If Socialism is So Great, Why Does it Never Work Out??? (politician, leader)

[Moth]

Originally Posted by michiganmoon

And Scandinavian countries literally have leaders that tell us to stop calling them socialist and associating them with that word.

In fact, Denmark's leader said Bernie calling them socialist was a slur.

https://www.investors.com/politics/c...-it-socialist/

^This

Scandinavia has a more generous social welfare system. It is funded by tax rates on everyone that would make these cheerleaders for socialism faint.

[Goodnight]

Originally Posted by albert648

All of them and abolish the income tax and FICA. The best social program is another 30% on my paycheck.

The Somalia model.

[Goodnight]

Originally Posted by Moth

^This

Scandinavia has a more generous social welfare system. It is funded by tax rates on everyone that would make these cheerleaders for socialism faint.

All the Scandinavian countries are very successful, that is why the OP used North Korea.

^This

[eddie gein]

Unfettered anything is a bad strategy.

However, much like hard core communist countries have failed or had to adapt capitalist concepts to survive, there has never been a successful country that did not have a social safety net that did very well either.

While private charity plays a huge role it has never been shown to be completely effective in solving the problem.

Finding incentives for work in a heavy socialist society is an issue. OTOH, the conservative idea that starvation and lack of resources is a good incentive to make people work is a simplistic model as well.

[albert648]

Originally Posted by Goodnight

The Somalia model.

A functional government does NOT require spending to the tune of 46% of GDP.

You can cut government spending at all levels by 50% and still have a functional government.

[poncho62]

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

Margaret Thatcher

[bluesclues5]

Originally Posted by andywire

Does anyone know??? Or perhaps I'm supposed to believe North Korea is an example of socialism working out and that's what we're supposed to aspire to???

Because of US interference.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=543926846839184

[JSOFFLine]

Originally Posted by Moth

Cuba exports doctors around the world to earn hard currency, not to foster goodwill. Cuba earns enough through that and tourism to keep the country's infrastructure in a state of deterioration and its people-- all the people-- poverty stricken.

Most reasonable people would call that a failure.

caca, aka, horsemuffins, you don't know a thing.

[JSOFFLine]

Originally Posted by FlushBernRickman_The2nd

Because the US often meddled and toppled democratically elected socialist governments and replaced them with puppet dictatorships. Who often did the bidding of US corporations at the expense of their people and resources.


Hence why we have so much illegal immigration.

exactly, this country has couped many times, many , many times, and it's never done it to a right wing government. Ever.

This country is scared as hell of the 99% having it better, giving you the illusion of choice with 2 parties that are both corporately bought and paid for, and pretending there is a difference so the 99 can fight amongst themselves like we're doing here now. This is their plan working right now.

see my comment about all the sanctions we put on left wing, socialist gov'ts like Cuba and Venezuela and then go begging them for oil.

if socialism fails, why coup and sanction and embargo? What's the u.s. scared of? The c.i.a has admitted as much.

we've done it to Cuba for 60 years and they developed multiple Covid Vaccines.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by andywire

Does anyone know??? Or perhaps I'm supposed to believe North Korea is an example of socialism working out and that's what we're supposed to aspire to???

Depends on what the definition of socialism is.

Socialism, at least the USSR's definition, said it's a political system in which all property is held in common. That is not the kind of socialism we see much of these days. From 1945 to 1980-ish, the UK and France for sure, and I think Belgium as well, had a mixed economy. The government owned key aspects of the economy (some but not all of the following: mines, factories, banks, telecommunications, transportation). However, farmland, retail establishments, remained privately owned. This largely faded by 1990.

Then there's Social Democracy, which is actually a regulated form of capitalism. Everything is largely in private hands (barring health care), but economic activity is regulated in the public interest, so as to prevent or curtail the worst aspects of the capitalist system (underpaid workers, huge wealth gaps that create political power imbalances, cutting corners on safety and environmental quality for short term profit, and so forth). This system works quite well in the Scandinavian and Benelux nations. Germany also does quite well under this system too.

Thus, it all depends on how broadly you define socialism. Regardless, it's ludicrous to compare Sweden with the former USSR or Venezuela. It's as senseless as comparing the USA with 1990s Russia or corrupt impoverished dictatorships run by an elite cadre.