5 ms·

Several countries that are fairly socialist have higher living standards than the U.S., where "socialism" is an epithet for some reason. McCarthy lives on I su

by beloch 10y ago

Several countries that are fairly socialist have higher living standards than the U.S., where "socialism" is an epithet for some reason. McCarthy lives on I suppose. Venezuela's problem is totalitarianism. In a socialist country, it is possible for the government to be governed by law and have limits placed on its power. That is not what's been going in in Venezuala.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
SilasX 10y ago
But what was totalitarian about it? All of the economically destructive measures (price controls, currency exchange rates, impositions on the rich/foreign investment) were immensely popular, right?
- ktRolster 10y ago
  Yeah, not totalitarian policies, just stupid policies. Genghis Khan could become dictator and if he fixed those policies, the economy would improve.
  - elliotec 10y ago
    I always find it strange that Genghis Khan is used as an example this way. He was solely responsible for one of the largest economic revolutions in history by uniting the Silk Road, standardizing a writing system, and ran a meritocratic society. So yeah of course he could fix it, he's one of the most successful rulers of all time by all metrics. Edit: Yeah, obviously he and his conquest killed a lot of people. And yeah, in this case it was a metric of success for him and his empire.
    - astrodust 10y ago
      He also murdered millions of peasants he saw no use for since rice farming was not on their list of priorities. When conquering China it was often the case that academics were the first on the chopping block since they were presumably the ones most likely to cause trouble. So yeah, he fixed the economy?
    - adamsea 10y ago
      Uhhhh what about the metric of most civilians slaughtered? Just sayin' .... which metrics here constitute "success"?
    - ktRolster 10y ago
      I always find it strange that Genghis Khan is used as an example this way. Mainly because he is seen as a barbarian conqueror, so people understand me if I use that phrase. (whether he was or not is immaterial: though by modern standards, he was a barbarian conqueror and completely unethical)
- structorg 10y ago
  Subsidies were indeed popular and probably anything chavez did. Then, popular and orwellian totalitarian are not contradictory. But lets first understand that "the poor" are not created by the rich in latin america as socialists love to say, its been more than half a century of socialist/socialdemocrat rule and its obvious that they create the poor by making them dependant on the governments' favour. The famous barrios, fabellas and asentamientos are the creation of a socialist elite that uses the filantropy masquerade to get easy money through corruption, currency exchanges, inflation, etc.
  - SilasX 10y ago
    I was addressing the comment's point about "checks on government". Specifically: >>In a socialist country, it is possible for the government to be governed by law and have limits placed on its power. That is not what's been going in in [Venezuela]. My point is, there were in fact limits, and they went through the democratic process to have exceptions made to those limits. That's not totalitarianism, which would be "some figure saw the limits and bypassed them without approval anyway".
danielweber 10y ago
Those successful European countries let the economy operate and tax it. Venezuela runs the economy, including setting prices of basic necessities, which then become unavailable because it turns out the government cannot set those the way it thinks it can.
- mortenjorck 10y ago
  Indeed, this is the difference between socialism in a free market and socialism in a command economy. While the former may try to influence the market (through social programs, state investment, money supply), it still must bend with the winds of market forces. The latter is an imposition of structure irrespective of the market: It might be seen more as a rigid body that can stand in certain conditions but begins to buckle once the wind changes.
  - adventured 10y ago
    There's no such thing as Socialism in a free market, that's a contradiction in terms. Socialism means non-free market, and uses extreme violence to accomplish its ends of nationalizing wealth and production (which are inherently linked). And indeed, very liberal applications of force is the sole means to accomplish such a thing, which is why all attempts at Socialism throughout history always involved the equivalent end result of a dictatorship and extremely violent suppression of the population. Socialism requires at a minimum the nationalization of the means of production. If what you're talking about doesn't involve that, then what you're talking about isn't Socialism.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I understand that 51% of Wikipedians on the page for "Socialism" have come to this conclusion, but it may trouble you to know that 51% of Wikipedians on other pages about other aspects/flavors of socialism do not agree, let alone political scientists as a whole. I'm sorry to be so snarky about this, but "socialism means command economy" is the Scholar's Checkmate of Internet political science debates, and I'm think we benefit by not dignifying it.
    - 10y ago
adventured 10y ago
> countries that are fairly socialist Please describe the ways in which some countries are "fairly" socialist but aren't actually socialist. I'm not aware of a single example of a socialist nation succeeding in any regard towards creating prosperity for its people. Nor am I aware of a successful national experiment in socialism in the last two centuries of various attempts. Every historical attempt has ended extraordinarily badly, universally failing to accomplish high living standards. None of the Scandinavian nations are even remotely close to being socialist. They all rely on the market economy, they all embrace Capitalism to significant degrees, they all have property rights enshrined into the core of their economies, they all allow for the vast accumulation of wealth without forced redistribution, they all allow for the private ownership of production, they all allow for the accumulation of and investment of capital privately, they all utilize equity and bond markets that can be bought and traded freely (another critical point to Capitalism), and on it goes. They're all substantially closer to Capitalism than Socialism, which is course why they're able to pay for their large welfare states and other actual Socialist nations universally fail at that. Sweden for example famously had drifted too far toward being an over-burdened welfare state - circa the 1970s and 1980s - and had to de-regulate and de-tax their economy, which then resulted in boom courtesy of increased Capitalism. The nations you refer to, are actually welfare states, not Socialist - there is a very big difference.
- tptacek 10y ago
  You can stick your fingers in your ears and scream so that you won't hear reasonable people using the word "socialist" to mean things you don't mean when you say it, but that doesn't change the fact that reasonable people disagree with you about whether "socialism" implies "command economy".
  - adventured 10y ago
    That's entirely unnecessary and silly. Instead I'm going by the word of the very people that were instrumental in creating and spreading Socialism and its intellectual foundations to begin with: Marx, Engels, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Trotsky, etc. No need to rely on arbitrary speculation. To argue that Socialism means something other than a command economy, you have to disagree with all the major players that were actually responsible for defining Socialism to begin with. I choose not to do that and I accept their elaborate, very well documented descriptions of what it is. And I'm not referring to associationism or the cooperative movements, I'm talking about Socialism.
stale2002 10y ago
Just because a country has high taxes and a social safety net doesn't mean its socialist. Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. Which always has significant societal drawbacks.
- elbasti 10y ago
  In Norway, the means of production of petroleum is state-owned (majority at least), well managed, and will provide for the social safety of Norwegians for many, many, many years. So there _are_ countries with genuine socialist policies that--while contentious and somewhat controversial--are nothing like the Venezuelan catastrophe.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  > Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. Which always has significant societal drawbacks. Citation about developed countries where it is true desperately needed.
spriggan3 10y ago
No Venezuela's problem is corruption,populism and incompetence. How comes Norway is freaking rich from the little oil they have and Venezuela can't even achieve the same thing with way more natural resources ?
Spooky23 10y ago
I think you're referring to European Social Democracies. That's a different type of regime than socialism -- for the most part they don't try to own the means of production. Venezuela is nothing like one of those countries. Chavez built a sort of hybrid of "Bolivarianism" and socialism. They rejected "imperialist" ties, nationalized many industries and tried to develop more self-sustainability. End of the day, there seems to be a need for balance between capitalist striving and government administration based on something other than profit/loss. Most of the people who cry "socialism" in the US are inspired/motivated by people who control access to natural resources.

