Why Socialism doesn't work ?

[Revoltingest]

How do you explain China? I've been to China on business many times. There is no doubt we are talking communist country. Some of the companies and factories we buy from share intellectual property. Everything in China is about maximum employment.

China never became prosperous until it embraced capitalism.
More wealth...no more famines.

 

[Revoltingest]

To be precise...there is a third way: the state owns banks and enterprises in strategic sectors...so the state's profits are not "taxes" only.

You're talking of a hybrid.

 

[Revoltingest]

You need your own narrow definition of "socialism" to make your arguments sound like they make sense.

Check dictionary.com.
The definition is what it is.

If socialist countries must be entirely socialist to qualify as socialist in your thinking, then let's apply the same rule to capitalism. You can't say that capitalism has worked anywhere in the world because nations don't use the system entirely.

I'm OK with a country being mostly this or that to qualify as one or the other.
This mongrel isn't about purity.
But fans of socialism cite only the least socialist countries, ie, the ones which are capitalistic.
They never cite the strongly socialist ones because they're all terrible.

 

[joe1776]

Check dictionary.com.
The definition is what it is.

Dictionaries report common usage. The definition in Dictionary.com does not preclude the use of the word "socialist" unless the nation is entirely socialist because that's not the way it's commonly used.

I'm OK with a country being mostly this or that to qualify as one or the other. This mongrel isn't about purity. But fans of socialism cite only the least socialist countries, ie, the ones which are capitalistic.

I live in the USA, a bastion of capitalism, we do well in the manufacturing of products but our services, especially our healthcare, are overpriced ripoffs.

We need a mixed economy for now. One day, when we solve the problem of building an efficient government, I expect to see a cooperative system which will treat people fairly regardless of the circumstances of their birth.

 

[Yerda]

Let's look up the definition....
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/socialism?s=t
noun

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

1. If we take that as a rough start we can see that none of the regimes you list in post #17 appear to have been socialist.

 

[YmirGF]

You're making a list of claims you can't support with evidence.

Offer your evidence that the Socialist concept and not inept and corrupt government has been responsible for ANY past failure.

On what standard do you measure a society? The Nordic countries aren't doing spectacularly in WHAT?

Socialist policies inhibit the growth of WHAT?

Oh, good grief. They are not doing spectacularly economically. They are doing ok though. Then again, if it is all just inept and corrupt government why does Socialism seem to attract people who have no qualms strong-arming their populations once they are given power and are reluctant to leave office once in power. Other than banana republic dictatorships that seems to be a feature of Socialist/Communist governments.

 

[YmirGF]

You're making a list of claims you can't support with evidence.

Offer your evidence that the Socialist concept and not inept and corrupt government has been responsible for ANY past failure.

On what standard do you measure a society? The Nordic countries aren't doing spectacularly in WHAT?

Socialist policies inhibit the growth of WHAT?

Oh, good grief. They are not doing spectacularly economically. They are doing ok though. Then again, if it is all just inept and corrupt government why does Socialism seem to attract people who have no qualms strong-arming their populations once they are given power and are reluctant to leave office once in power. Other than with banana republic dictatorships that seems to be a feature of Socialist/Communist governments.

 

[Yerda]

Maybe this is why no one who has actually lived under socialism is ever a proponent of it.
AFP news agency

@AFP
“Our pensions are not even enough for half a box of eggs," a desperate Venezuelan senior citizen tells AFP during a protest in Caracas (link:
https://mobile.twitter.com/AFP/status/1019784782362816512/video/1

You do know there are socialists in Venezuela, aye?

 

[Revoltingest]

Dictionaries report common usage. The definition in Dictionary.com does not preclude the use of the word "socialist" unless the nation is entirely socialist because that's not the way it's commonly used.

So "socialism" also includes capitalism in this uncommon usage,
in which case it refers to capitalism with a social safety net?

I live in the USA, a bastion of capitalism, we do well in the manufacturing of products but our services, especially our healthcare, are overpriced ripoffs.

We need a mixed economy for now. One day, when we solve the problem of building an efficient government, I expect to see a cooperative system which will treat people fairly regardless of the circumstances of their birth.

Do you envision this future to exclude capitalism?
(I ask because it's not clear.)

 

[YmirGF]

You do know there are socialists in Venezuela, aye?

If I am not wrong they are meaning people who have either grown up in or lived in Socialist hellholes for many years. The Venezuelans are still a bit new to the whole thing and so are just now discovering the fruits of socialist wisdom firsthand.

 

[Revoltingest]

1. If we take that as a rough start we can see that none of the regimes you list in post #17 appear to have been socialist.

Again, I'm not looking for perfection or purity.
A reasonable person would describe Americastan as capitalist,
& N Korea as socialist because they're at opposite ends of the
capitalist-socialist spectrum.
If we don't have a working definition of socialism, then socialists
will just pick exemplary countries, call them socialist, & ignore
the more socialist bad examples. This is what's been going on.

