made Cuba better, so I guess that blows that argument out of the water.

Given that WW2 was somewhat instigated by
Russia's alliance with Hitler, the results can be
blamed on Russia's socialist government.
Note that West Germany was even more
bombed out, yet it became an economic
powerhouse.
Always offering reasons that socialist countries
always fail suggests there's a more fundamental
problem than external mischief.

 

[Revoltingest]

Depends on how you measure it. If housing, feeding, clothing and educating people in need is a valid measure then yes, the Soviet Union.

The USSR doesn't appear to be very successful at those
things, eg, the Holodomor, chronic food shortages.

Scandinavia is so popular amongst socialists because those countries make clear the idea that our political economy doesn't have to be geared solely towards the interests of the wealthy.

That's not something inherent to socialism.
It's a society's choice....independent of the
economic system.

Despite the claims of the free markets screwballs we can have strong unions, high wages, a supportive welfare state and lots of public ownership while producing more and better than the countries sick with neoliberalism.

That's not clear to me.

I would agree that it isn't socialism. Just taking some of the best bits that can be fitted into a capitalist economy. But most capitalists seem to agree that it is socialism. This is why the miscommunication happens. If you tell people the word for a better system is socialism, then that's the word they'll use when they explain that they want it.

We needn't take anything from socialism.
If we want more social benefits, just offer them.

Not by fiat, but planning the economy allowed them to make huge strides without markets. It would be silly to discard what can be learned there.

Governing by fiat without elections, & having
continuity of leadership is efficient at reaching
goals. Democracy often involves a lot of dithering,
as administrations change direction.
The lack of markets actually inhibits reaching goals
because the less powerful economy limits ability
to finance them.

Famines have occured throughout the world under every system but for some reason only the ones that happened in particular countries count as a mark against the economic system in place. We've seen people starving to death because they lack the means to purchase food while the land owners in the same place export grain on the global market. This is the direct result of capitalism and for some strange reason the dozens of examples don't seem to count against capitalism.

Famines often aren't things that just "occur".
The Holodomor was intentional.
The Great Leap Forward was incompetent
central planning with coercive enforcement.

There is no reason at all to expect this to be true.

There is a reason, ie, history's showing that
this is an emergent property of socialism.

Generally, I can agree with this. Not the kind of capitalism advocated by the free market screwballs....

Better them than socialist "screwballs", who'd
wreck the economy, & impose fascism, as is
their wont.

....but definitely markets are useful for lifting people out of poverty.

In concert with social programs to assist them.

What you will see if you have a look into each and every country that has managed to lift people out of terrible poverty are focused government programs. They had capitalism before and after, but the change was a concentrated effort at policy level to change things. So capitalism paired with government programs to alleviate poverty seems to work quite well. Capitalism alone, worse than useless.

Capitalism alone is still better than socialism alone,
eg, The Killing Fields.
It's pointless to decry capitalism with no regulation
& no social programs because that's not what's
being advocated here.

It is interesting that Marx seemed to take a similar view. The great forces that capitalism could muster were the only thing that could bring a pre-industrial society to the level where socialism could be effective.

Only then would Marx slay the golden goose.

Markets are how goods are distributed. Socialism is how goods are produced. There were market economies before capitalism....

It sounds like you're saying that capitalism
existed before capitalism came into being.

and market socialism is a thing.

OK.

If we only consider govenments that came to power through a violent revolution led by a vanguard party that managed to eradicate all opposition, then yes this is where it leads. If you happen to elect a socialist goverenment a much bigger problem is that the USA will overthrow your government and massacre hundreds of thousands of people.

A socialist government, even one elected, would
still need a powerful central government to prevent
free economic association, which would be criminalized.
Note that USSR managed to get by as well as it did
because of a thriving black market, & by bribing
officials. Sounds like failure.

 

[Stevicus]

Given that WW2 was somewhat instigated by
Russia's alliance with Hitler, the results can be
blamed on Russia's socialist government.
Note that West Germany was even more
bombed out, yet it became an economic
powerhouse.
Always offering reasons that socialist countries
always fail suggests there's a more fundamental
problem than external mischief.

I just tend to reject oversimplified and highly abstract "systemic" explanations for a country's success or failure. I prefer to look at actual physical and tangible things that actually happened and are part of the historical record (both the positive and the negative). That tells what actually happened and be able to pinpoint actual causes and effects.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Socialists may have the same mentality as Nazis: that people must be enslaved​

Sure. Why not. Now get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich, slave!

 

[Revoltingest]

I just tend to reject oversimplified and highly abstract "systemic" explanations for a country's success or failure.

It seems that you reject any explanation
that would make a socialist country
responsible for its own failure.