socialists win first round in chile.

[Anarchist420]

[Link]

that's a shame because they were somewhat free economically.

 

[IronWing]

By "free" I guess you mean "listened to economists spouting Austrian school bunkum and allowed multinationals to loot the place"?

 

[Incorruptible]

Don't people ever learn that socialism doesn't work. Capitalism works and is the way to prosperity. Every single one of those idiots who voted for socialism needs to have their heads examined and deserve all the consequences of socialism.

 

[OutHouse]

Don't people ever learn that socialism doesn't work. Capitalism works and is the way to prosperity. Every single one of those idiots who voted for socialism needs to have their heads examined and deserve all the consequences of socialism.

one word. uneducated.

 

[Zaap]

socialism works...



... so long as sugar-daddy capitalism actually pays for everything.

 

[BoomerD]

The idiot hippies in Seattle just elected a socialist to the city council...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/15/seattle-voters-elect-socialist-to-city-council/

D:

 

[irishScott]

The idiot hippies in Seattle just elected a socialist to the city council...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/15/seattle-voters-elect-socialist-to-city-council/

D:

Oh just wait until all of those price fixes she's talking about drive businesses out of Seattle, assuming they get passed. We'll see how much they like their socialism then.

 

[Thebobo]

The idiot hippies in Seattle just elected a socialist to the city council...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/15/seattle-voters-elect-socialist-to-city-council/

D:

Hippie hater!

Put your panties back on its just one person of a group of council members, doub't she'll effect much.

You sure it was just the idiot hippies?

 

[BoomerD]

Hippie hater!

Put your panties back on its just one person of a group of council members, doub't she'll effect much.

You sure it was just the idiot hippies?

Sadly, no...I'm NOT sure...BUT, Seattle is full of fucking hippies. It's like the place is trying to out-weird San Francissy.

 

[Texashiker]

Don't people ever learn that socialism doesn't work. Capitalism works and is the way to prosperity.

I think you have those backwards.

Capitalism works for a select few.

Socialism works for everyone.

The honest truth is capitalism does not work for everyone. You have people homeless on the streets, while the government can put a rover on mars. There is something wrong there.

 

[irishScott]

I think you have those backwards.

Capitalism works for a select few.

Socialism works for everyone.

The honest truth is capitalism does not work for everyone. You have people homeless on the streets, while the government can put a rover on mars. There is something wrong there.

Actually socialism just makes it even easier for a select few to dominate the masses, as it attempts to force humans into an unnatural state.

Capitalism harnesses greed and at least partially turns it towards the common good. Socialism tries to pretend greed doesn't exist, and collapses when the greedy take advantage of its inattention.

Human beings are incapable of pure socialism outside of family units.

 

[Anarchist420]

Actually socialism just makes it even easier for a select few to dominate the masses, as it attempts to force humans into an unnatural state. Capitalism harnesses greed and at least partially turns it towards the common good. Socialism tries to pretend greed doesn't exist, and collapses when the greedy take advantage of its inattention. Human beings are incapable of pure socialism outside of family units.

+1.

 

[poofyhairguy]

[Link]

that's a shame because they were somewhat free economically.

It is good for a Latin American country to do this every now and then just so the countries around them can see how shitty their economy is when the US no longer gives them any sort of favored trade status. They want to make a poor decision? Fine, away goes the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement. Let them live like Cubans.

Same theory of why a boss needs to fire someone every now and then. Keep fear going in the underlings.

 

[Abraxas]

Actually socialism just makes it even easier for a select few to dominate the masses, as it attempts to force humans into an unnatural state.

Capitalism harnesses greed and at least partially turns it towards the common good. Socialism tries to pretend greed doesn't exist, and collapses when the greedy take advantage of its inattention.

Human beings are incapable of pure socialism outside of family units.

Here's the thing, that is a strawman argument. Show me where in the socialist writings, theories, arguments, etc. it calls for humans to act out of pure altruism. You won't find it because as easy as it has become for anyone talking about why socialism won't work to just resort to "LOL HUMAN NATURE" no socialist philosopher or economist ever said greed had to go - in fact many of them explicitly embraced greed as a mechanism by which socialism would work.

