Name Me One Socialist Country! Just One!!

[Paulie]

I am sure that if I outlined my progressive views about what things should be funded wholly or in part by the government (healthcare, education, infrastructure, science and technology) - you would define it as socialism because I do NOT want to allow the market to dictate the progress of these areas. My point is that the definitions have shifted - and that what used to be moderately left wing is now viewed as socialist or communist. It's important to remember that the computer I am typing on now - and the internet we're using - all would not have been possible without government funding.

I agree with you that definitions have shifted, although saying that you do not want the market to dictate the progress of those areas constitutes a pretty good deal of socialism by its typical definition.

You picked a pretty good amount of sectors that you'd rather the government control, and I'd say by the literary definition, you've moved past even mixed market capitalism, and right into socialism. Even mixed market capitalism still depends mostly on the existence of free market capitalism in many respects, otherwise it's ultimately just socialism.

Of course, you didn't clarify exactly what you'd rather see be wholly controlled, or only partly controlled.

 

[Paulie]

No twisting involved. The government is constitutionally authorized to do whatever it takes to promote the general welfare of the citizens as long as doing so doesn't violate their civil rights.

Both sides have twisted the constitution. But the general welfare clause is so vague, that to just assume it means ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING is ridiculous. I admit the wording there is anything but perfect, but it ought to be pursued cautiously, rather than assumed it is a carte blanche blank check to spend money on anything congress feels like.

That is to say nothing of a completely different debate about what is even considered to constitute "promoting" our general welfare. Is running massive deficits, jacking up the national debt, and taking away consumers' freedom to choose, in our best interest? Who's to say, really? Considering the cloudiness of the subject, that ALONE ought to be cause enough not to just blindly go hog wild with the purse and the power.

 

[Agnapostate]

List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doesn't look like Venezuala ranks too high.

Is Venezuela supposed to be number one? It remains a developing country, and the purpose of quoting Hahnel was not to claim that Venezuela's socialist reforms have placed it at the top, but that they had caused dramatic improvement, which is why Venezuela has risen in rank while the United States, for instance, has fallen. I also notice that you seem to ignore the fact that the accursed social democratic countries occupy the top of that list, since you apparently rely on it to such an extent.

Regardless, Venezuela continues to develop.

Idiocy. There's a reason workers are workers.....

Idiocy? Worker-owned enterprises do not suffer from the same inefficiencies in communication and productivity that hierarchical capitalist enterprises tend to suffer from. Not only is this a viable observation that can be made in the theoretical realm, empirical evidence supports such a claim. Researchers John Logue and Jacquelyn S. Yates have conducted extensive study into the viability and productivity of worker-owned enterprises. The abstract of their study Cooperatives, Worker-Owned Enterprises, Productivity and the International Labor Organization reads thusly:

"A survey of empirical research on productivity in worker-owned enterprises and cooperatives finds a substantial literature that largely supports the proposition that worker-owned enterprises equal or exceed the productivity of conventional enterprises when employee involvement is combined with ownership. The weight of a sparser literature on cooperatives tends toward the same pattern. In addition, employee-owned firms create local employment, anchor jobs in their communities and enrich local social capital. The International Labor Organization has recently begun to expand its promotion of cooperatives and to explore worker ownership as useful tools for economic development in a ‘fair globalization’ strategy."

On what empirical evidence do you base your claims?

Take a trip there sometime and do a case study. Come back and tell me what you come up with.

I've traveled extensively throughout Latin America, conducting tourism, visits to relatives, and missionary and charity work. Have you?

I've quoted the observations of a skilled economist on the progressive developments brought about by Venezuela's socialist reforms.

I agree with you that definitions have shifted, although saying that you do not want the market to dictate the progress of those areas constitutes a pretty good deal of socialism by its typical definition.

You picked a pretty good amount of sectors that you'd rather the government control, and I'd say by the literary definition, you've moved past even mixed market capitalism, and right into socialism. Even mixed market capitalism still depends mostly on the existence of free market capitalism in many respects, otherwise it's ultimately just socialism.

Of course, you didn't clarify exactly what you'd rather see be wholly controlled, or only partly controlled.

