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.
I hear people asserting this as some kind of fact, but nobody can explain why they believe it to be true.
Then you haven't asked me. Centralized plans obviously has some benefit. One example is which side of the road we should drive on. However the bigger the state gets, and the more diverse it is, the more bad side effects from central planning will appear. Federal guidelines on sun screen for people that live in Minnesota and those with African decent make quite mess. The one thing I can say about what falls under "socialism" is that the bigger it gets, the worse it gets, regardless if it is considered good or bad to begin with. At some point cooperation has a negative yield. Its classic tyranny of the majority problem. The smaller the state, the more likely there will be fewer differences between an individual and the majority.
Sound familiar?
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
Government is always a social proposition and socialism is a concentration of it. . So scale , remoteness and lack of conformity must always must make Socialism worse at some point well before libertarian systems. The problem with libertarian systems is they are weak when they are small in scale and easy to usurp. Well, that was all argued here:
With all this Occupy Wall Street protesting going on, it seems that these people are advocating a more socialist government. But, has socialism ever worked over the long term, to the point that it would be better than capitalist U.S. policy? 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? Should the U.S. envy other socialist countries? Does it really work better as these Occupy Wall Street people believe it would? Honestly, it seems like the Tea Party of the left.
Enlighten me.
Depends on the definition of socialism that is used. And to what extent we're talking? America has socialism. It pretty much always has. Socialism, from the most unbiased point of view, is when the state/public take ownership of a service, good, or commodity. In other words, something is subsidized.
You do not have to be a socialist to support forms of socialism. Like it or not, something like the US Postal service is socialism, as it's a government run good that could be a for profit industry. That's socialism. Clearing the streets when it snows for "free" is socialism. Having a military to defend the country from foreign invaders is socialism. Hell, having a government at all is socialism. Is there any reason to believe a for profit company couldn't do everything government does?
So, if America has socialism, and you're asking if socialism has ever been successful, then the answer is yes no matter how you twist it.
Sure, we can use the incorrect definition of socialism that is often used and say it's when the government spends money on things we don't like, like healthcare or social security, but that's not what socialism is. It's a form of socialism.
Pure socialism would be complete government/public control and/or oversight. A socialist is someone who believes there should be more government regulation and control over the markets. This can cause problems, as we've seen with country's like Cuba or the Soviet Union.
But yes, socialism is the broad sense of the term has seen loads of success.
Social welfare like Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security is not "socialism." Social democracy as in much of Europe, especially the Scandinavian countries, is most definitely not democratic socialism. Socialism refers to one thing and one thing only. Check any encyclopedia ."Socialism" refers to the "government's ownership of the means of production." Publicly owned infrastructure, public hospitals, public parks, the post office, the military--- all of these things are arguably "means of production." Welfare payments and other social welfare, however, are NOT means of production. The prime minister of Denmark reproached Bernie Sanders who pointed to Denmark as practicing "democratic socialism." The Prime Minister observed that Denmark was a "strongly capitalist nation." When inequality of income and wealth get out of hand, as in much of the West today, constitutionally permitted taxation, rather than socialism, is the answer. During the 1950s and 1960s in the US, the tax rate on incomes of over several million dollars annually was 90%. Yet the economy boomed during this period.
With all this Occupy Wall Street protesting going on, it seems that these people are advocating a more socialist government. But, has socialism ever worked over the long term, to the point that it would be better than capitalist U.S. policy? 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? Should the U.S. envy other socialist countries? Does it really work better as these Occupy Wall Street people believe it would? Honestly, it seems like the Tea Party of the left.
Enlighten me.
Dont you know it just hasnt been tried in the right place yet. The fail was the place not the idea.
Social welfare like Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security is not "socialism." Social democracy as in much of Europe, especially the Scandinavian countries, is most definitely not democratic socialism. Socialism refers to one thing and one thing only. Check any encyclopedia ."Socialism" refers to the "government's ownership of the means of production." Publicly owned infrastructure, public hospitals, public parks, the post office, the military--- all of these things are arguably "means of production." Welfare payments and other social welfare, however, are NOT means of production. The prime minister of Denmark reproached Bernie Sanders who pointed to Denmark as practicing "democratic socialism." The Prime Minister observed that Denmark was a "strongly capitalist nation." When inequality of income and wealth get out of hand, as in much of the West today, constitutionally permitted taxation, rather than socialism, is the answer. During the 1950s and 1960s in the US, the tax rate on incomes of over several million dollars annually was 90%. Yet the economy boomed during this period.
I can name a couple: Cuba has been very sucessful, -for Fidel Castro. China has been very successful, -for the communist party.
If you can make everybody else your slave, you will be very, very, very successful.
China is totalitarian but gave up on communism and adopted capitalism a long time ago, hence the current boom.
Cuba is a mess, where 50 year old cars are patched together as well as old scooters.
The only country in Europe where it was a partial succesful was Yugosavia where everything was mainly quite good until the death of Marshal Tito and the subsequent balkan wars.
Are we referring to compulsory labor for the benefit of another? Compulsory charity? And expropriation of property for the benefit of another? By government?
Then, YES, socialism is VERY SUCCESSFUL - for the thieves and slavers and recipients.
It's not too pleasant for the donor class, though.
To compound this situation, Socialism is genocidal. When people are persuaded to believe that their security in old age will be based on “taxing other people’s children,” they forego the hassle and expense of a large family, or even having children - which was the traditional means of old-age security for millennia. When this childless behavior is wide spread, the burgeoning pensioner population becomes a huge burden on the shrinking taxpayer base.
COLLAPSE OF THE SOCIALIST WORLD
Of course, socialism fails when it runs out of “other people’s money” and “other people’s children.” Invasions by surplus populations from non-Socialist countries are already a menace in many countries. Sadly, the depopulating socialists will become strangers in their own lands, losers of the BioWar. The future belongs to the descendants.
When you subsidize vice and penalize virtue, and empower alliances of perversion, what else can you expect?
Yes, indeed, Socialism is very successful - at destroying prosperity - imposing misery - enriching the top dogs - and fostering lawlessness and anarchy. Isn't it obvious? No government can simultaneously secure endowed rights to life, liberty and property ownership -and- prey upon those same rights, taking life*, property and liberty away from others... for the benefit of the official recipients.
(*Disarming people makes them easy prey for the predators in the private and public sectors.)
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.