I see I have lost a lot of people who don't understand the root theory of socialism but talk about it ceaselessly and so I will explain. You work a job, presumably. In exchange for that job, you earn a set wage, with which you can buy things. Those things are yours and you can exclude others from using them. Everyone else has the same right. Thereby by working in a capitalist system, you can gain access to what you can afford and what you can convince people to let you use.

If you eliminate the right of exclusion, the right to limit access to property, what then? You can use what you want, when you want it, how you want it. Instead of laboring for exclusive access to a television, you have immediate access to all manner of televisions. Or cars. Or whatever else you care to mention. In a socialist system, I as an individual have access to and the ability to use and enjoy more or less everything. If I am the greedy man, do I want only what I can pay for or what the whole of the human species can produce?

I'm not arguing if this is viable here, or about the tragedy of the commons, etc. but when you come in here and say things like socialists pretend greed doesn't exist, you reveal you don't actually understand the framework you are criticizing. If you don't know what it is actually claiming, you can offer any meaningful critique of it.

Also, human nature isn't what you think it is:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...man-nature-and-discover-we-are-good-after-all
http://www.psmag.com/magazines/paci...m-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/

 

[irishScott]

Here's the thing, that is a strawman argument. Show me where in the socialist writings, theories, arguments, etc. it calls for humans to act out of pure altruism. You won't find it because as easy as it has become for anyone talking about why socialism won't work to just resort to "LOL HUMAN NATURE" no socialist philosopher or economist ever said greed had to go - in fact many of them explicitly embraced greed as a mechanism by which socialism would work.

I see I have lost a lot of people who don't understand the root theory of socialism but talk about it ceaselessly and so I will explain. You work a job, presumably. In exchange for that job, you earn a set wage, with which you can buy things. Those things are yours and you can exclude others from using them. Everyone else has the same right. Thereby by working in a capitalist system, you can gain access to what you can afford and what you can convince people to let you use.

If you eliminate the right of exclusion, the right to limit access to property, what then? You can use what you want, when you want it, how you want it. Instead of laboring for exclusive access to a television, you have immediate access to all manner of televisions. Or cars. Or whatever else you care to mention. In a socialist system, I as an individual have access to and the ability to use and enjoy more or less everything. If I am the greedy man, do I want only what I can pay for or what the whole of the human species can produce?

I'm not arguing if this is viable here, or about the tragedy of the commons, etc. but when you come in here and say things like socialists pretend greed doesn't exist, you reveal you don't actually understand the framework you are criticizing. If you don't know what it is actually claiming, you can offer any meaningful critique of it.

Also, human nature isn't what you think it is:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...man-nature-and-discover-we-are-good-after-all
http://www.psmag.com/magazines/paci...m-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/

What I mean to say is that socialist systems implemented as governments almost always lack sufficient protections against human greed. It is, as you point out, based on the assumption that what the human race (or nation) as a whole can and will provide to each individual is sufficient to satisfy that individual's greed, an assertion which I believe is proven false by the multitude of experiments with socialist governments over the last century. It also fails to compensate for the corruption (read: greed) of those authorities in charge of distributing resources.

Socialism is at best based on an underestimation of human greed and an overestimation of human ability. If it wasn't it would be a lot more successful.

 

[Incorruptible]

one word. uneducated.

That definitely does explain the stupidity of these people who believe that socialism works.

 

[OverVolt]

Here's the thing, that is a strawman argument. Show me where in the socialist writings, theories, arguments, etc. it calls for humans to act out of pure altruism. You won't find it because as easy as it has become for anyone talking about why socialism won't work to just resort to "LOL HUMAN NATURE" no socialist philosopher or economist ever said greed had to go - in fact many of them explicitly embraced greed as a mechanism by which socialism would work.

I see I have lost a lot of people who don't understand the root theory of socialism but talk about it ceaselessly and so I will explain. You work a job, presumably. In exchange for that job, you earn a set wage, with which you can buy things. Those things are yours and you can exclude others from using them. Everyone else has the same right. Thereby by working in a capitalist system, you can gain access to what you can afford and what you can convince people to let you use.