by beloch 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

SilasX 10y ago

But what was totalitarian about it? All of the economically destructive measures (price controls, currency exchange rates, impositions on the rich/foreign investment) were immensely popular, right?

ktRolster 10y ago
Yeah, not totalitarian policies, just stupid policies. Genghis Khan could become dictator and if he fixed those policies, the economy would improve.
- elliotec 10y ago
  I always find it strange that Genghis Khan is used as an example this way. He was solely responsible for one of the largest economic revolutions in history by uniting the Silk Road, standardizing a writing system, and ran a meritocratic society. So yeah of course he could fix it, he's one of the most successful rulers of all time by all metrics. Edit: Yeah, obviously he and his conquest killed a lot of people. And yeah, in this case it was a metric of success for him and his empire.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    He also murdered millions of peasants he saw no use for since rice farming was not on their list of priorities. When conquering China it was often the case that academics were the first on the chopping block since they were presumably the ones most likely to cause trouble. So yeah, he fixed the economy?
  - adamsea 10y ago
    Uhhhh what about the metric of most civilians slaughtered? Just sayin' .... which metrics here constitute "success"?
  - ktRolster 10y ago
    I always find it strange that Genghis Khan is used as an example this way. Mainly because he is seen as a barbarian conqueror, so people understand me if I use that phrase. (whether he was or not is immaterial: though by modern standards, he was a barbarian conqueror and completely unethical)
structorg 10y ago
Subsidies were indeed popular and probably anything chavez did. Then, popular and orwellian totalitarian are not contradictory. But lets first understand that "the poor" are not created by the rich in latin america as socialists love to say, its been more than half a century of socialist/socialdemocrat rule and its obvious that they create the poor by making them dependant on the governments' favour. The famous barrios, fabellas and asentamientos are the creation of a socialist elite that uses the filantropy masquerade to get easy money through corruption, currency exchanges, inflation, etc.
- SilasX 10y ago
  I was addressing the comment's point about "checks on government". Specifically: >>In a socialist country, it is possible for the government to be governed by law and have limits placed on its power. That is not what's been going in in [Venezuela]. My point is, there were in fact limits, and they went through the democratic process to have exceptions made to those limits. That's not totalitarianism, which would be "some figure saw the limits and bypassed them without approval anyway".