Which definitions are you referring to? To me, this seems a reversion to the fallacy that mixed-market capitalism is "capitalism with a bit of socialism," when in fact, socialism necessitates collective ownership of the means of production. Government intervention, of course, is necessary for the sustainability of capitalism (see the infant industries argument, for instance), which is why free market capitalism has never existed in an industrialized economy.

 

[Red Dawn]

...That has a standard of living anywhere NEAR as high as the United States!

I don't know any socialists on this board, and I don't know any liberals that admire totalitarian socialist countries.

But, I suspect you might be refering to liberal social democracies, which right wingers constantly refer to as "socialist".

So here's some of the one's I admire, and have living standards higher, or "near" the U.S.
Living Standards World Ranking:

1. Iceland
2. Norway
3. Canada
4. Australia
5. Ireland
6. Netherlands
7. Sweden
8. Japan
9 . Luxembourg
10. Switzerland
12. France
12. Finland
13. Denmark
14. Austria
15. United States
16. Spain
17. Belgium
18. Greece
19. Italy
20. New Zealand


Looks like liberal social democracies, with generous social welfare states are the most successful nations on the planet.

I wonder if we're ever going to get an example of a country that practices lassaize faire capitalism, with small government that "gets out of the way"?

 

[Paulie]

I've traveled extensively throughout Latin America, conducting tourism, visits to relatives, and missionary and charity work. Have you?

Oh here we go

How convenient is that, that you just HAPPENED to have travelled "extensively" throughout the country?

Let's get something straight. I got your back on the whole being 16 thing, because it was the most logical conclusion based on what we knew about you. But you still seem to be a shifty dude, and because of that, I'm just not going to take you very seriously in an ultimate sense. I'm certainly not going to just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you really did travel "extensively" throughout Venezuela. At 16 years old, I'd be surprised if you've even left the US, beyond the northern and southern borders. Sorry dude.

Of course, I suppose you're free to post even more personal information about yourself if you feel compelled to prove you've travelled in Venezuela, since you seem to enjoy exposing yourself like that over the internet.

 

[Paulie]

I wonder if we're ever going to get an example of a country that practices lassaize faire capitalism, with small government that "gets out of the way"?

I wonder if you liberals are ever going to make up your minds about who's a lassaize faire capitalist country? I thought it was the US's "lassaize faire free market failure" that led to this mess? That's what you guys keep claiming. That our "unfettered markets" failed?

If that's the case, then you have your example right there. Because regardless of this economic downturn, assuming it actually was the free market's failure, the US still has a high living standard. So even in the face of a supposed lassaize faire economy, we still manage to be among the world's best.

 

[Agnapostate]

Oh here we go

How convenient is that, that you just HAPPENED to have travelled "extensively" throughout the country?

Let's get something straight. I got your back on the whole being 16 thing, because it was the most logical conclusion based on what we knew about you. But you still seem to be a shifty dude, and because of that, I'm just not going to take you very seriously in an ultimate sense. I'm certainly not going to just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you really did travel "extensively" throughout Venezuela. At 16 years old, I'd be surprised if you've even left the US, beyond the northern and southern borders. Sorry dude.

Of course, I suppose you're free to post even more personal information about yourself if you feel compelled to prove you've travelled in Venezuela, since you seem to enjoy exposing yourself like that over the internet.

I never said I've been to Venezuela. I said that I'd "traveled extensively throughout Latin America," by which I referred to my numerous trips to Mexico, Guatemala, and Brazil. (I had relatives in all three countries at one point.) Hence, I've seen first-hand the poor conditions of Latin America, but I didn't specifically refer to Venezuela. Incidentally, I've also traveled in Western Europe, specifically Spain and France, if that's worth mentioning. I've been to formerly anarchist controlled territory in Catalonia, for instance.

But I wasn't basing any of my claims on personal experience. You simply chose to make a little personal jab, so I cheerfully received it. I never bring the personal characteristics of anyone into arguments until they choose to do so. I was discussing the issue of empirical evidence of progressive socialist reforms in Venezuela. Why have you not responded?

I'm also not 16 years old. Can't you remember when my birthday comes?