6 ms·

What underlying ideology? Socialism? There's nothing that says socialism or some form of it can't work.

by prolikewh0a 8y ago

tartuffe78 8y ago
How many times do countries have to collapse before we can be sure?
- Maybestring 8y ago
  This would be a better argument if a major world power hadn't actively undermined all attempts at socialism.
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    To be clear, are you saying the United States was responsible for socialism’s failures?
    - Maybestring 8y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in... See the cold war era for a quick rundown of US interference with socialist governments. I'm saying... when the US instigates and funds a civil war in country X, you can't then say X's government lost power because of their economic policies.
      - antidesitter 8y ago
        That's dodging the question. Do you deny the connection between socialist policies and their economic consequences?
- tomjakubowski 8y ago
  Clock's been ticking for a long while now on Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland. When will you give up waiting for these socialist states to collapse?
  - stale2002 8y ago
    Those aren't socialist countries. They don't even call themselves that. I feel like a country has to at least call itself socialist, for it to count. A socialist country is one in which the means of production aren't privately owned. If most private businesses are illegal, that's socialism. The Nordic countries aren't even attempting to ban private businesses, or claiming that as their goal. The track record for countries that call themselves socialist is pretty grim, on the other hand.
    - yongjik 8y ago
      That's all fine and dandy, but then so many Americans turn around and call universal healthcare socialism, never mind that it's implemented in pretty much every West European Country that are decidedly non-socialist according to your criterion. You can't use "socialism" to mean "Venezuela, and only Venezuela (well, maybe Cuba)" and then "anything that gives more power to the US federal government". Choose one. (I'm not saying you do, but so many people do.)
      - lainga 8y ago
        I fail to see how that relates to the GP's argument. You just brought up something else that Americans do.
        yongjik 8y ago
        The problem is that when people debate whether socialist countries are bound to fail, everybody has their own definition of socialism. From what I've seen, many people who believe the "danger" of socialism are also quite convinced that the US is in the danger of slipping into socialism. Why that doesn't happen in Sweden is left as exercise.
    - jose_zap 8y ago
      > A socialist country is one in which the means of production aren't privately owned. If most private businesses are illegal, that's socialism. By that account Venezuela was certainly not a socialist country.
alacombe 8y ago
Not to presume of the future, but USSR, China, Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea, to a lesser extent Romania and now Venezuella pretty much all turned the same way. How many time should an experiment be repeated to disprove an ideology ?
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  There's not one system/ideaology that's lasted throughout history. Capitalism is deemed to fail at some point, and it like it may well fairly soon. Also, you can take Cuba out of your list as it's doing very well in fact.
  - cryptonector 8y ago
    Capitalism isn't a theory. It's an emergent result of letting people own themselves, property, and the fruits of their own labor while also letting them trade their property and labor. Thus capitalism is freedom. To replace capitalism with any theory requires identifying which freedoms you mean to constrain or abandon altogether.
    - prolikewh0a 8y ago
      >It's an emergent result of letting people own themselves, property, and the fruits of their own labor while also letting them trade their property and labor. I'm not sure what system you're talking about, but what you're describing is certainly not Capitalism or freedom. Capitalism does not give people the full fruits of their labor, it allows the owner to steal the surplus value off of the workers, creating inequality. Surplus value being the capital left once the equipment, wages, and bills have been paid, and without surplus value the business would not continue to exist. That's not exactly freedom. There's nothing in any radical left wing ideology that says you can't trade your personal property or labor, private property doesn't exist. I'm also not sure a system that requires homelessness and poverty is "freedom", or one that requires people who can't afford health insurance to purchase it or die. I'm not sure a system that puts 1 in 100 in prison based on racial profiling and petty crimes, and does nothing to help them, creating a large recidivism rate for the sole benefit of prison slave labor is called 'freedom'. It is imperative that far left wing influences keep capitalism in check, or it will run away into pure corruption like it is now.
rayiner 8y ago
There's little-s socialism and big-s socialism. Social democracies like Sweden, etc., have social welfare systems bankrolled by an underlying market economy. A company in Sweden may pay high taxes, but it doesn't have to worry about being nationalized, price controls, or central planning: https://www.economist.com/special-report/2012/10/13/the-new-model https://www.economist.com/special-report/2012/10/13/the-new-.... Capital will put up with high taxes. It won't put up with those other things. And without capital generating surplus to bankroll social welfare programs, your system collapses.
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  Social Democracy != Socialism. Socialism moves to take full ownership of the means of production, and Social Democracy only places regulations on business that are often demolished years down the line and workers get screwed at the benefit of the few. Every system has failed throughout history, so there's no reason a Capitalistic system cannot fail as well, and we see the global collapse of Capitalism happening right now in front of us.
  - lucio 8y ago
    Have you seen the Hans Rosling talks? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8t4k0Q8e8Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8t4k0Q8e8Y There's a few on TED talks. It's a must see.
- tomjakubowski 8y ago
  > Capital will put up with high taxes. It won't put up with those other things. And without capital generating surplus to bankroll social welfare programs, your system collapses. Using "capital" here to mean "private capital" is confusing at best, considering we are discussing socialism in general -- where the _entire point_ is that capital tends to be owned publicly -- and the Nordics in particular, where a massive amount of capital is public. https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/08/19/nordic-governments-own-33-percent-of-the-regions-wealth/ https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/08/19/nordic-gover...
- wonthegame 8y ago

What underlying ideology? Socialism? There's nothing that says socialism or some form of it can't work.

tartuffe78 8y ago

How many times do countries have to collapse before we can be sure?