If we look at the definitions used by everyone who refers to a
dictionary, we see it's about who controls the means of production.
It's the private sector vs the government (typically).
Sweden, for example, has a thriving private sector economy.
N Korea does not.

It strongly appears that most socialists here really want a
Scandinavian style capitalist economy & government.
Does anyone want to eliminate capitalism, & if so, where
has this worked well?

 

[Yerda]

If I am not wrong they are meaning people who have either grown up in or lived in Socialist hellholes for many years. The Venezuelans are still a bit new to the whole thing and so are just now discovering the fruits of socialist wisdom firsthand.

I get it. I don't think any of the hellholes (or Venezuela) are socialist but I suspect we'll have to respectfully disagree there.

 

[YmirGF]

I get it. I don't think any of the hellholes (or Venezuela) are socialist but I suspect we'll have to respectfully disagree there.

I am getting weary of this disingenuous argument, that they are not truly socialist countries. It's a position that smacks of astounding arrogance in that the speaker knows more about socialism than those who actually got off their butts and tried to effect change in their societies by introducing socialist principles as their governing perspective and saw themselves are Socialists/Communists.

For those in the cheap seats, Socialism is the transitional phase between Capitalism and Communism and was expected to be more than a little weird in areas. It is due to this feature, of being transitional, that no social experiment could ever be completely 100% Socialist as there is too much to change, even over a period of many years. My guess is that is why many countries sailed right off the bridge of sanity directly into Communism and spectacular, but predictable, failure.

 

[Yerda]

Again, I'm not looking for perfection or purity.
A reasonable person would describe Americastan as capitalist,
& N Korea as socialist because they're at opposite ends of the
capitalist-socialist spectrum.
If we don't have a working definition of socialism, then socialists
will just pick exemplary countries, call them socialist, & ignore
the more socialist bad examples. This is what's been going on.

If we look at the definitions used by everyone who refers to a
dictionary, we see it's about who controls the means of production.
It's the private sector vs the government (typically).
Sweden, for example, has a thriving private sector economy.
N Korea does not.

It strongly appears that most socialists here really want a
Scandinavian style capitalist economy & government.
Does anyone want to eliminate capitalism, & if so, where
has this worked well?

I see.

So is it fair to say that by socialism you mean any system where the means of production are controlled by the state?

 

[YmirGF]

I see.

So is it fair to say that by socialism you mean any system where the means of production are controlled by the state?

Or whose government members keeps the works of Marx & Engels on their night tables for endless edification.

 

[Yerda]

I am getting weary of this disingenuous argument, that they are not truly socialist countries. It's a position that smacks of astounding arrogance in that the speaker knows more about socialism than those who actually got off their butts and tried to effect change in their societies by introducing socialist principles as their governing perspective and saw themselves are Socialists/Communists.

I never offered you an argument but an opinion and the friendly suggestion that we respectfully disagree. Here is a rough argument:

It is my understanding that a place that has no capitalism but fits few of the criteria of socialism is not socialist. In the same way that a country with elections but lacking the civic institutions rights and duties of democracy is not democratic.

I'm not saying that the USSR wasn't true socialism. I'm saying it wasn't socialism at all. The workers had no right to unionise, the community had no means to exercise control and the ownership of production (and everything else) was de facto reserved for an autocratic elite that controlled the party.

I'm not sure what is arrogant or disingenuous about holding that opinion that this isn't socialism.

For those in the cheap seats, Socialism is the transitional phase between Capitalism and Communism and was expected to be more than a little weird in areas. It is due to this feature, of being transitional, that no social experiment could ever be completely 100% Socialist as there is too much to change, even over a period of many years.

That's only one tradition within a large umbrella of ideas.

 

[YmirGF]

That's only one tradition within a large umbrella of ideas.

I think that is a HUGE part of the problem. There are now so many flavors of socialism that it is hard to pin the beast down. MY point was countries, like Venezuela, who are currently run by self-described socialists, who have little economic understanding, are put in charge because the people tend to like how they bill themselves during elections - well, at first, at least.

 

[Yerda]

I think that is a HUGE part of the problem. There are now so many flavors of socialism that it is hard to pin the beast down. MY point was countries, like Venezuela, who are currently run by self-described socialists, who have little economic understanding, are put in charge because the people tend to like how they bill themselves during elections - well, at first, at least.

I think I can agree with that.

 

[YmirGF]

I think I can agree with that.

We are getting somewhere! YES!

 

[Revoltingest]

I see.

So is it fair to say that by socialism you mean any system where the means of production are controlled by the state?

Looking at Dictionary.com's primary definition.....

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of themeans of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

....the "community as a whole" is essentially "the state".

I prefer adhering to dictionary definitions when possible.
(Arcane technical usages are sometimes necessary, but
the context & audience should make the meaning clear.)
Otherwise, Obama is a "commie", Trump is a "Nazi",
& Libertarians are "clinically insane alien life forms".