If you eliminate the right of exclusion, the right to limit access to property, what then? You can use what you want, when you want it, how you want it. Instead of laboring for exclusive access to a television, you have immediate access to all manner of televisions. Or cars. Or whatever else you care to mention. In a socialist system, I as an individual have access to and the ability to use and enjoy more or less everything. If I am the greedy man, do I want only what I can pay for or what the whole of the human species can produce?

I'm not arguing if this is viable here, or about the tragedy of the commons, etc. but when you come in here and say things like socialists pretend greed doesn't exist, you reveal you don't actually understand the framework you are criticizing. If you don't know what it is actually claiming, you can offer any meaningful critique of it.

Also, human nature isn't what you think it is:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...man-nature-and-discover-we-are-good-after-all
http://www.psmag.com/magazines/paci...m-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/

The Russian saying was "Take what you need and give what you can"

Sounds like altruism to me. They collapsed in 1991.

Here is the wiki page of logical fallacies maybe it'll help you make a bullshit argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

What you are talking about is taking away property rights which is how places like Nigeria and Zimbabwe operate If you like sharing things so much why not go there instead.

 

[Abraxas]

What I mean to say is that socialist systems implemented as governments almost always lack sufficient protections against human greed. It is, as you point out, based on the assumption that what the human race (or nation) as a whole can and will provide to each individual is sufficient to satisfy that individual's greed, an assertion which I believe is proven false by the multitude of experiments with socialist governments over the last century. It also fails to compensate for the corruption (read: greed) of those authorities in charge of distributing resources.

Socialism is at best based on an underestimation of human greed and an overestimation of human ability. If it wasn't it would be a lot more successful.

And what I am asking is what socialism has been implemented by governments? Look the problem here is one of terminology. Socialism has come to mean so many things it means nothing. As it was originally used, it meant democratic control of the means of production. Then it came to be used as a critique of any government ownership of the means of production whether that government was democratic or not. Then it came to refer to all manner of social programs and social safety nets. Then it was further broadened to refer anything and everything a government does that moves wealth from one class to another, in particular higher classes to lower ones, and any government interference in the market of any kind.

Is American government socialism the same as the Soviet Union, and are they the same as Norway, and are all of them the same as Venezuela or Chile or China or any of the other nations accused of being socialist in a given moment? Further, when you say failed experiments in socialism I would request clarification there as well. Take for example the Soviet Union, it went from backwater agrarian shithole to one of two global superpowers on what many have referred to as socialism. Is it a failed experiment because it didn't last even though it brought tremendous wealth, technology, and infrastructure to the Russian people? Sure, they has a brutal record of human rights to get there but would America be where it is without slavery, the Native American genocide, and the abuse of migrant labor forces to build our infrastructure and claim territory to expand in? Sure, the Soviet Union is gone now but what does that prove exactly? How many empires thought of as great fell before it?

It does everyone a disservice to talk in blanket statements, generalities, and what generally amount to talking points when you are dealing with a topic as broad and complicated as comparative economics and governance.

 

[Abraxas]

The Russian saying was "Take what you need and give what you can"

That is not a Russian saying.

Sounds like altruism to me.

That says more about your limited vocabulary than anything, really, since nothing about that says anything about doing it in a self sacrificing manor or out of charity or kindness or any other root of altruism.

They collapsed in 1991.

Which is why you will not find Russia on any map printed after 1991.

Here is the wiki page of logical fallacies maybe it'll help you make a bullshit argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

I'd prefer not to make bullshit arguments actually. Perhaps if you relied less on Wikipedia, you could stop making bullshit arguments as well.

What you are talking about is taking away property rights which is how places like Nigeria and Zimbabwe operate If you like sharing things so much why not go there instead.

