5 ms·

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

by tartuffe78 8y ago

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.
- eschevarria 8y ago
  The states you mention are not socialist. They all rank high on the Economic Freedom of the World Index and on the Index of Economic Freedom. It is not even clear that they can be called social democracies.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  > Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland Under what definition are these socialist states?

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.
eschevarria 8y ago
The states you mention are not socialist. They all rank high on the Economic Freedom of the World Index and on the Index of Economic Freedom. It is not even clear that they can be called social democracies.
antidesitter 8y ago
> Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland Under what definition are these socialist states?