Why Socialism Failed

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Jadow
one thing to consider, all the socialist contries in Europe can afford to have all these programs, because their freedom is defended by the US Armed Forces, who is paid for by the US Taxpayer.

Basically, the US Taxpayer has to pay for world stability and freedom.

We should start charging a peace fee to every nation we protect.

If they don't pay, then we will not intervene if someone punks their a55. I have a feeling all the countries around Germany would pay the fee!

Well then, I must commend you for "footing the bill" and protecting Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark from Iraq.

 

[Capitalizt]

Originally posted by: Blackjack2000

Originally posted by: Genx87

You have a choice to toil in a free market capital system. Not so under the banner of socialism.

Oh really? What choice does a laborer have in capitalism? You can toil for the rich or you can starve. Only the most cynical observer would call that a choice.

You can either provide for yourself through voluntary exchange with others (capitalism), or you can point a gun to someone's head and demand they provide for you (socialism). Whether the gun is in your hand or your government's hand makes no difference.

You are advocating the same principle.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
If it is the distinction between socialism and capitalism that determines whether or not a country's people are prosperous and free, why then are so many capitalist country's people also impoverished and shackled.

Impoverished and shackled, compared to what? The millions of Mexicans who flee their country to come live and work here illegally? That some of us what to put up fences to keep people out? Oh yeah, life in evil "capitalist" US must be just downright terrible that so many people want to live here, even illegally.


Anyone who thinks Sweden is a socialist country needs to look up the definition of socialism again. Sweden is a mixed economy social democracy. Its industry is almost entirely under private ownership and control, and most of the workforce is employed by private industry. Some might argue that Sweden is not socialist, but the pinnacle of the capitalist ideal.


Socialism's main problems are the economic calculation problem and the necessity of central authoritarian control (and corruption thereof). Because of this, it is inherently unworkable. Some people like it though because they believe in authoritarianism and also believe that everyone should be the lowest common denominator.
Cuba really is socialist in name only. It's more of a monarchy than anything. Castro is king and controls everything (as his health lasts, although now his brother has the throne). I predict power succession will remain hereditary until interrupted by violence. Still, the resultant economic damage caused by Castro's policies is quite evident, and wealth distribution is far from equal.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Socialism failed? Hmm, that's funny, why is it that the socialist countries have the highest standards of living and some of the best health care, and keep out of needless wars.

I think you are mistaking socialism with communism, but then if you are going to be so liberal in throwing that term around communist china owns our ass, so you would be wrong again.

Cube, N korea, Vietnam have high standards of living?
Oh you mean the Mixed economies of Western Europe? That is now your example of socialism working?

kk

it all depends on your definiation of socialism; by mine, the united states is a socialist state. The euro socialism has proven quite successful, particularily in the scandinavian countries, which as steeplerot mentioned to, do in fact enjoy the highest standards of living in the world.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Socialism failed? Hmm, that's funny, why is it that the socialist countries have the highest standards of living and some of the best health care, and keep out of needless wars.

I think you are mistaking socialism with communism, but then if you are going to be so liberal in throwing that term around communist china owns our ass, so you would be wrong again.

Cube, N korea, Vietnam have high standards of living?
Oh you mean the Mixed economies of Western Europe? That is now your example of socialism working?

kk

Cuba has a world class health care system known for quality doctors, and vietnam is not exactly falling apart at the seams. Anyhow those are "communist" countries, not socialist. Kthxbye

personally vietnam has always come across as more of a nationalist ideology than any sort of communist ideal, they only associated with communists for the guns.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
You are talking about marxism, neither are marxist. Like I said, try reading and getting a clue.

Oh the irony, somebody hold him back!

In other words you are FOS as usual.

This is funny coming from you. What is even funnier are socialists who try to distance themselves from the failures of the system by pawning it off on Communism.

I the defense of these failed states, its not like outsiders haven't been continually throwing wrenches into the proverbial machine whenever they get the chance. While I highly doubt that this made a huge difference, I doubt it helped to the positive.


For all the naysayers, communism can and does work, and has done so for millenia, however once it is taken beyond just a few dozen or hundred people, it starts to work more and more poorly. World communism for instance is a terrible idea.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Jadow
one thing to consider, all the socialist contries in Europe can afford to have all these programs, because their freedom is defended by the US Armed Forces, who is paid for by the US Taxpayer.

Basically, the US Taxpayer has to pay for world stability and freedom.

We should start charging a peace fee to every nation we protect.