Demonstrating you know absolutely nothing about Nigeria, one of the largest capitalist economies in Africa and on track to be one of the largest in the world, and while Zimbabwe suffers under a brutal civil rights situation, it isn't actually characterized in any meaningful way by the loss of property rights but rather the complete control of the government apparatus and police forces by a select powerful few hellbent on maintaining power, which would be everything socialism stands against. Any other countries you would like to name and be wrong about?

 

[BoomerD]

That is not a Russian saying.
That says more about your limited vocabulary than anything, really, since nothing about that says anything about doing it in a self sacrificing manor or out of charity or kindness or any other root of altruism. Which is why you will not find Russia on any map printed after 1991.

ummm...

 

[Abraxas]

ummm...


http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/world_maps/txu-oclc-264266980-world_pol_2008-2.jpg

http://www.taproot.com/content/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/world-political-map-2000px.jpg

Unpossible! I was assured they collapsed and um... sank into the ocean maybe?

 

[irishScott]

And what I am asking is what socialism has been implemented by governments? Look the problem here is one of terminology. Socialism has come to mean so many things it means nothing. As it was originally used, it meant democratic control of the means of production. Then it came to be used as a critique of any government ownership of the means of production whether that government was democratic or not. Then it came to refer to all manner of social programs and social safety nets. Then it was further broadened to refer anything and everything a government does that moves wealth from one class to another, in particular higher classes to lower ones, and any government interference in the market of any kind.

Is American government socialism the same as the Soviet Union, and are they the same as Norway, and are all of them the same as Venezuela or Chile or China or any of the other nations accused of being socialist in a given moment? Further, when you say failed experiments in socialism I would request clarification there as well. Take for example the Soviet Union, it went from backwater agrarian shithole to one of two global superpowers on what many have referred to as socialism. Is it a failed experiment because it didn't last even though it brought tremendous wealth, technology, and infrastructure to the Russian people? Sure, they has a brutal record of human rights to get there but would America be where it is without slavery, the Native American genocide, and the abuse of migrant labor forces to build our infrastructure and claim territory to expand in? Sure, the Soviet Union is gone now but what does that prove exactly? How many empires thought of as great fell before it?

It does everyone a disservice to talk in blanket statements, generalities, and what generally amount to talking points when you are dealing with a topic as broad and complicated as comparative economics and governance.

The empires thought of as "great" typically lasted a lot longer than a few decades, and Soviet Russia was hardly a golden age for your average soviet citizen.

I don't think I'm doing anyone a disservice by stating the obvious historical fact that governments based predominantly on socialism or other, similar centralized resource distribution schemes fail. In fact they fail extremely quickly in a historical sense. Many monarchies have lasted longer than socialist states.

And stop playing semantics. I can talk about "socialism" in general the same way I can talk about "capitalism" in general. I'm posting on an internet forum in a casual debate, not writing a thesis.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Many monarchies have lasted longer than socialist states.

I think a well educated monarchy or oligopoly can actually give you better governance than a democracy even. It is much harder to convince some well educated elites that your bait-and-switch plan is good for them than it is to convince 51% of the electorate.

Heck that was Otto Von Bismarck's secret- he LOVED democracy the same reason the Muslim Brotherhood does. People are quick to lock themselves in a jail cell if they think it is safer on the inside.

 

[BUnit1701]

...

If you eliminate the right of exclusion, the right to limit access to property, what then? You can use what you want, when you want it, how you want it. Instead of laboring for exclusive access to a television, you have immediate access to all manner of televisions. Or cars. Or whatever else you care to mention. In a socialist system, I as an individual have access to and the ability to use and enjoy more or less everything. If I am the greedy man, do I want only what I can pay for or what the whole of the human species can produce?

...

The problem here is if no one has to labor for their goods, who exactly is going to expend labor to produce the goods?

 

[OverVolt]

Nigeria doesn't have very good property rights, no. You can make a good living in Nigeria, but the problem is safety. Its not uncommon for peoples houses to be raided by thugs and everything looted and there isn't really any recourse. So says someone from Nigeria...They said standard of living was actually quite good, no one comes here for the money but because of the safety.

The USSR collapsed in 1991. Russia is still physically there, congrats.