danielweber 10y ago

Those successful European countries let the economy operate and tax it. Venezuela runs the economy, including setting prices of basic necessities, which then become unavailable because it turns out the government cannot set those the way it thinks it can.

mortenjorck 10y ago
Indeed, this is the difference between socialism in a free market and socialism in a command economy. While the former may try to influence the market (through social programs, state investment, money supply), it still must bend with the winds of market forces. The latter is an imposition of structure irrespective of the market: It might be seen more as a rigid body that can stand in certain conditions but begins to buckle once the wind changes.
- adventured 10y ago
  There's no such thing as Socialism in a free market, that's a contradiction in terms. Socialism means non-free market, and uses extreme violence to accomplish its ends of nationalizing wealth and production (which are inherently linked). And indeed, very liberal applications of force is the sole means to accomplish such a thing, which is why all attempts at Socialism throughout history always involved the equivalent end result of a dictatorship and extremely violent suppression of the population. Socialism requires at a minimum the nationalization of the means of production. If what you're talking about doesn't involve that, then what you're talking about isn't Socialism.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I understand that 51% of Wikipedians on the page for "Socialism" have come to this conclusion, but it may trouble you to know that 51% of Wikipedians on other pages about other aspects/flavors of socialism do not agree, let alone political scientists as a whole. I'm sorry to be so snarky about this, but "socialism means command economy" is the Scholar's Checkmate of Internet political science debates, and I'm think we benefit by not dignifying it.
  - 10y ago

adventured 10y ago

> countries that are fairly socialist Please describe the ways in which some countries are "fairly" socialist but aren't actually socialist. I'm not aware of a single example of a socialist nation succeeding in any regard towards creating prosperity for its people. Nor am I aware of a successful national experiment in socialism in the last two centuries of various attempts. Every historical attempt has ended extraordinarily badly, universally failing to accomplish high living standards. None of the Scandinavian nations are even remotely close to being socialist. They all rely on the market economy, they all embrace Capitalism to significant degrees, they all have property rights enshrined into the core of their economies, they all allow for the vast accumulation of wealth without forced redistribution, they all allow for the private ownership of production, they all allow for the accumulation of and investment of capital privately, they all utilize equity and bond markets that can be bought and traded freely (another critical point to Capitalism), and on it goes. They're all substantially closer to Capitalism than Socialism, which is course why they're able to pay for their large welfare states and other actual Socialist nations universally fail at that. Sweden for example famously had drifted too far toward being an over-burdened welfare state - circa the 1970s and 1980s - and had to de-regulate and de-tax their economy, which then resulted in boom courtesy of increased Capitalism. The nations you refer to, are actually welfare states, not Socialist - there is a very big difference.

tptacek 10y ago
You can stick your fingers in your ears and scream so that you won't hear reasonable people using the word "socialist" to mean things you don't mean when you say it, but that doesn't change the fact that reasonable people disagree with you about whether "socialism" implies "command economy".
- adventured 10y ago
  That's entirely unnecessary and silly. Instead I'm going by the word of the very people that were instrumental in creating and spreading Socialism and its intellectual foundations to begin with: Marx, Engels, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Trotsky, etc. No need to rely on arbitrary speculation. To argue that Socialism means something other than a command economy, you have to disagree with all the major players that were actually responsible for defining Socialism to begin with. I choose not to do that and I accept their elaborate, very well documented descriptions of what it is. And I'm not referring to associationism or the cooperative movements, I'm talking about Socialism.

stale2002 10y ago

Just because a country has high taxes and a social safety net doesn't mean its socialist. Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. Which always has significant societal drawbacks.

elbasti 10y ago
In Norway, the means of production of petroleum is state-owned (majority at least), well managed, and will provide for the social safety of Norwegians for many, many, many years. So there _are_ countries with genuine socialist policies that--while contentious and somewhat controversial--are nothing like the Venezuelan catastrophe.
antisthenes 10y ago
> Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. Which always has significant societal drawbacks. Citation about developed countries where it is true desperately needed.

spriggan3 10y ago

No Venezuela's problem is corruption,populism and incompetence. How comes Norway is freaking rich from the little oil they have and Venezuela can't even achieve the same thing with way more natural resources ?

Spooky23 10y ago

I think you're referring to European Social Democracies. That's a different type of regime than socialism -- for the most part they don't try to own the means of production. Venezuela is nothing like one of those countries. Chavez built a sort of hybrid of "Bolivarianism" and socialism. They rejected "imperialist" ties, nationalized many industries and tried to develop more self-sustainability. End of the day, there seems to be a need for balance between capitalist striving and government administration based on something other than profit/loss. Most of the people who cry "socialism" in the US are inspired/motivated by people who control access to natural resources.