If they don't pay, then we will not intervene if someone punks their a55. I have a feeling all the countries around Germany would pay the fee!

try again when you get a clue.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Jadow
If I was in charge of China, I would find a way to invade europe.

thats probably why you are in charge of china 😛😀

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Enig101
Capitalism may be stronger than socialism, but does that make it better? I have little interest in economics on anything other than a personal scale, but socialism always seemed more compassionate to me. Obviously there are shortcomings with regard to human greed, but it's a question of weighing the pros and the cons.

Yes, btw there is nothing compassionate about forcing people to toil for the state

Much better to toil for the rich.

You have a choice to toil in a free market capital system. Not so under the banner of socialism.

You are good with slogans. I thought one of the criticisms of euro-socialism is that so many people don't bother working? How is this concept compatible with people being forced to toil under socialism?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: Blackjack2000

Originally posted by: Genx87

You have a choice to toil in a free market capital system. Not so under the banner of socialism.

Oh really? What choice does a laborer have in capitalism? You can toil for the rich or you can starve. Only the most cynical observer would call that a choice.

You can either provide for yourself through voluntary exchange with others, or you can point a gun to someone's head and demand they provide for you. Whether the gun is in your hand or your government's hand makes no difference.

You are advocating the same principle.

You missed the part where you go to the park and graze on the lawn or go dumpster diving.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: MAW1082
If it is the distinction between socialism and capitalism that determines whether or not a country's people are prosperous and free, why then are so many capitalist country's people also impoverished and shackled.

Impoverished and shackled, compared to what? The millions of Mexicans who flee their country to come live and work here illegally? That some of us what to put up fences to keep people out? Oh yeah, life in evil "capitalist" US must be just downright terrible that so many people want to live here, even illegally.

Give it a rest, they come up here mainly from two states economically raped by NAFTA, you cannot dump cheap goods in a area and not expect labour to move where the money is, another case of how "free markets" fail. And plenty of mexicans fight for their freedom, I assume you know squat of what the people of Oaxaca have been fighting about for months now. Capitalism has pacified americans so much we wouldn't have the cajones to fight for our freedom anymore like the mexicans are doing right now.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Blackjack2000

Originally posted by: Genx87

You have a choice to toil in a free market capital system. Not so under the banner of socialism.

Oh really? What choice does a laborer have in capitalism? You can toil for the rich or you can starve. Only the most cynical observer would call that a choice.

Yes you have a choice to be productive or a leech. You also have a choice on who you work for,including yourself. If you dont understand how that is freedom you are beyond lost.

It requires willfull ignorance to not see what is happening to labor in this country, with the two tiered economy that has emerged.

Note that successful industries in the United States are government planned industries: Pharmaceutical (goverment grants for basic research)
Technology (military spending)
Agriculture (farm subsidies)

Eh? This is a rather ignorant statement. How is an industry successful if it requires subsidies from taxpayers?

Also, whoever gave the examples of Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam should win some sort of prize for rediculous reasoning. Those are three countries almost completely destroyed by the United States economically, militarily, or both. The scale of destruction in Vietnam alone is incredible.

If they were superior they would have flourished. They would have crumbled on their own even if the United States didnt exist. To think otherwise is quite foolish.

The healthcare question is a joke. We would spend less on healthcare if it was nationalized. The 10-15% overhead that insurance companies cost us would be gone. Basically everyone wants it (including businesses) except for the powerfull insurance industry.

You really believe that huh? Because the govt has shown time and time again that it is fiscally responsible?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Socialism failed? Hmm, that's funny, why is it that the socialist countries have the highest standards of living and some of the best health care, and keep out of needless wars.

I think you are mistaking socialism with communism, but then if you are going to be so liberal in throwing that term around communist china owns our ass, so you would be wrong again.

Cube, N korea, Vietnam have high standards of living?
Oh you mean the Mixed economies of Western Europe? That is now your example of socialism working?

kk

The Scandinavian countries(Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland) have high standards of living.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_index
Norway, Sweden, and even Canada are rated higher on the Human Development Index.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/rankorderguide.html">https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/rankorderguide.html</a>
You can also look up information at the CIA World Factbook about these countries.

Norway: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/no.html">https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/no.html</a>
Sweden: <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html">https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html</a>

Mixed economies.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: MAW1082
If it is the distinction between socialism and capitalism that determines whether or not a country's people are prosperous and free, why then are so many capitalist country's people also impoverished and shackled.

Impoverished and shackled, compared to what? The millions of Mexicans who flee their country to come live and work here illegally? That some of us what to put up fences to keep people out? Oh yeah, life in evil "capitalist" US must be just downright terrible that so many people want to live here, even illegally.

