7 ms·
What socialism system are you talking about? Just name one socialist country that applies your ideal scenarios. IMHO this system only exist in your mind, it is
by hevi_jos 8y ago
What socialism system are you talking about? Just name one socialist country that applies your ideal scenarios. IMHO this system only exist in your mind, it is not real.
Countries that people say are Socialist like those in the north of Europe, are really capitalistic societies.
I have known plenty of real socialist countries in the world, and they only share misery. In those socialist countries, like Venezuela or Cuba, the old Soviet World, differences between those in power and those that are not are enormous, bigger than in any capitalist system.
In Venezuela for example, those in power made deals selling the gold of the country, the oil and until recently, had access to favorable exchange of currency that they sold in the black market making a tremendous profit.
In Cuba people earn a maximum by law of something like 30 dollars/month. But people in charge sells access to country resources like permission to place a Hotel or a factory and make millions. All the heroes of revolution living in Mansions in front of the sea while normal people do not have permission to change a broken electrical switch in their houses or feeding the cow in front of their house, starbing.
Cooperatives, like Mondragón in Spain or kibbutz in Israel have their own set of problems. If you pay everybody the same, the best people just get out soon.
- lifeisstillgood 8y agoI am constantly surprised by the reaction to the word socialism. I live in the UK, where the government takes 50% of GDP, and spends it mostly on communal activities - shared ownership. We share our resources so that the sick can get treated, our children educated, our air space protected from Russian invasion. We are sharing most of our national resources, and handing them out according to principles of those who need, not those who have money. Call it whatever you like but it smells like socialist utopia. Now if 99% of the resources were allocated such, would the whole thing collapse? Would we be better off if only 25% of resources were shared? I think the difference between vibrant capitalism and collpasing communism is the efficency vs fairness trade off
- EpicEng 8y ago>We share our resources so that... our air space protected from Russian invasion The US subsidizing more than 70% of NATO probably helps a bit there.
- lifeisstillgood 8y agomaking us more of a socialist civilisation .. ?
- EpicEng 8y agoYes. Things may look quite a bit different without ~700B in US NATO funding.
- lifeisstillgood 8y agoNormally I would not do this but it's worth checking this as it has seemed a big contentious issue and I wanted to get a view So USA total expenditure on defence is around the 700bn mark - at about 4% GDP roughly double the major EU countries at the 2% Nato recommended mark. The UK is listed below at 50bn (~2%) but I happen to know the UK Blue Book has 95 Bn - so even basic accounting is a difficult issue these days... However this is not the same as the Nato budget or "contributions" - the NATO countries contribute very little to NATO specifically (a building in Brussels etc). An aircraft carrier belonging to the US Navy still belongs to the US Navy whether it's on NATO exercises or on patrol by Hawaii. I think Trump makes a fair point saying those that are not spending 2% on defence should increase the defence expenditure as they agreed - but equally that is mostly considered an internal political decision. Having international agreements that get in the way of internal politics is ... well Brexit, NAFTA, most wars ... Interesting to do a little research and get an understanding of the problem - thank you for the prompting - but I think the USA is not going to stop spending 700bn - the issue is will they step away from a mutual defence pact? In the end I can still be a well armed socialist ;-) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_militar... https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2017_06/20170629_170629-pr2017-111-en.pdf#page=7&zoom=auto,-274,826 https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2017_... https://www.factcheck.org/2017/12/distorted-nato-funding-figure/ https://www.factcheck.org/2017/12/distorted-nato-funding-fig... (little disappointed by fact check article quality here)
- 8y ago
- spamizbad 8y agoWhat’s the deal with both sides of the socialism debate leaning on “No true Scotsman!” To make their point? I mean, a decade ago the conservative press was even trying to argue Venezuela wasn’t a true socialist country because 70% of its economy is still private. Source: https://www.foxnews.com/world/what-socialism-private-sector-still-dominates-venezuelan-economy-despite-chavez-crusade https://www.foxnews.com/world/what-socialism-private-sector-... Part of the reason “socialism” has seen a rise in popularity is that everything a millimeter left of Hayak is branded as socialism if it’s rhetorically convientient.
- xtian 8y agoBoth capitalism and socialism have been applied in the kinds of totalitarian contexts you are describing. The real question is more fundamental: for whose benefit does government exist? Is it for the powerful or the powerless? There is a vast ocean of possibilities between paying everybody the same and regressive class-preserving exploitation disguised under lofty free-market ideals.
- fuzz4lyfe 8y ago>for whose benefit does government exist? Is it for the powerful or the powerless? Why is neither not an option?
- xtian 8y agoI'm open to the possibility if could describe that system in concrete terms which wouldn't implicitly favor the powerful.
- fuzz4lyfe 8y agoA government that takes a hands off approach to most peoples day to day life wouldn't really favor anyone. I'm not sure how you implement your system. If you favor the powerless wouldn't they just become the powerful at that point?
- xtian 8y agoI'm sure you can expand your perspective on this question with some additional inquiry.
- StellarTabi 8y ago"but that's socialism!" Ok fine, give us socialism. "but those countries aren't socialist" Ok fine, give us what those countries have. "but that's socialism!"
- zozbot123 8y agoLook, I get what you mean. People should just clarify that they mean "Socialism with Danish characteristics", and all this ambiguity would disappear!