Maybestring 8y ago
This would be a better argument if a major world power hadn't actively undermined all attempts at socialism.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  To be clear, are you saying the United States was responsible for socialism’s failures?
  - Maybestring 8y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in... See the cold war era for a quick rundown of US interference with socialist governments. I'm saying... when the US instigates and funds a civil war in country X, you can't then say X's government lost power because of their economic policies.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      That's dodging the question. Do you deny the connection between socialist policies and their economic consequences?
tomjakubowski 8y ago
Clock's been ticking for a long while now on Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland. When will you give up waiting for these socialist states to collapse?
- stale2002 8y ago
  Those aren't socialist countries. They don't even call themselves that. I feel like a country has to at least call itself socialist, for it to count. A socialist country is one in which the means of production aren't privately owned. If most private businesses are illegal, that's socialism. The Nordic countries aren't even attempting to ban private businesses, or claiming that as their goal. The track record for countries that call themselves socialist is pretty grim, on the other hand.
  - yongjik 8y ago
    That's all fine and dandy, but then so many Americans turn around and call universal healthcare socialism, never mind that it's implemented in pretty much every West European Country that are decidedly non-socialist according to your criterion. You can't use "socialism" to mean "Venezuela, and only Venezuela (well, maybe Cuba)" and then "anything that gives more power to the US federal government". Choose one. (I'm not saying you do, but so many people do.)
    - lainga 8y ago
      I fail to see how that relates to the GP's argument. You just brought up something else that Americans do.
      - yongjik 8y ago
        The problem is that when people debate whether socialist countries are bound to fail, everybody has their own definition of socialism. From what I've seen, many people who believe the "danger" of socialism are also quite convinced that the US is in the danger of slipping into socialism. Why that doesn't happen in Sweden is left as exercise.
  - jose_zap 8y ago
    > A socialist country is one in which the means of production aren't privately owned. If most private businesses are illegal, that's socialism. By that account Venezuela was certainly not a socialist country.

alacombe 8y ago

Not to presume of the future, but USSR, China, Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea, to a lesser extent Romania and now Venezuella pretty much all turned the same way. How many time should an experiment be repeated to disprove an ideology ?

prolikewh0a 8y ago
There's not one system/ideaology that's lasted throughout history. Capitalism is deemed to fail at some point, and it like it may well fairly soon. Also, you can take Cuba out of your list as it's doing very well in fact.
- cryptonector 8y ago
  Capitalism isn't a theory. It's an emergent result of letting people own themselves, property, and the fruits of their own labor while also letting them trade their property and labor. Thus capitalism is freedom. To replace capitalism with any theory requires identifying which freedoms you mean to constrain or abandon altogether.
  - prolikewh0a 8y ago
    >It's an emergent result of letting people own themselves, property, and the fruits of their own labor while also letting them trade their property and labor. I'm not sure what system you're talking about, but what you're describing is certainly not Capitalism or freedom. Capitalism does not give people the full fruits of their labor, it allows the owner to steal the surplus value off of the workers, creating inequality. Surplus value being the capital left once the equipment, wages, and bills have been paid, and without surplus value the business would not continue to exist. That's not exactly freedom. There's nothing in any radical left wing ideology that says you can't trade your personal property or labor, private property doesn't exist. I'm also not sure a system that requires homelessness and poverty is "freedom", or one that requires people who can't afford health insurance to purchase it or die. I'm not sure a system that puts 1 in 100 in prison based on racial profiling and petty crimes, and does nothing to help them, creating a large recidivism rate for the sole benefit of prison slave labor is called 'freedom'. It is imperative that far left wing influences keep capitalism in check, or it will run away into pure corruption like it is now.

rayiner 8y ago

There's little-s socialism and big-s socialism. Social democracies like Sweden, etc., have social welfare systems bankrolled by an underlying market economy. A company in Sweden may pay high taxes, but it doesn't have to worry about being nationalized, price controls, or central planning: https://www.economist.com/special-report/2012/10/13/the-new-model https://www.economist.com/special-report/2012/10/13/the-new-.... Capital will put up with high taxes. It won't put up with those other things. And without capital generating surplus to bankroll social welfare programs, your system collapses.

prolikewh0a 8y ago
Social Democracy != Socialism. Socialism moves to take full ownership of the means of production, and Social Democracy only places regulations on business that are often demolished years down the line and workers get screwed at the benefit of the few. Every system has failed throughout history, so there's no reason a Capitalistic system cannot fail as well, and we see the global collapse of Capitalism happening right now in front of us.
- lucio 8y ago
  Have you seen the Hans Rosling talks? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8t4k0Q8e8Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8t4k0Q8e8Y There's a few on TED talks. It's a must see.
tomjakubowski 8y ago
> Capital will put up with high taxes. It won't put up with those other things. And without capital generating surplus to bankroll social welfare programs, your system collapses. Using "capital" here to mean "private capital" is confusing at best, considering we are discussing socialism in general -- where the _entire point_ is that capital tends to be owned publicly -- and the Nordics in particular, where a massive amount of capital is public. https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/08/19/nordic-governments-own-33-percent-of-the-regions-wealth/ https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2018/08/19/nordic-gover...
wonthegame 8y ago