Give it a rest, they come up here mainly from two states economically raped by NAFTA, you cannot dump cheap goods in a area and not expect labour to move where the money is, another case of how "free markets" fail. And plenty of mexicans fight for their freedom, I assume you know squat of what the people of Oaxaca have been fighting about for months now. Capitalism has pacified americans so much we wouldn't have the cajones to fight for our freedom anymore like the mexicans are doing right now.

You have a highly inaccurate view of what capitalism is if you think that government control is capitalism. In addition, you didn't address my points about Sweden's high percentage of private industry (higher than the US, IIRC), nor about socialism's scientifically proven inherent flaws.
Meh. I don't expect any better from you except vitriol and personal attacks.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
you are just now learning this? Communism is a utopian phiosohpy in a non-utopian world.

I like that quote a lot... hmmmm

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Darthvoy

Originally posted by: BrownTown
you are just now learning this? Communism is a utopian phiosohpy in a non-utopian world.

exactly, and that is something Marx completely understood (e.i. his five epochs). For those of you who haven't read his book I suggest you read to learn the truth as Marx intended and not from the anti-communist/socialist propaganda spew.

Isn't there an Idiots book to establishing communist utopia out yet?
There's one for everything else.

 

[BrownTown]

Yeah, its called "The Communist Manifesto"...

 

[Jadow]

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: Vic
Anyone who thinks Sweden is a socialist country needs to look up the definition of socialism again. Sweden is a mixed economy social democracy. Its industry is almost entirely under private ownership and control, and most of the workforce is employed by private industry. Some might argue that Sweden is not socialist, but the pinnacle of the capitalist ideal.


Socialism's main problems are the economic calculation problem and the necessity of central authoritarian control (and corruption thereof). Because of this, it is inherently unworkable. Some people like it though because they believe in authoritarianism and also believe that everyone should be the lowest common denominator.
Cuba really is socialist in name only. It's more of a monarchy than anything. Castro is king and controls everything (as his health lasts, although now his brother has the throne). I predict power succession will remain hereditary until interrupted by violence. Still, the resultant economic damage caused by Castro's policies is quite evident, and wealth distribution is far from equal.

You don't even know what the definition of socialism is. Certainly, there is no definitive inclusion of central authoritarian control within socialist doctrine.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: MAW1082

Originally posted by: Vic
Anyone who thinks Sweden is a socialist country needs to look up the definition of socialism again. Sweden is a mixed economy social democracy. Its industry is almost entirely under private ownership and control, and most of the workforce is employed by private industry. Some might argue that Sweden is not socialist, but the pinnacle of the capitalist ideal.


Socialism's main problems are the economic calculation problem and the necessity of central authoritarian control (and corruption thereof). Because of this, it is inherently unworkable. Some people like it though because they believe in authoritarianism and also believe that everyone should be the lowest common denominator.
Cuba really is socialist in name only. It's more of a monarchy than anything. Castro is king and controls everything (as his health lasts, although now his brother has the throne). I predict power succession will remain hereditary until interrupted by violence. Still, the resultant economic damage caused by Castro's policies is quite evident, and wealth distribution is far from equal.

You don't even know what the definition of socialism is. Certainly, there is no definitive inclusion of central authoritarian control within communist doctrine.

Fixed.
You don't know what socialism is. A socialist nation will use state to redistribute funds to those less fortunate. A communal system in theory doesn't have central authoritarian control.

 

[Steeplerot]

Stunt is correct socialism can be many forms, anarchist (Spanish civil war), democratic (Scandinavian) or a more "advanced stage" which would be Marxist communism this is no longer socialism anymore where there would be no central control or a state period. (Utopian) it is the marxist idea which is a failure, but then it has never been actually tried on a large scale. (imo it would never work as you would have to have a society completely removed of capitalism, religion and the taint to human behavior that these bring, in other words a fresh generation of children with no past corruptions)

 

[jrenz]

Also, whoever gave the examples of Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam should win some sort of prize for rediculous reasoning. Those are three countries almost completely destroyed by the United States economically, militarily, or both. The scale of destruction in Vietnam alone is incredible.

You're right. Just look at Japan! We destroyed them economically and militarily in WWII (the destruction was quite incredible), and now Japan is anything but a flourishing paradise.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Also, whoever gave the examples of Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam should win some sort of prize for rediculous reasoning. Those are three countries almost completely destroyed by the United States economically, militarily, or both. The scale of destruction in Vietnam alone is incredible.

You're right. Just look at Japan! We destroyed them economically and militarily in WWII (the destruction was quite incredible), and now Japan is anything but a flourishing paradise.

sigh...you also rebuilt Japan and Germany.

 

[slash196]

Socialism is a failure? Someone better tell Sweden, although they're probably too busy leading the civilized world in standard of living.

 

[her209]

The Great Depression