Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jeffrey Goldberg, a writer for the Atlantic Monthly magazine, wrote in a blog that he asked Castro, 84, if Cuba's model -- Soviet-style communism -- was still worth exporting to other countries and he replied, "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."
Socialism might work well for a developing nation (PC for third world country) but only in the short term. Look at China as the above poster says it's hardly a socialist nation today. Depending on the tenor of the population some well off nations can accept more social programs than others. Norway is one example and the opposite end of the scale is us, the USA. Still we have to accept some things that have a socialist bent to them.
Cuba has had a hard time to reach the next stage of development because Castro has created a typical Latin American dictatorship with communist overtones. Very soon communism in Cuba will have to go. Corporatism works better for a developed nation unless, like anything else, it is taken to extremes as we have done in the past 30 years.
China actually still has a socialist economy, or mixed economy rather with many elements of socialism. And they actually haven't had a period of major economic downturn since the 1970's. Including the economic mess the world is in now. I would say it's worked more than short-term for them.
Nowhere has this played out more starkly than in Beijing's crowded brick hutongs, or alleys.
There, migrants from northern China, seeking their fortune in the big city, live side-by-side with workers from bankrupt firms who can no longer count on the cradle-to-grave security that was a bedrock of the socialist system.
Creating a new social safety net for millions of workers cast adrift in the past 15 years has emerged as a key challenge for the Communist Party -- especially given the global economic downturn could create waves of more unemployed.
THE global financial crisis had many casualties.
Banks failed. Markets seized. Recessions ensued.
Out of this chaos, however, has emerged one potentially
positive development: a concerted effort
by China to strengthen its social safety net.
When the global economy collapsed and external demand
for Chinese products dried up, especially from advanced
economies, the Chinese government looked inward for
domestic sources of demand. It put in place a major program
of fiscal expansion with a heavy emphasis on infrastructure
spending. But a not insignificant amount came from policies
aimed at improving China’s pension system and putting
in place a better, more effective health care system aimed at
covering all of the Chinese people. China’s recent steps were
but the beginning of its renewed efforts to put in place a
social safety net that lessens income inequality and improves
the livelihoods of well over a billion people. China’s reforms
come at a time when advanced economies, including the
United States and much of Europe, are grappling with their
long-term pension and health care costs.
High tax rates on income is not Socialism. The means of production still belong to the private party.
In any case, income inequality was narrowed in the middle of the 20th Century. Tax rates on income were raised and funded social programs were put in place. As a result we had a growing middle-class and a more equitable society with shared prosperity, partly because strong unions, a high minimum wage, and a progressive tax system helped limit inequality.
I don't think that's a bad thing nor do I call it Socialism. But if a growing middle-class -- where most Americans can own their own home and afford to send their children to college, is Socialism, viva le socialisme!
That was another era. That was when jobs were plentiful and America was producing everything. But if you look at the charts, the market really took off 25 years ago. I guess that's when people really started spending money they didn't have, credit card borrowing, real estate took off. Everything, even the government, was out of control. Now you're on the Titanic as it is going down, still talking about the good old days.
That was another era. That was when jobs were plentiful and America was producing everything. But if you look at the charts, the market really took off 25 years ago. I guess that's when people really started spending money they didn't have, credit card borrowing, real estate took off. Everything, even the government, was out of control. Now you're on the Titanic as it is going down, still talking about the good old days.
The good old days? Hardly. We have thousands of jobs readily available, but no one that can take them. We have a severely undereducated popular working lower than livable wages attempting, attempting to raise families, go to school, and keep their homes.
And you want to further tear out the little support some of these families receive? We have jobs. We need educated people, and the failure of our government to step up and promote "socialist" policies like a livable minimum wage, basic health care, strong unions, affordable education--all the things that can help make our people great once again--is deplorable. We can have "the good old days" as you call them, simply be reinvesting into the 99% of people who need the help. Want to know why high-tax rates work? It forces these corporations to reinvest their revenue into their company, instead of lining the pockets of people with money.
Like MTAtech said, if a growing (and strong) middle class is socialism, then viva la socialism.
Can someone give me examples of successful socialist countries that have lasted for the LONG TERM and/or will likely last for the LONG TERM?
The Twelve Apostles.
"The apostles' way of holding what they had in common is more like democratic socialism than it is like the Soviet collectivist model, heaven knows. But a literal reading of the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament does not admit of any other interpretation than that the early church was working out of a proto-socialist model. Democratic socialism favors worker cooperation and worker ownership of the means of production, rather than ownership by the state. But democratic socialism in a mixed economic model has also come to mean a large social safety net so that people who are in need get taken care of directly, just like the early church did. "
You laid an epic fail of a post. Capitalism beats socialism every time. no socialist country has ever had sustained success like the US.
Your post also contradicts itself, once you know the facts of what you are alleging. For one, you give an example of the mortgages being paid by people that lost their homes. Well, the Community Reinvestment Act did much of that, to people too stupid or immature or ignorant to not over-extend their own finances and bought too big a place, beyond their means. The Communty Reinvestment Act was a SOCIALIST inspired idea, and now the larger commuity of American tax payers are asked to bail them out...again, a failing socialist idea. In terms of your other assertions, you have those things all over the world. Poverty exists the world over, JUST SO MUCH LESS IN AMERICAN IN COMPARISON TO OTHER NATIONS.
Also, your last line is laugh out loud funny. Yes...yes, socialist has a real problem with greedy people. In case you haven't figured this part out yet, but that is why socialism fails every time. Your whine comes across as painfully naive. You see, capitalism accepts and accounts for human natures and harnesses greed in its model. It's young, idealist socialists that are holding onto a disproven model that tries to defy human nature: green and corruption have always, and will always, exist. That is why socialism fails.
Please do respond, I would love to hear your comeback.
There are no, and have never been, any real Socialist or Communist countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhAcid
Actually no. I would say that most of the wealth in America belonging to the top 1% of America is greed. Especially since most of that wealth is tax payer money and the result of crooked politicians.
Also, socialism has never truly been explored. It's always been mixed in with another system and those systems are usually controlled by tyrannical government.
Someone mentioned China earlier, and I'd have to say that the Chinese system is the best I can think of as well. In modern times, if people in China were granted more social freedoms and individual rights it would be the most popular place to live on earth. The majority of the population went from being impoverished to owning MacBooks and iPhones.
People do not seem to realize what you said in your second paragraph.
Quote:
Originally Posted by personwhoisaperson
Um, no. Those are actually not what socialism and communism are.
You are really confused if you think that you can have the ideas summarized correctly there. They were not. I do not think your history books talk about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkT3
Of course the socialists always come out in hard times to incite the mob. But before the market crash, no one was complaining. When people have jobs, no one complains.
The point is socialism doesn't work. If one person works harder and takes more risks, is more inventive, is he is not entitled to anything more than the person waiting for his government cheque?
People were complaining, the media just was not listening.
The point is your lack of understanding of Socialism and Communism compounded by your lack of willingness to accept that the media only follows stories that they like has lead to incorrect conclusions.
China actually still has a socialist economy, or mixed economy rather with many elements of socialism. And they actually haven't had a period of major economic downturn since the 1970's. Including the economic mess the world is in now. I would say it's worked more than short-term for them.
When your country has a contiguous history of 4000 plus years, 60 years is short term don't you think. China went from Manchurian Monarchy to a republic to communism to what it is today in a little more than a century. Most of the Chinese dynasties lasted 1000 to 2000 years. Time in China is different than anywhere else on the planet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is the dictionary after all, and it's been known for being correct.
